VLAAMS INSTITUUT VOOR DE ZEE
PLATFORM VOOR MARIEN ONDERZOEK


Persoonlijke instellingen
Naamruimten

Varianten
Handelingen


MPAs (Marine Protected Areas)

Uit Kust Wiki
Ga naar: navigatie, zoeken

There are numerous definitions for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) under which a a wide variety of sites could be considered as MPAs and they are used to manage marine resources. However they often mean different things to different groups of interests within the society. These differences are based mainly on the level of protection they provide.

Main purposes

The main purposes for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) establishment are:

  • to protect a certain species
  • restore depleted species
  • to benefit fisheries management
  • to protect full ecosystems,
  • rare and/or critical habitat
  • spawning and nursing grounds for fish
  • to protect historical sites as shipwrecks and important cultural sites such as aboriginal fishing grounds


Restrictions

There is a range of restrictions in MPAs. The typical ones take the following issues under consideration:

  • fisheries,
  • oil and gas mining
  • access for tourism
  • ultrasonic devices like sonar (which confuse the guidance system of cetaceans),
  • development and construction


Marine reserves

Marine reserves are considered to be a part of MPAs where they offer a high but not an absolute level of protection. They are not able to directly protect from regional pollution, climate change, natural disturbance, or human disasters [1]

Marine reserves and fishery closures are treated as two options to promote ecosystem and species recovery. According to Worm et al. (2006)[2] who reviewed 44 “fully” protected marine reserves and four fisheries closures, found that high variation, species diversity, productivity, resistance and recovery from natural disturbances, and tourism revenue (measured on 138 Caribbean protected areas) increased when were associated with marine protected areas.

The designation of marine reserves seems to be a rare and controversial measure although supported from numerous theoretical and empirical studies [3] Citefout: Na het label <ref> ontbreekt het afsluitende label </ref>. Over 160 leading marine scientists of the American Association for the Advancement of Science have called on decision-makers to act on the confirmation with urgent effect by setting a fully protected network of marine reserves. The 2003 World Parks Congress suggested that “networks should be extensive and include strictly protected areas that amount to at least 20-30% of each habitat”, while the United Nations Millenium Project demands 10% of the oceans to be covered by marine reserves in the short to medium term, with a long –term aspiration of 30% [4]. Only 1% of the ocean is currently under effective protection worldwide and none of MPAs are placed in high seas, which make up to 64% of the ocean. If fact, MPAs appear as one of the main issues in international negotiations on managing of high seas. A network of high seas and coastal MPAs could allow to refuge for the increasingly threatened high seas species for example, turtles, dolphins, sharks, whales and some of most precious marine biodiversity, at the same time supporting the recruitment of fish stocks. Additionally the re-evaluation of fishing methods and gear could reduce by-catch and superfluous waste of marine resources. [5].


Natura 2000 network

In the EU, the establishment of the marine Natura 2000 network has been significantly delayed due to lack of knowledge and understanding of marine biodiversity in the European waters that are the crucial to establish clear baseline conditions and indicators that will enable monitoring and appropriate management of marine sites. Germany has been the only Member State that has completed the designation of marine Natura 2000 sites. The Director General of The World Conservation Union calls for learning on experience of the countries from other parts of the world. IUCN revised version of its guidelines for setting up Marine and Coastal Protected Areas, with instructions on institutional set-up, design principles for specific habitats and 25 individual case studies would be a good start. The pdf version of this document is available under: www.iucn.org/themes/marine/pdf/mpaguid2.pdf


See also

References

  1. Jameson, S.C., Tupper, M.H., and Ridley, J. M., 2002. The three screen doors: can marine “protected” areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 1177-1183
  2. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R.2006. Recent biodiversity loss undermines ocean ecosystem services at all scales. Science 314: 787-790.
  3. Johnson, D.R., Funicelli, N.A. and Bohnsack J.A.,1999. The effectiveness of an existing estuarine no-take fish sanctuary withinm the Kennedy Space Center, Fliorida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19: 436-453.
  4. IUCN European Newsletter. Marine biodiversity. Volume 13/2007.
  5. IUCN European Newsletter. Marine biodiversity. Volume 13/2007.