Supporting evidence for Scottish MPA third party proposals May 2012

Transcription

1 Supporting evidence for Scottish MPA third party proposals May ) Southern Moray Firth ncmpa Minke whales, white-beaked dolphins (+ harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and common dolphin) 2) Southern Hebrides ncmpa Minke whale (+ harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, killer whale, short-beaked common dolphin and Risso s dolphin) 3) Northern Minch ncmpa - Risso s dolphins, white-beaked dolphin (+ minke whale, harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin and killer whale) 3. An MPA is the best means of addressing the management issues which have been identified by the third party. SNH: The proposal should explain what other options (e.g. sectoral measures, fisheries measures, and voluntary agreements) have been considered that might support the proposed purpose. These options should be critically evaluated so that it is clear why a MPA is considered to be the most appropriate approach. To include assessment of the potential for any proposed management measures to be successfully implemented. Scottish MPA Guidance The Guidance is particularly clear in emphasising the importance of mobile species within an Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs as well as detailing the many facets of the MPA selection and designation process necessary. These include those areas essential to life and reproduction (physical and biological) are taken into account across their range, advice on boundary selection and size dependent upon features and suggested measures of site connectivity. However, it is also clear within the Guidance that for wide-ranging species ncmpas are only appropriate for key life cycle stages, such as breeding or nursery areas and where issues of scale may arise such as in relation to large expanses of habitat, where the features may potentially benefit from protection, management of relevant activities may be more effectively secured through marine planning and/or sectorial measures if not adequately proposed through an evidenced based approach. Mapping critical habitat WDCS report (Clark et al., 2010) addresses many of the arguments that critical habitats for cetaceans used in the identification of MPAs are appropriate for spatial management within the UK including Scottish waters. These results were further investigated within the Scottish EEZ for application to the MPA project with specific regard to habitat mapping, marine spatial planning, ecological coherence and potential overlap with areas of future socio-economic concern (Tetley et al., 2011a, Tetley et al., 2011b, Dolman et al., 2012). 1

2 Previous work by WDCS, using a meta-analysis of published literature and unpublished data kindly provided, successfully compiled various cetacean habitat metrics to map areas of Critical Habitat (CH) and Areas of Interests (AoI) within Scottish Waters (Clark et al., 2010). Of the results of this analysis included the qualitative mapping of these sites for approximately ten species, taxonomic groups and the species richness within the region (Figure 1). Figure 1. Species richness of cetacean Critical Habitat (CH) Areas of Interest (AoI) for species and taxonomic groups in Scottish Waters. Source Clark et al.,

3 Of these areas nine were selected for additional assessment for further search, location and utility as ncmpas in the Scottish MPA process. These included five of deemed CH for the three PMF driver species (minke whale, white-beaked dolphin and Risso s dolphin), one of deemed CH for a Natura 2000 Annex II species (harbour porpoise) and three offshore AoI for three species featured in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). These have been divided into two categories including core (Figure 2) and additional (Figure 3) assessment groups and their identification codes are listed below: Core Species Location BAncMPA-1 minke whale Inner Hebrides and islands including Coll, Tiree, Mull, Iona, Canna, Rum, Muck and Eigg BAncMPA-2 minke whale Southern Outer Moray Firth including Spey Bay, Banff Bay and Southern Trench LAncMPA-1 white-beaked The Minch and Approaches dolphin LAncMPA-2 white-beaked Aberdeenshire Coast to Montrose dolphin GGncMPA-1 Risso s dolphin East Lewis Coast and the Minch PPncMPA-1 harbour porpoise Hebridean Islands and Sea GMncMPA-1 pilot whale Rockall Plateau and Rockall-Hatton Basin PMncMPA-1 sperm whale Rockall Trough, Shelf Break, Anton Dohrn Seamount and Hebridean Ridge 3

4 Figure 2. Core cetacean ncmpa assessment areas for minke whales, white-beaked dolphins and Risso s dolphins. Source: Clark et al.,

5 Figure 3. Additional cetacean ncmpa assessment areas for harbour porpoise, sperm whales and pilot whales. Source: Clark et al.,

6 Ecologically coherent network When assessing and developing MPA networks a key issue which needs to be addressed is maintaining ecological coherence among those sites. The following analysis was conducted to determine the utility of MPAs based on cetaceans to increase the collective area of a network whilst also increasing the effective ecological coherence, connectivity and cohesion. A two-step approach was used to assess the potential ncmpa search and location sites (e.g. for core and additional areas). First an analysis of the existing network (comprising the Natura 2000 SACs and SPAs) connectivity and ecological coherence was conducted determining how effective these sites were at supporting one another spatially (considering that species may move, migrate or disperse between them). The network was also reassessed when only considering those sites with conservation objectives which serve certain functional motility groups. In each of these groups network connectivity was determined through the use of spatial buffers of a fixed distance around all sites of that network including All Sites (Figure 4), Wide Ranging (Figure 5), Mobile (Figure 6) and Limited Motility (Figure 7) in which each layer denotes a decrease in cohesion as the distance between sites increases. These buffers marked at <20km (High), <40km (Medium) and <80km (Low) were used after Macleod et al., 2009, Toropova et al., 2010 and DEFRA et al., 2010 to ensure that at minimum bethinc and epi-benthic species propagules and larvae can disperse successfully across the network of sites, whilst ensuring that mobile and wide ranging species will have suitably spaced habitat and stepping stones. 6

7 Figure 4. Spatial buffers of Low, Medium and High MPA Network Connectivity for All Sites across the Natura 2000 Network (SACs and SPAs) within Scottish waters. 7

8 Figure 5. Spatial buffers of Low, Medium and High MPA Network Connectivity for those sites designated for Wide Ranging species conservation objectives across the Natura 2000 Network (SACs and SPAs) within Scottish waters. 8

9 Figure 6. Spatial buffers of Low, Medium and High MPA Network Connectivity for those sites designated for Mobile species conservation objectives across the Natura 2000 Network (SACs and SPAs) within Scottish waters 9

10 Figure 7. Spatial buffers of Low, Medium and High MPA Network Connectivity for those sites designated for Limited Motility species conservation objectives across the Natura 2000 Network (SACs and SPAs) within Scottish waters. 10

11 Results of the analysis for each of the potential cetacean ncmpa search and location areas are available. In summary with respect to cetaceans within a network of MPAs for wide ranging species, it was found that all ncmpas suggested for cetaceans would collectively increase the mean network connectivity beyond that of the current network (by ~4%). However, with respect to each individual cetacean ncmpa, greater increases to network connectivity was observed in all other functional motility groups assessed including All Sites (BAncMPA-1, LAncMPA-2, GMncMPA-1), Mobile (BAncMPA-2, GGncMPA-1, PPncMPA-1) and Limited Motility (LAncMPA-2, PMncMPA-1, PMncMPA-2, GMncMPA-1). Therefore, each ncmpa suggested for cetaceans would increase the network connectivity for wide ranging species and all other species of a mobile or limited motility status would also be sufficiently assisted through an increase in their separate functional networks thereby proving both the ability and utility of these potential ncmpas to maintain and increase Scotland s ecological cohesive and coherent MPA Network. To further understand the overlap between the assessment cetacean ncmpa and other broad scale indicators of important pelagic and benthic habitats each site was compared to the EUNIS (Level 3) dataset of modelled benthic habitats (Figure 8) and the Wildlife Trusts mapped Areas of Pelagic Ecological Importance (APEI), based on top predator and ocean front and productivity data (Figure 9). 11

12 Figure 8. Distribution of benthic habitat types (Rock, Circalittoral, Infralittoral, Faunal and Deepwater) within Scottish waters based on the EUNIS Level 3 dataset. Source JNCC and MESH. 12

13 Figure 9. Areas of Pelagic Ecological Importance (APEI) layer comprised of top predator habitat distributions (marine mammals, seabirds, sharks and rays), productivity (chlorophyll-a concentration) and sea surface temperature front data. Source The Wildlife Trusts. 13

14 Approximately 19 EUNIS Level 3 broad scale benthic habitats were found to overlap with the potential cetacean ncmpa search and location areas assessed. A full list of these habitats, including a list of the biodiversity supported by those habitats, can be provided. With respect to overlaps between the cetacean ncmpas and the Wildlife Trusts APEI layer all core species sites assessed were observed to be ncmpa mean was sufficiently greater (all sites = >7.3) than that of the APEI index mean for Scottish waters. For those areas and species considered additional only that for pilot whale (GMncMPA-1), located on the Hatton- Rockall Plateau and Basin, had a APEI index value lower (=2.8) than the Scottish mean (=5.1). Therefore it was assumed that, except for this offshore area, all potential cetacean ncmpas would provide greater than average protection to pelagic ecosystems and top marine predators. Socio-economic overlaps Within the wider framework of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the importance of adequately sustaining the growth of industry whilst managing the socio-economic impacts of those industries on the environment is of importance. This being said it is apparent within the Scottish MPA Guidance that the establishment of an ecological coherent MPA network which considers ecological importance, before sectorial demands and influence, in the selection of sites is very clear. However to achieve Scotland s promise of Sustainable Seas for All it has been stated that the proposed network of MPAs will not stop activities or use of an area or act as a barrier to sectorial development and that all proposed ncmpas will be subject to an Impact Assessment (IA) and that Relevant stakeholders will be consulted as part of the IA process and any IA will be published alongside the results of an MPA consultation. This process is to ensure that MPAs of a duplicate nature do not necessarily affect the sustainable use and development of Scottish seas. Therefore an overlap analysis was conducted of the potential ncmpa search and location areas for cetaceans and those socio-economic activities, both separate and in conbination, occurring within Scottish waters. Socio-economic activities assessed included fisheries, aquaculture, maritime shipping, marine renewables, offshore energy and military exercise (figures and tables available). Overall the results of the above approach holistically show that the areas of Critical Habitat identified by WDCS do represent a significant portion of functional habitats for cetaceans within the Scottish EEZ, and that their inclusion as potential MPA candidates for place-based management would assist in the 14

15 development, connectivity and overall ecological coherence of the Scottish MPA network. Furthermore the assessment of socio-economic data, though simple, indicated many areas whereby protection is or will be required in the near future. In particular the inner seas and lochs of the Hebridean Archipelago, western Scotland, were highlighted as an area of potential future conflict between marine stakeholders and cetaceans; therefore a notional scenario of potential spatial zoning of MPA tools (ncmpas & SACs) was proposed. These resulting ncmpas and SAC candidate areas, robustly identified for cetaceans using a multidiscipline approach, could contribute to and help ensure a cohesive ecologically coherent network, the development of which is key to protecting marine environment, thereby managing and balancing the demands from Scotland s conservation policy commitments and pressing socio-economic concerns. MPA Management We summarise the following on management from Clark et al., 2010: Capability of an MPA to address fisheries impact: Good Fisheries bycatch can be addressed if an MPA management body and plan are able to restrict or change the fishing effort, location, time and/or gear type. For this to be a successful option, fishing effort cannot simply be displaced outside the boundaries of the MPA which could result in more intensive fishing pressure and increased bycatch in the waters adjacent to the MPA. Capability of an MPA to address collisions with vessels: Good Collisions with vessels can be regulated primarily by diverting vessel traffic away from sensitive areas as well as imposing speed restrictions and other monitoring and alerting systems. Capability of an MPA to address acoustic and physical disturbance, injury and mortality: Good Acoustic and physical disturbance can by addressed by excluding or restricting physically disturbing or noisemaking activities or imposing management measures such as vessel speed restrictions or mitigation measures, where these are shown to be effective. Note that sound travels much faster and farther underwater than in air, so that much larger MPAs or acoustic buffer zones may be necessary to reduce ensonification. 15

16 Capability of an MPA to address chemical pollution: Low to Moderate Non-point sources can be difficult to address. MPAs have the potential to be successful if the MPA management body on its own or coordinating with other agencies has the power to eliminate or control point sources of toxic substances such as sewage outfalls, vessels and fish farms. Capability of an MPA to address habitat loss or degradation: Low to Moderate If destructive activities can be regulated then prospects are good that an MPA can address the impact. When habitat degradation happens due to activities outside the MPA, other methods of regulation are needed, including marine spatial planning. Capability of an MPA to address prey depletion: Low to Moderate Localised causes of prey depletion can be addressed by restricting fishing effort. In studies of no take MPAs or MPA zones, there is substantial evidence of spillover effects with increased biomass but there has been criticism of the quality of the research631. However, a good recent long-range study of lobsters in the Columbretes Islands Marine Reserve, for example, documented that harvested spillover offset the loss of yield resulting from the reduction of the fishing grounds set aside, producing a mean annual net benefit of 10% of the catch in weight. Capability of an MPA to address cumulative and in-combination activities: Good As part of a wider marine planning process, MPAs can be used to reduce the impacts from cumulative activities. Voluntary approaches to management Regarding voluntary approaches to management, we point you to Prior (2011), who s key findings include: within the spectrum of voluntary to statutory approaches to site protection there is no single best response to marine site management that will fit all cases; voluntary initiatives driven by a statutory body in place of statutory management tools have generally not been successful, and conservation objectives have not been delivered; voluntary measures are not a quick fix solution, but can require considerable resources and a long-term 16

17 commitment; even if a voluntary initiative is successful, the effort of reaching consensus might mean compromises on the conservation objectives; the failure of a voluntary approach could result in damage to the conservation interest of a site with no recourse to legal or enforcement action, and nothing to prevent it from happening again; the ineffectiveness of voluntary approaches has been a key driver for the introduction of many statutory approaches; statutory approaches can allow for the possibility of legal action to prevent a potentially damaging activity, or regulate potentially damaging activities; and, a statutory approach can introduce a system of licensing or permitting which can provide validity to stakeholders, be used to limit capacity of an activity and, in the event of serious or continuous noncompliance, be revoked. Strategic development planning WDCS strongly believes that MPAs should not just be considered as an approach to management of existing individual sectors. MPAs can be a valuable tool in decision making at very early stages of a potential development or activity to assist in determination of which sites might be most (or least) appropriate to operate in. If this information is available to inform early decision making, such an approach can remove some of the environmental risk (Crown Estate MaRs is an example of such a tool). A cumulative approach In addition, a cumulative approach to management is increasingly seen as necessary. Areas identified as critical habitat encompass a variety of activities which may have a significant impact in these core areas, whilst not having an impact in the wider region. For example, the bottlenose dolphin Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Management Scheme has successfully identified a range of activities that need to be considered (not all of them necessarily managed any differently) in order to begin to understand thresholds for significance impacts (see, for example, Lusseau, D. in prep, SNH report). 17

18 Field research A further benefit of an MPA is that it would provide the opportunity to study baseline conditions and conduct scientific research for a number of cetacean species under relatively natural conditions. As an area of high natural biodiversity, for cetaceans and other marine life, it could offer much needed research opportunities and a reference point against which to compare areas without similar protective measures in place. References Dolman, S., Tetley, M.J., Hodgins, N., Weir, C. and Hoyt, E Towards an ecologically coherent MPA network: the necessity of a Hebrides Marine Park for cetaceans in Scottish Waters. Poster Presentation, Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society. Galway Lusseau, D. In preparation. The development of a framework to understand dolphin behaviour and from there predict the population consequences of disturbances for the Moray Firth bottlenose dolphin population Prior, S Investigating the use of voluntary marine management in the protection of UK marine biodiversity. Report to The RSPB, Sandy, UK. 46 pages. Tetley, M.J., Dolman, S., Simmonds, M. and Hoyt, E. 2011a. Establishing Effective MPA networks: Consideration of cetacean MPAs in addressing ecological coherence and socio-economic concerns in Scottish waters. Extended proceedings of the Theme Session: Marine protected areas: a sea change in perception, policy and law. World Conference on Marine Biodiversity. Aberdeen Tetley, M.J., Dolman, S. and Hoyt, E. 2011b. Establishing Effective MPA networks: Consideration of cetacean MPAs in addressing ecological coherence and socio-economic concerns in Scottish waters. Poster Presentation. The 2nd International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas. Martinique

19 5. There is a good level of support from communities and other stakeholders. SNH: Your proposal will need to highlight the degree to which others have been involved in developing the proposal and the level of support for the proposal. To do this, your proposal will need to demonstrate how you have undertaken the following: Publicity Your proposal should highlight the extent to which the proposal has been publicised. This may have occurred at the local, regional and national level, information on any or all of these categories are welcome. Publicity includes any workshops, campaigns, meetings, news articles, and advertisements etc you have engaged in through the development of the proposal. Participation Your proposal should highlight which stakeholders or stakeholder groups have been involved in discussing the proposal. The participation of those most likely to have a key interest in management issues or those Publicity WDCS has set up an online petition to support the inclusion of cetaceans in the Scottish MPA network. We have distributed postcards through local newspapers in Scotland, through the WDCS and Scottish Seabird Centre magazines and through our Centres. We have written articles in various other regional nature magazines in Scotland. We put a full page campaign advert in the Sunday Herald. We are holding minke madness one day MPA events at venues within the region of each third party proposal MPA (Macduff Aquarium, Oban (Festival of the Sea), Stornoway and Aberdeen) over the next month or so. We have received the following media on the issue of Scottish MPAs and cetaceans so far: BBC online - 8 th Feb Scotsman - 8 th Feb Evening Express (Aberdeen) - 9 th Feb Press & Journal - 9 th Feb Northern Scot - 10 th Feb Northern Scot - 23 rd March (circ 17296) Banff Advertiser - 13 th March (circ 4000) STV- 12 th March Press and Journal (Aberdeen) - 10 th March (circ 14799) Curracag Newsletter (Western Isles) - May Knock News (Banffshire and Moray) - June Participation HWDT and CRRU were involved in the development of our third party proposal. At the MPA Workshops we have had discussions with the Western Isles Inshore Fisheries Group (Duncan McInnes) and the Royal Navy (Rod Jones). Discussions with various marine renewables developers are underway and are simultaneously occurring through WDCS responses to licensing applications when these arise. 19

20 who are most likely to be affected by the proposal should be highlighted. Support Your proposal will also need to highlight the level of support for the proposal. This may be at a local, regional or national scale. Your response to this section should identify both the breadth of support (the variety of stakeholders supporting the proposal) and the depth of the support (the degree to which the various stakeholders support the proposal). Recognition of issues Your proposal should highlight any significant issues that have been raised or may be raised in the future in response to your proposal. This may include what measures (such as boundary changes etc) have been taken to address significant issues during the development of the proposal. The degree of support would be expected to be greater from those most directly involved/affected by the proposal. Support WDCS have support from local tourism outfit and fisherman, Hebrides Fish n Trips, as well as Gairloch Marine Wildlife Centre and Cruises. We also have the support of Macduff Aquarium. We have support from the Sea Watch Foundation and from the Scottish Wildlife Trust, which has a reserve in the Small Isles. WDCS has received 11,483 signatures through our MPA campaign so far. WDCS has received 144 signatures of support from international marine mammal scientists and MPA practitioners, including from scientists at the following universities and institutions in Scotland: Aberdeen University University of Glasgow University of Highlands and Islands St Andrews University Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS) Also, amongst our signatories are these MPA experts: Nikita (Nik) Lopoukhine, PhD - Chair, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Switzerland and Parks Canada, Canada Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, PhD - President, Tethys Research Institute, Italy; Vice-chair, Cetacean Specialist Group, IUCN; UNEP MAP; ACCOBAMS Tundi Agardy, PhD - Sound Seas, USA; author, Ocean Zoning (Earthscan, 2010) Patricio Bernal, PhD - IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature and GOBI Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, Switzerland Our detailed third party proposal is supported by the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust (HWDT) and the Cetacean Research and Rescue Unit (CRRU). 20

21 Recognition of issues Southern Hebrides setting up a meeting with Scottish Power Renewables so we have an intention to liaise. Northern Minch WI IFG suggested that the Risso s dolphins are not seen below the Eye Peninsula. Our field data from demonstrates that Risso s dolphins are found off the Eye Peninsula and further south off Bayble. Southern Moray Firth no issues have been brought to our attention. We are happy to discuss issue with sectors that use the marine environment but please recognise that this has not been possible in the short time given to provide data to this process. 6. The area has a high value in terms of helping to raise public awareness and understanding of the features of the proposed MPA and Scotland s marine environment more generally. SNH: Your submission should identify the opportunities that will be created by the designation to promote MPAs. This may include identifying the opportunities for the promotion of MPAs through websites, campaigns, advertising, tourism, surveys, local community projects, partnerships, and funding opportunities. WDCS website WDCS magazine/newsletters WDCS Dolphin Centres in Spey Bay and North Kessock (including use of life-size inflatable minke whale and Risso s dolphins) WDCS staff and volunteers who deliver community outreach and education programmes throughout Scotland WDCS field research in Scotland WDCS policy outreach (presentations at scientific and other conferences, such as the European Cetacean Society) WDCS international MPA Campaign Media opportunities, including press releases IUCN Cetacean Specialist group 21