How to design highly
effective marine
protected areas
Callum Roberts
Prof Marine Conservation
University of York, UK
Photo: Alex Mustard
Percentage difference from unprotected areas
What makes an MPA effective?
Number of NEOLI Features
NEOLI (no take,
enforced, old,
large, isolated)
Number of NEOLI Features
Edgar et al. (2014) Nature doi:10.1038/nature13022
•
•
•
•
•
No take
Enforced
Old
Large
Isolated
Photo: Alex Mustard
•
•
•
•
•
•
No take
Enforced
Old
Large
Isolated
Targets a broad
spectrum of
biodiversity
• Is strategically
planned
Photo: Alex Mustard
Why do MPAs need to be
highly protected?
Fishing down the foodweb
None
Fishing intensity
Extremely high
The fisheries management dilemma
Managing for these species…
The fisheries management dilemma
…means losing these
Biomass of large animals/Habitat complexity
This curve has two messages:
1. The biggest losses come early
on. A little fishing has a
disproportionately large impact.
Fishing intensity
Protecting up the foodweb
2. A lot of protection is needed
to bring back the vulnerable
and near disappeared
Highly protected
marine reserve
Fishing intensity
Business as usual
fishing
Old?
Leigh Marine Reserve New Zealand
Established 1975
Highly protected MPAs
produce rapid results,
but benefits build up for
decades
Photo: Alex Mustard
Cabo Pulmo, Mexico
11 times increase in top predator biomass in 10 years
Aburto-Oropeza et al. (2011) PLoS One
Big, old fat, female, fecund, fish
Photo: Alex Mustard
Female Sebastes
borealis, 1.1m long
and approximately
100 years old
Recovery of large,
old fish takes time
Source: Russ and Alcala (2004) Oecologia 138: 622-27.
Recovery,
especially of
habitats,
can take
decades
Temperate
reserves
Source: Babcock et al.
(2010) PNAS 107:
18256-61
Benefits are quickly erased when protected areas
are reopened to fishing
Solomon
Islands –
periodic
reef closure
Total effort
(hrs/day)
CPUE (kg/fisher/hour)
Benefits are quickly erased when protected areas
are reopened to fishing
Solomon
Islands –
periodic
reef closure
Source: Cohen and
Alexander (2013)
PLoS One
Old: We should approach MPA establishment
on the assumption that they will be permanent
Photo: Alex Mustard
Large
Coming soon
 Pitcairn (UK) 800,000 km2
 Desaventuras (Chile) > 200,000 km2
 Easter Island (Chile) > 600,000 km2
 Kermadec Islands (New Zealand) 620,000 km2
Photo: National Geographic
Higher biodiversity
Bigger populations
Lower risk of extinction
Fewer edge effects
Greater resilience
Reasons to be large
Photo: Alex Mustard
St Lucia, Caribbean
2.6 hectare reserve
Small MPAs can also work if
well protected and enforced
Isolated
Photo: Alex Mustard
The work of three American Presidents: Clinton, Bush and Obama
Proximity of
coral reef
MPAs to
human
population
centres
MPAs are
farther from
population
centres than
expected by
chance
Source: Maire et al. (2016) Ecology Letters
Øresund, Sweden:
Busy shipping lane
No trawling since
1930s
4 million people
live on its shores
Cod are 15-40 times more abundant here than in
trawling grounds immediately to the north. They
also reach much larger sizes, as do lemon sole,
Svedäng (2010)
haddock, plaice and whiting.
Targets a broad spectrum of biodiversity
Photo: Alex Mustard
Job done? Are we already past 10%?
Good MPAs should give protection to a broad
spectrum of biodiversity, not just a handful of species
Strategic planning
Photo: Alex Mustard
• Habitat & species
representation
and replication
• Connectivity
• Climate
adaptation and
resilience
• Fisheries value
• etc
The best MPAs are strategically planned in
ecologically connected networks
Number of species represented
Strategic network planning increases biodiversity
representation, achieving targets at lower MPA
coverage
MPAs placed at random
MPAs chosen to
maximise species
represented
0%
Percentage of total area covered
100%
New Zealand deep water bottom
trawl closures
Strategically
planned
This ‘network’ has
been strategically
designed to
minimise
economic impact!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Few target fish
Too deep to trawl
Fished out
Too rough to trawl
Already a no-trawl
zone
Never
overlook
opportunities
“Luck is what
happens when
preparation
meets
opportunity”
Seneca
How much of the sea should we protect?
• Synthesis of 144 studies
• Asked a variety of questions, such as how much of the
sea should we protect to:
• Maximise fish catches?
• Minimise risk of stock collapse?
• Protect stock genetic diversity?
• Represent all species in protected areas?
• Achieve appropriate size and spacing
recommendations for protected areas?
• etc
• We took a percentage figure from each study that
achieved, maximised or optimised benefits against the
stated goal considered
10% by 2020: Convention on Biological Diversity target
and UN Sustainable Development Goal 14
40
Number of Studies
35
30% by 2030: World Parks Congress
(2014) target
30
25
Average 37%
Median 35%
N = 144 studies
20
15
10
5
91-100
81-90
71-80
61-70
51-60
41-50
31-40
21-30
11-20
0-10
0
Recommended Coverage for Protection (%)
O’Leary, Roberts et al. (2016) Effective coverage targets for
ocean protection Conservation Letters
Marine target
“Urgently increase the ocean area that is effectively and
equitably managed in ecologically represented and wellconnected systems of MPAs or other effective
conservation measures by 2030; these should include
strictly protected areas that amount to at least 30% of
each marine habitat…”
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Number of Studies
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
91-100
81-90
71-80
61-70
51-60
41-50
31-40
21-30
11-20
0-10
0
Recommended Coverage for Protection (%)
E.O. Wilson’s “Half Earth Solution”
Cumulative frequency (%)
40