Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 39, May 2013, Pages 289-295
Marine Policy

Marine conservation science and governance in North–West Europe: Conservation planning and international law and policy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Member States of the European Union are increasingly designating marine protected areas (MPAs) to meet globally agreed marine protection targets and regional commitments. A number of studies have examined the impact of the associated European policy on the representation of species and habitats but there is no comprehensive review of their combined impact on marine conservation in Europe. Here a systematic conservation planning framework is used to conduct such a review and compare the existing legislation to three elements of best practice, which are designed to identify MPA networks that achieve conservation goals whilst increasing the likelihood of implementation. In particular, this review investigates the extent to which legislation: (i) translates broad policy goals into explicit targets; (ii) incorporates socio-economic data into the planning process; and (iii) requires a social assessment. Whilst this legislation has widespread political support and has underpinned the rapid expansion of MPA networks, this review shows it largely fails to incorporate these key components from systematic conservation planning. Therefore, if European approaches to marine conservation are to fulfil their goal of halting marine biodiversity loss, it is essential they link existing policy frameworks with transparent strategies that account for local conditions and support implementation.

Highlights

► European legislation has significant political buy-in and widespread support. ► However, approaches that guide marine conservation planning neglect key aspects of best practice. ► Best practice involves setting targets and incorporating cost and implementation data. ► Failure to adopt best practice has led to increased stakeholder conflict and lost opportunities. ► Fulfilling European objectives will require more transparent and coordinated strategies.

Introduction

There is international agreement on the need for increased protection of the world’s oceans because of rapid declines in the health of many marine ecosystems [1]. However, protected area (PA) coverage in the marine realm is relatively low, with only 1.17% of the ocean’s surface designated as marine protected areas (MPAs), in contrast to 12.7% of terrestrial areas [2], [3]. In response, many governments have agreed to establish or expand existing MPA networks within their marine jurisdictions to meet globally agreed marine protection targets [4], [5], such as the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) ‘Aichi Target’, which recommends that by 2020, 10% of marine and coastal areas should be covered by MPAs [6], [7]. This interest in establishing MPAs is also reflected in the European Union (EU), where MPAs are increasingly seen as important spatial management tools to address a broad array of management goals, such as biodiversity conservation and sustainable fisheries [8].

However, implementing a network of MPAs in Europe is likely to be challenging because approaches that govern marine conservation are often developed at both the European and national level [9]. Consequently, recent work has called for research to address knowledge gaps about the factors influencing the success of European MPAs [10]. Thus, whilst many commentators have examined the impact of European law and policy on the representation of species and habitats [11], [12], [13], [14], and there is a growing body of evidence on the effectiveness of MPAs in Europe [10], there is no comprehensive review of the combined impacts of marine conservation policy in Europe. This paper addresses this gap by: (i) reviewing the extensive body of marine conservation planning legislation in Northern Europe, defined as the North East Atlantic (Fig. 1); and, (ii) identifying problems with the existing approaches used to guide the selection and designation of MPAs. This involves highlighting several key components of best practice from conservation planning science and proposing how existing measures should be adapted to include such elements.

Section snippets

The current consensus on best practice in conservation planning

It is generally agreed in the scientific literature that the best approach for designing PA networks is systematic conservation planning [15]. This approach is designed to identify priority areas for conservation that ensure the representation and persistence of biodiversity, whilst minimising impacts on stakeholders and increasing the likelihood of implementation [16], [17]. Systematic conservation planning is a process that combines a short-term conservation assessment, which identifies

International and European marine conservation law and policy

There are a number of ‘peripheral’ legal obligations and non-binding provisions that influence biodiversity conservation in Europe [30], [31], which include the following: Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar); Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern); Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn); World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD); the Protected Areas Programme of the World Conservation Union

Successes in current European law and policy

Whilst developing PAs in Europe has proven difficult, the European legislation described in Section 3 has significant political buy-in and widespread support [60]. This is highlighted by the rapid expansion of PA networks such as Natura 2000 [43], which currently contains more than 26,000 sites covering 17.5% of the EU territory [48]. The EU also has the clear expertise and legal authority to effectively implement a network of transnational MPAs, which is demonstrated by the Habitats Directive

Conclusion

Marine conservation planning in Europe is often seen as a balancing act between socio-economic and political interests and the need to improve the status of the marine environment [51]. Despite this trade-off, existing approaches have resulted in the rapid expansion of PA networks across Member States, underlining the EU’s ability to implement a network of transnational MPAs. However, existing legislation neglects several key components of best practice from conservation planning, which is

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the European Union under the Interreg IVA Programme that was co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, as part of the Channel Integrated Approach for Marine Resource Management (CHARM) Phase III Project.

References (82)

  • PJS Jones

    Marine nature reserves in Britain: past lessons, current status and future issues

    Mar. Pol.

    (1999)
  • TEE Oldfield et al.

    A gap analysis of terrestrial protected areas in England and its implications for conservation policy

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2004)
  • PG Dimitrakopoulos et al.

    Local attitudes on protected areas: evidence from three Natura 2000 wetland sites in Greece

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2010)
  • PJS Jones

    Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals

    Mar. Pol.

    (2009)
  • J Bladt et al.

    Conservation efficiency of geopolitical coordination in the EU

    J. Nat. Conserv.

    (2009)
  • T Agardy et al.

    Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning

    Mar. Pol.

    (2011)
  • J Lubchenco et al.

    Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2003)
  • CBD. Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montréal, Canada. 2010....
  • LJ Wood et al.

    Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action

    Oryx

    (2008)
  • LJ Wood

    Global marine protection targets: how S.M.A.R.T are they?

    Environ. Manage.

    (2011)
  • CBD. Report of the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nagoya,...
  • SR Harrop

    Living in harmony with nature? outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity

    J. Environ. Law

    (2011)
  • RJ Smith et al.

    Developing best practice for using Marxan to locate marine protected areas in European waters

    ICES J. Mar. Sci.

    (2009)
  • JR Haslett et al.

    Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • PG Dimitrakopoulos et al.

    Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete

    Global Ecol. Biogeogr.

    (2004)
  • L Maiorano et al.

    Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2007)
  • G Sundblad et al.

    Ecological coherence of marine protected area networks: a spatial assessment using species distribution models

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2011)
  • CR Margules et al.

    Systematic conservation planning

    Nature

    (2000)
  • AT Knight et al.

    An operational model for implementing conservation action

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2006)
  • AT Knight et al.

    Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: best practice from South Africa

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2006)
  • J Carwardine et al.

    Hitting the target and missing the point: target based conservation planning in context

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2009)
  • CJ Klein et al.

    Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2008)
  • CJ Klein et al.

    Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a comparison of two approaches used in California

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2008)
  • J Carwardine et al.

    Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority setting

    PloS One

    (2008)
  • B Nhancale et al.

    The influence of planning unit characteristics on the efficiency and spatial pattern of systematic conservation planning assessments

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • NC Ban et al.

    Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2009)
  • RM Cowling et al.

    Invest in opportunity, not inventory of hotspots

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2010)
  • RM Cowling et al.

    Social assessment as a key to conservation success

    Oryx

    (2007)
  • PJS Jones

    Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance

    Environ. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • EC. Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment. European Commission, Brussels. 2002....
  • EC

    Council Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)

    Off. J. L.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (17)

    • Scotland's Marine Protected Area network: Reviewing progress towards achieving commitments for marine conservation

      2016, Marine Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, this was also an approach that was pragmatic and robust in the face of a complicated stakeholder pool, one that had a solid legislative mandate and clear political will to push towards implementation. A facet of previous successful MPA processes has been the setting of quantitative targets and goals [47] essential for measuring progress towards achieving the overall rationale for the MPA network (e.g. broad scale habitat targets in the MCZ process [34]. Whilst there are broad goals for the Scottish network, individual targets for MPA habitats and species within the network have not been set [43], and the network as a whole had no predetermined targets for the percentage of a feature needing spatial protection, or percentage area covered by MPAs.

    • Sessile and mobile components of a benthic ecosystem display mixed trends within a temperate marine reserve

      2015, Marine Environmental Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Following a large number of recently established policies and initiatives, the global coverage of marine protected areas (MPAs) is set to increase dramatically over the next decade (Metcalfe et al., 2013).

    • Adaptive management, international co-operation and planning for marine conservation hotspots in a changing climate

      2015, Marine Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      While nations are understandably concerned with their own marine environment first and foremost, some consideration of the potential future movement, expansion and contraction of habitat types and species of conservation importance (as a result of changing climatic conditions) between different Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) is necessary. However, implementing a network of MPAs in Europe, and all the factors that need consideration within that (including climate change), is likely to be challenging because marine conservation governance approaches are often developed at both a European and national level [19]. Integrated marine environmental protection is challenged by a number of factors.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text