As an example, since many juvenile sharks have limited spatial ranges during the early stages of their lives, sharks can benefit from MPA designations where juveniles congregate in large numbers. These shallow water, nearshore nursery habitats are exactly the type of marine environment where MPA protections most often exist. Dr. Ricardo Garla documented the benefits of MPA protections for Caribbean reef sharks in 2006, concluding that despite limited areas of influence, Caribbean shark populations benefited from MPA protections during their most vulnerable juvenile stages. Even for smaller fish that don’t move outside of MPA boundaries as often, the same benefits apply. As long as MPAs exist within the spawning range, marine species receive valuable protection during the periods when they are most susceptible to predation. If we can protect endangered marine species during the most critical parts of their lives, we can make a huge impact in marine environments that preserves their natural functionality for years to come.
2. Connectivity of High-Quality Habitats:
The theory behind connectivity is that even when MPAs are relatively small, they can work in coordination with one another to provide enhanced protection for migratory species by focusing on multiple, separate high-quality habitats. In 2011, José Anadon studied connectivity for four species in the Gulf of California, and noted that high-quality habitats were more than twice as likely to be included in MPAs than low-quality habitats. Because of habitat selection and the distance between habitats, the connectivity in the Gulf of California was effective enough to mimic natural connectivity as it exists in the wild, and it provided an ideal level of protection for all four species. For MPAs that span multiple countries, organizations such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ensure that countries have similar objectives in relation to important species protection.
3. Data requirements:
Of course, in order to implement all of these strategies, we’re going to need data. Many researchers like Anadon have noted the lack of existing data with regards to MPA effectiveness. In most cases, the funding for extensive monitoring efforts is simply not there. Resource Managers need data not only on fish locations and populations, but also on threats from predators and fishermen. Optimal data analysis would be conducted throughout the process to both guide the MPA’s design and assess its effectiveness once it’s implemented, but greater attention and resource allocation must be given to these critical data efforts.
Management:
One of the biggest hurdles to effective management of MPA is a lack of clear objectives needed to indicate success and the capacity to carry out these goals. Though we use the term “protected”, as mentioned earlier, MPAs may have vastly different laws depending on their home country. In Canada, 160 of the country’s 161 MPAs allowed some form of commercial fishing in 2011. So, while they do offer other forms of protection, many MPAs are still at risk of harmful exploitation through commercial fishing practices. In the U.S. government, fragmentation of responsibility often leads to differing goals between agencies, and the term Marine Protected Area does not necessarily indicate any specific level of protection. In other countries where many MPAs reside, governments do not have the capacity to effectively enforce the laws that protect marine species.
Management deficiencies like these don’t have to be the norm, however, and continuing research shows the way forward in best protecting our marine habitats. MPAs can offer critical protections to migratory and non-migratory marine species alike, and if we demand smart, well-resourced and managed areas like these, we can ensure that our special marine places remain special for years to come.
December 2016 - Conservation Comments
SEVENSEAS - 43