Promoting Ancillary Conservation Through Marine Spatial Planning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Science of the Total Environment 651 (2019) 1753–1763 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv Promoting ancillary conservation through marine spatial planning Ateret Shabtay a,⁎, Michelle E. Portman a, Elisabetta Manea b, Elena Gissi b a Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion, Haifa, Israel b Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environments, Università IUAV di Venezia, Italy HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT • Framework for decision making for planners to identify potential OECMs • Decision process requires screening of information reliability. • Novel scale for data reliability and accountability article info abstract Article history: The term Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) refers to areas which are not protected areas and yet Received 24 August 2018 significantly contribute to conservation; they were recently defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ef- Received in revised form 4 October 2018 forts to address the designation of OECMs include further definition of the term and the development of typolo- Accepted 6 October 2018 gies of OECMs and of screening tools which can be applied to identify potential OECMs. While the designation Available online 09 October 2018 process of OECMs is still unclear, especially in the marine environment, we suggest a decision process which fi Editor: D. Barcelo can be used by planners to identify and designate speci c types of OECMs as part of the marine spatial planning (MSP) process. These OECMs are areas where marine communities benefit from access restrictions established Keywords: due to safety or security concerns. We applied the suggested process on two case studies of the Italian Northern OECM Adriatic and the Israeli Mediterranean seas. When consideration of OECMs comes at the expense of designating Marine spatial planning marine protected areas, OECMs can become controversial. However, OECM designation can promote achieve- Marine conservation ment of marine conservation goals and of ecosystem-based management of uses. Therefore, we suggest that Marine infrastructures while spatial targets for conservation should focus mainly on areas dedicated for marine reserves, OECMs, espe- Decision support tools cially of the type for ancillary conservation discussed in this paper, can be achieved through MSP. Using MSP for the designation of recognized OECMs may significantly promote marine conservation goals in unexpected ways and may ¬help realize ecosystem-based management. © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. 1. Introduction ⁎ Corresponding author at: Sego Building, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, While the use of the oceans is increasing, there is a growing debate Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Shabtay), [email protected] on how to achieve conservation goals beyond the establishment of ma- (M.E. Portman), [email protected] (E. Manea), [email protected] (E. Gissi). rine protected areas (MPAs) (e.g., Allison et al., 1998; Agardy et al., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.074 0048-9697/© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. 1754 A. Shabtay et al. / Science of the Total Environment 651 (2019) 1753–1763 2011; Zupan et al., 2018). The recognition of the contribution of and ecologically significant areas are constantly examined to reduce environmentally-valuable areas that are not MPAs to the achievement the risk caused by management of uses in the marine space (Dunn of marine conservation goals is expressed in the Aichi Target 11 of the et al., 2014). As a case in point, Portman et al. (2013) suggest giving Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This target refers to other ef- standing or “political endorsement” to the already identified eleven eco- fective area-based conservation measures (OECM) that could contribute logically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs) in the Mediterranean to the achievement of conservation goals. OECMs differ from protected Sea through MSP. areas mainly by their management objectives, meaning the purpose and Shabtay et al. (2018a) recently suggested an approach to MSP that scope of their designation. While protected areas have conservation as considers marine conservation within areas of human activity in order their primary objective, OECMs may deliver in-situ conservation, re- to enhance connectivity between MPAs and further promote sustain- gardless of their management objectives (IUCN WCPA, 2018). able planning and management. The authors examined conservation MPAs and OECMs are meant to achieve marine conservation goals opportunities at marine infrastructure sites within which fishing and most commonly by the sustainment and recovery of biological diversity. general public access are prohibited. Additional studies found that Biological diversity is broadly defined as the variability among all living such areas support high species diversity including those species that organisms and the ecological milieu which they are part of (CBD, 1992). are vulnerable and endangered, compared to unprotected, yet undis- In addition, marine conservation goals often focus on a particular ma- turbed habitats in a heavily exploited environment (e.g., García- rine species that planners and managers are interested in protecting. Gómez et al., 2015; Shabtay et al., 2018b). This approach, and that of Marine conservation occurring within the environment considered Dunstan et al. (2016) and Portman et al. (2013), can be further ex- within the context of marine planning can be roughly divided into panded to promote conservation opportunities in areas not primarily two types: in-situ and ex-situ conservation. The first involves the con- designated for conservation through MSP. servation of natural habitats including species populations in their nat- ural surroundings; the latter is the conservation of biological diversity 1.2. The contribution of OECMs components outside their natural habitat (e.g., captivity) (CBD, 1992). Although this context is not mentioned in the CBD's Aichi targets, the Under the CBD's Aichi Target 11, OECMs could be counted for achiev- IUCN definition of an OECM clearly states that OECM should deliver ing the target of protecting 10% of the total area. Yet, recent literature in-situ conservation (IUCN WCPA, 2018). highlights the gap that exists between the concept of OECMs and the ac- In addition to its primary goal of achieving socio-economic objec- tual implementation of the concept in planning processes (Laffoley tives, marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) is a tool for achieving et al., 2017; Diz et al., 2018). In their work, Diz et al. (2018) demonstrate ecosystem-based management and promoting sustainable develop- how locally-managed marine areas in Mozambique could be recognized ment in order to meet environmental protection goals (e.g. The Marine as OECMs. They highlight challenges of setting operational criteria to Strategy Framework Directive of the EUEC 2015). MSP is gaining in use identify OECMs, especially, if these areas are to be counted within the worldwide (Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Portman, 2016). It usually aims to CBD 10% target. Furthermore, MacKinnon et al. (2015) suggested a allocate uses in such a way that conflicts among uses are prevented or decision-screening tool to assess whether sites should be included in reduced and negative impacts on the marine environment are mini- the 10% target or not. Instead of simply counting the amount of area in mized (Ansong et al., 2017). In addition, MSP can also implement rec- order to reach the 10% CBD target, they highlight the importance of in- ommendations arrived at through marine conservation planning corporating multiple operative actions and measures to determine processes that prioritize areas for protection or conservation whether they achieve the general goal of conservation based on case- (e.g., Wilson et al., 2009). Such implementation often results in the allo- by-case analyses. cation of MPAs (see The Nature Conservancy, 2017). Moreover, the To render the concept of OECM operational as part of a planning pro- focus on the spatial allocation of uses allows MSP to address area- cess, the IUCN established an advisory task force to set criteria for iden- targeted marine protection goals (Foley et al., 2010; Agardy et al., tifying OECMs and provide guidance. The IUCN identifies three types of 2011; Portman, 2015; Agardy et al., 2016). approaches that lead to the recognition of OECMs (see IUCN WCPA, Efforts to protect marine biodiversity include setting aside a mini- 2018): 1) primary conservation, 2) secondary conservation, and 3)an- mum set of spatial areas for MPAs that together will achieve the desired cillary conservation. The first type, refers to areas that meet all elements spatial conservation targets for a particular area (Wilson et al., 2009). of an MPA but are not designated as such due to governmental priori- Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 determines that 10% of the coastal and ma- ties. OECM for secondary conservation refers to areas where conserva- rine area should be protected by year 2020. The areas set aside must be tion outcomes are actively pursued, but only as secondary ecologically representative, and effectively managed as well-connected management objectives. The third type, OECM for ancillary conserva- systems of MPAs. tion, refers to “areas that deliver conservation outcomes as a by- Indeed, spatial targets for marine conservation are frequently re- product of management