Ecological effectiveness of the MPA network Elina Virtanen 1 , - PDF document

23.10.2017 Ecological effectiveness of the MPA network Elina Virtanen 1 , Markku Viitasalo 1 , Waltteri Niemelä 1 , Atte Moilanen 2 1 Finnish Environment Institute SYKE 2 University of Helsinki Questions 1. Is the current MPA network in Finland covering the biologically most valuable areas? (~ Representativeness ) 2. Are the current MPAs protecting key species and habitats? (~ Adequacy ) Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 1

23.10.2017 1. First analysis of the MPA network Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 The Finnish Inventory Programme for Underwater Marine Environment Data collected… > 140 000 observation points! 4 2

23.10.2017 End products: Species distribution models Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Species distribution models – an example Chara spp. Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 3

23.10.2017 Spatial planning based on ecology Example from terrestrial ecosystems: Expanding the PA network of Madagascar Kremen, Cameron, Moilanen et al. (2008). Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in M adagascar with high-resolution planning tools. - Science 320: 222-226 Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Biodiversity features in Zonation � Usually species information � Occurrence or abundances � Habitat data � Ecosystem services, functional traits, etc. � Weights to features based on expert knowledge � Threat status, endemism, economical value, etc. � Ranking of conservation priority � Removes planning units that lead to smallest loss of conservation value Removal sequence Absolute value Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 4

23.10.2017 Priority ranking: valuable habitats Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. High % 95–100 priorities 90–95 80–90 60–80 40–60 20–40 Low % 0–20 priorities Top 5% of ecological values � Conservation priorities Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Priority ranking: Gulf of Bothnia Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. % 95–100 90–95 80–90 60–80 40–60 20–40 % 0–20 5

23.10.2017 Priority ranking: Gulf of Finland Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. % 95–100 90–95 80–90 60–80 40–60 20–40 % 0–20 Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 MPA netw ork comparison w ith priority ranking Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. Zonation prioritization Existing MPAs VS. Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 6

23.10.2017 Priority ranking: Gulf of Bothnia Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. Top 5 % of ecological values MPAs Top 5 % of ecological values inside MPAs Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Priority ranking: Gulf of Finland Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. Top 5 % of ecological values MPAs Top 5 % of ecological values inside MPAs 7

23.10.2017 Conclusion of Part 1 Elina Virtanen et al., in prep. Zonation prioritization Existing MPAs 69 % of (the remaining 5 %) the most valuable areas were VS. located outside the present MPA network Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 2. What do the MPAs protect? Analysis of the restrictions w ithin MPAs Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 8

23.10.2017 • Aim: explore the management, planning and framework of M P As in the Finnish Gulf of Bothnia • What is the nature of the MPA management? • How does the management connect to… • The underwater nature • The human impacts in the area Waltteri Niemelä (2017): Marine protected area management in the Finnish Gulf of Bothnia: Connections between underwater nature, human activity and management - Master’s thesis, Univ. Akureyri, 85 pp. Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 9

23.10.2017 M ethod • Relevant texts were analysed • Management plans • Legislation • Reports • Publications • Databases • Websites • These were assessed for their involvment in underwater nature conservation Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Conclusions for Part 2 • Underwater nature is not considered in the studied M P As • Management is not clear • Many uses are permitted • Management is not adaptive • i.e. there is little connection between ecology and management • Not ecosystem-based 20 Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 10

23.10.2017 Conclusions • Is the current MPA network in Finland covering the biologically most valuable areas? First Zonation analysis on all MPAs in Finland: 69 % OF THE BIOLOGICALL Y MOST VALUABLE AREAS ARE OUTSIDE THE M P As • Are the current MPAs protecting key species and habitats? First analysis for M PAs in the Gulf of Bothnia: NO. FEW MANAGEMENT PLANS. THE RES TRICTIONS M OS TLY DO NOT CONCERN UNDERWATER ECOS YSTEM . Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 Conclusions • The MPA network should be improved to covering certain new high value areas • Management plans should be established for the existing MPAs! Consider pressures and exclude the most serious ones. (Include No-take areas?) • What next? • A full Zonation analysis • Identification of the most valuable existing MPA sites in need of improved management • Analysis of the restrictions in all MPAs: do they safeguard the underwater species and habitats? Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 11