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

23.10.2017 1

Ecological effectiveness

• f the MPA network

Elina Virtanen1, Markku Viitasalo1, Waltteri Niemelä1, Atte Moilanen2

1 Finnish Environment Institute SYKE 2 University of Helsinki

• 1. Is the current MPA network in Finland covering the

biologically most valuable areas? (~ Representativeness)

Questions

• 2. Are the current MPAs protecting key species and

habitats? (~ Adequacy)

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

23.10.2017 2

• 1. First analysis of the MPA

network

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017 4

Data collected… > 140 000

• bservation

points!

The Finnish Inventory Programme for Underwater Marine Environment

23.10.2017 3

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

23.10.2017 4

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

Spatial planning based on ecology 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.

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

• Ranking of conservation priority

Removes planning units that lead to smallest loss of

conservation value

Absolute value Removal sequence

23.10.2017 5

Priority ranking: valuable habitats

95–100 90–95 80–90 60–80 40–60 20–40 0–20

High priorities Low priorities Top 5% of ecological values Conservation priorities

% %

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

Priority ranking: Gulf of Bothnia

95–100 90–95 80–90 60–80 40–60 20–40 0–20

% %

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

23.10.2017 6

Priority ranking: Gulf of Finland

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

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

MPA netw ork comparison w ith priority ranking Zonation prioritization Existing MPAs VS.

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

23.10.2017 7

Priority ranking: Gulf of Bothnia

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

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

Priority ranking: Gulf of Finland

MPAs Top 5 % of ecological values Top 5 % of ecological values inside MPAs

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

23.10.2017 8

Conclusion of Part 1

Zonation prioritization Existing MPAs VS.

69 % of (the remaining 5 %) the most valuable areas were located

• utside

the present MPA network

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

Elina Virtanen et al., in prep.

• 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

23.10.2017 9

• 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

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

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

23.10.2017 10

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

• 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

Conclusions for Part 2

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

23.10.2017 11

• Is the current MPA network in Finland covering the

biologically most valuable areas?

• Are the current MPAs protecting key species and habitats?

First Zonation analysis on all MPAs in Finland: 69 % OF THE BIOLOGICALL Y MOST VALUABLE AREAS ARE OUTSIDE THE M P As 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 .

Conclusions

Viitasalo et al. MPA Networks – HELCOM S&C Sopot 23.10.2017

• The MPA network should be improved to covering

certain new high value areas

Conclusions

• 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