Feature ArticleFailures in the design and implementation of management plans of Marine Protected Areas: An empirical analysis for the North-east Atlantic Ocean
Introduction
The establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is considered an important contribution to achieve a good marine environmental status. The challenge of establishing networks of MPAs and thereby protecting biodiversity and ecosystem function is recognised as an essential step by all EU marine and maritime policies. In fact, the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) establishes a framework to allow every Member State to take measures to maintain or achieve ‘good environmental status’ (GES) in the marine environment by 2020. In a context of overfishing, endangered species and habitat deterioration, MPAs are increasingly used as instruments for protection and management throughout the world's seas (Edgar et al., 2014). Moreover, MPAs are considered an affordable way to mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change (Roberts et al., 2017; EUROPARC España, 2018). In this sense, an exponential increase in the establishment of MPAs throughout the world, including the European Union (EU), has been observed in recent decades (Devillers et al., 2015; Batista and Cabral, 2016; Hopkins et al., 2016; Ban et al., 2017). However, establishment is only one aspect of MPA performance and effectiveness. Protected areas need to be managed effectively within the appropriate legal frameworks and governance structures in order to meaningfully contribute to improving the management of resources and ecosystem services, halting biodiversity loss and mitigating climate change impacts (Dudley et al., 2010; Leverington et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2014).
MPA establishment, management and operation are usually performed by national institutions, although the type of designation can be international or national (Hopkings et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016). This makes MPAs dependent on the legislation and administrative mechanisms of each country, presenting great variability in these processes and strategies (IUCN, 2004; Jones et al., 2016). Most MPAs gather their management strategies in a Management Plan (hereafter plan), which is formally drawn in documents setting the management approach and goals, together with a framework for decision making, to be applied in the protected area for a specific period of time (Thomas et al., 2003; IUCN uses this definition). Plans may be more or less prescriptive, depending upon the purpose for which MPAs were created and the legal requirements to be met. The planning process, the plan's management objectives and the standards to be applied will usually be stated by legislation or otherwise established by protected area planners (Thomas et al., 2003).
This process varies greatly, following different steps depending on the country of application and on the type of MPA designation, and becomes slow in many cases. The long duration of this process has a negative impact on the success of the MPA (IUCN, 2004; Ministry of Fisheries and Department of Conservation, 2005), at least in the short term, because during the development of management plans, MPAs are not managed and work as ‘paper parks' (Rife et al., 2013; Halpern, 2014; Gallacher et al., 2016). The analysis of the duration of each implementation step and its relationship with recommended standards would allow identifying bottlenecks and potential improvements in the process.
The present study has two main objectives: (i) to describe the processes, estimate their duration, occurring from the design and designation of an MPA to the effective implementation and renewal of its management plan, and the cost of these processes in four countries of the North-east Atlantic Ocean: France, Portugal, Spain and England (UK); and (ii) to assess the compliance of the actual processes (phases, timing and duration, and participating actors) respect to established guidelines (national and international) defined to develop management plans. International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) guidelines were used as reference to analyse compliance. The IUCN guidelines are the most applied worldwide and all plans used in this study were in the geographic area of the OSPAR Convention. The compliance of the processes needed for the effective activation of MPAs has never been systematically evaluated for a geographical area and obviously failures could most possibly affect performance to a significant extent.
Section snippets
Study region and legal framework
The present study was focused on the MPAs located in the North-east Atlantic Ocean along the coast of mainland Portugal, the Spanish Atlantic coast (including Canary Islands), the French Atlantic coast from Cherbourg in the Channel (Basse-Normandie region) to the Spanish border, and the English coast (Fig. 1).
The OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic was established in 1992 (the annex on biodiversity and ecosystems was adopted in 1998). OSPAR
Temporal development of plans in the North-east Atlantic Ocean
Since the late 1980s, when the first plan for an Spanish MPA was implemented in the study area, there was an exponential increase in the total number of plans, and most of those plans, 81%, were implemented since the year 2000. A steady increase in the number of plans occurred in England from 1995, with a slight peak in implementations in the early 2000s. In France, the early 2000s were also a turning point in the creation of management plans, with an increase in the rate of creation that was
Discussion and conclusions
Most MPA guidebooks assume that an MPA is managed by its own plan (OSPAR Commission, 2003; Lausche, 2011; FAO, 2011), because each MPA is unique and its plan must be designed specifically to address its particular needs (IUCN, 2004). However, this typology 1, under our definition, occurred only in half of the studied cases in the North-east Atlantic Ocean (54%). The remaining cases presented more complex combinations, described as typologies 2 (24%) and 3 (21%).
Management plans are valuable
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was granted by European cross-border programme INTERREG IV B through the MAIA project and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund. The authors would like to extend deep gratitude for the support given by Miguel Henriques from Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas, Jan Maclennan from Natural England, Fanny le Fur from Agence des aires marines protégées and Malú Lledó and Teresa Ortega from KV Consultores.
References (55)
- et al.
Evaluating the success of a marine protected area: a systematic review Approach
J. Environ. Manag.
(2016) - et al.
Scotland's Marine Protected Area network: reviewing progress towards achieving commitments for marine conservation
Mar. Pol.
(2016) - et al.
Applying organization science to assess the management performance of Marine Protected Areas: an exploratory study
J. Environ. Manag.
(2018) - et al.
Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning
Mar. Pol.
(2011) - et al.
The management performance of marine protected areas in the North-east Atlantic Ocean
Mar. Pol.
(2017) - et al.
Social and ecological effectiveness of large marine protected areas
Global Environ. Change
(2017) - et al.
An overview of Marine Protected Areas in SW Europe: factors contributing to their management effectiveness
Ocean Coast Manag.
(2016) - et al.
From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: governance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas
Mar. Pol.
(2014) - et al.
Maritime ecosystem-based management in practice: lessons learned from the application of a generic spatial planning framework in Europe
Mar. Pol.
(2017) - et al.
Offshore marine conservation policies in the North East Atlantic: emerging tensions and opportunities
Mar. Pol.
(2007)
Effectiveness of European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: do they accomplish the expected effects on populations, communities and ecosystems?
J. Nat. Conserv.
A comparative analysis of three marine governance systems for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Mar. Pol.
Marine protected areas in the 21st century: current situation and trends
Ocean Coast Manag.
The impact of OSPAR on protected area management beyond national jurisdiction: effective regional cooperation or a network of paper parks?
Mar. Pol.
Threats to marine biodiversity in European protected areas
Sci. Total Environ.
Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas
Mar. Pol.
Managing Natura 2000 in the marine environment–An evaluation of the effectiveness of ‘management schemes’ in England
Ocean Coast Manag.
How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas
Ocean Coast Manag.
Protected Planet Report 2014. Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas.
Protected Planet Report 2014. Tracking Progress towards
2018 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas
Adaptive marine conservation planning in the face of climate change: what can we learn from physiological, genetic and ecological studies?
Global Ecol. Conserv.
Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
Droit international et communautaire de la biodiversité
Oficina Regional de Ciencia de la UNESCO para América Latina y el Caribe
Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection?
Aquat. Conserv.
Global protected area Expansion: Creating more than paper parks
Bioscience
Cited by (14)
Governance, not design, rules European Atlantic MPA performance
2024, Regional Studies in Marine ScienceA proposal for engagement in MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction: The case of Macaronesia
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :Stakeholder involvement is considered a prerequisite to guarantee legitimacy in the governance process (Wright et al., 2019). In addition, the social actors' participation in different management processes contributes to building a more sustainable marine environment (UN Environment, 2019; McKinley et al., 2021; Álvarez-Fernández et al., 2020). On the other hand, the participation in ABNJ is poorly studied or considered secondary because of the physical distance to the MPA.
Social-ecological dimensions of Marine Protected Areas and coastal fishing: How fishermen's local ecological knowledge can inform fisheries management at the future “Taza” MPA (Algeria, SW Mediterranean)
2022, Ocean and Coastal ManagementCitation Excerpt :MPAs have become a popular tool for marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of marine resources through fisheries management (Agardy et al., 2011; Chuenpagdee et al., 2013; Cook and Heinen, 2005; Edgar, 2011). Well-designed MPAs that are planned through a participatory process and use the best available knowledge can offer important benefits to specific user-groups and local communities, in addition to longer term benefits to governments and the common good (Álvarez-Fernández et al., 2020; FAO, 2011). Mediterranean MPAs cover about 6.81% of the surface area of the Mediterranean Sea, with a very uneven geographical distribution (MedPAN and SPA/RAC, 2019).
A novel framework for marine protected areas in small island regions using integrated local wisdom
2021, Regional Studies in Marine ScienceOutdoor recreation in French Coastal and Marine Protected Areas. Exploring recreation experience preference as a way for building conservation support
2021, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and TourismCitation Excerpt :The REP focus of this segment most closely aligns with the key objectives of the CMPAs they visit, and so are most likely to support the idea of CMPAs as a tool for facilitating their experience preferences (Gray et al., 2010). While many CMPAs share similar management issues around the world, especially the lack of visibility and public support (Abecasis et al., 2013; Alvarez-Fernandez et al., 2020; Day, Kenchington, et al., 2019; Hawkins et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2020; Voyer et al., 2012), primary but essential recommendations based on this French study case may benefit all coastal and marine managers. There is a need to actually to connect the experience preferences and associated benefits with the idea of the CMPA as a specific management regime (as distinct from the place it is protecting).