INCOFISH WP5 MPAs on Continental Shelves Fisheries and Ecosystem Management

1. INCOFISH WP5 MPAs on Continental Shelves Fisheries and Ecosystem Management

2. Objectives Review the nature of three selected ecosystems and the role and effectiveness and operation of selected existing MPAs within these ecosystems. Examine the need and potential role of further MPAs within these ecosystems. Run simulations of MPA effectiveness with Ecopath models developed in conjunction with WP4 for the selected ecosystems. Examine effects of size and placement on the effectiveness of MPAs for selected ecosystems. Develop supporting models to supplement and aid interpretation of the Ecopath output, or to examine situations that can not be explicitly tested with the Ecopath models. Develop conceptual model for the development of MPA networks on the basis of results from the above

3. Project Partners Prof Nick Polunin Newcastle Uni, UK Dr Will Le Quesne Dr John Pinnegar CEFAS, UK Dr Steve Mackinson Prof Francisco Arreguín-Sánchez CICIMAR, Mexico Manuel Zetina-Rejón, Co-workers Prof Haigen Xu NIES, China Co-workers

4. Case Studies

5. Case Studies • Define offshore and onshore boundaries for models. As much as possible model self-contained ecosystems. How shallow are we taking landward boundaries? especially intertidal marshes and estuarine areas. • What is known of fisheries data, biology and life history of species, benthic habitats, and at what spatial resolution. • Keep a vague eye on allowing direct comparability between models of different areas, i.e. similar approach to dealing with land and sea boundaries, cell size, approach to defining habitats, etc.

6. Case Studies - North Sea Approximate boundary of ICES area IV - North Sea

7. Case Studies - North Sea In the North Sea there are a number of areas closed fishing. None of these exclude all fishing activities. ‘Boxes’ were established for very different purposes (e.g. to allow particular species to recover, to prevent accidental bycatch, to protect juveniles, to protect seabirds). ‘Boxes’ have had varying success – some have worked, some have completely failed!

8. Continental Shelf of Yucatan Gulf of Mexico Yucatán Campeche Bank ecosystem Campeche Sound Campeche Laguna de Terminos Case Studies - Gulf of Mexico Proposed study area Protected area Proposed protected areas Main seasonal movements Main inputs of production

9. Case Studies - Yellow Sea Bohai Sea

10. Objectives – Review Review the nature of three selected ecosystems and the role and effectiveness and operation of selected existing MPAs within these ecosystems. Examine the need and potential role of further MPAs within these ecosystems. Deliverable 5.1 review report required month 16. Main report to be compiled by Will at Newcastle, with input on specific areas from CICIMAR and NIES (and CEFAS?). Input from CICIMAR and NIES to be complete by month 13.

11. Objectives – Review Review to cover general description of physical chemical and biological characteristics of each ecosystem. List 10-20 main species of interest (commercial and/or ecological significance), with overview of life history, habitat preferences, extent of movements, susceptibility to different types of fishing gear. Overview of fishery operations in the region, main target species and gears used. Brief overview of present fisheries management in the area. Plus other significant impacts (e.g. pollution) Examine the aims, operation, costs, stakeholder involvement and effectiveness of one or more existing MPAs in the ecosystem. Identify potential role and location of additional MPAs for the region. Put forward ideas for the sort of MPA we might consider in the simulations.

12. Objectives – Simulations Run simulations of MPA effectiveness with Ecopath models developed in conjunction with WP4 for the selected ecosystems. Examine effects of size and placement on the effectiveness of MPAs for selected ecosystems. Deliverable 5.2 analysis of size and placement of selected MPAs using models from WP4. Report required month 28, but according to Annex I, full spatial ecosystem models from WP4 at month 25! Will to compile main report with input from CEFAS, CICIMAR and NIES. All Yellow Sea modelling to be done in WP5. Deadline for internal inputs for report ?

13. Objectives – Simulations Modelling of roles of existing and proposed MPAs Spatial considerations critical to understanding MPAs. Incorporate bycatch/discards Consider ecosystem effects of different gear types Include protection of ‘critical’ habitats. Consider interaction of management within and outside MPAs. Compare MPA based and ‘traditional’ management Examine first what is ecologically desirable (e.g. very large areas) Then consider what is politically/socially feasible Consider that MPAs do not need to be total closures (e.g. ‘boxes’) How do WP4 and WP5 interact?

14. Objectives – Supporting Models Develop supporting models to supplement and aid interpretation of the Ecopath output, or to examine situations that can not be explicitly tested with the Ecopath models. Not a specific work package deliverable. Possibility to examine some of the key underlying theory of application of MPAs to mobile stocks / multi-species fisheries in a simplified environment. Draw out simplified scenarios of critical interactions, or consistent themes identified from across several regions. Along the lines of approaches carried out by Guénette & Pitcher 1999 (Fish. Res. 39:295-303), and Quinn et al. 1993 (Am Zool. 33: 537-550).

15. Objectives – Conceptual Model Develop conceptual model for the development of MPA networks on the basis of results from the above investigations. Deliverable 5.3 Conceptual model of MPA planning in offshore continental waters. Report and step by step tool required by month 31. Will require input from all project partners, Will to compile final report? Look for consistent themes as to the size, and placement of MPAs from across the three case studies. Look for consistent themes as to the use of MPAs for protecting specific habitats, types of stocks, aggregations etc. from within and across the case studies. Try and develop objective criteria for development of MPAs. Consider relationship between MPAs and other management.

16. Deliverable 5.4 Report on outcomes of WP5 by month 34. Input from all partners. Report to be compiled by Will?? Deliverable 5.5 At least 5 papers related to WP5 to be submitted by end of project.

17. WorkshopsFirst workshop – Select MPAs and distribute tasks. Month 5. Here, now?Second workshop – analyse selected case studies. WP members, representatives of WP4 and 9. Month 19.Third workshop – review analysis and develop conceptual framework. WP members, representative(s) WP4. Month 25.

18. Do we know and understand: project objectives? division of work amongst WP partners? what is required by each and when? financial and administrative aspects of WP5? Any further questions?