CapeNature National MPA Forum Port Elizabeth October 2016

1. CapeNature National MPA Forum Port Elizabeth October 2016 MPA Session

2. Highlights • Effective compliance monitoring and law enforcement programme being developed to link in with Phakisa, e.g. Betty’s Bay MPA • Permanent staff is a positive development • Linking WIOMSA assessments to CPUT marine course • Marine Audit (internal) • SOP for vessel management • SOP for compliance monitoring and law enforcement

3. Challenges • Need for scientific support with regards to monitoring and research • Need for clear Governance processes, e.g. stakeholder management, estuary management, Programme Management, e.t.c. • Need for specific SOPs, e.g. culling of “problem species” on and around Islands • A need for a Jetski policy

4. Challenges and solutions • Stakeholder engagement – improved governance using estuary advisory committees/PAACs • Monitoring and research support – MOUs with a range of Institutions to address this (Programme driven) • Loss of experienced staff – permanent positions • Funding – improved integrated funding applications for specific items (slow process)

5. Secretariat • Identify funding sources and develop integrated funding applications • Improve communication between Agencies and MPAs • Improve marketing of successes • Continue with website management • Marine Audit and State of MPAs document – integrated into State of the Coast Report

6. Priorities for the next three years • Replace patrol vessels systematically • Set up a process to support MPAs with regards to monitoring and research • Set up a more coordinated management system to ensure effective sharing of experience, equipment and lessons learned between MPAs and between CapeNature and other organizations • Structured education and awareness programme developed to support MPAs and coastal management • Recognized marine conservation career

7. Objectives • Yes MPAs are addressing objectives of MPA Plan • Some plans are outdated • Objectives are too broad and need to reflect the aim of the MPA • Broad objectives are difficult to monitor and report on • This was discussed at the National MPA monitoring workshop held in Grahamstown – needs to be addressed in all new MPA plans

8. General • Positive MPA staff despite challenges • Recognition of field as a field of expertise is essential – career path not an “add on” • Ideally there should be a National Marine Audit process developed (linked to or integrated into MET)

9. Thank You THANK YOU

10. Research priorities • List research priorities for your MPA • Food selection by African Penguin and other marine birds, e.g. what is available in the ocean at the time vs what is eaten (selection) • Assessing size and distribution of species inside and outside of MPA • Ecosystem/habitat inside and outside MPA, e.g. effect of reduced numbers of certain species like predators or grazers • Ocean “corridors” for specific migratory species • Impact of fisheries on fish behaviour, e.g. purse seiners “chase” small pelagic species • Non-consumptive value of MPA • Link between ocean currents and MPAs

11. Research priorities • List monitoring that determines your MPA effectiveness (inside and outside) • BRUV • NMLS • Telemetry • Abalone transects • WCRL surveys • Rocky shore surveys • Estuary WQ monitoring • Estuary bird and fish surveys • Ocean WQ • Non-consumptive use

12. Research priorities • How do you measure the effectiveness of your MPA • Monitor if objectives are achieved (Objectives need to be clear enough to facilitate monitoring) • Monitor spill over into fisheries zones