Preventing biodiversity loss: Protected areas

1. Preventing biodiversity loss: Protected areas If you are depressed about the status of the world’s biodiversity, wait until you see how well we are doing to revert those trends

2. WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM Biodiversity loss Human well-being

3. The risk for human well-being is large We cannot really add more area for food production and some area is being loss to desertification and other human needs Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Project Less food per person or more hunger Increasing human population Stable food production

4. Protected areas CO2 emissions Deforestation Habitat modification Over-harvesting

5. The logic behind protected areas Constrain habitat loss Reserve boundaries Reduction of mortality Increases in abundance Larger body sizes Higher production of propagules Prohibition of harvesting Habitat protection

6. The evidence behind protected areas The rational for protected areas Selig & Bruno (PlosOne 2010)

7. The evidence behind protected areas Lester et al (MEPS 2009) Protected areas deliver very good hope

8. …the result… “…reserves … serve as globally important conservation and management tools…” (Lester et al 2009) Trigger a frenzy for creating new protected areas Chape et al (Proc. Roy. Soc 2005) Woods et al (Oryx 2008)

9. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST…..ARE PROTECTED AREAS REALLY PREVENTING GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY LOSS? Area protected (km2) THE ANWSER APPEARS TO BE NO!!! BUT WHY NOT, IF WE HAVE SEEN THEY WORK? Mora, Cambridge book on MPAs 2011

10. The logic behind protected areas Constrain habitat loss Reserve boundaries Reduction of mortality Increases in abundance Larger body sizes Higher production of propagules Prohibition of harvesting Only if MPAs are effective Habitat protection

11. Ensure population viability Restrict human activities Global implementation Did we get ahead of ourselves? the complexity of Protected Area Effectiveness Effectiveness of Protected Areas Feasibility Biological Management Cost Connectivity Enforcement Home range size protection Resource availability Compliance Habitat suitability Poaching

12. The complexity of Protected Areas Effectiveness Biological Effectiveness Biological aim: to ensure the viability of populations within PAs Natality: recruitment Mortality Population size Immigration Emigration

13. Larvae Eggs Biological effectiveness of Protected Areas: Natality PAs need to be closer to each other to ensure connectivity (or the input of new individuals), IF they are expected to maintain populations viable

14. Natality: recruitment Mortality Population size Immigration Emigration Biological effectiveness of Protected Areas Biological aim: to ensure the viability of populations within PAs

15. Biological effectiveness of Protected Areas: Mortality Effect of home range and reserve size on mortality PAs need to be multiple times bigger that the home range of individuals, IF they are expected to maintain populations viable Waikiki Reserve Boundary (Hawaii) Home range of Mulloidichthys flavolineatus Meyer (Environmental Biology of Fishes 2003)

16. Biological effectiveness of Protected Areas: Mortality Habitat suitability Projected changes in habitats Jetz et al., PlosBiology 2007 PAs would have to avoid unsuitable habitats, IF they are expected to maintain populations viable …lots of IFS…

17. Biological effectiveness of coral reef MPAs Protection of adult neighborhoods About half of the reef fish species have home ranges smaller than 1 km2 28% Chances are MPAs will not be able to be effective in the biological protection of populations Common scales of larval dispersal are thought to be on the tens of km (Palumbi 2003, Shanks et al 2003) 52% Protection of propagule dispersal 83% Over 83% of the current global network of MPAs is located in areas of high human impact Habitat suitability

18. Ensure population viability Restrict human activities Global implementation Did we get ahead of ourselves? the complexity of Protected Area Effectiveness Effectiveness of Protected Areas Feasibility Biological Management Cost Connectivity Enforcement Home range size protection Resource availability Compliance Habitat suitability Poaching

19. The coral reef MPAs of the World CASE STUDY 1: How effective is the management of protected areas on the world’s coral reefs ? Effectiveness Contact by E-mail The World Database of Protected Areas How accurate is the database? How effective are MPAs? 1073 people from 102 countries and phone and in five languages Deleted 521 non-existing MPAs Added 157 non-reported MPAs Five replies ? Coverage 18.7% 21.7% of the world’s coral reefs are inside MPAs Coral Reefs of the world 1344 MPAs 102 countries 1.4% 0.1% 0.01% The Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project

20. Adequate Limited Very limited Partial Take Medium to high poaching Medium to high risk Varied in size and isolation No-take No to low poaching Low to medium risk Varied in size and isolation Classification of MPAs according to their overall conservation status ISOLATION (km): <10 10-20 20-30 >30 SIZE (km2): >10 5-10 1-5 <1 RISK: Low Medium High POACHING: None Low Medium High REGULATIONS: No-Take Zoned A Zoned B Take Mora et al., Science 2006

21. PACIFIC OCEAN 192 MPAs 8.3% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited SOUTH EAST ASIA 355 MPAs 12% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited AUSTRALIA 23 MPAs 69.7% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited INDIAN OCEAN 37 MPAs 2.6% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited EAST PACIFIC 24 MPAs 21.8% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited MIDDLE EAST 29 MPAs 18% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited WEST INDIAN OCEAN 59 MPAs 9.9% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited CARIBBEAN 219 MPAs 20.7% coverage Effectiveness: Adequate Partial Limited Very limited % % % % % % % % Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas of the World By Camilo Mora Serge Andrefouet Mark Costello Christine Kranenburg Audrey Rollo John Veron Kevin Gaston Ransom Myers Mora et al., Science 2006

22. …the result… “…reserves … serve as globally important conservation and management tools…” (Lester et al 2009) …REEVALUATING THE EVIDENCE…

23. …REEVALUATING THE EVIDENCE… How are the effects of protected areas measured? Before vs after Inside vs outside TIME 1 TIME 2 Limitations PA may have been created in high diversity or healthy habitats, which will give a high reference point in favor of PAs even if populations are not affected by the PA. Harvesting effort is displaced outside, which creates a positive balance for the PA even if populations are not affected by the PA. Mora & Sale MEPS 2011

24. …REEVALUATING THE EVIDENCE… Biological systems are characterized by their variability Large scale Small scale Most studies on MPAs are done at small scales Publication bias towards publishing significant results It is very possible that analyzed cases are studies that found significant results Mora & Sale MEPS 2011

25. …REEVALUATING THE EVIDENCE… Now that the paradigm is that PAs work; then, the fact that they do not work becomes novel and, therefore, potentially of interest for publication. Negative or no effects Positive effects Number of publications Cochrane, Gardiner, Ryan, Sanderson (Conservation Biology Class 2010) So it is possible that all evidence on PAs is based on the few cases where PAs actually work Mora & Sale MEPS 2011

26. …REEVALUATING THE EVIDENCE… Studies may have been based on exceptionally different PAs “…We included only peer-reviewed studies of fully-protected, no-take marine reserves…” Lester et al (MEPS 2009) Globally are the less common of all PAs Woods et al (Oryx 2008)

27. BUT, IF WE TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT PAs DO WORK; ARE THEY A FEASIBLE SOLUTION TO THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY CRISIS? Fact #1. The problem of scale Analogy How to displace from A to B? A Walking B Bed Bathroom Walking is a perfect solution Walking is a perfect solution although many will take the elevator First floor Second floor Manoa Waikiki Walking is a solution although most will drive Paris Walking is an impossible solution Honolulu One needs to match up solutions to the scale of the system

28. Fact #2. populations operate as metapopulations, which may span large geographical scales 10s, 100s or 1000s of kilometers …so, for protected areas to work they need to be escalated over large/global scales… …will this be possible?…

29. …will it be possible to scale protected areas globally?… Current and predicted coverage of PAs Woods et al (Oryx 2008)

30. …will it be possible to scale protected areas globally?…challenges… Human conflicts Effects of humans near protected areas: Edge effects: harvesting on the edges of the protected areas cause declines in abundance inside the protected area depending on the home range of the species Poaching : reduce viability of populations and affect feasibility of PAs due to increasing cost of patrolling or enforcement At the global scale, 200-600 million people already live in or very close to PAs (Mora & Sale 2011).

31. …will it be possible to scale protected areas globally?…challenges… Social conflicts Protected Areas create conflicts among members of the community, among communities, between communities and state and among stake holders (Christie, American Fisheries Society Symposium 2004). Increase poaching Increase operations costs for enforcement Reduce effectiveness and possible success if conservation legislation is applied strictly, the creation of protected areas could evict between 1 and 16 million people in Africa (Geisler and De Sousa 2001) and nearly 4 million in India (Kothari 2004). Compensating economically those affected by protected areas could cost 300 billion annually (James et al Nature 1999)

32. …will it be possible to scale protected areas globally?…challenges… Economical cost Fact #1: Global expending on current PAs is ~US$6 billion per year (James et al. Nature 1999) Fact #2: The expending deficit for protected areas ranges from 66% to 74% on land (Bruner et al. BioScience 2004) and is ~44.8% in the ocean (Balmford et al. PNAS 2004) Fact #3: increasing the coverage of protected areas to cover 20% of the world’s seas is in the order of US$ 12.5 billion per year (Balmford et al. PNAS2004) and US$10.6 billion to cover 15% of the land (James et al. BioScience 2001). In short, PAs are already in a major economical shortfall. Increasing the coverage of PAs will make the shortfall astronomical and their possibility of success very unlikely

33. …will it be possible to scale protected areas globally?…challenges… Political realities Fact #1: it is not fully demonstrated that Protected Areas work Fact #2: the results take a long time for politicians to brag about them Fact #3: there are more pressing problems to societies than protecting biodiversity Fact #4: Soule (Science 1991) argues that setting aside areas for protection will be improbable in states with poor and landless people, corruptible authorities or powerful oligarchies. 90% of the world’s countries are in that category of political stability (Kaufmann et al. WB report 2008) No surprise why there is poor political support for implementing PAs

34. …in summary… Protected areas are not coping with the challenge of preventing biodiversity loss (Mora & Sale MEPS 2011)….so… suggesting that ….”reserves…serve as globally important conservation and management tools... (Lester et al MEPS 2009)”… …is just naïve (Mora & Sale MEPS 2011).