The distribution of diversity: challenges and applications
123
(including fi shery managers) of the need for more
effective approaches to sustainable use and ecosystem
management (Roberts et al ., 2005 ). Evidence that
marine protected areas benefi t fi sheries exists and is
gaining increasing recognition; for example, the single
largest predictor of fi sh abundance and diversity on
East African reefs was found to be the duration of protection from fi shing (McClanahan & Arthur, 2001 ).
Whereas the predictions of increased fi sh yields for
areas adjacent to those protected are not always met
(Hilborn et al ., 2004 ), it is clear that other fi sheries
management tools, such as quotas, have frequently
failed to maintain viable populations in the context of
multi - species fi sheries.
While protected areas should not be seen as
a panacea to the ocean ’ s ills, they are clearly an
important and valuable tool. With rapidly increasing
knowledge of marine systems, habitats and species
distributions, increased accessibility to large - scale data
sets and geographical information systems, marine
protected area planning will benefi t, and more creative,
fl uid, complementary approaches can be rendered
viable.
In the following sections we critically examine a
selection of global NGO - led conservation schemes. The
methods espoused by a particular organization are not
proprietary, and many organizations now incorporate
multiple approaches in their conservation portfolios.
However, as in the terrestrial realm, we can once again
recognize that particular schemes focus on particular
properties (composition, function, numbers and
attributes) and adopt matching strategies emphasizing
representation, ecosystem function, biodiversity
hotspots and key areas. Gap analyses (Box 5.2 ) and
improved data availability enable assessment of the
degree to which these schemes are fulfi lling their
goals. We once again provide some illustrations of
applications of global schemes within an Indonesian/
Southeast Asian context.
5.4.3 A g lobal r epresentative s ystem of
m arine p rotected a reas
Representation was a key early goal for marine conservation, as it was for terrestrial planning, and calls
for strengthened biogeographical and ecological representation within protected area systems continue
to be made (Roberts et al ., 2003 ). Hayden et al .
(1984) attempted to provide ‘ an appropriate marine
(beyond 200 m water depth), all currently lie within
the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).
Overall, this represents only 1.91 per cent of the waters
within EEZ areas, or 0.717 per cent of the entire world
ocean surface – meagre in comparison with the 11.5
per cent global terrestrial protected area coverage
(Chape et al ., 2003 ).
The culture of marine exploitation means that of
those ‘ protected ’ areas, even fewer are ‘ no - take ’ zones.
Overall, only 0.08 per cent of the world ’ s oceans and
0.2 per cent of the total marine area under national
jurisdiction is designated as no - take (Wood et al ., 2008 ),
while assessments of the management of many MPAs
suggest that most are effectively no more than paper
parks (Jameson et al ., 2002 ). Indeed, it has recently
been estimated that less than 0.01 per cent of the
world ’ s coral reefs are within MPAs defi ned as ‘ no take,
with no poaching, and at low risk ’ (Mora et al ., 2006 ).
On the plus side, rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park in 2004 increased the global no - take area
by more than 50 per cent and 100,000 km
2 (Fernandes
et al ., 2005 ). Further major achievements have come
from the designation of the 341,362 km
2 North -
western Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem
Reserve (originally designated in 2000 and redesignated in 2006 as a Marine National Monument) and
the 410,500 km
2 Phoenix Islands Marine Protected
Area (formally recognized in 2008).
Despite these advances, however, over 87 per cent of
226 coastal political entities (countries, overseas territories and the non - contiguous US states of Hawaii
and Alaska) have less than the global average of 1.6
per cent of their EEZs protected. Only nine have more
than ten per cent of their EEZ protected and, of those,
four have relatively small maritime territories rather
than a high absolute area under protection. Of the
remaining fi ve, four are overseas territories and one is
the non - contiguous US state of Hawaii, and these
encompass four of the ten largest marine protected
areas (Wood et al ., 2008 ).
Since the completion of the various reviews we
have just cited, there have, however, been exciting
developments such as the Micronesia Challenge (see
www.micronesiachallenge.org ), whose ambitious goal
is to protect more than 30 per cent of marine resources
across Micronesia by 2020, as well as a declaration, in
January 2009, of three new National Monuments in
the Pacifi c covering a total of 505,775 km
2
.
Moreover, as fi sh stocks collapse worldwide, there
is increasing recognition by many stakeholders
123
(including fi shery managers) of the need for more
effective approaches to sustainable use and ecosystem
management (Roberts et al ., 2005 ). Evidence that
marine protected areas benefi t fi sheries exists and is
gaining increasing recognition; for example, the single
largest predictor of fi sh abundance and diversity on
East African reefs was found to be the duration of protection from fi shing (McClanahan & Arthur, 2001 ).
Whereas the predictions of increased fi sh yields for
areas adjacent to those protected are not always met
(Hilborn et al ., 2004 ), it is clear that other fi sheries
management tools, such as quotas, have frequently
failed to maintain viable populations in the context of
multi - species fi sheries.
While protected areas should not be seen as
a panacea to the ocean ’ s ills, they are clearly an
important and valuable tool. With rapidly increasing
knowledge of marine systems, habitats and species
distributions, increased accessibility to large - scale data
sets and geographical information systems, marine
protected area planning will benefi t, and more creative,
fl uid, complementary approaches can be rendered
viable.
In the following sections we critically examine a
selection of global NGO - led conservation schemes. The
methods espoused by a particular organization are not
proprietary, and many organizations now incorporate
multiple approaches in their conservation portfolios.
However, as in the terrestrial realm, we can once again
recognize that particular schemes focus on particular
properties (composition, function, numbers and
attributes) and adopt matching strategies emphasizing
representation, ecosystem function, biodiversity
hotspots and key areas. Gap analyses (Box 5.2 ) and
improved data availability enable assessment of the
degree to which these schemes are fulfi lling their
goals. We once again provide some illustrations of
applications of global schemes within an Indonesian/
Southeast Asian context.
5.4.3 A g lobal r epresentative s ystem of
m arine p rotected a reas
Representation was a key early goal for marine conservation, as it was for terrestrial planning, and calls
for strengthened biogeographical and ecological representation within protected area systems continue
to be made (Roberts et al ., 2003 ). Hayden et al .
(1984) attempted to provide ‘ an appropriate marine
(beyond 200 m water depth), all currently lie within
the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).
Overall, this represents only 1.91 per cent of the waters
within EEZ areas, or 0.717 per cent of the entire world
ocean surface – meagre in comparison with the 11.5
per cent global terrestrial protected area coverage
(Chape et al ., 2003 ).
The culture of marine exploitation means that of
those ‘ protected ’ areas, even fewer are ‘ no - take ’ zones.
Overall, only 0.08 per cent of the world ’ s oceans and
0.2 per cent of the total marine area under national
jurisdiction is designated as no - take (Wood et al ., 2008 ),
while assessments of the management of many MPAs
suggest that most are effectively no more than paper
parks (Jameson et al ., 2002 ). Indeed, it has recently
been estimated that less than 0.01 per cent of the
world ’ s coral reefs are within MPAs defi ned as ‘ no take,
with no poaching, and at low risk ’ (Mora et al ., 2006 ).
On the plus side, rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park in 2004 increased the global no - take area
by more than 50 per cent and 100,000 km
2 (Fernandes
et al ., 2005 ). Further major achievements have come
from the designation of the 341,362 km
2 North -
western Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem
Reserve (originally designated in 2000 and redesignated in 2006 as a Marine National Monument) and
the 410,500 km
2 Phoenix Islands Marine Protected
Area (formally recognized in 2008).
Despite these advances, however, over 87 per cent of
226 coastal political entities (countries, overseas territories and the non - contiguous US states of Hawaii
and Alaska) have less than the global average of 1.6
per cent of their EEZs protected. Only nine have more
than ten per cent of their EEZ protected and, of those,
four have relatively small maritime territories rather
than a high absolute area under protection. Of the
remaining fi ve, four are overseas territories and one is
the non - contiguous US state of Hawaii, and these
encompass four of the ten largest marine protected
areas (Wood et al ., 2008 ).
Since the completion of the various reviews we
have just cited, there have, however, been exciting
developments such as the Micronesia Challenge (see
www.micronesiachallenge.org ), whose ambitious goal
is to protect more than 30 per cent of marine resources
across Micronesia by 2020, as well as a declaration, in
January 2009, of three new National Monuments in
the Pacifi c covering a total of 505,775 km
2
.
Moreover, as fi sh stocks collapse worldwide, there
is increasing recognition by many stakeholders