134
The shaping of the global protected area estate
few years, temporally and spatially resolved ocean
provinces have been generated from satellite data
(Oliver & Irwin, 2008 ) and a global open oceans and
deep seabed classifi cation (GOODS) has been published
(UNESCO, 2009 ). Recent research has also mapped
global distribution patterns for seabirds, turtles, and
marine mammals, with a view to using these data to
set conservation priorities (Cheung et al ., 2005 ; Worm
et al ., 2005 ).
Deep benthic and pelagic systems occur outside, as
well as inside, political boundaries. Where they fall in
international waters, additional challenges of governance, ownership, and enforcement arise (De Fontaubert,
2001 ; Hislop, 2007 ). Despite all the aforementioned
challenges, major NGOs are developing initiatives for
pelagic and high seas areas. Greenpeace has proposed
a set of three high seas marine reserves (the Pacifi c
Commons), delineated primarily by political boundaries (Roberts et al ., 2006 ). The World Wildlife Fund is
also preparing a high seas priority list.
These initiatives suggest that we may be preparing
to take the next steps in marine conservation planning,
building on technical, institutional and societal
advances to make the case for large MPAs in the open
ocean, with dynamic boundaries and extensive buffers.
On the balance of evidence, they appear sorely needed,
along with other monitoring, conservation, and management measures.
5.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
The last 50 years have seen a remarkable period of
expansion of the protected area estate globally, albeit
in response to a dramatic increase of human demands
for land conversion and natural resource extraction.
Over this period, we may trace several phases in which
different approaches and organizations have taken the
lead.
The initial lead given by the IUCN has been followed
more recently by a phase in which a few major conservation NGOs, such as Conservation International,
WWF and BirdLife International, have been dominant
forces in shaping strategic conservation on the global
stage, generating a raft of (to varying degrees) complementary and competing planning frameworks and
initiatives. These schemes stem from a quite small
number of core concepts, rationales and objectives but,
as we have seen, they also sum to provide a rather
Coastal and continental shelf areas are the most
heavily exploited areas; they provide the majority of
the global fi sheries catch, contain the highest levels of
biodiversity, generally operate on smaller spatial scales,
are more predictable than pelagic systems and are the
most tractable politically (de Fontaubert, 2001 ).
However, it is becoming clear that deep water and
pelagic systems are also in trouble. The most serious
impacts are from fi shing, including the removal of
25 – 35 per cent of the primary production from
upwelling and temperate continental shelves, the loss
of top predators from coastal and pelagic food webs,
gross depletion of target stocks and massive wastage
from by - catch (Hyrenbach et al ., 2000 ). The scale of
these activities is shocking, as is the general lack of
public awareness of the extent of over - harvesting of
the seas, notwithstanding the publication of research
fi ndings in prominent international journals (e.g.
Jackson, 2008 ).
Pelagic species, processes and ecosystems occur in
the water column and are not attached to the substrate. They present major challenges to place - based
conservation planning. Such systems are highly
dynamic in space and time. Upwellings and fronts can
shift tens to hundreds of kilometres between seasons
and years, while gyres and eddies may be ephemeral,
lasting weeks or months.
On the other hand, many pelagic species use highly
predictable habitats in which to breed, forage, or travel.
Static bathymetric features (e.g. reefs, shelf - breaks,
seamounts, hydrothermal vents) create discontinuities
in the ocean that can lead to aggregations of biodiversity; persistent hydrographical features (e.g. fronts,
currents) act as oceanic highways and signposts; and
ephemeral hydrographical features (e.g. eddies, wind -
driven upwellings) provide resources for high levels of
productivity. These habitat types refl ect increasing
unpredictability and therefore increasing challenges to
MPA planning, given the desirability of MPAs having
explicit geographical boundaries (Hyrenbach et al .,
2000 ).
One of the limiting factors to setting conservation
priorities beyond EEZs is a lack of available information
on geomorphology, oceanography and marine species ’
distributions. To date, only 5 – 10 per cent of the sea
fl oor has been mapped with a resolution comparable to
that on land (Wright & Heyman, 2008 ), yet even mid -
resolution bathymetric data suggests that there are
over 14,000 seamounts, the majority of which are
beyond national jurisdiction (Harris, 2007 ). In the last
The shaping of the global protected area estate
few years, temporally and spatially resolved ocean
provinces have been generated from satellite data
(Oliver & Irwin, 2008 ) and a global open oceans and
deep seabed classifi cation (GOODS) has been published
(UNESCO, 2009 ). Recent research has also mapped
global distribution patterns for seabirds, turtles, and
marine mammals, with a view to using these data to
set conservation priorities (Cheung et al ., 2005 ; Worm
et al ., 2005 ).
Deep benthic and pelagic systems occur outside, as
well as inside, political boundaries. Where they fall in
international waters, additional challenges of governance, ownership, and enforcement arise (De Fontaubert,
2001 ; Hislop, 2007 ). Despite all the aforementioned
challenges, major NGOs are developing initiatives for
pelagic and high seas areas. Greenpeace has proposed
a set of three high seas marine reserves (the Pacifi c
Commons), delineated primarily by political boundaries (Roberts et al ., 2006 ). The World Wildlife Fund is
also preparing a high seas priority list.
These initiatives suggest that we may be preparing
to take the next steps in marine conservation planning,
building on technical, institutional and societal
advances to make the case for large MPAs in the open
ocean, with dynamic boundaries and extensive buffers.
On the balance of evidence, they appear sorely needed,
along with other monitoring, conservation, and management measures.
5.5 CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
The last 50 years have seen a remarkable period of
expansion of the protected area estate globally, albeit
in response to a dramatic increase of human demands
for land conversion and natural resource extraction.
Over this period, we may trace several phases in which
different approaches and organizations have taken the
lead.
The initial lead given by the IUCN has been followed
more recently by a phase in which a few major conservation NGOs, such as Conservation International,
WWF and BirdLife International, have been dominant
forces in shaping strategic conservation on the global
stage, generating a raft of (to varying degrees) complementary and competing planning frameworks and
initiatives. These schemes stem from a quite small
number of core concepts, rationales and objectives but,
as we have seen, they also sum to provide a rather
Coastal and continental shelf areas are the most
heavily exploited areas; they provide the majority of
the global fi sheries catch, contain the highest levels of
biodiversity, generally operate on smaller spatial scales,
are more predictable than pelagic systems and are the
most tractable politically (de Fontaubert, 2001 ).
However, it is becoming clear that deep water and
pelagic systems are also in trouble. The most serious
impacts are from fi shing, including the removal of
25 – 35 per cent of the primary production from
upwelling and temperate continental shelves, the loss
of top predators from coastal and pelagic food webs,
gross depletion of target stocks and massive wastage
from by - catch (Hyrenbach et al ., 2000 ). The scale of
these activities is shocking, as is the general lack of
public awareness of the extent of over - harvesting of
the seas, notwithstanding the publication of research
fi ndings in prominent international journals (e.g.
Jackson, 2008 ).
Pelagic species, processes and ecosystems occur in
the water column and are not attached to the substrate. They present major challenges to place - based
conservation planning. Such systems are highly
dynamic in space and time. Upwellings and fronts can
shift tens to hundreds of kilometres between seasons
and years, while gyres and eddies may be ephemeral,
lasting weeks or months.
On the other hand, many pelagic species use highly
predictable habitats in which to breed, forage, or travel.
Static bathymetric features (e.g. reefs, shelf - breaks,
seamounts, hydrothermal vents) create discontinuities
in the ocean that can lead to aggregations of biodiversity; persistent hydrographical features (e.g. fronts,
currents) act as oceanic highways and signposts; and
ephemeral hydrographical features (e.g. eddies, wind -
driven upwellings) provide resources for high levels of
productivity. These habitat types refl ect increasing
unpredictability and therefore increasing challenges to
MPA planning, given the desirability of MPAs having
explicit geographical boundaries (Hyrenbach et al .,
2000 ).
One of the limiting factors to setting conservation
priorities beyond EEZs is a lack of available information
on geomorphology, oceanography and marine species ’
distributions. To date, only 5 – 10 per cent of the sea
fl oor has been mapped with a resolution comparable to
that on land (Wright & Heyman, 2008 ), yet even mid -
resolution bathymetric data suggests that there are
over 14,000 seamounts, the majority of which are
beyond national jurisdiction (Harris, 2007 ). In the last