After-LIFE Conservation Plan

for the Marine Park Professor Luiz Saldanha

Date: 30 June 2011

2

The Professor Luiz Saldanha Marine Park

Conservation Plan for the after-LIFE period

Prepared by:

Biomares, a LIFE project to restore and manage the biodiversity of Prof. Luiz Saldanha Marine Park

Alexandra H. Cunha1, Karim Erzini

1, Ester A. Serrão

1, Emanuel Gonçalves

2, Rita Borges

1,2,Miguel

Henriques3, Victor Henriques

4, Miriam Guerra

4, Carlos Duarte

5, Núria Marbá

5,

1 Center for Marine Sciences, CIMAR, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro,

Portugal

2 Eco-Ethology Research Unit, ISPA, Instituto Universitário de Psicologia Aplicada, Rua Jardim do

Tabaco, 34, 1149 - 041 Lisboa Portugal

3 Luiz Saldanha Marine Park, ICNB, Pr. da República, 2900-587 Setúbal Portugal

4 INRB/IPIMAR, National Institute for Biological Resources, Av. de Brasília, 1449 - 006 Lisboa

Portugal

5 IMEDEA – CSIC - Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, C/ Miquel Marquès, 2107190

Esporles, Mallorca, Illes Balears, SPAIN.

Foto in front page: from Rui Bernardo, a participant in the volunteer programs and the marine

biodiversity event.

Keywords: Life-Nature, Marine Protected Area, Marine biodiversity, Marine habitat restoration,

Seagrass restoration,

3

Contents

PREFACE.................................................................................................................................4

1.Introduction............................................................................................................................5

2. Main-achievements and After-LIFE conservation needs and prospect................................6

2.1 Habitat characterization .........................................................................................6

2.2 Fisheries trends analysis and landings...................................................................8

2.3 Fisheries monitoring indicators over time.............................................................10

2.4 Fauna and flora monitoring...................................................................................11

2.5 Fish larvae monitoring..........................................................................................13

2.6 Seagrass habitat restoration .................................................................................15

2.7 Marine Park dissemination...................................................................................16

3. Other habitats of concern....................................................................................................18

3.1 Marine Park adjacent areas...................................................................................18

3.2 Coral gardens........................................................................................................18

3.3 Kelp forests...........................................................................................................19

3.4 Seahorses..............................................................................................................19

3.5 Deepreefs.............................................................................................................19

4. Social constraints................................................................................................................20

5. General administrative constraints.................................................................................... 20

6. Financial problems ............................................................................................................22

7. Political problems ..............................................................................................................22

8. SWOT analysis ..................................................................................................................22

4

PREFACE

This text constitutes the last deliverable of the Biomares LIFE project, prepared as to best respond to

the relevant requirements of the EU Commission. It presents a brief project history, provides an

overview of the actions carried out to "project end date", and highlights the main achievements and

key challenges. It also delivers an account of the current situation in the area of concern following the

end of the project and maps future conservation and management needs.

The situation of the natura marine network sites in Portugal is in an embryonic state, with most of the

marine protected areas designated but in urgent need of implementation. The Biomares project was

the first conservation project in this coast and can become an important model for future projects in

the Portuguese MPAs.

For this reason this text should be understood as the result of our perceptions of actual scenarios and

evaluations of future options, opportunities and threats. This project foresees a good project model to

help develop management options for marine protected areas around the world. The tasks depicted

here, their main results and the constraints faced, can provide information as well serve as an

inspiration for other projects in marine protected areas.

5

1. Introduction

The Professor Luiz Saldanha Marine Park, established in 1998, is the first of its kind in continental

Portugal and is included in the list of Natura 2000 proposed sites. The aim of establishing the marine

park was to preserve the high biodiversity of this area, to safeguard its nursery role for many marine

species and consequently to contribute to the sustainability of the local fishing resources.

This marine area is known for its high biodiversity, which is unique in Portugal and throughout

Europe, with over 1320 recorded species of marine flora and fauna, with species with Mediterranean

as well as subtropical and more temperate northern affinities. The species richness and abundance is

also the reason why the area has been an important site for fisheries over the centuries. The high

fishing effort exerted in this area, together with recreational nautical activities has greatly affected this

ecosystem. Previously widely dispersed throughout the shores of Arrábida, seagrass meadows

(Zostera spp.) have been reduced during the second half of the 20th century, mainly due to dredging

for bivalves and anchoring of fishing and recreational boats. Consequently, the disappearance of this

supporting habitat for nursery and refuge is thought to have had a negative impact not only on the

biodiversity but also on the productivity of the area.

Although the main objective of this MPA is the conservation of coastal biodiversity and rocky-shore

habitats, it is also expected that it will contribute to the sustainability of local fisheries (local

fishermen from Sesimbra village are highly dependent upon the coastal marine resources). The need

for regulation of the area usage led to the establishment of the Arrábida Marine Park (PNA) in 1998,

followed in August 2005 by official legislation (Ministers Council Resolution No. 141/2005, 23rd

August 2005) dividing the region into three different protection areas. These three different protection

areas were established to try to harmonize the region‟s biodiversity and its ecological importance with

the important socio-economical activities that take place there. For the commercial fishing, the

restrictions were gradually implemented: in August 2006, two areas with partial protection were

implemented and in August 2007 four more were created. In August 2008, one partial protection area

was upgraded to total protection. The last implementation step occurred in August 2009, with the

enlargement of the previous total protection area that now attains nearly 10% of the total marine park

area.

In 2006, the European Commission approved the LIFE-Biomares project, which targeted a series of

threats faced by habitats 1170 (Reefs) and 1110 (Sand banks, permanently covered with sea water) in

the Marine Park Site Arrábida-Espichel (PTCON0010). The goals of the BIOMARES project were to

invert the current tendency for overexploitation and damage to the marine habitats by replacing

6

damaging boat moorings by environmentally friendly ones, increasing public awareness of the

importance and values of the marine park, and undergoing biodiversity, habitat and fisheries mapping

and monitoring, and to help to develop measures to restore the seagrass meadows of the area.

The actions of the project included scientific monitoring, the implementation of management

measures and awareness and dissemination activities. Grouped under general categories, the most

important actions implemented by the project concerned the following:

- construction of infrastructures essential for the project implementation in the area;

- implementation of an extensive scientific fauna and flora monitoring scheme;

- implementation of friendly moorings;

- development of a seagrass restoration program;

- awareness and dissemination program targeting the wider public and the scientific community.

The implementation of most of the project‟s actions was successfully concluded in June 2011, upon

the official termination of the project. Yet, despite the successful implementation of these actions,

conservation needs for the area are still great, while threats to the sustainability of the area‟s

ecological status are still present. In this context there remains a constant need for the implementation

of management measures in the area.

The Biomares project brought important information for the park management and can be seen as a

best practices show case. Important baseline information for park management was gathered, such as

the updated status of the local fisheries, the habitat mapping with the output of several seafloor maps,

the updated species inventory and its distribution among the different habitats and zoning areas.

Furthermore, the results obtained by the experimental fisheries monitoring task showed that the

marine park zoning has an effect on the species biomass and individuals number, which supports the

current management plan. The awareness and dissemination efforts also brought more acceptance of

the public for the marine park.

2. Main achievements and After-LIFE conservation needs and prospects

2.1 Habitat characterization

2.1.1 Main achievements The main results achieved in this action were the global mapping of the

seabed sediment types and bathymetry distributions and the knowledge of the structural patterns of

subtidal soft bottom macroinvertebrate communities that emphasized and improved the information

of the biodiversity of the marine park. Hence, the Marine Park digital model representing the seabed

morphology and main habitats covering all the marine park area as well as a complementary zone up

7

to the 100m is completed. The surveyed zone located between Cape Espichel and Foz holds distinct

morphology and seabed composition types when compared to the remaining park area. Unlike the rest

of the park, this zone is not influenced by the existence of a shelf break, resulting in a lower depth

range with a maximum value of 45 m and a gentle overall slope. The seabed is mostly rock partially

covered by different algae species (up to 25 m depth), alternating to a lesser extent with sand patches.

From the analysis of the AGDS data collected near-shore in shallow subtidal zones (< 10m depth), it

was concluded that in many sites seabed composition is highly variable and made up of rock outcrops,

sand or pebbles, featuring grounds with a patchiness scale less than the discrimination limits allowed

by the AGDS echosounder footprint. The geographic limits of two contrasting habitats and calling for

special attention were outlined with the help of video footage. The first one, that holds beds of the

large bivalve Atrina pectinata , is located in the eastern side of the park and the second is a rocky area

located in the western side. The latter extends from approximately Ponta do Morro westwards along

nearshore zones up to Ponta da Pombeira, and from there to the Northwest limits of the park it

expands progressively to deeper zones down to 40 metres. The rocky bottom supplies the substrate for

a dense coverage of different species of algae and also of predominantly sessile fauna, such as

Anthozoa. Conversely, in the sandy muds constituting the substrate of 'Atrina beds' a much lower

diversity of epibenthic species was observed; besides A. pectinata, very few other invertebrate and

fish species were seen. These areas are of special importance, deserve further improved protection,

and show the importance of these kinds of survey actions.

The identification of the macrozoobenthos has revealed the biologically extremely rich seafloor of the

region, with 244 taxa identified so far, of which 153 are new records for the marine park (Henriques

et al., 2009). The megazoobenthos taken from the trammel nets is mainly composed of Echinodermata

of which the Asteroidea Astropecten aranciacus, the Holothuroidea Holothuria (Panningothuria)

forskali and the Echinoidea Paracentrotus lividus are the 3 most abundant species, accounting for

59% of the group and nearly 30% of the total number of specimens caught. It is the only group

represented in all sampling sites. Mollusca and Arthropoda are the second and third most abundant

groups respectively, represented in 16 and 13 of the 19 sampling sites. The most abundant Mollusca is

the Polyplacophora Chaetopleura (Chaetopleura) angulata followed by the Gastropoda Cymbium

olla: both make up 66% of the group and almost 20% of the total abundance. The Decapoda Pagurus

prideaux and P. cuanensis and the Isopoda Anilocra physodes are the most abundant Arthropoda

representing 57% of the group but no more than 10% of the total abundance. Other phyla, represented

in less than 20% of the sites are, by order of abundance, Cnidaria, Annelida, Chordata, and Bryozoa

(Henriques et al., 2009).

8

2.1.2 Main difficulties The complex seabed sedimentary structure in some areas and also the high

depth ranges existing in the Marine Park posed great difficulties to the seabed assessment

methodologies using remote means (acoustics) considering the discrimination limits of the

equipments. Due to the abundance and diversity of the biological samples, their processing was slow

and complex.

2.1.3 Recommendations Considering the additional information on benthic habitat that can be

obtained through video cameras, new methodologies should be tested, along with the use of more

powerful acoustic backscattering strength discriminators (multibeam and Side Scan Sonar) which

allow full seabed coverage ensonification. Enough vessel time allocated for field data collection and

new equipments testing is also regarded as fundamental.

2.1.4 Proposal of concrete actions and methodology Use of most recent equipments for remote and

direct data acquisition on seabed physical and biological features for environmental assessment

towards biotope mapping, a very important tool for environmental and fishing management inside the

park.

2.1.5 Actions Schedule Two years for methodology implementation and data acquisition and one

year for data processing.

2.1.6 Degree of priority (1-5) We deem the environmental assessment and mapping of high priority,

in terms of the marine park management and also for the implementation of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive and the Natura 2000 Marine Network in the Portuguese waters (priority 4).

2.1.7 Possible financial support Institutional budgets, national or EU programmes (e.g. LIFE,

ATLANTIC AREA, PROMAR) and public or private institutional stakeholders.

2.1.8 Possible leader partner ICNB; IPIMAR; IH

2.2 Fisheries trends analysis and landings

2.2.1 Main achievements The fishing fleet and fishing activity of vessels licensed to fish inside the

PNA in 2006 and 2007 were characterized and understanding of the fishing activity has been

improved and updated. A questionnaire survey was used to evaluate the fishermen‟s opinions,

perspectives and expectations with regards to the PNA. Landings statistics for 38 most important

species or species groups for 1992-2006 for Sesimbra and Setúbal ports were analyzed for trends. The

results from the analysis of pre-restoration trends in fishing activity and landings show that the

number of boats licensed to fish within the MPA decreased from 112 in 2006 to 89 in 2007. All boats

9

had at least two different gear licenses, and while the smaller, less autonomous aiolas mainly use jigs,

the larger botes use a variety of gears, including jigs, trammel nets, octopus pots and longlines. The

three main gears used are jigs (for cuttlefish, octopus and squid), octopus pots (exclusively for

octopus) and trammel nets (for soles, rays and cuttlefish). Longlines are used by both aiolas and botes

and the combination of hook size, bait, depth, bottom type and season allows a wide variety of species

to be caught. Gillnets are used by relatively few fishermen to catch hake and axillary seabream.

Fishermen had strong opinions about many PNA related issues, with most being familiar with the

regulations and limits of the park. Most landings series showed considerable variability, strong

seasonality, and no trend. When asked about the status of the marine resources, most fishermen agreed

that they were overexploited, with a few emphasizing that they were strongly overexploited and have

been decreasing over the last years. However, when asked about responsibility and who is to blame

for the poor state of the resources, their opinions diverged. Approximately half the questioned

fishermen stated that commercial fisheries were not responsible for the poor resources state, but

almost as many acknowledged that commercial fisheries were indeed having an impact. On the other

hand, all stated that pollution was responsible and having a very significant impact on the actual poor

resource state. With regards to climatic changes, the fishermen‟s opinions diverged but most either

disagreed or did not have an opinion regarding whether or not climate change was having an impact

on the resources or not. On the other hand, fishermen blamed poor legislation and inadequate

surveillance. With regards to sport fishing, their opinion depended on the type of fishing. While most

stated that sport fishing from shore was not having an impact on the resources, most also said that

underwater sport fishing was highly responsible for the poor state of the resources.

2.2.2 Main difficulties The analysis of the trends in landings was hampered by the quality of the

data, with many species grouped together in the landings in generic categories. Official landings

statistics also do not include information on the gear used, the fishing effort or the fishing location.

It was also not possible to obtain adequate time series of explanatory variables such as river runoff,

primary production and indices of pollution for time series analysis.

2.2.3 Recommendations Questionnaire surveys should be carried out again to evaluate and compare

the results with those of the first survey (2007). Information on the fishing fleet licensed to fish in the

PNA should be updated and fishing effort monitored. Landings statistics for the years 2007-present

should be obtained and analyzed in order to evaluate the effect of the PNA.

2.3.4 Concrete actions and methodology

Questionnaire survey – interviews in association with the local Professional Fishermen Association

10

Analysis of data on licenses – data on vessels and licenses obtained from the ICNB

Monitoring of fishing effort (spatial and temporal)

Analysis of official landings data – daily landings by vessel and by species or species groups obtained

from DGP; analysis with linear and time series models

2.3.5 Calendar

Questionnaire survey – to be carried out once over a one month period

Analysis of data on licenses – to be carried out once for all the years since the end of the project

Monitoring of fishing effort – monthly monitoring of fishing effort

Analysis of official landings data - to be carried out once for all the years since the end of the project

2.3.6 Priority (1-5) (priority 4)

2.3.7 Possible sources of financing New Life Project (ECOMARES), FCT project, PROMAR,

INTERREG, ICNB own funding

2.3.8 Possible responsible partner CCMAR; UL; FCHS-UNL

2.3 Fisheries monitoring indicators over time

2.3.1 Main achievements Monitoring was carried out on a seasonal basis with traps (on rocky

inshore areas and sea grass transplants areas) and with trammel nets (on soft bottom at two depth

strata). Overall, a total of 28 481 individuals of 72 species were caught with traps during the 2007-

2010 survey period. Significant differences between the samples obtained in the transplants area and

the ones from the adjacent sandy area, with indications that the community in the transplants area is

evolving in terms of abundance and diversity. A total of 9 146 specimens of 132 species were caught

with the experimental trammel nets in 132 fishing sets. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) in number and

weight were higher in the Partial and Total protection areas, where fishing with nets is not allowed.

The results suggest that despite its recent implementation, several species, including elasmobranches,

are benefiting from the protection measures. The multivariate analysis output from the experimental

fishing task from the three years surveys, shows that the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) trends in

number and weight are higher and increased along the period sampled in the Partial and Total

protection areas, where fishing with nets is not allowed. Results are different between species, but

generally fish species fished with nets are the ones with a stronger signal

11

2.3.2 Main difficulties The main difficulties were associated with bad weather interfering with the

experimental fishing trials, seasonal algal blooms clogging the nets, and some interference with the

sampling gear (traps stolen or nets moved/catches removed).

2.3.3 Recommendations It is essential to continue monitoring on a seasonal basis, especially with the

trammel nets, which are extremely effective and have the additional benefit of being one of the most

important gears used by the commercial fishermen in the area (i.e. are accepted by local fishermen as

being appropriate for monitoring abundance and sizes).

2.3.4 Concrete actions and methodology Trammel net fishing trials in the three protection levels, at

two depth strata: 10-18m (sandy bottom) and 30-45m (muddy bottoms). The methodology should be

identical to the one in the Biomares project, and the same fisherman should preferably be contracted

to carry out the fishing trials. Fishing will take place at same 28 sampling locations in the three

protection levels, as in the Biomares project. At each sampling location, 500m of trammel net will be

fished. Technicians on board will identify and measure each specimen. Catches will be returned live.

Only unidentifiable specimens will be kept and taken to the laboratory.

2.3.5 Calendar Monitoring with trammel nets should be carried out over two week periods in the

autumn and in the spring.

2.3.6 Priority (1-5) 5

2.3.7 Possible sources of financing New Life Project (ECOMARES), FCT projects, FP 7,

PROMAR,

2.3.8 Possible responsible partner CCMAR

2.4 Fauna and flora monitoring

2.4.1 Main achievement The scuba surveys in habitat 1170 recorded 76 fish species, which

confirms the high level of biodiversity in this important biogeographic region. The most

representative species in the surveys were reef associated species belonging to the families Sparidae,

Labridae, Gobiidae and Blenniidae. There was a seasonal pattern in the structure of these fish

assemblages, that seems to be related with the species reproductive and growth patterns. The

establishment of the protective measures in the Marine Park is very recent. Nevertheless, the results

obtained indicate a clear difference between areas with and without fishing, independent of the

seasonal changes. This effect can be noticed both in density and biodiversity assessed from visual

census in Habitat 1170: fish density inside protected areas (both Fully Protected Area (FPA) and

12

Partially Protected Area (PPA) was higher than in the Buffer Area (BA), although having similar

patterns for both commercial and non-commercial species.

Furthermore, the reserve effect was very strong when biomass is considered. In this case, the signal

was clearly stronger for commercial when compared to non-commercial species, indicating that the

conservation measures over the reefs promote a stronger increase in fish size and weight in target

when compared to non-target species. This effect is stronger in the FPA that in the PPA, where, in

turn, fish tend to be bigger and heavier than in BA. The reserve effect was stronger in target species

such as eg the sparids Diplodus sargus and Diplodus vulgaris, that are amongst the most important

commercial species in the area. Diversity indices were very similar between protection status;

nevertheless, species richness was significantly higher within the Fully Protected Area indicating

another benefit of the conservation measures.

Altogether, the monitoring tasks registered 220 new species for the Arrábida coast. This addition

reinforces the importance of this region as a “hot spot” of biodiversity, raising to 1320 the number of

species registered for this coastline. The new records include 37 species of fish, 21 species of

crustaceans, 21 species of bivalves, 76 species of polychaetes, and 4 species of echinoderms. It is

important to note that 11 of the 37 fish species are elasmobranchs. This group includes rays and

sharks, species particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their biological characteristics. These

new species included two classified in the Red List of Threatened Species of the IUCN with the status

of “Vulnerable” and one with the status of “Endangered”. Many other of these species have high

commercial value and reveal declines in abundance, increasing the need of protection.

2.4.2 Main difficulties The methods used require large experience in order to visually identify the

fish in the surveys. The team of technicians changed several times, as it is hard to keep the same team

in a long term monitoring project. This implied several training periods. The lack of a large enough

area of transplanted seagrasses also prevented the before/after comparisons in this habitat.

Nevertheless a baseline characterization of habitat 1110 was carried out. Furthermore, the weather

conditions sometimes prevented the work to be accomplished according to schedule.

2.4.3 Recommendations The results obtained in the Partially Protected Area were closer to those

obtained in the Fully Protected Area than in the Buffer Area. The implementation of the conservation

measures was gradual and only in 2009 all the measures were implemented in the area designated as

Fully Protected; before that, the protection was only partial and as such it is not surprising the

similarity of the results obtained in these two areas. Some stronger trends are already emerging in the

Fully Protected Area, that clearly reflect the early beginning of the benefits of protection. There is a

13

strong need to give continuity to this monitoring effort, in order to evaluate the temporal progress of

these conservation benefits after the definitive establishment of the no-take area and to disentangle the

effect of conservation efforts from natural fluctuations of the populations along time.

2.4.4 Concrete actions and methodology Monitoring should continue in the same sites and

following the same methodology . Only a continuous effort will allow accurate comparisons to keep

the effort of evaluating the reserve effect and the Marine Park effectiveness.

2.4.5 Calendar Ideally a long-term monitoring schedule should be implemented. Fauna and flora

censuses should be carried out seasonally for at least 10 years, with biannual reviews as well as

continuous record of oceanographic parameters that may influence inter-annual and seasonal

differences in the structure of the assemblages.

2.4.6 Priority (1-5) 5

2.4.7 Possible sources of financing New Life Project (ECOMARES), FCT projects, FP 7,

PROMAR, ICNB conservation funds, Business and Biodiversity funds.

2.4.8 Possible responsible partner ISPA

2.5 Fish larvae monitoring

2.5.1 Main achievements Fish larvae belonging to at least 28 species were collected during the

biodiversity surveys. These are from species living in close association with habitat 1170 as adults,

spawning demersal eggs (Blenniidae, Gobiidae, Gobiesocidae, Tripterygiidae and Labridae). Larvae

of commercially important species like sparids (e.g. Boops boops ) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus),

although not so abundant, were also collected very close to the reefs. The sampling in the fully

protected area with both the scooter method and the light traps revealed that a vertical pattern can be

found at a very small spatial scale, variable among species, and that there was an increase in the

average number of larvae in the scooter samples in July 2009 when compared to July 2008 .

Furthermore, for some species larvae occurred within different developmental stages, from larvae

undeveloped and in the pre-flexion stage to pre-settlement larvae, indicating local growth near the reef

habitat. These results agree in general with previous studies conducted in the marine park, indicating

local production of reef fish larvae and increasing evidence of local retention for some species, but not

others. This can influence the spill-over of larvae from the Marine Park or an increased recruitment

with protection and should further be investigated.

14

2.5.2 Main difficulties Sampling larvae over the Habitat 1170 requires very calm weather conditions.

Several times the conditions were not ideal and sampling not always could be performed according to

the planned experimental design. Light trap sampling requires the involvement of several team

members and a strong logistic effort. Several problems arose with the devices during sampling

campaigns, related with the electric systems, that also prevented the sampling to be accomplished as

planned. Furthermore, the sample processing takes time, as it involves a sorting phase and specialized

knowledge to identify larvae to the species level. As the structure of larval fish assemblages can be

extremely variable depending on oceanographic conditions, it is difficult to disentangle the reserve

effect from natural fluctuations without having information on oceanographic factors at the relevant

scale.

2.5.3 Recommendations The efforts of regular sampling of fish larvae in the three protection levels

should continue for long term. Furthermore, the patterns of larval dispersal or retention must be

further investigated, as well as connectivity patterns between local populations and other populations

existent along the Portuguese Coast, in order to evaluate the reserve effect in increased larval

production and the relationship with recruitment patterns.

2.5.4 Concrete actions and methodology Sampling should be conducted with the same methods

(scooter and light traps); the use of artificial substrates should also be implemented on a regular basis,

in order to detect how recruitment patterns vary in relation to larval supply, as well as their spatial

patterns in areas of the marine park with different protection levels. Regular sampling should also be

coupled with a regular monitoring of environmental variables that can affect their temporal and spatial

patterns of occurrence. Small scale current patterns should be investigated with ADCP and continuous

records of temperature should be obtained along the Marine Park by deploying dataloggers

underwater. Connectivity and local recruitment patterns should be investigating preferably by

integrating genetic studies with larval distribution and tagging studies.

2.5.5 Calendar A long-term monitoring schedule should be implemented for at least 10 years, with

more intensive regular sampling during the Spring and Summer period, when most of the species

composing the local fish assemblages reproduce.

2.5.6 Priority (1-5) 4

2.5.7 Possible sources of financing New Life Project (ECOMARES), FCT projects, FP 7,

PROMAR, ICNB conservation funds, Business and Biodiversity funds.

2.5.8 Possible responsible partner CCMAR and ISPA

15

2.6 Seagrass habitat restoration

2.6.1 Main achievement The seagrass restoration task was not successful due to several natural

constraints, mainly the southern storms and intensive herbivory. The fact that the habitat (sediment

and species composition) suffered several changes due to the disappearance of the large meadows that

existed there in the past rendered the restoration of seagrasses very difficult. Nevertheless, three

important achievements related with this task and important to seagrass conservation were achieved:

one of the most important was in raising the consciousness of the precarious state of the seagrass

population in general. The seagrass distribution map of the Portuguese coast and the habitat

conservation assessment performed by the Biomares Project is now being used in several coastal

management plans of the Portuguese government such us the POEM, the MARBIS, the Seahorse

Project in Ria Formosa, the Water Framework Directive monitoring program and the establishment of

the Natura 2000 marine network by the ICNB. Another important result of the seagrass task was the

launching of the seagrass awareness program (“Adopt-a-seagrass-meadow) that was awarded to the

Biomares team by the Oceanário Conservation Funding to continue the awareness work and start a

monitoring program. Furthermore, the First European Seagrass Restoration Workshop organized by

the Biomares Project, that gathered scientists from all over Europe was an important meeting to

discuss the future of seagrass conservation and restoration projects. The main conclusions and

recommendations of this workshop revealed that most seagrass restoration projects in Europe failed,

and that the ones in literature showing success were biased because they had very short monitoring

periods. The main recommendations of this workshop and of Biomares were to reinforce conservation

of the still existing seagrass meadows by ensuring that protection regulations are enforced at the

national and European level. The transplanting operation was performed during four campaigns

(2007- 2010) with a total of 60 weeks of effective transplanting operation. During this time a team of

4 divers were able to plant 1876 planting units, of the three seagrass species native to the region. Plant

survival and growth varied greatly depending on the species, method and location of plantation, but all

plants had a great decrease in the number of shoots over time. Despite some initial success with plant

survival the severe winter storms in 2009/2010, destroyed almost all the restoration plots.

2.6.2 Main difficulties The main difficulties were associated with the prevalence of southern winds

and swell during the winters of 2009 and 2010 because the restoration area is an open ocean

restoration site that is exposed to the southern coast. Following these storm events, all planting units

were greatly affected by sand burial and sand and pebbles shear stress, high water turbidity for almost

4 months, and were covered by debris brought by currents. Grazing by the herbivorous fish Sarpa

salpa was considered to be the second major constraint to the restoration program as there are large

16

schools of this fish in the restoration area. The fish ate most of the planting‟s leaves and although the

growing meristems were left intact for the most part, the plants showed difficulties in growing and

staying alive after 4-6 months. Other constraints during the 4 years restoration effort included algal

blooms, especially of Ulva sp. that creates algae mats. The invader algae Asparagopsis armata grows

directly on the plants as an epiphyte, covering the transplants over the course of a year. This action

was extremely complicated from a logistics point of view and also for the many hours divers have to

stay in the water in low visibility conditions.

2.6.3 Recommendations It is reasonable to believe that continued planting for 4-5 more years might

result in seagrass restoration.

2.6.4 Concrete actions and methodology Zostera marina and Cymodocea nodosa transplants from

Ria Formosa using the sod method. Transplants should be done within one or two days after plant

collection in the sheltered bays where some success occurred before.

2.6.5 Calendar Three campaigns of 1 week each every year in spring and summer

2.6.6 Priority (1-5) 3

2.6.7 Possible sources of financing FCT projects, FP 7, PROMAR, ICNB conservation funds,

Business and Biodiversity funds, scubadiving volunteers.

2.6.8 Possible responsible partner CCMAR

2.7 Marine Park Dissemination

2.7.1 Main achievements Project dissemination started early during 2007, with several seminars and

talks about the Biomares project, targeting both diverse and specific audiences. ICNB organized a

seminar for public presentation of the project and another for the regional and local security forces

(maritime police, park rangers, environmental policy services), to explain the objectives of the

Biomares projects and to obtain support for the Biomares activities and for the park surveillance.

During the 4 years of the project, the Biomares project was presented orally at 40 seminars,

conferences about coastal issues and nature conservation, and talks at associations and schools in

Portugal. Furthermore, the results of specific actions were presented in 3 posters and 22 scientific

meetings, national and international. Thirty media news and articles about the Biomares project were

published in regional and national magazines in Portugal. Ten radio interviews, three of each for

weblogs, the presence in 5 TV programs with explanation of project objectives and activities, show

the public interest in the project. The Biomares project was cited in 60 sites over the internet. The

17

project web number of visits in 2009 was 2889 visits, from 55 countries and 330 different cities.

Since 2007, the “diary” section of the web page was updated with 41 news items of the project

progress. The webpage is also being used as a communication platform for the volunteer program

Salpa, which has approximately 120 volunteers registered for receiving information. Three layman‟s

reports with the project summary for each year can be downloaded from the web page. Ten outdoors

signs advertising the project were posted on site. The project leaflet was produced in three versions

and pins as well as t-shirts, caps, stickers and key laces allusive to the Biomares mascot the seahorse

named “Sebas”, were produced. There are two copies of the project mobile exhibition (institutional

version); one of them has been in exposition at the Museum and has already had 7865 visitors. Two

other copies of the children‟s mobile exhibition have been shown in 53 sites, such as schools, fairs,

public libraries and associations. A documentary in video of 20 minutes of duration about the project

objectives and tasks is available since 2011.

2.7.2 Main difficulties The main difficulties were associated with lack of people to implement the

actions and a dissemination strategy.

2.7.3 Recommendations It is essential to continue dissemination actions in all marine park area and

the development of a communication strategy as well as hiring people specialized in communication,

education and marketing. Actions should target schools in the park area, park users such as winter

tourists, summer beach users, boats users and divers. Furthermore, special meetings should be

promoted with fishermen, boats users associations and diving schools.

A person specialized in education and marketing should be hired to implement this actions.

2.7.4 Concrete actions and methodology Information publishing at different levels, marine park

newsletter, electronic page and Facebook, Press Releases, articles in magazines (fishing and scuba

diving magazines), mobile exhibitions, actions on the beach and on the museum. A strategic

communication plan need to be implemented and the stakeholders involved in the marine park

projects.

2.7.5 Priority (1-5) 5

Possible sources of financing New Life Project (ECOMARES), ICNB conservation funds, Business

and Biodiversity funds.

Possible responsible partner ICNB

18

3. Other habitats of concern

3.1 Marine Park Adjacent Areas Overexploitation of fisheries resources is still a reality in the

Marine Park in spite of recent improvements due to the conservation measures adopted from the

period 2005 to 2009 in the context of the implementation of the Marine Park management plan. The

fisheries exclusion zones are contributing to rebuilt fisheries stocks and maintain healthy ecosystems

but quantitative evidence of the „reserve effect‟ and spillover benefits is still lacking. Moreover,

connectivity and interdependences between the Marine Park and adjacent areas have not been

assessed and are central to devise efficient conservation strategies. It is important to start addressing

these issues from a functional and structural perspective looking at recruitment patterns and processes,

biological indicators, spillover effects, deep reefs biodiversity patterns.

In the marine environment, important and charismatic endangered habitats such as soft coral sponge

gardens, nobel pen shells, kelp forests and seahorse species, are very important from both a

conservation point of view and as model organisms for in-situ demonstration conservation actions.

The pos LIFE conservation efforts should develop concrete conservation actions directed at these

species with the aim of increasing public awareness, providing guidelines on the status of these

habitats and species, and describing the best techniques to improve their conservation status.

The prevalence of exotic and invasive species in the marine environment has become a reality in the

last century. However, detailed assessments of the impacts these invasions have on habitats and

species are still scarce. Future plans should therefore include: i) assess exotic and invasive species

presence throughout the Marine Park (e.g. Sargassum muticum, Asparagopsis armata); ii) evaluate

their potential impacts on species and habitats; and iii) develop demonstration procedures for their

control.

3.2 Coral gardens The gorgonian communities are considered a good indicator of benthic

ecosystem‟s health because of their fragility to physical impacts and lack of commercial value.

Acquiring baseline scientific data of these communities is highly valuable, because it is possible to

determine impacts on the benthic community, permitting to define conservation strategies directed at

these organisms.

Gorgonians are key species in rocky communities because they provide 3D structural complexity of

the habitat that strongly contributes to the biodiversity of the ecosystem. Similar to tropical coral

reefs, temperate shallow coralligenous communities have been under increasing anthropogenic

pressures. The impact of these disturbances needs to be evaluated and monitored throughout the

Marine Park area in order adapt conservation measures and prevent further ecosystem decay.

19

The gorgonian Eunicella verrucosa is an occurring species in the Marine Park´s area and is classified

as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and updated information on its status is

needed (IUCN, 2010). Also, special attention should be given to Paramuricea clavata because it is

considered a Mediterranean species and its presence in Atlantic waters and, more specifically, in the

Marine Park, is rare and little is known about its densities and ecological status.

Managers of the marine protected areas are seriously concerned with the fact that, with the creation of

this marine protected area, although a fundamental tool for the conservation of this marine habitat,

attracted more tourism and associated recreational activities such as diving that can have a

considerable impact on benthic communities.

3.3 Kelp forests Kelp is the common name given to the large brown algae (usually referring to

members of the orders Laminariales and Tilopteridales). Kelp forests are possibly the most

ecologically dynamic and biologically diverse habitats on the planet. These marine forests are the

underwater equivalent of the terrestrial rain forests, with a wide variety of different species

assemblages and ecological linkages. Portuguese kelp communities are poorly studied; but the few,

kelp abundance records and personal observations by Biomares project participants and local SCUBA

divers clearly show that kelp used to occur in several areas of the Marine Park where they are not

present now. Several areas along the Marine Park (Habitat 1170 – Reefs) used to be covered by kelp

forests and now, although kelp forests still exist, they are much less abundant and in some areas they

are totally missing. The causes for this kelp habitat disappearance are not understood but the loss of a

key species, such as kelp, is likely to affect many other species as well, with cascading negative

effects on coastal biodiversity.

3.4 Seahorses Syngnathid species and seahorse in particular are charismatic creatures with a strong

connection to rocky, seaweed and seagrass habitats. Many of these species are endangered and listed

in the IUCN Red List. Habitat loss, overexploitation to the aquarium and traditional medicine

industries and over-collection as souvenirs has caused the collapse of many coastal populations of

seahorses. In the Arrábida Marine Park, seahorses were once abundant but they are now very rare. It is

important to start an evaluation of their population as well as their conservation status.

3.5 Deepreefs During the Biomares project it was discovered deep reefs both inside and outside the

limits of the Marine Park that were not known. Biodiversity associated with these reefs is

outstanding (preliminary sampling has revealed spectacular coral, sponge gardens and nobel pen

shells banks, and many species still in the process of being identified) and these deep coastal reefs

have not been studied in detail in the Atlantic region.Deep reefs are naturally more protected than

20

shallow ones from the negative effects of human practices, and from natural disturbances. These reefs

can therefore provide both a more realistic baseline status description, a source of natural recruits for

the area and for restoration of shallow depths, and are an important demonstration habitat as

outstanding marine biodiversity hotspots.

4. Social constraints There has been strong resistance to the restrictions imposed in the area from the

recreational and commercial boating, recreational rod and line and spear fishing sectors. The

Biomares project could have been more successful in helping the marine park implementation if a task

evaluating the social and economic impact of the park implementation had been carried out. In the

same token, a strategic communication plan should have been implemented and the stakeholders

involved. These two aspects are very important to be taken into consideration in future conservation

projects in the area.

5. General Administrative constraints The European Commission requires the establishment of the

Natura 2000 network in the marine environment of the European Union, a key challenge for EU

biodiversity policy in the coming years. The establishment of a marine network of conservation areas

under Natura 2000 will significantly contribute, not only to the target of halting the loss of

biodiversity in the EU, but also to broader marine conservation and sustainable use objectives (EC

2008).

The project duration was very short and more time is needed to monitor and evaluate the tasks results.

The project needs to develop further information on the effect of the marine park regulation

implementation in the surrounding area and a biodiversity assessment on the marine park boundaries

and beyond.

There are issues pertaining to the sound administration of the newly established Marine Park, the

implementation of critical management and monitoring activities, the monitoring of human-induced

threats and the management of problems emerging from economic activities. Hence, the major

conservation needs are the following:

5. 1 Administrative needs

5.1.1 Maintenance of a core management unit for the coordination of activities in the Marine Park, the

updating of databases, the overall control of human activities, the provision of an interface with other

state services and economic entities;

21

5.1.2 Preparation of an overall management-plan for the Marine Park that encourages the sustainable

development of the area in conjunction with the conservation needs of the habitat, approved by the

local entities with stakeholders participation;

5.1.3 Preparation of specific action plans for major species / ecologic values of concern;

5.1.4 Preparation of action plans for specific economic activities (e.g. scuba diving, fisheries,

recreational boating, beach tourism, canoeing, sailing)

5.1.5 Clear designation of competences between the different involved authorities and establishment

of a coordination mechanism (e.g. among surveillance authorities).

5.2. Core management needs

5.2.1. Continuation of core monitoring activities (fauna and flora monitoring);

5.2.2 Basic wardening/surveillance activities;

5.2.3 Maintenance of friendly moorings along the Marine Park areas;

5.2.4 Implementation of a communication strategy and hiring of personnel for

environmental/communication activities.

5.3 “Advanced” management needs

5.3.1 Undertaking of specific monitoring activities regarding species, threats, and ecologic

parameters;

5.3.2 Development of a holistic ecotourism scheme that will increase environmental friendly activities

in the marine area and surroundings (e.g. snorkelling, sailing and canoeing);

5.3.3 Implementation of measures for the reduction of fisheries dependency on habitat / biodiversity

destructive fishing gear (e.g. gill nets, trammel nets)

5.3.4 Implementation of measures to decrease fisheries by-catch;

5.3.5 Implementation of measures to decrease loss of fishing gear, ghost fishing and marine debris;

5.3.6 Identification, designation and protection of deep reefs and other vulnerable habitats outside the

Marine Park.

22

6. Financial problems The lack of funding for the established management authorities makes their

operation difficult. Planned funding through the Structural Funds need to increase and made effective,

while no other sources of funding have been planned/implemented yet. Relevant legislation provides

that after a few years the management authorities should become financially self-sustainable, a

provision that cannot be achieved unless seed funding for basic conservation activities is guaranteed.

Actual funding possibilities depend on a multitude of political and administrative factors that cannot

be estimated at this point.

7. Political problems The overall status of the present political situation leads to an uncertainty of

support for the park management authorities‟ work and can become a serious obstacle in decision

making on crucial issues within these management authorities.

Within the framework of all the above developments, the current situation regarding the conservation

of protected areas could be seen as highly problematic.

The present situation is also not bright regarding the future prospects for countering these problems.

The government‟s rhetoric with regards the status of protected areas remains very positive, but as

experience demonstrates this rarely materializes in actual policy measures.

Furthermore, all the administrative organization is going through a big change and it will take some to

get reorganized and in full function.

8. SWOT analysis

The swot analysis depicted in annex I is the result of a meeting dedicated to discuss the overall results

of the Biomares project. All project actions coordinators contributed to the analysis.

Annex I, depicts the outline of a basic SWOT analysis, that seeks to describe the situation facing the

Marine Park after the Biomares Project and helps in the comprehension of the conservation options

for the area. The basic results that emerge from this analysis are the following:

The Marine Park, if judged according to Portuguese standards, is a fairly well-managed site. As such,

it preserves a good ecological status and could achieve very positive conservation results in the future.

The Marine Park is one of the “lucky” protected areas and nature sites which had a major conservation

project funded by the European LIFE Program. The strengths identified, which allowed for the

creation of important synergies among the management authorities and entities such as universities,

research institutes and other governmental institutes contributed for improving knowledge of the area

and provided an initial base for the implementation of conservation activities and the coordination of

the various involved actors.

23

Despite the above-mentioned positive comments, the maturity of the project could act against its

prospects for assuring funding. A counterbalance to this weakness could possibly be provided by the

established public image of the project. The lack of a professional Marine Park communication

strategy is seen as one of the major weaknesses. The lack of information on the impact of the

protection regulation on habitats outside the marine park and information on the previous status of the

marine park can act against the full achievement of the objectives.

Among the opportunities that could be exploited for the protection of the site, is the finalization of the

marine NATURA network, the synergies created among stakeholders and collaboration with

researchers working on other MPAs. Hopefully the experience gathered through this project will

smooth the creation path, design and management of other MPAs in Portugal.

On the other hand, the threats posed by the furtive/illegal fishing, the lack of marine park surveillance

and the funding discontinuities for monitoring of the protected areas, feature prominently alongside

possible changing of politics/ discontinuity of political support for MPAs.

Annex I. SWOT analysis

Strengths

Information gathered emphasized importance of the marine park.

Increased knowledge of the biotopes of the marine park and its

vulnerability.

First signs of the reserve effect.

Increased public involvement and awareness of the marine park

existence.

National seagrass status conservation awareness.

Weaknesses

Lack of a professional Marine Park communication strategy.

Lack of social-economic impact evaluation.

Lack of information on the impact of the protection regulation on

adjacent marine habitats/species.

Unable to compare all the factors prior to the creation of the marine

park.

Lack of oceanographic information and water quality at local scale.

Opportunities

Establishing the Marine Park as a pilot/model project.

Baseline information for future monitoring established.

Synergies among stakeholders created.

Involvement of universities and research centers, students and

volunteers in monitoring.

Threats

Furtive/illegal fishing.

Lack of marine park surveillance.

Funding discontinuities for monitoring.

Changing of politics/ discontinuity of political support to MPAs.

Natural catastrophes/increasing of extreme events (floods,warmer

seawater,etc.