securing the benefits of the marine conservation … securing the benefits of the marine...

0

Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network

A report to The Wildlife Trusts

Dr Steve Fletcher, Dr Sian Rees, Sarah Gall, Dr Emma Jackson, Laura Friedrich and Dr Lynda Rodwell

Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research

Plymouth University

1

This report has been compiled by the Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Plymouth University.

Contact details: Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research Plymouth University Reynolds Building Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA Tel: 01752 586177 Web: www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/marcopol Suggested citation for this report: Fletcher, S., Rees, S., Gall, S. Jackson, E., Friedrich, L., and Rodwell L. (2012) Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network. A report to The Wildlife Trusts by the Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Plymouth University.

https://webmail.plymouth.ac.uk/OWA/redir.aspx?C=cLrK3Dijb0yhaNW7lpSFq1FebYIrpc9IZJueZDUQNxPtRsCYzWWZKcPGsuiq9ZPZ6K-L8uUAqJA.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.plymouth.ac.uk%2fresearch%2fmarcopol

2

Contents

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 3

1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6

3 Ecosystem services and human well-being ....................................................... 7

3.1 Marine ecosystem services ................................................................................. 7

3.2 The value of marine ecosystem services ............................................................. 8

3.3 Marine Protected Areas .................................................................................... 15

3.4 Marine Protected Area networks ...................................................................... 15

3.5 Marine Protected Area network benefits ......................................................... 16

4 Methods ........................................................................................................ 18

4.1 National level analysis method ......................................................................... 18

4.2 Case study analysis method .............................................................................. 19

5 National analysis ........................................................................................... 22

6 Case study analysis ........................................................................................ 24

6.1 Holderness Inshore rMCZ .................................................................................. 24

6.2 Torbay rMCZ ...................................................................................................... 40

6.3 Kingmere rMCZ 16 ............................................................................................. 58

6.4 North of Celtic Deep rMCZ ................................................................................ 74

7 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 86

7.1 The benefits available from the MCZ network: national evidence ................... 86

7.2 The benefits available from the MCZ network: case study evidence ............... 88

7.3 The precautionary principle and securing the benefits of the MCZ network ... 91

8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 92

References ............................................................................................................. 94

3

Abbreviations

BSH Broad Scale Habitats CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CDFG California Department of Fish and Game cSAC candidate Special Area of Conservation Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EC European Commission ENG Ecological Network Guidance EU European Union FOCI Features of Conservation Importance HOCI Habitats of Conservation Importance GIS Geographic Information System GVA Gross Value Added IFCA Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority ISCZ Irish Sea Conservation Zones IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUCN-WCPA International Union for Conservation of Nature-World

Commission on Protected Areas JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee MCZ Marine Conservation Zone MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MPA Marine Protected Area NEIFCA North East Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority NERC Natural Environment Research Council NG Net Gain Marine Conservation Zone Project NRC National Research Council OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the marine

Environment of the North-East Atlantic PISCO Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans POST Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology RA Reference Area rMCZ recommended Marine Conservation Zone SAC Special Area of Conservation SEEBF South East England Biodiversity Forum SOCI Species of Conservation Importance SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest TCCT Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation

and Monitoring Centre

4

1 Executive Summary

This report presents an assessment of the benefits available from the designation of a network of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). The assessment was conducted using two methods: 1) A national level analysis of the provision of beneficial ecosystem processes and beneficial ecosystem services available from the entire recommended MCZ (rMCZ) network; and 2) A detailed analysis of four case study rMCZ sites to identify changes to the provision of beneficial ecosystem processes and beneficial ecosystem services under do nothing, recover, maintain, and improve management scenarios. The four case study rMCZs were: Torbay, Holderness Inshore, Kingmere, and North of Celtic Deep.

The national level analysis found that beneficial ecosystem services were not uniformly distributed throughout the network. Ecosystem services found to be prevalent in a high number of rMCZs were focused upon food security, resilience against environmental challenges and pollution, and more indirect benefits of a spiritual and educational nature. In contrast, low incidence beneficial ecosystem services, which were rare across the rMCZ network, included nature watching and the generation of aesthetic benefits. These services were either genuinely rare and therefore require careful management, or their association with a particular marine feature may be under-reported due to a lack of evidence.

The analysis of the four case studies chosen to represent each regional project and a range of marine features found that in each case study, the ‘do nothing’ management scenario in which the existing management approach was unchanged, resulted in a predicted reduction in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services. In contrast, under all three scenarios of MCZ designation, there was a predicted general improvement in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services, albeit with some temporary, short term disadvantages for commercial fishing interests.

The beneficial ecosystem services for which an economic value could most commonly be determined were fisheries (commercial and recreational), recreation, and nature watching. There was a notable lack of data related to other beneficial ecosystem services, for which data could have been collected by the regional projects, but was not. Through discussion with local stakeholders, additional information on beneficial ecosystem service delivery and associated economic value was sought through this project. The value of the beneficial ecosystem services for which data was available is expected to decrease in the absence of MCZ designation and increase with MCZ designation.

Overall, the evidence presented in this report suggests that there are considerable wider benefits associated with the designation of an MCZ network and that these benefits are likely to be more secure and substantial if they exist within a network, rather than in a small number of unconnected MPAs.

5

The main conclusions of the report were:

MCZ designation is likely to result in an improvement in the beneficial ecosystem services available at MCZ sites. In all four case studies and under all MCZ designation management scenarios, it was predicted that there would be potential additional benefits associated with the delivery of ecosystem services. The only exception was certain commercial fisheries which could potentially experience initial short term disadvantage followed by longer term benefit.

Assuming that the benefits of MCZ designation predicted at the four case study sites are replicable across all rMCZ sites, it is anticipated that the benefits arising from the designation of a substantial MCZ network would be significant. These financial and non-financial benefits would be generated from arresting the likely decline in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services (resulting from non-designation) and through providing the opportunity to enhance the benefits currently available from rMCZ sites. These benefits would be achieved through the imposition of management measures that support beneficial ecosystem processes and the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services.

The ecological connectivity of the network is likely to have an instrumental role in supporting the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services and their associated socio-economic value at various scales. Benefits may be experienced both within and outside an individual MCZ due to connectivity with the wider marine environment, not only other MCZs. The designation of a network is therefore more likely to secure the current and future benefits available from MCZs than would a small number of isolated sites. A precautionary approach to securing the actual and potential benefits available from an MCZ network would be to maximise potential connectivity through the designation of an extensive network.

Each of the four case study sites was found to provide beneficial ecosystem processes and services that contributed to broader scale policy issues, including those related to biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, climate change, pollution control, and protection of important cultural heritage. It is therefore likely that a network would make a significant contribution to the wider ecological well-being of the English and European marine environment and to international priorities and policy commitments.

MCZ non-designation is anticipated to result in a deterioration of the beneficial ecosystem services at available MCZ sites. This may also impact the delivery of ecosystem services at wider scales. In the absence of MCZ designation, all four case study sites demonstrated that they were likely to experience a reduction in beneficial ecosystem service availability and a likely reduction in the financial values associated with those beneficial ecosystem services.

6

2 Introduction

The UK is committed to substantially completing an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) as part of a broad-based approach to nature conservation (HM Government, 2011). The designation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) which were introduced under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, is intended to contribute significantly to this aim (HM Government, 2009). MCZs will form an important part of a UK-wide network of MPAs, together with European Marine Sites, Highly Protected MCZs in Wales, Nature Conservation MPAs in Scotland and potential MPAs currently being discussed as part of Northern Ireland’s marine conservation legislation.

Four Regional Projects were established in 2009 under the guidance of Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to identify and recommend the location of MCZs and associated Reference Areas for England. The stakeholder-led processes used by the Regional Projects were guided by the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) which set out guidelines on the underlying principles and the ecological and practical considerations for the design of the MCZ network (Natural England-JNCC, 2010). The four Regional Projects presented their recommendations for a total of 127 MCZs and Reference Areas in September 2011. Natural England and the JNCC prepared an Impact Assessment of the potential economic, environmental and social implications of the proposed MCZ network (Natural England-JNCC, 2011). The impact assessment and a public consultation on the recommended MCZs (rMCZ) in winter 2012/13 will inform the designation of sites by Government in 2013 and beyond.

This report will contribute to that debate by assessing the benefits that may be available from the designation of a network of MCZs. The report presents two main analyses:

1. A national level analysis of the provision of beneficial ecosystem processes and beneficial ecosystem services across the rMCZ network, and

2. Four in depth case studies that demonstrate some of the contributions of

individual sites to the provision of beneficial ecosystem processes and beneficial ecosystem services, subject to a range of proposed management measures, at both a local and network scale.

The report was commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts and was undertaken by the Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Plymouth University.

7

3 Ecosystem services and human well-being

3.1 Marine ecosystem services

Marine ecosystems provide a wide range of resources and services that contribute to human well-being and life on Earth (UNEP, 2006). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) established the concept of ecosystem services on the global agenda as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA, 2005). While ecosystem services continue to be defined in a variety of ways (Costanza et al. 1997; Defra 2007; Balmford et al., 2008), the common theme of all definitions is the translation of ecosystem functions and processes into direct or indirect benefits for human well-being (Potschin & Haines-Young, 2011).

The MEA identified four categories of ecosystem services: Provisioning services that supply material resources; Regulating services that control ecological systems; Cultural services that provide non-material aesthetic, spiritual and recreational benefits; and Supporting services that provide the basic ecological functions and structures that underpin all other services such as primary production, biodiversity, oxygen production, soil formation and nutrient cycling (MEA, 2005). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project builds upon the MEA classification, distinguishing between the core ecosystem processes that support beneficial ecosystem processes which in turn deliver beneficial ecosystem services in the form of material or non-material benefits for human well-being (Figure 1) (Balmford et al., 2008).

Figure 1: The links from ecosystems to human well -being (adapted from Balmford et al. , 2008; TEEB, 2010 and Fletcher et al. , 2012).

8

The biophysical structures and processes provide the prerequisites for ecosystem functions which in turn have the potential to deliver services that contribute to human well-being and as such have a value to humans. Nutrient cycling (process), for example, is a prerequisite for water purification (function) to provide freshwater (provisioning service) which is essential for human health (benefit) (TEEB, 2010). Willingness to pay for freshwater ascribes a value to the ecosystem services.

The direct and indirect benefits that result from ecosystem services constitute the fundamentals of human well-being, i.e. food, raw materials, energy, property, physical health, psychological and social well-being, and knowledge (MEA, 2005; Balmford et al., 2008). Marine ecosystems, in particular, deliver a range of essential, social and economic benefits (MEA, 2005; Beaumont et al., 2006; UNEP, 2006). For example, the fishing industry, coastal tourism and exploitation of marine resources secure employment and livelihoods far beyond coastal communities. Coastal ecosystems enhance the safety of coastal settlements (UNEP, 2006). The marine environment is beneficial to physical health and mental well-being, providing nutrition as well as opportunities for recreation, exercise and relaxation (UNEP, 2006; Blue Gym, 2012). Moreover, the ocean and seas host a wealth of cultural traditions and spiritual values as well as being a source of information for intellectual and technological development (UNEP, 2006; Pike et al., 2010).

3.2 The value of marine ecosystem services

Valuation in monetary terms can give an approximation of what marine ecosystem services are worth for human well-being (World Bank, 2008; Pike et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010) although “the real value is almost certainly much larger” (Costanza et al., 1997). Nonetheless, there are a number of economic valuation methods that can provide important information for decisions with regard to the marine environment and that are being applied to various marine ecosystem services. In 2008 the World Bank estimated that the total annual value of all marine ecosystem services for which a market exists amount to over $20 trillion (World Bank, 2008). Table 1 demonstrates the economic value of individual beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes from UK and international examples. Values for the beneficial ecosystem services are expressed as either ‘turnover’, which represents the income that is generated by an industry in relation to the ecosystem service, and/or ‘Gross Value Added’ (GVA), which is the metric used by the UK Office for National Statistics to measure the contribution of any given sector or region to the UK economy, not including taxation or subsidies and/or the direct ‘market’ valuation (e.g. the price of the product). Values for the beneficial ecosystem processes are calculated with a number of techniques that have been developed for the purpose of valuing the environment. The avoidance cost, replacement cost, and substitute cost methods are related methods that estimate values of ecosystem services based on either the costs of avoiding damages due to lost services, the cost of replacing ecosystem services, or the cost of providing substitute services.

Table 1 demonstrates firstly that many ecosystem services are indeed economically significant and secondly that many of beneficial ecosystem services and processes

9

have not been valued economically. This lack of a valuation is due to either a gap in applied research in a specific valuation technique or simply due to the fact that we do not fully understand the role of marine biodiversity in delivering these services and therefore the underpinning scientific understanding of marine systems and functions is missing. It is recognised that the value of ecosystem services is broader than simply providing a monetary valuation and that the development of both environmental and ecological economics can be seen as a ‘commitment among natural and social sciences and practitioners to develop a new, pluralistic understanding of the way in which different living systems interact with one another, and to draw lessons from this for both analysis and policy’ (Costanza et al., 1999). Such economic valuations, as demonstrated in this report, are important to aid decision making and to maintain the importance of ecosystem services and human well-being in policy. However there are many other types of ‘value’ associated with human well-being, for example, spiritual connections with the marine environment that are less amenable to a meaningful economic valuation.

10

Table 1: Economic values associated with of beneficial ecosystem processes and services at a UK and international level.

Marine Ecosystem Service Values

Definition* UK International

Beneficial Ecosystem Processes Primary Production Production of plant

biomass No economic valuation data available No economic valuation data available

Secondary Production Production of animal biomass

No economic valuation data available No economic valuation data available

Larval/Gamete Supply Transport of larvae and gametes


Food Web Dynamics Interaction between species related to food consumption


Formation of Species Habitat

Formation of physical properties of habitats necessary for species survival


Species Diversification Production of genetic diversity across species


Waste Assimilation Removal of contaminants from the ecosystem (incl. biological processes, e.g. decomposition, bioaccumulation)

£364m GVA 2005 waste breakdown and detoxification1

US$2.3tr yr-1 waste treatment, aggregate values from various methods2

Erosion Control Control of processes leading to erosion

No economic valuation data available (see values associated with Formation of Physical Barriers)

No economic valuation data available

Biogeochemical Cycling Modification of matter through biogeochemical processes

£800-2320bn cost of treating UK waters once, replacement cost1,3

US$17tr yr-1 nutrient cycling, aggregate values from various methods2

11


Definition* UK International Climate Regulation Modulation of

regional/local climate, e.g. temperature, precipitation

£0.4-8.47bn yr-1 2002 values, avoidance cost1,3

£6.74bn yr-1 marine C-sequestration 2004 value, avoidance cost1

US$1.3tr yr-1 gas regulation, aggregate values from various methods2

Formation of Physical Barriers

Formation of structures that attenuate the energy of/block water or wind flow

£0.3bn per year in addition to 17-32 billion capital costs, avoidance cost3 (also includes erosion control)


Genetic Diversification Production of genetic diversity within species


Biological Control Inter- and intra-specific interactions resulting in reduced abundance of pests, diseases or invasive species


Water Purification (Quality)

Removal of contaminants from water flowing through an ecosystem (incl. physical processes, e.g. filtration, or biological processes, e.g. decomposition, assimilation)

£1,245m yr-1 water quality improvement coastal wetlands 2010 prices1


Formation of Pleasant Scenery

Formation of attractive seascapes


Air Quality Regulation Removal of contaminants from air flowing through an ecosystem (incl. physical processes, e.g. filtration, or biological processes, e.g. decomposition, assimilation)5


12


Definition* UK International Water Cycling (Regulation)

Regulation of the timing of water flow through an ecosystem, e.g. flood defence


Beneficial Ecosystem Services Fisheries Marine capture fisheries5

£645m turnover 20071,4

£204m GVA 20071,4

£2,567m turnover 2007 fish processing 1,4

£385m GVA 2007 fish processing1,4

US$84.9bn yr-1 global est. first sale value5

€20bn market value 1998 EU commercial landings 5

Other Wild Harvesting E.g. commercial exploitation of rocky shore species, incl. kelp, seaweed**, edible crabs, mussels and winkles

£95m yr-1 2010 market value marine biotic raw materials1

$6bn yr-1 international seaweed** industry, valuation unknown1

Aquaculture Farming and cultivation of fish and shellfish1

£350m turnover 20071,4 £193m GVA 20071,4

£105m GVA 2007 fish processing1,4


Fertiliser/Feed (Bait) E.g. ragworms, lugworms, peeler crab4; seaweed**

£25-90m yr-1 est. market value bait4

£89.41m turnover 2008 fertiliser/feed1 £270,000-450,000 est. gross income 1994 seaweed**3

$6bn yr-1 international seaweed** industry, valuation unknown1

Natural Hazard Protection

Avoidance or mitigation of the effects of natural hazards, incl. storms, hurricanes, floods5

£1.5bn yr-1 total value*** storm buffering and flood control (meta-analysis)1

£300m 2004 value, avoidance cost3

US$1.8tr yr-1 disturbance regulation, aggregate values from various methods2

US$55-1,100 per ha yr-1 est. value reef protective services Southeast Asia6

Regulation of Pollution Storage, dilution, transformation or burial of pollutants3


13


Definition* UK International Environmental Resilience Capacity to absorb

recurrent perturbations and continue to regenerate without degradation or change of state3


Nature Watching E.g. bird watching £3.5m yr-1 income birdwatching5

£36m income 1996 seal watching4

£1.8m expenditure 2008 whale watching1


Sport/Recreation Refreshment and stimulation of mind and body through the perusal and engagement with marine organisms in their natural environment3

£2.74bn turnover marine leisure sector between 1998 and 20071,4

£1.29bn GVA marine leisure sector between 1998 and 20071,4

£4.8bn est. tourism income 2005 coastal towns4

£2.26bn GVA 2005 coastal towns4

€25bn yr-1 est. expenditure EU sea angling6

$1.2bn yr-1 global revenue scuba divers5

US$184 visit-1 global est. value reef recreation (meta-analysis)6

Medicines Wild medicinal plants and species, cultivated medicines, synthetic medicines copied from/inspired by natural products5

No economic valuation data available $60-80bn yr-1 est. global trade medicinal and aromatic plants5 US$75-150bn US turnover 1997 drugs from genetic resources6

Research and Education Marine organisms providing stimulus for cognitive development3

£478m GVA 2006 education, research and development1

£67m marine research funding 2006/071

£76m GVA income 2006-08 key research4

£132m est. turnover 2008 related to education1,4

£95m GVA 2008 related to education1,4


Tourism

Travel for personal or professional purposes#

£2.26bn GVA accommodation and food in coastal towns 20054

€740bn tourism receipts (expenditures by international inbound visitors)7

Spiritual/Cultural Wellbeing

E.g. sense of wonder from nature5


14


Definition* UK International Aesthetic Benefits E.g. pleasure to watch a

beautiful seacape5 No economic valuation data available No economic valuation data available

Salt Extraction of sea salt4 £4m est. turnover 2008 for sea salt extraction industry4


Ornamental Materials E.g. shells, jewellery No economic valuation data available No economic valuation data available

Biofuels Gaining energy e.g. from algae*


Aquaria Institutions exhibiting aquatic animals and plants##


* Definitions of Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Services from Fletcher et al. (2012), unless otherwise stated 1 UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011

2 Costanza et al., 1997, about 63% of the estimated value is from marine systems

3 Beaumont et al., 2006

4 Defra, 2010

5 Balmford et al., 2008

6 TEEB, 2008

7 World Tourism Organization, 2012

X = no economic valuation data available

** Seaweed can be classified both as 'wild harvesting' and 'fertiliser'

*** Total value of service assuming it is present in all UK coastal wetlands # adapted from the definition of the World Tourism Organization

## own definition

15

3.3 Marine Protected Areas

The ability of marine ecosystems to provide services for human well-being depends on the health and functionality of its physical and biological components. Yet research is showing that ecosystem degradation, loss of marine species and populations are critically impairing the ability of marine ecosystems to secure human well-being (Chapin III et al., 2000; Hooper et al., 2005; MEA, 2005; UNEP, 2006; Worm et al., 2006; Halpern et al., 2008). MPAs are an important tool for the maintenance of marine ecosystem functionality and health through protecting the integrity of marine ecosystems through the conservation of significant species, habitats, or entire ecosystems (Sobel & Dahlgreen, 2004). There is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the wider benefits of MPAs. A study of the Lundy Island Marine Nature Reserve, UK, revealed considerable potential for recreational benefits (Chae et al., 2012) as did research into the recreation values associated with the 2008 closure of rocky reef habitat in Lyme Bay, UK, to mobile gear (Rees et al., 2010). MPAs in England and Wales have been shown to enhance a range of social values including emotional connection with nature, place attachment, a sense of freedom, community involvement, and research and education (Pike et al., 2010). The use of MPAs as a fisheries management tool has also been shown to support fish population recovery and the generation of beneficial ‘spill-over’ effects for adjacent fisheries (Goñi et al., 2008; Harrison et al., 2012).

3.4 Marine Protected Area networks

Given the high level of functional and spatial connectivity within marine ecosystems (NRC, 2001; Ward et al., 2002; Agardy et al., 2003; Carr et al., 2003) individual MPAs may be not be adequate to safeguard important ecosystem processes and the services they underpin (Defra, 2007). In recognition of this, international and regional agreements have been established that require the establishment of ecologically coherent MPA networks (EC, 1992; UN, 2002; OSPAR, 2003; CBD, 2004; EC, 2008). An MPA network is “a collection of individual MPAs or reserves operating cooperatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales, and with a range of protection levels that are designed to meet objectives that a single reserve cannot achieve” (IUCN-WCPA, 2008). As a result of considerable debate (e.g. White et al., 2005; PISCO, 2007; IUCN-WCPA, 2008; UNEP-WCMC, 2008; McLeod et al., 2009; Gleason et al., 2010), there is a broad consensus that MPA networks should have the following qualities:

Networks should include a number of MPAs of different sizes that cover components of one or more important habitats and are interconnected by the movement of species between individual sites (PISCO, 2007).

MPAs within a network must be appropriately placed, sized and spaced to function collectively and strengthen resilience of ecosystem functions and processes (IUCN-WCPA, 2008; McLeod et al., 2009).

16

The sites should be linked at biological as well as administrative levels, including a consistent approach to design, finance, management and monitoring; no-take areas are considered an important component of MPA networks (IUCN-WCPA, 2008).

3.5 Marine Protected Area network benefits

The evidence that MPA networks provide significantly greater benefits for marine conservation and ecosystem resilience than single MPAs is strong (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). MPA network benefits include:

Biodiversity. MPA networks are better able to provide protection for marine species, habitats and genetic diversity than individual sites through (for example) protecting vulnerable species over their entire natural range and incorporating rare fragmented habitats into a single managed system (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). The spatial and functional connectivity inherent to MPA networks is thought to increase ecosystem resilience and contribute to biodiversity conservation more effectively than individual MPAs (IUCN-WCPA, 2008).

Ecosystem functionality. Networks support the maintenance of ecosystem functionality by encompassing all relevant temporal and spatial scales of ecological systems (IUCN-WCPA, 2008). The spatial links and connectivity integral to the network approach (White et al., 2005) ensure the protection of ecological processes essential for ecosystem functioning as well as large scale processes that promote ecosystem based management (IUCN-WCPA, 2008). Networks on the central coast of California (CDFG, 2005), the California Channel Islands and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Araime et al., 2003; Fernandes et al., 2005) have been shown to facilitate the connectivity between individual MPAs (Guarderas et al., 2008).

Resilience. Networks are more likely to increase resilience of ecosystems than individual MPAs by covering a wide range of ecosystem processes and biodiversity, spreading the risk of disturbance and facilitating recovery through replication of features and connectivity (NRC, 2000; Fernandes et al., 2005; Salm et al., 2006; Green et al., 2007). This is particularly relevant in view of increasing disturbances expected with climate change (IUCN-WCPA, 2008; McLeod et al., 2009), but also provides insurance against localised disasters or management failures (NRC, 2000).

Climate change. In the face of shifting species movements and distributions as well as increasing pressures on the marine environment, MPA networks can improve resilience of marine species and ecosystems to climate change. Networks can cover all habitat types, biologically and ecologically critical areas, allow replication and spreading of protected features across geographical locations and temperature regimes, facilitate species movement across whole ecological units and maintain overall ecosystem functionality (UNEP-WCMC, 2008; McLeod et al., 2009).

17

Migratory species. Networks offer better protection for migratory species, creating conservation corridors (Notarbartolo di Sciara, 2007) and protecting important habitat areas (UNEP-WCMC 2008; McLeod et al., 2009).

Marine resources. Key marine resource uses such as fisheries, tourism, research and education take place at a broad spatial scale. Thus, a network potentially enhances the benefits available to these activities (White et al., 2005; IUCN-WCPA, 2008; UNEP-WCMC, 2008). There are also potential future uses of marine resources that may be foreclosed if a sufficiently broad range of habitats and species is not conserved.

Socio-economic effects. Apart from enhancing the benefits of ecosystem services from individual MPAs, networks can also have social benefits by facilitating learning, information exchange and coordination of administration and resources between sites (White et al., 2005; UNEP-WCMC, 2008). Networks can facilitate the resolution and management of conflicts as well as promoting efficiency in the use of marine resources (IUCN-WCPA, 2008). They can reduce the socio-economic impacts of designating MPAs without compromising conservation and fishery benefits by spreading the restrictions between sites (PISCO, 2007). Networks enable the incorporation of socio-economic connections between MPAs, promote inter-sectoral cooperation and provide a common goal for all stakeholders (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). A network of MPAs in West Hawaii established in 1999 to protect reef fish from overexploitation proved successful in improving the socioeconomic status of local aquarium fishermen (IUCN, 2009; Rice, 2010).).

In summary, MPA networks have the potential to magnify the benefits of individual sites and to increase the overall benefits for ecosystem protection, fisheries management, research and education, and other resource uses compared to an unconnected collection of MPAs (White et al., 2005; PISCO, 2007; IUCN-WCPA, 2008; UNEP-WCMC, 2008). As noted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature – World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA, 2008) “Networks of MPAs, when well-planned, can add up to more than the sum of their individual MPA parts”.

18

4 Methods

Two phases of research were used to undertake an analysis of the potential benefits available from the MCZ network. The first phase was a national level analysis to determine the distribution of ecosystem services within rMCZ sites. This drew heavily upon existing evidence for the existence of ecosystem services associated with specific habitats and species. The second phase was the detailed investigation of four rMCZ sites to undertake, through the combination of new data collection and the use of existing sources, a more detailed analysis of the connection between ENG features and marine ecosystem services. Where possible, in the case study analysis, financial values were identified for specific ecosystem services.

4.1 National level analysis method

An up to date matrix of MCZs and RAs and the corresponding presence within the MCZs of Broad Scale Habitats (BSH), Habitats of Conservation Importance (HOCI) and the Species of Conservation importance (SOCI) was downloaded from the Natural England website (www.naturalengland.org.uk). This matrix shows all BSH, HOCI and SOCI present in an rMCZ. For the purpose of this only ENG features present within the MCZ have been included as these are the features that justified the recommended MCZ designation. All rMCZs and RAs were included in the analysis, although care was taken to avoid double counting errors in situations where rMCZs and RAs are co-located.

To link the ecological features within the recommended network of MCZs with the potential delivery of beneficial ecosystem processes and beneficial ecosystem services the Natural England report “Description of the ecosystem services provided by broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance that are likely to be protected by Marine Protected Areas in the Marine Conservation Zone Project area” (Fletcher et al., 2012) was used as the evidence base. Where the evidence (including all peer reviewed, grey literature, expert opinion and assumed beneficial service sources) from Fletcher et al. (2012) supported the link between a BSH, a HOCI or a SOCI and a beneficial ecosystem process and/or a beneficial ecosystem service then a corresponding ‘point’ was awarded to that feature within the rMCZ. Therefore, for the rMCZ network and each rMCZ it was possible to create a table showing the number of times that each beneficial ecosystem process and beneficial ecosystem service is supported by an evidence-based link to those BSH, HOCI or SOCI (e.g. Table 2). This process was repeated for each rMCZ and independent RA recommended to the UK Government for MCZ status in 2011 by the Regional Projects.

19

Table 2: The links between the BSH, HOCI and SOCI at a fictional rMCZ site.

Feature/Site Low energy intertidal rock

Subtidal coarse sediment

Blue Mussel beds

Estuarine rocky habitats

Native Oyster Ostrea edulis beds

Seagrass beds

Sheltered muddy gravels

Alkmaria romijni TOTAL

for MCZ

rMCZ

Ben

e

fici

al

Eco

s

yste m

Pro

c

esse

s Primary production

1 1

1

3

Secondary production

1 1 1

3

Larval/Gamete supply

1

1

2

Biological control

1

1

Food web dynamics

1 1 1

1 1 1

6

Ben

efic

ial E

cosy

stem

Ser

vice

s Fisheries

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7

Other wild harvesting

1

1

2

Aquaculture

1

1

2

Nature watching

0

Aquaria

0

Research and Education

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

A represents a feature for which the rMCZ has been recommended for designation. A indicates that the feature is present within the MCZ but not included for designation.

To determine the occurrence of each beneficial ecosystem process and beneficial ecosystem service across the network, the results from each rMCZ were combined. The occurrence of each beneficial ecosystem process or beneficial ecosystem service across the network was defined as either ‘high’ (delivered across the network), ‘medium’ (delivery linked to specific features/sites) or ‘low’ (delivery limited to specific features /sites or no supporting evidence). Categories were determined using Jenks optimisation method which classifies natural breaks in the data by reducing variance within groups but maximising variance between groups.

4.2 Case study analysis method

Four case study sites were chosen for more detailed analysis of the benefits available from the rMCZ network. One site was chosen from each Regional Project area, including two sites adjacent to the coast, and two sites separate from the coast. The sites selected are presented in Figure 2, and listed below:

Holderness Inshore (Net Gain)

Torbay (Finding Sanctuary)

Kingmere (Balanced Seas)

North East of Celtic Deep (Irish Sea Conservation Zones)

20

Figure 2: Map showing the network of proposed MCZs and RAs. The arrows point to the four case study sites which are marked in red.

For each case study site, the following process was undertaken:

1. The ENG features present within each MCZ were identified from the Regional Project reports and were then modelled to show the links between the ENG features, beneficial ecosystem services and processes, and the activities taking place within the rMCZ area. The development of these models followed the ‘ecosystem cascade’ theory developed by Haines-Young & Potschin (2007) where the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem function and human well-being is described in a simple linear framework. The complex concepts of ecosystem processes, functions and benefits act as prompts by which the complexities of ecosystem functioning linked to services and human well-being can be visualised to help understand complex relationships (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2007). The evidence review by Fletcher et al. (2012) was used as the basis to model the links between ENG features and the core ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and beneficial ecosystem services for each rMCZ.

2. A literature search, including both peer-reviewed and grey sources, was undertaken to identify the wider ecological importance of the site.

3. A literature search, including both peer-reviewed and grey sources, was undertaken in combination with communication with site-specific stakeholders, to determine

21

the financial value of beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes at each case study site.

4. A focus group was conducted with a range of local stakeholders to ‘ground truth’ our analysis of the activities taking place at each rMCZ case study site, to identify additional activities not found through other methods, and to determine additional financial valuations of ecosystem services where possible.

5. Using the evidence from stages 1-4, the implications for ecosystem service provision at each site were determined for four management scenarios. Scenario ‘a’ presents a situation in which no MCZ is designated and existing pressures and uses at the site are maintained. Scenarios ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’ represent the designation of an MCZ with a variety of management goals. The four management scenarios were applied to each site were:

a. Do nothing – in which the current management regime is maintained at the site and existing pressures and uses are assumed to continue.

b. Recover – in which damaging activities will be restricted or removed to

enable the recovery of ENG features to favourable condition.

c. Maintain – in which management measures will be used to prevent any deterioration of designated ENG features from favourable condition.

d. Improve - Although this is not a current management objective

discussed by the Regional Projects, this management scenario has been included to provide discussion on how improvement in the condition or extent of the ENG feature may have implications for the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes..

22

5 National analysis

The delivery of beneficial ecosystem processes and beneficial ecosystem services are facilitated by the ecological features (BSH, HOCI and SOCI) which constitute the network of MCZs recommended to UK Government. The extent to which individual beneficial ecosystem processes and services are supported by the network and the variety of sites and ecological features is shown in Table 3. The scale of high, medium and low was calculated using Jenks optimisation method which classifies natural breaks in the data by reducing variance within groups but maximising variance between groups.

Table 3: The scale at which beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes are delivered by ENG features across the recommended network.

Delivered across the network (high) 79-127 sites

Delivery linked to specific features/sites (medium) 27-78 sites

Delivery limited to specific features /sites or no supporting evidence 0-26 sites (low)

Beneficial ecosystem processes Food web dynamics Species diversification Formation of species habitat Biogeochemical cycling Primary production Secondary production Larval/Gamete supply Waste assimilation Climate regulation

Beneficial ecosystem processes Formation of physical barriers Water purification (quality) Genetic diversification

Beneficial ecosystem processes Erosion control Biological control (limited by a lack of data) Water cycling (limited by a lack of data) Water quality regulation (no supporting evidence) Formation of pleasant scenery (no supporting evidence)

Beneficial ecosystem services Spiritual/cultural well-being Research and Education Fisheries Environmental Resilience Regulation of pollution Other wild harvesting

Beneficial ecosystem services Natural hazard protection Recreation / Sport Aquaculture Tourism Medicines

Beneficial ecosystem services Nature watching Fertiliser / Feed Aquaria Ornamental materials Salt (no supporting evidence) Aesthetic benefits (no supporting evidence) Biofuels (no supporting evidence)

The results shown in Table 3 suggest that there is a non-uniform distribution of

ecosystem processes and services amongst rMCZ sites. With respect to beneficial

ecosystem services particularly, there is a clear pattern that certain services (such as

fisheries and environmental resilience) exist in most rMCZs within the network. Other

services (such as recreation and tourism) are found in a medium number of rMCZs and

23

some services (such as nature watching) are restricted to relatively few, predominantly

inshore rMCZs in the network. As a consequence of limited evidence for the existence

of certain beneficial ecosystem processes and services (highlighted in Table 3) there

may be under-reporting of some processes and services in this analysis. In particular,

the limited evidence for the existence of some beneficial ecosystem processes and

services creates difficulties in distinguishing between those process and services that

are genuinely rare across the rMCZ network and those for which there is limited or no

evidence. As a consequence, the results presented in Table 3 can be assumed to be

the minimum suite of beneficial ecosystem processes and services provided by the

rMCZ network.

24

6 Case study analysis

6.1 Holderness Inshore rMCZ

The Holderness Inshore rMCZ is located off the coast of East Yorkshire. The area is famous for its long stretches of beaches and is dotted with the traditional seaside resorts of Withernsea and Hornsea. The dynamic spit of land at Spurn Point is located at the southern end of the rMCZ and extends 3.5 miles out to sea into the Humber Estuary. Spurn Point is recognised for its unique ecology and wildlife and is a designated National Nature Reserve, Heritage Coast and part of the Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Special Protection Area. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust owns and manages the site, which sees an excess of 70,000 people visiting each year, with the main attraction being the bird life and unique landscape. Species protected under the EU Birds Directive such as the Little Tern Sterna albifrons, European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, and Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo use the site and it is also known to be important for migrating birds, such as Goldfinch and Redwing.

Angling is a popular activity in the area; with two major fishing competitions hosted at Spurn Point annually and five local angling clubs. The three-day European Open Beach Championship has become the largest 3 day fishing festival in Europe, attracting approximately 1000 competitors per year and generating an estimated £500,000 for the local economy. A byelaw established by North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee in 2004 prohibits all dredging and trawling in the rMCZ, with the area instead supporting lucrative potting and fixed net fisheries targeting species such as edible crab, lobster, sea bass and sole. The designation of an MCZ along the Holderness coast that maintains the ENG features will potentially, at a local level, provide benefits for the delivery of all beneficial ecosystem services, particularly those associated with leisure and tourism and fishing. Commercial fishing activities generate £1,233,000 yr-1

approximately for the local economy, with recreational activities generating an additional £1,253,599 yr-1.

6.1.1 Holderness Inshore rMCZ – site description

Holderness Inshore rMCZ falls within the Net Gain (NG) Regional Project area in the Southern North Sea (Figure 3) and totals 307.14 km2 extending offshore to a distance of 3 nm. The seabed consists predominately of sediment, cobble and stony habitats with some subtidal chalk (Irving, 2009; Net Gain, 2011).

25

Figure 3: Holderness Inshore rMCZ NG 8 site map (Source: Net Gain, 2011) .

The site is known to support ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa and honeycomb worm Sabellaria alveolata both of which are Annex 1 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species. The varied habitats within the site are important for a range of epibiota and encrusting fauna such as filamentous red algae, sponges and hydroids, with Seasearch dives in the Easington and Dimlington areas within the rMCZ noting the presence of piddocks and other molluscs, along with redundant horse mussel Modiolus spp. shells which suggest the presence of living horse mussel beds (a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat) in the past (Seasearch Northeast, 2009). Benthic, demersal and juvenile fish species are also known to inhabit the site, including dab, pipefish, dragonet and wrasse, a small number of elasmobranch species, and commercially important crustaceans,

26

including edible and velvet swimming crabs as well as lobster (Allen, 2008 cited in Net Gain, 2011; Maddock, 2008).

European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, and Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, both of which are listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, are thought to use the site. The site is also important for foraging birds including kittiwake Rissa spp., razorbill Alca torda, guillemot Uria aalge and puffin Fratercula arctica and migrant birds such as brent geese Branta bernicla, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, knot Calidris canutus, dunlin Calidris alpina, curlew Numenius arquata, and redshank Tringa tetanus. Little tern Sterna albifrons are thought to use the rMCZ area for the majority of their foraging, Spurn Birds Observatory records show some successful breeding attempts have occurred within this site. The southern end of the rMCZ includes Yorkshire Wildlife Trusts’ Spurn Point National Nature Reserve, a popular area for bird watching. The site was recommended for inclusion in the MCZ network due to the specific habitats and species listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Feature types and habitat types proposed for designation within Holderness Inshore rMCZ and draft conservation objectives (Source: Net Gain, 2011).

Feature Type Feature Name Draft Conservation Objective

Broad-scale Habitats

A2.4 Intertidal mixed sediment Maintain

A5.1 Subtidal sand Maintain

A5.2 Subtidal coarse sediment Maintain

Habitats FOCI Subtidal chalk Maintain

Subtidal sands and gravels Maintain

Peat and clay exposures Maintain

Ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) reefs Maintain

Species FOCI European eel (Anguilla anguilla) Maintain

The boundaries of the site have been aligned with existing management implemented by the North East Sea Fisheries Committee (and upheld now by the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (NEIFCA)) which introduced a byelaw prohibiting all trawling and dredging activities in the site in 2004. A number of other protected areas border and slightly overlap the site at the southern end, including the Humber estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its estuarine, mudflat and sandflat habitats, a Special Protection Area and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Dimlington Cliffs SSSI, the Lagoon SSSI, Withow Gap SSSI and Skipsea SSSI.

6.1.2 Beneficial ecosystem processes and services within Holderness Inshore rMCZ

Figure 4 models the links between the ENG features within the Holderness Inshore rMCZ and the core ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and

27

beneficial ecosystem services provided. It also links these to activities occurring within the rMCZ area which have then been valued. Key processes and services have then been identified as those with the greatest number of contributing ENG features (those with the thickest lines or greatest number of incoming links).

It is clear from this model that all beneficial ecosystem processes are supported by the ENG features, however, most of the links from referenced material are between the ENG features and the beneficial ecosystem processes of secondary production, primary production, formation of species habitat, food web dynamics and biogeochemical cycling. These are facilitated primarily by production, ecological interactions, nutrient cycling and geological processes which stem from the range of ENG habitats present in the area (Figure 4).

Secondary production, larval and gamete supply and food web dynamics appear to be the key processes linking to the beneficial ecosystem services fisheries and regulation of pollution. It is therefore interesting that although included by Fletcher et al. (2012) as a beneficial ecosystem process for intertidal sand & muddy sand, intertidal mixed sediments, subtidal coarse sediments, subtidal sand, and subtidal mixed sediments, the direct link between production and larval/gamete supply was only made for the European eel Anguilla anguilla.

Despite there being no direct beneficial ecosystem services identified from the literature from littoral chalk, peat and clay exposures, ross worm Sabellaria alveolata reefs or subtidal chalk (Fletcher et al., 2012), it is expected that these contribute to the functioning of the site. For example, Sabellaria alveolata reefs are known to support a range of flora and fauna, increasing species diversity in areas which may otherwise be soft sediment (Natural England, 2010).

The activities identified within this rMCZ that already benefit from the ecosystem services provided and would continue to do so following MCZ designation are static gear fisheries, charter boats, and sea angling (Figure 4). Diving activities are associated with these ENG features in the wider literature however, a focus group with local stakeholders noted that there was limited recreational diving activity at this site except for occasional wreck divers and those organised by Seasearch. Although not defined by the model the focus group also indicated that tourism, nature watching and research and education are activities that are derived from the Holderness Inshore rMCZ.

28

Figure 4 Model of the ENG Features within Holderness Inshore rMCZ and the Core Ecosystem Processes, Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Beneficial Ecosystem Services they provide. Associated activities are also linked and approximate valuations given. Links between processes are derived from Fletcher et al. (2012). No link does not signify no relationship between ENG features and the delivery of ecosystem services or processes, only that there is currently no supporting literature.

29

6.1.3 Review of key beneficial ecosystem processes

The key beneficial ecosystem processes identified in Figure 4 have been considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below.

Secondary production: the range of habitats within rMCZ Holderness Inshore facilitates secondary production, with intertidal soft sediments providing year round habitats and crucial feeding grounds for species of commercial importance and wading birds (Bale et al., 2007). Subtidally, a large proportion of the biomass supported by these sediments is epifauna, with species of starfish, brittlestar and crab particularly abundant (Jones et al., 2000). The European eel Anguilla anguilla is present in rMCZ Holderness Inshore, and although it’s biomass in the UK is unknown it has been estimated to have decreased 75-95 % since the 1980s (Aprahamian & Walker, 2008).

Larval/Gamete supply: intertidal and subtidal soft sediment habitats in rMCZ Holderness Inshore are important spawning and nursery grounds (Jones et al., 2000; Fortes, 2002) and are key for the recruitment of species such as crustaceans and polycheates, with recruitment success known to be impacted by the sediment characteristics of the site (Bishop et al., 2006; Boeckner et al., 2009). Recruitment success of A. anguilla within Holderness Inshore is unknown, but landings of juveniles have ranged from 4-100 tonnes per year over the last 3 decades across the UK (Aprahamian & Walker, 2008).

Food web dynamics: rMCZ Holderness Inshore provides different habitat types supporting species from many trophic levels, thus ensuring the transfer of energy up the food chain. The intertidal soft sediment habitats support organisms from microphytobenthos found between grains of sand to shorebirds, wildfowl and many fish species (Evans et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2000; Underwood & Paterson, 2003). Species commonly associated with subtidal soft sediment habitats comprise a major part of the diets of commercially important species of fish and shellfish (Snelgrove, 1999) and include echinoderms and crabs such as the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus, and the commercially important edible crab Cancer pagurus (Jones et al., 2000). These species also benefit from the cobble/stoney habitats present within the site which supports a range of benthic sessile organisms and provides habitat for the lobsters and crab species that are important for the local fishery (Seasearch Northeast, 2009). Furthermore, these species form an important part of the food chain and facilitate the transfer of organic carbon back into the pelagic system (Snelgrove, 1999). Ross worm Sabellaria alveolata reefs are present within the rMCZ and are known to play a key role in ecosystem function as they are a primary consumer of phytoplankton and consequently filter large volumes of seawater (Dubois et al., 2006). It has been calculated that during a 13 hour submersion day such reefs can filter 396,500 m3 of seawater (Dubois et al., 2003).

30

6.1.4 Review of key beneficial ecosystem services

The key beneficial ecosystem services identified in Figure 4 have been considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below.

Fisheries: intertidal and subtidal soft sediment habitats, and in particular subtidal sands and gravels provide habitat and nursery grounds for various commercially important fish species. Within rMCZ Holderness Inshore there are 73 licenced boats (M. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer Holderness Coast Fishing Industry Group, pers. comm.) and due to a NEIFCA byelaw which prohibits the use of benthic trawls or dredgers within 3 nm of the shore, the inshore waters of the rMCZ provide important grounds for static gear fisheries targeting crab and lobster. The area is reported to support Europe’s largest shellfishery, landing approximately 550 tonnes of lobster per year (NEIFCA figures cited by K. Smith, North Sea Living Sea Manager, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, pers. comm.). Potting occurs year round for lobster and crab and seasonal fixed net fisheries also operate in the area which target sea bass from October to April, sole from April to August and cod from October to March (NEIFCA, 2003). Collectively, landings from the Holderness Inshore rMCZ contribute approximately £1,233,000 yr-1 to landings values at local ports (Table 5). This figure however is considered to be a gross underestimate by the NEIFCA who have estimated that the approximate first sale value of the shellfish fishery for Holderness Inshore is £3 million for lobster and £1 million for edible crab (James Wood, Scientific Officer NEIFCA, pers. comm.) Aquaculture: despite being a key beneficial ecosystem service identified through the modelling process, no aquaculture occurs within the rMCZ Holderness area (A. Lalley, Environmental Officer NEIFCA, pers. comm.).

Regulation of pollution: soft sediment habitats such as those present in rMCZ Holderness Inshore are thought to contribute to the regulation of pollution by acting as a sink (Finnegan et al., 2009). Studies relating to this in the UK are lacking, but in the Mediterranean and Baltic Sea nematode species within these sediments have been identified as useful indicators of environmental condition (Gheskiere et al., 2005).

Natural hazard protection: intertidal sediment plays an important role in coastal protection, and the variety of sediments found within the Holderness Inshore rMCZ contribute to this. In addition, intertidal mud provides erosion control though the maintenance of muddy sediments. The site is linked to the shingles at Spurn Point where the spit contributes to the protection of the Humber Estuary.

Environmental resilience: resilience of subtidal soft sediments is greater than that of rocky habitats as they are easily affected by waves and tides and are consequently more susceptible to disturbance and therefore better able to recover when disturbance does occur (Bishop et al., 2006). Mud habitats are also thought to contribute to climatic environmental resilience (expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012).

31

Sport/Recreation: recreational sea angling is a popular activity in rMCZ Holderness Inshore particularly occurring at shore angling marks. The target species are codling, whiting, bass, smooth hound, tope, thornback ray and some species of flatfish (P. Arnutt, Holderness angler, pers. comm.). Five angling clubs are known to operate in the area, and two large scale angling competitions are hosted every year, including the European Open Beach Championship held in February or March which regularly attracts approximately 1000 competitors per year and is the largest 3 day fishing festival in Europe (K. Lawry, Conference and Events Officer, East Yorkshire Events, pers. comm.). The competition costs anglers £30 to enter, is estimated to result in 4-5000 bed nights for local hotels, B&Bs, campsites etc. and generates approximately £500,000 yr-1 for the local economy (K. Lawry, Conference and Events Officer, East Yorkshire Events, pers. comm.). Charter boat operators from Grimsby and Bridlington also support the angling industry, with 13 boats thought to operate from these ports. There is no information on how much time these charter boat operators spend in the rMCZ, however.

Recreational wreck diving and seasearch dives also takes place within rMCZ Holderness Inshore, with one charter boat known to operate, and numerous private vessels launching from the ports of Easington, Dimlington, Withernsea, Hornsea and Bridlington. The dive season runs from Easter to October, with wrecks within the rMCZ visit reasonably often, commonly used for the second dive of a two dive trip (T. Pockley, charter boat operator, pers. comm.). Diving is restricted by the weather, with sites inside 1 nm of the coast rarely dived as conditions need to be very settled to allow good visibility (T. Pockley, charter boat operator, pers. comm.). Diving within rMCZ Holderness Inshore is estimated to generate at least £15,120 yr-1 from the one charter boat alone. Sport and recreation is linked to nature watching and tourism and generates approximately £1,033,599 yr-1 in turnover/expenditure (Table 5).

Nature Watching: Spurn Point is the main attraction in this area for nature watching. The narrow three and a half mile sand and shingle bank which stretches out into the Humber Estuary is a designated National Nature Reserve and is owned and managed by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. The site is also a designated Heritage Coast, Ramsar site, SAC and SSSI. The sandy beaches on the eastern coast provide an area for visitors to enjoy the marine and coastal wildlife, while the extensive saltmarsh and mudflats on the western coast provide essential habitat for migratory birds, wintering and passage waders and wildfowl. The site includes the Spurn Heritage Coast visitors centre and Spurn Bird Observatory where there are café, parking and toilet facilities, and is thought to attract in excess of 70,000 visitors per year (A. Gibson, Outer Humber Officer Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, pers. comm.). Visitors are also able to stay at the Spurn Point Bird Observatory overnight, with 1023 overnight stays in 2011 generating approximately £10,000 (Table 5). The site also provides a variety of shore angling marks making it a very popular site, and one local entrepreneur has set up a bait selling business in the car park. Nature watching is linked to the activities of tourism and recreation, and Spurn Point alone generates approximately £220,000 yr-1 in turnover/expenditure for the rMCZ (Table 5).

Tourism: rMCZ Holderness Inshore is part of East Riding district, and along with its long stretches of beaches, the area has a reputation as a traditional beach resort

32

destination. The towns of Hornsea and Withernsea are adjacent to the rMCZ and Bridlington is just to the north. A study for East Riding District demonstrated that tourism expenditure generates £430 million in turnover for the district with approximately 25 % of visitors stating that their primary reasons for visiting were the beaches and coastal experience (East Riding, 2009). Tourism is closely related to recreation and nature watching as discussed above, but it has not been possible to find any indicators of the monetary value of tourism for the Holderness Inshore rMCZ.

Research and Education: The Holderness Inshore rMCZ provides an area for research and education. The shape of the coastline makes it one of the most dynamic in the UK meaning that it generates interest from research scientists (NERC, 2012). Spurn Point is of particular interest to schools for marine and coastal education and receives organised visits from 70-80 school groups per year. There is however, no valuation data available for the expenditure of school groups to the Holderness Inshore rMCZ at Spurn Point.

Spiritual and Cultural Wellbeing and Aesthetic Benefits: As demonstrated in Fletcher et al. (2012), the beneficial ecosystem services of Spiritual and Cultural Wellbeing and Aesthetic Benefits are intrinsically linked to all uses and activities in the MCZ site. There are no valuation studies for this area.

33

Table 5: Value of activities occurring within Holderness Inshore rMCZ.

Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Activity Value Valuation confidence*

Valuation Accuracy

Fisheries Crab and Lobster £1, 074,000yr-1

landings value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Bottom trawls £64,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Nets £76,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Fish –hooks and lines

£19,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Regulation of Pollution No valuation data available

Natural Hazard Protection No valuation data available

Environmental Resilience No valuation data available

Nature Watching Spurn head £210,000 yr-1

based on 70,000 visitors per year paying £3 parking fee (A. Gibson, Outer Humber Officer Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, pers. comm.) Spurn Bird Observatory £8184 - £12,276 yr

-1 (based on 2011 man nights -

£8 per night for members, £12 per night for non-members

1 Underestimate as WT members pay £70 per year. 70-80 schools visit the site each year and the area attracts funding from external sources.

Sport/Recreation Charter Boat £518,479 yr-1

turnover based on 13 vessels operating locally from ports outside the MCZ from Bridlington and Grimsby. Average charter boat turnover from Lyme Bay case study (Rees et al., 2010).

1 Overestimate. No information on the % of time spent in the MCZ

Diving £15,120 yr-1

based on one boat operating 2 days a week from Easter – October carrying 6-8 divers and diving once per day within the rMCZ (Tony Pockley, charter boat operator, pers. comm.). Ecological Seasearch dives are also known to occur at this site.

2 Underestimate. Value from one charter boat, private vessels are also known to operate but the extent of this is unknown

34



Valuation Accuracy

Angling At least 5 clubs are known to operate in the Holderness Inshore area but member numbers are unknown. The European Open Beach Championships attract approx. 1000 anglers and generates £500,000 yr

-1

for the local economy (4-5000 bed nights) (K. Lawry, Conference and Events Officer, East Yorkshire Events, pers. comm.)

1 Underestimate. Value from one angling competition. No other valuation data available

Research & Education See Nature Watching

Tourism See recreation values and nature watching

No values available though there is some contribution towards regional tourism values

Spiritual and cultural well-being No valuation data available

Aesthetic benefits No valuation data available

*The valuation accuracy is based on the provenance of the valuation data where 1= wider values with no indication of extent of the activity within the MCZ, 2= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with no supporting GIS, 3= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge for the MCZ with supporting GIS.

35

6.1.5 Changes in the delivery in ecosystem services under potential management scenarios

Table 6 presents the potential change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes in the MCZ are under three management scenarios as, due to the presence of the no trawl zone, there are no management objectives to ‘recover’ any of the ENG features.

36

Table 6: The change in delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in Holderness Inshore in relation to scenarios for management of activities in the rMCZ.


Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

Fisheries – Crab, Lobster pots, hooks, lines & nets

= = -/+ -/+

This fishery is considered to be sustainable at current levels. However any increase in effort may impact upon the ENG features and therefore have a future impact on the associated fisheries.

Recovery is not set as a target for ENG features at this site

Maintenance of ENG features combined with fishery effort management measures will help maintain the current value of the fishery. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones, effort restrictions, temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns in the future. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Fisheries – bottom trawl

- = = +

Any decline in the quality of the ENG features may have future impacts on their associated fisheries which currently operate outside the MCZ due to the byelaw established by North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee in 2004 which prohibits all dredging and trawling in the rMCZ


There is currently no benthic trawling within the site.

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones, effort restrictions, temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns in the future for fisheries operating outside the MCZ.

Natural Hazard Protection Coastal protection)

- = = =

Any decline in the status of the ENG features may have an impact upon the dynamics of the coastal features that provide protection from natural hazards.


Maintenance of the ENG features will continue to support the dynamics of the coastal features that provide protection from natural hazards.

It is unknown how improvement in ENG features quality or extent may impact upon natural hazard protection.

37






Regulation of Pollution

- = = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability of the ecosystem to regulate pollution. This may have impacts on the quality of the local marine environment and wider pollution regulation processes.


Maintenance of all ENG features will enable the area to continue to provide for the regulation of pollution at current levels.

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the capacity of this area to regulate pollution.

Environmental Resilience

- = = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may cause the ecosystem to become less resilient to both natural perturbations and human impacts.


Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue to contribute towards wider environmental resilience.

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially enable the ecosystem to become more resilient to change.

Nature Watching - = = +

Decline of ENG features may potentially decrease food availability and habitat for wildlife and impact upon the attractiveness of this area for wildlife watching.


Maintenance of all ENG features will potentially maintain nature watching in this area at its current capacity.

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially increase food availability and habitat for wildlife and increase the attractiveness of the area to tourists and provide opportunities for enterprise.

Sport/Recreation (Charter boat and angling)

- = = +

Decline in ENG features may have negative impact on the quality of angling in the area.


Maintenance of all ENG features will protect the quality of angling in the area.

Improvement of all ENG features may increase the quality angling opportunities in the area with a knock on effects for local businesses.

Research & Education (also see nature watching)

= = = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features is unlikely to affect research and education as the focus is both geography and ecology.


Maintenance of ENG features will continue to support the desirability of the Holderness coast for school group visits.

Improvement may potentially increase the desirability of this area for research and education initiatives.

Tourism (see also - = = +

38






recreation and Nature watching)

Tourism is currently in decline along the Holderness coast. Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts for this industry.


Maintenance of ENG features will continue to contribute to the identity of Holderness being a traditional seaside tourist destination with opportunities for sport and recreation (particularly angling) and nature watching.

Improvement of ENG features may increase the attractiveness and increase opportunities for enterprise within the tourist industry.

Spiritual and cultural well-being

?

Spiritual and cultural wellbeing is linked to all beneficial ecosystem services. Any positive or negative impacts on the environmental quality of the ENG features will impact upon the delivery of this beneficial ecosystem services. The extent to which these are linked is unknown.

Aesthetic benefits - = = +

The Holderness coast markets itself on the natural environment as a place to live or visit. Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts on the aesthetic qualities associated with the area.


Maintenance of all ENG features will maintain the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Holderness. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and to recreation and tourism benefits.

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the current aesthetic qualities associated with the Holderness coast e.g. birdlife. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits.

Key - A negative change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario = No change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario + A positive change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario -/+ A negative initial impact in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario which may lead to future positive change in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services

39

6.1.6 Conclusion

There is clear evidence that no change to the current management regime of the Holderness Inshore recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ) (‘do nothing’) will result in a decline of ecosystem services provided by the site. This reduction is likely to affect all categories of ecosystem service identified in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity classification (TEEB, 2010) that were found to exist at the site except crab and lobster fisheries and the hook and line fishery, which are considered to be sustainable at current effort levels. There is evidence that the existing ecosystem services delivered from the Holderness Inshore rMCZ make an important contribution to the local economy, especially through underpinning fisheries, nature watching, and recreation activities. The economic loss associated with a deterioration of these services under the ‘do nothing’ scenario will depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes. We have estimated that the economic value of commercial fisheries is £1,233,000 yr-1, nature watching approximately £220,000 yr-

1, and recreational activities £1,033,599 yr-1. It is expected that this economic value would reduce under a ‘do nothing’ management scenario.

Under an assumed MCZ designation at Holderness Inshore, two management scenarios were examined to identify the likely changes to the availability of ecosystem services. The scenarios were ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) features at the site, in which realistic management measures were assumed to have been instigated proportionate to each scenario (‘recover’ was not included as none of the ENG features for which the site is recommended for MCZ designation has a draft conservation objective of ‘recover’). The results showed that overall ecosystem service delivery remained broadly unchanged under the ‘maintain’ scenario as the current level of activity was able to be sustained, although this scenario did avoid potential losses of ecosystem service delivery under the ‘do nothing scenario in which an MCZ was not designated. Under the ‘improve’ scenario, there was a general enhancement of the availability of ecosystem services.

The dominant implications of MCZ designation on specific ecosystem service availability in Holderness Inshore were either to secure the level of exiting ecosystem service delivery, or to enhance it. Maintaining the ecosystem services currently provided by the site safeguards its existing economic (and other non-economic) values to society. Through introducing management measures that promote enhanced delivery of ecosystem services at the site, it is highly likely that the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the site will also increase. As the Holderness Inshore rMCZ site is already subject to a byelaw established by North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee in 2004 that prohibits all dredging and trawling, this site may present lessons for marine ecosystem service delivery when particularly extractive activities are removed that could be applied elsewhere.

40

6.2 Torbay rMCZ

The Torbay rMCZ is situated in South Devon and is part of an area that is often described as the ‘English Riviera’. Local towns include Torquay, Babbacombe, Paignton and the fishing port of Brixham. It is a popular area in which to live, particularly for retirement. Torbay is also a well-known tourist destination with award winning beaches being a major draw, a wide variety of opportunities for marine leisure and recreation that includes reef and wreck diving and angling sites, opportunities for bird and dolphin watching, canoeing, coastal walks, sailing and sea cliff climbing. Torbay is known to attract in excess of 3 million visitors per year (Torbay Development Agency, 2010), and also provides economic opportunities. Tourism is the dominant economic sector and Brixham is the largest fishing port in England and Wales in terms of the value of landings. The natural qualities of Torbay are already recognised by several conservation designations, particularly the rocky reef habitats and infralittoral sea caves which are currently candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) under the EU Habitats Directive. The designation of an MCZ in Torbay that prevents deterioration and maintains the ENG features and also enables the recovery of the seagrass beds and muddy habitats will potentially, at a local level, provide benefits for the delivery of all beneficial ecosystem services, particularly those associated with leisure and tourism and fishing. Commercial fishing activities occurring within and around the rMCZ generate approximately £960,805yr-1 in landings (Brigden, 2010; S. Clark, Principal Environment Officer, Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, pers. comm; D. Flint, Sustainable Fisheries Officer, Devon Wildlife Trust, pers. comm; Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain &Balanced Seas, 2012) and recreational activities within the rMCZ generate approximately a further £1,579,080 yr-

1. At a national and international level the ENG features in Torbay contribute towards the broader processes of primary and secondary production, food web dynamics, formation of species habitat, and the biogeochemical cycling that support wider human well-being.

6.2.1 Torbay rMCZ –site description

Torbay rMCZ is located within the Finding Sanctuary Regional Project area in the Western English Channel (Figure 5), totalling 19.9 km2 and extending to depths of up to 30 m. Its boundaries approximately follow those of the Lyme Bay and Torbay cSAC which has been proposed for the protection of the Annex I habitats of ‘Reefs’ and ‘Submerged or Partially Submerged Sea Caves’. The rMCZ has been recommended for two reasons and is split into two zones, one for the protection of ENG benthic species and habitats, which are not protected by the cSAC, and another for the protection of seabirds and cetaceans.

41

Figure 5: Torbay rMCZ site map (source: Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

The rMCZ intersects an area of higher than average benthic species and habitat diversity (as mapped by national data layers Defra contract MB102) (Langmead et al., 2010). It is also an important area due to its sub-tidal Zostera marina seagrass beds, rocky reefs, sea caves and birds. The seagrass beds were estimated to cover an area of 80 hectares in 2006 (TCCT, 2006) and may provide an important nursery and feeding habitat for species of commercial importance such as cuttlefish Sepia officinalis. Torbay has been identified as an important spawning location for cuttlefish, with the seagrass beds providing spawning habitat and an estimated 50,000 cuttlefish entering the fishery each year (Bloor, 2012). Broadsands has an important wintering bird roost and is the second most important site for wintering diver and grebe populations in the south west (Lieberknecht et al., 2011). The site was recommended for inclusion in the MCZ network due to the specific habitats and species listed in Table 7.

42

Table 7: Feature types and habitat types proposed for designation within Torbay rMCZ and draft conservation objectives (source: Lieberknecht et al., 2011).


Broad-scale Habitats Subtidal mud Recover

Intertidal coarse sediment Maintain

Intertidal mixed sediment Maintain

Intertidal mud Maintain

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Maintain

Low energy intertidal rock Maintain

Moderate energy intertidal rock Maintain

Habitats FOCI Intertidal under boulder communities Maintain

Sabellaria alveolata reefs Maintain

Seagrass beds Recover

Species FOCI

Long snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus)

Maintain

Native oyster (Ostrea edulis) Maintain

Peacock’s tail seaweed (Padina pavonica) Maintain

Sea snail (Paludinella littorina) Maintain

Non-ENG features Black throated diver (Gavia arctica) Maintain

Great northern diver (Gavia immer) Maintain

Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) Maintain

Blacked necked grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Maintain

Red necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena) Maintain

Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus) Maintain

Guillemot (Uria aalge) Maintain

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Maintain

In terms of the wider ecological importance of Torbay the area has been described as ‘the jewel in south Devon’s crown for marine wildlife’ (Hiscock et al., 2006). This accolade is in reference to species that inhabit damp, shady, shore locations, particularly the limestone rock at Princess Pier and also the littoral sea grass beds (Zostera marina) at Torre Abbey Sands.

6.2.2 Beneficial ecosystem processes and services within Torbay rMCZ

Figure 6 models the links between the ENG features within Torbay rMCZ and the potential core ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and beneficial ecosystem services provided. It also links these to activities occurring within the rMCZ area which have then (where possible) been valued. Key processes and services have then been identified as those with the greatest number of contributing ENG features (those with the thickest lines or greatest number of incoming links). The beneficial

43

ecosystem service of climate regulation has also been selected as a key process due to the strength of recent research into the links between seagrass beds and carbon sequestration.

The Torbay model is the most complex of the case study sites in this study, due to the number and variety of ENG features. All beneficial ecosystem processes are supported by the ENG features. However, the most links from referenced material are between the ENG features and the beneficial ecosystem processes of primary and secondary production, food web dynamics, formation of species habitat and biogeochemical cycling are the key beneficial ecosystem process within this rMCZ, facilitated primarily by production, nutrient cycling and ecological interactions which stem from the various ENG features within the area.

Formation of species habitat appears to be the biggest driver of fisheries, which are identified as a beneficial ecosystem service for this rMCZ, along with other wild harvesting, environmental resilience and natural hazard protection. Along with the contribution to broad scale processes identified above, the local activities identified that directly benefit from the ecosystem services delivery are static and mobile gear fisheries, aquaculture, charter boats, recreational diving, sea angling and nature watching (Figure 6).

44

Figure 6: Model of the ENG Features within Torbay rMCZ and the Core Ecosystem Processes, Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Beneficial Ecosystem Services they provide. Associated activities are also linked and approximate valuations given. Links between processes are derived from Fletcher et al. (2012). The lack of a link does not signify no relationship between ENG features and the delivery of ecosystem services or processes, only that there is currently no supporting literature.

45

6.2.3 Review of beneficial ecosystem processes


Primary production: the Torbay rMCZ includes a range of habitat types including intertidal soft sediment and rocky shores, subtidal sediment, rocky reef and seagrass beds, all of which contribute to primary production. Intertidal sediment facilitates the transfer of energy from primary producers up the food chain, especially in muddy sediments which have a higher abundance of microphytobenthos than sandy sediments and where surface biofilm is known to sustain all primary production during daylight hours (Macintyre et al., 1996; Guarini et al., 2000; Herlory et al., 2005; expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). Infralittoral rock is also important, supporting kelp Laminaria hyperborean communities within Torbay, which are important principal primary producers responsible for producing nearly 75 % of all carbon fixed (Jones et al., 2000). In the circalittoral, primary production is driven by phytoplankton in the surrounding water masses facilitating the transfer of energy to higher trophic level organisms (Jones et al., 2000), and subtidal sediment provides a sink for primary production. Research has indicated that the amount of primary production occurring in these systems is dependent on the assimilation of organic matter occurring following algal blooms (Denis & Desroy, 2008). Seagrass Zostera marina beds cover 0.80 km2

(4.02 %) of the total rMCZ area and are known to be important for primary production with recorded annual production rates of between 69 g C m-2yr-1(Borum & Wium-Andersen, 1980) and 814 g C m-2yr-1(Borum & Wium-Andersen, 1984).

Secondary production: The different habitats within the Torbay rMCZ also contribute to secondary production. The intertidal soft sediments providing year round habitats and crucial feeding grounds for species of commercial importance and wading birds (Bale et al., 2007). The rocky intertidal area is also of importance, with these habitats found to hold up to 14 times more secondary biomass than sedimentary shores (Ricciardi & Bourget, 1999). Subtidally a large proportion of the biomass is epifauna, with species of starfish, brittlestar, crab, sponge and tunicate known to be particularly abundant in such areas (Jones et al., 2000). Rapid turnover of Zostera marina leaves and of the epiphytic algae on the leaf surfaces means that large amounts of seagrass primary production is transferred to consumers (Cebrián et al., 1997).

Food web dynamics: The variety of habitats found within the Torbay rMCZ support a range of species. Intertidal and subtidal sediments are key for the provision of feeding habitat for wading birds, wildfowl (Evans et al., 1998) and fish species such as sole Solea solea, dab Limanda limanda, flounder Platichthys flesus, plaice Pleuronectes platessa and sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax who feed on a range of species including polychaetes and crustaceans (Snelgrove, 1999; Jones et al., 2000). Seagrass beds are important foraging sites both for temporary and permanent resident species, including those of fishery value, due primarily to the high density of potential faunal prey items present (Jackson et al., 2001).

46

Formation of species habitat: In the Torbay rMCZ, intertidal coarse sediment is important for biota such as commercial shellfish species (Burd et al., 2008), and rocky shores provide habitat for intertidal fish, crustaceans, shrimp, anemones, epifauna and macroalgae as well as protection from wave exposure and desiccation (Baker &Crothers, 1987; Jones et al., 2000). Intertidal rock and under boulder communities are particularly diverse, providing shade, moisture and shelter as well as a refuge from predators (Hill et al., 2010). Infralittoral and circalittoral rock provides firm substrate to which epibenthic species can attach (Jones et al., 2000) supports the kelp L. hyperborean communities within Torbay which provide habitat for a range of other organisms such as urchins, chitons and meiofauna (Jones et al., 2000).

In the subtidal, formation of species habitat is strongly influenced by sediment type, with particle size distribution, organic content and chemical composition of importance to species distribution. Stability is provided by the presence of species such as Lanice conchilega (Van Hoey et al., 2008), and habitat complexity is increased where benthic fauna are diverse and abundant due to the presence of tubes and burrows (Paramour & Frid, 2006). The presence of additional habitat types on soft sediment such as ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa reefs within the rMCZ increases habitat complexity, providing microhabitat for colonisation by other organisms (Caline et al., 1992, cited in Hill et al., 2010). These reefs have been described as important ecosystem engineers as their structure adds topographic complexity and high levels of biodiversity to low relief, low diversity soft sediment areas (Dubois et al., 2006).

Seagrass is also considered an ecosystem engineer, increasing the structural complexity of habitats and causing modification to the abiotic environment through the alteration of water flow. This increases the retention of particles and accretion of sediment within the seagrass bed, resulting in increased species richness and abundance (Edgar et al., 1994; Heck et al., 1995; Bostrom & Bonsdorff, 1997). Seagrass acts as a permanent habitat for some species but also as a temporary nursery, feeding area or refuge from predation (Jackson et al., 2001). Hirst & Attrill (2008) showed even small patches of Z. marina within Torbay had a greater biodiversity than the surrounding sediment, and concluded that it had an influence on biodiversity regardless of the size of the patch. Seagrass beds are also thought to act as breeding and nursery areas, and support a diverse range of species including the long-snouted seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus (Curtis & Vincent, 2005; Kitsos et al., 2008) and cuttlefish Sepia officinalis (Bloor, 2012). Cuttlefish eggs and mussel spat have both been observed on seagrass shoots and leaf blades respectively, in Torbay (Evans, 1998; Bloor, 2012).

Biogeochemical cycling: Different habitats within the rMCZ play different roles in biogeochemical cycling. Intertidal rock is important for carbon cycling, producing large amounts of dissolved carbon, which is taken up by bacteria and invertebrates, or removed by the sea, allowing it to enter subtidal sediments (Jones et al., 2000). They also facilitate the removal of nitrate from coastal waters due to the presence of microbial biofilm (Magalhaes et al., 2003), and benthic macroalgae associated with them plays an important role in biogeochemical reactivity (Macintyre et al., 1996). Intertidal soft sediment is also important for nutrient cycling and the production of dissolved organic carbon (expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). Subtidally, the

47

key processes of nitrification, carbon cycling and sulphur cycling occur, making these important components of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycling between the oceans, land and atmosphere (Burdige et al., 2006; Al-Raei et al., 2009). These processes all play a role in the functioning of the Torbay rMCZ, contribute to local level processes, for example, through nitrogen and phosphorous remineralisation which facilitates the availability of nutrients for primary producers in the water column (Burdige et al., 2006), and are also key contributors to regional and global biogeochemical cycling.

Climate Regulation: The presence of seagrass beds within rMCZ Torbay further increases its role in carbon and nutrient cycling. Seagrasses ability to baffle water currents and stabilize sediments results in organic matter and nutrients become stored within the accreting sediments, sequestering carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous, while the remaining organic material is recycled or exported (Kennedy & Björk, 2009; Nellemann et al., 2009, Duarte et al.,2011). A value for both the traded and non-traded cost of carbon can be assigned to the role of sea grass beds in sequestering carbon in the Torbay area (Table 8).

Table 8: Value of traded and non-traded carbon assigned to the role of sea grass beds in sequestering carbon in the Torbay area.

Torbay

Zostera marina carbon burial (t.ha-1.yr-1) 0.52*

Estimated seagrass extent in Torbay (N.B. not an accurate measure of actual area) (ha)

80

Annual seagrass carbon sequestration (t.yr-1)

41.6

Carbon traded value 2012**(£7 - £18/t) £291.2 – £748.8 yr-1

Carbon Non-Traded Value 2012*** (£28-£85/t) £1164.8 - £3536 yr-1

*estimate based on values from Cebrián et al., 1997, this does not represent the known carbon burial rates in Torbay **The carbon traded value represents the price of carbon on the EU Emission Trading System (DECC, 2011). ***The non-carbon traded value represents the marginal abatement costs for strategies for climate change. The valuation is used in policy appraisals (DECC, 2011).



Fisheries: Both static and mobile gear fisheries exist in the rMCZ Torbay area, making it an important area for fisheries. The values in landings derived from the Torbay MCZ are demonstrated in Table 9. Potting fleets target cuttlefish, crab, lobster and prawns,

48

and trawling and scallop dredging also occur in the rMCZ area although this is restricted to vessels fitted with inshore Vessel Monitoring Systems and a gentlemen’s agreement exists where fishermen have agreed not to trawl or dredge over the seagrass beds. The cuttlefish and crab fisheries are considered to be locally important. Lobster and prawn catches are lower, although prawns are also targeted for bait and the extent of their harvest is unknown as it is not generally declared as landings. Collectively landing from the Torbay MCZ contribute approximately £960,805 yr-1 to the landing value at local ports (Table 9).

From an ecological perspective the range of habitats found within Torbay rMCZ support local fisheries. Intertidal, infralittoral and circalittoral rock areas provide habitat and feeding grounds for species of commercial importance, intertidal rock habitats provide a source of larval plankton (expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012), and subtidal sediments are often used as nursery areas for commercial species (UK Biodiversity Partnership, 2010). Seagrass beds worldwide are important in supporting commercially valuable fishery species (Jackson, 2001). In Torbay, the seagrass beds are known to be important spawning grounds for common cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis populations, for which there is an important local fishery, with recent estimates equating the value of these spawning habitats to approximately £150,000 yr-

1 (Bloor, 2012.). Within the English Channel seagrass beds have also been found to be important habitats for many other commercially exploited species (including Bream, wrasse, bass, prawns, spider crab, mullet and various flat fish and rays) which are thought to make use of enriched bare sediments in the proximity of the seagrass (Jackson, 2003).

Other wild harvesting: Non-commercial wild harvesting of razor clams is known to occur in this rMCZ in the intertidal Torre Abbey Sands area, and prawns are also targeted for use as bait (although the amount landed is minimal, with a value of £305 per year, Table 9). Divers are also known to collect scallops from within the rMCZ area although the extent of this is unknown.

Aquaculture: Aquaculture is currently restricted to a rope mussel farm situated between Fishcombe Cove and Elberry which has substantial expansion plans. The Mussel farm generates £234,000 in landings per year (Table 9).

Environmental Resilience: Intertidal rock is important as a natural form of protection from erosion by wave action for the Torbay coastline and, as a habitat is thought to be robust in ecological terms due to its ability to recover from anthropogenic impacts through the input of propagules from unaffected areas (Hill et al., 1998). Recovery of rocky habitats takes longer than recovery of sedimentary habitats however, with studies showing that infralittoral rocky habitats recover to within 1 % of baseline values within 20 years of a disturbance (Pinnegar & Polunin, 2004). Resilience is greater in subtidal sedimentary habitats as they are more susceptible to disturbance than other habitats and are consequently better able to recover when disturbance does occur (Bishop et al., 2006). Mud habitats are also thought to contribute to climatic environmental resilience (expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012).

49

Nature & hazard protection: Intertidal sediment plays an important role in coastal protection, and it is thought that intertidal boulders also afford a degree of protection through the formation of a physical barrier which dissipates wave energy and therefore reduces erosion. Seagrass leaves baffle water currents and attenuate waves, reducing erosion and promoting sediment accretion, at the same time roots and rhizomes of the seagrass beds bind sediment (Madsen et al., 2001). As such seagrass may not only stabilise sediments but in some cases have been shown to provide shoreline stabilisation and protection from erosion (Cabaço et al., 2008). Although there appear to be no reports in the literature of studies which provide quantitative estimates of the financial cost equivalent of seagrass coastal protection services, with coastal erosion estimated at causing losses of up to £10 billion of economic assets over the coming decades (POST, 2009), this service should be considered important, especially given the tourist value of adjacent beaches.

Nature Watching /Tourism: The beneficial ecosystem service of Tourism was not demonstrated as a link between the ENG features and beneficial ecosystem services owing to the fact that there is little published literature on the relationship between marine ecological features and tourism. However it is well known that tourism is the dominant industrial sector in Torbay and is closely related to the other sectors in the vicinity such as retail, nature watching and recreation (Torbay Development Agency, 2010). The Torbay Council has developed the Torbay Economic Regeneration Strategy which aims to facilitate economic regeneration in the area based on its current strengths and the natural advantages of the area (Torbay Development Agency, 2010). During the summer months the local population swells from 130,000 to 200,000 (figures for 2006), and tourism is closely linked to the attractiveness of the beaches, access to the water from harbours and the wider opportunities for marine leisure and recreation e.g. sailing.

Local club diving and independent angling are particularly popular activities in this rMCZ, and with numerous boat and beach access points throughout Torbay these activities make use of the natural marine resources that stem from wider biological diversity in the region. Torbay is sheltered from the prevailing weather fronts, which allows year round access to both shore and reef sites including Morris Rouge, Orestone, Goodrington sands and Brixham Breakwater. Non club diving and angling activities are supported by a dive business industry (which offer services to divers including gear and training) and a charter boat industry whose skippers take sea anglers/divers (who are not using their own boats) to suitable sites. Values that are associated with these recreation activities at sites within the MCZ are £1,579,080 per year in combined turnover (dive businesses and charter boat) and expenditure (anglers and divers), (Rees et al., 2010).

Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust is a local organisation whose role is to ‘to protect land, conserve nature and strengthen the bonds between people and the natural world of Torbay’. The Trust is essentially a land management organisation with expertise in education outreach. Education centres that have a marine focus that are run by the Trust include Berry Head National Nature Reserve and the Seashore Centre at Goodrington (Torbay Coast & Countryside Club, no date).

50

Table 9: Value of activities occurring within Torbay rMCZ.



Valuation Accuracy

Fisheries

Cuttlefish £125,000 yr-1

landing value Estimate based on the percentage contribution of the Torbay trap fishery to total landings at Brixham (3 %), (Brigden, 2010)

1 Overestimate

Crab and Lobster £281,250 – £873,750 yr-1

Total landing value estimate based on 14 boats operating within the rMCZ area for 0.25-0.75% of their fishing time based on an average of £70-80,000 yr

-1 per boat (S. Clark, Principal Environment Officer,

Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, pers. comm.)

1 Overestimate

Prawns £305 yr-1

landing value (D. Flint, Sustainable Fisheries Officer, Devon Wildlife Trust, pers. comm. Reporting on MMO figures collected in 2010)

2 Accuracy unknown

Fish – nets and lines £2000 yr-1

landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain &Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Fish – bottom trawl £11,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Scallops £11,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Other Wild Harvesting Razor clams Diver caught scallops(recreational)

No valuation data available as the amount taken is unrecorded

Aquaculture Mussels £234,000 yr-1

landing value Predicted £312,000 yr

-1 due to extension (S. Clark, Principal

Environment Officer, Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, pers. comm.)

3 High valuation confidence

Natural Hazard Protection Coastal protection No valuation data available


51



Valuation Accuracy

Climate regulation Seagrass – carbon sequestration

£291 -748 yr-1

carbon traded value (DECC, 2011) £1164 – £3536 yr

-1carbon non -traded value (DECC, 2011)

3 Overestimate as extent of seabed 80ha is thought to be an overestimate (E. Jackson, Marine Biological Association, pers. comm.)


Nature Watching Berry Head also see values for charter boat operators

No data available from Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust for visitor numbers to Berry Head

Sport/Recreation

Charter Boat £7,580 yr-1

turnover (Rees et al., 2010) 3 Underestimate

Diving £274,210 yr-1

expenditure from club divers (Rees et al., 2010) 3 Underestimate

Dive Business £351,936 yr-1

turnover (Rees et al., 2010) 3 High valuation confidence

Angling £945,354 yr-1

expenditure (Rees et al., 2010) 3 Underestimate

Research & Education £223,246 in research grants since 2010 to Plymouth University 3 Underestimate

Tourism See recreation values No values available though there is some contribution towards regional tourism values


No valuation data available

Aesthetic benefits No valuation data available

*The valuation accuracy is based on the provenance of the valuation data where 1= wider values for Torbay with no indication of extent of the activity within the MCZ, 2= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with no supporting GIS, 3= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature or expert knowledge for the MCZ with supporting GIS.

52


Table 10 presents the potential change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes in the MCZ are under four management scenarios.

53

Table 10: The change in delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in Torbay in relation to scenarios for management of activities in the MCZ.






Fisheries – Cuttlefish

- + + -/+

Further loss of seagrass beds will reduce the available habitat for cuttlefish spawning which may have future impacts on the associated fishery.

Recovery targets set for subtidal mud and seagrass beds may have benefits for cuttlefish and the associated fishery as cuttlefish are known to lay their eggs on these features

Once recovery is set maintenance of subtidal mud and seagrass beds combined with wider fishery effort management measures within the MCZ could potentially enhance the wider cuttlefish fishery.

A set aside area for cuttlefish spawning to mitigate against the effects of removal of cuttlefish eggs that have been laid on pots could have an impact on fishing effort in the short term but with potential for better future landings.

Fisheries – Crab, Lobster and Prawn and nets and line

- + = -/+

Any decline in quality of the ENG features may have future impacts on the associated fisheries.

Recovery of seagrass and subtidal mud may have some potential benefit for these commercial species.

Maintenance of ENG features combined with fishery effort management measures will help maintain the current value of the fishery.

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones or temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are close.

Fish – bottom trawl and Scallops

- -/+ -/+ -/+

There is currently a gentlemen’s agreement between not to trawl over the seagrass habitat in Torbay. Any infringements of this agreement may cause a decline in the quality of the ENG features and may have future impacts on the associated fisheries.

Recovery of seagrass and subtidal mud will depend on the removal of benthic trawls. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed though the future positive benefits for wider fisheries are linked to recovery of seagrass habitats.

Maintenance of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spill over from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery though. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Improvement of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spill over from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery. Though there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

54






Other Wild Harvesting Razor clams Diver caught scallops (recreational)

= = = =

There is a small amount of wild harvesting though not thought to cause any impact.




Aquaculture (Rope mussel farm)

= = = =

There would be no positive or negative impacts for the rope mussel farm.

The environmental impact of the mussel farm would need to be monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial losses or gains associated with this MCZ.



Climate regulation (beneficial ecosystem process)

- + = +

Decline or reduction of seagrass beds could potentially reduce the capacity of the feature to sequester carbon.

Recovery of seagrass beds could potentially increase the amount of carbon sequestered.

Maintenance of seagrass beds will provide for the carbon sequestration at ‘maintenance’ levels. The extent to which seagrass beds currently contribute to the reduction of urban flooding is unknown.

Improvement of seagrass beds could potentially increase the amount of carbon sequestered.


- + = +

Decline or reduction of seagrass beds could potentially destabilise the sediment and increase wave energy and the risk of altering local sediment dynamics.

Recovery of seagrass beds could potentially stabilise the sediment and reduce wave energy. The extent to which the risk of urban flooding may be reduced is unknown.

Maintenance of seagrass beds will provide for the stabilisation of sediment at ‘maintenance’ current levels. The extent to which seagrass beds currently contribute to the reduction of urban flooding is unknown.

Improvement of seagrass beds could potentially stabilise the sediment and reduce wave energy. The extent to which the risk of urban flooding may be reduced is unknown.

55







- + = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability of the ecosystem to regulate pollution. This may have impacts on the quality of the local marine environment and wider pollution regulation processes.

Seagrass beds are known to have a capacity to regulate pollution in a marine area. Recovery of seagrass beds within this MCZ could potentially increase the capacity to regulate pollution though the localise effect is unknown.

Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue to provide for the regulation of pollution at current levels.



- + = +


Recovery of sea grass beds may improve the resilience of the habitat to both natural perturbations and human impacts.



Nature Watching - + = +

Decline of seagrass beds and mud habitats and wider ENG features will potentially decrease food availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers.

Recovery of seagrass beds and mud habitats will potentially increase food availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers.


Improvement of all ENG features will potentially increase the attractiveness of the area to tourists and provide opportunities for enterprise.

Sport/Recreation (Charter boat, Diving, Dive businesses and angling)

- + + +

Decline in ENG features will have negative impact on the quality of dive and angling sites.

Recovery of seagrass beds and mud habitats will potentially provide nursery habitat for fish which are caught by recreational anglers.

Maintenance of all ENG features will protect habitats popular with divers and anglers from further deterioration caused by displacement of fishing activity in the Lyme Bay closed area.

Improvement of all ENG features may increase the quality of diving and angling opportunities in the area with a knock on effects for local businesses.

56






Research & Education

+ - + + +

Any decline of ENG features provides potential for research opportunities. The decline of wider ENG features e.g. intertidal rock may have an impact on the natural resources used by the Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust for education purposes.

Recovery of seagrass beds provides potential for research opportunities and education initiatives.

Maintenance of ENG features will continue to provide habitat and food for birds which arean important feature for the Berry Head visitors centre and for education initiatives run by Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust.

Improvement may potentially increase the desirability of this area for research and education initiatives.

Tourism (see also recreation and Nature watching)

- - = +

Tourism is currently in decline in the Torbay area. Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts for this industry.

Management restrictions to control activity on seagrass beds e.g. trampling and anchoring may limit some activities associated with tourism.

Maintenance of ENG features will continue to contribute to the identity of Torbay being a seaside tourist destination.

Improvement of ENG features may increase the attractiveness and increase opportunities for enterprise within the tourist industry. For example through increased eco-tourism and the potential for use of the MCZ ‘brand’.


?

Spiritual and cultural wellbeing is linked to all beneficial ecosystem services. Any positive or negative impacts on the environmental quality of the ENG features will impact upon the delivery of this beneficial ecosystem services The extent to which these are linked is unknown.

Aesthetic benefits - = = +

Torbay markets itself on the natural environment as a place to live or visit. Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts on the perceived aesthetic qualities associated with the area.

No known changes in aesthetic benefits for recovery of seagrass beds or muds.

Maintenance of all ENG features will maintain the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Torbay. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits.

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Torbay. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits.

Key -A negative change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario = No change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario + A positive change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario -/+ A negative initial impact in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario which may lead to future positive change in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services

57

6.2.6 Conclusion

There is clear evidence that no change to the current management regime of the Torbay recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ) (‘do nothing’) will result in a reduction of ecosystem services provided by the site. This reduction is likely to affect all categories of ecosystem service identified in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity classification (TEEB, 2010) that were found to exist at the site except ‘other wild harvesting’, ‘aquaculture’ and ‘research’. There is clear evidence that the existing ecosystem services derived from the Torbay rMCZ make a contribution to the local economy including through underpinning fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, research and the aesthetic benefits that attract tourists (amongst others). The economic loss associated with a deterioration of these services under the ‘do nothing’ scenario will depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes, but we have estimated that commercial fishing activities currently occurring within and around the rMCZ generate approximately £960,805yr-1 in landings and recreational activities within the rMCZ generate approximately a further £1,579,080 yr-

1. It would be expected that this economic value would be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ management scenario.

The existing Torbay rMCZ ecosystem services also contribute to national and international commitments, including climate regulation and pollution control. An expression of the economic value of these services can be derived, such as through calculating the market value of sequestered carbon or the cost of alternative pollution control measures. Although detailed economic value estimates are unavailable, it is likely that the contribution of these ecosystem services will be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ scenario.

Under an assumed MCZ designation at Torbay, three management scenarios were examined to identify the likely changes to the delivery of ecosystem services. The scenarios were ‘recover’, ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) features at the site, in which realistic management measures were assumed to have been instigated proportionate to each scenario. The results showed that overall ecosystem service delivery improved under all three scenarios of MCZ designation when compared to non-designation (‘do nothing’). Not all ecosystem services responded in the same way to each management scenario. For example, the cuttle fish fishery was predicted to improve under the recover and maintain scenarios, but due to the potentially restrictive management measures needed under the improve scenario, there would be short term disadvantage followed by long term benefit. Longer term benefits were also identified for bottom trawling activities.

The dominant implications of MCZ designation on specific ecosystem service delivery in Torbay were either to secure the level of exiting ecosystem service delivery, or to enhance it. Maintaining the ecosystem services currently delivered by the site safeguards its existing economic (and other non-economic) values to society. Through introducing management measures that promote enhanced delivery of ecosystem services at the site, it is highly likely that the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the site will also increase.

58

6.3 Kingmere rMCZ 16

The Kingmere rMCZ is situated between 3 and 6 nm offshore of the Sussex Coast. The site has been recommended as an MCZ due to the reef substrate that hosts a range of marine life and in turn supports a commercial and recreational fishing industry and a diving industry. Of particular importance at this site are areas of rock substrate that are covered by a shallow veneer of mixed sediment. This particular combination of features provides a potentially nationally important black bream spawning area that has both commercial and recreational value extending beyond the MCZ boundaries. The site was partly proposed to protect the black breams nesting habitat, comprising rock substrate covered by a shallow veneer of mixed sediment. There are numerous access points for a fleet of private and commercial vessels to access the Kingmere MCZ. Towns with harbour facilities within the vicinity include Chichester, Shoreham, Selsey, Brighton and Littlehampton, with Littlehampton providing the closest access point. Diving and angling are promoted as a tourist activity from this location.

The designation of Kingmere as an MCZ with management measures to aid the recovery of the subtidal mixed sediment habitat whilst maintaining the quality and extent of the subtidal chalk habitat, could potentially improve the delivery of all beneficial ecosystem services at a local level. This is particularly true for those associated with commercial fishing and angling, currently estimated to generate £304,000 yr-1 within the rMCZ. Recreational anglers in the vicinity of Kingmere spend approximately £125,190-£627,382 yr-1. The diving industry (e.g. dive businesses and charter boat operators) who are based out of Littlehampton generate a turnover of approximately £598,245 yr-1. Charter boats are based in several other Sussex harbours and numerous private vessels also operate in the Kingmere rMCZ, showing that this value represents just a fraction of the potential value of the Kingmere rMCZ to the wider angling and diving community.

At a regional level the spawning grounds and reef habitat of the Kingmere rMCZ support wider fisheries that are utilised by the commercial and recreational fishing industry. At a national and international level the ENG features in Kingmere, along with the associated reef species contribute towards the broader processes of the formation of species habitat, species diversification and biogeochemical cycling that support wider human well-being.

6.3.1 Kingmere rMCZ – site description

Kingmere rMCZ falls within the Balanced Seas Regional Project area in the Eastern English Channel (Figure 7). The site has a total are of 47.84 km2 and is located between 3 and 6 nm offshore. It was recommended for inclusion as an rMCZ by the Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA), primarily due to the presence of sandstone outcrops and boulders which support a wide range of marine life. These reef features are also associated with black bream spawning and nests which are considered locally important, particularly for their value to the angling community.

59

Figure 7: Kingmere rMCZ 16 site map (Source: Balanced Seas, 2011).

This area is key for biodiversity due to the presence of two areas of rocky outcrops and boulders, Worthing Lumps and Kingmere Rocks, both of which have been designated as marine Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (Irving, 1996). These sites are rich in marine life including bryozoans, sponges, dead man’s fingers Alcyonium digitatum, sea squirts, starfish Asterias rubens and the commercially important edible crab Cancer pagurus (Irving, 1999). The sandstone outcrops forming Kingmere Rocks are particularly pronounced, rising 2-3 m from the seabed, with areas between the rocks composed of mixed sediments and boulders. The Worthing Lumps consists of two separate north-facing chalk cliff exposures of up to 3 m in height, separated by an area of mixed sediments approximately 250 m wide. Due to the mobility of the sediment, the majority of species between the outcrops are mobile species (Irving, 1996).

60

The Kingmere MCZ was recommended for inclusion in the network due to the specific habitats and species listed in Table 11.

Table 11: Feature types and habitat types proposed for designation within Kingmere rMCZ and draft conservation objective for each (Source: Balanced Seas, 2011).


Broad-scale Habitats A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment Recover

Habitats FOCI Subtidal chalk Maintain

Species FOCI Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Maintain

Non-ENG features Black Bream (Spondyliosoms cantharus) Recover

Kingmere MCZ has been recognised as an area of importance for black bream as they are known to nest within the limits of the rMCZ boundary. This species is highly prized by anglers, is commercially exploited by fishermen, and also serves as a feature of interest for recreational divers. Protection of the nesting area is therefore deemed important to ensure protection of the species due to its economic value as well as for conservation gains. Although the season is relatively short (3 months) it attracts many anglers in to fish here (C. Williams, Marine Socio-economics Coordinator, New Economics Foundation, pers. comm.). The Balanced Seas processes led to recognition of the value of protecting black bream in the area, and consequently all stakeholders agreed to restrict their activities during the nesting period. The trawling sector agreed to restrict their activities permanently (with the exception of passage through the site) to protect the sandstone reef habitat.

6.3.2 Beneficial ecosystem processes and services within Kingmere rMCZ

Figure 8 models the links between the ENG features within Kingmere rMCZ and the core ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and beneficial ecosystem services provided. It also links these to activities occurring within the rMCZ area which have then been valued. Key processes and services have been identified as those with the greatest number of contributing ENG features (those with the thickest lines or greatest number of incoming links). It is clear from this model that whilst many of the beneficial ecosystem processes are supported by the ENG features, formation of species habitat, species diversification and biogeochemical cycling are the key beneficial ecosystem process within this rMCZ. These are facilitated primarily by production, decomposition and biological interactions, all of which stem from the range of ENG habitats present in the area (Figure 8). Formation of species habitat and food web dynamics appear to be the key processes linking to the key beneficial ecosystem services of fisheries, natural hazard protection and regulation of pollution. Along with contribution to the broad scale processes identified above, the local activities identified that directly benefit from the ecosystem service delivery are static and mobile fisheries, sea angling, diving and charter boats.

61

Figure 8: Model of the ENG Features within Kingmere rMCZ and the Core Ecosystem Processes, Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Beneficial Ecosystem Services they provide. Associated activities are also linked. Links between processes are derived from Fletcher et al. (2012). No link does not signify no relationship between ENG features and the delivery of ecosystem services or processes, only that there is currently no supporting literature.

62



Formation of species habitat: the range of substrate types present in the Kingmere rMCZ provide habitats that support many different species. The rocky outcrops provided by the Worthing Lumps and Kingmere Rocks provide species habitat for both sessile and mobile benthic species. Some areas of the surrounding sediment are known to be rock with a thin veneer of sediment which may therefore be able to sustain reef associated species. These areas are also known to support the nesting of black bream populations making them a key habitat type for this rMCZ. Formation of species habitat in soft sediment areas is strongly influenced by sediment type. Distribution of species within the sediment is dependent on particle size distribution, organic content and chemical composition, with increased habitat complexity occurring in areas abundant in benthic fauna due to the presence of tubes and burrows (Paramour & Frid, 2006).

Blue mussel beds, and ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa reefs are found within rMCZ Kingmere, providing areas of biogenic structurally complex habitat available for colonisation by a range of flora and fauna (Peterson et al., 2003; Caline et al., 1992, cited in Hill et al., 2010; Ragnarsson & Raffaelli, 1999, cited in Hill et al., 2010). S. spinulosa have been described as important ecosystem engineers as their structure adds stability and topographic complexity and high levels of biodiversity to otherwise mobile, low relief, low diversity sediment areas (Dubois et al., 2006).

Species diversification: the range of species habitats provided by the different substrate types found within the Kingmere rMCZ facilitates colonisation by different species. Colonisation is related to sediment grain sizes, with, for example, the bivalve Abra alba found in fine to medium sands and the brittlestar Ophelia borealis and arrow worm Amphioxus lanceolatus associated with medium grain sizes (Denis & Desroy, 2008). Offshore sediments with a coarse grain size are lower in diversity than more ‘stable’ sand and gravel sediments (Paramour & Frid, 2006). Sediments such as those within rMCZ Kingmere are known to be used by commercially important species through the provision of spawning habitats and nursery grounds (Collie et al., 2005).

The contribution of Sabellaria spp. reefs to species diversity is not fully understood, but it is thought that older reefs have higher species diversity than younger ones (Holt et al., 1998; Jackson, 2008). Species known to associate with these reefs include the porcelain crab Pisidia longicornis and polycheate worms Scoloplos armiger and Lumbrineris gracilis (Hill et al., 2010). It has been found that reef areas such as this can modify the species diversity of soft sediment areas as they support a range of flora and fauna not typically associated with them (Natural England, 2010). This is also true of blue mussel beds, although considerable spatial variation exists in their associated species diversity, meaning that it is not known whether they will have increased or decreased diversity compared to adjacent soft sediment areas (Buschbaum et al., 2009). Areas of subtial chalk are also present within the Kingmere rMCZ, and these are

63

known to support boring bivalve molluscs for example, the common piddock Pholas dactylus, with empty bore holes providing habitat for crevice dwelling species such as anemones, crabs and worms (Natural England, 2010; Hill et al., 2010).

Biogeochemical cycling: nitrification and carbon cycling are key processes that occur within subtidal sediments such as those within rMCZ Kingmere, making them important components of carbon and nitrogen cycling between the oceans, land and atmosphere (Buridge et al., 2006). These processes are also important on a local level as nitrogen and phosphorous remineralisation facilitates the availability of nutrients for primary producers in the water column (Buridge et al., 2006). The presence of blue mussel beds here increases the turnover of nutrients and organic carbon as they are filter feeders and therefore transfer phytoplanktonic primary production in the water column to secondary production (Tyler-Walters, 2008). Native oysters also contribute to carbon sequestration through the accumulation of their shell matrix (Hargis & Haven, 1999, cited in Peterson et al., 2003). Microorganisms are key in the nutrient cycling process and facilitate the transfer of energy in marine ecosystems. Their activity is enhanced by the presence of macroinvertebrates due to their burrowing activities (Paramour & Frid, 2006).



Fisheries: both static and mobile gear fisheries exist in the rMCZ Kingmere area, with potting the dominant fishing method along with set netting and trawling (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012). The value of landings generated from each fishing method is presented in Table 3, with the combined fisheries generating an estimated £304,000 yr-1 (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012). Target species include bass, black bream, brill, cod, Dover sole, plaice, turbot, common cuttlefish, crab and lobster (Vause & Clarke, 2011). Despite their presence, harvesting of native oyster Ostrea edulis is prohibited through an IFCA byelaw, and no known harvesting of blue mussel Mytilus edulis occurs in the rMCZ area. Black bream are present at the site from April to November and are targeted by static nets, pair trawlers, stern trawlers and commercial and recreational anglers (Vause & Clarke, 2011). The fisheries are supported by subtidal sediments and their associated benthic communities which provide an important nursery habitat and food source for species of commercial importance (Paramour & Frid, 2006).

The Kingmere Rocks and Worthing Lumps areas are of particular importance, providing habitat and food for a range of sessile and mobile benthic species, supporting the commercial fisheries. Undulate ray Raja undulata which are present within rMCZ Kingmere are a protected species under the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Their landing is prohibited due to their late age at maturity, meaning that they only produce small numbers of young and are vulnerable to exploitation (Gibson

64

et al., 2006). Collectively, landings from the Kingmere MCZ contribute approximately £304,000 yr-1 to the landings value at local ports (Table 3).

Natural hazard protection: due to its offshore location the level of natural hazard protection afforded by rMCZ Kingmere is not as high as for those rMCZs that include some intertidal areas. The presence of blue mussel beds however, provides some protection as they contribute to erosion control and have a role in sediment dynamics by stabilising the sediment.

Environmental resilience: the subtidal mixed sediments present in rMCZ Kingmere provide resilience as they are susceptible to disturbance and are consequently better able to recover than other habitats when disturbance does occur (Bishop et al., 2006). Recovery of this ENG feature will increase environmental resilience at the site.

Regulation of pollution: soft sediment habitats such as those present in the Kingmere rMCZ are thought to contribute to the regulation of pollution by acting as a sink (Finnegan et al., 2009). Studies relating to this in the UK are lacking, but in the Mediterranean and Baltic Sea nematode species within these sediments have been identified as useful indicators of environmental condition (Gheskiere et al., 2005). The presence of both blue mussel and native oyster will also contribute to regulation of pollution through their roles in nutrient cycling and water purification (Fletcher et al., 2012).

Nature watching/Tourism: The greatest recreational use of the site is by sea anglers. The main target species are bass, cod, black bream, mackerel, whiting, plaice, Dover sole and conger eel (Vause & Clarke, 2011). There are 6-7 local angling clubs (R. Clark, Deputy Chief Fisheries and Conservation Officer, Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, pers. comm.) including the South Coast Angling Club based in Shoreham and the Littlehampton and District Angling Club based in Littlehampton which has 200 members, with 30 of these fishing regularly. In excess of 100 small, privately owned boats are known to operate from slipways in the area (T. Macpherson, Sussex Angling Media, pers. comm.), and despite its offshore location, the rMCZ area is very popular, with fishing thought to occur every day of the year, weather permitting (G. Hibberd, Littlehampton Angling Club, pers. comm.). Angling within this MCZ is especially popular amongst the wider angling community, largely due to the presence of black bream which can be caught at the site from May-October (T. Macpherson, Sussex Angling Media, pers. comm.). Both private and charter boat anglers have agreed to voluntarily close recreation angling over bream nesting sites during the black bream breeding season (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Sea Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012). There are no primary valuation studies on sea angling in this area but using wider studies on the value of angling in the UK it is possible to provide an approximate value for the activity of these angling clubs (Table 12).

65

Table 12: Approximate value of the activities of angling clubs using the Kingmere rMCZ area.

Average Low High

Number of local angling clubs 7

Members, based on the average number of members per club*

69

Average number of angling trips per year per angler (medium activity)**

34 (+/-10) 24 44

Total number of trips per year 16422 11592 21252

Approximate number of total club member angling trips that are boat based (36 %)**

5912 4173 7651

Average expenditure per boat trip based on medium activity anglers**

£56 (+/-26) £30 £82

Total expenditure £331,072 £125,190 £627,382

*Cappell & Lawrence, 2005 **Rees et al., 2010

Recreational Diving is a popular activity along this part of the coast. Within this MCZ Kingmere rocks and Worthing Lumps are popular dive sites, with species of particular interest to divers including black bream, wrasse, blennies, lobster and crab. The depth of the site (10-15 m) means that visibility is generally good and suitable for any grade of diver. Drift dives at this site are particularly popular (Nokes, 2010), and divers report (and often remove) discarded anchors that have become embedded in the rocks. Seasearch divers also visit the site to record and monitor the marine habitats and species, with records for sites within this rMCZ dating back to 1992. In recognition of the interest of the site to divers and the pressures from commercial fishing activity, Worthing Lumps was recently nominated by the public as a site to be recommended as a Marine Protected Area under the Marine Conservation Society’s ‘Your Seas Your Voice Campaign’ (Marine Conservation Society, 2012). One of the proposed management measures for the Kingmere rMCZ is for dive boats (both charter and privately owned) to anchor away from the bream nesting sites during breeding season (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Sea Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012).

Both diving and angling activities are supported by a local charter boat industry whose skippers take sea anglers and divers (who are not using their own boats) to suitable sites. Charter vessels from ports between Brighton and Littlehampton will travel out to the Kingmere MCZ. There are approximately 34 charter boat operators that work from the ports of Chichester, Shoreham, Selsey, Brighton and Littlehampton (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Sea Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012), with approximately 15 of these located at Littlehampton. Due to the particular conditions needed to enter and exit Littlehampton harbour, it is thought that the Kingmere rMCZ is particularly important for this fleet (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Sea Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012). Charter boat activity from Littlehampton alone could generate approximately £598,245 yr-1 in turnover (Table 13).

66

The rMCZ supports marine mammals and foraging bird species providing an opportunity for nature watching. Due to its offshore location, however, this is largely restricted to those passing through or near the site on vessels and it is not possible to calculate its value.

67

Table 13: Value of activities occurring within Kingmere rMCZ.



Valuation Accuracy

Fisheries

Fish - Bottom trawls

£60,000 yr-1

landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Fish – nets and lines

£82,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Crab, lobster & cuttlefish – pots & traps

£133,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Dredges £29,000 yr-1


2 Accuracy unknown

Other Wild Harvesting Private sales of fish No valuation currently possible, as data on quantities have not been collected.

Natural Hazard Protection Coastal protection No valuation data currently available

Regulation of Pollution No valuation data currently available

Environmental Resilience No valuation data currently available

Nature Watching Potential for some wildlife watching from leisure boats transiting through or near site.

No valuation data currently available

Sport/Recreation Charter boat £598,245 yr-1

turnover based on 15 vessels operating locally from Littlehampton. Average charter boat turnover from Lyme Bay case study (Rees et al., 2010)

1 Overestimate. No information on the % of time spent in the MCZ. Figure does not take into account values derived from the wider charter boats operating in the area.

68



Valuation Accuracy

Angling £125,190- £627,382 yr-1

Based in a valuation of the expenditure of local angling club members on boat activities

1 Accuracy unknown as no primary valuation studies available to show % of time spent in the MCZ

Diving Detailed valuation data not currently available though there is a contribution to charter boat values

Tourism See recreation values

Detailed values not currently available though there is some contribution towards regional tourism


No valuation data currently available

Aesthetic benefits No valuation data currently available

*The valuation accuracy /confidence is based on the provenance of the valuation data where 1= wider values for the Kingmere area with no indication of extent of the activity within the MCZ, 2= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with no supporting GIS, 3= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature or expert knowledge for the MCZ with supporting GIS.

69


Table 14 below presents the potential change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes in the MCZ under four management scenarios.

70

Table 14: The change in delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in Kingmere in relation to scenarios for management of activities in the MCZ.






Fisheries – Crab, Lobster and nets and line

- -/+ -/+ -/+


Recovery of subtidal mixed sediments may have potential benefits providing habitat for these commercial species. Recovery of black bream may improve the value of the rod and line and fixed nets fishery. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Maintenance of ENG features and the recovery of subtidal mixed sediments combined with fishery effort management measures may maintain the value of this fishery. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones or temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Fish – bottom trawl and dredges

- -/+ -/+ -/+

Any decline in the quality of the ENG features may have future impacts on the associated fisheries.

Recovery of subtidal mixed sediments and black bream will depend on the removal of trawls and dredges. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed though the future positive benefits for wider fisheries are linked to recovery of these sediments.

Maintenance of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery though. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Improvement of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery, although there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.


- + = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability of the ecosystem to provide natural hazard protection.

Recovery of ENG features, in particular blue mussel beds could increase the capacity for natural hazard protection at this site.

Maintenance of ENG features will maintain natural hazard protection at its current levels.

Improvement of all ENG features could increase the capacity of this site to provide natural hazard protection.

71







- + + +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability of the ecosystem to regulate of pollution. This may have impacts on the quality of the local marine environment and wider pollution regulation processes.

Subtidal soft sediments are known to have a capacity to regulate pollution in a marine area. Recovery of these sediments within this MCZ could potentially increase the capacity to regulate pollution, though the local effect is unknown.

Recovery and maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to provide for the regulation of pollution.



- + + +


Recovery of subtidal mixed sediments may improve the resilience of the habitat to both natural perturbations and human impacts.



Nature Watching - + = +

Decline of ENG features will potentially decrease food availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers.

Recovery of subtidal mixed sediments and black bream stocks will potentially increase food availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers.


Improvement of all ENG features will potentially increase the attractiveness of the area to tourists and provide opportunities for enterprise.

72






Sport/Recreation (Charter boat, diving and angling). Also tourism and nature watching

- -/+ + +

Decline in ENG features will have negative impact on the quality of diving and angling sites.

Recovery of subtidal mixed sediments will potentially provide nursery habitat for fish caught by recreational anglers. Recovery of black bream stocks will potentially increase the capacity for angling to occur at the site. Recovery may increase the quality of angling and diving opportunities, with a knock on effects for local businesses. Management restrictions to allow black bream stocks to recover may have short or long term impacts on recreational angling.

Maintenance of all ENG features will protect reef habitats popular with anglers and divers from further deterioration and will maintain the current interest for both groups.

Improvement of all ENG features may increase the quality of angling and diving opportunities in the area with a knock on effects for local businesses. Improvement of ENG features may increase the attractiveness, increase the potential for angling and diving and increase opportunities for enterprise within the tourist industry.


?


Aesthetic benefits - + = +

Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts on the aesthetic qualities associated with the area. Particularly for divers.

Changes in aesthetic benefits for recovery of subtidal mixed sediments or black bream stocks may improve the aesthetic quality of the site for divers. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits.

Maintenance of all ENG features will maintain the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Kingmere. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits.

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Kingmere. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits.


73

6.3.6 Conclusion

There is clear evidence that the current management regime (‘do nothing’) of the Kingmere recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ) will result in a decline of ecosystem services currently provided by the site. The decline is likely to affect all categories of ecosystem service identified in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity classification (TEEB, 2010) that were found to exist at the site. These include commercial fisheries, natural hazard protection, regulation of pollution, environmental resilience, nature watching, and recreation (including diving and sea angling). There is clear evidence that the existing ecosystem services derived from the Kingmere rMCZ make a contribution to the local economy, primarily through fisheries and recreation activities. The economic loss associated with a deterioration of these services under the ‘do nothing’ scenario will depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes. It is estimated that commercial fishing activities currently occurring within and around the rMCZ generate approximately £304,000yr-1 in landings and recreational activities (primarily angling) generate a further £723,435-£1,225,627yr-1. It is expected that this economic value would be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ management scenario.

Under an assumed Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) designation at Kingmere, three management scenarios were examined to identify the likely changes to the availability of ecosystem services. The scenarios were ‘recover’, ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) features at the site, in which realistic management measures were assumed to have been instigated proportionate to each scenario. The results showed that overall ecosystem service availability improved under all three scenarios of MCZ designation when compared to non-designation (‘do nothing’). For commercial fisheries, there was predicted to be an initial decline in the availability of ecosystem services under all three MCZ management scenarios due to the imposition of effort controls but longer term benefits due to spillover effects. For recreation, the ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ management scenarios were found to positively impact the availability of ecosystem services, while under the ‘recover’ scenario, there was initial decline followed by longer term positive changes, also due to short term effort controls.

The dominant implication of MCZ designation on specific ecosystem service availability at Kingmere was to enhance the level available. Through introducing management measures that promote enhanced availability of ecosystem services at the site, it is assessed as highly likely that the economic value of the ecosystem services will also increase.

74

6.4 North of Celtic Deep rMCZ

The North of Celtic Deep rMCZ is located offshore between Welsh and Irish territorial waters in the Irish Sea. It was recommended for designation due to the presence of subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal sand, and moderate energy circalittoral rock and due to the high productivity and benthic diversity associated with the area. The St Georges Channel, part of which is located in the southern end of the rMCZ, provides an area of upwelling where thermal fronts facilitate high primary productivity in the summer months which supports high benthic and pelagic biodiversity. The high biodiversity supports commercial fisheries in the area, with vessels commonly targeting species such as pollack, spurdog, catfish, dogfish and thornback ray. Few UK vessels fish in these waters however, with the main fishing grounds situated to the north of the rMCZ targeting Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus. An estimated annual landings value of at least £4,000 yr-1 is generated from UK fisheries within the rMCZ, although the area appears to hold a greater importance for foreign fisheries, with French landings from mobile gear estimated at £21,000 yr-1, and eight Belgian and a further unknown number of Spanish boats using the area for trawling.

Due to its offshore location, commercial fisheries, and limited recreational sea angling are the only activities known to benefit directly from the ecosystem services generated from rMCZ North of Celtic Deep. The importance of the site for pelagic species including common dolphin Delphinus delphis and basking shark Cetorhinus maximus as well as important species of seabird such as the northern gannet Morus bassanus, Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus and Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica suggests, however, that although not a nature watching area, by supporting these populations, the rMCZ makes an important contribution to nature watching elsewhere in the UK. At a regional level the ecosystem services and processes support commercial fisheries and key species of conservation importance, and at a national and international level the ENG features within rMCZ North of Celtic Deep contribute towards the broader processes of secondary production, food web dynamics and biogeochemical cycling that support wider human wellbeing.

6.4.1 North of Celtic Deep rMCZ – site description

North of Celtic Deep rMCZ is an offshore rMCZ, which falls within the Irish Sea Conservation Zone Regional Project area in the Irish Sea (Figure 9), and totals 655.69 km2. It is located between Irish and Welsh territorial waters 23 km from the Welsh coast. The site was recommended as an MCZ due to the broad-scale habitat types of subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal sand, and moderate energy circalittoral rock all present within an area of high productivity and benthic biodiversity (ISCZ, 2011).

75

Figure 9: North of Celtic Deep rMCZ 5 site map (Source: ISCZ, 2011).

Subtidal marine sediment (coarse sediment and subtidal sand) is the dominant habitat type at the site and supports high benthic biodiversity (Seeley et al., 2010). Annelids, molluscs and crustaceans are particularly abundant, and although neither is a feature for which the site has been recommended due to insufficient confidence in available records, the presence of the ocean quahog Arctica islandica and horse mussel

76

Modiolus modiolus beds are of particular note – A. islandica due to their longevity and importance as a scientific reference tool, and M. modiolus due to their importance as suspension feeders and as horse mussel beds are known to increase habitat complexity and support high benthic biodiversity (Holt et al., 1998; OSPAR, 2008; ISCZ, 2011).

The northern end of the St Georges Channel is included within the site, and its topographic features, including areas where water depths reach 112 m create an area of upwelling where thermal fronts form in the summer months (ISCZ, 2011). The high biological productivity associated with these fronts is created by tidal mixing and attracts a range of pelagic species, including the common dolphin Delphinus delphis, for which the area has been deemed critical (Clarke et al., 2010), and the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus for which it is a key part of their migratory route (Stephan et al., 2011). Basking sharks are on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List as Endangered, which illustrates the international importance of the site. It is thought that the area may also be utilised by other species of whales, with sightings of fin whales occurring during recent years (C. Benson, Chairman of Sea Trust, pers. comm.) It is also an important foraging area for seabirds, in particular attracting the northern gannet Morus bassanus, Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus and Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica (Smith et al., 2011).

The site was recommended for inclusion in the MCZ network due to the specific habitats and species listed in Table 15.

Table 15: Feature types and habitat types proposed for designation within North of Celtic Deep rMCZ and draft conservation objectives (Source: ISCZ, 2011).


Broad-scale Habitats A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment Recover

A5.2 Subtidal sand Recover

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock Maintain

Habitats FOCI Subtidal sands and gravels Recover

Species FOCI - -

Non-ENG features - -

6.4.2 Beneficial ecosystem processes and services within North of Celtic Deep rMCZ

Figure 10 models the links between the ENG features within North of Celtic Deep rMCZ and the core ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and beneficial ecosystem services provided. It also links these to activities occurring within the rMCZ area which have then been valued. Key processes and services were then identified as those with the greatest number of contributing ENG features (those with the thickest lines or greatest number of incoming links).

77

All beneficial ecosystem processes are supported by the ENG features. The most links from referenced material are, however, between the ENG features and the beneficial ecosystem processes of secondary production, food web dynamics and biogeochemical cycling, facilitated primarily by production, nutrient cycling and ecological interactions which stem from the ENG features within the area. Formation of species habitat appears to be the biggest driver of fisheries which are identified as a beneficial ecosystem service for this rMCZ along with regulation of pollution. Due to the offshore location of this rMCZ, commercial fisheries and limited recreational sea angling are the only local activities identified that are currently benefitting from this ecosystem service delivery (Figure 10).

78

Figure 10: Model of the ENG Features within North of Celtic Deep rMCZ and the Core Ecosystem Processes, Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Beneficial Ecosystem Services they provide. Associ ated activities are also linked. Links between processes are derived from Fletcher et al. (2012). No link does not signify no relationship between ENG features and the delivery of ecosystem services or processes, only that there is currently no supporting literature.

79


The key beneficial ecosystem processes identified in Figure 2 have been considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below (taken from Fletcher et al., 2012).

Secondary production: circalittoral rock within the North of Celtic Deep rMCZ, colonised by epibiota such as sponges and tunicates makes a key contribution to secondary production in the area (Jones et al., 2000). This is further enhanced by epifauna associated with subtidal coarse sediment, which provides a substantial amount of its biomass. Species commonly found in these areas include starfish Asterias rubens and brittlestars Ophiura albida, hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus, swimming crab Liocarcinus depurator, and edible crab Cancer pagurus (Jones et al., 2000). The presence of long lived horse mussels M. modiolus and ocean quahog A. islandica in the area further contribute to secondary production (Rees & Dare, 1993; Wildish & Fader, 1998, cited in Tyler-Walters, 2008).

Food web dynamics: the subtidal coarse sediments within rMCZ North of Celtic Deep provide habitat for a range of crabs, echinoderms and other epifauna, which in turn provide food for commercially important fish and shellfish species, and facilitate the transfer of organic carbon from the benthic to the pelagic system (Snelgrove, 1999; Paramour & Frid, 2006). Commercial species are also supported by the horse mussel M. modiolus beds and their associated infaunal communities (including the polycheate worm Lepidonotus squamata and bivalves Mysella bidentata and Nucula spp., (Rees et al., 2008)), and the ocean quahog A. islandica which is known to be of particular importance for haddock, ocean pout, crustaceans and cod Gadus morhua (Sabatini et al., 2008; Hill et al., 2010).

Biogeochemical cycling: nitrification and carbon cycling are both key processes that occur within the subtidal sediments in rMCZ North of Celtic Deep, making them important components of carbon and nitrogen cycling between the oceans, land and atmosphere (Burdige et al., 2006). The presence of infaunal communities within these sediments facilitates the cycling of nutrients due to burrowing and burrow irrigation activities (Paramour & Frid, 2006). The transfer of energy from benthic to pelagic systems and also between trophic levels is further supported by the beds of suspension feeding horse mussels M. modiolus and their associated infaunal communities who feed on their faeces and pseudofaeces (Navarro & Thompson, 1996).



Fisheries: The offshore location of rMCZ North of Celtic Deep means that it is only fished by offshore vessels. It supports vessels using demersal trawls, nets, hooks and lines targeting pollack, spurdog, catfish, dogfish and thornback ray. There are few UK vessels known to use the area as the main fishing grounds are located further to the

80

north, where a trawl fishery and a fishery for Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus exist (R. Briggs, former Head of the Marine Fisheries Research Programme, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Northern Ireland, pers. comm.). Estimated UK landings from the rMCZ total less than £4,000 yr-1 (Table 16) but it is known to support a number of Belgian, French and Spanish vessels, with the value of the French fisheries in the area estimated to be £21,000 yr-1 (Table 16). Eight Belgian vessels are known to fish within the rMCZ, although no more than three are thought to fish within it at any one time. The area is of importance to Belgian fishing vessels as Belgian fisheries representatives have commented that without access to these fishing grounds, Belgian boats would go out of business (ISCZ, 2011).

Regulation of pollution: soft sediment habitats such as those present in the North of Celtic Deep rMCZ are thought to contribute to the regulation of pollution by acting as a sink (Finnegan et al., 2009). Studies related to this in the UK are lacking, but in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas nematode species within these sediments have been identified as useful indicators of environmental condition (Gheskiere et al., 2005).

Environmental resilience: the subtidal mixed sediments present in the area provide resilience as they are susceptible to disturbance and are consequently better able to recover than other habitats when disturbance does occur (Bishop et al., 2006). Recovery of this ENG feature will increase environmental resilience at the site.

Recreation & sport: due to the offshore location of this rMCZ recreational use of the site is dependent on weather conditions and is limited to sea angling, with four charter boats known to operate from Welsh ports, visiting the area for catch and release blue shark fishing (C. Benson, Chairman of Sea Trust, pers. comm.). The importance of the area to populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis (Clarke et al., 2010), basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Stephan et al., 2011), northern gannet Morus bassanus, Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus and Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica (Smith et al., 2011) suggests that it is of value to nature watching and other activities throughout the UK, with opportunistic nature watching likely to occur from vessels passing through the site. Monitoring of cetaceans and birds has been undertaken in the area since 2001 and regular monthly cetacean surveys conducted in the rMCZ by the Sea Trust since 2004 from ferries travelling from Fishguard to Rosslare (C. Benson, Chairman of Sea Trust, pers. comm.).

81

Table 16: Value of activities occurring within North of Celtic Deep rMCZ.



Valuation Accuracy

Fisheries

Bottom trawls <£1,000 yr-1

landing value The number of active UK vessels is unknown (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Dredges < £1,000 yr-1

landing value The number of active UK vessels is unknown but is thought to be fewer than 5 (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Nets < £1,000 yr-1

landing value The number of active UK vessels is known to be fewer than 5 (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Hooks & Lines < £1,000 yr-1

landing value The number of active UK vessels is known to be fewer than 5 (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Non-UK vessels – bottom towed gear

£21,000 yr-1

landing value for French vessels (Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de L’Aquaculture, 2011, cited in Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012) Further Spanish & Belgian landings, value unknown (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Aquaculture None known to occur within the rMCZ



Sport/Recreation 4 charter boats known to operate within this rMCZ (C. Benson, Chairman of Sea Trust, pers. comm.). No valuation data available

Medicines No valuation data available

Research & Education No valuation data available

Spiritual and cultural well-being No valuation data available

*The valuation accuracy is based on the provenance of the valuation data where 1= wider values for North of Celtic Deep with no indication of extent of the activity within the MCZ, 2= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with no supporting GIS, 3= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature or expert knowledge for the MCZ with supporting GIS.

82

6.5 Changes in the delivery in ecosystem services under potential management scenarios

Table 17 presents the potential change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes in the MCZ are under three management scenarios as there are no management objectives to ‘recover’ any of the ENG features.

83

Table 17: The change in delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in North of Celtic Deep in relation to scenarios for management of activities in the rMCZ.






Fisheries – Hooks, Lines & Nets

- -/+ -/+ -/+


Recovery of ENG features may have potential benefits providing habitat and increasing food availability for commercial species. There is, however, the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Maintenance of ENG features and the recovery of subtidal mixed sediments combined with fishery effort management measures may maintain the value of this fishery. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones or temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns. However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Fisheries – Bottom Trawl & Dredges

- -/+ -/+ -/+


Recovery of ENG features will depend on the removal of trawls and dredges. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed, but the future positive benefits for wider fisheries are linked to recovery of these sediments.

Maintenance of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Improvement of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery, although there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed.

Sport/recreation – sea angling

- + = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may impact the future potential for recreational sea angling in the rMCZ

Recovery of ENG features through removal of trawls and dredges may increase the potential for recreational sea angling at the site through recovery of habitat for target species

Maintenance of all ENG features will maintain recreational sea angling at current levels

Improvement of ENG features will potentially increase the potential for recreational sea angling within the rMCZ


- + + +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may cause the ecosystem to

Recovery of subtidal mixed sediments may improve the resilience of the

Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue to

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially enable the ecosystem to

84






become less resilient to both natural perturbations and human impacts.

habitat to both natural perturbations and human impacts.

contribute towards wider environmental resilience

become more resilient to change.


- + + +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability of the

ecosystem to regulate of pollution. This may have impacts on the quality of the

local marine environment and wider pollution regulation processes.

Subtidal soft sediments are known to have a capacity to regulate pollution in a marine area. Recovery of these sediments within this MCZ could potentially increase the capacity to regulate pollution, although the local effect is unknown.

Recovery and maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to provide

for the regulation of pollution.

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the capacity of this area to

regulate pollution.


?



85

6.5.1 Conclusion

There is evidence to suggest that no change to the current management regime of the North of Celtic Deep recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ) (‘do nothing’) is likely to result in a reduction of ecosystem services provided by the site. This reduction is likely to affect all categories of ecosystem service identified in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity classification (TEEB, 2010) that were found to exist at the site: fisheries, sport/recreation, environmental resilience, and regulation of pollution. Despite the offshore position of this rMCZ, there is evidence that the site makes a direct contribution to the local economy through commercial fishing and recreational sea angling activities. The economic loss associated with a deterioration of these services under the ‘do nothing’ scenario will depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes, but it has been estimated that commercial fishing activities currently occurring within the site have a value of less than £4,000 yr-1 to the local economy, £21,000 yr-1 to the French economy, and a substantially greater value to the Belgian and Spanish economies (reflecting the relative fishing effort at the site). It would be expected that this economic value would be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ management scenario. There are also indirect links to the wider economy as the area provides a feeding ground for common dolphin and basking shark, which support nature watching activities around the UK. No financial value was available for recreational sea angling.

Under an assumed MCZ designation at North of Celtic Deep, three management scenarios were examined to identify the likely changes to the delivery of ecosystem services. The scenarios were ‘recover’, ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) features at the site, in which realistic management measures were assumed to have been instigated proportionate to each scenario. The results showed that overall ecosystem service delivery improved under all three scenarios of MCZ designation when compared to non-designation (‘do nothing’). For the commercial fisheries, there was predicted to be an initial reduction in ecosystem service delivery due the management measures assumed to restrict commercial fishing activities followed by longer term improvements to the fisheries. Environmental resilience and regulation of pollution services were all expected to change positively under all MCZ designation scenarios, while sport/recreation was also expected to experience positive change in all scenarios except ‘maintain’ in which the service was predicted to experience no change.

Overall, the implications of MCZ designation on specific ecosystem service delivery in North of Celtic Deep were to improve the delivery of exiting ecosystem services, in the case of commercial fisheries following a likely initial decline. MCZ designation is therefore likely to safeguard the economic (and other non-economic) values to society of this site. Through introducing management measures that promote enhanced delivery of ecosystem services at the site, it is likely that the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the site will also increase.

86

7 Discussion

7.1 The benefits available from the MCZ network: national evidence

The estimate of the beneficial ecosystem processes and services provided by the entire rMCZ network (presented in section 4) demonstrates that these are not evenly distributed across the network. The prevalence of beneficial ecosystem processes and services was classified as being high, medium or low, depending upon the number of sites at which each process or service occurred. The processes that were common across the entire network (high) are those that underpin many of the factors critical to human well-being:

Food web dynamics

Species diversification

Formation of species habitat

Biogeochemical cycling

Primary production

Secondary production

Larval/gamete supply

Waste assimilation

Climate regulation

Beneficial ecosystem services found to exist across the entire network were also critical to human well-being as they were focused upon food security, resilience against environmental challenges and pollution, as well as the more indirect benefits of a spiritual and educational nature:

Fisheries

Other wild harvesting

Environmental resilience

Regulation of pollution

Spiritual/cultural well-being

Research and education

The high incidence of these beneficial ecosystem processes and services within the rMCZ network has the following implications:

A network of MCZs will provide ecological insurance that key processes and services that support human well-being will be maintained and supported.

87

A network will make a significant contribution to the wider ecological health of the English and European marine environment, for example through larval and gamete supply and species diversification. This in turn will support the maintenance and development of beneficial ecosystem services in unprotected environments.

The network will contribute to international priorities and commitments, including those related to climate change, pollution, and protection of important cultural heritage.

The quality of the evidence base for the high incidence processes and services is strong. It should be noted, however, that ‘spiritual/cultural well-being’ and ‘education and research’ services were assumed by Fletcher et al. (2012) to be available from all marine features and therefore by extension are recorded as existing in all rMCZs. In contrast, there are some beneficial ecosystem processes and services that had a low incidence in the rMCZ network. These processes and services are either genuinely rare, in which case they require careful management as they are vulnerable to damage and loss, or their association with a particular marine feature may be under-reported due to a lack of evidence. The low incidence beneficial ecosystem processes were:

Erosion control

Biological control

Water cycling

Water quality regulation

Formation of pleasant scenery

The low incidence beneficial ecosystem services were:

Nature watching

Fertiliser/feed

Aquaria

Ornamental materials

Salt

Aesthetic benefits

Biofuels

With respect to the low incidence beneficial ecosystem processes, erosion control and formation of pleasant scenery are most likely to be associated with shallow or intertidal conditions which are not found in all rMCZs, therefore their low incidence is unsurprising. Similarly, some of the low incidence beneficial ecosystem services are associated with specific conditions and are therefore unlikely to be universal, such as nature watching, salt production, and aesthetic benefits. However, certain beneficial

88

ecosystem processes and services are not subject to geographical restrictions, which suggests that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, they are genuinely rare within the rMCZ network. The existence of a suite of low incidence beneficial ecosystem processes and services within the rMCZ network has the following implications:

The implementation of poor management measures at rMCZs which contain low incidence beneficial ecosystem processes and services presents a disproportionate risk to the maintenance of the processes and services. The designation of a network of rMCZs offsets that risk.

The low incidence beneficial ecosystem services may be dependent upon processes that are supported by the network of rMCZs, therefore the designation of a network supports the low incidence processes and features at specific sites.

A network of MCZs is therefore likely to be important at the national level in maintaining the availability of a range of beneficial ecosystem services to society.

7.2 The benefits available from the MCZ network: case study evidence

The case studies demonstrated that rMCZs deliver direct benefits to human well-being in their immediate area, such as through the provision of recreation opportunities, the regulation of pollution, or food provision, which can make a quantifiable contribution to the local economy. It is also clear from the case studies that individual sites can make a contribution to achieving national and international policy commitments, including under the OSPAR Convention and Marine Strategy Framework Directive through the provision of habitats for protected species, and to global priorities such as climate regulation through carbon sequestration and biogeochemical cycling. Each rMCZ therefore contributes varied and multiple benefits at a variety of scales to the economy and to society.

Through an assessment of the likely impacts on the availability of beneficial ecosystem services under different management scenarios, it was possible to determine the effect of MCZ designation on each case study rMCZ.

7.2.1 Do nothing

Under the ‘do nothing’ scenario at all of the case studies, there was evidence that there would be a deterioration in the beneficial ecosystem services delivered by the site. The deterioration was found to affect the full range of beneficial ecosystem services, including extractive and non-extractive activities. The deterioration was considered likely due to the combination of the ongoing pressure being placed on the local ecosystem by a variety of activities and the absence of management measures to control those activities and their impacts. The economic loss associated with a deterioration of services under the ‘do nothing’ scenario would depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes and the financial value of their

89

associated beneficial ecosystem services. Most importantly, the ‘do nothing’ scenario demonstrated that the beneficial ecosystem services currently delivered by an rMCZ are unlikely to continue at their current level if the site is not designated as an MCZ. In contrast, there is evidence that maintaining the current management regime at the case study sites will result in a reduction in ecosystem service delivery and a likely reduction in the socio-economic benefits available from each site.

7.2.2 Recover ENG features to a favourable condition

Under the MCZ designation ‘recover’ scenario, it was assumed that damaging activities were managed to allow the recovery of ENG features. Under this scenario, there was a predicted positive effect on the delivery of a majority of beneficial ecosystem services available at the case study sites, either through a positive effect on their delivery or through maintaining their delivery by arresting the predicted decline in their delivery arising from the absence of MCZ designation. Fisheries services (particularly those accessed through bottom trawling and dredging) were predicted to experience an initial decline as these would most likely be the activities controlled to enable the recovery of ENG features. However, it was predicted that longer term enhanced spillover effects and other ecological improvements (such as higher quality nursery grounds) may offset short term disadvantages for these activities. The precise timescale of this predicted enhancement is likely to vary according to the specific context.

7.2.3 Maintain ENG features in a favourable condition

Under the MCZ designation ’maintain’ scenario, it was assumed that management measures would be put in place to maintain ENG features in a favourable condition. Under this scenario, the implications for beneficial ecosystem services were generally either to maintain or improve the level of service delivery (depending upon the pre-existing condition of the ENG features). The only services to experience a decline, mostly short term, were those related to commercial fisheries which could potentially be offset by longer term benefits arising from enhanced beneficial ecosystem processes.

7.2.4 Improve conditions of the ENG features

Under the MCZ designation ‘improve’ scenario, it was assumed that management measures would be put in place to enhance the ENG features within each site. Under this scenario, there was a predicted beneficial effect on the delivery of virtually all beneficial ecosystem services available at at each of the case study sites. This management scenario had the most significant positive impact on the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services. Once again, there was some short term disadvantage to commercial fishing activities, which was predicted to be offset over time by longer term benefits arising from enhanced beneficial ecosystem processes.

90

7.2.5 Implications

The clearest implication from the scenario analysis was that the decline in beneficial ecosystem service delivery predicted to occur in the absence of MCZ designation has the potential to be arrested and reversed with MCZ designation (with the introduction of appropriate management measures). It should be noted that as this assessment is based on the current status of the case study rMCZs, there is a risk associated with a delay in MCZ designation of further deterioration, which may make it difficult, or potentially impossible, to arrest or reverse the predicted declines in beneficial ecosystem services. Designation would be likely to present short term difficulties for some commercial fisheries sub-sectors but provide immediate benefits for a wide range of activities and longer term benefits for other sub-sectors of commercial fisheries. In economic terms, in the Kingmere, Torbay, and Holderness Inshore case studies, recreation, recreational angling and/or nature watching were all of economic significance when compared to the landings values derived from the local commercial fishing industry. Although these economic valuations do not take into account the wider social complexity of the monetary value derived from an industry, the results suggest that MCZ designation is likely to safeguard and enhance the economic benefits derived from MCZs both individually and collectively.

From the case study analysis, it was notable that the maintenance and improvement of beneficial ecosystem process and service delivery would be dependent to upon tailored and effective management measures. The existence of an MCZ network could mitigate against the potentially damaging effects of poor management measures that impact upon the ecological features at individual sites posed by offering broad scale ecological resilience. The resilience applies both in terms of the availability of the beneficial ecosystem service at other locations (i.e. the service is not totally lost) and through the capacity to share practice between sites to minimize the risk of management measures being introduced that negatively impact upon the marine environment and therefore the delivery of services. As well as mitigating against management decisions that negatively impact upon the marine environment, the existence of a network may actively support management decisions that support ecological function, in which case the provision of beneficial ecosystem processes and services would be more secure, and potentially more extensive.

The results of this study show that monetary valuations are important to illustrate the importance of ecosystem services and human well-being in policy and decision making. Indeed, when applied spatially in a planning context they can show the relative economic importance of an activity. However, it is in its practical application for planning and management that caution must be exercised. Decision makers must be aware that if they focus on valuing the types of ecosystem services that are amenable to economic value then it is possible that they may end up only managing those economically valuable services at the expense of the rest (Robinson, 2011).

91

7.3 The precautionary principle and securing the benefits of the MCZ network

The precautionary principle can play an important role in circumstances where risk needs to be balanced against management action (or inaction) in a context of limited evidence. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that “where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat” (CBD, 1992). In 2000, the European Commission issued a Communication on the precautionary principle (EC, 2000). In article 6.2 of the Communication, the Commission discusses the factors that trigger the application of the precautionary principle. It states that “an assessment of the potential consequences of inaction and of the uncertainties of the scientific evaluation should be considered by decision makers when determining whether to trigger action based on the precautionary principle” (EC, 2000).

The approach outlined in the European Commission Communication on the precautionary principle implies that the results of not designating the full rMCZ network require careful evaluation, particularly as there are potentially significant uncertainties surrounding the implications of such a decision, in both ecological and socio-economic terms. The key risk is that non-designation of the rMCZs diminishes the current delivery of beneficial ecosystem services and forecloses opportunities to extend the scale and delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in the future, that could be derived through appropriate management. This suggests that the more of the rMCZ network that is designated, the less likely the existence of a significant opportunity cost associated with non-designation.

92

8 Conclusion

The evidence presented in this report suggests that there are considerable wider benefits associated with the designation of an MCZ network and that these benefits are likely to be more secure and substantial if they exist within a network, rather than in a small number of unconnected MPAs.

The main conclusions of the report are:

MCZ designation is likely to result in an improvement in the beneficial ecosystem services delivered by MCZ sites. In all four case studies and under all MCZ designation management scenarios, it was predicted that there would be improved availability of beneficial ecosystem services. The only exception was certain commercial fisheries, which was predicted to experience initial disadvantage followed by longer term benefit.

Assuming that the benefits of MCZ designation predicted at the four case study sites are replicable across all rMCZ sites, it is likely that the benefits arising from the designation of a substantial MCZ network would be significant. These financial and non-financial benefits would be generated from arresting the likely decline in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services (resulting from non-designation) and through providing the opportunity to enhance the benefits currently delivered from rMCZ sites. These benefits would be achieved through the imposition of management measures that support beneficial ecosystem processes and the provision of beneficial ecosystem services.

The ecological connectivity of the network is likely to have an instrumental role in supporting the availability of beneficial ecosystem services (and their associated socio-economic value) within an individual MCZ, particularly those with low incidence beneficial ecosystem services. The designation of a network is therefore more likely to secure the current and future benefits available from MCZs than would a small number of isolated sites. A precautionary approach to securing the actual and potential benefits available from an MCZ network would be to maximise potential connectivity through the designation of an extensive network.

Each of the four case study sites was found to deliver beneficial ecosystem processes and services that contributed to broader scale policy issues. It is therefore likely that a network would make a significant contribution to the wider ecological health of the English and European marine environment and to international priorities and policy commitments, including those related to climate change, pollution, and protection of important cultural heritage.

MCZ non-designation is likely to result in a deterioration of the beneficial ecosystem services at delivered by rMCZ sites. In the absence of MCZ

93

designation, all four case study sites demonstrated that they were likely to experience a reduction in beneficial ecosystem service ddelivery and a likely reduction in the financial values associated with those beneficial ecosystem services.

Finally, it was notable that evidence gaps impeded the identification and valuation of many beneficial ecosystem processes and services delivered by individual rMCZs and the entire rMCZ network. It is clear therefore that in order to develop a complete view of the benefits associated with MCZ designation, additional primary evidence is needed. More broadly, the inequality between the evidence available related to the benefits delivered from MCZ designation and the costs to industry of designation, make it difficult to formulate a quantitative or objective analysis of the distribution of the overall benefits and burdens of designation.

94

References

Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E. and Peau, L. 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13: 353-367.

Allen, J.H. 2008. Ecological assessment of Yorkshire coast prohibited trawling areas. Report to North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee, Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull. In: Net Gain 2011. Net Gain Final Recommendations. Submission to Natural England & JNCC. Net Gain, The North Sea Marine Conservation Zones Project.

Al-Raei, A.M., Bosselmann, K., Böttcher, M.E., Hespeneide, B. and Tauber, F. 2009. Seasonal dynamics of microbial sulfate reduction in temperate intertidal surface sediments: controls by temperature and organic matter. Ocean Dynamics, 59: 351-370.

Aprahamian, M. and Walker, A. 2008. Status of eel fisheries, stocks and their management in England and Wales. Knowledege and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, 7: 390-391.

Araime, S., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., McArdle, D.A. and Warner, R.R. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications, 13: 170-184.

Baker, J.M. and Crothers, J.H. 1987. Intertidal Rock. In: Baker, J.M. & Wolff, W.J. (eds) Biological Surveys of estuaries and coasts, 157-196, Cambridge University Press.

Balanced Seas 2011. Balanced Seas Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations 2011. Balanced Seas Report.

Bale, A.J., Stepehns, J.A. and Harris, C.B. 2007. Critical erosion profiles in macro-tidal estuary sediments: Implications for the stability of intertidal mud and the slope of mud banks. Continental Shelf Research, 27: 2303-2312.

Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Walpole, M., ten Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L. and de Groot, R. 2008. The Economics of Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Scoping the Science. Cambridge, UK: European Commission.

Beaumont, N., Townsend, M., Mangi, S. and Austen, M. C. 2006. Marine Biodiversity An economic valuation. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. Report produced for Defra by Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

Bishop, M.J. Peterson, C.H., Sommerson, H.C., Lenihan, H.S., and Grabowski, J.H. 2006. Deposition and long-shore transport of dredge spoils to nourish beaches: Impacts on benthic infauna of an ebb-tidal delta. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(3): 530-546.

Bloor, I (in prep). The ecology, distribution and spawning behaviour of the commercially important common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) in the inshore waters of the English Channel. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Plymouth: U.K.

95

Blue Gym 2012. The Blue Gym. Researching blue space, health and wellbeing. European Centre for the Environment and Human Health. http://www.bluegym.org.uk/

Boeckner, M.J., Sharma, J. and Proctor, H.C. 2009. Revisiting the meiofauna paradox: dispersal and colonization of nematodes and other meiofaunal organisms in low- and high energy environments. Hydrobiologia, 624: 91-106.

Borum, J. and Wium-Andersen, S. 1980. Biomass and production of epiphytes on eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in the Øresund, Ophelia Suppl. 1, 57-64

Borum, J., Kaas, H. and Wium-Andersen, S. 1984. Biomass variation and autotrophic production of an epiphyte-maerophyte community in a coastal Danish area: II. Epiphyte species composition, biomass and production. Ophelia 23, 165-179

Bostrom, C. and Bonsdorff, E. 1997. Community structure and spatial variation of benthic invertebrates associated with Zostera marina (L.) beds in the northern Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 37: 153-166.

Brigden, K. 2010. A study into the cuttlefish fishery of Torbay, Devon: Investigating spawning areas from the fishermen’s perspective and the potential for utilising artificial egg laying structures. MSc Thesis, Plymouth University.

Burd, B.J. Barnes, P.A.G., Wright, C.A. and Thomsom, R.E. 2008. A review of subtidal benthic habitats and invertebrate biota of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Marine Environmental Research, 66: S3-S38.

Burdige, D.J. 2006. Geochemistry of Marine Sediments. Princeton University Press, United States.

Buschbaum, C., Dittmann, S., Jaesang, H., Hwang, I., Strasser, M., Thiel, M., Valdivia, N., Yoon, S. and Reise, K. 2009. Mytilid mussels: global habitat engineers in coastal sediments. Helgoland Marine Research, 63(1): 47-58.

Cabaço, S., Santos, R. and Duarte, S.M. 2008. The impact of sediment burial and erosion on seagrasses: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 79: 354-366.

Caline, B.C., Gruet, Y., Legendre, C., Rhun, J.L., L’Homer, A., Mathieu, R. and Zbinden, R. 1992. The Sabellariid Reefs in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, France; Ecology, Geomorphology, Sedimentology and Geologic Implications. Florida Oceanographic Society, Contributions to Marine Science - Volume 1 Number 1, ed. D.W. Kirtley. Florida Oceanographic Society, Stuart, Fl.

Cappell, R. and Lawrence, R., 2005. The motivation, demographics and views of south west recreational sea anglers and their socio-economic impact on the region. Invest in Fish South West Report.

Carr, M.H., Neigel, J.E., Esters, J.A., Andelman, S., Warner, R.R. and Largier, J.L. 2003. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. (Suppl), 13: S90-S107.

CBD 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf [accessed 20.06.2012]

CBD 2004. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/5.

http://www.bluegym.org.uk/

http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

96

CDFG 2005. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. Master plan. CDFG, Sacramento.

Cebrián, J., Duarte, C., Marbà, N. and Enríquez, S. 1997. Magnitude and fate of the production of four co-occurring Western Mediterranean seagrass species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155: 29-44.

Chae, D.-R., Wattage, P. and Pascoe, S. 2012. Recreational benefits from a marine protected area: A travel cost analysis of Lundy. Tourism Management, 33: 971-977.

Chapin III, F.S., Zavaleta, E.S., Eviner, V.T., Naylor, R.L., Vitousek, P.M., Reynolds, H.L., Hooper, D.U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O.E., Hobbie, S.E., Mack, M.C. and Díaz, S. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783): 234-242.

Clarke, J., Dolman, S. and Hoyt, E. 2010. Towards marine protected areas for cetaceans in Scotland, England and Wales. WDCS.

Collie, J.S., Hermsen, J., Valentine, P.C. and Almeida, F. 2005. Effects of fishing on gravel habitats: assessment and recovery of benthic megafauna on Georges Bank. In: Barnes, P.W. and Thomas, J.P. (Eds.). Benthic Habitats and the Effects of Fishing. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 41, Bethesda, Maryland: 325-343.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Suttonkk, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Curtis, J.M.R. and Vincent, A.C.J. 2005. Life history of an unusual marine fish: survival, growth and movement patterns of Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier 1829. Journal of Fish Biology, 68: 707-733.

DECC, 2011. A brief guide to the carbon valuation methodology for UK policy appraisal. Department of Energy & Climate Change, URN 11D/877. Available from http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/cutting-emissions/carbon-valuation/3136-guide-carbon-valuation-methodology.pdf [accessed 16.08.2012]

Defra 2007. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. London, UK: Defra - Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Defra 2010. Charting Progress 2. Feeder Report: Productive Seas. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Denis, L. and Desroy, N. 2008. Consequences of spring phytodedritus sedimentation on the benthic compartment along a depth gradient in the Eastern English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 1844-1854.

Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de L’Aquaculture, 2011, cited in Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012.

Duarte CM, Kennedy H, Marbà N, Hendriks I (2011) Assessing the capacity of seagrass meadows for carbon burial: Current limitations and future strategies. Ocean & Coastal Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.09.001 Dubois, S., Barille, L. And Retiere, C. 2003. Efficiency of particle retention and clearance rate in the polychaete Sabellaria alveolata L. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326: 413-421.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/cutting-emissions/carbon-valuation/3136-guide-carbon-valuation-methodology.pdf

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/cutting-emissions/carbon-valuation/3136-guide-carbon-valuation-methodology.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.09.001

97

Dubois, S., Commito, J.A., Olivier, F. and Reriere, C. 2006. Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science, 68: 635-646.

East Riding 2009. East Riding Tourism Accommodation Study. East Riding Tourism and Planning Report - Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations. East Riding of Yorkshire Council. Available at: http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/forwardplanning/docs/tourism/ERTourismStudy.pdf [accessed 06.11.2012].

EC 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities.

EC 2000. Communication From the Commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities COM(2000) 1.

EC 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union.

Edgar, G.J., Shaw, C., Watson, G.F. and Hammond, L.S. 1994. Comparisons of species richness, size structure and production of benthos in vegetated and unvegetated habitats in Western Port, Victoria. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 176: 201-226.

Evans, P.R., Ward, R.M., Bone, M. and Leakey, M. 1998. Creation of temperate-climate intertidal mudflats: Factors affecting colonization and use by benthic invertebrates and their bird predators. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37: 535-545.

Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S. Kerrigan, B., Breen, D. Cameron, D., Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L., Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., De’Ath, G., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D. and Stapleton, K. 2005. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19: 1733-44.

Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain and Balanced Seas 2012. Impact Assessment materials in support of the Regional Marine Conservation Zone Projects’ Recommendations.

Finnegan, P., Vintro, L.L., Mitchell, P.I., Boust., D., Gouzy, A., Kershaw, P.J., and Lucey, J.A. 2009. Accumulation, solid partitioning and remobilisation of 99Tc in subtidal and intertidal sediments in the Irish Sea. Continental Shelf Research, 29: 1995-2010.

Fletcher, S., Saunders, J., Herbert, R., Roberts, C. and Dawson, K. 2012. Description of the ecosystem services provided by broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance that are likely to be protected by Marine Protected Areas in the Marine Conservation Zone Project area. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 088.

Fortes, M.D. 2002. Natural biological processes and controls. Proceedings in Marine Science, 4: 229-244.

http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/forwardplanning/docs/tourism/ERTourismStudy.pdf

http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/forwardplanning/docs/tourism/ERTourismStudy.pdf

98

Gheskiere, T., Vincx, M., Marcin Weslawski, J., Scapini, F. and Degraer, S. 2005. Meiofauna as descriptor of tourism-induced changes at sandy beaches. Marine Environmental Research, 60: 245-265.

Gibson, C., Valenti, S.V., Fowler, S.L. and Fordham, S.V. 2006. The Conservation Status of Northeast Atlantic Chondrichthyans Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Northeast Atlantic Regional Red List Workshop VIII. IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group.

Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Serpa, P. and Hoffman, K. 2010. Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from north central California. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53: 52-68.

Goñi, R., Adlerstein, S., Alvarez-Berastegui, D., Forcada, A., Reñones, O., Criquet, G., Polti, S., Cadiou, G., Valle, C., Lenfant, P., Bonhomme, P., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L., García-Charton, J.A., Bernard, G., Stelzenmüller, V. and Planes, S. 2008. Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 366: 159-174.

Green, A.L., Lokani, P., Sheppard, S., Almany, J., Keu, S., Aitsi, J., Warku Karvon, J., Hamilton, R. and Lipsett-Moore, G. 2007. Scientific design of a resilient network of marine protected areas. Kimbe Bay, West New Britain, Papua New Guinea: The Nature Conservancy Pacific Island Countries Rep No 2/07.

Guarderas, A., Hacker, S.D. and Lubchenco, J. 2008. Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean. Conservation Biology, 22(6): 1630-1640.

Guarini, J.M., Blanchard, G.F. and Gros, P. 2000. Quantification of the microphytobenthic primary production in European intertidal mudflats - a modelling approach. Continental Shelf Research, 20: 1771-1788.

Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2007. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. and Watson, R. 2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319(5865): 948-952.

Hargis, W.J. and Haven, D.S. 1999. Chesapeake oyster reefs, their importance, destruction and guidelines for restoring them. In: Luckenbach, M.W., Mann, R., and Wesson, J.A. (eds). 1999. Oyster reef habitat restoration: a synopsis of approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, VA: 329–358.

Harrison, H.B., Williamson, D.H., Evans, R.D., Almany, G.R., Thorrold, S.R., Russ, G.R., Feldheim, K.A., van Herwerden, L., Planes, S., Srinivasan, M., Berumen, M.L. and Jones, G.P. 2012. Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. Current biology, 22(11): 1023-1028.

99

Heck, K.L., Able, K.W., Roman, C.T., and Fahay, M.P. 1995. Composition, abundance, biomass, and production of macrofauna in a New England estuary: comparisons among eelgrass meadows and other nursery habitats. Estuaries, 18: 379-389.

Herlory, O., Blanchard, G.F., Planche, S., Huet, V. and Richard, P. 2005. Does the size of the microphytobenthic biofilm on intertidal muflats depend on the available photosynthetic biomass? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 298: 95-100.

Hill, S., Burrows, M.T. and Hawkins, S.J. 1998. Intertidal reef biotopes: an overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Oban, Scottish Association of Marine Sciences (UK Marine SACs Project).

Hill, J., Pearce, B., Georgiou, L., Pinnion, J. and Gallyot, J. 2010. Meeting the MPA Network Principle of Viability: feature specific recommendations for species and habitats of conservation importance. Report by Marine Ecological Surveys Limited.

Hirst, J.A. and Attrill, M.J. 2008. Small is beautiful: An inverted view of habitat fragmentation in seagrass beds. Eustuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 78: 811-818.

Hiscock, K., Marshall, C., Sewell, J. and Hawkins, S.J. 2006. The structure and functioning of marine ecosystems: an environmental protection and management perspective. Report to English Nature from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK. English Nature Research Reports , ENRR No. 699.

HM Government 2009. Marine and Coastal Access Act. In: Crown copyright. p. 347.

HM Government 2011. UK Marine Policy Statement. In: London: Crown copyright. p. 47.

Holt, T.J., Rees, E.I., Hawkins, S.J. and Seed, R. 1998. Biogenic reefs (Volume IX). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project).

Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. and Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current Knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1): 3-35.

Irving, R.A. 1999. Report of the Sussex Seasearch Project, 1992‐1998. Sussex Seasearch Project, West Sussex.

Irving, R., 2009. The identification of the main characteristics of stony reef habitats under the habitats directive, summary report of an inter-agency workshop. JNCC, no. 432.

ISCZ 2011. Final recommendations for Marine Conservation Zones in the the Irish Sea. Irish Sea Conservation Zones, Warrington.

IUCN 2009. Marine protected area network. Hawaii’s western shore, USA. IUCN Marine Protected Areas case studies.

100

IUCN-WCPA 2008. Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Happen. Washington, D.C.: IUCN-WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy.

Jackson, E.L., Rowden, A.A., Attrill, M.J., Bossey, S.J. and Jones, M.B. 2001. The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology an Annual Review 39: 269-304.

Jackson, E.L. 2003. The importance of seagrass habitats for fishery species in Jersey, English Channel. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of Plymouth.

Jackson, A. 2008. Leptopsammia pruvoti. Sunset cup coral. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk

Jones, L.A., Hiscock, K. and Connor, D.W. 2000. Marine habitat reviews. A summary of ecological requirements and sensitivity characteristics for the conservation and management of marine SACs. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Kennedy, H. and Björk, M. 2009. Seagrass meadows. In: Laffoley D, Grimsditch G (eds) The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. IUCN, Gland: 23-29.

Kitsos, M.S., Tzomos, T.H., Anagnostopoulou, L. and Koukouras, A. 2008. Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology, 72: 1259-1267.

Langmead, O., Jackson, E.L., Griffiths, C., Wilkes, P., Neilly, M., Lear, D., Luckraft, I., Foggo, A. and Tyler-Walters, H. 2010. UK marine benthic diversity layer. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK, subcontracted by ABPmer, Southampton. Defra Contract No. MB0102 Task 2F, Report No. 25.

Lieberknecht, L.M., Hooper, T.H., Mullier, T.M., Murphy, A., Neilly, M., Carr, H., Haines, R., Lewin, S. and Hughes, E. 2011. Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations. A report submitted by the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and Natural England. Available at: www.finding-sanctuary.org and The UK National Archives http://tna.europarchive.org/*/http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/ [accessed 20.06.2012].

Macintyre, H.L., Geider, R.J. and Miller D.C. 1996. Microphytobenthos: The ecological role of the ''secret garden'' of unvegetated, shallow-water marine habitats. Estuaries, 19: 186-201.

Maddock, A. 2008. UK Bidiversity Action Plan: Priority Habitat Descriptions. Available from: www.ukbap.org.uk

Madsen, J.D., Chambers, P.A., James, W.F., Koch, E.W., Westlake, D.F. 2001. The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia, 444: 71-84.

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/

http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/

http://tna.europarchive.org/*/http:/www.finding-sanctuary.org/

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/

101

Magalhaes, C.M., Bordalo, A.A. and Wiebe, W.J. 2003. Intertidal biofilms on rocky substratum can play a major role in estuarine carbon and nutrient dynamics. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser, 258: 275-281.

Marine Conservation Society 2012. Your Seas Your Voice_UK regions & sites_South East England_Worthing Lumps. http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/? region=2&site=11 [accessed 06.11.2012].

McLeod, E., Salm, R., Green, A. and Almany J. 2009. Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change. Frontiers Ecology Environment, 7: 362-370.

MEA 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Edited by Hassan, R., Scholes, R. and Ash, N., The millennium ecosystem assessment series, v. 1.

Natural England 2010. Evidence base for designation of Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton Special Area of Conservation Final IA, 20.7.2010.

Natural England-JNCC 2010. Marine Conservation Zone Project. Ecological Network Guidance. Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Natural England-JNCC 2011. The Marine Conservation Zone Impact Assessment. Factsheet. Available at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-ia-factsheet_tcm630715.pdf [accessed 18.06.2012].

Navarro, J.M. and Thompson, R.J. 1996. Physiological energetics of the horse mussel Modiolus modiolus in a cold ocean environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 138: 135-148.

NEIFCA 2003. Byelaw III – Trawling: Prohibitions: Exceptions. 30th July 2003. Available from: http://www.ne-ifca.gov.uk/legislation-and-byelaws/byelaw-regulations/ [accessed 30.08.2012]

Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C.M., Valdés, L., DeYoung, C., Fonseca, L. and Grimsditch, G. 2009. Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.

NERC 2012. Home_Our research_Climate change_Environmental responses to climate change_Sea level and coastal change_Coastal erosion Holderness to Spurn Head. British Geological Survey, Natural Environment Research Council. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/climatechange/environment/coastal/coastalErosion.html [accessed 07.11.2012]

Net Gain 2011; Net Gain Final Recommendations. Submission to Natural England & JNCC. Net Gain The North Sea Marine Conservation Zones Project.

Nokes, R. 2010. Kingmere Rocks Reef. From: Bexley Subaqua Club website http://www.bexleysubaqua.co.uk/sites/kingmere.html [accessed 06.11.2012].

Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2007. Guidelines for the establishment and management of Marine Protected Areas for Cetaceans. UNEP(DEPI)MED WG.308/8.

NRC 2000. Marine Protected Areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press.

NRC 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. Committee on the Evaluation, Design and monitoring of marine reserves and protected areas

http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?%09region=2&site=11

http://www.yourseasyourvoice.com/mpa/?%09region=2&site=11

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-ia-factsheet_tcm630715.pdf

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-ia-factsheet_tcm630715.pdf

http://www.ne-ifca.gov.uk/legislation-and-byelaws/byelaw-regulations/

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/climatechange/environment/coastal/coastalErosion.html

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/climatechange/environment/coastal/coastalErosion.html

http://www.bexleysubaqua.co.uk/sites/kingmere.html

102

in the United States. Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

OSPAR 2003. OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas. Available at http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00700302 210000_000000_000000 [accessed 18.06.2012].

OSPAR 2008. Assessment of Modiolus modiolus beds in the OSPAR area. Prepared by Ivor Rees c/o School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK on behalf of Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Peterborough, UK. Available from: http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/p00425_ bdc%20version%20uk_modiolus.pdf

Paramour, O. and Frid, C. 2006. Marine Ecosystem Objectives: Further development of objectives for marine habitats. Report for Defra, London.

Peterson, C.H., Grabowski, J.H. and Powers, S.P. 2003. Estimated enhancement of fish production resulting from restoring oyster reef habitat: quantitative valuation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 264: 249-264.

Pike, K., Johnson, D., Fletcher, S., Wright, P. and Lee, B. 2010. Social Value of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management, 38:412-432.

Pinnegar, J.K. and Polunin, N.V.C. 2004. Predicting indirect effects of fishing in Mediterranean rocky littoral communities using a dynamic simulation model. Ecological Modelling, 172: 249-267.

PISCO 2007. The Science of Marine Reserves [2nd Edition, United States Version], Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. Available at: www.piscoweb.org [accessed 20.06.2012].

Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5): 575-594.

POST 2009. Coastal Management. POSTnote No. 342.

Ragnarsson, S.A. and Raffaelli, D. 1999. Effects of the mussel Mytilus edulis L. on the invertebrate fauna of sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 241: 31-43.

Rees, H.L. and Dare, P.J. 1993. Sources of mortality and associated life-cycle traits of selected benthic species: a review. MAFF Fisheries Research Data Report, no. 33., Lowestoft: MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research.

Rees, E.I.S., Sanderson, W.G., Mackie, A.S.Y. and Holt, R.H.F. 2008. Small-scale variation within a Modiolus modiolus (Mollusca : Bivalvia) reef in the Irish Sea. III. Crevice, sediment infauna and epifauna from targeted cores. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 88: 151-156.

Rees, S. E., Rodwell, L. D., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C. and Mangi, S.C. 2010. The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5): 868-875.

Ricciardi, A. and Bourget, E. 1999. Global patterns of macroinvertebrate biomass in marine intertidal communities. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser, 185: 21-35.

Rice, C. 2010. Marine Protected Area Network Report. On behalf of North Sea maritime cluster.

http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00700302%09210000_000000_000000

http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00700302%09210000_000000_000000

http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/p00425_%20bdc%20version%20uk_modiolus.pdf

http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/p00425_%20bdc%20version%20uk_modiolus.pdf

http://www.piscoweb.org/

103

Robinson, J. G. (2011). "Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice." Biological Conservation 144(3): 958-965.

Sabatini, M., Pizzolla, P. and Wilding, C. 2008. Arctica islandica. Icelandic cyprine. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 21/04/2010]. Available from: www.marlin.ac.uk/species importance.php?speciesID=2588

Salm, R.V., Done, T. and Mcleod, E. 2006. Marine protected area planning in a hanging climate. In: Phinney, J.T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kleypas, J., Skirving, W. and Strong, A. (eds.). Coral reefs and climate change: science and management. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.

Seasearch Northeast 2009. Easington/Dimlington Reef nr Spurn Point, East Yorkshire. Survey Report. Seasearch Northeast. Available from: www.seasearch.co.uk/ achievements

SEEBF 2010. Key Inshore Biodiversity Areas in the Balanced Seas Region for Recommendation as Marine Conservation Zones. Letter and list to RSG and Balanced Seas Project Team, 22 Nov 2010. SUSSEX SEASEARCH MCZ PROPOSAL. 2010. South West Rocks Complex : Recommendation for Designation as a Broad Area of Interest. Sussex Seasearch, West Sussex.

Seeley, B., Lear, D., Higgs, S., Neilly, M., Bilewitch, J., Evans, J., Wilkes, P. and Adams, L. 2010. Accessing and developing the required biophysical datasets and data layers for Marine Protected Areas network planning and wider marine spatial planning purposes. Report No 16: Task 2C. Mapping of Protected Habitats. DEFRA Project Code: MB0102 Marine Biodiversity R&D Program.

Smith, K., Briggs, J., Hamer, J. and Walker, P. 2011. Natural heritage evidence to support strategic planning for marine renewable energy. CCW Policy Research Report.

Snelgrove, P.V.R. 1999. Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats. Ocean bottoms are the most widespread habitat on Earth and support high biodiversity and key ecosystem services. Bioscience, 49(2): 129-138.

Sobel, J. and Dahlgren, C. 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Washington: Island Press.

Stephan, E,. Gadenne, H. and Jung, A. 2011. Satellite tracking of basking sharks in the north-east Atlantic ocean. NGO for study of conservation of Elasmobranchs. Available from: http://www.asscapecs.org/programme-de-marquage-satellite. html

TCCT 2006. Torbay’s Seagrass Beds. A Hidden World_Where does Torbay’s seagrass grow? http://www.countryside-trust.org.uk/bap/Seagrass_website/where.htmlhttp://www.countryside-trust.org.uk/bap/Seagrass_website/where.html

TEEB 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. An interim report. The European Communities.

TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations.

Torbay Coast & Countryside Club no date. Homepage: www.countryside-trust.org.uk

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species%09importance.php?speciesID=2588

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species%09importance.php?speciesID=2588

http://www.seasearch.co.uk/%09achievements

http://www.seasearch.co.uk/%09achievements

http://www.asscapecs.org/programme-de-marquage-satellite.%09html

http://www.asscapecs.org/programme-de-marquage-satellite.%09html

http://www.countryside-trust.org.uk/bap/Seagrass_website/where.html




http://www.countryside-trust.org.uk/

104

Torbay Development Agency 2010. Turning the Tide for Tourism in Torbay. Strategy 2010-2015. Prepared on behalf of the Torbay Development Agency and Torbay Council by Close Focus Tourism Consultancy. Available at: http://www.torbaydevelopmentagency.co.uk/tda-index/tda-aboutus.htm [accessed 16.08.2012]

Tyler-Walters, H. 2008. Mytilus edulis. Common mussel. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: www.marlin.ac.uk

UK Biodiversity Partnership 2010. UK BAP Priority species and habitats. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk [accessed 20.06.2012].

UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

UN 2002. Report of the world summit on sustainable development. United Nations, Para.32(c).

Underwood, G.J.C. and Paterson, D.M. 2003. The importance of extracellular carbohydrate production by marine epipelic diatoms. NERC.

UNEP 2006. Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP.

UNEP-WCMC 2008. National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Progress. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.

Van Hoey, G., Guilini, K., Rabuat, M., Vincx, M. and Degraer, S. 2008. Ecological implications of the presence of the tube-building polychaete Lanice conchilega on soft-bottom benthic ecosystems. Marine Biology, 154: 1432-1793.

Vause, B.J. and Clarke, R.W.E, 2011. Baseline Fisheries Information. Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. Available at www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk

Ward, T., Heinemann, D. and Evans, N. 2002. The Role of Marine Reserves as Fisheries Management Tools. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

White, A., Eisma-Osorio, R.-L. and Green, S.J. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas: Complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48: 24.

Wildish, D.J. and Fader, G.B.J. 1998. Pelagic-benthic coupling in the Bay of Fundy. Hydrobiologia, 375/376, 369-380. In: Tyler-Walters, H. 2008. Mytilus edulis. Common mussel. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: www.marlin.ac.uk

World Bank 2008. Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Services. The World Bank.

World Tourism Organization 2012. Annual Report 2011. UNWTO, Madrid.

Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science, 314(5800): 787-790.

http://www.torbaydevelopmentagency.co.uk/tda-index/tda-aboutus.htm

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/

http://www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk/

securing the benefits of the marine conservation … securing the benefits of the marine...

Documents