Connecting conservation policy makers, researchers and practitioners

The value of information in planning for turtles

Choosing the best projects to save the GBR

Conservation planning that works for people

Decision Point Decision Point is the bimonthly magazine of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED). It presents news and views on environmental decision making, biodiversity, conservation planning and monitoring. Decision Point is available free from http://www.decision-point.com.au/

Plus

Complementary super spots in the Coral TriangleHow good is our global network of MPAs?Conservation of subtropical reefsPlanning for oil spills

Issue #96 / June 2016

A CEED special issue on

Marine Conservation

Trade-offs in the marine realm

ContentsIssue #96 / June 2016

Page 2 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

Decision Point is the bimonthly magazine of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED). CEED is a network of conservation researchers working on the science of effective decision making to better conserve biodiversity. Our members are largely based at the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia and RMIT.

Decision Point is available free at: http://www.decision-point.com.au/

On the pointTrade-offs in the marine realmIn this the ‘decade of marine conservation’, we have a number of important decisions to make. At the heart of many of these decisions is a common dilemma, how do we make the most of limited resources when the need is enormous?

Where do we place our marine reserves so that they protect the most biodiversity while minimising the impact on local people? Which projects do we choose to ensure the natural values of our special marine places? How much do we need to invest in acquiring more information to make a sound decision? Where do you start your planning if your knowledge base on your marine biodiversity is minimal? What is the best way to co-ordinate planning across multiple jurisdictions?

CEED is actively researching solutions to all of these issues and this special issue of Decision Point brings you a selection of our work focused on marine conservation and planning. Each story provides strong evidence of the value of our work to marine biodiversity conservation but taken together they present a powerful framework for how good environmental decision making should happen at multiple scales.

Carissa Klein provides a global perspective on where the gaps are in our network of marine protected areas (page 8). Maria Beger demonstrates the value of co-operation between the countries that make up the Coral Triangle Initiative (page 4). And Carissa Klein, Katrina Davis and Viv Tulloch explain how Malayasia (page 3), Chile (page 14) and PNG (page 9) can make more of their decisions in conserving biodiversity in individual countries.

And then there are a range of stories on general themes of environmental decision making: value-of-information analysis in conservation planning for turtles (page 10); cost-effectiveness prioritisation for sea grasses (page 11) and catchment management projects (page 6); and the use of dynamic vs static models in planning marine reserves (page 16). And there are heaps of other stories as well, from connectivity and COTS to oil spills and brittle stars.

Many thanks to Maria Beger at the University of Queensland for proposing this special issue and then doing the groundwork of approaching authors and bringing together the many elements that have gone into making it.

David Salt, Editor, David.Salt@anu.edu.au

From Marxan to management 3The Tun Mustapha Marine Park has been established

Planning conservation goals in the CT 4Multi-objective hotspots in the Coral Triangle

Prioritising projects next to the GBR 6‘Shopping’ for the Great Barrier Reef

Assessing the global network of MPAs 8Major shortfalls identified in marine conservation?

Tracking turtles in the Mediterranean 10How much info do we need to develop a good plan

Cost-effectively protecting seagrass 11Cost-effectiveness frameworks give you a better bang for your buck

Conservation of subtropical reefs 12Planning for a transition zone in a time of climate change

The enforcement of fisher rights 14Sustainable fisheries management in Chile

Dynamic vs static models for planning 16Accounting for the movement of fish and boats

Managing COTS with connectivity 17Controlling Crown Of Thorns Starfish on the GBR

Highly threatened or safe habitat 18How should we select conservation targets?

Turning the tide 19Conservation in a time of offshore oil and gas development?

Understanding deep-sea diversity 20Brittle stars shine a light on patterns in the deep

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 3

Robecca Jumin from WWF-Malaysia (third from the right) receives a certificate in conservation planning from trainers from the University of Queensland (during one of the Marxan courses run in Malaysia). From the right are Hugh Possingham, Hedley Grantham and Carissa Klein. The course was run in 2010 in Sabah.

Malaysia has just established the Tun Mustapha Marine Park off the northern tip of Sabah province in Borneo (Malaysia). At 1.6 million hectares, it’s the country’s biggest marine protected area, and Marxan and CEED scientists have played an important role in the planning process that led to its establishment.

The marine region at the northern tip of Borneo is globally significant for its marine life, with a rich diversity of coral reef, mangrove, and seagrass habitats as well as several threatened species, including dugong, humpback whales and sea turtles. The region is also home to over 187,000 people, about half of which depend on marine resources for their livelihood and wellbeing.

Since 2010, many CEED researchers (Carissa Klein, Maria Beger, Jennifer McGowan, Matt Watts, Hugh Possingham and Hedley Grantham) have supported the Malaysian Government (Sabah Parks) develop a zoning plan. Stakeholders and decision makers from the region explored a variety of methods for designing the marine park, and chose to use Marxan with Zones to support the process.

To build the capacity of stakeholders involved in zoning the Tun Mustapha Marine Park, we ran three courses in Marxan with Zones to about 30 people from 10 different agencies. In addition, we provided ongoing advice to the technical staff from WWF-Malaysia and Sabah Parks throughout the planning process. Finally, we were part of a team that conducted a marine biodiversity field expedition to assess the region’s biodiversity. (See a video of Maria Beger undertaking a reef dive as a part of this expedition at http://youtu.be/bLZ8QNksTdM).

Marxan with Zones was used to identify priority areas for three different zones (Weeks et al, 2014):

• preservation zones, in which extractive activities are prohibited;

• community-managed zones, where non-destructive small-scale and traditional fishing activities are allowed; and

From Marxan to managementOcean zoning with stakeholders establishes the Tun Mustapha Marine ParkBy Carissa Klein (University of Queensland)

Maria Beger undertaking a reef dive during a biodiversity assessment expedition carried out in 2012.

Mangroves in the Tun Mustapha Marine Park provide valuable breeding grounds for young fish. (Photo by Eric Madeja)

• multiple-use zones, where non-destructive and small-scale fishing and other sustainable development activities (such as tourism) are allowed.

The design of the Tun Mustapha Marine Park is intended to meet multiple management goals including poverty alleviation, sustainable development and conservation. To meet these goals a suite of biophysical and socioeconomic design principles were developed by multiple stakeholders. These were used to guide the Marxan with Zones analysis.

The analysis identified priority areas which were then reviewed by the Malaysian Government and local communities. This resulted in a final zoning plan – which I can now proudly announce has just been implemented.

More info: Carissa Klein c.klein@uq.edu.au

Reference

Weeks R, PM Aliño, S Atkinson, II Beldia Pacifico, A Binson, WL Campos WL, R Djohani , AL Green , R Hamilton, V Horigue , R Jumin , K Kalim, A Kasasiah, J Kereseka , C Klein, et al. (2014). Developing Marine Protected Area Networks in the Coral Triangle: Good Practices for Expanding the Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System. Coastal Management 2014;42:183–205. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08920753.2014.877768

Page 4 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

Key messages• Collaboration between Coral Triangle nations makes good

sense

• The challenge is to work out how regional priorities can be incorporated into national decisions

• Establishing new MPAs in multi-objective hotspots provides good benefits for all six regional objectives simultaneously

Defining management actions for marine conservation often involves coordinating the actions of multiple jurisdictions to achieve shared goals. Our recent study in Nature Communications introduces a new framework for how this might be achieved in the Coral Triangle (Beger et al, 2015), a region in Southeast Asia containing around 500 coral species, 3,000 reef fish species, and harbouring the world’s largest area of mangroves. Indeed, the region is the world’s centre of marine biodiversity (see Decision Point #49).

Collaboration makes good sense. If neighbouring countries share common conservation goals then agreeing on how to meet those goals enables the sharing of resources.

The challenge is to work out how regional priorities can be incorporated in these national decisions. In our analysis, we worked with the Coral Triangle Initiative to map out common goals for coral reef biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and food security, goals that are shared by Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (the six member countries of the Coral Triangle Initiative) (Figure 1).

Our work sought to incorporate regional priorities into national decisions. Specifically, we evaluated trade-offs that arise when we use a number of Coral Triangle Initiative objectives to identify places where marine protected areas (MPAs) would be most beneficial.

The objectives we used were to: (1) represent all habitat types, (2) protect fish spawning aggregations, (3) improve the status of threatened sea turtles, (4 and 5) maximise larval dispersal connectivity for coral trout and sea cucumbers, and (6) protect places less affected by climate change.

Using Marxan, we developed two conservation strategies that nations can apply as part of a coordinated multi-lateral collaboration: protecting multi-objective hotspots and protecting complementary top priority areas, super-spots (Figure 2).

Linking regional and national coral reef conservation goalsMulti-objective hotspots and complementary super-spots in the Coral Triangle By Maria Beger (University of Queensland)

Establishing new MPAs in multi-objective hotspots would provide good conservation benefits for all six objectives at the same time. Establishing new MPAs in complementary top priority areas would provide high conservation benefit for one or two of the objectives. When employing this second strategy,

countries need to coordinate regionally when targetting the best places for different objectives to ensure protection of complementary areas for all of the objectives.

Concentrating efforts for protection in places where multiple conservation benefits can be achieved simultaneously is obviously appealing. However, it is not always politically equitable or ecologically appropriate. Not all countries have multi–objective hotspots, so focusing on this strategy alone concentrates the conservation burden and benefits unfairly.

Also, conserving only hotspots cannot maximize conservation

A sea cucumber found in the Coral Triangle. One of the goals of the conservation planning was to maximise the larval dispersal for highly valued sea cucumbers. (Photo by Sun Wook Kim)

Figure 1: A map of the Coral Triangle region with the six countries involved. The areas marked represent the places which would maximise conservation benefits for a range of objectives.

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 5

Process-based planning with MarxanOur analysis used Marxan (www.uq.edu.au/marxan) and developed several new operational mechanisms:

1. Fish spawning aggregations occur in certain points, but fish travel to the sites from afar. We represented this onto-genetic movement by aiming to protect 50% of 20km catchments.

2. Turtle data for nesting beaches and foraging areas were recorded as points, and we applied a 20km buffer and aimed to protect 50% of these turtle areas.

3. Telemetry tracks for around 150 individual turtles were used to create accumulated connectivity matrices. This new method adds links between pairs of planning units when an animal moved between them to create a connectivity matrix for all turtles to use in Marxan with Connectivity. (Also, see the story on page 10)

4. Larval connectivity trade-offs between multiple species were included for the first time (compare dp link to connectivity.)

5. Climate change impacts were modeled as the rate of decline experienced by ‘typical’ coral species given future temperature and alkalinity regimes.

benefits for all of the objectives. For example, consider ‘very important areas’ to protect turtles are in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Even though PNG might not have the conservation resources that other countries in the Initiative have, they can contribute to regional commitments by working in one of the turtle top-priority areas.

And, on the topic of turtles, for the first time we also had access to the migration routes of turtles in the Coral Triangle, thanks to the data provided by various groups in the region. We created a map of how each area connects with each other, and are using it to determine the number of turtles that travel between the different reefs – all 17,000 of them.

Working together to protect the multi‐objective hotspots or complementary areas will also help protect fishermen and

Figure 2: Conceptual diagram of how two strategies of allocating conservation effort can link planning goals at national and regional scales.

Collaboration in the Coral Triangle isn’t just about maximising conservation benefits, it’s also about securing fishery resources for people and village livelihoods. (Photo by Maria Beger)

village livelihoods. Consider fish larvae as an example. They can drift to areas as far as 500 kilometres away from where they were spawned.

It’s quite a distance, and it means that fishers in one country – Indonesia, for instance – will benefit from good fish spawning stocks in another country, such as the Philippines, and vice versa. This is why strategic collaboration amongst countries is crucial.

And while this analysis obviously has direct relevance to possible planning decisions in the Coral Triangle, the framework can be applied anywhere. It can be adapted to guide conservation investments worldwide where countries are committed to multi‐national goals, but implement conservation actions independently.

More info: Maria Beger m.beger@uq.edu.au

This project is a collaboration of CEED, the Coral Triangle Initiative, The Nature Conservancy,

WWF, NOAA, the UQ Marine Spatial Ecology Lab, Science and Conservation of Fish Aggregations (SCRFA), and the Coral Triangle Atlas.

Reference

Beger M, J McGowan, EA Treml, AL Green, AT White, NH Wolff, CJ Klein, PJ Mumby and HP Possingham (2015). Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple objectives into national policy. Nature Communications 6. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150914/ncomms9208/full/ncomms9208.html

Page 6 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

If you had to decide which projects to fund to improve the quality of water flowing off agricultural land, which would you choose? The cheapest projects? The projects that promised to improve water quality the most? The projects least likely to fail?

There are many ways policy makers approach the problem of project selection but new research from CEED has demonstrated (again) that framing your choice based on cost-effectiveness is the best way to go. Indeed, the cost-effectiveness framework we have developed can provide solutions that are much more efficient than other approaches that only look at cost or benefit alone.

To demonstrate this, we applied our cost-effectiveness prioritisation to catchment management projects being used to improve water run-off flowing out to the iconic Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef is under threat from agricultural run-off from the adjacent coastline. The water carries sediment, nutrients and chemicals, all of which degrade the reef in various ways. The government is investing resources in changing land management by supporting landholders who are proposing projects on their land such as fencing, improving machinery or planting vegetation along waterways. This is particularly important now that the GBR has experienced its worst ever bleaching event; with good water quality being crucial for recovery. However, there isn’t enough money to fund all projects. So, how do you choose (prioritise) the best projects?

Framing your decisions using cost-effectiveness is something most of us do whenever we visit a supermarket. There are lots of products you can buy in a supermarket, but we all have limited family budgets. Experienced shoppers know to select products that reliably deliver the greatest benefit for the cheapest price. Simply choosing the cheapest product isn’t always the best strategy because sometimes low cost items are unhealthy or of mixed quality. Being stingy isn’t always the best strategy when your family’s health is at stake. The situation is similar for prioritising projects to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

When it comes to different catchment management projects, we collected data on the cost of each project, the expected benefit (in terms of reducing the sediment load in agricultural run-off) and the feasibility that this benefit will be realised. Cost-effectiveness is simply the benefit divided by the cost (where expected benefit equals the benefit multiplied by the feasibility – the chance the project will work).

Many conservation programs choose their projects by prioritising threats, locations or species. In a sense they are comparing benefits – the expectation that a specific threat will be addressed, or an area fixed up or a species saved – without including the costs or the feasibility of specific actions in their decision process. Sometimes we use just one criterion: cost, species richness, or project reliability. All of those one-criterion selection methods are inefficient.

To demonstrate the value of our approach we populated our cost-effectiveness framework with 295 catchment projects that have been implemented along the coastline adjacent to

Prioritising catchment projects for the Great Barrier Reef ‘Shopping’ for the GBR – it’s a question of benefit, cost AND feasibilityBy Jutta Beher (University of Queensland)

Key messages• Prioritisation of catchment management projects using

cost-effectiveness can increase the outcome several fold

• A clear quantifiable objective is critical to making wise investment decisions

• A graphic display of cost-effectiveness helps to evaluate trends and aids in decision making

The framework generates a graph that plots benefit (sediment reduction) on the X axis against cost-effectiveness (cost per tonne of sediment avoided) on the Y axis. Any project can be located on the cost-curve and knowledge of spatial location of projects, marine habitats and reefs and cost-effectiveness can be combined to choose the most appropriate suite of projects.

The Great Barrier Reef is under threat from runoff from the adjacent coastline carrying nutrients, sediments and pesticides. (Image Debra James, WWF)

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 7

the Great Barrier Reef. This allowed us to compare the cost-effectiveness of individual projects and enabled us to determine which subset of projects would achieve the best outcomes in terms of a reduction in sediment (we used a six-step process, see the box ‘Six steps to cost effectiveness’). We were also able to compare this cost-effectiveness approach with other prioritisation approaches that focussed on area, benefits or costs alone.

Our framework gave us up to four times better returns on investment for our small example-dataset, than when projects were chosen in order to minimise cost, or maximise benefit. In reality, there are many more projects across a larger area that have to be decided on, and even larger differences are likely between different prioritisation strategies.

In addition to highlighting the projects that would give the best return on investment, the framework is easy to use and generates simple graphical outputs to help with project selection. Our approach is a very simple, fast and transparent way to help decision makers avoid common mistakes.

At the same time it enables them to see the options quickly and put them into the larger picture. The main output of the framework is a graph that shows the ranking of options according to their cost-effectiveness. It can also highlight the best projects for specific characteristics and puts a spotlight on the differences between the general cost-effectiveness of a spatial location or targeted industry – in our case-study cattle grazing or sugar cane in different subcatchments.

Because the process is simple, anyone should be able to apply it. Indeed, anyone who can shop well has what it takes to prioritise cost-effectively. All you need is the shopping list (a quantifiable objective), and information about your options (cost, benefit and feasibility) to get started.

More information: Jutta Beher j.beher@uq.edu.au

Reference

Beher J, HP Possingham, S Hoobin, C Dougall & C Klein (2016). Prioritising catchment management projects to improve marine water quality. Environmental Science & Policy 59: 35-43. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300296

Joseph LN, R Maloney & HP Possingham (2009). Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23:328-338. (And see Decision Point #29)

Sediment plumes from the coastline adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef are visible even from space. (Image NASA)

Six steps to cost effectivenessThe cost-effectiveness framework involves six steps.

1. Define the conservation objective

Define a quantifiable objective. Most conservation projects have to use a stressor-based objective. In this case the current policy goal is to reduce sediment runoff from adjacent catchments to the GBR by 20%, by 2020. The objective for this prioritisation exercise was to maximise reduction of sediment exported from any reef sub-catchments for a given budget.

2. List management projects

What are the specific actions being proposed to meet the objective? The researchers obtained a subset of projects funded by the Australian Government’s Reef Plan (2008–2013) to reduce sediment runoff from two of the most widespread land-uses, grazing and sugarcane. Every project comprises one or more actions proposed at a specific property.

3. Estimate the benefit of actions

What is the expected benefit of each of these actions? The benefit of implementing each action was the estimated annual reduction of sediment runoff at the catchments river mouth, scaled by the area each action covers.

4. Calculate the cost of actions

What is the cost of each of the proposed actions? The researchers obtained information about the total cost, Ci, of each action that was funded in any year between 2008 and 2013 from the relevant NRM group as part of the Reef Plan program.

5. Estimate feasibility

What is the feasibility of each action? The feasibility of each action, Fi, takes operational, social, and political factors into consideration, and is independent of action costs (Joseph et al, 2009).

6. Calculate the cost-effectiveness of each action

The final step is to determine the cost effectiveness of each action, CEi, to indicate the relative priority for investment. The cost-effectiveness of each action is defined by the equation:

Cost effective actions deliver the greatest outcome for a specific objective (here the maximised annual sediment reduction) per every dollar spent. The objective is to maximise the reduction in run-off sediment. To achieve this we invest in the most cost-effective actions until the budget is spent. This will ensure that the largest amount of sediment will be reduced in total.

Not only does ranking by cost-effectiveness deliver the best outcome under a specific objective for a fixed budget—it can also deliver a pre-determined outcome for least cost.

This framework follows a standard approach applied in economics that has only been applied to conservation in recent years. CEED developed an application of this approach for managing threatened species called the Project Prioritisation Protocol (see Joseph et al, 2009). Here the approach is applied to prioritising catchment management projects.

CEi =Bi x Fi

Ci .

Page 8 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

One of the great recent success stories in nature conservation has been the rapid growth in marine protected areas (MPAs) around the planet. Since 2006, there has been a staggering increase of 10 million km2 of new MPAs. That’s nearly a four-fold increase over the previous decade.

In 2010, in Aichi Japan, the global community established targets through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to set aside a full 10% of the Earth’s oceans with an emphasis on ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity’. This is known as Aichi target 11, and the aim was to meet it by 2020.

While the increase in size of the global MPA estate is welcome, how well is it doing at protecting marine biodiversity? Unfortunately, there has been no baseline for measuring how well our marine species are represented in protected areas. Until now.

In a new paper in Nature’s Scientific Reports, we assessed how well our global MPA network overlaps the ranges of 17,348 marine species of fishes, mammals and invertebrates (Klein et al, 2015). And what we discovered made us question what our system of marine reserves are protecting, because when you compare the ranges of marine species with our marine reserves it is clear that most marine species are not well represented within MPAs (Figure 1) and several hundred species are not covered at all.

Marine protected areas are a key management tool for biodiversity conservation. Some are no-take zones, while others allow limited fishing and other industry. They help support marine biodiversity by providing safe places for breeding, migration and recovery.

How good is our global network of marine reserves?Major shortfalls identified in marine conservationBy Carissa Klein (University of Queensland)

There is also increasing evidence that, when well managed and well placed, they can enhance fisheries outside their boundaries through accumulated benefits inside the MPAs ‘spilling out’ to areas open to fisheries.

A guiding principle in conserving global biodiversity is that all species should have some part of their range in protected areas. Yet 97% of the marine species that we considered have less than 10% of their ranges represented in the stricter forms of MPAs.

Then there are those species whose ranges lie entirely outside of protected areas. These are sometimes referred to as ‘gap species’. Countries with the largest number of ‘gap species’ include developed nations like the US, Canada, and Brazil.

Given the growth in MPA extent in recent years this lack of coverage is disappointing. Yet our findings also contain a silver lining. The majority of species that are very poorly represented live in waters under national jurisdictions (approximately 200 nautical miles from shore). Thus, the challenge of designing reserves outside of national jurisdictions is not a problem. Nations have the ability and authority to set up MPAs to better

protect biodiversity.

Countries have a tendency to think bigger is better when it comes to MPA establishment (see the blog by Jennifer McGowan and Hugh Possingham on MPA selection around Australia). Often this is simply not true. The quality of the MPA is just as important, and quality in part requires that a range of biodiversity is included (Barnes, 2015).

Our analysis makes it clear that it is imperative that new reserves are located in places that help better represent the full range of biodiversity. This should be front of mind as countries embark on the establishment of new MPAs.

Yet creating new MPAs depends as much upon smart governance and partnerships as biological Figure 1. Percentage of marine species with 0% (dark red), 0–2% (pink), 2–5% (dark blue), 5–10% (light blue),

and >10% (green) of their range overlapping with marine protected areas (IUCN I-IV).

Key messages• This analysis provides a baseline for measuring how well our

marine species are represented in protected areas

• Currently, most marine species are not well represented within marine protected areas

• It is imperative that new reserves are located in places that help better represent the full range of biodiversity

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 9

and ecological needs. Protected areas can affect economies by impacting mineral extraction and livelihoods by limiting fishing. These social and economic issues must be taken into account if we have any hope of establishing effective MPAs.

With the first global baseline now freely available, nations have the ability to measure their own conservation progress and effectively plan for future protected areas. Halfway through the period for achieving the CBD’s Aichi’s goals, we haven’t a moment to lose.

A National Marine Conservation Assessment for PNG By Viv Tulloch (University of Queensland)

The marine environment of Papua New Guinea (PNG) is vast and diverse. Marine ecosystems directly support the livelihoods of Papua New Guineans through fisheries and development activities, and tourism. They provide an ecological foundation for much of the national economy and prosperity. However, the country’s marine environment is under threat from a growing population dependent on the ocean for food and income, and from increased land-based activities and climate change. Now, more than ever, strategic approaches to marine conservation and management are critical.

PNG has committed to the establishment of a network of marine protected areas to fulfill its national and international commitments. At the request of the PNG’s Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA), and funded by UNDP, a national marine spatial prioritisation analysis of PNG’s marine environment was conducted in 2014 by CEED members Carissa Klein, Viv Tulloch and Jennifer McGowan (Figure 1). Marxan was used to identify key priority conservation areas using the principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy, representation and resilience (CARR). The analysis targeted marine biodiversity features for which national-scale data were available, and included coral reefs, deep water habitats, spawning aggregations, and migratory species such as turtles and seabirds.

This prioritisation was the culmination of a significant body of work to build the capacity of CEPA, underpinning national plans for marine conservation. The analyses compared representativeness targets of 10% (as required by the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD) and 20% (the target for the Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System). The resultant maps identified areas of high conservation interest that should be prioritised by the PNG Government for further assessment.

We found only 12% of the 1106 features targeted in this analysis meet or exceed the CBD’s 10% representation target in the existing protected area system (meaning 88% of targeted features have less than 10% within protected areas). For example, only 2.2% of the total coral reef habitat of PNG is currently protected. Some habitat features, such as seamounts, are completely unprotected throughout national waters. Additional conservation areas are needed to meet targets particularly for deep water habitats and reefs, with significantly more area also needed to adequately protect spawning aggregations, turtles, seabirds and cetaceans.

CEED’s work with UNDP and CEPA is ongoing. Further efforts include: updating the priorities by integrating terrestrial and marine objectives nationally, and prioritisations at a regional scale for New Britain.

Given the increasing resource management challenges faced by developing nations, this project highlights the importance of accessible and transparent decision-making tools such as Marxan. The maps, data and frameworks generated through this project are being used by CEPA and the broader PNG Government to improve their environmental decision-making.

Agencies involved: CEED, CEPA, The Nature Conservancy, the Australian Government, UNDP, the PNG Department of Minerals and Geohazards, Coastal Fisheries Development Agency and the National Fisheries Authority.

CEED personnel involved: Viv Tulloch, Jen McGowan, Carissa Klein, Vanessa Adams.

More info: Vivitskaia Tulloch v.tulloch@uq.edu.au

More info: Carissa Klein c.klein@uq.edu.au

Reference

Barnes M (2015). Aichi targets: Protect biodiversity, not just area. Nature 526. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7572/full/526195e.html

Klein CJ, CJ Brown, BS Halpern, DB Segan, J McGowan, M Beger & JEM Watson (2015). Shortfalls in the global protected area network at representing marine biodiversity. Scientific Reports 5. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep17539

Stakeholders consider different networks of marine protected areas. (Image by Carissa Klein)

Figure 1: Priority areas for marine reserves.

Page 10 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

It’s quite a challenge developing a conservation plan for a threatened migratory animal like the loggerhead sea turtle. Their movements may be uncertain and variable, span vast distances, cross international borders and traverse land and sea habitats. The information available to conservation managers to create their plans is often thin, patchy and comes from various sources. Filling in the gaps in that information can be costly and time consuming. And, of course, for a threatened species delays in action can be costly. So, the question is: what degree of spatial information provides sufficient results for directing management actions?

A group of us from CEED set out to answer this question. We developed and evaluated an approach that incorporates habitat and movement information to advance the conservation of migratory species. And we tested our approach by using information on loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean.

We developed conservation plans for the loggerhead turtles using four approaches. Each approach required increasing amounts of information (and therefore cost more). And then we compared the results.

These approaches involved (1) maps of the turtle’s broad distribution, (2) maps showing multiple habitat types used by the turtles (feeding, nesting and inter-nesting habitats), (3) movement information based on mark–recapture studies (in which turtles were caught, tagged and later re caught) and (4) migration tracks derived from radio-tracked turtles.

The analysis revealed that spatial priorities for sea turtle conservation are very sensitive to the type of information being used.

Setting conservation targets for migration tracks altered the location of conservation priorities. This indicates that conservation plans designed without such data would miss important sea turtle habitat.

Based on this analysis, we proposed that future telemetry studies tailor their efforts towards conservation prioritization needs, meaning that spatially dispersed samples rather than just large numbers should be obtained.

Tracking turtles in the MediterraneanHow much do we need to know to develop a good plan?By Tessa Mazor (University of Queensland)

Our work highlights how valuable information from telemetry research (satellite tracking) can be for the conservation of migratory species.

Telemetry studies provide a wealth of connectivity information for migratory species. Unfortunately, this information is not often applied to conservation planning. Our hope is that this analysis will encourage telemetry studies in the future to be aimed at improving the management of threatened migratory species.

There is a need for better dialogue and understanding between the ‘telemetry camp’ and conservation planners. Conservation planners must highlight the value that telemetry data can provide to a conservation plan and determine how much of that data actually needs to be collected in the first place. This information needs to be relayed to those undertaking telemetry studies and collaborations need to be established before tracking projects commence.

When there is only a short window of time to act for threatened species, it is critical that decision makers invest and act in those areas that will generate the best conservation outcomes.

More info: Tessa Mazor Tessa.Mazor@csiro.au

Reference

Mazor T, M Beger, J McGowan, HP Possingham & S Kark (2016). The value of migration information for conservation prioritization of sea turtles in the Mediterranean. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25: 540–552. doi: 10.1111/geb.12434 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.12434/full

Key messages• Spatial priorities for sea turtle conservation are very sensitive

to the type of information being used

• Setting conservation targets for migration tracks altered the location of conservation priorities

• Telemetry data needs to be better harnessed in conservation planning

Developing conservation plans for a threatened migratory animal like the loggerhead sea turtle presents multiple challenges. (Photo by Tessa Mazor)

The view from on highSatellite tracking can record the movements of migratory animals that travel large distances over multiple jurisdictions. These projects are logistically difficult and very expensive (the cost of satellite transmitters ranges from USD $2000–5000 each), but the data are gold for conservation.

More collaboration between ecologists and conservation managers could improve the conservation impact of these telemetry datasets, and such work is increasingly possible through open-access data banks that combine data from many projects.

Movebank: https://www.movebank.org

Zoatrack: http://oztrack.org

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 11

Key messages• Seagrass meadows provide important ecosystem services

but are under threat

• Prioritisations based on cost-effectiveness are more efficient than prioritisations based on habitat maps or threat maps alone

Marine coastal habitats, such as seagrass meadows, provide valuable ecosystem services including food provision, carbon sequestration, and coastal protection. But coastal areas are also the focus of human settlement. They concentrate many human activities, both land-based (eg, coastal development) and ocean-based (eg, fishing). Therefore, conserving coastal habitats requires actions that abate multiple threats.

Environmental agencies charged with conserving coastal habitats must decide which threats to act on and where to take actions to abate those threats within their region. To achieve the greatest benefits for conservation, agencies should take the actions that are predicted to conserve the desired amount of habitat for the least cost.

A first step towards that direction is to categorise threats as ‘stoppable’ (eg, fishing) or ‘unstoppable’ (eg, climate change) based on how easily a threat can be abated within a particular time period (eg, 20 years). This will enable environmental agencies to realistically prioritise actions for conservation under a specific budget or conservation target (eg, protecting 30% of the habitat distribution).

An important next step is to combine data on the distribution of habitats and threats, with information on the cost and expected benefits of conservation actions which are easier to manage within the particular time period. Such an approach will lead to cost-effective solutions. On the other hand, prioritisation of actions based on habitat maps and/or threat maps alone can lead to less effective and/or more expensive solutions.

Our study demonstrated this approach for seagrass meadows.

Posidonia oceanica seagrass meadows in the Mediterranean Sea. (a) Healthy meadow in the study region, (b) meadow impacted by fish farming, (c) meadow impacted by anchoring, and (d) meadow impacted by trawling. (Photos by Yiannis Issaris/www.yissaris.com).

Figure 1: Comparison of the cost of achieving 65% seagrass conservation for three prioritisation criteria: 1) cost-effectiveness, 2) seagrass cover, 3) level of threat. The relative cost of each scenario is expressed as a proportion of the cost associated to the cost-effectiveness criterion.

Protecting marine coastal habitats cost-effectivelyPrioritising actions to protect seagrass meadowsBy Sylvaine Giakoumi (University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, France)

It selected the most cost-effective actions to abate stoppable threats (trawling and anchoring), while avoiding areas affected by threats that are more difficult to manage, such as coastal

development. The relative improvement in cost achieved by using the proposed approach was examined by comparing with other common prioritisation criteria that do not consider cost, including choosing sites based on threat level or habitat cover alone.

The establishment of anti-trawling reefs (in the study region in the Mediterranean) was found to be the most cost-effective action to achieve the European Union conservation target for the protection of seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) meadows.

More info: Sylvaine Giakoumi sylvaine.giakoumi1@gmail.com

References

Giakoumi S, CJ Brown, S Katsanevakis, MI Saunders & Possingham HP (2015). Using threat maps for cost-effective prioritization of actions to conserve coastal habitats. Marine Policy 61: 95-102.

Cost

(pro

port

ion

of b

ase

scen

ario

)

Page 12 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

By Maria Beger and Brigitte Sommer (University of Queensland)

Range shifts and local extinctions from climate change will undoubtedly modify our ecosystems in the coming decades. These changes are likely to be evident first in the places where many species occur at the margins of their ranges and environmental tolerances (biogeographic transition zones).

Biogeographic transition zones, such as going from tropical to temperate shallow reef ecosystems, harbour a mix of organisms with different thermal tolerances and habitat associations. For example, on subtropical reefs you may find tropical and temperate fish species, tropical hard corals and temperate kelp species occurring together in the same habitat. These systems provide excellent natural laboratories to examine the forces that structure ecological communities along environmental gradients. They also provide a lens on how communities may change with climate change.

Subtropical and temperate reefs are currently undergoing ‘tropicalisation’. This involves several shifts including tropical coral species expanding their ranges poleward, tropical fishes overwintering on temperate reefs, and reefs changing from being kelp dominated to coral dominated. Exactly how these ecological transitions take place is poorly understood and the specifics will likely vary among species.

The challenges of managing transitional ecosystems range from working out what the key drivers and threats are (and the corresponding conservation goals), to setting up frameworks that incorporate transitional changes (in time and space) into conservation prioritisation. Over the past few years, CEED

researchers, in collaboration with colleagues from the ARC CoE for Coral Reef Studies, have tackled these questions, and we continue to work towards better understanding and protecting subtropical reefs.

Subtropical reef environments are highly variable and can be too cold and dark for tropical species to thrive. On the gradient from tropical (low latitude) to temperate (high latitude) reefs, species richness in corals and fishes declines, but that of algae, echinoderms and other invertebrates can increase (Beger et al, 2014).

We investigated the processes that drive community organisation of corals in southeastern Australia, linking

Key messages• Subtropical and temperate reefs are currently undergoing

‘tropicalisation’

• Going from tropical to temperate reefs, species richness in corals and fishes declines, but that of algae, echinoderms and other invertebrates can increase

• We should aim to conserve sites that consistently remain important for conservation through time

Conservation of subtropical reefsPlanning for a transition zone in a time of climate change

The blue groper (Achoerodus viridis, the large blue fish upper left) is a subtropical and temperate reef species that is protected in Australia. It is accompanied by Australian Mados (Atypichthys strigatus, the smaller striped fish) which are subtropical endemics on the Australian east coast. (Image by Brigitte Sommer)

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 13

A temperate wrasse in kelp at the Izu Peninsula, Japan, at a site where fishers complain about the loss of their favourite (temperate) target species because of tropicalisation.

species abundances, co-occurrence patterns and species traits. We found that species traits influence the ability of corals to persist in these harsh environmental conditions at higher latitudes. In particular, structural traits linked to energy acquisition and physical stability may be particularly important for coral survival in these marginal environments (Sommer et al, 2014).

When thinking about the conservation of range shifts of reef species, in particular in subtropical reefs, these ecological findings are important to predict future change. Considering the responses of organisms to changing temperatures, but also the acidification of oceans, we should aim to conserve sites that consistently remain important for conservation through time (Beger et al, 2014; Makino 2014).

For example, in Japan we tested conservation priorities across predicted long-term distributional changes of corals that are expanding their distributions poleward. Developing a new method to connect planning units through time, we found that conservation targets could be largely achieved across three time slices (2010, 2050 and 2100) without needing to change conservation areas over time (Makino 2014). This work was based on predicted temperature trajectories across Japan, using different climate change scenarios.

Coral and kelp growing side-by-side in the Solitary Islands Marine Park at 30 degrees southern latitude. (Image by Brigitte Sommer)

We found that the robustness of conservation priorities over time on Japanese subtropical reefs can depend on which model scenario is used. The world is currently tracking towards the most severe scenario; this scenario was also the one where conservation priorities were most different (Makino 2015).

Subtropical transitional reefs are important conservation areas, and we are working towards influencing management outcomes as tropical, subtropical and temperate marine species respond to change.

More info: Maria Beger m.beger@uq.edu.au Brigitte Sommer b.sommer@uq.edu.au

References

Beger M, B Sommer, PL Harrison, SDA Smith, & JM Pandolfi (2014). Conserving potential coral reef refugia at high latitudes. Diversity and Distributions 20: 245-257. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.12140/full

Sommer B, PL Harrison, M Beger & JM Pandolfi (2014). Trait-mediated environmental filtering drives assembly at biogeographic transition zones. Ecology 95: 1000-1009. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/13-1445.1/abstract

Makino A, H Yamano, M Beger, CJ Klein, Y Yara & HP Possingham (2014). Spatio-temporal marine conservation planning to support high-latitude coral range expansion under climate change. Diversity and Distributions 20: 6-12. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.12184/abstract

Makino A, CJ Klein, HP Possingham, H Yamano, Y Yara, T Ariga et al. (2015). The effect of applying alternate IPCC climate scenarios to marine reserve design for range changing species. Conservation Letters 8: 320–328. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12147/abstract

Page 14 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

Over-fishing is a global problem. It damages the marine environment and compromises the long-term sustainability of fisheries. A 2014 report by the Food & Agriculture Organisation stated that roughly a third of global marine fish stocks were overfished. One way we can control fishing effort is by giving fishers a stake in marine resources by establishing co-management systems, for example, by assigning user rights for marine resources.

TURF controlAssigning user rights to fishers enables them to capture the benefits of sustainable management. This is expected to lead to more sustainable fishing practices by fishers, as well as greater interest in the responsible use and management of marine resources.

User rights programs include what are known as territorial user rights for fisheries (or TURFs). Evidence from early TURF programs suggests that TURFs can lead to real benefits for the marine environment: marine species’ abundance can be much higher in these areas than in open-access areas where fishing is not controlled (see Decision Point #85).

However, these benefits are not always present. TURFs have not provided gains in species’ abundance in areas where catch

Why are fishers not enforcing their user rights?Sustainable fisheries management in ChileBy Katrina Davis (University of Queensland)

restrictions are not enforced to ensure compliance. In these non-enforced areas, species’ abundance is much closer to open-access conditions. These findings suggest that, independent of the benefits of user-rights programs, they will not reach their full management potential if they are not enforced.

Marine enforcementMarine enforcement involves three activities: monitoring, apprehension and penalisation of poachers. We expect fishers to help enforce restrictions when they have exclusive user rights and can capture the benefits of management. In a number of such cases, however, fisher participation in the enforcement of user rights is absent.

In Chile, the harvesting of shellfish (like the Chilean abalone known as ‘loco’) is controlled through TURF programs. There are around 450 TURFs currently active. Chilean artisanal fishers are given user rights for defined coastal areas to harvest shellfish. In exchange for their user rights, fishers are responsible for monitoring their TURF to detect poachers. The Chilean government is responsible for apprehending and penalising poachers.

Key messages• Assigning user rights to fishers is expected to lead to more

sustainable fishing practices by fishers

• Fishers may choose not to enforce their user rights if they think that government policing of marine areas and punishment of poachers are ineffective

• In Chile, the government can support fishers’ engagement in enforcement by increasing its own engagement in apprehension and penalisation of poachers

Figure 1: Case study area in the central marine region of Chile.

Table 1. Results from conditional logit model for the most important reason not to monitor TURF management areas (best choices). Preferences are relative to the option: ineffective government penalties for poachers. Model shows aggregate sample preferences (n=52).

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 15

However, around 1 in 3 TURFs are not monitored in Chile. This finding is surprising, as previous work has shown that enforcement has net economic benefits for fisher revenue (Davis et al, 2015a).

Surveying fishers in ChileWe used central Chile as a case-study to investigate why some fishers may choose not to monitor their TURF user rights (Figure 1). We conducted a survey of 52 artisanal fishers in the central marine region, from Navidad in the south, to Los Molles in the north. We evaluated a range of potential reasons why fishers may choose not to monitor their TURF areas, including environmental factors, social costs, and concerns for personal safety.

We found that, on average, the fishers that we surveyed may choose not to enforce because they think that government policing of marine areas and punishment of poachers are ineffective (Table 1) (Davis et al, 2015b).

Implications for marine management These results have implications for the success of marine management which is based on the assignment of user rights like TURFs. Despite the potential for user rights systems to deliver real benefits for conservation and fishers’ productivity, if user rights are not enforced then these gains may not be realised. Marine management which relies on community engagement and participation will require support from government to legitimise and facilitate community engagement in enforcement processes.

In Chile, the government can support fishers’ engagement in enforcement by increasing its own engagement in apprehension and penalisation of poachers. Where fishers participate in enforcement higher marine species’ abundance

and higher productivity for fishers are likely to be the result: a true win-win situation.

More info: Katrina Davis k.davis@uq.edu.au

References

Davis K, M Kragt, S Gelcich, S Schilizzi & D Pannell (2015a). Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones. Conservation Biology 29: 226-237. And see Decision Point #85

Davis K, M Kragt, S Gelcich, M Burton, S Schilizzi & D Pannell (2015b). Why are Fishers not Enforcing Their Marine User Rights? Environmental and Resource Economics, 1-21. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-015-9992-z

Katrina Davis (centre) with Faustine Auzanneau (on the right) interview Rafael Sagredos, a fisher from Pichicuy fisher organisation. (Image by M Guerrero Gatica)

The Los Molles fisher organisation on the central coast of Chile (Image by Katrina Davis)

Page 16 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

The design of marine reserves is always contentious. Marine reserves are areas closed to fishing to protect native plants and animals, so protection often comes at a cost to local fishing industries who will be excluded from fishing in some places. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Protected Area, for example, was rezoned in 2004 to have 33.3% of its area as no fishing zones. The process was highly contentious and cost the Federal Government around $250 million in compensation pay-outs to fisheries. Clearly, balancing the needs of conservation with its impacts on fisheries is important for both people and economies.

The tools used to design marine reserves have often been criticized for being too simplistic. The most commonly used tools apply static models which only analyse spatial patterns in habitats. This approach typically assumes that fisheries profits are reduced by the amount that was generated in areas designated as reserves. Consequently, these tools may put reserves in the wrong places that cost fisheries too much of their catch.

To address this problem, we compared the tools commonly used to design reserves with more ‘realistic’ tools (Brown et al, 2015). Our realistic tools use dynamic models that account for the movement of fish in and out of reserves, as well as the displacement of fishing boats after reserves are implemented. The standard tools do not account for the movement of fish and boats.

We compared the tools in two places, California’s Marine Protected Area system (which was completed in 2011) and a new Marine Protected Area system in Tun Mustapha Park, Malaysia (which is currently being implemented).

We found that the standard tools were highly inaccurate at estimating how much fishing profits would be lost because of a proposed reserve network. Depending on the situation, the standard tools could under or over-estimate the cost of reserves to fisheries sometimes by more than 20% of the present day profits.

What tools should we use to design marine reserves? Accounting for the movement of fish and boats By Chris Brown (Griffith University)

Surprisingly, despite their inaccuracy in estimating the costs to fisheries, the standard tools were reasonably good at designing marine reserve networks that minimized impacts on fisheries, while meeting targets for conservation. The reason for this apparent contradiction was that the standard tools were good at getting correct the relative value of different places to fisheries – at least in the short-term.

Over the longer-term, for instance 10 or more years, the more realistic tools designed much better reserve networks that both benefitted fisheries and met conservation goals. The realistic tools were able to strategically place reserves in places that would ensure ‘spill-over’ of fish larvae from reserves to outside areas, where they could be caught. The standard tools could not create reserve networks that provided this synergy between conservation and fisheries.

Unfortunately, it is not feasible to use our more realistic tools in every circumstance. They require a lot of data and development time to create. All this is expensive and may be beyond the resources of many management agencies. Where possible, however, we recommend this approach.

In the absence of cheap and realistic models, we suggest that the standard tools provide reasonably good reserve networks. However, the standard tools should not be used to estimate compensation payouts for fisheries.

More info: Chris Brown chris.brown@griffith.edu.au

References

Brown CJ, C White, M Beger, HS Grantham, BS Halpern, CJ Klein, PJ Mumby, VJD Tulloch, M Ruckelhaus & HP Possingham (2015). Fisheries and biodiversity benefits of using static versus dynamic models for designing marine reserve networks. Ecosphere 6(10):182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00429.1

Key messages• Balancing the needs of conservation with its impacts on

fisheries is important when designing marine reserve networks

• Commonly used design tools based on static models are good at placing reserves to avoid short-term losses to fisheries

• Static models perform poorly for designing reserves that bring benefits to fisheries in the longer-term (>10 years)

• Tools based on dynamic models are better at designing reserves that provide long-term benefits to fisheries

Protecting Malaysian reef fish while minimising the impact on Malaysian fisheries: which design tools get the balance right? (Images by Carissa Klein)

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 17

Outbreaks of coral-eating Crown-of-Thorns Starfish (COTS) can seriously affect the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Periodically there are local explosions in the numbers of these large, thorny starfish. Aggregations of adult starfish can literally strip reefs of their coral cover. It’s been estimated that as much as 40% of coral cover loss can be attributed to COTS-related causes.

Outbreaks spread among the reefs in an epidemic-like fashion as COTS larvae are transported by ocean currents. Studying how reefs are connected by larval dispersal help us to represent the GBR as an ecosystem-sized connectivity network. Such network models can then be used to determine which reefs will be more likely to spread COTS larvae, as well as which reefs will be at a greater risk of outbreaks due to their exposure to COTS larvae.

Analysis of COTS connectivity networks reveal high concentrations of well-connected reefs in regions of the GBR where major COTS outbreak events have historically originated, most notably around Cooktown and Cairns in the north and the Swains in the south (Hock et al, 2014).

A powerful combination of high connectivity among the nearby reefs and a potential to link up a wider region could turn a local build-up of COTS populations into a large-scale cascade of outbreaks. This correspondence between the connectivity metrics and field observations suggests that the GBR is exceptionally sensitive to COTS dynamics on reefs in these regions. Monitoring COTS populations at specific reefs in these areas could therefore provide early warning signs that would alert the managers to the initiation of future outbreak cascades.

While connectivity could help us predict the onset of future outbreak cascades, the pressing issue right now is that the GBR is currently in the middle of a major COTS outbreak cascade. Field control methods to remove adult COTS during outbreaks are resource- and time-intensive, and the logistics of intervening on remote reefs as well as the sheer size of the affected area emphasise the need to deploy the control efforts in a targeted manner in order to maximise their impact.

COTS connectivity patterns reveal the potential pathways and reefs through which the outbreaks could spread, and possibly endanger major tourism sites in the northern GBR (Figure 1; Hock et al, 2016). Management resources can then be deployed to these reefs in an attempt to interfere with the range expansion and limit future distribution of COTS.

Connecting the dots helps manage COTSConnectivity networks and the control of Crown-Of-Thorns starfish on the GBRBy Karlo Hock (University of Queensland)

Figure 1: Connectivity patterns indicate the potential of individual reefs to spread COTS larvae towards the major tourism sites in the northern GBR. Geographical proximity of the reefs to tourism sites is not always the best predictor of this potential because of a strongly directional transport of COTS larvae by the ocean currents. Reefs with tourism sites represented as hexagons; other reefs represented as coloured circles according to their predicted potential to spread COTS larvae towards tourism sites; thickness of links indicates the predicted levels of larval transport between reefs. (Reprinted with permission from Hock et al, 2016).

Key messages• Crown of thorns starfish are a major threat to the GBR

• Outbreaks spread like an epidemic as starfish larvae drift from reef to reef

• Studying how reefs are connected by larval dispersal is generating valuable insights on how COTS outbreaks can be anticipated and managed

Decisions on which populations to target can be also be adaptively adjusted as new information on outbreak distribution becomes available, further improving the allocation of COTS control efforts.

While it might not be possible to completely stop the COTS outbreaks from spreading with the current field control methods, connectivity patterns can nevertheless help the managers decide where to deploy the best available practices while considering system-wide consequences of local management actions.

This research was performed in the Marine Spatial Ecology Lab at the University of Queensland and CEED, and realised through collaborations with CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA).

More info: Karlo Hock k.hock1@uq.edu.au

References

Hock K, NH Wolff, SA Condie, KRN Anthony & PJ Mumby (2014). Connectivity networks reveal the risks of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks on the Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:1188-1196. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12320/abstract

Hock K, NH Wolff, R Beeden, J Hoey, SA Condie, KRN Anthony, HP Possingham & PJ Mumby (2016). Controlling range expansion in habitat networks by adaptively targeting source populations. Conservation Biology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12665/abstract

Page 18 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

Cost-effectiveness in spatial conservation prioritization has biased some marine protected areas placement towards least threatened sites (see the box ‘what is lost when minimising cost?’). Sometimes, however, it can be beneficial to protect highly impacted sites to directly address threats, enhance recovery, or establish local stewardship towards management..

We tested how conservation priorities differ between two management strategies:

1. Avoid protecting high threat areas, or

2. Protect areas at risk.

In the Sulu-Sulawesi region in the heart of the Coral Triangle, we found that conservation targets cannot be met solely with win-win areas that are priority areas for both strategies. Selecting for high threat areas required less habitat area to be protected to achieve the same conservation target and resulted in a more equitable distribution of priority sites per country and sub-region.

This demonstrates the importance of deciding on conservation objectives up-front: do we apply a ‘fire-fighting’ strategy of protecting threatened habitats that are often already degraded to increase their recovery or persistence probabilities (eg, reefs near human settlements where fishing pressure is higher) or a ‘pre-emptive’ strategy of protecting currently less threatened habitats that may face increasing stresses in the future (eg, remote reefs far away from where fishers currently go)?

Contrary to the common practice of avoiding threats in spatial planning, our results suggest that a threat selection strategy should be part of the management toolbox, particularly in transboundary planning for regions with widespread impact of marine threats, where it may be important to achieve shared conservation targets equitably.

Protecting pristine reefs does not mitigate current threats. (Image by Maria Beger)

Figure 1: Scatterplot of selection frequencies of both threat strategies for entire study region. Win–win sites are points that lie in the stripe around the x-y line; decision areas lie in the triangles outlined in grey.

Should we protect highly threatened habitats or safe habitats?Risk it or play it safe?By Pei Ya Boon (University of East Anglia) and Maria Beger (University of Queensland)

Key messages• There is a bias towards placing MPAs in areas that are

least threatened

• We found that conservation targets in our study area could not be met solely by avoiding high threat areas

• A threat selection strategy should be part of the management toolbox

What is lost when minimising cost?Spatial conservation prioritisation aims to maximise conservation returns at the least possible cost. Fishing pressure is often incorporated as a surrogate for opportunity cost and minimising such opportunity costs reduces the impacts of a marine reserve on resource users.

However, it also leads to the establishment of marine protected areas in remote areas or places that are unpromising for extractive activities (like fishing). As a result, the areas most exposed to threatening processes are often given the least protection.

Nine of the 10 largest marine protected areas in the world, which account for more than 53% of global marine protected areas area, are largely established in remote and uninhabited places, making almost no difference to ‘business-as-usual’ fishing activities. Spatial planning’s political pragmatism in minimising costs to users thus risks shifting the primary objective away from biodiversity conservation.

More info: Pei Ya Boon boonpeiya@gmail.com; and Maria Beger m.beger@uq.edu.au

Reference

Boon PY & M Beger (2016). The effect of contrasting threat mitigation objectives on spatial conservation priorities. Marine Policy 68: 23-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.010

Decision Point #96 - June 2016 Page 19

Recent technological advances have allowed oil and natural gas extraction to reach ocean depths that were previously unexplored. This includes deep offshore marine areas, which were previously uneconomic and unfeasible for oil and natural gas operations. While deep sea areas were once deemed as biodiversity poor, it is now recognized that they hold unique habitats and many endemic species. Oil and gas extraction is already happening in many of these new areas and has major financial incentives from governments and investors (with industry and governments keen for them to expand rapidly), therefore it is important that the conservation community (both researchers and practitioners) engage with this issue more.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico underlines what is at stake. This BP-operated oil rig exploded creating a major oil spill that lasted for over two months. It impacted large areas of shallow and deep waters, as well as wreaking havoc on coastal and river ecosystems and their biodiversity.

In our recent paper in Conservation Biology, we reviewed the risks and impacts of offshore oil and gas extraction globally, and discussed how the conservation community can be better prepared. We also reflected on some of the conservation challenges and opportunities arising from offshore hydrocarbon development (Kark et al, 2015). These challenges include threats to ecosystems and marine species from exploration, oil spills, and operations infrastructure (in both marine and coastal areas). We discussed impacts on native biodiversity from invasive species colonising drilling infrastructure, and increased political conflicts that can delay conservation actions.

However, it’s not all ‘downside’. The expansion of offshore operations also brings with it potential opportunities that can potentially be leveraged for conservation. Options include the use of facilities and costly equipment of the deep and ultra-deep hydrocarbon industry for deep-sea conservation research and monitoring, and the establishment of new conservation research, practice, and monitoring funds and environmental offsetting schemes. Collaborations have already begun is some

Key messages• Offshore oil and gas development brings with it a range

of challenges and opportunities for marine biodiversity conservation

• The conservation community should become more actively involved in the earliest planning and exploration phases of oil and gas extraction

• Environmental decision-support tools can be used to explicitly incorporate the impacts of hydrocarbon operations on biodiversity into spatial conservation plans

Conservation in a time of offshore oil and gas developmentWhat are the challenges and opportunities?By Salit Kark (University of Queensland) and Noam Levin (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and University of Queensland)

regions, and in some cases involves global and local NGOs and other stakeholders.

We proposed that the conservation community, including conservation scientists, should become more actively involved in the earliest planning and exploration phases of oil and gas extraction. But they also need to remain involved throughout the operations so as to influence decision making and promote continuous monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystems.

A prompt response by conservation professionals across the globe to offshore oil and gas developments, not only after but also before incidents occur, can help mitigate impacts of future decisions and actions of the industry and governments. New environmental decision support tools can be used to explicitly incorporate the impacts of hydrocarbon operations on biodiversity into marine spatial and conservation plans and thus allow for better trade-offs among multiple objectives, costs, and risks.

More info: Salit Kark s.kark@uq.edu.au

Reference

Kark S, E Brokovich, T Mazor & N Levin (2015). Emerging conservation challenges and prospects in an era of offshore hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. Conservation Biology 29: 1573–1585. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12562/abstract

Dark clouds of smoke and fire emerge as oil burns during a controlled fire in the Gulf of Mexico in May 2010 following the Deepwater Horizon disaster. (Image: Justin Stumberg)

An oiled brown pelican near Grand Isle, Louisiana in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Impacts on wildlife in some regions were catastrophic. (Image: Louisiana GOHSEP CC2.0)

Page 20 Decision Point #96 - June 2016

A team of scientists, including CEED researchers, have created the first map of seafloor diversity across the world’s oceans. The map reveals how patterns of biodiversity in the deep oceans fundamentally differ from those in shallow waters or on land.

Focusing on brittle and basket stars (related to starfish), the ground-breaking results were published in Nature.

“The deep seafloor remains the least explored ecosystem on Earth,” says Skipton Woolley, lead author on the study, from the University of Melbourne and Museum Victoria (and who is currently completing his PhD with CEED). “It is immense, remote and expensive to survey – so gaining accurate knowledge about the variety of life in the deep sea is difficult.”

To create the map, the team combined collection databases from museums around the world, then added information from scientific literature to create one ‘mega database’ which charts where marine invertebrate species have been found.

“We lack information about where seafloor animals are distributed and why some areas support more species than others,” said co-author Tim O’Hara, Senior Curator of Marine Invertebrates at Museum Victoria. “This is a problem for deep-sea conservation. It is very difficult to protect deep-sea animals and sustainably manage human activities such as deep-sea fishing and mining if we don’t know where animals live.”

New technology is making activities such as deep-sea mining for minerals including gold and cobalt increasingly viable.

Using sophisticated computer software, the team analysed the global distribution of thousands of species of brittle and basket stars to predict and measure patterns of where species occur across the seafloor. They were then able to use this data to compare biodiversity patterns across three different ocean depths: the continental shelf (20-200m), upper continental slope (200-2,000m) and deep-sea (2,000-6,500m).

“Our major finding is that patterns of biodiversity in the deep-sea differ from those on land or shallow water,” says Skipton. “The number of species peaks in tropical regions on land and in the sea down to 2000 metres. There are more species per square kilometre near the equator than there are in polar regions. In the deep-sea however, the number of species peaks at temperate latitudes, (between 30 and 50 degrees south and north). And deep waters off southern Australia, New Zealand and the North Atlantic are diversity hotspots.”

This surprising difference in diversity patterns can be explained by the amount of energy available to support life.

CEED is a network of conservation researchers working on the science of effective decision making to better conserve biodiversity. Our members are largely based at the University of Queensland, the ANU, the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia and RMIT. To contact us, please visit our website at http://ceed.edu.au/

Brittle stars are helping researchers understand patterns of diversity at sea. Pictured above is the tiny brittle star (left, image by Caroline Harding) and tropical brittle star (image by Julian Finn).

“Ecosystems on land and in shallow water receive energy from the sun - this energy is highest in tropical areas, which therefore support a higher number of species,” said Skipton.

“In the deep sea however, very little light or heat from the sun penetrates. Energy comes instead from microscopic animals and plants (plankton) that grow in the warm surface waters and ultimately sink to the seafloor to be consumed by hungry creatures living in the dark. There are more plankton in the southern and northern oceans than near the equator.”

The team hopes that as data from around the world is collected, global maps of seafloor diversity will continue to become more detailed, increasing our knowledge about the distribution of marine biodiversity. Such maps are crucial for managing the conservation and sustainable use of the deep oceans. The United Nations is currently negotiating a new international agreement for the management of the high seas through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This research will help inform this process by identifying marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

CEED researchers Brendan Wintle, Gurutzeta Guillera-Arroita and José Lahoz-Monfort from the University of Melbourne played an important role in building the statistical methods used as part of the study.

More info: Skipton Woolley swoolley@museum.vic.gov.au

Reference

Woolley SNC, DP Tittensor, PK Dunstan, G Guillera-Arroita, JJ Lahoz-Monfort, BA Wintle, B Worm & TD O’Hara (2016). Deep-sea diversity patterns are shaped by energy availability. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature17937. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17937.html

Understanding deep-sea diversityBrittle stars shine a light on patterns in the deep