Fishery-dependent livelihoods, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity: the case of marine and coastal protected areas in India

The lacunae in fishing-community engagement in the management and governance of marine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs) were discussed in the 2009 Chennai Workshop organized by the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF). To continue the discussion, a second, two-day workshop to review existing legal and institutional mechanisms for implemention and monitoring of MCPAs, titled ‘Fishery-dependent Livelihoods, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity: The Case of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in India’, was held in New Delhi during 1-2 March 2012. The objective was to understand the impact of MCPAs on fishing communities, from an environmental-justice and human-rights perspective, and make specific proposals for better conservation while securing the livelihoods of small-scale fishers. The workshop also served to underscore these issues in light of the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held at Hyderabad in October 2012. This publication contains the prospectus of the workshop and a report of the proceedings. It will be useful for fishworkers, non-governmental organizations, policymakers, trade unions, researchers and others interested in natural resource management and coastal and fishing communities.

On the Front Line: frontal zones as priority at-sea conservation areas for mobile marine vertebrates

1.Identifying priority areas for marine vertebrate conservation is complex because species of conservation concern are highly mobile, inhabit dynamic habitats and are difficult to monitor. 2.Many marine vertebrates are known to associate with oceanographic fronts – physical interfaces at the transition between water masses – for foraging and migration, making them important candidate sites for conservation. Here, we review associations between marine vertebrates and fronts and how they vary with scale, regional oceanography and foraging ecology. 3.Accessibility, spatiotemporal predictability and relative productivity of front-associated foraging habitats are key aspects of their ecological importance. Predictable mesoscale (10s–100s km) regions of persistent frontal activity (‘frontal zones’) are particularly significant. 4.Frontal zones are hotspots of overlap between critical habitat and spatially explicit anthropogenic threats, such as the concentration of fisheries activity. As such, they represent tractable conservation units, in which to target measures for threat mitigation. 5.Front mapping via Earth observation (EO) remote sensing facilitates identification and monitoring of these hotspots of vulnerability. Seasonal or climatological products can locate biophysical hotspots, while near-real-time front mapping augments the suite of tools supporting spatially dynamic ocean management. 6.Synthesis and applications. Frontal zones are ecologically important for mobile marine vertebrates. We surmise that relative accessibility, predictability and productivity are key biophysical characteristics of ecologically significant frontal zones in contrasting oceanographic regions. Persistent frontal zones are potential priority conservation areas for multiple marine vertebrate taxa and are easily identifiable through front mapping via EO remote sensing. These insights are useful for marine spatial planning and marine biodiversity conservation, both within Exclusive Economic Zones and in the open oceans.

Assessing the conservation status of marine habitats: thoughts from a sandflat on the Isles of Scilly.

Statutory monitoring of the fauna of the ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’ biotope complex on St Martin’s Flats, a part of the Isles of Scilly Complex Special Area of Conservation, was undertaken in 2000, 2004 and 2009. The targets set by Natural England for “characteristic biotopes” were that “composite species, abundance and diversity should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change”. The three specified biotopes could not be distinguished, and instead three assemblages were subjectively defined based on sediment surface features. There were statistically significant natural changes in diversity and species composition between years, especially in the association initially characterized by the razor-clam Ensis, and possible reasons for this are discussed. It is suggested that setting fixed local limits on natural variability is almost always impractical. Two possible approaches to distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic changes are suggested; a change in ecological condition as indicated by AMBI scores, and a significant change in average taxonomic distinctness (Δ+) compared with expectation. The determination of species biomasses as well as abundances might also open more possibilities for assessment. The practice of setting objectives for a marine SAC feature that include the range and number of biotopes cannot be supported, in view the difficulty in ascribing assemblages to recognised biotopes. A more realistic definition of species assemblages might best be gained from examination of the species that consistently make a substantial contribution to the Bray Curtis similarity among samples collected from specific sites.