Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Benefits and risks of incremental protected area planning in the Southern Ocean

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 696–705 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Establishing representative Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) is a priority for the conservation of marine biodiversity and the sustainability of socio-ecological systems under increasing pressure from global environmental change. Here we use a systematic conservation planning framework and four planning scenarios to test the suitability of a bioregional planning approach to deliver a representative network of MPAs for the Southern Ocean. We find that if existing and proposed MPA designs are not adapted, some conservation features will remain underrepresented and very large MPAs in yet to be planned-for domains will be required. Our analysis demonstrates that while existing and proposed Southern Ocean MPAs protect significant conservation features, achieving representative protection under the bioregional approach is contingent on political will to adapt existing protected areas at ongoing stages of the incremental planning process. These findings have implications for conservation planning beyond the Southern Oceans and particular relevance for achieving representative marine protection in ABNJ.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Existing and proposed CCAMLR and National MPAs and MPA planning domains in the Convention area used in scenarios 2 to 4 in this study.
Fig. 2: Locations of broad-scale bioregions in the Convention area.
Fig. 3: Most frequently selected planning units, locked-in and excluded planning unit areas in each of the scenarios.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

This study did not generate any new data. All data used to support the findings of this study are referenced and are available from the original sources (Supplementary Table 1).

References

  1. Smith, D. & Jabour, J. MPAs in ABNJ: lessons from two high seas regimes. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 417–425 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gardiner, N. B. Marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean: Is the Antarctic Treaty System ready to co-exist with a new United Nations instrument for areas beyond national jurisdiction? Mar. Policy 122, 104212 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Blicharska, M. et al. Biodiversity’s contributions to sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1083–1093 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gjerde, K. M. & Rulska-Domino, A. Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: some practical perspectives for moving ahead. Int J. Mar. Coast. Law 27, 351–373 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Draft decision submitted by the President (UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).

  7. Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Monitoring Framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Draft decision submitted by the President (UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).

  9. Hill, N. et al. Determining marine bioregions: a comparison of quantitative approaches. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1258–1272 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ceccarelli, D. M. et al. How to meet new global targets in the offshore realms: biophysical guidelines for offshore networks of no-take marine protected areas. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 634574 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Grant, S., Constable, A., Raymond, B. & Doust, S. Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean: report of experts workshop, Hobart, September 2006 (WWF Australia & ACE CRC, 2006).

  12. Roberts, C. M. et al. Application of ecological criteria in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecol. Appl. 13, 215–228 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wyborn, C. & Bixler, R. P. Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 123, 58–67 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ban, N. C. et al. Better integration of sectoral planning and management approaches for the interlinked ecology of the open oceans. Mar. Policy 49, 127–136 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fredston‐Hermann, A., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Biogeographic constraints to marine conservation in a changing climate. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1429, 5–17 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Riekkola, L., Andrews-Goff, V., Friedlaender, A., Constantine, R. & Zerbini, A. N. Environmental drivers of humpback whale foraging behavior in the remote Southern Ocean. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 517, 1–12 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cashion, T. et al. Shifting seas, shifting boundaries: dynamic marine protected area designs for a changing climate. PLoS ONE 15, e0241771 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Davies, T. E., Maxwell, S. M., Kaschner, K., Garilao, C. & Ban, N. C. Large marine protected areas represent biodiversity now and under climate change. Sci. Rep. 7, 9569 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Adams, V. M., Dimitrova, N. & Possingham, H.P. Scheduling incremental actions to build a comprehensive national protected area network for Papua New Guinea. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e354 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Melbourne-Thomas, J. et al. Poleward bound: adapting to climate-driven species redistribution. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09641-3 (2021).

  21. Sykora-Bodie, S. T. et al. Methods for identifying spatially referenced conservation needs and opportunities. Biol. Conserv. 260, 109138 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pressey, R. L., Mills, M., Weeks, R. & Day, J. C. The plan of the day: managing the dynamic transition from regional conservation designs to local conservation actions. Biol. Conserv. 166, 155–169 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Press, A. J. & Constable, A. J. Conservation Law in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean: the Antarctic Treaty System, conservation, and environmental protection. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 76, 305–323 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Conservation Measure 91-04 https://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-91-04-2011 (CCAMLR, 2011).

  25. Brooks, C. M. et al. Progress towards a representative network of Southern Ocean protected areas. PLoS ONE 15, e0231361 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Reisinger, R. R. et al. Predator-derived bioregions in the Southern Ocean: characteristics, drivers and representation in marine protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 272, 109630 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57, 573–583 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meir, E., Andelman, S. & Possingham, H. P. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol. Lett. 7, 615–622 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  29. CCAMLR MPA Information Repository (CCAMLR, 2021).

  30. Watts, M., Stewart, R. R., Martin, T. G., Klein, C. & Possingham, H. Systematic Conservation Planning with Marxan. In Learning Landscape Ecology (eds Gergel, S. E. & Turner, M. G.) 211–227 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).

  31. Ball, I. R., Possingham, H. P. & Watts, M. E. Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritization. In Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools 185–195 (Oxford University Press, 2009).

  32. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the 27th Meeting of the Scientific Committee (CCAMLR, 2008).

  33. Sharp, B. R. & Watters, G. M. Marine Protected Area Planning by New Zealand and the United States in the Ross Sea Region (CCAMLR, 2011).

  34. Teschke, K. et al. Planning marine protected areas under the CCAMLR regime – the case of the Weddell Sea (Antarctica). Mar. Policy 124, 104370 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Carr, M. H., Robinson, S. P. & Wahle, C. The central importance of ecological spatial connectivity to effective coastal marine protected areas and to meeting the challenges of climate change in the marine environment. Aquat. Conserv. 27, 6–29 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gell, F. R. & Roberts, C. M. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 448–455 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gaines, S. D., White, C., Carr, M. H. & Palumbi, S. R. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18286–18293 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldsworthy, L. Consensus decision-making in CCAMLR: Achilles’ heel or fundamental to its success? Int. Environ. Agreem. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09561-4 (2022).

  39. Nilsson, J. A., Fulton, E. A., Haward, M. & Johnson, C. Consensus management in Antarctica’s high seas – past success and current challenges. Mar. Policy 73, 172–180 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Venegas-Li, R., Levin, N., Possingham, H. & Kark, S. 3D spatial conservation prioritisation: accounting for depth in marine environments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018;9:773–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12896

  41. Game, E. T. et al. Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 360–369 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sykora-Bodie, S. T. et al. Using forecasting methods to incorporate social, economic, and political considerations into marine protected area planning. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 669135 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Brooks, C. M., Crowder, L. B., Österblom, H. & Strong, A. L. Reaching consensus for conserving the global commons: the case of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12676 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hindell, M. A. et al. Tracking of marine predators to protect Southern Ocean ecosystems. Nature 580, 87–92 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Conservation Measure 91-05 (CCAMLR, 2016).

  46. Brooks, C. M., Epstein, G. & Ban, N. C. Managing marine protected areas in remote areas: the case of the Ssubantarctic Heard and McDonald Islands. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 631 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Petit, J. Remote French overseas territory provides huge opportunity for marine conservation. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/02/10/remote-french-overseas-territory-provides-huge-opportunity-for-marine-conservation (PEW, 2022).

  48. Maina, J. M. et al. Aligning marine spatial conservation priorities with functional connectivity across maritime jurisdictions. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e156 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Goldsworthy, L. Finding the ‘Conservation’ in the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Yearb. Polar Law XII, 132–155 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Haward, M. Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ): the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the United Nations BBNJ agreement. Polar J. 11, 303–316 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Combes, M. et al. Systematic conservation planning at an ocean basin scale: identifying a viable network of deep-sea protected areas in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 611358 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ban, N. C. et al. Systematic conservation planning: a better recipe for managing the high seas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: managing the high seas. Conserv. Lett. 7, 41–54 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Douglass, L. L. et al. A hierarchical classification of benthic biodiversity and assessment of protected areas in the Southern Ocean. PLoS ONE 9, e100551 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Raymond, B. 10.2. Pelagic Regionalisation. in The Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean 418–421 (eds De Broyer, C. & Koubbi, P.) (The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research Institute, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1ER, United Kingdom, 2014).

  55. Bestley, S. et al. Marine ecosystem assessment for the Southern Ocean: birds and marine mammals in a changing climate. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 566936 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Smith, R. The CLUZ plugin for QGIS: designing conservation area systems and other ecological networks. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5, e33510 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. McCook, L. J. et al. Management under uncertainty: guide-lines for incorporating connectivity into the protection of coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 353–366 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Possingham, H. P., Wilson, K. A., Andelman, S. J. & Vynne, C. H. Protected areas: goals, limitations, and design. In Principles of Conservation Biology (eds Groom. M. J, Meffe, G. K., & Carroll, R. C.) 509–533 (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2006).

  59. Douvere, F. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar. Policy 32, 762–771 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stewart, R. R. & Possingham, H. P. Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environ. Model. Assess. 10, 203–213 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Watts, M. E. et al. Marxan with Zones: software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environ. Model. Softw. 24, 1513–1521 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  62. MPA Planning Domains (CCAMLR, 2018).

  63. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the 33rd Meeting of the Scientific Committee (CCAMLR, 2014).

  64. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Report of the 31st Meeting of the Scientific Committee (CCAMLR, 2012).

  65. CCAMLR. CCAMLR GIS at https://gis.ccamlr.org/ (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Raymond, L. Douglass, D. Beaver, J. Freer and E. Woehler for assistance with collating data, J. Turner for GIS support, B. Smith for technical support with CLUZ, and P. Dunstan and M. Haward for advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Anne Boothroyd & Vanessa Adams

  2. Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Anne Boothroyd, Vanessa Adams & Karen Alexander

  3. International Centre for Island Technology, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

    Karen Alexander

  4. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Karen Alexander & Nicole Hill

Authors
  1. Anne Boothroyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B. was the research leading author. V.A., K.A. and N.H. jointly supervised this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Boothroyd.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Cassandra Brooks and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes, figures and tables relating to the methods and results presented in the manuscript, data descriptions and access URLs used in the analysis, glossary of terms and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boothroyd, A., Adams, V., Alexander, K. et al. Benefits and risks of incremental protected area planning in the Southern Ocean. Nat Sustain 6, 696–705 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01077-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01077-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing