| Variable Type | Binary |
|---|---|
| Variable Component Type | Governance System |
| Variable Kind | Component |
| Theme | Outcomes (learn about themes) |
| Projects | SESMAD |
| Question | Is there a perceived benefit to migratory species as a result of the MPA, regardless of whether it is a goal of the MPA? Please describe the benefit in the explanation box. (For all migratory species within the MPA, not just the species being coded as a component) |
| Select Options | |
| Unit | |
| Role | |
| Importance | Although MPAs are unlikely to ever be large enough to fully cover the entire range of wide-ranging species (e.g. tuna, sea turtles, whales), if a reserve of sufficient size can include all or a substantial portion of a species’ range in all or some of its life history, then even highly mobile and migratory species are expected to benefit substantially (Maxwell & Morgan 2012). |
| Definition | Based on the available knowledge, is there any evidence that the MPA is benefitting migratory species?
Yes: it would appear that the MPA is benefitting migratory species (i.e., threats are being managed, species populations are increasing or stable, good protection of key life-history stages). No: there is no evidence that the MPA is benefitting migratory species (i.e., threats have not been reduced, species declines, poor protection of key life-history stages). Please describe the benefit in the explanation box. |
| Sectors | Marine protected areas |
Theory Usages
| Theory | Value Used |
|---|
Associated Studies
| Study Citation |
|---|
Component Usages
| Component | Value Used | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999 | Yes | |
| GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Yes | |
| Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica | Missing | |
| Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | No | Very little data on migratory species within the Wakatobi, but anecdotal reports that turtles have been declining. |
| NWHI Monument Act 2006 | Yes | By protecting the resources, reducing interactions with fisheries and preserving a robust ecosystem for migratory species. Monitoring and research. |
| Raja Ampat Governance System | Yes | A turtle nest-guarding team developed by local NGO Papuan Sea Turtle Foundation (YPP) and staffed by local villagers has effectively reduced turtle poaching from an estimated 95 percent mortality of nests and nesting turtles to zero in the Piai Island Rookery, with over 1400 green turtle nests successfully laid and hatched since September 2006. (CI Seascape Factsheet 2008) The entire area is a Shark Sanctuary offering protection to sharks and mantas - there have been some high profile prosecutions. |
| Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System | Yes | Yes, migratory species benefit from productive feeding habitats, non-disturbed breeding grounds, limited oil spills, less ship collisions, and reduced lost fishing gear. Long term protection of key habitats benefits species. |
| Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | Yes | There is good protection of important breeding grounds - about 215 kittiwake colonies are known in Svalbard. All traffic is forbidden in bird sanctuaries between 15 May and 15 August. Environmental protection has priority over natural resource extraction, and tourism is managed and monitored. However, there is limited monitoring/baseline data for many of the migratory species known to be found in Svalbard. Out of four species of migratory seabirds, two populations are considered stable, while two populations are declining (MOSJ 2013 b) - the declines in some of the bird populations are unknown, but are thought to be linked to pollutants (e.g., glaucous gull) Full list of monitored indicators: http://www.mosj.no/en/indicators/ |
| Seaflower MPA Act 2005 | Missing | NO DATA |
| Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Yes | Benefits to migratory species stem from the now reduced industrial fishing within the MPA. Whale sharks - Darwin Island is an important stopover in a migration, possibly with reproductive purposes, rather than an aggregation site Acuna-Marrero et al. 2014. Protection of green turtle nesting and foraging. Tuna - ban on indistrial fishing within GMR |
| Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Yes | Protects important breeding grounds and foraging areas |
| GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | Yes | A large portion of the population of southern right whales migrate through the GABMP (CW) to the near shore waters of southern Australian at the Head of Bight to calve and nurse their young (Burnell and Bryden 1997; Burnell 1999; Bannister et al. 1999). The Marine Mammal Protection Zone (MMPZ) of the GABMP (CW) was established to complement the State Marine Park for the purposes of providing undisturbed calving habitat for the southern right whale from May 1 - October 31 and to protect Australian sea lion colonies. From May 1 - October 31, vessels in the MMPZ are prohibited and aircrafts must follow speed and proximity regulations. Other migratory species that utilize habitat in this zone would also benefit from these regulations. According to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act Protected Matters Search Tool there are 22 threatened species and 27 migratory species (dolphin, turtles, fish, birds) that may occur in the area (Pinzone 2013). These species would be subject to potential anthropogenic pressures such as commercial fishing, pollution, ship strikes, entanglement, and petroleum exploration and would also benefit from GABMP (CW) regulations that address these pressures. |
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Yes | The MPA protects breeding grounds and some foraging areas. |
| Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan | Not Applicable | |
| Cenderwasih governance system | Missing | |
| Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil | Not Applicable | |
| Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving | Missing |