Marine Conservation in the Azores: Evaluating Marine Protected Area Development in a Remote Island Context

REVIEW published: 08 December 2015 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00104 Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 1December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Edited by: Anthony Grehan, National University of Ireland - Galway, Ireland Reviewed by: Americo Montiel, Universidad de Magallanes, Chile Akkur Vasudevan Raman, Andhra University, India *Correspondence: Rita C. Abecasis [email protected] Specialty section: This article was submitted to Deep-Sea Environments and Ecology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine Science Received: 12 July 2015 Accepted: 13 November 2015 Published: 08 December 2015 Citation: Abecasis RC, Afonso P, Colaço A, Longnecker N, Clifton J, Schmidt L and Santos RS (2015) Marine Conservation in the Azores: Evaluating Marine Protected Area Development in a Remote Island Context. Front. Mar. Sci. 2:104. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00104 Marine Conservation in the Azores: Evaluating Marine Protected Area Development in a Remote Island Context Rita C. Abecasis1*, Pedro Afonso2, Ana Colaço2, Nancy Longnecker3, Julian Clifton1, Luisa Schmidt4and Ricardo S. Santos2 1School of Earth and Environment, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, 2Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of the Azores, Horta, Portugal, 3Department of Zoology, Centre for Science Communication, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 4Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal In the Archipelago of the Azores, over 110,000 km2of marine areas presently benefit from some form of protection, including a suite of coastal habitats, offshore areas, seamounts, hydrothermal vents, and large parcels of mid-ocean ridge. These areas are integrated in the recently established network of marine protected areas (MPAs), which stands as the cornerstone of Azorean marine conservation policies. This article describes and analyses the process of MPA establishment in the Azores and the current network of protected areas. Three phases of MPA development are identified, progressing from individual MPA establishment with little scientific support in the 1980s, the increasing scope of scientific research during the 1990s under European Union initiatives and the gradual implementation of an MPA network in the 2000s. Expert critical evaluation of the contemporary situation demonstrates that this network must be integrated within a wider regional marine management strategy, with MPA success being contingent upon the implementation of management plans, appropriate enforcement and monitoring, and bridging gaps in scientific knowledge. Keywords: marine protected area establishment, island settings, networks of marine protected areas, marine policy development, marine spatial planning INTRODUCTION Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been established worldwide in an effort to halt marine ecosystem degradation. Initial steps for the establishment of MPA were mainly initiated in the 1980s, with a few pioneer nations such as Australia, the USA and the islands of the Azores in Portugal. The 1980s were a time of increasing environmental concern and awareness about marine ecosystems and the severe threats they were facing, coupled with widespread belief that traditional fisheries management methods allowed the overexploitation and collapse of several fish stock (Kenchington and Agardy, 1990; Guenette et al., 1998). Around the world, many coastal nations slowly developed their own efforts to establish MPAs (Tisdell and Broadus, 1989; Jones, 2001), which were typically small individual MPAs designated with little supporting scientific advice, as the rationale behind MPA establishment was yet to be properly tested (Roberts and Polunin, 1993). The increasing number of designated MPAs, however, came to provide a wider variety of suitable study sites to test the efficacy of MPAs in achieving ecological goals (Ballantine, 1991). Moreover, Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores with politicians and decision-makers demanding hard evidence to support MPA establishment, and more funding allocated for applied conservation research, MPA science received a significant boost in the 1990s (Lubchenco et al., 2003). As MPA science developed, so did the concept of using networks of MPAs to match criteria of representativeness and connectivity (Halpern and Warner, 2003). In the 2000s, upscaling into comprehensive, representative and effectively managed networks of MPAs became the plan of action recommended by the scientific community (Laffoley, 2008) and agreed by coastal nations around the world under international instruments such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (UN, 2002), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2006, 2010) and IUCN’s World Parks Congress (IUCN, 2003). To date, the large volume of MPA research has improved our understanding of different factors that influence MPA design, establishment and management; yet it has also revealed serious shortfalls that undermine the action of current MPAs worldwide as effective marine conservation tools. While MPAs have been described as “simple yet elegant solutions to managing complex (...) fisheries” (Anonymous, 2006), most studies reveal that their establishment and management are anything but simple, and often result in failure to achieve the goals of either biodiversity conservation or fisheries management (Edgar, 2011; Mora and Sale, 2011). Besides the underlying complexity of marine ecosystems, MPAs entail intricate socioeconomic and socio-political dimensions that affect governance, public support and compliance with regulations, undermining the proper implementation of these tools. Understanding the FIGURE 1 | The Archipelago of the Azores, located in the mid-North Atlantic, including the distribution of bathymetries and the current marine protected areas included in the Island Natural Parks and the Azorean Marine Park. The map also shows the limits of the Azorean Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the no-trawl area imposed by EU regulations (CE reg. 1568/2005). Graphics: R. Medeiros ©ImagDOP. interplay between these dimensions and how they affect MPA establishment under different settings is key to ensure future MPA success. There is widespread recognition of the need to assist the design and implementation of MPAs in island states through improving legal, institutional and political frameworks, data availability and decision-making capacity within organizations (Fanning et al., 2009). The urgency of these actions is grounded in the high significance of marine ecosystem services in supporting island states’ economic and cultural wellbeing (Niesten et al., 2012). However, progress in implementing networked MPAs has been slow in island states and most literature focuses on single MPA “success stories” (Weeks et al., 2009), rather than tracing the phases of MPA network development and thereby identifying the drivers of policy-making. Through undertaking such a task in a case study—the Azorean Archipelago—it is hoped that the specific needs and problems faced by island states tasked with the creation of MPA networks can be identified. In the Azorean archipelago, the most isolated group of islands in the North Atlantic, the current MPA network covers 110,000 km2of coastal habitats, offshore seamounts, hydrothermal vents and mid ocean ridges, both within and beyond its extensive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; Figure 1). This article traces the establishment of Azorean MPAs, taking into account the socioeconomic and socio-political context, particularly in terms of marine resource use, conservation research, and administrative backdrop. The latter is particularly complex because the archipelago is an autonomous region of Portugal, which imposes shared sovereignty and is itself a member of the European Union Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 2December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores (EU). Consequently, the Regional Government is empowered to make decisions and produce environmental legislation, but these must be aligned with national, European and international policies and agreements. We argue that Azorean MPAs have gone through three distinct phases which roughly coincide with the development of MPAs worldwide: the early establishment of isolated MPA with little scientific support, an intermediate phase dominated by international (EU) initiatives that promoted scientific research and conservation policies, and finally an integrative approach to conservation that led to the establishment of a regional MPA network. Tracing back the history of MPA establishment in the Azores allowed us to undertake a comprehensive critical analysis that reflects how the strengths and weaknesses of the current MPA network have arisen and how external factors that affect this MPA network have developed. This critical analysis reveals that this MPA network is of key importance to the Azores, as it provides several opportunities to enhance marine conservation, reduce user conflicts, and promote sustainable development and research. Yet, it also shows that to achieve conservation goals, this network must be effectively implemented and integrated into a wider marine management strategy for the region. From the analysis, we make recommendations regarding future directions for Azorean MPAs, and draw conclusions about the significance of the lessons learned for the science and policy of marine reserves globally. METHODS Review of Azorean MPA Establishment We conducted an extensive literature review to trace the development of MPAs in the Azores and the context in which this occurred. This encompassed legislation at the European, national and regional levels, government reports and gray literature along with scientific publications. Eleven key government officers and 10 researchers who have been mostly involved in MPA establishment in the Azores assisted in the identification of relevant information sources. To illustrate the overall trend in the production of scientific knowledge to support marine conservation, we conducted a simple bibliometric analysis in which every article listed on the Web of Knowledge that included the words “marine” and “Azores” as topics was examined. Of the initial 437 articles returned by the Web of Knowledge on a search conducted on September 24 2015, we identified 256 articles that focused on the Azorean marine environment. Critical Evaluation of the Current Azorean MPA Network Two strategic tools commonly used in business studies were used to critically evaluate the current Azorean MPA network. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was used to link internal and external factors that influence the MPA network, enabling the identification of strategic options and considerations for its successful implementation. It included an internal analysis, which identified characteristics of the MPA network that work particularly well (strengths) and specific features that compromise its goals (weaknesses), and an external analysis highlighting external factors that positively (opportunities) or negatively (threats) affect the MPA network. SWOT analysis is limited as a stand-alone tool because it may ignore important external factors, especially in broader contexts (Henry, 2008). Therefore, we combined it with a PESTLE analysis, which facilitated the wider scan of real and potential factors inherent to the overall context surrounding the MPA network. PESTLE identified the external factors included in the SWOT, using the prompts: Political-administrative, Economic, Social, Technology-research, Legal and Environmental. Both analyses were conducted over two consecutive focus groups composed of four experts in Azorean marine conservation research, which took place in October and November of 2012. All factors from both analyses were discussed between the experts until consensus was reached and consubstantiated by current available research. AZOREAN MPAs The 1980s – First Azorean MPAs The Azores were a poor and isolated region when they were granted autonomy in 1976. To overcome this, socioeconomic development was promoted and communications improved through both aerial and maritime transport linkages. Exploitation of marine resources was encouraged through financial incentives designed to increase the number of larger and better equipped fishing boats. New markets developed, fish value increased and extractive activities such as fishing and harvesting evolved from subsistence activities to business operations. Throughout the 1980s, catches significantly increased, new species and fishing grounds were exploited and the fishing season was extended (Gordon et al., 2003). Marine extractive activities were regulated to promote the rational management of stocks and the effective control of fishing activities, and several exploited species were provided with legal protection, which either banned their capture or set minimum size limits. Nevertheless, drastic declines of limpet populations in the late 1980s were early signs of overexploitation (Santos et al., 1990). Environmental protection services were underdeveloped, understaffed and limited to a small office within the regional administration. Nevertheless, during the 1980s eight MPAs were established under the 1976 Portuguese national legal framework that defined different types of protected areas. The first one included a small coastal no-take MPA (0.01 km2) that would correspond to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category I, and it was the only Azorean MPA for which a specific management plan was developed. The remaining MPAs were designated marine reserves (IUCN category VI), as they imposed certain limitations to specific activities to promote the sustainable use of marine resources. These MPAs consisted of one relatively large offshore reef (ca. 378 km2), and six small coastal sites ranging in size from 0.05 to 4.5 km2(Table 1). These early MPAs were mostly “paper parks,” reflecting (a) limited data availability relating to the marine environment; (b) absence of an overall plan for MPA implementation; (c) emphasis Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 3December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores TABLE 1 | Marine protected areas (MPAs) established in the Archipelago of the Azores between 1980 and 2015, both within and beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and including those MPAs legally established and driven by the Regional Government, included in NATURA 2000, and recognized by the OSPAR Commission and UNESCO. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Azores Period 1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2015 Total number of designations 8 24 79 Total protected area (km2) Inside EEZ 384.08 435.59 11,175.04 Outside EEZ – – 100,206.54 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT MPAs Total number Inside EEZ 8 8 40 Outside EEZ – – 4 Total protected area (km2) Inside EEZ 384.08 384.08 11,175.04 Outside EEZ – – 100,206.54 Minimum MPA area (km2) Inside EEZ 0.05 0.05 0.10 Outside EEZ – – 22.15 Maximum MPA area (km2) Inside EEZ 377.14 377.14 4013.00 Outside EEZ – – 93,568.00 NATURA 2000 Total number – 16 18 Total protected area (km2) – 87.59 372.72 Minimum MPA area (km2) – 0.50 0.50 Maximum MPA area (km2) – 35.94 190.23 OSPAR NETWORK OF MPAs Total number Inside EEZ – – 7 Outside EEZ – – 4 Total protected area (km2) Inside EEZ – – 5674.15 Outside EEZ – – 100,206.54 Minimum MPA area (km2) Inside EEZ – – 95.00 Outside EEZ – – 22.15 Maximum MPA area (km2) Inside EEZ – – 4012.53 Outside EEZ – – 93,568.00 UNESCO BIOSPHERE RESERVE Total number – – 3 Total protected area (km2) – – 750.13 Minimum MPA area (km2) – – 55.10 Maximum MPA area (km2) – – 445.03 on top-down implementation and absence of community participation; (d) lack of management plans for individual MPAs; and (e) scarcity of resources allocated for enforcement (Martins and Santos, 1988; Santos et al., 1995b). To overcome these shortcomings, Martins and Santos (1988) pointed out the need to reform the regional environmental strategy and legal framework, and suggested the creation of a regional organization that could be responsible for MPA management and the articulation with other regional, national and European conservation institutions. The scarcity of scientific data reflects the fact that most fieldwork was conducted by institutions based outside of the Azores and occurred only occasionally (Santos et al., 1995a). Nevertheless, some fieldwork conducted at this time was instrumental in recommending MPA establishment in the Azores (Saldanha, 1988). The founding of the University of the Azores in 1976 promoted the deployment of permanent researchers in the Archipelago, enhancing the region’s capacity for scientific research (Santos et al., 1995b). Furthermore, following Portugal’s accession to the EU in 1986, European funds became available for the development of a regional environmental strategy, including the necessary baseline research. The first EU-funded conservation project in the Azores—project BIOTOPES— identified and characterized 55 sites of community interest that were later used to establish protected areas (Vasconcelos and Gomes, 1988). Table 2 summarizes the main marine conservation research projects carried out in the Azores. The 1990s – EU-Driven Initiatives The 1990s were a period of rapid socioeconomic development due to capital transfers, subsidies and tax exemptions aimed at developing the EU’s ultra-peripheral regions. Commercial fisheries in particular experienced a phase of full exploitation as a result of fisheries enhancement policies developed in the previous decade, along with improvements in fisheries knowledge, technology and market conditions. The number of fisheries regulations increased and the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy was put into practice. Due to the collapse of Azorean limpet populations in the 1980s (Santos et al., 1990), the Fisheries Department established limpet reserves for every island in 1993. Nevertheless, a combination of poor enforcement and high commercial pressure brought this resource close to commercial extinction (Santos et al., 2010). Tourism was another economic activity that significantly increased during this decade as specific economic policies targeted this sector (De Menezes et al., 2008). The first marine tourism operators were established early in the decade, specializing in whale-watching, scuba-diving and big-game fishing. Several advances in marine conservation took place in the 1990s. Firstly, its political relevance increased with the creation of a regional government department dedicated to environmental issues. Secondly, based on national laws, a regional legal framework for protected areas was defined in 1993, which promoted the establishment of a regional network of protected areas and defined regional administrative procedures, management entities, and a new classification system. The pivotal move was the implementation of EU environmental policies, particularly the NATURA 2000 network of protected areas. This was a major impetus for the systematic and integrated approach to environmental conservation and led to the preliminary designation of 23 Sites of Community Importance in 1998, 16 of which included or consisted of marine areas totalling around 90 km2(Table 1). However, NATURA 2000 was a long, bureaucratic and demanding process, so final designations and specific regulations would only be produced in the following decade. As the ocean became a central theme in the Portuguese public arena in the 1990’s, decision makers recognized its key role for future socio-economic development and implemented important marine-related governmental policies and programs, Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 4December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores TABLE 2 | Scientific projects carried out in the Archipelago of the Azores that focused on marine conservation and provided relevant outputs for the establishment of marine protected areas in the region, including their main funding sources and institutions involved. Date Project Funding institutions Research institutions Main objectives and outputs for marine conservation in the azores 1986–1987 Biotopes EU GovAzores; Parks and Reserves National Services Identification of 55 biotopes as Sites of Community Interest 1995–1998 Seabird Conservation “Conservation of marine birds and their habitats in the Azores” EU RGAzores UAc; GovAzores; RSPB, University of Glasgow Seabird conservation actions (public outreach; data collection; standardization of monitoring methodology) 1996–1998 TURISUB “Studies for the development of underwater tourism of the Azores” RGAzores UAc/IMAR Data collection 1996–1999 CLIPE “Climatic effects on the ecology of littoral fishes” EU GovPortugal UAc/IMAR Data collection, standardization of coastal fish monitoring methodology 1998–2003 MARE “Integrated management of coastal and marine zones in the Azores” EU RGAzores UAc/IMAR RGAzores Management plans for NATURA 2000 areas; public outreach; data collection; socioeconomic studies 1999–2002 Bird Atlas “New Atlas of Birds Nesting in Portugal” EU SPEA; RGAzores Data collection; revision of regional network of SPAs 1999–2003 MAROV “Coastal marine habitats, thematic mapping of the seabed using GIS, AUV and ASV” GovPortugal UAc/IMAR, Instituto Superior Técnico Acoustic and visual mapping of marine habitats and biodiversity, including within SCIs 2001–2004 MAREFISH “Marine Protected Areas of the Azores: Effects on Fish Communities” EU GovPortugal UAc/IMAR Evaluation of MPAs benefits on fish communities; data collection on fish dispersal and MPA connectivity 2002–2005 CETAMARH “Ecology and population structure of bottlenose dolphins and sperm whales in the Azores” EU GovPortugal UAc/IMAR Collection of baseline data to adapt the Azorean Marine Park management model to cetacean conservation 2002–2005 OASIS “Oceanic Seamounts: an Integrated Study” EU UAc; IMAR, (+8 international partners) Site-specific management plan for Sedlo seamount 2003–2006 OGAMP “Planning and Management of Marine protected Areas” EU RGAzores UAc/IMAR; RGAzores Integrated management plans for NATURA 2000 areas; public outreach; data collection; socioeconomic studies 2004–2006 PARQMAR “Characterization, planning and management of marine protected areas in Macaronesia” EU UAc Management plan proposal for NATURA 2000 areas; data collection; socioeconomic studies; public outreach 2004–2008 MARMAC and MARMAC II “Knowledge, promotion and valorization for a sustainable use of MPAs” EU UAc/IMAR; Nauticorvo; RGAzores Environmental education and awareness campaigns; preparation of educational tools; baseline data collection 2004–2008 MARINE IBAs “Important Areas for the Seabirds in Portugal” EU ICNB SPEA; UAc/IMAR; Birdlife International Identification of 11 Azorean marine IBAs; data collection 2005–2008 EMPAFISH “Marine Protected Areas as tools for fisheries management and conservation” EU UAc (+13 international partners) Integrating Azorean case-studies in European MPA research 2009CONDOR “Observatory for Long-Term Study and Monitoring of Azorean Seamount Ecosystems” EEA UAc; IPIMAR; Institute of Marine Research (Norway) MPA establishment with stakeholder participation; data collection to improve management of seamounts; public outreach 2007CORALFISH “Assessment of the interaction between corals, fish and fisheries, in order to develop monitoring and predictive modeling tools for ecosystem based management in the deep waters of Europe and beyond” EU IMAR (+16 international partners) Data collection to improve management of deep-sea habitats 2007MADE “Mitigating Adverse Ecological Impacts of Open Ocean Fisheries” EU UAc/IMAR (+12 international partners) Data collection to propose measures to mitigate adverse impacts of open ocean fisheries 2009CORVO and VILA FRANCA “Sanctuary Islands for Seabirds” EU RGAzores SPEA; RSPB; Corvo Municipal Council Recovery of seabird habitats; public outreach 2009DEEPFUN “Biodiversity and functioning of the deep-sea hydrothermal field Menez Gwen–a contribution to management policies” EU GovPortugal UAc/IMAR; RGAzores; University of the Algarve; EMEPC Data collection to improve management of hydrothermal vent fields EMEPC, Task Group for the Extension of the Portuguese Platform; EU, European Union; GovPortugal, Government of Portugal; IMAR, Institute of Marine Research; RGAzores, Regional Government of the Azores; RSPB, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; SPEA, Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds; UAc, University of the Azores. Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 5December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores many of which contributed to a substantial investment in marine sciences using both national and EU funding sources (Costa and Gonçalves, 2010). As a result, the number of scientific projects gathering baseline information for MPA establishment in the Azores significantly increased from the mid-1990s onwards (Table 2). Most projects received funding from EU programs and were led by the University of the Azores, usually in close collaboration with the Regional Government. They set monitoring methodologies, initiated regional-scale awareness campaigns, and included the first consistent efforts to involve local communities in marine conservation through information outreach, education and stakeholder engagement. The 2000s – Toward an Integrated Approach to Marine Conservation Throughout this decade, social and economic indicators greatly improved and marine-related activities became more relevant to the regional economy. Azorean fisheries showed increasing catches and profits in the early 2000s (Pham et al., 2013) as a result of higher fishing effort and the expansion of fishing grounds. Despite earlier warnings that some fish stocks were depleted or entering overexploitation (Santos, 1999), the Regional Government implemented a program of incentives in the mid 2000’s to renew the commercial fleet, which served to increase fishing effort as vessels were able to operate for longer periods and travel greater distances. By the end of the decade, important demersal fish species were considered to be approaching a critical level of exploitation. Recreational fishing developed to the point of exerting considerable pressure on marine resources (Pham et al., 2013), as the number of recreational boats increased almost fourfold during this decade (www.estatistica.azores.gov.pt). As for tourism, the incentives and policies previously adopted resulted in the industry’s rapid growth. With greater number of tourists, the number of licensed marine tourism operators increased and diversified into activities like boat tours and rentals, fishing, scuba-diving, shark-diving and whale-watching (Ressurreição and Giacomello, 2013). The strong investment in marine science initiated in the previous decade resulted in the proliferation of marine conservation research projects during the 2000s (Table 2). This trend is also illustrated by the significant increase in the number of peer-reviewed scientific articles published yearly on the Azorean marine environment as of 2000 (Figure 2). The EU remained the leading funding source for marine conservation research projects (Table 2). Likewise, the University of the Azores, in association with the Institute of Marine Research (“Instituto do Mar”–IMAR), remained the leading research institution, participating in 75% of projects, while the participation of environmental NGOs and international partnerships increased. The main outputs of these research projects were baseline data and recommendations that were used for establishing the boundaries and regulations of current Azorean MPAs. The increasing desire to promote public support for MPAs is reflected in the inclusion of public outreach and stakeholder participation activities in most projects’ goals. In addition, several projects incorporated the monitoring of MPAs that had been initiated in the 1990s, filling the gap of a long-term monitoring plan in the region. International Conservation Tools In the latter half of the 2000s, the Regional Government worked toward including international programs and specific agreements in its environmental conservation strategy. Between 2007 and 2009, UNESCO approved the applications submitted by the Regional Government to the Man and Biosphere Program, recognizing the islands of Corvo, Flores and Graciosa and their surrounding marine environment as Biosphere Reserves (Table 1). As the Regional Government would assure enforcement, these different zones were defined so that they matched official plans for marine conservation in those islands. In a joint effort between the Regional Government, the University of the Azores and, and at a later stage, the Task Group for the Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf, several applications were submitted to the OSPAR Commission. Between 2006 and 2011, OSPAR included 11 Azorean MPAs in its network of MPAs (Table 1): seven within national waters and four outside national jurisdiction but within the limits of the areas proposed for legal continental shelf extension that Portugal submitted to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Eight of these OSPAR MPAs incorporated the protection of the seafloor and sub-seafloor for two coastal areas, three seamounts and two hydrothermal vent fields within the EEZ, and for an additional hydrothermal vent field located outside the EEZ. The latter, named “Rainbow” was the first national MPA to have been proposed under the high seas and accepted by OSPAR. This made Portugal, and particularly the Azores, a pioneer in the protection of marine biodiversity at an international level (Ribeiro, 2010) and a progressive player that helped to progress the ground-breaking OSPAR high seas MPAs process. These eight MPAs encompassed a set of priority habitats like sponge aggregations, hydrothermal vent fields, deep-sea coral gardens and reefs, and species like the long lived and late maturing orange roughy, reflecting the growing importance and knowledge of deep-sea ecosystems. During the 2010 OSPAR ministerial meeting in Bergen (OSPAR, 2010), OSPAR adopted measures to establish and manage the high seas superjacent to the seabed of three areas (Altair, Antialtair, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores) as OSPAR MPA. This complemented the measures for management of these MPAs reported by Portugal to the OSPAR Commission as components of the OSPAR network of MPAs, which were integrated into the Azores Marine Park. The collaboration between OSPAR and Portuguese entities toward the development of common management strategies for these three MPAs located outside the Azorean EEZ was also a groundbreaking step for the establishment of OSPAR’s Network of High Seas MPAs (O’Leary et al., 2012) and was welcomed as significant progress at the inter-ministerial OSPAR meeting in Bergen. EU initiatives Following the development of a legal Sectorial Plan, based on studies undertaken by the University of the Azores and Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 6December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores FIGURE 2 | Main marine conservation trends in the Archipelago of the Azores since 1980. (A) number of peer-reviewed scientific articles about the Azorean marine environment published each year; (B) total number of MPAs in force each year within the Azorean Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); (C) total MPA area (km2) in force each year within the Azorean EEZ. the Portuguese Society for Study of Birds, the NATURA 2000 protected areas were formally recognized and established by the Regional Government and the EU. In addition, two new Azorean MPAs consisting of hydrothermal vent fields were designated, increasing the number of NATURA 2000 MPAs to 18 (Table 1). Regional Conservation Tools Under the legal framework approved in 1993, the Regional Government embarked on the creation of a Regional Network of Protected Areas by reclassifying existing MPAs and establishing the first Regional Natural Park in Corvo Island, which included the island’s entire marine surrounding. However, the 1993 legal Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 7December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores framework proved to be ill adapted to the Azorean administrative backdrop. There was no coherence nor territorial integration in the way that protected areas within this network were organized (Calado et al., 2009), and this was worsened with the introduction of a wider range of legal tools including NATURA 2000 and OSPAR MPAs. As each protected area was created and regulated by regional decree, it involved a tremendous legislative effort. Furthermore, the institutional organization was complex, as the attribution of responsibilities presented both gaps and overlaps (Calado et al., 2009) and did not include spatial management tools created outside the Environmental Department. To overcome these difficulties, the legal framework was reviewed in 2007 to standardize the diversity of designations into IUCN categories and to establish a management model adapted to the Archipelago’s geographic and administrative conditions. This new model integrated all existing protected areas, including the early 1980’s MPAs, NATURA 2000 and OSPAR MPAs, and other spatial tools such as the limpet reserves and coastal zone management plans. It also integrated new protected areas that resulted from significant advances in scientific knowledge or were necessary to assure the ecological continuity of ecosystem services and functions (Calado et al., 2009), such as Important Areas for Birds identified by project MARINE IBAs (Table 2). This way, two pivotal tools for spatial management were established in the Azores between 2008 and 2011: (1) a network of nine Island Natural Parks, autonomous in management and including all terrestrial and coastal MPAs within territorial waters, and (2) the Azorean Marine Park, including all MPAs located outside the territorial sea. As a result of this reorganizing process, the total marine area under protection increased substantially because the new MPAs units were enlarged and their limits simplified into polygon shapes. In total, they include 44 MPAs covering more than 10 thousand km2(1.12%) of Azorean waters and over 100 thousand km2of the continental shelf outside the Azorean EEZ (Table 1), which constitutes a major increase in MPA number and total area comparing with the previous decades (Figure 2). CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AZOREAN MPAs The recently established MPA network described in the previous section is now the cornerstone of Azorean marine conservation policies. In this section, we conduct a critical analysis of the current Azorean MPA network and identify factors that might influence its future success. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3 and are discussed below. Strengths and Weaknesses The relatively healthy Azorean marine environment, geographically distant from significant pollution sources and with limited coastal construction, is a significant strength of Azorean MPAs. Another major asset is the completion of the legislative process that established the Azorean Network of Protected Areas, as a clear legislative framework defining conservation goals has been found to be an important governance attribute to MPA establishment (Osmond et al., 2010). Moreover, this process introduced several conservation measures for Azorean MPAs, like strict regulation of activities that disrupt the seafloor (mineral extraction and depositing, equipment installment), exclusion of certain fishing activities and establishment of governmental authority over specific economic and research activities. For small island contexts, the Azorean MPA establishment process is pioneering in achieving a representative coverage of a full range of ecosystems habitats and vulnerable marine environments whilst enabling the establishment of large offshore MPAs both within and beyond the Azorean EEZ (Glowka, 2003; Ribeiro, 2010; Ribeiro and Santos, 2010; O’Leary et al., 2012). It leveraged itself on the involvement of recognized international organizations and programs such as OSPAR, UNESCO, and NATURA 2000, providing international recognition for the region’s conservation efforts. The involvement of the scientific community was a major strength because it resulted in a large volume of MPA research and baseline data, providing the basis for much of the design of the Azorean Marine Park and some other MPAs (Calado et al., 2011). Finally, the design of some MPAs included the views and interests of local stakeholders (Abecasis et al., 2013a), a feature that is widely advocated as essential for MPA success (Reed, 2008). Moreover, the legal requirement to develop Consulting Councils for each Island Natural Park is an important step toward stakeholder participation in MPA management. As for weaknesses, MPAs comprise only 1.12% of Azorean waters, which is considerably lower than the minimum 10% coverage considered necessary to ensure marine conservation established in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD, 2010). Effective marine conservation is impaired by shortcomings in the design of coastal MPAs, as they lack the appropriate ecological criteria and forecast necessary to maximize spillover, connectivity, and the potential net benefits of MPAs. Moreover, current no-take areas are unlikely to achieve significant conservation goals because they are small and limited in number. This situation is worsened by the absence of management plans and the allocation of limited resources for enforcement and long-term monitoring plans, which derive from limited funding for MPA implementation. Consequently, Azorean MPAs so far have had little influence on the previously exploited populations within their limits (Schmiing et al., 2014). Weaknesses also include social factors, as most of the MPAs established in the Azores over the past three decades included low levels of community involvement and insufficient provision of public information throughout the process (Calado et al., 2011). Moreover, the profusion of MPA designations that resulted from the different phases of MPA establishment described in Section Methods undermined the public understanding of MPAs (Abecasis et al., 2013a). Opportunities and Threats Political and Administrative Factors Recent regional policies and legislation aim at reconciling economic and social development with marine environment conservation. This vision of sustainable development has been a basic principle not just for MPA establishment, but also for the regulation of different economic activities (e.g., aquaculture, mineral extraction, tourism, fisheries). At an international level, Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 8December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores TABLE 3 | Summary of the critical analysis of the current Azorean MPA network, including identified internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats provided by the different PESTLE factors: political and administrative, legal, economic, social, environmental, and technology and research). Strengths Weaknesses Healthy marine environment Legal basis for the Azorean Network of Protected Areas Azorean MPA establishment considered pioneer Representativeness Large offshore MPAs Involvement of international organizations and programs Involvement of scientific community Science-based process Incorporation of stakeholder’s interests in MPA design in some cases Legal requirement for stakeholder consultation Only 1.12% of EEZ is legally protected MPA design in most PNI is largely inadequate Small and very few no-take areas Current absence of management plans Low resources for enforcement and monitoring plans Weak community involvement and information Profusion of MPA designations Opportunities Threats Political and administrative International political incentives for MPA establishment Regional policies follow vision of sustainability Conflicting within different governmental sectors Inadequate governmental structure for marine issues Lack of political will Legal Current MPA legal framework Development of legislation on marine spatial planning History of unregulated MPAs in the region Legal obstacles to cooperation between different agencies Economic Sustainable practices of Azorean commercial fisheries MPAs as fisheries management tools High potential to develop ecotourism in the region Promoting ecotourism activities and products Applying precautionary principle to economic activities Spatial mediation of conflicts between economic activities Introducing mitigating measures to economic activities Over-exploitation by commercial fisheries Reducing available fishing grounds Increasing economic pressure to develop mineral extraction Sporadic impacts of shipping activities Potential threats from developing economic activities Social Maintaining recreational extractive activities at sustainable levels High public awareness about conservation issues Potential to increasing public awareness on marine conservation Mediating spatial conflicts between users and stakeholders Improving environmental standards and quality of life Increasing pressure from extractive recreational activities Low levels of compliance Environmental Partial protection of migratory species Partial protection of seabirds Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Invasive species Migratory and highly mobile species Seabird species Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Technology and research Independent research assists in MPA monitoring Research progress may improve MPA design VMS technology MPAs provide research opportunities Knowledge gaps Reduced expression of social sciences Low levels of interdisciplinary research approval of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive was a step toward the application of ecosystem-based management in EU waters (Markus et al., 2011), in which the establishment of an ecologically representative network of MPAs is instrumental. National commitments under the Biodiversity Convention and OSPAR also provide key political incentives for MPA establishment (Marinesque et al., 2012; O’Leary et al., 2012). However, Azorean MPAs are also affected by political and administrative constraints. Governance is not just vertically fragmented (UE, national, regional, and local levels of government), but also horizontally fragmented, with different administrative departments providing competences and representing different interests in marine issues (e.g., Environment, Fisheries, Tourism, Science, and Technology). Conflicts often arise as different departments, pressured by different lobbying groups, have contradictory strategies and agendas. In particular, fisheries and environmental agencies are frequently in opposition. Furthermore, this government structure entails fragmented and overlapping jurisdictions. For instance, although several enforcement agencies operate in Azorean marine areas, as each agency has specific and different jurisdictions and inter-agency cooperation is low, the amount of resources required for enforcement is tremendous. This is a typical problem of overly-bureaucratic administrative systems (Rodríguez-Martínez, 2008; Gerhardinger et al., 2011) and a frequent excuse for sub-optimal MPA effectiveness. Finally, as Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 9December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104 Abecasis et al. Marine Conservation in the Azores Santos, R. S., Gonçalves, J., and Isidro, E. (1995a). Marine research: the role of the department of oceanography and fisheries of the university of the azores. High. Educ. Policy 8, 25–28. doi: 10.1057/hep.1995.22 Santos, R. S., Hawkins, S., Monteiro, L. R., Alves, M., and Isidro, E. J. (1995b). Marine research, resources and conservation in the Azores. Aquat. Conserv. 5, 311–354. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3270050406 Santos, R. S., Martins, H. R., and Hawkings, S. J. (1990). “Relatório de estudos sobre o estado das populacões de lapas do Arquipelago dos Açores e da ilha da Madeira,” in Relatório da X Semana das Pescas dos Açores (Horta: Universidade dos Açores). Santos, R. S., Morato, T., and Barriga, F. J. A. S. (2012). “Increasing pressure at the bottom of the ocean [Chapter 5],” in Natural Resources, Sustainability and Humanity: A Comprehensive View, eds A. Mendonça, A. Cunha, and R. Chakrabarti (Dordrecht: Springer), 69–81. Schmiing, M., Afonso, P., and Santos, R. S. (2014). “Coastal marine protected areas in the Azores: opportunities, benefits and limitations,” in The Sea of the Azores: Scientific Forum for Decision Support II, eds G. Carreira, F. Cardigos, and F. M. Porteiro (Horta: Arquipelago Life and Marine Sciences), 121–142. Schmiing, M., Afonso, P., Tempera, F., and Santos, R. S. (2013). Predictive habitat modelling of reef fishes with contrasting trophic ecologies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 474, 201–216. doi: 10.3354/meps10099 SCP (2012). Pacific-ACP States Regional Legislative and Regulatory Framework For Deep Sea Minerals Exploration and Exploitation. Prepared under the SPC-EU EDF10 Deep Sea Minerals Project. Brussels. Silva, H. M., and Pinho, M. R. (2007). “Small-scale fishing on seamounts,” in Seamounts: Ecology, Fisheries and Conservation, eds T. Pitcher, T. Morato, P. J. B. Hart, C. Clark, N. Haggan, and R. S. Santos (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing), 527. Smith, S. L. (2012). Toward inclusive co-management: factors influencing stakeholder participation. Coast. Manag. 40, 327–337. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2012.677642 Soukiazis, E., and Proença, S. (2008). Tourism as an alternative source of regional growth in Portugal: a panel data analysis at NUTS II and III levels. Port. Econ. J. 7, 43–61. doi: 10.1007/s10258-007-0022-0 Teelucksingh, S., Nunes, P. A. L. D., and Perrings, C. (2013). Biodiversitybased development in Small Island Developing States. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18, 381–391. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X13000260 Tisdell, C., and Broadus, J. M. (1989). Policy issues related to the establishment and management of marine reserves. Coast. Manag. 17, 37–53. doi: 10.1080/08920758909362073 UN (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. New York, NY: United Nations Publication. Van Dover, C. L. (2011). Mining seafloor massive sulphides and biodiversity: what is at risk? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 341–348. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq086 Vasconcelos, J. M. C., and Gomes, M. A. (1988). “O projecto BIOTOPOS do programa CORINE,” in 1as Jornadas Atlânticas de Protecção do Meio Ambiente, eds E. Dias, J. P. Carretas, and P. Cordeiro (Lisbon: Secretaria Regional do Turismo e Ambiente). Weeks, R., Russ, G. R., Alcala, A. C., and White, A. T. (2009). Effectiveness of marine protected areas in the Philippines for marine biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 24, 531–540. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01340.x Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Copyright © 2015 Abecasis, Afonso, Colaço, Longnecker, Clifton, Schmidt and Santos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 16 December 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 104