Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

From hotspots to site protection: Identifying Marine Protected Areas

for seabirds around the globe
Ben G. Lascelles a,, Gary M. Langham b, Robert A. Ronconi c, James B. Reid d
a

Global Seabird Programme, BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK
National Audubon Society, 1150 Connecticut Ave., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, United States
c
Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1
d
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Inverdee House, Baxter Street, Aberdeen AB11 9QA, UK
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 31 March 2011
Received in revised form 2 December 2011
Accepted 8 December 2011
Available online 11 February 2012
Keywords:
Seabirds
Marine Protected Areas
Marine spatial planning
Convention on Biological Diversity
Conservation
Policy

a b s t r a c t
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are recognised as a key component of an ecosystem-based approach to
managing the marine environment more effectively and sustainably. Marine top predators, such as seabirds, may be used to identify and prioritize sites for marine conservation. Here we highlight the important role that seabird scientists can play in identifying candidate sites for MPAs; areas identied using atsea surveys, seabird tracking, and species-habitat modelling. Prioritization of species and sites needs
knowledge of ecological and habitat dynamics, threats and important areas at key stages of annual
and life-cycle. The results need to be interpreted within the context of relevant policy mechanisms
and agreements. The size and shape of candidate MPAs should be: (a) realistic for the key species and
systems involved; (b) easy to monitor and enforce; and (c) where feasible involve reasonably long-term
data sets. Designation of MPAs by relevant authorities and organisations will require effective advocacy
(at local, national and international levels) and must be based on robust and defensible science. Site
boundaries should also be sufcient exibility to be modied, if necessary, in the light of future experience and data collection. The effectiveness of MPAs at the scale required for seabird conservation will
need to build on existing experience and develop innovative, as well as traditional, marine spatial planning, monitoring and management techniques. To achieve this within the target timeframes outlined in a
number of policy mechanisms will require the rapid development of new approaches, resources and
partnerships.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
All seabirds share a common reliance on the marine environment for most of their lives. Many species are spectacularly mobile,
travelling many thousands of kilometres across international
waters and multiple Exclusive Economic Zones, and only return
to land to breed. Globally, seabirds are becoming increasingly
endangered, and at a faster rate, than other groups of birds
(Butchart et al., 2004; BirdLife International, 2008). Of the c.350
species of seabird in the world (BirdLife International, 2010a)
nearly 30% are globally threatened and a further 10% are Near
Threatened (BirdLife International, 2008).
Worldwide, seabird survival is threatened by degradation and
loss of nesting habitats (BirdLife International, 2008), introduced
predators, marine pollution (Ryan, 2008; Bancroft et al., 2010),
interactions and competition with commercial sheries (Anderson
et al., 2011; Laneri et al., 2010; Melvin and Parrish, 2001), offshore
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 1223 279842.
E-mail address: Ben.Lascelles@Birdlife.org (B.G. Lascelles).
0006-3207/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.008

development, and the impacts of climate change; (Chambers et al.,

2011). While some threats, such as ingestion of plastics and shifts
in distribution induced by climate change, may require wider societal changes to be tackled effectively, others can be managed at the
local and national scale. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),1 may form
a key component of this action.
The key breeding sites of many species are well known, and
some already receive some form of protection. In contrast, their
habits at-sea often remain poorly understood and those areas most
important for their survival have rarely been dened in any systematic way. It is thus incumbent on seabird scientists, researchers, managers and conservation organisations to contribute to the
better understanding of the at-sea distribution of seabirds and
hence priority sites for their conservation, and to ensure this information links to relevant policy mechanisms. Such an approach is

1
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are dened as any area of intertidal or subtidal
terrain, together with its overlying water and associated ora, fauna, historical and
cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect
part or all of the enclosed environment (Kelleher, 1999).

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

likely not only to advance seabird conservation but also that of

many other marine biota.
In this paper, we (1) outline why seabirds can be effectively
used to identify candidate MPAs, (2) review technological and
methodological approaches to identifying and prioritizing seabird
hotspots in the oceans, (3) discuss relevant policy mechanisms
and the role of MPAs in the broader context of marine spatial planning and (4) examine some of the practical steps required for proposing and promoting seabird sites for MPA designation.
2. Seabirds as a tool for identifying candidate MPAs
As well as being important conservation priorities in their own
right, birds can be highly effective proxies for identifying priority
sites for the conservation of other taxa for which data are decient
(Brooks et al., 2001; Tushabe et al., 2006). This also applies to
seabirds (Harris et al., 2007; Hooker and Gerber, 2004), since, as
oceanic top predators with global distributions, they have been
recognised as excellent indicators of the health of the marine environment (Harding et al., 2005; Parsons et al., 2008; Sydeman et al.,
2007); their distributions often overlap with other top predators,
such as cetaceans (Furness and Camphuysen, 1997; Hebshi et al.,
2008), and their food webs encompass a wide diversity of other
marine taxa (Forero et al., 2004; Springer et al., 1996), including
species valuable to commercial sheries (Einoder, 2009).
Seabirds exhibit many ecological traits, such as central-place
foraging during the breeding season (Flint, 1991) and ock-feeding
that enables them to exploit highly clumped prey (Hoffman et al.,
1981), which result in their seasonal aggregation at identiable
areas. For most seabirds the main feeding areas are either relatively static (e.g. around sandbanks) or dynamic within speciable
limits (e.g. areas surrounding fronts) and they occur regularly and
predictably at such sites. The attractions of these sites are invariably driven by a range of oceanographic processes that combine
to enhance productivity and food availability. Such features include: shelf breaks and seamounts (Thompson, 2007); benthic habitats (Velando et al., 2005); specic food sources (Klages and
Cooper, 1997); upwellings (Crawford, 2007); gyres and eddies
(Hyrenbach et al., 2006); and frontal regions, convergence zones
and tidal currents (Ladd et al., 2005). Therefore, it makes sense to
consider such areas as suitable candidates for inclusion in appropriately designated MPAs.
3. Approaches to identifying and prioritizing seabird hotspots in
the oceans
Seabird distribution may vary depending on their breeding site,
age (BirdLife International, 2004), sex (Weimerskirch et al., 1997),
whether it is day or night (Manosa et al., 2004) and the time of year
(Gonzlez-Sols et al., 2007). In addition, many species, particularly
Procellariiformes, alternate between long and short foraging
trips during the breeding season (Chaurand and Weimerskirch,
1994). Ideally all such variation should be assessed in data collection and analysis, especially when considering representativity, if
they are to be adequately captured within proposed MPAs.
Different approaches may also be needed for species that favour
either coastal or pelagic areas (Ramrez et al., 2008), and tropical or
temperate zones (Ballance and Pitman, 1999). For much of the year
the distributions of coastal species tend to be relatively static, often
tied to particular habitats or topographic features; this renders
sites for them relatively easy to identify and delimit (Fox and
Mitchell, 1997; Webb et al., 2004). Pelagic species distributions,
however, are often more closely linked to dynamic processes and
variables (Kappes et al., 2010; Zydelis et al., 2011) and so require
more complex analyses such as bespoke hotspot analysis (Kober

et al., 2010), dynamic modelling approaches (Louzao et al., 2011),

or a combination of multiple techniques (Oppel et al., this issue).
Traditional MPAs may not be suitable for all seabirds, as some
species have been shown to be opportunistic feeders that disperse
widely making it difcult to dene specic areas and/or habitats
(Pinaud and Weimerskirch, 2005). In these cases more general/
wider conservation measures are required and/or perhaps simply
very large MPAs. However several different approaches have been
used to identify candidate MPAs for seabirds at more traditional
scales. These include using pre-determined lists of priority species
based on, for example, their threat status or inclusion in relevant
policy agreements (Ramrez et al., 2008). There have also been attempts to use umbrella species to assess priority sites for the
conservation of wider biodiversity, and these have proved successful in the recovery of individual threatened species (Louzao et al.,
2006; Pichegru et al., 2010). However, multi-species approaches
based on overall abundance and/or species diversity are generally
preferable and have been used to identify networks of sites across
large spatial scales (Campagna et al., 2007; Nur et al., 2011; Skov et
al., 2007).
Salm et al. (2000) proposed that once overall conservation
objectives have been agreed, the site selection process should include four steps: data collection, data analysis, data synthesis
and the application of selection criteria. We outline this approach
in the sections that follow using examples from the seabird literature which illustrate how these can be achieved.
3.1. Data collection
Although seabirds are one of the more easily studied groups of
oceanic top predators and much data already exist on their distributions at sea (BirdLife International, 2004; Halpin et al., 2006;
Reid and Camphuysen, 1998) there are still gaps in our knowledge.
It is however possible to apply a range of techniques to identify key
hotpots and potential MPA sites using existing data (Botsford et al.,
2006).
At-sea surveys (Camphuysen et al., 2004) and satellite tracking
data (Burger and Shaffer, 2008; Hart and Hyrenbach, 2009) have
long been the core resources available to study the distribution
and ecology of species at sea. They allow two distinct, yet complementary, perspectives of marine habitat use. Tracking data are
excellent for showing the distribution of individuals of known status and provenance in space and time, but do not readily give estimates of overall distribution and abundance. At-sea surveys can be
valuable for estimating absolute or relative abundance, but provide
incomplete assessment of distributions, reecting the difculty in
determining status (breeding vs. non-breeding), age group (e.g.
adults vs. juveniles), sex and provenance. Maximising the complementary use of both data-sets is one of the key methodological
challenges, although there are recent examples of success (Louzao
et al., 2009; Camphuysen et al., this issue).
For at-sea survey data, which includes both vessel-based and
aircraft survey, the usefulness of a given data-set to a prioritization
exercise will depend upon the particular methods of data collection and associated biases (see Table 1). Data that include both
presence and absence are the most informative. By collecting detailed information on species distribution and abundance along
systematic survey transects (Camphuysen and Garthe, 2004; Webb
and Durinck, 1992), it is possible to calculate densities as well as to
create predictive models for assessing likely distribution in unsurveyed areas (Ballard et al., this issue; Oppel et al., this issue). There
are examples from the UK using these methods for both boatbased (Kober et al., 2010; McSorley et al., 2006), and aerial surveys
(Webb et al., 2004) which have identied concentrations of
seabirds and resulted in proposals for MPAs.

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

Table 1
Comparison of aerial and ship survey data for achieving different objectives.
Survey/monitoring objective
1. Physical features relating to survey area
Cover complex, low coastlines, and shallow water
Survey extensive areas of open water
Survey restricted areas of open water
Survey distant offshore waters

Aircraft

Ship











2. Complementary data, other than bird abundance and distribution

*
Instantaneous gathering of oceanographic data
*
Flight lines and migration routes
*
Age/sex determination
*
Behavioural observations
*
Describing feeding patterns and foraging areas
*
Determining provenance (links to colonies)
3. Logistics and constraints
Cost
Intensive coverage of small areas
Simultaneous coverage of large areas
4. Species surveys distribution and abundance
Divers Gavia spp.
Large Procellariformes (e.g. shearwaters, albatross)
Small Procellariformes (e.g. storm-petrels)
Gannets and boobies Sulidae spp.
Seaduck e.g. Eider, scoter
Gulls Larid spp.
Terns Sterna spp.
Auks Alcid spp.
5. Species surveys identication to species
Divers Gavia spp.
Large Procellariformes (e.g. shearwaters, albatross)
Small Procellariformes (e.g. storm-petrels)
Gannets and boobies Sulidae spp.
Seaduck e.g. Eider, scoter
Gulls Larid spp.
Terns Sterna spp.
Auks Alcid spp.
*



(e.g. Ludynia et al., this issue), while data can be collected over
several years using light-based geolocation devices (Phillips et al.,
2004). By combining such information with remote sensing data
it is possible to characterise seabird habitat use. However, in order
to do this, the methods for collection, analysis and interpretation of
data from each device need to be carefully considered (Wakeeld
et al., 2009).
3.2. Data analysis, synthesis and application of selection criteria





*





























































Scale reects platform suitability. Adapted from Camphuysen et al. (2004).

For satellite tracking data there are a variety of tracking devices

available to study seabird activity at sea (see Table 2), and movements are now observable at scales of metres using GPS loggers

There are a wide range of analytical approaches available to

investigate seabirdenvironment associations and interactions
(Tremblay et al., 2009) most of which now utilise Geographical
Information Systems (GIS). Ultimately, the task is to use available
data, ideally quantifying habitat use and preferences, to identify
and propose boundaries for the most important sites at the population level (Wakeeld et al., 2009).
Identifying areas of highest activity and most regular use, either
for foraging or other purposes, based on measures of importance,
persistence, species diversity and abundance are likely to make
the best cases for promotion as MPAs, as these justications of
why a site is important are readily understood by policy makers
and other marine stakeholders (Kober et al., 2010; Nur et al., 2011).
A range of techniques can be applied to tracking and other datasets to derive inferences about the most important areas (Barraquand and Benhamou, 2008). Sinuosity (Benhamou, 2004), fractal
(Tremblay et al., 2007), rst-passage time (Pinaud and Weimerskirch, 2005), state-space modelling (Patterson et al., 2008), time
spent per square (Lopez-Mendilaharsu et al., 2009; Le Corre
et al., this issue), and kernel analyses (BirdLife International,
2004; Montevecchi et al., this issue; OBrien et al., this issue) have
all been shown to be appropriate methods for dening hotspots for
marine taxa, including seabirds.
Information on oceanographic variables provides important
complementary data and can be used to input to habitat suitability
models, predict locations of potential sites in unsurveyed areas and
provide guidance for delineating boundaries. Computer tools
(Hazlitt et al., 2010; Loos and Canessa, 2010) and the use of proxies

Table 2
Comparison of six devices currently available and commonly used for tracking seabirds. All these aspects need to be considered when choosing the most appropriate device for a
given study and species of seabird; choice of device can also inuence data analysis and interpretation. Source: BirdLife International (2009b).
Tracking method

Accuracy

Scale of
areas
identieda

Weight (g)

Lifespan of device

Data recovery

Logistics and constraints

Cost

Global Positioning
Satellite (GPS)
loggers

High (m)

Macro
Meso
Micro

Medium to
heavy
(P10 g)

Low (days to weeks)

Device recovery
necessary

Tagging team needs to be at site

for several days/weeks

Medium

Platform Terminal
Medium (few km)
Transmitters (PTT)

Macro
Meso

Medium to
High (solar powered
heavy (P9 g) devices up to years)

Real-time data
downloaded via
satellite

Requires renting of satellite time

Medium
high

Argos/GPS-PTT

Macro
Meso
Micro

Heavy
(P22 g)

High (solar powered

devices up to
1 + years)

Real-time data
downloaded via
satellite

Requires renting of satellite time

Few xes stored each day

High

Very High Frequency Medium (few km)

(VHF)
Radio-tags

Macro
Meso

Light
(<1 g)

Medium (weeks to
months)

Real-time collection Requires >1 team working

of data at site
simultaneously to gather good
quality data

Geolocators (GLS)
loggers

Low (>100 km)

Poor accuracy near
equator and
equinoxes

Macro

Light
(61 g)

Medium to high (up to Device recovery

3 + years)
necessary

Data analysis complex, may need

expert assistance

Low
medium

Compass loggers

Medium (few km)

Macro
Meso

Medium to
heavy
(P17 g)

Low (days to weeks)

Tagging team needs to be at site

for several days/weeks
Data analysis complex

Medium

High (m)

Device recovery
necessary

Low
medium

a
We propose to classify the at-sea distribution of seabirds at the following scales: Mega-scale (>3000 km2); approximates to a regional scale. Macro-scale (1000
3000 km2); relates to areas of higher or lower productivity within them (e.g. frontal zones). Meso-scale (1001000 km2); relates to the interactions between larger scale
features (e.g. eddies). Micro-scale (1100 km2); relates to specic parts of large scale features, or specic individual features (e.g. seamounts).

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

(Ban, 2009; Grecian et al., this issue; Thaxter et al. this issue) for
ornithological data allow the development of habitat models which
overcome some data deciency problems. Habitat modelling uses
the raw data from at-sea surveys and satellite tracking to identify
suitable habitats within species ranges and provides a measure of
the relationship between the two (Horne et al., 2007). The complexities of these models are discussed in detail elsewhere (Hegel
et al., 2010) and there are now a number of free automated software packages available (Ballard et al., this issue; MacLeod et al.,
2008; Oppel et al., ,this issue; Valavanis et al., 2008).
The identication of candidate MPAs requires the consistent use
of criteria and thresholds to assist with site denition, description
and delineation. Signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have agreed on descriptive criteria for the identication
of Ecologically or Biologically Signicant marine Areas (EBSAs),
applicable both within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and on
the High Seas (Secretariat of the CBD, 2009). BirdLife Internationals Important Bird Area criteria are more quantitative and
have been used to identify priority sites for conservation, including
in the marine environment (Arcos et al., 2009; BirdLife International, 2010b; Ramrez et al., 2008). Simple diversity or densitybased (Skov et al., 2007; Garthe et al., this issue; OBrien et al., this
issue) criteria may also be effective at capturing large proportions
of populations within relatively small areas. There are also a range
of decision-support tools that can help with systematic reserve
planning in network contexts, such as Zonation (Oppel et al., this
issue; Ballard et al., this issue) and MARXAN which has been used
specically for seabirds (Grant et al., 2008; Hazlitt et al., 2010) and
for MPA design more generally (Smith et al., 2009).
Together, data collection and analysis uses a combination of
techniques to help: (a) create density and distribution grids for
species and/or areas; (b) develop predictive distribution and density models for each species, based on their relation to a number
of environmental variables; and (c) apply criteria and thresholds
to highlight those sites that potentially qualify as candidates for
appropriate protection status.
Three types of priority site have generally resulted from these
kinds of analyses: (a) discrete areas offering ideal conditions for
conservation (i.e. naturally high numbers of individuals, low current and future anthropogenic impacts); (b) remnant suitable (or
restorable) habitats with the potential for sustaining populations;
and (c) viable parts of populations at the edges of species ranges
that may be important for maintaining overall genetic diversity
and which may also be the rst to react to environmental change
(Vucetich and Waite, 2003).

4. Policy mechanisms and the role of MPAs for seabird

conservation
MPAs have long been recognised as a key component of an ecosystem-based approach to manage the marine environment effectively and sustainably (Agardy, 1994; FAO, 2010; Hyrenbach et al.,
2000; United Nations, 2002). However, many coastal nations have
not yet identied or designated MPAs, and even when they have,
for the most part, the sites are not appropriately managed (Toropova et al., 2010). This inaction can be put down to the difculty of
establishing appropriate ecological (Derous et al., 2007), logistical
(Ruckelshaus et al., 2008) and economic (FGEF, 2010) mechanisms
for implementing successful site-based management in the dynamic marine environment. In recent years, there have been many
publications aimed at providing the best scientic advice on how
to address these issues so that MPAs become fully accepted as
essential instruments for many elements of marine conservation
(Ervin et al., 2010; Game et al., 2009; Kelleher, 1999; Morling,
2005; Secretariat of the CBD, 2004).

Many publications summarise the development of international

law relevant to MPAs (Craig, 2005; Kelleher and Gjerde, 2003;
Scovazzi, 2003) although fewer have direct relevance to seabirds
(Harrison et al., 1992). These conclude that there are currently
some provisions and regulations in national and international
law which, if implemented successfully, might allow for the establishment of MPAs and help reduce the most signicant threats to
species and habitats in the marine environment. However, in reality, and especially on the High Seas (Gjerde et al., 2008), most
international law has so far failed to deliver signicant conservation benets for seabirds via the establishment of MPAs, and in
many regions it is insufcient to guarantee either rapid or adequate progress. This is, in large part, due to the complex interactions that exist between a number of these agreements, and the
difculty in establishing networks of MPAs across seascapes due
to the different rules within and beyond EEZs. For example, certain
activities in EEZs, such as international shipping, are subject to the
same global regulations as apply in the High Seas. On the other
hand, shing in EEZs is generally regulated nationally but on the
High Seas it is subject to both regional and global agreements.
4.1. Instruments in the eld of marine policy and their relevance to
seabirds
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international
legally binding treaty, ratied by 193 signatory countries, with an
objective to develop strategies for the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity and it is regarded as the key document for
achieving sustainable development. Aspects of the CBD apply
nationally but also within the High Seas, and the EBSA criteria have
been developed specically to identify marine areas in need of protection in both. EBSAs may be regarded as a shadow list of sites that
require enhanced protection and/or management, several of the criteria are applicable to seabirds (BirdLife International, 2009a).
At the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to
CBD, the international community agreed to a variety of Strategic
Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This included Target 11
By 2020, at least. . . 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially
areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services,
are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically
representative and well connected systems of protected areas and
other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into
the wider landscapes and seascapes. This commitment has sparked
important efforts towards increased conservation of the oceans;
however so far most countries have failed to meet the target
(Toropova et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2008).
There are other global and regional Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) that potentially can lead to the recognition of
seabird MPAs. In Table 3 (and in online Supplementary material)
we list the MEAs that either explicitly mention MPAs for seabirds,
or, more often, have general provisions relating to the creation of
MPAs for a range of wildlife and habitats which can be interpreted
as being of relevance to seabirds.
One of the most well developed MEAs for site-based bird conservation is the European Council Directive on the conservation
of wild birds (the Birds Directive; EU, 2009), under which certain
species of bird are subject to special protection measures, including the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for them.
SPAs must be classied for rare and vulnerable species as well as
for regularly occurring migratory species. This includes the great
majority of European seabirds and SPAs should encompass the
most suitable areas for these species both on land and at sea (e.g.
OBrien et al., this issue; Garthe et al., this issue).
Regional MEAs often have targets regarding the size of area, or
the (suite of) species they seek to protect, but achieving theses depends largely on the cooperation of the national authorities. In

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

Table 3
List of conventions and agreements of relevance to seabird MPAs, further details of each can be found in the online supplementary material associated with this paper.
Geographic
scope

Convention name

Signatory Listed species

countries

Global

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

193

n/a

EBSAs

www.cbd.int/marine/

Global

Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)

114

20 Seabird species on Annex

I; 50 on Annex II

n/a

www.cms.int/

Global

Agreement on the Conservation of

Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)

13

29 albatross and petrels

MPAs

www.acap.aq/

Global

RAMSAR convention

159

n/a

coastal
MPAs

www.ramsar.org

Europe

The Birds Directive

27

All seabirds in European

Union

MPAs

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/
legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm

Europe

Barcelona Convention

14 + EU

Species on Annex II

MPAs

www.unep.ch/regionalseas/regions/med/
t_barcel.htm

Europe

Bern Convention

40 + EU

Species on appendix 2

MPAs

www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/
default_en.asp

Europe

OSPAR Convention

15 + EU

9 Species of seabird

MPAs

www.ospar.org/

Europe

HELCOM

9 + EU

n/a

bycatch

www.helcom./

Europe

Bucharest Convention

Threatened species list

n/a

www.blacksea-commission.org/_convention.asp

Africa

Nairobi Convention

10

n/a

MPAs

www.unep.org/nairobiconvention/

Africa

Abidjan Convention

14

n/a

MPAs

www.unep.org/AbidjanConvention/index.asp

Middle East Jeddah Convention

Annex I species

MPAs

www.persga.org/inner.php?mainid=32

Asia

ASEAN Agreement

10

n/a

MPAs

http://environment.asean.org/

Poles

The Antarctic Treaty System

46

n/a

MPAs

www.ats.aq

Poles

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna

(Arctic Council)

n/a

MPAs

http://arctic-council.org/working_group/pame

Americas

North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

n/a

MPAs

www.naaec.gc.ca/

Americas

San Jos Declaration

n/a

MPAs

www.cmarpacico.org/

Americas

Lima Convention

n/a

MPAs

www.cpps-int.org/

Americas

Cartagena Convention

25

n/a

MPAs

www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention

Americas

Antigua Convention

n/a

MPAs

www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/nep/
nepconve.html

Pacic

Noumea Convention

12

n/a

MPAs

www.sprep.org/legal/documents/
NoumeConventintextATS.pdf

some cases (e.g. under the EU Birds Directive) countries can be

held accountable if insufcient progress to meeting their agreed
target has been made, though in many MEAs there is a lack of both
willingness and the structures necessary to monitor and enforce
these agreements.
The effectiveness of regional agreements is usually enhanced
where MPAs are formally recognised under national legislation
and any proposals for the creation of new MPAs will have to align
with these legislative requirements. Where no such legislation exists, lobbying for the establishment of MPAs usually requires local
support to help work with the relevant authorities. Non-Governmental Organisations can play important roles here, particularly
in the latter scenario. Fig. 1 shows a ow chart of steps to designation of MPAs under these two scenarios.
On the High Seas the process is more complex as there is currently no international legal mechanism for regulating and coordinating High Seas MPAs (Kimball, 2005) despite the specic duty in
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to
protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms
of marine life (Hart, 2003). Following from CBD COP10 a complex
process has now been established that involves working via a number of international and regional agreements and bodies that may
eventually lead to the coordinated establishment of High Seas
MPAs. The United Nations ad hoc Working Group is now discussing
ways to improve the legal framework, including through a possible

Site
Website
designation

new multilateral agreement under UNCLOS, which may clarify and

streamline the process (Miller et al., 2011).

Fig. 1. Flow chart showing how different approaches may be required to achieve
designation of MPAs for seabirds, depending on whether or not a relevant policy
mechanism already exists.

10

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

4.2. MPAs and marine spatial planning

There is a need to develop a greater appreciation of the benets
of large-scale marine managed areas, in which MPAs form essential
components (Mora and Sale, 2011; UNEP, 2011). At large spatial
scales, it is relatively straightforward to identify major oceanographic features, such as the entire Benguela (Crawford, 2007), California (Nur et al., 2011; Adams et al., this issue), and Humboldt
(Spear and Ainley, 2008) currents, or the entire Ross Sea (Ballard
et al., this issue), as seabird hotspots because they support large
numbers of multiple species year round. Although such regions
and systems are prime candidates for best-practice environmental
management, it is unlikely that such vast areas would be designated as MPAs in the strict sense. It is however possible to imagine
that they would benet from best-practice management of extractive and exploitative activities, thereby promoting sustainability of
these activities alongside any appropriate additional protection for
species and systems.
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a comparatively recently
developed framework that can be used in this context. It delivers
an ecosystem approach to potential management of the oceans
by bringing together varied user groups to develop strategic, comprehensive, coordinated planning efforts based on a clear set of
principles and with sustainable development as the underlying
goal. MSP is a natural extension of practices that are already well
developed in many places, such as integrated coastal management
and multi-use MPA management (Agardy et al., 2011) and ultimately, it seeks to help planners to nd the right solutions in the
right places.
To be effective, MSP should include a number of different management options to help achieve the overall objective (Agardy
et al., 2011; Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Zoning is a key element
and applies spatial restrictions where dened activities may be
permitted (sometimes with associated conditions) or prohibited
(Gilliland and Laffoley, 2008). One type of zone is the Protected
Area, wherein management measures are specically designed
for biodiversity conservation. The management regimes in other
zones may also support biodiversity conservation but this is not
their primary objective.
Dening appropriate management zones is therefore fundamental and requires stakeholder engagement (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). Several sectoral regulatory frameworks (e.g. sheries,
nature conservation, oil and gas etc.) currently include legal provisions for zoning, which offer a starting point for MSP. A number of
biological classications are also relevant in this context (e.g. Global Open Ocean Deep Seas classications, UNESCO, 2009; Large
Marine Ecosystem classication, Sherman and Duda, 1999). Particular effort will be required where sectoral zones do not align with
ecosystem boundaries. Examples where the process for establishing MSP has been implemented include Belgium (Plasman, 2008),
South Australia and the Tasmanian Seamounts Reserve (Paxinos
et al., 2008). MSP is also potentially useful in a High Seas context
(Ardron et al., 2008).
Consideration needs to be given to whether newly recognised
areas of high conservation value for seabirds are suitable for promotion as separate MPAs or for incorporation in other zones within
a larger area subject to MSP. An understanding of the threats to
species concerned and the scales at which they are acting will help
guide such decisions.

5. Proposing and promoting sites for MPA designation

The information needed for an MPA proposal is conceptually
simple, see Fig. 2 for examples, and should consist of baseline data
on: (a) the status (distribution, abundance and trends) of the spe-

Fig. 2. Some key components of a seabird MPA proposal.

cies involved; (b) the type and intensity of human activities in the
area likely to affect seabirds; and (c) the known or likely impacts of
such activities on them. Such information should make it possible
to evaluate the conservation benets of the proposed MPA, as well
as to determine the size and boundaries required. However, this
general framework may not always apply, and proposals may need
to be tailored to specic agreements as some processes, such as
SPA classication in the European Union (EU, 2009) and EBSAs in
the CBD process (Secretariat of the CBD, 2009), must be identied
using only scientic criteria, without recourse to political, management, or economic considerations. In these two examples only (a)
would apply.
There are inherent difculties in dening boundaries in apparently featureless seascapes where habitat features are often dynamic and sometimes ephemeral (Hyrenbach et al., 2000), in
contrast to terrestrial landscapes where habitat extents are often
clearly dened and better documented. Experience with various
marine user groups (e.g. shers), particularly in circumstances that
may require legislation, has shown that regularly shaped MPAs
that follow lines of latitude and longitude rather, than more irregular boundaries based on, for example, a depth or habitat contour,
are preferred (Ramrez et al., 2008). It is important that, where feasible, the positions of boundaries are well supported by long timeseries of data and, ideally, there is the exibility to modify them, if
necessary, in the light of subsequent information (Freeman, 2003).
Stable sites (e.g. around features such as seamounts) have (so
far) been favoured for recognition as MPAs, although in dynamic
ocean environments these cannot encompass all important areas.
Often, the oceanic conditions that determine a seabirds distribution may be relatively stable and persistent (e.g. hotspots of seabird activity around the Antarctic Polar Front; van Franeker et al.,
2002), although the precise location of optimum conditions is
likely to vary seasonally, annually and between species. At present,
dynamic sites are clear gaps in the MPA network (Hyrenbach et al.,
2000; Zydelis et al., 2011). Although MPAs might be made large enough to accommodate these variations, particularly through the
use of buffer zones, the conventional approach of focussing on protection of static sites is likely to remain the preferred choice of
managers and legislators. However, this is highly prejudicial to
the requirements of most pelagic marine species, including seabirds, and there is an urgent need for more emphasis on the development of dynamic MPAs.
Ensuring stakeholder engagement at an early stage can help to
foster collaboration and ownership of sites; without this, sites

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

often fail to meet their intended conservation aims (Samonte et al.,

2010; Suman et al., 1999). Unied proposals supported by a consortium of scientists/organisations are more likely to be received
favourably by policy makers (Sarewitz, 2006). The Marine Life Protection Act in California (CDFG, 2004; Avasthi, 2005) and the Atlas
del Mar Patagonico (Falabella et al., 2009) both provide examples
of successful efforts to synthesise data into unied products (an
online interactive mapping tool, MarineMap and a GIS database,
respectively).
In many places, smaller sites are preferentially considered for
protection/management because of the reduced possibility of conict with human activities, particularly close to shore (e.g. Pichegru
et al., this issue). Conversely, large contiguous areas may be favoured over numerous small sites to simplify the delineation and
enforcement of boundaries (e.g. Ludynia et al., this issue). In some
cases it is likely that compromises (e.g. total number of sites, size
of areas or location of boundaries) might be needed (Hazlitt
et al., 2010). In others, such compromise might jeopardise the conservation of the species or population concerned. The Chagos MPA
in the Indian Ocean and the Marianas Trench Marine National
Monument in the Pacic are examples of the increasing appreciation of the need to designate very large MPAs. Eleven MPAs now
have an area larger than 100,000 km2, though these are generally
not in places where conict with resource extraction and management is likely (Toropova et al., 2010). While designating large
MPAs may allow countries to advance rapidly toward targets set
by legislation, there is a danger that approaches favouring quantity
at the expense of quality may be taken in the short term. Indeed,
while large MPAs may help reach a percentage target, unless chosen with care, they are unlikely to achieve aspects of connectivity
and representativity that many agreements call for.

6. Conclusions
Preparations for the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP 11) to
the CBD in 2012 will see governments seeking to advance towards
the CBD marine targets and to make rapid progress towards the
identication of EBSAs. These present excellent opportunities for
the identication and promotion of candidate MPAs.
In addition to national efforts, we are witnessing an increase in
regional approaches to seabird conservation, aiming to develop
MPA networks across entire eco-regions and seas (Arcos et al.,
2009; Falabella et al., 2009; Ramrez et al., 2008). Aligning data,
communication and engagement with community stakeholders
have been key aspects of effectively implemented projects at these
scales (Toropova et al., 2010). Analysis and assessments designed
on ecosystem rather than political boundaries are going to be vital
in addressing declines for many seabirds, and further regional initiatives along these lines should be developed and supported.
These could be enhanced by the transferring of experience from
established seabird MPA policies such as the EU Birds Directive
to other parts of the world. This may help to rene the remit, structure and functionality of a number of MEAs and ultimately provide
mechanisms where scientic information can be used most effectively for MPA design. For all the MEAs mentioned in Table 3, it
is essential that data on priority sites for seabird conservation
are made available in order to promote targeted MPA designation.
MPAs for seabirds will rarely require that resource extraction
(e.g. shing or mineral/hydrocarbon exploitation) or energy generation activities be necessarily prohibited. In reality, many mediumand large-scale seabird MPAs would include extensive areas within
which best-practice management of relevant exploitation activities
is all that will be required. In cases where prohibitions might be
needed, it will be important to ensure that closure of areas are unlikely to result, through displacement, in worse problems else-

11

where. Where closures have occurred, the benets for seabirds,

through the preservation of their prey base, have been demonstrated almost immediately (Pichegru et al., 2010, this issue),
though more examples are needed to make the case irrefutable.
Once MPAs have been established, continued monitoring is therefore essential to determine their effectiveness (McChesney, 2008;
Pichegru et al., 2010).
This paper has summarised many of the key approaches that
have been developed within the seabird community for prioritizing
sites for seabird conservation. It will be essential for seabird scientists, using standard and consistent approaches as far as possible,
to work with all other stakeholders involved in management and
conservation of marine systems, to ensure that appropriate levels
of protection are accorded to priority species and sites in all parts
of the global ocean. Ensuring the right balance between outright
protection and well-monitored sustainable management will be
challenging and require resource, collaboration and commitment
on scales previously not considered if improved protection and
management of our oceans is to be achieved.
Acknowledgements
The 1st World Seabird Conference held in Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada, 711 September 2010, included a special symposium and workshop on Spatial ecology at sea: opportunities
and challenges for seabird MPAs. This paper summarises some
of the key points and opinions arising from the workshop (attended by nearly 100 people), and issues highlighted by speakers
during the primary symposium. We thank all those who attended,
and Kristina Gjerde, John Croxall, Lincoln Fishpool, Phil Taylor,
Mark Miller, Ivan Ramirez and Jeff Ardron for their helpful feedback and review of this manuscript.
R.A.R. was supported by the Killam Trust, Dalhousie University.
JNCC works on behalf of, and is supported by, Scottish Natural
Heritage, Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales and
Northern Ireland Environment Agency. BirdLife International is a
global Partnership of conservation organisations and works in over
100 countries to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of
natural resources.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.008.
References
Adams, J., MacLeod, C., Suryan, R.M., Hyrenbach, K.D., Harvey, J.T., this issue.
Summer-time Use of West Coast US National Marine Sanctuaries by Migrating
Sooty Shearwaters (Pufnus griseus). Biological Conservation.
Agardy, T., 1994. Advances in marine conservation: the role of MPAs. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 9, 267270.
Agardy, T., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Christie, P., 2011. Mind the gap: addressing the
shortcomings of MPAs through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine
Policy 35, 226232.
Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Black, A., Croxall, J.P., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O., 2011. A
review of global seabird bycatch in longline sheries. Endangered Species Res.
14, 91106.
Arcos, J.M., Bcares, J., Rodrguez, B., Ruiz, A., 2009. reas importantes para la
conservacin de las aves marinas en Espaa. Sociedad Espaola de Ornitologa
(SEO/BirdLife), Madrid.
Ardron, J., Gjerde, K., Pullen, S., Tilot, V., 2008. Marine spatial planning in the high
seas. Marine Policy 32, 832839.
Avasthi, A., 2005. California tries to connect its scattered marine reserves. Science
305, 487489.
Ballance, L.T., Pitman, R.L., 1999. Foraging ecology of tropical seabirds. In: Adams,
N.J., Slotow, R.H. (Eds.), Proc. 22 Int. Ornithol. Congr., Durban: 20572071.
BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

12

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

Ballard, G., Jongsomjit, D., Veloz, S.D., Ainley, D., this issue. Coexistence of
mesopredators in an intact polar ocean ecosystem: the basis for dening a
Ross Sea marine protected area. Biological Conservation.
Ban, N.C., 2009. Minimum data requirements for designing a set of MPAs, using
commonly available abiotic and biotic datasets. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 1829
1845.
Bancroft, T., Caneld, C., Driscoll, M., Kavits, P., Reid, B., Ringer, D.J., 2010. Oil and
Birds: Too Close for Comfort. National Audubon Society Special Report, 28 pp.
Barraquand, F., Benhamou, S., 2008. Animal movements in heterogeneous
landscapes: identifying protable places and homogeneous movement bouts.
Ecology 89, 33363348.
Benhamou, S., 2004. How to reliably estimate the tortousity of an animals path:
straightness, sinuosity or fractal dimension? J. Theor. Biol. 229, 209220.
BirdLife International, 2004. Tracking Ocean Wanderers: The Global Distribution of
Albatrosses and Petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking
Workshop, 15 September, 2003, Gordons Bay, South Africa. BirdLife
International, Cambridge, UK.
BirdLife International, 2008. State of the Worlds Birds: Indicators for Our Changing
World. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
BirdLife International, 2009a. Designing Networks of MPAs: Exploring the Linkages
Between Important Bird Areas and Ecologically or Biologically Signicant
Marine Areas. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
BirdLife International, 2009b. Using Seabird Satellite Tracking Data to Identify
Marine IBAs: A Workshop to Determine How to Achieve This Goal. Held 1st3rd
July 2009. CNRS, Chize, France.
BirdLife International, 2010a. The BirdLife Checklist of the Birds of the World, with
Conservation Status and Taxonomic Sources. Version 3. <www.birdlife.org>.
BirdLife International, 2010b. Marine Important Bird Areas toolkit: Standardised
Techniques for Identifying Priority Sites for the Conservation of Seabirds at Sea.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
Botsford, L.W., Micheli, F., Parma, A.M., 2006. Biological and Ecological
Considerations in the Design, Implementation and Success of MPAs. Report
for the FAO Workshop on the Role of MPAs in Fisheries Management 1214
June 2006, FAO Summary Dated 4 July 2006.
Brooks, T., Balmford, A., Burgess, N., Hansen, L.A., Moore, J., Rahbek, C., Williams, P.,
Bennun, L., Byaruhanga, A., Kasoma, P., Njoroge, P., Pomeroy, D., Wondafrash,
M., 2001. Conservation priorities for birds and biodiversity: do East African
Important Bird Areas represent species diversity in other terrestrial vertebrate
groups? Ostrich 15, 312.
Burger, A.E., Shaffer, S.A., 2008. Application of tracking and data-logging technology
in research and conservation of seabirds. Auk 125, 253264.
Butchart, S.H.M., Statterseld, A.J., Bennun, L.A., Shutes, S.M., Akcakaya, H.R., Baillie,
J.E.M., Stuart, S.N., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G.M., 2004. Measuring global trends
in the status of biodiversity: red list indices for birds. PLoS Biol. 2, 22942304.
Campagna, C., Sanderson, E.W., Coppolillo, P.B., Falabella, V., Piola, A.R., Strindberg,
S.V., Croxall, J.P., 2007. A species approach to marine ecosystem conservation.
Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst. 17, S122S147.
Camphuysen, K.C.J., Garthe, S., 2004. Recording foraging seabirds at sea:
standardised recording and coding of foraging behaviour and multi-species
foraging associations. Atlantic Seabirds 6, 132.
Camphuysen, K.C.J., Fox, T.A.D., Leopold, M.M.F., Petersen, I.K., 2004. Towards
Standardised Seabirds at-Sea Census Techniques in Connection with
Environmental Impact Assessments for Offshore Wind Farms in the UK: A
Comparison of Ship and Aerial Sampling Methods for Marine Birds, and Their
Applicability to Offshore Wind Farm Assessments. Report Commissioned by
COWRIE. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research.
Camphuysen, C.J., Shamoun-Baranes, J., Bouten, W., Garthe, S., this issue. Identifying
offshore marine areas of ecological importance for seabirds using combined
techniques: ship-based transects and seabird-borne data loggers. Biological
Conservation.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2004. Marine Life Protection Act:
Sections 28502863. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Region,
Sacramento, CA.
Chambers, L.E., Devney, C.A., Congdon, B.C., Dunlop, N., Woehler, E.J., Dann, P., 2011.
Observed and predicted effects of climate on Australian seabirds. Emu 111,
235251.
Chaurand, T., Weimerskirch, H., 1994. The regular alternation of short
and long foraging trips in the Blue Petrel Halobaena caerulea: a previously
undescribed strategy of food provisioning in a pelagic seabird. J. Anim. Ecol. 63,
275282.
Craig, R.K., 2005. Protecting international marine biodiversity: international treaties
and national systems of MPAs. J. Land Use 20, 337373.
Crawford, R.J.M., 2007. Food, shing and seabirds in the Benguela upwelling system.
J. Ornithol. 148, 253260.
Derous, S., Agardy, T., Hillewaert, H., Hostens, K., Jamieson, G., Lieberknecht, L.,
Mees, J., Moulaert, I., Olenin, S., Paelinckx, D., Rabaut, M., Rachor, E., Roff, J.,
Stienen, E.W.M., van der Wal, J.T., Van Lancker, V., Verfaillie, E., Vincx, M.,
Weslawski, J.M., Degraer, S., 2007. A concept for biological valuation in the
marine environment. Oceanologia 49, 99128.
Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach
Toward Ecosystem-based Management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides
No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. UNESCO, Paris.
Einoder, L.D., 2009. A review of the use of seabirds as indicators in sheries and
ecosystem management. Fish. Res. 95, 613.

Ervin, J., Mulongoy, K.J., Lawrence, K., Game, E., Sheppard, D., Bridgewater, P.,
Bennett, G., Gidda, S.B., Bos, P., 2010. Making Protected Areas Relevant: A Guide
to Integrating Protected Areas into Wider Landscapes, Seascapes and Sectoral
Plans and Strategies. CBD Technical Series No. 44. Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
EU, 2009. Council Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the Conservation
of Wild Birds. Ofcial Journal of the European Union L 20/7 (26.1.2010).
Falabella, V., Campagna, C., Croxall, J.P. (Eds.), 2009. Atlas del Mar Patagonico:
especies y espacias. Edicions del Foro, Buenos Aires.
FAO, 2010. MPAs as a Tool for Fisheries Management. FI Project Websites. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome.
French Global Environment Facility (FGEF), 2010. MPAs Review of FGEFs
Conanced Project Experiences. Assessment Carried out by Thierry Clment,
Catherine Gabrie, Jean Roger Mercier and Hlose You. Study Coordinated by
Julien CALAS.
Flint, E.N., 1991. Time and energy limits to the foraging radius of Sooty Tern Sterna
fuscata. Ibis 133, 4346.
Forero, M.A., Bortolotti, G.R., Hobson, K.A., Donazar, J.A., Berelloti, M., Blanco, G.,
2004. High trophic overlap within the seabird community of Argentinean
Patagonia: a multiscale approach. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 789801.
Fox, A.D., Mitchell, C., 1997. Spring habitat use and feeding behaviour of Stellers
Eider Polysticta stelleri in Varangerfjord, northern Norway. Ibis 139, 52548.
Freeman, K., 2003. Distribution of Highly Migratory Marine Mammals and Seabirds
in the Eastern North Pacic: Are Existing MPAs in the Right Place? Masters
Project Submitted in Partial Fullment of the Requirements for the Master of
Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment
and Earth Sciences of Duke University.
Furness, R.W., Camphuysen, K., 1997. Seabirds as monitors of the marine
environment. Journal of Marine Science 54, 726737.
Game, E.T., Grantham, H.S., Hobday, A.J., Pressey, R.L., Lombard, A.T., Beckley, L.E.,
Gjerde, K., Bustamante, R., Possingham, H.P., Richardson, A.J., 2009. Pelagic
Protected Areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol.
Evol. 24, 360369.
Garthe, S., Markones, N., Mendel, B., Sonntag, N., Krause, J.C., this issue. Protected
areas for seabirds in German offshore waters: designation, retrospective
consideration and current perspectives. Biological Conservation.
Gilliland, P.M., Laffoley, D., 2008. Key elements and steps in the process of
developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32, 787
796.
Gjerde, K.M., Dotinga, H., Hart, S., Molenaar, E.J., Rayfuse, R., Warner, R., 2008.
Options for Addressing Regulatory and Governance Gaps in the International
Regime for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in
Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, x +20.
Gonzlez-Sols, J., Croxall, J.P., Afanasyev, V., 2007. Offshore spatial segregation in
giant petrels Macronectes spp.: differences between species, sexes and seasons.
Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwater Ecosyt. 17 (1), 2236.
Grant, S.M., Tratalos, J., Trathan, P.N., 2008. Proposed approach for the identication
of important marine areas for conservation: using MARXAN software to
support systematic conservation planning. In: Prepared for the CCAMLR
Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM), 14
July1 August 2008, Moscow, Russia.
Grecian, W.J., Witt, M.J., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Godley, B.J., Grmillet, D., Hamer,
K.C., Votier, S.C., this issue. A novel projection technique to identify important
at-sea areas for seabird conservation: an example using Northern Gannets
breeding in the North East Atlantic. Biological Conservation.
Halpin, P.N., Read, A.J., Best, B.D., Hyrenbach, K.D., Fujioka, E., Coyne, M.S., Crowder,
L.B., Freeman, S.A., Spoerri, C., 2006. OBIS-SEAMAP: developing a biogeographic
research data commons for the ecological studies of marine mammals, seabirds,
and sea turtles. MEPS 316, 239246.
Harding, A.M., Piatt, J.F., Sydeman, W.J., 2005. Bibliography of Literature on Seabirds
as Indicators of the Marine Environment. USGS Alaska Science Center,
Anchorage, Alaska, 20pp.
Harris, M.P., Beare, D., Toresen, R., Nttestad, L., Kloppmann, M., Drner, H., Peach,
K., Rushton, D.R.A., Foster-Smith, J., Wanless, S., 2007. A major increase in snake
pipesh (Entelurus aequoreus) in northern European seas since 2003: potential
implications for seabird breeding success. Mar. Biol. 151, 973983.
Harrison, C.S., Fen-Qi, H., Chose, K.S., Shibaev, Y.V., 1992. The laws and treaties of
North Pacic rim nations that protect seabirds on land and at sea. Colonial
Waterbirds 15, 264277.
Hart, S., 2003. Elements of a Possible Implementation Agreement to UNCLOS for the
Conservation of Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond
National Jurisdiction. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Hart, K.M., Hyrenbach, K.D., 2009. Satellite telemetry of marine megavertebrates:
the coming of age of an experimental science. Endangered Species Res. 10, 920.
Hazlitt, S.L., Martin, T.G., Sampson, L., Arcese, P., 2010. The effects of including
marine ecological values in terrestrial reserve planning for a forest-nesting
seabird. Biol. Conserv. 143, 12031299.
Hebshi, A.J., Duffy, D.C., Hyrenbach, K.D., 2008. Associations between seabirds and
sub-surface predators around Oahu, Hawaii. Aquat. Biol. 4, 8998.
Hegel, T.M., Cushman, S.A., Evans, J., Huettmann, F., 2010. Current state of the art for
statistical modelling of species distributions. In: Cushman, S.A., Huettmann, F.
(Eds.), Spatial Complexity, Informatics, and Wildlife Conservation, Part II,
pp. 273311.
Hoffman, W., Heinemann, D., Weins, J.A., 1981. The ecology of seabird feeding ocks
in Alaska. Auk 98, 437456.

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

Hooker, S.K., Gerber, L.R., 2004. Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystem-based
management: the potential importance of megafauna. Bioscience 54, 2739.
Horne, J.S., Garton, E.O., Krone, S.M., Lewis, J.S., 2007. Analyzing animal movements
using Brownian bridges. Ecology 88, 23542363.
Hyrenbach, K.D., Forney, K.A., Dayton, P.K., 2000. MPAs and ocean basin
management. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst. 10, 437458.
Hyrenbach, K.D., Veit, R.R., Weimerskirch, H., Hunt, G.L., 2006. Seabird associations
with meso scale eddies: the subtropical Indian Ocean. MEPS 324, 271279.
Kappes, M.A., Shaffer, S.A., Tremblay, Y., Foley, D.G., Palacios, D.M., Robinson, P.W.,
Bograd, S.J., Costa, D.P., 2010. Hawaiian albatrosses track interannual variability
of marine habitats in the North Pacic. Prog. Oceanogr. 86, 246260.
Kelleher, G., 1999. Guidelines for MPAs. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK, xxiv +107pp.
Kelleher, G., Gjerde, K., 2003. High Seas MPAs. IUCN Parks, vol. 15, no. 3.
Kimball, L.A., 2005. The International Legal Regime of the High Seas and the Seabed
Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction and Options for Cooperation for the
Establishment of MPAs (in Marine Areas Beyond the Limits of National
Jurisdiction. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal,
Technical Series No. 19, 64pages.
Klages, N.T.W., Cooper, J., 1997. Diet of the Atlantic Petrel Pterodroma incerta during
breeding at South Atlantic Gough Island. Mar. Ornithol. 25, 1316.
Kober, K., Webb, A., Win, I., Lewis, M., OBrien, S., Wilson, L.J, Reid, J.B., 2010. An
Analysis of the Numbers and Distribution of Seabirds within the British Fishery
Limit Aimed at Identifying Areas that Qualify as Possible Marine SPAs, JNCC
Report 431, ISSN:09638091.
Ladd, C., Jahncke, J., Hunt, G.L., Coyle, K.O., Stabeno, P.J., 2005. Hydrographic features
and seabird foraging in Aleutian passes. Fish. Oceanogr. 14 (1), 178195.
Laneri, K., Louzao, M., Martnez-Abran, A., Arcos, J.M., Belda, E.J., Guallart, J.,
Snchez, A., Gimnez, M., Maestre, R., Oro, D., 2010. Trawling regime inuences
longline seabird bycatch in the Mediterranean: new insights from a small-scale
shery. MEPS 420, 241252.
Le Corre, M., Jaeger, A., Pinet, P., Kappes, M., Weimerskirch, H., Catry, T., Ramos, J.,
Russell, J., Shah, N., Jaquemet, S., this issue. Tracking seabirds to identify
potential Marine Protected Areas in the tropical western Indian Ocean.
Biological Conservation.
Loos, S.A., Canessa, R.R., 2010. Towards a GIS-based methodology for MPA zoning.
In: Green, D.R. (Ed.) Coastal and Marine Geospatial Technologies, vol. 13, pp.
245254.
Lopez-Mendilaharsu, M., Rocha, C., Miller, P., Domingo, A., Prosdocimi, L., 2009.
Insights on Leatherback Turtle movements and high use areas in southwest
Atlantic Ocean. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 378, 3139.
Louzao, M., Hyrenbach, K.D., Arcos, J.M., Abello, P., de Sola, L.G., Oro, D., 2006.
Oceanographic habitat of an endangered Mediterranean Procellariiform:
implications for MPAs. Ecol. Appl. 16, 16831695.
Louzao, M., Becares, J., Rodriguez, B., Hyrenbach, K.D., Ruiz, A., Arcos, J.M., 2009.
Combining vessel-based surveys and tracking data to identify key marine areas
for seabirds. MEPS 391, 183197.
Louzao, M., Pinaud, D., Pron, C., Delord, K., Wiegand, T., Weimerskirch, H., 2011.
Conserving pelagic habitats: seascape modelling of an oceanic top predator. J.
Appl. Ecol. 48, 121132.
Ludynia, K., Kemper, J., Roux, J.-P., this issue. The Namibian Islands Marine
Protected Area: using seabird tracking data to dene boundaries and assess
their adequacy. Biological Conservation.
MacLeod, C.D., Mandleberg, L., Schweder, C., Bannon, S.M., Pierce, G.J., 2008. A
comparison of approaches to modelling the occurrence of marine animals.
Hydrobiologia 612, 2132.
Manosa, S., Oro, D., Ruiz, X., 2004. Activity patterns and foraging behaviour of
Audouins Gull at the Ebro Delta, NW Mediterranean. Sci. Mar. 68, 605614.
McChesney, G.J., 2008. Evaluations of Benets to Seabirds and Waterfowl from
Proposed MPAs and Special Closures in the North Central Coast Study Region.
California MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (April 2).
McSorley, C.A., Dean, B.J., Webb, A., Reid, J.B., 2006. Extending the boundaries of
seabird breeding colony Protected Areas into the marine environment. In:
Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A., Stroud, D.A. (Eds.), Waterbirds Around the World.
The Stationery Ofce, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 752753.
Melvin, E.F., Parrish, J.K. (Eds.), 2001. Seabird Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks and
Solutions. University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, AK.
Miller, A., Morgera, E., Nyingi, D.W., 2011. Summary of the fourth meeting of the
working group on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction: 31
May3 June 2011. Earth Negotiations Bull. 25 (70).
Montevecchi, W.A., Hedd, A., Tranquilla, L.M., Field, D.A., Burke, C.M., Regular, P.M.,
Davoren, G.K., Garthe, S., Gaston, A.J., Robertson, G.J., Phillips, R.A., this issue.
Tracking seabirds to identify ecologically important and high risk marine areas.
Biological Conservation.
Mora, C., Sale, P.F., 2011. Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move
beyond Protected Areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of
Protected Areas on land and sea. MEPS 434, 251266.
Morling, P., 2005. The economic rationale for MPAs in the High Seas. Parks 15, 24
31.
Nur, N., Jahncke, J., Herzog, M.P., Howar, J., Hyrenbach, K.D., Zamon, J.E., Ainley, D.G.,
Wiens, J.A., Morgan, K., Ballance, L.T., Stralberg, D., 2011. Where the wild things
are: predicting hotspots of seabird aggregations in the California Current
System. Ecol. Appl. 21, 22412257.
OBrien, S., Webb, A., Brewer, M.J., Reid, J.B., this issue. Use of kernel density
estimation and maximum curvature to set Marine Protected Area boundaries:

13

identifying a Special Protection Area for wintering red-throated divers in the

UK. Biological Conservation.
Oppel, S., Meirinho, A., Ramrez, I., Gardner, B., OConnell, A., Miller, P.I., Louzao, M.,
this issue. Comparison of ve modelling techniques to predict the spatial
distribution and abundance of seabirds. Biological Conservation.
Parsons, M., Mitchell, I., Butler, A., Ratcliffe, N., Frederiksen, M., Foster, S., Reid, J.B.,
2008. Seabirds as indicators of the marine environment. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65,
15201526.
Patterson, T.A., Thomas, L., Wilcox, C., Ovaskainen, O., Matthiopoulos, J., 2008. State
space models of individual animal movement. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 8794.
Paxinos, R., Wright, A., Day, V., Emmett, J., Frankiewicz, D., Goecker, M., 2008.
Marine spatial planning: ecosystem-based zoning methodology for marine
management in South Australia. J. Conserv. Plann. 4, 3759.
Phillips, R., Silk, J., Croxall, J., Afanasyev, V., Briggs, D., 2004. Accuracy of geolocation
estimates for ying seabirds. MEPS 266, 265272.
Pichegru, L., Grmillet, D., Crawford, R.J.M., Ryan, P.G., 2010. Marine no-take zone
rapidly benets endangered penguin. Biol. Lett. 6, 498501.
Pichegru, L., Ryan, P.G., Eeden, R.V., Reid, T., Gremillet, D., Wanless, R., this issue.
Industrial shing, no-take zones and endangered penguins. Biological
Conservation.
Pinaud, D., Weimerskirch, H., 2005. Scale-dependant habitat use in a long-ranging
central place predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 852863.
Plasman, I.C., 2008. Implementing marine spatial planning: a policy perspective.
Mar. Policy 32, 811815.
Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the Marine
Spatial Planning process. Mar. Policy 32, 816822.
Ramrez, I., Geraldes, P., Meirinho, A., Amorim, P., Paiva, V., 2008. reas importantes
para as aves marinhas em Portugal (Importnat Areas for Seabirds in Portugal).
Projecto LIFE04 NAT/PT/000213 Sociedade Portuguesa Para o Estudo das Aves,
Lisboa.
Reid, J.B., Camphuysen, C.J., 1998. The European seabirds at sea database. Biol. Cons.
Fauna 102, 291.
Ruckelshaus, M., Klinger, T., Knowlton, N., Demaster, D.P., 2008. Marine ecosystembased management in practice. Scientic and governance challenges. Bioscience
58, 5363.
Ryan, P.G., 2008. Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic litter
in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56,
14061414.
Salm, R.V., Clark, J., Siirla, E., 2000. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for
Planners and Managers. IUCN The World Conservation Union, Washington,
DC, xxi +371pp.
Samonte, G., Karrer, L., Orbach, M., 2010. People and Oceans. Science and
Knowledge Division, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Sarewitz, D., 2006. Liberating science from politics. Am. Sci. 94, 104105.
Scovazzi, S., 2003. MPAs on the High Seas: some legal and policy considerations. In:
Paper Presented at the World Parks Congress, Governance Session Protecting
Marine Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction, Durban, South Africa (11
September 2003).
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004. Technical Advice on the
Establishment and Management of a National System of Marine and Coastal
Protected Areas, SCBD, 40pages (CBD Technical Series No. 13).
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009. Azores Scientic Criteria
and Guidance for Identifying Ecologically or Biologically Signicant Marine
Areas and Designing Representative Networks of MPAs in Open Ocean Waters
and Deep Sea Habitats. CBD, Montral, Canada.
Sherman, K., Duda, A.M., 1999. An ecosystem approach to global assessment and
management of coastal waters. MEPS 190, 271287.
Skov, H., Durinck, J., Leopold, M.F., Tasker, M.L., 2007. A quantitative method for
evaluating the importance of marine areas for conservation of birds. Biol.
Conserv. 136, 362371.
Smith, R.J., Eastwood, P.D., Ota, Y., Rogers, S.I., 2009. Developing best practice
for using Marxan to locate MPAs in European waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66,
188194.
Spear, L.B., Ainley, D.G., 2008. The seabird community of the Peru Current, 1980
1995, with comparisons to other eastern boundary currents. Mar. Ornithol. 36,
125144.
Springer, A.M., Piatt, J.F., Van Vliet, G., 1996. Sea birds as proxies of marine habitats
and food webs in the western Aleutian arc. Fish. Oceanogr. 5, 4555.
Suman, D., Shivlani, M., Milon, J.W., 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding
marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean Coast. Manage. 42, 10191040.
Sydeman, W.J., Piatt, J.F., Browman, H.I., 2007. Seabirds as indicators of marine
ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Process. Ser. 352, 199309.
Thaxter, C., Lascelles, B., Sugar, K., Cook, A.S., Roos, S., Bolton, M., Langston, R.,
Burton, N.H., this issue. Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for
identifying candidate MPAs. Biological Conservation.
Thompson, D.R., 2007. Air-breathing visitors to seamounts: importance of
seamounts to seabirds. In: Pitcher, T.J., Morato, T., Hart, P.J.B., Clark, M.R.,
Haggan, N., Santos, R.S. (Eds.), Seamounts: Ecology, Conservation and
Management. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 244251.
Toropova, C., Meliane, I., Laffoley, D., Matthews, E., Spalding, M. (Eds.), 2010. Global
Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. Brest, France. Agence
des aires marines protges, Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC and New York,
USA: IUCN WCPA, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC, Arlington, USA: TNC, Tokyo,
Japan: UNU, New York, USA: WCS, 96pp.

14

B.G. Lascelles et al. / Biological Conservation 156 (2012) 514

Tremblay, Y., Roberts, A.J., Costa, D.P., 2007. Fractal landscape method: an
alternative approach to measuring area-restricted searching behaviour. J. Exp.
Biol. 210, 935945.
Tremblay, Y., Bertrand, S., Henry, R.W., Kappes, M.A., Costa, D.P., Shaffer, S.S., 2009.
Analytical approaches to investigating seabird-environment interactions: a
review. MEPS 391, 153163.
Tushabe, H., Kalema, J., Byaruhanga, A., Asasira, J., Ssegawa, P., Balmford, A.,
Davenport, T., Fjelds, J., Friis, I., Pain, D., Pomeroy, D., Williams, P., Williams, C.,
2006. A nationwide assessment of the biodiversity value of Ugandas Important
Bird Areas network. Conserv. Biol. 20, 8599.
UNEP, 2011. Taking Steps Toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-based
Management: An Introductory Guide. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and
Studies No. 189.
UNESCO, 2009. Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) Biogeographic
Classication. UNESCO-IOC. IOC Technical Series, 84, Paris.
United Nations, 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August4 September 2002. United Nations,
New York.
Valavanis, V.D., Pierce, G.J., Zuur, A.F., Palialexis, A., Saveliev, A., Katara, I., Wang, J.,
2008. Modelling of essential sh habitat based on remote sensing, spatial
analysis and GIS. Hydrobiologia 612, 520.
Van Franeker, J.A., Van Den Brink, N.W., Bathmann, U.V., Pollard, R.T., De Baar,
H.J.W., Wolff, W.J., 2002. Responses of seabirds, in particular prions (Pachyptila
sp.), to small-scale processes in the Antarctic Polar Front. Deep-Sea Res. II 49,
39313950.
Velando, A., Munilla, I., Leyenda, P.M., 2005. Short-term indirect effects of the
Prestige oil spill on European Shag: changes in availability of prey. MEPS 302,
263274.

Vucetich, J.A., Waite, T.A., 2003. Spatial patterns of demography and genetic
processes across the species range: null hypotheses for landscape conservation
genetics. Conserv. Genet. 4, 639645.
Wakeeld, E.W., Phillips, R.A., Matthiopoulos, J., 2009. Quantifying habitat use and
preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review.
MEPS 391, 165182.
Webb, A., Durinck, J., 1992. Counting birds from ships. In: Komdeur, J., Bertelsen, J.,
Cracknell, G. (Eds.), Manual for Aeroplane and Ship Surveys of Waterfowl and
Seabirds. International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau, Slimbridge.
IWRB Special Publication 19, pp. 2437.
Webb, A., McSorley, C.A., Dean, B.J., Reid, J.B., Cranswick, P.A., Smith, L., Hall, C.,
2004. An Assessment of the Numbers and Distributions of Inshore Aggregations
of Waterbirds Using Liverpool Bay During the Non-breeding Season in Support
of Possible SPA Identication. JNCC Report No. 373.
Weimerskirch, H., Cherel, Y., Cuenot-Chaillet, F., Ridoux, V., 1997. Alternative
foraging strategies and resource allocation by male and female Wandering
Albatross. Ecology 78, 20512063.
Wood, L.J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., Pauly, D., 2008. Assessing progress towards global
marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx 42, 340
351.
Zydelis, R., Lewison, R.L., Shaffer, S.A., Moore, J.E., Boustany, A.M., Roberts, J.J., Sims
M., Dunn, D.C., Best, B.D., Tremblay, Y., Kappes, M.A., Halpin, P.N., Costa, D.P.,
Crowder L.B., 2011. Dynamic Habitat Models: Using Telemetry Data to Project
Fisheries Bycatch. Published Online Before Print March 23, 2011. Proceeding of
Royal Society of Biological Sciences. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0330.