Two articles:   Looking at the broader context of MPAs and the debate on science and MPAs from Australia.

1. Social–ecological coherence in MPA network design – Sian E. Rees & Colleagues

Abstract

1. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and networks of MPAs are being implemented globally as a spatial management tool for achieving conservation objectives. There has been considerable progress in reaching the prescribed 10% protected area target for 2020, outlined in the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14.
2. The application of MPA network design principles (e.g. Representative, ecological connectivity), which underpin ecological coherence, is still lacking or insufficient in many regions. Poor ecological coherence hinders the ecological performance of MPA networks, leading to dysfunction in the flow of ecosystem services and reduced ecosystem benefits, with potentially negative consequences for human well‐being.
3. This paper presents four pivotal focus points for future progress that can bridge the gap between ecological and social systems. The aim is to shift the discourse of ‘ecological coherence’ further into the social sphere, and hence support the alignment of the process of designating ecologically coherent MPA networks with the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic development, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion, as described in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to achieve social–ecological coherence in MPA network design. Click here to see details of the paper

2. The Australian debate on science and policy and MPAs – the response to Ridd & Larcombe

Peter Ridd and Piers Larcombe recently circulated to this list of recipients a Viewpoint paper (Larcombe & Ridd, Marine Pollution Bulletin, January 2018) that raised concerns about the quality of some Great Barrier Reef science.

On behalf of a team of authors I attach here for your information our formal reply to this paper, now also published in Marine Pollution Bulletin (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054).
We welcome critical assessment and re-appraisal of scientific publications, as this is part of the scientific method, and we agree that stringent quality control procedures are key to the responsible conduct of research.

Compared to many other tropical marine ecosystems, the GBR is relatively well studied, and its management and policies are supported by a comprehensive, continuously growing, body of science, which is generally published in the peer-reviewed, international scientific literature.

In our reply we respond to several points raised in the Larcombe & Ridd (2018) paper, which in our view were misrepresented. We show that for Great Barrier Reef science, formal and effective review and synthesis processes are in place, and they are indeed effective in supporting GBR policy and decision makers. We also question the value of the concept of ‘policy-science’ as proposed in Larcombe & Ridd’s Viewpoint, as it disregards the boundary that separates science and policy. Lastly, we comprehensively refute criticisms of the selected publications Larcombe & Ridd present as underpinning “much government policy and spending” on the GBR. We outline how their critique demonstrates misinterpretation, over-simplification and selective use of data, and ignores previous responses to previously published claims.

We look forward to continue working constructively with all parties concerned with the sustainable use of the GBR and its adjacent catchments.

Regards – Britta Schaffelke

Britta Schaffelke

Research Program Leader- Great Barrier Reef

Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville

PMB 3 | Townsville MC QLD 4810 | Australia

Tel. (+61) 7 4753 4382 | Mob. 0427 029 464

b.schaffelke@aims.gov.au | aims.gov.au