Torbay rMCZ report

Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network: A case study of Torbay rMCZ

A draft report to The Wildlife Trusts Dr Steve Fletcher, Dr Sian Rees, Sarah Gall, Laura Friedrich, Dr Lynda Rodwell

Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research Marine Institute

Plymouth University Drake Circus

Plymouth PL4 8AA

1.1.1 Executive Summary

There is clear evidence that no change to the current management regime of the Torbay

rMCZ (‘do nothing’) will result in a reduction of ecosystem services provided by the site.

This reduction is likely to affect all categories of ecosystem service identified in the TEEB

classification except ‘other wild harvesting’, ‘aquaculture’ and ‘research’. There is clear

evidence that the existing ecosystem services derived from the Torbay rMCZ make a

contribution to the local economy including through underpinning fisheries, aquaculture,

recreation, research and the aesthetic benefits that attract tourists (amongst others). The

economic loss associated with a deterioration of these services under the ‘do nothing’

scenario will depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes,

but we have estimated that commercial fishing activities currently occurring within and

around the rMCZ generate approximately £960,805yr-1 in landings and recreational

activities within the rMCZ generate approximately a further £1,579,080 yr-1. It would be

expected that this economic value would be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ management

scenario.

The existing Torbay rMCZ ecosystem services also contribute to national and international

commitments, including climate regulation and pollution control. An expression of the

economic value of these services can be derived, such as through calculating the market

value of sequestered carbon or the cost of alternative pollution control measures.

Although detailed economic value estimates are unavailable, it is likely that the

contribution of these ecosystem services will be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ scenario.

Under an assumed MCZ designation at Torbay, three management scenarios were

examined to identify the likely changes to the availability of ecosystem services. The

scenarios were ‘recover’, ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ the ENG features at the site, in which

realistic management measures were assumed to have been instigated proportionate to

each scenario. The results showed that overall ecosystem service availability improved

under all three scenarios of MCZ designation when compared to non-designation (do

nothing). Not all ecosystem services responded in the same way to each MCZ

management scenario. For example, the cuttle fish fishery was predicted to improve

under the recover and maintain scenarios, but due to the potentially restrictive

management measures needed under the improve scenario, there would be short term

disadvantage followed by long term benefit. Longer term benefits were also identified for

bottom trawling activities.

The dominant implications of MCZ designation on specific ecosystem service availability

in Torbay were either to secure the level of exiting ecosystem service availability, or to

enhance it. Maintaining the ecosystem services currently provided by the site safeguards

its existing economic (and other non-economic) values to society. Through introducing

management measures that promote enhanced availability of ecosystem services at the

site, it is highly likely that the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the

site will also increase.

1.1.2 Torbay rMCZ

The Torbay rMCZ is situated in South Devon and is part of an area that is often described

as the ‘English Riviera’. Local towns include Torquay, Babbacombe, Paignton and the

fishing port of Brixham. It is an area that is popular to live, particularly for retirement.

Torbay is also a well-known tourist destination with the award winning beaches a major

draw and a variety of opportunities for marine leisure and recreation that includes reef

and wreck diving and angling sites, opportunities for bird and dolphin watching, canoeing,

coastal walks, sailing and sea cliff climbing. Torbay is known to attract in excess of 3

million visitors per year (Torbay Development Agency).Torbay is also an area that provides

economic opportunities. Tourism is the dominant economic sector and Brixham is the

largest fishing port in England and Wales in terms of volume and value of catch. The

natural beauty of Torbay is already recognised by several conservation designations,

particularly the rocky reef habitats and infralittoral sea caves which are currently

candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) under the EU Habitats Directive. The

designation of an MCZ in Torbay that prevents deterioration and maintains the ENG

features and also enables the recovery of the seagrass beds and muddy habitats will

potentially, at a local level, provide benefits for the delivery of all beneficial ecosystem

services, particularly those associated with leisure and tourism and fishing. Commercial

fishing activities occurring within and around the rMCZ generate approximately

£960,805yr-1 in landings and recreational activities within the rMCZ generate

approximately a further £1,579,080 yr-1. At a national and international level the ENG

features in Torbay contribute towards the broader processes primary and secondary

production, food web dynamics, formation of species habitat and biogeochemical cycling

that support wider human well-being.

1.1.3 Torbay MCZ - site description

Torbay rMCZ falls within the Finding Sanctuary Regional Project area in the Western

English Channel (Figure 1), totalling 19.9 km2 and extending to depths of up to 30 m. Its

boundaries approximately follow those of the Lyme Bay and Torbay cSAC which has been

proposed for the protection of the Annex I habitats of ‘Reefs’ and ‘Submerged or Partially

Submerged Sea Caves’. The rMCZ has been recommended for two reasons and is split

into two zones, one for the protection of ENG benthic species and habitats, which are not

protected by the cSAC, and another for the protection of seabirds and cetaceans.

Figure 1: Torbay rMCZ site map (source: Lieberknecht et al. 2011)

The rMCZ intersects an area of higher than average benthic and habitat diversity (as

mapped by national data layers Defra contract MB102 (Langmead et al., 2011). It is also

an important area due to its Zostera marina seagrass beds, rocky reefs, sea caves and

birds. The seagrass beds were estimated to cover an area of 80 hectares in 2006 (TCCT,

2006) and provide an important nursery and feeding habitat for species of commercial

importance such as cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Torbay has been identified as an

important spawning location for cuttlefish, with the seagrass beds providing spawning

habitat and an estimated 50,000 cuttlefish entering the fishery each year (Bloor, in prep.).

Broadsands has an important wintering bird roost and is the second most important site

for wintering diver and grebe populations in the south west (Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

The Finding Sanctuary Local Group also identified that the area is important as a breeding

area and nursery ground for commercial fish species. The site was recommended for

inclusion in the MCZ network due to the specific habitats and species listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Feature types and habitat types proposed for designation within rMCZ Torbay (source: Finding Sanctuary Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations 2011)

Feature Type Feature Name Draft Conservation Objectives

Broad-scale Habitats Subtidal mud Recover

Intertidal coarse sediment Maintain

Intertidal mixed sediment Maintain

Intertidal mud Maintain

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Maintain

Low energy intertidal rock Maintain

Moderate energy intertidal rock Maintain

Habitats FOCI Intertidal under boulder communities Maintain

Sabellaria alveolata reefs Maintain

Seagrass beds Recover

Species FOCI Long snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus)

Maintain

Native oyster (Ostrea edulis) Maintain

Peacock’s tail seaweed (Padina pavonica) Maintain

Sea snail (Paludinella littorina) Maintain

Non-ENG features Black throated diver (Gavia arctica) Maintain

Great northern diver (Gavia immer) Maintain

Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) Maintain

Blacked necked grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Maintain

Red necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena) Maintain

Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus) Maintain

Guillemot (Uria aalge) Maintain

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Maintain

In terms of the wider ecological importance of Torbay the area has been described as ‘the

jewel in south Devon’s crown for marine wildlife’ (Hiscock et al., 1998). This accolade is in

reference to species that inhabit damp, shady, shore locations, particularly the limestone

rock at Princess Pier and also the littoral sea grass beds (Zostera marina) at Torre Abbey

Sands.

1.1.4 Beneficial ecosystem processes and services within Torbay rMCZ

Figure 2 models the links between the ENG features within Torbay rMCZ and the core

ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and beneficial ecosystem services

provided. It also links these to activities occurring within the rMCZ area which have then

(where possible) been valued. Key processes and services have then been identified as

those with the greatest number of contributing ENG features (those with the thickest

lines or greatest number of incoming links). The beneficial ecosystem service of climate

regulation has also been selected as key process due to the strength of recent research

into the links between seagrass beds and carbon sequestration.

The Torbay model is the most complex of the case study sites due to the amount and

variety of ENG features. All beneficial ecosystem processes are supported by the ENG

features. However, the most links from referenced material are between the ENG

features and the beneficial ecosystem processes of primary and secondary production,

food web dynamics, formation of species habitat and biogeochemical cycling are the key

beneficial ecosystem process within this rMCZ, facilitated primarily by production,

nutrient cycling and ecological interactions which stem from the various ENG features

within the area.

Formation of species habitat appears to be the biggest driver of fisheries, which are

identified as a beneficial ecosystem service for this rMCZ, along with other wild

harvesting, environmental resilience and nature & hazard protection. Along with the

contribution to broad scale processes identified above, the local activities identified that

directly benefit from the ecosystem services delivery are static and mobile gear fisheries,

aquaculture, charter boats, recreational diving, sea angling and nature watching (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Model of the ENG Features within Torbay rMCZ and the Core Ecosystem Processes, Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Beneficial Ecosystem Services they provide. Associated activities are also linked and approximate valuations given. Links between processes are derived from Fletcher et al. (2012). No link does not signify no relationship between ENG features and the delivery of ecosystem services or processes, only that there is currently no supporting literature.

1.1.4.1 Review of beneficial ecosystem processes

The key beneficial ecosystem processes identified in Figure 9 above have been

considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below.

Primary production: the Torbay rMCZ includes a range of habitat types including

intertidal soft sediment and rocky shores, subtidal sediment, rocky reef and seagrass

beds, all of which contribute to primary production. Intertidal sediment facilitates

the transfer of energy from primary producers up the food chain, especially in

muddy sediments which have a higher abundance of microphytobenthos than sandy

sediments and where surface biofilm is known to sustain all primary production

during daylight hours (Macintyre et al., 1996; Guarini et al., 2000; Herlory et al., 2005;

expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). Infralittoral rock is also important,

supporting kelp Laminaria hyperborean communities within Torbay, which are

important principal primary producers responsible for producing nearly 75 % of all

carbon fixed (Jones et al., 2000). In the circalittoral, primary production is driven by

phytoplankton in the surrounding water masses facilitating the transfer of energy to

higher trophic level organisms (Jones et al., 2000), and subtidal sediment provides a

sink for primary production. Research has indicated that the amount of primary

production occurring in these systems is dependent on the assimilation of organic

matter occurring following algal blooms (Denis & Desroy, 2008). Seagrass Zostera

marina beds cover 0.90 km2 (4.5 %) of the total rMCZ area and are known to be

important for primary production with recorded annual production rates of between

69 g C m-2yr-1 (Borum & Wium-Andersen, 1980) and 814 g C m-2yr-1 (Borum & Wium-

Andersen, 1984).

Secondary production: The different habitats within the Torbay rMCZ also contribute

to secondary production. The intertidal soft sediments providing year round habitats

and crucial feeding grounds for species of commercial importance and wading birds

(Bale et al., 2007). The rocky intertidal area is also of importance, with these habitats

found to hold up to 14 times more secondary biomass than sedimentary shores

(Ricciardi & Bourget, 1999). Torbay is a fairly sheltered cove from the prevailing

weather fronts which will limit the supply of particulate organic matter which is

known to increase with the degree of exposure to wave action (Ricciardi & Bourget,

1999). Subtidally a large proportion of the biomass is epifauna, with species of

starfish, brittlestar, crab, sponge and tunicate known to be particularly abundant in

such areas (Jones et al., 2000). Rapid turnover of Zostera marina leaves and of the

epiphytic algae on the leaf surfaces means that large amounts of seagrass primary

production is transferred to consumers (Cebrián et al. 1997).

Food web dynamics: The variety of habitats found within the Torbay rMCZ support a

range of species. Intertidal and subtidal sediments are key for the provision of

feeding habitat for wading birds, wildfowl (Evans et al., 1998) and fish species such

as sole Solea solea, dab Limanda limanda, flounder Platichthys flesus, plaice

Pleuronectes platessa and sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax who feed on a range of

species including polychaetes and crustaceans (Snelgrove, 1999; Jones et al., 2000).

Seagrass beds are important foraging sites both for temporary and permanent

resident species, including those of fishery value, due primarily to the high density of

potential faunal prey items present (Jackson, 2001).

Formation of species habitat: In the Torbay rMCZ, intertertidal coarse sediment is

important for biota such as commercial shellfish species (Burd et al., 2008), whilst

intertidal muddy sediments provide feeding grounds for wading birds (Bale et al.,

2007), and rocky shores provide habitat for intertidal fish, crustaceans, shrimp,

anemones, epifauna and macroalgae as well as protection from wave exposure and

desiccation (Crothers, 1987; Jones et al., 2000). Intertidal rock is of particular

importance in the UK as it is the meeting point between species with a northern and

a southern range (Hill et al., 1998). Intertidal under boulder communities are

particularly diverse, providing shade, moisture and shelter as well as a refuge from

predators (Hill et al., 2010). Infralittoral and circalittoral rock provides firm substrate

to which epibenthic species can attach (Jones et al., 2000) supports the kelp L.

hyperborean communities within Torbay which provide habitat for a range of other

organisms such as urchins, chitons and meiofauna (Jones et al., 2000). In the subtidal,

formation of species habitat is strongly influenced by sediment type, with particle

size distribution, organic content and chemical composition of importance to species

distribution. Stability is provided by the presence of species such as Lanice

conchilega (Van Hoey et al., 2008), and habitat complexity is increased where

benthic fauna are diverse and abundant due to the presence of tubes and burrows

(Paramour & Frid, 2006). The presence of additional habitat types on soft sediment

such as ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa reefs within the rMCZ increases habitat

complexity, providing microhabitat for colonisation by other organisms (Caline et al.,

1992 cited in Hill et al., 2010). These reefs have been described as important

ecosystem engineers as their structure adds topographic complexity and high levels

of biodiversity to low relief, low diversity soft sediment areas (Dubois et al., 2006).

Seagrass is also considered an ecosystem engineer, increasing the structural

complexity of habitats and causing modification to the abiotic environment through

the alteration of water flow. This increases the retention of particles and accretion of

sediment within the seagrass bed, resulting in increased species richness and

abundance (Edgar et al., 1994; Heck et al., 1995; Bostrom & Bonsdorff, 1997).

Seagrass act as a permanent habitat for some species but also as a temporary

nursery, feeding area or refuge from predation (Jackson et al. 2001). Hirst & Attril

(2008) showed even small patches of Z. marina within Torbay had a greater

biodiversity than the surrounding sediment, and concluded that it had an influence

on biodiversity regardless of the size of the patch. Seagrass beds are also thought to

act as nursery areas, and support a diverse range of species including the long-

snouted seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus (Kitsos et al., 2008; Curtis & Vincent 2005)

and cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Cuttlefish eggs and mussel spat have both been

observed on seagrass shoots and leaf blades respectively, in Torbay (Bloor, in prep;

Evans, 2011).

Biogeochemical cycling: Different habitats within the rMCZ play different roles in

biogeochemical cycling. Intertidal rock is important for carbon cycling, producing

large amounts of dissolved carbon, which is taken up by bacteria and invertebrates,

or removed by the sea, allowing it to enter subtidal sediments (Jones et al., 2000).

They also facilitate the removal of nitrate from coastal waters due to the presence of

microbial biofilm (Magalhaes et al., 2003), and benthic macroalgae associated with

them plays an important role in biogeochemical reactivity (Macintyre et al., 1996).

Intertidal soft sediment is also important for nutrient cycling and the production of

dissolved organic carbon (expert opinion cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). Subtidally,

the key processes of nitrification, carbon cycling and sulphur cycling occur, making

these important components of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycling between the

oceans, land and atmosphere (Burdige et al., 2006; Al-Raei et al., 2009). These are all

important processes for the functioning of the Torbay rMCZ and on a local level as

nitrogen and phosphorous remineralisation facilitates the availability of nutrients for

primary producers in the water column (Burdige et al., 2006), and they are also key

contributors to regional and global biogeochemical cycling.

Climate Regulation: The presence of seagrass beds within rMCZ Torbay further

increases its role in carbon and nutrient cycling. Seagrasses ability to baffle water

currents and stabilize sediments results in organic matter and nutrients become

stored within the accreting sediments, sequestering C, N and P, while the remaining

organic material is recycled or exported (Kennedy & Björk 2009, Nellemann et al.

2009). A value for both the traded and non-traded cost of carbon can be assigned to

the role of sea grass beds in sequestering carbon in the Torbay area (Table 1).

Table 1: Value of traded and non-traded carbon assigned to the role of sea grass beds in sequestering carbon in the Torbay area

Torbay

Zostera marina C burial t.ha-1.yr-1 0.52

( Cebrián et al 1997) Estimated seagrass extent in Torbay (N.B. not an accurate measure of actual area) ha

80

Annual seagrass C sequestration t.yr-1 41.6

Carbon traded value 2012* (£7 - £18/t) (DECC 2011) £291.2 – £748.8 yr-1

Carbon Non-Traded Value** 2012 (£28-£85/t) (DECC 2011)

£1164.8 - £3536 yr-1

*The carbon traded value represents the price of carbon on the EU Emission Trading System ** The non-carbon traded value represents the marginal abatement costs for strategies for climate change. The valuation is used in policy appraisals

1.1.4.2 Review of key beneficial ecosystem services

The key beneficial ecosystem services identified in Figure 9 above have been

considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below.

Fisheries:

Both static and mobile gear fisheries exist in the rMCZ Torbay area, making it an

important area for fisheries. The value in landings derived from the Torbay MCZ are

demonstrated in Table 2. Potting fleets target cuttlefish, crab, lobster, prawns and

whelks, and trawling and scallop dredging also occur in the rMCZ area although this

is restricted to vessels fitted with inshore Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and a

gentlemen’s agreement exists where fishermen have agreed not to trawl or dredge

over the seagrass beds. The cuttlefish and crab fisheries are considered to be locally

important. Lobster and prawn catches are lower, although prawns are also targeted

for bait and the extent of their harvest is unknown as it is not generally declared as

landings. Collectively landing from the Torbay MCZ contribute approximately

£960,805 yr-1 to the landing value at local ports (Table 2).

From an ecological perspective the range of habitats found within Torbay rMCZ

support local fisheries. Intertidal, infralittoral and circalittoral rock areas provide

habitat and feeding grounds for species of commercial importance, and intertidal

rock provides a source of larval plankton (expert opinion cited in Fletcher et al.,

2012). The subtidal sediments present are often used as nursery areas for

commercial species, and offshore sand and gravel habitats have also been identified

as internationally important for fish and shellfish fisheries (UK Biodiversity

Partnership, 2010). Seagrass beds worldwide are important in supporting

commercially valuable fishery species (Jackson, 2001). In Torbay, the seagrass beds

are known to be important spawning grounds for common cuttlefish, Sepia

officinalis populations, for which there is an important local fishery, with recent

estimates equating the value of these spawning habitats to approximately £150,000

(Bloor, in prep.). Within the English Channel seagrass beds have also been found to

be important habitats for many other commercially exploited species (including

Bream, wrasse, bass, prawns, spider crab, mullet and various flat fish and rays which

are thought to make use of enriched bare sediments in the proximity of the seagrass

(Jackson 2003).

Other wild harvesting: Non-commercial wild harvesting of razor clams is known to

occur in this rMCZ in the intertidal Torre Abbey Sands area, and prawns are also

targeted for use as bait (although the amount landed is minimal, with a value of

£305 per year, Table 2). Divers are also known to collect scallops from within the

rMCZ area although the extent of this is unknown.

Aquaculture: Aquaculture is currently restricted to a rope mussel farm situated

between Fishcombe Cove and Elberry which has substantial expansion plans. The

Mussel farm generates £234,000 in landings per year (Table 2).

Environmental Resilience: Intertidal rock is important as a natural form of protection

from erosion by wave action for the Torbay coastline and is thought to be robust in

ecological terms due to its ability to recover from anthropogenic impacts through

the input of propagules from unaffected areas (Hill et al., 1998). Recovery of rocky

habitats takes longer than recovery of sedimentary habitats however, with studies

showing that infralittoral rocky habitats recover to within 1 % of baseline values

within 20 years of a disturbance (Pinnegar & Polunin, 2004). Resilience is greater in

subtidal sedimentary habitats as they are more susceptible to disturbance than

other habitats and are consequently better able to recover when disturbance does

occur (Bishop et al., 2006). Mud habitats are also thought to contribute to climatic

environmental resilience (expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012).

Nature & hazard protection: Intertidal sediment plays an important role in coastal

protection, and it is thought that intertidal boulders also afford a degree of

protection through the formation of a physical barrier which dissipates wave energy

and therefore reduces erosion. Seagrass leaves baffle water currents and attenuate

waves, reducing erosion and promoting sediment accretion, at the same time roots

and rhizomes of the seagrass beds bind sediment (Madsen et al. 2001). As such

seagrass may not only stabilise sediments but in some cases have been shown to

provide shoreline stabilisation and protection from erosion (Cabaço et al., 2008).

Although there appear to be no reports in the literature of studies which provide

quantitative estimates of the financial cost equivalent of seagrasses’ coastal

protection services, with coastal erosion estimated at causing losses of up to £10

billion of economic assets over the coming decades (POST 2009), this service should

be considered important, especially given the tourist value of adjacent beaches.

Nature Watching /Tourism: The beneficial ecosystem service of Tourism was not

demonstrated as a link between the ENG features and beneficial ecosystem services

owing to the fact that there is little published literature on the relationship between

marine ecological features and tourism. However it is well known that tourism is the

dominant industrial sector in Torbay and is closely related to the other sectors in the

vicinity such as retail, nature watching and recreation (Torbay Development Agency).

The Torbay Government has developed the Torbay Economic Regeneration Strategy

which aims to facilitate economic regeneration in area based on its current strengths

and the natural advantages of the area (Torbay Development Agency). During the

summer months the local population swells from 130,000 to 200,000 (figures for

2006), and tourism is closely linked to the attractiveness of the beaches, access to

the water from harbours and the wider opportunities for marine leisure and

recreation e.g. sailing.

Local club diving and independent angling are particularly popular activities in this

rMCZ, and with numerous boat and beach access points throughout Torbay these

activities make use of the natural marine resources that stem from wider biological

diversity in the region. Torbay provides a relatively sheltered cove from the

prevailing weather fronts which allows year round access to both shore and reef

sites including Morris Rouge, Orestone, Goodrington sands and Brixham Breakwater.

Non club diving and angling activities are supported by a dive business industry

which offer services to divers including gear and training and a charter boat industry

whose skippers take sea anglers/divers (who are not using their own boats) to

suitable sites. Values that are associated with these recreation activities at sites

within the MCZ are £1,579,080 per year in combined turnover (dive businesses and

charter boat) and expenditure (anglers and divers).

Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust is a local organisation whose role is to ‘to protect

land, conserve nature and strengthen the bonds between people and the natural

world of Torbay’. The Trust is essentially a land management organisation with

expertise in education outreach. Education centres that have a marine focus that are

run by the Trust include Berry Head National Nature Reserve and the Seashore

Centre at Goodrington (www.countryside-trust.org.uk).

Table 2: Value of activities occurring within rMCZ Torbay (calculated from spatial activity data)

Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Activity Value Valuation confidence*

Valuation Accuracy

Fisheries

Cuttlefish £125,000 yr-1 landing value Estimate based on the percentage contribution of the Torbay trap fishery to total landings at Brixham (3 %), (Brigden, 2010)

1 Overestimate

Crab and Lobster

£281,250 – £873,750 yr-1 Total landing value estimate based on 14 boats operating within the rMCZ area for 0.25-0.75% of their fishing time based on an average of £70-80,000 yr-1 per boat (S. Clark, pers. comm.)

1 Overestimate

Prawns £305 yr-1 landing value (D. Flint, pers. comm.)

2 Accuracy unknown

Fish – nets and lines

£2000 yr-1 landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Fish – bottom trawl

£11,000 yr-1 landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Scallops £11,000 yr-1 landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012)

2 Accuracy unknown

Other Wild Harvesting

Razor clams Diver caught scallops (recreational)

No valuation data available as the amount taken is unrecorded

Aquaculture Mussels £234,000 yr-1 landing value Predicted £312,000 yr-1 due to extension (S. Clark, pers. comm.)

3 High valuation confidence

Natural Hazard Protection

Coastal protection

No valuation data available

Regulation of Pollution


Climate regulation

Seagrass – carbon sequestration

£291 -748 yr-1 carbon traded value (DECC 2011) £1164 – £3536 yr-1 carbon non -traded value (DECC 2011)

3 Overestimate as extent of seabed 80ha is thought to be an overestimate (E Jackson personal comment)

Environmental Resilience


Nature Watching Berry Head also see values for charter boast operators

No data available from Torbay coast and countryside for visitor numbers to Berry Head

Sport/Recreation Charter Boat £7,580 yr-1 turnover (Rees 2010)

3 Underestimate

Sport/Recreation Medicines

Diving £274,210 yr-1 expenditure from club divers (Rees 2010)

3 Underestimate

Dive Business £351,936 yr-1 turnover (Rees 2010)

3 High valuation confidence

Angling £945,354 yr-1 expenditure (Rees 2010)

3 Underestimate

Research & Education

£223,246 in research grants since 2010 to Plymouth University

3 Underestimate

Tourism See recreation values

No values available though there is some contribution towards regional tourism values

Spiritual and cultural well-being


Aesthetic benefits


*The valuation accuracy is based on the provenance of the valuation data where 1= wider values for Torbay with no indication of extent of the activity within the MCZ, 2= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with no supporting GIS, 3= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with supporting GIS.

1.1.4.3 Changes in the delivery in ecosystem services under potential management

scenarios

Table 8 below presents the potential change in the delivery of the beneficial

ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes in the MCZ are under four

management scenarios.

Table 1 The change in delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in Torbay in relation to scenarios for management of activities in the MCZ.


Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

Fisheries -Cuttlefish

- + + -/+

Further loss of seagrass beds will reduce the available habitat for

cuttlefish spawning which may have future impacts on the associated

fishery.

Recovery targets set for subtidal mud and seagrass beds may have benefits

for cuttlefish and the associated fishery as cuttlefish are known to lay their eggs on these features (make

sure referenced in text above)

Once recovery is set maintenance of subtidal mud and seagrass

beds combined with wider fishery effort management

measures within the MCZ could potentially enhance the wider

cuttlefish fishery.

A set aside area for cuttlefish spawning to mitigate against the

effects of removal of cuttlefish eggs that have been laid on pots could have an impact on fishing effort in the short term but with potential

for better future landings.

Fisheries – Crab, Lobster and Prawn and nets and line

- + = -/+

Any decline in quality of the ENG features may have future impacts

on the associated fisheries

Recovery of seagrass and subtidal mud may have potential benefits

providing habitat for these commercial species

Maintenance of ENG features combined with fishery effort

management measures will help maintain the current value of the

fishery

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined

with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones or

temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns.

However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if

grounds are closed






Fish – bottom trawl and Scallops

- -/+ -/+ -/+ There is currently a gentlemen’s

agreement between local fishermen not to trawl over the seagrass

habitat in Torbay although areas have recently been damaged (REF Martin’s paper). Any decline in the

quality of the ENG features may have future impacts on the

associated fisheries

Recovery of seagrass and subtidal mud will depend on the removal of

benthic trawls. There is the possibility of initial short-term

financial losses if grounds are closed though the future positive benefits

for wider fisheries are linked to recovery of seagrass habiatats

Maintenance of ENG features will require effort controls or removal

of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits

for this fishery though. there is the possibility of initial short-

term financial losses if grounds are closed

Improvement of ENG features will require effort controls or removal

of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery though there is the

possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are

closed

Other Wild Harvesting Razor clams Diver caught scallops (recreational)

= = = =

The is a small amount of wild harvesting though not thought to

cause any impact


cause any impact


cause any impact


cause any impact

Aquaculture (Rope mussel farm)

= = = =

There would be no positive or negative impacts for the rope

mussel farm

The environmental impact of the mussel farm would need to be

monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial losses or

gains associated with this MCZ


monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial

losses or gains associated with this MCZ


monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial losses or

gains associated with this MCZ






Climate regulation (beneficial ecosystem process)

- + = +

Decline or reduction of seagrass beds could potentially reduce the

capacity of the feature to sequester carbon

Recovery of seagrass beds could potentially increase the amount of

carbon sequestered

Maintenance of seagrass beds will provide for the carbon

sequestration at ‘maintenance’ levels. The extent to which

seagrass beds currently contribute to the reduction of

urban flooding is unknown

Improvement of seagrass beds could potentially increase the

amount of carbon sequestered

Natural Hazard Protection Coastal protection)

- + = +

Decline or reduction of seagrass beds could potentially destabilise the sediment and increase wave energy and the risk of flooding of

low lying areas

Recovery of seagrass beds could potentially stabilise the sediment and

reduce wave energy. The extent to which the risk of urban flooding may

be reduced is unknown

Maintenance of seagrass beds will provide for the stabilisation

of sediment at ‘maintenance’ current levels. The extent to

which seagrass beds currently contribute to the reduction of

urban flooding is unknown

Improvement of seagrass beds could potentially stabilise the

sediment and reduce wave energy. The extent to which the risk of

urban flooding may be reduced is unknown

Regulation of Pollution

- + = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability

of the ecosystem to regulate of pollution . This may have impacts on

the quality of the local marine environment and wider pollution

regulation processes.

Seagrass beds are known to have a capacity to regulate pollution in a marine area. Recovery of seagrass

beds within this MCZ could potentially increase the capacity to

regulate pollution though the localise effect is unknown.

Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue to provide for the regulation of

pollution at current levels

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the capacity of this

area to regulate pollution

Environmental Resilience

- + = +

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may cause the

ecosystem to become less resilient to both natural perturbations and

human impacts

Recovery of sea grass beds may improve the resilience of the habitat

to both natural perturbations and human impacts

Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue

to contribute towards wider environmental resilience

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially enable the

ecosystem to become more resilient to change






Nature Watching - + = +

Decline of seagrass beds and mud habitats and wider ENG features will

potentially decrease food availability for sea birds and

cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers

Recovery of seagrass beds and mud habitats will potentially increase food

availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to

nature watchers

Maintenance of all ENG features will potentially maintain nature

watching in this area at its current capacity

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially increase the attractiveness of the area to

tourists and provide opportunities for enterprise

Sport/Recreation (Charter boat, Diving, Dive businesses and angling)

- + + +

Decline in ENG features will have negative impact on the quality of

dive and angling sites

Recovery of seagrass beds and mud habitats will potentially provide

nursery habitat for fish which are caught by recreational anglers

Maintenance of all ENG features will protect reef habitats popular with

divers and anglers from further deterioration caused by

displacement of fishing activity in the Lyme Bay closed area

Improvement of all ENG features may increase the quality of diving and

angling opportunities in the area with a knock on effects for local businesses

Research & Education

+ - + + +

Any decline of ENG features provides potential for research

opportunities. The decline of wider ENG features e.g. intertidal rock

may have an impact on the natural resources used by the Torbay Coast

and Countryside service for education purposes.

Recovery of seagrass beds provides potential for research opportunities

and education initiatives

Maintenance of ENG features will continue to provide habitat and

food for birds which are the focus of the Berry Head visitors centre and for education initiatives run by Torbay Coast and Countryside

Service

Improvement may potentially increase the desirability of this area

for research and education initiatives






Tourism (see also recreation and Nature watching)

- - = +

Tourism is currently in decline in the Torbay area. Any decline in the

environmental quality may have impacts for this industry.

Management restrictions to control activity on seagrass beds e.g.

trampling and anchoring may limit some activities associated with

tourism.

Maintenance of ENG features will continue to contribute to the

identity of Torbay being a seaside tourist destination

Improvement of ENG features may increase the attractiveness and

increase opportunities for enterprise within the tourist

industry.

Spiritual and cultural well-being

? Spiritual and cultural wellbeing is linked to all beneficial ecosystem services. Any positive or negative impacts on the environmental quality of the ENG

features will impact upon the delivery of this beneficial ecosystem services The extent to which these are linked is unknown

Aesthetic benefits - = = +

Torbay markets itself on the natural environment as a place to live or

visit. Any decline in the environmental quality may have

impacts on the aesthetic qualities associated with the area

No known changes in aesthetic benefits for recovery of seagrass

beds or muds

Maintenance of all ENG features will maintain the current aesthetic qualities of ENG

features in Torbay. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual

and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Torbay.

Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and

recreation and tourism benefits

Key - A negative change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario = No change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario + A positive change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario -/+ A negative initial impact in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario which may lead to future positive change in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services

References

Please note that the reference list in this extract is taken from the main report and is incomplete with respect to the Torbay rMCZ case study.

Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E. and Peau, L. 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13: 353-367.

Allen, 2008

Al-Raei, A.M., Bosselmann, K., Böttcher, M.E., Hespeneide, B. and Tauber, F. 2009. Seasonal dynamics of microbial sulfate reduction in temperate intertidal surface sediments: controls by temperature and organic matter. Ocean Dynamics, 59: 351-370.

Aprahamian & Walkerm 2008

Araime, S., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., McArdle, D.A. and Warner, R.R. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications, 13: 170-184.

Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C., Bayley, D.T.I., Carr, H.L., Downey, K., Fowell, S.C., Gall, S.C., Hattam, C., Holland, L., Jackson, E.L., Langmead, O., Mangi, S., Marshall, C., Munro, C., Rees, S., Rodwell, L., Sheehan, E.V., Stevens, J., Stevens, T.F. and Strong, S. 2011. Lyme Bay – a case-study: measuring recovery of benthic species; assessing potential “spillover” effects and socio-economic changes, 2 years after the closure. Response of the benthos to the zoned exclusion of bottom towed fishing gear and the associated socio-economic effects in Lyme Bay. Final Report 1. June 2011. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the University of Plymouth-led consortium. Plymouth: University of Plymouth Enterprise Ltd.

Austen, M.C., Malcolm, S.J., Frost, M., Hattam, C., Mangi, S., Stentford, G., Benjamins, S., Burrows, M., Butenschön, M., Duck, C., Johns, D., Merino, G., Mieszkowska, N., Miles, A., Mitchell, I. and Smyth, T. 2011. Marine The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC.

Balanced Seas 2011. Marine Conservation Zones Project. Final Reccommendations.

Bale, A.J., Stepehns, J.A. and Harris, C.B. 2007. Critical erosion profiles in macro-tidal estuary sediments: Implications for the stability of intertidal mud and the slope of mud banks. Continental Shelf Research, 27: 2303-2312.

Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Walpole, M., ten Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L. and de Groot, R. 2008. The Economics of Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Scoping the Science. Cambridge, UK: European Commission.

Beaumont, N., Townsend, M., Mangi, S. and Austen, M. C. 2006. Marine Biodiversity An economic valuation. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. Report produced for Defra by Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

Bennett, B.A. and Attwood, C.G. 1991. Evidence for recovery of a surf-zone fish assemblage following the establishment of a marine reserve on the southern coast of South Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 75: 173-181.

Bishop, M.J. Peterson, C.H., Sommerson, H.C., Lenihan, H.S., and Grabowski, J.H. 2006. Deposition and Long-shore transport of Dredge soils to nourish beaches: Impacts on benthic infauna of an ebb-tidal delta. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(3): 530-546.

Blue Gym 2012. The Blue Gym. Researching blue space, health and wellbeing. European Centre for the Environment and Human Health. http://www.bluegym.org.uk/

Boeckner et al., 2009

Borum & Wium-Anderson, 1980

Borum & Wium-Anderson, 1984

Bostrom, C. and Bonsdorff, E. 1997. Community structure and spatial variation of benthic invertebrates associated with Zostera marina (L.) beds in the northern Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 37: 153-166.

Burd, B.J. Barnes, P.A.G., Wright, C.A. and Thomsom, R.E. 2008. A review of subtidal benthic habitats and invertebrate biota of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Marine Environmental Research, 66: S3-S38.

Burdige, D.J. 2006. Geochemistry of Marine Sediments. Princeton University Press, United States.

Buridge et al., 2006

Caline, B.C., Gruet, Y., Legendre, C, Rhun, J.L., L'Homer, A., Mathieu, R. and Zbinden, R. 1992. The Sabellariid Reefs in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, France; Ecology, Geomorphology, Sedimentology and Geologic Implications. Florida Oceanographic Society, Contributions to Marine Science - Volume 1 Number 1, ed. D.W. Kirtley. Florida Oceanographic Society (Stuart, Fla).

Carr, M.H., Neigel, J.E., Esters, J.A., Andelman, S., Warner, R.R. and Largier, J.L. 2003. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. (Suppl), 13: S90-S107.

CBD 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/ cbd-en.pdf [accessed 20.06.2012]

CBD 2004. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/5.

CBD 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

CDFG 2005. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. Master plan. CDFG, Sacramento.

Chae, D.-R., Wattage, P. and Pascoe, S. 2012. Recreational benefits from a marine protected area: A travel cost analysis of Lundy. Tourism Management, 33: 971-977.

Chapin III, F.S., Zavaleta, E.S., Eviner, V.T., Naylor, R.L., Vitousek, P.M., Reynolds, H.L., Hooper, D.U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O.E., Hobbie, S.E., Mack, M.C. and Díaz, S. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783): 234-242.

Charting Progress 2 (CP2)

Chee, Y. 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 12(4): 549-565.

Clark et al. 2010

Collie et al., 2005

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Suttonkk, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Crothers, 1987

Defra 2007. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. London, UK: Defra - Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Denis, L. and Desroy, N. 2008. Consequences of spring phytodedritus sedimentation on the benthic compartment along a depth gradient in the Eastern English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 1844-1854.

Dubois et al., 2003

Dubois, S., Commito, J.A., Olivier, F. and Reriere, C. 2006. Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science, 68: 635-646.

EC 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities.

EC 2000. Communication From the Commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities COM(2000) 1.

EC 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union.

Edgar, G.J., Shaw, C., Watson, G.F. and Hammond, L.S. 1994. Comparisons of species richness, size structure and production of benthos in vegetated and unvegetated habitats in

Western Port, Victoria. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 176: 201-226.

Evans, P.R., Ward, R.M., Bone, M. and Leakey, M. 1998. Creation of temperate-climate intertidal mudflats: Factors affecting colonization and use by benthic invertebrates and their bird predators. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37: 535-545.

Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S. Kerrigan, B., Breen, D. Cameron, D., Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L., Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., De’Ath, G., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D. and Stapleton, K. 2005. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19: 1733-44.

Finding Sanctuary Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations 2011

Finnegan, P., Vintro, L.L., Mitchell, P.I., Boust., D., Gouzy, A., Kershaw, P.J., and Lucey, J.A. 2009. Accumulation, solid partitioning and remobilisation of 99Tc in subtidal and intertidal sediments in the Irish Sea. Continental Shelf Research, 29: 1995-2010.

Fletcher, S., Saunders, J., Herbert, R., Roberts, C. and Dawson, K. 2012. Description of the ecosystem services provided by broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance that are likely to be protected by Marine Protected Areas in the Marine Conservation Zone Project area. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 088.

Fortes, 2002

Gell, F.R. and Roberts, C.M. 2002. The Fishery Effects of Marine Reserves and Fishery Closures. Washington, D.C., USA: WWF-US.

Gell, F.R. and Roberts, C.M. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 18(9).

Gheskiere et al., 2005

Gibson, C., Valenti, S.V., Fowler, S.L. and Fordham, S.V. 2006. The Conservation Status of Northeast Atlantic Chondrichthyans Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Northeast Atlantic Regional Red List Workshop VIII. IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group.

Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Serpa, P. and Hoffman, K. 2010. Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from north central California. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53: 52-68.

Goñi, R., Adlerstein, S., Alvarez-Berastegui, D., Forcada, A., Reñones, O., Criquet, G., Polti, S., Cadiou, G., Valle, C., Lenfant, P., Bonhomme, P., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L., García-Charton, J.A., Bernard, G., Stelzenmüller, V. and Planes, S. 2008. Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 366: 159-174.

Green, A.L., Lokani, P., Sheppard, S., Almany, J., Keu, S., Aitsi, J., Warku Karvon, J., Hamilton, R. and Lipsett-Moore, G. 2007. Scientific design of a resilient network of marine protected areas. Kimbe Bay, West New Britain, Papua New Guinea: The Nature Conservancy Pacific Island Countries Rep No 2/07.

Guarderas, A., Hacker, S.D. and Lubchenco, J. 2008. Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean. Conservation Biology, 22(6): 1630-1640.

Guarini, J.M., Blanchard, G.F. and Gros, P. 2000. Quantification of the microphytobenthic primary production in European intertidal mudflats - a modelling approach. Continental Shelf Research, 20: 1771-1788.

Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2007. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. and Watson, R. 2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319(5865): 948-952.

Harrison, H.B., Williamson, D.H., Evans, R.D., Almany, G.R., Thorrold, S.R., Russ, G.R., Feldheim, K.A., van Herwerden, L., Planes, S., Srinivasan, M., Berumen, M.L. and Jones, G.P. 2012. Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. Current biology, 22(11): 1023-1028.

Heck, K.L., Able, K.W., Roman, C.T., and Fahay, M.P. 1995. Composition, abundance, biomass, and production of macrofauna in a New England estuary: comparisons among eelgrass meadows and other nursery habitats. Estuaries, 18: 379-389.

Herlory, O., Blanchard, G.F., Planche, S., Huet, V. and Richard, P. 2005. Does the size of the microphytobenthic biofilm on intertidal muflats depend on the available photosynthetic biomass? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 298: 95-100.

Hill, S., Burrows, M.T. and Hawkins, S.J. 1998. Intertidal reef biotopes: an overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Oban, Scottish Association of Marine Sciences (UK Marine SACs Project).

Hill, J., Pearce, B., Georgiou, L., Pinnion, J. and Gallyot, J. 2010. Meeting the MPA Network Principle of Viability: feature specific recommendations for species and habitats of conservation importance. Report by Marine Ecological Surveys Limited.

Hirst, J.A. and Attrill, M.J. 2008. Small is beautiful: An inverted view of habitat fragmentation in seagrass beds. Eustuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 78: 811-818.

Hiscock, K., Marshall, C., Sewell, J. and Hawkins, S.J. 2006. The structure and functioning of marine ecosystems: an environmental protection and management perspective. Report to English Nature from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK. English Nature Research Reports , ENRR No. 699.

HM Government. 2009. Marine and Coastal Access Act. In: Crown copyright. p. 347.

HM Government. 2011. UK Marine Policy Statement. In: London: Crown copyright. p. 47.

Holt, T.J., Rees, E.I., Hawkins, S.J. and Seed, R., 1998. Biogenic reefs (Volume IX). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project).

Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. and Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current Knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1): 3-35.

Irish Sea Conservation Zones 2011. Final recommendations for Marine Conservation Zones in the the Irish Sea. Warrington.

Irving, 1996

Irving, 2009

ISCZ, 2011

IUCN 2009. Marine protected area network. Hawaii’s western shore, USA. IUCN Marine Protected Areas case studies.

IUCN-WCPA 2008. Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Happen. Washington, D.C.: IUCN-WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy.

Jackson, A. 2008. Leptopsammia pruvoti. Sunset cup coral. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk [accessed 20.06.2012].

Jones, L.A., Hiscock, K. and Connor, D.W. 2000. Marine habitat reviews. A summary of ecological requirements and sensitivity characteristics for the conservation and management of marine SACs. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Kitsos, M.S., Tzomos, T.H., Anagnostopoulou, L. and Koukouras, A. 2008. Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology, 72: 1259-1267.

Lieberknecht, L.M., Hooper, T.H., Mullier, T.M., Murphy, A., Neilly, M., Carr, H., Haines, R., Lewin, S. and Hughes, E. 2011. Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations. A report submitted by the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and Natural England. Available at: www.finding-sanctuary.org and The UK National Archives http://tna.europarchive.org/*/http:// www.finding-sanctuary.org/ [accessed 20.06.2012].

Macintyre, H.L., Geider, R.J. and Miller D.C. 1996. Microphytobenthos: The ecological role of the ''secret garden'' of unvegetated, shallow-water marine habitats. Estuaries, 19: 186-201.

Maddock, 2008;

Magalhaes, C.M., Bordalo, A.A. and Wiebe, W.J. 2003. Intertidal biofilms on rocky substratum can play a major role in estuarine carbon and nutrient dynamics. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser, 258: 275-281.

McArthur, L.C. and Boland, J.W. 2006. The economic contribution of seagrass to secondary production in South Australia. Ecological Modelling, 196: 163-172.

McLeod, E., Salm, R., Green, A. and Almany J. 2009. Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change. Frontiers Ecology Environment, 7: 362-370.

McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Calnan, J.M. and MacNeil M.A. 2007. Toward pristine biomass: reef fish recovery in coral reef marine protected areas in Kenya. Ecological applications, 17(4): 1055-1067.

MEA 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being : current state and trends : findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Edited by Hassan, R., Scholes, R. and Ash, N., The millennium ecosystem assessment series, v. 1.

Murawski, S.A., Brown, R., Lai, H.L., Rago, P.J. and Hendrickson, L. 2000. Free Content Large-scale closed areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3): 775-798.

National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA),

Natural England, 2000;

Natural England 2010. Evidence base for designation of Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton Special Area of Conservation Final IA, 20.7.2010.

Natural England-JNCC 2010. Marine Conservation Zone Project. Ecological Network Guidance. Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Natural England-JNCC 2011. The Marine Conservation Zone Impact Assessment. Factsheet. Available at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-ia-factsheet_tcm630715. pdf [accessed 18.06.2012].

Navarro & Thompson, 1996

Net Gain 2011. Net Gain Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations. Submission to Natural England and JNCC. Hull.

Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2007. Guidelines for the establishment and management of Marine Protected Areas for Cetaceans. UNEP(DEPI)MED WG.308/8.

NRC 2000. Marine Protected Areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press.

NRC 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. Committee on the Evaluation, Design and monitoring of marine reserves and protected areas in the United States. Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C..

OSPAR 2003. OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas. Available at http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00700302210000_ 000000_000000 [accessed 18.06.2012].

OSPAR, 2008

Paramour, O. and Frid, C. 2006. Marine Ecosystem Objectives: Further development of objectives for marine habitats. Report for Defra, London.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. 1991. Blueprint for a green economy. London, UK: Earthscan.

Pet-Soede, L., Cesar, H., van Beukering, P., Willsteed, E. and Mous, P.J. 2009. Benefits of Marine Protected Area Networks: An Overview in Support of the Coral Triangle Initiative. WWF.

Phil et al., 2006

Pike, K., Johnson, D., Fletcher, S., Wright, P. and Lee, B. 2010. Social Value of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management, 38:412-432.

Pinnegar, J.K. and Polunin, N.V.C. 2004. Predicting indirect effects of fishing in Mediterranean rocky littoral communities using a dynamic simulation model. Ecological Modelling, 172: 249-267.

PISCO 2007. The Science of Marine Reserves [2nd Edition, United States Version], Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. Available at: www.piscoweb.org. [accessed 20.06.2012].

Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5): 575-594.

Ragnarsson, S.A. and Raffaelli, D. 1999. Effects of the mussel Mytilus edulis L. on the invertebrate fauna of sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 241: 31-43.

Rees 2010

Rees & Dare, 1993

Rees et al., 2008

Rees, S. E., Rodwell, L. D., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C. and Mangi, S.C. 2010. The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5): 868-875.

Ricciardi, A. and Bourget, E. 1999. Global patterns of macroinvertebrate biomass in marine intertidal communities. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser, 185: 21-35.

Rice, C. 2010. Marine Protected Area Network Report. On behalf of North Sea maritime cluster.

Roberts, C.M., Halpern, B. Palumbi, S.R. and Warner, R.R. 2001. Designing marine reserve networks: Why small, isolated protected areas are not enough. Conservation Biology In Practice, 2(3): 12-19.

Roberts, C. M., Branch, G., Bustamante, R.H., Castilla, J.C., Dugan, J., Halpern, B.S., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., Lubchenco, J., McArdle, D., Ruckelshaus, M. and Warner R.R. 2003. Application of Ecological Criteria in Selecting Marine Reserves and Developing Reserve Networks. Ecological Applications, 13(1): 215-228.

Ronnback, P., Kautsky, N., Pihl, L., Troell, M., Söderqvist, T. and Wennhage, H. 2007. Ecosystem goods and services from Swedish coastal habitats: identification, valuation, and implications of ecosystem shifts. Ambio, 36: 534-544.

Rosendo, S., Brown, K., Joubert, A., Jiddawi, N. and Mechisso, M. 2011. A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1): 55-65.

Sabantini & Pizzolla, 2008

Salm, R.V., Done, T. and Mcleod, E. 2006. Marine protected area planning in a hanging climate. In: Phinney, J.T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kleypas, J., Skirving, W. and Strong, A. (eds.). Coral reefs and climate change: science and management. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.

Scott, L.C., Boland, J.W., Edyvane, K.S. and Jones, G.K. 2000. Development of a seagrass-fish habitat model - I: A Seagrass Residency Index for economically important species. Environmetrics, 11: 541-552.

Smith et al., 2011

Snelgrove, P.V.R. 1999. Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats. Ocean bottoms are the most widespread habitat on Earth and support high biodiversity and key ecosystem services. Bioscience, 49(2): 129-138.

Sobel, J. and Dahlgren, C. 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Washington: Island Press.

TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations.

Tyler-Walters, 2008

UK Biodiversity Partnership 2010. UK BAP Priority species and habitats. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk [accessed 20.06.2012].

UN 2002. Report of the world summit on sustainable development. United Nations, Para.32(c).

Underwood & Patterson, 2003;

UNEP 2006. Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP.

UNEP-WCMC 2008. National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Progress. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.

University of Hull, 2008;

Van Hoey, G., Guilini, K., Rabuat, M., Vincx, M. and Degraer, S. 2008. Ecological implications of the presence of the tube-building polychaete Lanice conchilega on soft-bottom benthic ecosystems. Marine Biology, 154: 1432-1793.

Ward, T., Heinemann, D. and Evans, N. 2002. The Role of Marine Reserves as Fisheries Management Tools. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

White, A., Eisma-Osorio, R.-L. and Green, S.J. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas: Complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48: 24.

Wildish & Fader, cited in Tyler-Walters, 2007

World Bank 2008. Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Services. The World Bank.

Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science, 314(5800): 787-790.

Documents

Torbay rMCZ report