LUNDY

1. LUNDY November 2018

2. THE COMPASS CARD 1 Identify important areas for species & habitats 2 Identify stakeholders & their interests 3 Set up stakeholder participation process 4 Assess condition of important areas for species & habitats 5 Create socio-economic baseline 6 Identify pressures impacting species & habitats 7 Set MPA boundary based on areas of ecological importance 8 Establish zoning for activities 9 Establish management rules for zoned areas 10 Create a management body to set and monitor strategy 11 Create a management committee to implement the strategy 12 Establish environmental MPA objectives 13 Established socio-economic MPA objectives 14 Identify benefit sharing rules 15 Develop alternatives for displaced activities 16 Create clear lines of responsibility for governance 17 Ensure the MPA has legal status 18 Publicly communicate about the MPA 19 Support an active & inclusive stakeholder engagement process 20 Develop a management plan 21 Ensure adequate MPA staff 22 Ensure adequate infrastructures and equipment 23 Enforce management rules 24 Create a business plan fund long-term MPA management 25 Capacity build skills needed to run the MPA 26 Create education programme linked to MPA objectives 27 Monitor biological, social and economic factors 28 Monitor management activities against performance 29 Build a sense of responsibility for the MPA by stakeholders 30 Demonstrate the authorities take responsibility for the MPA 31 Effectively implement the management plan 32 Sustain & build on community involvement 33 Demonstrate that MPA is achieving objectives 34 Demonstrate that MPA is improving ecological condition 35 Demonstrate that MPA is providing socio-economic benefits 36 Report progress to the community 37 Update management plan/rules based on monitoring data 38 Create sustainable income stream to cover management costs WWF’s UK SEAS project is all about trying to improve how marine protected areas (MPAs) in the UK are managed. We hope to do this by testing new approaches to management in our case study areas in North Devon (with the North Devon Marine Pioneer) and in the Outer Hebrides. The first step in that journey is to understand how they are being managed at the moment, to gather baseline information on where we are doing really well, and where we could focus energy on improving. The Compass Card survey forms part of that baseline assessment. It’s a pretty neat technique. SELF-SUFFICIENT PHASE Progress is measured using 38 criteria that cover a range of management issues including things like setting objectives, collecting information, creating plans, involving stakeholders and monitoring etc. Each criteria is scored out of 3, from 0 = it is not being done, to 3 = it is being done really well. The criteria are arranged around the outside of the compass. The stages and criteria may vary somewhat from one MPA to the next, however to achieve effective MPA management all of them need to be considered at some point. A quick look at the results will tell you what stage the MPA is at (creation, pioneer or self-sufficiency) and what the MPA is doing well on and what it needs to improve. The tool can be used to track the course of MPA development over time and help managers with day-to-day organisation of their MPA by filling in the progress made year after year. CREATION PHASE The Compass Card divides the process of establishing an MPA into three stages: The “Creation phase”: In the UK we would call that the ‘designation process’. This involves gathering all the data needed and working with stakeholders to develop management rules. The “Pioneer phase”: The pioneer phase is when management becomes operational and the management team starts monitoring and building programmes to support delivery of the objectives. The “Self-sufficiency phase”: By this point the MPA is well on the way to technical, organisational and financial self-sufficiency and the environmental and social benefits of the MPA are being felt. PIONEER PHASE

3. STEPS RESPONSES Original compass card edited to better reflect UK situation. Four ‘graduated’ answer categories created for each criterion. A full and a shorter version of the survey designed using SurveyMonkey. Online survey link sent to 120 contacts on the UKSEAS database and advertised on the CMS listserv in Aug 2018. Survey open for 2 months & reminders sent twice. Local meetings attended to encourage participation from key stakeholders. Data downloaded and analysed using excel. Mean scores added to compass. • 18 Responses (7 short, 11 full) • 6 out of 18 respondents indicated they were from North Devon • Sector affiliation shown below:

4. 1 38 2 37 3 36 4 35 LUNDY Responses Criteria number No response Mean score ≥50% unsure Creation Pioneer Self-sufficient 5 34 6 33 • LUNDY 70% Creation Pioneer Self-sufficient 32 18 8 7 1 31 1 9 30 10 29 11 28 12 27 13 26 14 25 15 24 16 23 17 18 22 19 21 20

5. 1 4 36 35 6 34 2 33 LUNDY Responses Criteria number No response Mean score ≥50% unsure Set up Plans & management Involving people Decision making Resources Monitoring Results 3 31 5 • LUNDY 70% Creation Pioneer Self-sufficient 23 7 37 18 1 17 28 1 20 27 12 38 13 25 24 22 8 21 9 14 15 11 26 10 18 30 19 16 32 29

6. 1. Were areas important for species and habitats of conservation value identified? LUNDY SET UP

7. 4. Was the condition of important areas for species and habitats established? LUNDY SET UP

8. 6. Were the pressures identified that impact important areas for species and habitats? LUNDY SET UP

9. 2. Were stakeholders and their interests identified? LUNDY SET UP

10. 3. Was a stakeholder participation process established? LUNDY SET UP

11. 5. Was a socio-economic baseline report produced? LUNDY SET UP

12. 7. Was the MPA boundary based on important areas of ecological interest LUNDY SET UP

13. 17. Does the protected area have legal status? LUNDY SET UP

14. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on how MPAs could be set up more successfully? “Provide more information on the sites themselves!” LUNDY SET UP “Wider participation in establishing the baseline and management.” “Lundy should be used as a model - stakeholders must take ownership of an MPA for it to be successful.” “Better research and science to support the reserve status, rather than just taking anecdotal evidence.”

15. 20. Does the protected area have a management plan? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

16. 12. Does the MPA have objectives that consider environmental factors? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

17. 13. Does the MPA have objectives that consider socio-economic factors? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

18. 24. Does the MPA have a business plan describing how income can be generated to deliver the MPA objectives in the long term? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

19. 8. Does the protected area have well-defined spatial units (zones) that direct the type, location and/or time of allowable human activities? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

20. 9. Does the protected area have management in place for each zone as appropriate to meet the site's objectives as a whole? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

21. 15. Have alternative income generating activities been considered to compensate for displacement of damaging activities in the MPA? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

22. 26. Is there a planned education programme linked to the site's objectives and needs? LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT

23. Do you have any thoughts or comments on how management plans and site objectives could be improved? “No take zone completely around the island as that is what most of our customers think.” LUNDY PLANS & MANAGEMENT “Not all MPA plans need to consider a business plan - it depends entirely on the MPA.”

24. 18. Are people aware of the MPA? LUNDY INVOLVING PEOPLE

25. 19. Do deliberate (active and inclusive) opportunities for people to be involved in decision making exist? LUNDY INVOLVING PEOPLE

26. 32. How satisfied are you with your involvement with MPA management? LUNDY INVOLVING PEOPLE

27. 29. Do you think stakeholders feel a sense of responsibility for the MPA? LUNDY INVOLVING PEOPLE

28. Do you have any thoughts or comments on how we could better involve people in MPA management? “Advisory groups work very well as do accreditation schemes for local operators as it gives them a sense of purpose and ownership.” “Perhaps the existence of the Advisory (Stakeholders) Group could be better publicised to a wider public. However, there is only space for so many at the meetings!” LUNDY INVOLVING PEOPLE “Lundy might be unusual in having both the Lundy Management Forum and the MPA Advisory Group which means a lot meetings and efforts to co-ordinate across groups but it seems to work well and has good participation - so a useful model for other MPAs.” “More information available for the public onsite about the designations and reasons for the designations.” “Not sure really how to engage with more people, better awareness, social media, campaigns?” “Direct discussion with users and feedback to know whether anything has been taken onboard.”

29. 16. Is responsibility for the governance of the MPA clear? LUNDY DECISION MAKING

30. 30. Do the relevant authorities take responsibility for the MPA? LUNDY DECISION MAKING

31. 10. Does a management body exist that is empowered to set the MPA’s strategy, objectives and overall direction? LUNDY DECISION MAKING

32. 11. Does a management committee exist that implements the strategy? LUNDY DECISION MAKING

33. 14. MPAs generate "benefits" e.g. fish and recreational opportunities.  Were rules identified to help share access to these benefits? LUNDY DECISION MAKING

34. Do you have any thoughts or comments on how we could improve decision making? LUNDY DECISION MAKING “This would need thought and discussion with the various organisations involved in management.”

35. 21. Are there enough people employed to manage the site? LUNDY RESOURCES

36. 22. Is the infrastructure and equipment needed to manage the site available? LUNDY RESOURCES

37. 25. Do staff have the skills and training needed? LUNDY RESOURCES

38. 38. Is there long term funding for the full cost of the MPA and its management/operating costs? LUNDY RESOURCES

39. Do you have any thoughts or comments on how MPA management could be better resourced? “More staff and funding is needed to support the MPA.” LUNDY RESOURCES “Endless discussions about this in all the management committee meetings!” “Private funding.”

40. 27. Are biological, social and economic factors monitored which could be used in management? LUNDY MONITORING

41. 28. Are management activities monitored against performance by those responsible for the management? LUNDY MONITORING

42. 37. Has the management plan/rules for the protected area been reviewed and updated based on monitoring of the plan's progress? LUNDY MONITORING

43. 23. Is enforcement of management rules undertaken? LUNDY MONITORING

44. Do you have any thoughts or comments on how marine protected areas could be monitored better? “Funding and resources are needed to ensure effective enforcement, however if all stakeholders are engaged effectively then they self-police the MPA.” LUNDY MONITORING “Another ongoing topic of discussion ....” “Better funding”

45. 31. Is the protected area meeting its objectives/in good condition, thanks to the implementation of the management plan or rules? LUNDY RESULTS

46. 33. Is the MPA achieving its objectives (whether it has a management plan or not) LUNDY RESULTS

47. 34. Is the MPA delivering improved ecological effects? LUNDY RESULTS

48. 35. Has the MPA generated any *socio-economic benefits?*Things like culture, jobs and recreational use LUNDY RESULTS

49. 36. Are the benefits of the MPA reported to the community? LUNDY RESULTS

50. Do you have any thoughts or ideas on how we could achieve better results? LUNDY RESULTS