Monthly Archives: March 2010

References on the Benefits of MPAs

Posted on by

It is important for our deliberations on the MPA to have information available on research that has been done on the benefits to the ecosystem and to fisheries enhancement when MPAs are established. Also the value of the establishment of a buffer zone for maintaining the ecological integrity of a reserve is discussed. This would reduce the likelihood of accidental incursions and would simplify enforcement activities,.
The following references provide information from the research experience gained from a number of international examples

1.The Science of Marine Reserves: PISCO 2007

This is probably the best resource available on the research that has been done on benefits of marine reserves on the web. It can be downloaded in its entirety.

http://www.piscoweb.org/publications/outreach-materials/science-of-marine-reserves
In 2007, PISCO updated The Science of Marine Reserves, an educational booklet originally published in 2002. The booklet is now presented in three versions: a U.S. version in English and Spanish, an international version in English, and a Latin American and Caribbean version in English and Spanish. The booklets are accompanied by a 15-minute video first released in 2002.
These resources provide the latest scientific information about reserves in an understandable and accessible format. They are designed to be used by natural resource managers, government officials, scientists, and the interested public.

2.Big Profit From Nature Protection:
On the BBC website from November 13, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8357723.stm

“Money invested in protecting nature can bring huge financial returns, according to a major investigation into the costs and benefits of the natural world.”

“The new analysis takes the economists to the undersea realms of fisheries and coral reefs.
Conservation groups have repeatedly called for a vast expansion in protection for marine ecosystems, both to conserve biodiversity and as a longer-term boost to fisheries yields.
Mr Sukhdev said there was a powerful economic case for this as well.
“If we were to expand marine protection from less than 1% to 30%, say, what would that cost?
“Establishing reserves, policing them and so on, would cost about $40-50bn per year – and the annual benefit would be about $4-5 trillion.”
The benefits would come from increasing fish catches and tourism revenue and – in the case of reefs – protecting shorelines from the destructive force of storms.”

3. Marine Protected Areas Finding a Balance between Conservation and Fisheries Management.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701790/session3.html

Another contribution scientists have made is in identifying the value of protecting fish so that they grow large and reproduce. In the early 1990s scientists compared the fecundity and egg production of a 60-centimeter red snapper with that of a 40-centimeter red snapper. Despite the fact that the older, larger fish is only one-third greater in length than the younger fish, this increase in length translates into a twelve-fold increase in biomass. Moreover, the larger fish produces the same number of eggs as 212 of the 40-centimeter fish. This difference emphasizes how the relationship between fecundity (the number of eggs produced by a female) and fish size increases disproportionately as older fish allocate more energy to reproduction while young fish allocate more energy to growth. This means that a larger average size of fish in a population can have profound effects on the reproductive potential of that population and its ability to renew depleted populations.

4.Economics of Marine Protected Areas
FCRR 2001, Vol. 9(8)
Sumaila, U. and Alder, J. (eds). 2001.Economics of Marine Protected Areas.
A Conference held at the UBC Fisheries Centre, July 2000

http://www2.fisheries.com/archive/publications/reports/report9_8.php

“Abstract
This Report documents most of the presentations given at an international conference on the Economics of Maine Protected Areas (MPAs) on July 6 to 7, 2000 at the UBC Fisheries Centre. MPAs are areas in a marine habitat that are closed either partially or completely to fishing. They have recently been promoted as complements to traditional fisheries management in the literature. The conference sought to provide a forum for academics, government and private sector actors to present, share ideas, information and models for assessing the benefits of MPAs. The focus of the conference was on the analysis and modelling of economic and social aspects of MPAs. As the papers in this volume show, the presentations were multidisciplinary in scope, covering the state of the art in the analysis of the use of MPAs as management tools for sustainable fisheries.
Results reported at the conference include:
• protecting one of the subpopulations in a stochastic model reduces the sum of squared deviations of catches and effort while the average catch increases;
• to assess the potential benefits of MPAs to fisheries one needs to factor in possible benefits arising from improvements in habitat within reserves, and the lower management costs that MPA implementation could lead to;
• the success of MPAs hinges on the development of economic alternatives for former users of the areas protected;
• if the current fisheries management system is inefficient and no improvement is expected, it is very hard to provide an economic reason for introducing MPAs;
• incorrectly sized or located MPAs may increase the risk of depletion;
• small MPAs with artificial reefs achieve little to avert collapse of fisheries or shift towards catches of low trophic level species;
• accounting for the non-consumptive economic value of fish abundance and size may have a large impact on the economic viability of ecologically functional MPAs;
• in the presence of a limited entry license system, reserve creation can produce a win-win situation where aggregate biomass and the common license price increase;
• MPAs can have differential impacts on the various players involved in a fishery;
• the possibility of spatial heterogeneity in fish stocks implies that an MPA can impact on biodiversity in potentially undesirable ways;
• MPAs can help hedge against uncertainty, especially in cooperatively managed fisheries;
• the precautionary approach in fisheries management implies that economic loss due to the implementation of MPAs will have to be very large to make the establishment of MPAs economically unwise.”

5. International History Of Marine Protected Areas

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9994&page=145
“The concept of protecting marine areas from fishing and other human activities is not new. In the nonmarket economies of island nations in Oceania (Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia), measures to regulate and manage fisheries have been in use for centuries. These include the closing of fishing or crabbing areas, sometimes for ritual reasons but also for conservation when the ruler decided an area had been overfished or needed protection because it served as a breeding ground for fish that would supply the surrounding reefs (Johannes, 1978). In the broader, global context of conventional fisheries management, Beverton and Holt (1957) provided the first formal description of the use of closed areas in fisheries management. This work was in part inspired by the increase in fish stocks observed in the North Sea after World War II when the fishing grounds were inaccessible because of the presence of mine fields. Since then, fishery managers have used closed areas to allow recovery of overfished stocks, to shelter young fish in nursery grounds, to protect spawning and migrating fish in vulnerable habitats, and to deny access to areas where fish or shellfish are contaminated by pollutants or toxins (Rounsefell, 1975; Iverson, 1996).

Marine Reserves and Protected Areas Provide a Strategy for Ecosystem-Based Management
A growing body of literature documents the effectiveness of marine reserves for conserving habitats, fostering the recovery of overexploited species, and maintaining marine communities. There is a rising demand for ecosystem-based approaches to marine management that consider the system as a whole rather than as separable pieces of an interlocking puzzle. Congress recognized this in the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (NOAA, 1996a) –”

6. Protecting the Spawning and Nursery Habitats of Fish: The Use of
MPAs to Safeguard Critical Life-History Stages for Marine Life

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:d6XnFnt4rZ4J:depts.washington.edu/mpanews
/MPA77.pdf+benefits+to+fisheries+of+MPA&hl=en&sig=AFQjCNE-mM0Aw1O43e3WOc6gv5dxrHJTvQ

This article shows how commercially important fish species reproduce in spawning aggregation areas which can have a spill-over effect resulting in fishing enhancement in adjacent areas.

7. MPA NEWS search:
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/mpanews?site=search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&hq=inurl%
3Adepts.washington.edu%2Fmpanews&q=benefits+to+fisheries+of+MPA&btnG=Google+Search

Article #5 is one of many articles in the MPA NEWS out of University of Washington. A search on their site for benefits of marine Protected areas provides this list of references:

8. Towards Networks of Marine Protected Areas: IUCN and WCPA: The MPA Plan of Action for IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas
http://www.protectplanetocean.org/resources/docs/PlanofAction.pdf

“This Plan of Action recognizes that MPAs are a tool, not an end in themselves. They are essential in order to protect marine biodiversity and achieve sustainable fisheries. They provide insurance against the common global problem of failure of conventional fisheries management based on control of fishing effort and/or take. The contrasting combination of the physical connectivity of seawater combined with the increasingly known genetic isolation of marine species means that networks of MPAs are vital tools to support marine ecosystem health. Networks of MPAs, within single ecosystems but spanning entire seas and ocean realms (such as the High Seas), are necessary to ensure that biological connections are maintained between interdependent MPAs. A common example is where larvae from one MPA support populations of one or more species within other MPAs. A comprehensive, adequate and representative system
of MPA networks can provide protection for all major ecosystem components in conjunction
with their characteristic habitats and species at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion. It should have the required level of management to ensure ecological viability and integrity, address the full range of human activities, and be sufficiently duplicative so that a single event, such as an oil spill, would not eradicate that diversity.”

9. Protected Areas, How marine Protected Areas Help Eliminate Poverty
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/protectedareas/howwework/art23185.html
A good example from Fiji of how MPAs can contribute to the social and economic well being of coastal areas in the developing world. Also see the video

10. Marine Protected Areas for the Temperate and Boreal Northwest Atlantic: The Potential for Sustainable Fisheries and Conservation of Biodiversity
Northeastern Naturalist, Vol. 7, No. 4, Symposium Proceedings: History, Status, and Future of the New England Offshore Fishery (2000), pp. 419-434 (article consists of 16 pages)
• Published by: Humboldt Field Research Institute
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3858522

“Abstract
Year-round no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) can enhance conservation of exploited species and biodiversity overall. MPAs have the potential to sustain living marine resources and their support systems at genetic, population-community, ecosystem, and landscape levels. From a fisheries perspective they can protect spawning and nursery areas of key species, maintain age structure (retain older, proportionately more fecund individuals), protect key habitats, and reduce bycatch. MPAs are used sporadically in management of fisheries and are generally based on predicted responses for populations of exploited taxa. However, identification of representative, rare, and high diversity areas of temperate and boreal marine systems, especially on outer continental shelves, is still in its infancy. There is information available from both the scientific literature and from fishers on the life history and behavior of economically important species, on species assemblage patterns, and on physical structure of the marine environment. Such information could be used as a starting point for identifying areas of particular importance to populations or communities of fishes and for the conservation of diversity at the regional scale. Identification of such areas could serve as a basis to design an experimental network of MPAs. Such MPAs, designated for the purpose of maintaining or developing sustainable fisheries, must explicitly be designed within an experimental context, maintaining flexibility for changes in regulations as new information becomes available. Monitoring change in exploited and non-target populations (intra- and inter-guild), habitat complexity indices, and diversity of sentinel taxa (for assessing maintenance of diversity) will be needed to provide feedback to assess the efficacy of MPAs and to recommend changes in the regulatory framework.”

Return to The RRAB Index.

Options on Alternate Configurations of Buffer zones

Posted on by

This file presents several possible configurations of buffer zones for the proposed MPA. It is important to recognize that this is only a proposal from one participant in how boundaries may be modified in the future as new research becomes available:
G. Fletcher, November 20, 2009,

A buffer zone for the MPA would solve several problems.
  • It could help eliminate the uncertainty over the actual reserve boundary, making it possible to monitor activities and report infractions more easily.
  • A buffer zone could ensure that such activities as ocean dumping, bilge discharge or ocean mining would not leave Race Rocks subject to possible future problems.
  • A buffer zone for commercial harvesting in place, would allow food resources of the species of the ecological reserve to be less compromised.
  • By requiring research permits for this area, regulation of all kinds of research can be better directed.
Below are presented a number of possible alternatives for defining a buffer zone. Units could be calculated in nautical miles also. Advantage of a straight side is that it allows accurate navigational points. Disadvantage -distance varies from tower.
#1: 3km square buffer around reserve #2: 4km parallel to reserve #3: 3km circle from reserve
bufferzone1 bufferzone2a bufferzone3-1

Several references mention the advantage of a buffer zone with such statements as “The buffer zones would reduce the likelihood of accidental incursions and would simplify enforcement activities,.”

In addition there will be no overflights by aircraft except where required by emergency operations or by Coast Guard at times acceptable to not interfere with breeding seasons. Cruise ships may not transit inside this 3 Km zone.

Proposals for : Future Modification of the boundaries of the Race Rocks MPA

Posted on by

This file presents several possible configurations of new boundaries for the proposed MPA. It is important to recognize that this is only a proposal from one participant in how boundaries may be modified in the future as new research becomes available:
G. Fletcher, November 20, 2009,
We are proposing that a reconsideration of the boundaries of the MPA be placed on the table for future deliberations. It should be noted that as more research becomes available helping to fill the gaps in knowledge about population distributions in the area, there may be a need to change the boundaries. It is mentioned in several of the references on MPA creation that this is often done to keep up with current scientific knowledge. This is intended to address the issue of the Ecosystem-based approach which is strongly reflected in the Oceans Act of 1998.
Below are three possible variations on the theme of alternate boundaries. The images are followed by a the rationale for consideration of boundary changes.

bathyunderlay11 bathyunderlay4 bathyunderlay5-1
 OPTION 1. A parallel sided shape to encompass most of the distinct reef of the archipelago. The boundary for a buffer zone being at 3 km. OPTION 2. A triangle covering most of the reef but including a section of the blue 100 meters depth. This may be useful for future population transects through the complete depth profile. OPTION 3:
A multiple zoned buffer which may see different designations of use.

There is a possibility that when they have undergone further research, specific zones currently outside of the protected area boundary, may lead to some unique habitat and ecosystem structure. Below are two such candidate areas:

dunes race_rocks_oblique-1 canyon
Two areas of interest in particular are the large sand dune-like area at over 100 meters depth which lie at either end of the Race Passage Canyon. Although there is no evidence currently on what type of ecosystem exists in that area, we should be prepared to have a flexible approach to boundaries in the future, as these land forms and their habitats could be quite unique. In this side profile of the Race Passage area, along the direction of the yellow line, is a geological fault separating Race Rocks from Vancouver Island.
 The canyon, results in vertical topography along with the resulting ecosystems that are probably unique to the reserve. It may be advisable to protect at least the reef-side wall of this feature if research justified it.

Descriptions of the activities permitted and prohibited
in each of the zones of Option 1:

ZONE 1

In Option 1, a basic trapezoid defines the boundaries of the Marine Protected area within which all species ecosystems and their complete habitat are protected. This designation accomplishes objectives which are within the interests of all the stakeholders.1. The complete underwater “reef” of Race Rocks is protected, ensuring that the habitat of key species is not compromised.

2. Speed limits of all vessels transiting or entering the MPA must be reduced to eliminate wash from wakes.

3. Commercial operations would be required to be registered with DFO as is proposed in the Draft proposal for marine mammals.

4. Approach to marine mammals and seabirds is limited to 100 metres and entrance to the area is prohibited except for service vessels when whales are present. In this zone marine vessels must avoid surface concentrations of foraging seabirds and mammals.

5. Recreational fishing would only be permitted outside of this zone.

ZONE 2This is a buffer zone in which no commercial fishing, extractive operations or marine dumping can occur. Bilge pumping is prohibited and In addition there will be no overflights by aircraft except where required by emergency operations or by Coast Guard at times acceptable to not interfere with breeding seasons. Cruise ships may not transit inside this 3 Km zone.See this file for more information and suggestions on BUFFER ZONES

RATIONALE FOR THIS BOUNDARY PROPOSAL
1. Protection of Fish resources only in the Race Rocks MPA is inadequate and contrary to the purpose of an MPA ” To protect marine species and habitats.” It will be very short- sighted to rush through the MPA process without making a serious effort to do what is best and ecologically sustainable for the long term future.
2. In this way, the complete underwater “reef” of Race Rocks is protected, ensuring that the habitat of key species is not compromised, and that optimal conditions are provided for regeneration of species which will repopulate adjacent areas. Species such as Octopus lay eggs at depth and then migrate up the reef when mature. It is essential to take into consideration the 3 dimensional aspect of the habitat of marine species if we are to achieve near-complete habitat protection.
3. The original purpose of the MPA creation at Race Rocks was to eliminate the jurisdictional problems of administering the marine protected area so that the ecosystem would gain better protection in law. Simplifying the boundaries make it more obvious to users of the resources in the area.
4. Fisheries enhancement in adjacent areas will be much stronger if this complete reef refugia is available. Research in many parts of the world has clearly demonstrated this.This reference provides many examples of the research throughout the world on MPA benefits to fisheries enhancement, and biodiversity .
5. The version of the MPA boundaries proposed in September by DFO might result in the following unresolved problems:

  • Marine birds and their foraging habitat in the waters around Race Rocks, and the nesting habitat of four species of seabirds: black oyster catcher, pigeon guillemot, glaucous -winged gull and pelagic cormorant on Race Rocks are not protected by this act because they are covered by different legislation, some provincial, some federal.
  • Intertidal life on the 9+ Race Rocks islands is protected by Ecological reserve status only, and that designation is only a designation by an order in council by the BC legislature, which could be rescinded .
  • No buffer zone to prohibit such activities as ocean dumping, bilge discharge or ocean mining exists, leaving Race Rocks subject to possible future problems.
  • No buffer zone for commercial harvesting is in place, allowing food resources of the ecological reserve species to be compromised.
  • A Marine Protected Area designation does not necessarily assume it is a no-take area for any kind of harvesting, leaving the resources of the area open to exploitation, and the Rockfish Closure, also a temporary designation, the only protection for fishery resources.
  • Three species of marine mammals, Elephant seals, harbour seals and river otters currently use the Race Rocks islands as a breeding and pupping colony. Two other species, northern and Californian sealions use it as a seasonal haulout. Other legislation is still required to protect those species when they are on land.

History of the Boundary Location for Race Rocks MPA and links to references

Posted on by

This proposal outlines the history of the boundary designation for the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve and the proposed boundaries offering protection in subsequent years.

There are also links to other files with proposals for establishment of a buffer zone and future boundary modifications for the proposed MPA.

rrecoreschart
 1.1980: The existing ecological reserve boundaries were established to a depth of 20 fathoms or 36.6 meters. This level was chosen because it was a main contour on the existing marine charts of the day and because it would protect the seabed from overharvesting by divers.
2 1990: Under petitioning from BC parks and the ecological reserve warden, DFO, recognizing the significance of protecting more of the complete ecosystem at Race Rocks established a closure of all the reserve to commercial fisheries and a closure to recreational fishing of bottom fish. Fishing was allowed for transitory species such as salmon and halibut only. This designation proved to be difficult to enforce due to the distinction of types of fishing.
boundarydraft
 3. 2000: In January, the MPA Advisory Board proposed boundaries for the reserve which would have straight sides, easily identifiable with coordinates.
This proposal was rejected by the sports fisheries advisory organization.
append5mapa
 4. 2000: At a meeting of the sports fishing organisation and the Race Rocks Advisory Board members, the MPA advisory process agreed to a complete closure on fisheries within the existing ecological reserve boundary. This was a counterproposal to the new MPA boundaries being proposed, and the Advisory Board accepted that condition. It became part of the Proposal to Designate (Race Rocks) Marine Protected Area : 2000,
coord
 This and the chart above were used to designate coordinates of the area in the first MPA proposal.
rockfishconserve
 5. 2004: The areas in this map were proposed as a Rockfish Protection area by DFO.
rockfishclose
 6. 2004: The actual rockfish protection area established was reduced from the above when it was created by DFO. It is now based on the 40 meter depth. All fishing within that zone was prohibited at that time.
rrmpasept09version1
 7. 2009: At the September 25th, 2009 meeting of the Race Rocks Advisory Board, DFO representatives proposed the modification of the MPA boundaries to correspond to the lines indicated .
bathyunderlay
 8. The chart shown here was produced as a request to overlay the projected boundaries on the multibeam sonar map.
racerocksplan
 9. These 3 multibeam sonar images were produced after the first round of MPA advisory meetings, based on research started in 1999. This was the first time that such a detailed profile of the bottom substrate was available. In this and the image below, the colored area represents the topography down to 150 meters.
3d1
 10. The multibeam sonar image modelled from a southerly viewpoint
race_rocks_oblique 11. With this level of imaging now available, it becomes obvious that the existing ecological reserve boundaries do not adequately reflect the geology and geography of the sea bottom and therefore probably do not adequately protect the complete ecosystem of the reef which surfaces as the Race Rocks archipelago. The files linked below provide suggestions for how we may go about dealing with this factor.
 bufferzone2a Link to proposals options on alternate configurations of Buffer zones
 bathyunderlay11 Link to proposal options on alternate MPA reserve boundaries
This proposal has been submitted by Garry Fletcher, the educational director of racerocks.com, a former biology teacher at Lester Pearson College and the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve warden since the beginning of the reserve in 1980.
Link to this MPA benefits file: This reference provides many examples of the research throughout the world on MPA benefits to fisheries enhancement, and biodiversity )
See the other maps and aerial photos of the area on racerocks.com

Race Rocks Advisory Board Resource Documents

Posted on by

This file is designed for the use of the Race Rocks Advisory Board in order to make available in one index, the resources that are most relevant to the Marine Protected Area Designation Process.

Last update Origin EXISTING VERSION Update version or suggested
changes now in progress– contributions from RRAB members welcome..
2010 DFO DFO Response to RRPAB member questions
2010 Ryan Murphy Draft Socio-Economic Overview: Nov 2010
2010 DFO RRPAB DRAFT Ecological Overview: Nov 2010
2010 DFO Agenda for November 2010 meeting
2010 DFO Draft 1.of Management Plan.
2010 DFO DFO Communications Page with Agenda and Draft or Final version of minutes
( to May 2010 meeting only)
2010 RRPAB Values Input Table Update.Values Input Table of Lester Pearson College (version with embedded links for examples)
2010 rr.com The Race Rocks Marine Protected Area Advisory Board: Index of Events and Documents.
2002 RRAB Draft Management Plan for MPA
2002 PC Parks
2009 DFO Socioeconomic Base Case Update for Race Rocks Proposed Marine Protected Area
1999 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Gaps in research .. RREO workshop 1999
2001 DFO Race Rocks Pilot Marine Protected Area, An Ecological Overview, Wright and Pringle, IOS 2001 25mb PDF file Changes needed- R. Murphy
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Marine Protected Area General References
2002 Sean Leroy LeRoy, S., 2002. Public Process and the Creation of a Marine Protected Area at Race Rocks, British Columbia.
Master’s Thesis. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 First Nations and , the Race Rocks Area includes a link to RRAB involvement .
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Management Issues: INDEX of the environmental disturbances by humans at Race Rocks.
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Ecosystem Index page linking existing inventories, taxonomy and data collection
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Education resources index page
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 MPA benefits
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 MPA boundary history
2009 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Guest research being done at Race Rocks, 1999-2010
2010 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 New updates to the racerocks.com and racerocks.ca site.
2010 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 DFO finances on RRAB Process 1999-2010-index
Condensed version with graphs and summary only.		 reinstalled sept 2, 2011
2010 DFO The Oceans Act, 1996 current to March 25, 2010
2010 DFO
Boundary MAPProposed boundary areas
2010 DFO
Boundary MAPProposed boundary areas detail
2010 rrpa meeting Draft of recommendations from the Meeting called by RRPAB members.
2010 G.Fletcher.
rr.com		 Reflections on the Role of Education and Outreach
in the MPA Designation Process, 1998-2010.
2010 Shaw Ocean Discovery centre The Case for RR MPA in 2010
The Case for Race Rocks Marine Protected Area in 2010

Sebastes flavidus: Yellowtail Rockfish–The Race Rocks Taxonomy

Posted on by

Adam took this photo of Erik swimming through a school of Sebastes flavidus, the yellowtail rockfish on July1, 2010. subtidal 10metres at Race Rocks.


Domain Eukarya
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Sub-Phylum Vertebrata
Class Actinopterygii
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Scorpaenidae
Genus Sebastes
Species flavidus
Common Name: Yellowtail rockfish

 

MArch 2010

Other Members of the Phylum Chordata at Race Rocks 
taxonomyiconReturn to the Race Rocks Taxonomy
and Image File
pearsonlogo2_f2The Race Rocks taxonomy is a collaborative venture originally started with the Biology and Environmental Systems students of Lester Pearson College UWC. It now also has contributions added by Faculty, Staff, Volunteers and Observers on the remote control webcams.

Adam Harding (PC).