A comprehensive analysis of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas is currently not possible due to the persistent lack of ecological data, particularly on the distribution of species populations and habitats in the North-East Atlantic. In the absence of such data, only basic approaches can be conducted that allow for an assessment to what extent the elements of ecological coherence have not been addressed in the Network of MPAs rather than to determine if they have appropriately been addressed.
For the time being, only coarse assessments of the spatial arrangement of the MPA Network can be applied (OSPAR, 2008b). Results of initial spatial tests (OSPAR, 2012) suggest that the OSPAR Network of MPAs currently is unlikely to be ecologically coherent as the distribution of OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions and biogeographic regions and provinces in the North-East Atlantic remains uneven with
5 The University of York has elaborated these proposals under a contract (2008-2010) provided by the
61
the majority of sites situated generally in coastal waters, particularly in the Greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas. If the MPA Network is generally not well-distributed in space, then it is very likely not connected and/or representative, and probably not
replicated and/or adequate.
However, it might be inferred from the spatial arrangement of OSPAR MPAs particularly in the Greater North Sea, but to some extent also in the Celtic Seas and around the Azores archipelago, as well as in ABNJ/in the High Seas of the Wider Atlantic, that the Network in these areas shows first signs of ecological coherence with regards to representativity, adequacy, replication and connectivity. In these areas, a substantial proportion (adequacy) has been set aside for protection and the range of biogeographic provinces is covered (representativity) by a large number of sites (replication) that are relatively close to each other (connectivity).
This coarse evaluation conducted by OSPAR has to be seen as a first basic step in a multi-staged assessment procedure to evaluate the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of MPAs. More sophisticated tests are currently being developed and tested on a trial basis in the Channel by the OSPAR ICG-MPA. Large-scale implementation of more detailed assessments will, however, only be possible if substantive ecological data is available.
4
Conclusions
Both OSPAR and HELCOM have over the last years made significant progress on developing networks of marine protected areas in the North-East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea, respectively. While the network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs) today covers about 10.3 % of the HELCOM Convention area, the network of OSPAR MPAs encompasses 4.83 % of the OSPAR maritime area. When comparing these figures, one needs to take into account that the OSPAR maritime area is approximately 30 times the size of the Baltic Sea and that about 40 % of the North- East Atlantic is beyond the jurisdiction of coastal States, posing a complex challenge on the OSPAR Commission with regards to establishing MPAs in these areas.
Despite the substantial coverage of the MPA networks of about 48,800 km² in the Baltic Sea and about 655,000 km² in the North-East Atlantic, the common target agreed on in 2003, i.e. to establish an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs, has not yet been reached.
A comprehensive assessment of these networks with regards to their ecological coherence currently remains impracticable. This is mainly due to the insufficient availability of data and information, in particular on the occurrence and distribution of threatened or declining species and habitats as well as on the extent to which these are effectively protected by MPAs, the fundamental shortcomings are yet apparent.
62
The extent and proportion of the diverse biogeographic regions within both the HELCOM and OSPAR Convention areas covered by marine protected areas still shows significant variation and cannot be considered to be adequate throughout both regional seas. The uneven distribution of BSPAs and OSPAR MPAs accounts for an inadequate representation of the various biogeographic regions, leaving in particular offshore areas largely without spatial protection. Furthermore, the extensive spatial distances between individual sites in some regions apparently impair their connectivity. With a view to make further progress towards achieving the common target, the respective expert groups of OSPAR and HELCOM recommend:
to improve monitoring and data collation with regards to the occurrence and distribution of species and habitats in the North-East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea; EU Member States not to limit their identification of protected areas only to
nominating Natura 2000 sites, but rather to identify further sites on the basis of the more comprehensive selection criteria agreed on by OSPAR and HELCOM;
to systematically identify and establish further MPAs/BSPAs in offshore areas (i.e. Exclusive Economic Zones) and those biogeographic regions which are still underrepresented in the respective networks; and
to enhance efforts towards developing and implementing specific and effective management measures for the existing MPAs/BSPAs taking into account the guidelines agreed on by OSPAR and HELCOM.
5
References
BALANCE (2008): Ecological coherence and principles for MPA assessment, selection and design. BALANCE Technical Summary Report PART 3/4.
Dinter, W. P. (2001): Biogeography of the OSPAR Maritime Area. A Synopsis and Synthesis of Biogeographical Distribution Patterns described for the North-East Atlantic. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.Bonn, Germany. pp167.
Hägerhäll, B. & Skov, H. (1998): Proposal for offshore Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs). Epert-Report to HELCOM EC-NATURE (unpublished).
HELCOM (2010a): Towards an ecologically coherent network of well-managed Marine Protected Areas - Implementation report on the status and ecological coherence of the HELCOM BSPA network. Executive Summary. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 124A – Helsinki (Helsinki Commission)
63
HELCOM (2010b): Towards an ecologically coherent network of well-managed Marine Protected Areas - Implementation report on the status and ecological coherence of the HELCOM BSPA network. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 124B – Helsinki (Helsinki Commission). HELCOM (2009): Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 116B– Helsinki (Helsinki Commission).
HELCOM (2007): Assessment on the ecological coherence of the network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas. HELCOM 28/2007 Doc. 3/13(Helsinki Commission).
HELCOM (2006): Planning and management of Baltic Sea Protected Areas: guidelines and tools. – Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. 105 – Helsinki (Helsinki Commission).
HELCOM (1996): Coastal and marine protected areas in the Baltic Sea region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. 63 – Helsinki (Helsinki Commission).
OSPAR (2003a): OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas.http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00180302000011_000000_000000. OSPAR (2003b): Guidelines forthe Identification and Selection of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Reference Number: 2003-17.
OSPAR (2003c): Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Reference Number: 2003-18.
OSPAR (2006): Guidance on Developing an Ecologically Coherent Network of OSPAR Marine Protected Areas. Reference Number: 2006-3.
OSPAR (2008a): OSPAR List of Threatened and/or declining Species and Habitats. Reference Number: 2008-6.
OSPAR (2008b): Background document on three initial spatial tests used for assessing the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA Network. Biodiversity Series. Publication Number 360/2008.
OSPAR (2010): The North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy. Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 2010– 2020. OSPAR Agreement 2010-3.
OSPAR (2012): 2011 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. Biodiversity Series. OSPAR Publication Number: 577/2012.
Von Nordheim, H., Boedeker, D., Packeiser, T. & Ranft, S. (2011): Netzwerke von Meeresschutzgebieten im Nordostatlantik und in der Ostsee – Ziele für 2010 erreicht? – Natur u. Landschaft 86 (9/10): 388-396.
65