Simulación de la fachada anterior con Straus7:

Germany acted within the HELCOM framework as lead country for BSPAs and was therein supported by the HELCOM secretariat. They presented the 2010 assessment to the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2010 in Moscow. The ministers acknowledged in their declaration what had been reached so far, in particular that in the year of biological diversity HELCOM had reached the 10% target of the CBD, but were aware: • “that despite the designation of many new BSPAs, an ecologically coherent network

has not been reached so far;

• that not all relevant Natura-2000 sites and only few offshore sites beyond territorial waters were designated as BSPAs; and

• that a number of important species, habitats, marine landscapes and ecological processes are thus still not receiving sufficient spatial protection…”

54

• “to secure the establishment of a network of BSPAs that fulfills the criteria of ecological coherence (representativeness, replication, adequacy and connectivity) and thereby contributes to the protection of the entire ecosystem;

• that where appropriate, the Contracting States identify additional BSPAs at the latest by the end of 2011 taking into account respective proposals for potential BSPAs to be elaborated by HELCOM HABITAT and using the information provided by the actual assessment of HELCOM, including the results of the site-selection analysis, and to designate the identified sites finally at HELCOM HABITAT 14/2012; in doing so, to focus on:

• the needs for providing protection to species and habitats identified in HELCOM as being threatened or declining, and for the EU Member States taking into account the obligations stemming from the Birds and Habitats Directives and their Annexes as well as the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and especially;

• including off-shore areas also in the Exclusive Economic Zone with the aim that BSPAs not only cover a total of at least 10% of the Baltic Sea Area as a whole, but also when scientifically justified, at least 10% of all its sub-basins, following the COP 7 10%- decisions;

• to develop and apply by 2015, management plans and/or measures for already existing BSPAs; and that every new BSPA designation should within five years be followed by the establishment of a management plan and/or measures…”

So far (June 2012) no additional BSPAs were designated by the HELCOM states, but some new designations are under preparation (Minutes of HELCOM HABITAT 14, 2012: www.helcom.fi).

3

History and status of the OSPAR network of MPAs in the North-East

Atlantic

3.1. History

Following the Joint HELCOM-OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in 2003 and the subsequent adoption of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 setting out the goal to establish an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs by 2010 (OSPAR, 2003a), OSPAR Contracting Parties enhanced their cooperation in the North-East Atlantic.

The aims of the OSPAR MPA Network have been set out as

 to protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which

have been adversely affected by human activities;

 to prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological

55

 to protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and

ecological processes in the maritime area.

With a view to support and harmonize the respective national efforts and activities, a series of technical and methodological guidelines and guidance documents has been developed and agreed upon by the OSPAR Commission. These include a biogeographic classification of the OSPAR maritime area (DINTER, 2001), a list of

threatened and /or declining species and habitats in the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR, 2008a), guidelines and criteria for the identification and selection of MPAs (OSPAR, 2003b), guidance on developing an ecologically coherent network of MPAs (OSPAR, 2006), as well as guidelines for the management of MPAs (OSPAR, 2003c).

Elaboration of these guiding documents has been the responsibility of the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas (OSPAR ICG-MPA), convened and chaired by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). This group, consisting of experts nominated by representatives of Contracting Parties as well as Non-Government Organizations and scientific institutions, in addition supports the identification of MPAs, in particular in areas beyond the jurisdiction of Contracting Parties, and monitors overall progress in the North-East Atlantic.

Furthermore, an OSPAR MPA database has been established and is being maintained by BfN, holding available information on those MPAs reported to or collectively agreed by the OSPAR Commission and thereby providing the basis for the annual progress reports on the establishment of the OSPAR Network of MPAs prepared by BfN and published by the OSPAR Commission (latest published report: OSPAR, 2012).

In 2010, the Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission (Bergen, Norway) evaluated progress with regards to the agreed target. OSPAR Contracting Parties and observer organizations identified significant gaps with regards to the overall coverage, representativity and connectivity of the MPA Network in the North-East Atlantic and therefore agreed upon revised targets for its completion as a key element of work within the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (OSPAR, 2010):

 to fill OSPAR MPA network gaps and ensure its ecological coherence by 2012; and  _{to ensure adequate management of OSPAR MPAs reported by 2010 until 2015.}