Guidance report: Methodology for the assessment of ecological coherence of MPA’s Henk Wolters henk.wolters@deltares.nl 30 October 2014

Project consortium

Goal and scope From the service request: So: To develop a harmonised methodology for the evaluation by the European Commission of the coherence, adequacy and representativity of the EU networks of MPAs So: We present a method for the evaluation of MPA’s, not evaluation results We focus on existing networks of MPA’s, not on planned new MPA’s We focus on MPA’s, not on other (even if related) spatial measures

(bold) and in total ten sub-criteria: Proposed criteria (1) Ecological coherence is the over-arching concept, defined by four main criteria (bold) and in total ten sub-criteria: Proposed criteria based on the ‘common ground’ of the four RSC’s, and CBD Representativity Replication Coverage in marine region Number of sites per feature Coverage in Member State waters Connectivity Representativity of sub-regions Connectivity of MPAs Representativity of depth zones Adequacy Representativity of habitats MPA size Representativity of species Level of protection

Proposed criteria (2) Changes compared to the report, based on the discussions in the MPA workshop: Further elaboration on and inclusion of the criteria used in the RSC’s Proposal for inclusion of (seven) management levels as a subcriterion of adequacy; based on / adapted from IUCN management levels Management measures and practices left outside the scope here, for separate evaluation Inclusion of replication as a fourth main criterion

Key features of the proposed method Two types of analysis are proposed: a basic method (using GIS data and a database on the presence of features) and a more detailed method (requiring data on pressures, mapped features, and legal basis) The method can be used on any scale, data availability being the most prominent constraint The relevant features of the subcriteria are calculated separately Aggregation within each subcriterion is by calculating a weighted average Aggregation of the four main criteria is by One-Out-All-Out Uncertainty (in data, targets and method) is explicitly taken into account

Steps in the proposed methodology The methodology follows a step-wise approach:

Steps in the proposed methodology The methodology follows a step-wise approach. Illustrated here: Main Criteria Connectivity and Adequacy

Case study in the Baltic Sea The method was applied in the Baltic Sea. Some calculation results:

Case study in the Baltic Sea - example

Conclusions (1) Project results: Operational definitions of criteria for the assessment method Suggestion for management levels Proposal for assessment method for ecological coherence of MPA’s in Europe usable for various scales of analysis usable in various degrees of data-richness shows the effect of using more and less ambitious targets incorporates uncertainties as operational elements These are building blocks in a wider development. A lot needs to be done. A list of identified knowledge gap is included in section 4.1. We have suggested a tentative time-frame in section 4.3 (sheet 14 for summary) .

Conclusions (2) Process-wise: After the MPA workshop of May 2014, a number of MSs have expressed their concerns, about usefulness of the results, if results will match their expectations, if results will help the ongoing processes etc. To the degree possible we have addressed these comments, but not fully – due to time and budget constraints. In section 4.2 we have tried to summarize these issues, hoping this will help to find a forum to fully address them.

Follow-up recommendations Short term: Start using the method! Carry out pilots for all European marine regions, report, and exchange experiences. Start monitoring efforts to describe the base levels, where not available. Develop operational indicators to connect criteria for the assessment of MPA's with the MSFD-GES criteria. Mid term: In general: promote monitoring and research activities that help reducing the uncertainties in the assessment methods. Develop databases on the spatial distribution of conservation features. Develop monitoring, assessment and databases of anthropogenic pressures.

Towards finalization of the deliverable Presentations, feedback comments and final deliverable 11 October: Presentation WG GES by EC 30 October: Presentation WG MEG by Consortium 12 November: Feedback comments draft Guidance report to EC 10/11 November: Presentation MSCG by EC 12 November: Feedback of all comments to Deltares 4 December 2014: Final deliverable Guidance report by Consortium 6 oktober 2014