1. Guidance report: Methodology for the assessment of ecological coherence of MPA’s
Henk Wolters
30 October 2014

2. Project consortium

3. 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

4. (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

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

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

10. Case study in the Baltic Sea - example

11. 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) .

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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