Abstract
As MPA networks continue to grow worldwide, decision makers and the public will need to be kept informed regarding progress made in meeting the underlying ecological goals of the networks. The twelve coastal European nations of the OSPAR Commission have agreed to establish within the waters of the Northeast Atlantic an “ecologically coherent” network of marine protected areas by 2010. An initial set of 81 MPAs in the Northeast Atlantic was accepted by the OSPAR Commission in June 2006, and as of 31 December 2006 six additional sites have been put forward. They amount to approximately 26,500 km2, submitted by six of the twelve coastal nations. The job of assessing their ecological coherence has proven to be a difficult issue, and one that has not been attempted before. Assessment techniques that can cope with data-poor situations will prove most helpful, and with this in mind, three general approaches that can be used in data-poor situations and four specific examples of assessment techniques, are presented in this paper. Additionally, a brief summary of the current status of the OSPAR MPA network is provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
BALANCE-HELCOM, 2006. BALANCE-HELCOM Work-shop on Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs in the Baltic Sea and the North East Atlantic, 25th–27th of October 2006, Helsinki, Finland. Final minutes from the meeting.
Bull, K. S. E. & D. ďA. Laffoley, 2003. Networks of Protected Areas in the Maritime Environment. A Report for the Review of Marine Nature Conservation and the Marine Stewardship Process on a Stakeholder Workshop held in London on 19 June 2003. Peterborough: English Nature Research Reports, No 537, 35 pp. http://www.english-nature. org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/537.pdf.
CSAS, 2005. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Framework for Classification, and Characterization of Scotia-Fundy Benthic Habitats. Science Advisory Report 2005/071. http:// www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csa/Csas/status/2005/SAR-AS-2005_071_E.pdf.
Day, J. C. & J. C. Roff, 2000. Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas: A Framework for Canada’s Oceans. Report Prepared for World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto.
Diamond, J. M., 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129.
Dinter, W. P., 2001. Biogeography of the OSPAR Maritime Area. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn: 167 pp.
EC Birds Directive, 1979. European Commission Council Directive 74/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. http:// europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1979/en_1979L0409_do_001.pdf.
EC Habitats Directive, 1992. European Commission Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legi slation/habitats_directive/index_en.htm.
Gains, S. D., B. Gaylor & J. L. Largier, 2003. Avoiding current oversights in marine reserve design. Ecological Applications 13: S32–S46.
Game, M., 1980. Best shape for nature reserves. Nature 287: 630–632.
Good, J. A. 1998. The potential role of ecological corridors for habitat conservation in Ireland: a review. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 2, 72 pp. http://www.npws.ie/Publications Literature/AllPublications/file,2388, en.pdf.
Halpern, B., 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does size matter? Ecological Applications 13: S117–S137.
HELCOM, 2005. Helsinki Commission, Nature Protection and Biodiversity Group, seventh meeting Kalmar, Sweden, 10–14 October 2005. Status Report on Analysis of Ecological Coherence of the Network of Baltic Sea Protected Areas. HABITAT 5.2/7 http://sea.helcom.fi/dps/docs/documents/ Nature%20Protection%20and%20Biodiversity%20Group% 20(HABITAT)/HABITAT%207,%202005/5.2-7.pdf.
ICES, 2004. ICES response to EC request for information and advice about appropriate ecoregions for the implementation of an ecosystem approach in European waters. http://www. ices.dk/committee/acfm/comwork/report/2005/ace%20 advice/ICES%20Eco-regions%20advice%20to%20EC %202004.pdf.
JMM, 2003. Joint Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions (JMM). Declaration of the Joint Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki, and OSPAR Commissions. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) and OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, Bremen: 25–26 June 2003. JMM 2003/3.www.ospar.org.
Laffoley, D.ďA., S. Brockington & P.M. Gilliland. Developing the concepts of Good Environmental Status and Marine Ecosystem Objectives: Some Important Considerations. English Nature, Peterborough, English Nature Research Report, 29 pp, in press.
OSPAR, 2003. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Bremen, 23–27 June 2003. Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas. OSPAR 03/17/1-E; Annex 9.
OSPAR, 2005. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Working Group on Marine Protected Areas. Species and Habitats, Bristol, 3–7 Oct. 2005. MASH 05 Summary Record, Annex 7.
OSPAR, 2006a. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Stockholm, 26–30 June 2006. OSPAR briefing note. OSPAR 06/3/4; Annex B.
OSPAR, 2006b. 2005/2006 Report on the Status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. Publication Number: 268/2006.www.ospar.org.
OSPAR, 2006c. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Biodiversity Committee. Trondheim, 13–17 March 2006. Guidance on Developing an Ecologically Coherent Network of OSPAR Marine Protected Areas. BDC 06/3/7.
OSPAR, 2006d. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Working Group on Marine Protected Areas, Species and Habitats, Horta, 2–5 Oct. 2006. Criteria and Guidelines for Assessing whether the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas is Ecologically Coherent. MASH 06/5/3.
OSPAR, 2007a. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Intersessional Group on Marine Protected Areas, Secretariat, London, 5–7 Feb. 2007. DRAFT 2006/2007 Report on the status of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. ICG-MPA 07/02/01-rev.
OSPAR, 2007b. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Intersessional Group on Marine Protected AReas, Secretariat, London, 5–7 Feb. 2007. Background Document to Support the Assessment of Whether the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas is Ecologically coherent. ICG-MPA 07/03/01-rev.
OSPAR, 2007c. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Intersessional Group on Marine Protected Areas, Sectetariat, London, 5–7 Feb 2007. Rapid Self-assessment Checklist for Ecological Coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. ICG-MPA 07/03/02-rev.
OSPAR, 2007d. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, Meeting of the Intersessional Group on Marine Protected Areas, Secretariat, London, 5–7 Feb. 2007. A Matrix Approach to Assessing the Ecological Coherence of the OSPAR MPA Network ICG-MPA 07/03/03.
Rampal, S. E. & J. A. Heesterbeek, 2000. On optimal size and number of reserves for metapopulation persistence. Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 33–50.
Spalding, M., H. Fox, N. Davidson Z. Ferdana, B. Halpbern, M. Jorge, A. Lombana, S. Lourie, K. Martin, E. McManus, J. Molnar, K. Newman, C. Recchi, J. Robertson, 2006. Global coastal and marine biogeographic regionalization as a support tool for implementation of CBD programmes of work. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/INF/34. http://www.biodiv.org/ doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/information/cop-08-inf-34-en.pdf.
STRA-REP, 1998. National and Regional Approaches for Ecological Networks in Europe: Document Presented by Rob H. G. Jongman (Wageningen, The Netherlands) and I. B. Kristiansen (Roskilde, Denmark), and submitted by ECNC Committee of experts for the Development of the Pan-European Ecological Network. Strasbourg, 6 May 1998. STRA-REP (18). http://www.strategyguide.org/ docs/rep98e18.doc.
Zacharias, M. A., D. E. Howes, J. R. Harper & P. Wainwright, 1998. The British Columbia marine ecosystem classification: rationale, development, and verification. Coastal Management 26: 105–124.
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA: 663 pp plus appendices.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ardron, J.A. (2008). The challenge of assessing whether the OSPAR network of marine protected areas is ecologically coherent. In: Davenport, J., et al. Challenges to Marine Ecosystems. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol 202. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8808-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8808-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8807-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8808-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)