Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The challenge of assessing whether the OSPAR network of marine protected areas is ecologically coherent

  • CHALLENGES TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BALANCE-HELCOM, 2006. BALANCE-HELCOM Workshop 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. d’A. 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/csas/Csas/status/2005/SAR-AS2005_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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 79/409/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_legislation/habitats_directive/index_en.htm.

  • Gains, S. D., B. Gaylord & J. L. Largier, 2003. Avoiding current oversights in marine reserve design. Ecological Applications 13: S32–S46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Game, M., 1980. Best shape for nature reserves. Nature 287: 630–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/PublicationsLiterature/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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/committe/acfm/comwork/report/2005/ace%20advice/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.d’A., 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, Secretariat, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA: 663 pp plus appendices.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments on the initial draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Isle of Vilm, 18581, Putbus, Ruegen, Germany

    Jeff A. Ardron

Authors
  1. Jeff A. Ardron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff A. Ardron.

Additional information

Guest editors: J. Davenport, G. Burnell, T. Cross, M. Emmerson, R. McAllen, R. Ramsay & E. Rogan

Challenges to Marine Ecosystems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ardron, J.A. The challenge of assessing whether the OSPAR network of marine protected areas is ecologically coherent. Hydrobiologia 606, 45–53 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9348-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9348-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation