Assessing MPA Management Effectiveness in the Baltic Sea HELCOM - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Assessing MPA Management Effectiveness in the Baltic Sea

HELCOM ACTION Work Package 3

By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Gen eneral f l framework f for

• r a

asses essing m management effect ectiven enes ess o

• f MPA’s

Evaluation criteria 1 – score X Evaluation criteria 2 – score X … Evaluation criteria 3 – score X Evaluation criteria 4 – score X … Evaluation criteria 5 – score X Evaluation criteria 6 – score X … General principles for the method development and assessment:

• 1. The method follows general

framework developed by WCPA/IUCN;

• 2. The method should be applicable to

the large network of sites, managed by and distributed across different countries;

• 3. Should be repeatedly applicable,

flexible enough to expand level of details.

After: Hockings et al. 2006

By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Asses essing m management e effect ctiv iveness o

• f th

the B Baltic ic MPA A networ

• rk: g

gener eral c concep cept o t of criteria

Criteria 1: MPA management plan: is there a management measure addressing important pressure on protected habitat type / species? Criteria 2: Is the management measure implemented? Criteria 3: Is the management measure enforced?

After: Hockings et al. 2006

Criteria 4: Has the management measure positive effect on protected habitat / species?

By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Asses essing m management e effect ctiv iveness o

• f th

the B Baltic ic MPA A networ

• rk: infor
• rmati

tion

• n s

source ce

General conclusions on data:

• 1. There are no data sources with

ready information on all three stages of the MEE -> questionnaire;

• 2. Network of nearly 800 Natura

2000 sites (nearly 300 HELCOM MPAs) is too large to address all MPA’s at a high level of details

• > subsample of MPA’s for

analysis;

MPA (Country/H-number) Habitats Area (km2) Eutrophication Trawling Dredging Gill net fishery … Sandbanks 1110 15 1 2 4 Estuaries 1130 2 1 3 Reefs 1170 3,5 4 4 4 MFSD habitats 4 4 Species Harboir poirpoise =MPA area 2 Long-tailed Ducks =MPA area 1 …………. =MPA area Pressures

Example of questionnaire:

1 Not adressed by measure under management plan 2 Adressed by measure under management plan but not implemented 3 Adressed by measure under management plan, implemented, but not enforced 4 Adressed by measure under management plan, implemented and enforced

By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Workplan for method testing and development of the report 2. “Assessing management effectiveness

• f the Baltic Sea MPA network: 2. results of the method application”

Set-up of the questionnaire:

• Define pressures
• Select criteria for subsampling of MPA’s
• Prepare questionnaire format and content (April 14, 2019)
• Present in the “State & Conservation” meeting

MEE testing on MPA network scale based on analysis of Questionnaires (aggregation of information per feature, …) Extrapolation of gained knowledge to the entire Baltic MPA network Conservation aims for the network … Demonstration of extended MEE (pressure - management measures – state) for selected MPA’s

• Case study I: Assessment of a group of MPA’s (reefs in Kattegat)

full assessment incl. link between pressure (eutrophication) and state criteria (coverage of marcophytes in reefs)

• Case study II: Assessment of single MPA (reefs in the Baltic Proper)

full assessment incl. link between pressure (invasive species) and state criteria (biomass of blue mussels M. edulis and density of Long-tailed Ducks Clangula hyemalis)

• Case study III: ? (northern Baltic) (different pressure / different conservation feature)

Gaps in data and limitations of the assessment Conclusions -> Recommendations