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

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 or a asses essing m management effect ectiven enes ess o of MPA’s Evaluation criteria 1 – score X General principles for the method Evaluation criteria 2 – score X … 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. Evaluation criteria 3 – score X Evaluation criteria 5 – score X Evaluation criteria 4 – score X … Evaluation criteria 6 – score X … After: Hockings et al. 2006 By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Asses essing m management e effect ctiv iveness o of th the B Baltic ic MPA A networ ork: 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 Criteria 4: habitat type / species? Has the management measure positive effect on protected habitat / species? Criteria 3: Criteria 2: Is the management measure Is the management enforced? After: Hockings et al. 2006 measure implemented? By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019

Asses essing m management e effect ctiv iveness o of th the B Baltic ic MPA A networ ork: infor ormati tion on s source ce Example of questionnaire: General conclusions on data: MPA (Country/H-number) Pressures 1. There are no data sources with Habitats Area (km2) Eutrophication Trawling Dredging Gill net fishery … ready information on all three Sandbanks 1110 15 1 2 4 Estuaries 1130 2 1 3 stages of the MEE -> Reefs 1170 3,5 4 4 4 questionnaire; MFSD habitats 4 4 2. Network of nearly 800 Natura Species 2000 sites (nearly 300 HELCOM Harboir poirpoise =MPA area 2 MPAs) is too large to address all Long-tailed Ducks =MPA area 1 MPA’s at a high level of details …………. =MPA area -> subsample of MPA’s for 1 Not adressed by measure under management plan analysis; 2 Adressed by measure under management plan but not implemented 3 Adressed by measure under management plan, implemented, but not enforced By HELCOM staff 4 Adressed by measure under management plan, implemented and enforced Friday, May 10, 2019

Workplan for method testing and development of the report 2. “Assessing management effectiveness of 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 By HELCOM staff Friday, May 10, 2019