[PPT] - Marine Protected Areas Assessment of management effectiveness of MPA PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Marine Protected Areas

Assessment of management effectiveness of MPA network as a measure for achieving GES for species and habitats in the Baltic Sea region

Karsten Dahl Aarhus University Georg Martin Estonian Marine Institute, Tartu University Darius Daunys Marine Research Institute, Klaipeda University Jannica Haldin HELCOM

SLIDE 2

Management effectiveness evaluation is the assessment of how well protected areas are protecting values and achieving goals and objectives. The management effectiveness reflects three main ‘themes’:

design issues relating to both individual sites and networks;
adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and
delivery of protected area objectives including conservation of values.

What is management effectiveness?

From: Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp

SLIDE 3

General framework for assessing management effectiveness of 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 …

1. general framework developed by

WCPA/IUCN;

2. applicable to the large network of

sites, managed by and distributed across different countries;

3. possible to repeat many times,

flexible enough to expand level of details.

After: Hockings et al. 2006

SLIDE 4

Assessing management effectiveness of the Baltic MPA network: general concept of criteria

Criteria 1: MPA management plan: is there a management measure addressing relevant human activity (i.e. generating important pressure) on protected habitat type / species? Criteria 2: Is the management measure implemented (i.e. administrative action is taken to transfer management measure from the MP to the implementation?) Criteria 3: Is the management measure enforced (i.e. using administrative instruments and defined control measures?)

After: Hockings et al. 2006

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

SLIDE 5

Contribution of MPA’s for achieving GES of species and habitats: how well human activities that generate pressures to important conservation features are managed in terms of measures inclusion into MP, their implementation and enforcement Human activities (pressures) Conservation feature Management measure in MP implementation enforcement

Assessing management effectiveness of the Baltic MPA network: general concept

SLIDE 6

Assessing management effectiveness of the Baltic MPA network: general layout

General conclusions on approach:

1. There are no data sources with

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

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:

SLIDE 7

Assessing management effectiveness of the Baltic MPA network: scoring

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:

Category 1: human activity NOT

ADDRESSED by management measure in the MP;

Category 2: human activity

ADDRESSED by management measure in the MP but NOT LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED;

Category 3: human activity

ADDRESSED by management measure in the management plan, LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED BUT NOT LEGALLY ENFORCED;

Category 4: human activity

ADDRESSED by management measure in the MP, LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED AND ENFORCED. Human activities (pressures), that expert is assessing as relevant (based on expert judgement, scientific evidence, indirect information, etc.) for a given conservation feature in the MPA, are scored.

SLIDE 8

Assessing management effectiveness of the Baltic MPA network: general layout

General conclusions on data:

1. Network of nearly 900 Natura

2000 sites is too large to address all MPA’s at the level of pressures

> 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:

SLIDE 9

Sub-sampling of MPA‘s for the analysis

Country Number of N2000 sites with MP Number of N2000 sites with MP Sub-sampling based on proportion of N2000 sites per country (marine part (>50%)/(<50%)) Marine part >50% Marine part <50%

Sweden 448 (64%) 250 (56%) 198 (44%) 114 (64/50) Denmark 105 (15%) 86 (82%) 19 (18%) 40 (33/7) Finland 59 (8%) 41 (69%) 18 (31%) 18 (12/6) Germany 41 (7%) 30 (73%) 19 (27%) 14 (10/4) Estonia 37 (5%) 28 (72%) 9 (28%) 12 (9/3) SUB-TOTAL 689 435 (63%) 254 (37%) 200+ 11 (+4 LV, 1 LT, + 6 DK MSFD sites) Total: 893 N2000 sites in EEA N2000 database (Dec. 2017)

1. With Management Plans (MP): 694
2. Lithuania - 1 (1 with marine part >50%); Latvia - 4 (2 with marine part >50%); Denmark – 6 MSFD sites
Systematic distribution of MPA’s from south-west to north-east

SLIDE 10

Theme of activity Activity Pressures Cultivation of living resources Marine aquaculture, including infrastructure

Input of nutrients, disturbance to seabed,

Agriculture

Input of nutrients

Forestry

Input of nutrients

Production of energy Land based non-renewable energy generation (fossil fuel and nuclear energy powerplants)

Input of heat, hazardous substances ….

Renewable energy generation (wind, wave and tidal power), including infrastructure

Disturbance to seabed and species, …

Transmission of electricity and communications (cables)

Disturbance to seabed, input of energy and hazardous substances…

Physical restructuring of coastline or seabed Watercourse modifications (e.g. coastal dams, large-scale water deviation)

Disturbance to seabed and species

Coastal defense and flood protection (seawalls, etc.)

Disturbance to seabed and species

Urban and industrial uses Industrial use of oil and gas (industrial plants)

Input of hazardous substances

Waste waters (urban and industrial)

Input of hazardous substances, nutrients…

Human activities

based on HELCOM SOM Platform shortlist of activities and pressures cross-linked with the list of

pressures/activities/threats used in reporting for Habitats Directive Article 17;

altogether 26 human activities, grouped into 11 major groups;

SLIDE 11

Theme of activity Activity Extraction of living resources Fish and shellfish harvesting (bottom-touching towed gears, professional, recreational) Fish harvesting (pelagic towed gears, stationary gears, professional, recreational) Marine plant harvesting Hunting and population control Extraction of non-living resources Extraction of minerals (rock, gravel, sand, shell) Extraction of oil and gas, including infrastructure (e.g. pipelines) Physical restructuring of seabed Offshore structures (bridges, tunnels, other than for oil/gas/renewables) Restructuring of seabed morphology (dredging, beach replenishment, land reclamation, deposition of dredged material) Tourism and leisure Tourism and leisure infrastructure (piers, marinas) Tourism and leisure activity (boating, diving etc. except fishing) Transport Transport infrastructure (harbours, ports) Transport – shipping (incl. anchoring, mooring, oil pollution) Security and defence Military operations (e.g. acoustic tracking) Military shooting areas Education and research Research, exploration (seismic activities)

Selection of Human activities

SLIDE 12

HD Annex I Habitat types:

1. Sandbanks (1110)
2. Estuaries (1130)
3. Mudflats and sandflats (1140)
4. Coastal lagoons (1150)
5. Large shallow inlets and bays (1160)
6. Reefs (1170)
7. Submarine structures made by leaking gases (1180), all included
8. MSFD areas (6 sites, all included)

Conservation features (1)

Option I: We include all the HD Annex I Habitat types and sites appointed to fulfill obligations of MSFD; also HELCOM Red List species categorised as Endangered (EN) or Critically Endangered (CR) which ALSO are listed under BD or HD Annex II or V. – 17 conservation features Option II: We include all the HD Annex I Habitat types and sites appointed to fulfill obligations of MSFD; also HELCOM Red List species categorised as Endangered or Critically endangered which also are listed under BD or HD Annex II or V. > 29 conservation features

SLIDE 13

Conservation features (2)

Species HELCOM Red List 2013 EU Habitats Directive EU Bird Directive Macrophytes: Alisma wahlenbergii VU Annex II, IV) priority species Hippuris tetraphylla EN Annex II, IV Persicaria foliosa EN Annex II, IV Benthic invertebrates: Macroplea pubipennis DD Annex II Fish and lamprey species Anguilla anguilla CR Aspius aspius NT Annex II, V; except the FIN pop. Salmo salar VU Annex II, V; only in fresh water; except FIN Lampetra fluviatilis NT Annex II, V; except FIN and SE pop. Petromyzon marinus VU Annex II except SE pop. Thymallus thymallus CR Annex V Baltic Sea birds: Anser fabalis, EN Annex II Branta bernicla NT Annex II Clangula hyemalis, EN Annex II Gavia stellata, CR Annex I Gavia arctica, CR Annex I Mergus serrator VU Annex II Podiceps auritus VU Annex I Polysticta stelleri EN Annex I Somateria mollissima VU Annex II, III Marine mammals: Phocoena phocoena CR Baltic Sea subpop. Annex II, IV Phoca vitulina VU Annex II, V Lutra lutra NT Annex II, IV

SLIDE 14

Questions to be answered by analysis

We’ll estimate MPA’s contribution to the GES through assessing management effectiveness (listed as management categories 1-4) in a context of management

f 26 human activity for selected conservation features. Following questions will

be answered from the questionnaire data:

what is the share of fully, partly and not managed MPAs?
what conservation features have the highest/the lowest management effectiveness level through MPA?
what human activities are the least/the best managed in MPA?
do we have geographic patterns in management effectiveness?
is the proportion of marine area relative to the total MPA area important for management effectiveness?
do we have adequate management effectiveness for endangered/critically endangered species in MPAs?
what human activities within MPA are managed through other legal instruments but MPA management

plans?

SLIDE 15

Technical implementation

1. Background information (aim, structure, guidance) and questionnaire
nline. Request to countries contact point to facilitate filling the

questionnaires for pre-selected MPAs online

2. Filling up the questionnaires
3. Presentation of the assessment results in the workshop and development
f recommendations for improvement of MPA network effectiveness in

reaching GES June 7, 2019 September, 2019 January-February, 2020