CONCLUSIONS This chapter summarizes the ley findings of the report and discusses some of the challenges that are being encountered in establishing MPA networks. 91. PROGRESS IN ESTABLISHING MPA NETWORKS The report does not provide a globally comprehensive review but general conclusions can be drawn, as the many initiatives underway are providing a solid body of experience on how MPA networks can be established in practice, and how the process may need to respond to different needs and priorities. The wide range of approaches and different spatial or geographical scales being used makes comparison difficult but there is much value in the experimentation underway. A key finding is the length of time needed to develop MPA networks, if stakeholders are to be fully involved and if scientific design principles are to be applied. The principle of representation is relatively easy to address, provided adequate classifications and biodiversity distribution (or suitable proxies) are available. However, the principles of adequacy, resilience and connectivity are proving more difficult to incorporate, since specific guidelines on applying them are still lacking due to dearth of clear scientific understanding. 'Rules of thumb' are being used where possible (see LUCNWCPA, 2008a), and the rapid growth of research in this field means that new information is constantly becoming available. 911. NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS OF MPAS Annex 1 summarises the case studies and information provided in Chapters 3-8 and lists 30 national and 35 sub-national MPA network initiatives. The majority of MPA networks are currently under development with very few formally gazetted, and even fewer effectively managed. MPA networks that have been declared and are being implemented are limited mainly to networks that either cover small areas (eg. in the Philippines) or that are part of large management initiatives or multiple-use MPAS (such as the GERMS in Australia). A total of 34 of the 123 countries that have reported to the CBD during the period of 2005-2008 stated that they have a national MPA system (assumed to mean network) in place, and 60 reported that they are developing one (Global Ocean Forum, 2008). However, the CBD reporting process does not require elaboration as to how MPA systems are defined and what criteria are being used. The CBD Programme of Work for the protection of marine biodiversity recognizes the need for at least three levels of spatial planning for MPAS within a country: A core system of No Take Areas (NTAS) within a large MPA. A larger system of multiple-use MPAS, including fishery management areas. A national MPA system embedded within a national integrated coastal management programme and overall management framework for the EEZ. Many countries are starting to take this multi-level approach and develop it further. In terms of the three-tier structure proposed by the CBD, the following conclusions can be drawn: Networks of ANTS: The concept of a core network of ANTS within larger multiple use MPAS is widely accepted, and many MPAS are zoned to include one or more WAS. In some countries, national or state-level networks of ANTS are being developed, such as the Bahamas (section 313), and the state of Victoria in Australia (section 623). This is a useful approach, but raises the question of how the multiple use MPAS that exist in addition to the no-take MPAS will fit into the overall framework. The GERMS in Australia (section 624) and the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary in California (section 344) provide good examples of how the key principles (adequacy, representation, connectivity and resilience) can be used for NTA network establishment. Networks of different types of MPAS: The majority of national MPA networks being developed comprise a range of different types of MPAS including 109