Executive Summary fully involved and scientific design principles applied. Although some MPA networks are being designed to be implemented as a single package, as in some states in Australia, USA and Canada, a step-wise process is often more practical. Pilot areas can be implemented, lessons learnt, and the network progressively built up, the plan being refined as information, funding and capacity becomes available. The establishment of clear goals and objectives for the network is essential. The main issue is often deciding whether the network is primarily for biodiversity protection or for resource management for human use (such as fisheries management), since different approaches may be required. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (LUCN) Protected Area Management Categories can be used to ensure that MPAS with a range of objectives are incorporated into a network, as demonstrated by Cuba and Australia. An MPA network will also often consist of sites under different forms of governance. Although individual MPAS need to work together so that overall goals and objectives are achieved, if an MPA network is to function fully, the sites do not necessarily have to be managed in the same way. The LUCN typology of governance types (divided into four categories: Government managed; Co-managed; Private; and Community managed) may provide a useful tool for the development of MPA networks. SOCIAL NETWORKS Social and learning networks, comprising managers and other MPA practitioners and linking different institutions, are essential catalysts and facilitators for the development of ecological networks of MPAS. At the global level, WCPA-MARINE provides an umbrella network of experts, and numerous social networks are being established at regional and national levels. Examples include the Locally Managed Marine Area (LIMA) network in the Pacific, the Caribbean MPA Managers Network and Forum (CAMPAM), the Mediterranean Protected Area Network (MEDIAN), and national social networks in the Philippines and Vietnam. RECOMMENDATIONS These reflect Resolution CGR4MOT067, passed at the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona, October 2008: 1. Clarify terminology and harmonise approaches: Common terms need to be agreed and clear definitions and standardized nomenclature should be developed to facilitate monitoring of progress. WCPA-MARINE, with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), has already started this process through the production of its guidelines, and other organizations such as the CBD Secretariat should be consulted to ensure an agreed approach. For example, use of terms such as 'marine and coastal protected areas' (MAPS) and 'fully protected' MPAS need clarification. Further guidance is needed on how the different types of MPA network, such as those comprising HAS only or those that exclude sites with very little sub-tidal habitat, can contribute to broader marine spatial planning approaches. 2. Strengthen capacity for MPA network establishment: Capacity building is needed at both individual and institutional levels. Technical support, training, and the development of tools and resources must be expanded, methodologies for MPA network and systematic conservation planning should be promoted and disseminated, and additional guidelines and materials produced where necessary. Greater awareness of the benefits of and reasons for MPA networks will increase support from all stakeholders. The compilation of case studies and lessons learned should be encouraged and facilitated, and shared between countries and regions. Social networks facilitating the sharing of experiences, challenges and successes amongst regions should be enhanced through workshops, study tours and twinning arrangements, and electronic networking. Organization including LUCN, the CBD, UNE-RSP, international NGOS, and donors have a role to play in building capacity for MPA network development, and initiatives such as the Marine Learning Partnership that was established by TNC, CI, Wildlife Conservation Society (WAS) and WWF, should be encouraged.