Section 9: Conclusions approaches and lack of guidelines for regional MPA networks however are obstacles to measuring progress. It may be valuable to look at the ways in which the different types of region (such as NEW RAPS, ecoregions, seascapes) are being used for systematic conservation planning, and whether there would be value in attempting to harmonise some of the approaches. 913. NETWORKS OF INTERNATIONALLY DESIGNATED MPAS The World Heritage and Wetland Conventions (Ramsar) and the international MAB Programme both contribute to the development of the global MPA network. MPA networks may include one or more sites with international designations, or an entire network may lie within a larger internationally designated area. The World Heritage Convention allows for the nomination of 'serial' or 'cluster' sites, which means that several protected areas, or a network, linked by a common theme or feature may together form the WHS. Thus the Belize Barrier Reef WHS comprises seven MPAS, rather than the entire Barrier Reef. The potential for cluster nominations is helping to drive the establishment of ecologically representative and resilient MPAS in Indonesia, as well as the CAR network managed by Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Panama. No analysis of WHSS has been undertaken to assess the extent to which the network is ecologically coherent (this is of course not a stated objective of the Convention, since it deals with 'unique' locations). An analysis of marine and coastal Ramsar Sites to assess their representativity in relation to the MEOW classification showed that 92% of the realms in the MEOW classification are represented, but only 73% of provinces and 52% of ecoregions. About 112 ecoregions have no Ramsar representation, including four in the temperate North Atlantic (Spalding et al, 2007). PAMPAS will be another form of international designation and as described in section 83, these are being planned using a systematic approach and knowledge gained from the development of networks in waters under national jurisdiction. 914. SOCIAL MPA NETWORKS Networks of individuals, such as managers and other MPA practitioners, and of MPA 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 at the regional and national levels, there are now many social and learning networks (Table 92). The LIMA networks in the Pacific demonstrate how social networks, although initially based around groups of MPAS that are not linked in an ecologically meaningful way, can contribute to and accelerate the rapid development of ecological MPA networks. Inter-regional networks of MPA practitioners may also be of value; for example, an Ibero-american Network of Marine Reserves (FIRM) is reportedly being established to exchange information. Social and learning networks are generally a key aspect of the successful management of an ecological MPA network, as demonstrated by the Philippines (section 522). Table 92. Examples of social MPA networks Regional Caribbean MPA Managers Network and Forum (CAMPAM) North American MPA Network (NAMPAN) Mediterranean Protected Area Network (MEDIAN) Proposed WIOMSA network of MPA professionals Regional Network of Protected Coastal and Marine Areas in the South-east Pacific Tropical Eastern Pacific Marine Corridor Network (MAR or Corredor Marino) Pacific Local Marine Management Area (LIMA) Network National Philippine MPA Support Network Vietnam social MPA Network Fiji LIMA Network Ecuador Grupo Nacional de Trabajo sobre Biodiversidad Marina 92. PROGRESS IN ADOPTING PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS The previous section showed that in many countries and regions, establishment of MPAS is being 'scaled up' to create networks. This section looks at the extent to which these networks are being set up using the principles and criteria that are being promoted, focusing on the four key criteria: adequacy, representation, resilience and connectivity. Several regions and countries have also developed their own sets of criteria and principles. Thus, for the North-east Atlantic, four criteria were established for assessing whether the OSPAR network of MPAS (see section 75 and Appendix 3) is ecologically coherent: adequacy, representativity, replication and connectivity (MASH, 2006). Four criteria have also been developed for the proposed network of MPAS in the Sulu-sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (section 521): representation, viability, resilience and ecological and evolutionary processes. Australia has developed a set of INCA principles (section 62). 113