Biodiversity Series

An assessment of the ecological coherence of
the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas
in 20122013

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
OSPAR Convention

Convention OSPAR

The Convention for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the North‐East
Atlantic (the “OSPAR Convention”) was
opened for signature at the Ministerial
Meeting of the former Oslo and Paris
Commissions in Paris on 22 September 1992.
The Convention entered into force on 25
March 1998. The Contracting Parties are:
Belgium, Denmark, the European Union,
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom.

La Convention pour la protection du milieu
marin de l'Atlantique du Nord‐Est, diteConvention OSPAR, a été ouverte à lasignature à la réunion ministérielle desanciennes Commissions d'Oslo et de Paris, àParis le 22 septembre 1992. La Convention est
entrée en vigueur le 25 mars 1998. Les
Parties Contractantes sont : l'Allemagne,
la Belgique, le Danemark, l’Espagne,
la Finlande, la France, l’Irlande, l’Islande,le Luxembourg, la Norvège, les Pays‐Bas,le Portugal, le Royaume‐Uni de Grande
Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord, la Suède, laSuisse et l’Union européenne

Acknowledgement
This report has been prepared by Johnson, D., Ardron, J., Billett, D., Hooper, T. and Mullier, T. from
Seascape Consultants Ltd.

Photo acknowledgement:
Cover page: ©John Dunn

2

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Contents
Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 6
Récapitulatif ................................................................................................................................... 7
Scope of work ................................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Guidance to date ............................................................................................................................ 12
Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 15
Level 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Level 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Level 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Level 2 (Regional and sub‐Regional scale) ..................................................................................... 33
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Level 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 49
Level 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 53
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 60
Next steps ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Proportionate assessments ............................................................................................................ 65
Necessary data sets ........................................................................................................................ 65
Closing the gaps: Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) ........................................ 67
An OSPAR Sub‐Region specific approach ....................................................................................... 67
Developing planning scenarios using decision support tools ........................................................ 67
Suggested Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 68
References .................................................................................................................................... 69
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Annex 1: Note of OSPAR Ecological Coherence Focus Group meeting ................................................. 71
Annex 2: Data sets that have been used within the analyses ............................................................... 74
Annex 3: Assumptions and Uncertainties regarding protection............................................................ 75

List of figures
Figure 1.

The OSPAR MPA network analysed to proximity thresholds of 1000 km (High Seas),
500 km (Offshore) and 250 km (Nearshore) ..................................................................... 22

Figure 2.

The OSPAR MPA network buffered to thresholds of 1000 km (High Seas), 500 km(Offshore) and 250 km (Nearshore) using a kernel density analysis to highlight gaps
in the network. .................................................................................................................. 233

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
Figure 3.

MPAs in Regions II and III analysed to proximity thresholds of 80 km and 50 km.
The boxes show areas around Svalbard and the Azores. Buffers were not clipped to
Territorial Seas................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 4.

Dinter biogeographic regions and OSPAR MPA network, mapped by Seascape fromfiles provided by OSPAR. Note that pelagic and benthic provinces are both depictedon this map ........................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 5.

Bathymetry of the OSPAR marine area and OSPAR MPA network ................................... 28

Figure 6.

Distribution of depths within MPAs in the OSPAR maritime area by depth class:littoral, shallow shelf, deeper shelf, slope, and deep sea. ................................................ 29

Figure 7.

Distribution of depths within MPAs in Region III. Horizontal axis is depth in metres.
Vertical axis is a relative scale, based on the analysis grid squares. ................................. 30

Figure 8.

Distribution of depths within MPAs in Region V. Horizontal axis is depth in metres.
Vertical axis is a relative scale, based on the analysis grid squares. ................................. 31

Figure 9.

Distribution of depths within MPAs in Region I. Horizontal axis is depth in metres.
Vertical axis is a relative scale, based on the analysis grid squares. ................................. 32

Figure 10.

Predicted Lophelia pertusa habitat distribution from Ross and Howell (2012) andthe OSPAR MPA network .................................................................................................. 34

Figure 11.

Important Bird Areas and candidate sites and the OSPAR MPA network, courtesy
Birdlife International ......................................................................................................... 35

Figure 12

Histogram showing patch size distribution for broadscale habitats within Region II.
Frequency’ on the x‐axis is a relative measure reflecting the analysis grid squares.
Note the large number of very small patches, suggesting the possibility ofclassification artefacts ....................................................................................................... 44

Figure 13.

Histogram showing patch size distribution for broadscale habitats within Region III.
‘Frequency’ on the x‐axis is a relative measure reflecting the analysis grid squares.
Note the large number of very small patches, suggesting the possibility ofclassification artefacts. ...................................................................................................... 44

Figure 14.

Proximity of infralittoral rock in MPAs Regions II and III using thresholds offshore of
500 km and 250 km; and nearshore of 80 km and 40 km 14 m ........................................ 46

Figure 15.

Proximity of high energy circalittoral rock in MPAs Regions II and III using
thresholds offshore of 500 km and 250 km; and nearshore of 80 km and 40 km ............ 47

Figure 16.

Proximity of sublittoral coarse sediment in MPAs Regions II and III using thresholds
offshore of 500 km and 250 km; and nearshore of 80 km and 40 km .............................. 48

Figure 17.

The (draft) global seascape classification, courtesy GRID Arendal ................................... 52

4

OSPAR Commission, 2013

List of tables
Table 1.

Reproduction of the findings for biogeographic provinces (OSPAR, 2013a) andnumber of replicates. Green indicates provinces where the test criteria have been
met – at least 3% coverage and with replication (2 or more examples). ......................... 25

Table 2.

Broad‐scale habitats that are represented in the network highlighted in green andthe number of replicates that surpass a threshold of 2 highlighted in green for
Region II ............................................................................................................................. 37

Table 3.

Broad‐scale habitats that are represented in the network highlighted in green andthe number of replicates that surpass a threshold of 2 highlighted in green for
Region III ............................................................................................................................ 38

Table 4.

EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested thresholds
ranging between 5% and 40% in the nearshore area of Region II. EUNIS classes that
do not intersect MPAs are not shown. .............................................................................. 40

Table 5.

Region II EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested
thresholds ranging between 5% and 40% in the offshore area of Region II EUNIS
classes that do not intersect MPAs are not shown. .......................................................... 41

Table 6.

Region III EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested
thresholds ranging between 5% and 40% in the nearshore area of Region III EUNIS
classes that do not intersect MPAs are not shown. .......................................................... 42

Table 7.

EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested thresholds
ranging between 5% and 40% in the offshore area of Region III EUNIS classes that
do not intersect MPAs are not shown. .............................................................................. 43

Table 8.

Summary of tests performed ............................................................................................ 63

5

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012

Executive summary
This assessment evaluates the ecological coherence of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) as at the end of 2012. It has been undertaken based upon Guidance developed by
OSPAR and international best practice but accepting that there are a variety of views concerning
how ecological coherence might be achieved and that the methods currently developed to evaluate
ecological coherence are still being refined. Building on conclusions of the Draft 2012 Status Reportof the OSPAR Network of MPAs, GIS analysis was applied in a pragmatic way, recognising
assumptions and limitations. In particular data needed to make a complete assessment are currently
not comprehensive or spatially inclusive, and thus it is only partially fit for purpose. Therefore
techniques have been applied to OSPAR Regions and sub‐Regions as data availability allowed and todemonstrate what may be possible in future. The assessment comprises two levels of testing: a basic
level applied to the whole OSPAR Maritime Area and a more sophisticated second level of spatial
tests applied to certain sub‐regions that had greater numbers of MPAs and more complete data. The
tests form part of an iterative cycle establishing where the network is not ecologically coherent as ameans to suggest where aspects of ecological coherence can be identified.
At Level 1, the three Initial OSPAR Tests are expanded upon. Using basic thresholds to determine
general distribution, the first spatial test identifies major gaps in the offshore and high seas areas ofRegions I, IV and V. Using more stringent connectivity criteria the nearshore component of Regions II
and III are showing signs of ecological coherence, with smaller gaps identified around the Channel
Islands, southern Norway, southern Ireland and south east England. Test 2 considers biogeographic
representation adding a replicate analysis to the results provided in the 2012 status report. As 7 of
the 10 biogeographic provinces of particular relevance to OSPAR meet the 3% coverage threshold
this test is passed, but for the provinces concerned there is a range between 4 and 305 replicates,
roughly reflecting less to more common habitat types. Test 3, considering distribution across
bathymetric classes, indicates a strong distribution bias of MPAs towards the coastal zone andshallow shelf, suggesting coherence has not been achieved at depths greater than 75 m.
At Level 2, in theory test 4 seeks to evaluate representation of threatened and/or declining species
and habitats. Currently, however, in practice lack of data precludes this test. Nevertheless anillustration of use of predicted habitat modelling and identification of areas that are significant for
species suggests such models can serve as viable proxies. Similarly the matrix approach, test 5, whichdraws together the collation of detailed information on species and assessment as well as theprinciples of network design, has been trialled in the Channel but it is also currently limited by data
quality and availability. The remaining tests, which for this assessment were only applied in OSPAR
Regions II and III, considered broad‐scale habitat representativity and replication (test 6), adequacyand viability (test 7) and connectivity (test 8). They demonstrate that in specific areas varying
degrees of these elements of ecological coherence have been achieved but they also highlight
uncertainties and limitations.
On the basis of applying these tests the assessment concludes that whilst the OSPAR MPA network
as a whole is not ecologically coherent there are positive signs. Furthermore, the identification of
distributional gaps together with under‐representation of biogeographic provinces and bathymetriczones can inform a strategic Region by Region approach to address deficiencies with a suggested

6OSPAR Commission, 2013
initial focus on representativity and replication. In future proportionate assessments of ecologicalcoherence are recommended, recognising data needs and deficiencies. Given that the conclusions of
this assessment are broadly in line with those reached by HELCOM, opportunity exists for further
joint work. The use of Ecologically and/or Biologically Significant Areas, once described and endorsedby the Convention on Biological Diversity, could provide a focus for data collection and further
development of the MPA network, together with Region‐specific planning scenarios.

Récapitulatif
La présente évaluation porte sur la cohérence écologique du réseau d’aires marines protégées
(AMP) OSPAR à la fin 2012. Elle a été entreprise en se fondant sur les orientations élaborées par
OSPAR et la meilleure pratique internationale, tout en acceptant que les points de vue divergent
quant à la manière de parvenir à la cohérence écologique et que les méthodes développées
actuellement pour l’évaluation de la cohérence écologique font encore l’objet d’un affinement.
L’analyse GIS, s’inspirant des conclusions du projet de rapport d’avancement de 2012 sur le réseau
d’AMP OSPAR, a été appliquée de manière pragmatique, en reconnaissant les présomptions et leslimites. Les données, en particulier, nécessaires pour réaliser une évaluation complète ne sontactuellement pas exhaustives ou sont exclusives sur le plan spatial, et elles ne sont donc quepartiellement adéquates. L’application de techniques aux Régions et sous‐Régions OSPAR dépend
donc de la disponibilité des données et a pour but de démontrer les possibilités éventuelles futures.
L’évaluation comporte deux niveaux de tests: un niveau de base appliqué à l’ensemble de la zone
maritime OSPAR et un niveau plus complexe, appliqué sur le plan spatial, à certaines sous‐régionsqui possèdent un plus grand nombre d’AMP et des données plus complètes. Les tests font partie
d’un cycle itératif déterminant les zones où le réseau n’est pas cohérent sur le plan écologiquesuggérant ainsi où l’on peut déterminer des aspects de la cohérence écologique.
Niveau 1. Les trois tests préliminaires OSPAR sont développés. Le premier test spatial identifie, en
utilisant des limites de base permettant de déterminer la répartition générale, les lacunes
principales que présentent les zones de haute mer des Régions I, IV et V. Lorsque l’on utilise descritères plus rigoureux pour la connectivité les composantes du littoral des Régions II et III révèlent
des indices de cohérence écologique, des lacunes moindres étant identifiées aux environs des Iles
Anglo‐Normandes, de la Norvège méridionale, de l’Irlande méridionale et au sud‐ouest del’Angleterre. Le deuxième test considère la représentation biogéographique en ajoutant, auxrésultats fournis dans le rapport d’avancement de 2012, une analyse en parallèle. Ce test est réussi
car sept des dix provinces biogéographiques particulièrement pertinentes à OSPAR se conforment àla limite de couverture de 3%, mais dans le cas des provinces concernées, il existe un éventail de 4 à
305 répliques, reflétant approximativement des types d’habitats plus ou moins communs. Le
troisième test, considérant la répartition parmi les classes bathymétriques, indique une forte
répartition d’AMP dans la zone côtière et les hauts fonds, suggérant que l’on n’est pas encore
parvenu à une cohérence à des profondeurs supérieures à 75 m.
Niveau 2. Théoriquement le quatrième test tente d’évaluer la représentation des espèces et habitats
menacés et/ou en déclin. Actuellement, l’absence de données ne permet donc pas en pratique deréaliser ce test. Une illustration de l’utilisation de la modélisation des habitats anticipés et de ladétermination des zones significatives pour les espèces suggère que de tels modèles peuvent

7

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
néanmoins servir de substituts réalisables. De même, l’approche au niveau d’un compartiment, lecinquième test, qui rapproche le recueil d’informations détaillées sur les espèces et l’évaluation ainsi
que les principes de la conception d’un réseau, a été testée dans la Manche mais elle est également
limitée pour l’instant par la qualité et la disponibilité des données. Les tests restants, qui dans le casde la présente évaluation n’ont été appliqués qu’aux Régions II et III OSPAR, considèrent lareprésentativité et la réplication des habitats à grande échelle (test 6), la pertinence et la viabilité(test 7) et la connectivité (test 8). Ils démontrent que dans des zones spécifiques on est parvenu àdivers degrés de cohérence écologique pour ces éléments mais ils mettent également en évidence
les incertitudes et les limites.
En se basant sur l’application de ces tests, l’évaluation conclut que certains indices sont positifs
quoique le réseau d’AMP OSPAR, dans son ensemble, ne soit pas cohérent sur le plan écologique. De
plus, l’identification de lacunes dans la répartition ainsi que le fait que des provinces
biogéographiques et des zones bathymétriques soient sous‐représentées pourraient informer une
approche stratégique par région pour traiter les faiblesses en se focalisant initialement sur lareprésentativité et la réplication. On recommande à l’avenir des évaluations proportionnées de lacohérence écologique, en prenant en compte les besoins en données et les faiblesses. Etant donné
que les conclusions de la présente évaluation correspondent dans l’ensemble à celles d’HELCOM, il
existe des possibilités de travaux conjoints. Les aires significatives sur le plan écologique etbiologique, une fois entérinées par la Convention sur la diversité biologique, pourraient être utiliséeset constituer ainsi un point focal pour le recueil des données et le développement ultérieur duréseau d’AMP ainsi que pour des scénarios propres à une région.

8

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Scope of work
This report sets out an assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Commission’s Networkof Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as at the end of 2012 in accordance with the contract for work
issued by the OSPAR Commission Secretariat commencing on 18th February 2013
The specification required the following production stages:a.

an acknowledgement of the context within which OSPAR is assessing ecological coherenceof its MPA network and Guidance adopted by OSPAR;

b. interpretation of the three initial OSPAR spatial tests as presented in the Draft 2012 Status
Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs (OSPAR, 2013a), undertaking further GIS analysis of
ecological criteria and presenting, as far as the data allow, an assessment of the ecologicalcoherence of the OSPAR Network of MPAs in terms of its adequacy, representativity,
replication and connectivity as at the end of 2012 identifying where the network may becoherent and making note of where the network is not yet coherent:c.

i.
Across the whole OSPAR Maritime Areaii.
By OSPAR Regioniii.
By the Dinter biogeographic regionsiv.
By ecosystem feature (OSPAR Listed Species and Habitats)noting and where appropriate incorporating the work on the ‘matrix approach’; aspresented to the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee 2013;

d. discussion of these results including different ways of interpreting ecological coherence andapproaches that might secure coherence and/or a route to coherence with timescales
involved (e.g. alternative representativity benchmarks) and, where appropriate,
consideration of work on ecological coherence being undertaken elsewhere; ande. Proposing recommendations as to how the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA
network could be improved and identify the challenges / risks envisaged.
This has been the responsibility of a multi‐disciplinary team co‐ordinated by a contractor (SeascapeConsultants Ltd.) reporting to a Task Team and advised by a Focus Group meeting held on 22nd
March 2013 in Berlin (see Annex 1). The contractor would like to express sincere thanks to those
who provided additional data for use in this assessment including Dr Kerry Howell (PML), Mr Ben
Lascelles (Birdlife International), and Dr Peter Harris (GRID Arendal).

9

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012

Introduction
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are clearly defined geographic areas that are designated, regulated
and/or managed to achieve specific conservation and management objectives. With a coverage
exceeding 5% of the OSPAR Maritime Area, the OSPAR MPA Network as it stands at the end of 2012
can already be considered a significant achievement. However, whilst overall % coverage isimportant, the design of an MPA network requires additional considerations of scale, size andspacing of the individual MPAs for the purposes of improving the likelihood of ecological coherence.
Furthermore, reflecting the guidance in OSPAR (2007), ecological coherence requires considerationof connectivity, representation (including habitat structuring species), replication of ecologicalfeatures, adequacy and viability. Connectivity is important for life history stages of sessile species
and for movement / migratory patterns of mobile species. Except for birds, however, mobile species
data were not made available. Although not part of the OSPAR definition of coherence, it will in the
future be important also to consider changing environmental conditions (e.g. through climatechange and ocean acidification), which will influence future species distributions and larval
development, matters that are becoming increasingly pertinent in the North‐East Atlantic. As shallbe reiterated throughout this report, there are several practical first steps that can be taken towards
assessing this ambitious goal.
Annex V to the OSPAR Convention on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems andBiological Diversity of the Maritime Area obliges the OSPAR Commission to develop means,consistent with international law, for instituting protective conservation, restorative or
precautionary measures related to specific areas or sites or related to specific species or habitats(Article 3(1)(b)(ii)). In 1994 OSPAR sub‐divided its Maritime Area into 5 Regions for the purpose of
assessment and monitoring (I – Arctic Waters, II – Greater North Sea, III – Celtic Sea, IV – Bay of
Biscay and Iberian Coast, V – Wider Atlantic). These Regions vary in terms of how they represent
coastal, offshore and deep‐sea waters and their associated administrative governance (i.e. territorialseas, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)). OSPAR Ministers
agreed to promote the establishment of a network of MPAs (throughout all 5 Regions) in the 1998
Sintra Statement (OSPAR, 1998). Subsequently the World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD, 2002) signalled a global commitment to representative networks of MPAs.
In 2003, the OSPAR Commission, jointly with the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), adopted
Recommendation 2003/3 with the purpose of establishing networks of MPAs and ensuring that they
were an ecologically coherent network of well‐managed MPAs. This initial recommendation was
supported by Guidelines for the Identification and Selection of MPAs including criteria (OSPAR
Agreement 2003‐17) stating that ‘the OSPAR network should take into account the linkages between
marine ecosystems and the dependence of some species and habitats on processes that occur
outside of the MPA concerned’ (OSPAR, 2003). Additional tools are the Biogeographic Classificationof the OSPAR Maritime Area (Dinter, 2001), that divides the seafloor, the deep sea and open oceanic
waters into a series of representative biogeographic zones and the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or
Declining Species and Habitats (OSPAR Agreement 2008‐6).

10OSPAR Commission, 2013

The development of the OSPAR MPA network has been driven to a large extent within European
waters by areas designated as part of the Natura 2000 process as part of the requirements of the
Birds and Habitats Directives to provide protection for the species and habitats named in theassociated Annexes. Contracting Parties are also increasingly identifying new MPAs under national
legislation, such as Marine Conservation Zones in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Nature
Conservation MPAs in Scotland; Marine Natural Parks in France and National Parks in Norway. There
are also a number of sites that have been driven by local initiatives such as the Marine Fisheries
Reserves in Lira and Cedeira in Galicia, Spain. In areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), OSPAR
has led the development of MPAs.
However, as noted in OSPAR (2007) ‘A non‐systematic approach gives little assurance that initiallyselected areas will in the end represent an optimal distribution of sites required for an effective
network of protected areas.’ There is a strong pragmatic basis for the existing collection of MPA
sites, but it remains to ensure that the MPAs taken as a whole act as a network, protecting different
habitats and associated features and species; and that replication and connectivity takes into
consideration how species may move between sites and the wider marine environment. The
effectiveness of using systematic conservation planning techniques in MPA network development(and gap analyses) comes from its efficiency in using limited resources to achieve conservation goals
and its accountability in allowing decisions to be critically reviewed (Margules and Pressey, 2000).
An ecologically coherent MPA network requires a number of ecological components to beconsidered. The 13 ecologically coherent design principles set out originally by OSPAR (2006) can begrouped into four assessment criteria: Adequacy/viability, representativity, replication andconnectivity. Together these four criteria influence and take into account the size of MPAs, thecoverage of species and habitats by MPAs, the distribution of MPAs across biogeographic regions,the number of replicate sites for specific features of interest, as well as between‐site connections at
different scales (OSPAR, 2013a). In 2008 the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) built on
Scientific Guidance to establish similar criteria for selecting areas to establish a representative
network of MPAs, including those in open waters and deep‐sea habitats (CBD IX/20, Annex 2).
Maximising connectivity, whereby sites benefit from larval and/or species exchanges and functional
linkages from other network sites is generally agreed as a key criterion. However, many aspects ofconnectivity are poorly understood and it has been identified as a research priority for
multidisciplinary studies involving oceanographic modelling, larval ecology and population genetics(Olsen et al., 2013). Therefore, representativity is more often used in practice to assess MPA
network progress. In this report, proximity is used as a coarse proxy for connectivity.
In practice, a network of sites is most often developed through an iterative cycle of MPA designation
and analysis. In large, multi‐national regional sea areas such as within the OSPAR Maritime Area it isunrealistic to expect that an ecologically coherent network will emerge from a single systematicplanning process. In the real world, despite many national and international goals being set, and theuniversally perceived urgency of the issues, no coherent networks of protected areas have yet been

11

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
designated on land or in the water, except perhaps recently in Australia1, and certainly not in a single
planning process. Therefore, the OSPAR situation is by no means unusual in that regard.
The OSPAR MPA network is developing in response to a number of different international andnational drivers. As these evolve over time, OSPAR should periodically review the network’s
ecological coherence using a methodology that is proportionate to both the status of the sites andthe available data. The tests introduced in this report build upon the existing OSPAR tests, and areconsistent with them. They are designed to inform future planning and allow Contracting Parties to
identify gaps in the OSPAR Network. Contracting Parties might then, individually or jointly, nominate
MPAs to fill gaps and/or identify how the acquisition of new data might improve the ecologicalcoherence of the Network.

Guidance to date
The development of ecologically coherent networks inevitably raises questions about network
design. How far apart should the MPAs be? How big? How many? The use of the terms ‘network’and ‘ecologically coherent network’ are often (but not always) used interchangeably to imply some
aspect of synergy or coherence in purpose or design.
As a Regional Seas Convention, OSPAR does not have a legal mandate to set specific targets forwhere/what Contracting Parties should consider when nominating MPAs within their jurisdiction inorder to contribute to an ecologically coherent MPA network. However, OSPAR can provide advice
and guidance. There could also be a role for such advice with regard to the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive process (article 13.4).
Guidelines and principles developed by OSPAR in 2006 (OSPAR Agreement 2006‐03) formed thebasis for work leading up to this assessment. In 2007, OSPAR produced a background document tosupport the assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network (OSPAR, 2007),
which in addition to the four main assessment criteria (adequacy/viability, representativity,
replication and connectivity) put forward 30 assessment guidelines. The background document
recommended that ‘the assessment of ecological coherence should be carried out in a stepwise
fashion, beginning with initial basic assessments, and then later following up with subsequently
more detailed assessments’. This advice is still applicable to the tests undertaken within thisassessment and for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is the lack of detailed data that has meant that
simplified tests have been necessary.
In 2008, OSPAR produced an additional background document outlining three initial spatial tests,
which could be used in an initial assessment of the MPA network (OSPAR, 2008). This was designed

1

Amidst considerable controversy responding to the government’s claim that its new MPA network is representative. See:
Pressey B. 2013. Australia’s new marine protected areas: why they won’t work. The Conversation, 17 January.
http://theconversation.edu.au/australias‐new‐marine‐protected‐areas‐why‐they‐wont‐work‐11469 (A paper on this topic
is forthcoming.)

12

OSPAR Commission, 2013as a starting point to complement previous guidelines and principles and allowed the MPA network
to be tested without detailed bio‐physical spatial data. The three initial spatial tests are:a. whether the MPAs are well distributed, without more than a few gaps;
b. whether the MPA Network covers at least 3% of most (seven of the ten) relevant Dinterbiogeographic provinces;c. whether the MPA Network represents most (70%) of the OSPAR threatened and/or declining
habitats and species (with limited home ranges), such that at least 5% of each habitat
type/species distribution for each OSPAR Region in which they occur [or at least 3 replicate
sites per region] is [are] protected.
The background document noted that ‘the degree to which an MPA network is, or is not, ecologicallycoherent must be stated as a likelihood, based on a continuum of progressively more detailed tests
until a test (or a group of tests) is not met’ (OSPAR, 2008). While in theory this reiterative process
could continue indefinitely,2 in practice expert judgement combined with the results of the various
tests, can indicate when the goal has been met.
The assessment presented here continues on this basis with further analysis intended to help
identify where the network lies on the continuum between ‘very unlikely to be ecologicallycoherent’ to ‘very likely to be ecologically coherent’. A number of different tests have been put
forward that are both proportionate to the data available and the developmental stage of the
Network. This assessment and its use of thresholds is consistent with previous guidance whichstated that ‘The numerical threshold limits suggested in these tests should not be confused withtargets; they should rather be seen as cut‐off points beneath which ecological coherence has clearly
not been achieved’ (OSPAR, 2008).
Regarding the scale of the analysis, this assessment follows the advice that, ‘Ecological coherence
should be assessed at several scales, from that of a single site protecting a single small feature, toultimately a global network’ (OSPAR, 2007). Tests have been applied to the whole OSPAR Maritime
Area, to specific OSPAR Regions and sub regions. For example, Regions II and III have moredeveloped networks in the nearshore region and therefore these warrant closer examination.
Hence, certain analyses presented here have considered separately nearshore waters (0‐12nm) from
offshore waters3 (12‐200 nm).
Globally, whilst OSPAR is at the forefront of efforts to develop and measure ecological coherence of
MPAs it is acknowledged that this is ‘work in progress and that theoretical concepts as well aspractical approaches and methods will need to be developed further and refined over time as thegeneral knowledge of marine ecosystems and the availability of data on ecosystem components
2

As described in Zeno’s dichotomy paradox if you walk halfway to your destination one day, and half of the remaining
distance the next day, and half the following day, and so on… you will theoretically never get there! In practice, however,
you do.
3

Offshore waters is used here loosely to simply mean waters from 12‐200nm, and is without prejudice to the formal legal
status of any waters within the OSPAR Maritime Area.

13

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
increase’ (OSPAR, 2013a).4 The box below sets out a number of key terms used in connection withthis assessment and generally accepted as essential aspects of ecological coherence.



Representativity: To be representative an MPA network needs to protect the range ofmarine biodiversity found in our seas. This also includes protecting those features ofconservation importance that are known to be rare, threatened or declining.

Adequacy: Refers to both the overall size of an MPA network and the proportion ofeach feature protected within the MPA network.

Viability: For an individual MPA to be viable it must be able to maintain the integrity of
its features (population of species or condition and extent of the habitat), and to beself‐sustaining throughout natural cycles of variation. Viability is determined nu the sizeand shape of individual MPAs in conjunction with their effective management.

Connectivity: Connectivity is the extent to which populations in different parts of a
species range are linked by the movement of eggs, larvae or other propagules, juveniles
or adults (Palumbi 2003). The MSFD do not define “network” though dictionary usage
contemplates “connectedness” as characteristic of the term.

Replication: Replication is the protection of the same feature across multiple sites
within the MPA network, taking biogeographic variation into account. All features
should be replicated and replicates should be spatially separate.

Protection level: A broad range of protection levels exist with no current European
overview available.

Best available science: A vital element of building (or assembling) an ecologicalcoherent MPA network is ensuring that the best available science is used. Uncertainties
in our knowledge should be recognised and taken into account throughout the process.
However, decisions will need to be taken based on the best available science and lack offull scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing proportionate decisions
on site selection.
(Modified from Ashworth et al., 2010)

4

Some OSPAR Contracting Parties, for example Sweden with 17.7% of national waters within the OSPAR Maritime Area
covered by MPAs, have indicated that further certainty on ecological coherence is needed before they can commit moreresources to designation of MPAs.

14

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Methodology
Building on previous OSPAR Background documents, this assessment aims to provide practical,
stepwise tests that are proportionate to the available data, and appropriate to the level of progressin the designation of MPAs across the OSPAR Maritime Region as a whole, OSPAR Regions and sub
regions. If appropriate, future work could also consider the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
regions.
Consequently, two broad levels of tests have been conducted:
Level 1: broad‐scale tests across the OSPAR Maritime Area;
Level 2: more detailed tests of ecological coherence at the regional and sub‐regional scale
Level 1 tests integrate the ‘Three Initial Spatial Tests’ identified by OSPAR (OSPAR, 2008). The
assumptions behind these Three Initial Tests were not questioned, but rather taken at face value as
existing OSPAR policy. Level 2 tests include the matrix approach, which was trialled in the Channel by
the UK and France. This report provides only a short overview of the matrix tests because they havebeen recently and comprehensively described elsewhere (OSPAR, 2013b). It would be very dataintensive to undertake such a method across the whole OSPAR Maritime Area.
The MPA Network in a Region or sub‐region should satisfy the thresholds and criteria set in Level 1,
before passing to Level 2. There is little point in spending time and money in carrying out
sophisticated Level 2 assessments when the Network is not meeting basic thresholds. Beyond Level
1 the tests are not necessarily designed to be carried out in any particular order. Tests within Level 2
assess one or two ecological coherence criteria and are designed to provide feedback that can assist
network planning. All tests are data‐dependent, but particularly at Level 2, where the available data
largely determines what further testing can be applied. A summary of data sets used for thisassessment is at Annex 2. Some of the uncertainties, assumptions, strengths and weaknesses foreach of the tests will be discussed, recognising that it is an extensive topic extending beyond theimmediate concerns of this scope of work (see also Annex 3).
The series of tests does not include the OSPAR MPA Network Rapid Self‐Assessment Checklist(OSPAR Agreement 2007‐6). This can be seen as a stand‐alone, subjective analysis which allows
assessment of the network at different spatial scales, but mainly at the local level of the MPA
manager. No GIS is required; rather, the Rapid Self‐Assessment Checklist has been designed to beable to be used where data are lacking, but where expert judgement can still be applied. As a tabular
tool, with stratified scoring according to the four ecological coherence criteria, it was designed todirect planners and decision makers towards elements of ecological coherence that may not havebeen fully considered, and where the relative strengths and weaknesses of their particular
network(s) may lie. Combined with the OSPAR management self‐assessment checklist, management
measures relevant to eco‐coherence can be developed. As a heuristic tool, it is a valuable
complement to the sorts of spatial GIS analyses performed here.

15

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012

Level 1
Level 1 of this assessment incorporates three tests that can be carried with basic levels of data to
determine whether the Network meets initial thresholds of ecological coherence. The tests allow theassessment of the OSPAR Maritime Area using datasets that are available over its entire extent.

Test 1 – Test to determine whether the network is generally well distributed

The first of the ‘three initial spatial tests’ described in the OSPAR Background document (OSPAR,
2008) provides the most basic visual overview and evaluation of the MPA network to determine if
MPAs are generally well distributed and without major gaps.
The test uses approximate rules of thumb to determine if there are any ‘major gaps’. In generalthese spacing thresholds are set to ten times the value commonly found in scientific literature(OSPAR, 2008):


Nearshore/Coastline: No gaps wider than 250 km and no more than 10 gaps;
Offshore: No gaps greater than a 500 km diameter circle (~200 000 km2) and no
more than 5 gaps;
 High Seas: No gaps greater than a 1 000 km square (1 000 000 km2) and no morethan 2 gaps.
The results of this test as applied previously have been described in the OSPAR Quality Status Report(OSPAR, 2010) and the Draft 2012 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs (OSPAR, 2013a).
‘Offshore’ generally relates to the benthic (seabed) environment and ‘High Seas’ to the pelagic
environment. Care should be taken when considering charts that overlay both of these components
in the oceanic and deep‐sea areas of the OSPAR Maritime Area.
For this study, a more advanced consideration of Test 1 used a comprehensive GIS analysis for thewhole OSPAR Maritime Area. The test as applied here used MPA proximity as a proxy to provide
some quantitative feedback of whether and where the network is meeting some basic distribution
thresholds. Each MPA was buffered to the appropriate threshold distances, clipped to Mean High
Water and any resulting unconnected buffer components removed. Once assembled, the buffers
identified those MPAs that are proximate within the threshold distance.
The thresholds used within the GIS analysis were based on those used within the initial spatial test.
Thus, the buffers used were half the threshold distance, since two separate MPA buffers will meet
up to form the required distance. For the nearshore components, the Network was also tested
under criteria of 80 km and 50 km in Regions II and III only. The first threshold was based on the
maximum recommended distance in Roberts et al. (2010) for the English MCZ project; the latter isthe maximum figure used in HELCOM’s connectivity analysis (HELCOM, 2010)5. These values were5

It should be noted that in many ways the Baltic is not directly comparable with the OSPAR Maritime Area, however, due
account has been taken of the joint commitment towards ecological coherence and methodologies considered by
HELCOM.

16

OSPAR Commission, 2013used in light of the greater density of MPAs in significant parts of OSPAR Regions II and III allowing
for distributional gaps to be located at a fine scale.

Test 2 – Test of representation at biogeographic level
This basic test of representation relating to the Dinter provinces was introduced by OSPAR (2008) as
the second of three ‘initial spatial tests’. The suggested threshold is whether the network covers atleast (3%) of most (seven out of ten) relevant Dinter biogeographic provinces (Dinter, 2001). Again,
these low thresholds were selected as very basic criterion to determine where ecological coherence
has not been met, and are set at 1/10th of the value commonly found in the literature (OSPAR, 2008).

Test 3 – Testing the representativity of bathymetric zones
This analysis provided a basic interpretation of how the network has been distributed acrossdifferent depth classes in the OSPAR Maritime Area.
Across the network, the following depth classes were adopted as bathymetric representation: 0‐10m(coastal zone); 10‐75m (shelf seas); 75‐200m (deeper shelf seas); 200‐2 000m (slope/upper bathyal)and >2000m (lower bathyal/abyssal). Histograms at an OSPAR Region level were also examined todetermine how future bathymetric tests could be tailored to better reflect Regional characteristics.

Level 2
Test 4 – Representation of threatened and/or declining species and habitats
This test is the last of the three ‘initial spatial tests’ (OSPAR, 2008). It asks whether ‘most (70%) of
the threatened and/or declining species and habitats (with limited home ranges) represented in the
OSPAR Network of MPAs, such that at least 5% [or at least three sites] of all areas in which theyoccur within each OSPAR Region is [are] protected.’
A comprehensive data set of OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats does not exist
for any OSPAR Region. Furthermore the reporting on the extent to which features are protected
within respective MPAs is not yet available for the OSPAR Maritime Area.
The Draft 2012 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs therefore concluded that the test
could not be conducted and no reliable conclusions could be drawn on the adequacy or
representativity of the OSPAR Network of MPAs regarding the specific protection it provides for
specific threatened and/or declining species or habitats (OSPAR, 2013a).
However, as an example of a technique that could be employed more widely in data‐limited
circumstances, this study highlights the use of predictive habitat modelling of Lophelia pertusa reefs,(an OSPAR threatened and/or declining species) sponge habitats and giant protozoans by Ross andHowell (2012). They suggest that ‘predictive habitat modelling may provide a useful method of17

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
better estimating the extent of listed habitats, providing direction for future MPA establishment anda means of assessing MPA network effectiveness against politically set percentage targets.’ (Rossand Howell, 2012 p1)

Test 5 – A matrix to assess features, representativity, replication, resilience and connectivity
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Agence des Aires Marines Protegées (AAMP)
carried out a trial matrix analysis of broad‐scale habitats and OSPAR threatened/and or declining
species in the Channel. The report of the trial was presented to the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee(BDC) in February 2013. Taking a tabular approach, broad‐scale habitats were assessed against
adequacy, replication, representativity and connectivity criteria. MPAs that were considered toafford protection for each habitat were identified. This is an assumption that we have carriedthrough into this report. However, it is an untested assumption. A proper assessment ofmanagement measures for each MPA should be required to refine this broad (and likely overly
optimistic) assumption. For OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats, the matrix
table defines replication and viability criteria. The level of information for some habitats depended
on whether they were defined as a ‘Natura 2000’ or ‘non Natura 2000 habitats’.
There are several similarities between the matrix approach and the overall approach of thisassessment, including the use of spatial tests. However, the matrix reported out in a tabular format,
whereas here both maps and tables are used.
The matrix trial established some thresholds under which certain principles would be met:Features/Representativity: All EUNIS level 3 habitats and OSPAR threatened and declining
habitats and species; Replication and resilience: At least two MPAs for each EUNIS level 3 habitat and at least 3
examples of OSPAR threatened and declining habitats and species for which MPAs are
considered appropriate control measures.
No thresholds were set for minimum patch size or for connectivity (proximity).

Test 6 – Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat representativity and replication
This analysis determined which broad‐scale habitats at EUNIS level 3 are represented within MPAs in
Regions II and III. The test also calculated the number of replicates for each habitat in the MPA
network for each Region. A habitat was considered to be represented and replicated if it was
contained within an MPA with a minimum patch size of 0.24 km2 or 3% of the proportion within the
MPA.
Piekainen and Korpinen (2008) in HELCOM (2010) set a minimum protected patch size of 0.24 km2 orgreater than a proportion of 3% of the habitat within the MPA before it could be taken into accountin an analysis. These minimum sizes were established because they equated to 6 pixels on the broad
scale habitats maps being used (HELCOM, 2010). As is discussed below, a basic analysis of the data

18

OSPAR Commission, 2013

showed that the use of this HELCOM threshold removed many small ‘slivers’ of habitat, but thatnonetheless several others remained.
This represents a very basic threshold of representativity. Further analysis of viability and adequacy
were considered in Test 7.
In the OSPAR Maritime Area, the coverage of the EU SeaMap broad‐scale habitat data is limited to
Regions II and III, therefore this analysis was only undertaken within these Regions.

Test 7 – Spatial analysis of adequacy
This test analysed the number of broad‐scale habitats that were meeting different thresholds ofadequacy ranging between 5% and 40% of the proportion of habitat in each Region. This analysis
was undertaken for Regions II and III. To enable the analysis of OSPAR threatened and/or declining
species for this report it would be necessary to have records for each species both within andoutside the network, or to develop a predictive habitat model. Lacking these data, the test focused
only on broad‐scale habitat at EUNIS level 3, within Regions II and III, based on the limits of EU
SeaMap coverage.
The analysis was split into nearshore (within 12 nm) and offshore (12‐200 nm) to allow moredetailed testing of which parts of the network were likely to be meeting adequacy criteria, since
there was a clear visual split, with many more MPAs nearshore than offshore. As per test 6, aminimum patch size of 0.24 km2 or 3% of the proportion within the MPA was used, based on the
HELCOM precedent. In future work, this threshold should be refined based on the realm, whereinnearshore and offshore would be treated differently.
The analysis also provides an overview of the sizes of MPAs – minimum, median and mean sizes. A
threshold of 5 km2 has been used for the viability analysis based on recommendations by Roberts etal. (2010) for England’s Ecological Network Guidance (Natural England and JNCC, 2010).
Adequacy targets for the proportion of a habitat included in the MPA Network are likely to varyconsiderably for different habitats. This analysis enabled the OSPAR Network to be assessed at anumber of different ranges. They are all to a large extent arbitrary, following other EU and global
recommendations and targets that are seldom supported by specific ecological rationale.
Nevertheless, by looking at different ranges of these arbitrary targets, a graphical picture emerges.
The lowest ranges of 5% and 10% were intended as basic thresholds. Ranges of 20%, 30% and 40%
were designed to reflect ranges identified in the literature or had been used in similar adequacy
assessments, and which were considered to be more appropriate in relation to ecological coherence.
Widespread habitats generally require a lower percentage to be protected and more unusual,degraded, or rare habitats a higher percentage. Adequacy targets within the English Marine
Conservation Zone region ranged from 11% to 42% based on research carried out on behalf of the
JNCC by Rondinini (2011). The lower figures for each broad‐scale habitat were designed to reflect
the proportion of broad‐scale habitat required to represent 70% of species known to occur withineach broad‐scale habitat type (Natural England and the JNCC, 2010). Ranges are provided for each19

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
broad‐scale habitat type. Based on the EU Habitats Directive, for HELCOM <20% is consideredinadequate, 20‐60% dependant on the feature and >60% assuring a ‘normal condition’ (HELCOM,
2010).
England’s Ecological Network Guidance (Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee,2010) stipulated that a MPA (and hence a viable broad‐scale habitat) should have a minimum
diameter of 5 km (i.e. at least 19.6 km2) with an average of between 10 (>78.5 km2) and 20km(>314.2 km2) in diameter. These figures are based on recommendations following research into
distances moved by mature adults of 72 species from a wide range of invertebrate, fish and seaweed
groups for which data were available (Roberts et al., 2010). For the assessment of adequacy of Baltic
Sea Protected Areas a minimum size of 30 km2 (3 000 ha) for MPAs was used by HELCOM (2010).
As described in previous tests, the very low requirement of a minimum patch size of greater than
0.24 km2 or 3% of the proportion of broad‐scale habitat within the MPA was used as a starting point,in the understanding that the criteria should get more stringent as the network develops.

Test 8 – Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat connectivity
The analyses of Test 8 examined the distance between MPAs to determine whether they wereunlikely to be meeting proximity criteria. The ‘initial spatial GIS analysis’ tested some thresholds fornearshore, offshore and high seas MPAs for all OSPAR MPAs. These analyses examined distance
between MPAs protecting the same habitat type using the same threshold distances as in the Three
Initial OSPAR Tests:
 Offshore (12‐200 nm): 500 km and;
 Nearshore (Mean High Water to 12 nm): 250 km and 50 km.
As described in previous tests, a minimum patch size of greater than 0.24 km2 or 3% of the
proportion of broad‐scale habitat within the MPA was used.
Within each MPA, patches of the selected habitat meeting the minimum size criteria were bufferedto the appropriate threshold distance, clipped to Mean High Water and had resulting unconnectedparts of the buffer removed. The resulting components were merged into single features.
Distance between MPAs is just a first look at the question of possible connectivity, and is not in itself
a test for biological requirements associated with connectivity (e.g. habitat suitability), wider links tothe broader environment, or other oceanographic factors (currents, temperatures, etc.).

20

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Results
Level 1
Test 1 – Test to determine whether the network is generally well distributed

The most recent Draft Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs (OSPAR, 2013a) concluded that
the OSPAR MPA Network was not yet spatially well distributed across the OSPAR Maritime Area andits respective Regions. The vast majority of MPAs are situated in coastal waters and clustered aroundcentral latitudes. However there are signs of ecological coherence in Regions II and III and in the
Azores archipelago that justify further analysis. In OSPAR Regions I, IV and V it is clear that major
gaps remain in the network. In Region V, there is a particular problem in ensuring that thecontinuous change in species with increasing depth (owing to physiological tolerances) is accounted
for, particularly on the upper continental slope.
Figure 1 shows a gap in the Bay of Biscay between Regions IV and V and in the far south‐west of the
OSPAR Maritime Area to the south of the Milne Seamount cluster. The most significant gaps can beseen in Region I, particularly the area between Iceland and Greenland; between Norway andGreenland as well as east of Svalbard. Figure 1 includes MPAs in the Network across the full range of
depths. If the data, particularly for Regions I and V, were presented as a number of different depth
layers, and for pelagic and benthic environments separately, then greater gaps would be evident.
The analysis shown in Figure 2 has used a linear decay function or ‘kernel analysis’ to show thevarious “shades” of proximity and highlight the biggest gaps in the MPA network. Again, caution in
Regions I and V is required because of the large changes that occur in species distributions withincreasing depth. While species may occur over the whole of the Atlantic or Arctic Region, they areoften restricted in depth to only a few hundreds of metres.
With the MPA network more developed in Regions II and III an analysis was carried out using
thresholds of 50 km and 80 km for nearshore areas. Figure 3 identifies gaps around the Channel
Islands, southern Ireland, south east England, the northern part of Spain, southern Norway, andeastern Iceland.

21

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 1. The OSPAR MPA network analysed to proximity thresholds of 1 000 km (High Seas), 500 km (Offshore) and 250 km (Nearshore)

22

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Figure 2. The OSPAR MPA network buffered to thresholds of 1000 km (High Seas), 500 km (Offshore) and 250 km (Nearshore)using a kernel density analysis to highlight gaps in the network.
23

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 3. MPAs in Regions II and III analysed to proximity thresholds of 80 km and 50 km. The boxes show areas around Svalbard
and the Azores. Buffers were not clipped to Territorial Seas.

24

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
Test 2 – Test of representation at biogeographic level
Representativity analysis was carried out by Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) for the Draft 2012
Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs, using the of the Dinter biogeographic provinces(2001). These provinces are shown in Figure 4. For this assessment, an analysis was also conductedon the number of replicates for each Dinter Province (Table 1). The Dinter provinces do notcharacterise the biogeographic features of OSPAR Region V (Wider Atlantic) and therefore require
further refinement before representativity there can be considered using this classification system.
The 3 Initial OSPAR Tests excluded the Arctic region from its assessment criteria. However, given the
recent protections in the north, it would be worthwhile to reconsider this exclusion.
Table 1. Reproduction of the findings for biogeographic provinces (OSPAR, 2013a) and number of
replicates. Green indicates provinces where the test criteria have been met – at least 3% coverage
and with replication (2 or more examples).
RegionSub region

Province

Total Area
(km2)

Area
protected
(km2)

MPA
Coverage (%)

Replicates

3 334 941

76 0022.28%

7(Holo) Pelagic
ArcticAtlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Cool‐temperate Waters

6 690 666

462 869

6.92%

305

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Warm‐temperate Waters

3 522 504

146 940

4.17%

45

Shelf and Continental Slope
ArcticNorth‐East Greenland Shelf

277 87900%0ArcticNortheast Water Polynya

71 84500%0ArcticHigh Arctic Maritime809 874

11 036

1.36%

4ArcticBarents Sea

1 258 371

67 285

5.81%

6ArcticSouth East Greenland –North Iceland Shelf

425 600

0

0.00%

2

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Norwegian Coast (Finnmarkand Skagerrak and West
Norwegian)413 698

4 688

1.13%

13

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

South Iceland‐Faeroe Shelf

306 382

156

0.05%

9

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Boreal710 185

55 823

7.86%

210

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Boreal – Lusitanean

455 947

39 882

8.75%

73

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Lusitanean – Boreal

151 202

16 84411.14%

24

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Lusitanean (Cool andWarm)

118,277

3,972

3.36%

14

Atlantic

East Atlantic
Temperate

Macaronesian Azores

22 545

812

3.60%

4

Deep Sea
Arctic2 235 011

000Atlantic

6 995 818

483 218

6.91%

23

25

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 4.

26

Dinter biogeographic regions and OSPAR MPA network, mapped by Seascape from files provided by OSPAR. Note that pelagic andbenthic provinces are both depicted on this map.

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Test 3 – Testing the representativity of bathymetric zones

The distribution of the OSPAR MPA network is shown overlaid with a shaded bathymetric map(Figure 5). A histogram shows this distribution binned into five broad depth classes (Figure 6). This
overview is a first glance at MPA distribution, and should not be interpreted to signify a network
analysis. Nevertheless, certain trends are already clear; namely the bias towards shallower areas.
Note that the two deepest classes (bathyal and abyssal) were combined to form the “deep sea”
class, deeper than 2000m, as there are currently very few human threats in the OSPAR Maritime
Area at these depths that can be directly mitigated through the use of MPAs (fishing, for example,
generally goes no deeper than 1500m).
However, there are a number of impacts that do require consideration, or will in the near future,including climate change, acidification, the downslope impacts of sediment slides and turbidity
currents initiated by bottom trawling, exploration for minerals within the Azores archipelago and in
ABNJ areas of the Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, and the introduction of pollutants from terrestrial sources into
the deep sea, often funnelled through canyon systems. These and other human impacts, although
relevant to MPA placement (e.g. a vulnerability assessment), will not be considered further here.
In general, for depths where direct impacts do occur at present it is apparent that shelf seas (75 to200m) and the upper continental slope (200‐2000m) require greater representation in the MPA
Network. Shelf seas cover a large proportion of Regions I, II and IV are important for productivity inthese Regions. Most of these waters have been impacted significantly by human activities. Althoughoutside the scope of this report to analyse, it should be noted that some habitats are even affectedsignificantly by minor human activities whilst others are more resilient. Upper continental slope
depths in some Regions are now experiencing extensive pressures from bottom trawling and oil andgas production. Spatial planning of resource development and conservation is required to ensure
MPAs and other measures are applied at the same depths at which human impacts are occurring.
Note also that the scales on the x axes in Figures 7, 8 and 9 are different.

27

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 5. Bathymetry of the OSPAR marine area and OSPAR MPA network

28

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Figure 6. Distribution of depths within MPAs in the OSPAR maritime area by depth class: littoral,
shallow shelf, deeper shelf, slope, and deep sea.

29

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 7. Distribution of depths within MPAs in Region III. Horizontal axis is depth in metres. Vertical axis is a relative scale, based on theanalysis grid squares.

30

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Figure 8. Distribution of depths within MPAs in Region V. Horizontal axis is depth in metres. Vertical axis is a relative scale, based on theanalysis grid squares.
31

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 9. Distribution of depths within MPAs in Region I. Horizontal axis is depth in metres. Vertical axis is a relative scale, based on theanalysis grid squares.
32

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Level 2 (Regional and sub-Regional scale)
Test 4‐Representativity of OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats

A trial GIS analysis to overlay two existing geo‐referenced datasets (OSPAR habitat mapping and
MPA data) for Regions I, II, III and V was undertaken in 2011 and reported to the OSPAR Biodiversity
Committee in 2012 (BDC 12/3/13). Information on presence of threatened and/or declining habitats
and replicates yielded initial ecological coherence‐related results but highlighted the paucity of data
available compounded by a mix of point and polygon data. This trial recommended improvements indata gathering and suggested that, as yet, this test cannot be meaningfully undertaken. However,
the trial also recommended the use of EUNIS Level 3 categories and EUSeaMap data – a suggestion
taken up by this assessment.
Although some progress has been made with collating OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats
data led by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on behalf of OSPAR, there remains a limited
understanding of the distribution of OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species acrossthe OSPAR Maritime Area. As such, this assessment drew upon information on the predictive
distribution of one OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitat – Lophelia pertusa reefs, to indicate
how this test could be applied. Ross and Howell (2012) provided an analysis of the proportion of thepredicted occurrence of the cold‐water coral Lophelia pertusa contained within the MPA network
within their study region of UK and Irish waters. They found that ‘[Lophelia pertusa reef] suitableenvironments are the most well protected within the study area (23.2% contained within OSPAR
MPAs) with protection at national levels varying from 35.6% in UK to 12.5% in Irish waters. Note that
not all the OSPAR Maritime Area was included (Figure 1). Ross and Howell (2012) concluded that’given the coarse resolution of the model, the percentages should be taken as maximal figures, with
habitat occurrence likely to be less prevalent in reality’. We would also highlight the likelihood offalse positives, which are common in these sorts of models. Hence, the level of protection isindicative, but needs site level validation. Further discussion on the accuracy of the model can befound in their publication.
Figure 10 below shows the OSPAR MPA network overlaid with the results of the habitat model for
Lophelia pertusa reef. Similar charts are presented by Ross and Howell for sponge aggregations(Pheronema) and giant protozoans (xenophyophores, Syringammina) on the upper continental
slope, but are not reproduced here.
Regarding seabirds, the third initial spatial test (OSPAR, 2008) asks: ‘Are most (70%) of the OSPAR
threatened and/or declining seabirds protected through MPAs that include at least 5% of their inter‐annually persistent at‐sea concentrations; e.g. Important Bird Areas (IBAs).
For this analysis Birdlife International provided a seabird data layer of prioritised seabird
distributions and abundances gleaned from multiple sources. It highlights areas of greatest
conservation significance as those meeting (or that may meet) the Birdlife International Important
Bird Area (IBA) criteria.6 These data have been mapped alongside the OSPAR MPA network in Figure
11 below. As can be seen, most of the offshore and high seas IBAs fall outside of OSPAR MPAs.
6

Further details on the IBA criteria can be found at www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/ibacriteria

33

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 10. Predicted Lophelia pertusa habitat distribution from Ross and Howell (2012) and the OSPAR MPA network

34

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Figure 11. Important Bird Areas and candidate sites and the OSPAR MPA network, courtesy Birdlife International35

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
Test 5 – A matrix to assess features, representativity, replication, resilience and connectivity

The results of the matrix trial are described in the report presented to ICG‐MPA and BDC in January
and February 2013 respectively (OSPAR, 2013b).

Test 6 ‐ Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat representativity and replication

Tables 2 and 3 show the area of each broad‐scale habitat in Regions II and III, respectively, together
with the total area assumed to be protected within an MPA boundary. All broad‐scale habitats thatare found in each Region are presented, several of which are not protected/covered yet by the MPA
network. Those broad scale habitats that have not met the current threshold are highlighted in red.
A broad‐scale habitat is considered represented if an area greater than 0.24 km2 or a proportion
greater than 3% of the respective MPA exists within the boundary of an MPA. Those that are
represented in Region II and III are identified in the tables with green shading. The replicationthreshold was set to the minimum (i.e. 2).
It is difficult to ascertain whether broad‐scale habitats are effectively protected from occurrence
within an OSPAR MPA because they are frequently not listed in their own right on designation orders
or there has not been a translation to determine whether designated features correspond toprotection of a particular broadscale habitat. Consequently, for the purposes of this test we haveassumed that broad‐scale habitats falling within MPAs are afforded protection.
Intertidal habitats are missing as they are not included within the EU SeaMap broad‐scale habitat
data. The overall percentage protected is considered in Test 7, below.

36

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Table 2.
Broad‐scale habitats that are represented in the network highlighted in green andthe number of replicates that surpass a threshold of 2 highlighted in green for Region II
Eunis Level
3 codeEUNIS Level 3 reference

A3.1

Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoral
rock
Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy
infralittoral rockAtlantic and Mediterranean low energy infralittoral
rock
Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral
rock
Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy
circalittoral rockAtlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral
rock

A3.2
A3.3
A4.1
A4.2
A4.3

Total area inregion II (km2)

Area in
MPAs(km2)

Replicates

3 561.03

1 321.4345

3 200.34

939.5159

285.0432.77

14

2 336.26

646.8430

20 647.69

2 299.60

42

9 340.66

539.1613

A5.1

Sublittoral coarse sediment112 235.98

14 004.00

82

A5.2

Sublittoral sand377 999.23

41 286.67

89

A5.3

Sublittoral mud

59 981.35

3 987.55

44

A5.4

Sublittoral mixed sediments

16 769.33

1 521.03

45

A6.1

Deep‐sea rock and artificial hard substrata

990.06

2.21

1

A6.2

Deep‐sea mixed substrata

2 910.32

0.04

A6.3 or A6.4

Deep‐sea sand or deep‐sea muddy sand12 070.69

A6.5

Deep sea mud

61 770.09

1 136.69

4

Deep circalittoral mixed hard sediments

5 282.04

7.29

1

Deep circalittoral seabed

4 209.21

3.61

4High energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

105.02

6.42

3High energy circalittoral seabed748.27

6.66

6High energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

539.4724.81

44 317.23

108.6015

Low energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

740.160.64

1

Low energy circalittoral seabed

727.92

3.77

5

3.28

3

High energy infralittoral seabed

Low energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

0.34

Low energy infralittoral seabed266.62Mid bathyal coarse sediment172.48Mid bathyal seabed

1 429.46

Moderate energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

3 504.98

381.696

Moderate energy circalittoral seabed

1 831.95

3.36

2

Moderate energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

488.94121.123Moderate energy infralittoral seabed875.8715.44

1268 404.21

533

Upper bathyal coarse sediment
Upper bathyal seabed

2 341.70
711.55Upper slope coarse sediment

6 886.33

Upper slope mixed hard sediments

3 920.06

Upper slope seabed

2 873.84

Total

726 071.54

37

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
Table 3 Broad‐scale habitats that are represented in the network highlighted in green and thenumber of replicates that surpass a threshold of 2 highlighted in green for Region III
Total area inregion III(km2)

Total area
in MPAs(km2)

Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoralrock

5 725.85

589.4638

Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy
infralittoral rock1 952.10

384.9640

Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy infralittoralrock705.66

83.43

18

Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoralrock

2 125.05

238.9721

Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy
circalittoral rock1 5235.35

1 222.81

35

Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoralrock

12 671.58

545.3922

A5.1

Sublittoral coarse sediment

83 150.29

4 445.12

42

A5.2

Sublittoral sand86 479.63

4 064.04

52

A5.3

Sublittoral mud

28 720.20

1 119.19

32

A5.4

Sublittoral mixed sediments

20 941.01

780.5726

A6.1

Deep‐sea rock and artificial substrata

52.75

20.97

3

A6.2

Deep‐sea mixed substrata

47.55

0.45

1

A6.3 or A6.4

Deep‐sea sand or deep‐sea muddy sand648.72

3.72

2

A6.5

Deep‐sea mud

1 467.40

24.68

2

Deep circalittoral seabed

88 611.00

66.35

8

65.87

11

419.16

17

16.66

6

13.02

13

115.37

7
9

Eunis Level
3 code
A3.1
A3.2
A3.3
A4.1
A4.2
A4.3

EUNIS Level 3 referenceHigh energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

15.06

High energy circalittoral seabed598.86

High energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

12.12

High energy infralittoral seabed
Low energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

6.84

Low energy circalittoral seabed

836.79Low energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

19.73

Low energy infralittoral seabed

205.66Moderate energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

47.22

Moderate energy circalittoral seabed
Moderate energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

5 316.22
2.58

Moderate energy infralittoral seabed

405.02

19.13

Upper slope coarse sediment309.990.02

Upper slope seabed718.14Total

38

3 678.33

Replicates360 706.69

14 239.32

405

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Test 7 ‐ Initial tests of adequacy and viability for broad‐scale modelled habitats

The results of this test provide an indication of the adequacy of the network in each Region by
showing the numbers of EUNIS habitat classes that are within MPAs, ranging from 5% to 40%, withininshore and offshore waters of each of OSPAR Regions II and III.
In Region II, 1 358 patch sizes are less than 4 km2 and 672 are greater than 4 km2(Figure 12). For
Region III the figures are 1 049 and 342 respectively (Figure 13). The preponderance of small patchessuggests that these will need to be further investigated to assess their ecological relevance. (See
Discussion, below.)
As per test 6, a minimum patch size of 0.24 km2 or 3% of the proportion within the MPA was used,based on the HELCOM precedent.

39

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012
Table 4. EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested thresholds ranging between 5% and 40% in the nearshore area of Region
II. EUNIS classes that do not intersect MPAs are not shown.
HabitatTotal area (km2)

Area in MPAs (km2)% in MPAs

5% in
MPAs

10%

20%

30%

40%
NO

A3.1 - Atlantic & Mediterranean high energy infralittoralrock

3 550.17

1 301.58

36.7

YES

YES

YES

YES

A3.2 – Atlantic & Med. moderate energy infralittoralrock

2 965.47

859.87

29.0

YES

YES

YES

NO

A3.3 – Atlantic & Med. low energy infralittoral rock281.60

27.25

9.7

YES

NO

A4.1 – Atlantic & Med. high energy circalittoral rock1614.20218.56

13.5

YES

YES

NO

A4.2 - Atlantic & Med. moderate energy circalittoralrock

9 152.37

1 088.42

11.9

YES

YES

NO

A4.3 – Atlantic & Med. low energy circalittoral rock4 509.23

320.58

7.1

YES

NO

A5.1 - Sublittoral coarse sediment

41 290.27

5 772.41

14.0

YES

YES

NO

A5.2 - Sublittoral sand47 606.55

14 029.12

29.5

YES

YES

YES

NO

A5.3 - Sublittoral mud

8 829.90

2 235.05

25.3

YES

YES

YES

NO

A5.4 - Sublittoral mixed sediments

8 753.61

1 372.51

15.7

YES

YES

NO

924.15

2.21

0.2

NO

A6.5 - Deep-sea mud

9 035.00

55.89

0.6

NO

Deep circalittoral seabed

4 209.21

2.54

0.1

NO

High energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

95.65

4.07

4.3

NO

High energy circalittoral seabed748.27

2.67

0.4

NO

High energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

189.16

7.23

3.8

NO

High energy infralittoral seabed

4 317.23

97.70

2.3

NO

Low energy circalittoral seabed

727.92

2.69

0.4

NO

Low energy infralittoral seabed266.62

1.88

0.7

NO

Moderate energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

190.49

10.74

5.6

YES

Moderate energy circalittoral seabed

1 831.95

0.89

0.0

NO

Moderate energy infralittoral seabed875.87

11.09

1.3

NO

A6.1 - Deep-sea rock and artificial substrata

40

OSPAR Commission, 2013
Table 5. Region II EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested thresholds ranging between 5% and 40% in the offshore area of
Region II. EUNIS classes that do not intersect MPAs are not shown.
5% in
MPAs

10%

20%

30%

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

8.2

YES

NO

1 736.81

3.4

NO

8 015.72

143.85

1.8

NOA6.5 - Deep-sea mud

52 735.09

1 080.46

2.0

NO

Deep circalittoral mixed hard sediments

4 813.40

7.29

0.2

NO

High energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

9.38

1.55

16.6

YES

High energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

350.31

17.39

5.0

NO

Moderate energy circalittoral mixed hard sediments

3 314.49

370.11

11.2

Moderate energy infralittoral mixed hard sediments

441.65120.0027.2

Total area (km2)

Area in MPAs (km2)% in MPAs

A3.2 - Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy
infralittoral rock234.88

55.26

23.5

A4.1 - Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoralrock722.06404.8656.1

11 495.32

1 196.70

10.4

4831.43214.36

4.4

A5.1 - Sublittoral coarse sediment

70 945.71

8 219.39

11.6

A5.2 - Sublittoral sand

330 392.68

27 220.02

A5.3 - Sublittoral mud

51 151.45

A5.4 - Sublittoral mixed sediments

HabitatA4.2 - Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy
circalittoral rockA4.3 - Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral
rock

40%

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO

41

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Table 6.
Region III EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested thresholds ranging between 5% and 40% in the nearshore
area of Region III EUNIS classes that do not intersect MPAs are not shown.
5% in
MPAs

10%

20%

10.1

YES

YES

NO

342.10

18.4

YES

YES

NO

705.51

74.86

10.6

YES

YES

NO

A4.1 - Atlantic and Med. high energy circalittoral rock2 035.08

230.44

11.3

YES

YES

NO

A4.2 - Atlantic and Med. moderate energy circalittoral rock9 376.12

837.94

8.9

YES

NO

A4.3 - Atlantic and Med. low energy circalittoral rock3 113.54

167.56

5.4

YES

NO

A5.1 - Sublittoral coarse sediment32 359.15

3 283.14

10.1

YES

YES

NO

A5.2 - Sublittoral sand29 184.77

3 652.10

12.5

YES

YES

NO

A5.3 - Sublittoral mud

14 422.97

1 096.01

7.6

YES

NO

A5.4 - Sublittoral mixed sediments

7 408.02

483.28

6.5

YES

NO

A6.1 - Deep-sea rock and artificial substrata

52.74

20.68

39.2

YES

YES

A6.2 - Deep-sea mixed substrata

29.00

0.41

1.4

NO

A6.3 or A6.4 - Deep-sea sand or deep-sea muddy sand

117.54

3.57

3.0

NO

A6.5 - Deep-sea mud

109.22

24.40

22.3

YES

YES

5 203.60

64.55

1.2

NO

High energy circalittoral seabed598.20

56.66

9.5

YES

NO

High energy infralittoral seabed

3 607.61

410.80

11.4

YES

YES

Low energy circalittoral seabed562.76

14.14

2.5

NO

Low energy infralittoral seabed

201.80

10.99

5.4

YES

Moderate energy circalittoral seabed

4 730.55

113.222.4

NOModerate energy infralittoral seabed311.45

16.25

5.2

YES

Total area (km2)

Area in MPAs (km2)

A3.1 - Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoral rock5 687.19

574.51

A3.2 - Atlantic and Med. moderate energy infralittoral rock1 862.94

A3.3 - Atlantic and Med. low energy infralittoral rockHabitatDeep circalittoral seabed42% in MPAs

NO

NO

30%

40%

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

OSPAR Commission, 2013
Table 7. EUNIS level 3 classes and the proportion within MPAs, with the tested thresholds ranging between 5% and 40% in the offshore area of Region III
EUNIS classes that do not intersect MPAs are not shown.
5% in
MPAs

10%

20%

30%

25.9

YES

YES

YES

NO

371.63

6.3

YES

NO

9 558.04

368.97

3.9

NOA5.1 - Sublittoral coarse sediment

50 791.15

1 156.40

2.3

NOA5.2 - Sublittoral sand57 294.87

402.82

0.7

NOA5.3 - Sublittoral mud

14 297.23

17.53

0.1

NO

A5.4 - Sublittoral mixed sediments

13 532.99

291.51

2.2

NO

Deep circalittoral seabed (level 4)

83 407.40

1.17

0.0

NO

Total area (km2)

Area in MPAs (km2)

89.17

23.05

A4.2 - Atlantic and Med. moderate energy
circalittoral rock5 859.23

A4.3 - Atlantic and Med. low energy
circalittoral rockHabitatA3.2 - Atlantic and Mediterraneanmoderate energy infralittoral rock% in MPAs

40%

43

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012

Figure 12

Histogram showing patch size distribution for broadscale habitats within Region II.
Frequency’ on the x‐axis is a relative measure reflecting the analysis grid squares. Note thelarge number of very small patches, suggesting the possibility of classification artefacts

Figure 13.

Histogram showing patch size distribution for broadscale habitats within Region III.
‘Frequency’ on the x‐axis is a relative measure reflecting the analysis grid squares. Note thelarge number of very small patches, suggesting the possibility of classification artefacts.

44

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Test 8 – Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat proximity

A proximity analysis was performed for EUNIS Level 3 classes: high energy circalittoral rock; highenergy infralittoral rock and circalittoral rock are shown in Figures 14, 15 and 16 for Regions II and
III. Using the numbers from the OSPAR 3 Initial Tests, each example of the habitat that is protected
within an MPA was analysed for proximity to other examples of the same broad‐scale EUNIS class, atthresholds of 250 km and 500 km offshore (buffer of 125 km and 250 km) and 50 km and 80 km
nearshore. The assumption is that the same EUNIS classes were more likely to be relevant to an
associated species’ connectivity than different ones. However, it is acknowledged that different life
history stages could require different habitat types, and that at a finer scale analysis this would need
to be considered.
High Energy Infralittoral rock and High Energy Circalittoral rock are both sparsely distributed habitats
found primarily in the nearshore area. It is challenging to meet larger proximity thresholds. There
are large gaps in the North Sea, Irish Sea and Celtic Sea that are primarily due to the limited natural
occurrence of these habitats.
Sublittoral coarse sediment (EUNIS 5.1) is a more widely distributed habitat that has mostly met theclose proximity thresholds (i.e., 80 km). However, gaps occur in the northern North Sea. At athreshold level of 50 km, smaller gaps at lower thresholds, smaller gaps have been identified in theWestern Channel and parts of the Irish Sea.

45

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 14.

46

Proximity of infralittoral rock in MPAs Regions II and III using thresholds offshore of 500 km and 250 km; and nearshore of
80 km and 40 km 14 m

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Figure 15.

Proximity of high energy circalittoral rock in MPAs Regions II and III using thresholds offshore of 500 km and 250 km; andnearshore of 80 km and 40 km

47An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 16.

48

Proximity of sublittoral coarse sediment in MPAs Regions II and III using thresholds offshore of 500 km and 250 km; andnearshore of 80 km and 40 km

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Discussion
Level 1
Test 1 – Test to determine whether the network is generally well distributed

As the very first step, this basic test helps to identify which parts of the OSPAR Maritime Area arevery unlikely to be ecologically coherent (Figure 1). OSPAR (2008) reminds us of the value of the eyeand human brain to detect visual patterns and gaps, while taking into consideration factors such as
the shape of coastlines. The use of a GIS analysis allows quantification of this visual test. This test
also presents mapped outputs that can provide a visual tool, identifying the principal gaps in
distribution connectivity within the network to assist future planning. The inverse map (Figure 2)
provides a quick method to identify where the network is most unlikely to be ecologically coherent.
The inverse kernel density analysis takes this method further by recognising that there is no specificcut‐off distance in connectivity (and hence proximity), but rather a gradation, reflecting the manydiffering larval and adult dispersal distances for any given ecological community.
It should be borne in mind that these thresholds are set at a very low level, and therefore the map
represents only the most significant spatial gaps in the network, and by no means all of them. Care isalso needed when interpreting the results. For example, even in those areas that appear to be wellcovered, the two‐dimensional nature of the map in Figure 1 may hide larger gaps in different depth
layers (albeit that the intention of Test 3 is to give this additional information). Similarly whilst thekernel density (Figure 2) may be particularly useful for nearshore habitats, this may be
misinterpreted for deep environments where a large range of depths are covered (e.g. Hatton
Rockall Bank areas and the Charlie‐Gibbs Fracture Zone).
It is clear from this first test that Regions I, IV and large parts and depths of Region V are very
unlikely to be ecologically coherent. At a threshold of 250 km, Regions II and III are meeting thecriteria and are shown to have no major spatial gaps. Therefore, in subsequent tests more stringent
criteria have been used based on thresholds that have been used in the English MCZ project (Roberts
et al. 2010) and the analysis for HELCOM (HELCOM, 2010), as well considering the proximity
between habitats of the same general type.
This approach demonstrates how the OSPAR MPA network can be analysed using a stepwise
approach, using techniques and thresholds that are most appropriate to the developmental stage ofthe network within a particular Region. Though ultimately it is the ecological properties of thespecies and habitats that must be met, an iterative process of testing , gap filling and designation of
new sites, can allow the network to work towards an ecologically coherent status, albeit at different
rates in each Region.
The principles set out in OSPAR (2008) for how gaps could be filled in data poor situations,recommend using expert opinion and local knowledge; picking the best or best known sites. Where
appropriate, collating data from the Census of Marine Life MAR‐ECO project and affiliated research
project ECOMAR would help to identify areas within Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas(EBSAs) as a priority for protection.

49

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
Test 1 Summary: Test to determine whether the network is generally distributed
Using basic thresholds this test identifies major gaps in the offshore and high seas areas of Regions I,
IV and V. Using more stringent connectivity criteria the nearshore components of Regions II and III
are showing signs of ecological coherence, with smaller gaps identified around the Channel Islands,
southern Norway, southern Ireland and south east England.

Test 2 – Test of representation at biogeographic level

As noted in the Draft 2012 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs: ‘In 2012 the majority ofthe ten biogeographic provinces considered in this test surpass the 3% threshold coverage by OSPAR
Marine Protected Areas (marked green): the five continental shelf provinces Lusitanean‐Boreal(11.14%), Boreal‐Lusitanean (8.16%), Boreal (8.16%), Macaronesian Azores (3.60%), and Lusitanean(Cool & Warm) (3.36%), and the two pelagic provinces Cool temperate Waters (6.92%) and Warm‐
temperate Waters (4.17%). and are marked in green on Table 1. Therefore, according to this test ‘forthe first time the results of this initial spatial test indicate a degree of ecological coherence of the
OSPAR Network of MPAs with regard to coverage of the various biogeographic provinces within the
North‐East Atlantic’ (OSPAR 2013a, p36). At the province scale this is a coarse test. It should be
noted also that other provinces (Barents Sea and Deep Sea Atlantic) exceed 3% but are notconsidered to be one of the 10 provinces included in the test.
Here, the OSPAR analysis was expanded to consider whether replication is being met at abiogeographic level. The extent of the Dinter provinces varies widely in size between 22,545 km2 and
6,690,666 km2 which can affect how readily replication thresholds can be met. In general, rarer
habitats require a greater proportion of protection than the widely distributed ones, suggesting that
future MPA selection should deliberately seek to replicate examples of the less common habitatsthat may also be more vulnerable to harm if left unprotected.
In the current analysis, very small patches of a given class were still counted as a replicate. Futurerefinements should consider establishing minimum patch size limits that reflect the precision of thedata, lessening the risk that “noise” is being counted (e.g. less than 1 km2) and taking into
consideration the generally accepted precepts of community ecology.
In addition to the Dinter biogeographical provinces, the use of geomorphological maps that are
currently being developed under the Global Seabed Geomorphology Map (GSGM) may provide asecond proxy for broad‐scale habitat representativity (see Figure 15 as an illustrative analysis). This
new GSGM is being produced in partnership with Geoscience Australia, UNEP‐GRID Arendal andConservation International and is on track to be completed at the end of 2013. It will identify GIS
polygons comprising the 21 International Hydrographic Office defined seabed features to provide aninventory of those features globally and at a resolution of 900m (Jonas Rüpp, pers. Comm.).
Improved geomorphology could be a great asset in the development of improved habitat
classifications. However, geomorphology alone should not be confused as a habitat classification,
which should take into account many other environmental factors as well as species‐habitat
associations. This new work could be used alongside EUNIS, but would be subject to similar caveats

50

OSPAR Commission, 2013

around data accuracy and scale (see below). In the future, OSPAR may wish to consider the use of
these new data sets in its representativity analyses.

Test 2 Summary: Test of representation at biogeographic level
The OSPAR MPA Network of meets this test overall, though not all provinces were represented. This
assessment has added a replicate analysis to the results that have been provided in the Draft 2012
Status Report. For those biogeographic provinces meeting the 3% coverage threshold there is arange between 4 (East Atlantic Temperate, Macaronesian Azores ) and 305 replicates (East Atlantic
Temperate, Cool‐temperate Waters), which to some extent reflects the relative sizes of theprovinces.

51

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Figure 17.
52

The (draft) global seascape classification, courtesy GRID Arendal

OSPAR Commission, 2013
Test 3 – Test of distribution across bathymetric classes

In addition to OSPAR Test 1, which looks at the distribution of MPAs in two dimensions, this analysis
adds the third spatial dimension –depth. If broad depth ranges are found to be poorly represented,
it would strongly suggest a gap in the eco‐coherence of the network.
As with the other initial tests, bathymetry can only provide a very rudimentary ‘first glance’ atrepresentativity. Once this rudimentary test is met, further consideration should be given to moresophisticated factors such as currents, shape of the coastline and seafloor sediment type. If OSPAR isin agreement, a future test could include combining bathymetry with each Dinter biogeographic
zone.
The histogram in Figure 6 shows an uneven distribution across the depth ranges, with the two
shallowest classes (0‐75m) having much higher representativity than the deeper classes, with the
deepest class (>2 000m) the least represented. To a certain extent it might be expected that MPAs
nearshore would be smaller and more numerous; but these results indicate a strong bias towards
shallower nearshore areas, which perhaps reflects human interest in areas closer to land.
As can be seen in the histograms in Figures 7, 8 and 9 different OSPAR Regions have very different
depth profiles. Future analyses could take these differing characteristics into account when assessing
the distribution of MPAs by depth at a regional scale. For example, depth classes could bedetermined by looking for break points in the histogram distributions. Areas that are predominantlyof one depth range could possibly have additional depth sub‐classes, reflecting the sub‐Regional
character.

Test 3 Summary: Test of distribution across bathymetric classes
This test indicates a strong bias of MPA distribution towards the coastal zone and shallow
continental shelf, suggesting coherence has not been achieved at depths greater than 75m.

Level 2
Test 4 – Representation of threatened and/or declining species and habitats

One of the recommendations presented in this report is for efforts to be focused on developing amore comprehensive database on OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats for the
OSPAR Maritime Area. Data gathering for this purpose has become intimately connected with
monitoring requirements under the EU Maritime Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) andsubsequent sharing of biological data (through EMODnet). Linking future OSPAR tests of eco‐coherence to data readily available through the MSFD process would be an efficient use ofresources.
In the absence of comprehensive sampling, new approaches are being developed using models to
predict the existence of particular species based on habitat parameters such as depth, exposure andsubstrate. This approach was trialled for the deep‐water coral species Lophelia pertusa described in
Ross and Howell (2012). Further work to examine connectivity of Lophelia pertusa within MPAs using

53

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
larval dispersal models is on‐going (K. Howell pers.comm). As with the use of any model, care mustbe given to the interpretation of its results. In general, false positives (predicted habitat where theorganism actually does not occur) are common, and hence can lead to the false security that athreatened or declining species has been protected when in fact it has not. This and other issues,
such as precision and uncertainty, underline the need to validate results.

Test 4 Summary: Representation of threatened and/or declining species and habitats
Records for OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats need to become morecomprehensive across Regions before analysis can be carried out. The use of predicted habitat
modelling and identification of areas that are significant for species can serve as viable proxies forincomplete point data. For the area considered in Ross and Howell (2012) 23.2% of habitat predicted
to be suitable for Lophelia pertusa is contained within MPAs. Field surveys would be required tovalidate this prediction.

Test 5 – A matrix to assess features, representativity, replication, resilience and connectivity

The matrix approach (OSPAR, 2013b) provides a valuable contribution, which can be used forassessing ecological coherence gaps for broad‐scale habitats and OSPAR threatened and/or declining
species. This approach can also be carried out only when the data exist for relevant habitats andspecies. As a tabular methodology it provided an effective means of cross‐referencing whether
ecological coherence criteria have been met for particular broad‐scale habitat and OSPAR
threatened and/or declining species.
Due to a lack of quantitative data for total species populations and habitat areas for OSPAR
threatened and/or declining species in the Channel, it was not possible to evaluate the proportion offeatures protected, or reach a definitive conclusion on the adequacy or viability of the network inthis region. The trial also highlighted problems of consistency in the way that information on MPAs isreported by Contracting Parties.
As with the other methodologies set out within this report, the matrix approach rests on a numberof assumptions within the data sets that are used. The matrix approach would, in our opinion,benefit if it were presented together with a visual representation of its results through maps and GIS
analyses.

Test 5 Summary: Matrix assessment of features, representativity, replication, resilience andconnectivity
Recognised by OSPAR as a valid approach drawing together the collation of detailed information on
species and assessment as well as the principles of network design but currently limited by data
quality and availability as well as the need for more consideration of determination of scientificcriteria for success.

54

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Test 6 ‐ Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat representativity and replication

Representativity is a heuristic for looking at the ecological distribution of the building blocks withwhich an MPA network is constructed. Systematic conservation planning requires clear choices
about the features to be used as surrogates for overall biodiversity in the planning process(Margules and Pressey, 2000), and representativity is that in its most fundamental form. While such“coarse filter” analyses miss many ecological nuances, they do manage to capture some of theoverall scope of the solution space (i.e. what is “out there”). If these broad‐scale bounds are ‘foundto be wanting’, it is unlikely that the finer nuances are being addressed either.
Representativity, therefore, is a first look to assess whether ‘the full range of species, habitats,landscapes and ecological processes present within a sea area [are] adequately represented within
the MPA network’ (OSPAR, 2007)
Greater than EUNIS Level 3 was previously recommended ‘to reasonably reflect the variation in
biological character of the habitats in the OSPAR area’ (OSPAR, 2008). It is our opinion, however,that using EUNIS at a biotope or finer level could bring too much uncertainty (based on the EUNIS
assumptions and the underlying data) to the analysis and the attendant risk that the network could
be fitted around the “noise” of data and model uncertainty, rather than meaningful ecological“signal”. It is salient to recall that EUNIS relies a great deal on a small number of samples, expert
judgement and models. Emerging new work (such as the geomorphology work by GRID‐Arendal –Figure 17) could add another perspective on representativity.
The test also considered the extent to which these broad‐scale habitats were replicated within
OSPAR Regions II and III. (This is assuming that these broad‐scale types will l harbour similar
ecological community types.) Having more than one MPA of the same habitat type or feature is a
way of spreading risk and strengthening the network with the capability to respond to naturalvariation and movements of species and habitats and changes to the climate (OSPAR, 2007).
HELCOM sets a minimum of three examples of a representative habitat in each region (HELCOM,
2010). The Matrix approach set a minimum of two broad‐scale habitat replicates in the Channel
Area. The English MCZ project set minimum criteria of two broad‐scale habitat examples withineach Regional Project (Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010).
The analysis presented here was undertaken at a broad‐scale habitat class and is based on the same
(likely overly optimistic) assumptions of full protection as for representativity, with the additional
caveat that replicated features are indeed replicates of one another. This admittedly may not always
be true, and could be considered fundamentally impossible, since all places differ in certain regards
from one another. Nevertheless, at this initial stage, it can be simplistically assumed that two
habitats of the same EUNIS code, regardless of where they are, share more in common than indifferences. More refined analyses may in the future have to revise this coarse assumption.
As the size of a planning area increases, one may reasonably expect the number of possible habitat
types to increase (at a given scale). If each of these are to be replicated, the total number of
replicates would therefore also increase. The Baltic Sea area is 413,946 km2 whereas the OSPAR
maritime area is nearly 14 million km2. Only Region III is smaller than the HELCOM area, and Regions

55

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
I and V are over ten times bigger. Therefore, the OSPAR Maritime Area is very likely to have many
more habitats (and attendant species) than the HELCOM area. Indeed, because the Baltic contains
relatively young brackish water ecosystems, diversity there is depressed and also more sensitive tostressors (due to a lack of ecosystem and trophic level redundancies) (e.g. Gucu 1997; Ellis et al.,2011). OSPAR comparisons with the HELCOM methods, approaches, and results should bear such
critical differences in mind.
To better ensure the likelihood of effective protection, the number of replicates for features that are
known to be threatened and/or declining would be expected to increase. Coarse feature classes willneed more replicates than finer classes. Additionally, due to varying levels of data uncertainty,
replication should also be expressed to varying degrees (though this is seldom done): features forwhich there are weak/incomplete data need greater replication than those features for which betterdata are available (OSPAR, 2007). However, for this initial analysis, the lowest value possible (i.e. two
replicates) was used.
Further work will be necessary to determine the number of replicates that is appropriate for OSPAR
threatened and/or declining species, taking into account the levels of confidence in the available
data. An initial glance would suggest that it should meet or exceed the standard of three sites set by
HELCOM, since there is a much greater likelihood of habitat variability within the larger and morediverse OSPAR Maritime Area. However, for the purposes of this initial analysis, the standard of two
replicates, as used in the matrix approach (OSPAR, 2008; OSPAR 2013b) was used here as well.
As discussed above, future work to determine a minimum patch size will be necessary if this test is
to be refined.
Combined with the adequacy figures presented in test 7, one can begin to get a picture of protectionin terms of proportion and numbers. Additionally, if there are a sufficient number of replicates
distributed across latitudinal and temperature gradients, there is a much greater chance that the
network will exhibit robustness to climate change.

Test 6 Summary: Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat representativity and replication

10 out of 35 (29%) of broad‐scale habitat types found in Region II are not represented. Of
those represented, 2 broad‐scale habitat types (Deep circalittoral mixed hard sediments,
Deep‐sea rock and artificial hard substrata) are not meeting a replication threshold of 2.
7 out of 29 (24%) of broad‐scale habitat types found in Region III are not represented. Of
those represented, 1 broad‐scale habitat type (Deep‐sea mixed substrata) is not meeting a
replication threshold of 2.

Test 7 ‐ Spatial analysis of adequacy and viability criteria for broad‐scale habitats

Achieving adequacy in an ecologically coherent MPA network means ensuring that a sufficient
proportion of the network is protected as a factor of the individual size and number of MPAs in the

56OSPAR Commission, 2013

network. Criteria for adequacy are usually provided as a percentage of habitat within the region.
HELCOM (2010) summarised that ‘many marine studies and international Conventions havesuggested that ecologically coherent networks of MPAs should cover at least 20% of each habitat ina region to secure long‐term viable populations and protection of the ecosystem’. As a basic
indicator of ecological coherence, this threshold was used for this report.
In the absence of species‐area curves, Ardron (2008a & b) described how the shape of the data
themselves can be used as an indicator for setting varying representativity targets. For his analysis, asquare root transformation was used to normalise proportional targets based on the overall
abundance of the conservation features. Representation targets were scaled roughly in proportion
to the square‐root of representative features’ overall areas, which allowed for a normal distributionof habitat protection across a given network. The two interlocked assumptions here are that in any
given MPA network: 1) there is going to be a range of appropriate levels of protection; and 2) that
this range can be statistically represented as roughly normal, but only if the habitat data themselves
are normally distributed, and if they are not, then they must first be transformed. Whether it isappropriate to scale representation targets across a normal spectrum depends on the ecologicaltargets of the network. For example, Johnson et al. (2008) point out that marine species associatedwith more common habitats are likely to be recruited from protected as well as unprotected sites,
but that those associated with less common habitats will be more reliant on the dispersed “steppingstones” of protected areas, and thus proportionally more of those less‐common habitats should beprotected. All this points strongly towards the conclusion that flat across‐the‐board targets (like 20%
for everything), while easy to communicate, are very unlikely to fully reflect the varying nature of
the marine habitats and species under consideration. In the end, appropriate thresholds/targets fora given habitat (or species) will need to be developed on a case‐by‐case basis depending on theoccurrence and vulnerability of habitats and species in the relevant biogeographic region (OSPAR,
2013a). An approach for rare features will also have to be decided.
Only one broad‐scale habitat (A4.1, high energy circalittoral rock) has achieved more than 40% in theoffshore area of Region II. Two further habitats (6.1, deep sea rock and artificial hard substrata; and3.1, high energy infralittoral rock) have achieved high representation in the nearshore parts ofRegions II and III.
Given that there are 333 OSPAR MPAs, adequacy and viability regarding individual size, shape andquality of each MPA was not considered, though it is relevant to the discussion.
OSPAR guidance is that the sizes of network sites (for a given feature) should be distributed
throughout, or exceed, the estimated range of sizes necessary to sustain a viable population orcommunity (OSPAR, 2008). As a basic indication of viability, the English MCZ Ecological Network
Guidance (JNCC and Natural England, 2010) used a minimum patch size threshold of 5 km2 and an
average size of between 10 and 20 km in diameter for broad-scale habitats. As per test 6, a minimum
patch size of 0.24 km2 or 3% of the proportion within the MPA was used, based on the HELCOM
precedent.
The histograms for broad‐scale habitat adequacy show a skewed bias towards very small habitat
patch sizes, often under 1 km2 (Figures 12 & 13). The underlying causes are uncertain but it could be

57

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
habitats that are highly mixed, perhaps including some rare habitats, as well as small MPA sizes.
However, given the large number of these, they cannot all be rare habitats, suggesting that the data
have been over‐classified, and that these small patches are simply “noise”; i.e. not ecologicallymeaningful. Further analyses will be required to determine what the predominant factors are and if
these very small patches should be removed from future analyses.
HELCOM (2010) also consider anthropogenic pressure in determining whether an MPA is likely to be
viable, reasoning that areas under more pressure need to be more self‐sufficient (i.e. larger). They
considered pressures such as shipping traffic intensity, wind farms, and fishing intensity. OSPAR
could also take this into consideration in future work.
More sophisticated analysis of OSPAR representativity and threatened and/or declining species
could be more effectively achieved using a decision support tool such as Marxan or Zonation, thoughmore data of better quality will be required for any such future exercise.

Test 7 Summary: Spatial analysis of which habitat meet overall adequacy/representaivity criteriaOnly one broad‐scale habitat (A4.1, high energy circalittoral rock) has representativity ofmore than 40% in the offshore area of Region II. Two further habitats (6.1, deep sea rock andartificial hard substrata; and 3.1, high energy infralittoral rock) have achieved
representativity thresholds in the nearshore parts of Regions II and III.
In Region II, 1 358 broad‐scale habitat patch sizes are less than 4 km2 and 672 are greaterthan 4 km2. For Region III the figures are 1 049 and 342 respectively. (No cut‐off was appliedin this analysis.)
There is a strong bias of small habitat patch sizes. The underlying causes are unclear andrequire further attention. Future analyses may reduce the number of small patches, aiding
analysis.

Test 8 – Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat connectivity

Designing a network to maximise ecological linkages has generally relied on models that try andincorporate thresholds based on our current understanding of variables such as larval life spans,water movement, habitat type and the mobility of adults. OSPAR guidance recognises that the
network cannot reasonably be expected to be designed to incorporate the movements and life
histories of all species, and that the understanding of the mobility of most species is still relatively
poor. Initial OSPAR guidance only required the network to ‘recognise aspects of connectivity’ or only
to consider ‘connectivity where a specific path between identified places is known’.
However, a number of recent assessments and planning processes have used some more advanced
models to design networks based on modelling larval life‐spans and current movements. Knowledgeof the movement of species is still relatively poor. It is known that some individuals move between
different habitats and others remain on the same habitat throughout their lives. Some species havevery short larval life spans and therefore only disperse over less than a kilometre, whereas others

58

OSPAR Commission, 2013

move over many hundreds of kilometres. In a report to inform the MCZ process in England, Roberts
et al. (2010) modelled the movements for 67 different species and provided a spacing
recommendation of 40‐80 km. In their analysis of the Baltic Sea Protected Area network thresholdsof 25 km and 50 km were used as by HELCOM as proxy distance thresholds between seascape
patches (HELCOM 2010).
In the absence of empirical data models can provide guidance on connectivity. Focusing initially on
meeting representation, replication and adequacy targets a network that is geographically welldistributed will emerge; and it is likely that the network will meet connectivity criteria if
retrospectively applied.

Test 8 Summary: Spatial analysis of broad‐scale habitat connectivityThe wide variation in distances between habitat classes suggests varying degrees ofpotential connectivity.
Connectivity is the most difficult of the ecological coherence criteria to assess. An initial
focus on representativity and replication is likely to be more cost‐effective at this stage ofplanning.

59

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012

Conclusions
Overall this assessment has concluded that the OSPAR MPA network is not ecologically coherent.
This concurs with the Draft 2012 OSPAR Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs. However, it
should be noted that the OSPAR MPA Network has now passed the second initial spatial test (alsotest 2 of this assessment), which is a significant landmark.
The evolution towards an ecologically coherent network in the OSPAR Maritime Area is clearly moreadvanced in some OSPAR Regions and sub‐regions than others. This assessment has also sought toaugment the three Initial OSPAR Tests by applying GIS analyses in a pragmatic way that can help
direct future planning and development of the network. These additional tests have had to make afundamental assumption that the levels of protection extended equally to all species and habitats
within the boundaries of all OSPAR MPAs, namely that any species or habitats associated withbroad‐scale habitat falling within an OSPAR MPA are afforded protection, hence are likely to beoverly optimistic in their outcomes. Nonetheless, they provide illustrations of what is possible.
In terms of the OSPAR Maritime Area as a whole (Level 1), this assessment has confirmed
distributional gaps. There is under‐representation of biogeographic provinces and bathymetriczones, which greatly reduces the likelihood of achieving ecological coherence. However, significant
uncertainty also remains. For example, from the Figures created in Test 1 it may look as though the
MPA network can protect species over a wide area, but in reality because species are generally
restricted to relatively small bathymetric ranges, the potential buffering may be much smaller.
Alternatively deep‐sea research results have shown great similarity between the fauna on the Mid‐
Atlantic Ridge and the continental margin (particularly the European Atlantic continental slope),suggesting that for some species larval connectivity (buffering) may be much greater than 500 km.
Caution is also needed concerning the pelagic areas identified in Table 1, as whilst pelagic
biogeographical provinces are generally broad in scale, there is probably greater complexity related
to frontal systems, and depth, including specialist benthopelagic fauna which may change
significantly on a continental margin/the continental slope with latitude.
Regarding future testing at this Level, the bathymetric distributions of the OSPAR Regions areradically different, thereby suggesting that a ‘Region by Region’ approach would bring forthcharacteristics lost at the OSPAR‐wide scale. The new geomorphological dataset currently underdevelopment by GRID‐Arendal and partners has potential applicability for future broad‐scale
representativity tests, though much will hinge on the details of the final product.
For those parts of the OSPAR Maritime Area within which Level 1 tests indicate positive signs of
ecological coherence, and/or for which more comprehensive data are available, a further set of tests
is possible (Level 2). Predictive modelling of habitat suitability, based on a degree of data
completeness, can help illustrate regional representation of threatened and/or declining habitats on
the OSPAR List. The example of Lophelia pertusa which is a better known (iconic) habitat, supported
by a relatively good dataset, away from the coast where most ecological information has beengathered (and is the subject of an OSPAR Recommendation), showed the importance of shelf depths
and continental slopes for this habitat. However, predictive modelling should not be perceived as a60

OSPAR Commission, 2013

map of occurrence. Important Bird Areas and deep‐sea sponge aggregations could also provide abasis for future species and habitat tests. Within Level 2 this assessment also analysed coarse habitat
representativity and replication, together with habitat adequacy and viability, and potential
connectivity (proximity), all using EUNIS level 3 categories.
The use of classification data and predictive analyses brings with it the (usually unstated)assumptions that went into the creation of these data layers. EUNIS, a valuable classification tool,
nevertheless rests on several assumptions, and, like predictive habitat modelling, should not be
confused with reality. At best, classifications such as EUNIS are a useful amalgamation of many
disparate data sets into a single readily interpretable product that highlights physical environmental
differences from one class to the next. However, at worst, these classifications provide a false senseof assurance that these coarsely modelled physical parameters translate to genuinely distinct
ecological communities on a fine scale. In actuality, validation testing on EUNIS and otherclassifications has yielded mixed results, with efforts being made at the sub‐regional scale toaugment such physical data with biological observations (e.g. Howell, 2010). Therefore, we strongly
recommend against reading too much detail into results arising from the use of EUNIS (or similar)
data, and encourage OSPAR in future assessments of ecological coherence to develop procedures todisregard very small patches (e.g. a threshold less than 1 km2).
The Quality Status Report 2010 (OSPAR, 2010) provided a brief overview of OSPAR MPAs by Region
and highlighted the range of ecosystems for which they were established. In 2010, based on thisevidence, OSPAR Ministers revised the 2003 ecological coherence target, recommending that
ecological coherence should be achieved by 2012 to include sites representative of all biogeographic
regions in the OSPAR Maritime Area and to be consistent with the CBD target7 for effectively
conserved marine and coastal ecological regions (OSPAR Recommendation 2010/2). Since then asignificant number of sites have been added to the network, but several broad conclusions set out in
the QSR 2010 are borne out by this assessment. Most specifically that ‘a comprehensive assessmentof the ecological coherence of the current network of MPAs is hampered by limited information
available on the distribution of many species and habitats within the OSPAR Maritime Area,
including in OSPAR MPAs’ (OSPAR, 2010 p.137). The tests undertaken within this assessment are still
very much linked to the principle that the value of the outputs is dependent on the quality of thedata that are used for the input. Data quality, consistency and coverage continue to be the mainbarriers to effective testing of ecological coherence in all OSPAR Regions and one of the key
recommendations of this report is for OSPAR to develop guidelines to improve the consistency ofreporting of protected features and mobilise efforts to improve the coverage for OSPAR threatened
and/or declining features and broad‐scale habitats.

7

Decision X/2 by the tenth Conference of Parties (COP10, 2010) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) provided arevised and updated Strategic Plan for 2011‐2020 in which Aichi Target 11 under Strategic Goal C states that by 2020, atleast 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particularimportance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically
representative and well‐connected systems of protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures, andintegrated into the wider landscape and seascapes.

61

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
The assessment of ecological coherence within the OSPAR Maritime Area inevitably encounters
issues of uncertainty in the quality of data and the thresholds under which the network is assessed.
Although recommendations within this report and elsewhere (e.g. OSPAR 2008; BDC matrix report)
are for efforts to be focused on improving data coverage, quality and consistency. This exercise willtake several years to achieve. Therefore it is important for Contracting Parties to be comfortable tocontinue to use some of the more basic assessment methods including proxies and analogues tohelp future MPA planning and designation work.
At the geographic scale of the OSPAR Maritime Area, the OSPAR MPA network is arguably the mostadvanced example in the world. However, notwithstanding adopted Guidelines and the best effortsof Contracting Parties, it has developed in an ‘ad hoc’ way that predicates (initially at least) against
achieving ecological coherence. In other parts of the world (e.g. Australia) a more strategic target
driven approach is now favoured. OSPAR should be fully engaged in the global debate on how best
to proceed noting that international targets are, perhaps due to ease of assessment, focusing more
on representativity than other aspects of ecological coherence.
A summary of the tests applied in this assessment, the associated thresholds and indicators, theoutcomes and results of each test and the attendant limitations is presented below in Table 8.

62

OSPAR Commission, 2013
Table 8: Summary of tests performed
Thresholds

Indicators

OutcomeAssumptions, caveats
and uncertainties

A visual overview of the
network to determine if
MPAs are generally welldistributed and that there areno major gaps. This iscomplemented by a basic
GIS analysis to quantitatively
assess gaps in the network.

Nearshore >250 km
Offshore >500 km diametercircleHigh seas >1,000 km square
The criteria are generally set
to ten times the valuecommonly found in scientific
literature. For the nearshore
the test also examines the
network at 80 km and 50 km
thresholds.

The GIS analysis shows
more accurately which
Regions are more likely to beecologically coherent byidentifying the major gaps.

The network is not yet
spatially well-distributed
across the OSPAR Maritime
area and its Regions. Signsof ecological coherence are
emerging in Regions II andIII.

This is a basic test that canhelp to identify major gaps
at a large scale in a data
poor situation. It is a
starting point.

2

Biogeographic (Dinterprovinces) representation

Does the OSPAR MPA
network cover at least 3% of
most (seven out of 10)
relevant provinces

This test provides anindication of representativityof biogeography together
with a basic threshold foradequacy.

Seven out of ten provinces
pass the 3% threshold andtherefore the network can beconsidered to be covering
adequate and/or
representative proportions ofbiogeography.

The 3% threshold isidentified as 1/10th of the
proportion most commonly
found in the scientific
literature. Considers 7 out
of 10 Provinces only. Riskof being confused withbeing a target, like the
CBD Aichi Targets.

1

3

Representativity ofbathymetric zones

The bathymetric distribution
was binned into five broad
depth classes to represent
littoral, shallow shelf, deeper
shelf slope and deep sea.

This test provides anindication of representativityof bathymetric ranges.

The shallowest classes havemuch higher representativity
than the deeper classes, withthe deepest class (>2000m)
being the least represented.

Bathymetry only provides avery rudimentary look atrepresentativity, since
habitat types are
influenced by many otherfactors such as currents,
shape of the coastline,
sediments and morphologyof the seabed.

2

4

Representation of threatened
and/or declining species andhabitats

Most (70%) of the OSPAR
threatened and/or declining
habitats and species (withlimited home ranges)
represented in the MPA
network. 5% [or at least 3
sites] of all areas within each
OSPAR region in which theyoccur is protected.

This test would showwhether the network
represented these features
and whether it had reached abasic level of adequacy andreplication.

Comprehensive spatial data
for the distribution of species
populations and habitats
across the OSPAR maritime
area is still being collected in
the OSPAR database and is
not comprehensive enoughat this stage to allow this test
to be carried out.

Species records for the
OSPAR maritime area arevery sparse and habitat
data based to a large
extent on models.

Level

Test

1

1

1

63

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 20122

5

Matrix test to assessfeatures, representativity,
replication, resilience andconnectivity

Representativity: All EUNIS
level 3 habitats and OSPAR
threatened and/or declining
species.
Replication: At least two MPAs
for each EUNIS level 3 habitat
and at least 3 examples of
OSPAR threatened and/or
declining habitats for which
MPAs are consideredappropriate

The report (OSPAR, 2013b)
shows which EUNIS level 3
habitats (for UK only) and
OSPAR threatened and/or
declining species are
represented and replicatedand identifies the proportion
protected for EUNIS level 3
habitats.

The matrix approachprovides a useful tool tomonitor the progress of
ecological coherence forthreatened and/or declining
species and habitats.

The report (OSPAR,
2013b) describes issues
and discrepancies between
the UK and France in theprotection of broad scale
habitats, intertidal featuresand spatial protection forsome species.

2

6

Spatial analysis ofbroadscale habitat
representativity andreplication

Representativity of broadscale
habitats mapped in Regions II
and III. A minimum of 2
replicates.

This analysis aims toestablish that all habitats
within the Region II and III
are represented in the
network.

71% of broadscale habitats
in Region II and 76% in
Region III are represented.
Of those broadscale
represented 2 (in Region II)
and 1 (in Region III) are notmeeting replication thresholdof 2.

Assumptions for broad
scale habitat (EUNIS 3) asfor Test 4. Minimum patch
size criteria needs to befurther refined.

2

7

Spatial analysis of adequacyand viability

Thresholds for adequacy set at
5%, 10%, 30% and 40%. No
minimum patch sizes were set
for viability criteria

The results of this analysis
will show at what level
adequacy targets are met forbroadscale habitats. Viability
results show distribution ofpatch sizes.

One broadscale habitat has
achieved an adequacy
threshold of more than 40%,and two broadscale habitats
are greater than 30% forRegions II and III. There is astrong bias towards small
habitat patch sizes.

Assumptions for broad
scale habitat as for Test 4.
Minimum patch size criteria
needs to be further refined.

2

8

Spatial analysis ofbroadscale habitat
connectivity

Three broadscale habitat types
were assessed in Regions II
and III at thresholds of 250 km
and 500 km (offshore); 80 km
and 50 km (nearshore).

This test shows the extent towhich different broad-scale
habitats are proximate toeach other. It also shows
how realistic basic
connectivity thresholds are toachieve for different habitats.

The wide variation between
habitat classes suggests
varying degrees of potential
connectivity.

An initial focus on
representativity andreplication is likely to be
more cost-effective at thisstage of planning.
Thresholds need refining.

64

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Next steps
The following recommendations to improve both the development and assessment of an
ecologically coherent network in the OSPAR Maritime Area go hand in hand. In general theyencourage OSPAR to urge Contracting Parties to adopt proportionate assessments and contribute
appropriately to build the necessary data sets, carry out a more detailed gap analysis to inform amore strategic approach, and use decision support tools where appropriate to help identify how an
ecologically coherent network can be achieved more efficiently.

Proportionate assessments
Both the OSPAR initial spatial tests (OSPAR, 2008) and those introduced in this report have been
designed to provide meaningful indications of where along the spectrum the network stands withregard to key components of ecological coherence. Even in ideal situations, it is difficult to be certainthat all aspects of ecological coherence are functioning as they ought; and, with limited data, this issimply not realistic.
OSPAR has acknowledged (most recently in the Draft 2012 Status Report) the limitations of data inbeing able to provide a comprehensive analysis of the network and in particular on the distributionof species populations and habitats in the North‐East Atlantic. Since 2008 OSPAR has taken apragmatic approach to analysing the ecological coherence of the MPA network recognising that themethodology needs to be proportionate to the data available and the developmental stage of the
network i.e. there is little point in carrying out a sophisticated assessment if the network has failed
tests at a more basic level. Further planning and designation needs to take place before areassessment takes place.

Necessary data sets
One of the main barriers to building and analysing the network is the lack of comprehensive species
records for OSPAR threatened and/or declining species. Attempts to build the OSPAR databasethrough 2008 and 2009 were not successful and the conclusion was that this was not a priority forContracting Parties (OSPAR, 2013a). HELCOM, with a more comprehensive database, has been able
to provide much more feedback and more detailed analysis on the status of their network.
Polygon data on the distribution of OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats is also an important
requirement. The lack of these data is both a barrier to identifying sites and also carrying out anassessment of the extent to which adequacy criteria are being met i.e. an analysis of adequacy
requires a comparison of the proportion of both protected and unprotected habitat.
As one of the first trials of international ecological coherence assessment (Matrix approach, Test 5),
the JNCC and French MPA Agency identified a number of issues in the way that the UK and France
report and interpret species and habitats within their MPA network.
In summary, the data issues that need to be resolved are as follows:65

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in
2012




Species and habitat records for OSPAR threatened and/or declining species
An analysis / guidance on which of these are suitable for MPA protection;
Analysis of additional features (including broad‐scale habitats) protected within an MPA
boundary and outside of it (Guidelines would help to ensure greater consistency in defining
what is protected)
Intertidal data have also been identified as an important data layer currently not available within any
OSPAR Region as a whole.
Measures to protect selected deep‐water species and habitats adopted by OSPAR in 2010 encourageContracting Parties to request ICES to provide regular advice on their distribution and, for sensitive
species for which there are no reliable estimates on the population size e.g. for species such as the
Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), emphasise the need to apply the precautionary principle. The
obligations and duties of these Recommendations could be used to focus data collection efforts in
MPAs and their adjacent areas. Pragmatically, as recognised within this assessment, data collection
to inform ecological coherence must also be linked to MSFD requirements.
A broad‐scale habitat classification is one of the basic requirements for systematic MPA planning. EU
Seamap currently extends across the Greater North Sea and Celtic Sea in OSPAR Regions II and III.
There are plans to extend the geographical scope of EU SeaMap, but there are no defined timelines
or geographical scope. A paper released by the JNCC in 2011 (Draft Version 0.3) describes thedifferences between UK SeaMap 2010 and EUSeaMap and provides guidance on which situations
each should be used for. In the OSPAR Maritime Area, EUSeaMap currently extends within the North
Sea and Celtic Sea. The report highlights that EUSeaMap substrate layer has coarser resolution andincludes some new light (MERIS) and bathymetry (EMODNET Hydrography DEM). (EUSeaMap isbeing extending via MESH‐Atlantic to cover Biscay/Iberian coast, due 2013, and phase II of EMODnet
to cover whole of Europe, due 2015). The confidence assessment has been undertaken using simple
scoring systems that could be applied at the regional level (JNCC, 2011)
One of the main challenges of achieving ecologically coherent MPA networks in the marine
environment is ensuring that the guidance is not only practical, but also scientifically robust. A
comprehensive survey and analysis of the features in a proposed area is expected to precede thedesignation of a single MPA. On the other hand, identifying an ecologically coherent MPA network
will rely on meeting a series of explicit objectives on a much broader scale. Throughout, it will benecessary to re‐visit and fine‐tune results as new data become available.
The Focus Group requested that this consultancy, in addition to carrying out analyses based on
currently available data, provide suggestions for future analyses, and these have been presented
above, as they arise. Most of these suggestions rest on the acquisition of new data, such as species
and habitat distributions; new analyses, such as predictive habitat modelling; or, combinations of
the two, such as the GRID‐Arendal geomorphic classification. In a few cases, more can be achieved
using available data, such as 1) regional bathymetric analyses and 2) the development of indices forbenthic complexity (Ardron, 2002). In general, the assessment of ecological coherence is data‐
limited, and hence new data –of any sort—are likely to generate new approaches for assessing MPA
Networks.

66

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Closing the gaps: Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)
A specific recommendation from this report is to take forward data collection work within potential
EBSAs described in the OSPAR Maritime Area. These include seamounts, spawning grounds, pelagic
fronts and areas of high productivity, species richness or high taxonomic diversity. EBSAs describedto date are important in that they cover wide depth ranges encompassing deep‐sea zonation of
species and downslope impacts from human impacts at shallower depths. EBSA work to date could
also act as a point of departure for consideration of MPAs in portions of ABNJ in Arctic Waters andother Regions where there are still large gaps.
Internal OSPAR discussion documents (BDC 12/3/11 and ICG‐MPA 13/4/1) noted the Dinterprovinces in Region I that are not yet represented within the OSPAR MPA Network. This gap/lack of
ecological coherence could be addressed in future through an on‐going dialogue with Greenland andalso by taking forward scientific work in a sub‐area of the ‘Arctic Ice Habitat – multi‐year ice, seasonalice and marginal ice zone’ as described by the Joint OSPAR/NEAFC/CBD Scientific Workshop on the
Identification of EBSAs in the North‐East Atlantic: Annex 17. With regard to the latter OSPAR
Contracting Parties have indicated a preference that any such consideration should be proceeded bya further review by ICES of potential EBSA descriptions and that any area to be considered should
not conflict with areas subject to a submission to and consideration by the UN‐Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf.

An OSPAR Sub-Region specific approach
The entire OSPAR Maritime Area is nearly 14 million km2 and with a biogeographical range that
extends from the Arctic to the Azores. It is 34 times bigger than the Baltic Sea Maritime Area within
the HELCOM Convention. The OSPAR Maritime Area is also very different in covering habitats fromthe shoreline to depths greater than 5600m. Use of smaller planning areas, such as OSPAR Regions,would bring together tighter groups of partners, focusing on similar biogeography in sea areas where
they have jurisdiction. Focusing on smaller planning areas would also allow the development of
ecological coherence criteria and thresholds that were specific to each Region.
Allowing Sub‐Regions to progress at different speeds based on the available data and capacity is an
important factor in allowing those with greater biological data coverage to move ahead more
quickly. An ecologically coherent network for the OSPAR area is more likely to be achieved throughallowing Regions to innovate and adapt according to the characteristics of their regional ecology andcultures. The disadvantage of this approach is that some Regions may be left behind. However, theexperiences gained in one region can be shared with others. Additionally, it is within the purview of
OSPAR Contracting Parties to begin to take a more systematic approach to identifying MPAs, rather
than the ad hoc approach taken to date.

Developing planning scenarios using decision support tools
Decision support tools such as Marxan or Zonation have been developed to support systematic
design of MPA networks. They are useful when there is a large amount of spatial data, complex
targets and a large planning area. Given sufficient data, the use of systematic conservation planning67

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
tools will help contracting parties and planning regions to identify how to meet conservation targets
and where options exist for protecting a particular habitat. In some cases, there may be a great dealof flexibility in where a feature can be found, and in other cases options may be limited.
Marxan has been used in the Baltic Sea region as a gap analysis tool to help identify areas whereparticular ecological targets can be met. It has enormous potential within OSPAR regions to help
identify where sites could be located to fulfil ecological coherence criteria. However, it requires
more data than are currently available to OSPAR or to this consultancy. As a minimum it would
require comprehensive coverage of broad‐scale habitats and would be more effective if it also
included threatened and/or declining species and habitats.

Suggested Timeline
In future Contracting Parties need to be more explicit about how they will support OSPAR to achieve
ecological coherence, and how they will contribute to achieving the different steps. A roadmap
would help to identify the work needed and the estimated costs, timelines and organisations thatwill need to be involved.
Recognising that this advice is outside of the scope of this contract, we would respectfully suggestthat proactive efforts by Contracting Parties responsible for under‐represented provinces (South‐
East Greenland‐North Iceland Shelf; Norwegian Coast‐Finnmark and Skagerrak; and West
Norwegian/ South Iceland‐Faroe Shelf; Lusitanean‐Boreal; Lusitanean‐Cool and Warm) be
encouraged.
It is important to emphasise that the assessments need to be carried out alongside work to plan anddesignate new sites. This may be an obvious point, but if the most basic spatial tests are showingthat the network is unlikely to be ecologically coherent, then further implementation will need totake place before further assessments are made.

68

OSPAR Commission, 2013

References
Ardron, J.A., 2002. A Recipe for Determining Benthic Complexity: An Indicator of Species Richness. In
Joe Breman (ed.), Marine Geography: GIS for the Oceans and Seas (ch. 23, pp 196‐175). Redlands,
CA, USA: ESRI Press.
Ardron, J.A., 2008a. The challenge of assessing whether the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected
Areas is ecologically coherent. Hydrobiologica, 606:1, 45‐53.
Ardron, J.A. 2008b. Three initial OSPAR tests of ecological coherence: heuristics in a data‐limited
situation. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1527‐1533
Dinter, WP. 2001. Biogeography of the OSPAR Maritime Area. German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation, Bonn, Germany, 167 pp.
Ellis SL, Incze LS, Lawton P, Ojaveer H, MacKenzie BR, et al. (2011). Four Regional Marine Biodiversity
Studies: Approaches and Contributions to Ecosystem‐Based Management. PLoS ONE 6(4):e18997. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018997
Gucu AC., 1997. Role of fishing in the Black Sea ecosystem. In: Özsoy E., Mikaelyan A. (editors),
Sensitivity to change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North sea. NATO ASI Series, 2. Environment 27.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 149‐162
HELCOM, 2010. Towards an ecologically coherent network of well‐managed Marine Protected Areas– Implementation report on the status and ecological coherence of the HELCOM BSPA network.
Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 124B.
Howell, K. 2010. A benthic classification system to aid in the implementation of marine protectedarea networks in the deep/high seas of the NE Atlantic. Biological Conservation. 143 (5): 1041–
1056.
JNCC, 2011. UKSeaMap 2010 and EUSeaMap Draft report Version 0.3 released 21/11/2011
Johnson et al, 2008. What is the future for Marine Protected Areas in Irish Waters? Biology andEnvironment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 108B, No.1, pp9‐15
Margules, CR and Pressey, RL. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. Vol. 405, pages 243‐253.
Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010. The Marine Conservation Zone
Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK

69

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in
2012
Olsen, EM, Johnson D, Weaver P, Goni R, Ribeiro MC, Rabaut M, Macpherson E, Pelletier D, Fonseca
L, Katsanevakis S, Zaharia T (2013) Achieving Ecologically Coherent MPA Networks in Europe:
Science Needs and Priorities. Marine Board Position Paper 18. Larkin KE and McDonough N (Eds).
European Marine Board, Ostend, Belgium.
OSPAR, 1998. Sintra Ministerial Statement. OSPAR Commission, Sintra Portugal 22‐23 July 1998
OSPAR Agreement 2003‐17: Guidelines for the Identification and Selection of Marine Protected
Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area
OSPAR Agreement 2006‐3: Guidance on developing an ecologically coherent network of OSPAR
marine protected areas
OSPAR, 2007. Background Document to Support the Assessment of Whether the OSPAR Network ofMarine Protected Areas is Ecologically Coherent. OSPAR Commission, Publication number
2007/320. ISBN 978‐1‐905859‐59‐7
OSPAR, 2008. Background document on three initial spatial tests used for assessing the ecologicalcoherence of the OSPAR MPA network. OSPAR Commission, Publication number 2007/360. ISBN
978‐1‐905859‐99‐3
OSPAR, 2010. Quality Status Report of the North‐East Atlantic (publication number: 497/2010). 176
pp. ISBN 978–1–907390–38–8 www.qsr2010.ospar.org
OSPAR, 2013a. Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas Publication number:
618/2013. ISBN 978‐1‐909159‐51‐8.
OSPAR, 2013b. OSPAR meeting of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected
Areas (ICG‐MPA) Edinburgh, UK: 21‐23 January 2013. A matrix approach to assessing theecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network: trial of methodology in the Channe is within it.
(Document no. ICG‐MPA 13/3/3‐E)
Palumbi, S. R. 2003. Population genetics, demographic connectivity and the design of marine
protected areas. Ecological Applications 13:S146‐S158.
Piekainen, H. & S. Korpinen 2008. Towards an Assessment of ecological coherence of the marine
protected areas network in theBaltic Sea region. BALANCE Interim Report No. 25.
Roberts, C.M., Hawkins, J.P., Fletcher, J., Hands, S., Raab, K. & Ward, S. 2010. Guidance on the sizeand spacing of Marine Protected Areas in England. Natural England Commissioned Report
NECR037.
Rondinini, C. 2011. Meeting the MPA network design principles of representativity and adequacy:
Developing species‐area curves for habitats. JNCC Report No. 439, PeterboroughRoss, E.R. and Howell K.L. 2012. Use of predictive habitat modelling to assess the distribution andextent of the current protection of ‘listed’ deep‐sea habitats. Diversity and Distributions (2012) 1‐
13
WSSD, 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg 26 August‐4 September
2002. http://www.un.org/events/wssd/ (Accessed 29 March 2013)70

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Annexes
Annex 1: Note of OSPAR Ecological Coherence Focus Group meeting1100 22 March 2013, IASS‐Potsdam, Berlin
Present:
Jeff Ardron: IASS‐Potsdam, Seascape Consultants Ltd, former Secretary ICG‐MPA;
Emily Corcoran: OSPAR Secretariat, Ecological Coherence Task Group;
Tom Hooper: Seas‐Life Ltd; Seascape Consultants Ltd;David Johnson: Seascape Consultants Ltd, former OSPAR Secretariat
Kerstin Kröger: Secretary ICG‐MPA, Ecological Coherence Task GroupTim Packeiser: WWF Germany, former Secretary ICG‐MPA
The meeting followed the agenda below and was informed by a presentation on behalf of SeascapeConsultants Ltd. It was confirmed that the aim of the meeting was to provide advice and direction
regarding limitations of the assessment methodology and scope of future ecological coherence
possibilities and options.
1.

General opening remarks

The Group noted the approach taken and advised on a mention of what the assessment would have
liked to do given full information (i.e. further tests). At the same time some idea of how far OSPAR
might go to inform a useful decision was also needed. It was accepted that this depended in turn on
the decisions OSPAR required answering, which became more of a political issue (i.e. recognising theneeds of OSPAR).
It was noted that international targets are lately focusing more on representativity than a‘comprehensive’ definition of ecological coherence, and there was a consensus that this is lesscomplicated to answer than other elements.
2.

Considerations on a test by test basis

Test 1: dealing with basic distribution and gaps, needed to:a. pay attention to map titles and legends (this applies to all other tests);b. clearly explain the rationale for threshold values; andc. recognise that the Baltic is in many ways not directly comparable.
Test 2: biogeographic representation, with the addition of replicates (to information alreadypresented in the interim 2012 Status report) should emphasise that this is a coarse (province level)
application. A new geomorphological dataset had potential applicability for areas with insufficient
data (and for which complete datasets are unlikely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future). It
was suggested that in future geomorphology and habitat mapping might be combined as a future
test

71

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in2012
Test 3: using bathymetric zones as a proxy showing that the OSPAR Regions are radically different
and therefore questioning whether the same ecological coherence criteria should be applied
throughout the OSPAR Maritime Area. This was noted and it was suggested to merge the two deepsea classes.
Test 4: Considers representation of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. In the absenceof sufficient data, academic habitat suitability predictive modelling of Lophelia pertusa had beenobtained as an illustration, showing the shelf slope to be very important for this habitat. The Groupthought it was:
a.
b.
c.
d.

important to stress this should not be misused or perceived as a map of occurrence;
perhaps interesting to also consider Norwegian data to inform future work;
important to note what is possible at a certain level of data completeness;something to consider with an on‐line visual tool (which could potentially overlay
bathymetry without becoming visually ‘too busy’);e. important to explain why other studies could or could not be used in this way;

The use of Lophelia pertusa was supported as it is a better known (iconic) habitat, with a relatively
good data set, away from the coast where most information has been gathered and as it is the
subject of an OSPAR Recommendation. A check should be made with WCMC on a complementary
coldwater coral study. Deep sea sponge aggregation work and an illustrative map of Important Bird
Areas were also discussed.
Test 5: the matrix (not discussed in this meeting)
Test 6: Broadscale habitat representativity and replication using EUNIS level 3 categories for Regions
II and III only, assuming that proxy protection is provided vis a vis a feature in the MPA. The Groupconsidered that the assessment might recommend that a future OSPAR expert group should look infurther detail at specific thresholds and weighting.
Test 7: Broadscale habitat adequacy and viability – prompting discussion on minimum protected
patch size area.
Test 8: Broadscale habitat proximity – prompting discussion on whether to super‐impose current
patterns to aid visualisation.
In considering the tests overall the Group thought the assessment should explain why EUNIS
categories had been used rather than Dinter classification (particularly as Norway does not use
EUNIS). The Group missed reference to the overlay work undertaken by JNCC in 2011 (theSecretariat agreed to provide this for information). The group also thought it important toemphasise that the lack of a comprehensive dataset compromises the usefulness of any ecologicalcoherence assessment and that this exercise should be used to stimulate contributions. Inclusion ofreference to latest research on species area curves was supported.
3.

Lessons from PANACHE

Several members of the Group had attended the PANACHE Project meeting in Plymouth held earlier
in the week. PANACHE was at an early stage, still exploring methods to assess ecological coherence
and would learn from this assessment rather than vice‐versa.
72

OSPAR Commission, 2013
4.

Possible messages for OSPAR

In future, perhaps a focus on representativity rather than ecological coherence should berecommended. This assessment was viewed as an opportunity to widen the scope of testing. A
connection might be made with the 2016 target for a well‐managed network. Stimulus wasrecognised for linkage with potential EBSAs and High Seas MPAs in Region I, as part of strategic gap
filling. Timing of any follow‐up ecological coherence assessment should take account of when new
information was available (i.e. only to be triggered if substantial data contributions were received forexample), strategic reasons (such as to inform forthcoming integrated assessments e.g. MSFD Art. 13
in 2015), and/or in response to emerging legal considerations such as listing of sharks by CITES.

73

An Assessment of the ecological coherence of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in 2012

Annex 2: Data sets that have been used within the analyses
Data set

Tests

Geographical extent

Supplier

Version and date

Spatial data describing the
OSPAR MPA network

General distribution; bathymetricrepresentativity; broad-scale habitat
representativity and replication;broad-scale habitat adequacy andviability; broad-scale habitat
connectivity

OSPAR Maritime Area

OSPAR

20/02/2013

Coastline data

General distribution; bathymetricrepresentativity; broad-scale habitat
representativity and replication;broad-scale habitat adequacy andviability; broad-scale habitat
connectivity

OSPAR Maritime Area

Provided by OSPAR

Accessed 11/07/2012

National jurisdiction
boundaries

General distribution; bathymetricrepresentativity, broad-scale habitat
representativity and replication;broad-scale habitat qdequacy andviability; broad-scale habitat
connectivity

OSPAR Maritime Area

VLIZ (marineregions.org)

Maritime Boundaries
Database, version 7
Accessed 11/07/2012

Bathymetry

Bathymetric representativity;

OSPAR Maritime Area

EMODnet (European Marine
Observation and Data Network) and
SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission) 30plus.

Accessed 04/03/2013

EU SeaMap broad-scale
habitat data at EUNIS level 3

Broad-scale habitat representativity
and replication; broad-scale habitat
adequacy and viability; broad-scale
habitat connectivity

Region II and III

JNCC (jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5040)

Version 201107,
25/02/2013

Modelled distribution ofLophelia pertusa

Representation of threatened and/or
declining species and habitats

Region V

Kerry Howell (University of Plymouth)

14/03/2013

Important Bird Areas andcandidate sites

Representativity of OSPAR
threatened and/or declining species
and habitats

OSPAR Maritime Area

BirdLife International

15/03/2013

Globalgeomorphology/seascapes

Test of representation atbiogeographic level

OSPAR Maritime Area

Peter Harris (GRID)

05/03/2013

74

OSPAR Commission, 2013

Annex 3: Assumptions and Uncertainties regarding protection
OSPAR (2007) and this report both assume that the MPA is ‘managed in such a fashion to giveprotection to the features within it.
The Matrix trial report (OSPAR, 2013b) highlights that there is a lack of equivalent information on
features presented in OSPAR MPAs. In the trial analysis undertaken by France and the UK it was
found that the UK has yet to determine which non‐Natura 2000 species (but present on OSPAR
threatened and/or declining list) may be protected in OSPAR MPAs. On the French side, an analysis
has yet to be undertaken to determine which EUNIS Level 3 habitats are protected in OSPAR MPAs.
The analyses make an assumption that the broad‐scale habitat within the MPA boundary isprotected either directly or indirectly through its association with a protected feature.
It should also be acknowledged that the underlying data for the EUNIS Level 3 broad‐scale habitat
data within EU SeaMap are often sparse and the EUNIS classes are based on scientific models.
Hence, EUNIS is better seen as a “best assumption”, rather than a mapping of actually surveyed
features, and carries with it several assumptions about scale, precision, and accuracy. Theseassumptions naturally transfer over to any analysis using EUNIS, including the one presented here. In
this light, we feel it is good practice to remove the “slivers” (as described above) from the MPA
assessment, as it is quite unlikely that these very small patches are significant, and on the contrary
could provide false assurances.

75Victoria House
37-63 Southampton Row
London WC1B 4DA
United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)20 7430 5200
f: +44 (0)20 7242 3737
e: secretariat@ospar.org
www.ospar.org

OSPAR’s vision is of a clean, healthy and biologically diverse
North-East Atlantic used sustainably

ISBN 978-1-909159-52-5
Publication Number: 619/2013© OSPAR Commission, 2013. Permission may be granted by the publishers for the report to be wholly or partly
reproduced in publications provided that the source of the extract is clearly indicated.
© Commission OSPAR, 2013. La reproduction de tout ou partie de ce rapport dans une publication peut êtreautorisée par l’Editeur, sous réserve que l’origine de l’extrait soit clairement mentionnée.