Agenda Item 3 / BDC 06/3/ -E
English only

OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC

MEETING OF THE BIODIVERSITY COMMITTEE (BDC)

TRONDHEIM: 13-17 MARCH 2006

Bremen +3:
measuring progress towards the establishment of an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas
in the OSPAR maritime area

Presented by WWF

This document informs OSPAR Contracting Parties that WWF will carry out a second scorecard exercise evaluating their performance with respect to progress achieved since 2003 towards the establishment of an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2010. Consideration of governmental input is requested.

Background

  1. In June 2003, OSPAR adopted "OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas" the purpose of which is "to establish the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas and to ensure that by 2010 it is an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas which will:
  2. protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have been adversely affected by human activities;
  3. prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle;
  4. protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area."
  5. The OSPAR Biodiversity and Ecosystems Strategy sets out that in 2006 OSPAR will make an evaluation of whether the components of the OSPAR Network that have been selected by that date will be sufficient to make that network an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas for the maritime area (§ 4.4). The essence of this approach is also reflected in § 11 of the Bremen Ministerial Statement: “The third line of action to protect marine biodiversity and ecosystems is to protect specific areas. For this purpose, we endorse the Recommendation on a Network of Marine Protected Areas. Working with HELCOM and the European Community, we shall identify the first set of such areas by 2006, establish what gaps then remain and complete by 2010 a joint network of well-managed marine protected areas that, together with the Natura 2000 network, is ecologically coherent.”
  6. In addition, JMM2003 adopted a joint HELCOM-OSPAR work programme on MPAs with the commitment to evaluate by 2006 whether the Baltic Sea Protected Areas and the components of the OSPAR Network of marine protected areas that have been identified by that date are sufficient to constitute the joint network, and take steps to identify and fill any gaps that are identified.
  7. The Recommendation sets out that an initial consideration should be completed by Contracting Parties, as soon as practicable, and at the latest by 31 December 2005, to be reported to the OSPAR Commission 2006. A first draft of the 2006 implementation report was compiled by Germany on behalf of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on MPAs (ICG-MPA) and is available as document BDC 06/3/6-E.
  8. On the same occasion in June 2006, WWF will publish an independent evaluation of the progress achieved, since 2003, towards the establishment of an ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine protected areas by 2010.
  9. In spring 2003, WWF conducted a first baseline evaluation of Contracting Parties´ performance with respect to the establishment and management of marine protected areas (of any kind). The report Do Governments Protect the Treasures of Our Seas? (OSPAR 03/4/14-E)[1]was based on responses to a questionnaire distributed to WWF National Organisations and/or partner institutions co-operating with WWF on marine conservation issues. The questionnaire covered the following aspects:
  10. Legal performance with respect to marine spatial protection measures;
  11. Performance with respect to adequacy of protected areas and management; and
  12. Performance with respect to resources, awareness building and stakeholder involvement.

In addition, the political will to promote marine conservation measures was investigated country by country. The conclusions drawn in this context are of qualitative nature and hence not part of the scoring itself. WWF emphasised that the scoring results presented in the report could only reveal trends while the factual information collated for each country is important to provide transparency and describe the point of departure for implementing new OSPAR instruments furtheron.

In 2004 and 2005, WWF presented, to the OSPAR Commission, interim evaluations of the status of progress on proposals for coastal and offshore MPA nominations (OSPAR 04/05/07-E, OSPAR 05/05/08-E)[2]

  1. The 2006 evaluation will be carried out in a similar manner and aims at reflecting the significant progress achieved since 2003, however, also to show the remaining gaps in the conservation of marine fauna and flora in the waters under and beyond national jurisdiction of OSPAR Contracting Parties.
  2. Contrary to 2003, WWF wants to give Contracting Parties the opportunity to present their own views on the questions raised. Therefore, WWF National Organisations or partner NGOs will approach their governments in the near future to ask for their willingness to contribute their position. The draft questionnaire is presented at Annex 1. The answers will be reflected in the final report, however they will not be used for the scoring of governments´ performance.
  3. A parallel exercise will be conducted for the Baltic and HELCOM Contracting Parties, with the results to be combined in a joint WWF report.

Action requested

  1. Contracting Parties are invited to consider whether they want to contribute to the 2006 WWF scorecard exercise evaluating the progress on the way towards achieving the OSPAR network of MPAs in 2010.

Annex 1

Scorecard Assessing the Performance of OSPAR Contracting Parties on Marine Protected Areas

ELECTRONIC QUESTIONNAIRE

In 2003, the Environment Ministers of Contracting Parties to OSPAR and HELCOM reaffirmed their commitments to establish a network of well-managed marine protected areas: "we shall have identified the first set of such areas by 2006, and shall then establish what gaps remain and complete by 2010 a joint network of well-managed marine protected areas that, together with the Natura 2000 network, is ecologically coherent" (SR JMM 2003, Annex 8).

WWF is interested in reviewing the progress achieved by 2006 in relation to a WWF MPA baseline evaluation carried out and published in a first scorecard report in 2003 "Do governments protect the treasures of our seas":

What follows is a set of 14 questions relating to various aspects of performance in national marine conservation efforts in states that are Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North East Atlantic. Please respond to each question by giving an indicator of performance (ranging from 0 to 3). The number you choose can result from a ‘gut feeling’ about how well or poorly your country is performing in this area.

In order not to lose sight of individual circumstances influencing the scores, you are asked after each question to provide information to illustrate/explain why the score was deserved. Provide as much information as you are able with the time you have available for the task, but keep to max 50 words per question. This information will be documented in the final summary report to explain why some countries have achieved more than others.

In the end, there are two additional questions regarding political will and conclusions, on which there will be no scoring, but where you are asked to provide your own comments.

The questions are grouped under the following three headings:

  • Legal background and designation – 6 questions on legal performance with respect to marine conservation. Total possible ‘points’ = 18
  • Implementation of measures – 6 questions on performance with respect to adequacy of protected areas and management. Total possible ‘points’ = 18
  • Putting plans into practice – 2 questions on performance with respect to providing additional finance, raising awareness and involving stakeholders and the public. Total possible ‘points’ = 6

In the final scorecard, each country’s scores will be added up and, to rate countries’ performance, a percentage of total possible points calculated. This percentage will be used to indicate the overall performance of your country in marine conservation, with a higher percentage denoting a better performance. Please do not use 0.5s – only whole numbers – when scoring. It is important to view the questions as a set, keeping in mind that it is the total percentage that will be most public rather than individual failures or successes in any of the sub-questions.

Ratings:>90%Very good

71–90%Good

50–70%Not so good

<50%Bad

Attention! We use the term marine protected area, here meaning a legally established area managed for the conservation and/or restoration of its subtidal natural fauna and flora. This could be a MPA of any type under national legislation, or a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) according the European Habitats and Birds Directives. N. B. This definition does NOT include fisheries management areas.

Please fill in your country’s score with bold and add your comments in the text box.

Example: What is the symbol of WWF?

Antelope /

Giant panda

/ Lemur / Fish

Please specify your answer by briefly describing the process.

Contracting Party:

Legal background and designation

  1. Does an adequate legal basis exist in national law to implement marine conservation measures in the Exclusive Economic Zone, or equivalent?

(3) Yes, Natura 2000 and other designations possible / (2) yes, but for Natura 2000 sites only / (1) Legislation in progress / (0) No

Please specify your answer by briefly describing the process.

Does your government intend to excercise its sovereign rights on an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nm from baseline (in acc. with UNCLOS)?

(0) yes / (0) no / (0) Not applicable

Please briefly describe the state of the process.

  1. Have previously unprotected sites (inshore and offshore) been established as marine conservation areas since the adoption of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3?

(3) Yes, key sites have been legally protected / (2) Steps have been taken towards protection / (1) Government has acknowled-ged the need for marine conser-vation areas / (0) Nothing has happened

Please state how this compares to action taken prior to 2003, and under which statute new sites have been designated.

  1. Has there been any progress in legally establishing protected areas in offshore waters (beyond 12nm)? This includes the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives offshore, as well as progress under national law (only with an overall conservation objective, hence not fisheries management areas).

(3) Good progress on protection / (2) Good progress on scientific assessment and site selection / (1) Progress on scientific assessment / (0) No progress

Please specify your answer with examples.

  1. Has your government nominated MPAs for inclusion in the OSPAR network of MPAs, in time for the June 2006 reporting period?

(3) Yes, a large set of areas was nominated / (2) Yes, a few / (1) Not yet, but planned for 2006 / (0) No

Please specify your answer with examples.

  1. Has your government nominated MPAs in offshore waters (beyond 12 nm) for inclusion in the OSPAR network of MPAs, in time for the June 2006 reporting period?

(3) Yes, process towards designating a representative set of areas started / (2) Yes, a few / (1) Not yet, but planned for 2006 / (0) No

Please specify your answer with examples.

  1. Are there plans for designating OSPAR MPAs other than those already designated (or planned to be designated) under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives or national law (new MPAs according to the OSPAR selection criteria and guidance for establishing a coherent MPA network).

(3) First sites nominated to OSPAR / (2) First steps are being taken to designate MPAs under the OSPAR set of criteria only / (1) Government has acknowled-ged the need for complementary regional protec-tion / (0) No intention

Please state the position your country is taking on an OSPAR network of MPAs, particularly regarding its own contribution towards this.

Protection measures

  1. Can existing inshore (0–12nm) marine protected areas be considered adequate and representative in terms of protected species and habitats, area covered?

(3) Fully adequate / (2) significant improvement since 2003 / (1) some improvement since 2003 / (0) No, and no change since 2003

Please specify briefly what action has been taken since 2003/is planned to date, including European Sites of Conservation Interest (SCI)/national statute/other.

  1. Can existing inshore (0–12nm) marine protected areas be considered adequate and representative in terms of management objectives and implementation?

(3) Fully adequate / (2) significant improvement since 2003 / (1) some improvement since 2003 / (0) No, and no change since 2003

Please specify briefly what action has been taken since 2003/is planned to date, including European Sites of Conservation Interest (SCI)/national statute/other.

  1. Has there been progress in implementing measures for the conservation of habitats and species in offshore areas since 2003? This question addresses wider measures to reduce site-based impacts from e.g. sediment extraction, fisheries.

(3) Adequate management measures in place / (2) Some gaps remain / (1) Key gaps remain / (0) No progress

Please give some examples to specify your answer.

  1. Has action been taken to address fisheries impacts on marine biodiversity (national action or request for action under CFP for EU member states), in designated and proposed conservation areas since 2003?

(3) Adequate fisheries management regime in place in all designated or proposed MPAs / (2) Some progress, e.g. measures in place in some sites / (1) Government publicly acknowledges the need for measures / (0) No fisheries management measures considered yet

Please give some examples.

  1. Are any monitoring measures in place in legally established MPAs, and is there a process for evaluating management effectiveness being considered or carried out?

(3 monitoring and assessment process well developed / (2) first steps to evaluating management effectiveness / (1) limited monitoring, key gaps remain / (0) No monitoring in place

Please give some examples to specify your answer.

  1. Has your country made progress in applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities (EBM) in the waters under national jurisdiction, e.g. using tools like quality objectives, spatial planning to give adequate importance to conservation, Strategic Environmental Assessments, etc.?

(3) EBM is an integral part of country’s management system / (2) Significant steps taken / (1) First steps taken / (0) No talk about EBM

Please specify your answer using examples – good reasoning required to justify your score!

Putting plans into practice

  1. In your view, are adequate human and financial resources being applied to protecting marine habitats and species, fulfilling its commitments to OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3, the EU Directives and other international conventions?

(3) Yes / (2) Some gaps remain / (1) Key gaps remain / (0) Not at all

Please give some examples illustrating your answer.

  1. Is enough being done by your government to involve and raise awareness amongst stakeholders and the general public on issues regarding marine conservation?

(3) Yes / (2) Some gaps remain / (1) Key gaps remain / (0) Not at all

If alt. 3, 2 or 1: please give some examples, or briefly describe arising controversial issues (such as wind park developers vs. conservation in Germany).

NGOs only:

Political will

In your opinion, has there been a change in political will or in momentum of marine conservation with respect to establishing an ecological coherent network of MPAs since the OSPAR/HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in Bremen 2003? Is the Minister of Environment actively promoting marine conservation in the OSPAR/HELCOM framework, for example? Describe the current political climate surrounding OSPAR/HELCOM marine conservation issues. Please give some examples.

Conclusions and recommendations

Please provide a conclusion on how your country is faring in the OSPAR/HELCOM process, and what the main obstacles to faster progress are, as well as any other comments on why the process is going forwards/has stalled in your country. Please also give some recommendations on how to make further progress in your country.

Completed by:

Name / On behalf of (NO) / Date

Or:

Name / On behalf of / Date

1

[1] Report also available at

Scorecard at

[2]Briefing also available at