Report and assessment of the status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021

Background

The OSPAR Convention Annex V on the Protection and Conservation of Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area Article 2a sets out that Contracting Parties to the Convention shall take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected.

The Sintra Ministerial Statement, adopted at the meeting of the OSPAR Commission in Sintra, Portugal (22-23 July 1998), included the commitment that the OSPAR Commission will promote the establishment of a network of MPAs to ensure the sustainable use, protection and conservation of marine biological diversity and its ecosystems.

This process has been enhanced by the Bremen Ministerial Statement, adopted at the first Joint Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions in Bremen, Germany (25-26 June 2003), as it established the commitment to complete by 2010 a joint network of well-managed MPAs that, together with the Natura 2000 network, is ecologically coherent.

The aims of the OSPAR Network of MPAs have been set out as:

• to protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have been adversely affected by human activities;
• to prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes, following the precautionary principle; and
• to protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and ecological processes in the maritime area.

OSPAR Recommendation 2003/03 sets out that in the years subsequent to 2005, OSPAR Contracting Parties should report by 31 December to the OSPAR Commission on any OSPAR MPAs that they have selected (or deselected) and on any corresponding management plans that they have adopted or substantially amended in that year. In 2006, the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee (BDC) agreed that annual reports on the status of the OSPAR Network of MPAs should be prepared in the period up to 2010.

As the target had not been reached in 2010, the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Bergen, Norway (20-24 September 2010) adopted a consolidated version of Recommendation 2003/03 (amended by OSPAR Recommendation 2010/02) including renewed targets,i.e. to continue the establishment of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas in the North-East Atlantic and to ensure that:

a.    by 2012 it is ecologically coherent, includes sites representative of all biogeographic regions in the OSPAR Maritime Area, and is consistent with the CBD target for effectively conserved marine and coastal ecological regions;
b.    by 2016 it is well managed (i.e. coherent management measures have been set up and are being implemented for such MPAs that have been designated up to 2010).

OSPAR Contracting Parties therefore agreed to continue with the preparation of annual reports with a view to track progress as well as any shortcomings with regards to the targets that have been set by the OSPAR Commission for the OSPAR Network of MPAs.

At the 2013 OSPAR Commission meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden (24-28 June 2013) OSPAR Contracting Parties agreed that the Status Report of the OSPAR Network of MPAs will be produced every two years. The deadline for new nominations and for reporting was set to 1 October.

At the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Cascais, Portugal (1 October 2021), Contracting Parties agreed to further expand the OSPAR network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) to cover at least 30% of the whole OSPAR maritime area by 2030, which is over 4 million km². The North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES) 2030 sets out inter alia OSPAR’s strategic objective S5.01. which states that:

• By 2030 OSPAR will further develop its network of marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) to cover at least 30% of the OSPAR maritime area to ensure it is representative, ecologically coherent and effectively managed to achieve its conservation objectives.

This document presents the 12^th Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs taking into account all MPAs that have either been nominated by Contracting Parties within their respective national waters or established collectively by the OSPAR Commission in ABNJ of the OSPAR maritime area until 1 October 2021.

1. Status of the OSPAR Network of MPAs

By 1 October 2021, the OSPAR Network of MPAs comprises 583 MPAs (Figure 1.1) including 572 MPAs situated within national waters of Contracting Parties and 11 MPAs situated in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs with different jurisdictional regimes⁴ . In total, OSPAR MPAs cover an area of 1 490 552 km², which equals 11,0% of the OSPAR Maritime Area. This represents an increase by 626 215 km², or 4,6%, compared to 2018.

1.1 OSPAR MPAs under National Jurisdiction

1.1.1 Distribution of OSPAR MPAs in the national waters of Contracting Parties

From 2005 until 2021, OSPAR Contracting Parties have nominated a total of 572 OSPAR MPAs within their respective national waters⁶ , i.e., territorial waters and EEZs (Figure 1.2).

The contributions by Contracting Parties regarding the number of MPAs, their coverage and distribution in their national waters differ substantially. Table 1.1 shows the number of MPAs per Contracting Party and the area coverage.

Table 1.1: Number and coverage of OSPAR MPAs in Territorial Waters (TW), the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs (beyond EEZ), i.e. the High Seas, the Area, and ECS areas (as of 1 October 2021)⁸

Further aspects regarding the distribution of OSPAR MPAs across the national waters (territorial waters and EEZ) of Contracting Parties are highlighted in Figure 1.3¹³, illustrated against the 10% target outlined in Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the new 30% target for 2030 as established in the OSPAR North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2030. For each CP¹⁴ , the relative coverage (in %) of OSPAR MPAs in its territorial waters, the EEZ and overall in its national waters (blue/purple/green, respectively) is shown.

Overall, there is a good coverage of coastal waters with about 20,9%¹⁶ (207 317 km²) of the territorial waters of OSPAR Contracting Parties being designated within OSPAR MPAs. This is mainly a result of extensive MPAs designated in OSPAR Regions II (Greater North Sea) and III (Celtic Seas) and around the Svalbard archipelago in Region I (Arctic Waters). In addition, 19,9% (1 077 541 km²) of the area beyond the limits of national EEZs, i.e., the High Seas, the Area and the ECS areas, are currently covered by OSPAR MPAs.

However, as illustrated above, there continue to be differences with respect to the overall distribution of OSPAR MPAs across the OSPAR Maritime Area, with a bias towards near-shore sites. Compared to territorial waters and areas beyond the limits of EEZs, far fewer MPAs have been designated in the Exclusive Economic Zones, covering 2,9% (204 467 km²) of all EEZs in the OSPAR Maritime Area.

1.1.2 Distribution of OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions

The distribution of OSPAR MPAs across the five OSPAR Regions, i.e., Arctic Waters (Region I), Greater North Sea (Region II), Celtic Seas (Region III), Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast (Region IV) and Wider Atlantic (Region V), is shown in Figure 1.4, with details on each OSPAR Region provided in Figure 1.5a and Figure 1.5b.

The spatial coverage by OSPAR MPAs differs substantially between the OSPAR Regions (Figure 1.6 and Table 1.2). The Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II) has the most bordering Contracting Parties of all OSPAR Regions and all have contributed MPAs to the network. The MPAs nominated by Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, cover 20,2% (154 712 km²) of the Greater North Sea.

In the Celtic Seas (OSPAR Region III) 20,0% (73 409 km²) are protected by OSPAR MPAs, nominated by Ireland, the UK and France. In the Wider Atlantic (OSPAR Region V) 17,7% of the area is covered by OSPAR MPAs (1 122 282 km²). This region comprises MPAs nominated by Portugal, Ireland, and the UK. While the coverage of this Region by MPAs within national jurisdiction remains low, the collective establishment by all OSPAR Contracting Parties of the eight MPAs in ABNJ in 2010, 2012 and 2021, as well as the three MPA nominations by Portugal and the United Kingdom in areas that are subject to their respective submission to the UN CLCS for an ECS have substantially increased the area coverage of the MPA network in this Region¹⁷ .

The three OSPAR Regions (II, III and V) currently achieve the CBD Aichi Target 11¹⁸, i.e., to protect at least 10% of the coastal and marine areas by 2020. Only Regions II and III had achieved the target at the time of the 2018 Status Report on OSPAR MPAs, showing good progress being made for Region V - Wider Atlantic.

The Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast (OSPAR Region IV) encompass a number of MPAs nominated by its three bordering Contracting Parties of France, Portugal and Spain. Altogether, 6,0% (32 299 km²) of this Region are covered by the OSPAR Network of MPAs.

The Arctic Waters (Region I) show the lowest MPA coverage with 2,0% (107 846 km²) falling within OSPAR MPAs. This coverage is almost entirely due to the designation of two extensive sites around the Svalbard archipelago, namely Svalbard West, Svalbard East (Norway), the MPA site Jan Mayen (Norway) and the MPA North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel (United Kingdom).

Irrespective of apparent regional differences in the spatial coverage by MPAs, OSPAR has achieved the CBD Aichi Target 11 of designating 10% of marine waters as MPAs (Table 1.2), which was not met in 2018.

Table 1.2: Absolute (km²) and the relative (%) coverage of the five OSPAR Regions by OSPAR MPAs (as of 1 October 2021)

1.2 OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs

1.2.1 Background

The OSPAR Maritime Area encompasses extensive areas in the Wider Atlantic (OSPAR Region V) and the Arctic Waters (OSPAR Region I) that are beyond the limits of national Exclusive Economic Zones. This Area Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) covers approximately 40% of the OSPAR Maritime Area (see Annex III Figure 1). In the context of this report ABNJ encompasses the High Seas meaning the oceanic water column, the Area referring to the seafloor managed by UN International Seabed Authority, and submission by countries of continental shelf claim areas to the UN CLCS for an Extended Continental Shelf (ECS).

In recent years, the protection of the marine environment and biodiversity in ABNJ has attracted great attention at the global level, in particular in the context of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the legal framework established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). OSPAR has in this context assumed a pioneering role as a regional organisation to protect marine ecosystems and biodiversity in ABNJ and provided examples of an operational approach in designating and managing MPAs.

Being aware of the shared responsibilities and the need for a collaborative approach in ABNJ, OSPAR has aimed at strengthening mutual exchange and cooperation with the various relevant international competent authorities responsible for the management of specific human activities in ABNJ, including the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the International Seabed Authority (ISA), and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The adoption of the collective arrangement¹⁹ by OSPAR (OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) and NEAFC on cooperation and coordination regarding selected areas in ABNJ in the North-East Atlantic in 2014 represents a significant step forward in this process (see also Chapter 2). The essential aim of the collective arrangement is to become a collective and multilateral forum composed of all competent entities addressing the management of human activities in ABNJ.

By the end of 2021 the OSPAR Network of MPAs comprised 11 MPAs situated in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs (Figure 1.7). It should be noted that the twelfth MPA, North-West Rockall SAC (SAC - Special Area of Conservation), occurs partly within the EEZ and partly within the ECS of the UK. This MPA has been assigned to the UK national waters category in terms of number and area coverage and is only noted here for comprehensiveness.

The process of the establishment and nomination of MPAs in ABNJ is elaborated in the following sections as well as in Annex I and III.

1.2.2 Establishment and nomination of OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs

A national OSPAR MPA nominated by Portugal in an area subject to a submission for an ECS

In 2006, and in response to a proposal previously prepared by WWF, Portugal formally nominated the Rainbow Hydrothermal Vent Field as an MPA to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. While this MPA had originally been considered to be situated in ABNJ, Portugal considered the site to be situated on its ECS,i.e., the natural submerged prolongation of the landmasses of the Azores Archipelago. While the case is still pending, Portugal recognised its obligations under UNCLOS Article 192 to protect and preserve the marine environment, as well as the precautionary principle, and assumed responsibility for protecting the seabed and the subsoil even prior to the final conclusion of the UN CLCS on the ECS claims by Portugal. It has to be noted that this MPA encompasses only the seabed with no scientific case to extend the MPA to the water column.

OSPAR MPAs established collectively by all Contracting Parties in ABNJ

At the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in 2010 (20-24 September, Bergen/Norway) six proposals for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ were presented for adoption. The historical process of the elaboration of these proposals, including the collation and review of scientific information and data, the preparation of legal feasibility studies and consultations amongst Contracting Parties, is presented in Annex III. Taking into account the complex situation regarding the jurisdiction over these areas, the OSPAR Commission finally decided to collectively establish following MPAs in ABNJ of the North-East Atlantic:    

At the OSPAR Commission Meeting in 2012 (25-29 June 2012; Bonn/Germany) Contracting Parties further agreed to collectively establish the following MPA in the High Seas of the OSPAR Maritime Area:

At the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in 2021 (1 October, Cascais/Portugal) Contracting Parties further agreed to collectively establish the following MPA in the ABNJ of the OSPAR Maritime Area:

The collectively designated MPAs in the ABNJ of the OSPAR Maritime Area are designated through a legally binding OSPAR Decision. For each MPA an OSPAR Recommendation outlines the management actions to be taken by Contracting Parties. The basis for the nomination is a technical nomination proforma which collates evidence against the agreed selection criteria outlined in the Guidelines for the Identification and Selection of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area (Agreement 2003 17) and published as a Background Document. The nomination proforma undergoes the General consultation procedures for establishing Marine Protected Areas in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction of the OSPAR Maritime Area (Agreement 2019-09) before adoption. Table 1.3 provides a summary of the collectively designated ABNJ MPAs and their respective management documents.

Table 1.3: Overview of the collectively designated OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ of the OSPAR Maritime Area proving hyperlinks to their respective management documents.

National OSPAR MPAs nominated by the United Kingdom in areas subject to a submission for an ECS

In 2011, the United Kingdom nominated North-West Rockall SAC as an OSPAR MPA, of which parts (covering 181 km²) are extending beyond their EEZ into an area subject to a submission by the UK to the UN CLCS for an ECS. The seabed and subsoil of this site is protected by the UK, while the water column remains unprotected.

In 2012 and 2014, the United Kingdom nominated two more OSPAR MPAs (Hatton Bank SAC and Hatton-Rockall Basin MPA, respectively) entirely located in an area subject to a submission by the UK to the UN CLCS for an ECS²². The seabed and subsoil of these sites are protected by the UK, while the water column remains unprotected.

1.2.3 Jurisdiction of OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs

The 11 OSPAR MPAs nominated up to 1 October 2021 in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs of Contracting Parties, i.e., the High Seas, the Area, and ECS areas, can be grouped into different categories with regard to their jurisdictional regime:

1) Charlie-Gibbs South MPA, Milne Seamount Complex MPA and North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin MPA

These three MPAs are situated entirely in ABNJ. In the Charlie-Gibbs South MPA and the Milne Seamount Complex MPA the seabed, the subsoil and the water column are protected collectively by all OSPAR Contracting Parties. In the North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin MPA the water column is collectively protected by all OSPAR Contracting Parties, while the seabed remains unprotected (but noting complementary protections under NEAFC described at 3.8). The OSPAR Ministerial Meeting 2021 also agreed a Roadmap for further development of the North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin Marine Protected Area (OSPAR Agreement 2021-08).

2) Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores High Seas MPA, Altair Seamount High Seas MPA, Antialtair High Seas MPA and Josephine Seamount Complex High Seas MPA

These four MPAs are situated within an area subject to a submission by Portugal to the UN CLCS for an ECS. Portugal has expressed the intention to assume the responsibility to take measures for the protection of the seabed and the subsoil within these areas. Upon invitation by Portugal, the OSPAR Commission agreed to collectively protect the water column of these MPAs.

3) Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas MPA

This MPA is partly situated within an area subject to a submission by Iceland to the UN CLCS for an ECS. The water column is protected collectively by all Contracting Parties. The seabed and the subsoil remain unprotected.

4) Rainbow Hydrothermal Vent Field, Hatton Bank SAC and Hatton-Rockall Basin

These MPAs are situated within areas subject to a submission by a CP to the UN CLCS for an ECS. The seabed and subsoil of these sites are protected by the respective CP, while the water column remains unprotected.

1.3 Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures

OSPAR MPAs are an important tool for protecting the North-East Atlantic and its biodiversity. Besides OSPAR MPAs, however, Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) may also contribute to the protection of marine biodiversity. In 2020 OSPAR agreed on the OECM definition as adopted by the UN Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, COP 14) in November 2018 which specifies an OECM as:

‘a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant value’²³.

Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures which meet these criteria can contribute to ecologically representative and well-connected MPA networks. They can protect important ecosystems, support the recovery of threatened and/or declining species and habitats and enhance resilience against threats. Recognition of OECMs as a potential contribution to the protection of marine biodiversity further provides the opportunity to engage with important stakeholders that have previously not been involved. However, there are still outstanding issues with respect to inter alia the longevity of OECMs and how to assure their effectiveness in protecting marine biodiversity. It is important to note, that while (OSPAR) MPAs must have a primary conservation objective, this is not the case for OECMs. Nonetheless, to be considered as an OECM a management regime in a clearly defined area must be in place that ensures effective biodiversity conservation in the long-term.

In 2021 Contracting-Parties to OSPAR were invited to voluntarily provide information about OECMs in their national waters. However, most Contracting-Parties have not yet developed a final view on OECMs nationally and therefore did not report any OECMs in their national waters. The information provided in the following should thus be seen as a pilot assessment on OECMs in the OSPAR Maritime Area to identify and capture information on all possible existing spatial measures which could have conservation benefits. OECMs nominated by Contracting-Parties in their national waters include inter alia areas where seasonal restrictions on the use of active systems intended for underwater exploration activities, whale watching and specific measures on fisheries regulation are in place which are assumed to support conservation of e. g., killer whales. Other examples comprise areas of fisheries restrictions, including measures to protect blue ling, sandeels and horse mussel beds (see Table 1.4). Most of these OECMs were considered to be in place over a longer period but monitoring to ensure positive conservation outcomes for biodiversity were mostly missing. As a consequence, if and to what extend these areas contribute to the achievement of positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity remains largely unknown.

Despite uncertainties with respect to their contribution to the protection of biodiversity in the North-East Atlantic and different national approaches, OECMs may fulfil expectations regarding their role as a complementary area-based measure to the OSPAR MPA network by prohibition of human activities. In particular, in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) where management of various human activities is difficult due to limited legal mechanisms or processes for conserving marine biodiversity and governance gaps - even though OSPAR has a pioneering role as a regional organisation to protect marine ecosystems and biodiversity in ABNJ and provided good examples of an operational approach in designating and managing MPAs - OECMs may significantly support the effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity in this huge area which covers approximately 40% of the OSPAR Maritime Area. Therefore, continued effort should be made to further the Collective Arrangement with NEAFC and cooperate with other relevant competent management authorities to identify and assess potential OECMs in ABNJ.

Efforts are needed to thoroughly evaluate the potential role of OECMs for the conservation of marine biodiversity and future work should focus on developing a common understanding of the applicability of the OECM criteria to the specific situation in the North-East Atlantic. In addition, there is a need for ecological monitoring programmes to be established to ensure the contribution of such area-based measures to the long-term conservation of marine biodiversity of the OSPAR Maritime Area.

Table 1.4: Overview of OECMs nominated by Contracting Parties.

1.4 Socio-economic benefits of MPAs

MPAs are generally designated to safeguard biodiversity, maintain marine ecosystem health, supply ecosystem services, and consequently to provide benefits for the society as a whole. Understanding and assessing the benefits of MPAs and how they can be quantified may contribute to informing decision-making by monetising the added value provided by MPAs as well as to increasing public acceptance of MPAs. Several methods have already been developed to estimate the benefits of MPAs, each with its own limitations. However, detailed knowledge on the site-specific benefits is often missing since it is a challenging task to generate this information. Therefore, OSPAR has recently aimed to explore how to improve knowledge generation and started an exchange on method developments. A study on the potential benefits of MPAs and how they can be represented and used in socio-economic analyses²⁴, applying an eco-point approach, highlighted that the exact links between biodiversity and other benefits are yet poorly understood. In most cases sufficient data to perform cost-benefit analyses are lacking due to missing long-term ecological monitoring programmes. In addition, a lack of understanding about the pristine state of an area impedes valuating current area quality.

MPAs produce a variety of benefits through an increase in biodiversity, but the extent to which these benefits can be expected differ substantially between MPAs and are inter alia depending on MPA characteristics such as the level of protection and the presence of no-take areas which will most likely boost biodiversity. Connectivity of MPAs on the network level also needs to be considered to allow for a more accurate assessment of the importance of an MPA for a particular species or habitat and the benefits it provides. In summary, the high complexity of marine ecosystems and their diversity along with knowledge gaps on the current ecological status led to considerable uncertainties in quantifying benefits of MPAs and as a consequence, it was proposed to focus on the use of qualitative approaches for the time being. Nonetheless, efforts should be made to improve monitoring of MPAs to facilitate cost-benefit analyses of MPAs in the future.

2 Ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network

2.1 Background

At the 2010 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Bergen, Norway, OSPAR Ministers committed to ensuring that by 2012²⁵ the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is ecologically coherent, includes sites representative of all biogeographic regions in the OSPAR Maritime Area, and is consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity target for effectively conserved marine and coastal ecological regions.

The 2013 assessment of ecological coherence²⁶ was undertaken based on the OSPAR MPA network as it stood at the end of 2012. This showed some positive signs but concluded that the network was not yet ecologically coherent, and that further network development was required.

OSPAR (2006)²⁷ recommends that an assessment of MPA ecological coherence should be centred around five key principles: ‘features’, ‘representativity’, ‘connectivity’, ‘resilience’ and ‘management’ (Box 1). Please note that work on assessing management progress is reported in Chapter 3 of this report. Since the 2013 assessment, the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas (ICG-MPA) have had in place a task group on ecological coherence (comprising representatives from UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands) to further develop criteria to assess ecological coherence.

The ‘Madrid Criteria’ were developed by the ICG-MPA task group on ecological coherence as an evolution of the three initial spatial tests defined in 2008²⁸. The Madrid Criteria were designed to reflect the key network principles outlined in OSPAR (2006) whilst acknowledging limitations of data concerning OSPAR MPAs and target species and habitats. Box 2 lists the Madrid Criteria used for the current assessment of ecological coherence and the underlying OSPAR network principle(s) to which each one relates.

2.2 Summary of results

Application of the Madrid Criteria to the OSPAR MPA network as it stood at the end of 2021 illustrates that progress has been made in developing the network, but it cannot yet be considered to be ecologically coherent across the OSPAR Maritime Area.

The assessment against Madrid Criterion A (a proximity analysis of MPAs as a surrogate for the OSPAR MPA network principle of connectivity) suggests that the OSPAR MPA network is a well distributed network in OSPAR Regions II (North Sea) and III (Celtic Seas); however, considerable gaps remain in OSPAR Region I (Arctic Waters) and moderate gaps remain in Region V (Wider Atlantic), there is a small gap further offshore in OSPAR Region IV (Bay of Biscay and The Iberian Coast). Future work should consider addressing these geographical gaps.

The assessment against Madrid Criterion B (percentage coverage of MPAs of at least 10% of all the Dinter biogeographic provinces) shows that the 10%-target has been exceeded for seven of the 19 provinces (an increase of three sub-regions in comparison with 2018). At the other end of the scale four provinces have no OSPAR MPAs and a further three have less than 1% surface coverage (instead of four in 2018). These provinces are predominantly to the north of the OSPAR Maritime Area.

The assessment against Madrid Criterion C (protection of OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats within OSPAR MPAs) shows that 28 of the 58 OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species (where OSPAR Recommendations are in place) are protected within more than one MPA in the OSPAR Region(s) where they are considered to be under threat/subject to decline. The 28 features which are considered sufficiently protected are 4 of 4 OSPAR threatened and/or declining invertebrates, 8 of 9 birds, 1 of 2 reptiles, 2 of 4 marine mammals, 4 of 21 fish and 9 of 18 habitats.

2.3 Criterion A: Geographical distribution of OSPAR MPAs

2.3.1 Proximity analysis of OSPAR MPAs

Madrid Criterion A shows how geographically well-distributed OSPAR MPAs are based on proximity analyses, with maximum distances set as no more than 250 km between nearshore/coastline OSPAR MPAs (within the territorial waters of Contracting Parties), 500 km for offshore OSPAR MPAs (within the Exclusive Economic Zones of Contracting Parties) and 1000 km for MPAs in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction within the OSPAR Maritime Area. These figures have been derived from previous work to assess the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network undertaken in 2013²⁹.

This first criterion is intended as a proxy to the OSPAR MPA network principle of connectivity. In the absence of dispersal data, or information on critical areas for the life cycle of a given species, connectivity may be approximated by ensuring the MPA network is well distributed in space³⁰.

Figure 2.1 presents the results of the application of Madrid Criterion A to the OSPAR MPA network as it stood at the end of 2021. Key observations from the information provided are that:

• In OSPAR Regions II (North Sea) and III (Celtic Seas) OSPAR MPAs are considered to be geographically well distributed.
• In OSPAR Region IV (Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast) only a small gap remains in the north-west of the Region.
• In OSPAR Region V (Wider Atlantic), OSPAR MPAs in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) and the UK have contributed substantially to the network of MPAs. Gaps remain, however, in the south-west, south, north and east of the Region.
• In OSPAR Region I (Arctic Waters) there are considerable gaps remaining.

2.4 Criterion B: Coverage of OSPAR MPAs across biogeographic regions

Madrid Criterion B illustrates surface coverage of OSPAR MPAs across Dinter biogeographic provinces according to Dinter³¹.  In contrast to the OSPAR Regions (I-V), the Dinter biogeographic provinces account for the ecological variations present in a geographical sense across the OSPAR Maritime Area. A map of the Dinter biogeographic provinces used in the assessment against Madrid Criteria B is provided in Figure 2.2.

The target under Madrid Criterion B is for 10% coverage across each Dinter biogeographic province. This has its foundations in the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11, which calls for 10% of coastal and marine areas to be effectively conserved (although this target is not only related to MPA coverage). The results of the assessment against Madrid Criterion B are presented in Table 2.1.

It is important to note that the Dinter biogeographic classification is less detailed in the deep sea and therefore does not characterise the biogeographic features of OSPAR Region V (Wider Atlantic) and part of Region I (Arctic Waters). In addition, this analysis excludes the three (holo) pelagic regions because they fully overlap with the benthic regions.

Table 2.1: OSPAR MPA and OECM + non-OSPAR MPA total surface area coverage³² on the continental shelf & continental slope and deep-sea Dinter biogeographic provinces and regions

Table 2.1 presents the results of the application of Madrid Criterion B to the OSPAR MPA network as it stood at the end of 2021. Key observations from the information provided are that:

• There are minor to moderate increases in the percentage coverage of Dinter Biogeographic Provinces/regions by comparison to the last assessment undertaken in 2018. A substantial increase from 7,2% to 15,7% was achieved for the Atlantic deep-sea region.  
• The 10% coverage target has been met for seven of the 19 Dinter Biogeographic Provinces/regions in the OSPAR Maritime Area (six in 2018): six within the Eastern Atlantic Temperate sub-region, one within the Atlantic deep-sea region.
• A further one of the 19 Dinter Biogeographic Provinces/regions exceeds 9% in terms of surface coverage within the Eastern Atlantic Temperate sub-region and another one exceeds 5% coverage in the Barents Sea province.
• Four of the 19 OSPAR Dinter Biogeographic provinces/regions do not include any OSPAR MPAs (unchanged since 2018) and a further three (instead of four in 2018) have less than 1% surface coverage. These provinces/regions are predominantly in the north of the OSPAR Maritime Area.

2.4.1 Coverage of OECMs and non-OSPAR MPAs 

In total, 7 OECMs and two non-OSPAR MPAs were nominated by Contracting Parties in their national waters. Table 2.1 and Figure 2.3 present the area covered by OECMs and non-OSPAR MPAs in the 19 Dinter Biogeographic Provinces/regions as nominated by Contracting Parties as it stood by the end of 2021. These areas may contribute to effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity, even though they may be managed primarily for other reasons.

Key observations from the information provided are that by considering OECMs and non-OSPAR MPA as potential contributors to effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity there are minor to moderate increases in the coverage of three Dinter Biogeographic Provinces/regions (Boreal: 24,2% to 27,6%; Boreal-Lusitanean: 15,1% to 16,2% and Atlantic Deep sea Region: 15,7% to 15,8%).

2.5 Criterion C: Representation and replication of marine habitats and species within OSPAR MPAs

Madrid Criterion C assesses the representation and replication of EUNIS Level 3 habitat classes and OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species (where MPAs may be considered as part of the underlying Recommendation).

Madrid Criterion C reflects the OSPAR (2006)³³ network principles of ‘Features’ (representing the range of habitats, species, and ecological processes across the OSPAR Maritime Area), ‘Representativity’ (protecting features and EUNIS Level 3 habitats across their known geographic range), and ‘Resilience’ (protecting features in multiple MPAs).

At present the OSPAR MPA database is deficient in information regarding the protection of EUNIS Level 3 habitat type. There are also gaps regarding the protection of OSPAR threatened and/or declining features and it has been necessary to use data on OSPAR threatened and/or declining features considered to be present within MPAs as opposed to justifying the underlying designation. Therefore, a full assessment of Madrid Criterion C has not been possible. The indicative results presented in Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.4, Table 2.5, Table 2.6 and Table 2.7 provide an overview of the protection of instances of each OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitat and species. This information also provides a connection to conservation measures reporting against the OSPAR Recommendations for threatened and/or declining habitats and species.

The results of the assessment against Madrid Criterion C are presented in Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.4, Table 2.5, Table 2.6andTable 2.7 per feature group (invertebrates, birds, reptiles, marine mammals, fish and habitats). The two features where recommendations are still pending (dog whelk (Nucella lapillus) and bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)) have been excluded from the analysis as the potential suitability of MPAs as a tool to support their conservation has not been confirmed. The criterion is considered to be met when the feature is protected by more than one MPA in the OSPAR Region(s) for which they are listed by OSPAR as being under threat/subject to decline. Features are counted if an MPA covers it in an area where the feature occurs also if it is not under threat and/or in decline in that Region, in such cases the tables can list a value greater than zero and still conclude that protection is not in place.

Where a cell is greyed out, this indicates that the feature is not known to occur within that OSPAR Region. A bold number indicates the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline in that particular Region.

Table 2.2: OSPAR threatened and/or declining invertebrate protection within MPAs across the OSPAR Regions.

Table 2.3: OSPAR threatened and/or declining bird protection within MPAs across the OSPAR Regions.

Table 2.5: OSPAR threatened and/or declining mammal protection within MPAs across the OSPAR Regions.

Table 2.6: OSPAR threatened and/or declining fish protection within MPAs across the OSPAR Regions.

Tables 2.2 - Table 2.7 present the results of the application of Madrid Criterion C to the OSPAR MPA network as it stood at 1 October 2021. Key observations are that:

• 28 of the 58 OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species (where recommendations are in place) are protected within more than one MPA in the OSPAR Region(s) they are considered to be under threat/subject to decline.
• All OSPAR threatened and/or declining invertebrates where recommendations are in place are considered to be adequately represented and replicated within MPAs in the OSPAR Regions where they are considered to be under threat/subject to decline (Table 2.2).
• Eight of the nine bird species listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining are considered to be adequately represented and replicated within MPAs in the OSPAR Regions they are considered to be under threat/subject to decline. One species (Puffinus mauretanicus) lacks representation and replication in OSPAR Region V, where it is considered under threat/subject to decline (Table 2.3).
• Of the two species of turtle listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining, Caretta caretta is considered to be adequately represented and replicated within the OSPAR MPA network, but protection for Dermochelys coriacea is lacking in OSPAR Regions I, II and III (Table 2.4).
• Of the four species of marine mammals listed as threatened and/or declining, Phocoena phocoena and Balaena mysticetus are considered to be adequately represented and replicated by the OSPAR MPA network. Further consideration is required across all OSPAR Regions except for OSPAR Region V where protection of mammals is considered to be adequate (Table 2.5).
• Only four of the 21 species of fish listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining (with Recommendations in place) are considered to be adequately represented and replicated by the OSPAR MPA network. Attention is required across all OSPAR Regions to varying degrees. (Table 2.6).
• Nine of the 18 habitats listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining are considered to be adequately represented and replicated by the OSPAR MPA network. OSPAR Region I is notably under-represented. Cymodocea meadows and Carbonate mounds are not represented or protected at all (Table 2.7).

2.6 Ecologically based assessments

The approach using the Madrid Criteria A, B and C to assess the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network using geographic indices (see Box 1 and 2) is a proximate approach in the absence of distribution data and information on the life history traits of features protected within the OSPAR MPA network.

Pilots performed in the last 3 years show the assessment of Criteria A and C can be ecologically and feature based using distribution data and ecological knowledge on life history and dispersal of mobile threatened and/or declining features⁴³,⁴⁴. For the assessment of Criterion A distribution maps of occurrence data of a feature (see for instance Figure 2.4) can be assembled to identify the areas most in need of protection for a specific feature.

Instead of assessing the MPA network’s principles (Box 1) from the network as a whole, these principles can be assessed from the perspective of each feature separately. In the case of the assessment of connectivity one can assess the cover of MPAs protecting a feature against the distribution it displays. When multiple features are assessed this way, an image arises of where new MPAs could be installed to fill a gap or where an existing MPA could expand the number of features it aims to protect.

In the case of the assessment of Madrid Criterion C (Representation and Replication), one can assess whether the feature is protected during all essential life-history stages and MPAs serve all needed functions for the feature. The functions of MPAs for features can be inferred applying ecological knowledge of the feature. An MPA may either serve as a breeding or nursery area, it may be a (periodic) residence or an area along a migration route.

Necessary data and ecological knowledge are available from multiple sources for most mobile features to perform such an assessment of Criteria A and C which could replace the current assessment methods or be presented alongside it.

One remaining challenge within this methodology whenimplementing these ecologically based assessments of Madrid Criteria A and C is the realisation that all geographically explicit ecological data is deficient and hence issues remain concerning accuracy (spatial resolution, who collected the data; why and how, temporal correlation). The OSPAR Data and Information Management System (ODIMS) provides a single geo-referenced dataset (map) for distribution of threatened and/or declining features: https://odims.ospar.org/en/submissions/ospar_habitats_points_2015_01/. This map only displays the recognised whereabouts of threatened and/or declining habitats. No geo-referenced dataset has been approved on ODIMS for mobile threatened and/or declining features for which the MPA network’s principles are most relevant to follow.

Consensus on either acceptable levels of accuracy or acceptable/recognised websites to provide ecological distribution data is needed in order to decide on the applicability and possible role of ecologically based assessments in the following Status Assessment.

2.7 Conclusions and next steps

Application of the Madrid Criteria to the OSPAR MPA network illustrates that considerable progress has been made in developing the network since the 2018 assessment. However, the network cannot yet be considered to be ecologically coherent across the OSPAR Maritime Area (Table 2.8).

MPAs within OSPAR Regions II (Greater North Sea) and III (Celtic Seas) are considered to be geographically well distributed, but significant geographical gaps remain within the MPA network in OSPAR Regions I (Arctic Waters) and V (Wider Atlantic). The 10% coverage target has been met for seven of the 19 Dinter biogeographic provinces/regions in the case of the continental shelf and slope of the OSPAR Maritime Area (four in 2018), all of them within the Eastern Atlantic Temperate sub-region.  At the other end of the scale, the OSPAR Dinter biogeographic provinces/regions that do not include any OSPAR MPAs or have less than 1% surface coverage are all in the north of the OSPAR Maritime Area. Twenty-eight of the 58 OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species (where Recommendations are in place) are protected within more than one MPA in the OSPAR Region(s) where they are considered to be under threat/subject to decline. Work moving forward should focus on considering the nomination of further MPAs to OSPAR in Regions I and V and in the more northerly Dinter biogeographic provinces. In addition, further work is required to identify MPAs for OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species where MPAs are an appropriate conservation measure.

Table 2.8: Overview of OSPAR MPA network assessment against Madrid Criteria. Colours indicate progress against Madrid Criteria targets (terracotta-poor/low; yellow-moderate/medium; light blue-good/high).