Skip to main content

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

Executive Summary

The North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES)1 2030 is the means by which OSPAR’s 16 Contracting Parties will implement the OSPAR Convention until 2030. It sets out collective objectives to tackle the triple challenge facing the ocean: biodiversity loss, pollution, including marine litter, and climate change. Its implementation is part of OSPAR’s contribution to the achievement of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals. The Strategy sets out the goal of OSPAR Contracting Parties to further develop the OSPAR Network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the North-East Atlantic and to ensure that:

by 2030 the network of marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective conservation measures (OECMs)2cover at least 30%3of the OSPAR maritime area and to ensure it is representative, ecologically coherent and effectively managed to achieve its conservation objectives.

This report aims to summarise the information made available by OSPAR Contracting Parties on their respective MPAs nominated to the OSPAR Commission and on this basis assess the progress towards overall status, management and ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network.

Since Contracting Parties started nominating MPAs to the OSPAR Network of MPAs in 2005, all 12 Contracting Parties bordering the North-East Atlantic have nominated sites to the OSPAR Network of MPAs in their national waters. All Contracting Parties to OSPAR have collectively designated MPAs in Areas Beyond National jurisdiction (ABNJ) of the OSPAR maritime area.

By 1 October 2021, the OSPAR Network of MPAs comprised 583 MPAs, including 8 MPAs collectively designated in ABNJ. All MPAs have a total surface area of 1 468 053 km2, covering 10,8% of the OSPAR Maritime Area. Therefore, by designating more than 10% of marine and coastal waters as MPAs, OSPAR has achieved Aichi Biodiversity target 11 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Since the last Status Report in 2018, 87 MPAs with a surface area of more than 600 000 km2 were added to the OSPAR network of MPAs. The new MPAs were nominated by the United Kingdom (71 MPAs), the Kingdom of Denmark (6 MPAs) and Norway (9 MPAs). Another MPA, the North Atlantic Current and Evlanov sea basin MPA (NACES) was nominated collectively in ABNJ. This MPA covers an area of 595 196 km2. The overall area covered by OSPAR MPAs of the OSPAR Maritime Area increased from 6,4% in 2018 to 10,8% in 2021.

To date, the majority of designated OSPAR MPAs are located in territorial waters, with an overall coverage of 20,9%. The area beyond the limits of national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), i.e. the High Seas and the Area and the Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) areas, include 19,5% covered by OSPAR MPAs. The lowest coverage of OSPAR MPAs is found in the EEZ area where 2,9% are covered by OSPAR MPAs.

OSPAR Region II, the Greater North Sea, has an MPA coverage of 20,2%. The Celtic Seas (Region III) and the Wider Atlantic (Region V) have 20,0% and 17,3% area covered by OSPAR MPAs, respectively. The MPA coverage of the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast (Region IV) is at 6,0% and the Arctic Waters (Region I) show the lowest coverage with 2,0%.

The application of the Madrid Criteria to the OSPAR MPA network illustrates that whilst significant progress has been made in developing the network, it cannot yet be considered to be ecologically coherent.

Since the last Status Report on the OSPAR Network of MPAs in 2018, further work was done on developing an ecologically based assessment (see 2.6) to further explore the principle of MPA network connectivity, representation and replication for OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats. However, additional work is still required to develop the way in which the OSPAR MPA network is assessed for ecological coherence.

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 nearing being considered to be well distributed in OSPAR Regions II (North Sea) and III (Celtic Seas), but there remain significant gaps in OSPAR Regions I (Arctic). In OSPAR Region V (Wider Atlantic) gaps still persist in the southwest, south, north and east and a small gap further offshore in OSPAR Region IV (Bay of Biscay and The Iberian Coast). Future work should focus on addressing these geographical gaps where possible.

The assessment against Madrid Criterion B (percentage coverage of MPAs across the Dinter biogeographic provinces) suggests that the 10%-target has been exceeded for seven of the 19 provinces; six within the Eastern Atlantic Temperate sub-region, one within the Atlantic deep-sea region. A further one exceeds 9% total surface coverage (within the Eastern Atlantic Temperate sub-region) and another one exceeds 5% (within the Barents Sea province). Four provinces have no OSPAR MPAs and a further three have less than 1% surface coverage. 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 (14 of 54 in 2018) 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, eight of the nine birds, one of the two reptiles, two of the four marine mammals, four of the 21 fish and nine of the 18 habitats are considered sufficiently protected according to the requirements of Madrid criterion C.

With respect to the management status, OSPAR has made progress. 8,8 out of 10 (88%) of the OSPAR MPAs have either full or partial management information in place, which is publicly documented, a 2% increase since the 2018 Status Report. In addition, there has been an improvement in the implementation of management measures considered necessary to achieve the conservation objectives of MPAs, with partial measures increasing from 77% in 2018 to 83% in 2021. Responses to monitoring programmes have shown a similar trend between 2018 and 2021. Progress towards achieving conservation objectives has also taken place since 2018, with an increase of 4% (18% in 2021) responding with a yes to this question. In 2021, Contracting Parties were asked to provide an estimation of their confidence in their response. 6% of OSPAR MPAs are considered to have high confidence scores in their responses to this question, 32% to have moderate and 19% to have low confidence scores. However, in 2021 a high proportion of ‘unknown’ responses (30% compared to 28% in 2018) as to whether the protected features of OSPAR MPAs are moving towards their conservation objectives still remains, largely due to the lack of site-specific data on the ecological status of the protected features of the MPAs.

Future OSPAR work should focus on implementing the management measures considered necessary to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of the MPAs. In parallel, there is a need for long-term monitoring programmes to be established to evaluate the effectiveness of such management measures to conclude with greater confidence on whether the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs are being achieved. In addition, work should progress on improving methods of evaluating the degree to which the OSPAR MPA network is well-managed to support a more sophisticated assessment as to whether or not the OSPAR MPA network is delivering a genuine conservation benefit to targeted habitats, species and ecological processes.

For OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ, there should be continued effort to further the collective arrangement and cooperate through e.g., Memorandums of Understanding with relevant competent management authorities, so that they can consider appropriate management actions to help deliver the conservation objectives for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ. Contracting Parties should continue to raise awareness of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ with relevant stakeholders and interest groups and look to further our scientific understanding of these sites.

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 12th 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.

Sources of data and information on OSPAR MPAs

The analysis of the OSPAR Network of MPAs is based upon information that has been provided by the Contracting Parties in the process of nominating MPAs to the OSPAR Commission and completing annual implementation reporting. In 2021 the annual data call included voluntary components, including reporting information on management status, OECMs and non-OSPAR MPAs.

Data for analyses were gathered from the OSPAR Database of MPAs which is co-administered by the French Agence des Aires Marines Protégées (AAMP) and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN).

All calculations were made with reference only to the OSPAR Maritime Area as defined in the OSPAR Convention, excluding overseas territories and territories of Contracting Parties in the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas.

All figures, tables and maps in this report provide information on the OSPAR Network of MPAs as of 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 1 468 053 km2, which equals 10,8% of the OSPAR Maritime Area. This represents an increase by 603 716 km², or 4,4%, compared to 2018.

Figure 1.1.  OSPAR Network of MPAs (as of 1 October 2021)⁵.

Figure 1.1. OSPAR Network of MPAs (as of 1 October 2021)⁵.

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).

Figure 1.2: OSPAR MPAs and boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and Extended Continental Shelves (as submitted to UN CLCS) of OSPAR Contracting Parties (as of 1 October 2021)⁷.

Figure 1.2: OSPAR MPAs and boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and Extended Continental Shelves (as submitted to UN CLCS) of OSPAR Contracting Parties (as of 1 October 2021)⁷.

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

OSPAR

Contracting Party

No. of

OSPAR MPAs

MPA coverage [km2]

TW

EEZ

beyond EEZ

Total

Belgium

2

806

433

n.a.

1 239

Denmark

40

7 098

5 778

n.a.

12 876

France

39

15 822

6 280

n.a.

22 102

Germany

6

9 647

7 921

n.a.

17 595

Iceland

14

90

476

n.a.

566

Ireland

19

1 594

2 542

n.a.

4 135

Netherlands

5

2 434

5 937

n.a.

8 371

Norway

30

84 885

2 667

n.a.

87 551

Portugal

139

1 556

4 656

22

6 234

Spain

15

8 311

19 300

n.a.

27 610

Sweden

10

1 114

1 371

n.a.

2 485

United Kingdom

38210

73 935

147 106

17 158

238 200

All Contracting Parties

811

n.a.

n.a.

 1 037 862

1 037 862

Total

583

207 317

204 467

1 055 043

1 468 05312

 

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.

Figure 1.3: MPA coverage in the national waters of Contracting Parties, comprising territorial waters and EEZ¹⁵ as well as MPA coverage in territorial waters and EEZ separately (as of 1 October 2021).

Figure 1.3: MPA coverage in the national waters of Contracting Parties, comprising territorial waters and EEZ¹⁵ as well as MPA coverage in territorial waters and EEZ separately (as of 1 October 2021).

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, 19,5% (1 055 043 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.

Figure 1.4: Distribution of OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions (as of 1 October 2021).

Figure 1.4: Distribution of OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions (as of 1 October 2021).

Figure 1.5a: OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions (I – Arctic Waters; II – Greater North Sea; III – Celtic Seas (as of 1 October 2021)).

Figure 1.5a: OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions (I – Arctic Waters; II – Greater North Sea; III – Celtic Seas (as of 1 October 2021)).

Figure 1.5b: OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions (IV – Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast; V – Wider Atlantic (as of 1 October 2021)).

Figure 1.5b: OSPAR MPAs across OSPAR Regions (IV – Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast; V – Wider Atlantic (as of 1 October 2021)).

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) 17,3% of the area is covered by OSPAR MPAs (1 099 784 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).

Figure 1.6: Spatial coverage (%) by OSPAR MPAs of the five OSPAR Regions (as of 1 October 2021).

Figure 1.6: Spatial coverage (%) by OSPAR MPAs of the five OSPAR Regions (as of 1 October 2021).

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)

OSPAR Region

Total Area

Protected Area by OSPAR MPAs

[km²]

[km²]

[%]

I

Arctic Waters

5 529 716

107 846

2,0

II

Greater North Sea

766 624

154 712

20,2

III

Celtic Seas

366 459

73 409

20,0

IV

Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast

539 153

32 299

6,0

V

Wider Atlantic

6 346 159

1 099 784

17,3

OSPAR Maritime Area

13 548 111

1 468 053

10,8

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.

Figure 1.7: OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs (as of 1 October 2021)²⁰.The colour category is intended to visualise the jurisdictional groupings of ABJN MPAs as in section 1.2.3. It should be noted that North-West Rockall SAC is mainly located in EEZ area and is included in the figure for the sake of comprehensiveness and clarity.

Figure 1.7: OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs (as of 1 October 2021)²⁰.The colour category is intended to visualise the jurisdictional groupings of ABJN MPAs as in section 1.2.3. It should be noted that North-West Rockall SAC is mainly located in EEZ area and is included in the figure for the sake of comprehensiveness and clarity.

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:    

Charlie-Gibbs South MPA   146 032 km²
Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores High Seas MPA  93 570 km²
Milne Seamount Complex MPA20 914 km²
Josephine Seamount High Seas MPA19 363 km²
Altair Seamount High Seas MPA 4 384 km²
Antialtair High Seas MPA2 807 km²

                                                  

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:

Charlie-Gibbs North High Sea MPA  178 094 km²

           

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:

North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin MPA21595 196 km2

 

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.

OSPAR Marine Protected Area

OSPAR Decision on designation

OSPAR Recommendation on management

Nomination proforma/Background document

Milne Seamount Complex MPA

Decision 2010/01

Recommendation 2010/12

Publication 524

Charlie-Gibbs South MPA

Decision 2010/02

Recommendation 2010/13

Publication 523 (fracture-zone)

Altair Seamount High Seas MPA

Decision 2010/03

Recommendation 2010/14

Publication 549

Antialtair Seamount High Seas MPA

Decision 2010/04

Recommendation 2010/15

Publication 550

Josephine Seamount High Seas MPA

Decision 2010/05

Recommendation 2010/16

Publication 551

Mid-Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores High Seas MPA

Decision 2010/06

Recommendation 2010/17

Publication 552

Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas MPA

Decision 2012/01

Recommendation 2012/01

Publication 560

North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin MPA

Decision 2021/01

Recommendation 2021/01

Publication 771

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.

Contracting Party

Name of OECM

Feature(s) protected

Means of protection

Long-term outlook

Brief overall justification for OECM nomination

Spain

Critical Area for Orcas

Orcinus orca

Seasonal restriction on the use of active systems intended for underwater exploration or underground (both by means of probes, compressed air or controlled explosions and by means of underground drilling), seasonal restriction of whale watching and specific measures on fisheries regulation, monitoring of pollution sources and enhancement of research

Measures have been in place since May 2017 and they will be applicable indefinitely until conservation status of the species improves. Its results are to be assessed every 3 years.

These measures could also be beneficial for other species (Phocoena phocoena and Caretta caretta for example). This critical area overlaps partially with an OSPAR MPA/SPA for birds, named "Espacio Marino de la Bahía de Cádiz", this MPA is much smaller (36.13 Km2)

United Kingdom

Blue Ling West of Scotland

Molva dypterygia

From 1 March to 31 May each year, directed fishing for blue ling is prohibited. A by-catch of blue ling up to a threshold of 6 tonnes may be retained on board and landed.

It is thought that this measure is likely to persist in the longer-term.

The fisheries management measures in place are considered, in principle, to afford biodiversity conservation benefits to blue ling within the OECM area.

United Kingdom

Closed Area Sea Fisheries Order 2012 No. 2571

Modiolus modiolusbeds

Fishing for sea fish using bottom towed fishing gear is prohibited.

Measures have been in place since 2012. It is thought that this measure is likely to persist in the longer-term.

The fisheries management measures in place are considered, in principle, to afford biodiversity conservation benefits to Modiolus modiolus beds within the OECM area.

United Kingdom

East Coast of Scotland (Sandeels) Closure

Rissa tridactyla
Ammodytes marinus
Ammodytes tobianus

Fishing for sandeel with any towed gear with a mesh size of less than 32 mm is prohibited. Fisheries for scientific investigation are allowed in order to monitor the sandeel stock in the area and the effects of the closure.

It is thought that this measure is likely to persist in the longer-term. No re-opening criteria have been established

The fisheries management measures in place are considered, in principle, to afford biodiversity conservation benefits to Rissa tridactyla, Ammodytes marinusand
Ammodytes tobianus within the OECM area.

United Kingdom

Irish Sea Cod Box

Gadus morhua

From 14 February to 30 April each year, fishing with any demersal trawl, seine or similar towed net, any gillnet, entangling net or trammel net or any fishing gear incorporating hooks is prohibited. A derogation exists for demersal trawls provided such trawls are fitted with selective devices that have been assessed by STECF of the European Commission.

It is thought that this measure is likely to persist in the longer-term.

The fisheries management measures in place are considered, in principle, to afford biodiversity conservation benefits to cod within the OECM area.

United Kingdom

Rosemary Bank (Blue Ling)

Molva dypterygia

From 1 March to 31 May each year, directed fishing for blue ling is prohibited. A by-catch of blue ling up to a threshold of 6 tonnes may be retained on board and landed.
Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1241: Annex VI (North Western Waters), Part C, Article 6 & Annex XII (NEAFC Regulatory Area)

It is thought that this measure is likely to persist in the longer-term.

The fisheries management measures in place are considered, in principle, to afford biodiversity conservation benefits to blue ling within the OECM area.

United Kingdom

West Rockall Mound

A6.1 Deep-sea rock and artificial hard substrata
A6.2 Deep-sea mixed substrata
A6.4 Deep-sea muddy sand
A6.5 Deep-sea mud

Prohibited to conduct bottom trawling and fishing with static gear, including bottom set gillnets and bottom set longlines.
Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1241: Annex XII (NEAFC Regulatory Area)

It is thought that this measure is likely to persist in the longer-term.

The fisheries management measures in place are considered, in principle, to afford biodiversity conservation benefits to a range of broadscale seabed habitats within the OECM area.

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.

Box 1 – OSPAR principles for assessing the ecological coherence of MPA networks

Features – MPAs should be designated in areas that best represent the range of habitats, species and ecological processes in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Proportions of features that should be protected by the MPA network may be higher for particularly threatened and/or declining features.

Representativity – MPAs should protect examples of the same features across their known biogeographical extent to reflect known sub-types. EUNIS Level 3 habitats are stated as a potentially useful way of characterising the OSPAR Maritime Area for the purposes of including biogeographic variation in the network.

Connectivity – In the absence of dispersal data, connectivity may be approximated by ensuring the MPA network is well distributed geographically. Where scientific understanding is further developed, the MPA network should reflect locations where a specific path between identified places is known (e.g. critical areas of a life cycle for a given species).

Resilience – Replication of features in separate MPAs in each biogeographic area is desirable where possible. The appropriate size of a site should be determined by the purpose of the site and be sufficiently large enough to maintain the integrity of the feature(s) for which it is selected.

Management (reported in Chapter 3) – OSPAR MPAs should be managed to ensure the protection of the features for which they were selected and to support the functioning of an ecologically coherent network.

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.

Box 2 – The ‘Madrid Criteria’ for assessing the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network

A: OSPAR MPAs are geographically well‐distributed, with a maximum distance of up to 250 km for nearshore/coastline, 500 km for offshore and 1000 km for the high seas areas between MPAs – links to OSPAR (2006) network principle of connectivity.

B:  OSPAR MPAs, in combination with other relevant spatial measures as deemed appropriate, cover at least 10% in area of all Dinter biogeographic provinces – links to OSPAR (2006) network principle of representativity.

C: OSPAR MPAs represent all EUNIS Level 3 habitat classes and OSPAR threatened and/or declining (OSPAR T&D) species and habitats for which MPAs are considered appropriate more than once in all relevant Dinter biogeographic provinces a given feature is present – links to OSPAR (2006) network principles of features and resilience.

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: Proximity analysis of OSPAR MPAs as a proxy for the OSPAR MPA network principle of connectivity. White areas indicate gaps in the MPA network according to Madrid Criterion A.

Figure 2.1: Proximity analysis of OSPAR MPAs as a proxy for the OSPAR MPA network principle of connectivity. White areas indicate gaps in the MPA network according to Madrid Criterion A.

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.

Figure 2.2: Dinter biogeographic provinces and MPAs in the OSPAR Maritime Area (as of 1 October 2021).

Figure 2.2: Dinter biogeographic provinces and MPAs in the OSPAR Maritime Area (as of 1 October 2021).

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

Region

Sub-region

Province

MPA

Protected area (km²)

OECM and non-OSPAR MPA area (km2)

Total area (km²)

OSPAR

MPA coverage (%)

MPA & OECM

coverage (%)

Continental shelf and continental slope

Arctic

North-East Greenland Shelf

0

0

277 879

0

0

Arctic

North-East Water Polynya

0

0

71 845

0

0

Arctic

High Arctic Maritime

11 099

0

809 874

1,4

1,4

Arctic

Barents Sea

67 229

0

1 158 371

5,8

5,8

Arctic

Barents Sea : White Sea

0

0

86 372

0

0

Arctic

S-E Greenland-N. Iceland Shelf

2 970

0

425 600

0,7

0,7

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Boreal

171 595

24 740

710 185

24,2

27,6

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Boreal-Lusitanean

68 960

4 842

455 947

15,1

16,2

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Lusitanean-Boreal

25 221

0

151 202

16,7

16,7

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Lusitanean: Cool

8 352

0

49 715

16,8

16,8

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Lusitanean: Warm North

4 345

0

44 481

9,8

9,8

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Lusitanean: Warm South

4 895

0

24 081

20,3

20,3

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Macaronesian: Azores

812

0

22 545

3,6

3,6

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Norwegian Coast: Finnmark

0

0

67 422

0

0,0

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Norwegian Coast: Skagerrak

3 325

0

23 397

13,9

13,9

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

Norwegian Coast: West Norway

3 537

0

322 339

1,1

1,1

Atlantic

East Atlantic Temperate

South Iceland-Faeroe Shelf

566

0

306 382

0,2

0,2

Deep sea

Arctic

20 772

0

2 235 011

0,9

0,9

Atlantic

1 075 134

9 141

6 995 730

15,4

15,5

 

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 15,4% 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: 15,4% to 15,5%).

Figure 2.3: Distribution of OECMs and non-OSPAR MPAs as nominated by OSPAR Contracting Parties (as of 1 October 2021).

Figure 2.3: Distribution of OECMs and non-OSPAR MPAs as nominated by OSPAR Contracting Parties (as of 1 October 2021).

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.

OSPAR T&D invertebrate species

I – Arctic Waters

II - Greater North Sea

III - Celtic Seas

IV - Bay of Biscay and Iberian coasts

V - Wider Atlantic

Protection in place

Arctica islandica- Ocean quahog

0

17

22

1

 

Yes– There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region II & III34 where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Megabalanus azoricus- Azorean barnacle

 

 

 

 

3

Yes– There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Nucella lapillus- Dog whelk

Recommendation pending

0

9

15

8

0

None-applicable

Ostrea edulis- Flat oyster

0

13

10

4

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region II & III35 where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Patella ulyssiponensis aspera- Azorean limpet

 

 

 

 

3

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

 

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

OSPAR T&D bird species

I – Arctic Waters

II - Greater North Sea

III - Celtic Seas

IV - Bay of Biscay and Iberian coasts

V - Wider Atlantic

Protection in place

Larus fuscus fuscus,Fuscus sub-species- Lesser black-backed gull, Fuscus sub-species

436

 

 

 

 

Yes –There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where it is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Pagophila eburnea               - Ivory gull

2

 

 

 

 

Yes –There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where it is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Polysticta stelleri- Steller's eider

2

 

 

 

 

Yes –There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where it is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Puffinus assimilis baroli-Macaronesianshearwater

 

 

 

 

5

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Puffinus mauretanicus- Balearic shearwater

 

2

3

21

0

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Rissa tridactyla- Black-legged kittiwake

4

34

19

18

0

Yes –There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region I, II and III37 where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Sterna dougallii- Roseate tern

 

7

5

5

5

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Regions where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Uria aalge- Iberian guillemot(synonyms: Uria aalge albionis, Uria aalge ibericus)

 

 

 

17

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Uria lomvia- Thick-billed murre

4

1

 

1

 

Yes –There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where it is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

 

Table 2.4: OSPAR threatened and/or declining reptile protection within MPAs across the OSPAR Regions

OSPAR T&D reptile species

I – Arctic Waters

II - Greater North Sea

III - Celtic Seas

IV - Bay of Biscay and Iberian coasts

V - Wider Atlantic

Protection in place

Caretta caretta- Loggerhead turtle

 

0

0

6

6

Yes –There is MPA replication in all OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Dermochelys coriacea- Leatherback turtle

0

0

0

12

8

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions I, II & III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

 

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

OSPAR T&D mammal species

I – Arctic Waters

II - Greater North Sea

III - Celtic Seas

IV - Bay of Biscay and Iberian coasts

V - Wider Atlantic

Protection in place

Balaena mysticetus- Bowhead whale

2

 

 

 

 

Yes –There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where it is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Balaenoptera musculus- Blue whale

0

0

0

0

8

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions I, II, III and IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Eubalaena glacialis- Northern right whale

0

0

0

0

2

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions I,II,III & IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Phocoena phocoena- Harbour porpoise

0

34

23

15

1

Yes –There is MPA replication in all OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

 

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

OSPAR T&D fish species

I – Arctic Waters

II - Greater North Sea

III - Celtic Seas

IV - Bay of Biscay and Iberian coasts

V - Wider Atlantic

Protection in place

Acipenser sturio- Sturgeon

 

0

38

4

 

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region II where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Alosa alosa- Allis shad

 

8

5

12

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in all OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Anguilla Anguilla- European eel

0

11

12

8

1

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Centrophorus granulosus- Gulper shark

 

 

 

1

8

No –There is no MPA replication in OSPAR Region IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Centrophorus squamosus- Leafscale gulper shark

0

1

0

1

9

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions I and III and no replication in OSPAR Region II and IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Centroscymnus coelolepis- Portuguese dogfish

0

1

1

1

9

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I and no replication in OSPAR Region II, III and IV  where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Cetorhinus maximus- Basking shark

0

1

239

3

3

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus- Houting

 

10

 

 

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region II where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

 

Dipturus batis- Common Skate

0

3

3

1

0

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions I & V and no replication in OSPAR Region IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Gadus morhua– Cod

0

14

1

0

0

No –There is no MPA replication in OSPAR Region III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Hippocampus guttulatus- Long-snouted seahorse

 

4

4

7

2

Yes –There is MPA replication in all OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Hippocampus hippocampus- Short-snouted seahorse

 

12

1

5

0

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions V and no replication in OSPAR Region III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Hoplostethus atlanticus-  Orange roughy

0

 

 

1

8

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I and no replication in OSPAR Region IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Lamna nasus- Porbeagle

0

2

2

0

1

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I & IV and no replication in OSPAR Region V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Petromyzon marinus- Sea lamprey

0

16

9

6

 

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Raja clavata- Thornback ray

0

2

1

5

4

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I and no replication in OSPAR Region III the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Raja montagui- Spotted Ray

 

3

1

3

0

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region V  and no replication in OSPAR Region III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Rostroraja alba- White skate

 

1

0

1

0

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions III and V and no replication in OSPAR Region II and IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Salmo salar– Salmon

2

7

440

7

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in all OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Squalus acanthias- [North-East Atlantic] spurdog

0

3

1

0

1

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I and IV and no replication in OSPAR Regions III and V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Squatina squatina- Angel shark

 

0

1

0

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions II and IV and no replication in OSPAR Regions II,III and IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Thunnus thynnus- Bluefin tuna

Recommendation pending

 

 

 

2

5

None-applicable

 

Table 2.7: OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitat protection within MPAs across the OSPAR Regions.

OSPAR T&D habitats

I – Arctic Waters

II - Greater North Sea

III - Celtic Seas

IV - Bay of Biscay and Iberian coasts

V - Wider Atlantic

Protection in place

Carbonate mounds

0

 

 

0

1

No –There is no MPA replication in OSPAR Region V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Coral gardens

2

2

0

4

12

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Cymodocea meadows

 

 

 

0

 

No –There is no MPA protection in the OSPAR Region the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Deep-sea sponge aggregations

0

5

0

2

7

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Regions I and III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Haploops41

3

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region II where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline

Intertidal mudflats

2

21

23

11

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in all OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments

 

14

11

4

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in the OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Kelp Forests42

0

0

0

0

0

None-applicable

Littoral chalk communities

 

9

3

 

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in the OSPAR Region the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Lophelia pertusareefs

8

2

1

3

10

No –There is no MPA replication in OSPAR Region III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Maerl beds

0

12

25

5

0

Yes –There is MPA replication in the OSPAR Region the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Modiolus modiolusbeds

0

11

11

1

0

No –There is no MPA replication in OSPAR Regions I, IV and V where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Oceanic ridges with hydrothermal vents/fields

0

 

 

 

2

Yes –There is MPA replication in the OSPAR Region the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Ostrea edulisbeds

 

   2

2

3

 

Yes –There is MPA replication in OSPAR Region III where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Sabellaria spinulosareefs

0

10

3

5

0

Yes –There is MPA replication in the OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Seamounts

0

 

 

1

12

No –There is no MPA protection in OSPAR Region I and no replication in OSPAR Region IV where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities

1

16

17

1

4

Yes –There is MPA replication in the OSPAR Regions the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

Zosterabeds

1

27

34

13

 

No –There is no MPA replication in OSPAR Region I where the feature is considered to be under threat/subject to decline.

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.

Figure 2.4: Distribution map of Uria aalge according to https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22694841/ 132577296 displaying resident areas (yellow), breeding areas (red) and vagrant areas (green). All OSPAR MPAs are displayed in pink.

Figure 2.4: Distribution map of Uria aalge according to https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22694841/ 132577296 displaying resident areas (yellow), breeding areas (red) and vagrant areas (green). All OSPAR MPAs are displayed in pink.

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).

 

Region I

Region II

Region III

Region IV

Region V

A: OSPAR MPAs are geographically welldistributed, (connectivity)

Considerable gaps

Well distributed

Well distributed

Small gap

Moderate gaps

B: OSPAR MPAs, cover at least 10% in area of all Dinter biogeographic regions

Arctic and Atlantic temperate Dinter regions have low to moderate coverage      (0-5.8%)

Boreal and Norwegian coast Dinter regions have a good coverage     (13.9-24.2%)

Boreal and Boreal-Lusitanean regions have good coverage (15.1-24.2%)

Lusitanean Dinter regions have a good coverage      (9.8-20.3%)

Atlantic Dinter regions

have a moderate coverage     (3.6-15.4%)

C_a: OSPAR MPAs represent all EUNIS Level 3 habitat classes

No information in database

No information in database

No information in database

No information in database

No information in database

C_b: OSPAR MPAs represent OSPAR listed features where threatened

37%

5/5 bird species

0/1 reptiles

1/3 mammals

1/11 fish

3/7 habitats

76%

3/3 invertebrates

3/3 birds

0/1 reptiles

1/3 mammals

13/19 fish

11/12 habitats

63%

3/3 invertebrate

3/3 birds

0/1 reptiles

1/3 mammals

8/17 fish

10/13 habitats

66%

1/1 invertebrates

3/3 birds

2/2 reptiles

0/2 mammals

10/18 fish

7/9 habitats

70%

2/2 invertebrates

2/3 birds

2/2 reptiles

2/2 mammals

8/13 fish

5/8 habitats

 

In addition, work is also required to improve the ecological and scientific robustness of the OSPAR eco-coherence assessment methodology. Specifically, the following work is recommended to improve the evidence base for future assessments:

  • Updating the OSPAR MPA database:
    • with information on the protection of OSPAR threatened and/or declining habitats and species; and
    • with information on EUNIS Level 3 habitat protection
  • Building a better understanding of EUNIS level 3 habitat distribution across the OSPAR Maritime Area;
  • Assessing the quality of and apply ecological distribution data to assess the connectivity of MPAs of each threatened and/or declining feature and assess whether the MPA network is representative and resilient for each threatened/and or declining feature. 

3 How well-managed are OSPAR MPAs?

3.1 Background

At the 2010 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Bergen, Norway, OSPAR Ministers committed to ensuring that by 2016 the OSPAR MPA network is well-managed; namely that coherent management measures have been set up and are being implemented to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs. At the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting 2021 in Cascais, Portugal, Contracting Parties agreed to further develop the OSPAR network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) and OSPAR Ministers committed to ensuring that the OSPAR MPA network is effectively managed to achieve its conservation objectives.

The OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas (ICG-MPA) developed a questionnaire-based approach to assess the degree to which OSPAR MPAs are considered to be well-managed. Whilst there is no formal agreement on what constitutes ‘well managed’ in terms of an MPA – the questionnaire poses four key questions that reflect progress around the typical implementation cycle of an MPA:

  • A – Is MPA management documented? This question explores whether information concerning the management of an OSPAR MPA has been published. Management in this context is interpreted as establishing the conservation objectives for protected features, documenting known pressures and threats that could affect protected features, listing management actions to address known pressures and threats, and finally showing spatial information on the distribution of protected features within a given OSPAR MPA.
  • B – Are measures to achieve conservation objectives being implemented? This question explores whether specific management actions have been identified and put into place by site managers by a legal mechanism or other effective means to address known pressures and threats.
  • C – Is monitoring in place to assess if measures are working? This question explores whether specific monitoring focused on the ecological status of protected features of OSPAR MPAs has taken place, or as a minimum, having a means of monitoring the compliance of site users with implemented measures.
  • D – Is the MPA moving towards or has it reached its conservation objectives? This question explores whether information collected on the ecological status of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs show the achievement, or indicate movement towards achieving, a site’s conservation objectives.

As of reporting in 2021, a confidence assessment process has been integrated to the reporting to help supplement the degree of understanding underpinning the assessment.

The UK, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Task Group on Management, developed guidance for Contracting Parties on how to complete the management questionnaire for OSPAR MPAs to aid consistency in the approach undertaken across Contracting Parties, including the confidence assessment introduced in 2021.

Contracting Parties were asked to answer each question with a Yes,Partial, No or Unknown response and to provide additional information as supplementary comments to help explain the response for each of their OSPAR MPAs.

3.2 Results 

This section sets out the results of the 2021 OSPAR management status assessment. Where appropriate, results are compared to reporting received in 2016 and 2018.

Response rate

In 2021, there were 581 OSPAR MPAs for which management status information was reported, including 85 new OSPAR MPA nominations submitted since 2018. Information responding to all four questions was received from Contracting Parties in October 2021 for 514 (91%). Partial information was received for 1 (<1%). No information was reported for the remaining 54 MPAs (representing 9% of the total). This equates to an increase of 9% on full management reporting since 2018, and an overall increase of 18% since reporting began in 2016.

Confidence reporting

For the 581 OSPAR MPAs, Contracting Parties provided high or moderate confidence scores for reporting management status for 38% of OSPAR MPAs. Low confidence scores were provided for 19% of the sites and another 20% were deemed not applicable for confidence scoring. There was a no response percentage of 23%.

Updates to existing OSPAR MPAs

Updated information was provided by Contracting Parties for 87% of OSPAR MPAs that were reported on for the 2018 data call. Overall, there has been some limited progression from the no or unknown response categories to the four questions towards yes and partial responses. The majority of updates however reflect changes or updates to the contextual information provided to support the interpretation of each response category, for example, new documentation made publicly available in the support of MPA management. In response to the 2021 data call, no new information has been provided for OSPAR MPAs in Finland, Iceland, Ireland, or Portugal, nor for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ. This analysis is not applicable to the land-locked countries of Luxemburg and Switzerland.

The next section of this chapter provides an overall summary of OSPAR MPA management status questions across the OSPAR Maritime Area. It reviews key trends since the initial data call in 2016, and the second data call in 2018. This is then followed by a more detailed review of the responses against each of the four questions. Comparisons have been drawn with the management status reporting in 2016 and 2018 to identify any key observations. A more detailed review of the confidence scores is then provided. This chapter closes with key steps regarding ways to progress the management of the OSPAR MPA network.

3.3 Summary

Figure 3.1 represents the ‘2021 OSPAR MPA Management Barometer’: an indicator of the extent to which the OSPAR MPA network may be considered to be well-managed. This summary figure provides an overview of yes and partial responses to each of the four questions considered important in determining whether the OSPAR MPA network may be considered to be ‘well-managed’.

Figure 3.1: The 2021 OSPAR MPA Management Barometer

Figure 3.1: The 2021 OSPAR MPA Management Barometer

Figure 3.1 shows that the publicly available documentation of management information is now either fully or partially in place for 88% of OSPAR MPAs; an increase of 2% since the 2018 assessment and an increase of 11% since the 2016 assessment (Figure 3.2).

The percentage of MPAs that have full measures implemented remained similar between 2018 and 2021 reporting (14% and 13%, respectively) however there was a significant increase in partial measures (from 66% in 2016, 77% in 2018 and 83% in 2021. Responses to monitoring programmes have shown an increasing trend, 75% of MPAs now have either full or partial monitoring programmes, an increase of 6% since 2018, and an increase of 16% since 2016.

The movement towards achieving conservation objectives has also taken place in the interim reporting period, with an increase of 4% since 2018 responding with a yes to this question and an increase of 5% responding with an either full or partial response. However, in 2021, there are still high proportions of unknown responses (30%) to the achievement of conservation objectives (Figure 3.6). This is due largely to the lack of site-specific data on the ecological status of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs.

Figure 3.2 provides an overview of the increase in yes and partial responses to each of the four questions over time. It is considered that the OSPAR MPA network has improved management status since 2016 and therefore is increasingly considered to be ‘well-managed’ (an increase from 36% to 48%, from 2016 to 2021, respectively).

Figure 3.2: Increase in percentage (%) of Yes and Partial responses to the OSPAR MPA management status questions from 2016 to 2021

Figure 3.2: Increase in percentage (%) of Yes and Partial responses to the OSPAR MPA management status questions from 2016 to 2021

To support a ‘well-managed’ OSPAR MPA network, work moving forward should continue to focus on the following:

  • Improve the participation and response rates from the Contracting Parties, in particular to increase the reporting of confidence scores in the assessment;
  • Implementation of management measures considered necessary to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs;
  • Establish and maintain long-term monitoring programmes to evaluate the effectiveness of such management measures to enable evidence-based assessments of feature condition and support greater confidence in the assessment of management statuses;
  • Continue to improve methods of evaluating the degree to which the OSPAR MPA network is well-managed. This assessment should build on reliable ecological data to determine whether the OSPAR MPA network is delivering a genuine conservation benefit to targeted habitats, species and ecological processes. It should also build on the experience gained of undertaking previous assessments and where appropriate, guidance to Contracting Parties should be updated to usefully reflect lessons learned or changes in approach; and
  • For OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ, there should be continued effort to further collective arrangements with competent management authorities such that all management recommendations for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ might be implemented. In addition, Contracting Parties should continue to raise awareness of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ with relevant stakeholders and interest groups and look to further our scientific understanding of these sites.

3.4 Question 1: Is MPA management documented?

This question explores whether information concerning the management of an OSPAR MPA has been published. Documenting ‘management’ in the context of this question refers to the publication of the following information:

  • Conservation objectives for the protected features of the site;
  • Identifying known pressures and threats to achieving those conservation objectives;
  • Listing the actions and measures that may need to be undertaken to address those known pressures and threats; and
  • Showing spatial information on the location/distribution of protected features within the site.

If all of this information has been published, a yes response to this question can be given. If conservation objectives and known threats and pressures to achieving those conservation objectives have been published, a partial response can be given; anything less receives a no response. If the status of management information in the public domain is unknown, an unknown response is given. A no response is given where the information has not been reported to OSPAR.

Figure 3.3: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Is the MPA management documented?’

Figure 3.3: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Is the MPA management documented?’

Figure 3.3 presents the results to the question ‘Is the MPA management documented?’ for the OSPAR MPAs where information was reported against the 2021 MPA management data call. Key observations for the 2021 reporting with reference to past reporting in 2016 and 2018 are as follows:

  • The proportion of OSPAR MPAs for which management has been fully documented has increased by 2% since the 2018 assessment and 12% since the 2016 assessment; attributable to new OSPAR MPA nominations since 2019 that are further behind in the MPA management cycle (discounting these new nominations would result in an 8% increase since 2018).
  • For the majority of the OSPAR MPAs (60%), management is fully documented and in the public domain; namely, information that includes protected feature conservation objectives, known threats and pressures assessed, actions identified that may be required to address known pressures and/or threats and information on the spatial extent of protected features within OSPAR MPAs.
  • For those MPAs where a partial response was received (28%), the main reasons cited were that either conservation objectives are in the process of being revised or work is ongoing to identify the site-specific management actions that may be required to address the known threats and/or pressures to the protected features of OSPAR MPAs. There is an increase of 11% since the 2016 data call in a partial response to this question.
  • For OSPAR MPAs where a no response was provided (2%), comments indicated that this was because management plans are still being developed and not yet publicly available. This has decreased by 2% since the 2018 data call.
  • There were no unknown responses reported to this question in the 2016, 2018 and 2021 data calls.
  • The number of OSPAR MPAs for which no responses were provided regarding the provision of management documentation has almost halved since 2016 (19% in 2016, 11% in 2018 and 10% in 2021).  

3.5 Question 2: Are measures implemented?

This question explores whether the specific management actions identified by site managers to address known threats and pressures have been put into effect by a legal mechanism or other appropriate means.

If all specific management actions required to address known threats and pressures have been put into effect, a yes response to this question is given. If only some of the specific management actions required have been put in place, a partial response to this question applies. If none of the required specific management actions have been put in place, a no response applies. Unknown applies if the assessor is unsure of the status of management actions or if there are measures in place, but it is unclear whether they address known threats and pressures to the protected features of the site. A no response is given where no information has been reported.

Figure 3.4: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Are the measures to achieve the conservation objectives being implemented?’

Figure 3.4: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Are the measures to achieve the conservation objectives being implemented?’

Figure 3.4 presents the results to the question ‘Are the measures to achieve the conservation objectives being implemented?’ for the OSPAR MPAs where information was reported against the 2021 MPA management data call. Key observations for the 2021 report and references to the past reporting in 2016 and 2018 are as follows:

  • 13% of the OSPAR MPAs are considered to have all the management measures in place considered necessary to achieve the conservation objectives of their protected features. This has declined slightly since 2018 reporting (1%), attributable to new OSPAR MPA nominations since 2019 that are further behind in the MPA management cycle.
  • >69% of OSPAR MPAs have partially implemented management measures because work is ongoing to identify and implement measures for the management of non-licensable activities (particularly concerning fishing activities). This has increased since 2018 (63%), and since 2016 (54%), reflecting progression in the implementation of management measures.
  • For the 2% of OSPAR MPAs for which a no response was provided, supporting comments suggest that some management plans are in the early stages, or that actions have been identified but not yet implemented. This has decreased since the data call in 2018 (7%).
  • There were 6% of unknown responses reported to this question in 2021. Supporting comments suggest that the sites were yet to have assessments therefore specific mitigation measures were unknown. The unknown response had increased as there were no unknown responses in the 2018 or 2016 data calls.
  • The number of OSPAR MPAs for which no information was provided by Contracting Parties has notably decreased over time (9% in 2021, 16% in 2018 and compared to 26% in 2016).

3.6 Question 3: Is monitoring taking place?

This question explores whether specific monitoring has taken place that concentrates on the ecological status of protected features of OSPAR MPAs. Whilst monitoring will ideally focus on ecological monitoring, this question also acknowledges the role that monitoring the compliance of site users with implemented measures can play in achieving a site’s conservation objectives.

A yes response shows that a regularly implemented monitoring programme is in place that covers all the protected features of an OSPAR MPA. If a monitoring programme only focuses on some of the protected features of an OSPAR MPA or monitoring is only based on site user compliance with implemented measures then a partial response to this question is given. A no response applies when there is no ecological status nor compliance monitoring in place for a given OSPAR MPA. Unknown applies if the assessor is unsure on the status of monitoring for a given OSPAR MPA. A no response is given where no information has been reported.

Figure 3.5: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Is monitoring in place to assess if measures are working?’

Figure 3.5: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Is monitoring in place to assess if measures are working?’

Figure 3.5 presents the results to the question ‘Is monitoring in place to assess if measures are working?’ for the OSPAR MPAs where information was reported against the 2021 MPA management data call. Key observations for the 2021 report and references to the past reporting in 2016 and 2018 are as follows:

  • For 14% of OSPAR MPAs, yes responses were received; suggesting long-term ecological monitoring programmes are in place. This has returned back to the 2016 data call result since decreasing in 2018 (11%). This fluctuation in response was likely a result of improvements in the guidance provided to Contracting Parties in reviewing their previous responses to this question.
  • The proportion of OSPAR MPAs that received a partial response to whether monitoring is in place to assess whether management measures are working has increased by 2% to 60% in 2021. Whilst there are mechanisms in place to monitor the compliance of site users with implemented measures, there is often not a regularly implemented programme to assess the ecological status of all the protected features of OSPAR MPAs. However, many cases noted that baseline ecological condition monitoring surveys have taken place and the on-going ecological condition of some protected features is being monitored. A key message is that resource constraints are cited as a significant barrier to the implementation of regular ecological monitoring programmes.
  • 16% of OSPAR MPAs were reported as not yet having any monitoring in place and this is relatively unchanged since 2016 (15%) and 2018 (14%). The reasons provided for there being no monitoring in place were: insufficient time to put monitoring in place for recently designated MPAs, no dedicated site condition monitoring or the fact that wider MPA monitoring strategies are being developed to address monitoring needs for sites.
  • There were no unknown responses reported to this question based on the 2016, 2018 and 2021 data calls.
  • The percentage of OSPAR MPAs for which responses were not provided has significantly decreased since 2016, with 9% of sites for which no responses were provided in 2021 compared to 17% in 2018 and 26% in 2016.

3.7 Question 4: Are MPAs moving towards or have they reached their conservation objectives?

This question explores whether information collected on the ecological status of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs shows progress towards achieving a site’s conservation objectives.

If the condition of all protected features of a given OSPAR MPA are improving or they have achieved their conservation objectives, then a yes response is given. If some of the protected features of a given OSPAR MPA are improving in their condition or have achieved their conservation objectives whilst others remain static or are declining in their condition, a partial response is appropriate. If available data suggest no indication of improvement in the condition of protected features or that some protected features may be declining in condition, a no response is given. If there are no data available with which to make a judgement on the degree to which the conservation objectives of a given OSPAR MPA are being met then an unknown response is given. A no response is given where no information has been reported.

Figure 3.6: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Is the MPA moving towards or has it reached its conservation objectives?’

Figure 3.6: OSPAR 2021 data call results to the question: ‘Is the MPA moving towards or has it reached its conservation objectives?’

Figure 3.6 presents the results to the question ‘Is the MPA moving towards or has it reached its conservation objectives?’ for the OSPAR MPAs reported against in the 2021 MPA management data call. Key observations for the 2021 report and references to the past reporting in 2016 and 2018 are as follows:

  • 18% of OSPAR MPAs are considered to have met their conservation objectives in 2021 compared to 11% in 2016 and 14% in 2018. Responses were either based on outputs of direct site condition monitoring information, assessments suggesting that the protected features of OSPAR MPAs are already in favourable condition, or that legal protection has been implemented against damaging activity in the sites.
  • Nearly a third of OSPAR MPAs (31%) are considered to be partially achieving their conservation objectives in 2021, this has remained constant since 2018 reporting, and had increased since 2016 (25%). There are multiple reasons cited for a partial response:
    • Some of the protected features are considered to be meeting their conservation objectives, based on the analysis of feature condition monitoring and other types of indicators, whilst others are declining or remaining static in their condition.
    • Monitoring information has yet to be analysed for some of the protected features to make a judgement on the degree to which conservation objectives have been met.
    • There is no direct site condition monitoring information available but using information on the exposure of a feature to known pressures and/or threats as a proxy suggests all protected features of a given OSPAR MPA are likely to be meeting their conservation objectives.
  • The proportion of OSPAR MPAs for which a no response was provided in 2021 (12%) has increased since 2018 (10%). Of the 12% of OSPAR MPAs for which a ‘no’ response was provided, comments indicated this was attributable to site condition monitoring information suggesting the conservation objectives of all protected features of a given OSPAR MPA are static or declining therefore not moving towards their conservation objectives.  
  • Nearly one third of the responses (30%) to this question suggested it was unknown as to whether the protected features of OSPAR MPAs are moving towards their conservation objectives which has decreased since 2018 and 2016 (28% and 27%, respectively). This conclusion is primarily attributed to no long-term ecological status information being available to make a judgement on the degree to which conservation objectives have been achieved. Other reasons include no site-specific feature assessments or recently designated sites not having any data available.
  • The percentage of OSPAR MPAs for which responses were not provided by Contracting Parties to this question has significantly decreased since 2016, with 9% of sites for which no responses were provided in 2021 compared to 27% in 2016, (and 18% in 2018).

3.7.1 Confidence reporting

In 2021, a need to assess the confidence in Contacting Parties’ responses to Question 4 was included. If there is sufficient monitoring data in place to determine the condition of the protected features, and whether they are achieving their conservation objectives, a high score is given. If there are some condition and/or compliance monitoring data available then a moderate score is appropriate. If there is no data available from condition or compliance monitoring, then a low score is given. A unknown or not applicable response is given then there is no suitable information available on which to base an assessment. A no response is given where no information has been reported.

For the 49% of responses which said Yes and Partially to Question 4 ‘Is the MPA moving towards or has it reached its conservation objectives?’, a breakdown of the confidence scores is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: OSPAR 2021 data call results of confidence scores that accompany the response to Question 4. Showing the differences in the confidence scores reported for all responses to Question 4 and the subset of Yes and Partial responses.
Confidence ScorePercentage (%) of responsePercentage (%) of response
High610
Moderate3247
Low1926
Not Applicable201
No Response2316

*answers to Question 4 of the OSPAR MPA management questionnaire

The 2021 data call was the first-time confidence scores were included in reporting management status of OSPAR MPAs (Table 3.1). Key observations are as follows:

  • 6% of OSPAR MPAs are considered to have high confidence scores in their responses to the fourth question. Comments indicate that sites with high confidence in their reporting have one or more long-term monitoring programmes. 10% of the OSPAR MPAs that had high confidence scores and were moving towards, or had reached, their conservation objectives had been designated for over 15 years, suggesting time may be an important factor in the maturity of the OSPAR MPA network.
  • Nearly one third of OSPAR MPAs (32%) are considered to have moderate confidence scores for 2021 reporting. These MPAs have some condition monitoring that occurs mainly at low frequencies. Nearly half of the responses for yes and partial (47%) had moderate confidence scores, reasons for this include no recent monitoring assessments within the last 3 – 12 years, which would have increased confidence in reporting against Question 4.
  • The proportion of OSPAR MPAs for which a low confidence response was provided was 19% whereas 26% of the yes and partial responses to Question 4 had low confidence scores. Comments indicate that MPAs with low confidence scores are often overdue routine monitoring due to a lack of resource and/or used proxy information on exposure to human activities to which the protected features of MPAs are considered to be sensitive to as source data in response to the fourth question.  
  • 20% of the responses to this question suggested it was not applicable to score the confidence of each site’s management status. Reasons for this included that no site-specific condition assessments had been undertaken or no official information on the monitoring of protected features; this was also the rationale for the 1% of responses that reported a yes and partialresponse to Question 4.
  • The percentage of OSPAR MPAs for which responses were not reported by Contracting Parties to this question was 23% overall and 16% for the yes and partial responses.

3.8 Management of OSPAR MPAs in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

OSPAR Contracting Parties have a collective responsibility to report annually to the OSPAR Commission on any specific actions as specified in the MPAs respective Recommendations (see Table 1.3) that have been undertaken to implement the management actions identified for the collectively designated MPAs in the Area Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) of the OSPAR Maritime Area. those sites. 

The OSPAR Commission has been managing MPAs in ABNJ for 10 years. The Decisions designating the first OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ came into force on 12 April 2011, as did their accompanying Recommendations. Decision 2012/1 of the OSPAR Convention resulted in the designation of a further OSPAR MPA in ABNJ – Charlie Gibbs North, which came into force on 14 January 2013, together with Recommendation 2012/1 on the management of this MPA. In 2021, at the Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, the North Atlantic and Evlanov Sea basin MPA was designated by Decision 2021/1 and Recommendation 2021/1 which will come into force on 19 April 2022. 

Management actions that Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention have committed to undertaking and reporting on include for example the following:

  • Awareness raising - sharing information with relevant authorities, the general public and relevant organisations who may have a stake in a given OSPAR MPA in ABNJ.

Key activities include the creation of a website for the Charlie-Gibbs OSPAR MPA (Charlie-gibbs.org) and the integration of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ into the navigational systems of relevant organisations (e.g., the military sector).

  • Information buildingfacilitating the collection and sharing of information on the protected features of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ and activities taking place.

Key activities include analysis of fishing activities in MPAs in ABNJ based on Vessel Monitoring System data.

  • Marine sciencepromoting the application of best-practice in terms of scientific research within OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ.

Key activities include the production, distribution and promotion of an OSPAR Code of Conduct for Marine Research (OSPAR agreement 2008-1) for those undertaking scientific research in OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ.

  • New developmentsensuring the implementation of new activities in an OSPAR MPA in ABNJ is considered in terms of its effects on the protected features of the site.

Annual implementation reporting by Contracting Parties have provided updates on these action types and more specific actions that Contracting Parties have taken. Over the past decade Contracting Parties have engaged in their capacity as Contracting Parties in other international organisations to promote protective actions in the OSPAR ABNJ MPAs and have also presented the OSPAR work as an operational example at UN Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (UN BBNJ). Contracting Parties have collected information about human activities that are ongoing in the ABNJ MPAs, for example identifying vessels under their flag that have passed through the MPAs. Contracting Parties have published articles to describe the ABNJ MPAs and to disseminate information about management actions in their ministries and institutes.

The OSPAR Commission works within the mandate of the OSPAR Convention and works collaboratively with other competent authorities managing specific human activities. The OSPAR Convention Annex V Article 4 states that no measures concerning the management of fisheries shall be adopted. Consequently, the OSPAR Commission has sought to collaborate with the competent authorities such the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) (Memorandum of Understanding Agreement 2008-04) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The OSPAR Commission has also sought to work collaboratively with the International Seabed Authority (ISA) (Memorandum of Understanding Agreement 2010-09) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (Agreement of Cooperation Agreement 1999-15).

The ‘Collective Arrangement between competent international organisations on cooperation and coordination regarding selected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the North-East Atlantic’ (collective arrangement, OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) adopted by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in 2014 is a formal agreement between legally competent authorities managing human activities in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) in the North-East Atlantic. The collective arrangement has been developed as a multilateral forum for dialogue and information exchange. The foremost objective of the collective arrangement is to facilitate cooperation and coordination on area-based management between legally competent authorities, promoting the exchange of information on each other’s activities and achievements and taking into consideration all conservation and management measures taken in relation to the North-East Atlantic. In addition to keeping under review a joint record of areas subject to specific measures and informing each other of any modification of existing measures or any new measures or decisions, the competent authorities have an opportunity to discuss subjects of common interest and concern. Regular meetings under the collective arrangement are organised to achieve these aims. Organisations that have not adopted the agreement are regularly invited as guests to participate in the discussions. The dialogue and information exchange through the collective arrangement has resulted in the management of fishing activities in several OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ as NEAFC has implemented fishing closure measures, including measures to protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7: OSPAR MPAs in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and NEAFC fishery closure areas

Figure 3.7: OSPAR MPAs in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and NEAFC fishery closure areas

3.9 Conclusions and next steps

The results of the 2021 assessment of the management status of OSPAR MPAs show that whilst there is progress on taking management action and implementing measures to achieve conservation objectives, such actions are largely only partially completed across the OSPAR Maritime Area; a similar picture emerged for the implementation of site condition monitoring for OSPAR MPAs. Consequently, the predominant response to whether OSPAR MPAs are moving towards achieving their conservation objectives is either ‘partial’ or ‘unknown’ and only 18% are moving towards or have achieved their conservation objectives.

Overall, there has been an increase in the completion of reporting across Contracting Parties, with a lower percentage of ‘no response’ to all of the management status questions. Full management information was received from Contracting Parties for 91% of OSPAR MPAs. This equated to an increase of 9% and 18% since 2018 and 2016, respectively. The trend of improved management can be shown through positive signs such as increased partial or yes responses to all management status questions since the 2016 and 2018 assessments (Figure 3.2). However, in 2021, there still remains a high proportion of unknown responses (30%) to the achievement of conservation objectives because site-specific data on the ecological status of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs were not available.

As of reporting in 2021, the confidence assessment process had been integrated to the reporting to help supplement the degree of understanding underpinning the assessment. Most of the OSPAR MPAs that had high confidence scores (6%) had been designated for over 15 years. This provides further emphasis that long-term monitoring studies are needed to understand whether an MPA is moving towards its conservation objectives. However, there was a high proportion of no response (23%) to the confidence scoring, with little rationale provided.

Work moving forward should focus on the implementation of all management measures which Contracting Parties feel are required to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs within national jurisdiction. In parallel, long-term monitoring studies should also be established to evaluate the effectiveness of such management measures in order to state with greater confidence whether the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs have been achieved.

For OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs, efforts should continue to further collective arrangements with competent management authorities, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA), such that all management recommendations for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs will be implemented. In addition, Contracting Parties should continue to raise awareness of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs with relevant stakeholders and interest groups and look to further our scientific understanding of these sites.

(as of 1 October 2021)

CP

WDPAID

OSPAR MPA

Year of Reporting

Jur.

Area (km²)

ABNJ/High Seas

555512236

Antialtair Seamount High Seas MPA

2010

ABNJ

2807

555512237

Altair Seamount High Seas MPA

2010

ABNJ

4 384

555512238

Josephine Seamount High Seas MPA

2010

ABNJ

19 365

555512239

Milne Seamount Complex MPA

2010

ABNJ

20 914

555512240

MAR North of the Azores High Seas MPA

2010

ABNJ

93 572

555512241

Charlie-Gibbs South High Seas MPA

2010

ABNJ

146 029

555557228

Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas MPA

2012

ABNJ

178 094

 

North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin MPA

2021

ABNJ

595 196

      

Belgium

555557150

SBZ3

2012

TW

57

555557219

Vlaamse Banken , SBZ 1 and SBZ2

2012

TW

749

555557219

Vlaamse Banken , SBZ 1 and SBZ2

2012

EEZ

433

      
      

Denmark

555556910

Agger Tange, Nissum Bredning, Skibsted Fjord og Agerø

2009

TW

166

555556912

Ålborg Bugt, østlige del

2009

TW

1 542

555556913

Ålborg Bugt, Randers Fjord og Mariager Fjord

2009

TW

617

555556916

Anholt og havet nord for

2007

TW

112

555556980

Ebbeløkkerev

2009

TW

1

555556991

Farvandet nord for Anholt

2007

TW

348

555557007

Gilleleje Flak og Tragten

2009

TW

26

555557011

Gule Rev

2009

TW

44

555557018

Havet og kysten mellem Hundested og Rørvig

2009

TW

14

555557019

Havet omkring Nordre Rønner

2007

TW

186

555557022

Herthas Flak

2007

TW

14

555557023

Hesselø med omliggende stenrev

2007

TW

20

555557024

Hirsholmene, havet vest herfor og Ellinge Å's udløb

2009

TW

91

555557050

Knudegrund

2007

TW

8

555557051

Kobberhage kystarealer

2009

TW

6

555557055

Læsø Trindel og Tønneberg Banke

2007

TW

79

555557056

Læsø, sydlige del

2007

TW

260

555557070

Løgstør Bredning, Vejlerne og Bulbjerg

2009

TW

0.03

555557071

Lønstrup Rødgrund

2007

TW

93

555557077

Lysegrund

2007

TW

32

555557100

Nissum Fjord

2009

TW

0.04

555557139

Ringkøbing Fjord og Nymindestrømmen

2009

TW

0.07

555557148

Sandbanker ud for Thorsminde

2007

TW

64

555557149

Sandbanker ud for Thyborøn

2007

TW

64

555557152

Schultz og Hastens Grund samt Briseis Flak

2007

TW

49

555557161

Skagens Gren og Skagerrak

2009

TW

1 285

555557181

Strandenge pä Læsø og havet syd herfor

2007

TW

628

555557193

Sydlige Nordsø

2007

TW

36

555557207

Thyborøn Stenvolde

2009

TW

37

555557218

Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Varde

2009

TW

1 137

555641546

Havstrategiomraade A

2021

TW

167

555690820

Havstrategiomraade B

2021

TW

4

555690821

Havstrategiomraade C

2021

TW

9

555690827

Havstrategiomraade F

2021

TW

79

555556912

Ålborg Bugt, østlige del

2009

EEZ

239

555556991

Farvandet nord for Anholt

2007

EEZ

2

555557007

Gilleleje Flak og Tragten

2009

EEZ

22

555557011

Gule Rev

2009

EEZ

429

555557023

Hesselø med omliggende stenrev

2007

EEZ

21

555557042

Jyske Rev, Lillefiskerbanke

2009

EEZ

242

555557047

Kims Top og den Kinesiske Mur

2007

EEZ

262

555557055

Læsø Trindel og Tønneberg Banke

2007

EEZ

8

555557056

Læsø, sydlige del

2007

EEZ

105

555557152

Schultz og Hastens Grund samt Briseis Flak

2007

EEZ

160

555557161

Skagens Gren og Skagerrak

2009

EEZ

1 412

555557178

Store Middelgrund

2009

EEZ

21

555557179

Store Rev

2009

EEZ

109

555557193

Sydlige Nordsø

2007

EEZ

2 437

555557207

Thyborøn Stenvolde

2009

EEZ

42

555690823

Havstrategiomraade D

2021

EEZ

63

555690826

Havstrategiomraade E

2021

EEZ

77

555690827

Havstrategiomraade F

2021

EEZ

191

     

          France

555544124

Iroise

2008

TW

3 431

555544125

Baie de Somme

2006

TW

34

555544126

Estuaire de la Seine

2007

TW

120

555544127

Domaine de Beauguillot

2006

TW

5

555544128

Baie de Saint-Brieuc

2006

TW

11

555544129

Sept-Îles

2007

TW

4

555544130

Moëze-Oléron

2007

TW

64

555544131

Banc d'Arguin

2006

TW

25

555544132

Baie de l'Aiguillon

2006

TW

25

555556909

Abers - côtes des Légendes

2012

TW

227

555556918

Archipel des Glénan

2012

TW

587

555556920

Au droit de l'étang d'Hourtin-Carcans

2012

TW

501

555556922

Baie de Morlaix

2012

TW

266

555556923

Baie de Seine occidentale

2012

TW

454

555556925

Bancs des Flandres

2012

TW

906

555556926

Bassin d'Arcachon et Cap Ferret

2012

TW

227

555556931

Belle Île en mer

2012

TW

174

555556956

Côte Basque rocheuse et extension au Large

2012

TW

78

555556957

Côte de Granit rose - Sept-Îles

2012

TW

721

555556958

Côte de Granit rose - Sept-Îles

2012

TW

695

555556989

Falaise du Bessin Occidental

2012

TW

13

555557009

Golfe du Morbihan, côte Ouest de Rhuys

2012

TW

206

555557033

Îles de Groix

2012

TW

284

555557062

Littoral Cauchois

2012

TW

46

555557079

Marais du Cotentin et du Bessin - Baie des Veys

2012

TW

287

555557082

Massif dunaire Gavres-Quiberon et zones humides associées

2012

TW

68

555557117

Panache de la Gironde

2012

TW

565

555557118

Panache de la Gironde et plateau rocheux de Cordouan

2012

TW

565

555557122

Pertuis charentais

2012

TW

3 177

555557123

Pertuis charentais - Rochebonne

2012

TW

3 228

555557125

Plateau rocheux de l'île d'Yeu

2012

TW

120

555557129

Portion du littoral sableux de la côte Aquitaine

2012

TW

501

555557135

Récifs et marais arrière-littoraux du Cap Lévi à la Pointe de Saire

2012

TW

154

555557141

Roches de Penmarc'h

2012

TW

458

555557153

Secteur de l'île d'Yeu

2012

TW

1 752

555557196

Tatihou - Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue

2012

TW

8

555557212

Trégor Goëlo

2012

TW

910

555557229

Estuaire de la Seine

2012

TW

85

555557232

Trégor Goëlo

2012

TW

912

555556920

Au droit de l'étang d'Hourtin-Carcans

2012

EEZ

5

555556925

Bancs des Flandres

2012

EEZ

216

555557117

Panache de la Gironde

2012

EEZ

388

555557118

Panache de la Gironde et plateau rocheux de Cordouan

2012

EEZ

388

555557122

Pertuis charentais

2012

EEZ

1 385

555557123

Pertuis charentais - Rochebonne

2012

EEZ

4 967

555557129

Portion du littoral sableux de la côte Aquitaine

2012

EEZ

5

555557153

Secteur de l'île d'Yeu

2012

EEZ

704

      

Germany

555557099

Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer

2006

TW

3 458

555557145

S-H Seabird Protection Area

2005

TW

1 619

555557146

S-H Wadden sea National Park

2005

TW

4 602

555556937

Borkum-Riffgrund

2008

EEZ

625

555556969

Doggerbank

2008

EEZ

1 696

555557194

Sylt.Aussenr.-Oestl.Dt.Bucht

2008

EEZ

5 600

      

Iceland

555556983

Eldey

2012

TW

14

555557031

Hverastrytur i Eyjafirdi

2008

TW

0

555557032

Hverastrytur i Eyjafirdi, north of Arnanesnöfum

2008

TW

1

555557137

Reynisdjup, coral reef

2008

TW

9

555557190

Surtsey

2012

TW

66

555557025

Hornarfjardardjup, coral reef 1

2008

EEZ

8

555557026

Hornarfjardardjup, coral reef 2

2008

EEZ

37

555557159

Skaftardjup, coral reef 1

2008

EEZ

7

555557160

Skaftardjup, coral reef 2

2008

EEZ

22

555586883

Lónsdjóp

2014

EEZ

77

555586884

Lónsdjóp-Papagrunn landgrunnskantur

2014

EEZ

78

555586885

Papagrunn

2014

EEZ

17

555586886

Rósagarður

2014

EEZ

164

555586887

Skeiðarárdjóp

2014

EEZ

65

 

    

Ireland

555556924

Ballyness Bay

2009

TW

12

555556936

Blasket Islands

2009

TW

227

555556962

Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay)

2009

TW

49

555556975

Dundalk Bay

2009

TW

52

555557005

Galway Bay Complex

2009

TW

144

555557044

Kenmare River

2010

TW

433

555557045

Kilkieran Bay and Islands

2010

TW

213

555557048

Kingstown Bay

2009

TW

1

555557078

Malahide Estuary

2009

TW

8

555557096

Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex

2009

TW

141

555557097

Mulroy Bay

2009

TW

32

555557106

North Dublin Bay

2010

TW

15

555557140

Roaringwater Bay and Islands

2009

TW

143

555557210

Tralee Bay and Magharees Peninsula, West To Cloghane

2009

TW

116

555557211

Tramore Dunes and Backstrand

2009

TW

8

555556930

Belgica Mound Province

2009

EEZ

411

555557027

Hovland Mound Province

2009

EEZ

1 086

555557103

North-West Porcupine Bank

2009

EEZ

715

555557168

South-West Porcupine Bank

2009

EEZ

329

      
      

Netherlands

555557101

Noordzeekustzone

2009

TW

1 416

555557220

Vlakte van de Raan

2009

TW

199

555557221

Voordelta

2009

TW

819

555557049

Klaverbank

2009

EEZ

1 240

555557231

Doggerbank

2009

EEZ

4 698

      

Norway

156009

Jomfruland

2018

TW

117

183284

Raet

2018

TW

608

555556934

Bjørnøya

2009

TW

2 786

555556940

Breisunddjupet

2012

TW

44

555557041

Jan Mayen

2012

TW

4 242

555557052

Korallen

2012

TW

4

555557155

Selligrunnen

2005

TW

1

555557185

Sularevet

2005

TW

12

555557191

Svalbard East

2009

TW

55 331

555557192

Svalbard West

2009

TW

20 022

555557227

Ytre Hvaler

2010

TW

340

555560032

Færder

2018

TW

340

555592852

Saltstraumen

2013

TW

25

555592853

Tauterryggen

2013

TW

44

555592854

Framvaren

2013

TW

6

555625764

Gaulosen

2016

TW

11

555625765

Jærkysten

2016

TW

143

555625766

Rødberg

2016

TW

14

555702524

Rystraumen

2020

TW

18

555702525

Rossfjordstraumen

2020

TW

11

555702526

Ytre Karlsøy

2020

TW

410

555702527

Nordfjorden

2020

TW

12

555702528

Karlsøyfjorden

2020

TW

163

555702529

Innervisten

2020

TW

5

555702530

Kaldvägfjorden og Innhavet

2020

TW

92

555702531

Skarnsundet

2020

TW

18

555702532

Lurefjorden og Lindäsosane

2020

TW

69

555556934

Bjørnøya

2009

EEZ

20

555556940

Breisunddjupet

2012

EEZ

21

555557040

Iverryggen

2005

EEZ

623

555557041

Jan Mayen

2012

EEZ

77

555557142

Røstrevet

2005

EEZ

331

555557185

Sularevet

2005

EEZ

981

555557191

Svalbard East

2009

EEZ

115

555557192

Svalbard West

2009

EEZ

53

555557208

Trænarevet

2012

EEZ

445

      

Portugal

555556955

Corvo Island

2006

TW

257

555556986

Faial-Pico Channel

2006

TW

240

555557000

Formigas Bank

2006

TW

524

555599535

Berlengas

2015

TW

96

555599536

Lagoas de Santo Andre e Sancha (area maritima)

2015

TW

21

555599537

Arrabida (area maritima)

2015

TW

53

555599538

Litoral Norte  (area maritima)

2015

TW

74

555599539

Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina (area maritima)

2015

TW

290

555556963

D. João de Castro seamount

2006

EEZ

354

555557074

Lucky Strike hydrothermal vent

2006

EEZ

191

555557084

Menez Gwen hydrothermal vent field

2006

EEZ

95

555557154

Sedlo Seamount

2007

EEZ

4 016

555557131

Rainbow hydrothermal vent field

2006

ABNJ

22

      

Spain

555557037

Islas Atlanticas

2008

TW

85

555583112

Espacio marino de la Ria de Mundaka-Cabo de Ogoño

2014

TW

175

555583113

Espacio marino de los Islotes de Portios - Isla Conejera - Isla de Mouro

2014

TW

15

555583114

Espacio marino de Cabo Peñas

2014

TW

320

555583115

Espacio marino de Punta de Candelaira - Ria de Ortigueira - Estaca de Bares

2014

TW

771

555583116

Espacio marino de la Costa de Ferrolterra - Valdoviño

2014

TW

68

555583117

Espacio marino de la Costa da Morte

2014

TW

2 627

555583119

Espacio marino de las Rias Baixas de Galicia

2014

TW

1 713

555583120

Golfo de Cadiz

2014

TW

1 477

555583121

Espacio marino del Tinto y del Odiel

2014

TW

49

555583122

Espacio marino de la Bahia de Cadiz

2014

TW

36

555593029

Sistema de cañones submarinos de Avilés

2016

TW

1 247

555556982

El Cachucho

2021

EEZ

2 619

555583117

Espacio marino de la Costa da Morte

2014

EEZ

533

555583118

Banco de Galicia

2016

EEZ

10 227

555583119

Espacio marino de las Rias Baixas de Galicia

2014

EEZ

507

555583120

Golfo de Cadiz

2014

EEZ

840

555593028

Volcanes del fango del Golfo de Cádiz

2016

EEZ

2 433

555593029

Sistema de cañones submarinos de Avilés

2016

EEZ

2 141

      
      

Sweden

555556939

Bratten

2012

TW

48

555556997

Fladen

2006

TW

96

555557012

Gullmarsfjorden

2006

TW

114

555557020

Havstensfjord

2012

TW

19

555557053

Kosterfjorden-Väderöfjorden

2006

TW

592

555557054

Kungsbackafjorden

2006

TW

79

555557059

Lilla Middelgrund

2006

TW

89

555557094

Morups bank

2010

TW

6

555557102

Nordre älvs estuarium

2006

TW

71

555556939

Bratten

2012

EEZ

1 160

555556997

Fladen

2006

EEZ

8

555557059

Lilla Middelgrund

2006

EEZ

89

555557177

Stora Middelgrund och Röde bank

2008

EEZ

114

      

United Kingdom

555556911

Ailsa Craig

2011

TW

27

555556914

Alde Ore and Butley Estuaries

2005

TW

11

555556915

Alde-Ore Estuary

2011

TW

11

555556919

Ascrib, Isay and Dunvegan

2005

TW

26

555556921

Bae Caerfyrddin / Carmarthen Bay

2011

TW

334

555556928

Belfast Lough Open Water

2011

TW

56

555556929

Belfast Lough

2011

TW

3

555556932

Benfleet and Southend Marshes

2011

TW

20

555556933

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast

2005

TW

650

555556935

Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4)

2011

TW

26

555556941

Breydon Water

2011

TW

5

555556942

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast

2011

TW

53

555556943

Burry Inlet

2011

TW

48

555556944

Calf of Eday

2011

TW

25

555556945

Canna and Sanday

2011

TW

54

555556946

Cape Wrath

2011

TW

58

555556947

Cardigan Bay / Bae Ceredigion

2005

TW

952

555556948

Carlingford Lough

2011

TW

5

555556949

Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries / Bae Caerfyrddin ac Aberoedd

2005

TW

632

555556950

Chesil and the Fleet

2005

TW

12

555556951

Chesil Beach and The Fleet

2018

TW

5

555556952

Chichester and Langstone Harbours

2011

TW

51

555556953

Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2)

2011

TW

12

555556954

Copinsay

2011

TW

35

555556960

Cromarty Firth

2011

TW

36

555556961

Crouch and Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3)

2019

TW

7

555556965

Deben Estuary

2011

TW

8

555556966

Dee Estuary / Aber Dyfrdwy

2008

TW

135

555556967

Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1)

2011

TW

25

555556971

Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet

2011

TW

54

555556972

Dornoch Firth and Morrich More

2005

TW

69

555556973

Drigg Coast

2005

TW

7

555556976

East Caithness Cliffs

2011

TW

114

555556977

East Mingulay

2012

TW

115

555556979

East Sanday Coast

2011

TW

13

555556981

Eileanan agus Sgeiran Lios mór

2005

TW

11

555556984

Essex Estuaries

2005

TW

383

555556985

Exe Estuary

2011

TW

19

555556987

Fair Isle

2011

TW

63

555556988

Fal and Helford

2005

TW

62

555556990

Faray and Holm of Faray

2005

TW

7

555556992

Fetlar

2011

TW

144

555556993

Firth of Forth

2011

TW

61

555556994

Firth of Lorn

2005

TW

210

555556995

Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary

2011

TW

66

555556996

Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary

2005

TW

151

555556998

Flamborough Head

2019

TW

62

555556999

Flannan Isles

2011

TW

58

555557001

Forth Islands

2011

TW

97

555557002

Foula

2011

TW

67

555557003

Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5)

2011

TW

97

555557004

Fowlsheugh

2011

TW

13

555557006

Gibraltar Point

2011

TW

2

555557008

Glannau Môn: Cors heli / Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh

2005

TW

9

555557010

Gruinart Flats, Islay

2011

TW

10

555557014

Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton

2011

TW

598

555557015

Hamford Water

2017

TW

26

555557016

Handa

2011

TW

29

555557021

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field

2011

TW

52

555557028

Hoy

2011

TW

88

555557029

Humber Estuary

2008

TW

336

555557030

Humber Estuary

2011

TW

337

555557034

Inner Clyde Estuary

2011

TW

17

555557035

Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge

2011

TW

345

555557036

Inner Moray Firth

2011

TW

21

555557038

Isle of May

2005

TW

3

555557039

Isles of Scilly Complex

2005

TW

267

555557043

Kenfig / Cynffig

2005

TW

3

555557046

Killough Bay

2011

TW

1

555557057

Land's End and Cape Bank

2011

TW

302

555557058

Larne Lough

2011

TW

3

555557060

Limestone Coast of South West Wales / Arfordir Calchfaen de Orllewin Cymru

2005

TW

2

555557061

Lindisfarne

2011

TW

31

555557063

Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl

2011

TW

1 702

555557063

Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl

2018

TW

2 226

555557064

Lizard Point

2011

TW

140

555557065

Loch Creran

2005

TW

12

555557066

Loch Laxford

2005

TW

12

555557067

Loch Moidart and Loch Shiel Woods

2005

TW

3

555557068

Loch nam Madadh

2005

TW

19

555557069

Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh Reefs

2005

TW

24

555557072

Lough Foyle

2011

TW

21

555557073

Luce Bay and Sands

2005

TW

479

555557075

Lundy

2005

TW

31

555557076

Lyme Bay and Torbay

2011

TW

313

555557080

Margate and Long Sands

2011

TW

511

555557081

Marwick Head

2011

TW

5

555557083

Medway Estuary and Marshes

2011

TW

33

555557085

Mersey Estuary

2011

TW

40

555557086

Mingulay and Berneray

2011

TW

69

555557087

Móine Mhór

2005

TW

3

555557088

Monach Islands

2005

TW

33

555557089

Montrose Basin

2011

TW

8

555557090

Moray and Nairn Coast

2011

TW

16

555557091

Moray Firth

2005

TW

1 514

555557092

Morecambe Bay

2005

TW

552

555557095

Mousa

2005

TW

5

555557098

Murlough

2005

TW

112

555557104

North Caithness Cliffs

2011

TW

141

555557105

North Colonsay and Western Cliffs

2011

TW

24

555557107

North Norfolk Coast

2011

TW

37

555557109

North Rona and Sula Sgeir

2011

TW

67

555557110

North Rona

2005

TW

5

555557111

North Uist Machair and Islands

2011

TW

10

555557113

Noss

2011

TW

30

555557114

Outer Ards

2011

TW

11

555557115

Outer Thames Estuary

2011

TW

2 955

555557116

Pagham Harbour

2011

TW

3

555557119

Papa Stour

2005

TW

21

555557120

Pembrokeshire Marine / Sir Benfro Forol

2005

TW

1 251

555557121

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau / Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau

2005

TW

1 442

555557126

Plymouth Sound and Estuaries

2005

TW

57

555557127

Pobie Bank Reef

2012

TW

333

555557128

Poole Harbour

2018

TW

42

555557130

Portsmouth Harbour

2011

TW

12

555557132

Ramsey Bay

2018

TW

97

555557133

Rathlin Island

2005

TW

31

555557134

Rathlin Island

2011

TW

31

555557136

Red Bay

2011

TW

10

555557138

Ribble and Alt Estuaries

2011

TW

97

555557143

Rousay

2011

TW

49

555557144

Rum

2011

TW

360

555557147

Sanday

2005

TW

110

555557156

Severn Estuary

2011

TW

223

555557157

Severn Estuary / Môr Hafren

2008

TW

722

555557158

Shell Flat and Lune Deep

2011

TW

106

555557162

Skerries and Causeway

2012

TW

109

555557163

Solan Bank Reef

2012

TW

11

555557164

Solent and Southampton Water

2011

TW

33

555557165

Solent Maritime

2005

TW

94

555557166

Solway Firth

2005

TW

424

555557167

Sound of Arisaig (Loch Ailort to Loch Ceann Traigh)

2005

TW

46

555557169

South-East Islay Skerries

2005

TW

15

555557170

South Uist Machair and Lochs

2011

TW

3

555557171

South Wight Maritime

2005

TW

196

555557172

St Abb`s Head to Fast Castle

2011

TW

16

555557173

St Kilda

2011

TW

281

555557174

St Kilda

2005

TW

245

555557176

Start Point to Plymouth Sound and Eddystone

2011

TW

341

555557180

Stour and Orwell Estuaries

2011

TW

31

555557182

Strangford Lough

2005

TW

149

555557183

Strangford Lough

2011

TW

147

555557184

Studland to Portland

2012

TW

332

555557186

Sule Skerry and Sule Stack

2011

TW

39

555557187

Sullom Voe

2005

TW

27

555557188

Sumburgh Head

2011

TW

24

555557189

Sunart

2005

TW

55

555557195

Tamar Estuaries Complex

2011

TW

16

555557197

Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast

2020

TW

110

555557198

Thames Estuary and Marshes

2011

TW

27

555557199

Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay

2011

TW

13

555557200

Thanet Coast

2005

TW

28

555557201

The Dee Estuary

2011

TW

111

555557202

The Maidens

2012

TW

75

555557203

The Shiant Isles

2011

TW

68

555557204

The Swale

2011

TW

29

555557205

The Wash and North Norfolk Coast

2005

TW

1 043

555557206

The Wash

2011

TW

589

555557209

Traeth Lafan / Lavan Sands, Conway Bay

2011

TW

27

555557214

Treshnish Isles

2005

TW

19

555557215

Troup, Pennan and Lion`s Heads

2011

TW

33

555557216

Tweed Estuary

2005

TW

2

555557217

Solway Firth

2021

TW

1 302

555557222

West Westray

2011

TW

34

555557225

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay

2005

TW

265

555557226

Yell Sound Coast

2005

TW

8

555583005

Aln Estuary

2014

TW

0

555583006

Beachy Head West

2014

TW

24

555583007

Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries

2014

TW

279

555583008

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

2014

TW

38

555583009

Cumbria Coast

2019

TW

22

555583010

Folkestone Pomerania

2014

TW

34

555583011

Fylde

2014

TW

261

555583012

Isles of Scilly

2014

TW

58

555583013

Kingmere

2014

TW

48

555583014

Lundy

2014

TW

31

555583015

Medway Estuary

2019

TW

61

555583016

Padstow Bay and Surrounds

2014

TW

90

555583017

Pagham Harbour

2014

TW

3

555583018

Poole Rocks

2014

TW

4

555583019

Skerries Bank and Surrounds

2014

TW

250

555583020

Tamar Estuary

2014

TW

15

555583021

Thanet Coast

2014

TW

64

555583022

The Manacles

2014

TW

3

555583023

Torbay

2014

TW

20

555583024

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

2014

TW

2

555583025

Whitsand and Looe Bay

2014

TW

52

555583026

South Dorset

2014

TW

134

555583032

Clyde Sea Sill

2014

TW

712

555583033

East Caithness Cliffs

2014

TW

114

555583034

Fetlar to Haroldswick

2014

TW

215

555583035

Loch Creran

2014

TW

12

555583036

Loch Sunart

2014

TW

49

555583037

Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura

2014

TW

741

555583038

Loch Sween

2014

TW

41

555583039

Lochs Duich, Long and Aish

2014

TW

37

555583040

Monach Isles

2014

TW

62

555583041

Mousa to Boddam

2014

TW

13

555583042

Noss Head

2014

TW

8

555583043

Papa Westray

2014

TW

33

555583044

Small Isles

2014

TW

803

555583045

South Arran

2014

TW

280

555583046

Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil

2014

TW

88

555583047

Wester Ross

2014

TW

599

555583048

Wyre and Rousay Sounds

2014

TW

16

555583049

Firth of Forth Banks Complex

2014

TW

6

555583050

North-west Orkney

2014

TW

1 298

555583062

Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore

2014

TW

20

555583063

Loch Roag Lagoons

2014

TW

0

555583064

The Vadills

2014

TW

1

555583065

Sound of Barra

2014

TW

125

555593952

Glannau Aberdaron and Ynys Enlli / Aberdaron Coast and Bardsey Island

2015

TW

335

555593953

Grassholm

2015

TW

17

555622017

Allonby Bay

2016

TW

39

555622018

Bideford to Foreland Point

2016

TW

104

555622019

Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds

2016

TW

320

555622020

Coquet to St Mary's

2016

TW

192

555622021

Dover to Deal

2016

TW

10

555622022

Dover to Folkestone

2016

TW

20

555622023

Farnes East

2016

TW

356

555622026

Hartland Point to Tintagel

2016

TW

304

555622027

Holderness Inshore

2016

TW

309

555622028

Mounts Bay

2016

TW

12

555622029

Newquay and The Gannel

2016

TW

9

555622031

Offshore Overfalls

2016

TW

140

555622032

Runnel Stone (Land's End)

2016

TW

20

555622033

Runswick Bay

2016

TW

68

555622034

The Needles

2016

TW

11

555622035

The Swale Estuary

2016

TW

53

555622036

Utopia

2016

TW

3

555622037

West of Walney

2016

TW

308

555624860

North Anglesey Marine / Gogledd Mon Forol

2017

TW

1 270

555624861

West Wales Marine / Gorllewin Cymru Forol

2017

TW

5 487

555624862

Anglesey Terns / Morwenoliaid Ynys Mon

2017

TW

1 018

555624863

Northern Cardigan Bay / Gogledd Bae Ceredigion

2017

TW

827

555624864

Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire / Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro

2017

TW

740

555624865

Loch Carron

2017

TW

16

555624866

Inner Hebrides and the Minches

2017

TW

13 801

555624867

Carlingford Lough

2017

TW

3

555624868

Outer Belfast Lough

2017

TW

3

555624869

Rathlin

2017

TW

91

555624870

Waterfoot

2017

TW

1

555624871

Bristol Channel Approaches / Dynesfeydd Mor Hafren

2017

TW

4 367

555624872

Southern North Sea

2017

TW

2 776

555624873

Northumberland Marine

2017

TW

886

555624875

Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary

2017

TW

610

555624876

North Channel

2017

TW

1 315

555625738

Les Minquiers

2018

TW

40

555625739

Les Ecrehous

2018

TW

15

555625740

Jersey Coast

2018

TW

87

555637372

Bae Cemlyn/ Cemlyn Bay

2018

TW

0

555637373

Coquet Island

2018

TW

0

555637374

Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay

2018

TW

395

555637375

Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi

2018

TW

17

555637376

Falmouth Bay to St Austell Bay

2018

TW

259

555637377

Farne Islands

2018

TW

1

555637378

Greater Wash

2018

TW

969

555637378

Greater Wash

2018

TW

1 052

555637378

Greater Wash

2018

TW

1 277

555637380

Loch of Stenness

2018

TW

8

555637381

Minsmere-Walberswick

2018

TW

3

555637382

North Norfolk Coast

2018

TW

32

555637383

Northumbria Coast

2018

TW

10

555637384

Obain Loch Euphoirt

2018

TW

3

555637385

Orfordness-Shingle Street

2018

TW

9

555637386

Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons

2018

TW

0

555637387

South Uist Machair

2018

TW

34

555637388

Baie ny Carrickey

2018

TW

11

555637389

Douglas Bay

2019

TW

5

555637390

Langness

2018

TW

89

555637391

Laxey Bay

2018

TW

4

555637392

Little Ness

2019

TW

10

555637393

Niarbyl Bay

2018

TW

6

555637394

Port Erin Bay

2018

TW

4

555637396

Calf and Wart Bank

2018

TW

20

555637397

West Coast

2018

TW

185

555645340

Rum

2019

TW

2

555645341

Taynish and Knapdale Woods

2019

TW

0

555645342

Durness

2019

TW

1

555645343

Hascosay

2019

TW

0

555645344

Glen Beasdale

2019

TW

0

555645345

Inverpolly

2019

TW

0

555645346

Kinloch and Kyleakin Hills

2019

TW

1

555645347

Mull Oakwoods

2019

TW

0

555645348

Ardvar and Loch a' Mhuilinn Woodlands

2019

TW

0

555645349

Tayvallich Juniper and Coast

2019

TW

2

555645350

Papa Stour

2019

TW

0

555645351

Sléibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetlands and Coast)

2019

TW

7

555645352

Flamborough and Filey Coast

2019

TW

76

555645353

Albert Field

2019

TW

164

555645354

Axe Estuary

2019

TW

0

555645355

Beachy Head East

2019

TW

195

555645356

Bembridge

2019

TW

75

555645357

Berwick to St Mary's

2019

TW

634

555645358

Camel Estuary

2019

TW

2

555645359

Dart Estuary

2019

TW

5

555645360

Devon Avon Estuary

2019

TW

2

555645361

Erme Estuary

2019

TW

1

555645362

Foreland

2019

TW

131

555645363

Goodwin Sands

2019

TW

276

555645364

Helford Estuary

2019

TW

6

555645365

Morte Platform

2019

TW

25

555645366

North West of Lundy

2019

TW

160

555645367

Otter Estuary

2019

TW

0

555645368

Purbeck Coast

2019

TW

282

555645369

Ribble Estuary

2019

TW

15

555645370

Selsey Bill and the Hounds

2019

TW

16

555645371

Solway Firth

2019

TW

44

555645372

South of Portland

2019

TW

17

555645373

Southbourne Rough

2019

TW

5

555645374

Studland Bay

2019

TW

4

555645375

Swanscombe

2019

TW

3

555645376

Wyre-Lune

2019

TW

92

555645377

Yarmouth to Cowes

2019

TW

16

555645378

Cape Bank

2019

TW

330

555645379

East of Start Point

2019

TW

6

555645380

Holderness Offshore

2019

TW

392

555645381

Inner Bank

2019

TW

154

555645383

Orford Inshore

2019

TW

52

555645384

South of the Isles of Scilly

2019

TW

125

555645385

South West Approaches to the Bristol Channel

2019

TW

82

555645388

Queenie Corner

2019

TW

144

555703682

Braunton Burrows

2020

TW

4

555703683

Solent and Dorset Coast

2020

TW

890

555703684

Isles of Scilly

2021

TW

129

555703685

North-east Lewis

2021

TW

908

555703686

Sea of the Hebrides

2021

TW

10 002

555703687

Shiant East Bank

2021

TW

252

555703688

Southern Trench

2021

TW

2 373

555703690

Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds

2021

TW

38

555703691

Coll and Tiree

2021

TW

794

555703692

East Mainland Coast Shetland

2021

TW

233

555703693

Moray Firth

2021

TW

1 763

555703695

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex

2021

TW

2 365

555703697

Seas off Foula

2021

TW

1 415

555703698

Seas off St Kilda

2021

TW

1 192

555703699

Sound of Gigha

2021

TW

363

555703700

West Coast of the Outer Hebrides

2021

TW

1 319

555703701

Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch

2021

TW

63

555556964

Darwin Mounds

2008

Joint Regime

20

555557224

Wyville Thomson Ridge

2011

Joint Regime

1 173

555557224

Wyville Thomson Ridge

2011

Joint Regime

33

555556917

Anton Dohrn Seamount

2012

EEZ

1 429

555556927

Bassurelle sandbank

2011

EEZ

67

555556938

Braemar Pockmarks

2018

EEZ

11

555556959

Croker Carbonate Slabs

2012

EEZ

66

555556959

Croker Carbonate Slabs

2018

EEZ

3

555556959

Croker Carbonate Slabs

2018

EEZ

113

555556964

Darwin Mounds

2008

EEZ

1 360

555556968

Dogger Bank

2011

EEZ

12 337

555556978

East Rockall Bank

2012

EEZ

3 698

555557013

Haig Fras

2008

EEZ

476

555557014

Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton

2011

EEZ

871

555557035

Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge

2011

EEZ

501

555557057

Land's End and Cape Bank

2011

EEZ

0

555557063

Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl

2011

EEZ

2

555557063

Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl

2018

EEZ

303

555557080

Margate and Long Sands

2011

EEZ

137

555557108

North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef

2011

EEZ

3 609

555557112

North West Rockall Bank

2011

EEZ

4 190

555557115

Outer Thames Estuary

2011

EEZ

839

555557120

Pembrokeshire Marine / Sir Benfro Forol

2005

EEZ

120

555557124

Pisces Reef Complex

2012

EEZ

9

555557127

Pobie Bank Reef

2012

EEZ

633

555557151

Scanner Pockmark

2018

EEZ

7

555557163

Solan Bank Reef

2012

EEZ

846

555557175

Stanton Banks

2008

EEZ

818

555557223

Wight-Barfleur Reef

2012

EEZ

1 374

555557224

Wyville Thomson Ridge

2011

EEZ

534

555583026

South Dorset

2014

EEZ

59

555583027

East of Haig Fras

2014

EEZ

400

555583028

North East of Farnes Deep

2014

EEZ

492

555583029

South West Deeps (West)

2014

EEZ

1 827

555583030

Swallow Sand

2014

EEZ

4 748

555583031

The Canyons

2014

EEZ

661

555583049

Firth of Forth Banks Complex

2014

EEZ

2 125

555583050

North-west Orkney

2014

EEZ

3 073

555583051

Central Fladen

2014

EEZ

925

555583052

East of Gannet & Montrose Fields

2014

EEZ

1 840

555583053

Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt

2014

EEZ

5 271

555583054

Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope

2014

EEZ

2 218

555583056

North-east Faroe-Shetland Channel

2014

EEZ

23 667

555583057

Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain

2014

EEZ

164

555583058

Rosemary Bank Seamount

2014

EEZ

6 937

555583059

The Barra Fan and Hebrides Terrace Seamount

2014

EEZ

4 388

555583060

Turbot Bank

2014

EEZ

251

555583061

West Shetland Shelf

2014

EEZ

4 095

555593954

North-West of Jones Bank

2016

EEZ

398

555622023

Farnes East

2016

EEZ

589

555622024

Fulmar

2016

EEZ

2 437

555622025

Greater Haig Fras

2016

EEZ

0

555622025

Greater Haig Fras

2016

EEZ

2 041

555622030

Offshore Brighton

2016

EEZ

862

555622031

Offshore Overfalls

2016

EEZ

455

555622037

West of Walney

2016

EEZ

80

555622038

Western Channel

2016

EEZ

1 614

555624860

North Anglesey Marine / Gogledd Mon Forol

2017

EEZ

1 979

555624861

West Wales Marine / Gorllewin Cymru Forol

2017

EEZ

1 883

555624864

Skomer, Skokholm and the Seas off Pembrokeshire / Sgomer, Sgogwm a Moroedd Penfro

2017

EEZ

923

555624871

Bristol Channel Approaches / Dynesfeydd Mor Hafren

2017

EEZ

1 481

555624872

Southern North Sea

2017

EEZ

34 175

555624876

North Channel

2017

EEZ

289

555625738

Les Minquiers

2018

EEZ

7

555637378

Greater Wash

2018

EEZ

237

555637379

Irish Sea Front

2018

EEZ

180

555645353

Albert Field

2019

EEZ

28

555645362

Foreland

2019

EEZ

112

555645363

Goodwin Sands

2019

EEZ

1

555645366

North West of Lundy

2019

EEZ

13

555645378

Cape Bank

2019

EEZ

144

555645379

East of Start Point

2019

EEZ

109

555645380

Holderness Offshore

2019

EEZ

784

555645381

Inner Bank

2019

EEZ

45

555645382

Kentish Knock East

2019

EEZ

96

555645383

Orford Inshore

2019

EEZ

20

555645384

South of the Isles of Scilly

2019

EEZ

7

555645385

South West Approaches to the Bristol Channel

2019

EEZ

1 046

555645386

Markham's Triangle

2019

EEZ

200

555645387

North-East of Haig Fras

2019

EEZ

464

555645388

Queenie Corner

2019

EEZ

2

555645389

South of Celtic Deep

2019

EEZ

278

555645390

South Rigg

2019

EEZ

141

555645391

South West Deeps (East)

2019

EEZ

4 655

555645392

West of Copeland

2019

EEZ

158

555645393

West of Wight-Barfleur

2019

EEZ

113

555645393

West of Wight-Barfleur

2019

EEZ

25

555703686

Sea of the Hebrides

2021

EEZ

38

555703688

Southern Trench

2021

EEZ

25

555703695

Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex

2021

EEZ

357

555703697

Seas off Foula

2021

EEZ

2 000

555703698

Seas off St Kilda

2021

EEZ

2 791

555557017

Hatton Bank

2012

ABNJ

15 722

555557112

North West Rockall Bank

2011

ABNJ

179

555583055

Hatton-Rockall Basin

2014

ABNJ

1 257

Summary of the gradual development of the OSPAR Network of MPAs as result of the selection and nomination of sites by Contracting Parties in the time period 2005 – 1 October 2021.

17th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2020 – 1 October 2021)

Norway submitted nine new OSPAR MPAs, the Kingdom of Denmark six new OSPAR MPAs and the United Kingdom further 15 OSPAR MPAs. Concerning national MPAs, Spain made an amendment to the OSPAR MPA “Cachucho” and the United Kingdom to the OSPAR MPA “Solway Firth” [previously named “Upper Solway Flats and Marches”] both with respect to enlarging the MPA by changing its boundaries. With regard to the “Solway Firth” MPA changes also include additional protected features.

16th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2019 – 1 October 2020)

The United Kingdom nominated two sites as new OSPAR MPAs.

15th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2018 – 1 October 2019)

The United Kingdom nominated 54 sites as new OSPAR MPAs, covering more than 9,000 km2.

14th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2017 – 1 October 2018)

Norway submitted three new OSPAR MPAs and the United Kingdom further 28 OSPAR MPAs. Concerning national MPAs, Germany made an amendment to the OSPAR MPA “LOWER SAXONY WADDEN SEA” with respect to enlarging the MPA by changing its boundaries. There were no changes with respect to other issues, like protected features, etc.

13th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2016 – 1 October 2017)

Norway submitted three new OSPAR MPAs and the United Kingdom submitted its eighth tranche of UK MPAs supplements the UK’s previous submissions in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014-2016. The tranche comprises the marine area of fifteen marine protected areas that were established in 2016 and 2017 (four SPAs, six candidate SACs, four Marine Conservation Zones and one Nature Conservation MPA) and two amendments to the boundaries of SPAs previously nominated as OSPAR MPAs.

12th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2015 – 1 October 2016)

The United Kingdom submitted its seventh tranche of marine sites as a further contribution to the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. This tranche comprised the marine area of 23 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) that were designated in 2016, as well as the re-submission of 10 existing Marine Conservation Zones submitted to OSPAR in 2014 as further features were added to these sites in 2016. In addition, Spain submitted two new OSPAR MPAs and amended the boundary of one of its previously submitted MPAs, Banco de Galicia. In total, the area of the OSPAR Network of MPAs increased by over 18,000 km².

11th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2014 – 1 October 2015)

The United Kingdom submitted its sixth tranche of marine sites to the OSPAR MPA network of supplementing the UK’s previous submissions in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The tranche comprised two SPAs and an amendment to an existing OSPAR MPA - Haig Fras SAC that had its site boundary amended in 2015. Norway nominated three additional MPAs as components to the OSPAR Network of MPAs and Portugal another five. Collectively, these 10 new MPAs cover an area of over 600 km2.

10th Reporting Period of new MPAs (2 October 2013 – 1 October 2014)

The United Kingdom submitted its fifth tranche of sites to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. A total of 61 sites have been reported to the OSPAR Commission, comprising of three additional SACs and one SPA designated under the EC Habitats Directive and EC Birds Directive, as well as 27 MCZs and 30 NCMPAs designated under UK legislation. Altogether, these sites have a total area of 71,153 km2. Spain has nominated a total of 11 SPAs designated under the EC Birds Directive to the OSPAR Commission. These sites protect 17,843 km2 of Spanish waters. Iceland has nominated five MPAs as components to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. Collectively, these MPAs cover an area of about 401 km2.

9th Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 January 2013 – 1 October 2013)

No new OSPAR MPAs were nominated in the 9th Reporting Period.

8th Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 January 2012 – 31 December 2012)

At the meeting of the OSPAR Commission in 2012 (25-29 June 2012, Bonn/Germany), Contracting Parties agreed to establish the Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas MPA with the goal of protecting and conserving the biodiversity and ecosystems of the waters superjacent to the seabed in the northern part of the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone. The seabed in the area is subject to a submission by Iceland to the UN CLCS. With the nomination of two MPAs by Belgium, all twelve OSPAR Contracting Parties have contributed to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. France submitted 30 MPAs (8 SPAs and 22 SACs) and the United Kingdom submitted its fourth tranche of sites (1 Nature Reserve and 12 SACs) to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. Norway nominated four MPAs and Iceland two.

7th Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 January 2011 – 31 December 2011)

The United Kingdom has submitted its third tranche of sites to the OSPAR Network of MPAs, supplementing UK’s previous submissions in 2005 and 2008. A total of 117 sites, 14 SACs and 93 SPAs designated by the United Kingdom under the EC Habitats Directive and EC Birds Directive, that are relevant to the OSPAR Convention have been reported to the OSPAR Commission. The sites have been identified by reference to the OSPAR MPA identification guidelines (OSPAR 2003 Annex 10 Ref A-4.44b(i)). Information on marine habitats and species of interest for each site as well as information on management within these OSPAR MPAs has been provided for inclusion in the OSPAR MPA database.

6th Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 June 2010 – 31 December 2010)

MPA nominations in 2010 – Part II

In the context of the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting 2010 (20-24 September, Bergen/Norway) OSPAR Contracting Parties have agreed to collectively establish six MPAs in ABNJ of the North-East Atlantic. These areas, i.e. Charlie-Gibbs South MPA, Milne Seamount Complex MPA, Josephine Seamount High Seas MPA, Altair Seamount High Seas MPA, Antialtair High Seas MPA, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores High Seas MPA, collectively cover about 285.000 km² within OSPAR Region V.

Portugal has at the same time announced the intention to designate and protect the sea floor and sub-sea floor within the areas of the Josephine Seamount High Seas MPA, Altair Seamount High Seas MPA, Antialtair High Seas MPA, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores High Seas MPA, as components of the OSPAR Network of MPAs. These areas are subject to the submission of Portugal to the UN CLCS regarding the establishment of the outer limits of the Portuguese continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, in accordance with Article 76 and Annex II of UNCLOS. In accordance with Articles 76 and 77(3) of UNCLOS, the sovereign rights and the jurisdiction of Portugal are referred to the seabed and subsoil of the areas indicated in the Portuguese submission to the UN CLCS. With its submission Portugal also committed itself to the conservation of living resources and biodiversity in the continental shelf. This duty is concurrent with the protection and conservation of a set of OSPAR priority habitats: seamounts, cold water coral reefs, cold water coral gardens and sponge aggregations.

Denmark has rectified the information presented in the previous Status Report (Publication Number 493/2010) with regards to the MPAs nominated to OSPAR in 2009. The information has been revised accordingly in the relevant section below and taken into account in the analysis of the OSPAR Network of MPAs in the main sections of this report.

5th Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 January 2009 – 31 May 2010)

MPA nominations in 2010 – Part I

Sweden has contributed Natura 2000 sites to be included in the OSPAR Network of MPAs, collectively covering 726 km².

On the west coast bordering Norway, Sweden has established the Koster-Väderö Archipelago MPA, covering 606 km² of territorial waters. The area is encompassing the Koster archipelago and the Väderö Islands and the 65 km long and up to 250 m deep Koster-Väderö Trough. Due to the influence by the Atlantic the area hosts a high diversity of biotopes and species. Of the 6000 marine species that have been identified in Kosterhavet, about 200 are found nowhere else in Sweden. In particular there are very rich deep hard bottom habitats with the only known live Lophelia reef in Sweden at a depth of 80 m. Also kelp forests, maërl beds and soft corals are found within the MPA. Together with the OSPAR MPA Ytre Hvaler nominated by Norway, the area covers an entire ecosystem (see also information below on the MPA nominations by Norway in 2010).

With a view to protect and conserve a coastal bank area representative for the Swedish West coast in the Kattegat, the Morups bank MPA (5.67 km²) has been established. This relatively small bank is characterised by rock and stones with rich algae vegetation and rich fauna of polychaete worms, particularly at depths of 20 – 30 meters.

With a view to protect representative offshore banks in the eastern Kattegat, Sweden has nominated Stora Middelgrund and Röde Bank (114 km²). These banks still seem to have a rather intact ecological structure, providing potentially important seed areas for a variety of invertebrates associated with hard bottoms and kelp beds, as well as for fishes.

Norway has nominated the Ytre Hvaler National Park as an OSPAR MPA, covering 340 km² of the Hvaler-Fredrikstad archipelago, situated in the coastal areas of south eastern Norway. It hosts a rich diversity of species both on land and in the sea while being a popular recreational area. The national park includes terrestrial areas, but for the purpose of designating this area as an OSPAR MPA only the marine part of the national park has been included. The national park borders up to the Kosterhavet Marine National Park in Sweden. These national parks were established in close collaboration between the Norwegian and Swedish regional governments. The management of the sites will also be coordinated between Norway and Sweden. Due to the close relationship between the two areas they are now nominated to the OSPAR Network of MPAs as a jointly managed transboundary MPA. For practical reasons separate nomination proformas have been elaborated for the areas from each of the two Contracting Parties (see information above on the MPA nominations by Sweden in 2010). Two MPAs previously nominated by Norway, i. e. Tisler and Fjellknausene are now encompassed in the Ytre Hvaler National Park. These two areas therefore have been withdrawn from the OSPAR Network of MPAs as independent components, as they are now covered by the new Ytre Hvaler MPA.

MPA nominations in 2009

Ireland has selected 19 Natura 2000 sites as a contribution to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. For a list of these sites, please see Annex I. The sites have been designated to protect particularly the following species and habitats that OSPAR has identified as being threatened or in decline: intertidal mudflats, Lophelia pertusa reefs, maërl beds, Zostera beds and Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). The total area covered by these sites is 4,136 km², of which 1,593 km² are in Irish territorial waters and 2,543 km² in the EEZ. The sites are located to the north, south, east and west of Ireland and offshore on the edge of Ireland’s inner Continental Shelf and contribute to the network coverage in the Celtic Seas (OSPAR Region III). While no formal management plans have yet been prepared or implemented, management measures are already taken in these sites.

Denmark has decided to nominate all their marine Natura 2000 sites, which so far have not been reported to the OSPAR Commission, as components to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. Altogether 30 new sites have been nominated, while another four sites nominated in 2007 have been expanded. It should be noted that in the course of expanding previously nominated MPAs, names have been changed for two sites, with one of these now encompassing three individual sites nominated in 2007. 

The Netherlands has nominated five Natura 2000 sites as components of the OSPAR Network of MPAs, together covering approximately 8,400 km² in the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). Three of these sites are situated in the Dutch territorial waters, namely the Noordzeekustzone (ca. 1400 km²), the Voordelta (ca. 900 km²), and the Vlakte van de Raan (226 km²). Two sites have been nominated in the Dutch EEZ, namely the Doggerbank (4718 km²), and the Klaverbank (1,238 km²). All these areas will be designated according to Dutch legislation of the Nature Conservation Act and the Flora and Fauna Act in 2010. The management plan for the Voordelta has been finalised and is currently being implemented. Management plans for the other MPAs will be set at the latest three years after their designation in 2010.

Norway has nominated three sites covering a total area of 78,411 km² in the territorial waters around the Svalbard archipelago. The three areas, namely Svalbard West (20,033 km²), Svalbard East (55,573 km²) and Bjørnøya (2,805 km²) consist of the marine parts of four existing nature reserves and seven national parks within the archipelago. They are grouped into three OSPAR MPAs based on an evaluation of geography, biology and legal status of existing environmental protection measures. The major part of these sites is situated within the Barents Sea. The northern parts extend into the High Arctic maritime province. Each of the four nature reserves and seven national parks, from which the three OSPAR MPAs originate, is established by separate national regulations. The degree of protection and restrictions varies between the ten areas. Svalbard and the sea territory out to 12 nm are protected through the Svalbard Environmental Act. Svalbard falls within the perimeter of the Barents Sea management plan. In addition, separate management plans for each of the national parks and nature reserves are, or will be, elaborated. The nomination of these three MPAs by Norway has not only substantially increased the coverage of the OSPAR Network of MPAs in the Arctic Waters (OSPAR Region I) but also more than doubled the total coverage of the network.

4th Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 January 2008 – 31 December 2008)

France has nominated La Mer d'Iroise, off the coast of western Brittany, as a component to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. This site is situated in the coastal waters with a total area of 3,431.75 km² extending across the boundaries of OSPAR Region II, the Greater North Sea (1758.43 km²) and OSPAR Region III, the Celtic Seas (1673.32 km²). It has not yet been reported as a Natura 2000 area. No information on management has been reported.

Germany has nominated an additional set of six MPAs45 to the OSPAR Network of MPAs of which three sites are located in the EEZ, namely the Dogger Bank (1,700 km²), the Borkum Reef Ground (625 km²) and the Sylt Outer Reef – Eastern German Bight (5,600 km²); while the other three sites are situated in territorial waters, namely the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park and adjacent Coastal Areas (4,524,55 km²), the Steingrund (174,50 km²), and Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel (55,09 km²). All of these sites have previously been established as Natura 2000 areas (SCI, SPA) and are located within OSPAR Region II, the Greater North Sea. The total area protected has in 2008 increased by 4,723 km². For the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park and adjacent Coastal Areas for which (sectoral) national and an overall trilateral management plan(s) exist; for the OSPAR MPA Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel and the SPA within the OSPAR MPA Sylt Outer Reef – Eastern German Bight ordinances according to national law are implemented. Management plans for the remaining sites are being prepared.

Iceland has nominated its first set of seven MPAs as components to the OSPAR Network of MPAs, of which four sites are located in the EEZ: namely Hornafjarðardjúp Coral Reef 1 (7.89 km²), Hornafjarðardjúp Coral Reef 2 (31.27 km²), Skaftárdjúp Coral Reef 1 (7.36 km²), and Skaftárdjúp Coral Reef 2 (22.31 km²), while the other three sites are situated in the coastal waters, namely Eyjafjörður Hydrothermal Vents 1 (0.12 km²), Eyjafjörður Hydrothermal Vents 2 (0.56 km²), and Reynisdjúp Coral Reef (9.45 km²). All of these MPAs are within OSPAR Region I, the Arctic, and together cover an area of about 78.96 km². No information on management has been reported.

Spain has nominated El Cachucho (2,349.66 km²), also known as the Le Danois Bank, to the OSPAR Network of MPAs. This site is situated in Spain’s EEZ about 65 km off the northern coast of the Iberian Peninsula in the Cantabrian Sea. It is located within OSPAR Region IV, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast. This MPA has also been proposed as a site of Special Community Importance (SCI) for the European Network Natura 2000. The relevant authorities are in the process of establishing natural resources and fishing management plans for the area.

The United Kingdom has nominated a set of eight additional SACs as components to the OSPAR Network of MPAs, all of which have become Natura 2000 sites since 2005. This includes five offshore/EEZ SACs, namely Braemar Pockmarks (5.18 km²; OSPAR Region II), Scanner Pockmarks (3.35 km²; OSPAR Region II), Haig Fras (481.34 km²; OSPAR Region III), Stanton Banks (817.87 km²; III) and Darwin Mounds (1377.26 km²; OSPAR Region V) and three inshore/coastal waters SACs, namely Severn Estuary (721.96 km²; OSPAR Region III), Dee Estuary (134.47 km²; OSPAR Region III) and Humber Estuary (336.40 km²; OSPAR Region II). For all of these MPAs, management measures, arising from requirements of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, are being developed and taken forward.

3rd Reporting Period of new MPAs (1 January 2007 – 31 December 2007)

In the 2007 reporting period, new MPAs nominated by Denmark, Spain and Portugal increased the number of sites from 87 to 106 with an area increase from 26,619 km² to 38,178 km². At the same time, the United Kingdom withdrew one site previously nominated and recalculated its total area coverage by MPAs.

Denmark reported its first OSPAR MPAs, 18 sites totalling 5,398.66 km². Seven of the 18 sites are within their EEZ. All of these MPAs are Natura 2000 sites with the same boundaries. Please refer to Annex I with regards to their names and further details.

Spain likewise reported its first OSPAR MPA, a conglomerate of four sites under the name Islas Atlanticas de Galicia, totalling 85.42 km² in territorial waters. This MPA is a Natura 2000 site, with similar boundaries, but somewhat larger (85.24 km² vs. 71.38 km²).

Portugal reported its eighth and at the same time largest site, the Sedlo Seamount with an area of 4,012.53 km², increasing the total area being protected to 5,698.25 km². This MPA is situated within the Portuguese EEZ, but it is not a Natura 2000 site at all. As noted in the 2006 Status Report, of the EU Member States, only Portugal Azores has nominated sites that are not wholly Natura 2000 sites, which was an important development. Of the eight Portuguese sites, four are not Natura 2000 at all, and the remaining four are larger and more extensive than the smaller Natura 2000 sites contained within them.

The United Kingdom submitted updated GIS files and provided area calculations for all of its sites, except for its three Northern Ireland MPAs. One site was withdrawn, due to its negligible marine area, reducing the total number of UK sites to 55.

2nd Reporting Period of new MPAs (10 April 2006 – 31 December 2006)

In the 2006 reporting period, new MPAs nominated by Portugal increased the number of sites from 81 to 87, and the total network area increased from 25,426 km2 to 26,619 km2.

Portugal reported six additional areas as components of the OSPAR Network of MPAs. These MPAs are situated in the waters surrounding the Azores, of which two sites (Faial-Pico channel, Corvo Island) are in territorial waters, three in the EEZ (D. João de Castro Seamount, Lucky Strike Hydrothermal Vent Field, Menez Gwen Hydrothermal Vent Field), and one on the ECS (Rainbow Hydrothermal Vent Field). This amounts to 497.42 km² in territorial waters, 640.88 km² in Portugal’s EEZ, and 22.15 km² on the ECS, totalling 1,160.45 km². Only Portugal has nominated an MPA on the continental shelf beyond the EEZ.

It should be noted that due to the extension of the first year’s reporting deadline, most of the MPAs in the initial report were actually put forward in the period between January and April 2006. This meant that the second reporting period was less than a calendar year.

1st Reporting Period of new MPAs (2005 - 9 April 2006)

The 2005 MPA nominations are summarized below in the order they were received.

Portugal: One site, Formigas/Dollabarat Bank, within the waters of the Azores, was reported to MASH 2005. It was the first OSPAR MPA nomination. It is a nature reserve with a delimited area of 525.27 km², extending to below 1500 m in depth. Of that, 36.28 km² is also a Natura 2000 site, down to the 200 m isobath.

Norway: Six sites were reported in December 2005. The six sites are: Selligrunnen (Nature Reserve), Røstrevet, Sularevet, Iverryggen, Tisler, and Fjellknausene, the latter five of which have fisheries closures to bottom-tending gear. The six in total cover an area of about 1,905.39 km².

Germany: Two extensive sites were reported in January 2006, and two more in April 2006. The sites are: Helgoland Seabird Protected Area (a Natura 2000 SPA), Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea (National Park and Natura 2000 SCI), SPA-Eastern German Bight (Natura 2000 SPA), and Lower Saxony Wadden Sea National Park (Natura 2000 SPA and SAC). The sites comprise a total of 11,922.78 km². In all, more than 90% of German coastal waters are also OSPAR MPAs, with large sections of the EEZ waters included as well.

Sweden
Six sites were reported in January 2006: Koster-Väderö Archipelago (some enhanced protections including fisheries restrictions), Gullmarn Fjord (also with enhanced protections), Nordre Älv Estuary (fisheries closures), Kungsbacka Fjord (nature reserve), Fladen, and Lilla Middelgrund. The six sites overlap Natura 2000 sites, and cover a total of 971.77 km². Fladen and Lilla Middelgrund both have portions extending into the EEZ (37.62 km² and 159.21 km², respectively).

UK: Fifty-six sites were reported as OSPAR MPAs in January 2006. All sites are also Natura SACs. Please refer to Annex I with regards to their names and details.

France: Eight sites were reported in March 2006: Réserve Naturelle Nationale de la Baie de Somme, Réserve Naturelle de l’Estuaire de la Seine, Réserve Naturelle Nationale du Domaine de Beauguillot, Réserve Naturelle de la Baie de l’Aiguillon, Réserve Naturelle de la baie de Saint Brieuc, Archipel des Sept îles, Réserve Naturelle de Moëze-Oléron, and Réserve Naturelle du Banc d’Arguin. They together cover an area of about 274.53 km².

Designation of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ/in the High Seas requires collective agreement and action by the OSPAR Commission. Any proposal for an OSPAR MPA in ABNJ/in the High Seas needs to be considered and eventually agreed by all OSPAR Contracting Parties.

In 2003, a map of the OSPAR Maritime Area has been prepared as a spatial planning tool indicating those areas that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any CP and thus would be considered ABNJ (Figure 1). At that time, ABNJ have been determined by the boundaries of the EEZ of Contracting Parties at 200 nautical miles from the shoreline.

Figure 1: ABNJ in the OSPAR Maritime Area as defined in 2003⁴⁶.

Figure 1: ABNJ in the OSPAR Maritime Area as defined in 2003⁴⁶.

Over the years, a number of proposals for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ have been elaborated. The proposals were originally prepared by the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) and the University of York47, subsequently reviewed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2008 (ICES Advice 2008 Book 1), and gradually finalized by the relevant OSPAR bodies, namely ICG-MPA, BDC, and the Working Group on Marine Protected Areas, Species and Habitats (MASH). As a result, following marine areas have been identified as potential OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ (see Figure 2):

  • Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone/Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • Reykjanes Ridge
  • Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores
  • Milne Seamount Complex
  • Altair Seamount
  • Antialtair Seamount
  • Josephine Seamount Complex
Figure 2: Marine areas proposed as OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ in 2008

Figure 2: Marine areas proposed as OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ in 2008

Table 3: Milestones in the elaboration of proposals for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ until 2010

2006

MASH Working Group

March 2007

1st presentation of the nomination proforma for the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone as a potential MPA in ABNJ

2008

OSPAR Commission

June 2008

Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zoneapproved in principle as a potential MPA in ABNJ.

MASH Working Group

October 2008

1st presentation of nomination proformas for Reykjanes Ridge, Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores, Milne Seamount Complex, Altair Seamount, Antialtair Seamount, and Josephine Seamount Complex as potential OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ.

The Rockall and Hatton Banks proposal was set aside following concerns brought forward by the UK and Ireland, that the seabed within the proposed area was expected to be subject to submissions for an ECS by a number of States, namely the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (on behalf of the Faeroe Islands) and that it was not possible to say at this stage which of these four states (if any) may eventually assume sovereign rights over the continental shelf in the proposed area. Furthermore, the proposed sites for Rockall & Hatton Banks intruded into Irelands’ national EEZ.

2009

NEAFC Annual Meeting

April 2009

NEAFC decided to close five areas on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to bottom fisheries with a view to protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in ABNJ of the North-East Atlantic (see Figure 3). Pursuant to the competence of NEAFC, this implies that fishing activities by vessels flying the flags of NEAFC Contracting Parties or Co-Operating Non-Contracting Parties, with fishing gear which is likely to contact the seafloor during the normal course of fishing operations, are prohibited within these areas. As shown in Figure 3, these areas largely overlapped with four of the proposed OSPAR MPAs (i.e. Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone, Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores, Altair Seamount, Antialtair Seamount), while the area closure by NEAFC on the Reykjanes Ridge was situated next to the proposed MPA by OSPAR. No area has been closed to bottom fisheries by NEAFC in the proposed OSPAR MPAs Milne Seamount Complexand Josephine Seamount Complex.

OSPAR Commission

June 2009

General and specific conservation objectives for the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone agreed upon.

Reykjanes Ridge, Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores, Milne Seamount Complex, Altair Seamount, Antialtair Seamount, and Josephine Seamount Complex approved in principle48 as potential MPAs in ABNJ; general and specific conservation objectives for all these areas agreed upon.

OSPAR Contracting Parties

Any time

A number of OSPAR Contracting Parties made submissions to the UN CLCS for an ECS, pursuant to article 76, paragraph 8, of UNCLOS of 10 December 198249. As a consequence, apart from the Milne Seamount Complex all other areas proposed as OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ have entirely or partly been encompassed by areas subject to submissions for an ECS (see Figure 3).

A number of OSPAR Contracting Parties have already made submissions to the UN CLCS for an ECS. These submissions have substantially changed the legal situation in the OSPAR Maritime Area (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Submissions of OSPAR Contracting Parties to the UN CLCS for an ECS affected the legal situation within the proposed OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ (as of May 2010)⁵⁰

Figure 3: Submissions of OSPAR Contracting Parties to the UN CLCS for an ECS affected the legal situation within the proposed OSPAR MPAs in ABNJ (as of May 2010)⁵⁰

ABNJ

Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

BDC

OSPAR Biodiversity Committee

BfN

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

CBD

Convention of Biological Diversity

CP

Contracting Party

ECS

Extended Continental Shelf

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

HELCOM

The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

ICCAT

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas/

ICES

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICG-MPA

OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Protected Areas

IMO

International Maritime Organization

ISA

International Seabed Authority

IWC

International Whaling Commission

MASH

OSPAR Working Group on Marine Protected Areas, Species and Habitats

MCZ

Marine Conservation Zone

MPA

Marine Protected Area

NAMMCO

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission

NASCO

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization

NCMPA

Nature Conservation MPA

NEAFC

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

OECM

Other effective area-base conservation measure

OSPAR Convention

Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic

SAC

Special Area of Conservation

SPA

Special Protection Area

UN CLCS

United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

UNCLOS

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

VMEs

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems

WDPAID

World Database of Protected Areas ID

WWF

World Wide Fund For Nature

Footnotes

1 https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=46337

2 The definition of OECMs will follow the definition agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity

3 The percentage targets are regional targets and relate to the OSPAR maritime area

4 For further information on the jurisdictional regime of OSPAR MPAs situated in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs of Contracting Parties please see section 1.2.3 “Jurisdiction of OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond the limits of national EEZs”.

5 The boundaries of Contracting Parties’ EEZs have been obtained from the open source VLIZ Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase . It is noted, that not all of these boundaries as shown in the map have been officially declared by Contracting Parties.

6Refer to Annex I for a list of all OSPAR MPAs nominated until 1 October 2018 and Annex II presenting the evolution of the OSPAR Network of MPAs in the period of 2005-2018.

7The boundaries of Contracting Parties’ EEZs have been obtained from the open source VLIZ Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase . It is noted, that not all of these boundaries as shown in the map have been officially declared by Contracting Parties.

8n.a. = not applicable

9Portugal (PT) has nominated a total of 17 MPAs to OSPAR. Four of these MPAs, namely Altair Seamount HS MPA, Antialtair Seamount HS MPA, Josephine Seamount HS MPA and Mid Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores HS MPA, occur in an area subject to a submission by PT to the UN CLCS for an ECS. These 4 MPAs have been assigned to all Contracting Parties in terms of number and area coverage (category “beyond EEZ”). One of the 17 MPAs, namely Rainbow Hydrothermal Vent Field, occurs on the ECS of PT. This MPA has been assigned to Portugal in terms of number and area coverage (category “beyond EEZ”). The MPA that occurs beyond the EEZ of PT covers 22 km².

10The United Kingdom (UK) has nominated a total of 382 MPAs to OSPAR. Two of these MPAs, namely Hatton Bank SAC and Hatton-Rockall Basin, occur on the ECS of the UK. These 2 MPAs have been assigned to the UK in terms of number and area coverage (category “beyond EEZ”). One of the MPAs, namely North West Rockall Bank SAC, occurs partly within the EEZ and partly within the ECS of the UK. This MPA has been assigned to the UK in terms of number and area coverage (partly category “EEZ” and partly category “beyond EEZ”). MPAs that occur beyond the EEZ of the UK cover 17 158 km².

11 Three OSPAR MPAs, namely Hatton Bank SAC (UK), Hatton-Rockall Basin (UK) and Rainbow Hydrothermal Vent Field (PT), occur on the ECS of a CP. These 3 MPAs have been assigned to the respective Contracting Party in terms of number and area coverage.

12Including 1 226 km2 of “Joint Regime Areas” or condominia where Contracting Parties agreed to share equal dominium and exercise their rights jointly, without dividing it into ‘national’ maritime zones.

13The area calculations have been made with regards to the OSPAR Maritime Area only, i.e. without consideration of the overseas territories of Contracting Parties and marine territories of Contracting Parties in the Baltic (Denmark, Germany and Sweden) or the Mediterranean (France and Spain).

14The area calculations for Denmark have been made for the mainland only, i.e. without consideration of the territories of Greenland and the Faroes Islands.

15Note that results are based on the boundaries of the EEZ according to the open source VLIZ Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase.

16For the calculation of the surface of TW and EEZ areas, the whole marine area of Portugal including Madeira and Azores as well as the Channel Island (UK) were included. Thus, the percentages are not directly comparable to all previous Status Reports.

17Reservation of the Kingdom of Denmark: The area to which the UK nominations is sought to apply falls within the proposed outer limits of the Kingdom of Denmark in relation to the Faroe-Rockall Plateau, which consistent with paragraph 8 of Article 76 of UNCLOS and Article 4 of the Annex II thereto, have been submitted to the UN CLCS, and whose consideration is currently pending.

18Aichi Target 11 of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan 2011-2020 (CBD Decision X/2).

19 https://www.ospar.org/about/international-cooperation/collective-arrangement

20The boundaries of Contracting Parties’ EEZs have been obtained from the open source VLIZ Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase . It has to be noted that not all of these boundaries as shown in the map have been officially declared by Contracting Parties.

21Decision 2021/1 on the establishment of the NACES MPA will come into force on 19 April 2022

22Reservation of the Kingdom of Denmark: The area to which the UK nominations is sought to apply falls within the proposed outer limits of the Kingdom of Denmark in relation to the Faroe-Rockall Plateau, which consistent with paragraph 8 of Article 76 of UNCLOS and Article 4 of the Annex II thereto, have been submitted to the UN CLCS, and whose consideration is currently pending.

23 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf

24Spaans (2020) Marine Protected Areas in the Europe, pp. 77; https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/publish/pages/184490/status_and_benefits_of_marine_protected_areas_in_europe_final.pdf

25OSPAR Recommendation 2010/02 amending 2003/03 on a network of Marine Protected Areas - http://www.ospar.org/documents?d=32867

26Johnson et al (2013) - http://www.ospar.org/documents?d=7346

27OSPAR Recommendation 2006/03 on developing an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/06-03e_Guidance%20ecol%20coherence%20MPA%20network.pdf

28OSPAR, 2008. Background document on three initial spatial tests used for assessing the ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network. OSPAR Commission, Publication number 2007/360. ISBN 978‐1‐905859‐99‐3

29Johnson et al (2013) - http://www.ospar.org/documents?d=7346

30  OSPAR Recommendation 2006/03 on developing an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/06-03e_Guidance%20ecol%20coherence%20MPA%20network.pdf

31  Dinter, W. 2001. Biogeography of the OSPAR Maritime Area. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn. 167 pp

32Area calculations Projection EPSG 3035 (ETRS89 / ETRS-LAEA)

33  OSPAR Recommendation 2006/03 on developing an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas - http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/06-03e_Guidance%20ecol%20coherence%20MPA%20network.pdf

34The part of Region III eastwards of 5° West of the OSPAR Maritime Area.

35The part of Region III eastwards of 5° West of the OSPAR Maritime Area.

36No MPA specifies L.fuscus fuscus (only L. fuscus) as protected.

37  The part of Region III eastwards of 5° West of the OSPAR Maritime Area. 

38The part of Region III eastwards of 5° West of the OSPAR Maritime Area.

39In 2018, the UK on behalf of the Isle of Man nominated six Marine Nature Reserves that are considered to afford protection to Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). Given that the Isle of Man has a relatively small marine area, and the mobile nature of Basking shark, it was decided that these six separate replicates should comprise one additional replicate for the protection of the feature for the purposes of this assessment.  

40In 2018, the UK on behalf of the Isle of Man nominated four Marine Nature Reserves that are considered to afford protection to Salmon (Salmo salar). Given that the Isle of Man has a relatively small marine area, it was decided that these four separate replicates should comprise one additional replicate for the protection of the feature for the purposes of this assessment. 

41The MPAs listed are submitted, but no MPAs were present in the OSPAR database listing the Haploops habitat. Therefore assessment of replication was not complete.

42  No MPAs were present in the OSPAR database listing the Kelp forests habitat. Analysis of replication could therefore not be completed

43  Schellekens, T. and Vanagt T. Biological Assessment of Criterion C. eCOAST report 2019006-1 

44Schellekens, T. and Vanagt T. Biological Assessment of Criterion A. eCOAST report 2019007-1 

45It has to be noted that the MPA Sylt Outer Reef – Eastern German Bight incorporates and thus supersedes the SPA Eastern German Bight, which was nominated to OSPAR during 2005. This (old) smaller site now lies inside the newly designated larger OSPAR MPA, and therefore OSPAR was invited to remove the former from the OSPAR MPA list and database. A similar situation applies with regard to the MPAs nominated in coastal waters. They are either within (Steingrund) or extend (Helgoland mit Helgoländer Felssockel) the previously nominated Seabird Protection Area Helgoland or extend the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park (Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea National Park and adjacent Coastal Areas). 

46It has to be noted that since 2003 a number of OSPAR Contracting Parties have made submissions to the UN CLCS for an ECS. These submissions have substantially changed the legal situation in the OSPAR Maritime Area (see Figure 3).

47  The University of York has elaborated these proposals under a contract (2008-2010) provided by the BfN. 

48Until the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in September 2010 the approval of these MPAs was subject to study reservations from some Contracting Parties. 

49Visit UN CLCS for details of the submissions made in 2009 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, and Spain.

50The boundaries of Contracting Parties’ EEZs have been obtained from the open source VLIZ Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase . It is noted, that not all of these boundaries as shown in the map have been officially declared by Contracting Parties.

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

Contributors

Lead authors: Dr. Janos Hennicke, Dr. Thorsten Werner, Mirko Hauswirth, Sjaak Vonk, Dr. Tim Schellekens, Peter Chaniotis, Laura Cornick and Sarah Blanchard.

Supported by: ICG-MPA, BDC, OSPAR Secretariat

Citation

Hennicke, J., Blanchard, S., Chaniotis, P., Cornick, L., Hauswirth, M., Schellekens, T., Vonk, S., and Werner, T. 2022. Report and assessment of the status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021. In: OSPAR, 2023: The 2023 Quality Status Report for the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR Commission, London. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/committee-assessments/biodiversity-committee/status-ospar-network-marine-protected-areas/assessment-reports-mpa/mpa-2021