Review of the effects of protection in marine protected areas: current knowledge and gaps

The effectiveness of marine protected areas (MPAs) and the conservation of marine environments must be based on reliable information on the quality of the marine environment that can be obtained in a reasonable timeframe. We reviewed studies that evaluated all aspects related to the effectiveness of MPAs in order to describe how the studies were conducted and to detect fields in which research is lacking. Existing parameters used to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs are summarised. Two–hundred and twenty–two publications were reviewed. We identified the most commonly used study subjects and methodological approaches. Most of the studies concentrated on biological parameters. Peer reviewed studies were based on control vs. impact design. BACI and mBACI designs were used in very few studies. Through this review, we have identified gaps in the objectives assigned to MPAs and the way in which they have been evaluated. We suggest some guidelines aimed at improving the assessment of the effects of protection in MPAsRevisión de los efectos de la protección en las áreas marinas protegidas: conocimiento y deficiencias actuales.— La efectividad de las áreas marinas protegidas (AMPs) y la conservación del medio ambiente marino debe basarse en información fiable sobre la calidad del medio marino que pueda obtenerse en un plazo de tiempo razonable. Se revisaron estudios que evalúan aspectos relacionados con la efectividad de las AMPs con el fin de describir cómo se realizaron los estudios y detectar donde existen vacíos en la investigación. En este estudio se enumeran los parámetros existentes para evaluar la efectividad de las AMPs. Se revisaron 224 publicaciones. Identificamos los objetos de estudio más utilizados y los enfoques metodológicos. La mayoría de los estudios se centran en el estudio de parámetros biológicos. Los estudios publicados se basaron en el diseño control frente a impacto. En muy pocos estudios se utilizaron diseños de muestreo BACI y mBACI. A través de esta revisión, se han identificado deficiencias en los objetivos de las AMPs y en la manera como han sido evaluados. Como conclusión sugerimos algunas pautas para mejorar la evaluación de los efectos de la protección en estas zonasPublicado

Coastal waters North East Atlantic geographic intercalibration group: Benthic invertebrate fauna ecological assessment methods

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of the national assessment methods. Intercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises are carried out in Geographical Intercalibration Groups - larger geographical units including Member States with similar water body types - and followed the procedure described in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration process (European Commission, 2011). The Technical report on the Water Framework Directive intercalibration describes in detail how the intercalibration exercise has been carried out for the water categories and biological quality elements. The Technical report is organized in volumes according to the water category (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and Geographical Intercalibration group. This report gives a description of the intercalibration of the different benthic assessment approaches for in coastal waters in the North East Atlantic Geographical Intercalibration Group (NEA-GIG) for types NEA 1/26 (Exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow waters), NEA 3/4 (Wadden sea type) and NEA 7 (Deep fjordic and sea loach systems). The benthic assessment approaches of nine European Member States (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom) and Norway are intercalibrated. In Spain, the competent authorities for the WFD application are the regions (‘autonomous communities’); therefore for the benthic assessment methods three regions have been considered: Basque Country, Andalusia and Cantabria (no information on Galicia or Asturias). Part D of the report describes the Germany assessment approach for the type NEA 5. This type is not shared with the rest of the Members Stares, and therefore, the Intercalibration is not possibleJRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource