Introduction: Towards an Integrated Reporting System for Marine

Protected Areas in the Baja to Bering Sea (B2B)

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

How we got here

NAMPAN Scoping Workshops

• Based on earlier work on monitoring protocols and indicators, scoping workshops held in Victoria, San Diego and La Paz

• Objective was to determine HOW to move forward with a more integrated monitoring system for MPAs in North America

Key Observations • Current monitoring and indicators do not facilitate comparisons and trends

among MPA sister sites in the Baja to Bering Sea (B2B)– Monitoring is “similar but different” (no direct comparisons)– Commitments to medium to long term monitoring are in place– Indicators need to be organized around common themes

• Monitoring at MPAs and marine sanctuaries does not currently reflect the larger B2B story

– Monitoring efforts are focused on management questions within the MPA, not broader scale questions

– Monitoring programs target different parameters, are not designed for consistency across MPAs

– Broader scale questions are linked (ecosystem, coast)

• Monitoring does not engage the public and key decision makers– Current monitoring is focused on technical and management issues– Poor funding support means long term monitoring compromised or only key

parameters are tracked (modest monitoring program)– Larger scale engagement is needed to address issues, ensure funding levels

Key Considerations• Must track and report on what monitoring protocols are being

used

• The process should help to identify how to do monitoring better

– Where are consistent methods being applied

– Where are there gaps

Why ecological scorecards?

Ecological scorecards

• Are not new– Chesapeake Bay– San Francisco Bay

• Build on emerging approaches– US Marine Sanctuary Program (SWIM)– Parks reporting in Canada– Mexico, NGO, Universities

• Based on a consistent reporting framework– Aims to link large scale questions with site based management– Developed and supported by B2B peers

Potential Benefits• Helps to raise the profile of existing monitoring

• May help to identify gaps and opportunities:– Where is monitoring thin?– Where are the opportunities for shared approaches?– Where can data be shared more effectively?

• Should lead to an inventory of practices and evidence

• Makes complexity simple (there are risks!)

NAMPAN Project Objectives

• Apply a consistent method for reporting on the health of MPAs

• Learn and adapt the method based on feedback from those applying it

• In time, consider allowing the method to be adopted by other institutions and organizations in Priority Conservation Areas and ecoregions

Expectations for today

Overview• We will address 12 questions around 3 key themes:

– Water– Habitat– Living Resources

• Identify the state and trend under each theme– Consider evidence (state and trend)– Draw on opinions

• Evaluate and provide comment on the approach

Results?

• A scorecard• The identification of monitoring methods and sources of

evidence• A summary of findings for each question• A better understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the

approach

Evaluation

• Discuss key questions– What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach? – What quality assurance steps should occur during the

project?– How should monitoring or information gaps be addressed?– What relative roles do scientific, community and traditional

knowledge play?– How else should the pilot be evaluated?

What happens next?

• Once the draft scorecard has been peer reviewed, the final scorecard should be shared with a wider North American audience through www.cec.org/nampan

What happens next?

Close

• Questions?

• Concerns?