Science Advisory Report 2020/035

Science Guidance on Approaches for Marine Bioregional Network Monitoring and Evaluation

Summary

• Guidance is provided to support development of a nationally consistent framework for evaluation of marine bioregional network design and monitoring of the effectiveness of marine bioregional networks in achieving their stated objectives. This framework allows for flexibility to reflect regional and local conditions, differences in conservation objectives among networks, and circumstances that might change over time.
• The recommended framework includes:
  • Stream 1: Evaluation of whether design features (e.g., representation, replication, connectivity) have been effectively included in network design and implementation. 
  • Stream 2: Monitoring to inform our understanding of whether marine bioregional networks, as they are implemented, are achieving their conservation objectives.
• Bioregional network monitoring and evaluation will be an incremental and an iterative process. This information could be useful to make course corrections on the management and monitoring of existing or new protected areas.
• Different types of ecological monitoring, such as ecological performance, human pressure, ambient condition, and reference site monitoring, can be used to track changes in ecological components of interest.  
• While a single approach to network monitoring is unlikely to be applied in all Canadian bioregions, development of standard practices and approaches for evaluation of common elements of network design and intended outcomes could support synthesis and reporting at the national level. 
• Existing monitoring programs can be leveraged to inform network design evaluations and monitor for effectiveness, thus drawing benefits from existing time series. However, the tools and techniques used to monitor networks are also expected to change with evolving technologies and legislative requirements.
• Networks are not yet fully implemented; Canada currently has a collection of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). However, monitoring of progress towards the ultimate achievement of bioregional network conservation goals and objectives should and can start now to establish baselines and prioritize next steps.

Stream 1: Evaluation of Network Design Features 

• Evaluation of bioregional networks includes evaluation of how well design features (e.g., representation, replication, connectivity, adequacy, and viability) have been included in the network design and implementation; for example, how well the spatial conservation targets are captured by the proposed and implemented network.
• Evaluation of bioregional networks is feasible with existing tools and available data. In most cases, the same tools that were used to design the networks may be used to complete initial evaluations, along with the most recent data. 
• At a minimum, it is recommended that bioregional network evaluation be conducted as new areas are added to the network, with the addition of substantial new data, or at periodic intervals (e.g., at least every 5 years).

Representation

• For the purpose of bioregional network evaluation, representation can be considered to be achieved if the agreed to network design strategies (with associated conservation targets) are met and maintained within the implemented network.
• The ability to evaluate representation may be limited by the spatial data sets used in design (e.g., the original classification systems or modelled species distributions used). New data on species distributions, habitat extent, and habitat quality should be integrated into updated classifications, and the evaluation of conservation targets should be updated accordingly.

Replication

• Evaluation of replication should explicitly define what constitutes a “replicate” in terms of patch size and quality, and it should incorporate iterative feedback of newly collected data on habitat use, patch size, and quality into the description and accounting of replicates.

Connectivity

• Connectivity, i.e., the linkages between habitats, has, for the most part, only been considered partially or post-hoc in the design of the five priority marine bioregional networks in Canada, corresponding to a general limitation in baseline connectivity information.
• Evaluation of connectivity should focus on those conservation priorities for which conservation objectives depend on spatial linkages within the network.
• Various tools are available for evaluating and monitoring connectivity at different spatial and temporal scales, each with different information requirements and costs.
• Consensus was not reached on a nationally consistent approach to the evaluation of connectivity in bioregional network design. However, it was agreed that determination of the appropriate approach to connectivity within each bioregion (including research, monitoring, evaluation, and implementation within the network design) should carefully consider cost and benefits, and reflect available tools, data, capacity, and resources.

Stream 2: Monitoring of Network Effectiveness

• A rigorous monitoring plan to assess effectiveness of the network at the bioregional scale for all conservation objectives, and with the ability to attribute cause, would require significant investment. 
• Identification and prioritization of subsets of network sites, conservation objectives, and associated indicators are recommended to demonstrate the effectiveness of the networks, and for reporting purposes. It is recommended that a small suite of well-understood indicators be used in the short-term while continuing to develop and adjust a broader suite of indicators for long-term monitoring.
• Indicators should address clear questions related to conservation objectives.
• Indicator selection should be an iterative, adaptive, hierarchical process. The suite of indicators should be evidence-based, harmonized, and validated at the bioregional and national levels.
• Monitoring indicators, protocols and strategies may differ for the coastal, shelf and deep-water/remote areas. These distinctions should be included in bioregional planning. 
• Indirect indicators (proxies) of conservation priorities, e.g., the use of vulnerability assessments or indicator species, are recommended in data-poor situations or where they are more efficient than direct ones.

Overall Considerations

• Planning and capacity for data management, processing, and availability should be prioritized nationally to optimize the efficiency of assessments and adaptive monitoring (within and outside of government).
• Utilization of available expertise and resources within and external to government is essential to undertaking network monitoring. Determining potential opportunities for collaboration with Indigenous communities, as well as universities, environmental organizations, and other ocean stakeholders in Canada and abroad, to increase scientific research and monitoring capacity for networks monitoring, is recommended as a distinct step in monitoring program planning.

This Science Advisory Report is from the September 10-12, 2019, Review of Approaches for Marine Conservation Network Monitoring. Additional publications from this meeting will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.

Science Advisory Report 2020/035 (PDF, 1,250 KB)

Accessibility Notice

This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.