Scoping#
Description#
This practice aims to support the identification of the scope of the problem, with reference to the management needs and the specific management question(s). This include the identification of the geographic scope and of the boundaries of the area of interest, the temporal scale the management question refers to, the understanding of the main ecological, governance, social and economics elements of the area, depending on the topic(s) addressed by the management question(s). Understanding ecological significance, biodiversity values and socio-economic importance of MPAs (ore candidate ones) in the area are also supported by this practice. The practice also includes the identification of key stakeholders, including government agencies, local communities, NGOs, researchers, MPA managers and coastal and maritime sectors. The practices supports the identification of all significant elements to be considered in the analysis which should results from a priority-setting exercise where only elements deemed truly significant should be selected. During the scoping phase, the following steps should be undertaken:
Analysis of the management question. Identification of keywords within the question, such as climate change, sensitivity to human impacts, connectivity, vulnerable marine ecosystems, pelagic species, etc.
Definition of management objective. Identification of the management objective, e.g., the design of a new MPA, the expansion of an existing MPA, management of existing MPAs or design of a network of MPAs.
Definition of the management approach. The approach is defined here as either conservative, i.e., applying strict protection based on current scientific and empirical knowledge and limiting the impact of uncertainty on the effectiveness of protection (e.g., promoting the conservation of the list of vulnerable species), or selective, i.e., more pragmatic, taking into account the limited means of ensuring ecological protection and the difficulty of making management trade-offs between conservation and human activities, particularly in heavily used coastal areas (e.g., conserve 75% of the species most likely to survive in an area, conserve flagship species, among others).
Definition of the context scale. Define whether the scope is at MSP or MPA level.
Definition of the geographical area. Defines the geographical boundaries or sea basin, possibly delimited by geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude, if available).
Definition of the spatial scale. The spatial scale depends on the conservation objective, whether it is focused on one or more MPAs, networks of MPAs, at sub-national, national or transboundary scales
Definition of the temporal scale. The temporal scale is particularly important in the context of climate change, spanning decades to centuries, (for a more detailed definition and guidance on selecting spatial and temporal scales, see section 2.3 in Deliverable D3.3).
In addition, the following information can support scoping:
Human use involves a wide range of activities, all of which need to be carefully managed to balance ecological conservation with societal benefits. These activities are scaled and regulated to ensure that they are consistent with conservation objectives and support both the protection of marine biodiversity and the socio-economic well-being of local communities.
Human pressures, pertinent to the examination at hand, encompass a range of anthropogenic activities and their resultant impacts, as detailed in the MSFD and outlined in Annex 1 (D2.2), under Category 3, “Anthropogenic Criteria (Activities and Impacts)”. In the scoping phase, human pressures relevant to the research question are identified and defined.
Climatic stressors are selected based on criteria such as the management question, temporal scale, spatial scale, and management target/level. A compilation of climatic drivers is provided in D2.2 (Annex A: 4.1 drivers) and D3.3 (Table 3). The scoping phase will outline the complexity of the analysis in relation to the management question, encompassing both the species in question and their spatial and temporal boundaries. Climatic stressors are associated with climate drivers like sea surface temperature and storminess, whereas non-climatic stressors encompass anthropogenic and abiotic factors. Within the ESE1 framework, these pressures are viewed as cumulative.
The next steps of the scoping phase are defined differently under the different ESE modules, in the relation with their specific perspective: ecology, governance, socio-economics, policy.
Ecological toolkit (ESE1) for MPAs prioritization and networking. Deliverable – D3.4., under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)
Integrated Ecological-Socio-Economic Management Framework - ESE Step-by-Step guidance (with test site examples and lessons learned). Deliverable D4.5 under under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707). In preparation: expected July 2025.
Additional details#
ESE1 - Ecological toolkit (Scoping)#
Additional steps of the scoping phase, relevant for the ecological aspects:
Definition of the ecological approach. Clarify whether the approach is area-based, species-based or a combination of both.
Specification of the bio-ecological target. Identify the elements of priority for conservation, from individual species to ecosystem level, based on the scope and geographical area of the question, specifying the target as precisely as possible (e.g., Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems - VME, whales, Posidonia meadows) and the species level where available (e.g., Eunicella cavolinii). Elements to support decision making in the face of climate change can be found in the D3.3 guide.
Identification of the criteria to prioritize species/ecosystems for conservation. This step defines the identification of conservation priorities, supported by the lists of species/habitat priority conservation criteria at global, European and regional levels and clustered at the level of geographical regions, as reported in D2.2 (Table 9, Annex 2). Detailed guidance on how to prioritise ecological elements and related criteria is also reported in D3.3, section 2.5. Table 2 in D3.3 reports a step-by-step process, modified from Swan et al. (2017), for identifying key species. The most common strategy is risk or threat assessment (Le Berre et al., 2019). Another strategy is based on vulnerability to specific threats due to climate change and/or human activities. Other approaches can be based on conservation concerns (intrinsic value of species, e.g., rarity or local distribution and endemism, national importance, genetic or taxonomic uniqueness, phylogenetic distinctiveness) or value of resources or ecosystem services (economic value, attractive species, cultural importance) or ecological distinctiveness (e.g., ecological range, functional role, keystone species, propagation potential, La Berre et al., 2019). The three main criteria for species prioritization are: (1) Services criteria (role that the species deliver to human, including social and economic indicators, generally ranked by the users themselves (D4.1), (2) Ecological criteria (role that the species exerts in the environment and trophic networks that could also be linked to species traits, D2.2 and D3.2) and (3) Climatic/non-climatic criteria linked to species sensitivity (including resistance, recovery and adaptive potential) link to their inner traits (see D3.3). The three rankings will provide a final score that could highlight the species to prioritize regarding the creation of management patterns. This ranking system needs to be defined and is outside the scope of this deliverable.
Identification of macro-criteria and potential methodological strategies (to be analysed in the following practices). In this step macro-criteria are indicated depending on the other defined scoping steps, and methodological approaches are suggested. This step also guides practices 2-4. When a macro-criterion is identified in the scoping, a selection of inner criteria and suggested methodological strategies will follow (e.g., for vulnerability, cf. Section 3.1.2).