Q 13 - How to evaluate trade-offs in MSP and MPA designation process?

Broader “Question”

• Q 11 - How to integrate socio-econonomic objectives in assessment of existing MPA (network) and identification of new MPAs?

Related sites

• Western Black Sea

General answer

Evaluating trade-offs in the Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Marine Protected Area (MPA) designation process is vital for harmonising ecological, economic, and social goals. This can be effectively achieved by engaging diverse stakeholders to uncover differing interests (e.g. Participatory Mapping), employing Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to quantify and balance alternatives, and utilising scenario planning to visualise potential outcomes. Assessing ecosystem services helps illuminate conservation benefits, while detailed cost-benefit analyses provide a comprehensive view of the impacts. Adopting adaptive management practices ensures ongoing reassessment of decisions, and clear communication fosters informed stakeholder participation. By integrating these methods, planners can navigate trade-offs effectively and promote sustainable marine management outcomes.

Source

Matczak et al. (2024) Test Sites Methodology Including the Participation Strategy (Deliverable – D5.2., under the WP5 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707))

Answers

Operational approaches

• Trade-off for MPA Design (Trade-off for MPA Design)

• Participatory mapping (Trade-off for MPA Design)

ESE3 - Nature-inclusive operation of blue economy sectors

ESE3 - Trade-offs method for protections and restoration in MSP

Practices: Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designation Implementation and management Monitoring and evaluation

Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / local

Protection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protection

Criteria classes: 5 Socio–economic & governance criteria

Criteria

• Category Socio–economic & governance criteria

  • Subcategory Socio–economic criteria

    • Criteria Area important because it allows access to relevant areas for the marine users.

    • Criteria Area important for locally-caught seafood

    • Criteria Area important for the generation of employment and income linked to non traditional activities

    • Criteria Area important for fishery activity

    • Criteria Area important for dredging

    • Criteria Area important because of the presence of structure with significant historical and cultural. (mo

    • Criteria Area of high scientific interest

    • Criteria Area important for educational interest

    • Criteria Area important because of the occurrence of iconic species/habitats for the local community

    • Criteria Area important for thehealth of coastal residents and/or resource users (mental health, physical hea

    • Criteria Area important due to the socio-cultural dependence of the coastal community with its environ

    • Criteria Area important to be managed due to the presence ofspatial conflicts among users

    • Criteria Area important because of the presence of cultural symbolic value

    • Criteria Area important for recreation and leisure

    • Criteria Area important because of the presence of cultural and tradition activities that support local fo

    • Criteria Area important for traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of

    • Criteria Area with high scenic and/or aesthetic value

    • Criteria Area important for shipping

    • Criteria Area is important for the development of blue economy activities

    • Criteria Area with current/potential importance to explore and demonstrate approaches and management solution

  • Subcategory Governance criteria

    • Criteria Equity

    • Criteria Clear strategic plan for the development of sustainable blue economy

    • Criteria Cross-border cooperation

    • Criteria Decision making is based on best information and knowledge available

    • Criteria Strategic Environmental Assessment

    • Criteria Monitoring and evaluation

    • Criteria Instruments to ensure and guide development and implementation of marine policies

    • Criteria Sustainable fishing management

    • Criteria Climate change measures established

    • Criteria Ecosystem based management approach

    • Criteria Long term strategic adaptive management

    • Criteria Coherence management of the area

    • Criteria Stakeholder participation

Operational approaches: (Method) Trade-off for MPA Design (Method) Participatory mapping

Implementation details

Use of the Guidelines for applying trade-off methodology for MPA design (Figure 4) from Deliverable 4.3 “Trade-offs method for protection and restoration in MSP”, including all annexes.

For participatory tools, use Annexe 5 - Table Participatory Mapping Tool. From Deliverable 4.3 “Trade-offs method for protection and restoration in MSP”

For Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, you may check page 89 under Ecosystem Services and Trade-off Analysis in MSP.

Notes

Gutierrez D., Calado H., De Bruyn A., et al., (2024). Trade-offs method for protection and restoration in MSP – ESE3 (Deliverable – D4.3., under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)).

Measures

ESE3 - Nature-inclusive operation of blue economy sectors

ESE3 - Trade-offs method for protections and restoration in MSP

Practices: Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designation Implementation and management Monitoring and evaluation

Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / local