Q 14 - How to assess compatibility of maritime uses and MPA conservation objectives? How to prioritize uses?#
Answers#
Tools4MSP CEA (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))
Trade-off for MPA Design (Trade-off for MPA Design)
Participatory mapping (Trade-off for MPA Design)
Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment (Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment)
ESE1 - Ecological toolkit#
Practices: Scoping Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designation Implementation and management Monitoring and evaluationSpatial scales: National Regional / localProtection regimes: Non-strict protectionMarine zones: Coastal zone Deep sea Offshore zoneCriteria classes: 1.1.1 Vulnerability
Criteria
Category Ecological and genetic criteria
Subcategory Functional
Macro-criterion Vulnerability
Operational approaches: (Method) Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment
Implementation details
The identification and analysis of potential conflict areas arising from the expansion of Marine Protected Areas can be strengthened through the integration of Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) and area prioritization and optimization analyses. CEA offers critical insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of human-induced impacts under both current and future scenarios. This information is essential for identifying areas that are either currently experiencing high pressure or are projected to be heavily impacted, informing planning and management strategies.
When combined with CEA, area prioritization analysis can help guide the selection of zones for conservation in a way that minimizes potential conflicts between the expansion of MPAs and existing human activities. This integrated approach ensures that conservation efforts are both ecologically effective and socioeconomically coherent. Tools for addressing both types of analyses have been provided in D3.4 (ESE1).
Use of the vulnerability assessment methods to identify the uses most likely to impact your conservation targets.
Notes
Ecological toolkit (ESE1) for MPAs prioritization and networking. Deliverable – D3.4., under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707).
Cambra et al (2024). Guidance for including climate change scenarios in protection and prioritization strategies for Marine Protected Areas development. Deliverable D3.3, under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n°101060707)
References
Cambra E., Conversi A., Whatley L., Menegon S., Beckaert M., Bongiorni L., Calado H., Pinarbasi K., Barboza F., Lauri K., Sciascia R., Cristina A., Marasovic T, Boudy C., Alloncle N., Gissi E. (2024). Guidance for including climate change scenarios in protection and prioritization strategies for Marine Protected Areas development. Deliverable D3.3, under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n°101060707)
Ecological toolkit (ESE1) for MPAs prioritization and networking. Deliverable – D3.4., under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707).
ESE3 - Trade-offs method for protections and restoration in MSP#
Practices: Scoping Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designation Implementation and management Monitoring and evaluationSpatial scales: National Regional / localProtection regimes: Non-strict protectionCriteria 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 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 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 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 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 Coherence management of the area
Criteria Stakeholder participation
Operational approaches: (Tool) Tools4MSP CEA (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.
Notes
Use of the method Trade-off for MPA Design. 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)).
References
Trade-offs method for protection and restoration in MSP (ESE3). Deliverable – D4.3., under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)).
This report presents the participatory creation of integrated trade-off scenarios within the MSP4BIO project, aiming to improve the management of marine spaces and safeguard ecosystem services.
The outcomes of this deliverable provide detailed Guidelines for applying trade-off methodology for MPA design. These scenarios aim to assess and negotiate the consequences of diverse actions and strategies regarding the spatial and strategic management of marine areas. The key element is comprehending how various human activities influence and are influenced by the ecosystem’s services and exploring potential ways for negotiating solutions. The outcomes, particularly the trade-off scenarios, will be integrated into practical tools and frameworks, aiding decision-making processes related to marine resource management.
This method was designed by the MSP4BIO team members and experts and developed collaboratively with stakeholders to understand the perspectives linked to protected marine areas and potential trade-offs in which specific actions may positively or negatively impact ecosystems and human well-being.
It was tested by the different test sites of the MSP4BIO project, and the outcomes will be integrated into the ESE 3, more specifically by the Task 4.4 MPAs and MSP Ecological-Socio-Economic integrated management
Practices: [Not Related to Any Practice]
Measures#
ESE1 - Ecological toolkit#
Practices: Analysis and diagnosisSpatial scales: NationalProtection regimes: Strict protectionMarine zones: Deep seaMeasures: Aquaculture - Artisanal Fish Farming Commitments - Code of Good Practice Aquaculture - Community-Based Contracts - Sea Garden Community Fishery - “Who is allowed to fish” - Cultural and Community Approaches/Practices - Industrial fishery restrictions