Q 39 - What criteria are available to assess sustainability of maritime uses?

Narrower “Questions”

• Q 14 - How to assess compatibility of maritime uses and MPA conservation objectives? How to prioritize uses?

Related sites

• Western Black Sea

Notes

ESE 1: Focus on ecological and climatic criteria only, need to be combined with the others ESE to include socio-economical criteria

Answers

Operational approaches

• Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))

• Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment (Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment)

ESE1 - Ecological toolkit

Practices: Scoping

Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / local

Protection regimes: Non-strict protection

Marine zones: Coastal zone Deep sea Offshore zone

Criteria classes: 1 Ecological and genetic criteria 1.1 Functional 1.1.1 Vulnerability 1.1.2 Stability 1.1.3 Functional hotspots 1.1.4. Life cycle critical areas 1.1.5 Climate-smart potential 1.2 Structural 1.3 Genetic 1.4 Ecological status

Criteria

• Category Ecological and genetic criteria

  • Subcategory Functional

    • Macro-criterion Vulnerability

    • Macro-criterion Stability

    • Macro-criterion Functional hotspots

    • Macro-criterion Life cycle critical areas

    • Macro-criterion Climate-smart potential

  • Subcategory Structural

  • Subcategory Genetic

  • Subcategory Ecological status

Operational approaches: (Method) Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) (Method) Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment

Implementation details

Methodological criteria: - Decisions based on accurate scientific knowledge and ecosystem-based and climatic projections - Develop adequate surveys taking into account local uses dynamics (including social, institutional, technological and cultural change) and potential of evolution - Reiterate regularly the risk analysis based on up-to-date informations on ecological and uses trends

Ecological criteria: - Ensure low impact on marine species and habitats 1) Avoid and minimize the impacts on key areas for functional and life cycle purposes, from species to ecosystem scale 2) Avoid and minimize the impacts on vulnerable species (to anthopogenic or climatic stressors) 3) Enhance risk spreading through the trophic network (split the stressors between species to maintain ecosystem integrity and stability whereas supporting ecosystem services) - Promote persistence, resistance and recovery of damaged ecosystems

Climatic: - Ensuring the climate-smart potential of each use: 1) Enhance resilience, adaptation and mitigation (limited pressure on vulnerable species and habitats, activity potential to switch towards more sustainable practices) 2) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 3) Contribute to food security (maintenance or development) 4) Promote social equity and well-being - Ensuring the adequate monitoring of both CC incidence (e.g., Time of emergence) to reevaluate the “sustainable” potential of each activities - Develop an adequate information transmission about future trends in the area to users and decision-makers to ensure a rapid and flexible adaptation of uses and prevents future impacts

ESE2 - Criteria for the representation of the social and economic dimension of MPAs

Practices: Analysis and diagnosis Monitoring and evaluation

Spatial scales: 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

Implementation details

To effectively support maritime sustainability, it is recommended to tailor the list of criteria to the specific local context, ensuring a strategic approach to addressing the area’s social, economic, and governance dimensions. This can be achieved by following the process outlined in Deliverable 4.1, developed for the Case Studies of the MSP4Bio Project. This deliverable provides a structured approach for prioritizing socio-economic and governance criteria through a participatory process, enabling stakeholders to collaboratively identify and address local priorities.

Notes

Supporting material: Pegorelli et al. (2023). Criteria for the representation of the social and economic dimension of MPAs (Deliverable – D4.1., under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)).

Pegorelli C, De Andres M, Garc´ıa-Onetti J, Rayo S and Garc´ıa-Sanabria J (2024) Marine protected areas as socio-economic systems: a method for defining socio-economic criteria in marine planning. Front. Mar. Sci. 11:1358950. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1358950

Pegorelli, C., de Andres, M., Onetti, J., Lees, L., Calado, H., Gutierrez, D., García Sanabria, J.(n.d.). Aligning socio-economic and governance criteria for integrated marine spatial planning and conservation frameworks. In development. University of Cádiz, Spain.