Q 41 - What are the main objectives and elements of monitoring programs for MPAs?

Narrower “Questions”

• Q 43 - How to monitor Ecosystem Services highlighting their linkages to the different high priority socio-economic criteria identified in each site?

• Q 42 - What monitoring approach can be taken for extensive MPA networks, expecially offshore ones?

Related sites

• Baltic Sea basin and Vistula Lagoon/Southern Baltic

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

• Dispersion and connectivity modelling (Dispersion and connectivity modelling)

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

• Climate change impact assessment (Climate change impact assessment)

• CC Analog Base Velocities (Climate change impact assessment)

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

ESE1 - Ecological toolkit

Practices: Monitoring and evaluation

Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / local

Protection regimes: Strict protection 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

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

Operational approaches: (Method) Dispersion and connectivity modelling (Method) Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) (Method) Climate change impact assessment (Tool) CC Analog Base Velocities (Method) Trait-based Vulnerability Assessment

Implementation details

I - Main objective: Ecological monitoring aims at inferring causes of ecosystem changes, by measuring ecosystem state variables in space and time. It serves to anticipate and reduce the impacts on the socio-environment of both anthropogenic and climatic stressors.This answer merged Climatic and Ecological purposes.

II- Elements of monitoring program: General Comment:

• MPA scale

• Identify specifities of the MPA regarding literature and adjacent areas (build the state of art). Decisions must be based on accurate scientific knowledge and ecosystem and climatic projections, including ecological, physical, and sociological features.

• Define commonly accepted management objectives (conservation and management targets) based on vulnerability assessment (Risk analysis) and fully operational strategies based on up-to-date available scientific knowledge identified previously. It should be legally feasible, socially acceptable, and possible actions existing government systems can take with available resources or data. Ideally, objectives should be quantitative with clear scale and thresholds.

• Develop adequate surveys taking into account local uses dynamics and potential of evolution (including social, institutional, technological and cultural change)

• Select relevant indicators to track the status of the features (e.g., physical, biological, genetics or uses dynamics). Ideally indicators should be quantitative with clear scale and thresholds (S.M.A.R.T). Indicators should be carefully selected according to those existant or could be locally design if needed. In that case, the new indicators should link specific objectives of the MPA to most general objectives at broader scales.

• Reiterate regularly the risk analysis based on up-to-date informations on ecological and uses trends

• 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 if needed and prevents future impacts. Keep in mind the desirable outcomes of the monitoring and the recommendations needed. Following the results, the output of the monitoring phase provide clear recommendations for relevant and targeted users.

Network scale - Promote MPA collaboration and exchanges (building community of actors) to anticipate potential changes appearing in adjacent areas, to identify most efficient management lever for a same issue and to promote cooperative management of moving management targets (e.g., connectivity (larval and adult phase), migratory species, pelagic populations)

• Target-selection specificities:

1. Select species based on relevant ecological status (IUCN, GFCM, Barcelona convention…)

2. Include genetic diversity in the risk analysis

3) Emphasize the inclusion of species and habitats that are functionnally important per se (e.g. promoting mitigation) and to sustain other species life cycle (e.g., engineers species, nurseries and feeding areas) - Assess species vulnerability to climatic and anthropogenic stressors, including near-term and mid-term projections. Eventually on a second step, include long-term projections to develop a step-by-step actions calendar. - Select a pannel of management targets (e.g., species, habitat, uses…) answering to the different management objectives identified in the area used as proxy of sensitivity (e.g., sensitivity traits (cf Cambra et al., 2024) or VME criteria such as Uniqueness or rarity, Functional significance of the habitat, Fragility to human disturbance, Life-history traits that make recovery difficult, Structural complexity), adaptativity (Cambra et al., 2024 p°74) and mitigation potential.

Physical monitoring specificities related to CC: - Identify relevant Climatic stressors in the MPA (e.g., Time of Emergence - ToE) - Identify the sequence of apparition of CC stressors in the area (through projection of ToE, early warning) - Implement adequate monitoring and indicators for each term of projection (quantitatives and shared within the MPA networks), both physical and biologic - Communicate with southwards and connected MPA to align management plans and consider early warning coming from adjacent areas

Notes

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)

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

Practices: 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

Suggestion for Monitoring Programs for MPAs based on the socio-economic and governance criteria. Deliverable 4.1 from the MSP4Bio Project provides a structured, participatory process to prioritize these criteria, ensuring that local priorities are collaboratively addressed. Each socio-economic criterion is linked to ecosystem services, aligning conservation objectives with socio-economic needs. Monitoring programs for MPAs should integrate socio-economic criteria to assess both ecological and societal impacts, aligning conservation goals with human needs. Key recommendations include: 1. Evaluate Across MPA Types: o Tailor monitoring efforts based on MPA categories (strict protection, conservation focus, multiple-use) to balance ecological preservation with sustainable resource use. 2. Incorporate Socio-Economic Criteria: o Use criteria such as economic importance (e.g., fisheries, blue economy), cultural dependence (e.g., heritage preservation), and employment contributions to measure MPAs’ societal benefits. 3. Adapt Management Based on Data: o Leverage monitoring results to refine strategies, addressing socio-economic challenges while ensuring ecological success. This approach not only ensures MPAs meet their objectives but also highlights their value to society.

Notes

Supporting material: 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.