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

Broader “Question”
Related sites

Answers#

skinparam classFontColor automatic skinparam componentStyle rectangle skinparam roundCorner 15 scale 4/5 hide stereotype <style> element { MaximumWidth 150 MinimumWidth 150 HorizontalAlignment center } .ety { MinimumWidth 20 BackGroundColor #00000000 FontColor #00000000 LineColor #00000000 FontSize 1 Padding 0 Margin 0 } </style> package Practices { [Scoping] as p1 [[/elements/practices/practice1]] #DDDDDD [Data collection and presentation] as p2 [[/elements/practices/practice2]] #DDDDDD [Analysis and diagnosis] as p3 [[/elements/practices/practice3]] #DDDDDD [Prioritisation and designation] as p4 [[/elements/practices/practice4]] #DDDDDD [Implementation and management] as p5 [[/elements/practices/practice5]] #DDDDDD [Monitoring and evaluation] as p6 [[/elements/practices/practice6]] #ADD1B2 (E1) <<ety>> (E2) <<ety>> (E3) <<ety>> (E4) <<ety>> (E5) <<ety>> (E6) <<ety>> (E7) <<ety>> (E8) <<ety>> p1 -[thickness=5]-> p2 p2 -[thickness=5]-> p3 p3 -[thickness=5]-> p4 p4 -[thickness=5]-> p5 p5 -[thickness=5]-> p6 }

ESE1 - Ecological toolkit#

Practices: Scoping
Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National
Protection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protection
Marine zones: 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

Implementation details

Monitoring approaches that can be utilized for extensive MPA networks, especially offshore ones will depend on factors such as cost, time, feasibility and resources both technological and human (i.e. participants involved). Monitoring approaches should prioritize areas, habitats and species based on these factors and can involve satellite monitoring, telemetry (e.g. tags on sharks undertaking migrations) and eDNA (sampling that can provide data for species that have extensive distributional ranges or/and for example with cryptic behaviour, i.e. difficult to detect through observations). The approaches should also prioritize Life cycle critical areas (e.g. ecological corridors and nursery areas) and functionally important areas (e.g. Functional Hotspots inner criteria - presence of key functional species and key functional areas (e.g. primary productivity areas, larval source areas) and areas such as Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) that can be both functionally important and vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts (see Vulnerability and Stability macro-criteria).

Please refer to answer 17 as well which describes some monitoring approaches for pelagic biodiversity and due to the importance of connectivity for this question, consulting Section 4 “Connectivity” of D3.1 Critical review on multilevel ecological processes to improve systemic biodiversity protection and restoration strategies in Europe.” and Section 3.2.4.1 through to 3.2.4.3 of D3.2 “Portfolio of improved ecological criteria to be applied in biodiversity protection and restoration for project testing sites.”

Notes

Bongiorni L et al (2023) Critical review on multilevel ecological processes to improve systemic biodiversity protection and restoration strategies in Europe. Deliverable – D3.1., under the WP2 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)

Bongiorni L., Bekaert M., Jusufovski D., Bocci M., Gissi E., Magaldi M., Sciascia R., Rombouts I., Costa A., Barbanti A., Pınarbaşı K., Withouck I., Kotta J., Whatley L., Barboza F.R. (2023) Portfolio of improved ecological criteria to be applied in biodiversity protection and restoration for project testing sites. Deliverable – D3.2., under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)