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

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 }

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

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: 5.1 Socio–economic criteria

Criteria

Implementation details

Monitoring and assessing ecosystem services requires a combination of local knowledge, socio-economic and environmental data, relevant indicators, and mapping tools. Deliverables 4.1, 4.2 D3.3 of the MSP4Bio project offer methodologies and frameworks to support this process, ensuring a comprehensive and tailored approach.

Identification of Key Ecosystem Services – locally craft The first step in addressing this question is to identify high-priority ecosystem services. It is recommended to categorize these services using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) framework, for example: • Provisioning Services: Fisheries, aquaculture, and genetic materials. • Regulating Services: Climate regulation, erosion control, and water purification. • Cultural Services: Recreation, education, and heritage value. • Supporting Services: Biodiversity conservation and habitat provision. The ranking of ecosystem services can be locally adjusted based on scientific and local knowledge, as presented in Deliverable 4.1 of the MSP4Bio project. Local issues can be emphasized using participatory tools such as Rapid Ecosystem Services Participatory Appraisal (RESPA) to gather community perceptions and refine the valuation of services (Rey-Valette et al., 2017). Defining Scope and Priorities Socio-economic criteria can support in establishing the importance of ecosystem services for human communities. Integrating socio-economic criteria into the evaluation of ecosystem services is essential for justifying and prioritizing monitoring actions and management interventions to address pressures from marine activities. To monitor and evaluate priority ecosystem services, it is necessary to: 1. Identify target priorities (e.g., the human uses and the species, habitats, and areas delivering services). 2. Determine human activities that disturb or benefit from these services. Deliverable 4.1 outlines a methodology to define socio-economic criteria and their associated ecosystem services. Deliverable 4.2 applies the DPSIWR framework (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Wellbeing-Response) to link marine activity pressures to potential ecosystem changes. Moreover, highlighting the relationship between human well-being and ecosystem integrity is a core aspect of risk analysis (cf. D3.3). Selecting relevant indicators is critical and involves: • Reviewing indicator catalogs and literature. • Developing tailored indicators based on current scientific knowledge, incorporating ecological, sociological, and economic components specific for the area of interest.

Selecting and Using Indicators for Ecosystem Services Monitoring Although not covered in MSp4Bio, indicators are essential tools for monitoring and assessing ecosystem services. They provide measurable variables that help track changes in ecosystems and evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. Developing and selecting appropriate indicators involves tailoring them to specific ecosystem services to ensure they capture relevant ecological, social, and economic dynamics of an specific area. For example, Barragán Muñoz and Borja Barrera (2011) propose indicators linked to different types of ecosystem services, for example: • Provisioning Services (e.g., food production): Fresh fish landings serve as an indicator of the provisioning service of extractive fishing. Additionally, Schwantes et al. (2024) introduced an Essential Ecosystem Service Variables (EESV) framework, categorizing indicators into six classes to provide a comprehensive structure for ecosystem services monitoring: 1. Ecological Supply: Captures the ecosystem’s capacity to deliver services. 2. Use: Tracks the extent of human utilization of the services. 3. Demand: Measures the need or dependency on specific services. 4. Anthropogenic Contribution: Reflects human activities’ influence on ecosystem services. 5. Instrumental Value: Quantifies tangible benefits derived from ecosystem services. 6. Relational Value: Highlights the cultural, emotional, and ethical importance of ecosystem services. When selecting indicators, it is essential to consider multiple metrics to capture a comprehensive picture of an ecosystem service. For example, indicators like Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE) for fisheries may have inherent biases, such as assumptions of proportionality between catches and stock abundance, which can lead to over- or underestimations. Mapping and combining different indicators through tools like GIS and participatory approaches provide a clearer spatial and contextual understanding of ecosystem services. This integration helps prioritize monitoring efforts, ensuring that management actions are data-driven and effective.

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)

Schwantes, A. M., Firkowski, C. R., Affinito, F., Rodriguez, P. S., Fortin, M.-J., & Gonzalez, A. (2024). Monitoring ecosystem services with essential ecosystem service variables. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 22(8), e2792. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2792

Barragán Muñoz, J. M., & Borja Barrera, F. (2011). Evaluación de los ecosistemas del milenio de España: Litorales. Universidad de Cádiz, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar. Universidad de Huelva, Departamento de Historia II.

Deliverable 4.1 of MSP4BIO (2024). Criteria for the representation of the social and economic dimension of MPAs. University of Cádiz, MSP4BIO Project funded by the European Commission, Horizon Europe. MSP4BIO project (GA n°101060707)

Deliverable 4.2 of MSP4BIO (2024). Guideline for the strategic and spatial measures for the nature-inclusive operation of blue economy sectors. University of Cádiz, MSP4BIO Project funded by the European Commission, Horizon Europe. MSP4BIO project (GA n°101060707) .

Measures#

Policy solutions#

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