Q 53 - How to identify and analyze the main conflict areas between human uses and the environment?#

Narrower “Questions”
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]] #ADD1B2 [Data collection and presentation] as p2 [[/elements/practices/practice2]] #ADD1B2 [Analysis and diagnosis] as p3 [[/elements/practices/practice3]] #ADD1B2 [Prioritisation and designation] as p4 [[/elements/practices/practice4]] #ADD1B2 [Implementation and management] as p5 [[/elements/practices/practice5]] #DDDDDD [Monitoring and evaluation] as p6 [[/elements/practices/practice6]] #DDDDDD (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 Regional / local
Protection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protection
Marine zones: Coastal zone Deep sea Offshore zone
Applications: An MPA redesign and enlargement proposal for the Graciosa Island Test Site

Implementation details

This question is in relation with Question 11. The analysis of synergies of the objectives (and human-wildlife interaction) between ecological and socio-economical components can lead us to identify a series of targets where ecological protection needs is contrary to socio-economical goals and human practices and so can lead to uses conflicts. The risk assessment (CAMBRA et al., 2024) will produce some maps that will support the process of identifying the areas concentrating the stakes and, probably, the conflicts. The nature of the conflicts needs then to be assessed more in depth and be included in the Trade-off assessment (cf. ESE 3). Conflicts need to be included in the feasability step prior of any implementation of rules or restrictions and risk can be spread using the Equity criteria.

References

  • Ecological toolkit (ESE1) for MPAs prioritization and networking. Deliverable – D3.4., under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707).

  • 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

Applications