Q 8 - How to identify and analyze the main conflict area that may arise if we need to expand marine protected areas?#
Full question: How to identify and analyze the main conflict area that may arise if we need to expand marine protected areas in response to sensitive habitats, ecological connectivity or other valuable ecological assets?
Answers#
Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))
Tools4MSP CEA (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))
HELCOM SPIA Tool (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))
PlanWise4Blue (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))
Trade-off for MPA Design (Trade-off for MPA Design)
Participatory mapping (Trade-off for MPA Design)
ESE1 - Ecological toolkit#
Practices: Scoping Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designationSpatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / localProtection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protectionMarine zones: Coastal zone Deep seaCriteria classes: 1.1.1 Vulnerability 1.1.3 Functional hotspots 1.1.4. Life cycle critical areas
Criteria
Category Socio–economic & governance criteria
Subcategory Socio–economic criteria
Subcategory Governance criteria
Criteria Equity
Criteria Cross-border cooperation
Category Ecological and genetic criteria
Subcategory Functional
Macro-criterion Vulnerability
Macro-criterion Functional hotspots
Macro-criterion Life cycle critical areas
Operational approaches: (Method) Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) (Tool) Tools4MSP CEA (Tool) HELCOM SPIA Tool (Tool) PlanWise4Blue
Implementation details
The identification and analysis of potential conflict areas arising from the expansion of Marine Protected Areas can be strengthened through the integration of Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) and area prioritization and optimization analyses. CEA offers critical insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of human-induced impacts under both current and future scenarios. This information is essential for identifying areas that are either currently experiencing high pressure or are projected to be heavily impacted, informing planning and management strategies.
When combined with CEA, area prioritization analysis can help guide the selection of zones for conservation in a way that minimizes potential conflicts between the expansion of MPAs and existing human activities. This integrated approach ensures that conservation efforts are both ecologically effective and socioeconomically coherent. Tools for addressing both types of analyses have been provided in D3.4 (ESE1).
Generally near-term question, often focused on coastal areas where human activities are concentrated, or on key zones such as seamounts in the deep sea
References
Ecological toolkit (ESE1) for MPAs prioritization and networking. Deliverable – D3.4., under the WP3 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707).
Applications
ESE2 - Criteria for the representation of the social and economic dimension of MPAs#
Practices: Scoping Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designationSpatial scales: National Regional / localApplications
ESE2 - Criteria for the representation of the social and economic dimension of MPAs#
Practices: Scoping Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designationSpatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / localProtection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protectionMarine zones: Coastal zone Offshore zoneCriteria classes: 5.1 Socio–economic 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 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 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 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 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
References
Criteria for the representation of the social and economic dimension of MPAs. Deliverable – D4.1., under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)).
This report presents preliminary results from a methodology aimed at defining socio-economic and governance criteria for prioritizing proposals related to new areas, boundary adjustments, area relocations, and network corridors within marine management approaches. The study also focuses on identifying Ecosystem Services (ES) that encompass the social dimensions of various spatial management approaches in the marine realm. This method allows quantifying nature’s significance to human communities, bridging the gap between human activities and the services provided by ecosystems. The objectives of this study are centred on defining essential socio-economic and governance criteria, identifying the corresponding ecosystem services, and assessing their societal values within the socio-ecological system of a specific area, thus enhancing the effectiveness of different marine management processes (e.g., Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Marine Protected Area (MPA)).
Applications
ESE3 - Trade-offs method for protections and restoration in MSP#
Practices: Scoping Data collection and presentation Analysis and diagnosis Prioritisation and designation Implementation and management Monitoring and evaluationSpatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / localProtection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protectionMarine zones: Coastal zone Deep sea Offshore zoneOperational approaches: (Method) Trade-off for MPA Design (Method) Participatory mapping
Implementation details
Use of the Guidelines for applying trade-off methodology for MPA design (Figure 4) from Deliverable 4.3 “Trade-offs method for protection and restoration in MSP”, including all annexes.
In the methodology, during the scope of Building a project in the Participatory Mapping Tool, some specific questions could be designed to identify conflict areas, areas relevant to conservation, and potential areas for activity expansion, among others relevant to your interest area.
The use of Annexe 02 - Portfolio of Arguments can support discussion to ensure economic interests and maintain MPAs objectives.
Step 1: Consider the type of conflicts you would like to asses (spatial, ressources, acceptance) Step 2: Map areas of conservation relevance (already identified or based on scientific knowledge) where regulation will potentially change, identify strict areas of protection and map areas of anthropogenic pressure. Identify areas of overlapping between future projects and anthropogenic activities. Identify areas of concentration of uses where conflicts have the highest probability to arise. Step 3: Participatory mapping Step 4: Confront the results of participatory mapping and of internal mapping and propose different scenarios of potential MPA extension. Consider different levels of ambition. Step 5: Analyse acceptance, particularly for the activities the most impacted. Public consultations.
Please refer to the answers to similar questions 11 and 53 for more information on the topic.
References
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
Measures#
ESE3 - Nature-inclusive operation of blue economy sectors#
Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / localProtection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protectionMarine zones: Coastal zone Deep sea Offshore zoneMeasures: Aquaculture - Regional Collaboration - Local knowledge Aquaculture - Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture - Educational awareness Aquaculture - Artisanal Fish Farming Commitments - Code of Good Practice Aquaculture - Artisanal Fish Farming Commitments - Agreement among artisanal fish farming Aquaculture - General Planning Rules based on - Ecosystem Service Tools Marine non-living resources - Deep-sea Mining - Circular Economy Marine non-living resources - Importance of EMS Data - Voluntary Initiative for Information Sharing Offshore renewable energy - Socio economic (for both) - Implement effective monitoring practices Offshore renewable energy - Socio economic (for both) - Facilitate stakeholder engagement Fishery - “Who is allowed to fish” - Cultural and Community Approaches/Practices - Criteria for fishing permissions Fishery - “Who is allowed to fish” - Cultural and Community Approaches/Practices - Involvement of local communities Fishery - Sustainable Approachs/Practices - Notify authority in advance Fishery - “Who is allowed to fish” - Cultural and Community Approaches/Practices - Membership of fishing cooperative Fishery - “Who is allowed to fish” - Cultural and Community Approaches/Practices - Fisheries management recognizing traditional knowledge Aquaculture - Community-Based Contracts - Collaborative farming initiatives
Notes
More information at:
Pegorelli et al. (2024). Guideline for the strategic and spatial measures for the nature inclusive operation of blue economy sectors – ESE 3 (Deliverable – D4.2., under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)).