Systematic Conservation Planning as a Tool to Advance Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area and Marine Spatial Planning Processes

Harris, Linda R.; Holness, Stephen; Finke, Gunnar; Kirkman, Stephen P.; Sink, Kerry

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8_4

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the scale of the MPA network, we drew largely from the recent national biodiversity assessment ) and made use of information from several systematic conservation plans (e.g. Clark and Lombard 2007;Sink et al 2011;Chalmers 2012;Harris et al 2012Harris et al , 2019Majiedt et al 2013). The systematic conservation plans identified gaps in South Africa's marine biodiversity protection and provided the basis for the recent expansion of the existing MPA network (DPME 2015), while national biodiversity assessments include regular appraisals of MPA coverage, including different ecoregions and ecosystem types (ecological representivity).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The systematic conservation plans identified gaps in South Africa's marine biodiversity protection and provided the basis for the recent expansion of the existing MPA network (DPME 2015), while national biodiversity assessments include regular appraisals of MPA coverage, including different ecoregions and ecosystem types (ecological representivity). A regional process to describe ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) (Harris et al 2019;Kirkman et al 2019) according to CBD guidelines (CBD 2009b) provided a useful indicator, through spatial overlay of EBSAs with MPAs, to assess whether MPAs are appropriately situated to ensure the persistence of marine biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas

Kirkman

Mann

Sink

et al. 2021

African Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biodiversity and ecological integrity of many marine ecosystems are being threatened (Worm et al. 2006;O'Hara et al. 2019). For this reason, many marine habitats, species and ecosystem functions have been granted protection from human pressures in marine protected areas (MPAs), a tool that is increasingly favoured as a response to declines in marine biodiversity (Beaugrand et al. 2015;McCauley et al. 2015). The Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD's) definition of a marine and coastal protected area is "any confined area within or adjacent to the marine environment, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including custom, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higher level of protection than its surroundings" (CBD 2004, p 2). Many

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas

Kirkman

Mann

Sink

et al. 2021

African Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Building on a long history of terrestrial conservation planning, South Africa has been undertaking marine biodiversity mapping, spatial assessment and systematic conservation planning since 2004 (see for example, Lombard et al, 2007Lombard et al, , 2019Harris et al, 2019). Here, we share experience from two National Biodiversity Assessments 3 ; a 12-year process to develop a representative MPA network (Sink et al, 2012;Sink, 2016); and 4 years of work to support new national MSP legislation.…”

Section: Strategic Mapping Products Can Facilitate Decision-making Ammentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Approaches and Advances in Spatial Tools to Achieve Multi-Objective Marine Spatial Planning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine spatial planning (MSP) processes seek to better manage ocean spaces by balancing ecological, social and economic objectives using public and participatory processes. To meet this challenge, MSP approaches and tools have evolved globally, from local to national scales. At two International Marine Conservation Congresses (2016 and 2018), MSP practitioners and researchers from diverse geographic, technical and socioeconomic contexts met to share advances in practical approaches and spatial tools to achieve multi-objective MSP. Here we share the lessons learned and commonalities that emerged from studies conducted in Belize, Canada, South Africa, Seychelles, the United Kingdom and the United States on a number of topics related to advancing MSP. We identify seven important themes that we believe are broadly relevant to any multi-objective MSP process: (1) indigenous and local knowledge should inform planning goals and objectives; (2) transparent and evidence-based approaches can reduce user conflict; (3) simple ecosystem service models and scenarios can facilitate multi-objective planning; (4) trade-off analyses can help balance diverse objectives; (5) ecosystem services may assist planning for high value-data poor Blue Economy sectors; (6) game theoretic decision rules can help to deliver fair, equitable and win-win spatial allocation solutions; and (7) strategic mapping products can facilitate decision making amongst stakeholders from different sectors. Some of these themes are evident in MSP processes that have been completed in the previous decade, but the fast-evolving field of MSP is addressing increasingly more complex objectives, and practitioners need to respond with practical approaches and spatial tools that can address this complexity.

show abstract

“…Importantly, many of the economic activities in the region can have moderate to severe impacts on marine biodiversity, and further expansion, intensification and diversification of these activities needs to be done in a sustainable way. Third, the availability of marine data that can inform spatial biodiversity assessment and prioritization among the three countries ranges from good to limited, and the familiarity with and culture of place-based planning in the marine environment varies and is in development (Holness et al, 2014;Harris et al, 2019b;. Therefore, the methods and approaches used to identify sites of importance for marine biodiversity, and to develop and implement spatial management measures in the BCLME will be widely applicable, including for countries where spatial information is largely lacking, and spatial prioritization is relatively unfamiliar.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Marine Spatial Management of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas: Emerging Lessons From Evidence-Based Planning and Implementation in a Developing-World Context

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying key sites of marine biodiversity value and implementing the required practical spatial management measures is critical for safeguarding marine biodiversity and maintaining essential ecological processes, especially in the face of accelerating global change and expanding ocean economies. Delineating Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) has been catalytic in progressing toward this aim. However, the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME; comprising three developing countries: Angola, Namibia, and South Africa) is one of few places where practical action to secure biodiversity in EBSAs has followed their description. We aim to document the process of moving from biodiversity priority areas to implemented conservation actions, and distil broadly applicable emerging lessons. EBSAs in the BCLME were reviewed using a systematic conservation planning approach, supplemented with expert input. In this data- and knowledge-driven process, the boundaries and descriptions of existing EBSAs were refined, and gaps filled with new EBSAs. The status of 29 EBSAs was assessed by determining the ecological condition, ecosystem threat status, and ecosystem protection level of constituent ecosystem types. Also, current human uses and their respective impacts were systematically reviewed per EBSA. Management recommendations were proposed by dividing EBSAs into zones with associated multi-sector sea-use guidelines. Throughout the process, facilitated by a regional cooperation project, there was stakeholder engagement, and national, regional, and international review. BCLME States are currently implementing enhanced EBSA management in their respective marine spatial planning and marine protected area processes, noting that there are different but valid outcomes for securing marine biodiversity in each country. Further, the regional approach allowed for cross-border alignment of priorities and management between countries, as well as pooled expertise, technical support, and capacity development. Although full implementation is still underway, the lessons to date highlight some key factors required for a successful process that could guide similar initiatives elsewhere.

show abstract

Systematic Conservation Planning as a Tool to Advance Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area and Marine Spatial Planning Processes

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas

Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas

Practical Approaches and Advances in Spatial Tools to Achieve Multi-Objective Marine Spatial Planning

Practical Marine Spatial Management of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas: Emerging Lessons From Evidence-Based Planning and Implementation in a Developing-World Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About