Study on the economic benefits of MPAs : final report.
Date: 2018-09-04
Institutions: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Subjects: cost-benefit analysis, economic activity, economic growth, environmental protection, fishing industry, marine ecosystem, marine environment, protected area, sustainable development, tourism

Study on the Economic 
Benefits of MPAs 
Final Report 

Written by ICF Consulting Services 
Limited, in association with IEEP and 
PML 

July 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) 

Unit A.3 — EMFF 

E-mail:  EASME-EMFF@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
  
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study on the Economic 
Benefits of MPAs 
Final Report 

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) 

 Contract No EASME/EMFF/2015/1.3.1.8/SI2.737373  

2018 

 EN 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 
may charge you). 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

ISBN 978-92-9202-378-2 

DOI 10.2826/449575 

© European Union, 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Report authors 

Haines, Rupert (ICF) 

Hattam, Caroline (PML) 

Pantzar, Mia (IEEP) 

Russi, Daniela (IEEP) 

Quality review 

Rayment, Matt (ICF) 

Researchers 

Verstraeten, Yann (ICF) 

Papadopoulou, Liza (ICF) 

Broszeat, Stefanie (PML) 

Hooper, Tara (PML) 

Chaparro, Lydia (Fundació ENT) 

Hoffman, Jane (EUCC) 

Van Dijk, Erik (EUCC) 

Vindigni, Gabriella (University of Catania) 

Peri, Iuri (University of Catania) 

 David, Matej (Dr. Matej David Consult) 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Table of Contents 

1  Introduction 1 

Context ................................................................................................ 1 
1.1 
Study objectives .................................................................................... 2 
1.2 
1.3 
Study scope .......................................................................................... 2 
1.4  Methodology ......................................................................................... 4 

2  A framework for analysing economic benefits ................................................... 8 
3  Economic Benefits by Sector .........................................................................10 

3.1 
3.2 
3.3 

Economic benefits for commercial fishing .................................................10 
Benefits for the tourism sector ...............................................................18 
Economic benefits for other blue economy sectors ....................................26 

4  A Comparative View of the Benefits ................................................................35 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 

Benefits across sectors ..........................................................................35 
Benefits across designation type .............................................................37 
Benefits against the costs ......................................................................38 

5  Managing the Realisation of Economic Benefits ................................................40 

5.1 
5.2 
5.3 

Ensuring sustainable use of MPAs ...........................................................41 
Promoting synergies..............................................................................46 
Resolving conflict and attaining stakeholder buy-in ...................................51 

6  Conclusions, Implications and Research Needs ................................................58 

6.1 
6.2 
6.3 

Conclusions ..........................................................................................58 
Implications .........................................................................................62 
Research needs ....................................................................................65 

Annex 1 
Annex 2 
Annex 3 

Robust and Quantitative Evidence ................................................68 
Critical Review Workshop ............................................................75 
References ................................................................................80 

Technical Annex A: Literature Review Report .......................................................83 
Technical Annex B: Consultations Report .............................................................83 
Technical Annex C: Case Study Report ................................................................83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1. 
Figure 2.  
Figure 3. 
Figure 4. 
Figure 5. 
Figure 6. 
Figure 7. 
Figure 8. 
Figure 9. 
Figure 10. 

The scope of total economic value covered by the study ................... 3 
Types of protected area included within the study scope .................. 4 
Study methodology ..................................................................... 4 
Location of the study’s nine European case studies .......................... 7 
Conceptual framework of MPA economic benefit pathways ................ 8 
Fisheries sector economic benefit pathways ...................................11 
Tourism economic benefit pathways .............................................21 
Other blue economy economic benefit pathways ............................27 
Number of MPA-related research publications ................................29 
Online survey opinion on which major economic sectors benefit from 

a) no-take MPAs (N=172), b) multiple-use MPAs (N=168), c) fisheries SPMs 
(N=166), d) de facto refuges (N=161) ...........................................................36 

Figure 11. 

Role of different actors in conflict management, creation of synergies 

Figure 12. 

and implementation of sustainable use mechanisms .........................................40 
Measures implemented to encourage sustainable use and their level of 
success (N=40) ...........................................................................................42 
Online survey responses on measures implemented to resolve conflict 
and their level of success (N=76) ..................................................................52 

Figure 13. 

Table of Tables 

Table 1. 
Table 2. 
Table 3. 

Evidence hierarchy ...................................................................... 5 
Task 4 consultation tools by target stakeholder group ...................... 6 
Strength of evidence of economic benefits across economic 
sectors/activities and benefit mechanisms.......................................................27 
Availability of robust economic benefit evidence (number of papers) .35 
European evidence of quantitative economic benefits of MPAs and 

Table 4. 
Table 5. 

SPMs to fisheries .........................................................................................68 

Table 6. 

European evidence of quantitative economic benefits of MPAs and 

SPMs to tourism ..........................................................................................71 

Table 7. 

European evidence of quantitative economic benefits of MPAs and 

SPMs to other blue economy sectors ..............................................................74 

Table of Boxes 

Box 1. 
Box 2. 

Key factors that determine the effects of MPAs (and SPMs) .............12 
The effects of MPAs may be enhanced when designed expressly for 

commercial fishing sector benefit – case studies of Torre Guaceto and Os Miñarzos . 
 ................................................................................................13 
Challenges in attributing benefits to MPAs and SPMs – the case of 

Box 3. 

North Sea cod .............................................................................................13 

Box 4. 

Economic benefits from the spillover of lobster, Columbretes Islands 

Marine Reserve (Spain) ................................................................................14 
Time-limited no take management in Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy) ......14 
Example of eco-certification .........................................................15 
Example of reserve label and brands ............................................16 

Box 5. 
Box 6. 
Box 7. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 8. 
Box 9. 
Box 10. 
Box 11. 
Box 12. 

Benefits from reduced competition for space in Lyme Bay MPA (UK) .17 
Improved shore-side infrastructure: .............................................18 
Tourism income and job creation in Southern Mediterranean MPAs ...18 
Increase in tourism sector income in Lyme Bay MPA (UK) ................19 
Benefits mechanisms supporting tourism activity in Bonaire National 

Marine Park  ................................................................................................20 

Box 13. 

MCZ (UK) 

Box 14. 
Box 15. 
Box 16. 
Box 17. 
Box 18. 
Box 19. 
Box 20. 
Box 21. 
Box 22. 
Box 23. 
Box 24. 
Box 25. 
Box 26. 
Box 27. 

Benefits for angling from protection of spawning grounds in Kingmere 
 ................................................................................................22 
Influence of MPAs on visitor destination decisions ...........................23 
Sustainability certification in Torre Guaceto (Italy) .........................24 
Business opportunities extending the tourism season in Kosterhavet 25 
Wider benefits on the tourism sector in Alonissos MPA (Greece) .......25 
Examples of education and awareness raising material use ..............25 
Benefits from MPA zoning in Plemmirio .........................................26 
Case study evidence on MPA management budgets and employment 28 
Examples of MPA research values .................................................29 
Growth in MPA-related research ...................................................29 
Eco-engineering in the Wadden Sea ..............................................30 
Artificial reef and associated infrastructure preparation in Cyprus .....30 
Example of opportunities for new technologies ...............................31 
Algae cultivation in Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden) .......32 
Example of opportunities for MPA association to demonstrate green 

Box 29. 

Box 28. 

credentials   ................................................................................................33 
Knowledge Sharing in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary . 
 ................................................................................................34 
Geographical break down of the evidence base on economic benefits to 
the fisheries sector (n = 44)..........................................................................43 
Knowledge and interpretative mechanisms in Torre Guaceto (Italy) ..43 
The benefits of local fishing user rights in Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy) 45 
Branding, labelling and certification to encourage a shift towards 

Box 30. 
Box 31. 
Box 32. 

sustainable practices ....................................................................................46 

Box 33. 

MPA management body support for aquaculture operations and 

innovation in Iroise (France) .........................................................................46 
Examples of cross sectoral synergies ............................................47 
Examples of single sector synergies ..............................................48 
Examples of synergies between economic sectors and MPAs / MPA 

Box 34. 
Box 35. 
Box 36. 

management bodies .....................................................................................49 

Box 37. 

Box 38. 

the UK 

Information sharing to enhance MPA licence application processes in 
 ................................................................................................54 
The importance of continued engagement and managed expectation in 
Marine Conservation Zone planning (England, UK) ...........................................55 
Stakeholder forum in Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden) ....55 
Co-management in Os Miñarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest 
 ................................................................................................56 
Examples of activity zonation and limitation to address conflicts .......57 

(Spain) 

Box 39. 
Box 40. 

Box 41. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

1 

Introduction 

The European Commission contracted ICF, IEEP, PML and partners to undertake a review 
of the economic benefits of marine protected areas (MPAs) and other spatial protection 
measures (SPMs)1 (henceforth collectively referred to as MPAs unless specifically 
referring to SPMs). The study sought to compile an extensive evidence base on the 
benefits of MPAs to blue economy sectors, and to identify the role and best practices of 
measures taken to ensure that benefits are realised, maximised and compatible with MPA 
conservation objectives.  

This is the study’s final report. It provides a synthesis of evidence, from three research 
tasks undertaken during 2017. Three separate stand-alone technical reports present the 
detailed findings of the three research tasks. In addition, an abridged version of this final 
report is available. 

1.1  Context 

1.1.1  The Blue Economy 

Economic activity in Europe’s seas supports some 5.4 million jobs and a gross value 
added of just under €500 billion per year (European Commission, 2012). This ‘blue 
economy’ includes sectors such as fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, shipping, marine 
mining and biotechnology, ocean renewable energy, aquatic products, and offshore oil 
and gas, among others. 

The European Commission’s Blue Growth Strategy suggests that the blue economy offers 
‘new and innovative ways’ of supporting international competitiveness, resource 
efficiency, job creation, and economic growth. The Strategy emphasises economic 
growth, but also recognises the need to minimise environmental impacts and to protect 
the marine environment and the ecosystem services that it provides. 

1.1.2  The marine environment and marine protected areas 

Marine ecosystems and biodiversity are declining across the EU (European Commission, 
2015a). Loss of biodiversity directly impacts the carrying capacity and resilience of 
marine ecosystems. This jeopardises the ability of marine ecosystems to support healthy 
flora and fauna and to provide the variety of ecosystem services that support coastal 
livelihoods, whether through fishing, aquaculture, tourism, or other activities. The 
consequences for continued socioeconomic progress are therefore direct and serious. 

Various EU commitments (internal and international e.g. on the Natura 2000 network) 
envision a major role for MPAs as a method for reducing anthropogenic impacts, 
maintaining and improving biodiversity and building ecosystem resilience. Other SPMs, 
such as temporary or permanent fisheries closures and restricted access areas around 
marine infrastructure, may also provide conservation benefits. The creation of MPAs and 
SPMs is a tool available to Member States to support the achievement of good 
environmental status in their marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). 

The Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 
requires 10% of marine and coastal areas, and especially those areas of particular 
importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to be conserved through effective 
MPAs or “other effective area-based conservation measures”. In 2016, MPAs covered 
10.8%2 (624,971 km2) of the EU’s total marine surface area, up from 5.9% in 2012 
(Agnesi et al, 2017). In addition, 6.5 million km2 of EU Overseas marine territory is under 
protection (IUCN, 2017). Nevertheless, more MPAs and other area-based conservation 
measures (which might include some types of SPMs) are expected, and many recently 
designated MPAs do not yet have management rules established.  

1 See Section 1.3.2 for definitions. 
2 Of which 7% is from Natura 2000 sites 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

1.1.3  The blue economy and MPAs 

Expansion of blue economy sectors and the drive towards greater protection of the 
marine environment will both drive increased demand for marine space. In the EU, this 
should be managed in particular through the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 
(2014/89), the overarching spatial framework for the coherent management of all 
maritime economic activities and MPAs in EU waters. Maritime spatial plans have to be 
established as soon as possible, and at the latest by 31 March 2021.  

A concern sometimes raised about MPAs, and to a lesser extent SPMs, is that they may 
constrain economic activity, adding costs to businesses and restricting opportunities for 
growth and jobs – even for industries that may benefit from improved marine 
biodiversity and environmental conditions. This is despite the majority of European MPAs 
allowing many economic activities to continue to operate, subject to certain conditions, 
within their boundaries (for example see guidance documents on managing economic 
activities in Natura 2000 site3).   

While the initial economic costs of MPAs and SPMs may outweigh the economic benefits, 
viewed over the long-term, MPAs and SPMs may make an important contribution to the 
growth of a greener blue economy – one that places the conservation of marine 
resources and the development of innovative and clean industry at its heart. To plan and 
manage for this and to maximise the flow of potential benefits (to the environment, the 
blue economy and society more generally) the linkages between maritime sectors and 
these potential benefits need to be better understood, including how the design and 
management of MPAs and SPMs can help facilitate their realisation. Failure to do so may 
impede efforts to conserve and improve the marine environment and instead contribute 
to the continued degradation of marine ecosystems, placing at risk blue economy 
objectives, economic growth, and the wider benefits obtained through marine ecosystem 
services. 

1.2  Study objectives 

The main objective of this study was to evaluate how MPAs and SPMs provide economic 
benefits to blue economy sectors, to inform future debate and decisions on marine 
management at EU level and identify further research needs. It specifically considered all 
blue economy sectors, not just those such as tourism that are commonly thought to 
benefit. It thereby seeks to build on existing evidence by broadening the potential scope 
of economic benefits considered, and filling evidence gaps identified, by previous 
syntheses and analyses (e.g. Russi et al, 2016; Mangos and Claudot, 2013).   

The sub-objectives were to identify evidence and critically analyse studies that:  

  Have undertaken a full cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for MPAs and SPMs. 

  Examine how MPAs and SPMs are, or can be, sustainably used. 

  Assess overlaps, conflicts or mutual reinforcement between blue economy sectors 

which are linked to MPAs and SPMs. 

  Address conflict resolution, engagement with stakeholders and governance. 

  Collate and synthesise research and known case studies about 'de facto’ refuges. 

1.3  Study scope 

1.3.1  Economic benefits 

The focus of this study was on economic benefits that occur through the real economy 
(i.e. benefits with a market value) indicated by changes in, for example, economic 
output, revenue, profits and employment in blue economy sectors. Broader local 

3 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

economy and community benefits associated with such economic benefits are relevant, 
but were of secondary importance. Other types of benefit supported by MPAs, such as 
non-market use values4, indirect use values5 and non-use values6 were not the main 
focus and are only briefly referred to (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1.  The scope of total economic value covered by the study  

Ecosystem services are recognised as a broader narrative and context to the study, but 
are included only where they result in benefits in the real economy as market values. 
Further, ecosystem services are recognised as just one of the routes through which MPAs 
may provide real economy market benefits.  

In this way the study seeks to provide greater insights into market values, and 
complement other evidence reviews that have focussed on a broad range of economic 
values and ecosystem services (e.g. Russi et al, 2016; OECD, 2017); as well as earlier 
research that focussed more on terrestrial protected areas than MPAs (e.g. ten Brink et 
al, 2010). It also complements broader studies and initiatives on delivering effective 
MPAs, MPA networks and conservation objectives (e.g. those promoted by the European 
Commission7, Regional Sea Conventions and organisations such as MedPAN).  

The study is primarily focussed on gross benefits. Less attention is given to the extent to 
which these may translate into net benefits once costs are taken into account. This is 
partly due to the lack of existing CBAs for MPAs. In this sense, overall, the report is 
seeking to explore the types of economic benefits that can occur and how they occur; 
rather than to judge whether MPAs are providing net economic benefits. However, the 
limited evidence base on MPA CBAs was considered and the study case studies gave 
consideration to the net effects.  

1.3.2  Types of protected areas 

While the study title emphasises a focus on MPAs, the scope was broader than the 
standard definition, including also spatial protection measures that are not principally 
designated for conservation purposes, but from which conservation and environmental 

4 E.g. the welfare benefits of recreating in MPAs 
5 E.g. the value of carbon sequestration regulating services delivered by seagrass beds 
6 Values attached to MPA ecosystems, features and habitats even if they do not currently or intend to use them  
7 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

protection benefits can emerge. The definitions used in this study8 are summarised in 
Figure 2 (see Technical Annexes A or B for further details). 

Figure 2.  Types of protected area included within the study scope 

1.3.3  Geography 

The study includes evidence relevant to the marine waters of the European Union and, to 
a lesser extent, its Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories 
(OCT). 

1.4  Methodology 

The study consisted of three main research tasks and a final triangulation and reporting 
task (Figure 3). This mixed-methods approach gathered evidence from a broad range of 
sources, incrementally building and evaluating the evidence base. This subsection 
provides a summary of the study’s methodology. Further details can be found in the 
three Supporting Technical Annexes.  

Figure 3.  Study methodology 

T1-3: Literature 
review 

T4: Stakeholder 
consultation 

T5: Case studies 

•Identify &  
analyse 
existing 
evidence 

•Build and 

elaborate the 
evidence base 

•Evaluate and 
contextualise 
emerging 
findings 

T6: Reporting 
and peer review 

•Triangulate 

evidence and 
conclude 

8 Adapted from European Commission (2015b) 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

1.4.1  Tasks 1 to 3 - Literature review 

Tasks 1 to 3 established the existing state of knowledge across the study objectives. The 
review purposely focussed on high quality, robust, ex-post economic evidence 
relevant to the geographical scope of the study. Evidence which only infers economic 
benefits from environmental evidence was not included (or attached a lower priority). A 
review protocol was established, including an evidence hierarchy (Table 1). 

Table 1.  Evidence hierarchy 

Evidence type 

Quality score and prioritisation 

Evidence linking blue economy benefits to 
MPAs and SPMs in a scientifically rigorous 
way (“this actually happened”) 

Evidence-based scientific reasoning (ex-
ante or ex-post) (“this has been observed, 
therefore it can be deduced that also…”) 

Hypothesised studies without direct 
evidence base (“theoretically, it is expected 
that…”) 

High quality evidence: main priority 

Medium quality: acceptable in absence of 
stronger evidence 

Low quality: to be avoided 

Literature was identified through keyword searches of scientific journal databases and 
grey literature (through internet searches), as well as via targeted gathering through 
study team networks and regional sea experts. Literature that satisfied the review 
protocol was systematically logged in an Excel spreadsheet - the final database resulted 
in 115 entries. A separate log of rejected studies contained 507 entries. A critical analysis 
of the literature was conducted using primarily descriptive narrative. A gap analysis 
sought to identify topical gaps, gaps in sector coverage and gaps in geographical 
coverage. The draft results of the literature review were submitted in June 2017. 
Additional literature identified during the course of the Task 4 consultations was 
subsequently incorporated into the finalised literature review.  

1.4.2  Task 4 – Stakeholder consultation 

Building upon the outputs of Tasks 1-3, Task 4 consulted with stakeholders, principally 
across the EU, to identify additional evidence and opinions relevant to the study 
objectives. The consultations provided a wider range of evidence, collecting informed 
views and opinions as well as practical examples. 

A stakeholder inventory was created to provide an extensive contact base and a resource 
for consultation communications. It also informed the sampling approach for targeting 
the consultation tools, supporting efforts to ensure representation across sectors, 
organisation types and geographies.  

The task deployed three research tools between April and July 2017 (see Table 2): 

  Online survey: 186 usable responses from 21 EU countries. 

  In-depth interviews: 62 participants from 11 EU countries. 

  Workshops: over 60 participants at two study workshops9 and through informal 

engagement at an external conference10.  

9 One workshop was conducted as a session of European Maritime Day Poole 2017, 18-19 May 2017, Poole, UK 
10 Informal interviews and discussions on the side of the ‘MSP for Blue Growth Conference  - How to plan for a 
Sustainable Blue Economy?’ 11-12 October 2017, Brussels, Belgium. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Table 2.  Task 4 consultation tools by target stakeholder group 

Target audience 

Online survey  In-depth 

Workshops 

MPA management stakeholders   

Blue economy stakeholders 

Institutional stakeholders 

 

 

1.4.3  Task 5: Case studies 

interviews 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten case studies were undertaken to evaluate issues identified in Tasks 1-4 in real world 
situations. Cases study options were identified from tasks 1 to 4, stakeholder 
recommendations and further research. The final ten were then agreed with the 
Commission. These are listed below, and the location of those in Europe shown in Figure 
4: 

  Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Spain) 

  Wadden Sea (multiple designations) (Netherlands) 

  Iroise Marine National Park (France) 

  Os Miñarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest (Spain 

  Parque Nacional Marítimo - Terrestre del Archipiélago de Cabrera (Spain) 

  Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy) 

  Egadi Islands MPA (Italy) 

  Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (Slovenia) 

  Artificial reef programme (Cyprus) 

  Bonaire Marine Park (Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean) 

The case studies were undertaken in two stages: 

  Preparatory research drawing on a review of locally relevant literature and a 

scoping interview with the MPA/SPM manager (or other responsible body) to refine 
case study research questions.  

  Field missions to undertake further stakeholder interviews and data collection 

(between September and November 2017) and preparation of a case study report.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Figure 4.  Location of the study’s nine European case studies 

1.4.3.1  Task 6: Reporting and critical review 

The final report takes a holistic view of the evidence generated to provide conclusions 
with regard to the study objectives. The draft report was subjected to a critical 
stakeholder review at a workshop on 8th February 2018 (see Annex 2 for workshop note), 
and the final report revised to take account of the review outcomes. Draft study findings 
were also presented and subject to questions at a number of conferences11. 

11 Hattam, C. 2017. Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs. Marine Protected Areas and recreational fisheries - 
sustainable management and benefits, 9 October 2017, Brussels, Belgium.  
Russi, D. 2017. Socio-economic benefits of MPAs: the success story of Torre Guaceto (southern Italy). Workshop 
on Marine Protected Areas and Management Plants. 4-5 December 2017. Ílhavo, Portugal.   
Haines, R. 2018. Blue economy benefits of MPAs and other spatial protection measures. Coastal Futures 2018, 
17-18 January 2018, London, UK. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

2 

A framework for analysing economic benefits 

A conceptual framework of how MPAs provide blue economy benefits was used to guide 
the research and refined as the study progressed (Figure 5). It recognises that there are 
a number of site specific characteristics that may influence the likelihood of benefits 
occurring, and that there are multiple mechanisms, or pathways, through which benefits 
are derived. It also recognises that effective governance and management (including 
enforcement) plays a critical role in defining site characteristics and enabling the flow of 
benefits from benefit mechanisms.  

Figure 5.  Conceptual framework of MPA economic benefit pathways 

Source: Own representation 

2.1.1.1  MPA type 

The extent to which different mechanisms are likely to generate economic benefits is 
dependent upon a number of MPA-specific characteristics. Study evidence identified the 
following as important: 

  MPA characteristics: including the ecology of a site, type of designation, size of the 
MPA, location (e.g. inshore vs. offshore) and MPA objectives and management 
(e.g. no-take vs multiple-use). 

  Economic viability: the suitability of a site for different sectoral activities, which 
varies depending on a number of sector-specific factors such as water quality or 
market access. 

  Time since designation: there is a time lag between the designation of an MPA and 
the receipt of economic benefits. The extent of this time lag varies depending on 
the above factors as well as the type of benefit mechanism(s). 

2.1.1.2  Benefit mechanisms 

Existing evidence on the economic benefits of MPAs, as demonstrated by this study’s 
literature review, focuses primarily on how changes in the quality of the marine 
environment can support flows of ecosystem services for fisheries and tourism. The 
consultations and case studies, however, identified additional mechanisms and sub-
mechanisms through which MPAs can support the creation of benefits, including for other 
sectors of the economy beyond fisheries and tourism.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

It is important to recognise that individual mechanisms do not work in isolation and 
multiple mechanisms may be in operation in any given MPA. In many cases it is unclear 
which mechanism, or combination of mechanisms, produces economic benefits in a 
specific area. For example, it is difficult to distinguish whether the increase in visitors to 
an MPA is due to actual ecosystem improvements or to a change in reputation following 
designation.  

While some mechanisms may occur as a consequence of sound MPA management (i.e. 
changes in biodiversity and the wider environment), others require additional 
intervention by some or all stakeholders (e.g. the creation of a successful MPA brand or 
label). Understanding the mechanisms through which sectors benefit is therefore an 
essential element of improving MPA management and policy to support the realisation of 
potential benefits.  

2.1.1.3  Beneficial outcomes 

Economic impact analysis typically classifies impacts into direct, indirect and induced, 
which combined are considered to be the total economic impact of an activity and may 
include both costs and benefits. This study focused mainly on beneficial impacts, and 
given the limited evidence available, examined principally direct benefits and to a lesser 
extent indirect benefits. More limited consideration was given to costs compared to 
benefits. 

Direct benefits include positive changes at the individual businesses level resulting in 
increased income, revenues and employment. For example, increased visitor numbers at 
an MPA may directly lead to increased revenues to tourism businesses and a growth in 
their number of employees. Indirect benefits result from changes in the interactions 
between businesses with a supply chain. For example, as a recreational dive business 
expands as a result of increased diver numbers, the dive business may purchase another 
boat, more dive equipment and other goods and services from other businesses.  

2.1.1.4  The role of governance 

MPA governance, combined with effective management, can play an important role in 
bringing about behaviour change (both positive and negative), ensuring the sustainable 
use of MPAs, fostering the realisation of synergies and addressing stakeholder conflicts, 
all of which help to realise the potential economic benefits that MPAs offer. Measures 
used in this regard were examined and classified drawing on the incentive mechanism 
typology proposed by Jones et al (2011): 

  Economic mechanisms: using economic approaches to promote the fulfilment of 

MPA objectives (e.g. branding and labelling schemes). 

  Knowledge and interpretative mechanisms: drawing on all form of knowledge and 

educating and raising awareness of MPA stakeholders. 

  Legal mechanisms: establishment and enforcement of relevant laws and 

regulations to encourage the achievement of MPA objectives. 

  Participative mechanisms: providing for different stakeholders and interest groups 
to participate in and influence MPA decision-making to encourage ownership of the 
MPA and cooperation in the implementation of decisions and management. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

3 

Economic Benefits by Sector 

3.1  Economic benefits for commercial fishing  

The EU fishing industry has been in long-term decline, but has seen improvements in 
recent years. Through the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU introduced 
mechanisms to reduce overcapacity, protect the reproductive capacity of fish stocks, 
make fishing more selective and reduce the amount of by-catch and reduce the impact of 
fishing on the wider ecosystem. Total catch fell over the mid-1990s to mid-2000s. Since 
2008, total fleet capacity has continued to fall but the economic performance of the 
sector has improved. Overall, profitability has increased, and the number of fish stocks 
being fished at rates consistent with the objective of achieving MSY has increased 
(European Commission, 2017).  

Evidence indicates that MPAs and SPMs can, under certain conditions, benefit parts of the 
commercial fishing sector by helping to lower production costs, improve fish stock status 
and provide opportunities to increase incomes. As a result, MPAs and SPMs can lead to 
direct benefits such as increases in revenue and jobs, and/or improvements in 
profitability (either via cost efficiencies or unit value improvements). There are also 
broader indirect benefits such as supporting fishing-based (or fishing-dominant) 
livelihoods and maintaining local area economies under pressure from broader sectoral 
decline. 

These benefits, however, do not occur in all cases and are not common across all types 
of MPA and SPM or across all forms of fishing. Artisanal and static gear fishers appear to 
benefit most as mobile gear fishers, notably trawlers (including those within small-scale, 
inshore fleets), are often excluded from MPAs. Exclusion may result in costs for the 
displacement fishing vessels i.e. there are winners and losers within the sector.  

The economic literature is focussed principally on illustrating how MPAs can enhance the 
flow of ‘ecosystem services’ that the sector relies on, providing benefit by enhancing the 
fishery resource and thereby improving fishing performance. The economic benefits of 
maintaining these ecosystem services against a baseline of further degradation is less 
well reflected in the empirical literature – but may arguably generate at least the same 
economic benefit.  This is clearly an important mechanism, and one which has the 
potential to support a long term improvement in sector performance. However, a number 
of other MPA-related mechanisms can also support improvements in sector performance, 
over both the short and long term (e.g. opportunities for branding or changes in 
competition). There is less systematic evidence supporting the occurrence of such 
mechanisms – either in the literature or through stakeholder knowledge. In many cases, 
capitalising on these other mechanisms requires both investment and entrepreneurial 
activity – both issues where there can be an important supporting role for MPA 
management bodies. 

Figure 6 summarises the economic benefit pathways for the fisheries sector. The 
remainder of this subsection discusses the key benefit mechanisms. 

10 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.  Fisheries sector economic benefit pathways 

Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Source: Own representation 

July, 2018 

11 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

3.1.1  Ecosystem service improvements from changes in biodiversity and the 

wider environment 

The most commonly cited benefit mechanism of MPAs and SPMs (including de facto 
refuges) – in the economic literature and in the view of online survey respondents – is 
that they can enhance commercially targeted fish stocks either in or outside their 
boundaries and thereby contribute to higher and/or better quality catches and/or reduced 
fishing effort-related costs, which can increase revenue and profitability.  

Fundamentally, this depends on whether the MPA or SPM has an adequate influence on 
fishing pressure and fish habitats to allow for stock recovery, or maintenance. There are 
a number of factors that determine the likelihood that MPAs will deliver improvements in 
fish stocks (see Box 1) 

Box 1. 

Key factors that determine the effects of MPAs (and SPMs) 

The effects of MPAs on species of commercial interest depend on a number of factors. 
The FAO (2011) list the following as key factors determining the protective effects of 
MPAs on fishery resources: 

  The location of an MPA determines what it protects, and the location of MPAs 
relative to each other (their connectivity) influences their networking benefits; 

  The size of an MPA, the number of MPAs in a network and the total size of the 
network determine their effect. The larger the total area protected, the greater 
protective benefit (all else equal). However, the relative effect of a single MPA 
compared to a network covering the same total area is less obvious. 

  The nature of protection measures inside the MPA. No-take zones provide greater 
conservation benefits than multi-use areas, but from a fisheries point of view, the 
role of no-take depends on, for instance, to what extent fishermen can capitalise on 
spillover effects. 

  The movement of organisms in and out of the site, with less movement of a 

species or population out of the site, for example by low-mobility invertebrate or 
sedentary species, leading to greater protection benefits. 

  The activities outside the MPA – if surrounding habitats and water quality are 

degraded, the effectiveness of the MPA may be undermined. Similarly, the greater 
the fishing pressure on stocks outside the MPA, the larger the share of the targeted 
stock protected inside the MPA must be to sustain the resources being fished. 

The objective of an MPA or SPM is an important determinant of whether the 
factors listed in Box 1 will be adequately addressed. While fisheries SPMs are 
usually stock-specific – commonly used to target improvements in the stocks of 
commercially important species – per definition, MPAs are a spatial tool that focuses on 
delivering wider conservation objectives and foremost protect benthic ecosystems located 
within their boundaries. Most MPAs in Europe (e.g. the network of marine Natura 2000 
sites which constitutes 70% of EU MPAs) only provide legal protection for the species 
and/or habitats for which the respective site has been designated (e.g. as listed in the 
Annexes of the EU Habitats Directive). Protection of other species, including those 
targeted by commercial fisheries, is mainly indirect. 

A small number of MPAs and SPMs across Europe are designed specifically to enhance 
commercial fish and shellfish species for the benefit of fishermen. As can be anticipated, 
out of the ten case studies completed for this study, the two providing the clearest and 
most significant benefits to the commercial fishing sector had fishing sector benefits as 
primary objectives (see Box 2). However there is also evidence of benefits occurring, 
under certain conditions, as a result of management imposed in MPAs purely for 
conservation purposes.   

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 2. 

The effects of MPAs may be enhanced when designed expressly for 
commercial fishing sector benefit – case studies of Torre Guaceto 
and Os Miñarzos 

In Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy) and Os Miñarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest 
(Spain) the MPAs were demonstrated to have supported stock improvements for a 
number of species and resulted in fishermen benefitting economically, mainly through 
increased catch per unit effort (CPUE). This led to catches increasing by well over 100% 
for some species. In some instances fishermen also benefited as the individual 
specimens being landed were larger than before the MPA, and hence fetch a higher 
price in markets. In Torre Guaceto it has been calculated that the average income of a 
fishing day with a 1000 trammel net is around €140/day inside the MPA compared to 
€70/day nearby outside the MPA. 

A majority of the economic evidence focuses on relatively low mobility species and static 
gear / artisanal fishing. There is little evidence for more mobile species and 
dispersed fisheries, and industrial and mobile gear fishing. Some study workshop 
consultees suggested that individual MPAs are often too small and unconnected to have 
any meaningful effect on more mobile species (in part as they are not designed with 
commercial species benefits in mind).  

Whilst there are a number of large fishery SPMs that have been established to enhance 
mobile species for commercial gain, there is a lack of economic evidence of their impacts. 
Anecdotal evidence from stakeholder consultations indicates that they can be effective in 
some cases - fisheries SPMs in the Barents Sea are reported to have helped cod stock 
recovery and contributed to recent increases in quotas (and hence economic 
performance). Demonstrating effectiveness can be hampered in larger or more complex 
fisheries when multiple fisheries management measures (not just spatial measures) are 
used to target stock recovery (see Box 3). Such attribution challenges may in part 
explain the gap in the economic literature. 

Box 3. 

Challenges in attributing benefits to MPAs and SPMs – the case of 
North Sea cod 

Scottish and English cod boats operating in the North Sea have recently (July 2017) 
received MSC certification, recognising both the improvement in cod stocks and the 
efforts undertaken to ensure the stocks’ sustainable management through the cod 
recovery plan, introduced in 2004. The cod recovery plan has included a range of spatial 
measures: real time closures to protect cod aggregations, “amber” areas where stocks 
may be abundant but that fishers can voluntarily avoid in exchange for additional days 
at sea, and permanent and seasonal area closures. Other measures including the 
trialling of new nets and remote electronic monitoring using on board CCTV have also 
been introduced. However evaluation have not been able to attributing impacts to the 
SPMs has not to-date been feasible, and hence the contribution of the different 
measures (including SPMs) remains unclear.  

In the economic literature, the most studied “sub-mechanism” is spillover of 
juvenile and adult fish from no-take MPAs (or zones). There are few empirical 
studies12. The evidence available indicates that fishermen who target relatively low-
mobility species (with lobsters the most studied species) may be most likely to benefit 
(e.g. see Box 4), although evidence that these constitute a net economic benefit is 
limited. Whilst some consulted stakeholders13 argued that more mobile species may also 
benefit if MPAs are large enough or protect key life cycle stages, there is still little 
evidence of this in practice. However, across the EU, only a fraction of MPAs (or zones of 

12 The literature review identified six empirical ex-post evaluations of the economic impacts of no-take zones 
13 Via study interviews and workshops 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

MPAs) are closed to all fishing14. Torre Guaceto MPA demonstrated a novel approach to 
boosting multiple-use MPA fishing benefits through a time-limited no-take management 
measure (see Box 5). 

Box 4. 

Economic benefits from the spillover of lobster, Columbretes Islands 
Marine Reserve (Spain) 

  A number of studies identified in the literature review illustrate economic benefits to 
lobster fisheries around the Columbretes Islands marine reserve in Spain. Goñi, 
Quetglas and Reñones (2006) compare catch and effort data of surrounding 
fisheries with experimental CPUE data from inside the site, and show that lobster 
export is sufficient to maintain stable catch rates up to 1,500 m away from the 
reserve boundaries. Three years later, Stobart et al. (2009) confirmed spillover at 
the site, this time looking at the entire exploited assemblage of species which are 
caught and marketed by trammel net fishing in the area (the most commonly used 
gear type in the area). They studied catch trends (by species and length of 
individual specimen) of commercial fishing in gradients from the MPA border (up to 
0.5 km from the boundary) over an 8-year period post protection, and found clear 
evidence of spillover of fish from the site. Goñi et al (2010) claimed to be the first 
to illustrate net benefits to surrounding fisheries from spillover from the 
Columbretes no-take zone (i.e. benefits from the site are higher than the costs 
incurred by displacement). The net benefit to the fishery resulted in a 10% increase 
in mean annual yield (in weight) of spiny lobster. The findings were based on tag-
recapture data using the same fishing gear as the local fleet (wide mesh trammel 
nets of standard length).  

Box 5. 

Time-limited no take management in Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy) 

Case study evidence demonstrates how a time-limited no take closure was used to 
rapidly boost fish biomass in the MPA before it was re-opened to a managed level of 
sustainable fishing with trammel nets. Immediately after the four-year closure in Torre 
Guaceto, the CPUE in the MPA was more than four times that outside. After the fishing 
activities had resumed this decreased, but stabilised at around twice the CPUE of 
outside the MPA. Whilst there is a short term cost, this approach was credited with 
both bringing forward and enhancing the targeted economic benefits. The expectation 
and rapid realisation of this increase in the trammel net CPUE was also key in gaining 
the support of initially sceptical fishermen.   

In multiple-use MPAs, fishermen’s ability to realise the benefits of on-site stock 
enhancements may be determined by MPA management gear restrictions. On-
site benefits may be realised only by those vessels permitted to fish within the MPA. 
These are typically the artisanal, small scale fishing sector as those with the most 
significant seabed impact (e.g. mobile benthic gears or larger vessels) are commonly 
restricted. Case study evidence from Os Miñarzos (Spain) demonstrates such economic 
benefits. However, the literature review indicated that there is very limited evidence on 
the economic benefits occurring in multiple use MPAs. Where there is evidence, it is not 
always clear whether economic benefits stem from an underlying improvement in fish 
stocks, or simply an ability to exert more fishing pressure in a less crowded area (i.e. an 
opportunity for expanded activity and reduced competition), as occurred initially in Lyme 
Bay MPA (UK) for example (see Box 8). What is clear is that there is a distributional 
effect in terms of winners and losers based on the allocation of access rights. 

14  In  the  Mediterranean,  the  inclusion  of  no-take  zones  as  integral  parts  of  multiple-use  MPAs  is  relatively 
common; however, these zones are often very small. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Capture of the benefits of stock enhancements may be determined by proximity. 
In some cases this may be deliberately built into MPA management. For example, in 
Italy, MPA law states that MPAs may only be used by local fishermen. In MPAs such as 
Torre Guaceto and Punto Campanella, successful stock recovery has been supported by 
the allocation of permits to fishers from the surrounding municipalities, restricting the 
number of users, and determining the vessel size and gear types in use. Such 
approaches help to provide a clear allocation of resource rights to local fishermen, and 
especially in circumstances where co-management arrangements exist, appear central to 
the ability to both implement and attain compliance with the sustainable use measures 
necessary to achieve fishery related economic benefits. Whilst proximity-based 
management can enhance MPA effectiveness, it also accentuates distributional effects 
across different geographic fleet segments. In other MPAs, access constraints are a 
simple artefact of the MPA and fishing port locations – for example, the case study of 
Cabrera MPA (Spain) indicates that the translation of fish stock enhancement into 
economic benefits was relatively limited because the MPA was too far from fishing ports 
to be a regular fishing ground.  

3.1.2  Product branding 

Product branding is perceived to be an important potential mechanism – the online 
survey results indicate that stakeholders identify product branding as the third most 
important mechanism after changes in biodiversity and wider environmental change. 
There are a small number of examples where economic benefits have occurred15 from 
product branding, although it appears to have been relatively little studied and 
potentially underutilised.  

Two distinct forms of product branding were identified:  

  Eco-certification of fisheries e.g. through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), 
where MPAs can help to demonstrate satisfaction of certain assessment criteria. 

  Labels and brands developed around individual MPAs, often linking (typically 

artisanal) fishers with local restaurants through direct marketing schemes; and  

Box 6. 

Example of eco-certification 

MSC certification is an outcome-based standard, hence there is no requirement for 
MPAs as a management tool. However, fisheries seeking certification need to be able to 
demonstrate their sustainable management against a number of criteria. With regard to 
the MSC criterion of ‘habitat impact’, in many cases fisheries managers may opt to 
close marine areas to fishing to demonstrate achievement. Such areas may end up 
being designated as MPAs as a result, or may already be MPAs (e.g. see the cod fishery 
in the Barents Sea). With the introduction of the new MSC 2.0 standards (first 
introduced in 2014, but with all fisheries transitioning to them by October 2017) it was 
suggested that the wording is so tight that MPAs will be looked at as a measure to help 
satisfy these threshold criteria. Hence the use of MPAs to support MSC certification 
applications may become more widespread in the future. 

15 However product branding is not typically associated with de facto refuges.   

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 7. 

Example of reserve label and brands 

In Lyme Bay (UK), fishers, supported by the Blue Marine Foundation, have set up a 
‘reserve seafood’ label. Through development of and participation with the 
management committee, adherence to codes of conduct encouraging sustainable 
practices and better post-harvest handling of the fish catch, fishers (static gear and 
scallop divers) are able to use the ‘reserve seafood’ label. Fish are now sold to a 
particular fish processor which offers a price premium of between 30 and 50% 
depending on species and season. 

MPAs can provide a clear opportunity to make claims of a ‘higher value product’, e.g. 
linked to the wider branding/ story-telling of the MPA (e.g. in Lyme Bay MPA (UK), Iroise 
MPA (France) and Gökova MPA (Turkey)), as well as act as a focal point for the clustering 
of the resources necessary for such initiatives. Case studies indicate that an external 
body (e.g. MPA management body or other organisation or individual(s) associated with 
the MPA), rather than fishermen themselves, often establish such initiatives. Such an 
external driver appears to be a critical factor in their success. This is thought to 
emphasise that benefits delivered through this mechanism require additional action 
beyond the sound management of an MPA. 

There can remain societal challenges to the establishment of such initiatives. In the 
Cabrera MPA (Spain) case study some stakeholders were found to oppose the 
establishment of an MPA label due to problems with traceability of fish (i.e. whether they 
are caught inside the MPA) and equity (it is unfair for fishermen not permitted to fish in 
the MPA). The former has clear links with the need for effective MPA enforcement and 
monitoring, whilst the latter raises questions more broadly about the equity of the spatial 
distribution of MPAs.  

3.1.3   Reduced competition 

Reduced competition can allow for an expansion of permitted fishing activities, increasing 
sector revenues for those fishermen permitted to fish in the MPA, and reduce fishing 
costs by reducing issues of gear conflict16. The online survey indicated this to be one of 
the least likely mechanisms for economic benefits, but there are examples17 where 
expansion due to reduced competition is identified as a mechanism providing economic 
benefits to some segments of the fisheries sector, regardless of any improvement in the 
underling state of the target species stock (as discussed in Section 3.1.1). More 
commonly reduced competition allows for stock recovery and benefits via improved fish 
stocks (as previously discussed). 

For example, in the Gulf of Castellammare fishery exclusive zone (Italy), artisanal 
fishermen (using trammel nets and set gillnets) experienced less competition for targeted 
species inside the MPA which resulted in improved catches and revenue. In Lyme Bay 
(UK) (see Box 8), static gear fishermen (using pots and set nets) were able to increase 
the volume of gear used (and hence landings and revenue) due to reduced competition 
for space. In both cases benefits were also felt through reduced gear conflict, which 
reduced fishing costs18. What is unclear is the extent to which such expansions of 
permitted fishing activities may affect the attainment of MPA conservation objectives. In 
Lyme Bay there was concern that the expansion in the use of static gear was detrimental 
to fish and shellfish stocks, which in part contributed to the development of a voluntary 
code of fisheries conduct. In addition, the displacement of fishing can result in increased 

16 Where fishing gear is damaged by other fishermen  – typically static gear such as pots and nets being ‘towed 
away’ by trawling vessels. 
17 In the economic literature or identified via study consultation exercises 
18 See Technical Annex A for details on the two studies associated with these examples: Whitmarsh et al, 2002; 
Mangi et al, 2012 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

competition outside of the MPA, with negative economic and environmental 
consequences. 

Box 8. 

 Benefits from reduced competition for space in Lyme Bay MPA (UK) 

In Lyme Bay (UK) mobile gear has been prohibited since 2008. A study by Mangi, 
Rodwell and Hattam (2011) shows that as a result of that, static gear fishermen inside 
the site boundaries had been able to increase their fishing effort as a result of reduced 
competition for space. In 2012, Mangi et al published another paper based on 
stakeholder surveys from Lyme Bay supported by secondary commercial fisheries data 
such as wet weight value of landings, showing that the static gear fishermen inside the 
restricted zone had experienced increased incomes as a result of the new dynamics. 
Towed gear fishermen who were displaced to surrounding areas had, on the contrary, 
experienced increased costs by having to fish elsewhere since the site was established, 
and there were also were concerns from the recreational fishing sector about increased 
competition from the increase in static gear use inside the MPA (see also Rees et al, 
2013, and Mangi et al, 2012). 

3.1.4   Opportunities for new or improved activity 

A number of different types of opportunity can be facilitated by MPAs:  

3.1.4.1  Lower impact fisheries 

MPAs can act as a catalyst to encourage the development of new or modified fishing 
practices that have lower impacts on certain MPA features. Fishermen can capitalise on 
other MPA benefit mechanisms by developing or adopting such practices, which allows 
them to fish within the MPA. Case study examples indicate that such transition can be 
inhibited by short-term costs, but can be encouraged through the provision of financial 
and educational support (e.g. see case study on Torre Guaceto, Italy).  

3.1.4.2  Alternative sources of income 

MPAs can offer opportunities for fishermen to diversify their income sources. There are a 
number of examples of diversification into fisheries-related tourism or second jobs within 
tourism (e.g. pescatourism in Os Miñarzos, Spain and Egadi Islands MPA, Italy case 
studies). The Egadi case study demonstrates that the value of pescatourism can be 
sufficient for many fishermen to concentrate solely on that activity during the summer 
tourism season instead of fishing. There is in general however a lack of evidence on the 
economic value of such diversification. There can be significant barriers to entry for 
pescatourism, in terms of whether national legislation permits the use of registered 
fishing vessels (particularly small vessels) for tourism activities, and the capital costs of 
investing in vessel modifications to enable the practical and safe carriage of tourists, as 
well as skills appropriate for the service sector. As a result, it is suggested that 
pescatourism may often be delivered by tourism operators, with only a limited role for 
fishermen. Other opportunities exist for fishermen to support MPA ecological monitoring 
activities as well as infrastructure construction linked to future de facto refuges19; 
however, such opportunities may be infrequent and relatively insignificant sources of 
income.  

19  E.g.  see  News  Letter  (2014).  Offshore  wind  farms  blow  new  energy  into  Kilkeel  fishing  fleet’s  sails. 
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/business/offshore-wind-farms-blow-new-energy-into-kilkeel-fishing-fleet-s-sails-
1-5806543 (accessed 21/05/15). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 9. 

Improved shore-side infrastructure:  

MPAs have been used to attract funding to improve facilities (e.g. post-harvest 
handling of fish) and allow fishers to enhance the quality of their product. For 
example, working with fishers operating inside Lyme Bay MPA (UK), the Blue Marine 
Foundation gained funding from the European Fisheries Fund to install chiller units and 
ice boxes in local harbours and train fishers in how to better handle their catch. 

3.2  Benefits for the tourism sector 

3.2.1  Introduction 

The marine and coastal tourism sector is well established in Europe and is the largest of 
the maritime sectors with solid growth of 2-3% forecast for the coming years - it 
generates €183 billion in gross value added, representing over one third of the maritime 
economy, and employs over 3.2 million people (Ecorys, 2013). However, the sector faces 
a number of challenges in unlocking further growth and better supporting coastal 
economies. These include, amongst others, a lack of innovation and diversification, 
limited visibility against worldwide competition, poor access to finance, demand volatility 
and seasonality, and growing environmental pressures (Ecorys, 2013). Evidence indicates 
that MPAs, and to a lesser extent SPMs, can play a role in helping to address a number of 
these challenges. 

Literature and consultation evidence indicate that economic benefits result from 
increasing visitor numbers and changes in visitor behaviour, leading to higher revenues, 
increased jobs and additional livelihood opportunities. Specifically, MPAs can directly and 
indirectly influence the quantity and quality of tourism including: 

  Increased visitor numbers and hence business opportunities and revenue. 

  Increased length of visitor stay, and hence the ability to capture increased tourism 

expenditure. 

  Extension to the season / increased activity outside of the peak season, which 
helps to combat the perennial problem of seasonality in tourism (particularly 
coastal tourism) dependent economies. 

  Eco-tourism and other forms of specialised tourism can allow for a shift towards 

higher value tourism – both higher spend per visitor, but also greater benefits per 
spend resulting from a higher local retention of revenues.  

The evidence also indicates the potential for improvements in the recreation and tourism 
offer, and overall sector performance, to spill over into the wider economy and 
community. This includes the wider coastal tourism sector such as hotels and restaurants 
as well as non-tourism aspects such as increased local real estate values and improved 
community infrastructure and vibrancy (e.g. Leigh Reserve, New Zealand).  

Box 10.  Tourism income and job creation in Southern Mediterranean MPAs 

Roncin et al (2008) summarise the EMPAFISH project (www.um.es/empafish) results, 
which explored the impact of Southern European MPAs on local economies via surveys 
with fishermen and divers (1,836 questionnaires) and empirical evidence. Roncin et al 
calculate that the mean local added value due to the expenditures of non-resident 
recreational fishers and scuba divers is respectively €88,319/yr. and €551,481/yr. per 
MPA. According to the authors, the yearly local income related to services to non-
resident recreational user is €640,000/yr. per MPA. This results in a mean generation 
of jobs related to local expenditures of non-resident recreational fishers and scuba 
divers of respectively 2.1 and 13 yearly full time equivalent. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Such economic benefits may be enhanced where policies or particular activities 
are implemented that increase the share of income retained in local economies 
(often a key feature of ecotourism models). Financial support to and training of local 
business can support supply-side investment and information campaigns in favour of 
local touristic products and supply chains.  

The impact of the designation of a MPA on tourism can depend on a range of 
factors, including for example the age of the MPA, the socioeconomic and cultural 
context, the number and quality of communication activities carried out and also the 
established reputation of a specific area. For example, if the area is already well known 
and popular, the designation effect may be less significant. 

Most studies analysing the perceptions of stakeholders’ show that they believe 
MPAs provide benefits to the tourism sector; however, this view is not always 
universally held. This may indicate that some segments of the industry (particularly 
where the activity may be restricted in some MPAs e.g. recreational fishing in German 
Natura 2000 sites) and of society may not always benefit. Where benefits do occur, the 
significance of impact varies considerably across MPAs. In Bonaire, the economic impact 
is clearly considerable. The MPA has been a critical factor supporting the development of 
the tourism sector, which has been the main engine of economic growth on the island for 
the last thirty years. However, in Cyprus, the impacts of an MPA Artificial Reef 
programme on tourism activities have been modest and have not occurred for all of the 
artificial reefs installed. 

The impact of the designation of a MPA may take time, although positive impacts 
can start to occur relatively quickly. For example, the Lyme Bay MPA (UK) had limited 
effect on visitor demand in its first year but a significant effect quickly emerged in its 
second and third years (see Box 11). 

Box 11.  Increase in tourism sector income in Lyme Bay MPA (UK) 

The impact of the designation of the Lyme Bay MPA increased over time. The divers, 
anglers and charter boat operators in the Lyme Bay MPA surveyed by Rees et al (2015) 
in the designation year reported that the MPA designation had only a small to moderate 
effect on their decision as to their destination in the Lyme Bay area. However, these 
results changed when annual surveys were carried in the two subsequent years, 
showing an increasing impact of the MPA on the choice of a location for recreational 
activities since designation (although other factors such as better weather in these 
years are also thought to have had an effect). 

Three years after the MPA designation, income generated inside the MPA had increased 
by £2.2 million. In particular, angler and diver expenditure had increased by £1.5 
million and £0.5 million respectively (due to an increase in visits of 19% and 35%), 
whereas the turnover of charter boat operators and dive business had increased by 
£108,427 and £39,864 respectively (due to an increase in their activities by 51% and 
201%).  

Tourism benefits primarily accrue from inshore/coastal MPAs, which may be 
expected given the access constraints for offshore sites, and from multiple-use MPAs 
(including MPAs with integral no-take zones). There is far less evidence that the tourism 
sector benefits from fisheries SPMs. The only identified example of benefits to the 
tourism sector brought about by a SPM is the Oz Miñarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing 
Interest, which was designed primarily to support the fisheries sector, but also delivers 
tourism benefits. 

There are also examples of de-facto refugees that provide economic benefits to 
the tourism sector. For example, dive tours at the Swan ship, the largest dive wreck in 
the Southern Hemisphere, is reported to have returned a pre-tax profit of $20,000 in its 
first year. There are examples of tourism visits to offshore wind farms (OWFs) like the 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

London Array (UK), with some building visitor centres to promote visits. A survey 
(Hooper et al, 2017) showed that in general, sea anglers in the UK have a positive 
perception of OWFs as an angling resource, due both to the potential artificial reef effect 
and the exclusion of commercial fishing. However, there is no robust literature on these 
economic effects.  

3.2.2  Benefit mechanisms 

There are number of different mechanisms through which MPAs can support the 
tourism sector. However, isolating the effect of each mechanism is difficult. Most 
literature does not explicitly identify the mechanism through which MPAs provide benefits 
to the sector, and in case study analyses it was commonly demonstrated for multiple 
mechanisms to be active in support of economic benefits (e.g. see Box 12). 

Box 12.  Benefits mechanisms supporting tourism activity in Bonaire National 

Marine Park 

The Bonaire National Marine Park case study demonstrates how it has played a major 
role in supporting the development of the island’s tourism industry, which is focussed 
on dive tourism. The park was established in 1979. Tourist arrivals have grown from 
just a few thousand in the 1970s to around 130,000 today. Tourism has been, and 
continues to be, the main engine of economic growth. Tourism expenditure was 
estimated to be USD160million in 2012, directly generating gross value added of 
USD60million, equivalent to 16.4% of Bonaire’s GDP. 

The marine park directly supports Bonaire’s status as a premium dive destination. The 
main mechanisms through which the park benefits the tourism sector are: 

  Maintenance of the quality of the reef and other intertidal habitats – many tourism 
activities (particularly dive tourism) directly rely on the quality of the reef. Bonaire 
benefits from a high proportion of repeat visitors – a survey indicates that just 10% 
of stay-over tourist respondents would return to Bonaire if coral reef quality 
declined significantly. 

  Enhancing the experience of diving and other water sports on Bonaire - the rules 
and regulations, education and communication, and visibility of effective marine 
park management is thought to enhance the experience for dive and other tourists 
(as well as support compliance with sustainable use measures and manage potential 
spatial conflicts) 

  Directly and indirectly supporting marketing and the differentiation of Bonaire from 
other tourism destinations - Both the quality of the reef and the marine park status 
are key marketing tools for Bonaire as a destination. Visibility of the management 
body within marketing activity is also seen as important by the tourism industry 

Figure 7 illustrates the benefit pathways for the tourism sector. The remainder of this 
subsection discussed tourism benefits, structured by key mechanism. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7.  Tourism economic benefit pathways 

Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Source: Own representation 

July, 2018 

21 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

3.2.3  Changes in biodiversity and wider environmental change 

For no-take reserves, multiple use MPAs, and fisheries SPMs, the respondents of the 
online survey considered changes in biodiversity and wider environmental change as the 
second and third most important mechanisms through which economic benefits emerge 
for the tourism sector. For de facto refuges, they considered them the first and second 
most important. This section discusses them as a single mechanism. 

The mechanism can make an area more appealing to visitors, helping to improve the 
visitor experience and attract more visitors or visitors that are willing to stay longer 
and/or spend more. Evidence indicates that this mechanism may be a more 
important driver of tourism demand for visitors undertaking activities which 
directly depend on the quality of biodiversity and the wider environment. For 
example, in-depth interview and workshop participants identified changes in terms of 
more and larger species within MPAs, and protection of spawning grounds, as enhancing 
the angling experience (where angling is permitted), with the potential for associated 
economic benefits (e.g. see Box 13).  

Box 13.  Benefits for angling from protection of spawning grounds in Kingmere 

MCZ (UK) 

Kingmere Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ), off the south coast of the UK, contains an 
important breeding ground for black bream. The MCZ aims to protect black bream 
breeding stocks and is managed on the basis of four zones, with management measures 
varying temporally. During the spawning season a no-take zone comes into force (zone 
1) in which no angling, dive fishing or commercial fishing is permitted. In zone 2, dive 
fishing is also prohibited, together with all commercial fishing. In zones 3 and 4 only 
trawling and netting are prohibited. Out of the spawning season, only trawling is 
prohibited in zones 1, 2 and 4, and a four bag limit is in place for anglers for black 
bream. This management only came into force in late 2016, but information collected 
from anglers so far during 2017, as well as anecdotal evidence, suggests it is having a 
positive impact for anglers with economic benefits to charter boat operators. 

Visitor surveys indicate that MPAs can have a strong influence on the destination 
choices of divers and anglers, but also on general visitors as well (see Box 14). 
However, the extent to which visitor destination decisions are based on a perception that 
the environmental quality (and hence activity) will be better in an MPA or demonstrable 
knowledge that it is better is often unclear. The latter is logically important where sites 
receive repeat visitors. A survey (Schep et al, 2012) of divers in Bonaire National Marine 
Park indicated that just 10% would return if reef quality deteriorated. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 14.  Influence of MPAs on visitor destination decisions 

The following evidence are drawn from surveys of visitors: 

 

 

 

In six out of eleven European MPAs, more than 50% of scuba divers stated that the 
MPA influenced their choice of dive site and in only two of these MPA did less than 
25% state this. (Roncin et al, 2008).  

In two out of five European MPAs between 25 and 50% of recreational fishermen 
stated that their choice of fishing site had been influenced by the existence of the 
MPA, and in three MPA less than 25% stated this. (Roncin et al, 2008).  

In Alonissos MPA (Greece), 7% of visitors stated that they chose Alonissos as a 
destination because of the MPA (Trivourea et al., 2011).  

  At Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo MPA (Italy), 36% of the visitors stated that the 

designation influenced their choice of North-Eastern of Sardinia as a holiday location 
(Pizzolante, 2009).  

 

In Cape Rodney Okakari Point Marine Reserve (New Zealand), 54% of the day 
visitors believe it unlikely they would have visited the area if it had not been a MPA 
(Hunt, 2008). 

In the case study research, it appears that MPAs often act to conserve rather than 
improve biodiversity and environmental quality – ensuring a continued level of 
quality against broader trends of degradation. Restoration of environmental quality as a 
mechanism for benefits appears most clearly in cases such as artificial reef de facto MPAs 
– although here the impact appears to be as much about the significance of the artificial 
reef (particular if using scuttled ships) as it is biodiversity and environmental change (see 
Cyprus Artificial Reef case study).  

There can be a trade-off between environmental protection and income 
generated by recreational activities. After a certain threshold, recreational activities 
result in environmental degradation, which can damage not only the environment but 
also the sector itself. Hence it is important that sustainable use measures which 
acknowledge the carrying capacity of the MPA are implemented. There are a number of 
examples where concerns regarding carrying capacities are raised and additional 
measures are often needed to address impacts (e.g. carrying capacity concerns for high 
volume cruise tourism on Bonaire – see case study in Technical Annex C).  

3.2.4  Product branding 

MPA product branding did not rank as one of the more important mechanisms in the 
online survey. However, other consultations and literature indicate the use of MPAs for 
destination marketing to be an important benefit mechanism.  

Two forms of branding were identified:  

  Individual MPA brands/marketing that promote environmental protection and 

environmental quality as a way of attracting visitors.  

  Using an MPA to support applications for other sustainability certifications and 

designations such as CETS, the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism (see the 
Torre Guaceto example in Box 15). 

Two case studies demonstrate that the marketing pull of an MPA may be enhanced 
when it is has a particularly unique feature: Os Miñarzos and Bonaire (see Box 12) 
for Bonaire, where the quality and accessibility of its coral reef is the primary feature). 
The Os Miñarzos case study demonstrates that its status as one of the first co-managed 
MPAs in Europe made it a particular attraction – indicating that it’s not solely 
environmental features that can act as attractors. The research and media attention that 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

this drew was capitalised on to launch tourism events (although activity has reduced 
since funding cuts have reduced the MPA’s effectiveness).  

Capitalising on the potential marketing power of an MPA designation requires 
relevant partners and initiatives to be established. Case studies on Iroise and Os 
Miñarzos demonstrate that MPA management bodies (and associated NGOs) can be 
particularly proactive in directly undertaking initiatives but also in facilitating partnership 
creation between tourism operators and with and other sectors. In Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park (Sweden) there were complaints that there insufficient centralised effort 
was put into marketing of the MPA.  

Where tourism businesses within MPAs obtain certifications in existing schemes, it can 
provide an opportunity for promotion via the broader marketing networks of the 
scheme certification body, which may come at no cost to the tourism businesses – 
although effort (and cost) is still required to obtain the certification in the first instance, 
particularly if it is a destination-level certification (see Box 15).  

Box 15. 

 Sustainability certification in Torre Guaceto (Italy) 

The Torre Guaceto terrestrial and marine protected area (Italy) obtained the European 
Charter for Sustainable Tourism (CETS), a label granted by Federparchi, the Italian 
branch of Europarc. The CETS is a voluntary agreement: the operators who meet at 
least half of a list of sustainability criteria are included in a catalogue disseminated by 
the managing body, which provides them with free publicity. In addition, three Slow 
Food Presidia (i.e. labels granted by the Slow Food international association for high 
quality and sustainable food products) have been granted to three Torre Guaceto 
products, including the fish caught in the MPA, providing marketing benefits for the 
products and local area more generally.  

3.2.5  Opportunities for new and/or expanded activity 

Online survey respondents indicated that opportunities for new and/or expanded activity 
were one of the most important benefit mechanisms. Participants in in-depth interviews 
and workshops highlighted that increased visitor numbers to MPAs are associated with 
the expansion of existing businesses as well as the creation of new ones (e.g. hotels and 
restaurants as well as specialist tourism activities). Participants cautioned however that 
not all MPAs are sufficiently well-known to create these effects i.e. capitalising on new 
opportunities is reliant on other mechanisms (e.g. improved biodiversity, MPA 
branding/marketing) to support visitor demand. 

A key aspect identified during interviews and workshops was opportunities for the 
development of eco-tourism and specialised forms of tourism. Such opportunities 
can deliver important types of benefit. For example, generating higher profits through 
premium prices (e.g. kayak tours in Kosterhavet, Sweden), extending the tourism season 
(see Box 16), or support livelihood diversification for fishermen (e.g. pesca-tourism in 
Egadi Islands MPA, Italy). Small-scale eco-tourism, where local people have competitive 
advantages with respect to big companies due to their presence in the territory, their 
knowledge and their network of contacts can help to ensure that a greater proportion of 
economic benefits are retained in local economies. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 16. 

 Business opportunities extending the tourism season in Kosterhavet 

Kosterhavet marine national park (Sweden) was designated in 2009. The tourism sector 
is an important economic driver in the region bringing direct income from recreational 
activity and indirect revenue to tourism infrastructure such as accommodation and 
restaurants. While the area was a popular tourism destination before the park, the 
national park has attracted a new group of visitors who come primarily for the natural 
experience. The number of visitors has increased significantly since the park was 
established, and in particular during the non-summer months. A range of tourism 
service providers in and near the park report significantly better business outside of the 
main season. 

Opportunities to capitalise on MPAs are not solely for businesses providing MPA-related 
experiences/activities, but benefits are also felt throughout the broader tourism 
sector (which may be outside the MPA boundary) e.g. accommodation and restaurants 
(see Box 17).  

Box 17. 

 Wider benefits on the tourism sector in Alonissos MPA (Greece) 

A number of ex-post analyses are available for the National Marine Park of Alonissos 
(Greece). Owners of tourist agencies, hoteliers and owners of rooms to let felt they had 
benefited from the MPA, and 44% of the residents believe that the MPA designation has 
had a positive impact on the livelihoods of people working in the tourism sector. 

The impact of the MPA is examined quantitatively drawing on neighbouring islands to act 
as counterfactuals. Seven years after the designation of the MPA, the number of beds 
available on the island of Alonissos had increased by 10.5%, whereas in the 
neighbouring islands of Skiathos and Skopleos (which do not have MPAs) the change 
was 2.4% and -9.5% respectively.  

Park management and other local bodies can provide important support to help 
businesses take advantage of these opportunities. In Iroise (France), the park 
encourages development of eco-tourism and more sustainable tourism through the award 
of a charter mark. It has worked through partnerships to secure the designation of six 
lighthouses as heritage sites, which enables them to access public funding. In the 
German Wadden Sea, partnership programmes have been created between the MPA and 
tourism entrepreneurs – the MPA supports the education of the tourism businesses (as 
opposed to the visitors), which allows them to gain insights into the tourism market 
making them better placed to react to changing market demands.   

3.2.6   Access and interpretative infrastructure 

The development and use of education and awareness raising materials have helped 
MPAs to improve visitor experience and attract more visitors, often accompanying and 
reinforcing the effects of branding and marketing initiatives (see Box 18). 

Box 18. 

 Examples of education and awareness raising material use 

 

 

In Kosterhavet (Sweden) education materials are reported to contribute to the visitor 
experience and support tourism businesses to expand their offer and improve their 
product.  

In Bonaire National Marine Park training and education of marine park users, in 
particular divers, are a central part of ensuring a high quality experience for tourists. 

  Some Italian and Spanish MPAs have developed educational material to inform 

recreational fishers, including brochures and leaflets providing information on 
sustainable local fish consumption and existing regulations on recreational fisheries. 

25 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Tourism growth, and management, often requires infrastructure, as indicated in the 
Sečovlje Salina (Slovenia) and Cabrera (Spain) case studies. In the former, on-site 
infrastructure has improved physical accessibility enabling an increase in visitor numbers 
whilst also ensuring that sustainable use is maintained (i.e. it raises the carrying capacity 
of the site). In Cabrera, infrastructure including mooring buoys are said to have 
improved boater safety as well as provide for environmental protection of seagrass beds.   

3.2.7   Reduced competition 

Reduced competition was not considered an important mechanism for the creation of 
economic benefits by online survey respondents. During the in-depth interviews and 
workshops reduced competition was mostly commented upon in terms of decreasing 
competition for space between anglers, divers and commercial fishers, leading to 
improved recreational experiences. Such benefits may occur where MPA management 
creates opportunities for new activity due to the removal of others through zoning for 
conservation purposes or to address safety issues (see Box 19). Where benefits are 
created as a result of reduced competition, there is the potential for costs to those 
activities that are displaced (e.g. opportunity costs of foregone activity, or increased 
costs of altered activities).  

Box 19. 

 Benefits from MPA zoning in Plemmirio 

In Plemmirio MPA, Italy, the MPA is divided into three zones. Different activities are 
permitted in each of the three zones, reducing competition between different users for 
space. Zone A is a no-take zone where diving is the only permitted use. Zone B is a 
general reserve where recreational activities are allowed. Zone C is a partial reserve, 
where small-scale fishing activities can occur. In 2004, the first year of the MPA, there 
were 450 users from the dive sector, but in 2017, there were over 3000. 

3.3  Economic benefits for other blue economy sectors 

3.3.1  Introduction 

Other blue economy sectors refer to all sectors other than tourism and fisheries. It 
therefore covers blue growth sectors such as aquaculture, blue biotech and ocean energy 
as well as traditional maritime sectors such as ports and shipping, shipbuilding, as well as 
other sectors that provide MPA services (such as MPA management and monitoring) and 
other services such as engineering and technology. 

Many of these sectors are most commonly thought to incur costs from MPAs rather than 
benefits, particularly opportunity costs through restrictions on activity and mitigation 
costs for permitted MPA use. This was reflected in the online survey where a majority of 
(but not all) respondents stated that such sectors ‘never’ benefit from MPAs or SPMs – 
particularly where there is no link between the sector and use of ecosystem services. 
Indeed, no direct economic evidence was identified in the literature of other blue 
economy sectors benefiting from MPAs or SPMs, although studies (e.g. for biotechnology 
in Russi et al, 2016) have demonstrated the theoretical benefits. Some stakeholders 
suggested that we are limited in our understanding of how these sectors benefit from 
MPAs, perhaps because there has been no research focus on this issue. This may be due 
to lack of expectation of benefits or because some sectors (e.g. blue biotechnology or 
eco-engineering) are still emerging. 

The stakeholder consultations and case studies identified a limited number of other blue 
economy sector benefit mechanisms and economic benefits. These are not common 
across all sectors however, and may often reflect isolated cases. These are summarised 
in Figure 8 and in the list below and then discussed further by key mechanism in the 
remainder of this section. 

26 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Table 3.  Strength of evidence of economic benefits across economic sectors/activities 

and benefit mechanisms 

Economic sector / activity 

MPA management and associated research 

Benefit mechanism* 

t
c
u
d
o
r
p
A
P
M

i

&
g
n
d
n
a
r
b

n
o

i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

y
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
d
o
b

i

n

i

e
g
n
a
h
C

&

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e

d
e
c
u
d
e
R

n
o
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
c

n
a
p
x
e
/
w
e
N

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
d
e
d

 

Ecological restoration, enhancement and mitigation 
services 

 

 

Environmental consultancy and related services 

Technology developers and operators 

Aquaculture and biotechnology 

Transport and ports 

Maritime energy  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* The greater the number of s, the greater the evidence for such benefits mechanisms 

Figure 8.  Other blue economy economic benefit pathways 

Source: Own representation 

3.3.2  Opportunity for new/expanded activity 

Online survey respondents indicated that opportunity for new or expanded activity was 
potentially one of the more important mechanism for both blue economy sectors that 
utilise marine biodiversity and to a lesser extent for those who do not. Evidence from 
interviewees, workshop participants and case studies provided examples of other blue 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

economy benefits through this mechanism, and these were arguably the most concrete in 
terms of their ability to demonstrate economic benefits.      

3.3.2.1  MPA management and research 

MPA management bodies: MPA management bodies are generators of employment 
and purchasers of management support services. Previous research indicates that MPA 
operating budget in EU Mediterranean MPAs average €0.7million/yr. (Binet et al, 2015). 
Evidence from six case studies in this study gives an annual budget range of €0.5-
2.5million/year (see Box 20). The case studies indicate that direct employment in 
individual MPA management bodies may range from less than ten to around 30. The 
designation of MPAs thereby contributes to the blue economy through work in 
administering MPA planning and ongoing monitoring, enforcement and engagement 
activities. 

Box 20.  Case study evidence on MPA management budgets and employment 

  Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden): Annual budget of about €1.5million to 

cover costs of management, maintenance, monitoring and reporting, including costs 
for 7 FTEs, summer seasonal employment and around 15 FTEs for park maintenance 
(although the latter covers multiple nature reserves in the area). 

 

Iroise Marine Natural Park (France): Annual budget of about €2.5million covering 
infrastructure, staff and projects. Approximately €1million is on staff costs, 
supporting 25 jobs.  

  Cabrera National Park (Spain): Annual budget of around €1.9million, of which €0.7 

million is on staff costs. 

  Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy): Annual budget around €1 million.  

  Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (Slovenia): Annual budget of around €0.5 million, of 

which €0.23 million on staff costs supporting 10 jobs. 

  Bonaire National Marine Park (Bonaire): Annual budget of around €1.2million, which 

includes staff costs for approximately 28 jobs. 

MPA research: There are numerous opportunities for research and consultancy services 
to support MPA policy and management20. These may be national or internationally 
funded research projects or MPA specific contracts or partnerships to collect and analyse 
environmental and socioeconomic data relevant to MPAs and user impacts (e.g. see Box 
21). These provide economic value to the research sector, and also into local economies 
from local expenditure during field visits. And the market has clearly grown as MPAs have 
become more widespread across Europe (e.g. see Box 22). 

Previous research (ICF GHK et al, 2012) has indicated that, for the Natura 2000 network 
(terrestrial and marine) every €1billion of expenditure supports almost 30,000 
jobs, with 60% of these on activities directly related to site management (e.g. 
designation, management, conservation actions, monitoring and research). If the rate of 
growth in the number and area of MPA designations are taken as an indicator of the 
demand for management services, it can be assumed that the last decade or so will have 
seen an expansion of this sector, which may be set to continue.  

In addition, MPA management bodies can operate directly as the providers of other 
infrastructure and services: in MPAs such as Cabrera (Spain) and Torre Guaceto (Italy) 
the management bodies have taken on a wider remit than just environmental 
management. In both cases they provide infrastructure and services, in either marine or 
terrestrial areas, which are essentially tourism sector businesses generating revenue 

20 See Box 5.17, Technical Annex B, for examples of research supporting MPA management decisions. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

(often to fund MPA management) and jobs. Such activity tends to occur where an MPA 
management body also has control over some terrestrial resources. 

Box 21.  Examples of MPA research values 

Examples of MPA-specific research activity: 

 

In 2014, the Cabrera national park received approximately 153 scientists, belonging 
to 28 different research teams, who visited the archipelago to collect field data for 
their research 

  Local expenditure of resident and visiting researchers on Bonaire was estimated to 

equal between USD1.2 million and USD1.5 million in 2011. This excludes 
management and travel cost for external researchers travelling to Bonaire, and is 
not solely attributed to the marine environment or just the marine park (Van 
Beukering and Wolfs (2012). 

Examples of European funded research activity: 

  PROTOMEDEA - Towards the establishment of Marine Protected Area Networks in the 
Eastern Mediterranean (2015-19). Total funding of €0.6million with 90% from EMFF. 

  AMARe - Actions for Marine Protected Areas (2016-19). Total funding of €2.7million, 

with €2.3million from Interreg.  

Box 22.  Growth in MPA-related research 

Although the exact value of MPA related research is unknown, the number of 
publications featuring MPAs can be used as an indication of how this research area is 
growing. The following graph shows the number of publications with either “marine 
protected area”, “marine reserve” or “marine park” in its title, as found in Google 
Scholar, since the year 2000 (data extracted 31/10/17). The growth in papers suggests 
an increase in funding and research effort in this area. 

Figure 9.  Number of MPA-related research publications 

3.3.2.2  Ecological restoration, enhancement and mitigation services 

Ecological restoration and enhancement may be carried out to improve or recover the 
natural environment within an MPA, or to offset or minimise the potential negative effects 
of a permitted development on the features of an MPA. In both cases there are a range 
of different sectors that may benefit, depending on the nature of the work. In the case 
studies three examples were demonstrated: conservation NGO restoration activity (coral 
reef restoration in Bonaire), artificial reef design and construction (artificial reef 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

programme in Cyprus – see Box 24), and eco-engineering (various projects in the 
Wadden Sea). 

The most economically significant example was major eco-engineering projects 
identified in the Wadden Sea case study. Whilst part of a broader trend, the presence of 
MPAs and demand from MPAs themselves are a driver of demand for such services. 
Examples from the Wadden Sea demonstrate that contracts for eco-engineering services 
(or nature-based solutions) can be worth many millions of Euros, although the volume of 
such contracts will be few (see Box 23). In addition to direct contract values it is thought 
that the successful delivery of such schemes – which are still considered experimental 
and hence are not commonplace across the market – provide an opportunity for the 
export of such services. More broadly eco-engineering projects can provide:  

  Benefits for developers: Adoption of eco-engineering solutions are thought to 

increase the chances of positive decisions based on EIAs for physical development. 
Eco-engineering has also been found to reduce costs, particularly maintenance 
costs but also up-front investment costs, compared to traditional ‘hard solutions’. 

  Benefits for the environment: Environmental NGOs strongly support the ‘building 

with nature’ trend because over recent years, it has aided the sustainable 
enlargement and more cost-effective protection and restoration of existing MPAs. 

  Benefits for ecosystem services users: an aspect of many eco-engineering projects 
are the additional ecosystem service benefits that can be captured via natural 
solutions rather than traditional ‘hard’ solutions, including those linked to climate 
change adaptation and mitigation.  

Box 23.  Eco-engineering in the Wadden Sea 

Over the last 40 years, "building with nature" has become an important topic in the 
Netherlands, particularly in marine and coastal areas. Eco-engineering is used to protect 
and restore islands and salt marshes in the Wadden Sea for conservation and other 
environmental purposes. Eco-engineering solutions have also become of interest to 
nature conservation organisations to protect, improve and enlarge protected areas.  

Example: The island of Griend is located within the UNESCO World Heritage Site and is a 
Natura 2000 site. The island has been threatened for decades as a result of heavy 
erosion and geomorphological changes. An eco-engineering project was commissioned to 
enable continual nourishment of the island. The contract value was €2.5-3million. 

Box 24.  Artificial reef and associated infrastructure preparation in Cyprus 

The Artificial Reef programme in Cyprus is a government-sponsored scheme, which since 
2009 has created five Artificial Reefs (ARs) and designated the surrounding areas as 
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). To date the preparation, cleaning and deployment of all 
sunk vessels has cost around €300,000, cost for non-vessel infrastructure including 
buoys marking the protected areas and mooring points to allow easy mooring near all 
five MPAs, has cost around €685,000. 

3.3.2.3  Environmental consultancy and related services 

Opportunities exist for research and consultancy companies who benefit from contracts 
to collect and analyse data relevant to MPAs and user impacts on them to support licence 
applications and designs.  

3.3.2.4  Technology developers and operators  

MPAs both stimulate and act as new markets for the application of new and emerging 
technologies. Examples were identified where the need for better MPA surveillance and 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

solutions for practices sustainable use measures have led to economic growth in an MPA-
related technology market (see Box 25), such as one of the drivers for increase adoption 
of iVMS (inshore vessel monitoring system). The ecological restoration and mitigation 
markets may also see MPA-induced innovation. 

Box 25.  Example of opportunities for new technologies 

  Machine learning based on satellite data and imagery is being used to track and 

monitor vessel behaviour in remote MPAs, such as around the Pitcairn Islands and 
Ascension Island (both UK Overseas Territories), and to identify illegal, unreported 
and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities. The use of unmanned surface vessels 
(SUVs) is also being explored in these areas to support MPA border patrols and 
identify IUU fishing. Using data from the USVs, enforcement vessels can be targeted 
more effectively at locations where vessels are suspected of undertaking illegal 
fishing activities. An increasing number of organisations are offering such services, 
or components of such services. 

  A project in Mallorca, ‘Techbuoy’ (http://www.techbuoy.eu/), co-funded by the EU’s 

Eco-Innovation Initiative, developed an innovative solution for regulating 
recreational anchoring in Posidonia oceanica meadows. The system concept is based 
on a series of buoys which define a spatial area, with a gate/barrier controlling 
access to the area, with eco-moorings within it. Only recognised boats (those with 
reservations or other access permissions) can open the gate. Access and 
management are supported by an online platform and App. It offers a cost-effective 
solution to managing access and use of the moorings and avoids the costs and 
challenges of trying to control boat movement and collect user fees at the point of 
use.  The innovation also has economic benefits for the technology developer/owner. 
The project trials completed in early 2017, with the first commercial sale of the 
technology in summer 2017. Additional applications have been identified for the 
technology and are being targeted – essentially any market where localised spatial 
access controls are necessary – such as fisheries management, ports and harbours 
and military areas. 

3.3.2.5  Aquaculture and biotechnology 

Where permitted within an MPA, benefits may occur for aquaculture and biotechnology 
sectors. The evidence identified a small number of examples where such benefits occur 
for shellfish aquaculture and for algae cultivation and related biotechnology applications. 

In the Dutch Wadden Sea, degraded mussel stocks due to overfishing and storms, and 
expansion of MPAs, has prompted a shift toward new, more sustainable practices. The 
sector has shifted from mussel seed dredging to rope grown mussel cultivation. 
Growers have benefited through more consistent mussel seed supply, and hence 
production, and as a result of attaining MSC certification which has helped secure access 
to key European markets and buyers. Whilst some growers successfully transitioned, 
others have struggled with the investment costs of changing practices and higher 
production costs. Funding and education has been provided to support the sector’s 
transition. 

Development of blue biotechnology is dependent on the availability and state of marine 
genetic biodiversity, and the protection of marine environments in MPAs may play a role 
in supporting this development, subject to adequate management to ensure no adverse 
effect on MAP conservation objectives (Russi et al, 2016). A small number of examples 
were identified where novel approaches to algae production are being trialled in order 
to develop practices that are acceptable within MPAs. The case study of Kosterhavet 
(Sweden) demonstrates both the potential but also the challenges for innovation in 
emerging sectors – despite showing potential macro algae production innovators have 
found that the costs of seeking permissions to operate in the MPA can undermine the 
economic viability of their business. For example, Grebbestad Tångknäcke produces food 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

products including seaweed bread and dried seaweed / seaweed salt (“seaweed hard 
bread”). They received a permit to farm their own macro algae per year inside KHNP but 
have no taken up as the costs (e.g. to comply with monitoring requirements) are too 
high.  

Iroise Marine National Park (France) is an example where the MPA management body has 
sought to support the industry in defining sustainable harvesting techniques that can 
enable operations to take place within an MPA. The park was a project partner on the 
Algmarbio project, which designed good practice guidance for the industry and ultimately 
led to a bio label for near-shore seaweed harvesting throughout Brittany. More generally 
Iroise is an example of where park management can play an important supporting 
role in encouraging new, and expansion of, sustainable aquaculture operations. For 
example, provides not only financial support to new projects, but also provides individual 
expertise and assistance with project. Today, the aquaculture sector in the Park employs 
20.5 full time equivalent (FTE). 

Box 26.  Algae cultivation in Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden) 

Seafarm is a large-scale (two hectare) state-funded research project exploring 
commercial opportunities of macro algae (Saccharina latissima) production. Up to 75 
tonnes of algae is produced annually. Seafarm is located in the park partly for the 
benefits that it affords: it has ideal natural conditions for cultivation. There are also 
other reasons such as proximity to the Sven Loven research centre and the algae 
refinery site. 

The project has received funding from the Swedish Research Council, the EU, Swedish 
authorities and private companies. The aim is to develop a closed loop production model 
that produces zero waste, primarily by introducing additional steps in the biorefinery of 
algae to produce a wider range of marketable products. These include: food, animal 
fodder, medicine, biogas/biofuel, and industrial materials. The researchers behind 
Seafarm set up a private company in 2016 called KosterAlg AB, selling the algae 
produced in the project. The company is still in the start-up phase. 

3.3.2.6  Transport and ports 

Evidence from the consultations indicated economic benefits to transport companies 
(such as ferries from increase recreation and tourism travel) and to ports and harbours 
as a result of increased activity in sectors that use their infrastructure and services (most 
notably tourism for the former and fisheries for the latter). This was considered more 
significant for smaller ports that may be more dependent on those sectors where the 
influence of an MPA may be greater such as fishing, tourism and recreation activities. In 
Cabrera (Spain) two ferry companies are granted licences to transport tourists to and 
from the island, generating an estimated €1.9 million in revenue per annum; in Lyme 
Bay (UK), the local harbours were reported to be benefiting from increased fishing 
activity associated with the improved fish handling facilities that were installed. 

3.3.3   Branding and association 

There is evidence that other blue economy sectors benefit by using MPA branding and 
association to enhance economic returns, with a number of different sub-mechanisms 
depending on the nature of the business and benefit. These are outlined in this section. 

3.3.3.1  Product branding and eco-certification  

Branding and eco-certification of products typically benefits those sectors that rely on 
marine resources to produce consumer products (e.g. shellfish aquaculture, algae 
cultivation and biotech, salt production).  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Unlike MPA product branding for commercial fishing, branding appears to be more ad-hoc 
and company specific. For example21, in Kosterharvet, a company selling harvested 
seaweed and a company cultivating macroalgae and related biotech products both 
recognise the added value of marketing a product from an ‘MPA’. In Sečovlje Salina 
(Slovenia), a company producing consumer products using salt from the protected 
area salt pans has developed a specific logo in order to capitalise on the marketing 
potential. There is no evidence on the economic value of such branding. 

As for artisanal fishing, there is some evidence that MPAs can support shellfish 
aquaculture operators’ attainment of eco-certifications, such as that offered by the 
Marine Stewardship Council.  

3.3.3.2  MPA association 

A broader reputational benefit was identified in some instances by fostering a favourable 
association with an MPA that can demonstrate tangible evidence of good Corporate Social 
Responsibility. Examples were identified in the ports, energy and telecoms sectors 
(see Box 27).  Demonstrating support from conservation NGOs or public authorities (e.g. 
by obtaining permits for activity within protected areas, or being cited as best practice for 
sustainable use in MPAs) provides tangible evidence of a company’s environmental 
credentials. This may have a positive impact on a company’s image amongst its 
customers as well as corporate investors. A similar effect can also be fostered through 
direct investment in MPAs by non-related sectors. However, there were differences in 
stakeholder opinion as to how large such benefits may be and whether they could be 
quantified. No studies were identified that have examined these benefits.  

Box 27. 

 Example of opportunities for MPA association to demonstrate green 
credentials 

  The Port of Rotterdam uses its association with the Voordelta MPA in some of its 
advertising, although the port authority considers the economic benefits to be 
minimal.  

  Oil and gas companies typically cannot operate within MPAs. In the Wadden Sea it 
was reported that an oil and gas company developed innovative solutions (i.e. 
horizontal drilling) allowing them to prospect from the land to the sea. This activity 
was thought to have improved the company’s image, which may have implications 
for market positioning. 

  A European port operator reported that it could demonstrate its environmental 

credentials by indicating where conservation bodies had highlighted it as delivering 
best practices for others to follow, or indicating where overlapping or adjacent MPAs 
to the port operation were performing well. This provided tangible evidence that 
helped tick the ‘environmental’ box when marketing itself to financial investors.  

 

In Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (Slovenia), a telecommunications company invested 
in the MPA through the purchase of the on-site salt production works and provision 
of financial investment to support the restoration and management or the park. The 
company benefited directly through the commercial successes of the salt company 
and indirectly through an improved corporate image, which was reported to have 
commercial benefits.  

21 See Technical Annex 3 for further details of these examples. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

3.3.4  Changes in biodiversity and wider environmental change 

There is limited evidence on the benefits arising from changes in biodiversity or wider 
environmental change for biodiversity-dependent sectors such as aquaculture and blue 
biotech. Case studies such as Kosterhavet (Sweden) recognise the importance of quality 
of the marine environment, as does the wider literature on these sectors. However, there 
is little evidence examining the economic value of MPAs in this regard.  

Economic benefits for coastal businesses and communities linked to coastal protection 
and climate change adaptation can be identified, although were not the main the focus of 
the study. One example identified was of insurance premium benefits. There are 
examples of insurance firms taking into account ecosystem condition and services - for 
example, the role of coral reefs in coastal protection and how they lower the risk to 
infrastructure on land from seaward hazards. Lower premiums may be offered to coastal 
development and infrastructure operators. Eco-engineering solutions for coastal erosion 
management that are in part encouraged due to the presence of MPAs (e.g. in the 
Wadden Sea) and prove more cost effective that traditional hard solutions, particularly in 
face of rising sea levels.    

3.3.5   Reduced competition for space  

Consulted stakeholders did not on the whole think that any of the other blue economy 
sectors benefit through reduced competition for space. One example was identified: 
where submarine cable owners/user (e.g. telecoms of energy producers) may save costs 
if MPAs protect submarine cables from damage by trawlers, as a result of excluding 
trawling in the MPA. No specific examples for this emerged, however.  

A further example was identified, which demonstrated how improved data and knowledge 
sharing provided benefits through a more effective use of space (see Box 28). 

Box 28.  Knowledge Sharing in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 

In the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) area off the North American 
Boston coast, analysis of whale monitoring data revealed that the Traffic Separation 
Scheme through the SBNMS routed shipping over high density whale areas. Following 
detailed consultation, the International Marine Organisation agreed to a small northward 
shift of the Traffic Separation Scheme into low density areas. This reduced the risk of 
ships striking whales by 81%. Whilst there were costs associated with this move due to 
a small increase in steaming times, there may also be benefits through reduced ship 
damage and improved safety. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

4 

A Comparative View of the Benefits 

Conclusions about which sectors benefit the most frequently and significantly, and how 
different MPA types influence these are hampered by a lack of genuine ex-post impact 
analyses of MPAs. Particularly for tourism, a majority of the economic literature assess 
solely the current value of MPAs, rather than the value against a counterfactual22. The 
heterogeneity of MPAs in terms of ecological, social and governance characteristics, and 
limited number of robust cost-benefit analysis estimates, means only crude 
generalisations are feasible from the limited evidence base.   

4.1  Benefits across sectors 

The benefits most frequently identified in the literature are summarised in Table 4. It 
demonstrates that there is a slightly greater body of economic literature on the economic 
benefits for fisheries (principally for inshore MPAs for artisanal fishers) than for tourism – 
although in both cases the body of evidence is small. There is no evidence in the 
literature on other blue economy economic benefits (based on the robust economic 
evidence methodology applied). However, the online survey – providing a view of 
informed stakeholder opinion – indicates that all maritime sector groups can benefit from 
MPAs and SPMs (see Figure 10). In particular stakeholder opinion indicates a strong 
emphasis on tourism benefits, particularly from no-take and multiple-use MPAs. But 
there is also a notable 30% who consider that other blue economy sectors benefit 
‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ – this is clearly a more positive outlook than one may draw from 
the available literature. In general, survey respondent groups did not differ significantly 
in their opinions of sector benefits. However, responses from fisheries stakeholders 
tended to be more negative than other groups about the extent to which they gain from 
MPAs. 

Table 4.  Availability of robust economic benefit evidence (number of papers) 

Fishing 

Tourism 

Other blue 
economy 

Type of MPA 

No-take MPA  

Multi-use MPA  

Combination/ zoning  

Multiple sites/ protection 
types  

SPM 

Point of study  

Ex ante  

Ex post  

Type of study  

8 

4 

2 

4 

2 

1 

17 

Assessment of change  

13 

Baseline study  

Combination  

5 

0 

2 

2 

4 

6 

0 

1 

13 

3 

11 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

22 i.e. either a pre-MPA counterfactual or hypothetical counterfactual for the current situation without the MPA. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Figure 10. Online survey opinion on which major economic sectors benefit from a) no-

take MPAs (N=172), b) multiple-use MPAs (N=168), c) fisheries SPMs 
(N=166), d) de facto refuges (N=161) 

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

a) No-take reserves 

Never
Sometimes
Often

Static gear
fisheries

Mobile gear
fisheries

Tourism and
recreation

Aquaculture Other blue
economy

b) Multiple-use MPAs 

Static gear
fisheries

Mobile gear
fisheries

Tourism and
recreation

Aquaculture

Other blue
economy

c) Fisheries SPMs 

Static gear
fisheries

Mobile gear
fisheries

Tourism and
recreation

Aquaculture

Other blue
economy

d) De facto refuges 

Static gear
fisheries

Mobile gear
fisheries

Tourism and
recreation

Aquaculture

Other blue
economy

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

The available data (see Annex 1) indicate that (in the cases where benefits do occur) the 
scale of benefits achieved by both the fishing (principally artisanal fisheries) and tourism 
sectors (e.g. increased revenues) range from just a few percent to hundreds of percent 
of the local baseline value. In absolute terms such increases are generally found to be 
larger for the tourism sector (examples range from tens of thousands to a few million 
Euros) than the fisheries sector (where examples range from tens of thousands to a few 
hundred thousand Euros). The relatively higher baseline value of the tourism sector helps 
to explain the greater absolute increase achieved by the tourism sector.  

Other blue economy benefits linked to MPA management and associated research are 
arguably the more frequent, and given this may also be of greatest value overall. 
Individual MPA budgets can be up to around €2million/yr. and support funding and 
economic activity across government, consultancy and contractors, research and NGOs. 
This includes demands on technology providers, with increasingly large MPA networks 
and adoption of MPA management arrangements requiring new innovative solutions to 
surveillance and enforcement. Where significant capital works are required the economic 
value can outstrip that of tourism and fisheries benefits (e.g. in the tens of millions for 
eco-engineering services), however such cases are rare.  

Aquaculture (notably shellfish aquaculture and algae cultivation) and biotechnology can 
benefit from MPAs, but the frequency and scale of these benefits is not clear. Similarly, 
other sectors such as ports and energy may benefit, but such instances appear rare and 
the significance of these benefits is difficult to conclude on.  

4.2  Benefits across designation type 

4.2.1.1  No-take and multiple-use MPAs 

The literature review found evidence of benefits to the fisheries sector (mainly artisanal 
fisheries) from no-take reserves in coastal areas, but a notable gap in evidence for 
multiple-use MPAs. This contrasts with consultation, and some case study, findings which 
provide examples of benefits to the fisheries sector from both forms of MPA in coastal 
areas. 

Fishermen using static gear to target low-mobility and benthic species are the segment of 
the sector most likely to benefit. Opinion from the online survey suggested almost equal 
benefits to both sectors, but this view doesn’t appear to be supported by other evidence. 

No evidence was found for economic benefits from offshore MPAs, beyond potential (and 
to date non-attributable) benefits to the fishing industry.  

The clearest links between no-take reserves and multiple use MPAs for other blue 
economy sectors is to those sectors that can play a positive role in supporting the 
delivery of MPA conservation objectives – such as site management activities, 
environmental monitoring and research, environmental restoration works and 
surveillance and enforcement technology.  

4.2.1.2  Fisheries SPMs 

Whilst the case study of Os Miñarzos demonstrates the potential benefits of successful 
fisheries SPMs, there is little robust economic evidence in the literature. Consultees could 
only speculate on the extent of economic benefits. Online survey responses also indicated 
possible tourism benefits, but no evidence was found. Given the offshore location of 
many SPMs, the potential for tourism to benefit may be limited. 

4.2.1.3  De facto refuges 

Online survey respondents most commonly considered that de facto refuges ‘sometimes’ 
generate economic benefits for the fisheries, aquaculture and tourism sectors (between 
40% and 60% of respondents depending on the sector). Other blue economy sectors 
were thought less likely to benefit. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Evidence both from the literature review and the consultation interviews most commonly 
infers possible tourism and fisheries economic benefits from de-facto refugees, with only 
a few examples demonstrating an actual impact on sector performance. There is greater 
economic evidence on artificial reef de facto refuges than other forms (e.g. de facto 
refuges around energy installations and their bases). 

For artificial reefs experimental studies (rather than studies based on actual commercial 
fishing vessel performance) have demonstrated improved catches in artificial reef sites 
compared to control sites (e.g. 70% increase in catch per unit effort reported by 
Whitmarsh et al, 2008). Artificial reefs can be highly valued by divers and anglers. At the 
HMS Scylla artificial reef (UK), an estimated 42,000 divers contributed £25-30 million to 
the local economy during its first five years.   

There is growing ecological evidence on the benefits of offshore energy installations, 
mostly relating to the artificial reefs created by their infrastructure. However. there is 
little economic evidence.  One example is the Westermost Rough Windfarn (UK)23, which 
created a temporary de facto refuge closed to fishing during wind farm construction. It 
reportedly benefited lobster populations and landings once it reopened. However, it is not 
clear whether this benefit was sufficient to compensate the loss of landings from the 
closure period.  

4.3  Benefits against the costs 

There are relatively few comprehensive ex-ante or ex-post cost benefit analyses (CBAs) 
of MPAs currently available from either within or outside Europe, making it difficult to 
draw overall conclusions about the net benefits of individual MPAs or MPA networks in 
Europe. No CBAs of European SPMs were identified.  

Existing studies comparing the costs and benefits of MPAs use primarily an ecosystem 
services framework and suggest that a large proportion of benefits relate to non-market 
improvements in welfare rather than real economy benefits to sectors.  

Empirical evidence of benefits in monetary terms is limited and CBAs are generally more 
complete in their monetary valuation of costs than benefits. Despite being unable to 
account for a comprehensive representation of benefits, these studies still indicate that 
the overall welfare benefits (when non-market benefits are included) of MPAs exceed 
total costs. 

In terms of real economy, market benefits to blue economy sectors, there is very limited 
evidence examining the costs and benefits for any given sector. This hinders the 
assessment of the overall net effects of MPAs. 

Given the apparent lighter level of management imposed on tourism, and the scope for 
both frequent and significant tourism benefits, one might reasonably infer that net 
benefits are most likely for the tourism sector. 

For the commercial fishing sector, net benefits from multiple-use MPAs may be assumed 
where those fleet segments excluded from the MPA are able to redistribute their fishing 
effort with relatively minimal cost compared to the benefits for fleet segments permitted 
to continue (e.g. see Oz Miñarzos and Torre Guaceto case studies); although such costs 
are not always minimal and benefits do not always occur (e.g. see Egadi case study). For 
no-take MPAs, the picture is less clear, i.e. do the benefits from spillover effects outweigh 
the costs of displacement?  Only one known study (Goñi et al, 2010), of the lobster 
fishery at Columbretes Islands Marine Reserve (Spain), has demonstrated a net gain 
where the benefits of spillover outweighed the cost of the no-take zone lost fishing 
opportunities. 

For other blue economy sectors the situation is even less clear. There is a clear net 
benefit for sectors which see MPAs as direct drivers of demand, and which do not conflict 

23 see Technical Annex B for further details.   

38 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

with conservation objectives – for example, MPA management, research, restoration 
activities, and surveillance technology. For sectors that use marine resources or space 
within an MPA, and have the potential to have negative effects on conservation 
objectives, it is not clear whether the benefits identified outweigh the costs. In many 
cases the scale and commonality of the benefits themselves is unclear.   

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

5  Managing the Realisation of Economic Benefits 

MPAs and SPMs, to achieve their conservation objectives and enable the realisation of 
potential economic benefits, require sound governance that provides the basis for 
implementing, enforcing and reviewing effective management and other supporting 
measures. In doing so, MPA and SPM governance and management needs to enable the 
realisation of any potential economic benefits without undermining site conservation 
objectives and in a way that supports a just and equitable allocation of marine resources.  

In this regard, this section synthesises study findings, identifying good practice 
examples, on the (i) mechanisms applied to ensure a sustainable use of MPA resources 
that is compatible with site conservation objectives, (ii) the nature of economic synergies 
that can maximise the economic benefits of sustainable use, and (iii) approaches to 
resolve conflicts between users and interests. In presenting the findings we draw on the 
typology of incentive mechanisms developed by Jones et al. (2011) (see Section 0). 

Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 requires MPAs that are “effectively and equitably managed”. 
As a large proportion of MPAs in the EU are considered to lack effective management 
(e.g. see Milieu et al, 2016), any lessons learnt regarding successful governance and 
management solutions are important.  

The research did not look at the impact of governance structures, although Jones et al 
(2011) categorise incentive mechanisms into three main governance types: top-down 
(legal mechanisms), bottom-up (participatory mechanisms) market led (economic 
mechanisms), with knowledge and interpretative mechanisms being a mix of all three 
approaches. Data from the online survey provides an indication of the prominence of 
different governance types in terms of the organisations seen as initiating mechanisms to 
support sustainable use, creation of synergies and conflict management (see Figure 11). 
Within this, a number of consultees emphasised the importance of appropriately skilled 
and motivated individuals for spearheading successful MPA initiatives and actions on 
sustainable use, synergies and conflict management. 

In all cases (sustainable use, synergies and conflict resolution), awareness raising and 
collaboration mechanisms were rated as the most important by survey respondents. 

Figure 11. Role of different actors in conflict management, creation of synergies and 

implementation of sustainable use mechanisms 

t
n
e
c
r
e
P

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Stakeholders

Government agencies

Private sector/NGO

Combination

Other

Conflict
management

Synergy

Sustainable
use

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

5.1  Ensuring sustainable use of MPAs 

European MPAs are primarily conservation tools applied to protect vulnerable species or 
habitats, and any human activity permitted within them needs to operate in balance with 
the site’s conservation objectives. Economic objectives are typically secondary to 
conservation objectives. Some MPAs and SPMs are designated partly or entirely to 
protect cultural values, local communities or livelihoods (e.g. under national designation 
schemes), or resource using sectors (e.g. fisheries). For all types of MPAs, however, 
ensuring that use of the site and its resources is managed at a sustainable level is 
essential for its primary objectives to be met. There is much guidance on how sectors can 
operate within MPAs.24  

MPA management measures may establish which activities are permitted to operate 
within the site, or the conditions with which permitted activity must comply, to attain the 
conservation (or other) objectives. This may include restrictions on the use of particular 
equipment (e.g. fishing gear), practices (e.g. actions that remove or damage particular 
species or habitats), or the spatial zones or timing in which activities can take place. 
Such restrictions may be laid down in legal instruments and applied to regulated 
activities via licenses or permits, or applied directly to unregulated activities, or 
implemented via voluntary agreements and codes of practice. 

Such measures provide a first order determination of sustainable use. This section 
considers the extent to which further incentive mechanisms are used to ensure that 
those activities permitted to benefit from MPAs do so in a way that ensures that benefits 
are realised without undermining the attainment of MPA objectives or potential benefits 
for other sectors. 

The online survey indicates the extent to which stakeholders had experienced certain 
measures to be successful in ensuring sustainable use (see Figure 12). In reality, a 
combination of measures are typically used.  

The three measures most commonly considered as successful or somewhat successful 
are: 

  Clarification and awareness raising of the MPA/SPM boundaries and regulations 

(86%)  

  Collaborative planning including all relevant stakeholders (83%) 

  Raising awareness/education about the MPA/SPM and the conservation needs of 

its features (82%) 

5.1.1  Knowledge and interpretative mechanisms to ensure sustainable use 

Knowledge and interpretative mechanisms refer to the use of different forms of 
knowledge and information, and building understanding to enhance management design 
and to encourage stakeholders to adopt more sustainable practices. These include 
awareness raising measures, which account for three of the top five measures cited by 
online survey respondents (see Figure 12).  

24 For example, see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm  

41 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Figure 12. Measures implemented to encourage sustainable use and their level of success 

(N=40) 

Clarification and awareness raising of the MPA/SPM
boundaries and regulations

Collaborative planning including all relevant stakeholders

Raise awareness / education about the MPA/SPM and
the conservation needs of its features

Changes in MPA management and regulations e.g. zoned
area and permitted activities
Encourage evidence based decision-making respecting all
forms of information

Raise awareness of potential economic benefits from
MPA/SPM
Introduction of penalties for violation of MPA/SPM
regulations
Clarification of roles and responsibilities towards
MPA/SPM management

Increased transparency in MPA/SPM management and
decision making
More effective enforcement of MPA/SPM rules including
e.g. users supporting enforcement

Ensuring economic benefits are captured / invested
locally

Green marketing schemes (e.g. use of MPA branding)

Actions to develop local facilities and infrastructure to
ensure potential benefits are realised
Provision of mechanism for independent advice and
arbitration

Compensation for restricted users

Promotion of alternative livelihoods

Successful or somewhat successful

Unsuccessful

Not used

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Source: Online survey – Technical Annex B 

5.1.1.1  Communication 

Communication raises awareness on what the MPA management measures are and 
education on why they are being implemented – both why they are needed and what the 
potential benefits are. Communication is used in many MPAs to encourage compliance 
and more sustainable practices. This can be particularly important for tourists, who may 
have little knowledge of the MPA when visiting. This is also relevant for other sectors – 
the Cyprus AR case demonstrates the compliance problems that can occur when a lack of 
communication creates uncertainty for fishermen over the location and rules of an MPA. 

To be effective, communication and education promoters need to be able to access MPA 
users in a way that allows the messages and learning to occur. In Bonaire, 
communication and education are the principal tools used to encourage water sport 
participants to comply with the rules (see Box 29). Historically, these have been very 
effective. However, there has been insufficient opportunity to engage with cruise tourists, 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

who only visit the island for a few hours, and hence this approach to ensuring compliance 
is becoming less effective (at least with this market segment). 

Box 29.  Geographical break down of the evidence base on economic benefits 

to the fisheries sector (n = 44). 

Whilst there are formal penalties in place to support enforcement of many of the park’s 
management measures, the principal means of encouraging compliance is through 
communication and education. Education in particular is seen as critical: if individuals 
understand why the rules are there they are more likely to follow them. The two main 
channels used for education are: 

  Mandatory dive orientation education and practical test of competence for every diver 

  General educational communications to ensure people understand the legislation and 

regulations in place for the park.  

For activities outside of diving, the same approach is applied, but there are less formal 
opportunities for the ‘education aspect’.  

5.1.1.2  Training and educating stakeholders  

Improving stakeholder knowledge through training and education was demonstrated to 
support the adoption of more sustainable practices. In the Wadden Sea, efforts to 
transition mussel cultivators to new more sustainable practices were supported by an 
education programme; in Iroise MPA (France), fishers were trained in how to minimise 
the risk of sudden pollution incidents. In Kosterhavet (Sweden), fishermen were 
encouraged to introduce closed areas for trawling after having seen ROV footage of trawl 
damage to coral reefs.  

Box 30.  Knowledge and interpretative mechanisms in Torre Guaceto (Italy) 

In Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy), fishermen permitted to fish inside the MPA have learnt 
about the economic benefits of sustainable fishing. These fishermen have also started to 
use the 30-mm mesh nets required to fish inside the MPA in their fishing grounds outside 
of the MPA (where the legal minimum is smaller at 22 mm). They understand that larger 
mesh size helps to avoid capturing juveniles, improves localised stocks and supports 
catching lower amounts of higher-priced big fish – this enables them to be more 
economically profitable and less labour-intensive than when catching larger amounts of 
smaller fish. 

5.1.1.3  Complementary tools and processes 

Practical tools can be used to allow stakeholders to be more aware of their own 
compliance with MPA rules. For example, in some Italian MPAs, recreational fishers are 
provided with educational material on MPA rules and sustainable fish consumption 
together with logbooks to help them track their own catch against these. 

5.1.1.4  Using scientific and stakeholder knowledge 

Formal scientific knowledge, e.g. through MPA research and monitoring, typically 
underpins management decisions. For example, in Iroise (France), the management body 
has undertaken research mapping and monitoring of kelp growth and the impact of 
fishing activities on the resource, which has helped to refine rules controlling harvesting.  

Improving such formal knowledge, and complementing it with stakeholder knowledge, 
can further enhance sustainable use (and foster MPA buy-in). For example, in Gökova 
MPA (Turkey), negotiations about no-fishing zones are based on data from the Ministry of 
Environment, but are complemented by local knowledge which is confirmed by scientific 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

data. Harvesting data from mobile phone Apps that provide tourist information on MPAs 
may provide an opportunity for building better information and understanding of the 
distribution of tourism activities, which can help management design. 

The importance of adequate knowledge was recognised for enabling adaptive 
management to be undertaken in MPAs, to ensure that MPA management remains 
appropriate in the face of changing environmental and socioeconomic conditions. In Torre 
Guaceto MPA (Italy), fishermen participate in regular monitoring programmes and have 
signed a document stating that they would accept management adaptations if monitoring 
data indicated it was necessary. 

5.1.2  Legal mechanisms to ensure sustainable use 

Legal mechanisms are commonly used to define activity zones or place limits on activity 
levels in order to ensure sustainable levels of use. As an extension to this the role of MSP 
was raised by a number of stakeholders as a process for wider spatial management and 
zoning. 

For MPAs to deliver their expected conservation and economic benefits, the management 
measures need to be effectively enforced. Regardless of the appropriateness of an MPA 
management plan, insufficient enforcement can undermine effectiveness. Di Franco et al 
(2016)25 demonstrated that there is a strong relationship between high enforcement and 
fishermen incomes in MPAs.  

Key factors identified in this study as important to enable sufficient enforcement 
included: adequate resources for surveillance and enforcement; and adequate penalties 
and institutional mechanisms to act as a deterrent (as well as the rules themselves being 
clear and understood – see previous sub-section 5.1.1).  

The case study of Os Miñarzos provides a clear example of how an effective MPA can 
deliver benefits for the fishing and tourism sectors, and how these benefits can then be 
undermined if the funding required for effective enforcement is removed. Sensible 
planning of enforcement activities can help to ensure cost effectiveness. This may include 
risk-based deployment of resources (e.g. in Zakynthos MPA, Greece, the enforcement 
presence increases during the high tourist season when non-compliance risk is greatest), 
and/or adoption of new surveillance technology as a more cost-effective solution than at-
sea patrols (e.g. the proliferation of VMS and iVMS for fishing vessels, for both MPA and 
wider fisheries management purposes). 

The need for adequate deterrents is demonstrated through two examples. In the case 
study of artificial reefs in Cyprus, fishermen reported that the cost of the fine for illegal 
fishing is lower than the potential economic benefit from an illegal catch and as a result is 
ineffective in deterring potential violations. In the Bonaire case study, it was suggested 
that there is insufficient institutional capacity to ensure that permit conditions regulating 
the impacts of coastal development are adhered to, undermining their effectiveness. 

5.1.3  Participative mechanisms to ensure sustainable use 

Participatory MPA management can support sustainable use in two main ways: 
participative enforcement and participatory planning.  

Participative enforcement, where stakeholders participate in self-policing, which can 
provide an effective supplement to formal enforcement, increasing the likelihood of 
management measure compliance by users of the MPA and hence ensuring sustainable 
use. Key drivers for self-policing include a sense of ownership and recognition of the 
importance of compliance for both MPA conservation objectives and realisation of the 
potential economic benefits, which can be fostered through stakeholder involvement in 
MPA management and through formal allocation of user rights. An adequate system for 
acknowledging the legitimacy of self-policing and for providing a system for reporting 
breaches of MPA rules is also necessary. 

25 Based on analysis of small-scale fisheries within 25 Mediterranean MPA buffer zones  

44 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Participative planning can both improve decision making by bringing in stakeholder 
knowledge (see Section 5.1.1.4) and foster higher compliance levels due to high 
stakeholder buy-in to the MPA (see Section 5.3.2.2).  

5.1.4  Economic mechanisms to ensure sustainable use 

Economic mechanisms use market-based incentives to encourage behavioural changes 
and/or to enhance the capture of MPA benefits. A number of such mechanisms were 
identified, including: 

  Assigning property/user rights.  

  Branding, labelling and certification. 

  Direct support for operators to shift towards more sustainable practices. 

5.1.4.1  Assigning property/user rights  

Assignment of property rights can be used to promote ownership and stewardship to 
encourage more sustainable practices that serve the self-interest of those involved, as 
well as those of the MPA. This mechanism was most commonly found applied to the 
commercial fishing sector, in MPAs including Cabrera and Os Miñarzos (Spain), and Punto 
Campanella and Torre Guaceto (Italy). In each of these examples, MPA access is 
restricted to fishermen from neighbouring municipalities (and in the case of Os Miñarzos, 
to those who fish above a minimum number of days). Conferring such user rights 
ensures fishermen realise the economic benefits of any actions they take to enhance fish 
stocks within the MPA. This is reported to have encouraged self-policing as well as 
engagement in other practices that can further enhance both economic and conservation 
benefits of the MPA. 

Box 31.  The benefits of local fishing user rights in Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy) 

In Torre Guaceto (Italy), only fishermen that are resident in one of the two adjacent 
municipalities are permitted to operate inside the MPA. For this reason, ensuring the 
long term sustainability of commercial species in the area is in the best interest of the 
fishermen, who are the only beneficiaries. For this reason the fishermen not only 
respect the restrictions on fishery activities, but also collaborate with the monitoring 
activities carried out by the MPA staff and report illegal fishing activity 

5.1.4.2  Branding, labelling and certification 

Branding, labelling and certification schemes may be introduced to support businesses 
with lower environmental impacts, for instance small-scale, low-impact fisheries or 
certification of so called ‘eco-tourism’. This provides a mechanism that incentivises 
increased environmental sustainability, beyond that required of any formal MPA 
management measures (although consultees appear to principally consider it as an 
economic benefit generating mechanism - see Section 0). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 32.  Branding, labelling and certification to encourage a shift towards 

sustainable practices 

In the Iroise MPA (France), the park management works closely with harbours, 
fisheries and discovery activities to develop partnerships (or “charters”) through which 
fishing businesses commit to certain sustainable practices, including transparency about 
the origin, techniques and volumes fished; to bring back to shore any waste collected in 
their nets; to take observers on board (whether for control or scientific purposes), and 
undertake certain training (e.g. pollution prevention training). In return, they are 
permitted to use a product label of ‘Partner of the Park’ that certifies their commitments 
and eligible for financial support (grants) for activities contributing to the MPA 
management plan. 

5.1.4.3  Direct support for operators to shift towards more sustainable practices 

A range of direct support mechanism – access to finance, technical and administrative 
support – have been successfully employed in MPAs to help operators shift towards more 
sustainable practices. These may enable operators to adopt known MPA-compliant 
practices, or to foster innovation in sustainable practices. In Kosterhavet Marine National 
Park (Sweden), the costs of seeking permissions to operate within the MPA were seen as 
holding back potential biotech innovation associated with macro algae. 

In a number of MPAs (e.g. Torre Guaceto, Iroise) short term incentives via the provision 
of funding, or at least support to access funding, has been successfully used to support 
fishermen in the transition to the lower impact gears (or alternative practices) required 
to comply with the MPA management measures. In the Wadden Sea case, the provision 
of funding (and education) has been coupled with a transition period, which gives both 
the financial resource and time necessary for mussel farm operators to invest in new 
equipment and techniques required to comply with MPA management. 

Box 33.  MPA management body support for aquaculture operations and 

innovation in Iroise (France) 

The Iroise Marine National Park case study demonstrates how the park provides support 
to professional activities that contribute to the objectives set out in the management 
plan. In particular, it aims to help new businesses that are willing to start an activity in 
the Park. The park management body has provided such support to a number of 
shellfish aquaculture and algae cultivation businesses which between them now employ 
22 FTEs. Recently, the Park’s authorities have been cooperating with the regional 
committee of shellfish farming of north Brittany (CRC Nord-Bretagne) on an integrated 
multi-trophic aquaculture project off the coast of Molène. The objective is to reproduce a 
natural ecosystem to farm various shellfish (including abalone) and algae types. The 
project partners approached various stakeholders to investigate both the scientific and 
technical aspects of the project and discussed its feasibility with local stakeholders (e.g. 
municipality). In 2016 a 10 ha concession was granted off the coast of the island and an 
operator was selected. 

5.2  Promoting synergies 

MPAs, SPMs and their surrounding areas are commonly used for a range of activities. 
Theoretically, synergistic effects – or “win-wins” – may occur between different users, for 
example, mussel cultivation in combination with offshore energy installations located in 
an MPA, or between conservation objectives and blue economy sectors. These can 
enhance the scale of economic benefits that can feasibly be realised without 
compromising the sustainable use levels necessary to achieve site conservation 
objectives. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Online survey results indicate that stakeholders think that MPAs and SPMs can help to 
create synergies. However, the literature review and stakeholder consultations found 
little evidence or knowledge about how synergies or mutual reinforcements between 
multiple economic sectors linked to MPAs and SPMs are creating opportunities for the 
European blue economy. Hence there was little evidence on the mechanisms that are 
used to encourage the creation of synergies. 

Case studies undertaken for this study did however identify a number of synergies 
occurring in MPAs. This indicates that there may be a general lack of awareness and lack 
of formal knowledge of what types of synergies can occur and under what conditions.  

5.2.1  Examples of MPA-related synergies 

The examples are presented across three types of synergies: 

  Cross-sectoral synergies can occur between any two sectors, but often appear 

to be linked to tourism – which may be because it is the sector considered to most 
often benefit from MPAs.  

  Single sector synergies refer to cases where organisations within a single sector 
work together in order to enhance the benefits that they can realise from the MPA. 
These typically go beyond simple supply chain benefits. 

  Sector and MPA/MPA management authority synergies refer to situations 

where the second beneficiary is the MPA environment or managing body.  

Box 34.  Examples of cross sectoral synergies  

 

 

 

 

 

In Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden), a macro-algae harvester (Catxalot) 
collaborates with a local brewery producing an algae beer and with a company 
making algae ice cream. Catxalot sees potential in also bundling algae harvesting 
with park-based tourism products, such as courses in outdoor survival and seafood 
foraging. 

In Bonaire National Marine Park, there are synergies between the tourism sector and 
the NGO conservation sector. These occur through the creation of conservation-
orientated tourist activities, principally for diving. They benefit the conservation 
sector through the supply of volunteers to carry out their conservation activities 
(e.g. coral restoration and transplanting) and fund-raising opportunities. They 
benefit tourism operators by providing an opportunity for product differentiation. The 
marine park facilitates this synergy by providing the regulatory framework to enable 
successful environmental activities by other organisations and through its role in 
supporting the dive sector (and benefits from the conservation activities). 

In the Wadden Sea, eco-engineering (i.e. building with nature) projects (e.g. using 
artificial mussel beds for coastal erosion management), in part stimulated by the 
protected area designations, can provide for a broader range of ecosystem service 
benefits that traditional approaches.  

In the Maritime-Terrestrial National Park of the Cabrera (Spain), researchers have 
collaborated with fishermen in order to trial lobster trap designs that may be most 
suitable to currently used trammel nets.  

In the National Marine Park of Alonissos (Greece), there are synergistic benefits 
among fisheries, tourism and the local community as a result of increased 
involvement of fishermen in local tourism (Trivourea et al, 2011). 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 35.  Examples of single sector synergies  

 

 

 

 

In the Maritime-Terrestrial National Park of the Cabrera (Spain), there is a synergy 
between nearby hotels and other tourism operators. The hotels promote trips to 
Cabrera archipelago as part of their marketing, which supports demand for other 
tourism operators associated with the park e.g. ferry companies 

In artificial reef MPAs (Cyprus), there is a synergy between dive operators in 
different locations. Some diving tour operators have collaborated as part of package 
dive tours to multiple artificial reef MPAs and share key resources (e.g. boats) in 
order to enhance their product offer (and allow overcrowding at the most populate 
locations to be managed). 

In artificial reef MPAs (Cyprus), there is a synergy between dive operators and the 
hotels industry. In exchange for supporting dive tourism demand, tourist operators 
within hotels or hotel employees receive varying levels of commission, which tend to 
be between 10-20% of the total price of the diving package sold. 

In Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy), tourism sector benefits are captured across multiple 
traditional sectors (e.g. food producers and suppliers, and traditional tourism service 
operators) sector. There are synergistic benefits of working through the extensive 
and multiple MPA branding schemes to raise awareness of the destination, and 
benefit from pooled publicity and supporting services.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 36.  Examples of synergies between economic sectors and MPAs / MPA 

management bodies  

 

 

 

 

In Vama Veche – 2 Mai marine reserve in Romania, synergies have been created 
between the dive sector and the reserve management authority. The management 
authority has provided dive centres with educational materials about the reserve, 
enhancing the dive experience, which in turn has brought income to local 
businesses. In return the visitors provide the management authority with 
observational data, photographs and videos of the reserve that can support 
management activities. 

In Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (Slovenia), there is a synergistic relationship between 
the traditional salt production and the park’s environment and cultural heritage. The 
concession for traditional salt production provides two key benefits for the park: (i) it 
directly maintains the cultural heritage assets and practices of the park and thereby 
also directly supports the maintenance of the environmental processes in place in 
the park’s habitats, (ii) it generates revenue which provides a major source of 
income for the physical management (restoration and maintenance) of the park’s 
assets. The park in turn provides the salt production company with the unique selling 
point for its salt and related products, which the company capitalises on via brand 
trademarks.  

In Bonaire National Marine Park, the park management body (STINAPA) and a salt 
producer (Cargill) both enhance their ‘social licence’ to operate by collaborating to 
address the potential environmental impacts of salt production infrastructure 
maintenance and other works. For both organisations this addresses local negative 
image perceptions. For Cargill, they are seen as making every effort to minimise 
environmental impacts, and it provides them with support if residual environmental 
issues do arise. For STINAPA, it demonstrates a positive attitude towards economic 
activity in the park, enhancing its image as a facilitator of sustainable use rather 
than as a barrier to economic progress (an issue that causes conflict on the island). 

In Bonaire National Marine Park, there is a synergistic effect between the park 
authority and the tourism sector. Nearly all of the management body’s funding 
comes from a tourism fee (for using either Bonaire’s marine park or terrestrial park), 
hence it benefits from a strong tourism sector. The tourism sector benefits from the 
marine park, not only through its efforts to maintain the quality of the marine 
environment, but also through its marine park status and education programmes 
which enhance the tourism brand. The sector also benefits directly from the 
infrastructure maintenance funded by the fee e.g. of mooring buoys. 

5.2.2  Mechanisms to encourage the creation of synergies 

Of the online survey respondents who were familiar with an MPA related synergy (34 in 
total), 77% stated that actions had occurred to encourage synergies. The three measures 
that were most frequently reported as being successful or somewhat successful were: 

  Raise awareness of potential economic benefits from MPA/SPM (91%). 

  Raise awareness / education about the MPA/SPM and the conservation needs of its 

features (87%). 

  Collaborative planning including all relevant stakeholders (87%). 

Interview and workshop consultees recognised similar participatory, knowledge and 
interpretation mechanisms – particularly emphasising the role of communication, 
consultation and dialogue, the sharing of data between stakeholders, and the 
establishment of formal partnerships. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

5.2.2.1  Knowledge, interpretative and economic mechanisms  

MPAs as economic clusters 

The limited stakeholder evidence available indicates that, in terms of the creation of 
synergies, an important route for encouraging their formation could be to set the right 
conditions to allow stakeholders to identify and form synergistic partnerships. The MPA 
management body (or other organisations) may provide the fora or processes that can 
facilitate engagement between different stakeholders. MPA management bodies may take 
this role further through the provision of a range of direct business support mechanisms 
that MPA management bodies can offer – either from their own human or financial 
resources or by engaging partners. 

In this regard, case studies of Iroise, and at a broader scale Torre Guaceto, indicate that 
they can act as an economic cluster – the hub around which various partnerships and 
synergies come together, bringing the institutional and financial resources necessary to 
create synergies and drive innovation. 

MPAs as part of Maritime Spatial Planning 

To date, MPA planning has largely taken place outside of MSP processes, driven directly 
by the requirements set out in legislation such as the Nature Directives. Some 
stakeholders suggested that maximising the economic potential of MPAs and bringing 
stakeholders together to facilitate exploration of synergies, may be more likely if MPAs 
planning processes are more closely co-ordinated with the multi-objective process of 
MSP. For example, it may allow for greater recognition of factors that can enhance 
economic benefits (without undermining conservation priorities) – such as the location 
(and protection) of spawning and land-sea interactions, and hence be better supported 
by the land-based development required to take advantage of MPA induced economic 
benefits. In Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden) it is hoped that an ongoing 
spatial planning process (which emphasis ecosystem service concepts in line with the 
national park objectives) will help provide greater clarity on spatial aspects of 
conservation and economic priorities, thereby reducing misunderstandings, bottlenecks 
and conflict. 

5.2.2.2  Legal mechanisms – licence awards and conditions 

Licenses or permits determine the right to build or operate within an MPA/SPM and 
standards/conditions may be attached to these – typically in relation to mitigating 
environmental impacts. This study found two ways in which such licensing processes may 
be used to promote the creation of synergies: 

  Public procurement evaluation criteria can place an emphasis on creating the 

conditions for co-benefits. This was highlighted as a currently missed opportunity 
regarding de facto refuges and co-location of activities. For example, in the UK, 
bids for offshore wind licences are awarded principally on cost of production 
criteria. They do not take into account meaningful consideration of other quality 
criteria such as how wind farms designs might best offer co-benefit – hence there 
is little incentive for offshore wind developers to design infrastructure or 
operational processes in a way which may allow for co-location benefits to arise. 

  Licence conditions can be used to ensure permitted activities take place in such a 
way so as to generate co-benefits for other users. For example, in Cabrera, ferry 
companies are granted permits to operate in the MPA subject to their agreement 
to deliver adequate mobility access and environmental education actions, which 
can enhance access and experience for tourists, and hence support tourism sector 
benefits. 

50 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

5.3  Resolving conflict and attaining stakeholder buy-in 

5.3.1  The main conflicts related to MPAs 

MPAs and SPMs, by imposing new management on marine activities, restricting some 
activities while others are allowed to continue (e.g. low-impact fishing or recreational 
diving), or otherwise altering the existing spatial distribution of activities, can be met 
with opposition. This can create conflicts between or within different user groups due to 
changes in dynamics and competition. Globally, conflicts between stakeholders are 
believed to be one of the reasons for the high rate of MPAs failing to achieve their 
management goals (Hargreaves-Allen et al, 2011).  

Conflicts related to MPAs may occur between sectors, within sectors or between sectors 
and MPA management authorities or environmental NGOs. All forms of MPAs were 
thought by online survey respondents (n=175) to cause conflict. The most common 
response for each MPA type was that they ‘often’26 lead to conflict. The second most 
common response was that they ‘sometimes’ lead to conflict, except for no-take MPAs 
where the second most common response (26%) was that they ‘always’ lead to conflict. 

According to online survey respondents’ experiences27, conflicts occurred before, during 
and after MPA designation with conflict peaking post designation: 70% stated that 
conflict occurred post designation, compared to 54% pre-designation and 65% during 
designation (multiple answers were possible).  

5.3.2  Mechanisms used to resolve conflict  

Some evidence suggests that initial stakeholder opposition to MPAs might fade with time, 
especially if the MPA results in benefits and opportunities to the local community, if the 
feared costs do not materialise or can be indirectly resolved by one party readily 
adopting a new behaviour. 

In many cases, however, different measures have been required to address and resolve 
conflicts. The online survey showed that of respondents familiar with an MPA related 
conflict, 72% stated that actions were taken to resolve the conflict. The three measures 
that were most often thought to be either successful or somewhat successful are (see 
Figure 13): 

  Raising awareness / education about the MPA/SPM and the conservation needs of 

its features (65%). 

  Clarification and awareness raising of the MPA/SPM boundaries and regulations 

(63%).  

  Collaborative planning including all relevant stakeholders (62%). 

Survey responses, as well as other consultation information, indicate that such 
interpretative mechanisms and participatory mechanisms are arguably the most 
important for addressing conflicts. 

While the mechanisms for conflict management are presented below on a one-by-one 
basis, it is important to note that many of the examples given of successful conflict 
management by interviewees involved a combination of approaches (e.g. dialogue, data, 
guidelines, responsive management and its enforcement). It was also considered that 
getting different stakeholder groups involved in and supportive of MPAs and to bring 
about the resolution of conflict, required substantial periods of time. 

26 Response options were: “never, sometimes, often, always, don’t know”. 
27 Only respondents familiar with an MPA/SPM related conflict were asked to complete this question (n=105). 

51 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Figure 13. Online survey responses on measures implemented to resolve conflict and 

their level of success (N=76)28 

Raise awareness / education about the MPA/SPM and the
conservation needs of its features

Clarification and awareness raising of the MPA/SPM
boundaries and regulations

Collaborative planning including all relevant stakeholders

Changes in MPA/SPM management and regulations e.g.
zoned area and permitted activities

Clarification of roles and responsibilities towards MPA/SPM
management

Encourage evidence-based decision-making respecting all
forms of information

Increased transparency in MPA/SPM management and
decision making

Raise awareness of potential economic benefits from
MPA/SPM

More effective enforcement of MPA/SPM rules including
e.g. users supporting enforcement

Introduction of penalties for violation of MPA/SPM
regulations

Ensuring economic benefits are captured / invested locally

Actions to develop local facilities and infrastructure to
ensure potential benefits are realised

Green marketing schemes (e.g. use of MPA branding)

Provision of mechanism for independent advice and
arbitration

Promotion of alternative livelihoods

Compensation for restricted use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent 

successful or somewhat successful

Unsuccessful

Not used

5.3.2.1  Knowledge and interpretive mechanisms 

The evidence gathered during in-depth interviews and workshops suggests that 
awareness-raising activities – about the conservation need and potential economic 
benefits of an MPA, and about the MPA boundary and regulations – are key to resolving, 
or avoiding MPA-related conflicts. A supporting point is the need to utilise a sound 
evidence base that incorporates all forms of available knowledge. The consultations 
underlined that such mechanisms need to occur early on in the MPA designation process 
and should be context-specific. 

Knowledge and interpretative mechanisms are important because the perception of 
legitimacy is one of the most important aspects for the success of MPAs. To reduce 

28 Only respondents familiar with a conflict and the success of measures to resolve it were asked to respond. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

conflicts, it is important that the reasons behind site designations are made clear, that 
stakeholders believe that decisions have been made on the best available evidence and 
know what they can expect as a result of the MPA designation. In particular, such 
mechanisms can help to foster early buy-in by dispelling unfounded concerns about the 
potential impact of an MPA. 

Raising awareness and educating stakeholders 

Awareness raising often takes place through stakeholder meetings, which may be general 
or sector-specific. For example, in Torre Guaceto (Italy), a number of sectoral meetings 
were held between local fishermen and the park management, a local MPA branding 
organisation and an academic, which enabled fishermen to be educated on the need for 
and expectations of the MPA, including of the potential economic benefits they would 
receive.  

A number of consultees cautioned against the risk of falsely raising stakeholder 
expectations of economic benefits, which may help to alleviate conflict at the planning 
stage only to intensify it in the medium term if expectations are not met. If anticipated 
benefits do not emerge, it is important that stakeholders understand why if they are to 
continue to support the theory that an MPA will provide economic benefits. This was the 
case for the Cyprus Artificial Reef programme, where spillover benefits for fishermen 
have not been witnessed, but fishermen agree that this is in large part due to continued 
illegal fishing in the MPA. 

Peer-to-peer learning 

Peer-to-peer learning was recognised as a useful tool for addressing conflict with the 
fisheries sector during MPA designation. Consultees cited that face-to-face education with 
sector peers can hold more resonance than education provided by the MPA proponents or 
supporting researchers. Such learning exchanges do not appear overly common, 
although use has increased markedly (mainly in the Americas) over the last 10-15 years, 
from only a few per year to close to 20 in 2013 (Lekelia et al, 2017).  

A number of examples were identified, although none from Europe. For example, 
artisanal fishermen who had opposed the establishment of an MPA in Taza, Algeria, 
became more favourable to it after some of them visited the Scandola Marine Reserve in 
France, where they learnt from the experience of local French fishermen (Boubekri and 
Djebar, 2016). A similar example was indicated where Tunisian fishermen visited 
fishermen from a successful MPA in Spain to better understand the potential benefits of 
MPAs, and returned in favour of a Tunisian MPA. 

Sharing of data and information 

Sharing of data between blue economy sectors and conservation agencies can help to 
resolve and avoid conflicts by providing for a common understanding of the evidence 
base.  

Where data sharing improves the evidence base it can result in better MPA planning and 
management decisions. The use of VMS on fishing vessels is a form of data sharing 
facilitated by technological developments. In Lyme Bay (UK), IVMS (inshore vessel 
monitoring system) was trialled on vessels under 12m, to examine whether it could 
reduce conflict by allowing vessels greater access by more accurately ensuring that 
fishermen are avoiding the MPA’s sensitive conservation features.  

Sharing of data and information can support negotiations over what activity can and 
cannot take place within MPAs (and what forms of environmental mitigation may be 
necessary to support permitted activity). An aquaculture sector interviewee reported that 
the aquaculture industry is sharing data and reports with conservation agencies to 
support discussions about the acceptability of different forms of aquaculture within MPAs. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

In the UK, Natural England is developing a tool to improve the consistency, certainty and 
transparency of conservation advice that it provides to support licensing decisions in 
MPAs (see Box 37). 

Involving stakeholders in the data collection process, especially when data are used to 
set activity restrictions, can help to ensure buy-in. This may also have relevance for 
research that underpins decisions. For example, in Bonaire, various research reports 
which examine the potential MPA benefits and carrying capacity are available, but 
opinions on the validity of their conclusions vary across stakeholder groups – it was 
suggested that greater involvement in both the research and its dissemination may 
support greater / more aligned acceptance by stakeholders. 

Box 37.  Information sharing to enhance MPA licence application processes in 

the UK 

Natural England (a government Statutory Nature Conservation Advisor) is developing a 
new tool to support early engagement with marine developers on the potential 
environmental impacts of development proposals in MPAs. The tool will be targeted 
particularly at complex projects, such as offshore wind farms, which may impact 
multiple MPAs, have multiple activity-MPA feature interactions, and in-combination 
effects to consider. It is hoped that the tool will bring a number of benefits for 
environment authorities, regulators and developers. These include: support a more 
efficient start to the conservation advice and development consenting process through 
faster access to information and identification of issues of concern; improve certainty, 
consistency and transparency in how and why issues are identified and decisions made; 
and support standardisation of assessment output layouts. All of these aspects are 
expected to provide time and cost savings to both regulators and developers compared 
to the current situation, and help to avoid unnecessary delays and conflicts 

5.3.2.2  Participatory mechanisms 

It is widely accepted that participative mechanisms are essential for conflict resolution, 
as suggested by the online survey and by many references collected in the literature 
review. Where stakeholder engagement is good, stakeholders were generally reported as 
having greater ownership of the MPA and respect for its management. 

Participatory activities complement other aspects of successful MPA management, 
helping to form and strengthen collaborations between stakeholder groups; co-develop 
management measures (e.g. charters or codes of conduct) and innovative solutions; 
increase the transparency of decision-making; encourage self-policing and enforcement; 
and provide an opportunity to share data. 

A number of examples were reported where conflict had been managed and stakeholder 
buy-in fostered through different stakeholder forums, notably: 

  Meetings with stakeholders and members of the public raising issues early on; and 

  Creation of MPA related forums and management bodies that communicate with 

stakeholder groups. 

There are a number of examples (see Jentoft et al, 2012; Leleu et al, 2011; and van de 
Walle et al, 2015) where stakeholders who were initially sceptical towards MPA 
designation have later changed their views as a result of becoming more actively 
involved, meeting MPA management representatives face-to-face as well as witnessing 
the positive changes within the wider community. The benefit of early engagement with 
stakeholder to alleviate concerns, raise awareness of benefits and collaborate on MPA 
planning was emphasised throughout the consultation. In Kosterhavet, Sweden, concerns 
were alleviated by such early engagement: meetings between fishermen, scientists and 
the County Administration made the different parties realise they had a common goal – 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

the park proponents wanted to preserve the local ways of living as part of a sustainably 
used national park, and the fishermen wanted to make sure their livelihoods could 
continue. 

However, in cases where major conflicts occur in the early stages of designation of MPAs, 
a top-down government approach may give better results and help to find a solution, as 
argued by Jones and Burgess (2005). The authors present a preliminary analysis of 15 
case studies of inshore MPAs in the UK and find that it is not always true that local 
initiatives are necessarily better than centralised ones for achieving conservation 
objectives and that they could even undermine the potential for cooperation. Some 
stakeholders suggested that, because MSP processes may be viewed more positively 
than MPA processes, stronger alignment between the two may alleviate some 
unnecessary conflicts at the MPA planning stages. 

Clear communication and aligned expectations between the different authorities and 
stakeholders involved were reported as essential by workshop participants. Common 
complaints about participatory mechanisms are that the balance of stakeholder interests 
are inappropriate, that stakeholders lack decision-making power (or their expectations of 
decision outcomes are not met) and that participation is only short-term. For example, in 
the UK, there has been considerable stakeholder engagement and sharing of data by 
stakeholders for MPA planning, but the final decision on where to locate MPAs is a 
political one and not everyone’s wishes can be taken into account (see Box 38). 

Box 38.  The importance of continued engagement and managed expectation 

in Marine Conservation Zone planning (England, UK) 

The MCZ participatory planning process engaged thousands of stakeholders via a 
number of different stakeholder fora. These included four Steering Groups, one in each 
geographical corner of England, multiple local and working groups, all guided by regional 
project teams, who led the identification and recommendation of 127 MCZs over an 
(approximately) 2 year period. This process was credited with fostering buy-in to the 
recommendations and social capital supporting MCZ designations. However these 
benefits are broadly thought to have been undermined due to the lack of any continued 
participatory processes following the submission of the recommendations to 
Government, as well as change to and delays in the designation of the recommended 
MCZs.   

Box 39.  Stakeholder forum in Kosterhavet Marine National Park (Sweden) 

Kosterhavet Delegation for the Kosterhavet MPA, Sweden, is a forum comprising 
stakeholders and members of the public. Members of the delegation pick up concerns 
from their respective stakeholder groups for discussion among the delegation and 
communicate points of interest back to their stakeholder groups. The delegation is also 
involved in decision-making for the development of the area. 

The management model gives stakeholders a voice and is credited with helping to bring 
the local community together. Enabling the community to work with the park authorities 
has helped to alleviate initial concerns about the MPA, and provides an ongoing 
mechanism for raising issues for discussion. All stakeholder groups are represented and 
the Delegation meets on a regular basis (four times per year).  

Nevertheless, some stakeholders feel that improvements could be made. They question 
the extent to which stakeholders truly influence decisions, whether the balance of 
stakeholder representatives is appropriate and whether more regular, informal meetings 
are necessary 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 40.  Co-management in Os Miñarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest 

(Spain) 

The coordinators of the MPA extension planning process (Fundación Lonxanet) suggest 
that the co-management approach for the MPA encourages dialogue between the 
different stakeholder groups and ensures conflicts are avoided or minimized. The co-
management governance is thought to facilitate a greater willingness for dialogue, 
collaboration and interaction, especially within the fisheries sector, but also with the 
scientists and public administrations involved. A social monitoring survey from 2010 
indicated that fishermen thought that the sector was better organized at the local level 
as a result of the MPA.  

Whilst participation is key, it is also recognised that the right individuals are needed to 
galvanise and drive forward participatory approaches and help resolve conflicts. For 
example, the important role of a local politician was recognised in Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park (Sweden) in resolving conflicts with fishermen and in establishing the park. 

Consultees suggested that training is needed to help individuals and organisations to run 
workshops on MPA planning and management, taking into consideration cultural 
differences. The importance of well-trained individuals was demonstrated in Torsviken 
MPA (Sweden), where an open forum dialogue with stakeholders led by an external 
moderator was used to resolve conflict between stakeholders regarding a proposed 
expansion of the Port of Gothenburg. 

5.3.2.3  Legal mechanisms 

Legal mechanisms are commonly used to define activity zones or place limits on activity 
levels which can help resolve conflicts between sectors (as opposed to address potential 
impacts on features of conservation importance) – this was the fourth most common 
successful measures according to the online survey (see Figure 13). The former in 
particular is broadly used (although not solely for conflict management purposes). Such 
mechanisms are most commonly applied to tourism and fishing activities to address 
spatial conflicts within or between the sectors.  

As an extension to the potential of spatial conflict management via zoning, the role of 
MSP was raised by a number of stakeholders. This was particularly as a means to 
address unanticipated off-site conflicts (e.g. due to displacement) and to avoid conflict 
over economic priorities for both the MPA and in the context of its surrounding area. 
However, some stakeholders expressed the view that there is currently insufficient join 
up between MPA and MSP processes. 

In some cases, recourse to the courts may also be used to settle disputes. Well defined 
MPA rules and responsibilities in legal documents are necessary to enable legal processes 
to arbitrate such disputes. In the examples identified, such legal mechanisms appear 
only to be partially successful in addressing conflicts. For example, in Sečovlje Salina 
Nature Park (Slovenia), the private company that manages the park took the 
Government to court, as the Government provided only half of their planned financial 
contribution, and received a partial settlement. In Bonaire National Marine Park, whilst 
legal action has been successful in preventing potentially damaging activities from being 
granted permits, the act of legal challenge has undermined the working relationship 
between the independent park management body and the government (the two parties 
involved). 

56 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Box 41.  Examples of activity zonation and limitation to address conflicts  

  Zoning in Cabrera MPA (Spain): Diving activities have become regulated and zones 
are now devoted to diving and artisanal fishing. This zoning has reduced conflict 
between these sectors by reducing their interaction. Both divers and small-scale 
fishermen indicate that the zoning has supported the performance of their activity as 
it avoids possible accidents or disturbances. 

  Activity level limits in Tabarca marine reserve (Spain): A significant increase in the 
number of diving licenses following the establishment of the reserve generated 
opposition from local fishermen. As a result of this opposition, diving was restricted 
in 1993 and the number of licenses stabilised or declined slightly thereafter 
(Badalamenti et al (2000). 

 

In Os Miñarzos, the Galician Federation of Underwater Activities (FEGAS) was 
opposed to the existing ban on spearfishing. Support for the MPA extension was 
secured by offering FEGAS continued spearfishing access to the expanded area on 
the condition of developing a rigorous and verifiable regulatory system. This proposal 
was accepted by FEGAS, which also sees this as an opportunity to improve its public 
image by demonstrating improved regulation. As a result, FEGAS is now in favour of 
the proposed extension of the MPA. 

5.3.2.4  Economic mechanisms 

Economic mechanisms appear to be the least commonly used means of conflict 
resolution. Where such mechanisms were identified they principally sought to provide 
compensation to address the conflict. Compensation may take a number of different 
forms: 

  Financial compensation. In Torre Guaceto MPA (Italy), for example, fishermen 
received a single year payment for reducing fishing effort; other of financial 
compensation for fishermen were in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia, 
and the Soufriere Marine Management Area, St Lucia. 

  Provision of employment and livelihood opportunities. In La Restinga 

(Spain), for example, although initially sceptical, fishermen now see the MPA as an 
opportunity to diversify their livelihoods into tourism while still maintaining their 
traditional culture and identity. Examples of direct offers of employment to 
compensate for MPA restrictions appear less common in Europe, although are 
commonly talked about with regards to offshore wind farm de facto refuges (e.g. 
fishing vessels being employed to support surveillance, monitoring and other 
activities).  

  Provision of infrastructure and services. In Bonaire National Marine Park, the 
MPA management body offered infrastructure and services (e.g. mooring buoys) 
to help avoid conflict when a new diver access fee and rules were introduced. In a 
Slovenian MPA example local fishermen were given new fishing gear in return for 
agreeing to extend a fishing closure by two months. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

6 

Conclusions, Implications and Research Needs 

6.1  Conclusions 

6.1.1  The economic benefits of MPAs and SPMs 

There is evidence that demonstrates that MPAs and SPMs can provide economic benefits.  

Parts of the fisheries and tourism sectors are those most commonly found to benefit from 
MPAs – although robust ex-post evaluation evidence that clearly attributes changes to an 
MPA is limited. There are also opportunities for other sectors, even when they are not 
directly reliant on the ecosystem services supported by MPAs and SPMs. This is most 
clearly identified for those sectors that benefit from MPAs as direct drivers of demand 
(e.g. MPA administration and monitoring, conservation management and restoration 
work, research, surveillance and environmental service providers). 

Whilst improvements in biodiversity, the wider environment and resulting ecosystem 
services are most commonly perceived as the mechanism through which MPAs provide 
economic benefits, there are a number of other important benefit mechanisms, such as 
MPA branding and capitalising on opportunities from new and more sustainable practices. 
Many of these other mechanisms require additional entrepreneurial or institutional effort, 
beyond sound MPA environmental management, to capitalise on them.  

However, there is limited evidence on the extent to which blue economy benefits 
outweigh costs – for individual businesses or more broadly within sectors where there are 
distributional effects. This is the case for relatively well studied sectors such as fisheries 
as well as other sectors. The case for net benefits is greatest for the tourism sector as 
well as sectors for which MPAs are clear drivers of demand (e.g. MPA management, 
research, restoration activities, and surveillance and monitoring).  

6.1.1.1  Economic benefits to the commercial fishing sector 

Segments of the commercial fishing sector can benefit economically from MPAs and 
SPMs, under the right conditions. The scale and extent of economic benefits varies 
considerably, overall and across fleet segments and geographies (i.e. they depend on the 
access arrangements and geographic distribution of MPAs/SPMs). The principal 
beneficiaries are typically small-scale, artisanal fleets using static fishing gears in coastal 
areas. Examples indicate that where benefit do occur, MPAs may help to increase the 
incomes of fishermen – by amounts ranging from just a few percent to increases of many 
hundreds of percent. This can support absolute increases in fleet revenues of tens of 
thousands to hundreds of thousands of Euros. However, it is not clear that such benefits 
always constitute net benefits for individual fishermen, or that they result in net benefits 
once MPA costs to non-beneficiary fleet segments are accounted for.  

The fisheries sector obtains economic benefits most commonly as a result of changes in 
biodiversity/environmental quality. Where improvements occur in fish stocks, MPAs can 
support increased catch per unit effort, principally for low mobility species, both within an 
MPA and through spillover effects. Most evidence is for coastal MPAs – there is more 
limited evidence for offshore MPAs and SPMs, and the effect is harder to determine in 
more complex fisheries. There are a number of factors that determine the likelihood of 
such benefits – this includes whether the site, and hence its management, is specifically 
designed to benefit commercially targeted species, which most EU MPAs are not. 

Examples also exist of economic benefits stemming from MPA product branding, although 
there is a lack of formal economic research on these. Two forms were identified. Firstly, 
MPA labels and brands have been developed around individual MPAs, often combined 
with direct selling initiatives. Secondly, MPAs have played a role in the eco-certification of 
fisheries (e.g. through the Marine Stewardship Council). In both cases, these require 
fishers to implement and follow sustainable use practices; in return, these provide 
economic benefits through improved market access and, in some instances, through 
higher prices.  

58 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Accessing such benefits can require fishermen to transition to more sustainable fishing 
practices. In some cases, MPA management bodies offer financial and educational 
resources to support this. In this sense, MPAs and SPMs provide incentives to shift the 
sector towards a more environmentally sustainable model.  

6.1.1.2  Economic benefits to the tourism sector 

The sector is arguably the one that gains the most economically – both in terms of 
frequency and scale. Economic evidence indicates that MPAs can support significant 
tourism value; however, there is limited robust ex-post analysis that can attribute 
changes (or maintenance) in that value to MPAs29. Examples indicate that MPAs may help 
to raise incomes by amounts ranging from just a few percent to many hundreds of 
percent, supporting absolute increases for the sector of tens of thousands to a few million 
Euros. However, the scale of benefit varies significantly across MPAs depending on 
factors including the local tourism market dynamics, the scale and nature of the MPA and 
its attractiveness and accessibility for tourism.  

Certain parts of the tourism industry have strong positive links with MPAs – notably those 
more directly reliant on environmental quality (e.g. diving), whilst others in some 
instances may be excluded from certain types of MPA (e.g. recreational angling and 
spear fishing from no-take MPAs), which can influence the attainment of economic 
benefits. However more general forms of tourism can also benefit from MPAs. 

Improvements/conservation of biodiversity and the wider environment, MPA branding 
and marketing, and capitalisation on new opportunities for tourism services are the three 
most commonly identified benefit mechanisms. However, it is hard to isolate the 
contribution of each mechanism. It is generally difficult to determine the extent to which 
benefits are generated by actual environmental improvement/conservation or a 
perception of such improvements or via other mechanisms. A number of examples 
indicate a combination of mechanisms, and that this is arguably a more powerful 
generator of benefits than individual mechanisms acting in isolation. 

As well as raising the economic output of the sector, MPAs can also play a role in 
addressing many of the structural challenges facing the sector. There are examples of 
MPAs providing an avenue for tourism marketing, helping to differentiate and raise the 
profile of coastal tourism. MPAs were reported to be providing the impetus – and in some 
cases business support services – for the development of new tourism products which 
diversify the tourism offer. In some cases, this was found to support higher value tourism 
and increased tourism activity outside of the peak summer season. MPAs can also play 
an important role –through the implementation of sustainable use measures, 
opportunities for product/service eco-certification and in catalysing niche services such as 
eco-tourism – in encouraging a shift in the sector towards a more environmentally 
sustainable model.   

6.1.1.3  Economic benefits to other blue economy sectors 

Whilst there is a dominant view that sectors other than fisheries and tourism do not 
benefit from MPAs and SPMs, such benefits do occur. However, they are little recognised, 
documented or quantified, may occur only in isolated cases and may not be significant 
compared to the potential costs of an MPA. As such, in many instances it is hard to make 
broad generalisations, particularly regarding the scale and frequency of benefits. 

Opportunities for new and expanded activities which are necessary for the good 
management of MPAs offer the clearest route for economic benefits. In this sense, 
MPAs/SPMs generate direct demand for MPA administration and conservation 
management, monitoring, surveillance and scientific research jobs. In addition, they 
generate demand for other services, such as technology for improved MPA surveillance 
and management, and eco-engineering and ecological services to provide for 
environmental restoration or mitigation of the environmental impacts of new activities. Of 

29 Either before and after comparison of tourism value or comparisons against a without-MPA counterfactual. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

the few examples identified, contracts for such services may range from the tens of 
thousands of Euros to tens of millions of Euros. 

There are examples of shellfish and algae aquaculture and biotechnology benefits, 
although no literature was identified that researches these economic benefits. A 
combination of mechanisms can work to provide benefits for the sector, linking to MPAs 
providing good environmental conditions, supporting more sustainable practices as well 
as branding and eco-certification. However, the extent to which such benefits, where 
they occur, outweigh costs of MPAs is not clear. 

Maritime sectors such as ports, harbours and transport providers can benefit indirectly as 
a result of increased demand from the tourism and fisheries sectors, where MPAs 
stimulate improved performance in those sectors. It is suggested, but not evidenced, 
that there may also be benefits for submarine infrastructure, for example where 
submarine cable providers/users may benefit from reduced damage where MPAs remove 
trawling damage risks. 

More broadly, there is some evidence suggesting a link with MPAs and other blue 
economy sectors, when MPAs can be used by companies to demonstrate their 
environmental credentials through the adoption or innovation of lower/best 
environmental impact practices or through direct green investment. There are indications 
that this can benefit companies in the eyes of their customers and investors, although 
there are differences in opinion on the significance of such benefits.   

6.1.1.4  De facto refuges 

Much of the evidence indicates that economic value may be generated by the ability of 
structures on the sea bed to support new areas of biodiversity rather than support the 
conservation of existing biodiversity. For example, mussel strings and turbine bases can 
offer habitat for species and therefore support biodiversity, although not in places where 
these species would typically have been found. The clearest examples (although robust 
economic evidence is lacking) are where artificial reefs are installed with the dual 
purpose of benefitting both biodiversity and dive tourism – although such economic 
benefits are often as much due to the nature of the structure as they are to the 
biodiversity benefits provided by the artificial reef. The extent to which potential benefits 
may be realised depend in part on where the de facto refuges is and who has access to 
it. 

For de facto refuges to be classified as ‘other area based conservation measures’ that 
contribute to MPA networks, they may need to exclude certain sectors to ensure they 
offer the same conservation benefits as designated MPAs. Consequently, de facto refuges 
– particularly if they are to contribute to MPA networks – may offer only limited 
opportunities for some economic sectors to access the refuges in order to benefit from 
them. Further, stakeholders consider that there are insufficient incentives for the 
economic sectors which create de facto refuges to design their operations or 
infrastructure in such a way that would allow ‘co-location’ of other sectors such that they 
too could benefit. 

6.1.1.5  Net benefits 

Whilst there is evidence that MPAs can deliver net benefits (i.e. benefits of greater value 
than costs) when measured in terms of societal welfare (considering both market and 
non-market impacts), when solely market impacts are considered there is very little 
evidence to consider. 

There is a lack of robust ex-post evaluations of the economic impact of MPAs to draw firm 
conclusions about the scale of market economic benefits, the likelihood with which they 
occur, or the extent to which they outweigh costs. This may be a reflection of the 
relatively short time since many European MPAs were designated and received effective 
management, of economic effects not being of primary interest for monitoring 
programmes (as the primary objectives for MPAs are conservation-orientated), as well as 
of a lack of investment in MPA monitoring and evaluation more generally.   

60 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Qualitative case studies undertaken in this study provide a weak indication that net 
benefits may be more likely in situations when the market benefits are of a meaningful 
scale.  

6.1.2  Managing the realisation of benefits 

Evidence gathered throughout this project has pointed to the success of MPAs, including 
the extent to which they generate economic benefits, being dependent (at least in part) 
upon MPA governance and management. However, a large proportion of MPAs in the EU 
are considered to lack effective management (e.g. see Milieu et al, 2016). Hence Aichi 
Biodiversity Target 11, which requires MPAs that are “effectively and equitably 
managed”, cannot be considered met despite a significant increase in the area under MPA 
designation.  

A number of different mechanisms can be deployed to ensure that economic benefits are 
realised sustainably, that synergies which seek to maximise sustainable economic returns 
are encouraged, and that potential conflicts are avoided or resolved.  

Good governance and management takes time and resources to put in place and, in 
some cases, may require support from agencies not initially included within the original 
stakeholder group (e.g. NGOs external to the location undertaking activities such as 
supporting the creation of stakeholder forums and guiding the development of 
sustainable use measures). It is widely demonstrated in the literature that for MPA 
management to be successful in the longer term, stakeholders need to be actively 
involved in the process. Furthermore, management needs to be adaptive to changing 
environmental and social contexts.  

6.1.2.1  Ensuring sustainable use 

MPA management measures may establish which activities are permitted to operate 
within the site, or the conditions permitted activity must comply with, in order that 
conservation (or other) objectives can be attained. Thereby they provide a first order 
determination of sustainable use. A robust evidence base is recognised as essential to 
the creation of fair and effective restrictions and regulations. This may be enhanced 
where participatory approaches draw in all forms of relevant knowledge and allow for 
regular monitoring data to be collected. 

A combination of mechanisms need to be employed to ensure that the potential benefits 
of MPAs are realised sustainably, i.e. that MPA management measures are adhered to. In 
particular, these mechanisms need to make sure that stakeholders know and understand 
the rules and regulations of the MPA, are educated to understand why the MPA is in place 
and what economic benefits it may provide over the short-, medium- and long-term, and 
that there is adequate enforcement to ensure that non-compliance can be identified and 
addressed. Participation of stakeholders in MPA design and management can support 
these needs by providing forums for engagement and encouraging compliance and self-
policing. This may be most clearly fostered through the adoption of co-management 
approaches – although there are few such examples in Europe. In general, education and 
awareness can be hard to deliver where stakeholders are difficult to reach, which can 
reduce the likelihood of them either knowing or adhering to rules and best practices. A 
clear example of such a stakeholder group is cruise ship tourists.  

6.1.2.2  Synergies 

There is a general lack of understanding about the nature of potential synergies that 
MPAs can support. There are few known examples of clear synergistic economic benefits 
and, in this regard, little explicit discussion of MPA synergies in the literature. Synergies 
that were identified can be classified across three types:  

  Single sector synergies (beyond simple supply chain linkages) identified mostly 

within the tourism sector. 

  Cross-sectoral synergies, most commonly between tourism and other sectors.  

61 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

  Sector-MPA synergies, between economic sectors and MPA management bodies / 

MPA environmental enhancement (or the funding to do so). 

MPAs, where they facilitate area-based stakeholder interaction (e.g. through their 
participatory management approaches), can act as a forum for business collaboration in 
the same way that area-based maritime clusters do. A small number of examples were 
found (e.g. the Iroise Natural Marine Park, France), where local MPA management 
authorities appear to be proactively supporting the creation of an MPA economic cluster, 
i.e. they create a real or virtual space to enable dialogue between different actors 
(research, different private sectors, etc.), including offering financial incentives (e.g. 
easier funding access or fiscal benefits) and technical and administrative support (e.g. 
training).  

There are also opportunities to formally encourage the creation of synergies via licensing 
award criteria and conditions.  

More generally, close connections between MPA planning and management and MSP may 
provide a ready-made forum for positive dialogue between economic sectors.    

Cooperation between MPA management bodies and economic sectors is critical in 
realising sector-MPA synergies. Where MPAs help to stimulate innovation and shifts 
towards green practices (lowering the environmental impact of activity within an MPA), 
institutional and other resources are often needed to determine and agree acceptable 
practices and to support investment. 

6.1.2.3  Conflict resolution and stakeholder buy-in 

Conflicts related to MPAs may occur between sectors, within sectors or between sectors 
and MPA management authorities or environmental NGOs. They can occur before, during 
or after designation. Worldwide, conflicts between stakeholders are believed to be one of 
the reasons for the high rate of MPAs failing to achieve their management goals. 

Evidence from the literature, consultations and case studies demonstrate the primary 
importance of participatory mechanisms, such as co-management, that enable and 
promote dialogue, as well as knowledge and interpretative mechanisms that support the 
use of best available evidence and a shared understanding of issues. Early 
implementation of these mechanisms can help to overcome pre-designation conflicts, 
which may be in part be based on stakeholder concerns about the unknown impacts of 
an MPA. 

However, it is important for these mechanisms to be maintained over the longer-term to 
ensure that any social capital and buy-in is not eroded over time and that concerns do 
not return. Formal roles for stakeholders on MPA management groups is a commonly 
employed mechanism that enables ongoing dialogue and involvement. 

In some cases, conflicts can be managed via amendments to zoning or codes of conduct 
that help to limit the cost impacts of MPAs on stakeholders whose activities need to be 
managed. Closer connection between MPA planning and management and MSP may also 
help to better manage off-site conflicts of MPAs that result from displacement. For 
residual impacts, compensation mechanisms can be deployed, but they appear little used 
in Europe.  

6.2  Implications 

There are a number of implications that can be drawn from this study to help ensure that 
the role of MPAs and SPMs in supporting the blue economy is maximised, and that the 
potential economic benefits are realised in a way that does not undermine their 
environmental objectives.  

6.2.1  Planning for economic benefits  

MPAs are, first and foremost, a conservation tool designed to protect species and 
habitats in an attempt to halt and potentially reverse the decline in marine biodiversity. 

62 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

The generation of economic benefits has not, to date, been a key driver of such 
designation, save for some fisheries SPMs.  

Economic benefits may be more likely to materialise if they are planned for as a 
component of MPA design, management and governance. Given the need to work 
with sectors, the design and management of MPAs (in pursuit of conservation objectives) 
needs to systematically take account of sector needs, and establish plans which can 
identify and support opportunities to promote synergies, manage conflicts and maximise 
economic benefits where this does not compromise conservation objectives. As MPA 
coverage continues to increase, this will become increasingly important if MPAs are to 
best support all facets of a blue economy and to ensure continued stakeholder buy-in. 

Stakeholder participation is as important for planning for / enabling economic 
benefits as it is for ensuring conservation benefits and stakeholder buy-in. 
Stakeholder participation can play an important role in the creation of benefits, especially 
through processes such as MPA design and management, awareness raising and 
understanding, and data and knowledge sharing between stakeholders for use in 
decision-making. By increasing dialogue with sectors that do not typically interact with 
MPAs, opportunities for benefits (including synergies) may be more readily identified.  

Transitions necessary to ensure economic operators' compatibility with MPA 
requirements may be more effective where there is time to plan for them. If 
economic operators are approached in advance of designation, then opportunities to 
explore and implement changes to address key concerns can be taken up. Such 
transitions may require investment and training, which both need adequate time to be 
implemented. For instance, economic activities creating pressures on the environment 
that would jeopardise the attainment of an MPA’s conservation objectives might be able 
to adopt alternative practices that are compatible with attainment of those conservation 
objectives. This may both limit the economic costs of MPA designation, because operators 
can continue instead of facing prohibitions, and encourage and demonstrate ‘greener’ 
economic practices that could be taken up more widely by the sector as a whole.  

The potential for MPAs to act as economic clusters could be better 
acknowledged and supported. MPAs can act as a focus for institutional support to 
transition the maritime economy towards a blue (i.e. green) economy that is more 
compatible with environmental objectives, promoting green innovation and synergies 
between sectors. 

6.2.2  Placing MPAs within the broader environmental and economic context 

Impacts (including costs and benefits) of MPAs are not confined to MPA borders and are 
not confined to individual MPAs in isolation. Better planning for MPA networks is needed, 
as is the need for MPA planning and management to sit within management of the wider 
marine area. 

MPAs should be seen as being at the core of the EU’s blue infrastructure, and this 
should be recognised within (or at least in concert with) an MSP system that meets both 
environmental and economic objectives. The system as a whole needs to meet multiple 
objectives, enhance synergies and manage conflicts. Greater coherence with such a 
multi-objective process as MSP may better support the creation of a functioning blue 
infrastructure network that provides for the most appropriate distribution of conservation 
and economic activity (including additional designations or zones that complement MPAs 
and meet blue economy objectives) and improved land-sea interactions. 

MPAs need to be placed in their wider environmental context, for example, their 
role in contributing to GES under the MSFD and climate change objectives30. The role and 
impact of MPAs, including their offsite impacts (e.g. via displacement) needs to be well 
understood in order to maximise their environmental benefits and to maximise net 

30 See Russi et al (2016) for further discussion on the role of MPAs in supporting climate change mitigation and 
adaptation. 

63 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

economic benefits. As the marine area under MPA designation continues to increase, 
robust evaluations of their effectiveness should be undertaken. There must be a 
willingness to not only adapt management but redesign the spatial footprint of MPAs, or 
de/re-designate MPAs, where deficiencies are found, or changes in the distribution of 
ecological features occur (e.g. due to climate change), in order to optimise MPA 
networks.  

6.2.3  Provide the support necessary to capitalise on economic opportunities  

Evidence demonstrates that capitalising on the economic opportunities offered by MPAs 
requires more than just sound MPA design and management. Capitalising on improved 
environmental resources in MPAs often requires investment by the beneficiary sectors to 
transition towards more sustainable practices which can enable them to operate inside 
MPAs. Capitalising on other MPA benefit mechanisms often required additional 
institutional action to design and implement initiatives and programmes.  

MPA management bodies and other institutions can play an important enabling 
role, e.g. provision of finance or support in accessing finance; technical support for 
innovation and business planning; increasing dialogue between sectors (both private and 
public) and the setting-up of initiatives and programmes. In many cases, this may 
require investment in the capacity and capabilities of MPA management bodies, or other 
institutions and individuals, who can spearhead initiatives. 

Proactive MPA management bodies can provide an important function in bringing 
businesses from different sectors together, providing a platform from cross-sectoral 
economic synergies and supporting sectors active within MPAs to capitalise on available 
opportunities. However, this needs to be placed within the context of the conservation 
objectives and carrying capacities relevant to each individual MPA.  

6.2.4  Evidence and engagement for effective MPA management and 

enforcement 

6.2.4.1  Adaptive management 

MPA management needs to be responsive to change. The stakeholder support to both 
collect the data necessary for adaptive management decisions, and for acceptance of 
changes in management (particularly if they result in greater restriction), requires a mix 
of participatory, knowledge and interpretative (i.e. education and awareness raising) 
mechanisms. 

6.2.4.2  Enforcement and monitoring is essential for the achievement of MPA 
conservation objectives and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and for the 
generation of economic benefits 

There are clear examples where a lack or deterioration in formal enforcement 
undermines the generation of economic benefits, stakeholder buy-in and self-policing. 
The reverse is also true – a common characteristic of the MPAs where benefits have 
emerged is good stakeholder engagement and buy-in, including a role for self-
enforcement.  

6.2.5  Diversified and stable funding sources 

More sustainable and diversified funding sources are necessary for effective MPAs. A 
diversified income, away from public sector sources and time-limited grants, can provide 
some level of budgetary resilience to changes in public policy priorities and funding cycles 
that may affect funding availability. A relatively high level of self-generated funding is 
achievable through accessing a mix of often readily available sources. For example, in 
Egadi MPA (Italy) around 50% of the annual budget is provided through a mix of the 
following: fines for illegal activities, permissions/authorisations, use of MPA infrastructure 
(e.g. mooring buoys), tourism entrance fees and merchandising, sponsorship and 
donations. 

Self-financing through payments by MPA beneficiaries (payment for ecosystem services) 
still appears to be little used across Europe. However, cases such as Bonaire National 

64 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Marine Park (Dutch Caribbean), which is over 90% self-financed through a user fees 
system, demonstrates what can be achieved under favourable conditions. Better 
recognition and planning for the broadest set of potential economic benefits may create 
more opportunities to generate funds from MPA beneficiaries – charging for use of 
ecosystem services or other services offered by MPAs (e.g. user fees).  

Sustainable financing also includes novel, alternative sources, such as the use of venture 
capital, engagement with the insurance industry, biodiversity offsetting and the creation 
of blue bonds. In addition, there are emerging opportunities for new technologies (from 
VMS to unmanned aerial vehicles) to reduce the costs of day-to-day MPA management 
by supporting MPA monitoring and enforcement as well as providing economic 
benefits/opportunities for the businesses involved. 

To encourage greater take-up of accessible opportunities, obligations can be attached to 
time-limited grants that require MPA management bodies to put in place mechanisms to 
enable a certain level of self-funding before the end of the grant period. 

6.2.6  Incentives for de facto refuge 

Incentive mechanisms may be necessary to encourage de facto refuge to provide longer 
term environmental benefits and be delivered in a way that enables promoted economic 
co-benefits to materialise. Such incentives may be initiated via licencing decisions, 
consenting of planning permissions, planning conditions or other routes.  

6.2.7  Improving understanding and evidence of economic benefits 

The economic evidence base on blue economy benefits of MPAs and SPMs is still limited, 
particularly outside of the fisheries and tourism sectors. The currently available evidence 
is dominated by literature on the economic benefits to tourism and small-scale fisheries 
and is geographically concentrated on the Mediterranean and North-east Atlantic. But 
even here there is a lack of robust ex-post evidence that can clearly attribute the scale of 
observed changes in sector performance to MPAs, and a lack of standardisation across 
studies. There is a general lack of understanding and evidence on how other sectors may 
benefit from MPAs. As a result, the distribution and relative scale of MPA economic 
benefits compared to costs remains poorly understood. 

Improved understanding, using a standardised approach, would more clearly 
portray the role of MPAs in supporting the blue economy. It would provide an 
improved basis for MPA design and management that can maximise blue economy 
benefits, and it would provide greater help in ensuring that stakeholder expectations 
(and MPA-proponent predictions) of economic benefits are better aligned to reality. There 
are opportunities to incorporate greater socioeconomically relevant indicators into MPA 
monitoring programmes. For example, Natura 2000 sites could monitor the status of 
commercial species – currently monitoring in such sites typically focusses on the species 
and/or habitats for which the respective site has been designated. Similarly, de-facto 
refuges infrastructure operators could incorporate socioeconomic indicators into their 
environmental monitoring programmes. 

6.3  Research needs 

6.3.1  Research on economic benefits 

Research ought to focus, as a priority, on improving quantitative ex-post assessment 
evidence on the scale and nature of costs and benefits, and hence net benefits, and 
the extent to which changes are attributable to MPAs and SPMs. The geographic coverage 
of evidence also needs to be improved (notably for the Black Sea as MPA management 
becomes better established). Continued advances in natural capital accounting may 
provide a vehicle for addressing some of the below stated priorities.  

65 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

6.3.1.1  Commercial fishing  

  Baseline studies of fisheries activities in MPAs and SPMs currently going through 
the designation process are needed to enable future evaluation. Monitoring and 
evaluation plans should be put in place for MPAs to support this and standardised 
where possible to allow intra-site comparison. 

  Monitoring of commercial fish species status could be added to MPA ecological 

monitoring indicators even when such species are not a designated MPA feature. 

  Monitoring and evaluation should focus on the net economic benefits, and 

distribution of benefits across the sector, of multi-use MPAs as these are the 
dominant type in Europe (whereas existing economic research is predominantly 
focussed on no-take MPA benefits). 

  The scale and distribution of the net benefits that can be generated by different 

benefit mechanisms for different fleet segments under different conditions requires 
further investigation (e.g. the impact of MPA labelling and branding schemes is a 
notable gap). 

  Systematic evaluation of the success factors associated with different benefit 

mechanisms. 

  Empirical research of distributional effects (environmental and economic) resulting 
from displaced activities surrounding MPAs and SPMs is required to support the 
planning, design and evaluation of sites. 

6.3.1.2  Tourism  

  Baseline studies of tourism activities in MPAs currently going through the 

designation process to enable future evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation plans 
should be put in place for MPAs to support this and standardised where possible to 
allow intra-site comparison. 

  Evaluation of the relative importance of the mechanisms identified compared to 

the designation effect, and the success factors associated with each. 

  To establish the carrying capacities of different types of MPAs (and environmental 
features) and the associated effectiveness of different forms of sustainable use 
management. 

6.3.1.3  Other blue economy sectors 

  To undertake baseline studies of blue economy activities in and around MPAs 

currently going through the designation process. Standardised monitoring and 
evaluation plans should be put in place for MPAs to support this. 

  Evaluation of the success and (potential) net economic benefits of innovative 

aquaculture practices (notably shellfish and algae cultivation) as they are tested 
and emerge in (and in balance with the objectives of) MPAs.  

  To examine and quantify the identified (potential) net benefits from MPAs to the 
blue biotechnology sector, and determine compatible sustainable use practices. 

  To assess the impacts of MPA-induced changes in the distribution of trawling 

activity on sectors responsible for submarine infrastructure. 

  To evaluate the economic impact of association with an MPA on company or sector 
image and the extent to which this translates into improved competitive position 
amongst consumers or finance providers. 

6.3.1.4  General 

  To investigate the potential for knowledge sharing between blue economy sectors 
and conservation agencies responsible for MPA designation and management and 

66 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

how this may support blue economy sector-MPA management synergies, including 
through MSP processes. 

  To examine and value the role of MPAs in encouraging innovation in technologies, 

eco-engineering / nature-based infrastructure solutions, and operational practices.  

  To quantify the volume and value of jobs in the conservation sector resulting from 

the growth in number of MPAs. 

6.3.2  Research priorities for improving management to realise potential 

economic benefits 

  Identify the role and type of short term incentives available to support sectoral 

transitions towards MPA-compatible sustainable practices. 

  Assessment of the extent to which economic mechanisms such as labelling, 

overcome the short-to-medium term losses felt by fishers and other users from 
the implementation of sustainable use measures. 

  To establish approaches for incentivising the realisation of the potential for de-

facto refuge (and other activity) co-location benefits. 

  To build on existing guidelines for economic activity in MPAs31, and examine the 

feasibility for more proactive support for economic activities in MPAs and their role 
as MPA/SPM economic clusters. 

  To better understand the relationship between conservation objective attainment 

and economic benefit generation. This should include the full range of mechanisms 
by which benefits can be generated, and the full range of potential beneficiaries 
(not just fisheries and tourism but all relevant blue economy sectors), are be 
reflected in the development of MPA natural capital accounts. The aim should be 
for MPA CBAs to be able to take a comprehensive view of costs and benefits 
stemming from both the market and the non-market spheres, with an ability to 
clearly distinguish between the market and non-market values. 

  To determine how MPA planning could be better integrated with MSP to capitalise 

on the potential economic benefits of a blue infrastructure network. 

  To assess the different opportunities for sustainable MPA financing, including the 

application of beneficiary payment mechanisms to generate MPA funding (payment 
for ecosystem services), and the conditions under which the different approaches 
may be successful. 

31  E.g. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm  

compatibility 

activities  with  MPA 

guidelines 

ensuring 

on 

of 

objectives 

– 

see: 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Annex 1  Robust and Quantitative Evidence 

This annex provides a table summary of the most robust economic evidence identified in the literature, as well as further quantitative 
examples drawn from the consultations and case studies. 

Table 5.  European evidence of quantitative economic benefits of MPAs and SPMs to fisheries 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

Columbretes Islands 
Marine Reserve, 
Spain 

No take  

type 

Assessment of 
change 

Columbretes Islands 
Marine Reserve, 
Spain 

No take  

Assessment of 
change 

No take zone 
+ multi-use 
area 

Assessment of 
change 

Carry-le-Rouet, 
Cerbère-Banyuls, 
Medes Islands, Cabo 
de Palos, 
Columbretes 
Islands, La Graciosa 
and La Restinga 

Cerbère-Banyuls; 
Carry-le-Rouet, 
France 

No take zone 
+ multi-use 
area 

Assessment of 
change 

Benefit 
pathway 

Ecosystem 
services, 
spillover sub-
pathway.  

Ecosystem 
services, 
spillover sub-
pathway. 

Ecosystem 
services, 
spillover sub-
pathway. 

Benefits identified 

Source/Ref. 

Over an 8 to 15 year protection period, harvested spillover 
offsetthe loss of yield resulting from the reduction of fishing 
grounds set aside in the CIMR, producing a mean annual net 
benefit of 10% of the catch in weight. 

Goñi et al, 
2010 

Clear evidence of spillover of fish from the site (<0.5 km from 
the boundary) to the adjacent fishery based on continuously 
increased commercial fish yields at the zone border during the 
study period, despite being locally depleted due to fishing 
effort concentration.  

Stobart et al, 
2009 

Catch rates of fisheries adjacent to seven MPAs in Southern 
Europe increased by 2-4% per year for 30 years (length of 
study) and are particularly detectable for total marketable 
catch (i.e. including by-catch of non-targeted commercial 
species.  

Vandeperre et 
al, 2011 

Ecosystem 
services, 
spillover sub-
pathway. 

Evidence of effort concentration and high fishery production 
(CPUA) near fisheries closures for all fishing tactics; significant 
negative slopes with distance from no-take zones; and 
revenues generally followed trends similar to CPUA. 

Goñi et al, 
2008 

Medes; Cabrera; 
Tabarca; Cabo de 
Palos, Spain 

Tabarca; Cerbère-
Banyuls and Carry-
le-Rouet marine 
reserves, Spain and 
France 

No take + 
multi-use 
area 

Assessment of 
change 

Ecosystem 
services, 
spillover sub-
pathway. 

Significantly higher catches (biomass of total catch) for some 
target species near MPA borders when fishing on seagrass 
meadows, but not on sandy bottoms, concluding that spillover 
is related to distribution of habitat across MPA borders. 
Spillover was sufficient to provide local benefits to artisanal 
fisheries (through juvenile and adult spillover).  

Forcada et al, 
2009 

68 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

type 

Benefit 
pathway 

Benefits identified 

Torre Guaceto, Italy  Multi-use 

Assessment of 
change 

Ecosystem 
service pathway. 

CPUE was 400% higher than outside of the MPA following a 
temporary 4 year closure and then reduced to 200% higher 
once managed fishing was restricted in the MPA.  The net 
economic value (i.e. profit) of a day inside the MPA is about 
two times that generated outside (on average €140/day 
versus €70/day). Total value of landings from the MPA is 
estimated to be €64,000/yr, hence impact since designation 
may be an increase of around €32,000/yr. 

12 MPAs in 
Southern Europe 

Multiple types 
of protection 
(multiple 
sites) 

Baseline study 
and 
assessment of 
impact 

Multiple 

Based on survey responses, annual income to commercial 
fishermen from use of MPA ecosystem services is €720,000 
per MPA. The services generate an equivalent 54 jobs per 
MPA. 

Gulf of 
Castellammare, 
Italy 

Fishery 
exclusion 
zone 

Assessment of 
change 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services and 
sector 
interaction.  

Artisanal vessels operating inside the trawl ban area (using 
trammel nets and set gillnets) achieve higher catch rates than 
those outside. Net financial profit (boat income) in 1998-99 
averaged 8.7 million lira (€4,493) per vessel. Just over 15% 
of operators incurred losses, while some 9% earned profits in 
excess of 25 million lira (€12,911). Using a 20-year planning 
horizon produced an internal rate of return of 30%, 
substantially in excess of the opportunity cost of capital (6-
12%). Artisanal vessels outside the ban area have become 
worse off due to increased activity of displaced trawlers 

Source/Ref. 

Guidetti et al, 
2010; Guidetti 
and Claudet, 
2010; and case 
study  

Alban et al, 
2008, also 
summarised in 
Roncin et al, 
2008 

Whitmarsh et 
al, 2002 

Lyme Bay MPA, UK  Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services 

Increase in monthly landings of whelks, crabs and scallops 
from vessels operating within the MPA, and for value of catch 
(increasing from a mean of £5,411 per vessel per month in 
2005/06 to a mean of £7,267 per vessel per month in 
2013/14). Not all attributable to the MPA 

Rees et al. 
2016 

Lyme Bay MPA, UK  Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Product branding 
(reserve label) 

Premium price on products of between 30 and 50% depending 
upon species and season 

Chichester Harbour 
SAC, UK 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services 

2015 first sale value of £105k for 2 week fishery compared to 
other local harbours where the oyster beds have disappeared. 

Consultation 
interview MPA 
manager 

Consultation 
interview MPA 
manager 

69 

 
 
 
 
Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

type 

Assessment of 
change 

Gökova Bay, Turkey  6 no-take 
zones and 
area where 
trawling and 
purse seining 
is restricted   

Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Benefit 
pathway 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services 

Benefits identified 

400% increase in fishers incomes  

Source/Ref. 

Consultation 
interview MPA 
manager 

Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park, 
Sweden 

Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park, 
Sweden 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Os Miñarzos Marine 
Reserve of Fishing 
Interest, Spain 

Os Miñarzos Marine 
Reserve of Fishing 
Interest, Spain 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

reduced 
competition for 
space and/or 
improved status 
of target species 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services 

Changes in 
ecosystem 
services 

Catches of northern shrimp increased inside the park by 78% 
over 2012-2015 (all fisheries along the coast have 
experienced high shrimp catches recently and that the 
increase is probably not due to the national park) 

Case study  

74% increase in catches and number of fishermen in zones 
closed from trawling (2012-15) (Note, this data is for closed 
areas in both KHNP and neighbouring Väderö Islands nature 
reserve 

Case study  

Lobster catches are now 50% higher than pre-2007 and some 
fishermen report that this has led to an increase in their 
annual profits of up to 10%. 

Case study  

Shellfish species: 

Case study  

Mussels: In 2009, two years after the creation of the 
MPA, stock increased and gatherers caught in total 2 tonnes 
more than in 2008 (with a less than proportionate increase in 
fishing effort). 

Sea urchin: Stock increased (in terms of individuals and size) 
and catches were doubled within the MPA in 2010 compared 
to 2009 (with a less than proportionate increase in fishing 
effort). 

Goose barnacle: Stock increased (in terms of individuals and 
size) and catches increased following the designation of the 
MPA, with a considerable decrease in fishing effort. This 
caused an increase in profits of 150% between 2007 and 
2012, of up to €40,000. 

National Park of the  Multiple use 

Assessment of  Ecosystem 

Increase in total landings of up to €20,000/year (although due  Case study 

70 

 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

Cabrera 
Archipelago, Spain 

type 
change 

Benefit 
pathway 
services 

Benefits identified 

Source/Ref. 

to expected undeclared landings this may be an 
underestimate) 

Table 6.  European evidence of quantitative economic benefits of MPAs and SPMs to tourism 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

Several MPAs in 
Southern Europe 

type 

Multiple types 
of protection 
(multiple 
sites) 

Baseline study 
and 
Assessment of 
change 

Benefit 
pathway 

Multiple 

Medes Island 
(Spain) 

No-take and 
multi-use 

Baseline study  Ecosystem 

service pathway 

Benefits identified 

Mean expenditure: €1,022/yr for recreational fishers, 
€1,307/yr for scuba divers. Mean local added value due to the 
expenditures of non-resident MPA recreational fishers and 
scuba divers: respectively €88,319/yr and €551,481/yr per 
MPA. Yearly local income related to services to non-resident 
recreational users: €640,000/yr per MPA. Mean jobs created 
for MPA management: 8/yr. Mean jobs generated by local 
expenditures of non-resident recreational fishers and scuba 
divers: respectively 2.1 and 13 yearly full time equivalent. 

The model provides a business plan for a hypothetical reserve 
based on data from the Medes Island reserve. It assumes that 
the tourism sector covers the costs of the reserves and that 
fishers receive income from tourist access fees. The total 
annual profits are estimated to increase from €254,000 
(fishing only) to €3.3 million eight years after the creation of 
the reserve. The net present value of the reserve can be 
between 4 and 12 times greater than that of the same area 
before the reserve.   

Source/Ref. 

Alban et al, 
2008, also 
summarised in 
(Roncin et al, 
2008 

Sala et al, 
2016 

Cap de Creus 
(Spain) 

No-take and 
multi-use 

Baseline study  Ecosystem 

service pathway 

Cap de Creus 
(Spain) 

No-take and 
multi-use 

Baseline study  Ecosystem 

service pathway 

Lyme Bay (UK) 

No-take and 
multi-use 

Baseline study  Ecosystem 

service pathway 

Recreational boat fishers spend approximately 500€/yr/angler 
on goods and services directly relating to angling, 57.5% do 
so on one of the villages of the park. 

Lloret et al, 
2008 

Recreational shore fishermen spend about €600/yr. in fishing 
supplies and car fuel. However, only 20% of the expenditures 
in fishing supplies are made in the villages of the Park. 

Font and 
Lloret, 2011 

Total expenditure for recreation activities = £18M/yr (sea 
anglers= £14M/yr; divers=£1 M/yr; boat charter and dive 
businesses=£3 M/yr). 

Rees et al, 
2010 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

type 

Benefit 
pathway 

Lyme Bay (UK) 

Multi-use 

Assessment of 
change 

Ecosystem 
service pathway 

Alonissos (Greece)  No-take and 

multi-use 

Assessment of 
change 

Multiple 

Alonissos (Greece)  No-take and 

multi-use 

Assessment of 
change 

Multiple 

No-take and 
multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Multiple 

Wadden Sea World 
Heritage Site and 
other designations 
(Germany, 
Netherlands, 
Denmark) 

Plemmirio (Italy) 

Benefits identified 

Source/Ref. 

Rees et al, 
2015 

Three years after the MPA designation, the income generated 
inside it had increased by £2.2 M. In particular, expenditures 
of anglers and divers have increased by respectively 
£1,544,068 and £488,613 (due to an increase in visits of 19% 
and 35%), whereas the turnover of charter boat operators 
and dive business have increased by respectively £108,427 
and £39,864 (due to an increase in their activities by 51% 
and 201%). Part of this increase may be due to a decrease in 
activities outside the MPA. In fact, in the same period the 
expenditures of anglers operating outside the MPA decreased 
by £1,544,068, whereas the turnover of charter boat 
operators outside the MPA decreased by £108,427. The 
expenditures of divers and the turnover of dive business 
operating outside the MPA increased by respectively £488,613 
and 39,864.  

40% of the residents believe that the MPA designation results 
in a considerable increase in local tourism and 44% that it has 
a positive impact on the livelihood of people working in the 
tourism sector. 

Trivourea et al, 
2011 

Owners of tourist agencies, hoteliers and owners of rooms to 
let felt strongly to have benefited the most by the MPA. 
Tourists believe that the MPA constituted a significant 
advantage for Alonissos compared to other destinations. 

Oikonomou 
and Dikou, 
2008 

The Wadden Sea World Heritage site comprises multiple MPAs 
across the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark and is used to 
market the attractiveness of the site to tourists. Its reputation 
for environmental quality is reported to support tourism 
demand and helps to sustain around €3 to 5 billion of tourism 
sector turnover per year 

Common 
Wadden Sea 
Secretariat, 
2014 

No-take and 
multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Considerable growth in tourism from 450 divers in 2004 to 
more than 3000 in 2017 

Consultation 
interview MPA 
manager 

Kosterhavet, 
(Sweden) 

Multiple-use 

Assessment of 
change 

unknown 

The national park has helped create about 15 FTEs (7FTE 
directly by the park for management, the rest associated with 
local business start up 

Consultation 
interview MPA 
manager 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

type 

Benefit 
pathway 

Zakynthos (Greece)  No-take and 
multiple-use 

Assessment of 
change 

Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park, 
Sweden 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Multiple 

Benefits identified 

Source/Ref. 

Arrival of visitors to the island has increased by 50% in 20 
years, in part due to the MPA. For every €1 spend on the 
MPA’s operation, €20 are created at the national/local level. 

Consultation 
interview MPA 
manager 

In the summer of 2006, before KHNP was established, the 
islands had 90,000 visitors annually (Strömstad Municipality, 
2009). In 2015, the national park received about half a million 
visitors (Ekoturismföreningen, 2015), making it the most 
popular Swedish national park (SEPA, 2017). KHNP is, for 
instance, one of the most popular archipelagos for 
recreational boaters in the region – an industry worth about 
0.5 billion SEK per year 

Case study 

Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park, 
Sweden 

National Park of the 
Cabrera 
Archipelago, Spain 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Unclear 

High demand for new KHNP-related products for one kayaking 
firm, equivalent to around 5% (€7,200) of turnover. 

Case study  

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Unclear 

Since its designation in 1991 visits to the park have increased 
by over 400% to nearly 90,000 in 2015.  

Case study 

Torre Guaceto, Italy  Multi-use 

Baseline 

Unclear 

Bonaire National 
Marine Park 

Mutliple-use 

Assessment of 
change 

Multiple 

In 2015 a total of 38,388 people visited Cabrera through 
collective transport (see Figure 8.5). The average price per 
passenger is about €50, hence it is estimated that those 
companies generated a gross income over €1,900,000. 

Gross volume of charter business linked to the National Park 
could reach over €1,409,000. 

Annual dive operator gross revenue from visits to the park 
estimated to be €120,000 

Multiple marine resreation activity providers generate nearly 
€190,000 of revenue from their operations inside the 
protected area. In 2016 the park received nearly 60,000 visits 
generating revenue of €233,000 in entrance fees and on-site 
activity and merchandise sales 

Case study 

The park was established in 1979. Tourist arrivals have grown 
from just a few thousand in the 1970s to around 130,000 
today. Tourism has been, and continues to be, the main 
engine of economic growth. Tourism expenditure was 

Case study 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

type 

Benefit 
pathway 

Benefits identified 

Source/Ref. 

estimated to be USD160m in 2012, directly generating gross 
value added of USD60m, equivalent to 16.4% of Bonaire’s 
GDP 

Table 7.  European evidence of quantitative economic benefits of MPAs and SPMs to other blue economy sectors 

Area studied 

MPA type   Assessment 

type 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Benefit 
pathway 

Opportunity for 
new  / expanded 
business 

Benefits identified 

about 20 part-time jobs were created for coastal litter 
collection, hay meadow management etc. (Hambrey, 2007) 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Opportunity for 
new  / expanded 
business 

Contract value of €2.5-3million for re-construction of the 
island of Griend, located within the UNESCO World Heritage 
Site and is a Natura 2000 site. 

Source/Ref. 

Kosterhavet 
Marine National 
Park, Sweden 

Wadden Sea 
UNESCO and 
Natura 2000 
sites 

Multiple use 

Assessment of 
change 

Opportunity for 
new  / expanded 
business 

The number of aquaculture operators has doubled, with eight 
organisations now operating in the Park employing over 20 
FTEs 

Iroise Marine 
National Park, 
France 

Multiple use 

Baseline 

Opportunity for 
new  / expanded 
business 

In 2014 approximately 153 scientists belonging to 28 different 
research teams visited the archipelago to collect field data for 
their research. 

National Park 
of the Cabrera 
Archipelago, 
Spain 

Multiple use 

Baseline 

Opportunity for 
new  / expanded 
business 

The value of sales in 2016, which includes other non-salt 
products such as the dining programme and merchandise, 
was close to €2.5million 

Sečovlje Salina 
Nature Park, 
Slovenia 

74 

Kosterhavet Marine 
National Park, 
Sweden 

Wadden Sea 
UNESCO and Natura 
2000 sites 

Iroise Marine 
National Park, 
France 

National Park of the 
Cabrera 
Archipelago, Spain 

Sečovlje Salina 
Nature Park, 
Slovenia 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Annex 2  Critical Review Workshop 

A2.1  Introduction 

The purpose of the workshop32 was to present and critically discuss the study’s draft 
findings with a small group of eight stakeholders, representing the blue economy and 
conservation / MPA managers, and four European Commission officials. The workshop 
sought opinion on (i) the clarity of the methods, findings and presentation, (ii) the 
extent to which findings are in line with or contrary to expectations and other 
evidence, and (iii) the relevance and significance of the findings and conclusions. 

The draft final report and summaries of the technical annexes (the study task outputs) 
were provided in advance to participants. In addition to discussion at the workshop, 
participants (and other invited stakeholders who were unable to attend on the day) 
were offered the opportunity to provide written comments. 

This note presents a short summary of discussion points and issues raised at the 
workshop.  

A2.2  Study scope and methods 

The study scope and method were presented to participants. Participants did not 
express any fundamental issues or problems with the methodology. Clarification 
questions and suggestions regarding presentation, were put to the study team. These 
included: 

  It was confirmed that all blue economy sectors, including sector representative 
bodies and individual businesses, were engaged through the different research 
tasks. 

  It was clarified that a mix of proxies were used to measure economic benefits 
e.g. added value, turnover/output, jobs, visitors. Perceptions of businesses, 
residents and tourists were also used. 

  It was suggested that the report introduction should more clearly demonstrate 
the role of the study in complementing other studies33 and that the study scope 
focussed mainly on one element of MPA benefits.  

A2.3  Sector benefits 

Commercial fishing 

  The workshop presentation clearly distinguished the benefits between different 

commercial fishing segments (e.g. small-scale coastal vs others). These 
distinctions should be more clearly presented in the report.   

  The study presents a range of factors that are of relevance in determining the 
likely benefits for the sector. It should be more clearly stated that the limited 
evidence available does not allow conclusions to be drawn on ‘the most 
important’. 

  The report could better highlight that the literature on ecolabels provides only 
limited evidence of the extent (positive or negative) to which premium prices 
and economic benefits are achieved.  

32 Held in Brussels on Thursday 8th February 2018; 09:45 – 16:30 
33 Russi D., Pantzar M., Kettunen M., Gitti G., Mutafoglu K., Kotulak M. & ten Brink P. (2016). Socio-Economic 
Benefits of the EU Marine Protected Areas. Report prepared by IEEP for DG Environment. 

75 

 
 
 
                                           
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

  Conclusions regarding stability of income appear to be overstated in relation to 
the evidence presented. The inferred strength of the conclusions should be 
reviewed. 

  Better drawing out the information on the impacts on professional fishing jobs 
presented in the case studies would be of particular interest to the sector. 

  From the report, one can conclude that there is in general a lack of 

socioeconomic monitoring, with MPA monitoring focussed largely on ecological 
objectives. Addressing this would provide important evidence for better 
understanding MPA benefits. The findings on monitoring need to come out more 
strongly as a conclusion from this report.  

Benefits to the tourism sector 

  The challenges involved in successful pescatourism in practice should be more 

clearly stated alongside the evidence on potential benefits.  

  The workshop participants generally agreed that visitor fees to MPAs could be 
successful used to support sustainable use of MPAs. Whilst there are some 
existing examples of visitor fees in European MPAs, these are not common.   

  The study adds to the emerging understanding of the size and impact of 

recreational fishing. Management of recreational fishing and illegal sale by 
recreational fishers was suggested as an area that deserved closer policy 
attention.  

  The study’s findings on tourist benefits and challenges regarding compatibility 
with MPA objectives were recognised. It was suggested that through the 
Commission’s work to promote tourism and engage with the cruise tourism 
sector in particular, issues relating to nature conservation and better 
management of visitors should be addressed.  

Benefits to the other blue economy sectors 

  Carbon sequestration by MPA protected habitats may support climate goals. It 

was suggested that this may reduce the need for climate mitigation investment, 
thereby freeing up capital for other purposes. While was outside the study 
scope, such benefits have been investigated as part of other recent Commission 
research that this study complements.  

  Aquaculture is a diverse sector with very differing environmental impacts. The 
report should be clearer on the type of aquaculture being referred to when the 
benefits of MPAs are presented. 

  Eco-engineering as a beneficiary of MPAs had not been appreciated. Many 

Natura 2000 sites have ‘restore’ as a conservation objective. This may create 
an obligation for restoration works, and a number of LIFE projects have funded 
such works.  

  Blue biotechnology was recognised as an evidence gap. The case studies 

provide interesting examples, presenting a mixed picture in terms of sector 
benefits and cost.  

  MPAs can be seen as important control areas, which can help the study of 

marine ecosystem and species due to higher data availability. It was questioned 
how this benefit should be captured. The report acknowledges that improved 
scientific knowledge can improve the appropriateness of blue economy 
regulation, which may bring costs or benefits for sectors.  

  The investment opportunities presented by MPAs were noted. In particular the 

opportunity for ‘green investment’ by sectors not necessarily directly involved in 

76 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

maritime activities. It was suggested that blue bonds should be a focus of 
future work. 

De facto refuges 

  It was agreed that evidence on de-facto refuges is currently limited but will 
increase in the future – it is still a recent research interest. But that large 
monitoring programmes by operators (e.g. of offshore wind parks) may not be 
including economic benefits monitoring. The study recommendations on 
monitoring should highlight this. 

  It was suggested than any benefits of de facto refuges need to be offset against 

the environmental costs of infrastructure construction.  

  It was emphasised that economic win-win situations from de facto refuges 

require active encouragement to be successful.  

A2.4  Governance and management 

Sustainable use 

  It was agreed that it is important to improve the management of existing sites 
before declaring the Aichi target 11 as reached i.e. MPAs must be ‘effectively 
managed’. 

  On multiple occasions it was stressed that successful enforcement is both very 

important and closely linked to available resources.  

  Lessons and insights shown in the study into measures applied at MPAs to 

ensure sustainable use were thought to be particularly important. There is a 
need for scaling of successful practices. 

  Self-policing, whilst providing benefits, can also cause disputes if not 

adequately organised. A structure and clear remit is necessary for those 
involved to avoid potential conflict between users. A co-management approach, 
which can bring a structured sense of ownership, can support self-policing well. 
This should be recognised in the report. 

  The examples of hard versus soft enforcement presented in the study were 
found to be interesting and offer important lessons. This included that hard 
enforcement requires sanctions to be sufficiently high in order to be effective, 
whereas soft enforcement might not always work in practice. It was suggested 
that the most important factor for successful soft enforcement is to have 
stakeholders (in particular fishermen) involved from the start.  

  It was recognised that soft enforcement effectiveness can be undermined when 

the ability to communicate and educate is limited. The example of cruise 
tourism was discussed. It was debated whether greater onus for this 
communication and education should be placed on cruise operators or 
tour/activity operators local to the MPA. 

  Innovation in mobile apps that provide information on MPAs to visitors can also 
provide useful data on use of an MPA (e.g. visitor profiles, nature and spatial 
distribution of activity) that can then feed into better monitoring, assessment, 
management and enforcement.  

Synergies 

  A participant expressed surprise about the amount of work that some MPA 

management bodies appear to put into economic development. It was agreed 
that some MPAs can appear to act as economic clusters.  

77 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

  A number of participants suggested that the study adds to an existing 

understanding about a lack of dialogue and understanding between scientists 
and fishermen, which is key for the success of the MPA (and the related 
economic benefits). It was emphasised, however, that much is happening at 
the moment to try to address this. 

  There was a general agreement among workshop participants that the 
Commission and other bodies could play an important role in bringing 
stakeholders together in dialogue. Several participants mentioned the role of 
MSP in this context, which is intended to bring people together and is already 
leading to the establishment of platforms that may enable win-wins to happen.  

  It was suggested that conservation shouldn’t focus on MPAs alone. The added 
value of MSP is to manage entire seas with different degrees of protection, 
involving all relevant stakeholders. There was general agreement that MPA and 
MSP processes have not to date been well connected. However there were likely 
to be clear benefits of doing so, in terms of optimising the spatial distribution of 
conservation and economic activity. It was recognised that closer integration of 
the two processes should be pursued.   

Conflict management 

  It was agreed that meaningful consultation is necessary in order to avoid and 

manage conflicts and to build the trust necessary for success. Specific 
suggestions included that: the objectives of the consultation should be clear 
from the start, all interest groups should be included from the start, the process 
should be supported by actions to build trust, and expectations should be 
managed and potential benefits of engagement not oversold.   

  It was suggested that the benefits of “co-management” could be made more 
prominent in the study. The benefits of co-management were discussed and 
whether co-management should be made the primary mechanism for 
governance of all MPAs. Co-management approaches are increasingly being 
thought of as successful, but there are still few examples in Europe. 

  Conflict management should also consider stakeholders outside the MPA (e.g. 
excluded fishermen who operate near MPAs), because they can be a source of 
conflicts. Displacement from a MPA can result in long-standing opposition (e.g. 
the Os Miñarzos case study), and there are also cases of related intra-sector 
rivalry and conflicts. 

  Conflict between stakeholders often seems unavoidable. Multiple-use MPAs with 
zoning may be the most effective solution to reduce conflicts. There should also 
be a link between MPAs and MSP.  

A2.5  Conclusions and research needs 

Participants offered their reflections on, and suggests for, the conclusions and 
research needs from the study. Points raised were:  

  Economic benefits 

-  MPAs can play a role in supporting ‘green’ economic activity, drawing 
together /focussing resources and institutions in a way similar to an 
economic cluster. 

- 

It is important to recognise the key role of marine natural capital in 
providing benefit flows. Without taking the wider benefits into account (i.e. 
the provision of ecosystem services), the costs of maintaining natural capital 
may seem higher than the benefits. 

  Funding MPAs 

78 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

-  Good governance requires investment: the study shows (the Os Miñarzos 

case in particular) that where investment is put in, and once the governance 
structure is up and running and working, then the need for further 
investment may be less; but investment in enforcement on an ongoing basis 
is necessary. 

-  The economic benefits generated by MPAs should be accessed to support 

MPA management by bringing in additional income. MPA managers need to 
plan how to increase and diversify their funding sources, combining public 
tenders with private funding.  

-  Levies (tourist and access fees) can help finance MPAs – there are some 

examples in Europe (e.g. tourism fee in Lanzarote). They tend to be better 
than taxes because they can be earmarked, whereas taxes tend to be lost in 
the general budget. 

  Spatial management: 

- 

It is important to recognise trade-offs. The objective should be to find a 
balance between environmental protection and economic benefits, i.e. to 
optimise economic benefits within the constraints of conservation objectives.  

-  MPAs will ultimately require the exclusion of some activities. Linking to MSP 

should allow for different areas to be allocated to different activities. 

  Governance 

-  Bottom-up governance is preferable. Such approaches may superficially 

seem less structured. They require significant organisation to be successful. 

-  MPA success is in part driven by having the right person in place, with 
managerial, stakeholder engagement and entrepreneurial skills.  

-  Peer to peer learning is important and can support the transfer of good 

ideas to other MPAs.  

  Monitoring  

-  Better MPA monitoring data is required to allow for better evidence of 

economic benefits, better cost-benefit analyses and economic evaluation.  

-  MPA managers must ensure monitoring and reporting, and this should be 

broader than just ecological conservation indicators, but also addresses key 
economic factors (e.g. commercial fish species monitoring) and economic 
data (jobs, revenue). De facto refuge monitoring programmes should 
include economic aspects. 

  Guidance  

-  Better guidance on incorporating the full range of ecosystem services into 

cost-benefit analyses. 

-  How to set up value chains for direct marketing. There have been different 
attempts to have short chains and direct sales, but it often only works 
locally. Legal constraints need to be looked at, especially as to how direct 
sales can be capitalised upon and the regulation about post-harvest 
processing. FLAG/Farnet experiences could be capitalised upon. 

79 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Annex 3  References 

Agnesi, S., Mo, G., Annunziatellis, A., Chaniotis, P., Korpinen, S., Snoj, L., Globevnik, 
L., Tunesi, L., Reker, J. (2017). Spatial Analysis of Marine Protected Area Networks in 
Europe’s Seas II, Volume A, 2017, ed. Künitzer, A., ETC/ICM Technical Report 4/2017, 
Magdeburg: European Topic Centre on inland, coastal and marine waters, 41 pp 

Alban, F, Person, J, Roncin, N and Boncoeur, J (2008) Analysis of Socio-Economic 
Survey Results.    EMPAFISH Project, Brest, France 

Badalamenti, F, Ramos, A A, Voultsiadou, E, Snchez Lizaso, J L, Danna, G, Pipitone, C, 
Mas, J, Fernandez, J A R, Whitmarsh, D and Riggio, S (2000) Cultural and socio-
economic impacts of Mediterranean marine protected areas. Environmental 
Conservation No 27 (2), 110-125 

Binet, T., Diazabakana, A., Hernandez, S. 2015. Sustainable financing of Marine 
Protected Areas in the Mediterranean: a financial analysis. Vertigo Lab, MedPAN, 
RAC/SPA, WWF Mediterranean. 114 pp  

Boubekri, I and Djebar, A B (2016) Marine protected areas in Algeria: Future marine 
protected area of "Taza" (SW Mediterranean), continuing challenges and new 
opportunities facing an integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal 
Management No 130, 277 

Common Wadden Sea Secretaria (2014). Sustainable Tourism in the Wadden Sea 
World Heritage Destination  

Di Franco et al (2016). Five key attributes can increase marine protected areas 
performance for small-scale fisheries management. Scientific Reports 6, Article 
number: 38135 

Ecorys (2013). Study in support of policy measures for maritime and coastal tourism 
at EU level. DG Maritime Affairs & Fisheries 

European Commission (2012). Blue Growth: Opportunities for Marine and Maritime 
Sustainable Growth. Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, COM(2012)494, European Commission, Luxembourg 

European Commission (2015a). Mid-term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 
2020. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Mid-
term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, 2.10.2015, European 
Commission, Brussels 

European Commission (2015b). ANNEXES to the Report from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the progress in establishing marine protected 
areas (as required by Article 21 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
2008/56/EC). Brussels, 01.10.2015 

European Commission (2017). The EU Fishing Fleet. Trends and Economic Results. DG 
MARE Economic Papers N° 03/2017 

FAO (2011) Fisheries Management: 4. Marine protected areas and fisheries.    Food 
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome 

Font, T and Lloret, J (2011) Socioeconomic implications of recreational shore angling 
for the management of coastal resources in a Mediterranean marine protected area. 
Fisheries Research No 108 (1), 214-217. 

Forcada, A, Valle, C, Bonhomme, P, Criquet, G, Cadiou, G, Lenfant, P and Sánchez-
Lizaso, J (2009) Effects of habitat on spillover from marine protected areas to artisanal 
fisheries. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. No 379, 197-211. 

80 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

Goñi, R, Hilborn, R, Díaz, D, Mallol, S and Adlerstein, S (2010) Net contribution of 
spillover from a marine reserve to fishery catches. Marine Ecology Progress Series No 
400, 233-243. 

Goñi, R, Quetglas, A and Reñones, O (2006) Spillover of spiny lobsters Palinurus 
elephas from a marine reserve to an adjoining fishery. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. No 308, 
207-219  

Hargreaves-Allen, V, Mourato, S and Milner-Gulland, E (2011) A Global Evaluation of 
Coral Reef Management Performance: Are MPAs Producing Conservation and Socio-
Economic Improvements? Environmental Management No 47 (4), 684-700. 

Hooper, T., Hattam, C., Austen, M. (2017). Recreational use of offshore wind farms: 
Experiences and opinions of sea anglers in the UK, In Marine Policy, Volume 78, 2017, 
Pages 55-60, ISSN 0308-597X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.01.013 

Hunt, L (2008) Economic Impact Analysis of the Cape Rodney Okakari Point (Leigh) 
Marine Reserve on the Rodney District.   4052, A report prepared for the Department 
of Conservation, Wellington. 

ICF GHK et al (2012). The EU biodiversity objectives and the labour market: benefits 
and identification of skill gaps in the current workforce. European Commission, DG 
Environment 

IUCN (2017). EU Overseas - champions in marine and coastal protection. Webpage 
available at: https://www.iucn.org/news/marine-and-polar/201709/eu-overseas-
champions-marine-and-coastal-protection 

Jentoft, S, Pascual-Fernandez, J, De la Cruz Modino, R, Gonzalez-Ramallal, M and 
Chuenpagdee, R (2012). What stakeholders think about Marine Protected Areas: case 
studies from Spain. Human Ecology No 40 (2), 185-197. 

Jones, P J S and Burgess, J (2005) Building partnership capacity for the collaborative 
management of marine protected areas in the UK: A preliminary analysis. Journal of 
Environmental Management No 77 (3), 227-243. 

Jones, P J S, Qiu, W and De Santo, E M (2011) Governing Marine Protected Areas - 
Getting the Balance Right.  Technical Report UNEP, Nairobi-Kenya 

Lekelia D. Jenkins, Katie R. Thompson, Luis Bourillon, S. Hoyt Peckham (2017). The 
scope of fisheries learning exchanges for conservation. Marine Policy, Volume 77, 
2017, Pages 196-204, ISSN 0308-597X, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.025 

Leleu, K, Alban, F, Pelletier, D, Charbonnel, E, Letourneur, Y and Boudouresque, C F 
(2011) Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine Protected Areas 
(MPAs). Marine Policy No 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.002, 414-422.  

Mangi, S, Rodwell, L and Hattam, C (2011) Assessing the Impacts of Establishing 
MPAs on Fishermen and Fish Merchants: The Case of Lyme Bay, UK. Ambio No 40 (5), 
457-468. 

Mangi, S C, Gall, S C, Hattam, C, Rees, S and Rodwell, L D (2012) Lyme Bay – a case-
study: measuring recovery of benthic species; assessing potential “spillover” effects 
and socio-economic changes; 3 years after the closure. Report 2: Assessing the socio-
economic impacts resulting from the closure restrictions in Lyme Bay.    Report to the 
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the University of Plymouth-
led consortium, Plymouth. 

Mangos A., Claudot M.-A. (2013). Economic study of the impacts of marine and 
coastal protected areas in the Mediterranean. Plan Bleu, Valbonne. (Plan Bleu Papers 
13). 

Milieu, IEEP and ICF (2016). Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the 
Birds and Habitats Directives. European Commission 

81 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

OECD (2017) Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy 
Mixes, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276208-en 

Oikonomou, Z-S and Dikou, A (2008) Integrating Conservation and Development at 
the National Marine Park of Alonissos, Northern Sporades, Greece: Perception and 
Practice. Environmental Management No 42 (5), 847-866. 

Pizzolante, F (2009) Impatto socio-economico della conservazione dell'ambiente 
marino in Italia, Doctoral thesis, Universita' del Salento 

Rees, S E, Attrill, M J, Austen, M C, Mangi, S C and Rodwell, L D (2013) A thematic 
cost-benefit analysis of a marine protected area. Journal of Environmental 
Management No 114, 476-485. 

Rees, S E, Mangi, S C, Hattam, C, Gall, S C, Rodwell, L D, Peckett, F J and Attrill, M J 
(2015) The socio-economic effects of a Marine Protected Area on the ecosystem 
service of leisure and recreation. Marine Policy No 62, 144-152. 

Rees, S E, Rodwell, L D, Attrill, M J, Austen, M C and Mangi, S C (2010) The value of 
marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine 
spatial planning. Marine Policy No 34 (5), 868-875. 

Roncin, N, Alban, F, Charbonnel, E, Crechriou, R, de la Cruz Modino, R, Culioli, J-M, 
Dimech, M, Gong, R, Guala, I, Higgins, R, Lavisse, E, Le Direach, L, Luna, B, Marcos, 
C, Maynou, F, Pascual, J, Person, J, Smith, P, Stobart, B, Szelianszky, E, Vallek, K, 
Vasellio, S and Boncoeur, J (2008) Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: How 
much do they impact the local economy? A southern Europe perspective. Journal for 
Nature Conservation No 16 (4), 256-270. 

Russi D., Pantzar M., Kettunen M., Gitti G., Mutafoglu K., Kotulak M. & ten Brink P. 
(2016). Socio-Economic Benefits of the EU Marine Protected Areas. Report prepared 
by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) for DG Environment 

Schep, S., van Beukering, P., Brander, L., Wolfs, E. (2012). The tourism value of 
nature on Bonaire. Using choice modelling and value mapping. IVM Institute for 
Environmental Studies 

Stobart, B, Warwick, R, Gonzalez, C, Mallol, S, Diaz, D, Renones, O and Goni, R 
(2009) Long-term and spillover effects of a marine protected area on an exploited fish 
community. Marine Ecology Progress Series No 384, 47-60. 

ten Brink P., Badura T., Bassi S., Daly, E., Dickie, I., Ding H., Gantioler S., Gerdes, H., 
Kettunen M., Lago, M., Lang, S., Markandya A., Nunes P.A.L.D., Pieterse, M., Rayment 
M., Tinch R., (2011). Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided 
by the Natura 2000 Network. Final Report to the European Commission, DG 
Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European 
Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011 

Trivourea, M, Karamanlidis, A, Tounta, E, Dendrinos, P and Kotomatas, S (2011) 
People and the Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus): A Study of the 
Socioeconomic Impacts of the National Marine Park of Alonissos, Northern Sporades, 
Greece. Aquatic Mammals No 37 (3), 305-318. 

van de Walle, G, Gomes da Silva, S, O'Hara, E and Soto, P (2015) Achieving 
Sustainable Development of Local Fishing Interests: The Case of Pays d'Auray flag. 
Sociologia Ruralis No 55 (3), 360-377. 

Whitmarsh, D, James, C, Pickering, H, Pipitone, C, Badalamenti, F and Anna, G (2002) 
Economic Effects of Fisheries Exclusion Zones: A Sicilian Case Study. Marine Resource 
Economics No 17 (3), 239-250 

Whitmarsh, D, Santos, M N, Ramos, J and Monteiro, C C (2008). Marine habitat 
modification through artificial reefs off the Algarve (southern Portugal): An economic 

82 

 
 
 
Study on the Economic Benefits of MPAs 

analysis of the fisheries and the prospects for management. Ocean and Coastal 
Management No 51 (6), 463-468 

Technical Annex A: Literature Review Report 

See separate document 

Technical Annex B: Consultations Report 

See separate document 

Technical Annex C: Case Study Report 

See separate document 

83 

 
 
 
  
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 
may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
A
-
0
3
-
1
8
-
2
2
1
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2826/449575