UCH sites accessible for scuba diving listed in the Guide of the Underwater Cultural Heritage of the Azores in Terceira Island and the Underwater Archaeological Park of Angra do Heroísmo Bay (Source: Direção Regional dos Assuntos do Mar/Direção Regional d
In order to understand the current and potential situation of maritime uses and activities in the Azores, an extensive sector analysis was elaborated, including nine sectors. For each maritime sector identified in the region, a sector briefing was done. Each sector briefing includes information relating to its characterization, the relevant legal framework, current and potential spatial distribution, a SWOT analysis, an analysis of interactions (with other sectors, with the environment and land-sea interactions), as well as an analysis of pressures resulting from different drivers of change (e.g. climate change, demographic changes and blue growth policies). This work involved an extensive collection of information, both through literature review and collected from stakeholders during the engagement process.
Sector analyses are essential to understand the current scenario.
A significant amount of information was available online.
Willingness of some institutions to provide updated data.
It takes time to develop this methodology in a robust and consistent way.
Sometimes it is extremely difficult to obtain sector information.
Some institutions were not available to support the data gathering process.
The Maritime Spatial Planning process plans towards a desired future and a common vision. The vision is usually an integration of various aspirations from different stakeholders and sectors that depend on the governance framework ruling them. A tool as scenarios’ development is of high importance, once it helps decision-makers visualize both the future that might unfold due to specific actions/policies and the actions/policies needed to make a certain future happen. For the region of Azores, MarSP adopted a scenario-building process based on a combination of two approaches: an exploratory (“what can be done?”) and a normative (“how a specific objective will be reached?”).
The methodology is structured in four main steps (Figure 1):
(i) setting MSP objectives based on policy review and following stakeholders’ inputs (BB2);
(ii) identifying key objectives after consultation with regional experts;
(iii) developing scenario storylines; and
(iv) balancing across scenarios based on feedback from stakeholders gathered through engagement actions (including, first, (i) a vote on the scenario and, second, (ii) a vote on the sentences that built the storyline of the scenarios).
A stakeholders’ engagement methodology defined in the beginning of the process, connecting the different steps along the process.
Existence of a MSP vision and objectives built upon a participatory process allowed the construction of more tailored scenarios for the region.
Previous workshops for experts and stakeholders’ engagement and sharing of the results set the path for their increasing willingness to participate and collaborate.
Experts classification of objectives on themes: environmental; social; economic, was the basis to create robust storylines.
Amongst the three proposed scenarios (one economic oriented, one environmental oriented and one social oriented), stakeholders voted for the environmental scenario. However, they selected more sentences from the economic scenario, suggesting that participants are ideologically willing to protect the environment but less willing to take the needed actions to make that scenario actually happen.
Regional reports on MSP objectives (report for the Azores in pages 25-96)
Mario Caña Varona
Creating a vision for MSP in the Azores during the 1st stakeholder workshop in São Miguel island.
Luz Paramio
Creating a vision for MSP in the Azores during the 1st stakeholder workshop in São Miguel island
Luz Paramio
Setting a vision and objectives is a fundamental initial step in all maritime spatial plans. Under the MarSP project, a methodology was created to develop MSP objectives. This methodology linked MSP objectives to established policy commitments of these archipelagos at the international, EU, national and regional levels. It was adopted in the Azores following these phases:
Policy review: review of marine policy to determine the objectives targeting the maritime space. The Portuguese policy horrendogram helped in the selection of policies.
Thematic classification of the objectives by themes and subthemes.
Generalisation of objectives by subthemes to obtain specific objectives.
Discussion, prioritisation and validation of specific objectives by stakeholders.
Legal validation and cross-check with MSP policy documents to finalise the MSP objectives.
During the first MSP stakeholder workshop in the Azores, stakeholders were asked to discuss and validate the specific objectives. This was also the case for the proposal of a regional MSP vision, also discussed and validated in the stakeholder workshop.
The validation of objectives by stakeholders was included in the methodology since its inception to ensure the participatory approach and social acceptance.
Methodologies need to be properly communicated to ensure the understanding of scientific methods by stakeholders. A brief communication on the methodology was given prior to the stakeholder participation.
The discussion of objectives allowed the inclusion of stakeholders’ inputs.
Activities with stakeholders need guidance to facilitate a smooth discussion and acceptable results.
The review of various marine policies at different geographical levels result in multiple objectives for the maritime space. This may make the task of reaching MSP objectives difficult.
The review of all policy commitments is very comprehensive and requires prioritisation of the most significant policies. The most significant policies at each geographical scale were selected.
After the stakeholders’ inputs and validation, there was a final phase to cross check the resulting objectives with the MSP policy. This allowed both the legal validation of inputs given by stakeholders and also ensuring their compliance with the legal obligations given by MSP policy.
Certain objectives go beyond the legal scope of MSP (e.g. some sectorial objectives). Despite not being included in the list of MSP objectives, they were considered in the frame of this policy.
Obtaining SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) objectives requires firm commitment in setting the time frame for the objectives.
Identification of areas and conflicts during the 1st workshop of the MarSP project in Faial island
Cláudia Hipólito
Presentation of Dra Helena Calado during the 3rd workshop of the MarSP project in Terceira island
Cláudia Hipólito
Stakeholders developing one of the activities of the 3rd workshop of MarSP project in Terceira island
Cláudia Hipólito
The Maritime Spatial Plan of the Azores was designed in a transparent and inclusive process, with the active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. A strategy for stakeholder engagement and guidelines for public participation were drafted for this purpose. The engagement was designed in a series of three stakeholder workshops held simultaneously in the three most populated islands of the archipelago (São Miguel, Terceira and Faial). The workshops had the same structure, which combined communication about the MSP progress as well as activities to discuss, complement and validate the project outcomes. Prior to the workshops, stakeholders were mapped using the snowball technique. All identified stakeholders were assembled in the regional stakeholder directory and invited to participate in the events over the two years of the project. Complementary activities such as interviews were undertaken to fill important knowledge gaps related to specific maritime sectors.
Planning and undertaking a transparent and inclusive participatory process.
Widespread coverage of the entire archipelago, enabling the participation of stakeholders of the nine islands.
Timely organisation and coordination among the team members, enabling communication and exchange among the simultaneous workshops in the three islands.
Collaboration of colleagues and volunteers to support and moderate the workshops.
Communicating and giving feedback to stakeholders on the results of the workshops.
Stakeholders need to be contacted well in advance to get a good response.
Good coordination and organisation among the team members and in the preparation of the materials is essential for timely implementation of the workshop activities.
The development of a visualisation tools could help to decrease the ecological footprint of this type of workshops (most materials were paper) and decrease the time spent in the organization of the materials.
Lack of data; multiplicity of reference systems or its nonexistence; the information dispersed both in terms of responsible entities and types of data (digital, analogue, etc.), affected the development of materials.
Large workload to try to standardize all the information in order to be able to use it in a GIS system.
Entities take too long to collect and make information available hindering the team's work.
The core differentiator of MEET ecotourism products is that they are based in and feature Mediterranean protected areas. This is integrated with local communities and local service providers, thereby creating a unique niche-market product in the Mediterranean that supports conservation. Building off what differentiates its products to others on the market, MEET is building a strong brand with embedded market value for both inbound and outbound tour operators, as well as, destination management organisations.
The MEET Network is currently working to develop an online training on the marketing and commercialisation component of the MEET approach, so interested stakeholders across the Mediterranean can adopt it´s methodology. In the meantime, the MEET Manual contains information on this element.
Perspective of the private sector stakeholders has to be included from the beginning in all the steps of development;
Define clear business plans post project, including promotion and sales.
BB1. Organising stakeholder engagement and public participation
BB2. Creating a vision and objectives for MSP
BB3. Building scenarios for MSP
BB4. Sector analysis and briefings
BB5. Spatial database and filling data gaps
Strengthening the Department of Archaeology and Conservation in the National Park
Tahai archaeological site
Ma'u Henua
Rano raraku archaeological site, Rapa Nui National Park
Ma'u Henua
The National Park counts with exceptional archaeological components. Yet, it only counted with one specialist among its staff. With approximately 20,000 archaeological sites located within the park boundaries, from which 1,000 Moai and 300 Ahu or ceremonial structures stand out, besides dwelling structures, rock art, and caves, the current administration has prioritized the safeguarding of the archaeological component, as highly significant for the living community. The strenghtening of the special department for the research and study of the preservation of this important cultural heritage enables the development of conservation strategies specific for this type of heritage, as well as the reconnection of the community with their cultural assets. The majority of these assets are exposed to the island climate conditions, as well as to decay due to the touristic use and the anthropic and livestock impacts. Among other activities, this new unit has developed:
Capacity building and acquisition of digital recording tools for the diagnosis of the archaeological heritage.
Conservation projects based on a portfolio of sites in emergency and a methodology that collects traditional rapanui knowledge linking it to scientific knowledge.
Partnerships and networking on climate change impacts.
Archaeology specialists among the Rapa Nui community
Establishment of institutional technical support through the STP (Secretaría Técnica Rapa Nui, CMN/Technical Secretary Rapa Nui)
(1) Need for a specialized department for research and conservation of archaeological heritage within the National Park.
(2) Need of articulating and coordinating work with other institutions that have interference heritage issues.
Incorporating Indigenous understanding and values of nature and culture in the heritage management system
Linking tangible and intangible heritage of Rapa Nui culture
Ma'u Henua
Ma'u Henua Board and Rapa Nui authorities raising awareness on heritage care
Ma'u Henua
Rapa Nui culture, connecting the Park to the culture
Ma'u Henua
A fundamental step to take over the management was to recognize the Indigenous worldview of Rapa Nui People and their understanding of nature, as well as their relationship with their cultural heritage into the management of the protected area. This enable the consideration of place-specific needs and opportunities. This process implied:
The recovery of the Indigenous language, for creating documents and materials for the management of the National Park.
The consideration of the ancestral organization system based on clans, through the organization Honui that participates in the decision making process in the National Park.
A survey of the sacred places.
A prospective recovery of the name Rapa Nui to name the island instead of Easter Island (Isla de Pascua).
The reconnection with Rapa Nui traditional knowledge, festivities and cultural expressions.
The development of a public use plan in which the community traditional uses dialogue with the tourist and heritage uses
Recognition and promotion of ancestral use of medicinal plants based on the generation of projects and programmes for the enhancenment and recovery of the natural component and ancestral medicine of Rapa Nui.
A plan for the return of Tupuna (ancestors) and cultural elements that are outside of the island.
Initiative by the Rapa Nui community to recover and value their ancestral culture.
Endorsement from the State institutions in charge of heritage protection: the Ministry of Culture and Arts, and the Chilean National Forestry Service (CONAF), Ministry of Agriculture.
(1) Importance of the integration of local understandings and Indigenous language in the official education system.
(2) Need to change the touristic view over the island, and instead inviting the visitors to learn from a living culture and its ancestral history, and to be part of a community during their stay, getting involved with cultural activities, and not just come to see a Moai.
(3) Need of cooperation alignment between the Culture and Education sectors.
(4) Identification of new areas in need of urgent protection.
(5) Adaptation of the statutes of the Indigenous Community to our idiosyncrasy as a People.