Integrated systematic planning and adaptive stakeholder process support a 10‐fold increase in South Africa's Marine Protected Area estate

South Africa sought to implement an ecologically representative Marine Protected Area (MPA) network to achieve biodiversity and fisheries management goals with least impact on offshore stakeholders. The result was the declaration of a spatially efficient network representing 131 of 150 marine ecosystem types (87%) in 5.4% of ocean area. We outline the 15‐year process from planning to implementation of 20 new MPAs, including contentious areas recognized as important for conservation decades ago. Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) supported by 532 data layers and an inclusive stakeholder process identified priority areas, reduced conflict and guided complex trade‐offs. Multiple scenarios and iterative improvements increased transparency, supported ocean zonation and achieved balanced compromises while maintaining conservation objectives. Key challenges, enabling factors and lessons are shared. We demonstrate that flexible, evidence‐based SCP together with adaptive social processes that are alert to opportunities can support implementation of representative MPA networks aligned to ocean economy goals.


INTRODUCTION
As countries strive to develop their ocean economies, diversifying and expanding activities increase pressure on marine biodiversity and competition for space (Halpern et al., 2015;Jouffray et al., 2020). Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks are frequently proposed as key management measures to help maintain ocean ecosystems. However, many MPA initiatives are considered as obstacles to economic development and face challenges in balancing economic and conservation commitments (Geange et al., 2019). This is particularly difficult for developing countries where governments prioritize economic growth, employment, and poverty alleviation. Approaches that can efficiently increase biodiversity protection without compromising economic development and that can help solve multiple ocean challenges simultaneously are needed (Sala et al., 2021). Systematic conservation planning (SCP) was developed to support spatial planning and protected area design by considering multiple planning objectives in a transparent process to identify priority areas for spatial management (Margules & Pressey, 2000). Spatial prioritizations aim to identify areas that meet multiple objectives using decisionsupport algorithms (Moilanen et al., 2009). In the last two decades, SCP has been increasingly applied in the marine realm to plan or zone individual MPAs and networks thereof (e.g., Ban et al., 2013;Fernandes et al., 2005;Geange et al., 2017;Green et al., 2009).
Few SCP initiatives report on the entire spectrum of effort from planning to implemented outcomes (but see Gleason et al., 2010;Metcalfe et al., 2022) and only 43 of 1209 plans detailed outcomes of SCP (McIntosh et al., 2018). SCP literature has focused on methodology and few papers describe implementation measures. Opportunities to report on the full range of MPA design and implementation activities are rare because of limited execution of plans; the complexity, duration and numerous personnel involved; and the academic focus of publications. However, improved documentation of the broader process and sharing of lessons to support socioeconomic processes associated with planning and application of outputs are needed (Álvarez-Romero et al., 2018;Knight et al., 2009;Metcalfe et al., 2022;Radeloff et al., 2013).
In 2005, 0.46% of South Africa's continental ocean territory was protected in 21 coastal MPAs. In 2006, an offshore MPA project was initiated to identify an ecologically representative network of effective spatial management measures to achieve biodiversity and fisheries management goals with the least possible impact on offshore industries. Here we report on the entire process from design to implementation and outcomes. We contribute evidence of the value of SCP within a broader stakeholder process, iden-

Tweetable abstract
South Africa used systematic planning and inclusive stakeholder engagement to protect 87% of its 150 marine ecosystem types in just 5% ocean area tify enabling factors, and distil globally-relevant lessons for spatial planning, policy and conservation practice.

APPROACH
This work was primarily based on South Africa's offshore MPA project but also drew from other SCP initiatives (Tables S1 and S2). The offshore MPA project was developed by a small team of independent and government scientists from the government department with joint responsibilities for fisheries, environment, integrated coastal zone management, and tourism. It was initiated in 2006 (Table 1) and was initially NGO-funded for 3 years, later extended to five. The original budget was approximately US$50,000, with linked projects supporting field work, further technical analyses and stakeholder engagement (Table S2). The only permanent staff member was employed at a parastatal organization mandated to monitor the state of the nation's biodiversity and provide science-based advice to government. Consultants, scientists and managers provided technical assistance. Final implementation was led by the government department with responsibilities for forestry, fisheries and environment subsequent to a period when fisheries and environment were in separate departments. Early phases of the project focused on research, project planning, data collation and relationship establishment with stakeholders from all sectors (Tables 1 and S3). During the process, we drew from publications reporting on good practice and from previous failed national attempts to establish offshore protection, such as the proposed Namaqua MPA (Gazette notice 26050 of 2004). Stakeholder engagement was initiated from the outset and was a deliberate element throughout the process (Figure 1). The planning objectives and approach (Table 2) were codeveloped in a multisector workshop spanning all relevant government departments, industry and NGOs (Sink & Attwood, 2008 Twenty new MPAs declared. Details (Table S2) and citations for technical reports are provided in Supplementary Material.

F I G U R E 1
Schematic illustrating stakeholder complexity and the intra-and intersectoral stakeholder process needed to support an expanded MPA network in South Africa. Note that although the offshore focus necessitated an initial emphasis on industry stakeholders, interests (including in offshore areas) from coastal residents, small-scale fishers, traditional healers and others emerged during consultation. The inclusion of other coastal priorities (Table S1) during Operation Phakisa further broadened the planning scope and necessitated engagement with additional stakeholders. Numbers of small-scale fishers are likely underestimated.

TA B L E 2 The agreed objectives and approach for developing an expanded MPA network in South Africa as codeveloped at a multistakeholder workshop in 2007
Agreed planning objectives Key elements in the agreed approach for MPA network 1.
Protecting representative examples of all marine ecosystem types in all ecoregions 2. Contributing to the long-term persistence of offshore biodiversity and ecosystem processes 3. Contributing to fisheries sustainability and ecosystem-based management 4. Providing undisturbed reference areas for scientific study and monitoring 5. Promoting appropriate non-consumptive use of the marine environment 6. Advancing integrated spatial planning and management.
1. SCP based on the best-available scientific and socioeconomic research 2. an integrated spatial planning framework with shared spatial data between sectors and collaboration between and within government departments 3. applying other relevant experience 4. involving stakeholders in planning and implementation 5. considering appropriate trade-offs among the interests of biodiversity and different user groups 6. raising awareness of MPA benefits, design and supporting science 7. identifying and addressing implementation and management concerns including compliance and monitoring for offshore MPAs 8. ongoing alignment with policy and legislation F I G U R E 2 Map showing 10-fold expansion in South Africa's MPA estate. The first proposed offshore MPA (Namaqua MPA in 2004) that was not implemented is also shown and those areas included in the 2016 version of the proposed Phakisa MPA network (covering 7% of South Africa's mainland ocean area in total) but were omitted from the 5% area network implemented in 2019 are reflected. Africa ( Figure 2). Planning units were approximately 72 km 2 based on the finest resolution (5′) grid used for fisheries reporting. There were 15,534 such units. A total of 532 spatial data layers were collated, covering biodiversity, fisheries, and human-use (Tables 3 and S4). Benthic and pelagic habitats, potential Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems, threatened species and fisheries data to reflect spawning activity, size-structure, bycatch and incidental mortality of seabirds, sharks, and turtles were included. Multiple industry (cost) layers were created (Table 3).
Marxan (Ball et al., 2009) software was used to meet biodiversity and fisheries management targets and cluster potential spatial solutions into compact areas, while simultaneously avoiding marine industries. Targets were developed in consultation with experts, debated at government scientific working groups and stakeholder workshops and agreed upon, at least for initial use, at a multisector open day (Table 1). Targets were communicated as quantitative inputs (required for SCP analyses) to operationalize planning goals. Individual feature and management targets (Table S4) were thus used without any overall percentagearea target. As such, targets were framed as starting points to identify the most important areas for achieving multi-ple objectives rather than any definitive percentage area or management requirement.
Multiple scenarios were developed to simplify the complexity of large data volumes and multiple objectives, accommodate diverse management and zonation options and iteratively respond to stakeholders. The most informative of 116 scenarios guided final design and zonation (Tables 3 and S4) with detail on map evolution provided in Supplementary Material. Some scenarios included industry targets to help equitably spread costs especially where different rights holders were constrained to smaller areas, for example, with mining leases.
Initial SCP results were shared in reports and at workshops (Table 1) to improve interpretation of results, identify concerns, jointly explore ways to address concerns, propose changes in analyses and identify priority future datasets. Revised analyses supported identification of focus areas for protection by 2011 but government restructuring then stalled implementation. Much of the technical planning including identifying focus areas for expansion was complete by 2011 (Figures S1 and S2) but progress stalled for 3 years before an opportunity arose to advance integrated planning toward implementation.

TA B L E 3 Summary of 532 planning features and main scenarios that supported MPA expansion in South Africa
Planning objectives  Table S4)

5-50%
Combined: scaled cumulative costs for all sectors Number of spatial data layers is indicated by n. Key scenarios that were most informative in guiding MPA location, boundary development and adjustments, vertical and horizontal zonation and management planning.
See Tables S1-S3 for additional supporting work and Table S4 for more detail on the integrated scenario.
A multisector forum maintained stakeholder engagement in the intervening period. Spatial layers were advanced through ongoing National Biodiversity Assessments (Sink et al., 2012(Sink et al., , 2019(Sink et al., , 2023 supplemented by finer-scale SCP products (Tables S1-S3). SCP results were used to identify deliberately aligned Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) (Table S6) for consistent spatial prioritization (Harris et al., 2022). In 2014, a multisectoral presidential programme, Operation Phakisa (meaning "hurry up") was separately initiated to fast-track South Africa's Ocean Economy (Vreÿ, 2019) through development of oil and gas, aquaculture, tourism, and marine transport industries (Table 1). Coordinated ocean governance and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) were identified as overarching national needs (Findlay, 2018) and implementing a representative MPA network became a strategically aligned Operation Phakisa initiative. A modest performance target to add 5% area to South Africa's existing 0.46% MPA estate was negotiated. A final proposed network covering 5% was presented to South Africa's state cabinet in 2018.
Details on the development of the final MPA network design are provided in Figures S3-S10 and Tables S7-S9 with many iterations during the Operation Phakisa lab (2014), post-lab stakeholder syndications (2014-2016) and in response to the legislatively required formal comment process (2016)(2017)(2018). A key step in advancing the final design was to review all stakeholder concerns per MPA (Table S7), summarize steps taken to address concerns and demonstrate fair changes per stakeholder group without compromising network objectives. The full period of engagement and negotiations was considered (2006-2016) rather than just final inputs (2016). All design iterations throughout the Operation Phakisa phase (2014-2019) maintained at least the 5% target with the 2016 map released for public comment reflecting a proposed network covering 7% of the ocean area around South Africa ( Figure  S6). Many complex trade-offs were guided by SCP outputs.
Challenges in MPA establishment were identified from implementation failures and delays, stakeholder comments and team reflections. Enabling factors were distilled from steps where planning and implementation advanced. To assess outcomes, MPA coverage relevant to the Phakisa target and ecosystem representation as defined in the National Biodiversity Assessment (Sink et al., 2019) were calculated and the contribution of each MPA to original and evolving objectives were summarized.

RESULTS
South Africa's MPA expansion process occurred over 15 years culminating in 20 new MPAs in a network that increased MPA coverage by an order of magnitude ( Figure 2). The implemented network advanced protection from 0.5% to 5.4% area with 57,805 km 2 of new MPAs. These constitute 96% of the current total mainland MPA estate. Of this, 32,181 km 2 (3 of 5%) is fully protected (sensu Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021) with the remainder comprising multiple types of zones with some pelagic fishing, trap fishing, or line-fishing targeting specific species. Legislation excludes prospecting, seismic surveys, petroleum extraction and mining from all MPAs. Representation of South Africa's 150 marine ecosystem types in MPAs advanced from 54% to 87% with two ecoregions and 51 ecosystem types receiving their first protection (Table S5).
The network contributes to the protection of threatened species, fishery management and ecocertification goals, ecotourism, and sociocultural objectives that emerged during consultation (Table S6) and advanced integrated ocean management. Two of 22 MPAs proposed in 2016 were omitted from the implemented network ( Figure S6) owing to multiple objections and weaker supporting evidence based on field surveys (Tables S6 and S7). The 7% proposed area presented during the formal public comment process was reduced to 5% (Figure 2) owing to these exclusions and pragmatic boundary adjustments (Table S7). Zonation changes within some MPAs were also made in response to stakeholder comments, emerging research results and finer-scale planning (Table S7). During cabinet deliberations, responsiveness to stakeholders including fairness across sectors and rightsholders and a willingness to compromise were political imperatives. Cabinet emphasized the importance of balancing consequences while maintaining achievement of protection objectives and the overall 5% Phakisa target. Importantly, the systematic approach ensured that implementation was not focused on easy-to-implement areas but included priority areas where previous protected area expansion had failed.
Obstacles to MPA expansion arose throughout the 15-year period. Major stakeholder objections to the first offshore protection proposal (Table 1) included insufficient consultation; economic impacts; questions over scientific rationale and attacks on the evidence base; and management concerns. Industry interests, fractured governance, communication difficulties and capacity constraints (especially for management planning, monitoring, and compliance) were key challenges between 2006 and 2018. Key elements in the stakeholder and SCP process that enabled implementation and lessons for other conservation and spatial planning initiatives emerged from South Africa's process (Figure 3, Table S9).

DISCUSSION
The simultaneous implementation of 20 MPAs in an ecologically representative network contributing to integrated ocean management demonstrates the value of SCP and associated stakeholder processes in expanding MPA networks. Implementation took longer than anticipated, almost double the planning time, reiterating the need for sustained investment to execute plans (Knight et al., 2009). South Africa's process spanned three presidents, multiple cabinet and department changes and three environmental cabinet ministers, requiring persistence and iterative improvement in planning inputs, analyses, and stakeholder engagement. An expanded MPA network providing at least some representation to 87% of ecosystem types and contributing to multiple protection objectives (Figure 2, Tables S5, S6, and S9) in just 5.4% of ocean area provides further evidence of SCP benefits, including spatial efficiency and conflict reduction (Mazor et al., 2014;Moilanen et al., 2009). Multiple scenarios and cost layers provided a robust, transparent and responsive planning framework allowing for rapid evaluation of options to meet objectives. Inclusion of simpler scenarios helped identify underlying drivers of selection in complex analyses ( Figures S1 and 2) and provided flexibility through options for lateral and vertical (benthic versus pelagic) zonation that unlocked difficult negotiations while maintaining conservation objectives (Table S7).
A fortuitous multisector presidential initiative provided the opportunity and framework for the interdepartmental collaboration needed to implement integrated planning (Table S9). South Africa's outcome adds evidence to the reported need for effective institutional arrangements allowing for joint objective setting and interdepartmental cooperation for integrated planning and implementation success (Grip & Blomqvist, 2021). Operation Phakisa's coordination, regular feedback among initiatives, professional facilitation, and progress tracking were key elements in overcoming the fractured governance that contributed to earlier failures (Figure 3). A critical mass of aligned practitioners, projects and products supported implementation (Tables S1, S2, and S9). Metcalfe et al. (2022) also noted the value of a national framework and multipartner model with coordinated initiatives to build capacity, refine technical outputs and build long-term support in expanding Gabon's MPA network. Our readiness in terms of science and stakeholder relationships facilitated a representative and efficient network in contrast to many other countries where unsystematic approaches and other influences determine less strategic MPA locations (Jantke et al., 2018). Our experience is relevant beyond F I G U R E 3 Schematic sharing key challenges, recommended approaches, enabling factors and lessons from South Africa's 15-year MPA expansion process.
MPA expansion to MSP, given that MSP is the current globally preferred governance framework for integrated ocean management (Flannery et al., 2020).
Despite evidence that stakeholder engagement is a key predictor of MPA implementation and effectiveness (Charles & Wilson, 2008;Giakoumi et al., 2018;Kirlin et al., 2013), many planning processes only engage after prioritization. Like others (e.g., Gleason et al., 2010;Gopnik et al., 2012), we highlight the importance of engagement from the outset (Table S9). We recommend that MPA and MSP initiatives are designed to accommodate stakeholder complexity and include adaptive processes and responsive iterations in planning (Figures 1 and 3). Different stakeholders require tailored approaches that accommodate power dynamics, stakeholder needs and the broader social context (Bennett et al., 2021;Flannery et al., 2020). Engagement is needed at multiple levels to understand the important operational complexities of each sector or group. In addition, simultaneous multisector engagement is essential in fostering mutual understanding of planning constraints, priorities, and opportunities within, between and among sectors. Focused local engagement to unlock fine-scale information, support negotiations and achieve compromises facilitated implementation in highconflict areas such as the contested outer boundaries of the Namaqua and uThukela MPAs (Tables S7-S9). Investment in stakeholder relationships and the development of map products to communicate and discuss inputs, draft results and focus areas ( Figure S2) were important elements in our social process. Lessons from our stakeholder process contributes guidance to planners and decision makers needing to engage multiple stakeholders and complements biophysical guidelines for offshore MPAs (Ceccarelli et al., 2021).
Stakeholder influence in the Phakisa MPA network included changes to objectives (Table 2), input layers, planning scenarios and adjustments to reduce impact on coastal residents, fishers (particularly small-scale) and industry (Supplementary Material). In terms of objectives, stakeholders requested edits to advance MPA purposes beyond ecological goals, representing a shift in MPA objectives for South Africa (Table S6) (Mann-Lang et al., 2021). This included broadening to accommodate cultural and spiritual objectives (including maintenance of sense-of-place), support economic goals (e.g., fisheries ecocertification) and changes to ensure that the network advanced integrated ocean management. An example of scenario changes included the request to omit retention targets from SCP analyses (Table S4) to support spillover from MPAs to adjacent fishing grounds. Changes in network design included both omission and addition of areas ( Figures S5-S7) and zonation changes (Table S7). These ranged from new zones with temporal management to facilitate some fishing access (Table S7; Aliwal Shoal) to specific zones to accommodate use over a rights period with phasing out over time (uThukela) and other context-specific zones (Kirkman et al., 2021). Responsive planning was a key element (Tables S4, S7-S9) with the final map demonstrating amendments to address concerns and conflicts and strengthen protection in some cases. Iterative improvements in South Africa's national ecosystem map and updated data for fisheries, petroleum and threatened species were also considered during these amendments (see narrative in Supplementary Material and Figures  S5-S10).
During negotiation, it was important to reflect consequences of alternative designs advanced by industry or their government representatives. At one stage, a 3% area version of supported MPAs (omitting contentious areas) was advocated. The technical team showed how that version failed to meet core network objectives in addition to falling short of the 5% Phakisa performance target. Demonstrating the role of the proposed MPAs in protecting remnants of threatened ecosystems (in areas where these are still in good ecosystem condition) ( Figure  S10) and species helped secure protection in contentious areas (Tables S7-S9). Protection of unthreatened slope ecosystems was compromised due to a lack of supporting evidence, but new research can guide future efforts in these undersampled ecosystems. Key elements in the cabinet presentation that contributed to acceptance of the final network design included a summary of the importance and socioeconomic benefits per MPA, an overview of the compromises made while maintaining core network objectives and other communication outputs (see Supplementary Material). Some compromise without failing to meet core MPA network objectives was both feasible and necessary in advancing protection.
Cooperative research between scientists and industry was an enabling element in South Africa's process ( Figure 3, Table S9), in alignment with previously reported benefits, for example, increased knowledge, credibility, buy-in and solutions (Johnson & van Densen, 2007). Our stakeholders had valuable data and insights (see Table S6), and persistent engagement helped build joint understanding, identify and mitigate problems early in the process and build the mature relationships needed for complex negotiations and joint problem solving (Tables S7-S9). These lessons are applicable to protected area planning in all realms and have relevance to MSP where there is scope for greater application of decision-support tools and for more dynamic decision support (Gissi et al., 2019).
Our process secured protection for some of the most contentious priority conservation areas first identified 15−33 years ago but challenged by multiple industry interests. Previous concerns in terms of consultation, economic impacts, evidence and rationale were largely addressed through SCP, consultation at multiple scales, transparency of process and sharing fine-scale priorities that supported agreed boundaries before gazetting for comment (Tables S8  and S9).
Implementation of 20 new MPAs in a single step qualifies as a hot conservation moment, sensu Radeloff et al. (2013). We agree that both spatial and temporal prioritization benefit conservation and that understanding timing helps identify implementation catalysts. Our experience showed that a blue economy initiative can support increased ocean protection where there is alignment with ocean economy goals, in our case achieved through SCP. Our success reflects the need for persistence, flexibility and an adaptive process that is alert to opportunities (Table S9).
Other enabling aspects (Figure 3) included ecocertification incentives and international endorsement of priority areas achieved by aligning SCP outputs (Table S1) and EBSAs (Harris et al., 2022). A communication strategy aligned with decision maker priorities played a disproportionate role in securing cabinet approval (Tables 1,  S8, and S9). Decision makers appreciated the extensive stakeholder process, balanced compromises and equitable planning including the offshore focus, which was viewed as a stark contrast to coastal MPAs where poorer rural communities have carried protection costs (Peer et al., 2022;Sowman & Sunde, 2018). South Africa needs to further diversify and deepen stakeholder engagement, including retrospectively to address historical MPA challenges and improve MPA governance and future planning and implementation.
Management planning has been advanced for new MPAs with consultation underway after a challenging period for engagement caused by a global pandemic. South Africa now has a 10% MPA target and should improve representation (particularly for slopes), replication, connectivity, and climate resilience in planning for further protection (Kirkman et al., 2021;Magris et al., 2014), using an evolving social process to further advance equitable protection and integrated ocean governance.
In conclusion, responsive SCP and an inclusive stakeholder process enabled a 10-fold increase in South Africa's MPA estate through implementation of a spatially efficient, representative MPA network that supports multiple goals. Although this took more than a decade, the implementation of this network revealed key lessons. These include the need for long-term planning, investment and effort, effective institutional arrangements to coordinate integrated planning and implementation, sustained inclusive stakeholder engagement from the outset, using SCP for spatial efficiency and conflict reduction and resolution, and an adaptive process alert to opportunities. South Africa's experience is particularly relevant for developing countries but is applicable in other contexts where alignment of conservation and development priorities is feasible and in MSP where stakeholder processes are equally important to data in negotiating the use of ocean space.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
Funding was provided by WWF Nedbank Greentrust, the National Research Foundation's African Coelacanth Ecosystem Programme and a Pew fellowship awarded to KS (Table S2). We acknowledge the many stakeholders, scientists, managers, and government officials who contributed. The One Ocean Hub (UKRI GCRF Grant NE/S008950/1) supported recent social insights. We thank Mari-Lise Franken and Linda Harris for technical and writing support. The shapefile of South Africa's MPAs is available at: < SAPAD link >. See also: https://egis.environment.gov.za/ protected_and_conservation_areas_database.