Lessons Learned and Good Practices in the Management of Coral Reefs

Home , Anilao, Bunaken, Bunaken National Park, Hol Chan Marine Reserve, Mafia Island, Puerto Galera

Narrative Report

M. Tupper, J. Oliver, R. Kenchington, T. McClanahan, N. Muthiga, D. Gill, D. Burnham, S. Campbell, Sapta Putra Ginting, N. Andrew, R. Mahon, Evelyn Teh, D. Walfoort

Table of Contents

SECTION I: CORAL REEF MANAGEMENT

Chapter 1: Introduction 4 • Background 4 • Context of this project in relation to other initiatives 5 • Methods 7

Chapter 2: Project Design 15

Chapter 3: Project Management 18

Chapter 4: Community Participation 21

Chapter 5: Partnerships and Linkages 23

Chapter 6: Policy, Legislation and Enforcement 26

Chapter 7: Ecosystem-based Management 28

Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation of Coral Reef Management 31

Chapter 9: Capacity, Education and Knowledge Management 33

Chapter 10: Conclusions and Future Directions 35

Bibliography 36

Project Reviews 1. East Africa and Red Sea – GEF Projects 44 2. East Africa and Red Sea – non GEF Projects 58 3. Latin America and the Caribbean – GEF Projects 75 4. Latin America and the Caribbean – non GEF Projects 113 5. Asia-Pacific – GEF Projects 138 6. Asia-Pacific – non GEF Projects 174 7. Global – GEF Projects 201

2 SECTION II: MARINE PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT

Introduction 203

Methods 204

Ecological Objectives and Impacts 204

Socio-cultural Objectives and Impacts 205

Economic Objectives and Impacts 206

Governance Objectives and Impacts 207

Case Studies 1. Ecological 208 2. Socio-cultural 222 3. Economic 239 4. Governance 245

Conclusions and Recommendations 251

Bibliography 252

3 SECTION I: Lessons Learned and Good Practices in the Management of Coral Reefs

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

The objective of this project is to formalize the experiences, outcomes and lessons learned from previous GEF projects, as well as major non-GEF initiatives involving coral reefs and associated ecosystems. The project aims to comprehensively identify, analyze, and translate lessons into good practices and information resources, and then disseminate this information globally for use in future project design and development. Based on its history of supporting coral reef biodiversity, management and sustainable development, this project will help the GEF fulfill a major mandate to identify what has worked and what could be improved upon in supporting biodiversity conservation. In combination with other GEF projects, this effort will also help the GEF and other major non-GEF projects achieve a markedly improved return on investment for future projects involving coral reefs and associated ecosystems.

Since the 1990s, over $320 million of GEF funds were invested in projects at varying action and technical levels to improve the management of coral reef, seagrass and mangrove habitats, much of which was part of a broader portfolio of over $600 million invested in coastal-marine projects overall. During four entry periods each year, the GEF receives well over 200 concepts and project proposals annually1. Even though the actual number of pipeline-approved projects is much less, the volume and diversity of those projects approved has far exceeded the Secretariat’s ability to review and assess those elements that have worked and what could be improved upon. The dissemination of best practices based on lessons learned is a strategic priority for the GEF. However, in the case of coral reef projects no comprehensive understanding of GEF successes and failures has ever been conducted. In recent reviews of GEF performance and activities, the need to utilise the results of previous project outcomes, experiences and lessons learned more comprehensively has been highlighted. Earlier works exist that extract lessons learned from previous projects, looking at both success and failure and comparing across global regions; however, such work has been neither comprehensive nor systematic. Previous examples include the publication Coral Reefs, Mangroves and Seagrasses: A Sourcebook for Managers (AIMS/GCRMN 2001) and the Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management (AIMS/GCRMN 2000) and People and Reefs (2004. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 176). While these publications have included some review of good practices, they have not examined all GEF coral reef (and associated habitat) projects, nor have they gone into the level of detail supplied by this project. Rather, the existing summaries are often generic, and draw upon a small sample size of commonly known cases. By contrast, this project provides a greater level of detail and a wider assessment relevant to a range of factors affecting project successes, failures and key lessons.

1 Volume estimates of GEF concepts and project proposals submitted to the Secretariat are based on personal communication with GEFSEC operational staff. The estimates apply to all GEF focal areas, and not just the ones specifically relevant to this proposal.

Furthermore, GEF staff have recognized the need to address the volume of projects being processed through some form of Knowledge Management, and this issue is a current area of development and concern for the GEF Secretariat2. With the volume and diversity of proposals being processed, a comprehensive understanding of the best approaches and lessons within a given subject area, or habitat, could make a significant difference in the GEF’s ability to more effectively support projects in the future, and better meet its mandate (including an improvement in cost-effectiveness), especially within the Biodiversity focal area.

Context of this project in relation to other coral reef management initiatives

To a considerable extent the projects covered in this review can be seen as responses to the Call to Action and framework for Action adopted by the International Coral Reef Initiative in 1995. The lessons learned reflect the continuing need for more and more effective action to address the four main themes of the ICRI Call to Action:

1. Integrated Coastal Zone Management; 2. Building capacity to manage; 3. Research and Monitoring; 4. Review or performance evaluation of the effectiveness of management.

This report may be seen as part of the broader review or performance evaluation of lessons learned in projects implementing the ICRI Call to Action. Evaluations of projects and lessons within and beyond the GEF portfolio include those identified in workshops of the International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposia (see ITMEMS Proceedings 1, 2 and 3).

UNEP (2004) provided an overview of successes and challenges in management of Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas and the executive summary of lessons learned from a range of projects, including some covered in this report, reflect the general context of needs for effective coral reef management:

1. greater community empowerment and involvement; 2. sustained and extensive consultation between stakeholders; 3. proactive and innovative education and public awareness campaigns; 4. improved communication and transparency between all involved members; 5. strong management partnerships to secure long-term financial stability; 6. development of management plans based on ecological as well as socio-economic data and linked to regular monitoring programmes; 7. implementation of clearly defined zoning regulations to reduce conflicts between stakeholders; and 8. enhanced enforcement efforts.

The GEF portfolio has enabled substantial progress to be made in management of coral reefs in many contexts. It is appropriate to reflect on the extent to which the form and processes of GEF

2 Personal communication with GEFSEC staff.

5 project management might themselves be reviewed in order to reflect the particular challenges of the social, economic, and environmental issues that must be addressed to halt and reverse the decline of coral reefs and related ecosystems.

The underlying concept of GEF interventions is that of “add-on” transfer or introduction of a new technology or management intervention that will enable the recipient to reduce or remove the environmental impact of an economic activity. The language of the incremental cost reflects a concept of a project that incorporates extra costs to build and operate more environmentally sound infrastructure or to incorporate pollution reduction technology. This concept can readily apply to coastal infrastructure designs that manage consequences for coral reefs of coastal land use and reclamation.

The reality of many coral reef projects is that they are introduced in remote areas and often with poor and poorly educated local communities in an attempt to halt and reverse existing trends of degradation or detriment to biodiversity and the natural resource base. The nature of the necessary engagement with the communities whose activities affect coral reefs raises particular issues relating to the nature of project management. These are reflected in 4 more themes in lessons learned from the projects reviewed for this report:

1. The special nature and scarcity of available skilled personnel capable of working effectively to build and maintain partnerships, trust and consultation within remote communities; 2. The importance of capacity to respond to unpredictable natural or political events that impact on the design and timeline of a management project; 3. The challenge of designing efficient and cost-effective reporting to meet the needs of multiple donors while maximising the proportion of effort applied to on-ground project activities; and 4. The challenge and the timescale of achieving sustainability in terms of transfer from project funding to a basis where the costs of management can be met through a package of community, private sector and government recurrent programming.

GEF processes were developed around paradigms of terrestrial land uses and titles, with single or limited suites of activities and engineering interventions by skilled externally sourced specialists who do work for a limited period to achieve specific outcomes (bridges, dams, irrigation systems etc) that lock in specific usage perpetually or for long periods. This leads logically to concepts of environmental add-ons to minimal cost engineering solutions (incremental costs) Coral reef interventions are usually designed to halt or reverse decline and do not so logically fit the incremental cost model.

Social engagement and analysis in terrestrial contexts typically relates to project benefits, local engagements in work being done and management of people displaced or otherwise disadvantaged by the intervention. It is relatively rare for GEF interventions to lead to perpetual situations in which community values, attitudes and day-to-day behaviours and their management are a core component of successful delivery of intended outcomes.

6 Methods

Data collection

This project initially sought to review all GEF-funded projects related to coral reefs and associated tropical marine ecosystems (65 projects in total) and about 10-20 key non-GEF funded projects. However, review of the GEF projects indicated that only 28 projects (Table 1) had sufficient focus on tropical coastal ecosystems, were either completed or far enough along to have gathered lessons learned information, or had sufficient available documentation. Many of the others were too recent to have gathered useful information, while several had been cancelled due to implementation problems.

In order to gather more useful information, we examined 50 non-GEF funded projects, based on a variety of criteria (see Table 2). Of these, 25 projects had sufficient lessons learned information to warrant including in our analysis (Table 3). In addition to reviewing project documentation (progress reports, final reports), primary literature was consulted where these publications arose directly from the projects reviewed. In addition, personal interviews of 31 project personnel were conducted (Table 4). Consultants were hired for each of the major project regions: Western Indian Ocean (East Africa and Red Sea), Asia-Pacific, and Latin America & the Caribbean (Table 5). Information was also gathered and disseminated via a large number of meetings and workshops (11 in the Asia-Pacific region, 2 in the USA, 6 in the Caribbean and 4 in South Asia).

Analysis and synthesis

Following the data collection phase, analysis of lessons learned and best practices was conducted at a workshop held at WorldFish headquarters in November 2007. This “writeshop” sought to bring together all the researchers and consultants who had collected data to synthesize all the lessons learned and good practice information from the project reviews. The proceedings of that workshop form the basis of this narrative report. The findings were collated by knowledge theme or category, and generic or globally relevant lessons and recommendations were formed for each knowledge theme. The knowledge themes used to categorize projects were:

1. Project design 2. Project management 3. Community participation 4. Partnerships and linkages 5. Policy, legislation and enforcement 6. Ecosystem-based management 7. Coral reef monitoring and evaluation 8. Capacity, education and knowledge management

Many lessons were found that were context or site-specific, and these were recorded in case studies but not in the general recommendations. The general recommendations were then published as a policy brief (Annex 1: Lessons Learned and Good Practices in the Management of Coral Reefs) and a series of checklists that allow managers and other stakeholders to quickly

7 look up recommendations for a variety of issues in coral reef management (Annex 2: Manager’s Checklists of Good Practice in Coral Reef Management).

Because of the large number of projects employing marine protected areas (MPAs) as tools for both biodiversity conservation and fisheries management, we created a separate synthesis and set of recommendations for coral reef MPAs (see Section II).

All of the information available in this report is also available online at the GEF Lessons Learned project website (http://gefll.reefbase.org) and on an interactive CD-ROM.

Dissemination

The results of the project were disseminated in variety of ways, both direct and indirect. A user- friendly web-based information system was created using ReefBase as a model. ReefBase is currently the most authoritative information system on coral reefs at a global scale. It is receives over 20,000 hits per month and is consistently at the top of most search engine results for a variety of reef related searches. The project developed a system which stands alone, but can access the database and GIS engine used by ReefBase. All of the information presented in this report and its attachments is available online at the GEF Lessons Learned project website (http://gefll.reefbase.org). The system is mirrored on the ICRAN, ICRI-Forum, IW:Learn and FAO sites. This electronic knowledgebase contains all the lessons learned and recommendations from the report, searchable by knowledge theme, keyword, or by location via ReefGIS. It is also available on an interactive CD-ROM.

The system was also used to promote an active network of managers, scientists and private sector reef users who can share information, lessons learned and request and obtain advice from people in other regions. This network is promoted using an email server and dedicated reef managers’ forum on the web, and through side meetings at various coral reef events. Originally the project had created its own dedicated email listserver and weblog, but it became apparent that the Coral- L listserv run by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was a much more efficient means of dissemination has it reaches over 5000 active members in the field of coral reef science and management.

In addition to this online information system, a number of publications were produced, including a report on the major lessons learned (Annex 1); summary briefs outlining the main results of the analysis (Annex 2 and 4); and a checklist on lessons learned and best practice for each theme (Annex 3), together forming a toolkit which will be disseminated during targeted workshops and other general coral reef meetings. A list of all publications can be found in Annex 9b.

The main direct form of dissemination was through specific workshops with partners at selected ICRAN sites in South Asia and the Caribbean, at the Secretariat of the COOREMAP Project in Indonesia, at selected sites in the South China Seas Project in Thailand, at sites in the USAID Fisheries Enhanced for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) project in the Philippines, and at project sites managed by local and national government units in Quezon Province, Philippines. These workshops enabled targeted interactions with site managers and involved discussions and

8 planning sessions on how the best practices derived from this project can be incorporated into the ongoing work of ICRAN and other partners (see Annex 5 – Final Report of ICRAN Coordinating Unit). In addition, regional workshops were held in Central America and the Caribbean and in Southeast Asia and Micronesia.

Initially, the Tropical Marine Learning Partnership (TMLP) was to hold "collective learning activities", in which the findings of the project would be in addressed more formal, structured activities to address specific learning questions of high interest on which the group. Unfortunately, the funding for this partnership was delayed and so this activity was replaced by a partnership between the WorldFish Center and the ICRAN-EU South Asia Project (Annex 6, UNEP Collaboration with WorldFish Center through the ICRAN-EU South Asia Project). This project involved dissemination of lessons learned through a number of workshops, including a “training of trainers” workshop in the Maldives (Annex 7, Managing Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Toolkit for South Asia).

Further workshops in the Caribbean were held through a partnership between the WorldFish Center and the Center for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES) of the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus in Barbados (see Annex 8).

The results of this project were presented at a number of regional and international fora, including the 3rd International Tropical Marine Environmental Management Symposium (2006), the 4th International Waters Conference (2007) and the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium (2008). In total, 20 workshops or meetings were held (Annex 9a), surpassing our original goal of 10 workshops in 3 years.

Table 1. List of all GEF coral reef management projects. Bold type indicates projects for which full reviews of lessons learned and best practices were conducted (See Appendix I).

Project Name Integrated Ecosystem Management in Seychelles (cancelled) Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa Conservation Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity Mozambique Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Project Red Sea Marine Ecosystem Management Project - Yemen Improving Management of NGO and Privately Owned Nature Reserves and High Biodiversity Islands in Seychelles (cancelled) Development of Mnazi Bay Marine Park, Tanzania Madagascar Environment Program Support Project Coral Reef Monitoring Network in Member States of the Indian Ocean Commission (COI), within the Global Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resource Management - Egypt Island Biodiversity and Participatory Conservation in the Federal Islamic Republic of Comoros Seychelles Biodiversity Conservation and Marine Pollution Abatement (cancelled) Partnerships for Marine Protected Areas in Mauritius Marine and Coastal Environmental Management project (MACEMP) Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in Sub-Saharan Africa Reduction of Environmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Introduction of Policy Changes and Strengthening Public- Private Partnerships Management of Coral Reef Ecosystem of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (cancelled)

9 Philippines Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project Marine Aquarium Market Transformation (MAMTI) Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island Developing States Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve's Coastal Biodiversity Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP II) Komodo National Park Collaborative Management Initiative Atoll Ecosystem-based Conservation of Globally Significant Biological Diversity in the Maldives' Baa Atoll Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise Development on Pohnpei Community-based Coastal and Marine Conservation in the Milne Bay Province Mindanao Rural Development Project Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park and World Heritage Site Biodiversity Conservation and Management of the Bohol Islands Marine Triangle Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management Conservation of Biodiversity through Integrated Collaborative Management in Rekawa, Ussangoda, and Kalametiya Coastal Ecosystems Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot Project Coastal Zone Management along the Gulf of Aden Reversing Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand Building Partnerships for the Environmental Protection and Management of the East Asian Seas Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme(SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Protection of Marine Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP I) Conserving Marine Biodiversity through Enhanced Marine Park Management and Inclusive Sustainable Island Development Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Marine Resources at Con Dao National Park South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme Coral Reef Restoration and Establishment of Sustainable Ornamental Fisheries, Bali Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management Consolidation of Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem Management of the Bay Islands, Honduras Implementation of a Sustainable Island Resource Management Mechanism Integrating Watershed and Coastal Area Management in Small Island Developing States of the Caribbean (supplemental) Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions Caribbean Archipelago Biosphere Reserve: Regional Marine Protected Area System Priority Actions to Consolidate Biodiversity Protection in the Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem, Cuba Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Caribbean: Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change Conservation And Sustainable Use of the Belize Barrier Reef Complex Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change (CARICOM) Sustainable Development and Management of Biologically Diverse Coastal Resources - Belize Improved Management and Conservation Practices for the Cocos Island Marine Conservation Area Protecting Biodiversity and Establishing Sustainable Development of the in Sabana-Camaguey Region, Cuba Biodiversity Conservation and Management in the Coastal Zone of the Dominican Republic National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Integrated Management of the Coastal and Marine Zone of the Samana Region Coastal Resources Management and Monitoring System for the Galapagos Islands

Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Tourism through the Development and Dissemination of Best Practices

Honduras Sustainable Coastal Tourism Project

10 Table 2. Selection criteria for non-GEF coral reef management projects

Criteria Requirements Funding amount ≥ US$500,000 Status of completion ongoing for ≥ 3 years, some project objectives fulfilled Timescale entire project spanning ≥ 3 years Geographic distribution fair representation of region Allocation to themes fair representation of project categories given Relevance to CRM* focus on coral reefs and associated ecosystems Availability of documents key project documents readily available

*Coral Reef Management

Table 3. List of key non-GEF funded coral reef projects. Bold type indicates projects for which full reviews of lessons learned and best practices were conducted (See Appendix I).

Project Title Executing Agency Country/Region Friends of the Reef WWF Asia-Pacific Hol Chan Marine Reserve- ICRAN Demonstration Site ICRAN Belize Bonaire National Marine Park - ICRAN Demonstration Site ICRAN Bonaire Caribbean Marine Protected Areas Managers (CaMPAM) UNEP-CEP Caribbean Seaflower Biosphere Reserve CORALINA Columbia Natl Center for Protected Areas, National System of Marine Protected Areas in Cuba Environmental Defense Cuba Ecuador Coastal Resources Management Project USAID, IADB Ecuador Fiji Coral Reef Conservation Project Coral Cay Conservation Fiji LMMA Focal Point MacArthur, Foundation, USP Fiji Coral Gardens Initiative Partners in Community Dev. Fiji Bunaken Marine National Park The Nature Conservancy Indonesia Wakatobi Marine National Park The Nature Conservancy Indonesia Raja Ampat Islands The Nature Conservancy Indonesia Derawan Islands TNC, WWF, USAID Indonesia Karimunjawa Coral Reef Project Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia Coral Reefs of Northern Sumatra: Rebuilding Local Livelihoods and Protecting Outstanding Seascapes Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia WCS Papua New Guinea Marine Program – New Ireland Wildlife Conservation Society PNG WCS Papua New Guinea Marine Program – Manus Wildlife Conservation Society PNG Lomaviti/Vatu-I-Ra Seascape EBM Initiative Wildlife Conservation Society Fiji Fostering Networks in the Indo-Pacific Community Conserv. Network Indo-Pacific Marine Managed Area Science Program Conservation International Indo-Pacific Kenya Coral Reef Conservation Project Wildlife Conservation Society Kenya Conservation of Toliara Coral Reef WWF Madagascar Coastal Resources Center, Packard Foundation, Univ. of Conserving Critical Coastal Ecosystems in Mexico Quintana Roo Mexico Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve - ICRAN Demonstration Site ICRAN Mexico Watershed-based Management of Coral Reefs in Micronesia NOAA CRES Micronesia Helen Reef Restoration Project Global Coral Reef Alliance Palau Conservation of Coral Reefs in the Persian Gulf WWF Persian Gulf

11 Mabini-Tingloy Marine Biodiversity Conservation Coral Cay Conservation Philippines FISH Project USAID Philippines Kimbe Bay Community Conservation TNC, USAID, Mahonia na Dari PNG Monitoring LMMAs in Madang Lagoon Wetlands International PNG Soufriere Marine Mgmt Area - ICRAN Demonstration Site ICRAN St. Lucia CERMES, CCA, governments of St. Sustainable Integrated Development and Biodiversity Vincent & Grenadines (SVG) and Conservation in the Grenadine Islands Grenada SVG, Grenada Thailand, Green Fins Initiative COBSEA Philippines Status of MPAs in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the USA NOAA USA ICRAN, CORAL, WWF, Reef Check, Western Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Alliance WRI, UNEP Caribbean Réseau Recifs - Regional Programme for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of the Southwest Countries in the Indian Ocean Indian Ocean Commission Indian Ocean UK Royal Geographic Society, UK Shoals of Rodrigues Royal Society Mauritius Coastal Ocean Research and Development – Indian Swedish International Western Indian Ocean (CORDIO) Development Agency Ocean World Wildlife Fund East Africa Marine Ecoregion (WWF-EAME) World Wildlife Fund East Africa Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association Swedish Internal Development Western Indian (WIOMSA) Agency Ocean South African Association for Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) Marine Biological Research South Africa

Nature Seychelles Self-funded (private NGO) Seychelles East African Regional Office Marine and Coastal Program IUCN East Africa Western Indian African Coelacanth Ecosystem Program Sustainable Seas Trust Ocean Frontier Volunteer organization East Africa

Blue Ventures Self-funded (private NGO) Madagascar

Chumbe Island Coral Park Self-funded (private corporation) Tanzania

12 Table 4. List of individuals contacted/interviewed, including planned site visits. Name Agency Project Date Type of contact Dr. Mike Pido Palawan State University Bohol Marine Triangle Mar-07 in person Dr. Thamasak Yeemin Ramkhamhaeng University South China Seas Aug-07 in person Dr. Sapta Putra Ginting Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries COREMAP I and II May-07 in person Dr. Pawan Patil World Bank COREMAP I and II Jul-06 Email Dr. Toni Ruchimat Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries COREMAP I and II May-07 in person Agus Dermawan Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries COREMAP I and II May-07 in person Anna Sylviana Kartika Ministry of Forestry Indonesia COREMAP I and II May-07 in person Dr. Arif Satria Bogor Agricultural University COREMAP I and II May-07 in person Liza Agudelo ICRAN ICRAN-MAR Oct-06 in person Bernd Cordes Packard Foundation Pakard EBM Initiatives May-07 Email Kim Obermeyer Reef Check Thailand Green Fins Initiative May-07 in person Dr. Srisuda Jarayabhand COBSEA Green Fins Initiative May-07 in person Dr. Stuart Campbell Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia Marine Program Oct-06 in person Elizabeth McLeod The Nature Conservancy Coral Triangle Program Aug-07 in person Made Iwan Dewantama WWF Indonesia Friends of the Reef Sep-07 Email Lee Yoke Lee WWF Malaysia various WWF projects Oct-06 in person Lorenzo Tan WWF Philippines various WWF projects Sep-07 In person Angelique Batuna WWF Indonesia Bunaken National Park Sep-07 Email Wawan Ridwan WWF Indonesia Wakatobi National Park Sep-07 Email Monique Sumampouw WWF Indonesia Friends of the Reef Sep-07 Email Dr. Helen Fox WWF International Various Dec-07 in person Dicky Sofjan TNC Coral Triangle Center TNC Indonesia projects Sep-07 Email Tiare Holm Palau Conservation Society Packard EBM Palau Mar-07 in person Yimnang Golbuu Palau International Coral Reef Center Packard EBM, NOAA CRES Mar-07 in person Charlene Mersai Palau International Coral Reef Center Packard EBM Palau Mar-07 in person Dr. Robert Richmond University of Hawaii NOAA CRES Sep-07 Email Dr. Mike Hamnett University of Hawaii NOAA CRES Sep-07 Email Dr. Ed Gomez University of the Philippines GEF Targeted Research Sep-07 Email Dr. Andre Uychiaoco University of the Philippines GEF Targeted Research Jan-07 Email Dr. Laurie Raymundo University of Guam GEF Targeted Research Dec-06 in person Dr. Peter Mumby University of Exeter GEF Targeted Research Sep-07 in person

13 Dr. Alisdair Edwards University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne GEF Targeted Research Sep-07 Email Dr. Nancy Knowlton Scripps Institute of Oceanography GEF Targeted Research Sep-07 Email Dr. Peter Sale University of Windsor GEF Targeted Research Oct-06 in person Gerry Silvestre USAID Office, Manila FISH project Mar-07 in person John Francisco Pontillas Palawan Council for Sustainable Develop. FISH Project Dec-07 in person Nipat Somkleeb Ramkhamhaeng University South China Seas Sep-07 in person Sorachat Erawan Erawan Travel South China Seas Oct-07 in person Udompam Mortega Sea Hunter Fishing and Tour South China Seas Oct-07 in person Winai Kawichai Voyager Travel South China Seas Oct-07 in person Vipoosit Manthachitra Burapha University Various Oct-07 in person Jenny Miller Garmendia Project AWARE Foundation Project AWARE Dec-07 in person Dr. Pinsak Suraswadi Thai Dept of Marine & Coastal Resources Marine National Park Mgmt Oct-07 in person Atiq Kainan Ahmed Asian Disaster Preparedness Center Climate Risk Mgmt Oct-07 in person Dr. Niphon Phongsuwan Phuket Marine Biological Center Various COBSEA/Green Fins Oct-07 in person Scott Sharpe Subic Bay Dive Association Green Fins Initiative May-07 in person Felipe Ramiro, Jr. Marine Aquarium Council MAMTI Apr-07 in person Arun Abraham Marine Aquarium Council MAMTI Apr-07 in person Kus Prisetiahadi Ministry of Environment Indonesia Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Rili Djohani The Nature Conservancy Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Dr. Rod Salm The Nature Conservancy Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Dr. Alan White The Nature Conservancy Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Dr. Jan Steffen UNEP-CSI Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Dr. Ir. Indra Jaya Bogor Agricultural University Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Samuel Renyaan Cendrawasih University Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Dr. Stacy Tighe Consultant Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Edy Brotoisworo Asian Development Bank Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person David MacAuley Asian Development Bank Coral Triangle Initiative Dec-07 in person Dr. Thomas Goreau Global Coral Reef Alliance Various Dec-07 in person Stephen Lindsay Consultant Various Dec-07 in person

Chapter 2: Project Design

Introduction

External donor funded projects, through their preconceived goals, objectives and time frames, are often inclined to fail in part or at least to not be sustainable beyond their life (White et al. 2005). The dependence on external assistance creates both the potential for and the reality of non-sustainable ICM institutions and policies as projects are terminated and staff withdrawn. The majority of community-based coastal resource management projects are not maintained after the funding and external technical assistance end (White et al. 2005).

Despite difficulties in implementation of ICM projects, investments continue to increase. In the Philippines alone, it is estimated that from 1974 to 2000, US$230 million has been invested in coastal resource management. About 63% of this was from international donors, 36% from government appropriations and loan counterparts and 1% from local donors. Given these investments in ICM and related projects to improve the status and management of coastal resources, the question is often raised about how to make them more sustainable for the long- term improvement of social, economic and environmental parameters in coastal areas.

Problems in project design can lead to difficulties in implementation and sustainability of project. Thus, projects must be carefully designed to reach the desired outputs and outcomes. In order to overcome these threats and barriers, project design should meet the following three objectives:

1. Ensure the project goals are clearly articulated and understood by stakeholders. 2. Ensure that project is relevant and responsive to coral reef management issues. 3. Ensure project outcomes are achieved within the proposed funding and timeline.

White et al. (2005) conducted a review of 17 coastal management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia, in attempt to determine the factors that increased sustainability of these projects. The sustainability factors receiving the most attention, from the most to the least common, were: • education and awareness level raising, • link of management to biophysical change, • stakeholder participation in ICM decision-making process, • legal and policy framework development.

Those that are receiving the least attention among all the projects analyzed are: • participation of the private sector, • designing a successful project exit strategy, • improving economic returns and income generation, • building capacity for law enforcement, • ensuring institutional capacity beyond leadership change.

The distinction between the two lists reflects their relative importance in previous research on sustainable management. Factors on the first list have long been recognized as important to successful coastal management activities. However, recent research has emphasized the importance of the second list of factors. These factors also tend to reflect weaknesses in most developing country settings such as poor law enforcement, poverty, the unpredictability of local and national politics and changes in leadership. Successful project exit strategies and increased participation by the private sector may also reflect either the project design or a combination of design and the implementing entity bias of government, in most cases. ARTICLE IN PRESS From our review, the most common threats or barriers to effective project design include:

• Unrealistic project goals or timelines. • Insufficient coordination between partner agencies. • Insufficient capacity (human, financial and equipment) to perform proposed work. • Excessive donor requirements for restrictive frameworks, reporting requirements and funding schedules that impair flexibility to complete the project.

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Participation/Partnering

• Use participatory processes during design phase, make sure the project makes sense in a local context, select appropriate agencies and levels of expertise to carry out activities. • Project framework must be logical but flexible, not too ambitious or complex, and must be clearly defined and communicated to stakeholders.

• Stakeholder and community engagement must be designed to fit in the local/regional context. • Community engagement is the core business of coral reef management projects – we manage people, not reefs or fish.

Capacity

• Ensure capacity is available before proposing the project and in place at inception and make contingencies for the project to adapt and respond to changes in political/economic/administrative contexts or natural disasters. • Infrastructure investments should be accompanied by budget provisions for their operations and maintenance. • Project objectives or timeline should not be based on infrastructure or capacity that is not yet in place, as it is often delayed. • Ensure flexibility in timelines to reflect contingencies such as delayed delivery of funds, equipment, or infrastructure.

Funding and sustainability

• Core programs establish branding and improve marketing. • Prioritize and rationalize projects to improve marketing. • Advocacy component can promote sustainable funding options. • Use of charismatic species or ecosystems can be a good marketing tool but there should not be total reliance on this approach. • Make institutional arrangements for sustaining the project and/or activities after the initial source of funds has been exhausted. • Flexibility must be built into timeline and funding stream, especially where the disbursement of funds may be delayed.

General project issues

• Centralize project functions or establish a clear point of coordination as close as possible to project activities to avoid delays in coordination and to ensure clear lines of communication with all project participants and stakeholders. • Peer review and data management both are essential from the design phase and throughout project. • Avoid “blanket” approach to management and consider site-specific management, research and monitoring. • Small-scale, pilot, and demonstration projects useful to test feasibility before attempting large, complex project (Dominican Republic, Packard EBM).

Conclusions

• Participatory processes are critical and need to be designed into the project and operationalized before the project starts.

• Project design must include a realistic assessment of the capacity and infrastructure available and future sustainability. • Projects should be marketable not only to donors but to stakeholders and government also. • Costs and benefits of partner involvement need to be evaluated and utilized as much as possible to build capacity and ownership of the project. • Attempts should be made to determine the feasibility of projects through pilot or planning grants, or other feasibility studies.

Chapter 3: Project Management

Introduction

Management of coral reef projects is similar to managing other natural resources where there is a need to follow a management cycle whose complexity will depend on the objectives of the project and the size of the project. Coral reef management involves the management of people, tools and equipment to meet common objectives including:

1. Realistic planning that entails defining and allocating tasks to implement the objectives, accurate allocation of time for each task, allocation of adequate resources (human, financial and tools) and setting of manageable deadlines. 2. Clarifying people’s roles and lines of communication, developing budgets, setting up appropriate controls and schedules for each activity. 3. Monitoring of progress and final evaluation of progress. 4. Timely dissemination of information required for each activity.

A number of issues and drivers affect coral reef management and these must always be considered when designing and implementing management programs:

1. Reefs are managed by managing human behaviours and expectations.

• Projects must engage with communities, interests and agencies whose activities relate to coral reef use or impact. • Effective community engagement requires skills and commitment that are not widely available or easily taught. • There is a limited pool of experience and capacity in coral reef management.

2. Coral reefs present a demanding management context.

• Coral reefs often occur in remote areas where it is difficult to develop management capacity. • There are often high levels of human resource dependency and poverty in coral reef areas. • Ecological dynamics and processes of coral reef ecosystems are poorly understood by many or most users. • Many impacts come from external or remote activities with no direct social connection to coral reef communities.

3. The relationship between project activities and human and reef community outcomes may not emerge for a decade or more.

• Substantial uptake of changes in human attitudes and values often requires half a human generation or more.

• Significant changes in biological communities or processes of coral reefs may not be apparent for a decade or more.

4. Management must contend with unpredictable context change.

• These changes can include natural catastrophes such as tsunamis or cyclones. • Political or administrative system changes often occur at time scales shorter than project outcomes. • Economic changes can drive changes in coral reef resource use.

5. Coral reef management usually requires multi-agency coordination.

• Within governments – fisheries, environment, tourism, etc. • Within nations – local, provincial, national • Between nations – regional, global

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Coordination

• It is essential to establish an effective coordination mechanism including adequate management structures and operating systems. • Clear roles and responsibilities are needed for each component of the project including the advisory committees. • It is essential to establish an effective coordination mechanism to deal with conflicting agencies in multi agency projects. • Establish all partner agreements prior to implementation. • Partnerships need continuous support and networking. • Identify the appropriate implementing agency, i.e. research agencies do not always have the relevant experience.

Planning

• Budgets, timelines and expenditures need to be realistic.

Finances

• Adequate funds and other resources including staff should be in place prior to implementation. • Flexibility in the allocation of funds (i.e. a mechanism for timely reallocation of funds to meet changes at the local level). • Sustainable financing mechanisms should be explored and, if possible, tested before the end of the project.

Reporting

• Frequent assessments allow for flexibility and rigorous monitoring of progress but should not detract from implementation of project activities. • Reporting should be against effective indicators of progress to allow for objective evaluations. • Avoid reporting that detracts from project core activities, such as to multiple donors that require different formats which may exact management costs. • Reports should be minimized to what the recipient needs (e.g. exception reports). • Reports need to clearly define objectives and targets.

Implementation

• IT tools and GIS are useful for integrating multiple factors and agencies. • Municipal/Local government engagement important for achieving effective implementation. • Committed, motivated, peer respected individuals essential at all levels of implementation. • Continued assessment of relationships with partner agencies and communities is required.

Accounting • Accounting procedures need to be simplified so as not to detract from implementation of project activities.

Monitoring and Evaluation

• Continual assessment of partnerships and rationalization of project objectives with national and regional priorities is needed. • Adequate time should be given to evaluate projects especially large, complex and regional projects. • Barriers to change should be identified and appropriate interventions made. • Collect appropriate monitoring information that allows evaluation of the project. • External peer review of reports can increase the profile, transparency and respect for the project.

Chapter 4: Community Participation

Introduction

Community-based coral reef management (CBCRM) is a process by which the public is given the opportunity and/or responsibility to manage their own resources, define their needs, goals, and aspirations, and make decisions affecting their well- being (Fellizar 1994). It starts from the basic premise that people have the innate capacity to understand and act on their own problems (Katon et al. 1999). Essentially, CBCRM builds on what the community thinks and allows each community to develop a management strategy that meets its particular needs and conditions (White et al. 1994; Ferrer and Nozawa 1997). Its approach is people centered and consensus driven. At the core of CBCRM is community organizing, where empowerment is a primary concern. CBCRM has been responsible for activating social processes.

Underlying many local CBCRM initiatives is a sense of ownership of management arrangements that tends to foster a high degree of commitment and rule compliance (Pomeroy et al. 1996). For example, involving communities in environmental monitoring programmes provides them with first-hand information of the impacts of their management interventions. Natural resource monitoring by communities is an economically attractive option provided experts properly train and calibrate monitors. The participatory establishment of closed areas (‘reserves’) encourages compliance and reduces the costs and needs for an extensive enforcement system.

Purely community-level management can be difficult in a complex world of multiple stakeholders (Berkes 1997). Communities, by themselves, are unlikely to solve problems that originate outside their community (White et al. 1994; Claridge and O’Callaghan 1997). Resource management cannot operate without supportive policies, legislation, enforcement, conflict resolution, and other types of assistance (Pomeroy et al. 1996). Policies and legislation need to clearly spell out jurisdiction and control, provide legitimacy to decision-making arrangements, and clarify rights and rules on resource access and resource use. Arbitration and settlement of disputes, moreover, are imperative when conflicts arise between local resource users and between communities (Katon et al. 1999). Thus, comanagement has emerged as an important concept. Comanagement refers to the sharing of responsibility and/or authority between the government and community of local users to manage a resource (Pomeroy and Williams 1994). It makes two basic assumptions:

1. Local people must have a stake in resource conservation and management, and 2. Partnership of local communities and resource users with government agencies is essential (Berkes 1997).

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Social and cultural context

The cultural and social context is important for understanding impacts of coral reef and project management. In general, coral reef management projects should:

• increase efforts directed towards education, awareness, and collaboration needed to build consensus in multi-cultural communities. • foster a greater understanding of the community and its traditional and cultural relationship with the resource (current and historic use patterns, values, attitudes) for effective community engagement. • translate the goals and objectives of the project such that they are understandable to the target audiences and the community context. • create a forum for stakeholder interaction, query, and debate to provide opportunities for collaboration and mediation within the context of social interactions and conflicts. This and other anticipatory strategies should be explored (e.g. advisory communities and user group agreements). • nurture charismatic leadership within the community, as it is invaluable to facilitating community participation.

Community empowerment

Community empowerment promotes project ownership, participation, and management which increase the likelihood of success. Some key lessons include:

• Information and experience sharing is promoted through practical exercises (e.g. pilot projects) that involve peer to peer exchanges, networking, and good practice field examples. • Special effort to involve communities, especially marginalised user groups (gender and ethnic equality) and functional community leaders can promote good will, improve project management, and equitable distribution of benefits. This will also increase human capacity and strengthen technical capacity. • Devolution of decision making to local governments and important community figures can enhance resource stewardship when users play an important role in the management of their resources. • Exploring bottom-up and co-management approaches, recognising that varying management structures and strategies, improves project outcomes. • Community participation at the project planning, design, implementation, and management levels ensures transparency and inclusion in the management process. • Community involvement increases human capacity and strengthen technical capabilities. • Buy-in from all levels improves compliance that should effectively reduce enforcement costs.

Conclusions

• Projects that did not emphasize CBM did not achieve full potential. Successful projects had strong comanagement structure, community empowerment and a decentralised decision making process. • Dynamics, diversity and respected leadership within the community increase chances of success. • Involving key community leaders and marginalised groups can provide critical support that could not be otherwise sourced. • There is no single approach to community engagement. • Social context research is a prerequisite to the design phase. • Knowledge management and information flows need to be relevant and shared within the local community.

Chapter 5: Partnerships and Linkages

Introduction

Resource management cannot operate in a vacuum and this is particularly true of coral reef management couched in a framework of integrated coastal and watershed management. It is even truer when community-based or co-management approaches are involved. Increased collaboration between coral reef managers and stakeholders can led to less conflict and the development of policies that assist in the smooth running of the management programs (McClanahan et al. 2005). Overlapping mandates and conflict of interest primarily between coral reef managers and other government departments with interests in the coastal zone (e.g. Fisheries, Agriculture, and Tourism) continue to be a challenge in many countries, as do conflicts between user groups (e.g. fisheries and tourism). These sectors have the greatest influence coral reefs and coral reef management. Increased consultation between coral reef managers and other departments may lead to some improvements, but ultimately a coral reef management program must, from its inception, link all stakeholders and seek to reduce conflicts.

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

• Private sector partnerships can provide financial and technical support once effectively engaged. • Private sector projects and engagement need to be clearly focused and well defined and have a core understanding of the environment in order to achieve successful outcomes. • Industry engagement is important but needs to ensure that there is continual compliance with a sustainable code of practice (i.e. not greenwashing). • If there is an economic focus/incentive such as tourism, it can be easier to achieve consensus and action. • Private programs such as eco-venture volunteer tourism may serve to create stability and flexibility in areas where resources are limited, such as remote areas. • Buy-in from stakeholders can be difficult if they cannot see direct benefits from the project. • Government support (including traditional and indigenous governance) is vital to the development, implementation and sustainability of any project. • Collaboration and oversight with government bodies can bring technical, financial, and administrative capacities that include local knowledge. • A strong legislative foundation is required for the success and sustainability of project activities, especially where enforcement is necessary. However, in some cases, an agreed code of practice among user groups may be more beneficial. • Cross-sectoral linkages builds monitoring, enforcement, and implementation capacity, allowing for better allocation of resources and avoiding duplication.

Conclusions

• Cross-sectoral linkages and multi-stakeholder collaboration and integration builds capacity, sustainability, and a more effective implementation approach, creating a more comprehensive project. • Costs and benefits of private sector involvement need to be evaluated and should be involved early in the development to assure buy-in and long-term engagement. • Economic and other incentives need to be clearly identified and communicated in order to maintain stakeholder interests and manage expectations.

Chapter 6: Policy, Legislation and Enforcement

Introduction

This review identified four key issues in coral reef management policy. These include legislation, zoning, transboundary issues and enforcement.

The failure of national laws to resolve and assign effective roles and strategies for natural resources management has caused increasing conflicts throughout the world. This is particularly evident in developing countries, where the social and economic conditions of its peoples are low (Dirhamsyah 2007). Many national laws tend to the state-centered, centralized approach for resource management and discourage any existing community-based systems. However, recent years have witnessed the emergence, in an increasing number of countries, of important new laws designed to be more supportive of community initiatives.

An adequate and appropriate legal framework will promote sustainable development and management of coastal and coral reef resources. The complicated and inappropriate legal framework currently place in many developing tropical countries has contributed to serious degradation of coastal and marine resources. This degradation has been exacerbated by the lack of national marine policy, severe weaknesses in enforcement of natural resource laws and regulations. Often there is a general malaise or lack of commitment to sustainable management and development of natural resources.

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Legislation

• A strong legislative basis arising from strong local and participatory support helps secure long-term commitment from various parties. • Identify the level of controversy around legal options and legislate the least controversial actions first. Where possible, have alternate options for persons whose livelihoods may be subsequently impacted. • Consider species functional roles in ecosystems for legal restrictions (i.e herbivores, sea urchin eater, etc). • Enact legislation promptly in order to avoid delays establishing proposed management. • Democracy and transparency are important to obtain broad participation. • Use participatory processes to develop and implement legislation.

Zoning

• Clear objectives and participatory processes reduce conflict and increase compliance and promote project sustainability. • There should be clear negotiation and establishment of the objectives of zoning during the consultation process. 26

• Indigenous knowledge should be collected and integrated to avoid conflicts. • Biological and socioeconomic assessments are essential inputs to background information. • GIS and participatory mapping can be useful tools for zoning and rationalising roles and responsibilities among government organisations and other stakeholders. • People need to be educated about the zone boundaries and permitted uses, alongside training in ways to reduce human threats.

Transboundary issues

• Plan for the considerable time needed to resolve complex issues in policy harmonisation for shared resources. • Ensuring clarity of boundaries or jurisdiction helps prevent slow or impeded implementation. • Plan for cultural, geopolitical, and language differences. • High level political comment is crucial.

Enforcement

• Laws, permits, zones, etc must be consistently enforced to build confidence and avoid disenfranchisement of users. • Fairness and transparency is needed in enforcement. This may require recruiting enforcement officers from other areas. • Good record keeping and systematic evaluation of performance is critical.

Conclusions

• Laws need to be pragmatic and address root causes but not be unrealistic in the ability of people to change their behaviour. • Zoning requires knowledge gained through a participatory process and that is well integrated with tools such as participatory mapping and GIS. • Policies that include more than one country will require time to integrate and may often need to be agreed on prior to implementation. • Rapid and fair enforcement is essential to achieve continued support, faith, and compliance in new management.

Chapter 7: Ecosystem Based Management

Introduction

Until recently, the great majority of coral reef management projects have focused on immediate local threats and not on upland or watershed activities, or other non-point sources of impact. Many projects focus on small areas of a large ecosystem and fail to take ecological and social linkages into consideration. The management of the surrounding areas is often the major driver of changes within the managed area. Efforts to achieve holistic management must consider not only the fish and the coral reef resources but also the ecological, social, economic, and political aspects that involve all stakeholders. A key component of such a strategy would be promotion of healthy coral reef ecosystems by ensuring that economic development is managed in ways that maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for sustained use of these systems (Crosby et al. 2002).

The primary goals of ecosystem-based management are to:

1. Integrate wise land use and watershed management practices with coral reef management under integrated coastal management umbrella. 2. Apply a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to all human use and impacts relevant to coral reef management.

Threats or barriers to successful ecosystem management include:

• Lack of participation between terrestrial and marine management agencies and industry. • Lack of awareness of terrestrial or airborne impacts on the marine and coastal environment. • The complexity of holistic management plans. • There is a large number of different stakeholder and user groups to involve.

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management

• EBM approach is necessary for projects covering large areas or small components of larger ecosystems. • Management of coral reefs should be addressed through integrated and holistic management of related ecosystems and land uses. • EBM/ICOM should be informed by science but care must be taken in translation between th advocacy vs. objective technical advisory role of science. • Management regimes that are designed to meet community goals can achieve greater compliance and subsequent conservation success than regimes designed primarily for biodiversity conservation.

• Local action plans should be based on locally perceived threats/issues and sound data on local resource status. • Iconic species and charismatic habitats can be useful for marketing an EBM approach. • Tactical guidance which includes managing coastal systems at watershed scales, emphasizing monitoring, using area-based management and incorporating the recognition of uncertainties into decision making; is crucial to inform the transition of a fundamental shift in the management of activities to an ecosystem management for the oceans. • Coastal marine system researches highlight the importance to recognize the connections, to expect surprises and to take precautions. It is important to maintain the full range of components and processes within systems in order to maintain the full range of ecological interactions, and to aim for resilience rather than for desired end-points. • Tactically, management should occur at ecologically relevant scales such as watersheds, monitoring the status and trends of systems over long time periods and incorporating marine protected areas and marine reserves into management frameworks. • Uncertainties must be incorporated into decision making, using insurance policies and enhancing our understanding of marine systems in order to better understand the effects of human actions.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

• Coral-reef conservation based on large MPAs with weak enforcement may be ill-suited to the social, economic, and cultural context of many communities within the center of coral diversity, and insistence on these conservation methods may lead to polarization between national-government regulators and local communities. • MPAs are often “sold” to fishing communities on the basis that increased catches due to spillover and enhanced recruitment from spawning in the MPA will more than make up for lost fishing grounds, increased effort and higher costs of fishers displaced from the MPA. To date, this assumption has never been proven. Spillover is generally measured as movement of biomass out of an MPA, with no concomitant measurement of biomass moving into the MPA. The net difference is the true measurement of spillover and has only ever been demonstrated for one species in one location. • Given the complex nature of coral reef ecosystems, comprehensive biological and biophysical datasets are key to designing MPA networks. Before planning national or regional MPA networks, research is needed to determine critical spawning and nursery habitats, connectivity pathways (through tagging or physical oceanographic studies), and resilience of habitats, ecosystems, and livelihoods. • The socioeconomic conditions and needs of communities must be a core focus if MPA management objectives are to be achieved. Formal workshops, participatory training exercises and identifying opportunities for community development built trust and achieved stewardship of the MPA planning process among communities.

Fisheries

• There has been a tendency to abandon contemporary Western approaches to fisheries management (e.g. quotas, bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions, market or export restrictions, etc.) in favor of MPAs. In many cases, however, these approaches may be of 29

value in place of (or in addition to) MPAs. When planning reef fisheries management, realize that MPAs are only one tool from a wide array available to managers. Other methods of restricting catch and/or effort are valuable, do not displace fishers, and may cause fewer conflicts between fishers and other reef resource users. • Replenishment closures can be very effective but it is important to assess inter-annual recruitment variability that results in increased fish stocks regionally and can overshadow any effect of closure. • Not all fish species will respond in a similar fashion, thus the design of the closure should be particular to accommodate the target species to be replenished. • Annual underwater monitoring of fish stocks is very necessary to detect inter-annual change in fish stocks. The information on fishing activity and community perceptions following the reopening of a temporary closure of a coral reef (for fish stock replenishment) is important for changes in resource allocation.

Pollution and Sedimentation

• Accumulated sediment is a lethal legacy for coastal coral reefs undergoing phase shifts due to nutrient input and the overfishing of grazing herbivorous species. • Sediments are often resuspended by waves, preventing larval recruitment and thus the recovery of affected populations. Sediments also serve as a repository of pollutants associated with anoxic bottom sediments. • Management must integrate issues of sedimentation and sediment re-suspension must into efforts at coastal reef protection, or further declines in resources will continue to occur.

Habitat Restoration

• While coral reef restoration activities are conceptually attractive, proactive and protective measures are essential, given the magnitude of coral reef damage, the complexity of coral reef ecological structure and function, and the fact that a 300-year-old coral can be killed in hours to weeks, but cannot be replaced for centuries. • Monitoring of restoration projects is essential if we are to learn from past mistakes and past good-practice. Without it, you can evaluate neither the success nor cost effectiveness of restoration, nor carry out adaptive management if needed constraints. • Consider restoration not as a one-off event but as ongoing process over a time-scale of years which is likely to need adaptive management constraints. • Setting up and monitoring of a few comparable “control” areas where no active restoration has been attempted is recommended. These provide a clear baseline against which you can evaluate the cost-effectiveness of your restoration interventions constraints. • Consider how much monitoring can be feasibly undertaken (both detail and frequency) but be realistic. Better a little carefully and regularly collected data than a lot of poorly and irregularly collected data constraints. • Routine maintenance visits to the restoration site are recommended. They are likely to be very cost-effective given the expense of active restoration and could prevent wholesale loss of transplants to predators. 30

Chapter 8: Monitoring and Evaluation of Coral Reef Management

Introduction

The greatest problem facing coral reef ecosystems is unsustainable resource use and other human impacts. The purpose of monitoring and evaluating coral reef projects is to assess the performance of management to halt and reverse the decline of coral reefs. Specifically, the goals of monitoring and evaluation are:

1. to quantify change in the socio-ecological system 2. to assess the impact of anthropogenic activities 3. to appraise how effectively functions/activities were executed 4. to evaluate perceptions/attitudes and values of change among stakeholders

Threats or barriers to monitoring and evaluation include:

• Incomplete knowledge of resource use and production. • Difficulties of changing people’s behaviour. • Lack of alternatives to current resource use or other behaviour patterns • Lack of adequate capacity (skills and resources) to manage.

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Monitoring design

• Long term commitment required (10+ yrs) especially to identify ecological changes. • Question-driven monitoring increases productivity and relevant management interventions (what is the question to be answered?). • Identify the purpose of the data. Who is end user or target audience? • Balance benefits and costs (e.g. time, money, equipment) to create an affordable programme. • Determine acceptable level of change and the statistical power to detect it. • Monitor variables that will change on the timescale of management interventions (i.e. fish populations recover faster than coral cover). • Use methods that allow comparison with other findings and can be easily replicated. • Create appropriate data handling, analysis and storage systems before data collection begins. • Consider the needs of the end user as regards software used in data storage and dissemination. • Establish a baseline and control to assess the impact of activities. • Inform stakeholders of the monitoring programme and plans to disseminate, being mindful of interview fatigue. • Consider change in perceptions, attitudes and behaviour as important measures to monitor for determining success. 31

Monitoring implementation

• Delegate tasks at the appropriate level of expertise. • Identify clear responsibilities for various tasks and list names associated with data collection to allow for future verification of numbers and correcting errors. • Adequately train and undertake trial runs before collecting data to familiarise observers with methods. • Concentrate activities into clear and realistic time blocks to ensure specialised people are available and to use time and resources efficiently. • Better to use simple technologies but if high-tech equipment is needed, ensure service and spare parts available. • Outsourcing can be the most efficient and cost-effective way of gaining high level, high maintenance, demanding technical information. • Develop a system of double checking and create redundancy to find errors early in the process. • Enter data and undertake preliminary analysis during or shortly after data collection to search for and rectify errors. • Maintain back ups of data in the form of electronic and hard copies of data sheets. • Check and compare current data collection with past data collection to identify possible errors and immediate trends for confirmation.

Dissemination

• Take into account the local languages and cultures. • The information and means of relaying it should be adaptable to the receivers’ level of education or understanding. • Relate information relevant to potential management interventions and tools. • Distinguish advocacy from objective information. • Distinguish between information derived from other studies versus locally sourced data.

Conclusions

• Careful consideration and collaboration of design elements will ensure that the program has relevance to stakeholders and long-term value to the project and similar future projects (to avoid changing methodologies in ways that invalidate time series). • Implementation requires sound management and involvement of people and resources in order to complete work efficiently and in a repeatable manner that reduces the many potential sources of error. • Dissemination requires knowledge of the audience, what they can do, and what information they need to affect changes in behaviour. • Monitoring and performance evaluation are long-term activities and should be adequately funded and supported.

Chapter 9: Capacity, Education and Knowledge Management

Introduction

Coral reef management can require a high degree of capacity, depending on the complexity of the management program. In addition, education of managers, policy makers, resource users, and the general public is critical to management success.

1. Project designs have reflected unreal expectations concerning availability of appropriately skilled or experienced personnel. This often causes substantial delays in effective start-up. In addition, soft money short contracts and year on year funding delays tend to encourage staff to look for more secure positions with consequent mid-project loss of skills. Many projects have had substantial delays in start-up because of difficulties in staff recruitment, partnership development, and acquisition of facilities or equipment. In some cases the original timeline for the project has been retained despite substantial early time loss and this has led to predictable failures. 2. Management staff typically has little time for reading, research, or writing up their experience. Peer to peer learning opportunities are important but scarce. There is a lack of peer network support and project designs rarely provide for this. In the long term, there is a need to provide challenging career opportunities to retain skills and develop mentoring capacity to support networking. 3. Community-based management projects are typically context driven. Internships and on the job training by experienced personnel are often important for the development of sensitivities and trust with communities. Small scale projects provide opportunities for the community to develop capacity and project management skills. There is a body of experience of success and failure in community-based management that can provide a basis for training in different operational contexts. 4. Project designs have reflected unreal expectations of timelines for acquisition and maintenance of special equipment or buildings and this has caused substantial delays in effective start-up and mid-project hiatus with equipment failures.

Key Lessons Learned and Recommendations

1. Project designs should reflect likely availability of skilled personnel. 2. Project design and management should avoid financial hiatus to provide security and confidence to project staff. 3. Appointment and effective operation of expert staff during the application and evaluation process should adequately address and plan for the availability and start up times of staff. 4. Pay attention to the time it will take for the project to achieve the pre-implementation needed to support the intended project outcomes. 5. Establish a decision point for confirmation of the project and confirming or revising a timeframe that is realistic for project completion.

6. Project design should reflect a realistic assessment of the availability of skills and time of counterpart agency staff. 7. Regional mentoring, peer networks, attachments and exchanges can support and accelerate development of operational capacity. 8. Make clear the skills and experience required within the project implementing team and focus capacity on these needed skills rather than more broad or generic training. 9. Expert advisory groups can help and support development of capacity and program management but their roles should be clearly defined to avoid issues of control of project management. 10. Community engagement in management and monitoring builds effective management capacity and confidence of project staff.

Chapter 10: Conclusions and Future Directions

Coral reefs have received much attention lately as the areas of highest marine biodiversity and are among the world’s top conservation priorities. Hundreds of millions of people and thousands of communities all over the world depend on coral reefs for food, protection, and jobs. For example, over 150 million people live within the ‘Coral Triangle’ of Southeast Asia and Melanesia, of which over 2,600,000 are fishers who are dependant on marine resources for their livelihoods (Chuenpagdee et al. 2006). Over the past 15 years, over one billion dollars have been spent on coral reef management projects worldwide ($320 million from the GEF alone).

There is a growing consensus that MPAs need to be integrated into ecosystem-based “ridges to reefs” management programmes that include social elements such as alternative livelihood strategies (Wolanski et al. 2003). However, in our review, only 6 of 115 projects (the Packard Foundation regional ecosystem-based management initiatives the Philippines FISH project and Mabini-Tingloy project, and the NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystems Studies Micronesia project) specifically embedded MPAs within an ecosystem-based management framework that included alternative livelihood strategies.

One new concept that has been introduced in the past decade is ‘resilience’. The central concept of ‘resilience’ may be defined as “the capacity of a complex system to absorb shocks while still maintaining function, and to reorganize following disturbance” (Walker et al. 2004). To date, concepts of resilience have generally been applied only to corals, in terms of their resilience to climate change, sedimentation, pollution, etc. However, given the close interdependence of coral reefs and the human populations associated with them, one can interpret the term ‘complex system’ in this context to refer to a linked social-ecological system, which is defined as “a system that includes social (human) and ecological (biophysical) subsystems in mutual interaction” (Gallopin et al 1989). In the context of coral reefs, “management for resilience” should prevent a coral reef system from failing to deliver benefits (i.e. biodiversity conservation, ecosystem function, food and income for poverty reduction) by preserving ecological and social features that enable it to absorb shocks and maintain function.

Current coral reef management practice does not place sufficient emphasis on threats that arise from outside the reef area. Climate change will have a profound affect on coral reefs and the coral reef resource (fishery) dependent peoples that live there. Any approach to biodiversity conservation and development must account for these impacts. In a development (i.e. poverty reduction) context, climate change must be viewed as a fundamental threat to human security in countries already vulnerable to social and economic dislocation and conflict. When viewed through this lens the links between biodiversity conservation, national security, development, and human rights become clearer. Although the links may become quite apparent, cause and effect are not; the enormous complexity of environmental and social processes working at many scales makes decision-making for adaptation a daunting task.

Bibliography

Abesamis RA, Alcala AC, Russ GR (2006) How much does the fishery at Apo Island benefit from spillover of adult fish from the adjacent marine reserve? Fish Bull 104:360-375

Abesamis RA, Russ GR (2005) Density-dependent spillover from a marine reserve: long-term evidence. Ecological Applications 15:1798-1812

Alcala AC, Russ GR, Maypa AP, Calumpong HP (2005) A long-term, spatially replicated experimental test of the effect of marine reserves on local fish yields. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:98-108

Allison GW, Gaines SD, Lubchenco JE, Possingham HP (2003) Ensuring persistence of marine reserves: catastrophes require adopting an insurance factor. Ecological Applications 13:S8-S24

Arin T, Kramer RA (2002) Divers' willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an exploratory study. Ocean Coast Manage 45:171-183

Aswani S, Albert S, Sabetian A, Furusawa T (2008) Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs In Press

Baelde P (2005) Interactions between the implementation of marine protected areas and right- based fisheries management in Australia. Fish Manage Ecol 12:9-18

Barber PH, Palumbi SR, Erdmann MV, Moosa MK (2000) A marine Wallace's line? Nature 406:692-693

Beger M, Harbone AR, Dacles TP, Solandt J, Ledesma GL (2005) A framework of lessons learned from community-based marine reserves and its effectiveness in guiding a new Coast Manage intitiative in the Philippines. Environ Manage 34:786-801

Bell JD, Ratner BD, Stobutzki I, Oliver J (2006) Addressing the coral reef crisis in developing countries. Ocean Coast Manage 49:976-985

Bezaury-Creel JE (2005) Protected areas and coastal and ocean management in México. Ocean Coast Manage 48:1016-1046

Bode M, Bode L, Armsworth PR (2006) Larval dispersal reveals regional sources and sinks in the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 308:17-25

Cappo M, Kelley R (2001) Connectivity in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area--an overview of pathways and processes. In: Wolanski E (ed) Oceanographic processes of coral reefs: physical and biological links in the Great Barrier Reef. CRC, Boca Raton, p 162-187

Carter DW (2003) Protected areas in marine resource management: another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean Coast Manage 46:439-456

Cho L (2005) Marine protected areas: a tool for integrated Coast Manage in Belize. Ocean Coast Manage 48:932-947

Christie P (2005a) Is integrated Coast Manage sustainable? Ocean Coast Manage 48:208-232

Christie P (2005b) Observed and perceived environmental impacts of marine protected areas in two Southeast Asia sites. Ocean Coast Manage 48:252-270

Christie P, Lowry K, White AT, Oracion EG, Sievanen L, Pomeroy RS, Pollnac RB, Patlis JM, Eisma RV (2005) Key findings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated Coast Manage process sustainability. Ocean Coast Manage 48:468-483 Christie P, White AT (2008) Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas. Coral Reefs In Press

Cicin-Sain B, Belfiore S (2005) Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and practice. Ocean Coast Manage 48:847-868

Cinner JE (2008) Designing marine reserves to reflect local socioeconomic conditions: lessons from long-enduring customary management systems. Coral Reefs In Press

Cinner JE, Pollnac RB (2004) Poverty, perceptions and planning: why socioeconomics matter in the management of Mexican reefs. Ocean Coast Manage 47:479-493

Colding J, Folke C (2001) Social taboos: "invisible" systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications 11:584-600

Cooke SJ, Danylchuk AJ, Danylchuk SE, Suski CD, Goldberg TL (2006) Is catch-and-release recreational angling compatible with no-take marine protected areas? Ocean Coast Manage 49:342-354

Crosby MP, Brighouse G, Pichon M (2002) Priorities and strategies for addressing natural and anthropogenic threats to coral reefs in Pacific Island Nations. Ocean Coast Manage 45:121-137

Eisma RV, Christie P, Hershman M (2005) Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated costal management in the Philippines. Ocean Coast Manage 48:336-359

Fauzi A, Buchary EA (2002) A socioeconomic perspective of environmental degradation at Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park, Indonesia. Coast Manage 30:167-181

Friedlander AM, Brown EK, Jokiel PL, Smith WR, Rodgers KS (2003) Effects of habitat, wave exposure, and marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago. Coral Reefs 22:291-305

Friedlander A, Sladek Nowlis J, Sanchez JA, Appeldoorn R, Usseglio P, McCormick C, Bejarano S, Mitchell-Chui A (2003) Designing effective marine protected areas in Seaflower Biosphere Reserve, Colombia, based on biological and sociological information. Conservation Biology 17:1-16

Garla RC, Chapman DD, Shivji MS, Wetherbee BM, Amorim AF (2006) Habitat of juvenile Caribbean reef sharks, Carcharhinus perezi, at two oceanic insular marine protected areas in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean: Fernando de Noronha Archipelago and Atol das Rocas, Brazil. Fish Res 81:236-241

Garpe KC, Yahya SAS, Lindahl U, Öhman MC (2006) Long-term effects of the (1998) coral bleaching event on reef fish assemblages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 315:237-247

Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2005) Importance of attitudinal differences among artisanal fishers toward co-management and conservation of marine resources. Conservation Biology 19:865-875

Gerber LR, Heppell SS, Ballantyne F, Sala E (2005) The role of dispersal and demography in determining the efficacy of marine reserves. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:863-871

Gladstone W (2000) The ecological and social basis for management of a Red Sea marine- protected area. Ocean Coast Manage 43:1015-1032

Golbuu Y, Victor S, Penland L, Idip Jr D, Emaurois C, Okaji K, Yukihira H, Iwase A, van Woesik R (2008) Palau's coral reefs show differential habitat recovery following the 1998- bleaching event. Coral Reefs In Press

Griffis RB (1996) Ecosystem approaches to coastal and ocean stewardship. Ecological Applications 6:708-712

Harding S, Comley J, Raines P (2006) Baseline data analysis as a tool for predicting the conservation value of tropical coastal habitats in the Indo-Pacific. Ocean Coast Manage 49:696- 705

Hawkins SJ (2004) Scaling up: the role of species and habitat patches in functioning of coastal ecosystems. Aquat Conserv: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:217-219

James MK, Armsworth PR, Mason LB, Bode L (2002) The structure of reef fish metapopulations: modeling larval dispersal and retention patterns. Proc R Soc Lond, B 269:2079-2086

Jones GP, Milicich MJ, Emslie MJ, Lunow C (1999) Self-recruitment in a coral reef fish population. Nature 402:802-804

Jones GP, Planes S, Thorrold SR (2005) Coral reef fish larvae settle close to home. Current Biology 15:1314-1318 38

Jordan A, Lawler M, Halley V, Barrett N (2005) Seabed habitat mapping in the Kent Group of Islands and its role in marine protected area planning. Aquat Conserv: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15:51-70

Kaiser MJ (2004) Marine protected areas: the importance of being earnest. Aquat Conserv: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:635-638

Kamukuru AT, Mgaya YD, Öhman MC (2004) Evaluating a marine protected area in a developing country: Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania. Ocean Coast Manage 47:321-337

Katon BM, Pomeroy RS, Garces LR, Salamanca AM (1999) Fisheries management of San Salvador Island, Philippines: a shared responsibility. Soc Nat Resour 12:777-795

Keller BD, Causey BD (2005) Linkages between the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Ocean Coast Manage 48:869-900

Kleypas JA, Eakin CM (2007) Scientists' perceptions of threats to coral reefs: results of a survey of coral reef researchers. Bull Mar Sci 80:419-436

Kühlman K (2002) Evaluations of marine reserves as basis to develop alternative livelihoods in coastal areas of the Philippines. Aquaculture International 10:527-549

Leis JM (2002) Pacific coral-reef fishes: the implications of behaviour and ecology of larvae for biodiversity and conservation, and a reassessment of the open population paradigm. Environ Biol Fish 65:199-208

Lowry K, White AC, Courtney C (2005) National and local agency roles in integrated Coast Manage in the Philippines. Ocean Coast Manage 48:314-335

Lo-Yat A, Meekan MG, Charleton JH, Galzin R (2006) Large-scale dispersal of the larvae of nearshore and pelagic fishes in the tropical oceanic waters of French Polynesia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 325:195-203

Lunn KE, Dearden P (2006) Fisher's needs in marine protected area zoning: a case study from Thailand. Coast Manage 34:183-198

Luttinger N (1997) Community-based coral reef conservation in the Bay Islands of Honduras. Ocean Coast Manage 36:11-22

McClanahan TR, Ateweberhan M, Sebastián CR, Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Bruggemann JH, Guillaume MMM (2008) Predictability of coral bleaching from synoptic satellite and in situ temperature observations. Coral Reefs In Press

McClanahan TR, Baker AC, Ateweberhan M, Maina J, Moothien-Pillay KR (2005) Refining coral bleaching experiments and model through reiterative field studies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 305:301-303

McClanahan TR, Graham NAJ (2005) Recovery trajectories of coral reef fish assemblages within Kenyan marine protected areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 294:241-248

McClanahan TR, Hendrick V, Rodrigues MJ, Polunin NVC (1999) Varying responses of herbivorous and invertebrate-feeding fishes to macroalgal reduction on a coral reef. Coral Reefs 18:195-203

McClanahan TR, Kaunda-Arara B (1996) Fishery recovery in a coral-reef marine park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Conservation Biology 10:1187-1199

McClanahan TR, Maina J, Davies J (2005) Perceptions of resource users and managers towards fisheries management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fish Manage Ecol 12:105-112

McClanahan TR, Mangi S (2000) Spillover of exploitable fishes from a marine park and its effects on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications 10:1792-1805

McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE, Kiene WE (2006) A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16:1408-1413

McClanahan TR, McField M, Huitric M, Bergman K, Sala E, Nystro:m M, Nordemar I, Elfwing T, Muthiga NA (2001) Response of algae, corals and fish to the reduction of macroalgae in fished and unfished patch reefs of Glovers Reef Atoll, Belize. Coral Reefs 19:367-379

McClanahan TR, Mwaguni S, Muthiga NA (2005) Management of the Kenyan coast. Ocean Coast Manage 48:901-931

Milne N, Christie P (2005) Financing integrated Coast Manage: experiences in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Ocean Coast Manage 48:427-449

Monaco ME, Friedlander AM, Caldow C, Christensen JD, Rogers C, Beets J, Miller J, Boulon R (2007) Characterizing reef fish populations and habitats within and outside the US Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument: a lesson in marine protected area design. Fish Manage Ecol 14:33-40

Mora C, Andréfouët S, Costello MJ, Kranenburg C, Rollo A, Veron J, Gaston KJ, Myers RA (2006) Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312:1750-1751

Olsen R, De Leon D, White AT (2005) Do biophysical studies and coastal databases enhance Coast Manage sustainability? Several Philippine cases. Ocean Coast Manage 48:411-426

Oracion EG, Miller ML, Christie P (2005) Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean Coast Manage 48:393-410 40

Osborn D, Datta A (2006) Institutional and policy cocktails for protecting coastal and marine environments from land-based sources of pollution. Ocean Coast Manage 49:576-596

Palumbi SR (2004) Marine reserves and ocean neighborhoods: the spatial scale of marine populations and their management. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:31-68

Patlis JM (2005) The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated Coast Manage projects in Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 48:450-467

Pelletier D, García-Charton JA, Ferraris J, David G, Thébaud O, Letourner Y, Claudet J, Amand M, Kulbicki M, Galzin R (2005) Designing indicators for assessing the effects of marine protected areas on coral reef ecosystems: a multidisciplinary standpoint. Aquat Living Resour 18:15-33

Pollnac RB, Pomeroy RS (2005) Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated Coast Manage projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 48:233-251

Richardson LL, Voss JD (2005) Changes in a coral population on reefs of the northern Florida Keys following a coral disease epizootic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 297:147-156

Rinkevich B (2005) What do we know about Eilat (Red Sea) reef degradation? A critical examination of the published literature. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 327:183-200

Roberts CM, Andelman S, Branch G, Bustamante RH, Castilla JC, Dugan J, Halpern BS, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, Lubchenco J, McArdle D, Possingham HP, Ruckelshaus M, Warner RR (2003) Ecological Criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:S199-S214

Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R (2001) Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294:1920-1923

Roberts CM, Branch G, Bustamante RH, Castilla JC, Dugan JC, Halpern BS, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, Lubchenco J, McArdle D, Ruckelshaus M, Warner RR (2003) Application of ecological criteria in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13:S215-S228

Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2001) How large do reserve networks need to be? Ecol Lett 4:602- 609

Rogers CS, Beets J (2001) Degradation of marine ecosystems and decline of fishery resources in marine protected areas in the US Virgin Islands. Environ Conserv 28:312-322

Russ GR, Alcala AC (2004) Marine reserves: long-term protection is required for full recovery of predatory fish populations. Oecologia 138:622-627

Russ GR, Alcala AC (1999) Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 18:307-319

Russ GR, Alcala AC (1998) Natural fishing experiments in marine reserves 1983-1993: community and trophic responses. Coral Reefs 17:383-397

Russ GR, Alcala AC (1996) Marine reserves: rates and patterns of recovery and decline of large predatory fish. Ecological Applications 6:947-961

Russ GR, Stockwell B, Alcala AC (2005) Inferring versus measuring rates of recovery in no-take marine reserves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292:1-12

Sadovy Y (2005) Trouble on the reef: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 6:167-185

Sadovy Y, Domeier M (2005) Are aggregation-fisheries sustainable? Reef fish fisheries as a case study. Coral Reefs 24:254-262

Sale PF, Kritzer JP (2003) Determining the extent and spatial scale of population connectivity: decapods and coral reef fishes compared. Fish Res 65:153-172

Shanks AL, Grantham BA, Carr MH (2003) Propagule dispersal distance and the size and spacing of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:S159-S169

Sievanen L, Crawford B, Pollnac R, Lowe C (2005) Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 48:297-313

Silvano RAM, MacCord PFL, Lima RV, Begossi A (2006) When does this fish spawn? Fisherman's local knowledge of migration and reproduction of Brazilian coastal fishes. Environ Biol Fish 76:371-386

Smith MD, Zhang J, Coleman FC (2006) Effectiveness of marine reserves for large-scale fisheries management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:153-164

Stoffle R, Minnis J (2008) Marine protected areas and the coral reefs of traditional settlements in the Exumas, Bahamas. Coral Reefs In Press

Sumaila UR (2004) Intergenerational cost-benefit analysis and marine ecosystem restoration. Fish and Fisheries 5:329-343

Thiele MT, Pollnac RB, Christie P (2005) Relationships between coastal tourism and ICM sustainability in the central Visayas region of the Philippines. Ocean Coast Manage 48:378-392

Valentine JF, Heck Jr KL (2005) Perspective review of the impacts of overfishing on coral reef food web linkages. Coral Reefs 24:209-213 42

Watson R, Alder J, Walters C (2000) A dynamic mass-balance model for marine protected areas. Fish and Fisheries 1:94-98

Wetherbee BM, Holland KN, Meyer CG, Lowe CG (2004) Use of a marine reserve in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii by the giant trevally, Caranx ignobilis. Fish Res 67:253-263

White AT, Christie P, D'Agnes H, Lowry K, Milne N (2005) Designing ICM projects for sustainability: lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 48:271-296

White AT, Courtney CA, Salamanca A (2002) Experience with marine protected area planning and management in the Philippines. Coast Manage 30:1-26

Williams ID, Polunin NVC (2000) Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environ Conserv 27:382-391

Williams ID, Walsh WJ, Miyasaka A, Friedlander AM (2006) Effects of rotational closure on coral reef fishes in Waikiki-Diamond Head Fishery Management Area, Oahu, Hawaii. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 310:139-149

Williamson DH, Russ GR, Ayling AM (2004) No-take marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Environ Conserv 31:149- 159

Wolanski E, Richmond R, McCook L, Sweatman H (2003) Mud, marine snow and coral reefs. Am Sci 91:44-51

Appendix I: Project Reviews

1. East Africa and Red Sea – GEF projects

Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resource Management Project

Country: EGYPT

Description - This project involved four Egyptian government agencies, two tourism agencies, Environmental Affairs and Red Sea Governance to prevent pollution and promote biodiversity along the Egyptian coast, and was undertaken between December 1994 to June 2002. The sub goals of the project were to 1) develop policies, plans, and regulations on development, 2) strengthen capacity of the government, 3) develop public-private partnerships, 4) develop and implement MPAs, and 5) develop a GIS inventory for the Red Seas coast of Egypt. This was a complex plan that involved agencies that had little experience with these activities or coordinating, and the original three year plan, therefore, extended to 8 years. The inherent conflict between tourism development desires and the capacity to protect the environment were key areas for conflict.

Evaluation - The main activities were 1) to develop coastal zone management plan based on the GIS, 2) develop the capacity to undertake environmental assessment, 3) monitor and enforce pollution, 4) establish a reef recreation management unit, 5) establish MPAs, and 6) monitor and evaluate the CZM project. USAID sponsored the construction of the Red Sea Protectorate office in Hurghada, which was further developed by the GEF. Building and weak project management led to a three-year delay in implementing the initial CZM process. Efforts spread among the objectives of data collection and the on-the-ground implementation largely lead to weakness and delays in implementation. Despite these problems and delays the project managed to complete most of the objectives including a GIS CZM project for the coast, integration of government agencies, and involvement of the private sector NGOs specifically through the construction of a visitor center.

The largest weakness was in the implementation of the on ground implementation of the MPAs, recreational unit, and the monitoring program, and these may not be achieved without recurrent funding from sources such as USAID, which was a key partner in the project. Initial surveys of the ecology of many areas were undertaken such that key ecosystems and areas were identified and incorporated into the GIS CZM process. Establishing moorings was an important terminal activity in this process that will need to be further implemented and monitored. Despite the slow start the project was successful in the above areas and this was facilitated by a competent consultancy that worked well with the local team. Logistic constraints and personnel problems were encountered by having offices in Cairo and Hurgada.

Lessons Learned

A. Effective Impacts

Bringing government agencies together to collaborate to their mutual benefit can dramatically improve implementation. In this case the project allowed for an unprecedented collaboration between the three implementing agencies, which led to more effective outcomes. Bringing together the main Government agencies (Tourism Development Authority (TDA), Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), and the Red Sea Governorate (RSG)) in the day-to-day management of the project ensured that their interests were addressed and facilitated project implementation. The absorption of Project staff and culture into these agencies made possible the subsequent mainstreaming and sustainability of project activities into the tourism and environmental agenda.

Development of a GIS database can have major benefits which go beyond the project itself. In the project, the development of the GIS database, with an inventory of coastal and marine ecosystems for the Egyptian Red Sea coast, enabled it to be used as a tool for investment programming and coastal zone management. The GIS has also proven to be an essential tool to achieve consensus amongst stakeholders.

Development of successful public-private partnerships leads to more effective project implementation. The project definitely benefited from the involvement of NGOs such as Hurghada Environmental Protection for Corals Agency (HEPCA), the Safaga EPCA, private hotel operators and dive boat operators.

Promotion of environmental awareness amongst stakeholders is a key element in protecting fragile natural resources. In this project it led to a broader "greening" of the private sector, which now recognizes the importance of sound environmental management for sustaining tourist inflows, and has formed an Investors' Environmental Association. This grouping, which includes all the major hotel operators, participates in the management of the International Visitor Center financed under the project to promote best practices in environmental design and resource management and to help ensure sustainability.

Combination of a highly experienced international consulting team with a dedicated local team has a synergistic learning effect. In this case, the combination produced high quality work and more effective implementation.

B. Project Design

The need for consistency between project objectives and activities of the project components is an important element of project design. In this case, the project design could have focused more effectively on the preparation of a CZM framework with the three implementing agencies. Such a framework would have provided an overall structure to work with from the beginning and provided more opportunities for implementation of studies results on the ground, especially towards the protection of coral reefs. 45

C. Project Implementation

Logistical considerations can have a major impact on project implementation: in this case, the project had intended for a Cairo office to be more policy and liaison based, while most of the day-to day work for all other activities would be in Hurghada. It proved difficult to get key staff and resource people to relocate for 3 years to Hurghada, so there was in effect a split in the staffs, with the Database, Administration-Finance and Planning teams in Cairo and the Executive Management, CMPAs and Reef Recreation in Hurghada. Fielding and sourcing two offices (Cairo and Red Sea) was time-consuming and inherently resulted in less rather than more integrated linkages between field collection, data integration and presentation, as well as with part-time project staff based in other areas.

Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago

Country: YEMEN

Description - The Socotra archipelago, consisting of six islands belonging to the Republic of Yemen, contains a globally important biological resource. Surveys have demonstrated just how important the biodiversity of the islands is. Of 900 identified plant species over one third are endemic species, making the archipelago one of the most important sites for endemic plants in the world. The islands also support seven endemic species of birds and research is likely to reveal a similar level of endemism amongst other taxa. This biological wealth makes the islands a natural subject for international conservation support. The natural history of Socotra remains remarkably intact, as the islands have been all but isolated from the outside world of commerce and development until recently, and have been managed by Socotrans in an environmentally sound and largely sustainable fashion. Until recently, marine resources were high due to a well managed traditional coastal fishery, and grazing resources were in balance with levels of livestock using them.

This situation is poised to change rapidly. The Government of the Republic of Yemen (GOY) have taken steps to bring the people of Socotra into the wider world, and help them overcome problems of poverty, food insecurity, poor health and education. Human populations are growing and expectations rising. The opening of an all weather air strip and construction of an airport on Socotra is encouraging increased travel to and from the island. Government plans for construction of a USD 60 million harbour and docking facility will allow year long access to the island, which is currently closed to shipping for five months of the year by the strong winds and rough seas of the area.

The people of Socotra need increased economic activity to ensure their continuing development. Finding suitable and viable economic opportunities may, however, prove difficult. Though a range of small scale activities are well established, including goat and cattle raising, date production, fishing and collection and trade in natural products (e.g. honey, cinnabar, aloe), these have not been sufficient to provide more than a very basic subsistence for the majority of Socotrans.

The objectives of the project are to conserve the biodiversity of the Socotra archipelago through community-based resource management and implementation of a zoning plan which will integrate biodiversity conservation, environmental management and development objectives in an holistic manner. In addition, environmentally sound and sustainable development will be fostered and poverty among the population of Socotra Island alleviated in a sustainable way.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Capacity building

• Provide training in management skills and by developing closer management relations with government partners.

The project’s focus on building capacity of Socotrans has led to the establishment of a committed cadre of conservationists, many of which have found employment with Government. This team is technically strong but remains relatively weak in terms of management. This problem can be avoided by providing training in management skills and by developing closer management relations with government partners. Though it is recognized that building capacity in management through on the job training can slow project progress, building capacity in management will contribute significantly to the sustainability of project achievements.

• The balance between hiring in expertise, whether local or international, and relying on existing capacity within government is difficult.

The large parallel structure developed by the project presents a problem for sustainability which is not sustainable by Government. Hiring in expert staff enhances short term performance, which in the conservation sector is often important, but compromises sustainability. Executing project activities through existing government structures and relying on slow incremental building of capacity compromises the speed of achievement and often the quality of project outputs, but enhances sustainability. Project designs must take these issues into account. The contradictions between the natural interest of government institutions and staff in direct implementation and the inevitable concern of donors for quality short-term outcomes must be recognized and balanced.

Sector development

• The linking of economic development on Socotra directly to conservation and protected area establishment through development of sustainable fisheries and eco-tourism industries presents a valuable model for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity conservation is a difficult objective to pursue in many developing countries, or even developed country. It can rarely be demonstrated that conservation, and especially protected areas, bring direct benefits to governments or communities. It should be noted, however, that it is the lack of development alternatives on Socotra that has made this possible.

General lessons

The original GEF project was extended and community development activities integrated into a programme. The SCDP did not, however, have a clearly defined logic. It is recognized that the individual requirements of donors can make integration of their projects difficult. However, 48 designing a strong programme logic which ensures that project goals are meaningful and consistent to the programme, project purposes or immediate objectives are realistic and address the goals, and project results contribute directly to the project purpose will strengthen implementation. When the successful implementation of a project depends on a significant change in government policy and practice, in this case the establishment of an institution with the authority to regulate the behaviour of powerful ministries and well connected individuals, progress towards this objective must be carefully monitored. The agreed changes in policy and practice must be viewed as an integral component of government’s participation. Failure of government to achieve them must be dealt with directly by the Tripartite Review Meetings. The UNDP Country Office should also play an important role in supporting governments to make the necessary changes.

Protection of the Marine Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast

Country: YEMEN

Description - This project involved the Yemen government, notably the Ministry of Fish Wealth, and a technical team to protect the marine ecosystems, fisheries and biodiversity of the Yemen coast, and was undertaken between 1993 until 1999. There were a number of delays in the initiation and completion of the project and the final evaluation of the project was completed in 2001. The main focus of he project was to develop a monitoring program and the capacity of the Yemen government to monitor its ecosystems. The key tension in the project was between fisheries and environmental assessment, with the ministry of fisheries attempting to convert it into a fisheries development project, which conflicted with the original proposed plan and the objectives of the different government departments and technical implementation team.

Evaluation - The main expected sub goals or outcomes of the project were 1) data collection and the design of a monitoring system, 2) developing institutions for monitoring the marine environment, 3) participation in regional programs in the Red Sea, and 4) protection of marine ecosystems of the Red Sea. A good deal of high quality snap-shot data of the ecosystems in this country was collected but the study failed to organize these data and the institutions into a coherent monitoring program that persisted past the initial data collection. The centre was extant more than two years after the project but there as little evidence that the center, its equipment, and training would be sustainable without additional donor support. The activities of the monitoring center were also not integrated into the objectives and activities of other government or NGO resource use institutions and were not influencing policy or management. Additionally, the snap-shot information was not effectively used to identify a MPA or zoning system for the coat and there was little integration of this program into larger Red Sea initiatives.

Fishing appears to be one of the main environmental impacts in Yemen but there was a poor effort to identify key impacts and to make a connection between fishing practices and effects and the environmental monitoring program. The major weakness in the conceptualization of the project was largely the failure to link activities to environmental impacts, particularly with fisheries use and their potential management. This was probably exacerbated by the conflicts between the ministry of fisheries and the other institutions in the early stages of the project, which were never reconciled. Evaluation and monitoring seemed to be ends in themselves and this is likely to lead to poor support both from donors and the government in maintaining this program.

Lessons Learned

Sustainable human development • Where a biodiversity resource of international importance such as the Red Sea marine ecosystems is also an economic resource of local and national importance, the relationship between the two and threats to them must be clearly understood through a

sound process of problem identification. • Though it may be tempting to undertake activities which in themselves are of value, such as environmental awareness raising amongst local communities, the targeting of initiatives designed to support sustainable human development must clearly identify those groups within the communities that constitute the primary threats to the resource and target initiatives on these groups. Capacity building • Where capacity building is specified as the primary means through which Project objectives are to be met, the structure of the Project, its budget and the selection of consultants and national counterpart institutions and individuals must clearly reflect this. Sector development • GEF and the Government of Yemen must be very clear about the relationship between the Red Sea’s biological diversity and Yemen’s industrial and artisanal fisheries. Interventions in the conservation sector may not have the expected effects on the fisheries sector, and vice versa. General lessons • Failure to develop projects that have a single, clearly defined purpose increases the likelihood of implementation problems. A single purpose to which the project is committed provides the guidance needed for a project while allowing flexibility to modify activities to achieve this purpose. • Without the logic imposed by a single project purpose, managers cannot make sensible decisions about what activities to include and what to exclude from the project. A formal hierarchy of project results and objectives should always be established as part of the project development process. • A formal process of strategic planning should be undertaken at an early stage in the implementation of a project to ensure that the most appropriate means for achieving the project’s purpose and immediate objectives are identified and selected. The project document should not be viewed as a blue print for implementation, but as a guide. • Though there are costs associated with substantial modifications to project design, these should not be avoided when necessary. Sound development of project objectives in the first place should, however, largely preclude the need for this. • Project managers, under the supervision of steering committees, should carry out strategic planning to make decisions on the inclusion of new activities and dropping of old ones in relation to the achievement of project objectives. Project design and implementation should be sufficiently flexible to allow this.

Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa

Country: REGIONAL

Description - This project involved a large number of consultants (87) writing country reports for eleven government in Sub-Saharan Africa to develop priorities for coastal and marine environment in these countries that would feed into the African and NEPAD processes for environmental planning. The project was conceptualized at the Pan-African conference on Sustainable Integrated Coastal Management in Maputo in 1998 and was completed in 2002. The overall goal of the project was the identification of hot spots and sensitive areas as well as in the application of a causal chain analysis to establish the root causes for environmental degradation, depletion of resources and loss of biodiversity. The project was different from many GEF projects in that it did not implement any country or site-based activities, but was a large-scale planning and proposal development process. The results depended on the effectiveness of the consultants to identify the main key ecosystems and environmental impacts in each country, which has often been done previously by the national governments and NGOs in each region.

Evaluation - The main expected sub goals or outcomes of the project were 1) the production of eleven national reports that identify the causes of the environmental problems and setting priorities, 2) a consolidated report that synthesized the country reports and addresses transboundary issues, 3) development of 19 project proposals containing 140 sub-projects, 4) programs of intervention, 5) workshop proceedings and meeting reports, 6) capacity development through the consultancies, and 7) increased awareness of problems and solutions. The program successfully achieved these goals, but the real challenge lies outside of the project in whether or not the governments embrace the outputs and implement them within countries and regions. The program and interventions have been embraced by NEPAD process. This is either an indication that the process was successful or that it was redundant with already existing national priorities and plans and did not conflict with existing state of information.

The lack of implementation of this project makes it difficult to gauge any weaknesses in the evaluation of the project. It is arguable that consultancy processes and goals are easy to achieve as they are largely synthesizing information that is already available and do not fail due to the lack of implementation and the associated problems of implementation, including integration of institutions in addressing resource use problems. The success of this program may only be gauged in the long-term as the proposals are implemented and whether or not the consultants identified the right priorities.

Best Practices

• The use of African experts to address issues of coastal and marine environment and resources enhanced capacity and respect in the region.

• The engagement of multidisciplinary teams of social and natural scientists working together at the national level helped to ensure that identification of hot spots and sensitive areas as well as the root causes of environmental degradation took into consideration both natural and social dimensions.

• The adaptation of the Global International Waters Assessment methodology during phase I provided synergy and efficiency in terms of optimization of time, use of expertise and avoiding duplication of efforts.

• The use of feedback mechanisms through the organization of workshops for presentation of the outputs assisted in capacity-building and consolidation of participating African experts.

• The use of regional workshops has assisted in the comprehensive understanding of transboundary and common issues.

• The African Process has been participatory, engaging stakeholders at all levels and especially at the high political level of heads of State, and has thus provided an opportunity for political stakeholders to appreciate and support the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources.

Lessons Learned

• Linking the African Process to NEPAD, the African Union and the Johannesburg Summit promoted awareness of coastal and marine resources development issues and therefore support by national Governments and the international community. This ensured sustainability of the process.

• The African Process provided a platform for the forging of partnerships.

• The methodology was supposed to be consistently used in the 11 participating countries. However, the individual national teams, “based on expert judgments, the particular context of the country, and the availability of data and information” adjusted the methodology. Also, while some of the teams focused on sites throughout the analysis, others teams worked with sites only for the prioritization exercise, and they analysed impacts and causal chains with reference to issues as they affect the whole country. This gave room for inconsistencies in the process.

• Only a few experts who participated in phase I of the project participated in phase II, which resulted in weak continuity.

• Not enough time was provided to undertake the scaling and scoping exercises.

• The agenda of the African Process did not include discussion and building of consensus on regional institutional arrangements for implementing the portfolio of projects and 53 programme of interventions. This has caused confusion and misunderstanding in follow-up activities as well as weak leadership and direction.

Development of Mnazi Bay – Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park

Country: TANZANIA

Description - This is an ongoing project to assist in the development of a large multi-use MPA in southern Tanzania, and was started in 2002 and was planned to end in 2006 but was given an extension until 2007. The sub goals of the project were to 1) enable the government and stakeholders to protect and sustainably utilize biodiversity, 2) develop a knowledge base to support planning and use, 3) increase awareness among communities and decision makers, 4) establish a management and monitoring plan, 5) implement the management plan, and 6) increase capacity to sustain the management plan. It has completed the initial participatory planning phase and is in the middle of the implementation phase. The project and objectives are large and complex and this resulted in an extension.

Evaluation - The area of southern Tanzania has a high density (75 person/km2) that are isolated from global markets and highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. Therefore, a realistic plans and livelihood alternatives will be critical to the success of this project. The project has gone through the initial stages of evaluating the resource, interacting and planning with stakeholders and developing a management plan and zoning program that is endorsed. The project is still working through aspects of the implementation, including the development of the GIS system, regularizing monitoring, enforcing the zones and rules in the park, and initiating alternative livelihood activities. There are two prior and similar programs in the country, the Tanga Coastal Zone Management Program and the Mafia Island Marine Park from which experiences have been applied to this project. Similar to many development projects in Tanzania, there is an enlightened and human-friendly approach to resource management projects, but the long-term sustainability of these projects in the absence of donor support is the most common reason for failure and what needs to carefully planned and implemented during the exit phase of the project.

Lessons Learned

• Given the means, communities are willing to manage natural resources in more sustainable way.

• Villagers need to get better economic returns from their natural resources in order to afford to invest in managing them better.

• Awareness creation is a continuous process due to the fact that things keep on changing and there is always a new generation which need to be aware on various issues related to environment conservation.

Madagascar Second Environmental Program

Country: MADAGASCAR

Description - This project is part of the development of the Government of Madagascar environmental program and has the overall objectives of reversing environmental degradation in the country. This project is not an implementation program for the marine environment, but rather a project to develop the countries policies and plans for reducing environmental degradation. One of the sub goals of the project is the sustainable development and management of the marine and coastal areas and this is to be done as part of the nation’s program to develop regional planning and management of natural resources, inventory of biodiversity, and communicate environmental strategies and actions.

Evaluation - The project is not an implementation project but rather the development of a government framework for future activities. In respect to the marine environment, this includes 1) three pilot models of coastal zone development and management plans to 2) pilot model of no- take zones for reef fisheries (3 voluntary marine reserves) and 3) local management plans for mangroves, tourism, pollution reduction and prevention. These are conceptual planning exercises that should become part of the legal instruments of the country in the future. Transferring the rights of resource use to local communities is also a large part of this plan. Given that the Madagascar government has very limited ability to control local level resource use or to assist local communities, this may largely be an exercise to prepare the government with a way to oversee a new basis for resource management, where it is not very directly involved. It is too early to evaluate how and if this proposed exercises will lead to better resource management and still remains in the realm of planning.

Lessons Learned

• The creation of new institutions must be done with a clear strategic vision of their development, as integrated entities into the national structures at the end of the program support, or through the conception of a strategy to develop their autonomy. A specific component of the program interventions must deal with the development of the capacities of these new institutions to ensure that they will be able to fulfill their role and pursue their operations in a self-governing manner at the end of the program support.

• Result-based project management must be implement throughout the program interventions, which will result in a more targeted and effective implementation.

• A clear focus must be defined from the outset, in terms of objectives and spatial approach with clear result indicators.

• Knowledge management must be reinforced and accessible databases must established so all users concerned with environmental issues (for example, users involved in natural resources management, or in environmental impact studies) can benefit from it. 56

Partnership for Marine Protected Areas in Mauritius and Rodrigues

Country: MAURITIUS

Description - This projects overall goals are to foster sustainable use and equitable sharing of derivable benefits from Marine Protected Areas throughout the Republic of Mauritius through the participation of stakeholders and was initiated in 2003, but did not begin implementation until 2005 and expected to be completed at the end of 2009. The project is in the early stages of developing institutions (boards, task forces, NGO participants such as conservation and hotel groups, communication with stakeholders and media) that will oversee the marine parks in this country and at a further stage in piloting the Mourhouk Bay marine reserve in Rodrigues. The projects office and field site is in Rodrigues, which is semi-autonomous from Mauritius, and a major challenge will be to integrate the work in these two islands and achieve goals that are applicable to both islands.

Evaluation - The specific objectives were to 1) develop an enabling policy and institutional framework for sustainably co-managed MPAs throughout the Republic of Mauritius and 2) develop innovative co-management arrangements for MPAs and adapt them at a representative demonstration site in Rodrigues (Mourouk Bay). Responsibility for the management of the marine protected areas in Mauritius has not been clear or well monitored in the past and this has lead to poor implementation of management and the creation of paper parks. The new co- management model being proposed is new and untested and is in the early stages of discussion, including lessons learned from other countries and GEF projects, and evaluating the current legal structures of the government. The process has progressed considerably further in Rodrigues where a more localized structure and the existence of active NGOs has facilitated the process. It is too early in the process to know how well the proposed objectives will be achieved.

Lessons Learned

• Capacity assessment required by UNDP should be carried out with all project executing agencies to validate their capacities for project execution. This in turn would guide appropriate use of either NEX or DEX modalities for execution of projects.

• Ensure that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between UNDP and Governments on cost-sharing agreements are clear and realistic.

• Development of the community participation processes in the management system will have important implications for developing co-management systems elsewhere. While the process may need to be adapted to suit the local context, the processes and principles will remain the same.

2. East Africa and Red Sea – non GEF projects

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP)

Country: KENYA

Description - CRCP is a project of the US-based NGO WCS and is located in Mombasa Kenya. The original focus of CRCP was on researching the impacts of fishing and human activities on coral reefs to develop priorities for management and conservation. This work and its annual meetings with fisheries and fishermen results in adaptive management programs including a number of management initiatives such as gear-restrictions and a small community-based reserve. It also has a long-term annual monitoring program that started in 1987 that includes several sites in four of Kenya’s MPAs and fished sites with different fishing gear in use. The project has expanded to study the impacts of climate change on reefs, the resilience of corals based on management conditions, and socio-economic characteristics and perceptions of fishing communities. The project also has a Western Indian Ocean component that has focused on coral reefs, turtles, and potential alternative resources such as sea cucumbers. Research projects have been carried out in Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Maldives, Mozambique, and Seychelles. General information about CRCP is available on the site http://www.wcs.org/international/marine/coralreef. A list of over 100 papers published by the project and partners are available as PDFs and a number of slides shows on coral reefs, fisheries, climate change, and socioeconomics can be downloaded at http://web.mac.com/trmcclanahan/iWeb/trmcclanahan as well as on http://idisk.mac.com/nmuthiga-Public/?view=web. Over the years the project has received funding from many sources including foundations such as Pew and the Liz Claiborne / Art Ortenberg foundations, regional organizations such as WIOMSA and bilateral organizations such as USAID.

Evaluation – This is the oldest coral reef NGO in the region and has a strong focus on conservation science, training, and application of the science to management. The time-series information on coral reefs including finfish, corals, urchins, and ecological processes such as herbivory and predation from Kenya’s parks and fished areas has provided a sound basis for understanding the effects of permanent closures and also the interaction between management, different resource use options, and climate change. The focus of the work has been on the production of peer-reviewed science that addresses key management issues and the project has produced over 100 peer-reviewed publications and has been listed by the International Scientific Information (ISI) as among the most productive coral reef science programs. Five edited books have been produced including Coral Reefs of the Indian Ocean, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2000. It has had a strong training component at the level of graduate students and produced over 25 post-baccalaureate theses through interactions with universities in the region and in Europe and North America. Many of the active coral reef scientists in the region have been trained in the program through collaborative research projects or its internship 58 program that has trained coral reef professionals since 1991. These interactions and partnerships have resulted in many multi-author and institutional scientific papers.

The research in Kenya is made relevant to the parks service, department of fisheries, and fishermen through regular meetings. This has led to changes in fisheries management and an increase in per person fish catches in the collaborating sites since 2000, associated with closures and gear restrictions. This information is disseminated through meetings, reports, and slide shows, which are available at the web sites. The training of regional scientists and the development of cost effective coral reef assessment methods has led to a number of international collaborations and evaluation of many of the coral reefs in the western Indian Ocean, including the effects of bleaching on corals and fish. This has led to understanding the regional impacts of climate and human use and to prioritizing the conservation needs of the region. The program has also supported the development of regional turtle coral reef taskforces as well as raised interest in alternative fisheries such as sea cucumbers. The program has had a large impact on both science and management despite its small size and small and variable funding sources.

Réseau Recifs - Regional Programme for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of the Countries in the Indian Ocean COI/COMESA.

Country: REGIONAL

Description - The Indian Ocean Commission that was established in 1984 is a regional organization grouping countries of the South Western Indian Ocean (Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles and La Reunion (France)). Under this commission, a Regional programme was set up to coordinate activities in several key areas including the environment. The project "Réseau Recifs" is a regional coral reef monitoring network that was set up by the Indian Ocean Commission in 1998 as part of the Regional Programme for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of the Countries in the Indian Ocean (REP-COI). Under this commission, this network coordinates monitoring activities that were undertaken between 1995 and 2003 with support from EU and GEF funding and technical assistance from ARVAM-La Réunion (a local NGO). The actual coordinator of the group is Seychelles (Jude Bijoux). Coral reef data produced through the monitoring are stored in a shared database named COREMO II. This database has been recently updated as CoReMo 3, which is developed by ARVAM with support of French and EU funds. Data collection (fixed benthos, fish, invertebrates) is also coordinated with Reef Base and Fish Base. It will be disseminated as a freeware through training workshops to be coordinated by regional organizations. Details of the COI-Reseau Recifs and COREMO can be found at http://www.coi-info.org/ and www.coremo3.com.

Evaluation – The project is most essentially a coral reef monitoring methods system and potentially a network used by the French-speaking countries of the south western Indian Ocean. The methods are generally simple with three levels of complexity including basic, intermediate, and expert levels that generally correspond to ReefCheck and GCRMN methods, but with a focus on key indictor groups, which increase with the complexity of the methods and observer. Methods include standard LIT for the benthos, belt transects for fish, and quadrats for coral recruitment and other invertebrates. The data is stored in the standard database and will be made available to participants and eventually the general public. The methods have been used in a number of countries but there have been no reports or scientific papers generated from this work and no effort at synthesis. There may be some internal reporting but it is not available to people outside the network. Efforts to access the database and reports have not been successful and the data are with the World Fish Center and being updated.

The methods are not particularly different from standard methods, but in most cases the recommended amount of replication at each site is quite low and more thought needs to be given as to what problems this creates for analysis of the data at the local level in terms of inferring spatial and temporal patterns. Consideration of within and between site variability has been poorly considered and this could be leading to a problem in conclusions about the usefulness of the method. The focus on a few key fish is also problematic as many times these species are either not present or in such low abundance that their numbers and statistical analysis are inconclusive and not useful. A thorough analysis of the statistical properties of these data is needed before any recommendations can be made based on this monitoring. The hiatus in funding is another serious problem that will limit the usefulness of this monitoring program. 60

Shoals of Rodrigues

Country: MAURITIUS

Description - Shoals Rodrigues is a research, training and education organization based in Rodrigues, Mauritius. The project replaced the Shoals of Capricorn Programme, which was coordinated by the Royal Geographical Society and Royal Society in the UK. The long-term research programs include coral reef and lagoon habitats monitoring, socio-economic monitoring and reef fisheries research. The program also attracts students and scientists from the UK and other parts of the world interested in tropical ecosystems. A brief description of the research activities and associated reports are available on the website. The training program is primarily for developing the skills of the local community including fisher training, dive training and scientific training and the education program is aimed at local primary schools, teenagers and teachers and has also developed a number of educational resources. http://www.shoalsrodrigues.net/

Evaluation – The project developed out of an expedition type project and has become a more stable research, education, and training NGO that works specifically on the Rodrigues coral reef lagoon. It’s specific objectives are to develop improved sustainable management of the Rodrigues coral reefs and uses a combination of European and local students to achieve these objectives through evaluating and monitoring a number of coral reefs sites and through socioeconomic assessments.

A marine park area is being planned with GEF support but the relationship between this GEF project and Shoals may be weak. Seine netting appears to be a problem and efforts to understand this gear and catch are one of the projects activities. The project has produced a checklist of coral species and some reports on the state of the reefs in terms of basic ecology and bleaching effects. It has not produced many scientific papers or an objective evaluation of its progress in achieving sustainability.

Coastal Ocean Research and Development – Indian Ocean (CORDIO)

Country: REGIONAL

Description - The Coastal Ocean Research and Development – Indian Ocean project (CORDIO, formerly Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean) was a project that was set up in 1999 to address the problem of coral reef bleaching after the 1998 bleaching event. Over the years it has broadened its scope to encompass biophysical and socio-economic research and monitoring, engagement in management and policy development, and capacity building. In 2007, the name was changed from Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean (CORDIO) as well as the focus to include other associated ecosystems in the coastal zone and the dependence and vulnerability of coastal communities dependent on marine resources. Project reports can be downloaded off the website http://www.cordio.org/

Evaluation – The project was originally started through funds from the Swedish Aid organization (SIDA) to evaluate the effects of the 1998 coral bleaching event. It worked by providing partial financial support to a number of researchers and institutions in the region, which contributed to quasi-annual CORDIO reports that summarized the findings. The program most frequently worked with inexperienced people in some capacity building framework, but this resulted in very few of the studies being published in scientific journals since the studies often lacked good scientific design or methods that would make them publishable. SIDA funding was terminated at the end of 2006 and the project changed its name and has reduced its size but increased its scope to more coastal and resource management issues. It is undergoing a reorganization phase where the direction is not yet clear but is likely to focus more on socioeconomic issues around coastal resources.

The project attempted to create a large number of linkages with other institutions, but many of them were temporary and often not recognized by the recipients other than as a source of partial financial support. One of the more permanent relationships is a collaboration with IUCN where there is participation in the IUCN Working Group on Climate Change and Coral Reefs. The Working Group is developing tools to improve the protection of coral reefs under the threat of climate change. There are some resilience tools and a CD that describes their recommendations. It is arguable that this resilience tool is simply a repackaging of the standard conservation and management guidelines that have been in use since the 1970s rather than an original approach to climate change. Many of the suggestions are not well tested with field experience and some that have been tested are probably not correct or working. There is a need to more scientifically evaluate the recommendations as many of them may be premature and possibly lead to disillusionment with the recommendations. (http://www.iucn.org/themes/marine/coral_reefs/cccr/cccr_home.html).

World Wildlife Fund East Africa Marine Ecoregion (WWF-EAME)

Country: REGIONAL

Description - The East African Marine Ecoregion programme is a program of WWF marine ecoregions. It was designed to coordinate activities in the East African region that promote healthy marine and coastal environments. Projects include management of marine protected areas and sustainable fisheries. Information on WWF marine program can be accessed on www.panda.org and. Project publications are not available on the web. Details of the on the EAME can be found at. http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/africa/solutions_by_region/eame/index.cfm

Evaluation – WWF has used the ecoregion approach to rationalize their site-specific involvement in their site-based on the ground conservation activities. Many of these sites were, however, established before this ecoregion approach and this may be seen as an after the fact rationalization for their selection or possibly another way to improve their fund-raising capabilities. Site-specific management programs in Kiunga and Mafia have had a number of problems integrating with both local resource users and park managers and many changes in staff have occurred in an effort to rectify these problems. Most of the sites have had some ecological and social information collected but there is little scientific evaluation or objective information on their projects available to scientists and the general public. Most data and report are internal or as part of more public relations efforts to raise funds from donors.

Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA)

Country: REGIONAL

Description - WIOMSA is a scientific association that promotes the development of science, technology and education for the sustainable management of marine and coastal resources in the WIO region. The association funds research through its Marine Research Grants (MARG) and its Marine Science for management grants (MASMA) programs and also provides travel grants and training grants. Many of the research projects currently funded by WIOMSA include a wide variety of aspects of coral reefs, including social and ecological. WIOMSA also conducts training in marine protected area management amongst a large variety of workshops and others training activities. WIOMSA produces a scientific journal, the Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science (WIOJMS) and a newsletter and holds a biennial meeting that rotates among the WIO countries. Project documents, reports and paper from the WIOJMS are accessible through the website. http://www.wiomsa.org/

Evaluation – This program was started by SIDA and has quickly become the leading marine science society in the Indian Ocean with a large and diverse set of members, which number around 1400. The funded research, journal, and biennial meetings reflect this diversity and the possibility for integrating science more fully into problem solving in this region. Efforts are underway to diversify and stabilize the funding sources such that the society can ultimately be self-sufficient or depend on a large variety of financial sources.

The society is organized around democratic principles and has regular elections and turnover on its various boards. It has a transparent and nurturing peer and board-review process that assists and promotes investigators through all steps of the scientific process. It is most interested in regional collaboration and research and in interdisciplinary research. This has created challenges in overcoming traditional scientific and national boundaries that led to slow starts in some areas, but it is fast overcoming these problems and developing a broad and holistic program for the WIO.

The focus is on question-drive, scientific and time-limited research and therefore does not assist the various programs beyond this limited support. The size of awards are modest ($150 -250k) but because they are often shared by a number of institutions and people and because very little or no salary is provided, there are limits to the commitments, participation, and the extent to which work can be truly interdisciplinary. The long-term financial stability of the program and the ability to maintain high standards and expectations will be major future challenges.

Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) is the research arm of the South African Association for Marine Biological Research (SAAMBR).

Country: SOUTH AFRICA

Description - The aim of SAAMBR is to stimulate awareness about the marine environment through research and education in order to enhance sustainable management of marine resources. ORI although based in South Africa carries out research in the WIO region and has several programs including monitoring of coral reefs, investigations of bioindicators of reef health, coral population genetics and modelling of reef processes. Information on the research and education projects is available on http://www.ori.org.za/ and a list of publications is available but not downloadable on the website.

Evaluation – ORI is supported by various sources including the income from their aquarium. They operate as a quasi-academic institution with various lower staff doing graduate work or post-doctoral research. ORI has studied many details of the coral reefs in northern South Africa including the benthic cover, fish, genetics, and chemical properties of soft corals. They have completed large-scale mapping programs of the reefs and have a long term monitoring program that is at about 15 years. The monitoring is restricted to a few small plots and based on photo transects and has recorded modest changes over time, but is limited in size such that it is difficult to know more about the changes occurring in the larger area and under different management regimes. Work associated with the park service has also evaluated management effects on fish and other organisms and shown some of the effects of their management systems.

The program often does research expeditions elsewhere in the region, most notably in Mozambique but also in other countries of the Indian Ocean. It also houses two large databases on fish catch in the western Indian Ocean that will include many coral reef species and locations. Projects and research are often driven by grants, donors, and contracts, which they receive from a wide variety of local, national, and international sources. Outside of few core projects these contracts are what determine the activities and research outputs. They have modest level of scientific output in local but also international scientific journals.

Nature Seychelles

Country: SEYCHELLES

Description - Nature Seychelles an environment NGO in Seychelles involved in activities targeted at improving national and regional environmental standards, advancing scientific environmental research, restoring island habitats and species and raising the level of environmental awareness and education. Information about Nature Seychelles is available at http://www.natureseychelles.org along with a list of publications as well as some of their reports, newsletters, and scientific papers.

Evaluation – Nature Seychelles historical interest has been on bird areas and birding, but the scope of its work has increased to include a range of environmental concerns including education, alien species, turtle tagging, and coral reefs. They are primarily responsible for the management of Cousin Island, which is primarily a birding area but also one of the more well protected coral reefs in the Seychelles. This reef was very badly damaged by the 1998 event and therefore has been an area used for the study of damaged reefs. The focus on reefs is limited and largely depends on foreign scientists who use the lab.

IUCN-East African Regional Office Marine and Coastal Program

Country: REGIONAL

Description - IUCN's mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. The Marine and Coastal programme focuses on capacity building, technical advice, dissemination of lessons learned and sharing of knowledge. Key focal areas are establishment and maintenance of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Sustainable use of living marine resources; and Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (ICAM). Activities included the Tanga Coastal Zone Management and Development Programme, a 10-year intervention working towards comanagement of marine and coastal resources and sustainable fisheries. The establishment of MPAs for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and participatory management, include Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park in Tanzania and Moheli Marine Park in Comoros. IUCN has produced a Toolkit for MPA managers and a workbook for assessing MPA effectiveness in the region, and coordinated a regional assessment of MPA management effectiveness. IUCN is one of the founding members of the Consortium for the Conservation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystems in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO-C), established in 2006 for reaching a broad stakeholder involvement in the formulation and implementation of the Nairobi Convention.

Further information is available on the website http://www.iucn.org/places/earo/prog_links/marine.htm Publications are available at http://www.iucn.org/places/earo/earo_links/publications.htm The IUCN Global Marine Program (www.iucn.org/marine) also produces numerous policy and management documents that can be downloaded on http://www.iucn.org/themes/marine/pubs/pubs.htm.

Evaluation – The regional office of IUCN was active in MPA creation and other resource management programs from the late 1980s but the activities have declined in recent years and the regional office in Nairobi was recently closed. Most of the projects have been phased out or closed and will be probably be run from a new project-specific office in Dar es Salaam and from the international offices, where aspects such as IUCN Working Group on Climate Change and Coral Reefs is located. The Tanga project was an innovative comanagement program that is still maintained by the Tanzanian government, but has lower levels of resources and many of the projects achievements are beginning to be undermined or reversed, such as the elimination of dynamite fishing. The future of this program is uncertain as well as IUCN involvement in the region over this period of reorganization of responsibilities and activities. Insufficient fund raising for local projects appears to have resulted in the decline in involvement in regional conservation and science activities.

African Coelacanth Ecosystem Program

Country: REGIONAL

Description - ACEP was established as a research initiative and explores (through cruises) the western Indian Ocean using the coelacanth as an icon. The work includes genetics, behavior, and ecology of the coelacanth and associated ecosystems including coral reefs. They undertook an expedition to Tanga, Tanzania to undertake research in this area on coral reefs in areas not far from Coelacanth sitings. This is not a permanent program but has a variety of short term and matching funding, which is under the permanent NGO Sustainable Seas Trust and many partners. The project website is http://www.acep.co.za/

Evaluation – The project undertakes a few expeditions in the region every year in which some of them include coral reef surveys and collection of coral reef animals for genetic and phylogenetic analyses. The project is donated boat time through a consortium of donors and partnerships. The strength of the program is taxonomy and genetics but also has education programs but does not specifically implement coral reef conservation or management activities. It has produced none to few scientific papers on coral reefs and management.

Frontier –http://www.frontier.ac.uk

Country: REGIONAL

Description - Is a volunteer organization located in the UK that offers field experiences for mostly gap-year students interested in environmental and social activism. Their mission is to conserve the world’s most endangered wildlife and threatened habitats and to build sustainable livelihoods for marginalized communities in the world’s poorest countries. Regionally they have worked in Tanzania, Mozambique, and Madagascar in the creation of marine protected areas. This includes the Mafia Island Marine Park in Tanzania and the Quirimbas Park in Mozambique. They have also been involved in Madagascar, originally in the Tulear region of southwest but more currently in the Diego Suarez area of the far north, where they are assisting in a potential MPA designated site. Their staff produces reports to the government that describe their environmental evaluation and also some scientific papers. A list of publications is available on their web sites and can be requested from their London office.

Evaluation – The project relies on a mix of staff with post-graduate educations in the environment and students that have graduated from high school and would like to work on environmental and sustainable development issues in poor tropical countries. There is a high turnover of the students but also within the staff, which range from recent graduates to highly trained people that would like to do a field project that requires man assistants. Quality of the work and data can be a problem as both the students and sometimes the staff members are not experienced. They have, however, been useful to do surveys where the governments may have lacked this capacity and have been an integral part of a number of MPA initiatives. There scientific publications mostly focus on the natural history of some studied species and there are few that evaluate management and ecosystems.

Blue Ventures - http://www.blueventures.org/research_update.htm

Country: REGIONAL

Description – Blue Ventures is a UK-based not-for-profit organization dedicated to marine conservation, education and sustainable development in Madagascar, and self-financed through revenue generated from marine ecotourism operations in Madagascar. They partnered with the remote village of Andavadoaka in southwest Madagascar in an effort to protect the marine resources used by Vezo communities. They are now working with neighbouring villages, Madagascar’s Institute of Marine Sciences (Institut Halieutique et des Sciences Marines – IHSM), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and fisheries collection and export companies to develop a network of community-run marine and coastal protected area. They use a participatory process to develop management and alternative livelihoods to reduce over exploitation. They also have a training component for Malagasy nationals in scuba and marine environmental monitoring and management methods.

Evaluation – The project is a new initiative based on the model of coupling tourism with ecological studies and developing partnerships with local communities and other NGOs. They have won a number of prizes for their efforts including the SEED Award (IUCN, UNEP, UNDP), the International Ecotourism Award (Skal) and Equator Prize (UNDP). The project is only four years old and has focused on developing its local capacity and has produced some internal reports but none or few scientific papers. The project ultimately hopes to be able to leave sustainable projects under the control of the communities and other organizations and move to other areas to repeat their activities.

Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP)

Country: TANZANIA

CHICOP is a privately owned coral island off the coast of Zanzibar. The park manages an ecotourism venture, coordinates research on the reefs of Chumbe Island and awareness programs for the local communities. Much of the research is carried out by researchers from the Institute of Marine Sciences (University of Dar-es-Salaam) and students from local as well as European and American universities carrying out internships or MSc. The visitor center hosts local school programs that include field trips to the reefs of Chumbe Island.

Evaluation – CHICOP’s is the first privately owned marine park on the East African coast. Although it is a good example of a small high-end ecotourism enterprise its impact is limited to Chumbe Island. The reefs of Chumbe are well protected though small and provide good control sites for the Zanzibar reefs. Some of the research carried out at Chumbe has resulted in publications in peer-reviewed journals though much of it functions to provide a platform for training and experience for students. Some reports are available on surveys that have been carried out on various biophysical aspects of Chumbe.

Regional Evaluation – East Africa and Red Sea

The non-GEF coral reef projects in the region fall into a few general types of programs or funding models. These are the 1) volunteer-tourism projects such as Frontier, Blue Venture, and Shoals of Capricorn, 2) large and long-term national and international donor funded, including pre 2006 CORDIO, WIOMSA, ORI, Réseau Recifs, and IUCN, 3) private small donor and grant funded projects, such as CRCP-WCS, WWF-Ecoregions, African Coelacanth Project, and Nature Seychelles. Each of these organizational structures has its strengths and weaknesses in their ability to study coral reefs and influence and evaluate management.

Volunteer-ecotourism projects have considerable flexibility to undertake field projects as they are not responsible to external donors but are more accountable to the partnerships that they create with the communities and governments and because they are self funded. They have a large variation in experience running from very inexperienced but usually energetic high school graduates and ecotourism vacationers to doctoral level people that occasionally are involved in leadership roles. These projects can often move to new locations as their support base expands or conditions at a site are not conducive or productive towards their objectives. There effectiveness often depends on the relationships with communities and governments to build trust and to utilize their recommendations. These can often be fruitful but can also be ignored and this is what can leave to their abandonment of sites and moving to other areas where they efforts are more likely to be integrated. Their flexibility allows for these types of changes but can also lead to poor follow through when conditions are too slow moving, difficult or staff turnover is high.

These programs have played important roles in collecting baseline information in a number of managed areas and also ongoing monitoring of resources and resource use. The quality of the data can often be poor but quite variable depending on the commitment and length of stay of the more senior people that occasionally participate in their activities. Only occasionally do they produce evaluations of management that they promote of advocate that are thorough enough to pass through peer review. Much of their work has an advocacy objective or tone that may make it difficult for them to value or do work in an objective fashion that might potentially conflict with the advocacy. They all participate in some education programs at various levels and see that as part of their objectives but education and advocacy activities may often be difficult to separate. They only seldom do internal evaluations and are seldom externally evaluated through a peer-review system. Because external examination or peer reviews are not central to their objectives or activities the production of objective information is not of the highest priority it is often difficult to separate advocacy from science. The science

The large and long-term national and international donor projects can have similar data collection, management, education, and advocacy objectives but they can seldom be as flexible, have clear reporting and accounting procedures and are often internally reviewed regularly by the donors and consultants. Single strong donors can be strongly influential in the activities of these programs and many programs seek to diversify their donors, but this is often difficult in the donor aid arena, where national and international donors prefer originality and often do not share costs or follow up on other large projects. This often led to clear project cycles that may be of moderate length but seldom exceed 10 years. CORDIO, Réseau Recifs, and specific IUCN projects are all examples of projects that have gone through cycles of about 10 years. Most of 72 them had resource and resource users monitoring as a central part of their activities but in many cases this monitoring was both not long enough, of sufficient quality, or well coordinated to produce well formulated and robust pictures of the resource and resource users. Technical advisor turnover and a broad work focus on reporting, meeting, and accounting often produces resource assessment projects that are low to moderate quality. The Tanga project would be one of the more successful programs and received relatively high levels of funding but in many cases the data are not of high quality and often not well integrated into other aspects of monitoring, such that they can be conclusive about the outcomes of management or environmental disturbances. The output of Réseau Recifs is notably difficult to evaluate and there is no clear and timely feedback between data collection and management issues in the study sites.

WIOMSA and ORI are two examples of permanent projects that have exceeded 10-year cycles and have what appear to be permanent and stable programs. They often achieve this through both permanent assets (property ownership) and diversifying their income sources. They also by have some clear core projects that identify their strengths and that often attract donors because they are strong, permanent, and have successful track record. Maintaining the quality of their work, democratizing, low to moderate staff turnover, transparency, and external review are all part of their success. In many cases the external review is reflected in the peer-review system of the work that they produce, often in scientific journals, but can also come from members or the diversity of donors. In terms of resource and management assessment ORI has established a moderately successful monitoring program and in combination with links to other programs has been successful in evaluating management systems. WIOMSA has intentionally avoided this aspect of work as it is more focused on institutional building in the region through grants, meetings, education, and partnerships. It does, however, identify key gaps in knowledge and address them through grants and commissioned research that can help to quickly fill these gaps and suggest areas for future research.

Private small donor and grant funded projects are highly variable in their objectives and outputs, which range from short term projects to core projects funded by a mix of donors, They can be pure education, advocacy, and field work of variable focus and quality. Most programs such as WWF-Ecoregions and Nature Seychelles have strong site specific involvement that include education and advocacy programs that are central to their objectives. They intend to influence communities or government to undertake actions that will promote conservation of their species or environments. They collect data and do science as part of these activities but it is either focused on the natural history of the animals they study or want to conserve or often used to confirm their advocacy positions. The natural history information is often less contentious and therefore more likely to be found in scientific journals where as the management and environmental evaluation is more subjective/contentious and less often seen in the peer-reviewed literature. The African Coelacanth Project expeditions are likely to do contribute to regional study of phylogeny and biogeography but fewer outputs in terms of the evaluation of the other environments apart from the status of coelacanths.

CRCP-WCS focus is on conservation science and evaluating the outcomes of management where the role of advocacy is minimal apart from those that arise directly from the evaluations. Monitoring and evaluating resource and resource users is a key component of the activities and this information is feed back to the resource users mostly after it has undergone external peer 73 review and published in the scientific literature. Education is mostly focused on producing senior people capable of doing conservation science at a high standard that can pass peer review. Consequently, a good deal of the senior people working in the region have participated in their programs and the scientific literature and evaluation of coral reef resources, resource users, management and disturbance effects, and restoration has arisen from this program and interactions with other collaborators and partners.

3. Latin America and the Caribbean – GEF projects

Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Barrier Reef Complex

Country: BELIZE

Project Overview

This project was designed to support the Government of Belize in implementing an integrated coastal zone management programme by undertaking targeted interventions for biodiversity protection in a sustainable manner. Activities include strengthening the planning, management and operation of a network of seven marine protected areas (five of which are World Heritage Sites); integrating development planning on the cayes with marine biodiversity conservation principles; developing a sustainable financing mechanism; establishing legal and institutional capacities for facilitating bioprospecting; and complementing widespread environmental conservation advocacy with coastal and marine biodiversity concerns.

Objectives

The goal of the project is to secure the conservation of options and existence values embodied in the second longest barrier reef system in the world. The project purpose is to provide decision- makers and relevant stakeholders with analytical, management, and technical capacities, decision making and planning tools, and financial mechanisms and economic instruments for the long- term conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity.

Outcomes

• Consolidated capacity to effectively integrate biodiversity conservation concerns into a Coastal Zone Policy Framework

• Belize Barrier Reef MPA Network is established and fully functional

• Integration of caye development plans with marine biodiversity conservation concerns through a demonstration project

• Establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for marine biodiversity conservation

• Legal and regulatory capacities for facilitating bioprospecting agreements

• Training, awareness-raising and information dissemination activities to garner public support

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Early in the project, the need to be flexible was recognised as well as the ability to adjust activities to the needs and timeframe acceptable to stakeholders.

Coastal advisory committees (CACs) and participatory management

Despite weaknesses in some NGOs, the co-management arrangements demonstrated the involvement of local communities to a greater extent than possible under centralized departmental management. In some cases, the NGO co-managers have displayed a high degree of initiative and shown tangible positive management effects within their MPAs. CACs were very successful in promoting community-based management of resources. Much interest and participation were generated leading to a high level of ownership of the process by the relevant stakeholders. CACs received training in CZM techniques, leadership skills, conflict resolution, consensus building, and mechanisms for conducting effective meetings and for being effective committees.

Thorough consultations and efforts to reach out to stakeholders who often found it difficult to attend meetings, brought greater stakeholder support because the effort made by the regulatory bodies was acknowledged and appreciated.

During the development of guidelines, particularly the Caye Caulker exercise, and the CAC, the process provided a forum for citizens to examine and discuss issues affecting the community, creating a sense of ownership of their community and the management of its resources. Until the CAC process was initiated, there had been little comprehensive land use or community planning in Belize and the general public was infrequently provided with meaningful opportunities for input. It has resulted in the wider support for CACs across the other 7 coastal planning regions and the lobbying for adoption of the guidelines and empowerment of communities in monitoring the development and use of the coastal resources in their regions.

Delegated co-management was found to be highly participatory, enhancing the community’s sense of ownership and confidence in the management of resources, given the necessary system of community consultation and participation was in practice by the relevant co-management partners (CBOs and NGOS). This is in comparison to collaborative co-management where the regulating agency assigns specific tasks and is responsible for the major decision making.

Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) policy and other legal matters

The national ICZM policy framework as described in the National Integrated Coastal Management Strategy document has been endorsed in Cabinet. It is an easily interpreted document with a wide range of opportunities, challenges and threats being faced by Belizean coastal communities and natural resources. The strategy details participatory processes for decision making over the use of the coastal resources to ensure that the economic potential is closely linked with equitable allocation and sustainable use and will promote the scientific understanding that is essential to the setting and maintenance of targets and standards for 76 environmental and natural resources management in the coastal areas of Belize. The success of the participatory process enabled the full endorsement by the Belize Government, based on level of public input.

The strategy also details how the CZM Plan is to be developed and since the adoption of the strategy the coastal planning programme activities were accelerated. Draft Development Guidelines for all eight planning regions have been prepared and validated by the stakeholders in each region via the CACs. These together with the Cayes Development Policy form the CZM Plan.

There were some unfortunate setbacks in drafting measures for bioprospecting. The international consultant suffered some grave health challenges, causing a two-month delay. The draft legal framework was prepared and shared with key stakeholders. The Consultants recommended a holistic approach looking at bioprospecting and biodiversity rather than specific marine bioprospecting. Stakeholders felt that while the holistic approach is crucial, there needs to be clearer and more comprehensive legal structures for marine bioprospecting in the interim.

Monitoring systems

Monitoring and data management systems were established and have helped created an essential scientific baseline of the state of the coast. The development of a comprehensive monitoring programme for the coastal zone is highly relevant and current initiatives such as the synoptic monitoring programme of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) project have contributed significantly to this. The CZM Authority and Institute (CZMAI) has actively pursued partnership opportunities with regional entities such as MBRS (CZMAI is the data node for the MBRS Project).

Public awareness and education

The public information and education component of the project is seen as one of the most important techniques in causing long-term environmental awareness and action. The project has fostered greater public awareness and involvement in the management of coastal resources. Broad public education through Coast Fair allowed partner agencies to cooperate in building national awareness of the benefits of coastal resources as well as highlight collective management efforts.

Based on the results of the fisher surveys on the awareness of MPAs, particular focus was placed on increasing the awareness of fishers towards MPAs. Although significant progress has been achieved in developing environmental awareness, the scope of the programme could be broader but should still where possible focus on specific and pressing issues such as the benefits of MPAs and an integrated approach to management.

Institutional arrangements

A decentralised approach to integrated coastal management (ICM) has been adopted through the establishment of the CZMAI, which focuses on coordination, planning and policy development, advising, collaborating, and monitoring rather than regulatory or permitting functions. The lessons from this process can prove very useful for other countries planning to develop capacity and framework for ICM. A major lesson is the constant challenge and conflicts faced in instituting an organisation for ICM while implementing a project. This often resulted in majority of time and focus spent on achieving project outputs and not sufficient placed on establishing and expanding the ICM Strategy and programme.

The importance of having the appropriate institutional arrangements set for project implementation and for the sustainability of the programmes implemented under the project was discovered. Placement of the CZMAI under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the design of the Board of Directors (Project Steering Committee) resulted in significant challenges in establishing an ICZM programme, development of a CZM Plan and in securing sustained financing for ICZM in Belize. This was largely due to lack of mechanisms for encouraging ownership of ICZM and CZMAI by the Board of Directors, but a cross-sectoral resource management agency placed within a productivity and agriculture oriented ministry was also a factor. To achieve a successful ICZM programme, the agency or framework should have been placed in a high level ministry focused on resource management and/or national development. In projects like this, where the government should assume the major part of the project-financed activities after the project, it is important to ensure a gradual transfer of the financing burden, so that sustainability is ensured within the life of the project.

Sustainability of funding

The project has provided some important lessons regarding advocacy and awareness for sustainability issues. The project had not considered the importance and necessity to have a targeted advocacy campaign regarding sustainable financing and the issue of user fees for coastal resources. As such, considerable time was spent in building a basic understanding of the need for user and entrance fees in ensuring sound management of resources and biodiversity conservation. The critical lesson learnt here is that projects considering financing options for biodiversity conservation must de designed with a specific advocacy component to address not only the user or stakeholders, but also importantly the policy and decision makers (governments).

The project included several income generating activities to provide a sustainable source of funding for conservation activities and community development. One goal was to realise increased revenue from fines. Due to increased and more efficient patrols, arrests are made routinely for infractions within the MPAs. Several of these cases have been prosecuted in the courts, resulting in fines or imprisonment. Implementation of entrance fees has also occurred.

The Project developed a Belize Marine Mammal Stranding Network which has raised funds from donations, membership fees, sales of T shirts, etc. and a grant from Save the Manatee Club in Florida. In addition funds have been derived from use of Laboratory facilities from Raleigh 78

International (WRIScS Project), and for consultancy services provided to the Climate Change Project. PACT provided generous donations and grants for public awareness activities. WCS provided funds for the continued protection of sea turtles by the Gales Point Community.

Funds were received from US Fish and Wildlife Foundation for Goff’s Caye Conservation Project, to conduct reef monitoring and a public awareness programme to reduce visitor impacts to the area. The Belize Tourism Board has also provided financial support for the conduct of a carrying capacity survey for Goff Caye due to the high use of the small area.

The first annual Coastal Awareness Week was successfully achieved through monetary support from various public and private sector agencies and international NGOs. Small amounts of funds were also collected for provision of goods and services such as maps and databases.

A trust fund was to be developed, resources from which are to be geared towards developing alternative livelihoods for communities affected by MPA regulations. CZMA was pursuing the practicality of building upon the PACT Trust Fund to channel fees collected by CZMAI rather than creating an alternate mechanism. These funds not only assist in identifying alternative livelihood options, but also fund the activities prescribed under the ICZM Strategy, CZM Plan and Programme. It was determined that there was insufficient time remaining under the project for full implementation of sustainable financing system for MPAs and ICZM. The decision was taken to follow up with a work plan and funds to establish communications strategy for fees, installation for basic infrastructure at Goff’s Caye, and pursue the formal establishment of the MPA and ICZM trust funds.

Sustainable Development and Management Of Biologically Diverse Coastal Resources

Country: BELIZE

Project Overview

The CZM Project arose from the need, perceived both by the Fisheries Department and a locally active NGO, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), to create and manage a network of marine protected areas (MPAs). This project sought to preserve the biodiversity of Belize’s coastal waters. The project worked to maintain the long-term viability of ecosystems through proper management of coastal resources, while benefiting communities economically. Specifically, the project components consisted of:

• Coastal zone management and regulatory mechanisms

• Training and education

• Monitoring and research

Objectives

• Establish and strengthen national institutions responsible for managing coastal resources • Update and improve information on coastal resources to better inform decision makers • Boost commitment of stakeholders in all sectors for sustainable resource management

Outcomes

• Completed and approved CZM plan, with implementation in progress

• CZM Act

• CZMU staffed with trained personnel

• Policies and legislative framework

• Comprehensive, long-term investment and revenue generating strategy designed and implemented

• Coastal zone emergency plans and regulations formulated

• Monitoring programmes fully functional

• Zoning

• Expanded network of coastal and MPAs, with management plans

• Identified priority areas in scientific research and training in marine conservation and biology and fisheries

• Field station established on Middle Cay at Glover’s Reef Atoll

• Tertiary education programme in coastal studies developed

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project design

The original project design was too ambitious and complex, and lacked an explicit conceptual framework. The 81 specified activities were linked neither to a timeline nor budget. Moreover, the project provided virtually no funds to initiate the actualization of integrated management.

According to the evaluation team, a factor that could have inhibited effective delivery of outputs is the way in which the objectives were formulated. The objectives were separated and given equal weight even though they contained scientific elements that were obviously interrelated and which would fit together better in a hierarchy of priority. The disadvantage of that scheme was that subsequent efforts might have been fragmented with poor interaction and integration. Therefore, a hierarchical approach to the scientific design of this project and similar ones might be more appropriate.

The design of such a complex programme would probably have benefited from the full time participation of more experienced scientists. The major weakness was in the relatively late mobilization of certain project components due to delays in the hiring of the appropriate individuals, the slowness in acquisition of essential equipment and other factors related to the flow of funds. Serious understaffing also was identified which left essential tasks unfulfilled or caused major gaps in scientific information being gathered.

Considerable attempts were made to learn from experience and adjust project design and priority activities. This process seems to have excluded external stakeholders and teaming government institutions, or the communities and NGOs that would be subsequently impacted. Revisions to the project document were made in 1996; rearranging objectives and activities into a more logical framework, correlating budget allocations to specific outputs and activities; and sequencing activities in a timeline. They were postponed until an external evaluation was conducted, but then were not formally adopted. This compounded the frustrations previously experienced where policies and plans failed to receive formal endorsements, or implementation occurred up to 10 years later.

Capacity building

Very striking was the consistent hunt for local experts and undergraduates willing to join, sometimes on uncertain terms, to learn from project work. They then took a leave of absence to specialise and acquire scientific training and degrees of direct relevance to later return and contribute newly acquired skills to the project. Unless young scientists are given some assurances that there will be challenging career opportunities in CZM however, they may lose patience and search for opportunities elsewhere, possibly abroad.

Monitoring systems

The GIS is one of the most significant outputs of this endeavour. Housed in the project offices, it contains detailed maps of the subtidal habitats in the Cayes region. Also contained are data on spatial uses e.g. dive sites, fisheries, MPAs; information on manatees and crocodile distribution; aerial surveys and other varieties of data. Baseline and monitoring strategies have only been designed for measuring long term ecosystem change. However, it is not possible to access information to facilitate more immediate and shorter term management decisions.

The number of monitored parameters needed to be increased to cover all relevant physico- chemical variables. This includes data from the climatological stations under responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Biological processes are notoriously difficult to monitor over long periods of time and therefore strained the human and budgetary resources of the project. Linking with other initiatives like CARICOMP to manage at least one monitoring point or to ensure that the data of the Fisheries Ministry is made available to the CZMP was recommended.

Coastal vulnerability

Vulnerability to hurricane impacts affected the field stations at both Glover's Reef and Turneffe Islands. The STAP recommended that a system of timely retrieval of the data to a central station on the mainland be devised to secure precious research efforts.

Governance

There is a dire need for the decentralization of some of the authority for decision-making on permit applications and policy statements from the Ministers to the operational levels of central government institutions and to communities. These ingrained practices are significant impediments to the advancement of CZM.

Constrained approaches to public involvement in the governance process traditionally adopted by government are ineffective for building supporting strong constituencies for the programme or the promotion of voluntary compliance. Many were frustrated by the planning regulatory process. Village Councils had not been formally recognized by the Constitution, but plans were underway for drafting a Village Councils Act. A collaborative planning process would have been welcomed in Caye Caulker. Residents concerns included the occurrence of any planning and management processes in Belize City, which would preclude most from any meaningful participation beyond giving and receiving opinions and information. 82

Despite limited scientific expertise, control of the project was firmly in the hands of Belizeans, and the degree of institutional expertise created will allow them to resort to external cooperation on terms of increased equality. However, it is unlikely that the CZMP will become totally autonomous in the short or medium term. It has obtained a remarkable balance between total reliance on foreign experts and total autonomy. Need exists for clarification of the differences between a nationally owned coastal management programme and the more narrow constraints of the objectives and agenda of NGO and donor driven projects. It must be understood that for a GEF project, continued support can only contribute to some of the aspects of a national strategy.

The parliamentary decision to establish the CZM Authority and Institute as statutory bodies with a core budget was strong evidence of national ownership and commitment to CZM. Other institutional strengthening was witnessed in the exchange of information, sharing of resources (e.g. boat) and collaboration (e.g. during water quality sampling) between the Fisheries Department and project staff. There was little or no evidence of strengthening in the CZMU or partner government agencies. However, major investments were made in training, from which a number of government departments profited. NGOs gained through subcontracts, supply of infrastructure, equipment and other resources.

Development

Nine reserves now exist, seven of which have been designated World Heritage Sites. While some are effectively managed, others suffer from improperly demarcated boundaries, inadequate personnel, and insufficient conformity with management plans. Even so, no-take areas have witnessed increases in commercially important stocks. However, if the reserves are not integrated into a CZM framework which directs development of the region long term benefits will be severely compromised.

Pressures are building to develop low-lying areas with fragile systems such as San Pedro and Caye Caulker. Large untouched tracts in the cayes are open to development, with real estate values comparable to shorefront properties in high end tourism destinations. Success in regulating tourism development through CZM initiatives and guidelines has been very limited. Enforcement of the governmental permit procedures, zones and compliance monitoring is often weak. Nonetheless, there has been guidance for EIAs for coastal developments, issuing leases and controlling subdivisions. The pressures on biodiversity and the quality of the reserves are expected to be magnified in coming years, thus emphasizing the even greater need for a CZM framework.

Sustainable financing

In the follow up, it is crucial to convince the CZMA Institute board members that various forms of user-related revenue generation will be needed to expand the CZM activities to the level that is necessary for the fulfillment of its objectives and that is sustainable and for the continued success of the CZMP. Following the termination of GEF funding, conventional core funding from government and NGO contributions will be insufficient to maintain the project in its new form as a CZM Authority and Institute, particularly as they are not recurrent budgetary items. The creation of the CZM Institute, if able to maintain some degree of scientific and administrative autonomy, constitutes a very solid step towards sustainability of the project.

Caribbean Archipelago Biosphere Reserve: Regional Marine Protected Area System

Country: COLOMBIA

Project Overview

The project components consisted of:

• Data collection and evaluation – collection of the information needed for management planning and implementing the information system

• Legislation and policy – enactment of the MPA system and establishment of legal and policy frameworks

• MPA management – designing and implementing the integrated management plan in cooperation with the community

• Capacity building – strengthening local organisations, training stakeholders, and producing communications

Objectives

The objective of the project is to conserve critical habitats (mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs, etc) and consequently protect and restore species diversity. It is to ensure sustainable use of the archipelago's coastal and marine resources while enhancing environmental equity in distribution of benefits by design and implementation of a regional system of marine protected areas (MPAs) zoned for multiple-use and managed to reduce human threats and to protect globally important sites of biodiversity in the western Caribbean in cooperation with the local community. Anticipated benefits to locals include job creation, restoration of access to traditional sites to artisanal fishers, and stronger community networks centred on sustainable production.

Outcomes

• Ecological and socioeconomic information needed for MPA design and management collected, systematised, and available to local stakeholders • MPA system legally enacted with policies and regulations established • Integrated management and zoning plan designed in agreement with the community and under implementation with active stakeholder involvement • Stakeholders trained in resource management and ways to reduce human threats to marine and coastal ecosystems to ensure long term biodiversity conservation and sustainable use (institutions, NGOs, cooperatives, businesses, etc)

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project design

MPAs are long term processes. It became evident that the objectives of assessing, designing, delimiting and establishing an MPA within the original timeframe were too ambitious. This coupled with working with public organisations at national and local levels and extensive stakeholder participation implied longer project execution. Integrating conservation objectives, socioeconomic concerns, capacity building and equity promote creation of MPAs that promote sustainable development. From the outset this project was designed with an integrated sustainable development mission. A key project objective was generation of local benefits. Since native communities depend on the sea and its resources for their economic and cultural survival, respecting ancestral fishing sites ensured the community’s sustainable use of marine resources. This commitment was reflected in project implementation and formalised in the MPA objectives and zoning objectives that were agreed upon by the stakeholders and adopted by CORALINA’s Board.

Stakeholder participation and strategic partnerships

The World Bank, as GEF implementing agency, was extremely helpful to CORALINA throughout the process of planning and implementing the project. The advisers provided valuable input to the project development and also substantially built CORALINA’s staff capacity to develop projects. This led to a number of offshoot projects evolving during the project that strengthened it, allowing additional activities to be completed and leveraging funds and technical support, including projects on mooring buoy installation funded by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, sustainable tourism with Conservation International, species research funded by Darwin Initiative, and solid waste management funded by the European Union.

Community participation should have traversed the entire project. CORALINA’s principal success in designing and obtaining ratification for the Seaflower Marine Protected Area (MPA) was in its thoroughness and effort to obtain high community participation in every aspect of project execution, including design, monitoring, zoning, outreach and capacity building.

The Bank also helped CORALINA to promote local management without sacrificing expertise. CORALINA was determined to have the project operated by locals, but they had little experience in marine management. The idea to set up a board of international experts to advise a local project team emerged in planning meetings with the Bank. The International Advisory Board (IAB) grew into a unique feature of the project. Like the Bank, the IAB left decision making to CORALINA and the local community, whilst providing advice and technical support upon request.

IABs are key players in an MPA. The role of the IAB was crucial, as it provided experience, contacts, lessons learned from previous MPAs, technical support, and in-kind contributions. Importantly, it also allowed the project team to be made up of local people without MPA experience at project commencement, which engendered trust and support for the process and guaranteed local ownership. 86

For such reasons, this project empowered CORALINA’s operational directors, project staff, and the island communities, including marginalised user groups. The Bank’s respectful approach communicated genuine appreciation for local capabilities and acknowledged the people’s ability to lead their own development. The native community was not accustomed to receiving such respect from project partners or donors. Much of the credit for the high levels of empowerment, institutional strengthening, and administrative capacity generated by the project – as well as the overall success of the project management process – rests with the Bank project management team in Bogotá.

The project achieved a high degree of participation from a number of international MPA and marine management experts in zoning and MPA design. Conflicts between resource users were reduced through creation of areas reserved for artisanal fishing, delineated in association with the fishers; and cooperative management methods determined with water sports operators. Island- wide education about boundaries and permitted uses of each zone was conducted, combined with training in means for reducing human threats to ecosystem health and productivity. These should promote long term implementation of MPA zoning and management plans.

In addition to garnering strong community support, the project team obtained solid technical support to approach the design of the zoning agreements, ensuring sustainable use and the conservation of ecosystems, key species, habitats and fish spawning aggregation sites.

Capacity building and information sharing

Biological and socioeconomic assessments should be key inputs to zoning agreements, as should the incorporation of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge from local communities was gathered and used as a key input in zoning plans. Accompanying technical monitoring programmes carried out by CORALINA scientists, was training for community members in four community based monitoring methodologies. This ongoing volunteer work collects important information and links the MPA with regional networks.

Improved Management and Conservation Practices for the Cocos Island Marine Conservation Area

Country: COSTA RICA

Project Overview

The project will improve the management of the Cocos Island Marine Conservation Area (CIMCA), including the terrestrial component; strengthen associated conservation practices and the enabling environment to ensure long term minimization of the threats to the Island. It will promote sustainable development of CIMCA’s natural resources and conservation of its globally important biodiversity. The threats to CIMCA identified are:

• Extensive pelagic fishing in and around the marine protected area significantly reducing fish stocks of globally endangered and economically valuable species and impacting their important breeding grounds within the CIMCA reducing chances for recuperation and sustainability of the fish populations in the region.

• Poorly managed diving operations impacting the coral reef ecosystems; expected increases in activity could retard natural re-growth of the corals severely damaged.

• Poorly managed land-based tourism activities are physically damaging the terrestrial ecosystems and introducing invasive species.

• Invasive species introduced to the island have now adapted to the island environment altering species composition and ecological processes on the island and continue to out-compete native species and further degrade the environment.

Objectives

The sole purpose of this project is to cause enhancement in the management of and execution and range of conservation practices within CIMCA. It has a number of underlying goals. Environmentally sustainable development in order to reduce poverty is an intended outcome, through integration of environmental concerns in national development planning and policy.

Outcomes

• Enforcement and compliance with regulations for marine park protection within CIMCA is improved.

• Improvements are made to the management of diving and terrestrial tourism in CIMCA in order to reduce physical damage to the marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

• Feral pigs are eradicated and other key invasive species controlled to allow restoration of native species populations and ecological processes.

• Financial instruments are developed to generate revenues to sustain ongoing conservation operations and provide economic incentives to promote sustainable use of the island’s natural resources.

• Relevant policy and legislation is formulated to create a functioning and effective enabling environment for CIMCA necessary to support reforms.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

The project document was signed in April 2004, but due to complicated negotiations with FFEM (French Global Environmental Fund) about project management the Project Coordinator did not start to work until February 2005. Disbursement of funding from FFEM was delayed. Long term planning is required. Once planning and analysis had begun a period of adjustment was necessary to coordinate with all the institutions involved and establish internal controls.

Actual work on the project commenced in 2005 due to a number of other contributing delays. At the end of the second year, all baseline data for the indicators were still in the process of being determined, and no impact indicators had been defined. The strategic plan had yet to be developed, and no other form of long term planning existed. Moreover, new income sources were still unidentified. Institutional arrangements and legislation had not been developed.

The main challenge experienced during the first year of implementation was finding a definition of a planning platform based on a comprehensive baseline situation. The project indicators were weak and efforts at improvement begun during the Inception Workshop. However, reliable baseline information was not available on marine or terrestrial ecosystems status and health, indicator species, invasive species, current unsustainable practices, visitors, among other relevant data. This data is necessary to benchmark present conditions and measure the impacts of project activities. The project is working on this matter.

Barriers to the progress of the project also arose due to administrative changes in the posts of Project Coordinator, UNDP Programme Officer, and politically related factors associated with the assumption of a new government. At the submission of the 2006 Annual Project Report, a new Coordinator had not been appointed since the departure of the previous officer five months earlier. This has had a very detrimental impact on the progress of activities. It has been suggested that the Coordinator should have focused more on substantive and technical aspects of the project, rather than administrative details.

The two main donors for this project are GEF and FFEM. One common executing unit was initiated for both components. This will assure the coordination between all activities conducted by the project. A common Project Coordinator was hired and is financed 50% by each donor.

Problems also surround the investment of co-financing supplied by FFEM. Through its protected areas system, the Ministry of Environment has been the main agency responsible for the surveillance of CIMCA. Coast Guards assist with surveillance and enforcement efforts. However, the limited resources of CIMCA are insufficient, and the people are not trained for this specific activity. To mitigate the risk, the no fishing zone was extended to 12 nautical miles and fishing boats are prohibited from entering except in case of accidents. A memorandum of understanding has been established with Marviva, a NGO which is assisting in the surveillance of CIMCA. There is a strategy to involve other ministries and institutions in conducting tasks that usually are under their jurisdiction which relate to CIMCA. This allows greater allocation of resources to CIMCA specific activities.

Very few project activities have been undertaken, and no noted achievement of any of the outputs described. The project has received low counterpart support, with the project team, its partners and government exhibiting inactivity in executing activities. The project will evaluate the possibility of establishing radar on the island in order to improve the surveillance.

The project will work directly with the fisher communities in Puntarenas, Golfito and Playas del Coco in order to build relationships and seek solutions that benefit both parties. Efforts are also being made to coordinate with government institutions and fisherfolk to alter fishing and tourism regulations.

Priority Actions to Consolidate Biodiversity Protection in the Sabana- Camagüey Ecosystem

Country: CUBA

Project Overview

This is the second of a three phase project series that was originally conceived by the Government of Cuba in 1992. The 1st phase (1993-1997) focused on the provision of information for identifying appropriate conservation measures and provided a Strategic Plan that serves as a foundation for the operation of the proposed Integrated Coastal Management Authority (ICMA). This was the basis for the second phase project. The design logic of this second phase assumed that in all probability a third phase would follow. This was an extremely important assumption, having a decisive impact on the logical flow of objectives, activities, and results.

Objectives

The development objective was to secure the protection of the biodiversity of the Sabana- Camagüey ecosystem (SCE). This would be accomplished by:

• Establishing eight key protected areas (PAs) for conservation, demonstration and potential replication

• Consolidating the institutional co-ordination capacities for integrated, sustained and long term coastal management in aspects related to biodiversity conservation

• Educating and informing communities and key actors active in the SCE about the need for and importance of biodiversity conservation

• Enhancing the awareness of, and capacity for, environmentally appropriate integrated coastal management among the institutions, sectors and main communities along the SCE to reach sustainable development (Capacity 21)

Outcomes

• Eight PAs established

• The northern archipelago is zoned for biodiversity conservation

• Technical staff in local and national institutions are trained in ICM, biodiversity valuation, biodiversity conservation, monitoring and sustainable use, and zoning

• Biodiversity values and themes incorporated into provincial and national curricula

• Four case studies were conducted aimed at identifying and applying appropriate incentives and regulatory mechanisms, as well as economic instruments aimed at long-term financial sustainability of conservation efforts in the SCE

• Participatory planning for sustainable development is promoted by improving access to information and promoting capacity building that engender participatory and integrated planning

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project design and implementation

Early commitment by GEF to support a strategic long term 3-phase project allowed the design approach to evolve incrementally – through building capacities, consolidating processes and finally enhancing prospects for sustainability. Formulation of the project document was mainly conducted by the team that implemented the first phase, with the hindsight of experience and a recently concluded external evaluation.

The logical framework was well planned and proved a good mechanism for structuring an effective and efficient project implementation process. It tackled the root causes and principal threats to biodiversity conservation detected in phase 1, and the intervention strategy was configured accordingly. While a solid logical framework is crucial to project organisation, structure and accountability, it can become an obstacle to creative analysis and thinking. Thus, activities need to be planned to encourage staff to think outside the box, question logic, and develop intuition: essential skills for adaptive management.

During the detailed planning of activities within implementation, informed participation was encouraged and cultural characteristics considered and used to create positive social dynamics. The design used the Cuban institutional approach to resource management at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. From commencement project activities were integrated into ongoing programmes of the participating institutions, thus avoiding the problems of a parallel project structure then requiring mainstreaming strategies.

The design was sufficiently flexible to permit adaptation to the disparities among the five provinces. Delimitation of the project area, though extremely large, was pragmatic, encompassing the entire SCE, a coherent terrestrial-coastal-marine unit for planning and management. Such an ecosystem-based approach is the most relevant unit for a biodiversity project. For projects enveloping a large geographical area, a project design which sets general overall targets, but does not overly plan activities, enables the adaptation of the project to the varying contexts within the project area.

The design reflects a clear relationship with sectoral plans for fisheries, tourism, PAs, environment, and physical planning of the provinces in the project area. A project implemented 92 by the country’s line institutions at the national, provincial, and municipal levels reduces the problems of mainstreaming arising from projects implemented by an independent team.

Activities related to environmental education, public awareness, and capacity building were highly relevant to the participants, being prepared around the precise threats and root causes associated with biodiversity conservation in the project area. Certain events were tailored to the manifestation of those threats and root causes at the local level.

Late incorporation of Capacity 21 (C21) responded to an internal UNDP co-financing requirement. Although it entered the design process after the GEF-supported components had already been drafted, this may have actually benefited project design by enabling C21 to address key gaps not considered e.g. strengthening environmental monitoring capacities; incorporating environmental considerations in territorial or sectoral planning; promoting an ecosystems approach; and exposing decision-makers to sustainable development concepts. C21 bridged strategic gaps, proposing innovative capacity building approaches and helping the various project elements to coalesce.

Use of information technology (IT) is obligatory for complex biodiversity projects. In instances where they cannot be donor funded, every effort must be put into seeking counterpart funding arrangements. If the required resources are unavailable, the project must be redesigned. IT was habitually employed for communications, reporting, publications, training, monitoring, databases, project management, and using remote sensing images. Unfortunately, insufficient resources were available to enable access to the database by stakeholders. Also, in the future project information must be efficiently analysed and distributed accurately and timely.

Experiences encountered taught that inclusion of a Project Administrator in project staff should be a stipulation at the start. Early successes in demonstrating environmental and socioeconomic benefits from project activities motivate both staff and stakeholders.

Adaptability

Implementers recognized that the context in each province and municipality is different, and thus within the general project framework activities should be adjusted to fit local circumstances. The system of annual contracts used with all implementing institutions also encouraged adaptability. At the end of each contract, independent evaluators judged whether the contracted party satisfactorily completed the work according to the terms, quality of the work, possibility of extension for another year, and changes in the work programme to be introduced if granted. This system promoted a relatively rigorous and regular approach to adaptive management.

Capacity building and learning are closely linked to project planning and implementation. Project design had considerable flexibility and often played a catalytic, facilitative (not prescriptive) role. This encouraged national initiative, creativity and early ownership. There was also a high level of internalization; several persons met during the mission did not feel a strong distinction between the project and their own work.

Partnerships and collaborations

Cross-sector linkages, multi-stakeholder collaboration and integration are essential in promoting an ICM ecosystems-based approach. Interaction of staff with local governments in identifying alternatives for mitigating or resolving environmental issues proved effective and efficient in furthering project outcomes.

The project was structured around partnerships and collaborative relationships with the 66 major implementing governmental institutions. Many have adopted project methods and materials e.g. participatory, inter-sectoral approach to problem identification and analysis, feedback indicators, use of annual contracts for programme implementation, internalizing social costs, environmental education and training materials. Participation of project personnel in key international events, use of consultants from a number of countries, and overseas study trips assisted in identifying international best practices.

Monitoring and evaluation

The system of annual contracts, reports and audits; regular meetings with UNDP staff; tripartite meetings; and mid-term evaluation allowed rigorous monitoring and evaluation. Verifiable impact indicators were developed for feedback on project progress. Evaluation results have resulted in changes in activities and priorities, many deficiencies noted were corrected. Despite the project scale and complexity, provisions were made for internal monitoring of activities according to the needs of specific objectives.

Distribution of costs and benefits did not receive sufficient attention during project implementation. As in any similar initiative, certain parties (often traditional power holders) assume a disproportionate share of the costs, and the benefits are shared more widely; in this case to the tourism sector, PAs and stakeholders (coastal communities, general public, etc.). While there is a strong Cuban tradition of institutional compliance with central directives, maintained in this project, proponents must remain conscious of this imbalance and the challenges this may present to long term collaboration and compliance with project objectives. Careful consideration must be given to an equitable distribution; or compensating, through fiscal or other incentives, those bearing the costs.

Finance

Measures to develop sustainable finance must be dealt with in a realistic and timely fashion to sustain the outputs and impacts of a project, and financial and technical resources must be built into the design. Equal consideration needs to be given to inputs from resource economists and those with practical experience in fundraising. Much work remains to design economic and policy instruments for environmental evaluation, payment for environmental services, development of “eco-entrepreneurial” capacities, and the establishment of institutional mechanisms to support long term financial sustainability, using the full spectrum of potentially available mechanisms. Little use was made of the extensive practical experience gained throughout the region. 94

Capacity building

The project’s emphasis on capacity building for different sectors and decision making levels, its support for biodiversity inventory, and the monitoring of ecosystems and processes, have enabled CITMA and key SCE stakeholders to achieve technical self-sufficiency and sustainability in many ICM functions. While the technical capacities of the PCU were apt to the requirements of this initiative, adjustments will be needed for the third phase project. Existing scientific expertise will need to be complemented by expertise in sustainable finance and natural resource management.

Group capacity building activities involving multiple institutions helped to develop understandings, approaches, methods, criteria, and skills that facilitate better relationships and cooperation, extension of results and replication outside the project area. Capacity building and environmental education activities crafted a favourable enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and complement advances made with the legal and regulatory framework. Some positive approaches were the targeting of a broad range of groups at all levels; focus on stakeholder-identified issues; identifying specific attitudes requiring change; testing, evaluation and revision of courses and materials. Capacity building activities under objectives 3 and 4 were innovative in the use of informal educational methods, particularly in environmental education and awareness-raising directed at coastal communities. Video presentations, art exhibits, musical events, essay competitions, volunteer campaigns, and documentation of cultural traditions and testimonies of the elderly, are evidence of successful creative, user-friendly approaches.

Stakeholder involvement and education

An exceptionally high level of buy-in was witnessed at every level due to the integration of activities into the ongoing programmes of the implementing institutions, creating a productive, educational and transparent work culture. Buy-in was also evident at the personal level, relating to the resources provided by the project and the opportunities for self-improvement through training and education activities.

Incorporation of various stakeholders in project appraisal enriched the final product, and provided opportunities to disseminate the project concepts of integrated ecosystem-based management and sustainability, encouraging the internalizing of these concepts and an early sense of “ownership”. This ownership was also reflected in the substantial financial and in-kind commitments made by the Cuban government.

In addition to raising awareness and encouraging voluntary activities and environmental vigilance, environmental education contributed to significant reductions in illegal fishing, trawling practices and water contamination caused by fish farming. Indicators have been developed to determine effectiveness of the educational materials, which in some cases were rewritten to compensate for deficiencies identified. Unfortunately this is somewhat marred by the inability to access the information via internet for downloading.

Limited “grassroots” citizen involvement in the design of project activities during planning, despite planned community-based activities and consultations was attributed to civil society’s narrow understanding of biodiversity and conservation related issues. However, there was considerable local input in preparing work plans and implementation of community-related initiatives. Community participation was also lacking in the project design, with absence of a clear framework for citizen participation in implementation.

Protecting Biodiversity and Establishing Sustainable Development in the Sabana-Camagüey Region

Country: CUBA

Project Overview

The Government of Cuba recognizes the biological value of the Sabana-Camagüey ecosystem (SCE) and has made a commitment to preserve the unique biological heritage of this region. Conversely, the area has simultaneously been identified as a prime location for economic development, principally tourism related. However, the country’s capability to conduct requisite scientific surveys to support environmental management, biodiversity conservation and economic development was severely hampered by lack of equipment. Practice had revealed no effective means to incorporate environmental issues into the development planning cycle for the area.

The Academy of Sciences, Cuba (ACC) implemented this project, which promoted biodiversity conservation and protection of international waters of Sabana-Camagüey by strengthening scientific research, strategic planning, and sustainable development activities. It also integrated biodiversity conservation efforts with planning and management for the exclusive economic zone, watersheds, and small islands as well as tourism and innovative approaches to resort development. The project compiled and analysed scientific information through a comprehensive strategic planning process to achieve sustainable development in the Sabana-Camagüey region.

Objectives

• The aim of this project was to provide a scientific basis for integrated sustainable development and environmental conservation in the SCE, through these objectives:

• To strengthen the technical capabilities of the ACC and other agencies to survey and assess coastal and marine ecosystems in support of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development

• To strengthen the scientific and environmental planning and management capabilities of Cuban agencies at the local, regional and national levels

• To develop a basic knowledge of flora and fauna, habitat distribution and the physico- chemical characteristics of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems

• To develop a strategic plan for the SCE

• To establish a framework to enhance public awareness of the flora and fauna and initiate public understanding of sustainable development approaches

• To compile, organize and analyze existing climatic data, and acquire information on issues relating to long term management

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project planning and design

The Cuban government required sizable resources to conserve the biodiversity of the Sabana- Camagüey archipelago and develop the area sustainably. Although it allocated scientific and management staff for this project, the government faced serious limitations in convertible currency to acquire equipment and training, therefore GEF assistance was essential. Nevertheless, by the end of the initiative, the in-kind financial contribution by the Government of Cuba toward the execution of the project had increased from US$4 million to an estimated US$9 million.

The project design was cumbersome and lacked a structure conducive to a logical sequencing of objectives and actions. Rather than presenting a coherent planning and policymaking process, the project document contains long lists of items grouped by broad categories. The project summary, the development objective, the intermediate objectives and the expected end of project status all present similar ideas in somewhat different terms. In some cases, results in the end of project status are not provided for in the lists under the relevant intermediate objective.

The goals of the programme, and a concerted effort to define practical means to achieve sustainable forms of development and biodiversity conservation, were understood and supported by all major stakeholders. Participants in the project became acutely aware that the issues posed by biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development in the SCE will be successfully met only through a sustained effort extending over many years.

The project has met or exceeded the 6 objectives, 13 outputs and 59 activities specified by the project document. It also has produced significant benefits not envisioned beforehand. These include the development of new university programmes in landscape architecture and resource economics.

Stakeholder cooperation

The project team achieved an unusual degree of inter-institutional collaboration and produced the integration and consensus among the scientific community and development interests that were major goals of the project. An institutional framework, featuring an inter-provincial commission, a network of parks and preserves, and a decentralized monitoring system was designed.

Cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary technical capabilities were fortified. Regional experience in tourism development and biodiversity conservation has been brought to Cuba and is positively impacting the formulation of good practice in the archipelago. For many this offered the first opportunity to participate in a cross-sectoral planning process and to experience a methodology

98 for proceeding from information synthesis to problem definition and selection of a management strategy.

The planning process might have been more efficient if working groups had been structured by issue (i.e. a significant problem or opportunity) rather than by discipline. This perhaps would have been viewed as too radical a paradigm shift practice in 1993, but it that it would have been welcomed, at least among the project staff, as a viable option.

Institutional strengthening

The project office in Havana, the Cayo Coco Ecosystem Research Centre and satellite provincial facilities in the five provinces of the region have been equipped with GIS and the equipment required to further document and analyze both the biodiversity of the region and human related threats to the qualities of this ecosystem.

A large effort was made to generate baselines that document the very high biodiversity and endemic qualities of the Sabana-Camagüey region. These baselines provide a basis against which to gauge future ecosystem change.

Public education

An effective public education programme was launched. Public awareness of the values of the SCE and threats to its environmental integrity appears to have been achieved. Several participants reflected that this project strongly reinforced that public education and public engagement must be at the core of an initial phase implementation.

New perspectives

Integrated coastal management is informed, but not driven, by science. This fundamental realization came as a surprise to some participants for whom this project was an initial exposure to the process of formulating a resource management strategy.

As the project matured, it became clear that new institutional frameworks with supporting policies and regulations would be required to successfully implement the Sabana-Camagüey management strategy. This was therefore the first opportunity to apply the policy reforms designed in response to UNCED’s Agenda 21 to a specific geographic site and a specific set of management issues.

Conservation and Management of Biodiversity in the Coastal Zone of the Dominican Republic

Country: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Project Overview

The project’s first phase, “strategic planning” emphasized data gathering and analysis, in conjunction with stakeholder consultation at the local level. The second phase termed “adaptive management planning and development” featured the preparation of draft management plans for demonstration sites. The third phase “sustainable development” involved the institutionalization of the management plans and a community-based governance process. Participatory research and planning was intended to culminate in financial permanence, sustained community participation, and arrangements for sustained policy dialogue through interagency agreements and various coordinating mechanisms drawing together the Dominican Republic NGOs and universities.

Objectives

• The long term development objective of this project was to preserve coastal diversity and functioning ecosystems of the Dominican Republic. Hence, the approach to coastal zone management (CZM) is participatory, inclusive, facilitating sustainable non-destructive economic alternative to production practices.

• To enhance capacity of governmental, nongovernmental, university and private sector actors in CZM, including providing institutions with needed organizational and infrastructural resources; improving human and technical capabilities for regional CZM with economic development components; and to improve procedures for coordinating environmental and developmental programmes. Collaborations were also to be made with the private sector for the financing of training, public education and environmentally sensitive ventures.

• To establish a research programme in-country to support CZM, sustainable resource development, biodiversity conservation, and continuous long-term environmental monitoring.

• To establish a CZM policy for the Dominican Republic, initially establishing regional management plans in selected areas as model projects for extension of regional planning to the remainder of the coastal zone.

• Mechanisms appropriate for improving local appreciation of biodiversity, its relationship to human welfare, and its significance as a basis for sustained economic activity were to be established alongside community organizations.

100

• Because of the paramount importance of community participation in all project aspects, the aim was to create and implement effective mechanisms for the participation of local communities in conservation, planning and action in the coastal zone.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project design

As originally designed, the project was intended to be executed over 3 years. However, the difficulties posed by an overly complex and ambitious design consumed an entire year during which the details of individual subcontracts and significant adjustments to the project design were negotiated. During the remaining 2 years, project activities were dedicated to issue analysis, documentation of baseline conditions, selected research activities, and planning. There was intended a national coastal management policy and preparatory work on management plans for the demonstration sites. These objectives were unrealistic and unattainable.

Adaptive management plans built on strategic planning must establish a sustainable base in terms of financial permanence, programmatic acceptability, community participation, and policy dialogue and reform. According to the project document this final phase, which would have occurred in the third year implementation, being condensed to a two-year period eliminated any reasonable possibility to advance this.

The inconsistencies in the multiple approaches to project design outlined in the project document were the source of considerable confusion and anxiety when the project got underway in early 1995. There is no connection between the project phases, and the immediate objectives, outputs and activities. The content of the Terms of Reference for various subcontractors did not align with either the three phases of the project or all the activities outlined in the second perspective on the project. The budget provided only for some specified activities and the timeline only vaguely followed the 3-phase process.

Project execution and performance

Nevertheless, the project was reported to have been administrated with outstanding skill and efficiency. It successfully adapted to a rapidly changing institutional landscape and made major contributions to creating a positive context for a period of policy reform that is likely to produce major improvements in the prospects for a sustained advance towards the goals of effective coastal ecosystem management. Specifically:

Existing information on the condition of coastal ecosystems and biodiversity, supplemented by new surveys and species inventories at the pilot sites, has been compiled and made available to a diverse community of potential users that includes government agencies, NGOs, universities and the private sector. It is in a GIS housed in the national university. These information sources are considered adequate as a basis for preliminary characterization of ecosystem condition and current human activities, able to provide an initial reference point for assessing future change.

101

The project has pioneered an inclusive, transparent and participatory process with liberal distribution of the project’s many technical reports, wide participation in its workshops and short courses and vertical integration between stakeholders at the community level and national institutions based in the capital city.

Activities at all four pilot sites have demonstrated the power and many benefits of community- level participation in research and all governance process aspects.

A large number of short courses and internships have increased the technical capabilities of staff within NGOs, government agencies and community-level organizations. This, combined with vigorous field activities at the four sites, appears to have considerably strengthened these institutions and has also fostered greater collaboration and the sense of a common agenda.

Stakeholder involvement

The project strategy did not demand the participation of governmental institutions that are ultimately responsible for how the four pilot sites will be managed and developed. Yet one of the most successful features of the project administration was that such institutions were involved in project activities and benefited significantly.

At the local level, the lead NGO at each site was successful in identifying and bringing together community-level stakeholders and working to involve them in all phases of the management process. In Los Haitises, Samana and Jaragua, this process was simplified by the many years of effort by the NGOs preceding this project - and in the case of Los Haitises, Cornell University - by working with local stakeholders and conducting research on local issues. The project also succeeded in promoting vertical integration particularly between local level stakeholders and governmental officials in Santo Domingo.

Management strategies

It is vitally important to discover the feasibility of the management techniques and strategies that are being contemplated. Pilot scale actions can bring attention and credibility to a management initiative when they demonstrate that meaningful action is indeed possible. Such activities became a feature of the design in 1995 and were undertaken as small grants projects in each of the four sites. All of these projects were selected from ideas generated at community-level workshops. They therefore responded to local perceptions of needs and have done much to build confidence and experience among community groups. They have also created considerable good will, although for most of these small projects community participation seemed an end in itself. Thus, incorporation into policy formulation or improvements for stakeholders was not strategically pursued.

In Los Haitises, the core of the management strategy is to promote environmentally appropriate economic activity in the proposed zone of cooperation. A number of specific activities were proposed and tested that include a variety of practices in agro-forestry and environmentally conscious agriculture. Since increases in the resident population of the park will threaten the

102 long-term viability of any management strategy, the Cornell team recommended a procedure for issuing identity cards to current residents in specific zones. This form of registration could be the basis for regulating immigration, thereby stabilizing the size of the resident population.

Issue analysis

Issue selection is a critical step, requiring “scoping down” from the large number of problems and opportunities identified to a limited agenda that is within the executing capacity and resources of the institutions involved. The issue selection process should provide the crafting of management policy and plans with a clear and strategic focus. An overt scoping down process could not be discerned at Montecristi, Jaragua or Samana. Much of the problem can probably be attributed to a largely donor-driven agenda.

The absence of an issue-driven analysis at these sites produced a number of consequences that threaten the ultimate effectiveness and efficiency of resource management efforts. In Samana, for example, an attempt was made to present the results of surveys and research on a number of topics at a series of public workshops. Since this information was not organized to shed light on specific management issues, there was little interest in such information and these presentations were discontinued. In contrast, at Los Haitises surveys, research, planning and public involvement revolved around management issues. This approach had great beneficial impacts, resulting in clearer perception of challenges, priority needs for information and management actions. However local stakeholders participated in the research activities even without full comprehension of the role the information generated played in addressing problems and opportunities.

There were major repercussions on the targeting of research and monitoring. It was not possible to distinguish whether the research that had been undertaken was indeed filling the imperative gaps of an integrated resource management initiative. This and other research activities in fisheries and coastal morphology are difficult to evaluate in the absence of an explicit “scoping down” process or any clear sense for the major features of a future integrated management strategy for the region. None of the management plans or proposed elements of plans for the demonstration sites that were reviewed included an institutional framework. This was regarded as a principal and unnecessary gap in the research and planning process. With no coastal management programme, the design of research programmes needed to await the specification of the objectives and the specific issues that a research programme could address. Further, this absence possibly contributed to instances where linkages between the small grant projects undertaken at a management site, and the emerging strategy were weak.

Another gap was the lack of any institutional analysis of current relationships between agencies of government and other institutions and the priority coastal management issues and the adequacy of existing management. Institutional problems were the most significant impediment to progress toward effective resource management and biodiversity conservation. Those involved at the sites including community-level stakeholders, NGOs and government officials, were keenly aware of these issues and willing to discuss them in great detail.

103

Governance

At the provincial level, a potentially very significant development was the creation of Consejos Provinciales (Province Councils), chaired by the governor which draw together governmental and nongovernmental bodies to discuss and act upon issues of local interest. The lead NGOs at each pilot site participating in this process were optimistic that it could produce a degree of coordination that has been impossible in the past and has the potential for providing a forum for conflict resolution and framing local policy.

Activities listed under the outputs of the CZM policy objective significantly constricted its stated purposes, or demanded actions more appropriate under the research objective. This may have been in recognition of the fact that the NGOs selected to implement this project did not hold authority to promulgate regional management plans, furthermore a coastal zone national policy. Certain outputs imply placing permanent governance structures that the NGOs involved in this project were not in a position to deliver; and which could not be achieved in the absence of a stable institutional framework and supportive governmental policies. This outcome was therefore not realized.

Sustainable funding

Current governmental funding for parks, reserves and important natural resources was wholly inadequate and local residents benefited little from the tourism revenue. Yet the potential appears great for defraying a significant portion of the costs of effective resource management and biodiversity conservation with tourism revenues. With the $20 introduced park entry and exit tax, and hotel taxes, a segment could be diverted from the General Treasury towards conservation purposes. These possibilities, however, are another aspect of the policy reforms that will hopefully emerge over the next several years.

Assessment tools

This was the first occasion when the Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management was used as the basis for a capacity assessment. Once the sophistication and detail of the analysis had been established and the team was familiarized with the project design and unique features of the Dominican Republic, answering the selected questions gave the analysis a rigor rarely achieved in a performance evaluation. The analysis as framed by the manual provided ideas for instrumental adjustments and a conceptual framework for analyzing both the project’s design and its accomplishments. In the Dominican Republic, the disarray of government institutions at the national level with responsibilities for resource management would, in the past, have made formalities difficult to achieve and potentially meaningless. Nonetheless, it is very useful to encourage those working to promote effective resource management and biodiversity conservation in specific geographic areas to recognize that articulation of a strategic and well-balanced agenda is very important. Too many resource management initiatives fail to progress into a period of effective implementation at significant scales, being caught in repeated cycles of data gathering, analysis and planning, leading to frustration and disillusionment among those involved.

104

Consolidation of Biodiversity Protection and Ecosystem Management of the Bay Islands (PMAIB)

Country: HONDURAS

Project Overview

The strategy for PMAIB stage II focuses on strengthening the Executive Commission for Sustainable Tourism of the Bay Islands (CETS) and its Technical Unit; preparation of bylaws and policy briefs aimed at integrating biodiversity considerations into land use planning and development; and the implementation of the Bay Islands Conservation and Protected Areas Fee as a sustainable financing mechanism. A public outreach, participation and destination management strategy is included. Together, these will produce improved, systematized procedures for development review, improved coordination among municipalities on matters pertaining to shared natural resources, enhanced surveillance and enforcement of permit conditions and environmental regulations, and widely disseminated information on environmental quality trends.

Objectives

The development objective is to consolidate the environmental management programme created during the first stage (1998-2003), launch a self-sustaining institutional framework that supports ecosystems management and biodiversity conservation, and environmentally sustainable tourism in the Bay Islands. The global objective is to strengthen the conservation of globally significant coastal and marine habitats and species under national jurisdiction. Specific objectives are to:

• integrate biodiversity and ecosystem management considerations in policies, norms and regulations of the CETS, particularly with respect to protected areas (PAs) and environmental monitoring

• implement financing mechanisms for biodiversity conservation

• manage the network of marine and terrestrial PAs in a cooperative manner

• raise awareness and understanding of the distinctiveness and value of the archipelago and the need for environmental management

• strengthen the capacity of local government, non-government and community organizations to more capably participate in activities of environmental due diligence and biodiversity conservation

105

Outcomes

• Consolidation of the regional scheme for environmental management and sustainable tourism

• Expansion of environmental sanitation services

• Municipal strengthening and land management

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

A 100% personnel turnover within the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) necessitated that recruitment procedures be undertaken, causing several interruptions and delays. This was the result of a number of factors, culminating with complications due to national elections. Thus, personnel in all government ministries were altered, including the agencies supporting the project.

Consequently, the PCU needed to divert efforts to initiating key actors to the project. This included several meetings and workshops to acquaint persons with project goals, functions of CETS, and the different initiatives underway requiring a consultation and validation process. With continued consultations, the new authorities endorsed both the overall programme and the GEF project objectives. There were no indications that the original objectives were unachievable, although the timeframe needed to be extended.

Also inhibiting project activities was the delay in procurement and commencement processes for two consultancy service contracts for some activities. These were to provide technical assistance to the system of protected areas (PAs), the sustainable tourism and environment initiative with the private sector.

Development decisions affecting growth rates (mainly in Roatán) are outpacing the capacity to manage growth, particularly at the municipal levels. Acquired financing is being utilised to help strengthen the municipal administrations in all functions (financial, land use planning, environmental, etc). However, this is a gradual process and measurable results are expected to be yielded in the medium term.

The PCU has provided technical assistance in reactivating work meetings, preparation of a common work plan and progress in establishing mechanisms to ensure implementation of environmental fees. This is to reinforce the work of CETS in forging consensus with the municipalities in a coordinated environmental strategy.

The project is attempting to identify, organize and strengthen stakeholders who will be integral in management programmes and/or activities directed to building linkages and successful experience exchanges related to facilitating sustainable fishing, tourism and PAs management, as well as for promotion of conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.

106

Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS)

Country: BELIZE, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, MEXICO

Project Overview

The goal of the project was to enhance protection of the unique and vulnerable marine ecosystems comprising the MBRS, and to assist the participating littoral states to strengthen and coordinate national policies, regulations, and institutional arrangements for the conservation and sustainable use of this global public good.

The project sought to conserve this globally important resource by providing support to strengthen existing and create a variety of new mechanisms to safeguard its integrity and continued productivity. These included facilitating:

• harmonization of relevant policies and regulations related to sustainable management of shared/transboundary resources, including fisheries and critical habitats for spawning and recruitment

• consolidation of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within the MBRS to maintain vital ecological processes and increase representativeness in the existing system

• reaching of agreement on the establishment of environmental standards for monitoring coastal water quality and other indicators of coral reef ecosystem health

• introduction of best practice and regional environmental certification programmes for sustainable tourism development

• building of capacity through training, environmental education and improved information systems to enhance public and private participation in the conservation of the MBRS and the benefits from its sustainable use

Objectives

The development objective was to assist Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico to manage the MBRS as a shared, regional ecosystem; safeguard its biodiversity values and functional integrity; and create a framework for its sustainable use. The project aimed to:

• strengthen MPAs

• develop and implement a regional ecosystem monitoring and information system to provide a synoptic view of the health of the MBRS and facilitate dissemination of these findings throughout the region 107

• promote measures to reduce non-sustainable patterns of economic exploitation of • MBRS, focusing initially on the fisheries and tourism sectors

• increase local and national capacity for environmental management through education, information sharing and training

• facilitate the strengthening and coordinating of national policies, regulations and institutional arrangements for marine ecosystem conservation and sustainable use

Outcomes

• MPAs – planning, management, monitoring, and institutional strengthening

• Regional Environmental Information System (REIS) – creation and implementation of a distributed, internet-based REIS and the establishment of a Synoptic Monitoring Programme (SMP)

• Promoting sustainable use of the MBRS – promotion of sustainable fisheries management and facilitation of low impact coastal and marine tourism

• Public awareness and environmental education – development of an environmental awareness campaign and formal and informal education

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

New constituencies were built for conservation around MPAs through educational efforts, and promoted new opportunities for livelihoods that are compatible with conservation objectives, principally through tourism.

Measuring monitoring effectiveness

Considerable time and effort were expended reviewing existing systems for measuring effectiveness and creating a new hybrid system for use in MPAs: “Recommendations for Monitoring Management Effectiveness in Marine Protected Areas”. A total of 11 biophysical and 8 socioeconomic measures were developed as well as an application methodology for measuring management effectiveness.

The documentation produced, and the process of developing a model for measuring effectiveness, do not necessarily translate to improved management effectiveness in the target MPAs and, neither the process proposed nor the measurement of effectiveness was full achieved. It was only possible to make general assessments about the effectiveness of specific areas and the state of MPAs in the region. Important information was gathered but at an expense and effort that may not have been effective. The questions as to who should be responsible for measuring

108 effectiveness, at what cost and in what manner require further investigation. Nevertheless, important insights and practical advice were gleaned relating to measuring management effectiveness for PAs. Models to determine management effectiveness developed for terrestrial PAs may not function for MPAs.

Costs of measuring effectiveness were considered high relative to scarce resources and staffing; also difficult and time consuming. Human resources were not in place to undertake even the basic monitoring protocol, much less the full suite of 43 metrics recommended. Establishing effectiveness must be a long term process that will involve greater cooperation of a variety of governmental agencies, the private sector, NGOs and other conservationists.

Institutional strengthening

One basic design was chosen and modified for specific sites during erection of five multifunction buildings. This was to save design costs and standardize construction details. Facilities included a multi-use room, dormitories, offices, bathrooms and food preparation areas. However, such infrastructural approaches may not be the best option, despite the cost savings of a single design. Greater capacity to manage substantial infrastructure investments is needed than that typically available in a small project management unit. Short term contracting of a specialist with infrastructure experience may save time, money and produce a better final product. The project also supplied significant amounts of furnishings, and equipment e.g. computers, boats, scuba gear, communication apparatus. Management presence, capacity and effectiveness were greatly augmented and reinforced by these investments.

The new infrastructure and equipment legitimized the MPAs, elevating their status and functionality by building institutional recognition, generally increasing the likelihood of long term success. Several areas have leveraged this new status to attract new donors, volunteers, and research partners, securing grants, partners, and co-financing. Site examinations and interviews with staff indicated that the infrastructure was very helpful in maintaining management presence, improving morale and providing the base for implementing management plans.

The project successfully carried out a series of regional training courses and workshops for protected area directors, technical staff, rangers, and key collaborators from local and national government agencies, collaborating NGOs, and local communities. By undertaking these activities significant training and facilitation capacity were also developed for management planning, community involvement, income generation and financial planning.

For enhancement of regional MPA effectiveness, Southern and Northern Transboundary Park Commissions were founded. Commission meetings produced recommendations on fisheries, tourism and MPAs which were then used to formulate regional policies.

Monitoring and management tools

REIS was designed to consolidate and analyze data collected from various disparate sources, including the SMP. An oversight in the original design meant the database was not spatially explicit in a GIS format. This possibly delayed the release of some of the regional information. 109

However, incorporation of GIS functionality in 2005-2006 greatly improved its longevity and ability to focus monitoring and management activities. Data from REIS will help provide status reports on the health of the MBRS region to decision makers and on-site managers. Further, the website interface serves as the gateway to all the MBRS documents and technical reports. It is easy to use and is available in two languages with exceptional documentation transparency.

SMP is a regional, multi-level methodology to monitor changes in ecosystem health. It was designed to be comprehensive with respect to data collection, timeframes (short, medium and long term) and geographic coverage. It enabled synergies between disparate groups monitoring different sections of the MBRS and supported the harmonization and standardization of a monitoring methodology. By producing a simple method that was well documented, the SMP was made accessible to a large number of people in the region, thus raising its credibility. More data collection is needed for seagrasses and mangroves, water quality and contamination which will occur as capacity is built and effective partnerships for analysis are established. Long term usefulness of the SMP for management and decision making is contingent upon continuance of results analysis processes on a regular basis and subsequent information dissemination.

However, this sustainability is questionable in the absence of another large contribution from either a follow-on project or another donor. Sites particularly at risk are primarily the transnational ones receiving little or no support from alternative funding sources. Without a second phase of financing, monitoring of all reef variables risks being decreased or discontinued in all sites in Guatemala, and in Utila and Puerto Cortez in Honduras. Monitoring mangrove and seagrass variables is at risk in all sites in Belize and in many sites in Guatemala and Honduras. Water pollution and water quality monitoring, components necessitating copious amounts of funding and analysis, will most likely be seriously threatened. At the time of the terminal evaluation, Mexico was the only territory benefiting from a long term financial strategy to assist with monitoring, with commitments from the Government.

A clear plan to maintain and house data in the absence of long term funding must accompany any programme gathering large quantities of data. The purpose of the data must be obvious, and seamless mechanisms exist for transmitting results to decision makers and managers. Ownership and responsibility for dissemination must be established prior to the completion of any project. Where it has been deemed that several different variables are critical to understanding threats and patterns of decline or recovery, data collection efforts should ensure that whenever possible, uniform effort is expended to collect data that are harder and more expensive to acquire such as water quality and contamination. In regions where unanticipated events can occur rapidly e.g. hurricanes, coral bleaching, there needs to be local capacity (including emergency funding) built during the project to respond to such events and conduct rapid assessments of the situation.

Because governments, regulatory agencies and private sector enterprises tend to be reactive rather than proactive, policy and regulations that have been enacted under the project have been slow to realize tangible impacts. Policy harmonization is complex and demanding, requiring significant time and resources for success.

110

Alternative livelihoods

Thorough understanding of the labor and product markets, unemployment levels and skills capacity is necessary for alternative livelihoods programmes to be effective; and their success will only be achieved in conjunction with limitations on unsustainable livelihood activities (e.g. placing and enforcing limits on new entrants to fisheries in depleted areas). They also need political will and adequate resources to enforce regulations on natural resource use, and ensure violators are consistently, visibly and fairly sanctioned.

Alternative livelihood training, such as that facilitated primarily by local NGOs, is not likely to have the desired impact of reducing pressure over a natural resource in areas of high unemployment because those trained are readily replaced by others in the targeted activity and where large numbers of persons are trained in a given area, that labor market quickly becomes saturated. Broader, more diverse arrays of livelihoods and skills sets must be considered to provide true alternatives to unsustainable livelihoods. But that may be beyond the scope or abilities of conservation projects.

Sustainable tourism

Tourism management, as contemplated in the original project design, was overly ambitious. Sector involvement is essential but often proves difficult as the private sector tends to be off-site, having little incentive to alter profitable tourism practices and often possessing considerable political resources. For tourism standards and regulation to succeed at the policy level, tourism ministries must be involved in project design and implementation. It was recommended that the tourism sector be formally entrained in conservation and sustainable development planning for the MBRS region, possibly with the help of CCAD and the Regional Steering Group mandated under the Tulum +8 Declaration.

Equally important for the success of tourism management is accountability of the public and private sectors engaged in tourism for negative impacts to a common good. Involvement, support and promotion of NGOs can be a valuable tool for securing this accountability for environmental services provided by the natural resource base.

Despite the complexity added to project preparation and implementation, it is key to include all public sectors with management responsibility or a vested interest in the natural resource the project is trying to protect or manage to ensure buy-in and collaboration.

Public awareness and environmental education

Through this component, the project not only helped revamp the entire natural history in Belize curricula regarding the environment, but also brought a dynamic new methodology for curricula development being used countrywide. Curricula uptake was slower in Guatemala, Mexico and Honduras where national curricula review is more complicated. Expectations held that the MBRS-developed curricula would be integrated into schools as new curricula reviews were undertaken in all countries. Once adopted in regional school systems, it will generate lasting benefits by educating primary and secondary students in the importance of their natural 111 resources. The documents and training materials produced will also serve educational and interpretation activities not only in the MBRS region but in marine environments worldwide.

Carefully targeted environmental education campaigns e.g. for policy makers, children and educators, can be highly effective in garnering project support. Educational institutions were found to be open to the idea of new curricula but slow to incorporate such materials, demanding much effort to negotiate institutional barriers. Environmental awareness campaigns are especially challenging when more than one country, culture or language is involved as cultural, linguistic and local variations require different approaches, increasing costs and efforts.

112

4. Latin America and the Caribbean – non GEF projects

Seaflower Biosphere Reserve

Country: COLUMBIA

Project Overview

Columbia declared the archipelago of San Andres, Old Providence, and Santa Catalina a biosphere reserve called the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve. In the year 2000, the reserve became one of the UNESCO’s World Network of Biosphere Reserves. CORALINA, the archipelago’s environment authority, was formed with the mandate of biosphere reserve planning and implementation. Covering a total area of approximately 65 000km2 the largest Caribbean MPA was formed by the Columbian government in January 2005. The factor distinguishing this biosphere reserve from a traditional protected area is that it not only encompasses the natural ecosystem but also the villages and its inhabitants. CORALINA acts as the management authority and is responsible for ensuring that the archipelago’s inhabitants and environment receive continuing benefit from the biosphere reserve.

Objectives

The objectives of the biosphere reserve management plan are:

• conservation of strategic areas to protect the biological and cultural diversity of the archipelago

• creation of a model of territorial development and a site for testing methods of sustainable development

• to set aside areas for research, observation, education and capacity building of residents and visitors

• to apply the concepts of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

Outcomes

Many projects and activities were executed in response to the environmental problems identified in the management plan. These projects include, but are not limited to: coral recovery projects; coral reef monitoring; education and research; general environmental education programmes in schools and in the community; solid waste management programmes; and projects aimed at promoting sustainable agriculture and tourism. There has also been the development of an integrated environment systems model; the implementation of the Integrated Groundwater Management Plan; establishment of three national parks and the establishment and management 113 of the Seaflower Marine Protected Area. Under the principles of the biosphere reserve, community involvement is vital. Local communities have been actively involved in setting up the administrative structure of the biosphere programme by which they have placed an emphasis on ecotourism and made decisions to significantly change current artisanal fishing and agricultural practices.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project and biosphere management

Rather than being an isolated park, the reserve encompasses an entire community and its environs. Therefore site-specific alternative systems of management, monitoring, communication, information management, participation, etc. must be developed and implemented. This requires an overarching programme to clearly coordinate and manage the many site-specific programmes and activities, having clearly defined channels of communication. This will help to maintain the focus and goals of the programme. Further, a consistent and well-defined framework will better enable stakeholder communities to comprehend and participate in project activities.

An obvious physical presence is beneficial to project implementation. A visible, staffed office within the community for Corporation for the Sustainable Development of the Archipelago of San Andres, Old Providence and Santa Catalina (CORALINA) explicitly associated with the reserve is a place for stakeholders to visit and learn about the reserve.

Zoning

As the coastal area is small and densely populated, conflicts over resource use are bound to be rampant. On the other hand, the large open ocean area surrounding the islands that fall within its jurisdiction also needs to be managed and protected. Therefore, the project sought to address this issue through the implementation of a zoning structure. The Seaflower Marine Protected Area (MPA) was divided into five zones:

• no-entry – only research and monitoring activities

• no-take zones – incorporates other non-extractive uses

• artisanal fishing zones – only to be used by traditional fishers

• special uses – shipping lanes, ports, marinas and watersports

• general use – minimal restrictions allowing activities that are in line with the conservation goals of the MPA

Stakeholder participation and collaboration were at the core of the zoning process. The MPA objectives, external boundaries, zoning and the design of the management structure were all formed through the participatory planning process, where stakeholders were given the 114 opportunity to make key decisions. The project also went about improving management, legislation, partnerships, monitoring and enforcement in other key ecosystem areas such as the Old Point Regional Mangrove Park, San Andres Bay Reserve and Cove Valley watershed and the Old Providence McBean Lagoon National Park.

Stakeholder participation and governance

Promoting community involvement in management and implementation is a solution for sites lacking adequate human and financial capital. This will also build local capacity, promote human and economic development, empower stakeholders and promote participation in conservation activities. A focus on community-based conservation cognisant of traditional values, rights, livelihoods and tenures will help the locals reap benefits from the work conducted in and through the reserve. This aligns with Seaflower’s goal to achieve sustainable development within the reserve, with a key focus on the generation of local benefits.

All of the CORALINA (the agency responsible for the Biosphere) activities in the area involved the local community. Before the reserve was established, stakeholders were extensively consulted and were actively involved in the planning stage. As aforementioned, stakeholders were active in the delineation of zones and the management framework of the MPAs. They were also instrumental through volunteering for community based reef monitoring (e.g. ReefCheck, turtle, reef and other beach monitoring programmes), “adopt-a-beach” programmes, youth environmental awareness projects and coastal clean ups. They were also instrumental with surveillance and soft enforcement in the MPAs by reporting infractions and educating potential offenders.

With respect to the entire biosphere reserve, stakeholder representatives make up a significant portion of the CORALINA board of directors. Residents also made up a significant portion of the governing and advisory committees. The MPA Stakeholder Advisory Committee was made up of volunteer artisanal fishers, professional divers and other watersport operators, marinas, the tourism sector and the indigenous community. This group is consulted with regards to most of the management decisions of the MPA. It is hoped that the Seaflower MPA will have a semi- autonomous co-management structure where the community continues to be actively involved in management.

Environmental education

CORALINA has placed a lot of effort into environmental education, with the biosphere reserve now having widespread household recognition. Biosphere reserve information has been successfully incorporated into the school curriculum and more significantly, a programme was created whereby persons can obtain a technical degree in tropical coastal and marine resource management. The aim of this programme was to build technical capacity amongst the local residents so they can adequately manage the biosphere reserve. Of the first 18 students graduating from the class in December 2005, five are employed at CORALINA and others are working with other organizations within the reserve. Other programmes include sustainable tourism; improving dive operations; SCUBA training for fishers and students; greening hotels and businesses; and training of trainers in community-based monitoring and MPA management. 115

Part of the education programme involved trips to other countries to compare the environment and conservation practices to other sites. Artisanal fishers traveled to Jamaica to observe the environmental degradation so that the fishers could visualize the outcome of mismanagement and become more committed to the conservation work locally. MPA team members journeyed to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Bonaire and Saba Marine Parks to learn from their management practices. Also, dive operators went to Bonaire Marine Park for training in more sustainable dive tourism.

Institutional strengthening, linkages and capacity building

Since 2004, CORALINA made institutional strengthening a priority. This was accomplished through the development of partnerships and activities to improve collaborative efforts. These agencies include the Ocean Conservancy, Island Resources Foundation, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), World Bank, European Union, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), U.S. National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Caribbean Fishery Council. With these partnerships, CORALINA was able to obtain training for their MPA project team, economists, and GIS specialists. They have also contributed to the funding of the organisation and the MPA. This has led to many donor-driven activities within the MPA.

Other partnerships were forged and developed so that the objectives of the project could be furthered. An example of this was the training of navy personnel in seabird biology and conservation. Additionally, the maritime authority and the environmental authority shaped a formal agreement with CORALINA which provided a mandate and a strong legal foundation for the conservation and management of the remote areas of the MPA.

Regarding local agencies, CORALINA provided training for resource managers, joint initiatives for MPA enforcement and monitoring, partnership projects and community empowerment programmes. An example was the establishment of an inter-sectoral, interdisciplinary environmental education committee which was responsible for a significant portion of the reserve’s educational programmes.

To further improve their work, the community must be made aware of the concepts, programmes and projects relating to the biosphere reserve and their roles as residents. This should also apply to all personnel, especially new staff, and they themselves should be capable of communicating concepts and information to the stakeholders.

Sustainable financing

A financial sustainability plan is critical for long term management and implementation of the biosphere reserve. Without financial autonomy, the biosphere reserve’s activities become donor or project driven which can hinder the execution of daily operations and detract from the main project framework. The management plan has outlined some financial options for CORALINA such as conservation levies for projects that will negatively impact the environment, a trust fund, entrance and user fees, and licenses and permits. Being part of the World Network of Biosphere 116

Reserves makes CORALINA eligible to receive grants and participate in international conferences. This in turn allows networking with other Man and Biosphere agencies.

117

Coastal Resources Management Programme

Country: ECUADOR

Project Overview

Rapid population and development expansion have pressured Ecuador’s coastal ecosystems. Overexploitation of resources has been followed by abandonment of the causative development, sometimes without resources recovering. In addition to overuse and contamination of resources, there are many conflicts among incompatible activities and poor siting of coastal structures. At the commencement of the project, compliance with Ecuador’s existing environmental protection and management laws and regulations was notably weak along the coast. Public authorities were often unfamiliar with the body of regulations and correct procedures that apply to typical cases. Furthermore, the regulatory framework was deemed ambiguous in many instances.

The Coastal Resources Management Programme (PMRC) was designed as a process for a North America-Ecuador partnership to learn how to institutionalize more sustainable forms of development along the Ecuadorian coastline. It called for a two-track strategy: simultaneously and incrementally building capacity within central government; and at selected community sites through Special Area Management Zones (ZEMs). Both governments and communities must be involved in the analysis of development issues and in taking responsible action. Promoting dialogue that links the two tracks encourages a sense of shared purpose at both levels. It creates mechanisms for conflict resolution and consensus building.

Objectives

The fundamental objectives of the PRMC were to:

• Create an equitable, transparent and dynamic governance process that engages and serves the people

• Advance toward a healthy, resilient life support system

PMRC believes effective management to reduce, and eventually reverse, degradation of coastal ecosystems and exploitation of resources must directly address the societal values and the behaviour that are the root causes of such trends. Change to societal values and behaviour can occur only through a prolonged and sustained process, primarily in inventing dynamic and adaptive governance to uncover approaches to more sustainable forms of development. Remedying technical problems is a secondary effort.

118

Outcomes

Components of the USAID funded segment of PMRC included:

• gathering and interpretation of available technical information on coastal management issues e.g. analysis of shrimp mariculture; formulation of a sustainability strategy for the industry; analysis of existing laws and procedures; baseline profile of coastal provinces

• proposal of institutional structure and programme priorities

• formalization of the PMRC

• initiation of Ranger Corps and preparation of ZEM plans

• securing adequate funding

• practical exercises in integrated management

With monies secured through the IADB, the PMRC began its first implementation phase:

• strengthening governmental coastal planning and coordination capacity

• building the Ranger Corps and sustaining the ZEM offices

• executing projects relating to mangrove management, shore use zoning, small scale tourism facilities, artisanal fisheries and community sanitation

• training programme

• monitoring coastal conditions and trends

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Partnerships

The complexities and overlapping jurisdictions relating to coastal issues means it is impossible for a single agency to tackle management challenges. Productive and sustainable partnerships are built on trust and nourished by shared experience and shared values. The agreement governing the relationship between the government of Ecuador and CRC is a partnership with Ecuadorian and American co-directors holding comparable responsibilities and authority. At the ministerial level, the National Commission is a partnership among the seven agencies with major roles in coastal management. The Ranger Corps are partnerships designed to improve the effectiveness of governmental agency actions and law enforcement at the local level. A partnership with the Fundación Pedro Vicente Maldonado (FPVM) has been crucial to PMRC’s success. 119

Learning and adaptation

Techniques were developed to support open exchange of ideas and experiences, and foster learning through many opportunities for feedback within the PMRC staff, as well as externally with stakeholders and the public.

Preceding preparation of the next annual work plan self-assessments are conducted by PMRC staff of progress and lessons learned. This allows for an incremental programme design and periodic evaluation of which strategies are succeeding, which did not meet expectations, and what problems have been resolved or need attention. New issues and new demands on the PMRC are constantly developing, and such reassessments and adjustments help keep the programme flexible and responsive.

Coastal water quality monitoring and management

The inter-institutional water quality working group (WQWG) is a successful setting for creating a productive collaboration among institutions. This can be attributed to:

• stability of the role of the members within their own organizations, allowing them to commit to long-term involvement

• multi-institutional focus bringing a variety of perspectives

• relationships fostered among participants

• effective coordination based on a participatory approach and the creative use of ideas • from organizational management

Focusing and prioritization of efforts was considered paramount. The scope of water quality issues must not be underestimated. Addressing the issues was found to require greater resources and support than could be sustained by PMRC. WQWG learned it was necessary to:

• provide an adequate minimum base of funding

• assure communication with and continuing assistance from the international community

• facilitate clarity about goals and objectives for sampling strategies and proposals for analysis

• provide training on water quality management in addition to technical analysis

• maintain a full-time coordinator to make best use of the time of the busy researchers

Although the resources available to the group were limited, the WQWG has advanced in a sustainable, coherent way, progressing from monitoring simple parameters to more complex

120 investigations, and sharing resources and knowledge among institutions. Thusly the group was able to use scarce resources to produce considerable benefits.

Focusing on site-specific issues is more likely to build user group and municipal interest and support. It was valuable to work with local volunteer collaborators, who assisted in monitoring water quality. Trained volunteer groups abiding with standardized procedures can be very important in tracking conditions, highlighting problems, and identifying successes. Unfortunately, the goodwill shown by individual shrimp farmers did not extend to the Association of Shrimp Growers. They were reluctant to improve the knowledge base of the industry and consequently, the WQWG shifted its attention to working more closely with the technical staff of the PMRC.

Public education should be viewed as an integral part of monitoring. High schools in Machala have used local water bodies to learn basic chemistry, and with technical assistance and minimal funding can generate credible long term data. Most shrimp farmers and shrimp laboratories have skilled technicians and chemical analysis equipment that could easily be put to use in the regular monitoring of basic parameters. A prevalent obstacle is the resistance to information sharing.

A principal reason cited for the inability of the WQWG to attract significant funding for water quality monitoring was the low level of public awareness or a constituency for water pollution. PMRC successfully created national and local constituencies for integrated coastal management (ICM), and has effectively used the Special Area Management Zones (ZEMs) to make tangible progress in coastal management at the local level. Unfortunately, there has not been a similar effective advocacy campaign for water quality management. The PMRC should use the ZEMs to demonstrate how policies can be translated into effective action.

Public education

In fostering participation, the public education strategists found it necessary to promote a new model of personal behaviour toward coastal resource use. Developing positive attitudes among community members had to be accompanied by sharing practical knowledge of more appropriate ways to harvest and handle fish, use mangroves, and develop tourist beaches. The technical experts in the PMRC admit to having learned much from the people of the coast, most of whom are unschooled and barely literate.

Journalists and the mass media began to display greater interest in coastal themes, using the concepts, policies, and strategies of the PMRC to guide their perspective. Ecuadorian press reached an approach that seeks to educate viewers and readers about coastal resources management as opposed to sensationalism. This change has been accompanied by a tremendous expansion in press attention. Some journalists serve on ZEM committees.

Elementary and high schools in the ZEMs have incorporated coastal resource themes into the curriculum and school activities. Particularly popular are projects related to environmental sanitation, mangrove reforestation, and ecological tourism. Some teachers serve on ZEM committees.

121

PMRC viewed participation as needing active support and help of authorities, the private sector, communities, and organized groups (e.g. mass media, schools, user groups). Collectively, these represent the constituency and key actors in the programme, and work as a unit. If one group is absent the process collapses. Questions arose regarding difficulty in making decisions in such large and heterogeneous groups. One proposition was to make the ZEM committee smaller; however this would have very likely led to diminished community and user group representation. Operational difficulties with the expanded committee were resolved by creating commissions and working groups on special topics.

Without participation there is no education. For social change to occur, several elements must converge:

• new social values must be formulated

• these values must satisfy a need

• the participant in education must have an interest in adopting the new values

• the people to be educated must participate actively in identifying, assimilating, and actualizing the values

In terms of education, coastal residents and stakeholders are not targets or objects of a management process implemented by an external party. Rather, they are the subject or an actor in the process, alongside government officials. Even though national government can initiate an effort such as the PMRC, it will be unsustainable without “participant-actors”. Creating the participant-actors for the coastal management process takes place when the consciousness of entire communities, technical experts, resource users, and journalists takes shape as they participate in the process and arrive at decisions.

PMRC and FPVM learned participant-actors cannot be replaced. Machala ZEM centered its work on the barrios of the Estero Huayla, a waterfront urban section used by fishermen and shrimp larvae collectors. One of the problems of the area was solid waste disposal. One evening, a session to address the problem was scheduled for 7p.m. First, it must be recognized that in such areas the problem of solid waste belongs to the entire community, not just the fishermen, who can act only to motivate action, not to implement. Secondly, they learned it is a bad idea to schedule important meetings at the same time as a popular television programme or a soccer game. Only a few leaders of local groups arrived at the meeting before 8 p.m. Immediately following the conclusion of the show, everyone arrived to begin. Regarding environmental sanitation, the entire population of the barrio, not just the group leaders, is the participant-actor.

Community based practical exercises

Advisory committees were extremely creative in using practical exercises as a mechanism to resolve use conflicts, especially those that threaten the continuation of traditional economic activities. Successful examples include zoning of areas such as beaches and mangroves for single or multiple uses, agreements on use regulations for areas of conflict, agreements assigning 122 property rights to user groups, and construction of infrastructure supporting more systematic and rational resource use. The exercises have created employment, improved sanitary conditions, increased the efficiency of resource use, and prolonged or amplified the benefits derived from resources over time by encouraging sustainable use. They have strengthened community and user group solidarity and governance capacity.

User group agreements have been accepted as a feasible, necessary, and useful tool for preventing the escalation of coastal resource use conflicts. With these, local user groups affirm their commitment to implementing policies and actions and determining how resources will be used and allocated, often with specific details on individual actions targeting users such as shrimp farmers, fishermen, and local communities. They have made it possible to implement rational management policies and enabled public authorities to execute their mandates. Although not legally binding, they strengthen one of the most important characteristics of a realistic ICM policy i.e. the social consensus to support implementation.

During the ZEM planning process, much time and effort were expended educating and empowering the constituency by providing technical and financial support and political linkages to the highest levels of government. Practical exercises attempted to give opportunities to test the decision making process by executing activities and to create enduring groups that accept responsibility for managing their actions and environment.

There has been a transition in how communities exert pressure or initiate action to address issues of local concern. User groups and communities now place demands on municipalities, the Ranger Corps, and PMRC to assist in addressing problems, conducting research, and broaching suggestions for practical solutions. For instance, communities in Bahía solicited help in reseeding cockles and developing a management plan to resolve user conflicts and to advance the sound multiple use of Isla de Corazon. In Machala, larvae harvesters previously prohibited from accessing traditional fishing areas by a shrimp pond owner petitioned the port captain, who supported their rights and negotiated with the owner.

The initial years of the development of the PMRC were spent gaining credibility by developing insights into issues, concerns, and trends. Through open dialogue amongst the PMRC, user groups, local communities, and national institutions mutual respect and trust were established. Via ongoing open consultation within each ZEM, consensus was reached on such issues as basic services, education, economic development, infrastructure, and resource deterioration. The participatory process was strengthened through formal and informal education campaigns. Emphasis has continually been placed on human relations to establish trust and goodwill.

Many practical exercises were not implemented due to the need for detailed project proposals providing specific designs and evaluation mechanisms. One notable exception appears to be those related to sanitation, which consistently had feasibility studies with blueprints, costs, benefits, and administration. In few other instances, architectural designs were prepared to guide construction, but were not always adhered to, generally because they were too elaborate. Preparation prior to execution seems to have been limited in several cases. Project management workshops, basically restricted to an introduction to bookkeeping, were conducted for about 25

123 selected groups. Little else was done to create local management capacity to execute and maintain projects.

It was purported that while short term actions are usually most important, small projects often demand a longer planning horizon, better technical design, more sophisticated coordination measures, or greater funding than is available. Many practical exercises were in reality long term projects by this definition. Also identified was a need for immediate documentation and feedback when projects are planned, and baseline reference for later review. Relatively little occurred, suggesting the PMRC was ill-prepared to learn much from the exercises once launched.

It is important to maintain an inherent bias toward follow-up when working with communities. External reviewers concluded that having a local community organize itself to pressure public officials to respond to their concerns is a major advance over traditional project administration styles that place local residents in a passive, recipient mode. Another approach, which exemplifies PMRC Phase III, is to place more responsibility for implementation with the ZEM offices, under supervision and leadership of technical staff, with additional supervision and collaboration from the advisory committees. The ZEM committees have deliberated extensively about defining their role in implementation. One proposal emerging from the ZEM plan review process and was quickly adopted by other advisory committees was the qualification that the PMRC cannot conduct activities in ZEMs without prior consent by the ZEM committees and which are not a part of the adopted plan.

124

Conservation of Critical Coastal Ecosystems in Mexico

Country: MEXICO

Project Overview

This project (CCCEM) directed efforts at strengthening NGO and university institutions to play more effective roles within the overarching existing environmental framework in Mexico within targeted biogeographic regions. While Mexican law is already ample and its key institutions are in place, the expected levels of public participation and sound implementation are rarely met. This gap between needs and reality must be closed at many levels. However, the means to accomplish this has been through a place-based focus through tangible participation and co- management; and thus the project focus.

Objectives

The strategic objective was to conserve critical coastal resources. The primary indicator of success was the measured number and area of critical ecosystems in target areas possessing adequate management. This was to be achieved through:

• making progress in coastal management in areas surrounding biodiversity conservation sites

• promotion of voluntary measures to change development decisions

• improving coastal governance

• increasing local and regional capacity to utilize ICM principles and practices

Outcomes

CCCEM worked in two ecologically important areas to demonstrate the role of ICM in conserving critical coastal ecosystems. It also built NGO and university partner capacity to contribute to the broader coastal management agenda. The implementers recognized that most changes in coastal resource use would need to be voluntary, driven by strong incentives for individuals and developers to adjust their uses. From this evolved the focus on developing and using good practices for tourism and mariculture – practices that would reduce environmental impacts, promote sustainable business practice, and enhance the local distribution of benefits.

Objective 3 addressed the regional coastal policies affecting ecosystems of Costa Maya, Chetumal Bay, and the Gulf of California. The project contributed to the state-level coastal land use ordinances (POETs), the primary tool for establishing use priorities in geographic areas. The intent was to strengthen institutions and policies within the targeted regions and thus raise the likelihood of success in the strategically selected sites. 125

The programme design emphasized participatory methods to establish co-management schemes, and sought opportunities to create intersectoral coordination mechanisms and partnerships for coastal planning, governance, and implementation.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Project implementation

All coastal management has a local dimension. Strategic partners, donors and external technical assistance must work closely with people at the local level to understand the system and identify potential weaknesses and limiting factors; into these areas a project can focus its resources and contributions. Five crucial components and a number of contributing factors were determined as essential to delivering local success:

• work on problems that are of compelling importance

• form an engaged local team sufficiently skilled to construct a plan or strategy based on reliable knowledge, and build local participation and leadership to help in its preparation

• develop a local action plan or strategy based on perceived threats or on technical information indicating resources and coastal environmental quality are degraded and require preventative action – to mobilize leadership and resources

• promote behaviors congruent with the plan and discourage incompatible ones – behavioral change involves every level and group

• define in local terms the “successes” that will result from behavioral changes (e.g. more healthy, productive lives for residents; increased and sustained flow of natural and economic goods and services) – success is often defined differently by players; occurring according to its own schedule, thus creating challenges for implementers, local practitioners and donors

More attention must be given to understanding sources of resistance to behavioral change and formulating robust, sustainable strategies to combat them in concert with public agencies, producer organizations, ejidos and other property owners. Regulation alone will not bring behaviour change and use of good practices in coastal development. People must be cognizant of poor management practices, the precept behind said wrongdoing and the consequent need for change, and appropriate alternatives.

Over the long term, the trend toward decentralized environmental management implies state and local officials must build their capability to assume greater autonomy and responsibility. NGOs, stakeholders and citizens secured recognition and gained respect as they built their capacity to fill gaps and voids that emerged during transition to a more decentralized model. As the number of organized groups grew, so did opportunities for consultation and involvement. Resulting multi-sector committees, commissions and networks became a system of complementary nested governance arrangements. 126

Local success depends on possessing many types of resources from a variety of sources. This includes volunteer efforts, funds from donors or government, private and public in-kind contributions, and research and extension work. It also depends on access to information, equipment, and operating funds. It must engender trust, exhibit diverse skills in a range of disciplines and specialties, participate in networks of groups with a common purpose, maintain good will, and promote public awareness and interest.

Xcalak National MPA

Xcalak Reefs National Park is one of the first national parks initiated by a community and developed in a fully participatory manner. It is a successful example of a bottom-up approach to marine conservation, and its visibility helps ensure it does not become a “paper park”, as has been the fate of many. CCCEM provided funds to hire a member of the Xcalak community as the first park ranger to work under the direction of the park manager. A Park Management Technical Committee was established and meets regularly. The Park Management Plan was prepared with the full involvement of local people. Since this, institutions such as the National Commission on Protected Areas, which operates all federal parks, along with the Navy and Environment Enforcement Agency and the Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry collaborate and increased their commitment to comanagement arrangements which otherwise would be viewed dubiously.

Xcalak Community Strategy provided a clear statement of how the community would effectively co-manage its natural resources, diversify the economy and improve fisheries protection, community-based tourism, and community character. Local fishers have received training and formed an ecotourism cooperative, which signed an agreement with a regional tourism agency to operate a bird watch tower in the Manatee Sanctuary, hoping Xcalak tours will be included in the cruise ship excursion package.

Capacity building, infrastructure and creating a business vision required time, funds and commitment. Nature guiding, English, bird watching, snorkeling, diving, as well as business development were taught to local residents alongside other programmes. While tourist arrivals have increased annually and small hotels have expanded outside the village, benefits to the community have been insignificant. It is apparent that capacity building and the benefits must encompass other services outside the cooperative.

The brief transition from creation of the MPA to full functionality was due to fishers shifting some activity toward providing tourist services. This altered perspective from harvesting to conservation recognized that other businesses could be profitably pursued. Also, the NGO community understood and accepted the new role it would play since the federal park agency assumed direction and management of the park, and would put legal and administrative measures into place. The park needs steady sources of funding and stronger relationships with the village, fishers, NGOs, scientists, and local businesses to be successful in the long term.

127

A number of factors contributed to the progress of the Xcalak project and are further strengthened by strong willingness to work together based on trust and common interests:

• a powerful alliance existed among SEMARNAT (Environmental Secretariat of Mexico), Xcalak and ASK (Friends of Sian Ka’an)

• ASK and the community shared common interest in training community members to participate in park management activities and tourism

• fishing cooperatives worked constructively with park officials since Banco Chinchorro (Xcalak’s sister park) was established

• activities between Banco Chinchorro and Xcalak management are synergistic

• local, national, and international research communities continue to provide information to managers and to assist community initiatives

• networks of interested parties from the local to international levels have taken an interest in and provided resources to the park

• slow economic growth in the Costa Maya

Bahía Santa María (BSM)

Public involvement processes helped to foster broader understanding of the importance of management and preservation of the bay’s environment and natural resources. Workshops aided communities and stakeholders to define main issues facing BSM and identify potential alternatives for sustainable management. Resulting was a consensus based Bay Management Programme.

There was a focus on supplemental livelihoods linked to improved resource management. Special attention was paid to the interests of women, who demonstrated great ability to organize and implement village projects and have been eager participants in livelihood training. An important informal network exists among women, a source of information and feedback on acceptability and feasibility of proposed coastal management actions.

CyD (Conservation and Development Trust Fund) is a para-municipal organisation for unifying natural resource management, to be jointly managed with productive sectors and the public. CyD will administer monies and other tangible assets needed for programme progression, support permanent staff and offices, and fund implementation actions. It will advocate for the adoption of municipal ordinances and development plans for execution and recognition of the bay strategy, providing a stream of resources for implementation.

Other instances of good practices developed during the BSM programme include:

128

• management strategy for an ecosystem and watershed – addressing multiple issues outside an official PA, building on existing laws, rules and policies

• continuous collaboration and consensus building – uniting all government levels, civic and resource user groups and citizens in implementing the overall project

• experiments in co-management

• promoting gender equity – building on pre-existing social structures, and recognizing the depth of natural leadership status achieved by many local women

Chetumal Bay

Chetumal Bay was chosen as a geographic focus area for UQROO (University of Quintana Roo), providing a site where it could learn-by-doing in a nearby ecosystem. CCCREM made alliances e.g. RedMIRC (Quintana Roo Coastal Management Network) to strengthen the capacity of universities and the network of local organizations to become involved in joint planning and implementation exercises that support ecosystem maintenance and restoration conserve and promote efficient and integrated use of coastal resources. This will help increase the number of actors interested and active in bay conservation, and increase the possibilities for the emergence of a consensus-based, long term bay plan. RedMIRC also exhibits enforcement through citizen monitoring, and has developed a reputation for outreach and facilitation on coastal issues.

The Resource Cities Programme provides technical assistance in general municipal management, urban services management, and citizen participation. The RCP links cities in the USA with municipalities in Mexico to facilitate exchange of knowledge and practical experiences. In July 2000, a pilot project was designed to partner Chetumal with Sarasota, Florida. Sarasota officials and technical staff assisted Chetumal’s administrators in improving water quality management systems. Sarasota represents successes in restoring degraded water quality and coastal environments. Community participation, political commitment, impact mitigation, and habitat restoration were notably effective. Some techniques can be adapted for Chetumal’s similar issues.

Low-impact tourism

“Guidelines for Low-Impact Tourism along the Coast of Quintana Roo” was designed to serve coastal stakeholders during the process of planning new developments in the coastal zone. The handbook was released in both Spanish and English. It is a tool for incorporating knowledge of coastal processes and applying best management practices, recognizing the strong interdependence between environment and economy. It is also a model that can be used in other sites and situations, and intended to assist investors in selecting construction techniques that would mitigate potential negative environmental impacts. For instance, the cruise ship pier in Mahahual was relocated to avoid coral reef damage. It was erected on pilings, allowing water and sand to continue flowing naturally, located at a headland at a natural break in the barrier reef, thus avoiding dredging.

129

Guidelines became a part of federal policy. Also, good development practices were incorporated into the Costa Maya ecological zoning plan (POET), which is used to plan and regulate land uses and activities within a geographic region according to natural, social, and economic conditions of the region. Developers and government decision makers should have been more involved in designing the Guidelines. This would have aided implementation through raised sense of industry ownership.

Strategic partnerships and capacity building

The seminar series on integrated coastal resources management is a monthly event where specialists from various organizations in the region have the opportunity to make presentations on coastal management. Open to researchers, NGOs, public officials, academics, students and the public it allows questions and debate by many voices.

Experiences generated through CCCEM are reflected in UQROO academic programmes, covering themes such as sustainable development, regional development, tourism, and the environment. Greater interest among students in natural resource issues for academic research or social service requirement has resulted.

130

Sustainable Grenadines Project

Country: GRENADA, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

Project Overview

The Grenadine islands are comprised of over 30 islands with 9 of them being inhabited. These islands lie on a shallow bank which hosts the most extensive coral reef and related habitat in the south-eastern Caribbean. In the Grenadines, marine resources play a vital role in food security, sustaining livelihoods and in cultural and social activities. Therefore for sustainable development to occur there must be a strong emphasis on conservation of these marine resources with community participation and education at the foundation.

There are many problems that need to be addressed in the islands. These include overfishing, nearshore habitat degradation and reduced water quality, unsustainable land use practices and management and recreational abuse of reefs. Sustainable Grenadines aims to strengthen civil society partners within the Grenadines so that they can help bring about change that is equitable and to enable them to play a better role in the conservation of their natural resources.

Objectives

The main goal of the Sustainable Grenadines project is to aid in the formation of integrated sustainable development of the Grenadine Islands for the social and economic well-being of inhabitants. This will be achieved by developing functional participatory co-management structures by facilitating, building civil society capacity and networking with local governments and international agencies.

Outcomes

The project is divided into 2 phases. Phase 1, the exploratory phase, involved research and discussions with various stakeholders in the islands. This included a stakeholder assessment and inventory, the development of a participatory strategic plan for the Grenadines and a proposal for Phase 2. Phase 2, which is the implementation phase, involved the activities listed below:

• planning workshops e.g. Green Schools programme, a water resource usage project and fisherfolk associations

• training workshops in strategic planning and visioning, leadership, conflict management, group facilitation, project development

• attachments and exchanges e.g. marine park monitoring in Soufriere, St. Lucia

131

• small scale projects e.g. coastal enhancement and beautification on several islands and recycling

• associated projects e.g. ReefCheck and the People and Corals project

• communications and networking (e-groups, media releases, newsletters, website)

Training workshops have been found to be an excellent tool that can be used to improve capacity amongst local NGOs. Before training programmes are developed, institutional assessment studies should be conducted to identify needs and skill deficiencies. Workshop delivery should take into consideration the fact that all participants are at different educational levels and should therefore cater to grassroots organizations. They should involve practical, hands-on activities as well as the development of key skills such as proposal writing and accounting. This would prepare them to obtain and effectively employ funds available from international donor agencies. Local expertise should be utilized.

Where possible, duplication of training workshops should be avoided through linkages with other initiatives or projects offering similar training. This promotes prudent use of scarce resources. SusGren and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants Programme’s “Strengthening Environmental Stewardship among Stakeholders in the Grenadines Project” decided to combine their training programmes. Such synergies, where applicable, should be exploited to help to reduce costs, combine similar efforts and reduce conflict.

During the project, it has been recognized that the NGOs are not using the training workshops as an opportunity to grow by seeking training and funding opportunities. This highlights the need for projects to be adaptable and flexible to meet the needs of the stakeholders. However, to maintain flexibility, there must be open communication between the stakeholders and project managers in order to re-assess needs and adjust the project appropriately. Stakeholder workshops have been the forum for providing guidance on the way forward for the project but also serve to highlight a variety of issues faced by the community. They give the project a better understanding of community behaviors as they relate to successful small scale project execution and the implementation of the project as a whole.

Sharing information and experiences

This project gives leaders of organizations an opportunity to get practical experience by providing attachments to successful projects. This benefits smaller organizations through experience gained by staff and also creates a forum for linkages and exchange of information and skills between groups. Attachments to date included water taxi training, marine park monitoring and trail development in the Soufriere Marine Management Area (SMMA), a sea moss farming project in Union Island, St. Vincent and historic park development in St. Kitts.

Small scale and associated projects

132

NGOs were provided with funds (approximately US$2000) to implement a small scale project. This created an opportunity to build capacity while accomplishing visible results. Skills learned in these projects include proposal development, project implementation, and accounting, monitoring and reporting. These skills can be used to undertake larger projects and prepare proposals for funding from larger donors. Some projects included a waterway rehabilitation project, institutional strengthening for Carriacou Environmental Committee, coastal enhancement and beautification on several islands, and recycling.

By developing partnerships with local and international agencies, SusGren sought to create linkages within the Grenadines, and help NGOs to develop projects with international donors by adopting a facilitative role. This involved liaising with local and international partners, identifying potential project activities, providing information, and helping to ensure sustainability of inputs. Other potential roles would be sourcing matching funds and the provision of office space. Thus far, some of the projects include the school-based People and Corals project, ReefCheck and the Grenadines Water Taxi project.

Communications and networking

As the Grenadines are a series of islands divided between two independent governments, communication between islands is vital for cooperative conservation. Having well informed stakeholders is also essential to reach the goal of successful co-management. SusGren has four major channels of communication. These are:

1. a quarterly newsletter giving updates on project activities and related issues in the Grenadines and the Caribbean region

2. an internet discussion group (Yahoo e-group) where news, events and issues are discussed and debated

3. various media releases to newspapers, television and radio stations in both countries

4. a project website also providing updates, which is linked through the University of the West Indies website

Public relations are important to educating stakeholders of the available opportunities. Utilizing the various forms of media and other forms of communication must continue to be explored.

Phase 3 of SusGren is currently being pursued and will seek to develop large partnerships and activities such as full sized GEF projects. It will also seek to create a wide range of funding alternatives mainly from the government, private sector and international donors. It is hoped that eventually the Grenadines will be considered a World Heritage Site which will provide further incentive for the people and government to work towards sustainability.

133

Report On the Status of Marine Protected Areas in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States

Country: UNITED STATES (PUERTO RICO, FLORIDA)

Project Overview

The Florida reef extends approximately 530km from the shore from the Dry Tortugas to the Saint Lucie inlet. The reefs provide over $1.9 billion per year in income from 71000 jobs. This heavily utilised area is rich in biodiversity, with many endangered species and habitats. In Puerto Rico, the 620km coastline is surrounded by over 5000km2 of shallow reef, with a population of 3.8 million on an island with high coastal migration. Impacts of coastal development, land based sources of pollution, ghost fishing gear and physical damage from anchoring and touching have severely degraded these reefs. As a result, the U.S. government formed a number of parks and protected areas. In 1990, the decision was made in Florida to form a single, comprehensive management area. This area became the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) which is cooperatively managed by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) along with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Puerto Rico’s government formed 35 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) occupying about 25% of its jurisdictional waters, primarily managed by DNEP (Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources).

Objectives

The objective of the report is to “conduct and support nationwide, state and territory assessments of the effectiveness and gaps in the existing system of U.S. Coral Reef MPAs”. It identifies the activities, classifications, challenges, recommendations of MPAs within the U.S. jurisdiction.

Outcomes

Within the FKNMS, there are over 200 water quality monitoring stations. There is also the large scale FWC Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project (CREMP) initiated in 1996. The results of this programme show a decline in number of species at 70% of the monitoring sites. In Puerto Rico, results have shown that over 50% of living coral has been lost within the past 50 years and the rate of loss has risen within the past 20 years. Other monitoring initiatives include fish census and landings data collection and various monitoring programmes for key species e.g. sea birds, manatees. Both areas recognize the importance of zoning, especially in heavily populated coastal areas where the balance between key habitats and human development has to be established. This has resulted in the formation of 82 MPAs (and numerous manatee speed zones) which fall into 8 categories in Florida, and 35 Puerto Rican MPAs which are divided into 3 categories. These were formed based on current threats and impacts, ecosystem health and biodiversity, development and current use.

134

Lessons learned and best practices

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNEP) have established a wide array of management tools throughout their jurisdictions which have proven successful in many sites. Some of their practices are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Zoning

There are currently eight types of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the FKNMS:

1. fisheries areas

2. manatee safety havens and speed zones

3. critical wildlife areas

4. outstanding Florida waters

5. surface water improvement and management areas

6. wildlife management areas

7. state parks

8. aquatic preserves

Creating a wide variety of MPAs allows managers to take into consideration the characteristics of the physical and human environment and apply various management options specific to the needs of the areas. An example of this is the use of state parks. In areas with important natural resources that are heavily used for recreation, state parks can be created to offer resource-based recreation while simultaneously interpreting and securing the preservation and restoration of natural and cultural resources. This allows the use of recreation activities that do not negatively impact the environment. It also creates an opportunity for educational programmes to be incorporated within recreation in activities such as nature walks, birding tours, estuary walks, kayak tours, glass bottom boat tours, and lecture series. In sensitive areas where recreational use would be detrimental to key species, the establishment of critical wildlife areas allows managers to prohibit access to certain areas that are vital to birds. In some locations which are highly susceptible to the threat of pollution, the establishment of outstanding Florida waters reduces the amount of pollution entering an area through licensing and permits. Such classified areas are typically found within MPAs with sensitive coastal habitats.

135

Research and monitoring

Research and monitoring should be a vital part of any management programme. It is an important first step to identify key areas in the physical, biological and social environment where management is most needed. Initial stock assessments revealed that many of the commercial fish stocks fell below federal sustainability standards. One of these species, the goliath grouper, was identified and as a result the fishery was closed in 1990-1992. Monitoring has revealed that since then, there has been a recovery in many of the stocks. There have also been an increase in the size and abundance of other grouper species after the Tortugas Ecological Reserve was established. Studies have also shown similar trends in lobster and other fish species. Human- dimension monitoring is also vital and has been used in areas such as the manatee speed zones to reduce costs by increasing voluntary compliance.

Community participation

Involvement of and cooperation between government organizations offers a wide range of benefits. These include professional biological expertise, a forum for information sharing and a strong legislative foundation. Collaborating with the local commercial fishing community and NGOs also provides other invaluable benefits such as reduced monitoring and enforcement costs. In 2005, the Florida Oceanographic Society’s Martin County Reef Research Dive Team orchestrated a trust fund which resulted in:

▪ locating and mapping marine debris (anchors and old fishing gear)

▪ organizing the removal of debris

▪ forming a debris hotline for residents to notify the team of debris locations

▪ identifying debris hotspots

▪ set up a long term monitoring programme

▪ creating and distributing educational brochures with information on the park boundaries

Networking and inter-agency cooperation

FKNMS spans an extensive area and has a diversity of MPAs which are managed by numerous agencies. With so many entities, it is difficult to create a comprehensive, statewide network of MPAs. Therefore communication and networking is a must in this type of scenario to ensure effective and cohesive management. Organisations must commit to establishing partnerships with other management agencies and identify synergies where possible. One step the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) is undertaking is the development of 3 – 6 new management plans for individual sites. The rationale behind this project is to create plans with a more singular, statewide perspective which will also identify the major site-specific issues at each MPA. 136

In Puerto Rico, the Biodiversity Conservation Initiative is an example of how interagency cooperation can be used to improve coral reef management. Recognizing the link between land- based activities and the coastal ecosystems, the DNEP, the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have joined the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s International Institute of Tropical Forestry in this initiative.

This step provides a forum for information and data sharing and for collaboration on key decision-making processes in MPA management and biology conservation.

Public support and awareness

Through review of the effectiveness of Florida’s MPAs, the need for more public support was recognized as a critical issue to be addressed at some MPA sites. However, it was noted at some sites that strong public support and increased awareness posed a challenge as this caused increased usage in some parks thus placing pressure on its management resources. Also, some sites complained that because of awareness, persons were more critical of some of the management steps since they did not understand the rationale behind the activities.

With strong public support, benefits such as ownership and increased compliance can be obtained by MPA managers. Local communities in Puerto Rico have been involved in the development of management plans in areas such as the Canal Luis Peña Natural Reserve and the Arrecifes de la Cordillera Natural Reserve. FKNMS has created policy which permits the public to provide input before the majority of MPAs are established. The establishment of state parks requires a public meeting where community members can provide input on how the park should be used. A second public meeting is also required after a draft management plan is developed and persons can become members of an advisory group which is involved in development and review of new management plans.

In cases where the community initiates interest in management, government should put special effort into working with the communities to develop management programmes in the area. In Culebra, Puerto Rico, local fishers began to recognize the problems their reefs were facing and began to lobby for support for an MPA around Culebra. The federal and local governments are working together with local Culebra fishers association, NGOs and researchers to develop a management plan in Culebra. This was the first MPA in Puerto Rico to be originally petitioned by the fishers and the first to have a no-take zone as part of the Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations. This process adopted a bottom-up approach which has ignited interest in other communities to initiate other management efforts and its lessons learned are being applied to the design of other MPA plans in Puerto Rico.

137

5. Asia-Pacific – GEF projects

Biodiversity Conservation and Management of the Bohol Islands Marine Triangle Project

Country: PHILIPPINES

Project Overview

This project was scheduled for completion in December 2006. A progress report in June 2006 rated it as highly satisfactory and provides a good account of the near final outcomes of the project.

The project objectives were to improve conservation and sustainability of biodiversity resources of the Bohol Sea in southern central Philippines. The approach was to strengthen management and enforcement through enhancing local government capacities, engaging with local communities and developing alternative incomes to reduce pressures on and increase understanding of the values of marine biodiversity.

The Bohol Sea lies between Cebu, Negros and Mindanao Provinces in the Southern Central Philippines and abuts the Sulu Sulawesi Marine traiangle at the heart of the area of highest global coral and marine biodiversity. It is an area where local communities have a high degree of dependence on marine resources. Core elements of the project were establishment of municipally managed marine protected areas, strengthening local government capacity, increasing compliance and enforcement of regulations, improving quality and availability of data for establishing sustainability of uses and reducing the incidence of damaging and destructive activities affecting the marine environment and resources. At its conclusion the project was rated as satisfactory with highly satisfactory outcomes in terms of reef health and generally satisfactory outcomes in terms of community engagement in alternative activities such as reef tourism and of increase fish catch in areas surrounding the Marine National Park.

Lessons Learned

The final progress report identified 3 specific lessons. a. Learning/study tours are an effective strategy for achieving desired behavioural change, increased awareness and informed decisions for management. On site tours provided hands on experience and helpful insights for participants b. Economic valuation of the resources was a good management tool and key landmark for 138 developing management plans. It was replicated in neighbouring sites and is recommended as an initial baseline activity for other projects. c. Considerable time was lost through conflicts over organizational management and implementation structure. These were not thoroughly discussed and agreed beforehand and were thus a source of ambiguity in project implementation.

139

Coral Reef Restoration and Management Program (COREMAP)

Country: INDONESIA

Project Overview

This large 15 year project is in the second phase of implementation. Initial implementation between 1998 and 2001 coincided with a period of major political and administrative change in Indonesia that caused delays and changed some underlying assumptions concerning means of program delivery. A substantial review of the first phase was undertaken by IUCN This concluded that despite the delays and altered context the project was sufficiently successful to justify the second phase which is currently continuing. The initial phase worked with four pilot sites and achieved satisfactory outcomes in community based management, national level public communications and establishing the basis for an ongoing training program.

Indonesian waters form much of the South China Sea biodiversity hotspot and its coral reefs and related ecosystems are socially and economically critical because they are the source of natural resources that underpin the food supply and economic options for many of the poorest people, particularly in provinces remote from major cities. The management seeks to conserve, restore and sustainably use the biological diversity of coral reefs through protected areas and community based management. Phase 1 had 4 pilot sites another and a further 9 sites have been added for phase 2.

Program concept and design

The program concept is ambitious but needs to be so given the scale of challenges in Indonesia. The approach of starting with a small pilot sites that were selected on the basis of apparent readiness to address the issues was sound. The design was based on the expectation that there would not be capacity to sustain substantial devolution of responsibilities to the Provincial or local levels until the third phase which would start in the 10th year of the program. In the event, political and administrative changes mandated earlier and broader devolution of local policy, administrative and financial responsibilities. Although the concept and design are sound they have been somewhat overshadowed by a process of local capacity development for a broad range of newly devolved responsibilities.

The initial design had a network of Coral Reef Training and Information Centres (CRITC) as a core component of program implementation at the national and site levels with roles of research. Monitoring, training and providing access to information .

140

Program Delivery

The IUCN review identified a number of issues of limited management capability and poor integration of the various components of the program that are logically locate in a range of agencies of central and other levels of government. . These resulted to a considerable extent from the practice of filling positions, even senior positions, with part time staff. This was addressed with the appointment of a Director and four part time Assistant Directors in 2001.

The administrative agency nominated in the process of project design was LIPI the national research agency which did not have experience in management of such a large and dispersed program as COREMAP. The IUCN review found that delays in implementation could be attributed to unrealistic design assumptions concerning the capacity to manage and to the high turnover of part time staff.

A significant political and administrative change was the creation in 1998 of the Ministry of fisheries and Island Affairs (DKP) whose functions clearly included those of the COREMAP. The responsibility for Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) and Community Based Management was passed from LIPI to DKP.

The design was based on COREMAP providing training on an ongoing basis with a significant role for the Coral Reef Training and Information Centres. In the event each donor or lender component had its own training element. The majority of training was provided through an AusAID Capability Building and Training sub-project with a Training Coordinating Unit created within the Project Management Office and working with regional agencies to develop a well structured training management process from needs assessment to evaluation..

Project Implementation

Community-based Management

A key element was the creation of a provincial or district COREMAP management committees or pokjas. The village communities associated with each site had their own committees to prepare coral reef management plans which must subsequently receive district approval. The capacities of the pokjas and village committees vary but each pokja had some committed staff with a good understanding of project objectives. The village committees selected motivators and The Community Based Management component of the program appointed NGO facilitators. The CBM programs were broadly successful but the strength of the programs and the arrangements for delivery at each site differed reflecting the local community operating context and typically the leadership of individuals and their capacity to build community support for and ownership of the program.

141

Training and Capacity Building

The capacity of COREMAP staff is generally limited. There has been substantial success in delivering training but the needs, the challenges of operating in remote locations, the range of skills training needed for specific tasks and the number of people needing training are great. As the first phase progressed, there was increasingly effective coordination of training activities, with other COREMAP components increasingly drawing on Training Coordination Unit for logistics and delivery of training.

A matter of particular importance is appropriate public information and training to develop understanding, support and capacities at the local community level. The Training Coordinating Unit had started to focus on this issue at the end of phase 1.

Research, Monitoring, Coordination and Surveillance

This is the core role of the Coral Reef Training and Information Centres (CRITC). The program carried out a number of useful studies and established monitoring of reef health, community based fisheries and socioeconomic settings. Nevertheless the review reported evidence of excessive collection of non-essential data with consequent wastage of resources and loss of enthusiasm and accuracy by data collectors.

The review also noted the constraint of lack of trained staff, particularly in regional centres and advised that the MCS and CRITC elements of the program should cooperate to minimize costs and complexity of data collection and to focus only on those activities that have a direct bearing on achieving COREMAP objectives.

Between site comparisons

These are difficult because of the substantially different histories, ethnic cultures and context of the sites ranging fro Taka Bonerate which has been the focus of a major western modeled MPA and has an established tourism industry of growing importance to Biak in Papua with substantially intact traditional practices and traditions recognizing the importance of the marine environment.

Valuable progress has been made in the different contexts of each of the first four sites.

Lessons Learned

It is important to reinforce the challenges and positive outcomes from effective community engagement in a range of different contexts.

The contribution of leadership through committed, motivated and peer respected individuals at all levels is indispensable.

142

The long haul nature of a program of significant change requires program capacity to adapt and respond to changing circumstances.

The scarcity and difficulty of retaining skilled people, particularly at remote centres, causes problems for project capacity and sustainability.

Development of effective and relevant staff and community knowledge and skills in the face of competing policy priorities is a serious challenge.

Administering multiple donor inputs, reporting and accounting systems is a burden on available skilled staff.

143

Coral Reef Restoration and Management Program Phase II (COREMAP II)

Country: INDONESIA

Project Overview

Indonesian seas are a center of global coral reef biodiversity covering approximately 25,700 km2 equivalent to about 10% of the world’s coral reef area. Indonesia is also the coral biodiversity center of the world with about 70 genera and 450 species of corals.

However, the Indonesian coastal resources have not been managed sustainably. Coastal resource exploitation has led to extensive coastal resource degradation, primarily through the destruction of coral reefs and associated seagrass and mangrove ecosystems, depletion of fish stocks, water pollution and biodiversity loss. Many coral reefs have been damaged mainly due intensive human activities such as over fishing, sedimentation, coral mining, blast and cyanide fishing and pollution. Since 1994, global warming and associated coral bleaching, plus increased reliance on coastal fishing, have further damaged the nation’s reefs. The coastal environment has been further affected by land-based activities. Watershed deforestation and erosion have led to increased sedimentation on fringing coral reefs. Urban wastes and runoff containing chemicals and pesticides from agricultural land have polluted coastal waters.

Coral reef degradation and environmental problems in the coastal zone have affected the livelihoods of coastal people, particularly small-scale (artisanal) fishers. Often on the coasts and small islands, livelihood options are limited. Largely due to population growth, decreased availability of farmland and uncontrolled access to fisheries resources, artisanal fishing becomes the occupation of last resort for many rural people. Consequently, the number of coastal fishers has increased by more than 40% over the past decade. Because of a deteriorating fisheries resource base, fish catch per unit of effort has been steadily declining, often adversely affecting incomes. The average income of coastal fishers is below the national average level.

In order to cope with the mentioned problems, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) has established a national Coral Reef Rehabilitation Program (COREMAP) as a priority program. A framework of national coral reef management strategies, Fisheries Law No. 31 and a proposed national coastal management bill were developed to help define and drive forward Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) and other implementing agencies efforts, policies and strategies.

The Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP)

COREMAP is Indonesia’s largest investment in coral reef management. Envisaged as a 15 year program, it is supported by Government of Indonesia (GOI) funds and support from several external donors including Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank (WB), Global Environment Facility (GEF), and Australian Assistance (AusAid). 144

COREMAP Phase I was initiated in 1997 as a pilot program, where a variety of approaches were implemented in villages in Lingga, Kepulauan Riau Province; Taka Bone Rate Marine National Park, Selayar District, South Sulawesi; Biak District, Papua and Maumere Bay - Sikka District, East Nusa Tenggara. Due to delays in commencement and relocation due to local unrest, Phase I was extended to October 2003. COREMAP Phase II (COREMAP) started from 2004 until 2009 for COREMAP II in Sumatra and from mid 2005 to 2010 for COREMAP II in Eastern Indonesia.

COREMAP has three goals: 1) Insure biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of coral reefs and related ecosystems 2) Strengthen the capacity of communities and local institutions to manage coral reef and related ecosystems 3) Lower the incidence of poverty in the Program’s coastal communities

Insure Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs and Related Ecosystems

COREMAP is promoting Community Based Marine Sanctuary and Marine Management Areas (MMAs), in conjunction with other fisheries management initiatives as the best way to conserve biodiversity and provide long-term economic benefit to coastal communities. COREMAP intends to place 10% of coral reef and related ecosystems in no-take-zones by 2010. This complies with the recommendations “10/10” as the vision of the MMAF. “10 percent of the reef area in the project site will be fully protected by 2010 and 10 million Ha of marine ecosystem will be conserved”. Selection criteria and design of COREMAP MMAs will follow adaptive management practices. Coastal communities have been involved in such practices since the beginning of the formulation of community coral reef management planning process.

MMAF has the authority to establish Fisheries Reserves (Suaka Perikanan) and Community Based Marine Sanctuaries (Daerah Perlindungan Laut (DPL)). COREMAP supports establishment of these reserves in locations that are strategic to long-term sustainable fishery management. For example, spawning sites for grouper may be suitable for establishment of protected zones by district decree. COREMAP provides resources for the establishment, marking and management of such reserves. Optimally these reserves will be sufficiently large for target species to complete their daily, seasonal and annual movement patterns within the boundaries of the reserves.

Fishers will be engaged in dialogue which clarifies the increasing fisher benefit of setting aside areas as MMA’s and will be given incentives if the areas approach 10% coverage of coral reefs and associated ecosystems. In addition to permanent no-take zones, communities will be given tools to monitor relative benefits of different management regimes.

Strengthen the Capacity of Communities and Local Institutions to Manage Coral 145

Reef and Related Ecosystems

COREMAP socializing to each district government, district Houses of Representatives (DPRD) and key community members to the benefits of giving authority to manage the coral reefs and related ecosystems to communities. A key output from COREMAP will be the initiation of authority to manage, using traditional tenure rights or local legislation. Within all areas, the possibility for authority to be given to communities will be socialized to coastal communities in the initial socialization, information delivery and baseline Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs). COREMAP will then support communities wishing to undertake Community Based Management (CBM) to assess, prioritize and zone the resources they traditionally use with the district marine area. COREMAP also facilitates improved communication and coordination between communities surrounding or using common coastal resources.

Each community that is interested in undertaking better management is facilitated to do so through a comprehensive support program. COREMAP allocates resources to these communities to ensure their management plans can be implemented. Simple inclusive baseline and monitoring systems are being developed. Trainings are carried out and manta tows, visual fish census and later fixed transects established inside and outside no-take zones.

In the districts, day to day management is undertaken by associated Project Management Units (PMUs) in the east and Project Implementation Units (PIUs) under the Fisheries Agency. The PMUs/PIUs are resourced to provide full support to activities at the field level. In addition, there is a National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU) for coral reef information and training (CRITC) at the Indonesia Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and NPIU for managing the existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) at the Ministry of Forestry’s Directorate General of Forest Protection and Conservation (PHKA).

Lower the Incidence of Poverty in the Program’s Coastal Communities

COREMAP seeks to demonstrate that sustainable reef fisheries management is beneficial to local fishers. Community MMAs can demonstrate fisheries benefits from between hundreds of meters to several km from boundaries. This overspill effect will start to appear within 1 to 2 years for fast growing species.

The Program seeks to address the problem of destructive fishing through social sanctions and effective enforcement. Two results are expected to occur; (1) the costs of destructive fishing will increase, and (2) destructive fishing will become increasingly socially unacceptable. Through the reduction of destructive fishing activity and establishment of MPAs, communities will be able to maximize the high-value reef species.

COREMAP helps support community savings organizations and the provision of microcredit. COREMAP also helps community members try an innovation or alternative income generating activity. Initiatives will be analyzed from a technical and financial perspective with an environmental and social impact assessment. Any activity that passes the WB and ADB safeguards framework and viability analysis can apply for finance. Small grants may be given to 146 test the activity. If successful, a scaling up will be possible using part grant, part finance from the group or individual. Larger scaling up will be conditional upon external finance based on commercial criteria.

COREMAP has established a public awareness team to support the implementation of each element of the program. Coherent and constructive messages are being developed for each target group and will be applied at the community, district and provincial levels in order to gain support for sustainable coral reef management.

Monitoring and Data Analysis

Three tiers of monitoring are undertaken in COREMAP. Interested community members are trained in simple monitoring techniques such as manta tows and visual census of key fish species as well as watch the destructive fishing and report back to enforcement officials.

MMAF and its vertical line agencies at district levels intensify its fisher, vessel and gear registration and undertake periodic catch per effort and catch per area monitoring. MMAF is also responsible to carry out the management monitoring and evaluation such as procurement process, financial disbursement and physical implementation to achieved annual targets.

A national team under the Indonesian Institute of Science (IIS) has been formed to allow scientific monitoring to be undertaken on a regular basis. This will serve two functions; to produce standardized results from each COREMAP district, and act as a quality assurance for the community based monitoring. IIS is also coordinating ecological and socio-economic assessments to monitor the benefit of project intervention to community groups, district programs and national goals.

Baseline data and information such as Rapid Ecological Assessments are being incorporated in district level databases held in the districts and at MMAF. Sea partnership is being developed so that university research, NGO and dive operator research will all be added to each district’s Coral Reef Information and Training Center (CRITC), located at the district headquarters.

Challenges and Experience

Management interventions such as closure of part of a fishery tend to be vigorously rejected by fishers, as they perceive the loss will be theirs alone. Within the scenario of falling yields and declining environmental condition experienced throughout the COREMAP sites, the Project is vigorously socializing what happens when communities undertake effective management.

Many coastal villagers oppose halting coral mining activities since they do not have alternative livelihoods or building materials.

Funding release may not suit the weather and west monsoon season whilst monitoring is in certain period. 147

The results of data analysis are not easily understood by decision makers who are bureaucrats and/or politicians. In Nias and South Nias districts, politicians at the local parliament have not approved their local funding since they do not understand the importance of the reefs.

External factors such as increased oil price lead to altered fishing activities, and villagers harvest mangrove to substitute oil for fire wood and to sell for income. The COREMAP Public Awareness Program is increasingly focused on behavioral change outcomes. In addition to continuing the use of the COREMAP logo and brands, there will be an increasing focus on fisheries benefit of coral reefs, especially at the community level.

Through early consultation throughout each district, COREMAP will assist the community to undertake improved management of their reefs. Specific messages will be prepared for each target group at the community, district, province and national level. The media will be engaged as a partner of COREMAP to participate in activities, report progress and disseminate successes or failures promptly and fully. The media will be indispensable in promoting effective prosecution of offenders.

Lessons Learned

• Institutions managing COREMAP II should be permanent - not ad hoc groups – with full time committed staff.

• There must be a good structure to coordinate and communicate between district government agencies, provincial and national government agencies, NGOs and other stakeholders.

• Local stakeholders should be involved from the earliest stage, understand the program and receive clearly identifiable benefits from coral reef protection (e.g., better fisheries production, ecotourism, etc.).

• Community Based Management (CBM) activities should be the central theme. CBM should be implemented in locations with firm commitment such as to provide local funding, professional personnel and facilities, and to develop legal frameworks.

• Cooperation should be developed with related donor programs and groups (e.g., private sector, local and international NGOs).

• Coral Reef Management Plans need to be developed at local level in a transparent manner, accepted by the community, local stakeholders and government and then legalized.

• Public awareness and should focus on priority stakeholders at the national, regional and project site levels with appropriate means of communications.

148

• Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance (MCS) should have low operating costs, village level participation and feed into an enforcement/ judicial system supported by appropriate laws.

• Training and education programs should include formal, informal and non-formal from grass root levels to national levels. Coral reefs and associated ecosystem curricula mast be part of primary, junior and high school education program.

• CRITC information and research should be practical with the results made available at all stakeholder levels.

• Flexibility is needed at all levels allowing for modification of component design during implementation.

• Success indicators should be easily understood and measurable with monitoring conducted regularly and results made public. Management and monitoring functions should be separated.

• COREMAP is to establish MPAs under different management systems in each Program district. Improved management systems are needed for marine parks and no-take-zones for local fishers benefit that are effectively managed across Indonesia. Through developing systems that allow effective implementation in 15 districts, COREMAP will demonstrate locally and nationally the benefit to fishers of coral reef and related ecosystem protection and automatically maintain biodiversity conservation.

• COREMAP’s intent is to demonstrate the medium-term economic benefit of district level sustainable reef fisheries management by allocating sufficient resources to allow monitoring of change attributable to Project interventions.

• Community based management has triggered collective actions of communities to prevent their reefs from destructive fishing. After two years of project intervention, several coastal villagers have set aside 10% of their reefs to be fully protected and use the rest 90% of their reefs in a sustainable manner.

• Successful examples of community village based marine sanctuary already exist such as established in Abang Island-Batam where the community combats destructive fishing activities; can be replicated to other villages. Coastal community in Arborek Island, and Maumere Bay-Sikka has benefited from seaweed farming, hence they changed their habits from destructive fishers to protect their reefs from intruders.

Replication

149

The establishment of networks of Community Based DPL as has been successfully demonstrated in Abang Island – Batam, will be replicated to other projects sites, especially for key high quality coral reefs of the project sites.

Significance

This experience is significant to GEF because the project conserves the reefs in the Coral Triangle for global benefits - not only for Indonesians. The reefs have interconnectivity with other reefs across large marine ecosystems and countries such as Sulu Sulawesi Large Marine Ecosystem in three countries: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

150

Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve's Coastal Biodiversity

Country: SRI LANKA

Introduction

The project is at the initial stages of implementation. It is difficult to tease out underlying issues because the initial years of the project have been dominated by substantial logistical and coordination challenges in the establishment of arrangements, staff recruitment and training, and routine management operation for the project.

The concept of joint management of the Bio-Resources of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere region with the strong co-operation of local fisherfolk reflects lessons learned about the need to involve local affected human communities.

The management seeks to protect biological diversity through a Biosphere reserve and National Park; to reduce human pressure on biodiversity through diversification to livelihood alternatives and to develop a community and government partnership approach to sustainability of development and biodiversity.

A significant driver of pressure on biodiversity comes from pressures on poor fishermen with bad debts to fish buyers that oblige the debtors to supply fish at values much less than open market. A key element of the project is provision of access to micro-credit that should enable bad debts to be retired and the pressure for severe overfishing to be reduced.

The report indicates that progress was achieved with mapping, data collection, research program development and inputs to planning.

A key element of the project is working with fishing villages so that they are formed into organized entities called eco-development committees (EDCs). Development and adoption of suitable alternative employment options will be carried out by the EDCs with the assistance of the local NGOs. By 2004, 40 of the projected 50 EDCs had been established. The EDCs can access a revolving fund from which the self help groups can get soft loans for undertaking the alternative livelihood initiatives and value addition techniques.

A problem underlying the management of the project is the scarcity of potential employees with the skill and education levels required through the project design. The staff is mainly deputed from the Forest, Fisheries and Rural Development departments of the Tamil Nadu state government. Their capabilities do not match those proposed in the project document. In particular specialist positions like Biodiversity Programme Officer, Marine Biologist, or Sociologist are not filled because staff with these skills are not available in the government departments. 151

From the materials available the projects appears within a reasonable track for this early stage. Challenges will include acquiring and applying social, economic and scientific technical capacity to create a balanced and broadly accepted institutional basis for longer term sustainability of biological diversity and development.

152

Atoll Ecosystem-Based Conservation of Globally Significant Biological Diversity in the Maldives’ Baa Atoll

Project Overview

The project started in 2005 and is due to run until 2009. It is in the early mid point of implementation. The basis is development and implementation of a plan of management that will serve as a working model for ecosystem based management for conservation, sustainable use and developing economic opportunities for the people of atolls of the Republic of Maldives.

Project Objectives

There are 3 main elements to the design of the project:

- Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation objectives into sectoral institutions, policies and programs and reinforcing multi-sectoral fora; - Conserving biodiversity in the water and on the ground by establishing protected areas and managing them through innovative national/local practices and public/private partnerships; and - Alternative livelihoods to relieve livelihood related pressures on biodiversity.

Project Outcomes

Mainstreaming – The project is working with 5 key ministries. Biodiversity measures have been drafted into tourism regulations, 13 Atoll people have been trained to develop island development plans incorporating a biodiversity perspective. One plan completed others under development. Multi sectoral working groups established on ecotourism and national development planning.

Conserving- 1 island and surrounding reef declared as MPA, awareness sessions held for Baa atoll communities and trainers to incorporate biodiversity issues into development plans, tourist resorts active in some conservation activities

Alternative livelihoods – 2 people from each of the islands of Baa atoll trained in recognition of incorporation of biodiversity issues into land use and island development planning.

Reflections on progress

The project has been hampered initially by delays in finding suitable staff and then by the 2004 Tsunami which resulted in several months of major redirection of policy priorities and skilled personnel. Progress has been made recently but a limiting factor is continuing lack of trained personnel at the national and atoll levels. This is exacerbated by the difficulty of recruiting foreign consultants and advisors for lengthy projects. These issues are being addressed by other 153 programs but the demand for and mobility of trained personnel is such that shortage of available killed personnel will be an ongoing issue.

The working group comprising personnel from the Environment, Fisheries and Tourism Ministries and Baa Atoll administration is developing an integrated approach. It is demonstrating local leadership and involving island communities in development of plans.

A revision in 2006 of UNDP policy on Atolls Development Fund micro credit has resulted in a decision not to establish a micro-credit scheme for Baa Atoll. This significantly increases the challenge of building and maintaining community support for the project.

Lessons Learned

• Generic challenge of skilled staff availability.

• Some local leadership and support with potential for participatory plan development and implementation.

• Future program delivery and community engagement may be inhibited by lack of a micro- credit scheme to fund alternative livelihoods.

154

Community-based Coastal and Marine Conservation in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea

Country: PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Project Overview

The project is a ten year intervention, divided into two phases with three different geographic zone areas. It started in 2003 and has a focus on mitigating the threats to marine biodiversity through the establishment of community managed protected areas and building capacities at the provincial, local and ward committee level governments, It is conducted in partnership with Conservation International which has made a commitment to the project equivalent to more than 50% of the GEF investment.

Project Objectives

1. Outcome 1 An enabling environment for marine conservation and near-shore resource management is established at the Provincial, Local Level Government and Ward levels

2. A representative network of community-based marine conservation and sustainable nearshore resource management areas is established

3. An environmental education program and conservation awareness activities are imparting marine conservation values and resource management skills to students in formal and informal settings (elementary, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools, church schools)

4. Conservation objectives are overlaid into land use strategies on densely populated small islands

Project Outcomes

The project made valuable progress working with local communities and institutions in its early years. It has involved 22 indigenous communities across 6 main language groups, raised awareness of protected area and sustainability, established a Community Coast Care Program and created 2 new financial mechanisms for MPA and sustainable use interventions. It has identified demonstrations of good practice in sustainable land-use systems.

155

Reflections on implementation and progress

Initial establishment progress has been reasonable. The project has subsequently been severely affected by conflicts between financial operating systems of Conservation International, the implementing NGO and UNDP, the GEF executing agency. It has also been hampered by lack of capacity in relevant operational agencies of the provincial government.

These matters have caused a number of serious operational uncertainties including delays in the implementation of field work, inadequate security of staff and property, and erosion of community support because of failure to address claims of inequitable distribution of the benefits of the project and a perception that MPAs do not benefit households.

Lessons Learned

That failure to establish an effective integration of financial systems between implementing and GEF Executing agencies poses a major threat to effective implementation and maintenance of community engagement in a coral reef project.

156

Mindanao Rural Development Project

Country: PHILIPPINES

Project Overview

This completed project was rated as satisfactory. The completion report provides a good account of conduct and outcome of the project.

Project Objectives

The project objectives was to mainstream marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in coastal zone development through”

• Establishing community managed marine protected areas • Strengthening local capacity to manage marine ecosystems • Enhancing the knowledge base for management • Developing and mainstreaming policy and action plans in coastal development plans

The management seeks to protect biological diversity through community based managed MPAs, reducing human pressure on biodiversity, diversification of livelihood alternatives and developing community and government partnerships for sustainability of development and biodiversity.

The project was sited in a predominantly Muslim with significant security problems arising from tensions of views of management of issues affecting a religious minority in the national context and the presence of alleged rebel groups. The project experienced significant difficulties in finding appropriate culturally sensitive staff prepared to operate in such a context.

The project timelines were hampered by unanticipated delays flowing from national political issues, through unexpected change of the President in 2001 and elections in 2004.

Lessons Learned

The termination report identified 6 specific lessons. These are broadly similar to those of other projects but highlighted by the particular operational tensions applying in Mindanao:

1. A stronger link between resource conservation and management and local economic priorities (poverty alleviation and food security), through well-chosen conservation-oriented income-generating activities, is necessary to ensure success and sustainability. 157

2. Institution building at the community level in support of conservation and natural resource management initiatives is a time-consuming and challenging effort, especially for two project sites that have varied cultural orientations and traditions. It is beneficial to develop "champions" who will pursue the initiatives started under the project after assistance has terminated.

3. Culture should be understood and recognized, especially in Mindanao where feudal relations of the Datu (leaders) are still deeply-rooted and influential in defining power relations in the community. Practices, beliefs and traditions of multi-cultural/religious groupings in the area must be appreciated, respected and taken into consideration in the implementation of project interventions.

4. A conducive policy framework and effective institutional arrangement is essential to successful NRM. A way should be found to harmonize and reconcile pertinent sections of various laws (e.g., the Local Government Code, the Fisheries Code, the NIPAS, and the Wildlife Act) on protected area establishment where government agencies have overlapping concerns. Establishing protected areas following the NIPAS process is time-consuming and challenging to LGUs in terms of procedural and time requirements – the costs are heavy and the amount of time needed to complete the process is beyond the three-year regular term of a local chief executive. Where there is more than one implementing agency involving different stakeholders, such as the CMBC, more effort should be made to create an atmosphere of respect, trust and cooperation among all actors through team building, continuous dialogue, and practice of transparency and consistency.

5. The key to effective and sustained implementation of projects is the employment of sustainable mechanisms from the start, especially at the municipal level, and, if possible, during the project design stage. This entails a comprehensive review of the LGU bureaucracy, and determination of existing projects, units/projects that may be used as vehicles for the new project, so as not to create more layers and ad hoc teams. Project sustainability has a greater chance of prospering when, at the start; management is lodged within a regular office of the government. It may have been more strategic to strengthen the municipal planning office or the municipal ENR office where budget can be assured and activities are linked with local development planning. A multi-agency task force, such as the MCT, created solely for the project usually disbands by the end of the project because it is not organic to existing structures.

6. Marine biodiversity conservation should adopt an integrated and holistic approach. Siltation and sedimentation brought about by destructive agricultural land-use in the upland and forest areas that drain into the coast pose major constraints to the recovery of coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds.

158

Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island Developing States

Country: REGIONAL (PACIFIC ISLANDS)

Project Overview

The origins of the ‘‘Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters of the Pacific Small Island Developing States’’ lie in the outcomes of the 8th Annual SPREP Governing Council Meeting, held in 1995, where the 26 member countries and territories endorsed an initiative to prepare a Strategic Action Programme under the international waters focal area of the GEF. This began in April 1997 and combined the following activity areas:

• integrated conservation and sustainable management of coastal resources, including fresh water resources

• integrated conservation and sustainable management of oceanic resources

• prevention of pollution through the integrated management of land- or marine-based wastes

• monitoring and analysis of shore and near-shore environments to determine vulnerability to environmental degradation

A Regional Task Force—with representation from five Pacific island governments, five regional organizations, implementing agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs), a development bank and the private sector—was established to oversee preparation of the SAP. The regional submission was prepared on the basis of national assessments, which were overseen by multi- sectoral National Task Forces (NTF) established in each of the participating countries. The NTFs were in turn supported by National Coordinators, which provided guidance for the integration of country priorities to the SAP. Consolidation of the national assessments during the formulation process resulted in the identification of priority transboundary concerns relating to the international waters that were common to the region:

• degradation of environmental quality

• degradation of associated critical habitats

• unsustainable use of living and non-living resources

The actions are being carried out in two complementary, linked consultative programmes: Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) and Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM).3 The Project is aimed at strengthening regional and national capacity and providing lessons for best practices and appropriate methodologies for sustainable management of natural resources. 159

Project Objectives

The IWP Document is formulated on the basis that the international waters in the Pacific region are subject to threats that give rise to transboundary concerns. During the formulation of the SAP, threats were examined from the perspective of critical species and their habitats and living and non-living marine resources. Identified threats include:

• pollution of marine and freshwater (including groundwater) from land-based activities

• issues related to the long term sustainable use of marine and freshwater uses;

• physical, ecological and hydrological modification of critical habitats; and

• unsustainable exploitation of living and non-living resources, particularly, although not exclusively, the unsustainable and/or inefficient exploitation of coastal and ocean fishery resources. ARTI C The overall objective of the ICWM component is to address root causes of the degradation of international waters in coastal regions through a programme focused on improved integrated coastal and watershed management. Recognizing that all sustainable development issues related to international waters cannot all be addressed at once, four high priority areas for immediate intervention through pilot activities were identified:

1. community-based waste reduction

2. protection of freshwater resources

3. sustainable coastal fisheries

4. marine protected areas

Lessons Learned

Since actual national pilot project implementation activities have only recently been implemented, it is too early to assess a full range of lessons learned, particularly with respect to the impact of various social, economic and communications strategies being piloted to address root causes of environmental problems across the region. However, Stacey et al. (2006) provide an overview of the challenges and opportunities faced by the IWP, paraphrased below.

The use of simple stakeholder analysis and participation strategies in initial stages of the project assisted in ensuring that national projects identified all potential stakeholders with an interest in the IWP focal areas who were consulted during project start-up. The important role of targeted public relations and media activities has, to date, shown to be invaluable in securing stakeholder 160 participation in initial project activities. In addition, a national community participation programme in Niue proved successful in identifying and assessing priority environmental concerns of local residents in 14 villages and the collective discussion of possible activities to address these issues. In general, the community response to the participatory consultative process was extremely encouraging. Despite some difficulties in meeting arrangements related to language, timing and sequencing of activities, it was an important learning process for both the IWP and Niue, and the results have been applied to similar activities regionally and nationally.

A number of key issues continue to provide challenges for implementation of a large regional programme such as the IWP. National level capacity to implement the IWP at both institutional and individual levels poses challenges in some countries. This includes effective, regular, multi- stakeholder dialogue across government agencies and civil society—a pre-requisite to achieve ICM. The National Task Forces in particular need to be strengthened to effectively support cross-sectoral, interagency coordination mechanisms, and to facilitate links to policy change at the national level.

Establishing partnerships between government and community-based organizations to support a genuine community-based approach to sustainable resource management also presents many challenges for most government agencies among Pacific countries. Some Pacific Island countries have limited technical capacity or experience as regards the integrated application of social, economic and communication disciplines to community-based sustainable resource management. As a result, local personnel require considerable support and backstopping in relation to awareness-raising and capacity building activities associated with these elements of the Project.

The Project has found it challenging to implement community-based projects through a large inter-governmental agency such as SPREP. The PCU has also found it difficult at times servicing the needs of 14 countries dispersed across a wide geographical area. Finding more effective ways of communicating, preparing and disseminating project resource material (i.e., guidelines, strategies and reports) in appropriate formats to a diverse range of Pacific Island stakeholders is also a challenge.

On a positive note, some countries are beginning to demonstrate ‘‘best practice’’ in their approaches to the implementation of community-based pilot projects through participatory stakeholder consultations and the use of various tools (e.g., stakeholder analysis, participatory awareness-raising workshops), which is hoped will generate flow-on effects to other projects. In addition, some of the regional coordination units’ approaches and processes in areas of social assessment, resource economics and communications are being favorably received by other regionally-implemented projects, both within and outside SPREP.

161

Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand

Country: THAILAND, CAMBODIA, VIET NAM, MALAYSIA

Project Overview

This was a highly complex regional project involving 7 nations and 38 national executing agencies. It is due for completion in 2008 and terminal evaluation in 2009. The latest progress report covers the financial year to June 30 2006. It was rated satisfactory or highly satisfactory at that point.

The project objectives is to create an environment at the regional level, in which collaboration and partnership in addressing environmental problems of the South China Sea, between all stakeholders, and at all levels is fostered and encouraged; and to enhance the capacity of the participating governments to integrate environmental considerations into national development planning. The project activities are designed to assist countries in meeting the environmental targets specified in the framework SAP that was developed over period 1996-1998.

The approach is to seek to agree at an intergovernmental level, a Strategic Action Programme encompassing specific targeted and costed actions for the longer-term.

The context

The South China Sea is a global area of highest importance because of its biological diversity. It is also an area with a high human population, widespread poverty and dependence on marine natural resources and rapid economic development. This combination places many areas at risk from overfishing, destructive fishing and pollution. The nature of water circulation is such that management of such issues involves transboundary and regional action.

The program has developed policy infrastructure through National Action Plans. By June 2005, 23 of these had been developed of which 11 had been published for national dissemination and 5 submitted to governments for adoption. One regional and four national plans had been developed for the establishment of fish refugia. It is not clear how this project is linked or coordinated with other regional marine pollution initiatives such as PEMSEA, ASEAN collaborations or emerging APEC interests in marine biodiversity.

The program has established a metadatabase and linked GIS for biophysical data and a metadatabase of national legislation relating to the environment of the South China Sea. The local government level is the key point of delivery for many of the actions needed to address the issues. Mayors’ roundtable meetings were an important element of the program for engagement with local government.

The program has established a basis for addressing regional pollution issues through reviewing water quality data, identifying and ranking pollution hotspots 162

Ten demonstration sites and 2 pilot activities have been launched. These should contribute to the achievement of environmental targets at the site level. At the time of review they were too newly established to enable evaluation of operational issues or performance outcomes.

In 2004 the GEF Secretariat agreed to fund additional demonstration activities as part of the implementation of the Strategic Action Programme via medium sized project grants but the 2006 report notes that delays in finalization and approval of MSP demonstration site have had a major impact on morale at the local government level.

Lessons Learned

The 2006 progress report identified 2 specific lessons:

1. Two Mayors’ Roundtables were organized in November 2005 and June 2006 were a valuable forum for exchange of experiences and lessons learnt among demonstration sites and enhancement of communication among the network

2. The importance of secure funding mechanisms including co-funding policy in operational phase, increasing co-finance from governments for national coordination and a large amount of co-finance and a financially sustainable mechanism or business plan for demonstration sites.

Also, the following recommendations were developed based on experiences in the demonstration sites: a. Learning/study tours are an effective strategy for achieving desired behavioural change, increased awareness and informed decisions for management. On site tours provided hands on experience and helpful peer insights for participants. b. Economic valuation of the resources was a good management tool and key landmark for developing management plans. It was replicated in neighbouring sites and is recommended as an initial baseline activity for other projects. c. Considerable time was lost through conflicts over organizational management and implementation structure. These were not thoroughly discussed and agreed beforehand and were thus a source of ambiguity in project implementation.

163

South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program

Country: REGIONAL (SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS)

Project Overview

The lessons learned from this early and extended GEF project are very well discussed by Hunnam (2002) and Baines et al (2002).

The operational challenges of regional projects in the Pacific are considerable because of the large number of island countries with small populations and consequently limited numbers of skilled people; large distances and poor communications; and coordination challenges between regional organisations and the regional offices of global organisations.

Throughout the early to mid 1990s the SPBCP was the largest single nature conservation initiative in the Pacific. It presented large operational challenges for organisations inexperienced at operating at this scale. The execution of the project was hampered by problems of direction, coordination and implementation.

Program concept and design

The initial design of the project was directed towards devising and demonstrating effective and culturally appropriate approaches to the conservation of the ecology and biodiversity of the South Pacific. This reflected the general lack of success of previous conservation efforts that focused on designation of State protected areas and had inadequate regard for local participation, cultural factors or ecological sustainability of resource uses. This concept remains highly relevant, even critical, to the maintenance of biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem processes in the South Pacific.

The intended approach of the programme was to work through country lead agencies to trial community-based conservation and sustainability. In the field and at the community level the programme established Conservation Area Community Committees that employed Conservation Area Support Officers (CASOs). Again, the design concept was sound in its intention to link country and local community management and to develop local capacity through support officers.

The design provided for a Technical and Management Advisory Group to provide overall guidance and linkage with global expertise.

Program Outcomes

The program was executed by the South Pacific Environment Programme (SPREP) working with lead agencies designated by countries and ad hoc Conservation Area Advisory Committees. A

164

Program management officer in SPREP headed a small team responsible for day to day management. The CASOs were the only in-country personnel paid by the Program.

The system of management advice and supervision for SPBCP was complex. On-going supervision was provided by the Apia office of the Implementing Agency UNDP. A Multipartite Review (MPR) comprising the implementing agency UNDP, the executing agency SPREP and participating countries met annually. This was intended to provide coordination and direction to SPBCP. The Technical Management and Advisory Group also

The program evaluation of SPBCP concluded: “The MPR is judged not to have been effective as governing body to the SPBCP. No instances have been identified of it having issued clear directions or provided correcting influences on the Programme implementation. There was a distinct sense of “lack of ownership” of the SPBCP by the MPR.”

The membership of the TMAG comprised individuals with relevant expertise. It was an advisory group that met annually immediately preceding the MPR.. There was confusion over the role of members of TMAG who were referred to as “representatives” of their agencies. Despite the annual nature of TMAG UNDP officers looked to it for help in direct supervision of SPREP’s execution of SPBCP.

Management advice and supervision were inadequate. Roles and responsibilities of the various bodies were not clearly established. The only ongoing advisory stream was through UNDP as implementing agency. This appears to have focused very largely on financial and process reporting. The annual meetings of MPR and TMAG were insufficient for providing well informed guidance on implementation of so extensive a program.

SPBCP was a very large project for SPREP. It overlapped significantly with core functions and had a budget that accounted for about 25% the SPREP annual budget. The SPBCP Manager was a senior officer in the SPREP staffing structure and the program evaluation notes many instances where the SPBCP and SPREP roles were conflated, including the SPBCP Manager acting as SPREP Director and the SPBCP management team being required to become involved in activities that were not part of SPBCP.

The role of the key paid field personnel – the Conservation Area Support Officers was confused. The project document provided for the CASOs to work to the Conservation Areas Coordinating Committee and the country lead agency. Almost all the CASOs were seen as SPBCP employees operating under the instructions of the SPBCP management. The Program evaluation commented that this “was contrary to the intention of the project document and undermined the roles of the CACCs and country lead agencies.”

165

Project Implementation

A significant problem was serious confusion over management roles and accountability processes. The project documents clearly allocated responsibility to the SPBCP Management Unit and system for activity planning, monitoring, and reporting systems for each of the in- country CA projects. The system introduced was based on UNDP’s National Execution (NEX) guidelines and SPREP procedures. These would be cumbersome for a reasonably resourced lead agency. They were very difficult in the context of remote community based field conservation area projects. There was ongoing difficulty with stop-start project activity because of quarterly cash-flow interruptions. The consequent losses of momentum dissipated community commitment to the projects.

The project document provided a clear staged process for working with local communities to establish a Conservation Area and achieve an endorsed management plan. Despite this, under the implementation arrangements each CA proposal had then to be developed into a comprehensive Project Preparation Document under the UNDP protocols. This was a particular and resource consuming and contributed to a growth in the administrative expenditures from a predicted 30% to an actual 52% of total budget – while expenditures for Conservation Area establishment fell from a budgeted 21.9% to an actual 7.9% and for Income Generating activity development from 23.8% to 4.5%.

The Program evaluation of SPBCP noted: “Considerable effort and resources were needed to compile each PPD. They were set up as “master plans” or blueprints, addressing every conceivable aspect of the situation and reaching management decisions for a wide range of the issues likely to arise during the course of the CA Project.

Not only did the time and money spent on PPDs detract from the expected community focus, the PPDs can be said to have pre-empted the intended community-based participatory planning process for CA Projects.

The result of the plethora of reporting and budgeting requirements was that a large amount of unnecessary expense in money and time was required to keep the Programme going administratively. There was constant tension between the “Secretariat” and CA Projects over lack of suitable reports and cash flow problems. The blame for poor reporting seemed to fall, often unfairly, on CASOs. Yet the basic problem was a dysfunctional system.”

Conservation and Biodiversity Management

The project concept addresses sustainable ecosystem based management concentrating on areas and ecosystem processes of high conservation significance. In the course of the project the species conservation component became “more substantial and the Program Evaluation commented that “The focus on rare and endangered species conservation restricted scope for presenting conservation in an ecosystem context, as a result of which opportunities to present species protection needs in a context meaningful to Pacific islanders were missed.”

166

Transition Strategies and Income Generating Activities

The SPBCP project document indicated that the community Conservation Areas could not be expected to be completely self sustaining by the end of the project. The implication was that substantial progress should have been made towards self sustainability. Although conceived as a 5 year project SPBCP was extended to 10 years but by the time it concluded had made limited progress with transition strategies for the CAs. Baines et al 2002 noted that the SPBCP defined 8 indicators of preparedness for transition.

A. Funding available and predictable. B. Community commitment. C. A supportive or neutral stakeholder involvement. D. Adequate conservation capacity at the community level. E. Effective partnership for co-management with key technical agencies. F. Transparency in project management. G. Equitable sharing of project benefits and costs. H. The area’s targeted biodiversity values are well protected and under effective management.

11 of the CAs could be rated against these indicators in the Program Evaluation, 4 of these met 4 or less and 2 achieved the highest score of 7.

The Program Evaluation noted: “The presentation of “funding” as the first item indicated the foregone decision that no CA would be sustainable in its absence. While this may have reflected the facts ….it implies an acceptance of a continuing dependence on external funding. This is unfortunate as it distracted attention from the real issues of sustainability. “ Six projects were listed as meeting criterion A.

A crucial element of sustainability is the development and maintenance of income generating activities independent of external government or program funding. The most usual approach is through ecotourism which can be effective as in the case of the Palau Rock Islands but vulnerable to political discord, as in the Solomons and Fiji, and to external factors such as cost of travel, and personal security concerns.

The Program Evaluation noted: “the need to involve an experienced and empathetic private sector operator from the beginning of the project to guide the development and to direct visitors to the area.” It also reflected on the difficulties faced by and poor track record of community owned businesses.

A general lesson from this is the need for careful focus on achieving project design, skilled personnel, and implementation of income generation and transition strategies. Depending on the starting basis, education and training for development of the local skills base is likely to require a program of a decade or more. .

167

Tubbataha Reefs Conservation, Marine National Park and World Heritage Area

Country: PHILIPPINES

Project Overview

This completed project was rated as very satisfactory. The completion report provides a good account of the outcomes of the project.

The project objectives were to address threats to the biodiversity that had existed since the establishment of the Tubbatah World Heritage Area and Marine National Park. The approach was to strengthen management and enforcement and engage with people in surrounding areas in order to remove illegal resource use.

Tubbataha reefs and Marine National Park were made a World Heritage property because they were an important, attractive and relatively unimpacted example of the maximum global biodiversity at the heart of the coral triangle. Despite this there was a pattern of substantial and frequent illegal and damaging resource use. This project was designed and implemented to improve enforcement and compliance with regulations and to engage with people of the surrounding areas to improve their knowledge of and engagement in management and alternate livelihoods to reduce pressures on Tubbataha reefs.

At its conclusion the project was rated as satisfactory with highly satisfactory outcomes in terms of reef health and generally satisfactory outcomes in terms of community engagement in alternative activities such as reef tourism and of increase fish catch in areas surrounding the Marine National Park.

Lessons Learned

The termination report identified 3 specific lessons. These are broadly similar to those of other projects but highlighted by the particular operational tensions applying in Mindanao:

a. Partnerships in law enforcement are a key element of effectively management of marine protected areas because of the need to operate in areas outside park boundaries. Specifically for TRNMP, partnership with the military which has a wider area of responsibility proved very rewarding. b. The increasing trends of most trophic groups suggest that the large area, diversity of reef types, remoteness and protection are what structures the fish communities of Tubbataha Reef. These attributes enabled the reefs to absorb effects of natural disturbances and allowed natural dynamics to take place. c. Stakeholdership as a management paradigm contributed greatly to the conservation of 168

Tubbataha Reefs. Stakeholders collectively identified their aspirations and after several years of work, collectively assessed their achievements and deficiencies.

169

Micronesia Challenge

Country: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS, REPUBLIC OF PALAU, U.S. TERRITORY OF GUAM, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Project Overview

The Micronesia Challenge is a commitment by the Chief Executives of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, the U.S. Territory of Guam and the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to effectively conserve at least 30% of the nearshore marine resources and 20% of the terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020. This ambitious challenge far exceeds current goals set by international conventions and treaties, which call for countries to conserve 10% of terrestrial and marine resources by 2010 and 2012 respectively. The challenge also emphasizes the need for Micronesian leaders to work together at the regional level to confront environmental and sustainable development issues.

Each jurisdiction is developing their own strategies for implementation including identifying the most biologically important areas, establishing or strengthening protected areas and ensuring continued effective management and oversight. The other key development in the Micronesia Challenge is to create sustainable and continuous sources of funding to assure that the resulting protected areas and the precious natural resources they sustain are maintained in perpetuity. All five governments have already made some initial impressive strides. For example, the Republic of Palau has developed and started to implement a nationwide comprehensive set of regulations for identifying protected areas sites, and is now developing management and enforcement regimes.

It is currently estimated that an endowment of approximately $100 million will need to be raised to support the long-term sustainability of the Challenge in all five jurisdictions. To assist in this effort, The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International have together pledged $6 million to leverage an additional $12 million for the first phase of the Challenge. The leaders and their partners are working to secure matching funds for this pledge and the additional funding to support the long-term expansion and effective management of protected area networks for each of the Micronesia Challenge jurisdictions. The Global Environment Facility has pledged $6 million match as part of a new Pacific Alliance for Sustainability initiative. The Micronesia Challenge serves as a model for island conservation, initiated by a coalition of regional governments, endorsed at an international level, and implemented on the ground with local communities. With funding in place, accompanied by technical support for the implementation, the natural resources essential to the livelihoods of the Micronesian peoples will be preserved and unique ecosystems saved.

170

Lessons Learned

Launching the Micronesia Challenge

What Worked • Charismatic leaders initiated the process • The MC was the first of its kind - a regional commitment vs. a national commitment • The existence of regional frameworks and sharing of best practices catalyzed political will at the highest political levels • Jurisdictions have long-term cultural and political ties (former UN Trust Territories) – leaders have long personal relationships • Built upon existing conservation efforts and obligations • Conservation commitment came before financial commitments • Highly visible international venue used for global launch (COP8) • Micronesians in Island Conservation (MIC) and other regional learning networks provided good 0pportunities for coordination • A successful mechanism, the Micronesia Conservation Trust, was already in place and capable of managing an endowment • The TNC-CI funding pledge helped build MC credibility in the region and globally, and provided a match for other international donors and leverage for GEF funds

Key Lessons • Some jurisdiction leaders were less engaged in the beginning • Sustainable finance plans were not complete initially except in Palau, so full financial needs not fully thought out beforehand • MC designed and launched at the top political levels with more limited input from mid- level “executing” agency staff in the development of the Challenge • Needed more emphasis on previous commitments that helped inspire the Challenge in the beginning (e.g. Fiji’s 2005 commitment in Mauritius (BPOA + 10) to 30% marine area conserved), to engender broader initial Pacific support • Little involvement of legislative branches in MC design and launch • Underestimated country needs for technical assistance and funding in MC planning stage • All of cultural and geographical “Micronesia” not brought into the Challenge – Kiribati and Nauru were not included in the design and launch • Didn’t effectively/fully engage all support partners before a support team commitment was made, so a lot fell on a few organizations to support in early stages. • Partnerships with key partners not fully formalized early-on for maximum leverage

Early Implementation of the Micronesia Challenge

What Worked • Launch and effective management of MC Support Team partnership • A well attended regional meeting to launch the MC was planned and funded by a diverse mix of jurisdictions and partners 171

• Sustainable financial planning expertise available in region • Use of regional forums to move MC forward (Western Micronesia Chief Executives and Micronesia President Summits) • MIC and other networks continue to provide good opportunities for coordination • Association of Pacific Island Legislature (APIL) buy-in through a resolution of support • MC support after leadership transition in the FSM through early Presidential resolution • GEF commitment of $6 million

Key Lessons • Although it is the intent of the MC Support Team to assist all jurisdictions equally in implementation, they currently lack the capacity to do this. • Need to fully involve communities from the beginning, especially in site-based planning efforts and building local political support. • Coordination among small jurisdictions across such a large region is challenging • Need more local financial commitments to on-going activities • Still need to build greater support among some government resource agency mid-level managers and identify ways of sustaining regional interest in the MC • Hard to get public donors to commit money for endowments • Technical working groups (marine, terrestrial, and GIS) set up at regional meeting but not formalized • Different visions/goals/approaches between various MC • Support Team partners

Future Challenges • Work with communities to identify the best ways to support their conservation efforts, while addressing their socio-economic needs • Develop and implement sustainable finance strategies and disbursement, monitoring and management mechanisms in all jurisdictions • Develop and implement a coordinated regional fundraising strategy • Leaders must continue to showcase the MC to build support in the international community until all goals are achieved • Each jurisdiction needs to institutionalize the MC so that the commitment survives future leadership transitions • Need to standardize the measuring of the conservation “baseline” across the region • Define and measure “effective management” across the region • Develop a long-range business plan for the Challenge detailing implementation benchmarks and financial needs • Continue to maintain a sub-regional focus

Recommendations for Future Initiatives • Link priorities at community, local, state, national, and regional levels from the beginning in initiative development and allow ample time for buy-in

172

• Build on existing in-country , regional, and international work and commitments • Be prepared to provide equitable technical assistance and support for equal commitments • Build common vision and unity amongst all “support” partners before commitment is made • Be realistic about and prepare for estimated country needs for technical assistance and funding • Secure firm financial/technical assistance pledges from other regional partners

173

6. Asia-Pacific – non GEF projects

WCS Indonesia Marine Program - Karimunjawa Marine National Park

Country: INDONESIA

Project Overview

This project involved the Indonesian government, notably the Ministry of Forestry Protection and Conservation, and a technical team to survey the marine ecosystems, fisheries and biodiversity of the Karimunjawa Marine National Park. The park is made up of 27 islands and is inhabited by 8000 individuals in three communities. Farming, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and domestic business comprise the primary source of income for residents of Karimunjawa. The design of a set of new management regulations and zones for the park with community and stakeholder consultation was required as past government zoning systems were based on poor information, a lack of planning and very limited stakeholder consultation. The project was started in 2003 and has involved technical teams from WCS and the National Park Authority to survey marine resources, design policies for new regulations with community input, develop an integrate monitoring program and re-design of an effective management system for the coral reef ecosystems within Karimunjawa National Park. The ongoing effectiveness of new management regulations are being evaluated by a ecological and socioeconomic monitoring program.

Project Objectives

To achieve the goal of re-building management effectiveness in Karimunjawa National Park the project had the following objectives:

• Build community and institutional support for the new management and zoning plan and implement successful strategies in target communities to monitor and evaluate marine park management effectiveness.

• Train marine park rangers (National Parks staff) to design, implement, monitor and evaluate management strategies, and to have the ability to train others in these techniques;

• Conduct research and develop a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies in protecting and managing marine resources; and

• Improved education and awareness of the role of marine protected areas in conservation and improvement of coastal livelihoods.

174

Project Outcomes

This collaborative program arose because of a lack of ecological and socio-economic data associated with the use of coral reef resources within Karimunjawa Marine National Park. The rules and zones for allowable resource harvesting activities were also outdated and not based on information of ecological and socio-economic conditions within the national park. The WCS Marine Program in Indonesia in partnership with the National Park Authority assessed the ecological condition of coral reef habitats, and evaluated socioeconomic factors that constrain fisheries and conservation management in Karimunjawa National Park. Baseline data was used to define the most appropriate reef management strategies. Between 2003 and 2005, this information was used by the Park Authority to re-design a zoning plan for the marine park as part of their management of marine resources. This plan has been through an extensive consultative process and was formally adopted by the park authority in March 2005. The plan has also received formal support from local district government (Kabupaten) and village leaders (Perda). In June 2005 the zoning plan was formally legislated at the national government level, the first of its kind for a Marine National Park in Indonesia. Legal documents were then signed by all government sectors at the National, District and local government levels before the process was finalized. Patrols by national park rangers in collaboration with police and navy officers have been conducted since June 2005. The new zoning scheme establishes different types of coral reef management: a) permanently closed “no-take” reserves, b) periodically harvested reserves, and c) gear restricted areas, all within the one national park and community framework. Karimunjawa’s new marine protected area system has since been implemented and is being scientifically monitored that designed the management program with ongoing technical guidance from WCS.

As part of the management plan an integrated ecosystem, fisheries and socio-economic monitoring plan was developed by WCS in cooperation with the coalition of stakeholders and the National Park Authority. Monitoring of coral reef resources aims to assess resources and provide a basis to evaluate management effectiveness over the next five years. Ten marine park rangers have been fully trained and now have expertise in coral reef surveys, data management, data analysis and reporting. The technical monitoring protocols, documentation and field protocol booklets/guides are finalized in both English and Indonesian languages.

Pressure from the diverse range of stakeholders and a lack of resources by the National Park Authority to implement its plans led to an initiative to formalize a Collaborative Management Forum. Its goal is to improve park management by identifying and allocating resources available at the district and national levels that may complement the national park government allocation. Alternative funding sources (eg entrance fees) will be investigated by the Collaborative Management Forum which will develop a strategy to link resources to local community action plans consistent with objectives to improve the effectiveness of the National Park. The forum also allows stakeholders to have involvement in management decisions inside the National Park.

The largest weakness of the project has been the poor enforcement and implementation of the fisheries regulations within the zones of the marine national park. Conflicts between the District Fisheries Department and the National Park Authority in terms of allowable fishing uses are only now being addressed by the Management Forum. There is limited funding for patrols and initial 175 surveys of the ecology and fishing activities have shown that fishing occurs inside some no take areas. Fishing appears to be one of the main environmental impacts but so far direct linkages between fishing practices and their impacts on coral reef ecosystems are limited, although information on the impacts of muroami fishing have been disseminated among government, stakeholders and community groups in a range of workshops. The practice, though, still receives support from the District Fishing Department and is ongoing, although it is legally prohibited within the Park. The project is most likely to continue, despite poor donor funding, due to heightened interest among stakeholders in working together to meet the conservation needs of the park.

Lessons Learned

Improving capacity of government agencies to manage marine resources

The close partnership of a highly experienced marine resource management team at WCS with marine park planners and rangers had a synergistic learning effect. The WCS team improved the capacity of marine park planners and rangers by the collection and analysis of high quality information on coral reef resources and socio-economic conditions and led to more effective implementation of the park zoning and management plans. Capacity building was a primary goal through which project objectives were met and the structure of the project and national counterpart institutions and individuals were specifically targeted to meet conservation planning goals. This is a long-term issue plagued by problems of staff turnover and poor understanding of conservation management by policy makers. Having NGO staff expert in conservation management spend time over the years with government managers who understand the policy and institutional frameworks allowed a sharing of expertise for management.

Government collaboration

Government agencies have collaborated to improve implementation of the management plan in recognition that all had sectoral interests in resource management of the national park. The project facilitated collaboration between the National park authority, the District Fisheries Department, the District Tourism Department and the District Planning Agency and the District Governor’s office. Representatives from community stakeholder groups, village leaders and local government representatives on the Collaborative Forum have led to adoption of outcomes tailored to local interests. Plans for the day-to-day management of conservation of natural resources, fisheries uses and tourism are being developed by the forum consistent with park objectives and rules. The collaboration among agency staff and support from the District mayor (Bupati) has ensured that the conservation objectives of park management can be adopted by fisheries and tourism interests.

Development of a Monitoring Program and GIS database

These systems with inventories of marine ecosystems enabled consistent approaches among government and NGO partners to resource management and training programs and integration of expertise for common shared objectives. Monitoring and GIS has also benefited consensus

176 amongst stakeholders as information on marine resource conditions is shared and sourced from a common platform.

Socialization of the project

Awareness programs are ongoing and should be used to both disseminate and source information to and from communities. There is little point making communities aware of information regarding conservation management if they have little opportunity to develop plans for alternative incomes and are not provided with the tools or resources to adopt conservation actions as part of their daily livelihoods. Linking conservation actions (eg. no fishing in some areas) with community development plans and actions (development of fishing platforms, small business enterprises) are essential as patrols and enforcement will always be inadequate to police the rules.

Community acceptance

Local fishing rules must gain acceptance at the village level and also have legislative power at the district level so local communities have some authority to enforce rules or report on violations.

Self organization of community groups

Development of successful community based organizations that are involved in key decisions of the design of resource management regulations and development of action and communication plans to resolve livelihood issues, had led leads to more effective project implementation. The project benefited from the involvement of local community organizations who self organized to create village umbrella management organizations.

Sustainable human development The threats from inappropriate fisheries activities on the marine resources remains and is clearly linked to a lack of livelihood options for local communities, primary incomes derived from harvesting activities and little opportunity for alternative sources of income resulting from implementing the management plan. The relationship fishing and conservation management is still unclear for some communities. Community advocate groups that promote awareness of the need to protect some areas from fishing are the key to environmental awareness and initiatives designed to support and target communities to abate destructive and unsustainable fishing practices.

177

WCS Indonesia Marine Program - Coral Reefs of Northern Sumatra: Rebuilding Local Livelihoods and Protecting Outstanding Seascapes

Country: INDONESIA

Project Overview

The goal of this project is to develop a network of community-based marine protected areas (MPA) in the islands of northern Aceh, and to meet conservation goals already established at the local, regional and national levels. The project follows biological and socio-economic assessments of marine areas (eg. biodiversity, critical habitats, and human use patterns) that were then used to inform spatial planning and the development of management actions among a representative network of marine managed areas. This goal was developed in cooperation with local communities who came together at a workshop organized by WCS and Badan Perencananan Pembangunan Daerah (BAPPEDA) (Sabang District Development and Planning Agency) in December 2005 to develop a “roadmap” and set of recommendations to facilitate improved marine resource management following the tsunami.

The project involved 3 governments departments which included the provincial planning government agency (BAPPEDA) and the District fisheries agency (DKAPI), responsible for the management of marine fisheries and natural resources and the District Conservation Agency (BKSDA). These departments have identified the urgent short-term need for spatial planning to ensure protection and recovery of coral reefs. Local communities, traditional leaders and NGOs have all been involved in the project. The project simultaneously addressed the needs of communities in the wake of the tsunami, the lack of NGO expertise in marine resource management and the enthusiasm and motivation of government, non-government and community stakeholders to actively develop and participate in marine resource planning for the region.

Project Objectives

To lay the foundation for the development of a scientifically based and community-accepted marine protected area (MPA) network in the islands of northern Aceh, the project has aimed to: 1) promote sound scientific understanding of marine resources and socioeconomic factors that influence their use; 2) fill gaps in knowledge on the ecology of coral reefs; 3) provide training and technical support for resource managers, scientists, and local communities; 4) involvement of local communities, governments, and NGOs in all stages of the development of conservation plans; and 5) continued communication of all information and results to communities through a number of avenues including informational materials, local media reports, and scientific publications for the wider scientific audience.

178

Project Outcomes

The project involves a long-term (5-10 years) and participatory approach to the development of improved sustainable management plans for marine resources. Building trust and relationships with local partners before developing and implementing management strategies collaboratively has been a main focus. The project conducted scientific assessments of the coral reefs in the region, built relationships with local partners, and sourced local knowledge on past practices, threats to coral reefs, and current management concerns and needs.

Due to the current lack of management expertise within government, university, and non- government sectors, emphasis was placed on training local agencies in marine ecosystem and resource management. Qualified Indonesian scientists from the Syah Kuala University in Banda Aceh and from the district planning agency (BAPPEDA) and Department of Fisheries (Weh Island) were trained to conduct scientific assessments where appropriate. The first phase (2005- 2007) of the project involved collecting data on critical habitats, identifying local needs in terms of training and management, and conducting training programs. Programs with local NGOs and community organizations (eg. Panglima Laot – traditional leaders) have involved participatory assessments of socioeconomic conditions, community needs and marine resources. These have been critical in designing 2 marine protected areas, improving management capacity among stakeholders, increasing awareness and creating the enabling conditions necessary for compliance with resource management regulations based on community and government requirements. The second phase (2008-2010) will involve working with the government to address coral reef resources, fisheries activities, in an MPA network plan that accommodates community, government, and conservation needs.

A formal monitoring program involving stakeholders in biological monitoring (reef check, community fisheries), socio-economic monitoring, resource management, enforcement and education was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of management systems. Government, NGO and community partners are receiving ongoing training in data collection, management, analysis, interpretation and reporting using a range of outreach and scientific tools including databases, posters, information sheets, presentations (eg. formal and informal) and mapping. Results from all monitoring data will be directly accessible by stakeholders to enable adaptive decision making and management. The outcome will be a marine resource planning model that can be adapted to other parts of Aceh during post-tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation.

A core focus of the project has been training local fishers, community leaders, and managers to understand the basic elements of healthy and productive reefs, the effects of destructive fishing practices, and approaches for sustainable fishing. Further reducing and eliminating destructive fishing practices, including the exploration of alternative livelihood options, especially tourism- based opportunities and providing a strong platform for the research, training, and advocacy required for executing effective coral reef conservation, including the legislation of some MPAs that will provide the basis for the development of a protected area network around the island groups of Pulau Aceh and Pulau Weh.

179

Lessons Learned

Commitment from governments

A commitment to the spatial planning process from District governments and the local Bupati (mayor) was critical to active participation of government staff. Opportunities to participate in programs for government staff were important for capacity building and receptivity and active involvement in the project.

Legislative processes

Formal legislative and planning processes were undertaken at both village and government levels concurrently. Shared objectives identified at an early stage of the project were important to enable village and government processes to be aligned and gain acceptance and authority for community based management approaches.

Organization among NGOs to create a common message

Time is often a critical factor. Sufficient time (months) was required for NGOs to build alliances, scope program activities and develop joint programs with local village leaders to initiate MPA planning. Partnerships between WCS and local Acehnese NGOs were strengthened by joint community participation programs and had important implications for developing co- management systems in the villages. The partnerships should be adaptable to suit the local context in other areas although the processes and principles of community based planning remains the same.

Resolving community conflict

Traditional village leaders were instrumental in driving conflict resolution processes among bordering villages and gaining acceptance for the development of local MPAs and their rules.

Identifying community needs

The socioeconomic conditions and needs of communities must be a core focus for conservation measures are to be achieved. Formal workshops, participatory training exercises and identifying opportunities for community development built trust and achieved stewardship of the MPA planning process among communities.

180

Development of networks among agencies and organizations

Improving the sharing of information and communication among organizations working on marine resource management projects has proved difficult in the absence of shared vision and resources. Activity based projects such as monitoring coral reefs, developing a shared GIS database and training programs in marine resource management, data analysis and communication have improved organizational cooperation and achieved consensus amongst stakeholders of conservation actions.

Sustainable resource management through livelihood development

One key to the success of an MPA is its capacity to help fulfill the economic needs of coastal communities by supporting local fishing demand. MPAs must account for a range of ecological and sociological factors to ensure that fishers are not discriminated against relative to other resource users, and continue to have access to important fisheries resources. Other revenue generating activities, such as tourism, must be explored and developed in such a way as to provide alternative sources of income without unduly imperiling the resources on which they depend.

181

WCS Papua New Guinea Marine Program - New Ireland

Country: PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Project Overview

This project is based in the provincial capital of New Ireland Province, Kavieng, situated in a series of islands in the Bismarck Archipelago, which marks the boundary of the Bismarck Sea. This region has some of the most diverse and intact coral reef systems found in any region in the world today.

The key factor that characterizes any work carried out in PNG is that coastal communities have tenure over coastal marine fisheries resources. Any management of these resources has to be carried out in close partnership with the resource owners and ultimately to be driven by them.

In 2006, three villages with fringing coral reefs were identified by WCS as partners in a reef conservation project, which planned to carry out detailed monitoring of no-take zones from their establishment for at least three years. In each village, a 1km section of reef was closed to all forms of harvesting with the agreement of the village and policed by the villagers themselves. Neighbouring villages’ reefs performed the role of control sites. To date, a detailed regime of sampling has been carried out on closure (Year 0) and after one year (Year 1).

Following the second survey (Year 1), the village at Site 1 decided that they could no longer support the closure and opened their closed area to fishing. At Site 2, the neighbouring village that hosts the control site wishes to close its reef which will seriously reduce the value of carrying out subsequent surveys at the site.

A key aspect of the project is to support the development of PNG graduates to gain skills that will enable them to take similar projects forward in future. PNG staff have also been invaluable working with partner communities and WCS has excellent relations with the villages where it works.

Project Objectives

The project had four specific objectives, which were to:

• Establish three no-take MPAs, which are rigorously monitored for biological changes.

• Raise awareness in New Ireland coastal communities on marine conservation and coral reef biology.

• Empower New Ireland communities to manage their coastal resources.

182

• Train PNG marine biologists to implement community driven marine conservation initiatives.

Project Activities

• Raising awareness at site villages.

• Annual underwater visual surveys.

• Training community surveyors to monitor their own reefs.

• Developing community marine management area plans.

• Presentation of monitoring results to villages and local and international marine resource management community.

Lessons Learned

There are two key advantages that villages perceive in working in partnership with WCS to close sections of reef to harvesting:

1. Communities support the closure as it is perceived to improve fishing in adjacent areas.

2. Partnership with WCS offers capacity building opportunities in the village.

There are two characteristics of villages that have facilitated productive partnerships with WCS:

1. The reef closure has not significantly impacted on their harvesting activity as they have other areas outside the closed area to continue fishing or harvesting.

2. Cohesive leadership structures able to adapt to working with WCS and to organise the community to drive the reef management process.

Project Outcomes

There are three significant outcomes of the project to date: 1. Collection of high quality data that identifies ecological effects of closure after one year.

2. Resulting from the partnerships with two communities (Sites 2 and 3), neighbouring villages wish to close sections of their reefs.

3. Villagers at the sites are better informed on the state of their reefs and benefits of no-take areas.

183

Future Directions of the Project

The project will focus its attention on supporting villages adjacent to Sites 2 and 3 to implement management plans with closed areas of reefs. This will create two small focal points from which community based management can establish a network of protected areas along sections of the coastline.

Site 3 offers a particularly interesting opportunity for implementing a string of closed areas along a 20km stretch of fringing reef shared by a string of small islands. This opportunity is based on the particular characteristics of the village governance and interest of villagers at the initial site. A priority will be placed on carrying out baseline surveys prior to implementation of any new closed areas that become established on this string of islands.

These two kernel areas promise to provide a robust management solution towards sustainable harvesting managed by communities with ownership rights over the resource; with sections of fringing reef closed to harvesting interspersed with sections of reef where harvesting continues. It is hoped that this pattern of management will spread along the coast and to other areas in the province.

Coral reefs are subject to increasing pressure from population growth and harvesting for sale. These resources in this important region are showing worrying signs of rapid environmental degradation from overexploitation and, in the case of fringing reefs on the mainland of New Ireland, problems associated with run-off from oil palm plantations. Facilitating community based approaches to managing these resources will lead to better informed and organised coastal communities; so enabling them to better protect their interests and their resources to effect long- term conservation outcomes in the Bismarck Sea region.

184

WCS Papua New Guinea Marine Program - Manus

Country: PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Project Overview

This small project was initiated at the request of villagers on Andra Island, off the north coast of Manus Island, which contains some of the most intact and diverse reefs of PNG. The island is the main supplier of Manus Province’s lime for betel nut chewing, which brings in a considerable annual to the islanders. The Andra Island reefs are suffering significant degradation from overexploitation, the long term viability of the betel nut lime industry is in danger and the reefs are losing their ecological diversity.

Project Objectives

• Reduce ecological impacts of coral reef harvesting.

• Monitor ecological impacts of coral reef harvesting.

• Raise awareness in Andra Island community on marine conservation and coral reef biology.

• Empower Andra Island community to manage their coastal resources.

• Train PNG marine biologists to implement community driven marine conservation initiatives.

Project Activities

• Awareness raising.

• Underwater visual surveys.

• Training of community surveyors to monitor their own reefs.

• Coral reef propagation trials and training for villagers.

• Developing community marine management area plans.

• Presentation of monitoring results to villages and local and international marine resource management community.

185

Lessons Learned

Two significant challenges to implementing effective resource management strategies have become evident:

1. A highly complex and changing system of customary tenure.

2. High income derived from harvesting activity and little opportunity for mitigating any loss of income resulting from implementing a management strategy.

186

WCS Fiji Marine Program - Lomaviti/Vatu-I-Ra Seascape

Country: FIJI

Project Overview

Fiji’s Vatu-I-Ra Channel separates the large islands of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu and harbors an extraordinary complex of barrier, fringing, and lagoon reefs that support some of the most intact marine ecosystems in the South Pacific, replete with large populations of sharks, intact populations of reef fish including large groupers and Napolean wrasse, and a wide variety of cetaceans. The Lomaviti/Vatu-I-Ra Seascape faces several encroaching threats, which include dramatic increases in the number of international longline boats illegally fishing in these waters and overfishing from local commercial sources to supply the commercial reef fish trade. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is leading a multi-partner conservation program to bring marine ecosystems across the Lomaviti/Vatu-I-Ra Seascape to sustain and improve the biodiversity and ecological function, as well as sustain high quality and abundant marine resources for the benefit of Fiji’s people and economy. WCS seeks to achieve these goals through protection of the most intact reefs and functionally important habitats, as well as seascape-level protection for larger, wide-ranging species.

Project Objectives

This initiative takes advantage of a number of management techniques, including a core system of fully protected reserves integrated into a broader seascape of large, offshore reserves, nearshore fisheries reserves, and other management zones. The strict reserves will be strategically placed on the most intact and resilient reefs, key spawning aggregation sites, and over a sufficient area of functionally important habitats to maintain vital ecological processes across the seascape. Stakeholder villages, the Government of Fiji, and partner organizations have enthusiastically committed to this shared vision and the ambitious work plan, and will be key actors in the long-term conservation of this unique marine wilderness.

In recent years, the Government of Fiji, through the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, has taken a greater interest in conservation and in-shore fisheries management and policy. In 2004, the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests proposed a new component to its strategic development and corporate plan, centred on community based management and marine reserves as key in-shore fisheries management tools. The plan directs the Department to carry out resources assessments in each traditional management unit (qoliqoli) and develop management plans with traditional owners, which would facilitate the 385 qoliqoli to be returned to traditional ownership.

The multipartner project is building support for the reserve design by gathering the data necessary to develop the reserve network. Biological and biophysical datasets are being used to design the reserve network by identifying unique biophysical, important spawning aggregation sites resilient reefs functional complexes of marine habitats that support focal species such as cetaceans, Napoleon wrasse, bumphead parrotfish, whale sharks and manta rays. Field research 187 aimed at developing accurate data for spawning aggregations and bleaching refugia is currently being conducted by WCS in collaboration with Fisheries, landowners, USP, and the University of Hong Kong. Many of our efforts to build support for the reserve network will take place at the village and Fiji Government levels.

The second phase of the project is to work with partners to design a Seascape Management Plan, including zonation plans and management guidelines for Lomaviti, which is already a candidate for World Heritage Status. Fisheries, tikina representatives, provincial representatives, Ministry and NGO partners, fishery industry representatives, and scientists have worked together in initial workshops to review biological and socio-economic data layers and proposed a zonation scheme for a conservation seascape that will achieve conservation and fisheries goals. The tikina representatives are currently taking the proposed zonation and guidelines back to the communities, Provincial Councils, and Bose Vanua for review and feedback. Subsequent workshops will be convened to revise the draft zonation and guidelines on the basis of the consultations. A scientific peer-review of the ecological and conservation efficacy of the draft zonation and management guidelines will help ensure achievement of conservation goals.

Partnerships with International NGOs, the University of the South Pacific (USP) and the Locally Managed Marine Areas Network (LMMA), and its partner in-country the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Areas Network (FLMMA) have been integral to working with local communities to develop management plans for conservation areas and coastal fishing grounds.

Lessons Learned

Presentations and workshops with provincial offices, district representatives, provincial councils and traditional leaders have been important for local conservation plans to start to achieve acceptance across divergent stakeholder interests.

Given the complex nature of these ecosystems biological and biophysical datasets have been key to designing the reserve network.

Bridging the information divide between villages and the Fiji Government is critical to build support for the reserve network.

188

Mabini-Tingloy Marine Biodiversity Conservation Project

Country: PHILIPPINES

Project Overview

This is a unique collaborative venture between WWF-Philippines, The Philippines Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation Inc. (PRRCFI) and the UK-based not-for-profit organization, Coral Cay Conservation (CCC). The project has undertaken community education and training in combination with scientific surveys in the municipalities of Mabini-Tingloy in the Province of Batangas, Luzon. Scientific surveys have revealed at least thirteen discrete habitat types in the coastal waters of the two municipalities. CCC survey data has been combined with digital aerial images of the marine and coastal habitats. Collaboration between WWF and CCC resulted in the production of a habitat map, which will assist in the designation of sites as potential Marine Protected Areas (MPA) within the region. Quantitative health assessments of the local reefs have also provided information on relative abundance and diversity of the coral and fish populations, supplying further comprehensive evidence for potential marine reserve location. Long-term community work carried out in the bay area through the efforts of the WWF staff at Bagalangit Bay have significantly contributed to the strength of the project by facilitating dissemination of the results through workshops and environmental training.

Project Objectives

• To undertake a comprehensive assessment of marine resources (CCC), coupled with the long-term planning of community-based resource use (WWF-Philippines) in the Mabini- Tingloy area. It is the combination of these two vital datasets (marine biological and socioeconomic data) that will facilitate the successful construction of a multi-use management plan.

• Full and quantitative habitat definition based on multivariate analysis of field data collected by CCC to produce detailed habitat maps for the region

• Utilization of marine habitat maps as an educational and planning tool for the designation of further marine reserves in Mabini-Tingloy area within the long-term framework of WWF- Philippine’s commitment to the region.

• To collect quantitative information on important ecological and commercial fish and invertebrate species in the Mabini-Tingloy area in order to gain an accurate assessment of their abundance and biomass. This data will have implications for the future management of the inshore fisheries.

• To carry out workshops and community education in the municipalities of Mabini and Tingloy in order to; 189

o increase local awareness of reef issues o highlight the importance and economic benefits of marine reserves o plan a marine zoning scheme for the whole region with the involvement of all local stakeholders

Lessons Learned

The outcomes of the work reported indicate that, within a Philippine context, the development of an Integrated Coastal Zone Management plan requires considerable effort in the acquisition of both socioeconomic and biological resource information. The collaborative approach of Coral Cay Conservation gathering the marine resource and biodiversity data combined with the extensive socio-economic efforts of the community based WWF staff have provided the information necessary for this intensive process.

Encouragingly, discussion and workshop groups involving stakeholders were easily facilitated, with stakeholder involvement and strong interest at all stages of the planning process. In particular, awareness of environmental issues and the need to protect the resource they depend upon is strong amongst the dive community and resorts within the study area.

If one of the collaborative parties in such projects are not from within the host country, it is essential that formal introductions are made and that strong and persistent links be formed with local stakeholders at an early stage. Introductions should be made prior to the commencement of activities, to ensure full community integration and cooperation, with the ultimate acceptance of project outputs. This approach ensures that data collection is suited to the needs of stakeholder groups.

Continuing on this theme, to ensure that project outputs are of maximum benefit for local stakeholders, it is essential that data collection protocols are constructed and undertaken in a dynamic fashion so that all parties involved obtain the required information.

As an external agency, Coral Cay Conservation’s involvement in the MTMBCP is intentionally restricted to data collection, subsequent analysis and habitat designation. CCC can advise on potential MPA allocation but it is essential that scientific activities are ultimately driven by the needs of the long term committed partner - in this case, WWF-Philippines.

Finally, the experiences of the work reported here outline the need for efficient and regular communication and dissemination of results as they are compiled from field data. This open- house attitude to the information generated ensures that the impact and benefits of collaborative work by an external organization extend far beyond both the time and logistic constraints associated with such a project.

Recommendations

• Involve all stakeholders from the initial set-up stage of projects.

190

• Involve at an early stage the heads of local municipalities.

• Make sure that science is driven by the needs of the long-term committed partner organization (in this case, WWF-Philippines).

• Have (as much is possible) an open-house attitude to the results of the surveys, and provide continuous updates on the information produced.

• Have an effective method of regular data dissemination to all interested parties in the local community

• Provide frequent and regular updates on the results of the work being conducted to all stakeholders and interested parties.

191

COBSEA Green Fins Initiative

Country: THAILAND, PHILIPPINES

Project Overview

The “Green Fins Programme in Southeast Asia” is a diving community awareness project initiated by COBSEA and implemented in Thailand by the Phuket Marine Biological Centre, in the Philippines by Ocean Adventure and in Indonesia by Biology Club. The main aim of the project is to promote coral reef monitoring and public awareness through the creation of a network of environmentally-friendly dive operators that adopt sustainable tourism practices. The Green Fins programme has two main components – the implementation of environmentally- friendly guidelines and data and information gathering through biophysical and socio-economic monitoring.

The programme aims to garner support from dive operators and the diving community by providing incentives that can ultimately benefit their business while protecting the coral reef environment. For dive operators, the incentives include:

1. “Green Fins” certification

2. Flag or pennant of participation

3. Certificate of achievement

4. Membership to the Green Fins network, and promotion of dive operation through the network

5. Training and workshops for staff on marine biology, survey methods, etc.

6. International recognition and support.

For the diving community, the incentives include:

1. The services of dive operators that are aware and concerned about the coral reef environment

2. The support of a larger network of dive operators that adopt sustainable tourism practices.

The ultimate beneficiaries of the Green Fins programme are the coral reefs - through greater awareness and the adoption of more sustainable tourism practices, the demands of the coral reef resources can be better monitored

192

Project Implementation

The Green Fins programme was introduced to local network leaders from these three countries at the "The Planning Workshop for "Green Fins" Local Network Leaders" in July 2004, in Phuket, Thailand. The local network consists of marine scientists, managers and NGOs. At the workshop, network leaders agreed on the contents and framework of the Green Fins code of conduct, mission statement, guidelines for environmentally sustainable diving and snorkeling and guidelines for project assessment and evaluation. The local networks were tasked with implementing the project in their respective countries, each network being assigned with additional tasks and responsibilities for developing the Green Fins programme.

Each local network is led by one leading agency or organization - In Thailand, the lead agency is the Phuket Marine Biological Center, in the Philippines, Ocean Adventure is the lead agency and in Indonesia, the Biology Club.

There are two phases to this project:

Phase I: The formulation of the mission statement, the development of the code of conduct and the creation of media resources and website.

Phase II: The expansion of the network of dive operators at both the national and regional levels. It would also entail developing more harmonized set of activities such as uniform assessments and programmes as well as the development of strategic partnerships with other groups actively involved in environmentally sustainable diving in order to bring the Green Fins programme to a large diving community.

Problems and Issues

Phase I of the project proved to be a good testing ground for the Green Fins programme. Throughout the planning, implementation and publicity of the programme, there was strong support form network members, dive operators and other partners. Phase I of the project also highlighted problems and issues that need to be addressed before Green Fins programme can be further developed. Some of the issues raised by local network members include:

1. A central coordination body for the Green Fins programme - there is a need to establish a central Green Fins coordinating body to oversee Green Fins activities in all member countries. This body can be an existing agency that is willing to invest time and effort to coordinate the Green Fins programme.

2. Extension of the Green Fins programme - the Green Fins programme is currently implemented in Thailand and the Philippines, through local network teams. A good target will be to extend the programme to other countries in the region, through the coordination of a central coordinating body.

193

3. Financing - this is by far the most crucial aspect for the programme. The seed grant provided to initiate the project will not be sufficient to keep the programme going and to expand it further. Novel ways in attracting financial support and generating income needs to be developed to ensure the long term sustainability of the programme.

4. Regular network meetings - It is important to keep the network members constantly in touch with each other and updated. This can be achieved through workshops or meeting, which can be tied in to ongoing regional events like the Asian Dive Expo (ADEX).

5. Expansion of the Green Fins programme scope - the current scope of Green Fins programme is too restricted, and may not be able to sustain long term interest and support by network members and programme partners. There is a need to assess the current scope of the programme and consider ways to expand it incrementally over the years.

6. Creating a stronger presence in the region - the Green Fins programme is a new programme with limited publicity. More effort needs to be committed to bring the programme to the larger diving community through strategic partnerships and tie-ins with other existing programmes and activities. There is also a need to enhance the website so that it is more interactive and informative, with exciting content that are constantly updated.

Lessons Learned

1. Participation - For successful implementation, the project needs to establish a local network of dive operators and the diving community which includes tourists, network leaders, associations and sponsors.

2. Capacity building - The network leaders need to be actively involved in conducting training that focus on environmentally-friendly diving and resource monitoring. Publicity materials such as VCD, brochures, certificates and website on Green Fins are useful tools to spread the Green Fins message.

3. Strategy - Establishing communication channels with the public and members of Green Fins is important and can be achieved by advertising through various media, events and the Green Fins website. Incentives like certification and advertisements for Green Fins members that help them improve their business can encourage them to adopt the mission statement, code of conduct and guidelines for diving and snorkeling, and pennant to inform public about environmentally- friendly dive operations. There should be efforts to expand the network both locally and regionally.

4. Issue of Concern - The assessment of dive operators by Network Leaders is important in ensuring their adherence to the code of conduct, diving and snorkeling guidelines as well as the ethical use of membership incentives for their business.

194

Integrating Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrity and Restoration Options with Watershed-based Activities and MPAs in Micronesia

Country: TERRITORY OF GUAM, REPUBLIC OF PALAU, FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Project Overview

Studies were performed to determine the types and magnitudes of impacts caused by poor land- use practices within watersheds on adjacent coral reef ecosystems on Guam, Palau and Pohnpei. The overall study was aimed at identifying the biological and physical parameters affecting the coral reef communities, as well as the social aspects of policy development and implementation within the adjacent human communities. At all three sites, the local communities were involved in the project scope, design and the application of the research results.

In Guam, Fouha Bay was chosen as the research site. It is surrounded by steeply sloping hills that are often burned to clear vegetation by deer and pig hunters, accelerating erosion rates. The mayor and community members were proactive in requesting research be performed in their village, and provided logistical support. The data revealed high rates of sedimentation tied to runoff from rain events, high levels of oceanic swell-induced mud re-suspension in the absence of additional rainfall, and high levels of sediment retention in algal mats smothering the coral reefs and preventing the recruitment of coral larvae. Statistically significant effects on coral community composition were found to extend over the entire 300m-long bay. Riverine sediment input exceeded sediment flushing by a factor of two, on an annual basis.

In Palau, Airai Bay was chosen, which is bordered by a substantial mangrove forest, and is impacted by sedimentation from upland clearing for a road, farms and a housing development. The buffering mangroves, which were found to reduce the sediment load reaching the bay by approximately 30%, were being cut and filled to make room for houses. The impact of this activity was immediately evident, as the area of coral mortality spread 150m further into the bay soon after the clearing commenced.

In Pohnpei, the Enipein watershed was selected for study. It has similar characteristics to the Palau site, with an established offshore marine protected area. The key concern within this watershed is the clearing of the upland rainforest for sakau (a narcotizing plant and major cash crop) farming, which has resulted in extensive erosion and subsequent sedimentation of the mangrove-fringed estuary and the coral reefs. The sedimentation data demonstrated that the coral reef community within the designated MPA was being impacted by the watershed discharges, reducing the value of the marine conservation effort alone. In addition to the environmental damage, several people have died in mudslides attributed to forest clearing.

Specific problems tied to human activities responsible for sedimentation effects on the reefs were identified at all three sites, with a set of scientifically-based approaches for reversing the negative trends in reef health provided to each community.

195

Project Objectives

The objectives of the proposed research included:

1. To characterize watershed discharges affecting coastal reefs chemically, temporally and spatially.

2. To apply the knowledge gained from a previous EPA-STAR/Ecological Indicators grant to determining the classes and concentrations of coastal pollutants associated with watershed discharge of greatest concern to coral reef sustainability, and provide quantitative data for revising local and regional water quality standards.

3. To refine and expand protocols (including molecular techniques) that can identify sublethal stress in corals, before outright mortality occurs, and make these available to regulatory and management agencies on Guam and throughout the Pacific Islands.

4. To determine if coral reef recovery and restoration activities are practical following both anthropogenic and natural disturbances, and the sequence of watershed management practices that must precede or parallel reef restoration attempts.

5. To determine the efficacy of MPAs, in concert with watershed management practices, in conserving spawning stock biomass and supplying commercially and ecologically important species to impacted reefs.

6. To quantify the cultural and economic impacts of land-based developments that affect coastal resources, and incorporate this information into the decision making process.

7. To develop educational materials for a variety of users and stakeholders, from traditional Chiefs to school children, and to provide opportunities for capacity-building among island resource managers and institutions.

8. To develop a set of recommendations to prevent damage to coral reef ecosystems, and when such occurs, mitigation measures than may be undertaken.

Lessons Learned

• Coral reefs and other coastal marine ecosystems effectively extend into adjacent watersheds, and should be managed as an integrated unit. Marine protected areas often will miss their targets of resource protection unless coupled terrestrial protected areas (TPAs) are established and enforced. Simply put, TPAs combined with MPAs create effective resource protection areas.

• Accumulated sediment is a lethal legacy for coastal coral reefs undergoing phase shifts due to nutrient input and the overfishing of grazing herbivorous species. These sediments are often 196

resuspended by waves, preventing larval recruitment and thus the recovery of affected populations. Sediments also serve as a repository of pollutants associated with anoxic bottom sediments. Until these issues are integrated into efforts at coastal reef protection, further declines in resources will continue to occur.

• The lack of explicit legislative definitions for coral, coral reefs, and coral reef ecosystems limits the capacity of environmental legislation to support needed conservation efforts. Likewise, the vagueness with which community input is collected, weighed, and applied has often reduced the value of public hearings and commentary until they amount to futile formalities. Effective protection will require a comprehensive review of legislation, jurisdiction, and human and financial resource allocation, with stakeholders, researchers, social scientists, and policymakers providing input to help identify roles, opportunities, and responsibilities.

• In light of recent media coverage of environmental issues in the United States, including the debate over global warming, it is important that government scientists be free of interference from their politically appointed supervisors and be allowed to express their true scientific opinions rather than have their reports censored or revised by individuals with potentially conflicted agendas and without the proper scientific credentials.

• Although it is understood that policy decisions need to integrate economic, social, and scientific information within a political context, accuracy of information is critical to the process. In all three cases within the Pacific islands included in this study, community leaders wanted truthful data presentation and candor from the researchers, recognizing that good decisions could not be made in the absence of sound scientific information.

• Finally, formal training designed to improve communications among policymakers, social scientists, natural scientists, and stakeholders is critical to sound policy development and implementation and should be added to curricula across disciplines. Programs such as the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program (www.leopoldleadership.org), the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (www.compassonline.org), and SeaWeb (www.seaweb.org) are models that can help train present and future generations of scientists to deal more effectively with the challenges of environmental stewardship.

197

Integrating Coastal Ecosystem Integrity with Watershed-based Management Activities and MPAs in Babeldoab, Republic of Palau

Country: REPUBLIC OF PALAU

Project Overview

Coral reefs and mangroves are among the most biologically productive and diverse communities on earth, supporting a variety of invertebrate, fish and algal species. These systems provide numerous benefits to human populations, including the formation of islands and coastal land masses, protection from coastal erosion and wave damage, supporting fisheries of economic and cultural value, attracting tourism, providing recreational opportunities, serving as a source of natural products of biomedical interest, and exhibiting unparalleled natural beauty.

Natural disturbances, which are typically acute, have been affecting coastal ecosystems for millions of years and have a recognized role in maintaining species diversity; however the synergistic effects of anthropogenic disturbances are becoming a major concern. While coral reefs and mangroves are robust, and have historically recovered from a variety of natural disturbances, characteristically chronic anthropogenic disturbances have reduced the chances for natural recovery, and hence, may be of greater concern.

Determining the effects of pollutants and human activities on and adjacent to coastal ecosystems is difficult. Few studies have been designed to specifically address the effects of water quality, substratum quality and other environmental factors on the health of coastal ecosystems. While some of the causes of ecosystem decline are associated with marine activities, most coastal ecosystems are being damaged by land-based activities that require an integrated watershed management approach. Many of the bioassays presently available are non-predictive and inappropriate for coastal ecosystems as many of the existing water quality standards are simply carried over from freshwater lakes and rivers. Coral reefs, mangroves and other tropical ecosystems have a number of characteristics that make them quite different in ecosystem response from most freshwater or temperate marine systems.

This multidisciplinary proposal addresses key concerns for ecosystems of the island of Babeldoab in the Republic of Palau; however, the results of the study will be applicable to reefs world-wide. For the reefs of Babeldoab, the greatest problems are associated with runoff, sedimentation and coastal pollution from watershed discharges, both via surface runoff and aquifer discharge. These problems are compounded by overharvesting of marine resources, often resulting in ecosystem-level alteration and degradation of coral reef systems. The purpose of the proposed study is to provide accurate and adequate data to support policies that integrate land- use practices with coastal resource protection.

The management of reef fisheries is a difficult task and in developing tropical areas such as Micronesia, where ecologically complex ecosystems are under heavy pressure from rapidly increasing anthropogenic stress, the problem is exacerbated. Marine protected areas (MPAs) have received much attention in recent years as an alternative approach to traditional fisheries 198 management. Over the past several years, a network of MPAs has been established around Babeldoab. One advantage of MPAs for fisheries management is that they can protect critical spawning and nursery habitats through restricting various human activities within their boundaries, including destructive fishing methods and coastal development. A second possible advantage is that MPAs can supply large herbivorous fishes to nutrient-impacted areas, where they may help to control algae via grazing. Complete protection of reef resources involves an integrated approach, including watershed management, marine protected areas, and controls on catch and effort of marine resources in areas where extraction is permitted.

This section of the project will focus attention from the shoreline to the coastal reefs, and integrate marine-based efforts, including MPAs, with activities being undertaken on land. We will characterize watershed discharges that are affecting selected watersheds and associated mangroves and coral reef communities temporally, spatially and chemically to determine the extent and duration of the impacts. Specifically, the project will measure volume of watershed discharges, quantify the level of change from baseline, the areal extent of water parcels of reduced quality, and the longevity of these parcels as they impact coral reefs. The ecological studies will continue to develop and apply protocols for the assessment of watershed discharge impacts, protection of MPAs and restoration of coral reefs.

The research proposed here will provide practical, reliable, broadly applicable and predictive tools for identifying stress at sublethal levels, as mortality measurements alone are not very useful from a management perspective. Results of this study can be applied to identifying the effects of potential pollutants being used within watersheds affecting coral reefs, for establishing appropriate watershed management practices in tropical coastal areas, and providing guidelines for mitigation when reef damage does occur.

199

Objectives:

1. To characterize watershed discharges affecting coastal habitats and communities chemically, temporally and spatially. 2. To determine the efficacy of MPAs, in concert with ecosystem-based watershed management practices, in conserving spawning stock biomass and supplying commercially and ecologically important species to impacted reefs. 3. To develop a set of recommendations to prevent damage to coral reef ecosystems, and when such occurs, mitigation measures than may be undertaken.

These objectives are being met by addressing the following questions:

1. What is being discharged onto reefs from within selected watersheds? How often does this discharge occur, how great an area is affected, and for how long? 2. How effective are present mitigation measures in controlling watershed discharges, and how can these be improved to provide measurable results? 3. What are the specific biotic effects of watershed discharges on coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems? 4. Can increased biomass within MPAs spill over to enhance local fisheries? Is the level of enhancement sufficient to mitigate economically for the loss of fishing grounds? 5. Beyond fisheries recovery, what ecological benefits are derived from the integration of MPAs into coral reef management schemes? 6. How can data from this and other studies be presented to stakeholders, traditional and elected leaders to allow for effective environmental policy development and implementation?

Lessons Learned

The initial reporting from this project has just gotten underway, so there are no detailed lessons learned or good practices to report. However, the project staff noted 2 points:

1. Island-wide, multi-agency projects such as this require time, patience and many meetings and debates to bring together the 11 agencies and NGOs involved. 2. It was useful to have a 1-year planning grant to fund all the necessary meetings, literature reviews, and data mining to out the primary proposal together.

200

7. Global - GEF Projects

Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management

Country: GLOBAL

Project Overview

Coral reefs occupy only 0.1% of the ocean’s surface, yet they are the world’s richest repository of marine biodiversity. They are the largest living structures on Earth - the only natural communities distinctly visible from space. Complex and productive, coral reefs have survived over the course of more than 400 million years of evolution, and possess a remarkable richness, diversity of life and structure.

Today, coral reefs around the world are in such serious decline that they put at risk the environmental and economic stability of many coastal nations. Of the 109 countries with significant coral reef communities, at least 93 are experiencing damage. Many coral reefs have reached a state of decline that they can no longer be considered as coral reefs, while others are under increasing threat from local human disturbances and impacts from a changing global climate.

The livelihoods of 100 million people living along the coastlines of tropical developing countries, together with those businesses earning billions of dollars from reef-related tourism, rest upon policy-makers and reef managers in these regions taking action to stop over-fishing, pollution and unsustainable coastal development.

The Coral Reef Targeted Research (CRTR) Program is seeking to fill the critical gaps in our global understanding of what determines coral reef ecosystem vulnerability and resilience to a range of key stressors – from localized human stress to climate change – and to inform policies and management interventions on behalf of the coral reefs and the communities that depend on them. By addressing these knowledge gaps the Program aims to highlight the many policy and management actions that can be taken to reverse negative trends for coral reefs. The ultimate goal of the CRTR Program is to put new knowledge and technology into the hands of decision-makers and reef managers where it can make a difference.

The Program is being developed in three phases over 15 years. The first and current five- year phase (2004-2009) involves three components:

• Addressing knowledge and technology gaps

201

• Promoting learning and capacity building • Linking scientific knowledge to management and policy

For the first time in history, this Program brings together, coordinates and focuses the skills and resources of many of the world’s leading coral reef scientists. A major focus of the CRTR Program is to build capacity in countries with coral reefs, to develop and sustain a robust research environment that continues to develop practical tools for policy shapers and reef managers. Reef managers struggle to maintain a balance between use and conservation of coral reefs worldwide. We do not know enough about the fundamental factors affecting coral reefs in many areas to make practical management decisions. Nor do we have sufficient understanding to plan for changes brought about by the transformation of these ecosystems — especially during the next 30 years.

The CRTR Program’s research is targeted to achieve specific outcomes through six Working Groups, which address the following six research themes:

• Coral bleaching and local ecological factors • Connectivity and large-scale ecological processes • Coral diseases • Modelling and decision support • Remote sensing • Restoration and remediation.

This targeted research framework is systematically identifying information gaps, and prioritizing them in order of strategic importance to management, so that the resulting information and tools developed can lead to credible outcomes.

The CRTR Program is coordinated across geographic nodes. Four “Centers of Excellence” in Philippines, Mexico, Zanzibar and Australia reflect the regional distribution of coral reefs and the management initiatives underway to conserve them. At the regional level, CRTR scientists are working with local scientists on a range of other projects, building local capacity to apply science to management of coral reefs.

Lessons Learned

Rather than providing lessons learned from management experiences, Phase 1 of the CRTR provides some useful science-based tools for coral reef management, particularly the manager’s guides: Coral Disease - guidelines for assessment, monitoring and management, the Reef Restoration Concepts and Guidelines: Making sensible management choices in the face of uncertainty, and the Practical Guide to Coral Reef- Friendly Practices for Local Governments.

202

SECTION II: Lessons Learned and Good Practices in the Management of Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas

Introduction

The objective of this project is to formalize the experiences, outcomes and lessons learned from previous GEF projects, as well as major non-GEF initiatives involving marine protected areas (MPAs) in coral reefs and associated ecosystems. The project aims to comprehensively identify, analyze, and translate lessons into good practices and information resources, and then disseminate this information globally for use in future project design and development. Based on its history of supporting coral reef biodiversity, management and sustainable development, this project will help the GEF fulfill a major mandate to identify what has worked and what could be improved upon in supporting MPA implementation and management. This effort will also help the GEF and other major non-GEF projects achieve a markedly improved return on investment for future projects involving coral reef MPAs.

Since the 1990s, over $320 million of GEF funds were invested in 65 projects at varying action and technical levels to improve the management of coral reef, seagrass and mangrove habitats, much of which was part of a broader portfolio of over $600 million invested in coastal-marine projects overall. Of these 65 projects, 28 had adequate information to determine lessons learned. Of this subset of 28 projects, 20 specifically employed MPAs as a tool for fisheries management and biodiversity conservation, and in some cases for the generation of tourism revenues or other income. Our initial portfolio of 25 non-GEF projects included a further 21 projects that were specifically related to coral reef MPAs. Thus, MPAs are an important coral reef and reef fishery management tool in the GEF project portfolio and globally.

The dissemination of best practices based on lessons learned is a strategic priority for the GEF. However, in the case of coral reef MPA projects no comprehensive understanding of GEF successes and failures has ever been conducted. Because of the frequency with which new MPAs are created and implemented as tools for managing coral reefs, we created a separate (but closely related) synthesis of lessons and recommendations for coral reef MPA management (Annex 3: Lessons Learned and Good Practices in the Management of Coral Reef MPAs).

203

Methods

This project initially sought to review all GEF-funded projects related to coral reefs and associated tropical marine ecosystems (65 projects in total) and about 10-20 key non- GEF funded projects. However, review of the GEF projects indicated that only 20 GEF projects had sufficient focus on coral reef MPAs, were either completed or far enough along to have gathered lessons learned information, or had sufficient available documentation. Many of the others were too recent to have gathered useful information, while several had been cancelled due to implementation problems.

In order to gather more useful information, we examined 50 non-GEF funded projects, based on a variety of criteria. Of these, 21 projects had sufficient lessons learned information relevant to coral reef MPAs to warrant including in our analysis. In addition to reviewing project documentation (progress reports, final reports), personal interviews of project personnel were conducted. Finally, we conducted an intensive review of the primary literature dealing with studies of coral reef MPAs. Both project reports and primary literature were consulted to highlight case studies of the key lessons learned and good practices in coral reef MPA management. Thus, the review we conducted went far beyond the scope of the 41 projects reviewed. From our review of coral reef MPAs, we identified best practices in four broad areas of MPA management:

1. Ecological objectives and impacts; 2. Socio-cultural objectives and impacts; 3. Economic objectives and impacts; 4. Governance issues.

ISSUE 1: Ecological Objectives and Impacts

The primary ecological objectives of MPAs are to conserve biodiversity and to enhance fishery yields were other forms of fishery management do not work (as may often be the case in developing coastal nations with low institutional capacity for management). In the past, MPAs have typically been small no-take areas (“marine reserves”) often implemented at sites with particularly healthy coral reef habitat. Management of these marine reserves involves a ban on harvesting but rarely any regulation of activities occurring outside the reserve (e.g. upland deforestation, road building, etc.). Currently, managers are moving to a paradigm of larger MPA networks implemented within a “ridge to reef” approach to ecosystem-based management, where MPAs, watershed management, and wise land-use practices are included in an integrated coastal management regime.

204

Key lessons learned and recommendations • Address management of coral reef MPAs through integrated and holistic management of related ecosystems and land uses. Address all ecosystem components and processes to maintain the full range of ecological interactions, and to aim for resilience rather than for desired end-points. • Implement management at ecologically relevant scales such as watersheds, monitoring the status and trends of systems over long time periods and incorporate marine protected areas into management frameworks. • Integrate issues of sedimentation and sediment re-suspension into coastal reef protection, or further declines in resources will continue to occur. MPAs should be part of an integrated “ridge to reef” management plan that includes wise land use practices and watershed management. • Provide fishing communities with accurate and realistic predictions of MPA benefits; avoid “overselling” MPAs on the basis that increased catches due to spillover and enhanced recruitment from spawning in the MPA will more than make up for lost fishing grounds, increased effort and higher costs of fishers displaced from the MPA. • Obtain comprehensive biological and biophysical datasets before designing MPA networks. Where possible, conduct research to determine critical spawning and nursery habitats, connectivity pathways, and resilience of habitats, ecosystems, and livelihoods. • Incorporate a range of fishery management tools and avoid reliance on MPAs only. Other methods of restricting catch and/or effort are valuable, do not displace fishers, and may cause fewer conflicts between fishers and other reef resource users. • Monitor marine resources and ecosystem health within MPAs. Without monitoring, you can evaluate neither the success nor cost effectiveness of MPAs, nor carry out adaptive management if needed. • Set up and monitor a few comparable “control” areas where no regulations or conservation activities are In place. These provide a clear baseline against which you can evaluate the cost-effectiveness of your MPA.

ISSUE 2: Socio-cultural Objectives and Impacts

MPA managers generally agree that most challenges to MPA implementation are social. Reef-dependent communities need to be resilient and coexist with the ecosystem, not suffer from bad practices. This “social resilience” is the ability of the community to deal with change, through learning, reorganizing, self-organizing, and combining knowledge. It is crucial to recognize the diversity of communities and be flexible. Thus MPAs need adaptive management and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of their management in meeting community goals.

205

Key lessons learned and recommendations • Design MPAs to meet community goals and achieve greater compliance and subsequent conservation success. • Collect and integrate indigenous knowledge to avoid conflicts in zoning. • Use GIS and participatory mapping tools for zoning and rationalising roles and responsibilities among government organisations and other stakeholders. • Educate people about the zone boundaries and permitted uses, alongside training in ways to reduce human threats. • Base local MPA management plans on locally perceived threats/issues and sound data on local resource status. • Focus MPA management on the socio-cultural conditions and needs of communities. Incorporate formal workshops, participatory training exercises and community development to build trust and achieve stewardship of the MPA planning process. • Translate the goals and objectives of the MPA such that they are understandable to the target audiences and the community context. • Create a forum for stakeholder interaction, query, and debate to provide opportunities for collaboration and mediation within the context of social interactions and conflicts. • Involve marginalised user groups (gender and ethnic equality) and functional community leaders to promote good will, improve project management, and ensure equitable distribution of benefits. • While permanent reserves are more effective, rotational or seasonal closures or regulations other than complete closures are often more accepted, have less immediate social impacts and are easier to monitor and enforce.

ISSUE 3: Economic Objectives and Impacts

In order for MPAs to be sustainable, management must contribute to economic returns and livelihood. Reef-dependent communities that do not see any sign of increased economic returns from their MPA are unlikely to continue to support it. MPAs are often “oversold” on the promise of higher fishery yields through increased spawning biomass and spillover. However, the value of this increased production is difficult at best to quantify at the time of implementation.

Key lessons learned and recommendations • Clearly identify and communicate economic and other benefits of MPAs to maintain stakeholder interests and manage expectations. • Evaluate costs and benefits of private sector involvement early in the MPA development to assure buy-in and long-term engagement. • MPAs will have higher compliance and be more effective at conserving resources if they are easily visible to the community, and compliance is likely to increase the longer the MPA remains enforced. • MPAs will be more effective if implemented in communities with less market influences (i.e., proportion of fish sold or bartered and involvement in formal economic activities such as teaching, government employment, and other salaried positions), lower population sizes, and less wealth.

206

• Where fishers or other resource users are likely to be displaced, provide realistic, long-term options for alternative livelihoods (e.g. ecotourism, catch-and-release sport fishing, seaweed farming, etc.).

ISSUE 4: Governance of MPAs

Governance of MPAs includes a wide array of policies, strategies, institutional arrangements, legislation, information and education, financing mechanisms and capacity development. It involves the delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and stakeholder groups involved in management.

Key lessons learned and recommendations • Explore bottom-up and co-management approaches, recognising that varying management structures and strategies improves MPA effectiveness. • MPA regulations need to be pragmatic and address root causes but not be unrealistic in the ability of people to change their behaviour. • Zoning requires knowledge gained through a participatory process and that is well integrated with tools such as participatory mapping and GIS. • Policies that include more than one jurisdiction will require time to integrate and may often need to be agreed on prior to implementation. • Rapid and fair enforcement is essential to achieve continued support, faith, and compliance in MPA management.

207

Case Studies

Issue 1: Ecological Objectives and Impacts MPA and ecosystem-based management should fundamentally work intrinsically as only this framework would allow the perception of a larger picture in recognizing the connections and also strive to maintain the elements of ecosystems and the processes that essentially link them. Below are several case studies that identify the importance of integrated and holistic management of related ecosystems.

Recommendation 1.1 Address management of coral reef MPAs through integrated and holistic management of related ecosystems and land uses. Address all ecosystem components and processes to maintain the full range of ecological interactions, and to aim for resilience rather than for desired end-points.

Case Study 1.1a: Coastal Management Plan in Belize. (Gibson, J., M. McField and S. Wells. 1998. Coral reef management in Belize: an approach through Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Ocean and Coastal Management 39: 229-244)

Management of the coral reef must extend to land-based activities outside marine reserves if reefs are to be protected from siltation and land-based sources of pollution, the approach of integrated coastal zone management should be chosen to ensure the long- term viability of both the protected areas and the reef system in general. Although Belize hosts a small population of community, the unmonitored practices of agriculture has caused significant eutrophication caused by the damaging quantities of fertilizers from the citrus fruit cultivation farm which enters into the coastal waters from the Stann Creek Watershed. Apart from agriculture, sedimentation of corals has been reported at localized sites with high number of visitors, divers and snorkelers. In addition, destruction of mangroves and sea grass beds results from illegal dredging and sand mining operations. These detrimental practices are not kept under control due to the lack of monitoring and enforcement.

In response to these issues, management of the coral reefs was extended to land-based activities outside marine reserves and hence the Coastal Zone Management Unit (CZMU) was established in Belize with close cooperation with the Fisheries Department, the Belize Tourist Board (BTB), the Belize Port Authority (BPA), DOE and the Coastal Zone Management Project (CZMP) to develop policies and legislation for tourism and recreation.

Case Study 1.1b: Mindanao Rural Development Project. (Zweig, R. 2006. Mindanao Rural Development Project. Implementation Completion Report TF 23302. The World

208

Bank, Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region)

The overall objective of the long-term Mindanao Rural Development Program (MRDP) is to reduce poverty and ensure food security for the rural poor and indigenous communities in 25 provinces of Mindanao through the implementation of better-targeted agricultural and fisheries-related rural development and biological diversity conservation programs and through improved institutional, technical, management and financial capabilities and systems of participating local government units (LGUs). MPAs were implemented at two sites: Paril-Sangay and Bongo Island.

A resource assessment survey was carried out to generate comprehensive baseline information that will provide the biophysical and social bases for management of the marine protected areas in the Paril-Sangay and Bongo project sites and at the same time, to serve as the venue for the initial capacitation and involvement of stakeholders in the management of their area. The landscape cum oceanographic approach was employed as the general assessment framework of the resource assessment. This approach combined and highlighted the interrelationship between the biophysical environment and the social dimension that influences human activities impacting on the environment. Specific information generated as follows: a. In the biophysical assessment, condition/degree of disturbance in the ecosystems both coastal and forest, the status and value, both ecological and economic, of the species existing therein and, the areas of ecological processes critical in maintaining biodiversity in the area were identified; b. In the social assessment, demographic information such as population and population trends, economic activities and anthropogenic activities affecting the environment were likewise established.

Over a 3-year period from 2002 to 2005, catch per unit effort (CPUE) of the reef fishery in the Paril-Sangay area improved 97.4%. This was attributed primarily to the reduction in destructive fishing practices. At Bongo Island, the increase in CPUE over the same period was only 9.4%. Branching coral cover in shallow (3 m) waters increased by 27% at Paril-Sangay and 38% at Bongo Island. However, in deeper waters (10 m), branching coral cover decreased by 47% at Paril-Sangay and 14.3% at Bongo Island. This decrease in deeper coral cover was attributed to a crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak in 2004 and to other environmental disturbances, particularly sedimentation. Sedimentation was noted to be a major problem in the coastal/marine waters of Paril-Sangay and Bongo Island. Paril- Sangay’s biophysical make-up exemplifies a varied landscape system characterized by rugged terrestrial landscape interconnected to its coastal/marine waters and a small but productive agricultural land. The integrity and productivity of its marine ecosystem is therefore closely linked to its forest watersheds which unfortunately have undergone various forms of exploitation and degradation resulting in soil erosion. Bongo Island, on the other hand, typifies a small and fragile island ecosystem surrounded by coastal waters whose productivity is linked to the large Rio Grande River in the mainland which carries sediments from its headwaters in the uplands. As a result, the impacts of soil erosion from upland activities were cited as the major contributors to the degradation of the Paril- Sangay and Bongo Island coastal ecosystems and limiting the recovery of the coastal

209 resources. The project concluded that the implementation of the watershed approach should be considered in order to promote a management continuum from the upland to the coastal zone.

Recommendation 1.2 Implement management at ecologically relevant scales, monitoring the status and trends of systems over long time periods and incorporate marine protected areas into management frameworks.

Case Study 1.2a: Effects of marine reserve size on reef fisheries in the Turks & Caicos Islands. (Rudd, M.A and M.H. Tupper. 2002. Species-specific impacts of a small marine reserve on reef fish production and fishing productivity in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Environmental Conservation 29: 484-492)

Marine reserves are widely considered to potentially benefit reef fisheries through emigration, yet the empirical basis for predicting the extent of this for small reserves is weak. This study examined the effects of implementing a small (4 km2) marine reserve on biomass and catch per unit effort (CPUE) of three species of exploited reef fish at South Caicos, Turks and Caicos Islands. Mean size, density, and biomass of hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) were higher in a small (4km2) marine reserve than on fished reefs, as was biomass of white margate (Haemulon album). CPUE of hogfish was inversely related to distance from the centre of the reserve, suggesting that spillover of this species from the reserve to adjacent reefs may enhance local yields, possibly providing economic incentives for fishers to comply with reserve regulations. Fishing pressure, however, had no apparent effect on Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus).

Little is known of the specific movements or home range size of exploited coral reef fishes. In general, it is understood that the longer the time spent outside the reserve, the more vulnerable fish become to fishing mortality and that the extent of home range is most strongly influenced by body size. Large and schooling species have larger home range sizes and tend to move further than small or solitary species. Larger fishes such as grouper are therefore more likely to cross reserve boundaries, while smaller species may spend all their time within MPA boundaries.

The home range of Nassau grouper has been studied by Bolden (2002) in the Exuma Cays, Bahamas. She found that a 60 cm FL grouper (a typical adult size at South Caicos) had a home range area of approximately 18 000 m2. The total area covered by the ACLSNP is 4 km2 (slightly larger when considering suitable habitat within the adjoining East Harbour Lobster and Conch Reserve). Home range sizes of hogfish and white margate are currently unknown, but Kramer & Chapman (1999) analyzed the relationship between body size and home range size for 29 species of reef fish, including members of the families Labridae and Haemulidae. Assuming an average fork length of about 250 mm for both hogfish and white margate, the estimated home range areas of these smaller

210 species would be 600 m2. These are obviously rough estimates, taken from a conglomerate picture of other species. However, it is likely that the home range of adult Nassau grouper is large enough for this species to regularly cross the boundaries of the ACLSNP, while hogfish and white margate have home ranges many times smaller than the protected area.

In summary, larger fishes and those that migrate to spawn, such as economically valuable Nassau grouper, may move over too large a range to be effectively protected by small marine reserves. Small reserves may not protect all fish, but they can increase the biomass of smaller or more sedentary reef fishes and may be a useful tool for the conservation or management of species such as hogfish. Other policy options, such as seasonal spawning closures or total allowable catches, need to be considered for larger, more mobile fishes in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Case Study 1.2b: Marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago. (Friedlander, A.M., E.K. Brown, P.L. Jokiel, W.R. Smith and K.S. Rogers. 2003. Effects of habitat, wave exposure, and marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago. Coral Reefs 22: 291-305)

A comprehensive MPA management plan for the fishery resources in the main Hawaiian archipelago was designed by taking into account the various ecological scales that influence and interact with reef fish assemblages. The global concern regarding the poor performance of conventional fisheries management has led to increased interest in marine reserves as a solution to the problems of overfishing. However, for the marine protected area to function effectively in sustaining fisheries production and the conservation, the design of this MPA considered and evaluated the relationships between fish assemblages, their associated habitats, and the degree of protection from fishing over a broad spatial scale throughout the main Hawaiian Islands.

Marine protected areas should encompass the habitat requirements and life histories of the species to be conserved – taking into account the fishing pressure in the area and the degree of enforcement. The Hanauma Bay (Oahu) and Honolua Bay (Maui) are examples of no-take areas with the highest levels of protection from fishing; which also have the highest values for most fish assemblage characteristics. Both areas also have high coral cover, high coral species richness, and/or high reef complexity, suggesting that a combination of these parameters contributed to good fish habitat quality for reef fish in Hawaii. This suggests that a well-designed MPA should also map the distribution and characteristics of benthic habitat within and outside the MPA besides creating an inventory and assessment of the species of interest. This underscores the need for sound land-use management to protect the marine ecosystem from degradation, which will subsequently affect reef fish assemblages.

After the establishment of the MPA, long term monitoring was required to determine the effectiveness of the zoning plan, as a guideline for any modifications needed to reach the desired goals. Such monitoring indicated that the limited-take Pupukea site did not enhance fish stock biomass compared to other, no-take marine reserves. The Department

211 of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources thus took action by planning for expansion of the existing boundaries and restriction of most fishing activities within the Pupukea reserve.

Recommendation 1.3 Integrate issues of sedimentation and sediment re-suspension into coastal reef protection, or further declines in resources will continue to occur. MPAs should be part of an integrated “ridge to reef” management plan that includes wise land use practices and watershed management.

Case study 1.3a: Large- scale model of reef degradation and impact of future anthropogenic activities in the Great Barrier Reef. (Wolanski E, Richmond R, McCook L, Sweatman H. 2003b. Mud, marine snow and coral. reefs. American Scientist 91: 44-51)

This study presents a large-scale model for understanding reef degradation and predicting the impacts of human activities based on the extensive physical and biological data acquired from the Long- term Monitoring Program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Disturbances from sedimentation are one of the detrimental examples that affected 2 key parameters that will determine a reef’s resilience which is water and substratum quality. Not only will the resident coral reefs at the area affected by sedimentation will fail to thrive but coral larvae arriving from adjacent and more pristine reefs are also unable to recruit on the degraded substratum. A sure tell- tale sign that a degraded reef often gave away is the presence of filamentous and fleshy algae that replaces live coral covers. Ultimately the coral population of that area will fail to recover and also fail to reestablish themselves.

Taking examples from Guam and Hawaii, a reef that was killed cannot be simply restored by importing outside corals until and unless the underlying cause was addressed- which in that case, was soil erosion in the adjoining catchment which caused heavy sedimentation which shouldered the corals. A muddy plume during a river flood from the Burdekin River in Queensland is another instance where its impact has reduced salinity and caused acute damage to the coral reef.

In Australia, there are 4 agencies that deal with land-based issues while only 2 deal with coral reefs. This demonstrates that land-based activities and coral reefs are managed independently as though they are not interconnected ecosystems. This disconnection inevitably results in degradation of coral reef environments throughout the world. The model predicts that if the intensity of human activities on land is not diminished, the zone of damage will continue to expand larger than the natural state.

Among the approaches to alleviate the degradation of the reefs caused by sedimentation are: control of poor land-use practices that spill mud, nutrients and pesticides onto coral

212 reefs; managing fisheries through quotas and fishing-gear restrictions; reducing tourism impacts and establishing marine protected areas which are integrated into coastal management regimes.

Case Study 1.3b Integrating Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrity and Restoration Options with Watershed-based Activities and MPAs in Micronesia. (R.H. Richmond, T. Rongo, Y. Golbuu, S. Victor, N. Idechong, G. Davis, W. Kostka, L. Neth, M. Hamnett and E. Wolanski. 2007. Watersheds and coral reefs: conservation science, policy, and implementation. BioScience 57: 598-607)

Studies were performed to determine the types and magnitudes of impacts caused by poor land-use practices within watersheds on adjacent coral reef ecosystems on Guam, Palau and Pohnpei. The overall study was aimed at identifying the biological and physical parameters affecting the coral reef communities, as well as the social aspects of policy development and implementation within the adjacent human communities. At all three sites, the local communities were involved in the project scope, design and the application of the research results.

In Guam, Fouha Bay was chosen as the research site. It is surrounded by steeply sloping hills that are often burned to clear vegetation by deer and pig hunters, accelerating erosion rates. The mayor and community members requested research to be performed in their village, and provided logistical support. Studies revealed high rates of sedimentation related to runoff from rain events, high levels of oceanic swell-induced mud re-suspension in the absence of additional rainfall, and high levels of sediment retention in algal mats smothering the coral reefs and preventing the recruitment of coral larvae. Sedimentation had significant impacts on coral community composition over the entire 300m-long bay. Riverine sediment input exceeded sediment flushing by a factor of two, on an annual basis.

In Palau, Airai Bay was chosen, which is bordered by a substantial mangrove forest, and is impacted by sedimentation from upland clearing for a road, farms and a housing development. The mangroves had a significant buffering effect, reducing the sediment load reaching Airai bay by approximately 30%. These mangroves were being cut and filled to make room for houses. The impact of this activity was immediately evident, as the area of coral mortality spread 150m further into the bay soon after the clearing commenced.

In Pohnpei, the Enipein watershed was selected for study. The key concern within this watershed is the clearing of the upland rainforest for sakau (a narcotizing plant and major cash crop) farming, which has resulted in extensive erosion and subsequent sedimentation of the mangrove-fringed estuary and the coral reefs. The sedimentation data demonstrated that the coral reef community within the designated MPA was being impacted by the watershed discharges, reducing the value of the marine conservation effort alone.

213

Specific problems tied to human activities responsible for sedimentation effects on the reefs were identified at all three sites. A set of scientifically sound approaches for reversing the negative trends in reef health were provided to each community.

Two important points arising from this study are that:

• Coral reefs and other coastal marine ecosystems effectively extend into adjacent watersheds, and should be managed as an integrated unit. Marine protected areas often will miss their targets of resource protection unless they are coupled with effectively enforced terrestrial protected areas (TPAs). • Accumulated sediment is lethal to coastal coral reefs undergoing phase shifts due to increased nutrient input and the overfishing of herbivorous species. These sediments are often re-suspended by waves, preventing larval recruitment and thus the recovery of affected populations. Sediments also serve as a repository of pollutants associated with anoxic bottom sediments. Until these issues are integrated into coral reef management, further declines in resources will continue to occur.

Recommendation 1.4 Provide fishing communities with accurate and realistic predictions of MPA benefits; avoid “overselling” MPAs on the basis that increased catches due to spillover and enhanced recruitment from spawning in the MPA will more than make up for lost fishing grounds, increased effort and higher costs of fishers displaced from the MPA.

Case study 1.4a: Rates of fish recovery in marine reserves in the Philippines. (Russ, G.R., Stockwell, B. and A.C. Alcala. 2005 Inferring vs. measuring rates of recovery in no-take marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 292: 1-12)

Russ et al. (2005) used underwater visual census at 15 no-take marine reserves in the Philippines to both infer and measure recovery of reef fishes. They made a single estimate of the biomass of large predatory reef fishes (Serranidae, Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae) heavily exploited by fisheries in each of 13 well protected no-take reserves (age range 0.5 to 13 yr), and in nearby fished sites. They also measured rates of biomass increase of these fish regularly for 18 yr (1983 to 2001) in 2 no-take reserves (Sumilon, Apo) and fished sites. A minimum of 3-4 years was required to measure significant increases in biomass within a reserve, but at least 6 years was needed to measure significant differences in biomass between reserves and adjacent nonreserve sites). The reserve:nonreserve biomass ratios at maximum duration of reserve protection were similar for inferred (9.0) and measured (6.3 to 9.8) estimates. An index of habitat complexity did not significantly affect estimates of recover, and reserve protection was generally effective. Thus, using similar methods of reserve protection and census on the same species in similar areas, one can make useful inferences about rates of recovery in no-take marine reserves. Such inferences are clearly not definitive, and should be viewed merely as guides to possible recovery rates. There is no substitute for properly designed monitoring studies that can not definitively determine recovery rates and also provide information on the mechanisms driving recovery rates.

214

In a related study (Russ and Alcala 2004), the authors noted that after 9 years of protection at Sumilon Island and 18 years at Apo Island, the biomass of large predatory fishes was still increasing exponentially. Furthermore, there was little evidence that the rate of recovery of biomass inside the reserves was slowing down even after many years of protection. This led the authors to suggest that a considerable length of time is needed for full recovery to occur. They concluded that the time required for full recovery will be 15 at Sumilon Island and 40 years at Apo Island. This length of time is consistent with the life history characteristics of large predatory fish (e.g. slow growth, large body size, and late maturation), and with empirical data on recovery rates of heavily exploited fish stocks. The authors point out that by the time the full benefits from no-take marine reserves are apparent, human populations and impacts will have doubled in much of the developing world. They therefore recommend that, networks of no-take marine reserves need to be implemented immediately and that management mechanisms for such reserves need to be successful over timescales of human generations.

In an earlier study of the same reserves, Russ and Alcala (1996) suggest that much of the strong recovery in large predator density was due to a strong recruitment of the serranids (grouper). Almost 5 years of protection from fishing at Sumilon reserve resulted in a significant increase in density (but not biomass) of large predators. The authors suggest that biomass did not increase because the fishes did not have time to grow to significantly larger sizes before they were fished again after the reserve was reopened. Thus, it is important to consider the recruitment strength and life histories of the targeted fish species as these can influence the perceived effectiveness of the marine reserves to replenish fish stocks through spillover. It is not valid to expect that recruitment will be immediately successful following the closure of a reserve area –it is even possible that successful recruitment may not occur for several years following reserve implementation.

Case Study 1.4b: Recovery of reef fishes in Kenyan marine protected areas (McClanahan, T.R. and N.A.J. Graham. 2005. Recovery trajectories of coral reef fish assemblages within Kenyan marine protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 294: 241–248)

Recovery of reef fish assemblages following protection from fishing has implications for the design of the closed areas. Determining the equilibrium abundance and structure of the exploited species is an important reference point in conservation and harvesting models and decisions. This study examined the recovery of biomass and size structures of coral reef fishes on southern Kenyan coral reefs in four fully closed MPAs with varied ages since establishment. The goal was to determine whether there are consistent and general patterns and equilibrium levels for fish biomass and size structure. The results of the study indicated that over 20 years is needed for coral reef fish to recover to their full biomass in Kenya. Full recovery is likely to be dictated by periodic recruitment patterns, growth and longevities of the fish.

215

Although the maximum biomass was 1200kg/ha after about 20 years of recovery, it appeared that beyond 20 years there was a small decline in biomass. This decline could be caused by site-specific patterns and may be an artifact of the low overlap between sites and time under closure. However in the case where the decline is not an artifact, it could be due to slow recovery processes, changes in benthic cover, decline in net production, density-dependent emigration of fishes from older parks and recovery of higher trophic level prey. Given that biological overfishing occurs when the stock falls below half of the pristine biomass, the value of 1200kg/ha (for fish >10cm) will provide a good basis for estimating the stock condition and providing a target for fish biomass on fished reefs in this region. It is critically important for nations with coral reef fisheries to adopt multiple, fully closed areas that are permanently and properly enforced for many years. Periodic harvesting could be a useful form of fisheries management and it should be employed together with permanently closed-area management.

Case study 1.4c: Net spillover of reef fish biomass from a marine protected area in Guam. (Tupper, M. 2007. Spillover of commercially valuable reef fishes from marine protected areas in Guam, Micronesia. Fishery Bulletin 105:527-537)

This study addresses the question of whether adult spillover (movement out of marine protected areas) of fish can create a net export of fish biomass from MPAs to adjacent fished reefs. Biomass of five commercial reef fish species was estimated by visual census within and outside three MPAs in Guam, Micronesia. For most species and sites, biomass was significantly higher within the MPAs than in adjacent fished sites. Movement of fishes into and out of the MPAs was determined by mark-recapture experiments, in which fishes were tagged both inside and outside of MPAs. Four out of five species studied showed little or no net movement out of MPAs. However, the orangespine surgeonfish (Naso lituratus) showed a net spillover of biomass from all three MPAs; 21.5% of tagged individuals and 29% of the tagged biomass emigrated from MPAs.

Patterns of spillover were strongly influenced by physical habitat barriers, such as channels, headlands, or other topographic features. The study suggested that MPAs that are physically connected by contiguous reef structures will provide more spillover to adjacent reefs than those that are separated by habitat barriers. This study demonstrates that MPAs can enhance export of fish biomass to fished areas, but spillover is species- specific and depends on factors such as species size and mobility. To date, this is the only study that has directly demonstrated net export of adult biomass from an MPA to surrounding fished areas.

Recommendation 1.5 Obtain comprehensive biological and biophysical datasets before designing MPA networks. Where possible, conduct research to determine critical spawning and nursery habitats, connectivity pathways, and resilience of habitats, ecosystems, and livelihoods.

Case study 1.5a: Identifying nursery habitat for key reef fish species in Palau. (Tupper, M. 2007. Identification of nursery habitats for commercially valuable humphead

216 wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and large groupers (Pisces:Serranidae) in Palau. Marine Ecology Progress Series 232: 189-199)

Among the most economically valuable and most vulnerable coral reef fishes are the large-bodied species such as large wrasses and groupers. These species are slow growing and long lived, with late maturity, spawning occurring in aggregations and low rates of replenishment (Rhodes & Sadovy 2002, Sadovy et al. 2003a,b). These life-history traits render them particularly vulnerable to overfishing and catches have dramatically declined over the past few decades (Donaldson & Sadovy 2001, Myers 1999). The humphead wrasse has been listed as ‘vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, (www.redlist.org) and was listed in Appendix II of the (CITES) in. In addition to their fishery value, large reef fishes are important to recreational divers and may have high tourism value (Rudd and Tupper 2002).

Using mark–recapture techniques, Tupper (2007) examined among-habitat variation in settlement, growth, persistence, and movement in 3 large, vulnerable reef fishes: the humphead wrasse Cheilinus undulatus, the squaretail coralgrouper Plectropomus areolatus, and the camouflage grouper Epinephelus polyphekadion. All three species are culturally and economically important throughout the Indo-Pacific region. Both C. undulatus and P. areolatus appeared to utilize specific nursery habitats. Settlement, growth, and persistence of humphead wrasse were highest in branching coral mixed with bushy macroalgae (BCMA). Moreover, 80% of tagged C. undulatus recaptured in intermediate or adult habitats were originally tagged in BCMA. Early juvenile P. areolatus were found almost exclusively in coral rubble habitats on the slopes of tidal channels, at a narrow depth range of 5 to 7 m. This same pattern was found for P. leopardus on the Great Barrier Reef (Light and Jones 1997). This dependence on one habitat type could render this species vulnerable to dredging operations or other forms of coastal development. E. polyphekadion appeared to be a habitat generalist, and no specific nursery habitat could be identified for this species.

In summary, implementation of marine protected areas should prioritize habitats for conservation according to their value as essential nursery or spawning habitats for target species. However, the formation of a new Protected Areas Network in Palau has yet to include nursery habitats, primarily because information on such habitats did not exist. The results of this study demonstrate that nursery habitats do exist for some commercially and culturally important reef fishes in Palau, and that some of these nurseries (e.g. rubble areas along the slopes of tidal channels) could be easily impacted by human activities, with potentially serious consequences for fish populations. Future land-use planning and spatial management efforts should account for nursery areas in addition to spawning sites.

Case study 1.5b : Reef fish larvae dispersal of Cairns in the Great Barrier Reef. (Bode, M., L. Bode and P.R. Armsworth. 2006. Larval dispersal reveals regional sources and sinks in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 308: 17-25)

217

The connectivity patterns for reef fish larvae was analyzed in Cairns and it was found that a few local populations known as “gateway reefs” which functions to transport larvae from the sink subregion to the source subregion. This reef maintains the connectivity of the both populations in these two subregions hence the role of “gateway reefs” needs to be taken into consideration when a marine protected area network is designed.

In the Great Barrier Reef, larval fish recruitment varies regionally and this large scale variation will also affect population dynamics at smaller scales. It was found that the northern subregion of the Cairns coral reef was persistently limited by recruitment with low external larval input, but the opposite was true for the southern subregion (larval sink). The recruitment system was found to be unsustainable without larval input from the northern subregion (larval source).

With this, we now understand that the marine reserve would not have worked to replenish fish stocks if it was only closed around the southern subregion, without closures around the northern subregion and also around the “gateway reefs” which is the area of transit for the larval dispersals. These source-sink population dynamics are critical in siting effective marine protected areas, as pelagic larval dispersal that connects patchily distributed adult populations is a common feature in marine systems.

Recommendation 1.6 Incorporate a range of fishery management tools and avoid reliance on MPAs only. Other methods of restricting catch and/or effort are valuable, do not displace fishers, and may cause fewer conflicts between fishers and other reef resource users.

Case study 1.6: The management of Palau’s coral reef fisheries. (Johannes, R.E. 2002. The renaissance of community-based management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:317-340)

Proponents of marine protected areas routinely assert that their primary function is protect spawning stock biomass and increase fishery yields via improved recruitment resulting from larval dispersal (Johannes 2000). However, with few exceptions the great majority of Indo-Pacific MPAs have not included spawning aggregation sites. Even Australia, with the world’s largest coral reef, has only recently begun protecting spawning aggregation sites. In this regard, Palau is 20 years ahead of other Indo-Pacific nations, having begun protection of a major grouper spawning aggregation at Ngerumekaol (aka Ulong Channel) since 1976. Another grouper spawning aggregation site at Ebiil Channel is also closed to fishing.

Traditional leaders in Palau once strictly regulated fishing through customary marine tenure and via a system of closed areas, closed seasons, minimum size limits, and a variety of other regulations (Johannes 1999). However, traditional authority has eroded over the past 50 years, and Palauan fishermen requested government intervention to strengthen national fisheries law. Now, in addition to a system of marine and coastal protected areas known as PAN (Protected Areas Network), which includes the

218

Ngerumekaol and Ebiil spawning aggregation sites in addition to other, larger closed areas, Palau has implemented many other regulations, many of which are thought of has contemporary “Western” forms of fishery management. These include seasonal bans on fishing several key species of groupers, a complete moratorium on fishing vulnerable humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum), minimum size limits for sex-changing groupers, minimum mesh sizes for nets and traps, gear restrictions including a ban on SCUBA spear fishing, and a complete ban on destructive dynamite and cyanide fishing. As a result, Palau has much healthier fish stocks than similar island nations, such as the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa, all of which have less comprehensive fisheries management systems. Despite this, reef fish populations in Palau still appear to be declining, leading to the introduction of a bill in 2008 to ban all foreign fishing in Palau’s 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone. In summary, Palau is ahead of many other developing island nations in its use of a wide variety of fisheries management approaches (including MPAs), each of which can be considered one tool in a comprehensive toolbox.

Recommendation 1.7 Monitor marine resources and ecosystem health within MPAs. Without monitoring, you can evaluate neither the success nor cost effectiveness of MPAs, nor carry out adaptive management if needed.

Case study 1.7a: The marine protected area design of the US Virgin Islands and its effects on reef fish populations. (Monaco, M.E., A.M. Friedlander, C. Caldow and J.D. Christensen. 2007. Characterising reef fish populations and habitats within and outside the US Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument: a lesson in marine protected area design. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2007, 14, 33-40)

Because species response differently to protection depending on the intensity of exploitation to which they are subject outside the reserve and prior to their establishment, their life history characteristics and their larval, juvenile and adult dispersal- the marine resources and ecosystem health depends much on the suitability of the species adapting to such responses consequent of a marine protected area.

An effective MPA that should protect representative habitats and species types – constant monitoring of the health of these marine resources and ecosystem health must be done and ensured that the mosaic of these ecosystems are functioning properly. To assess the long- term effectiveness of the MPAs, it is important to characterize the health of the habitats and associated fauna within and outside the MPA. This data will provide a useful baseline for future comparisons and also to support adaptive management actions and also to assess the change within the ecosystems- such as one that was done between Virgin Islands National Park (VINP) and the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monuments (VICRNM).

At the end, the success and the effectiveness of every MPA hinges on proper location relative to critical habitats that supports living marine resources.

219

Case study 1.7b: Long-term monitoring of MPAs and ecosystem restoration in the Florida Keys. (Keller, B.D. and B.D. Causey. 2005. Linkages between the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 869–900)

The Florida Keys is a string of islands extending approximately 400km southwest of the southern tip of Florida, characterized by extensive seagrass beds, mangroves and coral reefs. The greatest threat to the environment, natural resource and economy of the keys has been the degradation of water quality, especially over the past two decades. Among the problems and challenges faced to effectively manage the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) is the large area and the length of the keys, and the large number of resource users. The heavy use of the sanctuary’s resources results in substantial resource damage through vessel groundings, fishing gears, hooks and lines entanglements, and from agricultural runoff and freshwater input.

The major element of South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (SFERI) goal is to restore a more natural water flow to the ecosystem while guaranteeing sufficient regional water supplies and flood control. To monitor environmental changes in the Florida Keys, the sanctuary has implemented a comprehensive program which is complemented by a research program directed at ascertaining the cause and effect linkages. This will ensure the effectiveness of the implementation and evaluation of the management strategies using the best available scientific information. Restoration efforts have adopted an adaptive management approach that stresses rectifying issues where possible and also continual collecting data, learning and planning. All these actions are integrated towards a system-wide management, integrated governance, broad- based partnerships, public outreach and communication and science based decision-making. System-wide management means taking a holistic and systematic approach to address issues regionally, not just locally, and placing emphasis on obtaining results rather than on developing processes that may never be carried out. To achieve this, different levels of government must work together to develop regulations that are based on common sense and sound science, share funding and cut costs, integrate budgets, develop cooperative programs to enable quicker actions and streamline red tape and other institutional barriers. In addition to that, broad-based partnerships are another key element in the restoration effort. The region’s high degree of cultural diversity demands for effective communication to connect people in meaningful ways with the effort, foster a clear exchange of views, ideas and information and instill a broad sense of stewardship, ownership and responsibility for the fate of the Florida Keys.

Recommendation 1.8 Set up and monitor a few comparable “control” areas where no regulations or conservation activities are in place. These provide a clear baseline against which you can evaluate the cost-effectiveness of your MPA.

220

Case study 1.8: Comparing protected sites to fished areas to determine the effectiveness of a Tanzanian MPA. (Kamukuru, A.T., Y.D. Mgaya and M.C. Ohman. 2004. Evaluating a marine protected area in a developing country: Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal Management 47: 321-337.

The benefits of marine protected areas (MPAs) to fish productivity remain debated, and comprehensive research projects have been suggested to assess MPA function. In order to determine the effectiveness of MPAs, it is necessary to compare the protected areas with similar, nearby unprotected sites. This study compared density and size of the blackspot snapper, Lutjanus fulviflamma, in Mafia Island Marine Park (MIMP), Tanzania, with adjacent intensively fished areas (IFA) using underwater visual censuses and catch data from the local fishery.

The MIMP is situated south-east of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. The MIMP was established in 1995 and covers an area of about 822 km2. Through boat patrols and local community participation, coral mining and destructive fishing techniques such as beach seining and blast fishing have been greatly reduced. Surveillance is conducted on a regular basis and illegal fishers are either fined or their gear and boats are confiscated. Although violations still occur, the fishing pressure is considerably lower in MIMP than in intensively fished areas (IFA).

This study was conducted on patchy reefs at two sites in MIMP and at two sites fished outside the park during September/October 2000. For a rapid assessment at low cost that would provide useful data on the local communities, the study was limited to one target species. Numbers and size structure of L. fulviflamma were estimated by underwater visual census along 50m belt-transects laid on the reef at 2–15m depth. The observers swam along the tape at a constant speed (approximately 20m per minute) while counting and recording individuals in 5 cm total length (TL) intervals. In addition, fishery data (i.e. number of fishers, fishing boats and gear) were obtained from a survey conducted by the Mafia Island District Fisheries Office in March 1999.

The results indicated that the target species was over four times more abundant, its biomass six to ten times higher and individual sizes on average 37% larger within the MIMP compared to the IFA. In comparing MPAs to control sites, it is important to account for the effects of habitat and other factors that may influence fish abundance or distribution. In this study, fish numbers and biomass were negatively correlated with fishing intensity and positively correlated with hard coral cover and structural complexity. Moreover, hard coral cover and structural complexity were higher in the MIMP than in the IFA. Thus the observed higher abundance, biomass and average size in the MIMP likely results from a combination of lower fishing pressure and superior habitat quality within the MIMP compared to the IFA.

221

Issue 2: Socio-cultural Objectives and Impacts

Although MPAs are expected to generate various biological and social benefits, there is a concern about over-zealous advocacy and impractical expectations of what MPA can realistically deliver. Without the relevant socio-cultural scales as guidelines, this often contributed to the flawed planning where MPA management adopts uninformed designs and the reckless proliferation of it will ultimately lead the design to suffer an imperative failure in due time.

Recommendation 2.1 Design MPAs to meet community goals and achieve greater compliance and subsequent conservation success.

Case study 2.1a: Community participation in the management of marine resources in Kenya (McClanahan, T.R., S. Mwaguni and N.A. Muthiga. 2005. Management of the Kenyan coast. Ocean and Coastal Management 18 : 901-931)

One of the common shortcomings in designing an effective marine protected area is the failure to ensure local community involvement in the critical phase of decision making. In the management of marine resources in Kenya, this issue was avoided by encouraging the participation between sectors in the meeting where the responsibilities of management were agreed upon and from which a number of memorandums were initiated as part of the integrative process.

It is often that where government and the larger economic interested that are involved in the policy planning, the poor and closely associated communities were marginalized. It is the exploitation of the local communities that will inevitably affect the natural environment of the coast – thus without proper and thorough planning of the MPA design to consider fulfilling the community goals and their participation to ensure the sustainability of the reserve, an MPA design will cease to work once it hits that gap of design.

ICM as a government process will subsequent in the historic top-down approach during initiation and marginalize the direct voice of local communities- which have their own system of organization with established traditions. This scenario illustrates the case where community goals are given proper considerations along with their traditional management – which will inevitably consequent in lower compliance and conservation successes.

Official stakeholders need to accept the need to subordinate their positions of decision making to local community leaders – so to avoid having the local communities to be suspicious of changes in the new ICM process that not only will avoid mistrust and conflict at the inception of the ICM process but also to adopt a design that meets the community goals.

222

Case study 2.1b: Community-based resource management in Southeast Asia. (Ferrari, M.F. 2006. Rediscovering community-conserved areas in South-east Asia: peoples’ initiatives to biodiversity loss. Parks 16: 43-48)

Human settlements have been shaping South-east Asia’s environment for thousands of years. But major social, economic and political changes in the past two centuries have had a tremendous impact on biodiversity and people. About 50% of coral reefs are threatened (Burke et al., 2002) and 65% of mangroves lost (UNEP 2001). Most of this loss has been taking place since local communities were earlier deprived of their use and control of local resources by colonial administrations and since the 1970s by industrialization and global trade policies. Simultaneously, since the 1980s, some governments started to admit that since they have not succeeded in sustainably managing natural resources, local communities and indigenous peoples need to be involved. Traditional and indigenous knowledge systems have also been gaining recognition in this context.

In the past three decades, although supporting legal instruments are only now evolving, there are increasing community conservation initiatives and community involvement in nongovernmental organization (NGO) or government conservation initiatives. While there is no fully reliable data on the exact number or the total area covered by community conserved areas (CCAs), there are more than 500 community-based coastal resources management (CBCRM) initiatives in the Philippines , as well as a growing number in Indonesia and Cambodia. Not all these local initiatives are operating successfully, but learning networks are being set up to help overcome shortcomings. The wide variety of CCAs are of three categories: (i) based on traditional and customary beliefs and practices; (ii) externally motivated (NGOs, Government agencies, donor agencies); and (iii) a combination of these two.

Many CCAs in the region have been started as a means by which communities claim their rights over their traditional lands and resources, be it common forests, watershed and wetland areas, or fishing grounds. Addressing unequal relations and enhancing equity therefore requires a critical look and a creative approach to power relations and the political economy of resource management, to ensure a favorable policy and legal environment for CCAs.

Traditional knowledge, conventionally ignored in formal conservation circles, is increasingly being shown to provide important lessons and tools in the search for new conservation approaches. Such knowledge and practices still play an important role in biodiversity management or are being revived. Emphasizing traditional knowledge, however, does not mean rejecting modern knowledge or technology. For example, many indigenous communities have been carrying out community resource mapping, using a combination of traditional knowledge and sophisticated GPS and GIS tools, to document their customary use of resources and develop sustainable management plans. Despite this, it does not seem that governments and, in many cases, NGOs are paying enough attention to stopping the erosion of traditional knowledge and customary practices in order to

223 employ them in practical initiatives. Indigenous and local communities also point out that traditional knowledge and customary use can only be practiced if their rights to land and resources are secured.

Many communities have started to address concerns about being marginalized in decision-making. In the Philippines, coastal fishers have formed an extensive network of Community-Based Coastal Resource Management (CBCRM) initiatives throughout the country. They have set up more than 500 marine sanctuaries, and developed the concept of Community Property Rights, which could apply to terrestrial resources as well as coastal and marine resources. The CBCRM Resource Centre in Manila has been serving communities, and has linked up with people and initiatives in Indonesia, Cambodia, Viet Nam and Thailand in a project called CBCRM Learning Regional Network (CBCRM LeaRN).

Recommendation 2.2 Collect and integrate indigenous knowledge to avoid conflicts in zoning.

Case study 2.2a: Fishermen’s knowledge – a traditional system in local resource management in Brazil. (Colding, J. and C. Folke. 2001. Social Taboos: “Invisible” Systems of Local Resource Management and Biological Conservation. Ecological Application, 11 :584-600)

Social taboos and indigenous (local) knowledge are good examples of informal institutions, where norms rather governmental juridical laws and rules, determine a human behavior which also then will determine their reactions and responses towards the implemented management. In Brazil, fisherman’s knowledge of fishing resources has the potential to be an important source of information to improve artisanal tropical fisheries management.

In this study, the researchers has interviewed selected fisherman with more than 30 years of fishing practice. Their results indicate some general patterns in fish reproduction according to fisherman’s knowledge such as fish spawning habitats, reproductive seasons and migratory patterns.

When their knowledge of ethno-ichthyologic information is compared with available scientific data, it indicates promising insights about reproduction and migration of Brazilian coastal fishes. Studies recording and analyzing fishers’ local knowledge is useful to better understand local fishing practices and customary or common management rules. This is also helpful in gathering new biological information about fish ecology aspects, migration, feeding habits and reproduction to improve zoning, impact assessment and to aid in marine conservation.

224

Case study 2.2b: Customary management for protecting coral reefs. (Aswani, S., Albert, S., Sabetian, A. and T, Furusawa. 2007. Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs 26: 1009-1021)

In the Pacific Islands, several factors have contributed to fisheries mismanagement, including poor data and inadequate scientific models, environmental variability, ignorance about natural systems, noncompliance with management measures, and the complex inter-relationships between biological, economic, and socio-cultural systems. In fact, managing small-scale, multi-species, and multi-gear reef fisheries that are spread over thousands of kilometers is too complex and too expensive for small Pacific Island nations. A number of authors have called for a more holistic approach to fisheries management in the region (e.g., Adams et al. 1997; Ruddle 1998; Sadovy 2005). While community-based natural resource management is widely implemented in the Pacific Islands, local knowledge and practices have yet to be fully integrated into the design, implementation, and monitoring of community-based conservation programs. Furthermore, with only few exceptions (e.g. Cinner et al. 2005; McClanahan et al. 2006), there is little evidence to show whether community-based conservation projects, which emphasize customary management, are meeting their stated objectives of biological conservation, social equity, and food security.

Customary management practices need not be an absolute substitute for more scientific methods of designing MPAs. A better approach is to combine Western and indigenous forms of knowledge and governance and to ensure that management policies that include indigenous practices are sanctioned by, and designed to benefit, local communities. The socioeconomic and cultural factors leading to success or failure of customary management should also be evaluated (Aswani 2005; Cinner and McClanahan 2006). Conservation of natural resources will be difficult to achieve unless the socioeconomic and cultural precepts that are important to people are considered.

Finding alternative means of designing MPAs is particularly important given the lack of reliable data on life history patterns of fish in tropical multi-species fisheries. Such knowledge is crucial for designing MPAs using the rigorous scientific principles advocated by many marine biologists. Given the current rate of marine resource degradation and biodiversity loss, however, it is essential that researchers and conservation practitioners systematically apply customary management practices as precautionary and adaptive management in community-based conservation programs.

Recommendation 2.3 Use GIS and participatory mapping tools for zoning and rationalizing roles and responsibilities among government organizations and other stakeholders.

Case study 2.3: GIS applications in the Kent Group of Islands benthic mapping. (Jordan, A., M. Lawler, V. Halley and N. Barrett. 2005. Sea bed habitat mapping in the Kent Group of Islands and its role in marine protected area planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 51-70)

225

GIS has been gaining popularity as an important tool in the mapping of seabed habitats to identify the distribution of marine ecosystems and as a surrogate measure of biodiversity for marine protected area planning. In designing the parameters of the Kent Group of islands, southern Australia- six distinct habitat types managed to be identified based on visual differences, proving that the application of GIS and the development of remote sensing techniques have improved the cost- effectiveness and reliability of habitat mappings. Although the Kent group are not tropical and do not have coral reefs, the lessons learned from this example are equally applicable to coral reef MPAs.

Linking the data acquired from GIS mapping with extensive acoustic and video transects allowed an estimate of the broad- scale distribution of seabed habitat defined at several hierarchical levels and provided information on the cover of the dominant benthic species or assemblages.

In February 2004, the Kent Group MPA was implemented, covering waters out to the 3nmi limit and containing two areas defined as a Sanctuary Zone (‘no take’) and a Habitat Protection Zone (‘restricted take’). In order to maximize the goals of the comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) network of MPA, it was important to include biological information at the largest scale practical in the planning process that which also will help in identifying and delegating the responsibilities and roles of the participating organizations and stakeholders.

In this study, the entire bioregion under Tasmanian jurisdiction was mapped which increased the likelihood of the MPA to achieve its objectives. The potential MPA locations were derived from the maps to maximize the habitat diversity while facilitating discussion of a range of possibilities and provide the capacity to incorporate socioeconomic considerations into the planning process.

Recommendation 2.4 Educate people about the zone boundaries and permitted uses, alongside training in ways to reduce human threats.

Case study 2.4a: Ko Chang Marine National Park – its design and the livelihood of the coastal communities. (Lunn, K.E. and P. Dearden. 2006. Fishers’ needs in Marine Protected Area zoning: a case study in Thailand. Coastal Management, 34:183–198)

One of the main reasons why marine parks fail to be successful and achieve their management objectives is partly caused by inadequate consultation and participation of the local communities during planning and decision making. In all cases, MPAs are a common mechanism to accomplish conservation objectives while still allowing economic development.

The Ko Chang Marine National Park (MNP) consists of 47 islands that encompass 650km2 area of land and sea. Although approximately 25% of the households in Ko Chang depended on fishing as their main source of income, and 95% of small scale

226 fishers were reported working in the marine park - the general zonings in MNP are based mainly on the analysis of recreational patterns.

Interview responses from the head village suggested that 25-30% of the total number of households in the park were involved in fisheries as their main source of year-round employment- this could mean that a no-fishing zone in Ko Chang would render a significant amount of local communities jobless. Although presently there are restrictions on small scale fisheries within the park – none of the interviewed respondents were aware of such regulations and hence, small-scale fishers were the main consumptive users of the MNP during daylight hours.

Management of the Ko Chang MNP must balance the ultimate goals of the park between the areas that are fully protected and the areas open to sustainable small-scale fishing and tourism activities. This could result in conflicts between fishers and the other reef resource users. However, the resident fishers in Ko Chang have developed and maintained a good relationship with the park officials that contributed to a high level of public participation in the management of the MNP. The fishers’ acceptance of and the compliance with the park’s regulations will increase their involvement in the process and their increased understanding of the fisheries and conservation benefits of such areas.

Case study 2.4b: The Bunaken National Park’s zonation and its local community. (Patlis, J.M. 2005. The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 450-467)

The Bunaken Marine Park in Sulawesi, Indonesia was first implemented in 1991 under the Ministry of Forestry with two zones: a core conservation zone and a tourism zone. Following the implementation of a USAID-funded natural resources management regime (NRM 1), zonation was a poorly understood aspect of the local community members in the area of the BNP. The initial laws governing the BNP under NRM 1 were so complex as to cause confusion and ambiguity among the legal frameworks. In past surveys in the villages of Tiwoko, Nain and Rap Rap, the majority of villagers believed that there was no particular place in which activities were regulated, and most people did not recognize the conservation zone of BNP as a restricted zone. Only two communities, Manado Tua and Alungbanna, were aware of the conservation zone and some villagers acknowledged the tourism zone. Knowledge of the zonation scheme was found to be very localized and sporadic.

In 2004, a second USAID-funded management regime (NRM 2) was initiated, which gave greater autonomy to the regional and local government units. This included the establishment of a of the Bunaken National Park Management Board (Dewan Pengelolaan), comprised of representatives of both regional and central government agencies and community members from a variety of villages and livelihoods. The Dewan has been formally established by regional regulation. Since implementation of the NRM 2, regulatory practices relating to the BNP have greatly improved. Fishing permits

227 issued by the regional fisheries department now include prohibition of activities within the Park waters. Awareness-building among the community members has also improved dramatically. The community members of the from the villages of Tiwoko, Nain, Bango, Alungbanna, Manado Tua and Rap Rap have a surprisingly strong understanding of the basic elements of the laws and institutions in place. Several respondents in Alungbanna mentioned that bottom trawling as a prohibited activity and virtually all recognized that fines or arrests were violations of the prohibitions.

Although most of the respondents are aware of the current zone boundaries and permitted uses, problems that breach such restrictions still persist. For example, In Tiwoko, almost all villagers said that mangroves were protected in the BNP. In Nain, however, where mangrove harvesting is an issue, none said mangroves were protected. Thus, continuing outreach efforts are needed to reach stakeholders, particularly informal processes targeted at smaller stakeholders and mass media campaigns to reach a wider audience.

Recommendation 2.5 Base local MPA management plans on locally perceived threats/issues and sound data on local resource status.

Case study 2.5a: The threats and exploitations in the Gulf of Aden. (Gladstone, W., N. Tawfik, D. Nasr, I. Andersen, C. Cheung, H. Drammeh, F. Krupp and S. Lintner. 1999. Sustainable use of renewable resources and conservation in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden: issues, needs and strategies actions. Ocean and Coastal Management 42: 671- 697)

The waters and resources of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden are a source of economic, social and cultural prosperity and it is also a globally significant repository of marine and coastal biodiversity. However, a limited exchange between semi-enclosed seas nature of the Gulf of Aden and the oceans increases the chances of environmental damages from pollution events and activities that compromise the ecosystem integrity, like habitat destructions and unsustainable usage of resources.

It is crucial to design a management plan according to the local threats and the local resource status in the specific context of the Gulf of Aden. In some areas intertidal and nearshore subtidal habitats (including coral reefs) have been lost or degraded as a result of land-filling, reclamation and dredging for ports and industrial development. The various threats are categorized into comprehensive issues, symptoms/impacts, their causes, scale and severity. The underlying cause of the various threats is a lack of integrated planning and management, causing rapid and uncontrolled growth of unplanned settlements, expansions and development around the existing coastal towns. The solution to these issues lay in the framework for long term environmental management in the region, such as the gathering of management related information and data (especially fisheries data). The problem of some countries around the Gulf of Aden having limited ability to assess not only the impacts of human threats but also the state of their natural resources and environment must also be addressed.

228

Case study 2.5b: Tubbataha – creating a locally managed marine protected area in the middle of the Sulu Sea. (WWF Philippines. 2006. Tubbataha reefs: a marine protected area that works. WWF Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. 22 pp.)

The Tubbataha Reefs are found at the very center of the Sulu Sea. They lie along the Cagayan Ridge, which traverses the Sulu Sea from the northeast, from the Sultana Shoal in Cagayancillo, to the southwest, to the San Miguel Islands of Tawi-Tawi. The nearest land mass of considerable size is mainland Palawan, with the capital of Puerto Princesa City lying 150 kilometers northwest of Tubbataha. The nearest islands are 130 kilometers in the other direction, northeast—Cagayancillo, the municipality where Tubbataha belongs.

At the start of the 1980’s, fishers from Cagayancillo (called Cagayanons) started to perceive the pressure of overfishing in their immediate surroundings. Using traditional wooden sailboats called pangko, they sailed to Tubbataha to fish and gather shells, turtles, seabirds and their eggs. Trips to Tubbataha took anywhere from one week to a month, depending on the winds. There were times when three to five pangko would sail in fleets. The fishers would anchor their boats in the lagoons for safety and roam the reefs and islets freely, taking as much as their boats could carry, because they never knew when the conditions would be good enough to make another trip. In the minds of most Cagayanons, Tubbataha was a place of plenty.

Soon after, by the mid-1980s, the traditional pangko used by the Cagayanons was replaced by boats with motorized engines, making trips to Tubbataha faster and more frequent. Eventually, fishers from Cagayancillo were replaced by those coming from the neighboring Visayan provinces of Cebu and Iloilo. In turn, Visayan fishers were pushed to Tubbataha and other offshore reefs in the Sulu Sea by the deteriorating conditions of the coastal and marine environment in their own provinces. The arrival of fishers from the Visayas marked a turning point in the history of Tubbataha, because they introduced dynamite and cyanide fishing. Thus, they inflicted more damage in a few years than traditional Sulu fishers did over a thousand years. The Visayans resorted to the use of dynamite and cyanide to make their long-distance trips pay off, ensuring big hauls in a short period of time.

The increase in threats to Tubbataha culminated in its declaration as the Philippines’ first national marine protected area in 1988, creating the need to set up a proper management system. This feat was far from easy, given the logistical difficulties posed by an offshore reef. What happened was akin to management by trial and error. A management body was created to take care of Tubbataha; when the designated body failed to deliver, the responsibility was passed on to another group. This went on for a decade. In retrospect, the success in managing Tubbataha can be attributed to a management structure that enabled local stakeholders to take the lead in decision making. Management changed hands, from national bodies based in far-away Manila to the provincial government, with participation from the national and municipal governments as well as private

229 organizations. In 1995, a multi-sectoral Presidential Task Force was established to fill the management void. The Task Force was created to serve as the policy and program coordinating mechanism for the park. However, the fact that most of the members were still based in Manila once again became the bane of this management body. On top of that, the other members were either too busy, or the park was not among their priorities. The original members of the Task Force never held a single meeting.

However, the Task Force did form an Executive Committee composed mostly of locally based institutions. Its purpose was to pursue conservation objectives on-site. The greatest problem was still the enforcement of park rules from the seat of management, which was Puerto Princesa. Because the Task Force was unable to fulfill its function, the late Governor Salvador Socrates initiated the establishment of the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB), The TPAMB acts as the policy-making body responsible for the general administration and management of the park. Under the TPAMB is the Executive Committee (Execom), which reviews, evaluates and recommends actions on proposals, activities and plans.

The TPAMB has 17 members. Unlike previous management bodies, all member organizations have local offices based in Puerto Princesa and Cagayancillo, enabling the members to attend quarterly meetings. Decisions are made by consensus. If the TPAMB determines that additional technical information is required, the matter is delegated to the Execom for further investigation and deliberation. The Execom is composed of six TPAMB members, chosen because of their direct involvement in the implementation of specific management programs. In this way, those who are engaged in the day-to-day operations of the park are able to relay news and give feedback directly to park management, allowing for adaptive management.

In June 2001, through a project implemented by WWF-Philippines and co-funded by the Global Environment Facility –United Nations Development Programme (GEF-UNDP) and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Tubbataha Management Office (TMO) was established. The TMO functions as the implementing arm of the TPAMB, overseeing the day-to-day operations of park management. The TMO is headed by a Park Manager. The rest of the staff was recruited from nearby areas, its three marine park rangers coming from Cagayancillo. The creation of the TMO provided a unit solely dedicated to implementing the park management plan and maintaining a presence in the park. It operates according to the park management plan, which translates into yearly work plans and budgets endorsed by the Execom and approved by the TPAMB. The TMO, in directly supervising park operations, has improved the administrative and financial management of the park. Its most important achievement was clarifying and enforcing park rules and regulations, including the conservation fee collection and permit system.

The most significant achievement of the Tubbataha Reefs as an MPA was not that it has become totally off-limits to fishing. Rather, it was the delivery of such dramatic results— 100% increase in fish biomass and 90% increase in income for the nearest fishing

230 villages—over a relatively short period of time, and the recorded confirmation of such results, that make this a unique case.

Recommendation 2.6 Focus MPA management on the socio-cultural conditions and needs of communities. Incorporate formal workshops, participatory training exercises and community development to build trust and achieve stewardship of the MPA planning process.

Case study 2.6a: The marine resource management in Indonesia and its marginalized stakeholder: the local communities. (Fauzi, A. and E.A. Buchary. 2002. A socioeconomic perspective of environmental degradation at Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park, Indonesia. Coastal Management, 30: 167-181)

The archipelago of Indonesia sits in the cradle of the richest area of marine diversity in the world, with more than 450 species of scleractinian corals and more than 2000 fish species recorded. Equal is the importance of these marine resources to the livelihood of the coastal people that makes the 60% of the total Indonesian population.

The recent 3 decades saw the emergence of the “New Order”, a political model that was driven by the growth-orientated macroeconomy which exerted great pressure on these marine resources. Conventional public resource management policy could not be developed due to the socioeconomic problems faced by the coastal communities, the complexity of policy implementation and institutional arrangements, together with the lack of monetary and technical resources from the government.

The Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park’s (KSMNP) zoning plan that was drafted and gazetted in 1986 did not include the consultations of the local stakeholders – the resident islanders, the fishers and park users. Infringements such as illegal entry into the park and destructive fishing could have been reduced if the communities had been involved in the establishment and the management of the park from the beginning.

It was crucial to understand that the low level of formal education and lack of employment alternatives resulted in the islanders seeing entry to the fishery as their last resort to employment. Excluding the participation of the islanders in the management, planning and operation of the park has led to ill feeling and misunderstanding of the local government authority and mainland entrepreneurs who owns resorts in the park.

A few suggestions have been made to help alleviate the poverty and marginality constraints, that which includes the provision of a working community education or vocational facility for the islanders, encourage participation of islanders to create consensus building- to help create a climate in which the islanders may consider themselves as stewards of the park and will work cooperatively with park wardens and also providing opportunities for the KSMNP islanders to learn from other communities’ success stories such as the one in Blongko Marine Sanctuary in North Sulawesi.

231

Case study 2.6b: Designing MPAs based on local socioeconomic conditions in Papua New Guinea. (Cinner, J. 2007. Designing marine reserves to reflect local socioeconomic conditions: lessons from long-enduring customary management systems. Coral Reefs)

Coral reef conservation strategies such as marine protected areas have met limited success in many developing countries. Some researchers attribute part of these shortcomings to inadequate attention to the social context of conserving marine resources. To gain insights into applying Western conservation theory more successfully in the socioeconomic context of developing countries, this study examines how long- enduring, customary reef closures appear to reflect local socioeconomic conditions in two Papua New Guinean communities. Attributes of the customary management (including size, shape, permanence, and gear restrictions) are examined in relation to prevailing socioeconomic conditions (including resource users’ ability to switch gears, fishing grounds, and occupations).

Customary closures in the two communities appear to reflect local socioeconomic circumstances in three ways. First, in situations where people can readily switch between occupations, full closures are acceptable with periodic harvests to benefit from the closure. In comparison, communities with high dependence on the marine resources are more conducive to employing strategies that restrict certain gear types while still allowing others. Second, where there is multiple clan and family spatial ownership of resources, the communities have one closure per clan/family; one large no-take area would have disproportionate effect on those compared to the rest of the community. In contrast, communities that have joint ownership can establish one large closure as long as there are other areas available to harvest. Third, historical and trade relationships with neighboring communities can influence regulations by creating the need for occasional harvests to provide fish for feasts. This study further demonstrates the importance of understanding the socioeconomic context of factors such as community governance and levels of dependence for the conservation of marine resources.

Recommendation 2.7 Translate the goals and objectives of the MPA such that they are understandable to the target audiences and the community context.

Case study 2.7: Communicating goals and objectives of MPA in the San Salvador Island (Katon, B.M., R.S. Pomeroy, L. Garces and A.M. Salamanca. 1999. Fisheries Management of San Salvador Island Philippines: A Shared Responsibility. Society and Natural Resources, 12: 777-795)

Community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM) projects have been implemented in the Philippines since the early 1980’s. The San Salvador Island case illustrates that the CBCRM can serve as a route to sustainable, equitable and efficient coastal resource management and also to comanagement. Co-management refers to the sharing of responsibility and/or authority between government and community of local

232 users to manage a resource. However, purely community-level management can be difficult to implement in the complexity of multiple stakeholders. Hence it is crucial to clearly communicate the goals and objectives of the MPA to all stakeholders, especially the local communities that would traditionally be the direct resource users.

By getting the fishers and local resource users involved in enforcement and in developing rules and policies, it will provide also ownership and accountability of decisions and actions. To aid this, intensive information campaigns has helped the residents to realize the consequences of unsustainable uses and heightened their concern over protecting the resources that ensures their livelihood and survival.

In summary, clarifying the objectives of the MPA to the stakeholders by clearly communicating approaches to a well-defined set of issues can help steer the direction of comanagement. There is no doubt that when resource users and stakeholders have a good grasp of the rationale of managing the resource, with the understanding of the short-term and long-term objectives to sustain the comanagement.

Recommendation 2.8 Create a forum for stakeholder interaction, query, and debate to provide opportunities for collaboration and mediation within the context of social interactions and conflicts.

Case study 2.8: The cooperation between multiple stakeholders of the MPA in Australia. (Baelde, P. 2005. Interactions between the implementation of marine protected areas and right-based fisheries management in Australia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 9-18)

It is widely acknowledged that effective management of natural resources requires the participation of those directly affected by management measures. In Australia, the major challenges for the governments in the implementation of MPA are the poor cooperation between fisheries and conservation agencies, principle inconsistencies between allocations of fishing rights by fisheries agencies and loss of these rights through MPA declaration; re-allocation of resources between user groups through spatial zoning; lack of fisheries expertise in conservation planning and inappropriate single- species/ single- issue approach to fishery management.

Fisheries agencies have long used area closures as part of fisheries management but the management principles underlying fisheries and conservation agencies’ use of spatial closures differ significantly and at times, conflict with each other. Although there is a high likelihood that fisheries and conservation agencies will conduct two separate MPA planning processes due to the operation of different legislations, it is a responsibility of both agencies to develop well- thought-through and well structured cooperation protocols to ensure a more effective management of marine resources. Today’s trend that inclines to paying less emphasis to data collection or sharing and adaptive management - could prove to be detrimental eventually, turning the potential merits of ecosystem- based spatial closures into management failures.

233

Recommendation 2.9 Involve marginalized user groups (gender and ethnic equality) and functional community leaders to promote good will, improve project management, and ensure equitable distribution of benefits.

Case study 2.9a: The sustainability of ICM projects in the Philippines. (Thiele, M.T., R.B. Pollnac and P. Christie. 2005. Relationships between coastal tourism and ICM sustainability in the central Visayas region of the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 378-392)

Coastal resource management (CRM) has a long history in the Philippines. The Central Visayas Regional Project (CVRP) was one of the earliest and largest community- based integrated coastal management (ICM) projects in the Philippines. The objectives of the CVRP placed a strong emphasis on community organizing. Trainings were conducted to help participating families to organize themselves into fishermen’s associations and federations, many of which are still in existence. Coastal tourism is traditionally considered to benefit developing economies and especially local communities through local revenue stimulation. It is considered an opportunity to promote economic development with minimal negative impact with responsible development. However, the analysis of the research done to evaluate the coastal tourism and ICM sustainably as perceived by the local communities revealed mixed impacts from tourism by the nearby communities. Negative impacts could be related to social stratification within the communities where tourism exists. It is typical that the immediate area around the tourist resorts is most well- to–do and pristine, contrasting with the areas further from the resorts that are poverty stricken and receive few benefits of the tourism industry. This is common where tourism resorts deny community access to its designated beachfront sanctuary areas, where it could have previously been part of the local fishing grounds.

Another analysis revealed that the village meeting attendance is lower when tourist businesses are involved in ICM activities, perhaps bearing the perception that the money- making resort owners have more weight in these community meetings. This situation could most likely create a disgruntled surrounding community- one that is unlikely to be supportive of additional ICM activities. ICM practitioners should seek more balanced and equitable co-management of resources and the dynamics of this relationship warrant further investigation. Furthermore, ICM activities like marine sanctuaries should hold all stakeholders accountable to the same standards and not allow unfair exclusions or benefits only to the tourism industry.

Case study 2.9b: Involving poor fisherfolk in MPA management in the Philippines. (Majanen, T. 2007. Resource use conflicts in Mabini and Tingloy, the Philippines. Marine Policy 31: 480–487)

The Philippines is well known for its rich marine biodiversity but its large and rapidly growing coastal population has caused 98% of its coral reefs to be under medium or high

234 threat. Mabini and Tingloy, located in the province of Batangas, are neighboring municipalities that emerges as a recreational dive destination in the 1970’s. Both have traditionally been central to the local economy but today, multiple stakeholders have showed interests in the reefs and several conflicts are marked by clear power imbalances. This paper strives to address the twin challenges of biodiversity conservation and economic development. The conflict between conservation and fishing was the most pronounced conflict perceived by residents of Mabini- Tingloy. It is crucial to recognize that although tourism and conservation conflicts are not mutually inclusive, one conflict should not be discussed outside the context of the other.

Imbalanced power relationships and unfair political alliances are not uncommon between MPA stakeholders. Another major conflict arises between the local people and the tourism industry is the lack of substantial direct economic benefits provided by the tourism industry on terms of livelihood. However, a research in the Philippines shows that job satisfaction among the fishers is generally high and hence they would prefer their current livelihood even if they have an opportunity in the tourism for them.

Economic benefits of conservation tend to be limited on a local scale; increases slightly on a regional scale and become substantial over the global scale. It is no wonder why many of the local fishers feel marginalized by conservation and that sanctuaries have negatively impacted their livelihood. Thus, protected areas should ideally pay for themselves through donor fundings or by generation of revenues to avoid conflict. Local communities’ economic losses should be compensated either by cash, goods or services. Providing substitution for specific resources to which its access has been denied and providing alternative source of income is critical. Sanctuary management and user rights need urgent clarification, where sanctuary ordinances should be respected and equally enforced. If local communities agree with the decision to allow diving in the sanctuary, the ordinances should be amended clearly to state explicitly which activities are allowed and the ordinances should be enforced consistently. Communication and education programs are needed to clarify the objectives of conservation and the impacts that they will have on the livelihood of fishers and other residents.

Recommendation 2.10 While permanent reserves are more effective, rotational or seasonal closures or regulations other than complete closures are often more accepted, have less immediate social impacts and are easier to monitor and enforce.

Case Study 2.10a – Effectiveness of rotational vs. permanent closures on reef fish biomass in Hawaii. (Williams, I.D., Walsh, W.J., Miyasaka, A, and A.M. Friedlander. 2006. Effects of rotational closure on coral reef fishes in Waikiki-Diamond Head Fishery Management Area, Oahu, Hawaii. Marine Ecology Progress Series 310: 139-149)

No-take marine reserves can be very effective in conserving biodiversity,: well-protected reserves generally have larger and more abundant fishes, particularly of species targeted by fisheries, than comparable unprotected areas or in comparison to populations prior to

235 closure (Polunin & Roberts 1993, Edgar & Barrett 1999, McClanahan & Arthur 2001, Russ & Alcala 2003). However, prohibiting fishing will almost always result in some cost or loss of utility to excluded user groups, including both commercial and recreational fishers (Badalamenti et al. 2000, Sladek Nowlis & Friedlander 2005). Over time, spillover of adult fishes or export of larvae from no-take reserves may lead to net benefits to fishers in connected areas (McClanahan & Mangi 2000, Roberts et al. 2001, Russ et al. 2003, 2004, Sladek Nowlis & Friedlander 2005). However, the magnitude of such benefits is uncertain and protection generally needs to be effective for an extended period for a reserve to be an effective fishery management tool (Russ & Alcala 1999.

One alternative to permanent closures is to manage an area by a rotational strategy, i.e. alternately opening and closing an area to fishing. The rationale is that fish stocks would recover sufficiently during periods of closure for them to be better able to sustain fishing during open periods. Such a strategy might reach some conservation goals while mitigating the drawbacks associated with permanent closure.

Using data taken from the state of Hawaii’s long-term reef monitoring program, Williams et al. (2006) assessed the effects of more than 2 decades of rotational management on fish stocks at the Waikiki-Diamond Head Fishery Management Area (FMA) on Oahu, Hawaii. Fish biomass tended to increase during the 1 to 2 yr closure periods, but the scale of these increases was insufficient to compensate for declines during open periods. The net effect was that, between 1978 and 2002, total biomass declined by 66%. In addition large individuals (>40 cm) of target species: acanthurids, scarids and mullids, virtually disappeared. Such fishes, although initially common, were rarely recorded in surveys after 1990. In 1988, a portion of the FMA was converted into the permanently closed Waikiki Marine Life Conservation District (MLCD). Assessment of the relative effectiveness of permanent and rotational closure was complicated by declines in habitat quality, particularly within the MLCD, caused by overgrowth of much of the reef by the invasive macroalgae Gracilaria salicornia, which began in the early 1990s. However, the initial effect of full closure was a reversal of the previous downward trend in fish biomass, and, even in the post habitat-decline period, biomass of target species was nearly twice as high within the MLCD as in the FMA. Additionally, there have been no declines or even downward trends in maximum size of target families in the MLCD.

In summary, despite short-term boosts to fish stocks and possibly also to fishers during or immediately after 1 to 2 yr periods of closure, the longer-term consequences of rotational closures of the Waikiki FMA have been steep declines in the biomass of target fishes, together with the virtual disappearance of larger individuals of these groups. Thus, rotational management has not been an effective means of conserving fish stocks or revitalizing public fishing over the longer term.

Case study 2.10b: Comparison of permanent MPAs to other forms of coral reef management. (McClanahan, T., Marnane, M.J., Cinner, J.E. and W.A. Kiene. 2006. A comparison of Marine Protected Areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16: 1408-1413)

236

Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been widely adopted as the leading tool for coral- reef conservation, but resource users seldom accept them (Christie 2004, McClanahan et al. 2005b) and many have failed to produce tangible conservation benefits (McClanahan 1999). Few studies have objectively and simultaneously examined the types of MPAs that are most effective in conserving reef resources and the socioeconomic factors responsible for effective conservation (Pomeroy et al. 1997, Pollnac et al. 2001, Cinner 2005). We simultaneously explored measures of reef and socioeconomic conservation success at four national parks, four co-managed reserves, and three traditionally managed areas in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Underwater visual censuses of key ecological indicators (McClanahan 1994, McClanahan and Shafir 1990) revealed that the average size and biomass of fishes were higher in all areas under traditional management and at one co-managed reserve when compared to nearby unmanaged areas. Socioeconomic assessments (Cinner 2005, Cinner et al. 2005a, Cinner and McClanahan 2006) revealed that these MPA effects were positively related to compliance with regulations, visibility of the reserve, and length of time the management had been in place. Conservation effects were negatively related to market integration, wealth, and village population size. In cases where the resources for enforcement are lacking, management regimes that are designed to meet community goals can achieve greater compliance and subsequent conservation success than regimes designed primarily for biodiversity conservation.

All effective sites were able to exclude ‘‘outsiders’’ at a relatively low cost because the managed areas were located near the village. The effective traditional sites also had strong customary marine tenure institutions, which prohibited non-owners from accessing reef resources (Cinner 2005, Cinner et al. 2005a,b). Interestingly, observed compliance was highest in the three self-governing traditionally managed areas, which did not have regular enforcement. This suggests that the effectiveness of these sites in conserving reef resources resulted from intrinsic motivations to act collectively and comply with regulations (Colding and Folke 2001, Sutinen and Kuperan 1999).

Social influences promoting collective action and the perceived justness and legitimacy of regulations (Berkes et al. 2000) may be particularly high in traditional sites because they reflected local understandings of human-environment interactions, were an integral part of local cultures and traditions, and provided the villages with tangible benefits. For example, communities periodically fished these areas and perceived direct benefits of the management system; thus, these systems met more individual and community goals than permanent closures. In addition, most village members were regularly reminded of the closures through participation in the traditions and feasts (Aswani 1999). In all traditionally managed sites, village leaders had some control over the timing and scale of harvesting within the protected area. Leaders also had the ability to develop rules that were congruent to local ecological and social conditions and also to adapt management to observed changes in ecosystem dynamics, socioeconomic influences, and evasion of governance rules (Aswani 2002, Berkes 1989, Cinner et al. 2005b). For example, in Muluk, Indonesia, clan leaders instituted a temporary closure when they observed a decrease in fish abundance (Cinner et al. 2005b). The size of the closure, length of time, and sanctions for violations could vary to meet the changing needs of the village and ecosystem.

237

The ability of periodic closures to enhance fish stocks and subsequent fishery yields likelydepends upon the intensity of fishing effort during open periods, in addition to the life history characteristics of the targeted species. In the case of one of these sites, Ahus, periodic harvesting was carried out on only one day every 6–12 months and removed only around 5% of the available biomass on each occasion (Cinner et al. 2005a). However, if similar management methods were to be employed elsewhere, especially in areas of intense fishing pressure, the extent and type of harvesting to occur in managed areas would have to be carefully monitored and regulated, because differences in fishing effort, gear type, and frequency of harvest can all impact the outcomes and management benefits of rotational closures.

238

Issue 3: Economic Objectives and Impacts

Every so often, the designing of a marine protected area would tend to overemphasize and underestimate the weight of the economic aspects when designing or implementing a marine park area project. Whether it is the capacity of input of receiving financial aid to run the project or the revenue that is potentially generated from the project; most projects somehow experience the economical prospects of a marine park area that is distributed unfairly. The economic gains from the coastal resources should be adequately informed and distributed to all stakeholders, especially the local communities – lest they undermine the revenue- generating mechanism from the project activities and render more support to ensure its sustainability.

Recommendation 3.1 Clearly identify and communicate economic and other benefits of MPAs to maintain stakeholder interests and manage expectations.

Case study 3.1a: Perception, understanding and realistic expectations of stakeholders in Philippines MPAs. (Pomeroy, R.S., E.G. Oracion, R.B. Pollnac and D.A. Caballes. 2005. Perceived economic factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 360-377)

Although integrated coastal management (ICM) has a long history in Philippines, most of the efforts have not been sustainable. This has become a pressing issue that the government of Philippines has to address. One of the main factors influencing the sustainability of ICM is the economic aspect in the sense of the level of economic benefits received and how equitably the economic benefits are distributed in the community.

It is crucial to understand that if the local residents or the stakeholders think that the ICM project does not address the local concerns or have any positive impact on their interests or well- being, it will be unlikely to expect solid support or involvement in the project activities. Thus, all affected parties should be identified and proper communication for understanding the perceptions of the present economical impacts of the project should be sent across. Through this, a sense of ‘ownership’ would be imparted to the stakeholders and local community members besides yielding a greater probability that the aspects of this project will fit the needs of the community members.

For instance, marine reserves in Bais Bay established under a project called CVRP have increased the fish catch, and subsequently raised income while being sustainable. Project activities should raise income and provide new occupations of the participants to be sustainable. As such, resource management activities that results in improved resource conditions and raises income are important to maintain interests of the participants and also the non- participants resulting from this project.

239

Case study 3.1b: Economics of potential marine tourism in Bolinao, Philippines (Ahmed, M., G.M. Umali, C.K. Chong, M.F. Rull and M.C. Garcia. 2007. Valuing recreational and conservation benefits of coral reefs — the case of Bolinao, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 103–118)

Located on the western coast of Luzon Island, the region of Bolinao covers about 23,320 ha – of which 8,000 ha are coral reefs. Its main source of income includes farming, fishing, small scale and cottage industries and tourism, which is still at an early stage. Apart from tourist accommodation facilities, there are no commercial establishments directly related to marine tourism. Hence, the Bolinao reefs represent an ideal study site on economic valuation in view of its tourism potential and its established reputation as important fisheries location. An economic valuation study was conducted to address this issue and to formulate a tourism regulatory committee to monitor the level of utilization activities in order to provide a sound economic rationale for their management.

One of the findings from the study was that fewer visits are made to Bolinao as income increases. This trend may be largely influenced by the perception that the Bolinao reef is considered to be inferior to other coral reef sites in Philippines; especially those with reefs that are in better condition and more up-scale tourism facilities, such as Anilao in Batangas or Puerto Galera in Mindoro. In addition, resource managers can also expect reduced visitor participation as user fees increase. While the higher income respondents do place premiums on environmental improvements, the lower income counterparts may face financial constraints that supersede whatever personal value they place on natural resource and its environmental services.

Recommendation 3.2 Evaluate costs and benefits of private sector involvement early in the MPA development to assure buy-in and long-term engagement.

Case study 3.2a: Public-private partnership (PPP) – gaining popularity in Philippines ICM. (Milne, N. and P. Christie. 2005. Financing integrated coastal management: experiences in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 427-449)

The sustainability of the Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) process depends on the ability of the ICM policies, institutions, activities and practitioners to support coastal and marine resource use and conservation goals beyond donor- assisted project support. Currently the success of most ICM projects in the Philippines depends on the ability of municipalities to secure adequate financial and technical support for coastal management initiatives.

The Haribon Foundation, a private sector – initiated the first ICM projects in Mabini in 1988, working with fishermen and later with resort owners to establish a marine reserve

240 and three marine sanctuaries. The World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF-Philippines), initiated the second major ICM project in 1997.

Public-private partnerships (PPP), an affiliation between the public and private sector for the purpose of delivering a project or service traditionally provided by the public sector, are becoming more popular as a means to finance and implement ICM activities. Early participation of the private sector in the planning and design of the ICM and MPA would ensure the private sector’s continuous support, involvement and investment in the long run.

Case study 3.2b: An example of a privately-operated MPA in East Africa – Chumbe Island (Riedmiller, S. 2000. Private Sector Managment of Marine Protected Areas: The Chumbe Island Case, In: Cesar H.S.J. (ed.), Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs, CORDIO, SIDA)

Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd (CHICOP) was established in 1991 and was probably the first fully functioning Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Tanzania. Investment and fisheries legislation and the institutional environment of Zanzibar (Tanzania) made the park possible, but required higher investment than anticipated. Management costs are funded through ecotourism and are much lower than donor-funded government-run park budgets. In particular, training and employment of local fishermen as park rangers by volunteers proved cost effective and facilitated direct partnership with local fishing communities.

Non-extractive and non-destructive use through ecotourism adds economic value to coral reefs and creates incentives for effective and sustainable conservation. The private sector can play a decisive role in establishing and managing no take ecological marine reserves that support biodiversity and fisheries. Private sector cost control and income generation create better prospects for sustainability. To encourage private investment in partnerships for conservation, a conducive investment climate, security of tenure and contractual security are essential. International insurance schemes for MPAs could help buffer risks of volatile tourism markets.

In donor-dependent countries in the developing world effective conservation area management may require a change of paradigms. It must be acknowledged that people using the same marine area, fishers, tourism operators, seaweed farmers, respond to economic incentives derived from that particular area, irrespective whether they belong to the formal or the informal economy. Therefore, the common dichotomy between the 'local community' and the 'private sector' is not helpful for identifying local stakeholders. In contrast, government and donor agencies have primarily institutional interests that provide few direct incentives for effective conservation or management of a particular area. Commercial risks of the private sector need to be acknowledged and competition from over-funded donor projects avoided. Where governance is problematic, environmental certification is more effective for responsible management than state regulations. Finally, international donor support would have more impact when seeking

241 partnerships with direct resource users from both the informal and formal private sectors, including support to privately managed MPAs.

Recommendation 3.3 MPAs will have higher compliance and be more effective at conserving resources if they are easily visible to the community, and compliance is likely to increase the longer the MPA remains enforced.

Case study 3.3: Providing support for the Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines. (Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1999. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 18: 307-319)

Out of 300 designated and 600 proposed marine protected areas listed in the UNEP/IUCN coral reef inventory (1998), only a handful are being managed with the support of the local people who depend on the resources. The rest are regarded as ‘legal decrees’ or ‘paper parks’, those that exist only in legislation but have no effective enforcement or management in place.

In 1976, the Silliman University initiated a marine conservation and education program at Apo Island. A concrete meeting centre for the Marine Management Committee was built with the support of the university and Earthwatch expedition. The planning, construction and frequent use of this building have been critical factors in maintaining the enthusiasm of the residents for the marine reserve concept.

This has provided the local community with a useful venue for meetings of the Marine Management Committee and a location to display educational materials about marine conservation and the Apo reserve. From this scenario, it is evident that the Apo Island marine reserve has strong local support and a good degree of community compliance with management regulations and continues enforcement.

Recommendation 3.4 Where fishers or other resource users are likely to be displaced, provide realistic, long- term options for alternative livelihoods (e.g. ecotourism, catch-and-release sport fishing, seaweed farming, etc.).

Case study 3.4a: Seaweed farming and mariculture: the alternative to fishing in Malalison Islands, Philippines. (Amar, E.C., R.M.T. Cheong and M.V.T. Cheong. 1995. Small-scale fisheries of coral reefs and the need for community-based resource management in Malalison Islands, Philippines. Fisheries Research 25: 267-277)

In the Philippines coral reefs are used as traditional fishing areas by about 700 000 small- scale fishers who provide 55% of the nation’s food fish, and one such place is the Malalison Island. The only community on the islands, Barangay Malalison had a total

242 population of 431 in about 80 fishing households in 1981 and 466 people in 1993. The fish catches are marketed daily in Culasi.

The intense fishing effort in Malalison which reaches 34 fishers per km² of reef is much higher compared to other tropical countries having about 10 fishers per km2. However the low catch per unit effort in Malalison suggested that the fishery is not in good condition. Hence in this case, the intensive multi-species fishing has significantly decreased the catch and degraded the resource base.

Up to 1996, Malalison fishers were totally dependent on reef fisheries without any viable alternatives. The inadequate catch has further compelled them to use destructive fishing methods such as dynamite and cyanide. Several mitigation and management plans have been proposed to counter the problem of the “Malthusian Overfishing”. Apart from effective enforcement of existing of existing laws, protective management (resources and sanctuaries) and sea ranching are management tools that have proven to be effective. For example, the Community Fishery Resource Management Project in Malalison Island has implement management tools with also small scale and land- based enterprises and the mariculture of the seaweed Kappaphycus alvarezii.

Case study 3.4b: Seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood for displaced fishers in Indonesia and the Philippines. (Sievanena, L., B. Crawford, R. Pollnacc, C. Lowe. 2005. Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: Seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 297–313)

Although alternative livelihood approaches such as seaweed farming is a commonly adopted policy in the Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) objectives, very few studies have examined the extent to which the adaptation of seaweed farming has affected other household sources of income or the impact on fishing effort and implications for conserving fish habitat. Ideally, seaweed farming is introduced to raise the socioeconomic status of the coastal communities as well as to provide an alternative income for fishers – in hope to divert fishers that uses destructive fishing techniques to a more profitable and sustainable income. However, the claim of seaweed farming in reducing fishing pressure or reducing destructive fishing practices has not been critically researched.

In the Bohol Province of Philippines and in Bentenan, Tumbak area of Indonesia, the relative importance of seaweed farming has increased significantly over the past 2 decades and for the most part, it was due to the increase in prices paid for the product on the international market. It is rather unlikely that subsistence fishing will decrease upon inception of seaweed farming in a population of Indonesia and Philippines where half of it depends on the sea for their subsistence needs. This is the expected outcome unless alternative livelihood projects are combined with controls to prevent increased fishing effort and new entrants into the fishery and dietary shift away from fish as a primary protein source in the diet. Most of them continued to fish at the same level stated that

243 fishing resulted in daily income that provides food for their family while the income from seaweed farming was received only after the harvest several months after planting.

The village head in Bentenan also stated that people are unwilling to plant again after a failure because seaweed growth was not as high as previous yields after its market price drops. Herbivorous fishes such like the rabbit fish will consume the crops of those who started in small amounts but now mainly using less profitable seaweed. However, multiplicity of occupational sources is common in many coastal communities in Southeast Asia, it is common for households to fall back on other forms of income when one fails- which is an effective economic strategy. The decline in seaweed farming has been commensurate with the increase in fishing effort, which later will lead to overfishing and the subsequently the declines in income and employment if this issue is not backed up by larger resource management strategies.

244

Issue 4: Governance of MPAs

Several common challenges often plague the designing, development and implementation of a legislative framework for coastal and coral reef managements. Most conflicts could arise between law and regulations, policy and enforcement, agencies and stakeholders- all due to the differences of their sectoral focus. Although it may be a difficult process to achieve an effective framework to manage the coastal and reef resources, the success is also largely determined by the commitment of each sectors, stakeholders and institutional arrangements to be collaboratively involved to achieve a sustainable management.

Recommendation 4.1 Explore bottom-up and co-management approaches, recognizing that varying management structures and strategies improves MPA effectiveness.

Case study 4.1a: Development of co-management and community management of marine resources in the Philippines. (Balgos, M.C. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas in the Philippines: Concurrent developments. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 972–995)

The livelihood, food security and the economics of communities in the Philippines are largely dependent on coastal resources and fisheries but the establishment of marine protected areas (MPA) begun only in 1970. The establishment of the first MPA occurred when marine scientists and resource managers recognized the signs of depletion and degradation of marine resources, especially the coral reefs.

Throughout the 3 decades of Philippines MPA establishment, lessons learned were integrated into the design of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) programs. Since both MPAs and ICM basically adopted the community-based approach, similar management principles developed concurrently for both. Central to both MPAs and ICM is the empowering of coastal communities politically and economically so they can assert and gain rightful access and management control over their coastal resources. In addition, equity in access to resources for disadvantaged groups and the respect for traditional knowledge are also important.

Environmental and natural resources governance in the Philippines was highly centralized before 1991. Today, revenue sharing formulas has put together a greater share of the national budget into the hands of the provincial administration under the governors and within the municipalities – where they can now establish marine sanctuaries without the need for central government approvals. Within this decentralized context, community-based marine sanctuary concept has flourished and the Barangay and Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs) were formed to institutionalize resources management at the local level.

245

To ensure the resilience of the MPA after the initial funding is exhausted; the MPA may continue to be funded under the local government internal revenue allocation. It can also be supported by income from the collection of user fees from divers and other tourists who visit the marine sanctuary. Aside from funding, the MPA project should have an evaluation at the beginning stage to verify whether all aspects of the project are logically connected and to determine if there are sufficient resources to accomplish the goals. Also important is the experience and skill levels of community organizers or on-site field- worker in the establishment and implementation of the community- based ICM and MPA program; and the continuous learning from the private sector through public- private partnerships in order to make alternative livelihood projects work. Lastly, political reasons are also to be considered among the criteria used in evaluating effectiveness and justifying choices among alternative management options – where players must strive to understand and to look outside their interests for a rationale for action.

Case study 4.1b: Mixed responses to the no-take MPA in the Exumas Island, Bahamas. (Stoffle, R. and J. Minnis. 2007. Marine protected areas and the coral reefs of traditional settlements in the Exumas, Bahamas. Coral Reefs 26, 4: 1023-1032)

The Exumas Islands in the central of Bahamas is home to traditional coastal communities and there are about 20 small settlements located in the islands and cays. Recently, three large No-take MPAs were proposed by the Bahamian government. Two northern communities responded strongly against the MPA, another two central communities were neutral and the two southern communities in contrast, were strongly positive about the MPA. It was generally assumed that if a nearby community is the primary user of a proposed MPA, the people will recognize the positive impacts of the MPA and the community in turn will help regulate the MPA. However with the mixed responses from the different communities of the Exuma Islands, it was important then to understand what causes the disagreements in order to ensure that the MPA is effectively meeting its objectives.

It was found that the northern communities were strongly against the MPA because it eliminated all their fishing, especially in their leeward cays. Meanwhile the central communities were neutral about the proposed MPA because they thought it would eliminate fishing by outsiders and permit them instead to manage and regulate the MPA for wages. However, their opinions changed to negative when they realized that the MPA would eliminate their subsistence fishing. The southern communities were positive about the MPA because they thought it would protect their spawning aggregations from outside commercial fishers and also because they rarely fish there.

All three MPA proposals reduced compliance, because of their top-down design and management, reduced community resilience because they restricted subsistence fishing in most areas, and were also a threat to the identity of the local communities because they would stop most community members from engaging in traditional subsistence fishing they had practiced for generations, forcing people who had eaten fresh seafood all their lives to purchase frozen fish.

246

Recommendation 4.2 MPA regulations need to be pragmatic and address root causes but not be unrealistic in the ability of people to change their behavior.

Case study 4.2: Developing MPAs for subsistence fishing in Samoa (Zann, L.P. 1999. A new (old) approach to inshore resources management in Samoa. Ocean and Coastal Management 42: 569-590)

The people of the South Pacific islands have traditionally relied on the seas for most of their dietary protein but the increasing populations and development in many of its nations have placed heavy pressures on coastal environments and on inshore fisheries. Samoa is one of the least developed nations and is lacking in exploitable natural resource and most of the population lives at a subsistence level. The Samoans are a Polynesian people who have maintained a traditional way-of-life as a subsistence farmer/fisherfolk.

The development of a suitable co-management model has assisted the villages to manage their own resources by determining the status of their own fisheries and develop and plan actions that will allow reefs and fisheries to recover. This is in contrast to typically passing national laws without recognizing the real solutions to the problem falls in the hands of the village people and their councils- which some laws would require them to change the way they have traditionally lived their lives.

It was important to identify the important role that subsistence fishing is crucial for the subsistence of the majority of Samoan households. Samoan local communities have a long tradition of environmental conservation and communally own land and sea resources – hence it is most appropriate to devolve responsibilities in the natural resource management back to those communities and not to expect them to change their behavior merely for the sake of technical proposals presented in the management papers.

Recommendation 4.3 Zoning requires knowledge gained through a participatory process and that is well integrated with tools such as participatory mapping and GIS.

Case study 4.3: Habitat mapping in Western Samoa and Fiji in MPA designs. (Knight, D., E. LeDrew and H. Holden. 1997. Mapping submerged corals in Fiji from remote sensing and in site measurements: applications for integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 34: 153-170)

The increasing scope and magnitude of impacts and environmental change in coastal environments, particularly coral reefs, demand the development of new approaches to delineate features, monitor change and manage resources more effectively. Perhaps one of the greatest impediments to the implementation of ICM plans is the requirement for

247 accurate and replicable scientific data sets that can be used as a basis for informed decision making.

The Pacific Island leaders have organized a series of workshops in Western Samoa and Fiji (1994) to discuss the concerns and options related to impacts of coastal erosion. Regional experts agreed that the highest priority should be rectifying deficiencies in mapping and data collection for coastal zones. Although Fiji has the second longest stretch of coral reefs in the world, there has been little systematic mapping of the coastal environment.

The remote sensing data and mapping procedures are indispensible tools that can be integrated with other databases into a Geographical Information System (GIS) to highlight other environmental, socio-economic and cultural attributes of the coastal areas. This integrated data would be an important information source that will facilitate better awareness and support for zoning and developing sustainable development strategies.

Since coastal ecosystems are highly interdependent, the procedure could be expanded to map and assess the spectral response of other associated systems – integrating marine and land process features to assist planners and managers in identifying the areas to gazette for protection, assessing the environmental impacts and identifying other areas requiring restoration.

Recommendation 4.4 Policies that include more than one jurisdiction will require time to integrate and may often need to be agreed on prior to implementation.

Case study 4.4a: The integration of policies for holistic management capacity of MPA. (Osborn, D. and A. Datta. 2006. Institutional and policy cocktails for protecting coastal and marine environments from land-based sources of pollution. Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 576-596)

Instruments individually have their strengths and weaknesses, as do government institutions and public-private relations. No single institution has the flexibility or resilience needed to successfully address all environmental problems. Hence, policy “cocktails” that incorporate institutional combinations are adopted to achieve management goals and objectives.

Institutional and policy combinations may be inherently complementary, neutralizing, redundant or counterproductive. Occasionally they may even be antagonistic and dysfunctional as the result of the context in which they are applied. Target sectors and coastal populations may have different motives in responding to the same policy instrument and may thus respond differently.

It is also important to integrate the policy mixes with the elements of the broader policy environment so that all jurisdictions involved could reach agreement– approaching also

248 the ethical, information, economic, moral, administrative and enforcement factors that affect not only behavior but also the law. The objective of the policy integration should be ‘seamless regulation’ and broad-based economic incentives that encourage rather than diminish inter-sectoral cooperation.

Case study 4.4b. Transboundary management of the Sulu-Sulawesi Seascape. (Miclat, E.F.B., Ingles, J.A. and J.N.B. Dumaup. 2006. Planning across boundaries for the conservation of the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion. Ocean & Coastal Management 49: 597–609)

The Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (SSME) is a highly biodiverse marine ecoregion shared by Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines. An integral part of the Coral Triangle, the SSME is characterized by a rich abundance and variety of habitat and productive coastal ecosystems. It is economically significant to all 3 countries, as a major source of live reef food fish with 2.3 million tons in capture fisheries alone. However the increasingly unsustainable use of the SSME’s marine and coastal resources has resulted in the degradation of its environment. This, in addition to the poverty and ever-increasing human population presents a bleak prospect for the reefs and those people who depend on it. The ecosystem approach concept launched by the World Wide Fund (WWF) aims to conserve and where possible restore the maximum range of biodiversity over large spatial scales. Stakeholders are the key to the success in conserving the SSME, as they hold an understanding and knowledge gained through generations that can make them dedicated and effective stewards of the resources.

Several key lessons were extracted from this large-scale and multi-lateral conservation planning effort. Ecoregional conservation planning should involve the stakeholders early in the planning process, at all levels. Also, it is also crucial for governments to appreciate the significance and the urgency of large scale conservation efforts. Because ecoregional conservation is a technical-based initiative that spans national and international boundaries, the processes involved should be politically neutral to enable the multi- national initiative to advance without being hindered by other political agendas. Lastly, another important component of this multi-national partnership is the credibility of an NGO-partner that provides the momentum to this initiative.

Recommendation 4.5 Rapid and fair enforcement is essential to achieve continued support, faith, and compliance in MPA management.

Case study 4.5: Leveling the laws and enforcement on natural resource management in Indonesia (Dirhamsyah, D. 2006. Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A critical review and recommendation. Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 68-92)

249

The complicated and inappropriate legal framework currently in place in Indonesia has contributed to serious degradation of coastal and marine resources. This deterioration has been worsened by the lack of a national marine policy and severe weakness in law enforcement, especially fisheries laws and regulations in Indonesia. There are presently no laws or regulations specifically addressing the use and management of coastal or coral reef resources. Thus, conservation and management are regulated solely by a group of natural resource laws and regulations that are implemented in a sectoral manner.

The differences that arise in the standards of enforcement also occur among the natural resource management laws. Most of the sectoral laws establish sanctions and liability for similar offences but the sanctions for similar violations vary widely. For instance, the Fisheries Act penalties are up to six years in the prison and a fine up to USD 133,000. However for a similar violation, the Environmental Management Act No. 23 (1997) has similar prison penalties but a fine of up to USD 36,000.

Regardless of its quality, the success or failure of a law is measured by the degree of acceptance and compliance by society. Rapid and fair enforcement of MPA management policies is critical to achieve continued support and compliance of local communities. Despite the existence of laws that addresses coastal management, illegal fishing has continued to increase, a result of a consistent lack of enforcement and systematic corruption by public officers.

The enforcement of workable laws should provide security for the efforts and rights of a community managing its natural resources. If the community does not feel secure, it will result in a fundamental distrust of state laws and legal institutions.

250

Conclusions and Future Directions

Coral reefs have received much attention lately as the areas of highest marine biodiversity and are among the world’s top conservation priorities. Hundreds of millions of people and thousands of communities all over the world depend on coral reefs for food, protection, and jobs. For example, over 150 million people live within the ‘Coral Triangle’ of Southeast Asia and Melanesia, of which over 2,600,000 are fishers who are dependent on marine resources for their livelihoods. Over the past 15 years, over one billion dollars have been spent on coral reef management projects worldwide ($320 million from the GEF alone).

One new concept that has been introduced in the past decade is ‘resilience’. The central concept of ‘resilience’ may be defined as “the capacity of a complex system to absorb shocks while still maintaining function and to reorganize following disturbance”. To date, concepts of resilience have generally been applied only to corals, in terms of their resilience to climate change, sedimentation, pollution, etc. In the context of coral reefs, “management for resilience” should prevent a coral reef system from failing to deliver benefits (i.e. biodiversity conservation, ecosystem function, food and income for poverty reduction) by preserving ecological and social features that enable it to absorb shocks (climate change, natural disasters, user conflicts, etc.) and maintain function.

Another key area for future research is identifying and mapping critical spawning and nursery habitats for a range of ecologically and commercially important species. Also important is a better understanding of the connectivity between spawning (source) and nursery (sink) habitats. This information is essential to designing effective MPA networks. Connectivity is also important in transboundary management, where MPAs or networks of MPAs span more than one jurisdiction.

Current MPA management practice does not place sufficient emphasis on threats that arise from outside the reef area. Climate change will have a profound effect on coral reefs and the coral reef resource (fishery) dependent peoples that live there. Any approach to biodiversity conservation and development must account for these impacts. In a development (i.e. poverty reduction) context, climate change must be viewed as a fundamental threat to human security in countries already vulnerable to social and economic dislocation and conflict.

251

Bibliography

Amar, E.C., R.M.T. Cheong and M.V.T. Cheong. 1995. Small-scale fisheries of coral reefs and the need for community-based resource management in Malalison Islands, Philippines. Fisheries Research 25: 267-277 Ahmed, M., G.M. Umali, C.K. Chong, M.F. Rull and M.C. Garcia. 2007. Valuing recreational and conservation benefits of coral reefs — the case of Bolinao, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 103–118 Aswani, S. 1999. Common property models of sea tenure: A case study from the Roviana and Vonavona Lagoons, New Georgia, Solomon Islands. Human Ecology 27: 417–453 Aswani, S. 2002. Assessing the effects of changing demographic and consumption patterns on sea tenure regimes in the Roviana lagoon, Solomon Islands. Ambio 31: 272– 284 Aswani, S., Albert, S., Sabetian, A. and T, Furusawa. 2007. Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs 26: 1009-1021 Badalamenti F, Ramos AA, Voultsiadou E, Lizaso LJS and 6 others. 2000. Cultural and socio-economic impacts of Mediterranean marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation 27: 110–125. Baelde, P. 2005. Interactions between the implementation of marine protected areas and right-based fisheries management in Australia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 9- 18 Balgos, M.C. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas in the Philippines: Concurrent developments. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 972–995 Berkes, F.E. 1989. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Bellhaven Press, London. Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Application 10: 1251–1262 Bode, M., L. Bode and P.R. Armsworth. 2006. Larval dispersal reveals regional sources and sinks in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 308: 17-25 Christie, P. 2004. MPAs as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. In Aquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tools: Design, Use, and Evaluation of These Fully Protected Areas, J.B. Shipley, ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 155–164. Cinner, J. 2005. Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in the Indo- Pacific. Ecology and. Society 10: 36. Cinner, J. 2007. Designing marine reserves to reflect local socioeconomic conditions: lessons from long-enduring customary management systems. Coral Reefs

252

Cinner, J.E., Marnane, M.J., and McClanahan, T.R. 2005. Conservation and community benefits from traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1714–1723 Cinner, J.E., Marnane, M.J., McClanahan, T.R., Clark, T.H., and J. Ben. (2005). Trade, tenure, and tradition: Influence of socio-cultural factors on resource use in Melanesia. Conservation Biology 19: 1469–1477 Cinner, J.E., and McClanahan, T.R. (2006). Socioeconomic factors that lead to overfishing in small-scale coral reef fisheries of Papua New Guinea. Environ. Conservation 33: 73–80. Colding, J. and C. Folke. 2001. Social Taboos: “Invisible” Systems of Local Resource Management and Biological Conservation. Ecological Application 11: 584-600 Dirhamsyah, D. 2006. Indonesian legislative framework for coastal resources management: A critical review and recommendation. Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 68-92 Donaldson T.J. and Y. Sadovy. 2001. Threatened fishes of the world: Cheilinus undulatus Ruppell, 1835 (Labridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 62: 428 Edgar G.J. and N.S. Barrett. 1999. Effects of the declaration of marine reserves on Tasmanian reef fishes, invertebrates and plants. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 242: 107–144 Fauzi, A. and E.A. Buchary. 2002. A socioeconomic perspective of environmental degradation at Kepulauan Seribu Marine National Park, Indonesia. Coastal Management, 30: 167-181 Ferrari, M.F. 2006. Rediscovering community-conserved areas in South-east Asia: peoples’ initiatives to biodiversity loss. Parks 16: 43-48 Francis, J., A. Nilsson and D. Waruinge. 2002. Marine protected areas in the eastern African Region: how successful are they? Ambio 31: 503–11 Friedlander, A.M., E.K. Brown, P.L. Jokiel, W.R. Smith and K.S. Rogers. 2003. Effects of habitat, wave exposure, and marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago. Coral Reefs 22: 291-305 Gibson, J., M. McField and S. Wells. 1998. Coral reef management in Belize: an approach through Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Ocean and Coastal Management 39: 229-244 Gladstone, W., N. Tawfik, D. Nasr, I. Andersen, C. Cheung, H. Drammeh, F. Krupp and S. Lintner. 1999. Sustainable use of renewable resources and conservation in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden: issues, needs and strategies actions. Ocean and Coastal Management 42: 671-697 Johannes, R.E. 2000. Palau first in Indo-Pacific to protect reef fish spawning aggregations. In Salm, R., J.Clark, E. Siirila (Eds.) Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. IUCN, 370 pp.

253

Johannes, R.E. 2002. The renaissance of community-based management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:317-340 Johannes, R.E., L. Squire, T. Granam, Y. Sadovy, and H. Renguul. 1999. Spawning aggregations of Groupers (Serranidae) in Palau. Marine Conservation Research Series Publ.#1, The Nature Conservancy. 144pp. Jordan, A., M. Lawler, V. Halley and N. Barrett. 2005. Sea bed habitat mapping in the Kent Group of Islands and its role in marine protected area planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 51-70 Katon, B.M., R.S. Pomeroy, L. Garces and A.M. Salamanca. 1999. Fisheries Management of San Salvador Island Philippines: A Shared Responsibility. Society and Natural Resources, 12: 777-795 Keller, B.D. and B.D. Causey. 2005. Linkages between the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 869–900 Knight, D., E. LeDrew and H. Holden. 1997. Mapping submerged corals in Fiji from remote sensing and in site measurements: applications for integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 34: 153-170 Light, P and G.P. Jones. 1997. Habitat preference in newly settled coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus: Serranidae). Coral Reefs 16:117–126 Lunn, K.E. and P. Dearden. 2006. Fishers’ needs in Marine Protected Area zoning: a case study in Thailand. Coastal Management, 34:183–198 Majanen, T. 2007. Resource use conflicts in Mabini and Tingloy, the Philippines. Marine Policy 31: 480–487 McClanahan, T.R. 1994. Kenyan coral reef lagoon fish: Effects of fishing, substrate complexity, and sea urchins. Coral Reefs 13: 231–241. McClanahan, T.R. 1999. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs 18: 321–325 McClanahan, T., and Shafir, S. 1990. Causes and consequences of sea urchin abundance and diversity in Kenyan coral reef lagoons. Oecologia 83: 362–370. McClanahan, T.R. and R. Arthur. 2001. The effect of marine reserves and habitat on populations of east African coral reef fishes. Ecological Applications 11:559–569 McClanahan, T.R. and S. Mangi. 2000. Spillover of exploitable fishes from a marine park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications 10:1792–1805 McClanahan, T.R. and N.A.J. Graham. 2005. Recovery trajectories of coral reef fish assemblages within Kenyan marine protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 294: 241–248 McClanahan, T.R., S. Mwaguni and N.A. Muthiga. 2005a. Management of the Kenyan coast. Ocean and Coastal Management 18 : 901-931

254

McClanahan, T.R., Davies, J., and Maina, J. 2005b. Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32: 42–49 McClanahan, T.R., M.J. Marnane, J.E. Cinner and W.E. Kiene. 2006. A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16, 1408-1412 Miclat, E.F.B., Ingles, J.A. and J.N.B. Dumaup. 2006. Planning across boundaries for the conservation of the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion. Ocean & Coastal Management 49: 597–609 Milne, N. and P. Christie. 2005. Financing integrated coastal management: experiences in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 427-449 Monaco, M.E., A.M. Friedlander, C. Caldow and J.D. Christensen. 2007. Characterising reef fish populations and habitats within and outside the US Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument: a lesson in marine protected area design. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2007, 14, 33-40 Myers, R.F. 1999. Micronesian Reef Fishes, 3rd ed., Coral Graphics, Guam. Osborn, D. and A. Datta. 2006. Institutional and policy cocktails for protecting coastal and marine environments from land-based sources of pollution. Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 576-596 Patlis, J.M. 2005. The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 450-467 Polunin, N.V.C. and C.M. Roberts. 1993. Spillover of exploitable fishes from a marine park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications 10:1792–1805 Pollnac, R.B., Crawford, B.R., and Gorospe, M.L.G. 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 44: 683–710. Pomeroy, R.S., Pollnac, R.B., Katon, B.M., and Predo, C. 1997. Evaluating factors contributing to the success of community-based coastal resource management: The Central Visayas Regional Project-1, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 36: 97– 120. Pomeroy, R.S., E.G. Oracion, R.B. Pollnac and D.A. Caballes. 2005. Perceived economic factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 360-377 Rhodes, K.L. and Y. Sadovy. 2002. Temporal and spatial trends in spawning aggregations of camouflage grouper, Epinephelus polyphekadion, in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:27–39 Richmond, R,H., T. Rongo, Y. Golbuu, S. Victor, N. Idechong, G. Davis, W. Kostka, L. Neth, M. Hamnett and E. Wolanski. 2007. Watersheds and coral reefs: conservation science, policy, and implementation. BioScience 57: 598-607

255

Riedmiller, S. 2000. Private Sector Managment of Marine Protected Areas: The Chumbe Island Case, In: Cesar H.S.J. (ed.), Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs, CORDIO, SIDA Roberts C.M., J.A. Bohnsack , F., Gell, J.P. Hawkins and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294: 1920–1923 Rudd, M.A. and M.H. Tupper. 2002. The impact of Nassau grouper size and abundance on scuba diver site selection and MPA economics. Coastal Management 30: 133–151 Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1999. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 18: 307-319 Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 2003. Marine reserves: rates and patterns of recovery and decline of predatory fish, 1983–2000. Ecological Applications13: 1553–1565 Russ G.R., A.C. Alcala and A.P., Maypa. 2003. Spillover from marine reserves: the case of Naso vlamingii at Apo Island, the Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264: 15–20 Russ G.R., A.C. Alcala, A.P. Maypa, H.P. Calumpong and A.T. White. 2004. Marine reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecological Applications 14: 597–606 Russ, G.R., Stockwell, B. and A.C. Alcala. 2005. Inferring vs. measuring rates of recovery in no-take marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 292: 1-12 Sadovy Y., M. Kulbicki, P. Labrosse , Y. Letourneur, P. Lokani and T.J. Donaldson. 2003a. The humphead wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus: synopsis of a threatened and poorly known giant coral reef fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13: 327–364 Sadovy Y., T.J. Donaldson , T.R. Graham, F. McGilvray and 5 others. 2003b. The live reef food fish trade: while stocks last. Asian Development Bank, Manila Sievanena, L., B. Crawford, R. Pollnacc, C. Lowe. 2005. Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: Seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 297–313 Sladek Nowlis, J and A.M. Friedlander. 2005. Marine reserve function and design for fisheries management. In: Norse EA, Crowder LB (eds) Marine conservation biology: the science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 280–301 Stoffle, R. and J. Minnis. 2007. Marine protected areas and the coral reefs of traditional settlements in the Exumas, Bahamas. Coral Reefs 26, 4: 1023-1032 Sutinen, J.G., and Kuperan, K. 1999. A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Society and Economics 26: 174–193 Thiele, M.T., R.B. Pollnac and P. Christie. 2005. Relationships between coastal tourism and ICM sustainability in the central Visayas region of the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 378-392 Tupper, M. 2007. Spillover of commercially valuable reef fishes from marine protected areas in Guam, Micronesia. Fishery Bulletin 105:527-537

256

Tupper, M. 2007. Identification of nursery habitats for commercially valuable humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and large groupers (Pisces:Serranidae) in Palau. Marine Ecology Progress Series 232: 189-199 Tupper, M.H. and M.A. Rudd 2002. Species-specific impacts of a small marine reserve on reef fish production and fishing productivity in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Environmental Conservation 29: 484-492 Williams, I.D., Walsh, W.J., Miyasaka, A, and A.M. Friedlander. 2006. Effects of rotational closure on coral reef fishes in Waikiki-Diamond Head Fishery Management Area, Oahu, Hawaii. Marine Ecology Progress Series 310: 139-149 Wolanski E, Richmond R, McCook L, Sweatman H. 2003b. Mud, marine snow and coral. reefs. American Scientist 91: 44-51 WWF Philippines. 2006. Tubbataha reefs: a marine protected area that works. WWF Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. 22 pp. Zann, L.P. 1999. A new (old) approach to inshore resources management in Samoa. Ocean and Coastal Management 42: 569-590 Zweig, R. 2006. Mindanao Rural Development Project. Implementation Completion Report TF 23302. The World Bank, Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region

257