Marine Protected Areas in Coastal 14 Marine Management: Key Issues 3.L

345109Cover 10/5/06 6:41 PM Page 1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized 345109Cover 10/5/06 6:42 PM Page 2

Photo Credits

Cover images: clockwise starting from top left: Marine Extactive Reserve, community of Arraial do Cabo, state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—source CNPT/IBAMA; girls from Borneo—photo by Steve Turek, www.Coralreef.org; results of group mapping by artisanal fishers of Mangement and Exploitation Area for Benthic Resources in Matanzas, Chile— photo by Stefan Gelcich; artisanal fishing boats used in caleta Quemchi in Chiloe, southern Chile—photo by Stefan Gelcich; Diver in Fiji—photo by Rich Wilson, www.Coralreef.org. Background image is a school of yellow and blueback fusiliers, Fiji— photo by Rich Wilson, www.coralreef.org.

Part I opening images: clockwise starting from top left: Hull sailboat (saveiro) in Bahia— photo by John Cordell; Coral reef, Almond Point, Bequia—photo by Dennis Sabo/iStockphoto; Joint social science MPA research, Indonesia—photo by Patrick Christie; Anemone fish, Hurghada, Red Sea—photo by Thomas Jundt, www.coralreef.org.

Part II opening images: clockwise starting from top left: Coastal Brazil—photo by lucato/iStockphoto; Coral reefs at Itacolomis marine extractive reserve at Ponta do Corumbau—photo by Enrico Marone, CI Brazil; Penguin, Chile—photo by Curt Carnemark.

Part III opening images: clockwise starting from top left: 6th anniversary celebration of the Ponta do Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve—photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura, Conservation International, Abrolhos, Brazil; Coral reef monitoring, Palau—photo by Alan Lim, Coral Reef Targeted Research Project; Rocky shore in Las Cruces, Chile— photo by Juan Carlos Castilla; Artisanal fishing boats in Bucalemu, Chile—photo by Stefan Gelcich. 345109Fronti 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page i

Scaling Up Marine Management The Role of Marine August 2006 Report No. 36635 – GLB Protected Areas

Environment Department

Sustainable Development Network 345109Frontii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page ii

Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: [email protected]

Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com . All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e- mail: [email protected]. 345109Frontiii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page iii

Table of Contents

Acronyms vi Executive Summary viii

Part I: MPAs in Context Chapter 1 — Introduction 1 1.1. Putting MPAs in Perspective 2 1.2. Objectives of This Study 4 1.3. Organization of the Study 5 1.4. Audience and Dissemination 5 Chapter 2— A Typology of Coastal-Marine Management Tools and Approaches 7 2.1. Typology Categories 9 2.2. Typology Use and Significance 12 Chapter 3 — Significance and Diversification of Marine Protected Areas in Coastal 14 Marine Management: Key Issues 3.l. Common Property Issues and Problems Associated with Managing Marine Environments 14 3.2. MPA (Category I) Benefits 16 3.3. Multiple Benefits of Multiuse MPAs 18 3.4. Networking Protected Areas 20 3.5. Higher-Order, Cross-Sectoral Management Tools: Integrated Coastal Management 20 3.6. Governance Frameworks for CMM Systems 21 3.7. Legal Aspects 22 3.8. Costs of Establishing MPAs 22 3.9. Stakeholder Participation 23 3.10. Poverty Considerations 24 3.11. Importance of Local Sea Tenure Systems in Marine Management 25 3.12. Locally Managed Marine Area Initiatives 26

Part II: Country Studies Chapter 4 — The Philippines: Lessons for Marine Protected Area Governance 31 and Effective Design 4.1. The Philippine Context 32 4.2. Fisheries Management in the Philippines 35 4.3. Strategies to Integrate MPAs into Larger-Scale Management Systems 36 4.4. Combining ICM and Ecosystem-based Management 37 4.5. Governance Matters 38 4.6. Governance Challenges and Opportunities 39 4.7. Governance Challenges to Scaling Up 41 4.8. Conclusions and Recommendations 42 345109Frontiv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page iv

Chapter 5 — Chile: Experience with Management and Exploitation Areas for 45 iv Coastal Fisheries as Building Blocks for Large-Scale Marine Management 5.1. Toward a Dual Management and Conservation Approach 46 5.2. Drivers of Change and the 1991 Fisheries and Aquaculture Law 47 5.3. Management and Exploitation Areas for Benthic Resources 49 5.4. Lessons from Chile’s Experience with Coastal Marine Protected Areas 54 Chapter 6 — Brazil: Dynamics and Challenges of Marine Protected Area 58 Development and Coastal Protection 6.1. Can Brazil Afford to Endure an Open-access Coastal “Tragedy of the Commons”? 59 6.2. Taking Stock of the Coastal-Marine Management Toolkit 60 6.3. The Marine Extractive Reserve System 63 6.4. SEAP: A Promising New Development on Coastal Management and Fisheries 68 6.5. Durability and Adaptability of Artisanal Fishing 68 6.6. Scaling Up for Survival in Southern Bahia :The Corumbau MER and an Emerging 70 Mosaic of Land and Sea Reserves 6.7. The Case for Strengthening Integrated Coastal Management 74 6.8. Lessons from Brazil’s Coastal and Marine Management Experience 75

Part III: Analysis and Conclusions Chapter 7 — Implications of Findings for Mainstreaming and Scaling Up 79 Marine Protected Areas 7.1. Putting MPAs in Context 79 7.2. Stakeholder Participation 84 7.3. Bearing the Costs of MPAs 85 7.4. The Cost and Political Economy of Scaling Up MPAs 85 7.5. Alternatives to Scaling Up MPAs 86 7.6. Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Coastal and Fisheries 89 Resources Management 7.7. The Role of Science 90 7.8. Conclusion: Taking Management to Scale 91 Chapter 8 — Recommendations and Next Steps 93 8.1. Recommendations 93 8.2. Next Steps 95 Annex — Explanatory Notes on Connotations of “Tradition” and “Culture 96 Heritage” Designations in Coastal Marine Management Typology

Acknowledgements 100

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Frontv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page v

Figures v F 1.1. Value of Global Marine Products Trade 2 F 2.2. Relative Value of Fish Exports in Developing Countries 3 F 3-1. Tools of Manage MPAs in the Context of ICM 21 F 4.1. The Philippines 33 F 4.2. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Philippines 34 F 4.3. Municipal or City Management Area with Various ICM Interventions, including 37 MPAs, in the Philippines F 4.4. Distribution of MPAs in the Central Visayas Region of the Philippines 39 F 5.1. Study Sites of MEABRs among Caletas (Coves) in 12 Regions of Chile 50 F 5.2. Response to Open-ended Question “What is the Main Problem You Have with 52 the MEABR?” F 5.3. Response to the Question “Do You Feel There is Real Management of the MEABR or 53 Do You Only Apply Harvesting Norms?” F 6.1. Capture Fisheries in Brazil, 1979-85 59 F 6.2. Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for the Brazilian Coast 61 F 6.3. Marine Extractive Reserves in Brazil 64 F 6.4. Mandira Extractive Reserve 67 F 6.5. Total Landings: Share Artisanal and Industrial Fishing 69 F 6.6. Distribution of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia 73 F 7.1. Nested Marine Management Area Frameworks 87

Boxes B 2.1. Increasing Range of Uses and Zonation Purposes Attached to MPAs 8 B 3.1. Findings from Selected Scientific Reviews of Marine Reserve Efficacy 17 B 3.2. Findings on Social Benefits of Marine Reserves 18 B 3.3. MACEMP in Tanzania 24 B 7.1. Opportunities for Scaling Up MPA Coverage 82 B 7.2. Constraints on Scaling Up MPA Coverage 83 B 7.3. Summary Guidance on Integration of MPAs into ICM 88 B 7.4. Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project 89

Tables T 2.1. Coastal-Marine Management Tool Typology 11 T 3.1. Cost of Financing Large-Scale MPAs and Networks 23 T 7.1. Evaluation and Summary of Key Factors for Successful MPAs in Case Studies 80-81 T 7.2. Expansion of ICM Efforts by Region 91

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Frontvi 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page vi

vi Acronyms

AMP-MU Multiple-Use Marine Coastal Protected Areas (Chile) APA Environmental Protection Areas (Brazil) BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Philippines) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBMPA Community-based MPA CERIPT Culture-Ecological Indigenous Peoples Territory CERTC Culture-Ecological Reserve Traditional Communities CIRM Interministerial Commission of Sea Resources (Brazil) CMM Coastal and Marine Management CMA Collaborative Management Area CMPA Coastal Marine Protected Area CMT Customary Marine Tenure CMT-MUMPA Customary Marine Tenure-based MPA CNPT National Center for Traditional Peoples and Sustainable Development (Brazil) CRTR Coral Reef Targeted Research Program DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines) EBFM Ecosystem-based Fishery Reserve EBM Ecosystem-based Management EBRMPA Ecosystem-based Reserve/Marine Protected Area EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ER Extractive Reserve FAL Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Chile) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations) FISH Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (Philippines) FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (United States) FMR Fishery Management Reserve GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia) GEF Global Environment Facility GERCO System of Coastal Zone Management (Brazil) GESAMP Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection IBAMA Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Frontvii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page vii

ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects ICM Integrated Coastal Management vii ICRAN International Coral Reef Action Network ILMA Indigenous Landscape Management Area IUCN World Conservation Union LGCMP Local Governance for Coastal Management Project (Philippines) LME Large Marine Ecosystem LMMA Locally Managed Marine Areas MACEMP Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Project (Tanzania) MEABR Management and Exploitation Area for Benthic Resources (Chile) MER Marine Extractive Reserve MMA Marine Management Area MONAPE National Movement of Fishermen (Brazil) MPA Marine Protected Area MPANET MPA Network MPANP National Marine Park MS Marine Sanctuary MSS Marine Sacred Sites MUMPA Multiple-Use MPA NACOMA Namib Coastal Conservation and Management (Project) NGO Nongovernmental Organization NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System (Philippines) NTMR No-Take Marine Reserve NUPAUB-U Research Center on Human Population and Wetlands in Brazil PROBIO Project of Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Brazilian Biological Diversity RAMSAR Wetlands Convention, Ramsar, Iran RDS Sustainable Development Reserve (Brazil) RESEX Marine Extractive Reserve (Brazil) SEAP Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries (Brazil) SERNAPESCA Servicio Nacional de Pesca (Chile) SNUC Nacional System of Conservation Units (Brazil) TAC Total Allowable Catch TBMPA Treaty-Based MPA TEK Traditional Environmental Knowledge TERPESCAR Terminal Pesquero de Carelmapu (Chile) TURF Territorial User Rights for Fishers UNCLOS U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea WHS World Heritage Site WMAMPA Wildlife Management Area MPA WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF World Wildlife Fund

All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Frontviii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page viii

viii Executive Summary

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the first global scorecard on the health of Earth’s ecosystems, reported that marine and coastal systems are among the most threatened on the planet. Marine capture fisheries peaked in the mid-1980s and have been declining ever since, with the highest valued species (including large marine preda- tors) disappearing first. Marine biodiversity is also degrading rapidly in response to this fishing down the food web, triggering serial depletion of key elements in the food chain. Conversion of highly productive and diverse habitats like mangroves and coral reefs (which are thought to harbor between 1 million and 10 million species) is proceeding apace Artisanal fishing boat preparing shelfish extraction in El Quisco to make way for urban expansion, tourist resorts, MEABR, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich and Juan Carlos Castilla aquaculture, and other coastal development.

Pollution from land-based sources (both non-point and point), including untreated human waste and industrial effluent, is disrupting marine ecosystem processes and making once productive areas dead zones. Marine-based pollution from tanker traffic, offshore drilling, and cruise ships, which threatens to overwhelm resident populations with water, energy, and waste management needs, adds to the strain on coastal ecosystems.

Superimposed on this cascade of ills, climate change impacts are increasingly apparent, leading to reduced fisheries productivity, increased storm

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Frontix 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page ix

frequency, coral bleaching, and disease. Together closures for fisheries, development of standards for these impacts erode the innate resilience of ecosys- emissions and effluent water quality for industry ix tems to stress and undermine the production of and municipal government, and protection status for marine goods and services, which are the mainstay threatened species and habitats. of Small Island Developing States and many coastal economies. Global trade in marine products Site-based interventions include spatial area man- accounts for over $35 billion in goods annually from agement, which focuses management on specific developing countries, while marine tourism (much stretches of coastline or expanses of marine space. of it based on coral reefs) is a multibillion-dollar While this may take many forms, perhaps the most industry in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. In well known for protecting prescribed areas of addition to their productivity and biodiversity value, marine space are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). mangroves and coral reefs provide essential coastal These were originally dedicated to the protection protection to low-lying coastal states and are the and maintenance of marine biodiversity but have first line of defense against rising sea levels. evolved to include other objectives, including sustainable use and the protection of cultural resources. Currently, less than 1 percent of the world’s oceans (about 6 percent of territorial seas) The Challenge are under some form of protected area status, compared with nearly 13 percent of the terrestrial envi- Effectively addressing these threats remains an elu- ronment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these sive goal, as population pressure mounts and urban- protected areas are not managed effectively. Many, ization in the coastal zone expands. More than half in fact, are paper parks. the world lives within 100 kilometers of a coast, and soon more than half will live in cities. The majority Nevertheless, given the very small percentage of of the world’s megacities (with a population of 10 marine habitat currently under protection and the million or more) are located in the coastal zone— serious gaps in biogeographic representation at most of these are in the developing world. In the national and regional levels, many international fora marine environment, controlling fishing effort have advocated significant scaling up to achieve on remains a problem in most territorial waters, but it is the order of 20–30 percent coverage of the world’s especially acute in near-shore waters, where open major coastal and marine habitats under no-take access prevails in most small-scale fisheries. This is reserves by 2012. These targets, endorsed at the exacerbated by the use of inappropriate fishing gear Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, follow on the and methods, and often by encroachment by indus- heels of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation trial vessels. With the rise in fuel prices, exploration from the World Summit on Sustainable Development for offshore oil, gas, and other minerals increases the (WSSD), which called for establishing effective, human footprint and its impacts in the coastal zone. representative networks of marine protected areas by 2012. Such targets are probably overly ambi- Although coastal ecosystems are among the most tious, however, given that most MPAs are not con- productive and biologically diverse in the world, sidered to be managed effectively and that there is they are unable to sustain their productivity or growing resistance to the concept of no-take (non- remain resilient in the face of such pressure. A extractive) reserves. number of management interventions have been introduced to prevent or mitigate human impacts in Most paper parks suffer from inadequate commit- the marine environment. These include integrated ment by governments and the necessary political coastal management, zoning, environmental legisla- will to sustain designated sites in the face of eco- tion and regulations to limit use through licensing nomic trade-offs or perceived political costs. and concessions, restrictions on gear and seasonal Related to this is the inadequacy of resources and

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Frontx 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page x

knowledge available for proper design and estab- social and economic benefits required to sustain x lishment of MPAs and their operation. Maintenance community support in a developing country? Should is costly, and enforcement remains a major hurdle. other tools in the spatial area management toolkit be Yet research shows that where they are effectively looked at in conjunction with MPAs to facilitate managed, MPAs can bring a range of benefits well meaningful scaling up? Are alternative livelihoods a beyond biodiversity conservation. These include necessary ingredient for MPAs? What role should social and economic benefits to local communities the international financial institutions and the donor in the form of improved livelihoods, purchasing community play in helping advance this process? power, cultural cohesion, social empowerment, and voice in decision making. Demonstrating these benefits and ensuring that they are equitably distrib- Objectives and Methods uted to a wide spectrum of users is fundamental to the acceptance and long-term success of MPAs. This study answers the key questions on MPAs by assessing country experience with these and other The challenge of harnessing the potential of MPAs to tools along the marine management area continuum both protect vulnerable marine biodiversity and that have been adopted to address loss of biodiver- enhance the productivity of marine resources for sus- sity and fisheries and other marine resource degra- tainable use is particularly acute in tropical coastal dation, which have eroded traditional use rights and nations, which harbor the highest concentrations of cultural identify. In light of the confusing array of the world’s biodiversity and significant fish stocks MPA types and other Marine Management Areas, within their Exclusive Economic Zones. At the same the report creates a typology of tools based on their time, developing economies are struggling to meet structure and objectives and commented on their competing resource demands for infrastructure, relative effectiveness in achieving objectives, social services, water, energy, and agriculture, leaving including marine conservation. Finally, the report investments in marine conservation lagging behind. assesses the best way of scaling up these interven- Especially for the poor, the challenge remains captur- tions to achieve results at meaningful scales through ing the benefits of MPAs and realizing them at scales replication, networking, or mainstreaming onto required to protect ecosystem processes while also other platforms. addressing the social, cultural, and political realities of restricting access and regulating what has tradi- Among the factors examined are government com- tionally been considered common property. mitment, ecological relevance, social and cultural acceptability, legal frameworks, community buy-in, This study was originally conceived to assess what MPA benefits, costs and financial sustainability, and factors are most likely to determine MPAs success the role of science. The analysis is based on a review based on experience to date and to identify opportu- of the literature and three detailed case studies on nities for the World Bank and its partners for scal- the Philippines, Chile, and Brazil. An analysis of ing up MPAs to help meet the WSSD targets. In the legal frameworks associated with MPA establishment course of the review, several additional questions and operation was also prepared as part of the analy- emerged. Can the factors most important in deter- sis (available in a companion volume). mining the success of MPAs be reinforced and replicated? Given the trade-offs involved, is it feasible to think of scaling up MPAs in line with the ambitious targets set by various international calls Main Findings to action within the conservation community? How can MPAs with a focus on biodiversity conservation 1. Open access is a principal driver of achieve their biological objectives at ecologically resource degradation in coastal commons. meaningful scales while delivering the range of Open access prevails in most small-scale, arti-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Frontxi 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xi

sanal fisheries in near-shore waters reserved for nearby human activities and other externalities this group. There is no or inadequate registra- at the land/sea interface, even well-managed xi tion of vessels in most countries, and this— MPAs are subject to continuous and cumulative combined with failure to place limits on stress, which undermines their effectiveness and individual and total allowable catch—gives rise threatens their existence. MPAs must be embed- to the tragedy of the commons, which is played ded in higher-order frameworks of coastal and out repeatedly along the coastal margins of marine area governance. countries, where 90 percent of the marine catch is produced. 6. A broad spectrum of MPA and other emerging coastal and marine management 2. Enforceable governance systems will be (CMM) frameworks are now in use, account- required to begin to deal with the formidable ing for some 30 different types. All involve zon- problem of regulating access (including types and ing and designation of coastal management rules rates of resource exploitation)—systems that can and restrictions, and may be classified into four accommodate different marine coastal and marine major categories of use: environments and that do not undermine local • Frameworks primarily for biodiversity con- cultural values and practices. Institutionally and servation and habitat protection legally, countries must find ways to bring their • Multiuse marine management character- unmanaged, still open-access, coastal-marine ized by balanced conservation and sustain- commons under some form of rational control. able use • Frameworks primarily designed for extractive 3. While they can be successful in regulating purposes within a framework of managed use access and use, particularly at the scale of local • Culture-ecological and social protection community-managed reserves, MPAs are frag- reserves set up primarily to protect cultural ile governance structures. They require heritage or land/seascapes and the use rights ongoing stakeholder participation in co- of traditional peoples. management arrangements with authorities and adequate resources to enforce limited entry and While MPAs constitute an indispensable interven- use. The process of establishing MPAs will have tion for particular aspects and challenges of ocean to be socially acceptable and equitable, offering and fisheries management, other instruments in the feasible livelihood alternatives and social pro- toolkit may offer more cost-effective and socially tection should communities need to relocate or acceptable options for scaling up effective marine diversify within or outside the use sector. management in the near term to accelerate restoration of depleted fish stock and protect ecosystem 4. MPAs are costly to establish and maintain. goods and services that underpin coastal economies They require substantial resources beyond the ini- and livelihoods. These lie along a continuum of spatial investment in order to operate and retain their tial area management tools and governance frame- effectiveness and achieve public acceptance. works, such as integrated coastal management While some have introduced diversified financing (ICM). (See the Figure for various spatial area man- schemes, including the use of trust funds, user agement tools in a (hypothetical) national context, fees, green taxes, and fines, most developing- within a nested hierarchy in which ICM provides country governments rely on external donor sup- the overarching framework.) More than a spatial port to establish MPAs, and few have sufficient management tool, ICM is an intersectoral approach public sector budgets to defray recurrent costs. that aims to align policies and incentives across economic sectors to minimize environmental 5. MPAs cannot survive in isolation. In the impacts from coastal resource use while maximizing absence of mechanisms to buffer them against benefits to society at large.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Frontxii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xii

xii Nested Marine Management Area Framework

Area (km2) LME 5,000

ICM/Zoned Seascape

Biosphere Reserve 1,000 St r

500 Multiple Use MPAs ict Ma r No-take Rese r Fis

MEABRs Recreational Fishing

Eco Tourism h e i MER n r ies Aquaculture e Rese r 100 Indigenous ve Other Settlements ve Economic Activities Community-based MPA Minimal protection Full protection Extractive use Non extractive use

The typology prepared for this study allows a dis- and way of life of traditional and indigenous coastal tinction between “protection” and “sustainable communities in Brazil. These extractive reserves are use” as the principal management objective of indi- important examples of emerging resource manage- vidual tools. Some fall outside the traditional defini- ment paradigms that are iterative, with a high poten- tion of MPAs, such as areas designated specifically tial for achieving ecosystem management goals at or primarily for managed use. Here, protection of ecologically significant scales. biodiversity is incidental, if it occurs at all. These include such categories as management and These management areas vary in size from a cou- exploitation areas for benthic resources (MEABRs) ple of hundred hectares (MEABRs) to hundreds of in Chile (Chapter 4) and collaborative management square kilometers (MERs), and in aggregate cover areas in Tanzania. Other reserves are designed for an area ranging from 1,000 square kilometers in cultural-ecological and social protection. These Chile to nearly 8,000 square kilometers in Brazil. include the marine extractive reserves (MERs) in In Chile, there is great demand among communi- Brazil, which, despite their name, have been estab- ties to expand the number of MEABRs in light of lished primarily to protect the informal use rights the perceived benefits of allocating fishing rights

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Frontxiii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xiii

versus open access—a condition that prevailed which reinforces spiritual and cultural values as just 15 years ago. In Brazil, marine extractive well as underpinning local economies and feeding xiii reserves cover a huge area of the coastline, nes- into ecosystem processes at larger scales. tled between shrimp farms, oil and gas wells, industrial fishing ports, tourist resorts, and sprawling urban communities. Because of their Other Key Findings size and their overlap with areas of significant marine biodiversity, these hold real promise for Marine science and traditional knowledge have a enhancing biodiversity conservation on a massive crucial role to play in guiding efforts to network and scale within the production seascape. This should increase the effective coverage of MPAs. Applied be of great interest to the Global Environment research (on biological connectivity, gene flow, pro- Facility, whose strategic priorities for the biodiver- ductivity, and human behavior) can help reduce the sity focal area include protecting biodiversity out- cost of management decisions regarding MPAs— side protected areas, where the greatest potential where and how to deploy them relative to other (and challenge) exists for ramping up conserva- interventions. Use of traditional knowledge can also tion of biological diversity. increase stakeholder participation, heighten awareness of benefits from effective management regimes, Because integrated coastal management has the and increase stakeholder buy-in, thus enhancing support of government (ideally at various levels) the sustainability of MPAs. when enacted through legislation and the mandate to implement a governance framework over relative- In terms of the need to scale up marine manage- ly large spatial scales, including linked hydrological ment to achieve results over ecologically meaning- systems that may extend from watersheds out to sea, ful scales, the case studies and literature suggest it is the only framework that can begin to address that the greatest opportunities for achieving these externalities at scales large enough to buffer Marine outcomes may lie outside traditional protected area Protected Areas and other CMM areas from lethal boundaries, in the production landscape. The tran- threats beyond their control. While far from perfect sition zones of managed use surrounding strict no- and still nascent in many developing countries (ICM take reserves or areas demarcated for exclusive use initiatives now exist in about 100 countries, usually by communities may offer the greatest scope for subnationally), ICM can create an enabling environ- expanding an ecosystem-based approach to marine ment for MPAs and offers the best platform for tak- resource conservation. The diverse array of coastal- ing marine biodiversity conservation and marine management areas—including MPAs— sustainable fisheries management to scale. need to be networked and linked administratively and ecologically through zoning regulations that Multiuse and higher-order coastal management sys- allow ecological processes to be protected in the tems emerging in the Philippines, Chile, and Brazil production landscape. Use of strategic environmen- are promising in that they offer the potential to facil- tal assessments and environmental impact assess- itate scaling up marine management by unifying and ments should be promoted, along with strict helping to reconcile elements that may at first seem enforcement of the polluter pays principle and incompatible with protecting marine biodiversity. other means to mitigate off-site impacts and harmo- Indeed, other tools in coastal area management pro- nize policies across sectors to comply with princi- vide some idea of the areas of intervention that serve ples of ecosystem integrity—as good practice under multiple objectives: protecting traditional culture ICM. The ICM framework would ideally provide a heritage; enhancing the sustainability of local fish- mix of tools that would include a high ratio of eries that provide the income, nutrition, and liveli- zoned/managed use to no-take reserves. This will hoods to sustain traditional communities; and allow governments to address socioeconomic needs conserving marine biological diversity—all of while helping to sustain the productivity of coastal

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Frontxiv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xiv

ecosystems so that they can continue to provide the • Dramatically step up enforcement of agreed xiv goods and services essential to the well-being of boundaries around areas of restricted access by, coastal communities. among other things, strengthening communities to assume this role, and promoting uptake of new, As with MPAs, promoting a more integrated cost-effective monitoring control and surveillance approach such as ICM to effectively scale up technologies. marine management will need to include measures for sustainability. Institutional arrangements align- • Invest in creating sustainable alternative liveli- ing economic sectors and coastal development poli- hoods and social protection for those affected by cies with sustainable development principles that reallocation of use rights. reflect a balance between marine resource use and marine ecosystem health will need to be internal- • Establish new biodiversity conservation-oriented ized. Financing needs to be provided for the policy MPAs to meet “representative system” targets reform measures and recurrent costs of ICM imple- judiciously and strategically. mentation over the long term. Ideally, this will be available through internal mechanisms such as • Look into transforming and scaling up communi- public expenditures, enhanced production and ty-based resource reserves to mainstream biodi- capture of resources rents, user fees, and other eco- versity protection in the production landscape. nomic instruments. Explore community-driven development as a platform for mainstreaming local ICM initiatives.

• Promote the use of science and traditional knowl- Recommendations edge to network MPAs with other CMM areas to achieve greater effectiveness at scale. • Support implementation of ICM as an enabling governance framework for Marine Protected • Explore partnerships to help finance the policy Areas by investing up front in the necessary poli- reform, institutional arrangements, and sustain- cy reforms, institutional arrangements, and self- able financing agenda required to implement financing mechanisms required to sustain it over ICM and create a viable governance framework the long term. for MPAs.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Frontxv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xv

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_S1 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page S1

Part I MPAs in Context 345109Sec1_1 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 1

Introduction 1

Increased pressures on reefs brought After 30 years, coastal-marine management is still in a formative phase compared with the exten- about by spectacular demographic sive knowledge bank, tools, and financial support growth in the coastal zone, available for sustainable development and conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. expanding tourism, changes in Marine management and biodiversity conservation agricultural practices, destructive are rapidly expanding, generating a profusion of proposals and quests for new kinds of protected area fishing and the influence of climate tools and spatial frameworks. Monitoring these efforts requires constant updating, data-gathering, change phenomena such as El Niño and evaluation. The rationale, objectives, and series have left us swimming against the of questions about marine protected areas addressed in this study stem from these considerations and the tide in a race against time. need to provide accurate information that will assist the World Bank in setting priorities and mapping ISMAEL SERAGELDIN out strategic interventions to enable poor countries VICE-PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY to deal with the adverse impacts of a worsening SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, WORLD BANK global marine crisis.

The once widely held premise that oceans are an All measures and practices to inexhaustible resource has been replaced by very different perceptions of both marine resource man- conserve marine biodiversity and agers and many fishers in the twenty-first century. ecological processes must take Fisheries productivity and coastal ecosystem health show alarming signs of decay in many regions. human needs into account. Globally, fish catches have been declining since the 1980s (Watson and Pauly 2001). The biomass of WWF/IUCN MARINE POLICY SUMMARY CREATING A SEA CHANGE (WWF/IUCN 1998) high-trophic-level fish has declined by two-thirds since 1950 in the North Atlantic (Christensen and others 2003), while that of predatory fish over large portions of the ocean has dropped by 90 percent since industrial fisheries began globally (Myers and Worm 2003). There are now 528 species from the

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1 10/9/06 1:47 PM Page 2

marine biome listed on the Red List of Threatened biological diversity, a new generation of adaptable 2 Species of IUCN-the World Conservation Union MPA concepts and associated tools is being devised (Woods and others 2005). to accommodate and correspond to actual biological scales and processes that support the natural cycles In addition, as the world’s last tropical sea frontiers on which all sealife depends. vanish, once-remote traditional and artisanal fishing societies are being increasingly marginalized or disappearing altogether, as are once-productive and still 1.1. potentially sustainable small-scale fisheries, culturally based local marine ecological knowledge, and Putting MPAs in Perspective low-impact fishing systems and technologies. Recent policy studies by the U.N. Food and Agriculture The original conceptual focal point for this study is Organization, the World Resources Institute, IUCN, MPAs, broadly conceived. (The many evolving defi- the WorldFish Center, and other researchers under- nitions of MPAs are discussed in Chapter 2.) There score the pressing need not only for marine conserva- is a tendency for MPAs to be perceived as things in tion but also for efforts to enhance the themselves, practically isolated entities in the vast- complementarity of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), ness of seas. International, national, and local pride integrated coastal management, ecosystem-based and a sense of collective ownership and responsibil- management, and coastal fisheries sustainability, as ity for an individual MPA can evolve and take on well as helping coastal communities preserve socio- symbolic significance, ranging from Australia’s cultural values embedded in their fishing traditions. Great Barrier Reef to tiny Apo Island in the Philippines. Charismatic qualities that MPAs The orientation and conceptual frameworks for MPA assume and the enthusiasm for certain categories of development, notably during the 1970s and 1980s, MPAs, particularly those that have flagship “nation- were opportunistic, largely site-specific, and not al park” status, have helped advance marine con- designed or established to cope with off-site and servation worldwide and increased awareness of upstream threats or the extent of the global marine how threatened and precarious much sealife and crisis today. To begin to address unprecedented associated habitats has become. threats to coastal environments, overfishing, and But MPAs also have an important role to play in enhancing or restoring the productive potential of coastal and marine fisheries. Figure 1–1 shows the FIGURE 1.1 increasing value of world trade in marine products, Value of Global Marine Products Trade the majority of which now originates in developing in $US billions countries. Figure 1–2 shows the value of fish exports relative to other export commodities of developing $25 countries. The economic benefits of MPAs in terms of providing a haven for female brood stock, spawn- $20 ing aggregations, juveniles, and corridors for migrating species, among other functions related to Developed $15 stock recovery, are also being documented, along with spillover effects into fishing grounds. Developing Countries $10 In addition to being concerned about the severity $5 and complexity of marine protection issues and 1982 1988 1994 2000 the ability of MPAs to address these concerns, the Source: FAO 2002 study is also concerned with issues of scale and

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1 10/9/06 1:47 PM Page 3

FIGURE 1.2 3 Relative Value of Fish Exports in Developing Countries in $US billions

$20

$15

1982 1992 2002 $10

fish coffee cocoa bananas rubber sugar tea rice tobacco meat -$5 Source: FAO 2004

dimensions that key biological processes in the eries—nearly all of which include MPAs as man- sea require to keep operating productively over agement tools. time, marine interfaces with coastal and inland areas, and economic activities on land and sea, Incorporating the social dimension is essential for some of which increasingly are jeopardizing successful MPAs. This was a major theme of Voices entire ecosystems. From the Village in the South Pacific (World Bank 2000). This work is being used today in policy and The World Bank has substantial, long-standing planning contexts by the South Pacific Commission. interests in coastal-marine management. It is a More recently, the Bank has attempted to incorpo- member and founding partner of the International rate societal dimensions into measures of coral reef Coral Reef Initiative since 1995, and in the same ecosystem health, noting the need to include met- year produced, along with IUCN and the Great rics beyond the biophysical, in order to capture Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a piece on pri- human-ecological interactions and feedback in orities for establishing A Globally Representative determining the true state of health of a given System of Marine Protected Areas. This was the pre- ecosystem (World Bank 2006). cursor to the concept of MPA networks to ensure biogeographic representativeness within a system The principal objectives of the economic and sector of Marine Protected Areas designed to protect work in this report are in keeping with the critical marine biodiversity and the integrity of marine need to scale up management interventions and ecosystem structure and function. Subsequently, approaches in response to a global marine crisis (cf. the Bank has developed a large portfolio of coastal WRI 2000; Wilkinson 2004; Pauly and others 1998, and marine resource management projects—from 2005). They include developing a much clearer integrated coastal management to coral reef conser- understanding of the range, potential, and limita- vation and targeted research and sustainable fish- tions of MPAs as coastal management tools and the

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1 10/9/06 1:47 PM Page 4

context in which mainstreaming MPAs in combina- 1.2. 4 tion with other management tools to achieve large- scale marine conservation may be most appropriate. Objectives of This Study

The study looks as well at what societies are doing First, the study aims to document and evaluate the to contend with these mounting problems—that is, range of MPA tools currently in use in different whether, where, and how countries in different tropical coastal settings. This is necessary to cap- regions are responding to the challenges of scaling ture and delineate the the rapidly expanding uni- up MPAs by synchronizing and adjusting their verse of MPA classifications and related coastal marine policies, management frameworks for and resource management tools based on their coastal development, fisheries, and coastal-marine zonation, uses, structure, and management func- biological diversity in ways that effectively take sci- tions. Second, the study seeks to clarify and con- ence-based, biological scales and processes in the textualize uses of this MPA “toolkit” in different sea into account. The study also analyzes how poor contexts. At present, confusion abounds as to what tropical coastal countries are dealing with socioeco- tools and approaches belong in the toolkit—when nomic challenges that inevitably accompany efforts is an MPA not an MPA, in other words (cf. to scale up coastal-marine management and Kenchington 2005)? By clarifying MPA designa- whether they are equipped to do so. tions and purposes, the study gauges the applica- bility, effectiveness, and sustainability of tools and Individually or collectively, are MPAs achieving or approaches under various conditions. Criteria for capable of achieving results on biologically signifi- MPA success include ecological relevance, appro- cant scales? Can they cope with increasing develop- priateness in the sociocultural context, supporting ment and population pressures and with off-site legal frameworks, degree of community participa- threats? Are they operating or suited to support function and commitment, inclusion in a larger marine tions to foster sustainable fishing economies on dif- management framework, basis in science, finan- ferent scales? Can they be adapted for purposes of cial sustainability, and provision of expected ben- fishery recovery to reverse the overall pattern of fish- efit streams, including meeting community eries decline in countries like Brazil and the livelihood objectives. Philippines? What new systemic modifications and specific measures need to be adopted to facilitate scaling up and mainstreaming to improve MPA effec- Numerous studies and international conferences, tiveness and move toward ecosystem management? including the International Marine Protected Areas Congress in 2005, have stressed the need to scale In developing an interdisciplinary perspective on up MPAs, including through replication and net- these questions the study will present in-depth working as well as through large-scale programs case studies of MPA/Marine Management Area that increase their areal coverage as a first line of development in three important World Bank client defense against marine environmental degradation. countries, leading to a clearer exposition of what The lessons that emerge from this analysis can help “scaling up” means in different developing-country guide the design of MPA interventions in World contexts and what it may imply in terms of recali- Bank and other donor-supported projects to best brating environmental and economic priorities; the meet client needs and approach sustainability. In so study will also identify and explain the roles and doing, the study may bring us closer to realizing the functions of various MPAs and their possible entry World Summit on Sustainable Development’s target points in the comparative context of coastal man- for establishing effective networks of Marine agement challenges, habitat, and biogeographic Protected Areas by 2012 and its related marine con- settings, which tend to vary remarkably within servation targets. countries and across regions.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_5 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 5

1.3. analysis. It returns to cross-cutting themes in terms of key challenges and management options that 5 Organization of the Study developing countries may wish to pursue to achieve conservation objectives on a scale sufficiently large The study is divided into three parts, which will be to reverse coastal biodiversity loss and overfishing available in three volumes published sequentially. of inshore waters and to ensure stability and integri- The full Country Studies appear in Volume 2, while ty of surrounding human communities that depend the Legal Analysis appears in Volume 3. on well-functioning marine ecosystems. Chapter 8 provides a succinct list of recommendations for con- In this volume, Part I consists of three chapters sideration by developing countries and the interna- designed to put the concept of MPAs in context. tional community, along with suggested next steps Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 con- for the Bank itself. structs a typology of MPA tools and other marine spatial planning and management techniques. This typology helps frame the case studies and literature 1.4. review and forms a pivotal platform for subsequent analysis. Chapter 3 introduces the key questions Audience and Dissemination related to MPA success and failures and the issues of scaling up. These are presented in a brief review The work is geared toward several different audi- of the literature and are discussed in light of pre- ences. A primary target is the Bank’s clients, who vailing socioeconomic, equity, and political econo- have a large stake in maintaining the long-term pro- my concerns. The study could not begin to review ductivity of their coastal and marine resources. The the voluminous literature on MPAs and related top- donor community is another prime user of informa- ics in many fields. However, a useful resource and tion contained in the study, particularly how MPAs database around these topics has been compiled. and other spatial management tools can be main- streamed into ongoing operations and strategies for Part II contains the country studies. Chapters 4, 5, future economic development assistance. In light of and 6 contain much of the source material for this the substantial assistance it provides to protect analysis and include case studies of MPA experi- marine biodiversity and promote sustainable fish- ences and trends in the Philippines, Chile, and eries, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a Brazil. Illustrations of similar problems, as well as major audience for this report, which will be dis- innovative MPA, coastal zone, and multiuse seminated at the GEF Assembly in August 2006 in resource and area management approaches are also Cape Town. Finally, the authors hope that other part- cited from experiences in other countries, including ners in the larger marine conservation community from Africa, the Indo-Pacific, and Australasia.. The will find this discussion interesting and valuable in report seeks to capture and convey a sense of evaluating the role of MPAs relative to other tools in dynamics and diversity of MPA experiences by trying to find the most cost-effective and viable bringing to light and analyzing the potential of many strategies for achieving common objectives. local and some national initiatives that contribute to our understanding of the challenges and opportuni- In addition to being distributed through the GEF ties for scaling up and mainstreaming marine con- Assembly, the findings will also be presented in a servation efforts to achieve dual environmental and series of workshop and conferences in the second social objectives. half of 2006 in Latin America (ITMEMS in Cozumel in October and the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries In Part III, Chapter 7 provides the analysis and dis- Institute meetings in Belize in November) and Asia. tillation of findings from the case studies and the lit- A videotape will be available to accompany the erature, along with the conclusions drawn from the Chilean case study.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_6 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 6

References 6

Christensen, V., S. Guénette, J.J. Heymans, C.J. Walters, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2003. Hundred year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4(1): 1–24. Kenchington, R. 2005. Biophysical Principles to Design A Network of No-Take Areas: Great Barrier Reef Case Study. Paper Presented at First International Marine Protected Area Congress, Geelong, Australia. Global Marine Programme, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN–World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland. Myers, R., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280–83. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860–86. Pauly, D., R. Watson, and J. Alder. 2005. Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 360: 5–12. Watson, R., and D. Pauly. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414: 534–36. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. Vols. 1 and 2. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Townsville, Australia. Wood, L.J., and others. 2005. A Global Review of Marine Protected Areas. Paper Presented at First International Marine Protected Area Congress, Geelong, Australia. Global Marine Programme, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN–World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland. World Bank. 2000. Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series number 9. Washington DC. ———. 2006. The World Bank and Biodiversity 1988–2005: Mountains to Coral Reefs. Washington, DC. WRI (World Resources Institute). 2000. Fostering Policies for Sustainable Coastal and Marine Resources Management and Conservation. The 2000–2003 Global Marine Strategy of the World Resources Institute. R.S. Pomeroy and J.E. Parks (eds.). Washington, DC. WWF (World Wildlife Fund)/IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1998. Creating a Sea Change: A Vision for Our Blue Planet. Gland, Switzerland.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_7 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 7

A Typology of Coastal- Marine Management Tools 2 and Approaches

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are literally and figuratively all over the map. Mounting ambiguity about where a particular MPA type fits in this expanding lexicon and what specific elements of MPAs are being referenced in a discussion tends to obstruct assessments of MPA effectiveness and the uses and potential of various tool types to help take marine management to scale. In addition, lack of clarity and agreement in classifying tools and how they are used can hinder transferability of MPA models and experiences across countries and regions.

Box 2-1 indicates how numerous, wide-ranging, cross sectoral, and multi-dimenstional functions ascribed to MPAs have become. This gives some indication of how numerous, wide-ranging, sector- spanning, and multidimensional the functions ascribed to MPAs have become. To date, international and country agencies charged with standard- izing protected area terminology have had little success in restoring order to the rapidly proliferat- Fish market in Ecuador – photo by Patrick Christie ing terminology in this field.

Clarifying and simplifying MPA classification com- plexities became a priority at the outset of this study. MPAs have come to cover a diverse repertoire of tools and spatial, temporal, and resource management frameworks – from scientific research stations to extractive reserves, multiuse marine

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_8 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 8

Conservation Union’s, reads: “MPAs are any area BOX 2.1 8 of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its Increasing Range of Uses and overlaying water and associated flora, fauna, his- Zonation Purposes Attached to MPAs torical, or cultural features, which has been reserved by law, or other effective means, to be Biodiversity conservation goals protected from all fishing, extractive, or harmful • Habitat and biodiversity protection uses” (Roberts and Hawkins 2002). Hence, in this • Ecosystem form and function relative to case MPAs are directly equated with “no-take unexploited conditions areas” (equal to full protection from all fishing or • Protecting nontarget species extractive uses). • Ecosystem restoration On the other hand, the Subsidiary Body on Fishery goals Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of • Improved or restored fishery the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Ad • Maintenance of spawning stock Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas) adopted the following definition: Social goals “Marine and Coastal Protected Areas mean any • Religious/spiritual fulfillment defined area within or adjacent to the marine envi- • Aesthetics ronment, together with its overlying waters and • Economic vitality associated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural • Environment stewardship and education features, which has been reserved by legislation or • Food supply and other fundamental needs other effective means, including customs, with the • Pride effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity • Increased government support and enjoys a higher level of protection than its surround- accountability ings” (Secretariat of CBD 2004). (Biodiversity is • Empowerment defined in the CBD.) The idea that such an area must enjoy “a higher level of protection than its sur- Source: Christie, P. and A.T. White. 2006. roundings” is fundamental in the CBD definition, which is more inclusive and wider than Roberts and Hawkins’ definition. For instance, under the CBD’s definition, a “no-take area” as well as a Chilean management areas, biosphere reserves, fishery management and exploitation area would be consid- reserves, and underwater parks. The meaning of the ered as part of a Coastal and Marine Protected Area term “marine reserve,” for instance, can vary (CMPA) network. markedly, depending on national, local, and international contexts (Agardy and others 2003; Agardy This analysis suggests that not enough emphasis has 2005; Cordell 2002; Christie and White 2006; been placed on untangling the conceptual dispari- FAO 2006; Ray 2004; IUCN 2003). MPA connota- ties concerning what does or does not constitute an tions have become confusing, which in a way is MPA, as this issue remains unresolved and prob- unfortunate because the best, most widely accepted lematic in international calls for the urgent imple- working definitions are clear. mentation of MPA networks. Taken at face value, the Roberts and Hawkins concept versus CBD’s inter- MPAs have been equated with “fish sanctuaries,” pretation would entail different strategies and goals “fishery reserves,” and “no-take areas” (Roberts for setting up MPA networks. The CBD document and Hawkins 2000; World Bank 2004) and also recommends that countries establish a national sys- with “marine reserves.” Roberts and Hawkins’ tem of CMPAs, permitting a variety of sustainable definition, adapted from IUCN–the World human uses. The document describes these areas as

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_9 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 9

“ancillary MPAs” to distinguish them from the high- 2.1. ly protected (that is, “no-take”) areas. Typology Categories 9 Bearing in mind that this study aims to explore the question of scaling up MPAs, any examination of The typology constructed for this report is an effort the tools lumped in the MPA category in poor trop- to inventory, sort, and clarify the range of CMM ical coastal countries soon must determine what alternatives and to identify important differences constitutes an MPA—where an MPA begins and and similarities within the overall toolkit. MPAs and ends, and how MPAs relate to managing fisheries, interrelated marine resource, coastal area, fisheries local marine tenure systems, and development management, and culture-ecological protection threats. Individual countries are developing their tools are grouped into four major categories. Note protected area classifications systems idiosyncrati- that a “tool” is not simply a technical instrument or cally (not all countries follow IUCN’s I –VI intervention or a spatial unit or targeted area. In Categories). In this connection, governments (par- reality, all CMM tools are embedded in management ticularly in the developing world) that need to use frameworks—that is, they have administrative, con- these MPA tools to solve fishery crises (Fernández ceptual, methodological, legal-regulatory, and and Castilla 2005) would react very differently action-implementation underpinnings. Sets of tools under the CBD rather than the Roberts and can be separated and classified according to their Hawkins definition. Developing countries like distinct primary functions. Chile and Brazil have been more inclined to opt for the more comprehensive and inclusive approach offered by the CBD, while still recognizing that no- Category I. MPAs: Tools Designed take areas must remain essential, central compo- Primarily for Biodiversity Conservation nents of their MPA systems. and Habitat Protection On this point it is useful to defer to IUCN’s defini- The coastal and marine management (CMM) typol- tion of MPA functions: Marine Protected Areas are ogy constructed for this report lets readers visualize areas of restricted access or activity whose primary and examine systematically what is today often objective is the protection of a coastal or marine referred to as the MPA “toolkit” (but that actually ecosystem, the resources (such as goods) they con- involves much more than MPAs, narrowly contain, or processes (such as services) essential to ceived). A sound typology can help pinpoint where maintain ecosystem function and productivity. “Any various marine management regimes are located, area of intertidal or subtidal terrain together with its conceptually and pragmatically, including MPAs as overlying water and associated flora, fauna, histori- historically conceived (that is, as instruments cal and cultural features, which has been reserved designed primarily to protect the marine environ- by law or other effective means to protect part or all ment). The typology presented in Table 2–1 is of the enclosed environment.” intended to facilitate understanding of how individual sets of tools are distributed biogeographically and how types that might superficially appear Category II. Multiuse Marine incompatible in terms of function have come to co- Management Tools exist and operate in mutually reinforcing combina- Diverse, hybrid forms of multiuse coastal, resource, tions in different countries. The CMM typology is and fisheries management strategies and frame- also instructive as it forms a basis for evaluating works now exist, many of which intersect with MPAs opportunities and prospects (relative limitations or and have become attached to MPA agendas but that advantages) that MPAs, as well as other kinds of nonetheless have been implemented with different, tools, offer as platforms for taking coastal marine sometimes apparently contradictory (that is, not management to scale. exclusively or strictly conservation) purposes.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_10 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 10

The key word and distinguishing feature of Category II reserves integrate culture heritage and culturally 10 reserves is balanced zoning and management. In other significant natural coastal-marine features or land- words, the reserve design and implementation scapes and seascapes. (See the Annex on connota- expressly aim to balance conservation and managed tions of “tradition” and “culture heritage” use objectives (where access to sea space and designations in the CMM typology.) resources is carefully controlled and limited). The Countries and management agencies give different focus of Category II is to restrict and manage econom- names to tools that have quite similar functions. So ic activities, but only in ways that clearly will not in constructing this typology, in order to reduce con- threaten ecosystems and habitats. Moreover, Category fusion surrounding the global repertoire of MPA II tools have equally strong provisions for science- tools and for comparative analysis, the study made based, restricted area components designed to protect an effort first to capture as much of the universe of or help restore biodiversity and degraded habitats. variation in tools and names for tools recorded by IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (and others) as possible. Second, the analysis separated Category III. Sustainable Extractive Use national toolkits, irrespective of local names, Marine Resource Management Tools according to primary design objective and function This tool category is primarily designated for of tool types. Significantly, the analysis suggests demonstrably sustainable, managed extractive that current toolkits can be broken down into only use(s) or sustainable development focused on spe- four basic categories reflecting their primary cific resources. Typically, the predominant objective intended function and emphasis. This is what deter- for such reserves is single or multiple sustainable mines how and where they are implemented, where extractive activities (such as artisanal fisheries, col- different countries are placing more or less empha- lection of ornamental shells, ecotourism, permit sis, and where countries stand or are moving in sportfishing, or community livelihood support, as in terms of the possibilities for increasing spatial the case of marine foraging to sustain local subsis- scales—whether toward managed marine resource tence economies). Territorial user rights for fishers (extractive use) or increased coastal-marine (biodi- fall under this category. While some may interpret versity and habitat protection) or both. Individual this as a subset of IUCN Protected Areas Category tools (especially MPAs with circumscribed, high VI (Managed Resource Protected Area), protection percentage no-take zones) are often erroneously of biodiversity is not the primary, or even secondary, represented as static or rigid. But this four-category focus of such managed use. However, it may be a by- typology highlights the continuum along which product if coupled with other interventions. MPAs and other marine management areas are evolving, demonstrating the dynamic, flexible, and adaptable nature of the CMM toolkit. Category IV. Culture-Ecological / Social Protection Reserves The four main CMM designations are not totally dis- A variety of conservation and sustainable use meas- crete categories. There are no absolute polarities in ures and tools, including biodiversity protection the typology aggregations; differentiation in classifi- zoning, are typically featured in Category IV. cation is a matter of degree. All categories contain a However, Category IV reserves and sanctuaries are range of tool types or management units on scales primarily based on special culture heritage preser- ascending from local-level to higher-order, from vation considerations and on national or interna- national to international (Peace Parks, Regional tional legislation intended to protect the territories, Seas MPA Networks, or International Sea Border, tenure systems, cultural resources, and resource use Treaty-Based Frameworks). Included in the higher- rights of indigenous peoples and, in certain cases, order special management frameworks are integrat- non-indigenous traditional societies (as in the case ed coastal management (ICM), ecosystem-based of marine extractive reserves in Brazil). Category IV frameworks for managing fisheries, and MPA net-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_11 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 11

TABLE 2.1 CMM Tool Ty p e s

Increasing Increasing managed use ecological protection and social protection 11 Culture-Ecological/ Marine Protected Multiuse Marine Social Protection Area Tools: Management Tools: Sustainable Use Reserves: Primarily Primarily for Primarily for Marine Resource for Indigenous and Biodiversity Balanced Management Tools: Traditional Non- Country Conservation and Conservation and Primarily for indigenous Profiles Habitat Protection Socioeconomic Uses Extractive Use Communities

Philippines CBMPA ICM FMR NTMR MUMPA EBFMR MPANET LMMA MPANP WHS Ramsar

Chile MPANP LME ER (MEABRs) MS MUMPA FMR RSMPA CBMPA Ramsar

Brazil MPANP ICM SD (RDS) CERTC (MERs) Ramsar MUMPA (APAs) MSS CERIPT

Tanzania MPA ICM CMA Ramsar MUMPA CBMPA MPANET

Australia MPANP ICM FMR CERIPT EBRMPA TBMPA CMT-MUMPA MPANET WHS IMPA NTMR BR ILMA Ramsar MSS

Solomon Is. MPA ICM WMAMPA, CMT-MUMPA WHS TBMPA FMR MSS LME

Papua NG MPA ICM WMAMPA CMT-MUMPA TBMPA FMR MSS

•APA: Environmental Protection Area •ER: Extractive Reserve •MPANP: National Marine Park •BR: Biosphere Reserve •FMR: Fishery Management Reserve •MS: Marine Sanctuary •CBMPA: Community-based MPA •ILMA: Indigenous Landscape Management Area •MSS: Marine Sacred Sites •CERIPT: Culture-ecological Indigenous •IMPA: Indigenous MPA •MUMPA: Multiuse MPA Peoples Territory •ICM: Integrated Coastal Management •NTMR: No-take Marine Reserve •CERTC: Culture-ecological Reserve •LME: Large Marine Ecosystem •Ramsar: Ramsar Site Traditional (Non-indigenous) Communities •LMMA: Locally Managed Marine Area •RDS: Sustainable Development Reserve CMA: Collaborative Management Area • •MEABR: Management and Exploitation Area •RSMPA: Regional Seas MPANET •CMT-MUMPA: Customary Marine Tenure- for Benthic Resources based MPA •SD: Sustainable Development •MER: Marine Extractive Reserve EBFMR: Ecosystem-based Fishery Reserve •TBMPA: Treaty-based MPA • •MPA: Marine Protected Area •EBRMPA: Ecosystem-based Reserve •WHS: World Heritage Site •MPANET: MPA Network •WMAMPA: Wildlife Management Area MPA

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_12 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 12

works spanning large areas (over hundreds of sider selecting different modalities (some of which 12 square kilometers, such as the Great Barrier Reef may not yet be represented in their respective toolk- Marine Park, Blueprint 2020 for Tanzania, and Fiji its), drawing on case study assessments associated Locally Managed Marine Networks). with different kinds. For instance, numerous countries are searching for socially acceptable, econom- The integrating planning and management frame- ically viable, logistically operable ways to address works are designed to deal with large-scale biologi- serious overfishing problems; they might consider cal and economic processes that can span land and both higher-order and local-level options in sea. They are typically science-based, coordinate Categories I, II, and III. Many countries urgently across economic sectors and coastal ecosystems, need closed-access measures and optimal solutions and attempt to reconcile the full range of economic, to preserve marine biodiversity; Category I provides sociocultural, and ecological uses that society alternatives and examples. demands through zoning and regulations designed to maintain the productive potential of coastal and The typology is thus a reference resource for weigh- marine systems as the basis for sustainable developing the pros and cons of alternative CMM models ment. There are also some categories of higher- and applications that can be considered in a com- order management frameworks (such as UNESCO’s parative context of case studies across countries and system of Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage regions. In order to understand where and how to Sites, and Large Marine Ecosystems). strategically apply MPA tools over time, it would help if practitioners could better ascertain the right Inside each cell, tool types and approaches can be point of entry and pick more workable, integrated located in terms of where they fit on a continuum: multidimensional approaches suited to interwoven large-scale to small-scale; more or less territorial environmental and social problems of poor coun- access closure; zonation purposes (extractive versus tries. The typology is intended to make some head- non-extractive uses and benefits); centralized to way in reducing sources of confusion surrounding decentralized administration; distance of reserve terminology and uses of the toolkit. MPAs can and from shore and administrative center; degree of do function as important management strategies local community association with and commitment within larger, area-wide coastal management frame- to reserve boundaries; and de jure versus de facto works (ICM, for example), with geographically far- legal systems or a combination of the two (for exam- ranging and inclusive goals. These include ple, in Melanesian societies, the constitution recog- maintaining essential ecological processes and life- nized both “traditional” owners’ property rights and support systems, maintaining genetic diversity, national-level resource administration and regulato- ensuring sustainable use of species and ecosystems, ry rights). and managing watersheds.

At the same time, the impression of cross-national 2.2. and cross-cultural diversity in CMM approaches and tool designations that the typology seeks to con- Typology Use and Significance vey (even its profusion of acronyms) may also be regarded as a positive development, reflecting ver- The typology has not been constructed in order to satility, ingenuity, and adaptability of tool design to set standards. It reflects developments in various cope with widely varying national contexts and bio- regions in the direction of scaling up administra- geographic conditions. Ray (2004: 215) makes a tively (and, to a lesser extent, biologically). similar point: that MPA diversity, complexity in Countries and practitioners can use the typology to semantics and terminology, and ambiguity may be locate their specific tool types and variants on a interpreted as something healthy—as “not neces- continuum of management frameworks and can con- sarily a bad thing” for a work in progress.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_13 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 13

References 13

Agardy, T.S. 2005. Global marine conservation policy versus site level implementation: the mismatch of scale and its implications. Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS). pp. 242–248. Politics and Socio-economics of Ecosystem- based Management of Marine Resources. H. Brownman, I. Konstantinos, and I. Stergiou, Idea and Coordination. Vol. 300: 241–296. Agardy, T.S., P. Bridgewater, M.P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R. Kenchington, D. Laffoley, P. McConnery, P.A. Murray, J.E. Parks, and L. Peau. 2003. Dangerous Targets? Unresolved Issues and Ideological Clashes Around Marine Protected Areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 13(4): 353–67. Christie, P. and A.T. White. 2006. Best Practices in Governance and Enforcement of Marine Protected Areas: An Overview. Report for the Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rome, June 2006. 45 pp. Fernandez, M., and J.C. Castilla. 2005. Marine conservation in Chile: historical perspective, lessons, and challenges. Conservation Biology. 19: 1752–62. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2003. Influence of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories on National, Regional and International Legal and Policy Frameworks. B.J. Dillon (ed.) Draft Working Paper. IUCN Environmental Law Center. Bonn, Germany. Ray, G.C. 2004. Reconsidering ‘dangerous targets’ for marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 14: 211–15. Roberts, C.M., and J. P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully-Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide. WWF Endangered Seas Program and Environment Department of the University of York. Washington, DC, and York, UK. Secretariat of CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2004. Technical Advice on the Establishment and Management of a National System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas, CBD Technical Series no. 13. World Bank. 2004. Saving Fish and Fishers: Toward Sustainable and Equitable Governance of the Global Fishing Sector. Report No. 29090- GLB. Agriculture and Rural Development Department. Washington, DC.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_14 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 14

Significance and Diversification 3 of Marine Protected Areas in Coastal Marine Management: Key Issues

This chapter provides more background about Marine Protected Area (MPA) work, recent trends, and alternative approaches that directly relate to the paramount question about the potential for various coastal marine management (CMM) tool types to scale up CMM in developing countries. The discussion here draws on expertise from within the Bank and the wider community of practice as well as examples from the literature.

The chapter covers a set of widely occurring and interdependent issues that are especially critical for understanding roles and relationships of CMM tool Categories I–IV (see Chapter 2), all of which are affected by and enter into assessments of how to scale marine management up to meaningful biological levels in order to meet social and ecological challenges posed by unmanaged development that has local and global economic dimensions.

Galapagos – photo by Claudia Sobrevilla 3.l. Common Property Issues and Problems Associated with Managing Marine Environments

One of the most severe, long-standing threats—if not the prime driver—of ocean and fisheries

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_15 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 15

decline is unquestionably the prevailing condition Yet the weaknesses of the control and monitoring of the sea as open-access. Although the UN system in the EEZs, especially in developing coun- 15 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grant- tries, have exposed the total resource base to the ed coastal states sovereignty over living and nonliv- unrestrained predation of a growing number of ing resources in Exclusive Economic Zones inshore fleets. It is estimated that more than 90 per- (EEZs), little has been done to generate sustainable cent of commercially valuable fish species are now fisheries or to ensure that effective marine manage- taken within 320 kilometers of the shore (Kapetsky ment and protection occurs within the 200-mile 1981; Holt and Segnestam 1982). Ecologically extended boundary provisions of individual coun- speaking, the coastal zone and territorial waters tries (Cordell 1989: 8–15; Warner 1982). Over arguably are now in a far more precarious position time, UNCLOS does seem to be working to keep than the open ocean beyond national EEZs. some distant-water fleets out of a country’s lucrative home grounds, but this does not get to the roots Great confusion over how to reverse problems of of world overfishing problems or to the sea rights marine degradation—fisheries losses from “rent and territorial conflicts that are fueling the global drain” and overcapacity being a dramatic symp- marine crisis. The overfishing record is clear: man- tom—does not simply stem from unmanageable agement failures arise internally from chaotic com- technological advances with unpredictable impacts mercial expansion within national borders, not on fish population dynamics and ecological process- necessarily from pressure created by long-distance es. Rather, the problems reduce to long unresolved fleets (Kent 1980). controversies concerning the ownership status of inshore seas, private versus public sea claims, con- Under UNCLOS, coastal states are specifically flicting legal philosophies, and jural rules and prin- required to conserve living resources in their EEZs ciples (Cordell 1989; Prescott 1978). Virtually in order to stabilize fisheries and the biodiversity wherever there are seacoasts, these conflicts persist heritage of humankind. Part XII of the convention and are being played out under the rubric of “com- provides a comprehensive framework for marine mon property” as economic theory and national and conservation—defining rights, obligations, and prin- cultural tradition (cf. Christy 1982; Ciriacy- ciples upon which other international environmental Wantrup and Bishop 1975). treaties are based. All states parties are obligated by the treaty to cooperate in the conservation of marine Common property has become a universal reference life through technical assistance and monitoring, point in political economy for classifying and ana- among other measures. The convention addresses lyzing any kind of nonprivatized resources. One sources of marine pollution, such as vessels, seabed enduring interpretation eclipses all others: the view activities, ocean dumping, and land-based activities, that marine resources, more than land-based in a manner that effectively balances interests of resource systems, are by definition (or intrinsically) states in protecting the environment and natural open-access. Several conditions are thought to flow resources with their interests in freedom of naviga- from this definition, notably that no single resource tion and communication. In addition, the treaty pro- user has exclusive rights or the right to prevent oth- motes scientific research and protects the right to ers from sharing in the resource (Christy 1982). conduct it. In fact, the most innovative international Where there are simultaneous resource users, this fisheries agreements developed in the last decade implies a lack of incentives for individuals to have as their basis UNCLOS’s statements of the obli- restrain production—the underlying micro-econom- gations of each party to conserve and manage living ic premise is individual profit maximization. marine resources in their own EEZs and on the high seas. The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement The parable often cited to illustrate this is the and the FAO Compliance Agreement elaborated on “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin 1968)—what these obligations. Garrett Hardin viewed as “the remorseless working

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_16 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 16

out of things.” This model carries an implicit view of chaotic or unregulated development activities pose 16 human nature as atavistic and ecologically naive the greatest threat. At present, no coastal country is when confronted with the possibility of exploiting effectively controlling and managing what goes on resources having no fixed access rule or proprietor- within its coastal-marine commons. The result is ship. No allowance is made for cooperative ethics, that the tragedy of the commons persists and mani- reciprocity, social sanctions, conservation incentives, fests itself in countless ways on the shores of indi- or a whole range of real-world property relations. vidual countries.

It is clear now, however, particularly from the world Devising workable solutions is arguably more prob- maritime ethnographic record, that numerous soci- lematic than protecting or restoring degraded terres- eties have invented diverse, often ingenious customs trial systems. However, communal sea tenure and practices to appropriate sea space (Cordell systems and other systems of traditional use rights 1989). The problem is that no single government or have resulted in de facto (and occasionally de jure) governance authority has yet been able to effectively limited access to extensive coastal sea space, espe- manage or harmonize competing uses and claims. cially in island areas and semi-enclosed, nearshore The result is that both de jure and de facto tenure sys- seas. Such systems associated with traditional envi- tems that have limited marine resource exploitation ronmental knowledge and resource management to some degree in the past are now being undermined practices contain valuable lessons for scaling up by uncontrolled expansion of coastal economies. The marine management and approaching an ecosys- question of property relations and tenure systems for tem-based fisheries management spatial framework. Marine Protected Areas was a paramount issue in Thus, sea tenure customs may act either as con- meetings of the Commission on National Parks and straints or opportunities, depending on how CMM Protected Areas of the IUCN–World Conservation initiatives are structured to incorporate community- Union in Caracas and led to a series of recommenda- based management. tions for action (see McNeely 1993). Demonstrating the benefits of MPAs as alternatives Currently, coastal commons contain enormously to open-access regimes is essential for countries variable conditions in terms of access and use that recognize the consequences of leaving coastal rights. They may be: waters in open-access, common property conditions and that are trying to develop legally enforce- • Totally open-access and unmanaged, with an able approaches to common property problems. array of economic activities ranging from indus- The effectiveness of MPAs and alternative gover- trial and artisanal fishing to oil exploration to nance systems depends on whether and how they ports, tourism, and heavy industry juxtaposed at are constructed to handle and accommodate random and with little regulation diverse formal and informal systems of property relations in the sea. • Partially managed (for example, where there are national parks that are off-limits to exploitation of any kind except low-impact tourism) but sur- 3.2. rounded by open access MPA (Category I) Benefits • Under certain restrictions (for example, combina- tions of fisheries limited-entry and individual Compelling scientific evidence indicates that certain transferable quotas). MPA types and sites, under a variety of conditions— but especially where management, research and All but the areas set aside for nonuse pose some monitoring procedures, and multiyear funding are threat to coastal and marine biodiversity. Those with adequate—are doing their job. (See Box 3–1.) One

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1 10/5/06 8:05 PM Page 17

BOX 3.2 Findings from Selected Scientific Reviews of Marine Reserve Efficacy 1 Marine reserves, regardless of their size, and with few exceptions, lead to increases in density, 17 biomass, individual size, and diversity in all functional groups. The diversity of communities and the average size of the organisms within a reserve are between 20 and 30 percent higher relative to unprotected areas. The density of organisms is roughly double in reserves, while the biomass of organisms is nearly triple. These results are robust despite the many potential sources of error in the individual studies. (Halpern 2003, p. S129) 2 Based on evidence from existing marine area closures (i.e., marine no-take reserves) in both temperate and tropical regions, marine reserves and protected areas will be effective tools for addressing conservation needs as part of integrated coastal and marine area management. (NRC 2001, p. 2) 3 There is compelling, irrefutable evidence that protecting areas from fishing leads to rapid increases in abundance, average body size, and biomass of exploited species…increased diversity of species and recovery of habitats from fishing disturbance…in a wide range of habitats…ranging from tropical to cool temperate zones…Marine reserves typically lead to at least a doubling in the biomass of exploited species after three to five years…[and] can increase [biomass and offspring production] by orders of magnitude over levels in fishing grounds…Even relatively small reserves could produce regionally significant replenishment of exploited populations. (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, p. 16-17) 4 Networks of no-take marine reserves can: (1) help recover fishery populations; (2) eliminate mor- tality of nontargeted species within protected areas due to bycatch, discards, and ghost fishing; (3) protect reserve habitats from damage by fishing gear; and (4) increase the probability that rare and vulnerable habitats, species, and communities are able to persist. (Murray and others 1999, p. 15) 5 Reserves will be essential for conservation efforts because they can provide unique protection for critical areas, they can provide a spatial escape for intensely exploited species, and they can potentially act as buffers against some management miscalculations and unforeseen or unusual conditions. Reserve design and effectiveness can be dramatically improved by better use of existing scientific understanding. (Allison et al. 1998, p. S79) 6 The benefits that can reasonably be expected from an appropriate system of marine reserves are extensive and substantial. Many have been repeatedly documented and conclusively established at a number of existing reserves in a variety of environments. (Sobel 1996, p. 16) 7 There is overwhelming evidence from both temperate and tropical areas that exploited populations in protected areas will recover following cessation of fishing and that spawning stock biomass will be rebuilt. (Roberts et al. 1995, p. 5) 8 Marine reserves commonly support higher densities and larger sizes of heavily fished species than are found outside reserves. (Rowley et al. 1995, p. 233) 9 Evidence from existing marine reserves indicates that increased abundance, individual size, reproductive output, and species diversity occurred in a variety of marine species in refuges of various sizes, shapes, and histories in communities ranging from tropical coral reefs to temperate kelp forests. (Dugan and Davis 1993a, p. 2029) 10 It has now been well established that the abundances of and average sizes of many larger carniv- orous fishes increase within protected areas. (Roberts and Polunin 1991, p. 82)

Source: Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004: 92–93. References cited are available in the original publication.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_18 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 18

human dimensions perspective. In order to meet BOX 3.2 18 linked societal and ecological goals, it is important Findings on Social Benefits of to demonstrate economic benefits combined with Marine Reserves ecological improvements as the foundation for the durability of any MPA. MPAs have the potential to provide social, economic, and educational benefits to various con- Although a number of studies (Agardy 2005, 2006) stituencies. Benefits derive from increased fish suggest that Category I MPAs may provide unantic- yields, associated activities such as tourism, ipated community sociocultural and spillover envi- and use taxation. ronmental benefits for other categories of reserves (such as Category III and IV in the Brazilian case), MPAs, especially community-based or co-man- it is important to note this does not mean MPA effec- aged ones, provide an opportunity for resource tiveness ought to be judged in terms of the increas- user communities to reassert their claim over ing tasks or zonation purposes the reserves are important resources that they controlled histor- being drawn into but were never intended to per- ically. They can also create an increased sense form (such as support for sustainable extractive of cohesion within a community as a collective uses, stemming land-based threats to the marine vision and stewardship norms for important environment, or local poverty reduction). resources are re-established. Most Category I MPAs operate within quite narrowly MPAs can become a rallying point that cat- confined jurisdictional and administrative frame- alyzes increased attention to law enforcement works, few of which are empowered or authorized to and sustainable harvesting of marine resources. manage intersecting economies that have unpredictable (or unintended) coastal-marine impacts and MPAs provide a benchmark for comparative side effects. This does not mean MPAs cannot be research and a means to identify how socioeco- modified or recast, rezoned, or upgraded in broader- logical systems change over time. scale administrative and governance frameworks. But there is no guarantee that proposals currently being MPAs provide learning opportunities that can put forward to create expanded MPA networks would inspire further experimentation with marine be better equipped to handle cross-sectoral conflicts resource management. and integration challenges than existing individual MPAs. This is partly why other categories of CMM Source: Christie 2003. tools represented in the typology have evolved, or why Category I tools are being transformed to more effectively incorporate a multiplicity of uses.

of the first major studies of marine reserves around the world presents compelling evidence that reserves are working—that the world’s little-known underwa- 3.3. ter parks and off-limits, ecological reserves contain Multiple Benefits of bigger fish and a greater array of marine species than the waters open to fishing and other human activi- Multiuse MPAs ties, even where these uses in surrounding waters are restricted (Roberts and others 2001). Zoning Category II MPAs for multiple purposes is one of a number of management options that can be Box 3–2 contains a series of parallel findings from adopted to help Category I MPAs reach their objec- social science research on MPA efficacy from a tives. Legal provisions related to zoning can be

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_19 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 19

found within sectoral regulatory frameworks such as ment of “controlled zones” allowing for limited fish- fisheries and nature conservation. These provisions ing, “restricted zones” allowing for controlled 19 may permit or exclude particular activities from tourism development while protecting fish popula- parts of the MPAs. Each zone is therefore likely to tions, and “sanctuary zones” in which complete pro- support a range of activities, although some may be tection is applied. The Cape Peninsula MPA was identified for exclusive use by one sector. declared in 2004, so it is too early to judge the effects of the zoning scheme. But this approach was modeled Multiuse zoning (where a concerted effort is made to on the success of the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park, balance conservation and development needs) is where prohibitions on mining were introduced in well established in US National Marine Sanctuaries 1996 and an integrated development and land use (Gubbay 2005). In the Florida Keys National planning strategy was developed for the entire region. Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), the stated objective of zoning is to focus protection on critical portions of The best known example of a multiuse MPA is prob- sensitive habitats while not restricting activities ably the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP), more than necessary. Only a small part of the sanc- with annual operating costs of $28 million. Zoning tuary is zoned; in the remaining area the focus of schemes were developed over a number of years to management is on improving water quality and pro- cover the entire area of the park. The multiple uses viding habitat protection. Three types of zones are zoning approach has provided high levels of protec- identified in the sanctuary: Ecological Reserves, tion for specific areas while allowing reasonable Sanctuary Preservation Areas, and Special Use activities to occur in other zones and separating out Areas. These are strictly protected and are defined conflicting uses. Zoning has been regarded as the to protect critical habitat, preserve species diversi- cornerstone of the planning and management. The ty, and relieve pressure from some coral reef areas. strategy is based on the premise that a broad-area integrated network of zones within a large MPA is The approach taken in the FKNMS also illustrates more effective than a series of small isolated highly how zoning arrangements that are already present (in protected areas within a broader unmanaged area this case, the existing management areas such as State (Belfiore and others 2004). The zoning provisions Parks and Aquatic Reserves and the wildlife manage- for the GBRMP were developed in partnership with ment areas that are the responsibility of the US Fish stakeholders and tested through public consulta- and Wildlife Service) can be incorporated into the tion, although final decisions rested with the Marine national MPA zoning scheme. Findings from the Park Authority. Marine Zone Monitoring Program indicate some success as a result of zoning, particularly with regard to Inclusion of the public in development of multiuse shifting food webs within the fully protected marine MPAs reflects efforts over the last two decades to zones toward a more natural un-fished state (Belfiore combine development and environmental concerns. and others 2001). The number and size of spiny lob- Integrated conservation and development projects ster and certain reef fish have increased within the (ICDPs) attempt to ensure conservation of biological fully protected marine zones. Benthic species such as diversity by harmonizing the management of pro- corals and sponges have not shown significant tected areas with the social and economic needs of changes, possibly because the zoning plan was imple- local people. ICDP frameworks, which in some mented relatively recently. No negative socioeconom- cases include land and sea corridor components, ic impacts of marine zoning were determined. have been useful in developing conservation partnerships and cooperative management with indige- Another example is found in South Africa, where nous peoples (Poole 1989). around 15 percent of the 3,000-kilometer coastline is covered by protected areas. Both Coastal and Marine ICDP initiatives and policies emphasize cultural fac- Protected Areas are managed through the establish- tors. Yet they should not be seen as efforts simply to

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1 10/5/06 9:16 PM Page 20

transfer more management authority or power to local reefs globally. Despite some 18 percent of the 20 people. Rather, they seek to fashion a mixed system of world’s coral reefs being included within the current shared benefits and responsibilities, a balance global network, less than 2 percent are considered between local and regional concerns and national per- adequately protected due to weak management and spectives (Wells and others 1992:xi). ICDPs and the enforcement (poaching), to externalities that put philosophy behind them represented an evolution in coral reef resources within MPAs at risk, and to the conservation thinking toward a greater emphasis on isolation of MPAs, which does not allow for larval the broader societal role of protected areas and their connectivity between protected sites. To provide ade- potential contributions to sustainable development. quate protection to 30 percent of the world’s coral reefs (the minimum for sustainability of these Yet no matter how well interdependencies of local ecosystems), the authors suggest expanding the net- populations and resources are taken into account in work by 2,559 small no-take MPAs of some 10 a multiuse zoning scheme for MPAs, if the areas are square kilometers, dispersed within 15 kilometers of equipped to operate on just small scales or as isolat- one another in areas where there is currently no cov- ed systems they can play only a modest role in mit- erage. This would require effectively protecting an igating forces causing environmental degradation additional 5 percent (25,590 square kilometers) of that originate in the world economic system, far out- coral reef habitat, compared with the 18 percent now side protected area boundaries or buffer zones. in gazetted MPAs but inadequately protected.

3.4. 3.5. Networking Protected Areas Higher-Order, Cross-Sectoral Management Tools: Integrated Given the small average size of MPAs and the sometime vast home ranges of species that need protec- Coastal Management tion, there is growing recognition of the importance of networking to protect critical stages in the life The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of cycle of species that move from one habitat to anoth- Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) defines er as they mature or that migrate over long distances integrated coastal management (ICM) as “a broad and as adults. Similarly, there is a recognized need to dynamic process that requires the active and sustained achieve biodiversity conservation at ecologically involvement of the interested public and many stake- relevant scales to ensure that ecosystem processes holders with interests in how coastal resources are allo- are preserved. This has given rise to the notion of cated and conflicts are mediated. The ICM process networking of Marine Protected Areas—the equiva- provides a means by which concerns at local, regional lent of creating vegetation corridors on land. and national levels are discussed and future directions Strategically placed MPAs can create stepping are negotiated” (GESAMP 1996:66). stones of genetic and ecological connectivity, or representative ecosystems within the larger ecoregion, ICM should encompass coastal and upland areas, to ensure that the full range of biogeography, habi- the uses of which can affect coastal waters and their tats, biological communities, and genetic diversity resources. The ICM process tries to break down the is represented within the collection of MPAs. barriers erected by traditional sectoral management of natural resources as well as the divide that exists A study published recently in Science (Mora and oth- among local government, national agencies, com- ers 2006) suggests that the current global network of munity groups, and nongovernmental organizations Marine Protected Areas is inadequately configured (NGOs) (Christie and White 1997; Cicin-Sain and and managed to provide effective protection to coral Knecht 1998; Courtney and White 2000; Kay and

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_21 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 21

FIGURE 3.1 21 To ols to Manage MPAs in the Context of ICM Adapted from Belfiore et al 2004

Watershed planning ICM strategies and plans Environmental impact assessment

Representative system Coordinating mechanisms of MPAs Managing MPAs within ICM Funding coordination Participatory approaches

Monitoring and evaluation Conflict resolution Regulatory instruments Economic instruments

Alder 2005). ICM strives to improve and integrate achieved without effective area and resource use the administrative, policy, and regulatory processes governance arrangements. The country surveys in that affect coastal management (see Figure 3–1). this project underscore the need to implement new, far more unified and enforceable regulatory frame- The GESAMP definition of ICM most closely resem- works for coastal development, including better spa- bles the goals and practice of ICM in the Philippines tial planning and zoning to rationalize use and to and many tropical developing countries. Depending protect habitats and resources that underpin essen- on community needs and management concerns tial ecosystem goods and services. within the context of a larger ICM plan, MPAs can be designed and managed to accommodate various Governance may be conceived of as “the formal and objectives and activities. Pursuing one benefit (such informal arrangements, institutions, and mores as sustaining biodiversity or fisheries production) which determine how resources or an environment therefore does not necessarily exclude pursuit of oth- are utilized; how problems and opportunities are ers such as revenue generation or tourism and thus evaluated and analyzed, what behavior is deemed allows various management options. A typical ICM acceptable or forbidden, and what rules and sanc- program will have a variety of interventions to tions are applied to affect the pattern of resource address the needs of coastal and fisheries resources and environmental use” (Juda 1999). MPA gover- management (DENR and others 2001). nance is that de facto or de jure regulatory framework by which MPA objectives are achieved, taking into account ecological, socioeconomic, and cultur- 3.6. al concerns of beneficiaries. Good governance is based on robust science, cost-effective use of Governance Frameworks for resources, transparent decision making, measurable CMM Systems outcomes, and equitable distribution of benefits.

Matters of governance are a key topic of this study. The case study on MPAs in the Philippines (see The global literature on MPAs, fisheries, and coastal Chapter 4) is a particularly instructive account of management clearly indicates that neither conser- why and how restoring fisheries productivity and vation nor sustainable use objectives can be biodiversity conservation is being generated by

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_22 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 22

local demand for governance reform, facilitated by 3.8. 22 increasingly integrated national MPA planning in the context of wider, more participatory coastal man- Costs of Establishing MPAs agement and co-management. A considerable volume of work has been done on the question of sustainable financing of MPAs and 3.7. the innovative mechanisms being introduced to achieve this (IUCN/WCPA 2005; TNC 2002). Legal Aspects While some researchers argue that MPAs are relatively inexpensive to establish and maintain as tools One of the most problematic areas for countries for fisheries management, especially relative to exploring strategies to expand their CMM systems other means of controlling fishing and the expected has to do with multiple, nonintegrated, yet inter- benefits, there is substantial debate as to whether secting legal frameworks. (See Volume 3 of this the true costs of MPAs have been internalized and report and Young 2006.) There are several different whether MPAs are really effective, particularly in approaches, ranging from new and specific-purpose developing countries. legislation to continued use of existing legislation with relatively minor modifications. In many cases Experience indicates that while MPAs can enhance MPAs have been established under fisheries legis- fisheries productivity, they are not a substitute for lation, while in others they come up under forestry good fisheries management, particularly in cases of legislation. The right approach requires a detailed severe overcapacity, which prevails in most fish- understanding of each country's culture, tradition, eries today (Sanchirico 2000). Rigorous cost/benefit and legal processes. Before legislation is proposed, analysis across a statistically valid sample of simi- MPA planners need to decide whether to advocate lar kinds of MPAs (such as small no-take reserves a large number of small MPAs or a few large multi- versus Multiple-use areas or managed use zones) use ones. A second fundamental question is under similar conditions (within an existing fish- whether the national law should provide a detailed eries management framework, for instance, or in framework of administrative aspects or only the otherwise open access conditions) and similar cost broad basis for a management regime. structures (industrial versus developing country) remains to be done. What works for one nation or group of nations can rarely be transposed unmodified to another ecolog- The value of coral reefs has been estimated for var- ical or socioeconomic environment. The definition ious regions based on the value of goods and servic- of size, boundaries, traditional rights, and use es they provide (Cesar and others 2003). These restriction is always important for the effectiveness values, ranging from $142,000 per square kilometer of MPAs. Historically, Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia to $31,000 in the Pacific and have been regulated under general conservation $97,500 in the Caribbean, suggest the kinds of laws that can be designated as traditional conser- returns that could accrue to countries with well- vation laws. Other categories of MPA regulations managed coral reefs. Whether MPAs, as currently are the ad hoc legislation relating to the creation configured, are the most effective tools to achieve and operation of specific Marine Protected Areas, these results is debatable. environmental management acts, and generic regulations providing a framework for the designation MPA operating costs relative to income generated of such areas with some degree of flexibility into has, however, been analyzed. A study to estimate the the management arrangements applicable to spe- worldwide cost of protecting the world’s oceans in cific MPAs. response to targets set by various international fora, including the World Summit on Sustainable

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_23 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 23

Development and the Fifth World Parks Congress managed large sums that overwhelm institutional (Balmford and others 2004), found that for the 83 capacity is common in many developing countries 23 “representative” MPAs examined, recurrent costs (Olsen and Christie 2000). It is likely that consistent ranged from zero to $27 million per square kilome- modest funding is most constructive (Milne and ter, with a median operating cost of $775 per square Christie 2005). Ideally, such financing should be kilometer. On average, annual income met less than internally generated from MPA revenue streams. half the annual operating costs. Smaller MPAs were Similar findings were echoed in the results of a pre- found to be more expensive to operate than larger liminary survey on factors associated with the suc- ones, given economies of scale, and those closer to cess (in the minds of stakeholders) of locally the coast and human habitation were more costly managed marine areas (LMMAs) in the Pacific and than remoter reserves. The authors went on to model Indo-Pacific. Large infusions of external resources the cost of scaling up MPAs at different scales of were found to be inversely correlated with success, coverage for the world’s oceans. These results are presumably due to the loss of decision-making presented in Table 3–1, along with figures for oper- authority with the introduction of experts and top- ating costs of already established MPAs. down management that comes with external funding.

Included in this study was Tubbataha National Park in the Philippines—a large no-take marine reserve 3.9. of 332 square kilometers that is a dive tourism des- tination and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Sian Stakeholder Participation Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, at 5,260 square kilometers, is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Recent experience has shown that a Marine spans 120 kilometers, or roughly one-third the Protected Area is likely to be successful only if local length of the Mexican Caribbean coast. Tourism is people are directly involved in its selection, estab- the major economic activity in the reserve, which lishment, and management. This strategic principle included resident indigenous populations of Maya and allows sustainable development in the buffer

zones. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was TABLE 3.1 recently rezoned to include 30 percent of its area as no-take fishery reserve. The cost of this rezoning Cost of Financing Large-Scale MPAs was estimated at $40 million in compensation to and Networks commercial fishing interests; however, gross bene- MPA Cost of Operating fits from tourism are over $1 billion annually. Intervention Establishment Costs /Year

As indicated in Table 3–1, the costs of scaling up Tubbataha $5 million $0.4 million National Parka are substantial. Costs rise in direct proportion to coverage and would require an increase in current GBRMP 30% $28 million area and marine conservation expenditures of about no-take two orders of magnitude (Balmford and others 5% ocean $340 million b 2004). Clearly, any such investment would need to coverage be largely financed from international sources in the 20% ocean $9.5–10 billion coveragec industrial world. Such financing introduces an inherent dependency that can destabilize manage- 30% ocean $12–14 billion coveragec ment in the long term (Christie 2005). a. Arquiza and White 2000. b. Conservation International 2003. These conservative estimates do While insufficient funding is commonly identified as not include the cost of enforcement. a limiting factor in MPA implementation, poorly c. Balmford and others 2004.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_24 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 24

has only recently been internalized by the conserva- BOX 3.3 24 tion community, which, along with governments, has MACEMP in Tanzania historically tended to follow a top-down approach to the establishment of MPAs. The Tanzania Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project aims to Samoa is one example of many exceptions to that strengthen the sustainable management and pattern, however, in the Pacific. A Fisheries Act use of the Tanzania’s EEZ, territorial seas, there allows for the recognition of community by- and coastal resources, leading to enhanced laws provided they are compatible with national revenue collection, reduced threats to the legislation. Once the community leaders choose to environment, better livelihoods for participat- establish an MPA, a meeting is held with national ing coastal communities living in the coastal fisheries officers to decide whether local manage- districts, and improved institutional arrangement rules are compatible with the national act. ments. Blueprint 2050 lays out the vision for When this is established, the local rules are enact- protecting and managing 100 percent of the ed as by-laws and disseminated to adjacent villages seas and coastline of Tanzania and Zanzibar, through community meetings. Once the network to be implemented with support from has been set up, the small MPAs can be expanded MACEMP. It draws on the best available sci- into large, multiple-use MPAs, with specific provi- ence (ecological, cultural, and social), with sions that benefit local communities. inputs from a range of stakeholders representing the 8 million people who inhabit the coastal districts. Sustainable financing and creation of alternative income-generating activities are important elements of this strategy. Stakeholder involvement in decision making is another major strategy and key cross-cutting theme.

The project has three main components. First, it aims to establish and implement a common governance regime for the EEZ that con- tributes to the long-term sustainable use and Fishermen repairing boat in Stonetown, Zanzibar – management of EEZ resources based on an photo by Alex Grant integrated coastal management approach. Second, it aims to establish and support a 3.10. comprehensive system of managed marine areas (networks) in the territorial seas, build- Poverty Considerations ing on ICM strategies that empower and benefit coastal communities. The third Estimates of the number of people dependent on component empowers coastal communities to coral reefs vary widely, according to the definition of gain access to opportunities so that they can “reef dependency.” Some sources put the figure at request, implement, and monitor subprojects over 1 billion (ICRI 2002; ICRAN 2002), but even that contribute to improved livelihoods and if that is too high it is clear that coral reefs provide sustainable marine ecosystem management. income, livelihoods, nutrition, and coastal protec- A Marine Legacy Fund is being established to tion to tens if not hundreds of millions of people. ensure financial sustainability. Many of these individuals, including the most marginalized of society—fisherfolk—are poor.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_25 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 25

The links between poverty and reefs have been 3.11. explored in a major study by the UK Department for 25 International Development (DFID 2003), in which Importance of Local Sea coastal populations in East Africa and South Asia were identified as being most at risk in terms of Tenure Systems in Marine their reliance on healthy reefs for livelihoods Management (300,000 in East Africa and 20 million in South Asia) and nutrition. Such dependence on these frag- A relatively broad range of cultural protection tools ile ecosystems puts a high premium on their health and frameworks is found in Category IV of the CMM and productivity for surrounding populations. typology. This is one of the least well known areas in MPA analysis and comparative studies (Cordell In light of this, what is likely to be the relationship 2002). Communities throughout the world have pro- between MPAs and poverty? Are MPAs, particularly tected sacred sites, which may be natural features those involving restricted access, more likely to be a such as a rock or mountain, particular groves of burden or a source of sustained benefits to poor, trees, springs, or lakes. The fact that these sites dependent fishing communities? Clearly, the answer have high spiritual value means that they are often lies in how MPAs are conceived and designed and far better protected by local communities than offi- how the benefits are distributed relative to the costs cially protected state-designated areas. The Fifth to the communities involved. Failure to deliver prom- World Parks Congress supported the idea that offi- ised benefits from marine protection could result in cial protected areas should be more accommodating increased degradation from more-intensive use of of sacred sites, although in practice many of these marine resources, reduced productivity of goods and are likely to remain outside protected areas. In pro- services, and greater poverty. This understanding posals to scale up CMM or create more MPAs, much has influenced the way NGOs and governments are care should be taken not to overlook sacred sea now approaching the establishment of MPAs. space and culture sites as the foundation for bringing cultural resource management to biological In Tanzania, where rapidly growing coastal popula- scales. (Many areas scattered throughout Oceania tions are among the poorest in the country, marine provide cultural conditions conducive to scaling up conservation now includes programs to address MPAs—for example, in the Torres Strait.) poverty alleviation. This is in line with IUCN’s statement that “It is unacceptable to carry out conserva- Few conservation organizations and planners have tion activities in areas of high or endemic poverty had the expertise, motivation, or resources to while turning a blind eye to the needs of the poor peo- address pivotal issues of property rights in relation ple who live there and depend on the same biological to marine conservation systematically, even though resources that are often those that we wish to con- it is widely accepted that the pervasive problem of serve” (IUCN 2003). The government of Tanzania, “externalities” surrounding property rights issues with financing from the World Bank and the Global are a fundamental cause of mismanagement and Environment Facility, has embarked on an ambitious overexploitation of marine resources (Cordell 1989, project to embed marine conservation in the coun- 2001; Hanna and Munasinghe 1995; Hooten and try’s poverty alleviation agenda through the estab- Hatziolos 1995). lishment of MPA networks within an integrated coastal management framework. Box 3–3 describes It is important to note that communities with com- the Marine and Coastal Environmental Management munal customary marine tenure (CMT) have well- Project (MACEMP), a six-year, $65-million project to defined property rights (sometimes these do have promote economic development of Tanzania’s coastal legal status, as in the “dual legal” systems and con- areas by integrating local economic development with stitutions of nations in Melanesia). But in many sustainable natural resources management. cases (until the 1993 adoption of the Native Title

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_26 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 26

Act in Australia, for example), CMT has been drawing MPA specialists and community leaders 26 masked or suppressed by post-colonial government together to conduct research and pool experience. designations of national waters as open access. As customary rights governing property relations in The hypothesis-testing comparative “learning non-western settings, however, CMT and other tradi- portfolio” format for one major study (Fish for the tional sea tenure systems develop for many different Future?), spanning a wide range of Pacific Island reasons and have complex connotations—cultural, and Southeast Asian societies and coastal set- historical, economic, and religious—that may not tings, adopts an intellectually rigorous posture to easily be transcribed and translated into western ask whether locally managed marine areas in part- statutory legal frameworks. CMT institutions are nerships with western conservation groups really distinct from western property laws regarding pri- do work for conservation (Parks and Salafsky vate, public, or state ownership and from open- 2001). This initiative, originally sponsored by the access commons or “common pool” resources. World Resources Institute’s Global Marine Strategy Program, has much to recommend it as an alternative to standard “results-only” conserva- 3.12. tion frameworks. Locally Managed Marine While useful, the way this LMMA program was conceived misses a fundamental point about LMMAs in Area Initiatives the South Pacific, which tend to be built on principles of customary marine tenure. Highly diverse CMM concepts and customary resource and area tenure systems, related values, and knowledge management practices known as locally managed underpinning LMMAs in the South Pacific evolve in marine areas have developed in many small-scale specific sociocultural contexts; taking them out of fishing societies and are well documented (see context is extremely problematic. Certainly none Cordell 1983). It is worth briefly mentioning two were ever intended to preserve anything approach- key LMMA-oriented projects and associated ing “biodiversity” or “hotspots” as conceived by research carried out in the South Pacific that are conservation science. Conservation benefits of CMT exploring pathways to network community-based may well exist, but if so this cannot be viewed as an MPAs across a wide region. In some cases long- intentional resource management outcome. Should existing LMMAs have considerable potential to indigenous CMT systems (not designed for conser- become more fully inscribed in contemporary man- vation in the first place but for cultural, ritual, and agement frameworks for marine and coastal protect- social purposes) be required to pass a western sci- ed areas and coral reef fisheries. This work has a ence conservation test to prove their validity or util- central focus in the Western Pacific’s “coral trian- ity? A similar problem arises in asking (or insisting) gle” and associated megadiversity countries. that science-based MPAs (Category I tools in the typology) contribute to poverty reduction when they The LMMA initiatives in question have largely been were never designed to do this in the first place. initiated and until recently led by non-local conservation NGOs with a special interest in catalyzing An earlier World Bank project, which had similar community-based MPAs (such as the Community goals but was guided by a very different approach, Conservation Network in Hawaii). The lead conser- led to Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study vation groups have received major start-up and of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific ongoing funding from U.S. foundations. In this case, Islands (World Bank 2000). This project involved LMMA work has focused not on fostering a manage- an extensive survey of 31 coastal communities in ment network to bridge scales in a biological sense, five Pacific Island countries—Fiji, Palau, Samoa, but on creating a collective “learning network” Solomon Islands, and Tonga—to improve under-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_27 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 27

standing among the region’s coastal fisheries and for poaching, and bans on night diving in contempo- protected area managers of the factors that con- rary frameworks for establishing and managing con- 27 tribute to successful resource management. servation areas. Note that this is not a prescription Significantly, this study relied primarily on commu- for locking people into “tradition,” where everyone nity perceptions of trends in the condition of coastal should revert to old systems of community manage- resources and a whole array of internal and external ment. Rather, new mechanisms are needed to factors affecting resource management at the village enable villages and the keepers of tradition to mean- level, where decisions are constantly made about ingfully represent, reinvent, and use their cultural resource use and availability. The cross-section of rights and interests in new resource management sites surveyed included open-access as well as and protected area structures. highly restricted access sites, with sea tenure-based exclusivity of access. Local rules governing At the same time, Voices from the Village pointed out resource rights were found to vary widely along a potential limitations of community-based manage- continuum from open-access to full closure. ment, in that CMT systems by themselves cannot be counted on to prevent overexploitation of resources The study reported that few national regulations (World Bank 2000). Neither strictly centralized nor were seen to be relevant at the local level (not sur- purely community-based protected area systems are prisingly). Among other instructive outcomes of this likely to be able to cope with the future challenges research, though, were a number of findings that of tropical coastal resource management and devel- underscored the ongoing significance and advan- opment threats to local fisheries, which are regional tages of using local CMT practices such as tradition- and global in nature. al closure systems for spawning grounds, penalties

References

Agardy T.S. 2005. Global marine conservation policy versus site level implementation: the mismatch of scale and its implications. Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS). pp. 242–248. Politics and Socio-economics of Ecosystem- based Management of Marine Resources. H. Brownman, I. Konstantinos, and I. Stergiou, Idea and Coordination. Vol. 300: 241–296. ———. 2006. Understanding Displacement. Literature Review and Discussion (draft). Prepared for the MLPA Task Force. Sound Seas. Bethesda, Md. Arquiza, Y.D., and A.T. White. 2000. Tales from Tubbataha. The Bookmark, Inc., and Sulu Fund for Marine Conservation, Inc., Cebu City, Philippines. Balmford. A., P. Gravenstock, N. Hockley, C. McClean, and C. Roberts. 2004. The worldwide cost of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101(26): 9694–97. Belfiore, S., B. Cicin-Sain, and C. Ehler (eds.). 2004. Incorporating Marine Protected Areas into Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Principles and Guidelines. IUCN–World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec1_28 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 28

Cesar, H., L. Burke, and L. Pet-Soede. 2003. The Economics of Costal Reef Degradation. Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting. Arnhem, Netherlands. 28 Christie, P. 2005. Is integrated coastal management sustainable? Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 208–32. Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White, R. Stoffle, D.L. Fluharty, L. Talaue-McManus, R. Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D.O. Suman, B.G. Blount, D. Huppert, R.L. Villahermosa Eisma, E. Oracion, K. Lowry, R.B. Pollnac. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 28(12):22-26. Christie, P., and A.T. White. 1997. Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: from central to community orientation. Coastal Management 25:155–81. Christy, F.T., Jr. 1982. Territorial Use Rights in Marine Fisheries: Definitions and Conditions. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 227. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. CI (Conservation International). 2003. Defying Ocean’s End. Washington, DC. Cicin-Sain, B., and R. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management, Concept and Practices. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ciracy-Wantrup, S., and R. Bishop. 1975. Common property as a concept in natural resources policy. Natural Resources Journal 15(4): 713–27. Cordell, J. 1983. Locally Managed Sea Territories. In Proceedings, FAO Roundtable on Coastal and Lagoon Fisheries Management, J. Kapetsky (ed.), Studies and Reviews, 403–29, FAO Fisheries, Rome. ———. (ed.) 1989. A Sea of Small Boats. Cultural Survival Report 26. Cultural Survival. Cambridge, Mass. ———. 2001. Reconfiguring Marine Conservation to Connect Societies, Landscapes, and the Sea. Global Marine Conservation Scoping Study and Needs Assessment. Consultancy Report. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. San Francisco, CA. October. ———. 2002. Remapping the Waters: The Significance of Sea Tenure-Based Protected Areas. Keynote Address. III Conference on Property Rights, Economics and the Environment: Marine Resources. Centre d’Analyse Economique de l’Universite d’ Aix-Marseille. In: Marine Resources, Property Rights, Economics and Environment. M. Falque, M. de Alessi, and H. Lamotte (eds.). Vol. 14, International Review of Comparative Public Policy. pp. 265–493. Elsevier Science. Amsterdam. Courtney, C.A., and A.T. White. 2000. Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: testing new paradigms. Coastal Management 28: 39–53. DENR, DA-BFAR, and DILG (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture— Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and Department of the Interior and Local Government). 2001. Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook Series: Coastal Law Enforcement. Coastal Resource Management Project of DENR. Cebu City, Philippines. DFID (Department for International Development). 2003. Poverty and Reefs. (Vols. 1 and 2). E. Whittingham, J. Cambell, and P. Townsley, eds. Exeter. UK. GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. The Contributions of Science to Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61. Gubbay, S. 2005. Marine Protected Areas and Zoning in a System of Marine Spatial Planning. WWF-UK. Hanna, S., and M. Munasinghe (eds.). 1995. Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context: Case Studies and Applications. The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank. Washington, DC. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 163: 1243–48. Holt, S., and M. Segnestam. 1982. The Seas Must Live: Why Coastal and Marine Protected Areas Are Needed. Paper presented at the Third World Congress on National Parks, Coastal and Marine Workshop. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Bali, Indonesia. Hooten, A., and M. Hatziolos (eds.). 1995. Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for Coral Reef Conservation: Proceedings of a Workshop. ESD Proceedings Series No.9. World Bank. Washington, DC.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec1_29 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 29

ICRAN (International Coral Reef Action Network). 2002. People and Reefs: A Partnership for Prosperity. ICRI (International Coral Reef Initiative). 2002. The Cancun Declaration: Regional Workshop for the Tropical 29 Americas: Improving Reef Condition through Strategic Partnership. 12–14 June. IUCN/WCPA (World Conservation Union/World Commission on Protected Areas). 2005. First International Marine Protected Area Congress, Geelong, Australia. Global Marine Programme. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2003. Influence of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories on National, Regional and International Legal and Policy Frameworks. B.J. Dillon (ed.). Draft Working Paper. IUCN Environmental Law Center. Bonn, Germany. Juda, L. 1999. Considerations in the development of a functional approach to the governance of large marine ecosystems. Ocean Development and International Law 30: 89–125. Kapetsky, J. 1981. Some Considerations for the Management of Coastal Lagoon and Estuarine Fisheries. FAO Technical Paper No. 218. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. Kay, R., and J. Alder. 2005. Coastal Planning and Management. Spon Press. London, UK. Kent, G. 1980. The 200 Mile Diversion. Environment and Policy Institute. East-West Center. Honolulu, HI McNeely, J.A. 1993. Parks for Life. People and Protected Area Workshops, Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, 10–21 February 1992. Caracas, Venezuela. Milne, N., and P. Christie. 2005. Financing integrated coastal management: experiences in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management. 48(3–6): 427–49. Mora, C., S. Andrèfouët, M. Costello, C. Kranenburg, A. Rollo, C. Veron, K. Gaston, and R. Myers. 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312 (5781): 1750–51. Olsen, S., and Christie, P. 2000. What are we learning from tropical coastal management experiences? Coastal Management 28: 5–18. Parks, J.E., and N. Salafsky (eds.). 2001. Fish for the Future? A Collaborative Test of Locally-Managed Marine Areas as a Biodiversity Conservation and Fisheries Management Tool in the Indo-Pacific Region: Report on the Initiation of a Learning Portfolio. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC. Poole, P. 1989. Developing a Partnership of Indigenous Peoples, Conservationists, and Land Use Planners in Latin America. Working Paper. Policy, Planning, Research, Environment. Latin American and Caribbean Technical Dept. World Bank. Washington, DC. Prescott, J.R. 1978. Maritime boundaries. In Boundaries and Frontiers. Pp. 133–65. London: Croom-Helm. Roberts, C.M., J.A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J.P. Hawkins, and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science. 294(5548): 1920–23. Sanchirico, J.N. 2000. Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits. Discussion Paper 00-23. Resources For The Future, Washington, DC. Sobel, J., and C. Dahlgren. 2004. Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Island Press. Washington, DC. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2002. Transforming Coral Reef Conservation in the 21st Century: A Global Initiative Led by Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund. Draft Proposal and Capacity Building Workshop. June. Honolulu. Warner, W. 1982. Distant Water. Boston: Little Brown & Co. Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, and U.S. Agency for International Development. Washington, DC. World Bank. 2000. Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series number 9. Washington DC. Young, T.R. 2006. The Legal Framework for MPA and Successes and Failures in Their Incorporation into National Legislation (draft). Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_30 10/5/06 8:28 PM Page 30

Part II Country Studies

The three country case studies in Part II show why archipelagic nations (the Philippines) and developing countries with long coastlines (Brazil and Chile) are particularly dependent on healthy marine ecosystems for food, livelihoods, and so on and why marine conservation and fisheries management are becoming a top priority for these countries.

Moreover, though geopolitically far apart, these three key countries are among the world’s richest reservoirs of maritime cultural diversity, linked to coastal habitats that are highly productive and diverse biologically. Similar culture change and economic development processes, threats to coastal environments, poverty alleviation problems in fishing communities, and fisheries management challenges offer prospects for sharing marine management experience and knowledge across tropical coastal countries around the world.

It is important to note that the country profiles and surveys in this project are intended to be indicative of basic challenges many countries face. They are by no means exhaustive or definitive concerning the full range of development issues on Marine Protected Areas. 345109Sec2_31 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 31

The Philippines: Lessons for Marine Protected 4 Area Governance and Effective Design

The Philippines has a long history of coastal This chapter raises a number of key chal- resources management and Marine Protected lenges and opportunities for Marine Protected Area (MPA) experience on which to draw. Areas, many of which emerge from the Philippine experience with MPAs and ocean governance. The Support has largely come from the interna- Philippines has some of the longest-standing and tional community working with local non- most well documented examples of MPAs designed governmental organizations (NGOs) to to improve coral reef and artisanal fishery manage- conserve marine biodiversity in one of the ment. The country is notable for its highly decentralized ocean governance and its many world’s major hotspots and assist the community-based MPAs. There are critical lessons Philippines in decentralization to manage its to glean regarding the importance of legal consisten- coastal resources. As an archipelagic state, cy, institutional upward and downward accountabil- the Philippines is highly dependent on ity, human and institutional capacity development, the importance of participatory and equitable plan- coastal resources, with a strong tradition of ning processes, and the challenges of consistent rule community organization, which has led to enforcement. The underlying open-access manage- the evolution of a diverse array of MPAs and ment regime and the long colonial history, which has other coastal and marine management areas. bred long-standing institutional dysfunction and dependency, provide a challenging context. On the The Philippines is well positioned to network other hand, Filipino MPA practitioners are among these under a larger framework of integrated the most competent in the world, and in many cases coastal management (ICM), which it has local fishing communities are embracing MPAs. piloted at the provincial level in the Visayas. The open-access regime was most obviously mani- An Executive Order was recently signed by fest in ever-increasing fishing effort, and it must be the President officially designating ICM as ended if MPAs are to attain important ecological and the national strategy to ensure the sustain- social goals in the long term. Integrated coastal able development of the country’s coastal and This chapter is an abstract of the case study prepared by Patrick Christie. marine resources. The full case study appears in Volume 2.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_32 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 32

management, ecosystem-based management, and There are, in effect, three forms of MPAs in the 32 zonation schemes are in various states of develop- country. The most common term used for a MPA is ment and are making important progress toward sanktuaryo, or sanctuary, which is strictly off limits transforming Philippine ocean governance to a more to extractive uses. These are typically small no-take sustainable form. Progress is slow and not consis- areas ranging from 2 to 200 hectares and surround- tent, however. In this perpetually unstable context, ed by “traditional fishing reserves,” or buffers, more immediate needs intervene and leadership is where certain extractive activities are either banned difficult to maintain. However, it is increasingly or closely regulated. The use of explosives, poison, apparent to a wide range of Filipinos that lax stew- and fine mesh nets is usually specifically banned in ardship of the ocean—an important foundation of the traditional fishing reserves around sanctuaries, the Philippine economy and its most important even though such activities are already illegal under source of protein—is a very risky strategy. As the Philippine law. These MPAs are established prima- center of marine biodiversity, degradation of these rily through a community-based or co-management marine ecosystems is of global concern. planning process, the former suggesting a community-led process and the latter suggesting joint man- Despite considerable successes in MPA implemen- agement by communities and government entities. tation in some sites, the overall trends are not encouraging. Fisheries are collapsing as fishing If an area is considered of national significance eco- effort continues to spiral upward. Critical ecosys- logically or as an exemplary MPA, it may be tems are being severely altered, to the point where declared a “Protected Seascape,” the third form of it will take decades or centuries for them to recover Marine Protected Area, under the National from the effects of removal, sedimentation, and— Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). Such currently in the case of coral reefs—bleaching. areas have multiple zones and a multisectoral Resource and habitat-dependent economies such as Protected Areas Management Board, but few of fisheries and tourism are being undermined, with these are functional, and most NIPAS seascapes are tremendous opportunity costs. In short, the not effectively managed. In fact, declaration under Philippines represents the best and worst of marine NIPAS has eroded community commitment to some resource management in need of renewed and ongo- MPAs when the national government becomes inti- ing attention. Without ongoing engagement by vari- mately involved in MPA planning decisions former- ous international organizations with the Philippine ly made at the community or municipal government government, NGOs, resource users, and the busi- level. A limited number of marine national parks ness sector, there will be serious economic, social, also exist and prohibit extractive activities. and ecological consequences. Tubbataha National Marine Park (332 square kilometers), a World Heritage Site, is the most successful example. There are 13 MPAs proclaimed by the Philippine national government, but there are some 4.1. 400 municipal-level sanctuaries. (See Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation MPA data- The Philippine Context base at www.coast.ph.)

The Philippines has a particularly wide range of The Philippines is at the global epicenter of marine experience with MPAs—both some of the world’s biodiversity (Carpenter and Springer 2005), with best documented successes and examples of failed approximately 950 species of fish and 561 species of ones (White et al 2006). Approximately one-sixth of corals, and is highly dependent on marine resources the country (see Figure 4–l) is under some form of for protein and employment (see Figure 4–2). coastal management planning, which provides the Marine resources such as mangroves are already in basis for MPA implementation. an advanced state of degradation, with little protec-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_33 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 33

FIGURE 4.1

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_34 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 34

FIGURE 4.2

Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Philippines Asia (excl. Coastal Statistics, 2000 Philippines Middle East) World 34 Length of coastline {a} (km) 33,900 288,459 1,634,701 Percent of population within 100 km of the coast 100% X 39% Area of continental shelf (km2) {b} 244,493 5,514,288 24,285,959 Territorial sea (up to 12 nautical miles) (km2) 679,774 5,730,868 18,816,919 Claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (km2) 293,808 11,844,193 102,108,403

Coastal Biodiversity and Protected Areas Data, 1990s Area of Mangrove Forests (km2) 23 40,330 169,452 Percent of Mangrove forests protected 0% 27% 13% Number of Mangrove Species 30 51 70 Number of Seagrass Species 19 27 58 Number of Scleractinia Coral Genera {c} 74 79 X International Legal Net Trade in Live Coral, 1997 -3,785 -773,430 X (number of pieces) {d} Number of Marine or Littoral Protected Areas, 1999 159 831 3,636 Wetlands of International Importance, Extent (km2), 2000 684 31,212 730,116

Fisheries Production Average Annual Capture (excludes aquaculture) in metric tons: Marine Fish, 2000 1,742,299 36,516,371 84,411,066 Mulluscs and Crustaceans, 1997 132,673 7,959,125 12,055,801 Aquaculture Production (in metric tons): Total (includes freshwater), 2000 1,044,311 41,305,773 45,715,559 Marine and Diadromous Fish, 1997 162,418 1,325,644 2,623,888 Mulluscs and Crustaceans, 1997 70,836 8,677,590 9,889,688 Aquatic Plants, 1997 627,105 7,123,694 7,241,754

Fish Consumption and Trade, 2000 Per Capita Food Supply from Fish and Fishery Products (kg/person)30 18 16

Average Annual Capture of Marine Total Aquaculture Production, Fish, Philippines Philippines, 1984-2000 in thousands of metric tons in thousands of metric tons

1,800 1,200 1,000 1,400 800 1,000 600 600 400

200 200

1970 1980 1990 2000 1984 1989 1994 1999

Freshwater Marine Fish Aquatic Plants Diadromous Fish

Source: World Resources Institute (http://earthtrends.wri.org) Crustaceans

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_35 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 35

tion in place. From an estimated 450,000 hectares of most places (Barut and others 2004). Maximum sus- mangroves in 1918, fewer than 140,000 hectares tainable yields of marine small pelagic and demer- 35 remain, of which 95 percent is secondary growth sal fisheries were exceeded in the late 1970s. (White and de Leon 2004). Coral reefs and associated fisheries are also in a highly threatened status, but the country-wide rate of decline is unknown 4.2. (Alino and others 2004). Nationwide surveys based Fisheries Management in on over 700 transects sampled in 14 provinces from the 1970s to the 1990s observed that 4–5 percent of the Philippines the reefs were in excellent condition, 25–27 percent were good, 39–42 percent fair, and 27–31 percent The country’s marine areas are under an open- poor (World Bank, in press). access regime, resulting in ever-increasing fishing effort every year. Artisanal fishers are free to fish There are approximately 1 million fishers in the anywhere they have access to (except no-take areas) country, of whom about 70 percent are artisanal and likely are focusing their fishing effort at the fishers. In 1991, the Philippines was ranked edges of MPAs. While proximal causes are readily eleventh globally in terms of overall fisheries pro- identified for declining marine resources, the duction. The fisheries yield is currently approxi- underlying causes are diffuse and chronic, limiting mately 2 million tons per year, with about 33 management options available to policy makers. percent of this total coming from artisanal fishers Poverty, now directly affecting about 40 percent of using boats smaller than 3 gross tons. Beginning in Filipinos, is worsening. The rising national Gini the early 1990s, yields from artisanal fishing began index for the Philippines—now at 47 out of 100 and to decline despite ever-increasing fishing effort, among the highest in the world—indicates that with greater amounts of fish coming from the large- wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in scale commercial sector. Aquaculture production, fewer hands (CIA 2006). Natural resources are especially milkfish (Chanos chanos) and seaweed, extracted at ever-increasing rates as the Philippine has grown rapidly in the last decade. About 60 per- population grows (approximately 89.5 million peo- cent of aquaculture production is seaweed for ple increasing at 1.8 percent annually in a country industrial purposes. The volatility of the seaweed about the size of Arizona) and as pressures mount to trade and the ecological impacts of large-scale export commodities to service external debt ($67.6 aquaculture (with eutrophication and overharvest- billion, which is four times the annual national ing of feed fish) are the costs associated with grow- budget expenditure) (CIA 2006). ing reliance on this form of fishing. Distribution of fish-based protein is also changing, with protein The current unwillingness (and inability) of nation- intake declining among poor Filipinos. al leaders to close the open-access management regime will eventually undermine the current func- The impetus to change fisheries management in the tional MPAs. While they are an important manage- Philippines is strong. Rent dissipation from over- ment tool, MPAs are not a substitute for basic fishing is approximately $130 million for demersal fisheries and integrated coastal management. (bottom-associated) fisheries and $290 million for Fishing effort or yield is not effectively managed in small pelagic (offshore) fisheries. Many Philippine the Philippines. Artisanal fishers are not licensed marine fisheries are best described as in a state of and regulated beyond gear-type restrictions (to advanced degradation (DA-BFAR 2004; Green and avoid gears that affect habitats negatively and catch others 2003, 2004; Pauly 2000). The biomass of juveniles). In the commercial fishing sector (greater fish stocks in several important fishery bays in the than 3 gross tons), boats are licensed but fishing Philippines is less than 10 percent of what it was in effort is not restricted. Nowhere in the Philippines 1950. Fisheries catch-per-unit-effort is declining in are total allowable catches or minimum/maximum

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_36 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 36

size limits established for artisanal fisheries. The proliferation of community and municipal-level 36 minimum legal gill net size of 3 centimeters catch- marine resource management projects. However, es most juveniles and is frequently ignored by arti- there is growing realization that overreliance on a sanal fishers. Similarly, the movement of artisanal limited suite of management tools, in this case com- fishers from one area to another is not regulated as munity-based MPAs, is problematic. Major fish long as legal fishing methods are used. stocks straddle the 15-kilometer municipal waters boundary (as migrating adults and over their lifes- Three key Philippine laws—the 1991 Local pan). Furthermore, the municipal water boundary is Government Code, the 1997 Agriculture and perceived as arbitrary by many commercial fishing Fisheries Modernization Act, and the 1998 operations that had historic access to areas now Fisheries Code—shape fisheries policy and juris- legally off limits. Many of these commercial fishing dictions for the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic operations continue to fish within municipal waters Resources (BFAR, a national agency), the throughout the country, and enforcement capacity is Department of Environment and Natural Resources not sufficient to restrain them. Increasingly, vio- (DENR, a national agency), and municipal govern- lence is being used to silence activists working to ments (Cruz-Trinidad 1998; Eisma and others 2005; enforce these boundaries. White and Vogt 2001). The Fisheries Code mandates an updated national fisheries management plan every five years; the most recent one was com- 4.3. pleted in 2006. Strategies to Integrate MPAs Since the passage of the Local Government Code in into Larger-Scale 1991, the management of coastal areas has been decentralized to the municipal government level. As Management Systems perhaps the most decentralized marine governance system in the world, Philippine coastal municipal MPAs can function as an important management governments have jurisdiction over marine space strategy within a larger area-wide management and use out to 15 kilometers offshore. DENR retains framework with broader goals, such as maintaining control over permitting of structures proposed in essential ecological processes and life-support sys- marine and foreshore areas, although local govern- tems, preserving genetic diversity, ensuring sustain- ments are responsible for ensuring that these per- able utilization of species and ecosystems, mitting laws are enforced. managing watersheds, and so on. The two most influential management frameworks currently are The BFAR, while technically mandated to manage all integrated coastal management and, most recently, fisheries, has relinquished almost all management ecosystem-based management (EBM). within municipal waters to municipal and city governments. Commercial fishing vessels, defined as ICM in tropical countries frequently focuses on greater than 3 gross tons, are supposed to fish outside reducing conflicts between stakeholders and pro- municipal waters (unless they have municipal gov- vides a process to integrate sectors, levels of govern- ernment approval to enter the 10–15 kilometer zone). ment, and government and civil society. It may Municipal governments therefore have de facto regu- depend on a variety of management tools and latory control over artisanal fisheries, while the approaches (see Figure 4–3). In practice, ICM in the BFAR has regulatory control over commercial fish- Philippines has relied heavily on MPAs as a pre- eries where such fisheries are defined by vessel size. ferred management tool (White et al 2005). Depending on community needs and management The Local Government Code was a turning point in concerns, MPAs can be designed and managed to the legal-institutional landscape and supported the accommodate various objectives and activities.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_37 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 37

FIGURE 4.3 37 Municipal or City Management Area with Various ICM Interventions, including MPAs, in the Philippines

Source: White and others 2006.

Pursuing one benefit (such as sustaining biodiversi- toral planning and for coordinated actions to ty or fisheries production) therefore does not neces- address these threats. In acknowledgment of this, sarily exclude pursuit of others such as revenue President Arroyo recently signed an Executive generation, tourism, or other social benefits, and it Order adopting ICM as the national strategy to thus allows various management options. But there ensure the sustainable development of the coun- are trade-offs to be considered, and not all benefits try’s coastal and marine habitats and resources and can be simultaneously maximized. providing mechanisms for its implementation.

As an example, the ICM program for Balayan Bay implemented by the Batangas provincial govern- 4.4. ment provides useful lessons in addressing the Combining ICM and long-term and short-term threats surrounding the conservation areas and sanctuaries found in the Ecosystem-based Management local government areas of jurisdiction within the province. Several towns in the area—Mabini and Through the 1980s and 1990s, integrated coastal Tingloy, in particular—host a high diversity of management served as the overarching planning coral and fish species. But the threats to marine framework through which most MPAs were estab- diversity include land use changes, off-site pollu- lished. Recent calls from influential scientists and tion, incompatible land uses between towns, water- donors for management systems that function at shed impacts on coral reefs, sedimentation, ecosystem-scale levels has begun to establish a new foreshore developments, oil spills, and destructive framework, ecosystem-based management, as the fishing. ICM provides for intermunicipal, intersec- broad management framework. This new model is

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_38 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 38

similarly broad in its goals, but its main distinguish- • Limiting access to fishery resources through reg- 38 ing characteristics are its emphasis on protecting or istration, licensing, zoning, gear restrictions, and restoring ecological processes and management at other options as appropriate for a given area ecologically relevant scales. The disciplinary • Strengthening coastal and fisheries law underpinnings of this model are mainly ecological enforcement. at present, representing a notable shift away from the sustainable development goals of ICM. While The LGCMP is approaching EBM with a novel bot- ecological processes must be attended to, especial- tom-up approach that consists mainly of forming ly since rapid global environmental change is under clusters of adjoining municipalities that share way, there is a risk of scaling up beyond institution- resources and manage their community-based al capacity and incentive structures. MPAs as a network. Currently, at least two major initiatives in the Philippines explicitly use an ecosystem-based management model and have advanced to implementa- 4.5. tion stages—the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project and the Local Governance Governance Matters for Coastal Management Project (LGCMP) of the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation. The case study considered key governance issues (FISH is funded by the United States Agency and how the Philippines experience may inform for International Development for $8 million for MPA efforts, especially those that use community- seven years; see www.oneocean.org for more infor- based and co-management options for fisheries and mation. The LGCMP is funded by the David and integrated coastal management. As a starting point, Lucile Packard Foundation; see www.coast.ph for it is critical that MPA designers and donors recog- more information.) nize that context is important even as general principles emerge from around the world. Effective FISH and the LGCMP represent two complementa- MPA governance is heavily influenced by the par- ry project types common in the Philippines and ticular sociopolitical, historical, and socioeconom- other tropical countries: a large donor-led project ic context of a site. The careless exportation of with considerable international financial and tech- globalized management models will lead to major nical support and central government involvement management failures. While there are many exam- and an NGO-led project with private foundation ples of successful MPAs in the Philippines, the support that is committed to community-based lack of systematic and consistent intervention to strategies. The dynamic synergy between these strengthen MPA governance is currently a major complementary EBM approaches is fundamental to shortcoming for Philippine MPAs, resulting in high future progress at multiple levels. failure rates.

Based on project goals and previous experience Certain management processes and conditions— with fisheries and coastal management, FISH will including strong participation, local awareness, emphasize a suite of specific fisheries manage- equitable distribution of benefits, and consistent ment activities: implementation of laws—are emerging as consistently important in various countries • Implementing MPA networks designed to protect (McClanahan and others 2005; Pinto da Silva and rehabilitate coral reef and other coastal habi- 2004; Pollnac and others 2001; Pollnac and tats, support fish stocks through spillover of Pomeroy 2005; World Bank 2000). These studies adults and larval dispersal, and provide social clearly show that centralized management and economic benefits regimes, reliant on strong formal institutions and

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT large funding bases, are not generally effective in 4.6. much of the developing world. In post-colonial, 39 impoverished, institution-weak contexts, manage- Governance Challenges ment effectiveness depends on community-based and Opportunities processes. Attention should be focused, therefore, on how to scale up from successful community- Broad constituency formation of MPAs is of central based resource management while monitoring importance if these areas are to be effective. management process effectiveness. Currently, the global MPA planning effort is largely taking place at high-level planning events (such as Figure 4–4 illustrates that MPAs have become a the World Parks Congress or Convention on common management strategy in some areas of the Biological Diversity meetings). Although such Philippines (White and others 2002). MPAs have in meetings are important to set scientific and donor fact become a replacement for standard fisheries agendas, there is increasingly a need to bring the management for nearshore areas. This is a limited discussion to the public level and to local govern- and risky policy, especially considering the high ments and NGOs within a country. rate of MPA failure that is partially linked to open- access fisheries regimes, under which fishing effort The sources and forms of knowledge that support increases continuously and free-ridership under- policy decisions is also a matter of central impor- mines local commitment to MPAs. The diffusion of tance. Not only is there a critical need for discipli- benefits from any MPA to non-local fishers and nary parity and integration, but there is also a need other constituencies, who do not bear the cost of to balance social and natural science knowledge management, rapidly erodes local community sup- with local and traditional knowledge (Christie and port for an MPA. others 2003).

FIGURE 4.4

Distribution of MPAs in the Central Visayas Region of the Philippines

Source: SUAKCREM (http://www.su.edu.ph/suakcrem/main.htm)

THEROLEOFMARINEPROTECTEDAREAS

A 345109Sec2_40 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 40

Coastal Mayors’ Workshop at Pangasinan – photo by Ed Gomez, CRTR Program central government agencies. But without the polit- 40 ical will, institutional capacity, and financing to make necessary changes in fishery policies, excess fishing effort will swamp the contributions from MPAs toward stabilizing resource conditions.

MPA management requires both upward (from local to national agency) and downward (from national to local) coordination and accountability. Local governments and resource user communities are empowered and engaged in community-based resource management, but they frequently lack the Research and experience demonstrates that consis- necessary financial and technical assistance. tent international institutional commitment and National governments must remain engaged in sup- leadership is key to maintaining progress with any porting local initiatives and developing enabling international environmental regime. Some mecha- legislation. The decentralization of coastal manage- nisms exist for communication through international ment and fisheries management policy-making conferences, but there is surprising little inter-insti- authority to local government agencies and resource tutional coordination of the MPA planning and user groups without commensurate fiscal decentral- implementation processes. The intense competition ization and capacity development is likely to doom for grants and recognition, based on an individual the programs to failure (Lowry and others 2005). incentive structure, fosters this behavior at all levels. Fair and effective law enforcement, knowledge of Use of the so-called two-track approach, where the law, and consistency between national and local attention is paid to both national and local policy laws and institutional goals are important to MPA development, is important, particularly to develop effectiveness and sustainability. Influential entities complementary rather than contradictory policies. that pollute the environment, manage destructive MPAs and integrated coastal management can be fishing networks, ignore fisheries regulations, or derailed when national policies contradict and usurp MPA control for personal gain quickly under- undermine local initiatives. In this regard, national mine commitment to MPA management—an unfor- policies in the Philippines, for example, must fully tunately common condition in many contexts. recognize the degree of overfishing that is occurring and the consequent need to limit entry through a A key lesson for the Philippine context is that com- variety of creative and effective mechanisms. munity involvement and influence over the planning and implementation process is essential to National regulations are in place to segregate arti- MPA success and sustainability. This principle of sanal and commercial fishing activities, but they are active local participation is not unique to the not fully operational. Artisanal fishers are develop- Philippines and is relevant in both developing and ing increasingly efficient fishing methods to com- industrial countries. Other predictors and indica- pete with commercial operations as stocks dwindle tors of success in MPA establishment and opera- and as coral reef fisheries and habitats collapse. tion include: The use of spatial management tools such as zoning may help address this conflict, but eventually diffi- • Relatively small population size (of nearby cult decisions restricting access and timing of fish- communities) ing must be made to avoid serial stock collapses. The formal delineation of municipal water bound- • A perceived crisis in terms of reduced fish aries is a first step that requires the assistance of populations before the MPA project

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_41 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 41

• Successful alternative-income activities to There is ongoing friction between practitioners and minimize trade-offs academics who support distinct models of MPAs. 41 The clearest schism exists between those who favor • A relatively high level of community participation a more environmental and ecologically dependent in decision making framework and those who favor a more sustainable • Educated stakeholders development and social science-dependent framework. Some of the friction emerges from questions of • Influential champions promoting the cause of equity and resentment that northern-based institu- MPAs or ICM tions are making important decisions with global impact. While debate is expected, the current deci- • Inputs from the municipal government sion-making process is not notably inclusive of multiple perspectives, which in turn may affect the • Early and ongoing economic benefits to comple- chance for consensus on MPAs. Much of the dispar- ment ecological benefits ity between the central organization policies from an • Equitable distribution of benefits. international perspective on MPAs and the national down to local is mostly between a more science- Improvements in the ecological conditions of a coral based and idealistic view to planning contrasted reef will influence resources and policy-maker will- with what can practically be implemented in the ingness to support an MPA. But the equitable distri- field. These tensions are always present within the bution of benefits is likely as important as overall Philippines, as seen, for example, between what improvement in environmental conditions in influ- national planners and scientists recommend and encing long-term resource user support. Successful what is acceptable to local stakeholders and those fisheries management in the Philippines will likely who depend on the marine environment for food and depend on implementation schemes that build from income on a daily basis. and strengthen fragile community-level and municipal-government-level efforts with national-level Ecosystem-based management and large marine technical and legal support. ecosystem efforts are expected to contribute to the attainment of ambitious international targets for MPAs. The interest in large-scale efforts is under- standable. As ocean and fisheries issues become more 4.7. acute and as understanding of ecological complexity Governance Challenges to increases, there is a tendency to advocate for what are considered “ecologically relevant” scales of interven- Scaling Up tion. There is a tendency to forward global natural-science-dominated agendas without a commensurate International MPA and ocean policies and agree- understanding of associated human dimensions. In ments directly influence Philippine MPA imple- other words, we are simply unaware of the linked mentation by affecting funding, management socioecological dimensions of ocean ecology and gov- system preferences, and the trade of marine prod- ernance—the complexity that matters most for MPA ucts. Efforts to create global MPA targets and fund- management (Christie et al. 2005). ing mechanisms will directly influence the future direction of MPA planning and implementation in The scaling up of MPAs beyond institutional capac- the Philippines. Such agendas and funding can fos- ities and the belief that there are generalizable man- ter and support nascent efforts to scale up MPA agement models that can be applied globally is efforts, but only if plans are developed in an equi- naive and may erode what progress has been made. table and transparent manner and if they grow from As some entities push to scale up to multinational existing efforts. efforts, field efforts may not be well grounded in a

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_42 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 42

deep understanding of historical, social, legal, eco- Communication between English-speaking techni- 42 nomic, and ecological dimensions of local contexts cians and government policy makers is only one and may pay too little attention to the careful nur- type of exchange needed. turing of fragile management processes. Formal institutions (government and NGO agencies) and Enforcement of MPA rules represents a constant informal ones (families and communities) respond struggle in almost all cases. Vigilance is essential to feedback from their constituencies or members. and, at times, undermined by international incidents. As such, careful attention must be paid to incentive The poaching of Tubbataha (well within Philippine structures that will encourage support for MPAs. territorial waters) by Chinese fishing operations in These incentives may be monetary, but also social 2001 that resulted in the removal of giant clams and and cultural. other valuable marine organisms highlights the vulnerability of even well-managed MPAs. In this case, A related important consideration is the distribution the apprehended poachers were released after six of limited financial resources for MPA implementa- months as a result of diplomatic pressures from the tion. Large marine ecosystem strategies are already Chinese government. Remote and relatively pristine beginning to take potential resources away from Marine Protected Areas are increasingly being target- more locally relevant MPA management efforts. ed by illegal fishing syndicates looking for valuable These large-scale efforts have depended on hun- and increasingly rare organisms. dreds of millions of support dollars, and many smaller NGO or government-led efforts operating under different and more locally defined models are struggling to keep field efforts afloat. 4.8. Conclusions and If MPA implementation is scaled up, the cost of enforcement and communication will also rise. At Recommendations present, MPA enforcement in the Philippines is based on a system of local initiatives that range The Philippine case clearly documents particular from deputized fish wardens with local municipal key messages relevant to this study: government and NGO financial aid to more sophisticated systems that rely on radar and Philippine • The severity of the fisheries problem should not Navy surveillance at the Tubbataha National necessarily translate into a mandated MPA Marine Park. The communication in-country among response at inappropriate institutional scales that MPA practitioners and policy makers is facilitated may erode whatever progress, albeit limited, has by international projects, academic institutions, been made. and an NGO community that is constantly creating opportunities for critical exchanges of scientific • There is an increasing need to focus on the con- and management experience. Communication of text within which MPAs exist. MPAs are vulnera- the Philippine MPA community with the interna- ble to the effects of an open-access regime that tional community is facilitated by their command of does not limit fishing effort or offer tenure to English and the well-developed Filipino scientific coastal communities. community. The creation of enforcement and communication systems across large, multinational • Marine protected areas that are planned through areas will create significant challenges and require participatory processes and that function at eco- careful planning. For example, language and cul- logically significant scales are a potent tool with a tural barriers between the one large marine ecosys- proven track record. The challenge ahead is how tem project involving the Philippines, Indonesia, to scale these up without losing institutional and and Malaysia are likely to be formidable. social functionality.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_43 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 43

Experience in the Philippines provides a consider- • Close open-access regimes and establish marine able base to build on. The current ICM framework tenure and fishing effort control 43 requires ongoing and consistent international and national-level support. These efforts have created a • Rationalize fishing effort broad and ongoing process that warrants ongoing • Step up enforcement support. (See www.oneocean.org and World Bank 2006.) But given the case study’s scope of work and • Develop human and institutional capacity the World Bank’s unique role internationally—in particular, its ability to influence national policy • Monitor and benchmark progress and engage high-level officials—several focused recommendations are made at this juncture: • Experiment with MPA models.

References

Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 2006. No-take Marine Reserves and Reef Fisheries Management in the Philippines: A New People Power Revolution. Ambio 35: 245-254. Alino, P.M., C. Nanola, W. Campos, V. Hilomen. A. Uychiaoco, and S. Mamauag. 2004. Philippine coral reef fisheries: Diversity in adversity. Pp. 65–69 in In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines. Barut, N.C., M.D. Santos, and L.R. Garces. 2004. Overview of Philippine marine fisheries. Pp. 22–31 in In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries, Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines. Carpenter, K., and V.G. Springer. 2005. The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: the Philippine Islands. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 467–80. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). May 2006.www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook. Christie, P., K. Lowry, A.T. White, E.G. Oracion, L. Sievanen, R.S. Pomeroy, R.B. Pollnac, J. Patlis, L. Eisma. 2005. Key findings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated coastal management process sustainability. Ocean and Coastal Management 48:468-483. Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White, R. Stoffle, D.L. Fluharty, L. Talaue-McManus, R. Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D.O. Suman, B.G. Blount, D. Huppert, R.L. Villahermosa Eisma, E. Oracion, K. Lowry, and R.B. Pollnac. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 28(12):22–26. Cruz-Trinidad, A. 1998. The Fisheries Code of 1998: Something old... something new... something better? Tambuli 4:17–24. DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture–Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 2004. In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines. Eisma, R.V., P. Christie, and M.J. Hershman. 2005. Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated coastal management in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 336–59. Green, S.J., A.T. White, J.O. Flores, M.F. Carreon III, and A.E. Sia. 2003. Philippine Fisheries in Crisis: A Framework for Management. Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS Green, S.J., J.O. Flores, J.Q. Dizon-Corrales, R.T. Martinez, D.R.M. Nunal, N. Armada, and A.T. White. 2004. The 44 Fisheries of Central Visayas, Philippines: Status and Trends. Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines. Indab, J.D. and P.B. Suarez-Aspilla. 2004. Community-based Marine Protected Areas in the Bohol (Mindanao) Sea, Philippines. NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 2004. Lowry, K., A.T. White, and C. Courtney. 2005. National and local agency roles in integrated coastal management in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48:314–35. McClanahan, T.R., S. Mwaguni, and N.A. Muthiga. 2005. Management of the Kenyan coast. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 901–31. Pauly, D. 2000. Fisheries in the Philippines and in the world: An overview. Tambuli 6:23–25. Pinto da Silva, P.S.V. 2004. From common property to co-management: Lessons from Brazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Marine Policy 28: 419–28. Pollnac, R.B. and R.S. Pomeroy. 2005. Factors affecting the long-term sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management: 233-251. Pollnac, R.B., B.R. Crawford, and M.L.G. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors influencing the success of community- based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 44: 683–710. White, A.T., P.M. Alina and A.T. Meneses. 2006. Creating and managing marine protected areas in the Philippines. Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project, Coastal Conservation and Education foundation, Inc., and University of the Philippines. 83 p. Available at www.oneocena.org White, A.T., R.L. Eisma-Osorio, S.J. Green. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas: Complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 948–971. White, A.T., and R.O.D. de Leon. 2004. Mangrove resource decline in the Philippines: Government and community look for new solutions. Pp. 84–89 in In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines. White, A.T., A. Salamanca, and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Experience with Marine Protected Area planning and management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 30:1–26. White, A.T., and H.P. Vogt. 2001. Philippine coral reefs under threat: Lessons learned after 25 years of community- based reef conservation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 537–50. World Bank. 2006. Philippines Environment Monitor. Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Management. Washington, DC. ———. 2000. Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series number 9. Washington DC.

SCALINGUPMARINEMANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_45 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 45

Chile: Experience with Management and Exploitation 5 Areas for Coastal Fisheries as Building Blocks for Large- Scale Marine Management

Chile has considerable recent experi- In the developing world, examples of limited access fisheries tend to be isolated and do not ence in response to a crisis in inshore necessarily reflect national policy (Blyth and others benthic small-scale fisheries and 2002; Acheson 1990). The adoption of a national policy in Chile that restricts access to many areas of pelagic/demersal fisheries. Solutions to the seabed to achieve sustainable exploitation is the problems were implemented and therefore an exception. This policy is due to the social and economic importance of the artisanal institutionalized in the Chilean 1991 fisheries that are restricted to coastal waters (Castilla and Defeo 2001). As a result, the manage- Fishery and Aquaculture Law. This ment of benthic (bottom-dwelling) resources is a chapter mainly focuses on artisanal specific component of the Chilean 1991 Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (FAL) (Ley de Pesca y fishery management experience over Acuicultura 1991). The FAL redefines artisanal the past 15 years and on artisanal fishers and incorporates new regulations that affect their user rights through three management steps. fishers’ perceptions of the process. In First, it assigns exclusive fishing rights within a zone that extends 5 nautical miles (9 kilometers) addition, it analyzes the role played by from the shoreline to artisanal fishers. Second, it the implementation of pure conserva- restricts artisanal fishers to working (or diving) within the coastal zone adjacent to their area of res- tion measures (such as no-take Marine idence (regionalization). Third, the FAL assigns to registered artisanal fishing unions exclusive diving Protected Areas (MPAs), marine parks, rights to given areas of seabed, under what have and marine sanctuaries) and sustain- been termed management and exploitation areas for benthic resources (known as MEABRs) (Gelcich able use “limited access” measures. and others 2005a).

This chapter is an abstract of the case study prepared by Juan Carlos Castilla and Stefan Gelcich. The full case study appears in Volume 2.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_46 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 46

According to SERNAPESCA (2005), in Chile there gle fishery crisis but a multifaceted series of crises 46 were 547 MEABRs decreed as of May 2005, of (Defeo and Castilla 2005). Although no-take MPAs which 301 had a benthic resource management plan and the reduction of fleets and subsides are much fully approved and in operation. The remaining 246 needed, other key elements have not been sufficiently are not allowed to operate until they have such a considered for achieving marine biodiversity conserva- plan approved. The total area of sea floor with tion and sustainable fisheries at global scales, such as: MEABRs in operation was 102,338 hectares. • The role of governance, specifically the role of In addition to MEABRs, Chilean policy allows for common property rights (such as territorial user the establishment of marine parks and reserves. rights for fishers, TURFs), which if managed well Chile has 11 coastal area natural sanctuaries and 11 can increase income, retain and enhance commu- no-take marine concessions, mainly used for scien- nity and cultural identity, and serve as a basis for tific purposes or as genetic reserves (there are three community empowerment genetic reserves) (Fernández and Castilla 2005). • The role of coastal-ocean small and extensive Current efforts to further develop the fishery-con- zoning, identifying spatial separation between servation network comes in the form of the first industrial and artisanal fisheries three government-administered multiple-use marine coastal protected areas (AMP-MUs), which • The role of alternative management schemes to indi- were implemented through a partnership between vidual transferable quotas, such as the implementa- the Chilean national environmental commission and tion of common/communal total allowable catches the Global Environment Facility. • The key role of co-management and bottom-up policy processes. This review focuses on Chilean experiences in small- scale coastal fisheries management. There is not a sin- 5.1. Artisanal fishing diver with hooka equipment – photo by Natalio Godoy Toward a Dual Management and Conservation Approach

The main legal tools in Chile for the management and preservation of marine ecosystems and species are natural sanctuaries, national monuments, marine parks, marine reserves, marine coastal protected areas, marine concessions, and management and exploitation areas for benthic resources (Fernández and Castilla 2005).

The goal of establishing natural sanctuaries, natural monuments, and marine parks is to preserve natural ecosystems while allowing educational and research activities. In marine parks (no-take areas in coastal or open ocean waters), marine resources are off-limits to any extractive uses. In marine reserves, the exploitation of resources may occur in a sustainable way, although they can also be decreed to preserve reproductive or genetic stocks (for example, La Rinconada Scallop Marine

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_47 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 47

Reserve, Antofagasta) (Fernández and Castilla access regime led to notorious signs of overexploita- 2005). Marine reserves, concessions (other than for tion. This was aggravated due to the sudden and 47 aquaculture purposes) (Fernández and Castilla explosive opening of the Chilean economy to exter- 2005), and MEABRs can be established only in nal markets (known as the “Chicago boys” policies, coastal areas, where artisanal fishers operate. The implemented in the 1980s; see Castilla 1990). As a main goal of the MEABRs is to rationalize the result, the fishery authority in the late 1980s faced small-scale exploitation of benthic resources (inver- serious problems with the sustainability and man- tebrates and algae). Since exploitation rates are agement of artisanal resources, and a series of total lower inside MEABRs than in open-access fishing or partial fishery closed seasons were decreed (in grounds, however, some level of protection may also some cases for up to four years; see Castilla 1990, occur. A conservation and management umbrella- 1996). These measures were not effective and led to like designation—marine coastal protected areas— illegal fishing and social unrest to the extent that has recently been implemented in Chile. The strong fisheries such as the Venus antigua clam or AMP-MU is meant to be used as a multiple-use the Concholepas concholepas gastropod (“loco”) had Marine Protected Area instrument; it therefore to be closed (Castilla and others, in press). includes marine reserves, ecotourism areas, no-take areas, and even MEABRs. Certain areas of coastal land in Chile are officially designated as “coves” (caleta in Spanish). These If properly planned—that is, considering stakehold- strips of land above the high-tide mark provide cer- er participation, alternative livelihood options, and tain rights to users, including the right to have the devolution of management authority—and access to the sea, land a boat, remove catch, and implemented, these conservation and management erect certain buildings (Gelcich and others 2005a). tools may be used to develop a network of Marine According to the Servicio Nacional de Pesca (SER- Protected/Managed Areas in Chile that includes NAPESCA 2005), 558 artisanal caletas are found both fully and partially protected zones (Castilla along the Chilean coast. Of these, 453 are consid- 2000; Fernández and Castilla 2005). ered permanent caletas (343 rural and 110 urban), and 105 as temporary ones (landing sites), which have no official designation and therefore can be 5.2. closed at any time.

Drivers of Change and the The second policy driver was the organized system 1991 Fisheries and of artisanal fisher communities in local unions or syndicates (at the caleta level) and national associ- Aquaculture Law ations (Castilla 1994; Payne and Castilla 1994; Minn and Castilla 1995). In most Chilean caletas, a Small-scale fishery resources in Chile prior to 1991 fishery community has been established and operated under an open-access regime. At the end obtained legal benefits from the government long of the 1980s, it was clear that this system needed before the implementation of the 1991 FAL regula- important modifications. These modifications were tions. In the majority of cases, caletas have tradi- institutionalized in the 1991 FAL. Three major fac- tions that go back 50–100 years or more. The tors can be considered as key policy drivers. Undersecretary of the Navy assigns concessions for demarcated coastal territories, which have been First, there was heavy overexploitation of wild shell- used to establish official caletas since 1960 fish resources traditionally consumed in Chile and (Decreto con Fuerza de Ley [DFL] 340). highly valuable in external markets. In the 1970s and 1980s, the exploitation of artisanal marine The third policy driver was the existence of available resources (shellfish and algae) under an open- and convincing basic and applied fishery and eco-

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_48 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 48

logical knowledge, which facilitated its institutional- The loco fishery went through three phases prior to 48 ization into a legal framework (Castilla 1994). The the implementation of the 1991 FAL. The first existence of such knowledge can undoubtedly be phase (1960–74) was characterized by small land- considered a key driver for the drafting and imple- ings of around 2,000–6,000 tons, used mainly for mentation of the 1991 FAL policies (Castilla 1996; domestic consumption. Then Chile adopted a neo- Castilla and others 1998; Castilla and Fernández liberal policy framework. This policy, and the 1998; Gelcich and others 2005a, 2005b). implementation of an aggressive exchange rate policy in 1974/75, substantially improved fishing In 1991, under the FAL, artisanal fishery activities export earnings and produced the necessary incen- were subjected to three important policy changes: tives for Chile to become the region’s leading fish and shellfish exporter (Thorpe and others 1999). • The exclusive reservation of a stretch of 5 miles of Between 1976 and 1981, loco landings increased territorial sea waters for the artisanal fishery, from abruptly, reaching a peak of 24,800 tons in 1980. the northern border of Chile to latitude 41º 28’ 6” During these years, the fishery benefited from high south and around oceanic islands. pay for divers and the emergence of new international export markets. • The establishment of management and exploitation areas for benthic resources and the allocation Demand from Asian markets for shellfish (mainly of exclusive communal/community territorial user loco, sea urchins, key-hole limpets) was constantly rights for fisheries increasing, and local credit programs created by the government meant favorable investment opportuni- • The establishment of a national register for arti- ties for new boats, diving gear, and processing sanal fishers and boats or vessels, by region along plants, thereby stimulating even more product the country, aiming to build a continuous register demand (Schurman 1996). At that time, most fish- of users and fleets and to control increased fisheries in Chile operated under an open-access poli- ing pressure due to voluntary seasonal migration cy, and artisanal fishers—although based at specific of fishers, allowing activities exclusively in artisanal caletas (Castilla and others 1998)—used regions where fisherfolk were registered. to migrate along the coast. As the new export markets grew, fishers intensified their migrations to take These policy initiatives were intended to tackle the advantage of the new opportunities. Buyers began increase in the number of artisanal fishers migrating recruiting groups of divers from caletas and trans- along the coast, which was occurring simultaneous- porting them to distant fishing grounds, targeting ly with the overexploitation of benthic resources high-valued species such as the loco (Meltzoff and (Castilla and Schmiede 1979; Schurman 1996; others 2002). Thousands of divers moved around Fernández and Castilla 2000). Biological impacts of Chile, mainly to the southern regions, sparking overexploitation were particularly clear for the fights between locals and outsiders in a “loco war” predatory gastropod C. concholepas (Castilla, 1990, or “loco fever” (Meltzoff and others 2002; Reyes 1994, 1996; Castilla and others 1998; Castilla and 1988). From 1982 to 1988, loco landings decreased, Fernandez 1998). As loco is the single most eco- most probably due to overexploitation, resulting in a nomically important shellfish in Chile, this fishery complex series of management steps (Castilla and is used as a basic case study to illustrate the imple- Fernández 1998; González and others, in press). mentation of changes in the Chilean fishery legislation. The loco fishery is considered the main one According to a Fisheries Department official, the that catalyzed the novel benthic resources fishery open-access state of benthic resource fishing in policy changes in the Chilean legislation (character- Chile and the newly opened export markets were ization and phases of the loco fishery are modified enough to lead to a “tragedy of the commons” from Castilla 1996; Castilla and others, in press). (Gelcich 2005). Consequently, the loco fishery was

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_49 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 49

completely closed between 1989 and 1992. During ments of stock in the management area and to deter- this period, there was great social unrest among arti- mine changes in the TAC. These annual assess- 49 sanal fishers (divers), and illegal extractions of loco ments must be presented to the Undersecretary of increased. Subsequently, the government developed Fisheries. the 1991 Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Decreto 430, approved in September 1991), which regional- All resources extracted from a MEABR must be ized artisanal fishers and allocated TURFs in the declared to the Fisheries Department, which super- form of management and exploitation areas for ben- vises compliance with the management plan (SER- thic resources. The policy of “regionalization” NAPESCA 2004; Gelcich and others 2005b). sought to prevent the previously observed mass Resource stocks in MEABR may be enhanced by migration of divers to areas of high resource value bringing resources from other areas of the seafloor (Gelcich and others 2005a). For administrative pur- only once at the beginning of the process, before the poses, Chile is divided into 12 regions. The “region- MEABR is officially harvested. After this, stocks alization” policy confined fishers to just one region, must be maintained by “natural seeding” through usually the one containing their home port (Meltzoff recruitment processes (Castillan and others 1998). and others 2002). The rationale behind the Effectively, fishers’ harvesting decisions within MEABRs was a common property approach, which MEABRs are confined to four main issues: the proposes that property rights will create institution- amount of TAC to be gathered and the timing of this al incentives among fishers for long-term resource harvest within the officially designated harvest sea- use (Ostrom 1990). son; the price fishers will accept for the resources, the number of buyers, and how income is distributed within the unions (Gelcich and others, in press b). 5.3. The remainder of this section analyses fishers’ perceptions of the MEABR policy in five areas: compli- Management and Exploitation ance, enforcement, financial sustainability and empowerment, achievement of fishery and biodiver- Areas for Benthic Resources sity management objectives, and main problems and future challenges. Within each area, responses are Under the co-management arrangements of MEABR reported according to main livelihood strategy policy, the Chilean Undersecretary of Fisheries (divers, fin-fishers, intertidal food gatherers, or fish- assigns temporary territorial user rights to artisanal ers who depend mainly on off-sector activities such fisher unions in defined geographical coastal areas. as agriculture, construction, or forestry), geographic This includes the right to exclude nonmembers from area, and urban versus rural unions in order to exploiting the same area of seafloor (Castilla 1994; Gelcich and others 2005a, 2005b). Fisher unions must establish surveillance programs in order to enforce these exclusion rights. If poachers are caught, they can be prosecuted.

Unions wishing to obtain TURFs must identify an area of sea floor over which they wish to make a claim and then cofinance a baseline study of this area, from which total allowable catches (TACs) for unions and management plans are established. These quotas are allocated to unions but not individuals. The unions must also contract with external consultants to undertake yearly follow-up assess- Puertecillo, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_50 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 50

belonging to the same seven fishing unions answered FIGURE 5.1 50 a 50-question survey in face-to-face interviews. Study Sites of MEABRs among Caletas (Coves) in Compliance 12 Regions of Chile In order to comply with the regulations of the Undersecretary of Fisheries, unions must follow reg- Caleta: ulations related to the application and maintenance 1. Los Vilos (Urban) of MEABRs. As noted, fishers applying for 2. Chigualoco (Rural) MEABRs have to organize and cofinance a baseline study of the MEABR from which resource TACs and the management plan is established. In general, Caleta: compliance on this has been extremely good, to the 3. El Quisco (Urban) 4. Algarrobo (Urban) point that by 2005 policy uptake has already reached 547 MEABRs. Cofinancing agreements for initial baseline studies have had high levels of compliance, and fishers feel it is something important to Caleta: do in order to obtain a MEABR (Focus group union, 5. La Boca (Rural) 6. Puertecillo (Rural) El Quisco). In fact, 78 percent of all surveyed fishers agreed or strongly agreed that “it is important for me to follow the rules imposed by my union and obey harvest dates and the law.” Fishers agree to Caleta: 7. Carelmapu (Rural) follow the rules irrespective of their livelihood strategies or if they live in urban or rural areas. This same pattern was found when fishers were asked about their family’s opinion on the need to follow MEABR regulations. Support from government institutions to pay initial baseline studies has had an important role in promoting this compliance. determine which factors might account for any differences in perceptions. In theory, getting to know There is additional evidence that government sup- these perceptions could help in understanding the port is important. Sixty-nine percent of surveyed fishers’ responses to the existing MEABR policy, as fishers agreed or strongly agreed that “government’s well as to predict their likely responses to Chile’s financial support has been crucial for the develop- new approaches to marine conservation, such as ment of MEABRs.” This view was shared to a sig- inclusion of no-take marine reserves and AMP-MUs. nificantly larger extent by fishers who belong to rural areas in Chile. This is mainly because urban A total of 31 semi-structured interviews were held unions have had the support of universities and with fishers from seven different fishing unions (see NGOs as important contributors for the establish- Figure 5–1), representing a range of livelihood ment of MEABRs (Meltzoft and others 2002; strategies and rural/urban geographic positions. In Gelcich and others 2005b). addition, two focus groups with four to six partici- pants each were held in every fishing union. To maintain the MEABR, fishers are required to Interviews and focus groups aimed at understanding arrange the yearly follow-up assessments of stock by fishers’ perceptions and experiences regarding the external consultants and to pay an annual fee to the implementation of MEABRs. To provide some quan- government. This fee is paid after the fourth assess- tifiable basis of these experiences, 143 fishers ment and is fixed per hectare of seafloor; it is not

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_51 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 51

related to catch or revenue obtained from the man- some fishers propose, this management freedom agement area. would include experimentation with harvest methods 51 or target species, aquaculture of any species (96 per- The interviews found that there is an increasing cent of all surveyed fishers saw aquaculture as a pos- sense that the yearly follow-up studies (which do not itive change), and the exploitation of new species. have government financial support) are a waste of money for the unions. Fishers must still comply with Currently, fishers must maintain their MEABRs this regulation, but many union directorates are through “natural seeding” (Sensu Castilla and oth- beginning to say that the unions themselves should ers 1998) and extract only resources included in be trusted to do these studies. This is supported by their management plans. The level of compliance survey results, where 58 percent of fishers agreed or toward these aspects is unknown. It is clear from the strongly agreed that “the fisher union could carry interviews that some level of restocking occurs in out the work of the consultants.” management areas, although this was always attrib- uted to “other unions.” Fishers’ desire to achieve independence for managing their MEABR is not directly related to their When interviewees were asked why they would evaluation of the consultants’ work. This is shown not restock their area, the main response was that by a Spearman rank correlation between fishers’ loco would eat up all the food and not grow perceptions of the quality of consultants work and enough. Nevertheless, 80 percent of surveyed the fishers’ desire to do the assessments themselves fishers disagreed with the statement “If the fish- (correlation coefficient = -0.04, n = 144, p = eries service catches a union re-stocking 0.57). This desire is driven by the feeling that they resources in the MEABR, the area should be do the work and understand what goes on in the closed for a year.” MEABR without having to spend important financial resources on studies every year. Enforcement Fisher unions in Chile have to pay the government The lack of logistical support, mainly to stop and an annual fee for the right to maintain the manage- prosecute poachers and thus to achieve effective ment area. Compliance with respect to this issue is enforcement of the exclusive territorial user rights, a legal obligation; if the unions do not comply, they was one of the main problems mentioned by fishers lose the rights over the MEABR. Thus everyone in all interviews and focus groups. In fact, within the pays. But they feel this is not a fair measure; this one-on-one questionnaire, 65 percent of the fishers was made quite clear in the focus groups, as fishers asked the main current problem they have with the felt they are helping the whole Chilean society by MEABRs mentioned encroaching (theft) from other conserving resources. fishers (see Figure 5–2).

Paying to maintain MEABRs is having important It is easy to understand that enforcement of the user consequences, as some unions (for example, El rights associated with MEABRs is a problem, espe- Quisco) are beginning to return MEABRs. In fact, cially considering that 100 percent of fishers 86 percent of surveyed fishers, irrespective of dif- thought that “fishers who are caught stealing from ferences in livelihood or geographic position, felt the MEABR should be punished more severely,” they should not have to pay this annual fee. with no differences in terms of livelihoods or geographic position. In general, fishers felt they had In addition, a common response in many focus been left alone with the duties of enforcement, groups was that the annual fees will never be eradi- including stopping encroachment within the cated, and therefore as fishers pay them, unions MEABR, and they were advocating for more support must have more freedom to manage the MEABR. As from the Fisheries Service.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_52 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 52

FIGURE 5.2 establishment of the policy, but they do not current- 52 ly see MEABRs as a financial success. Fully 85 per- Response to Open-ended Question cent of fishers disagreed with the statement “I “What is the Main Problem You increased my income significantly through the MEABR.” This perception was shared by fishers Have with the MEABR?” (n = 143) with different livelihood strategies and from different geographic regions. Yet 55 percent of fishers agreed that “I didn’t increase my income significantly with the MEABR but the union was empowered and collective work has increased.”

In general, MEABRs have been perceived by fishers as a positive aspect to increase collective action and generate new ideas, as evident in their response to the statement “The inclusion of MEABRs has been important to generate new ideas (business, conservation etc.) within the union.” Seventy-eight percent of fishers agreed with this statement; the group that depends mainly on diving for a livelihood Theft scored significantly higher values. Not profitable (prices are too low) As part of MEABR consolidation, innovative strate- Lack of government planning gies that account for fishers’ entrepreneurship Lack of resources include attempts to sell harvested resources collectively from various associations, forming selling cooperatives. Some of these, like TERPESCAR in southern Chile, have been transformed into private Although all those surveyed agreed with the need for companies whose aim is to “consolidate MEABRs, more support, fishers in rural, less accessible areas have strong barging power and get a fare price for our had a significantly stronger opinion of the need for products” (interview with TERPESCAR director). the Fisheries Service (SERNAPESCA) to become This association has also managed to administer the more involved with enforcement. In these rural areas, landing port, thus acquiring new responsibilities and due to the lack of official support, violence between income. In 2004, members of the group sold fishing unions and fishers who steal from MEABRs is 1,197,227 loco worth nearly $2 million. They have beginning to become an important issue. As one fish- also managed to contract the services of a general er from Puertecillo noted: “We call SERNAPESCA manager for the company and an accountant. Other when we see boats in our area, but they never send groups, like Pacificoop, are trying to find new exter- anyone. We are going to have to buy guns as in other nal markets in response to a fall in prices locally and places to defend our resources.” This problem should are currently trying to export live loco to Asian mar- not be taken lightly; violence due to resource access kets. These initiatives show how the MEABR policy could have negative effects on fishers’ social bonds has opened new ways for fishers’ long-term engage- and their potential for future collective bargaining. ment as resource stewards and how it has encour- aged self-empowerment to solve fishery problems.

Financial Sustainability and Empowerment Although many fishers feel MEABRs have been pos- In general, fishers talk about the financial success itive in generating new ideas and cooperation and in of MEABRs during the first two to three years of helping them to self-organize, 59 percent of surveyed

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_53 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 53

fishers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the state- The fact that MEABRs are seen as a way to conserve ment “There is an active participation of fishers in biodiversity and ecosystem functions is extremely 53 planning the future of the MEABRs policy,” with all important. It clarifies to some extent that bottom-up livelihood groups averaging scores under 3 (dis- management of resources through territorial user agree). Nevertheless, 64 percent of fishers felt that rights is not affecting in unwanted ways the marine their involvement in MEABR processes might help environment. It is heartening to see how these fish- revoke this trend and increase their representation. ers find conservation of non-target species and marine conservation important issues within their activities. Achievement of Fishery and Biodiversity Management Objectives When fishers were asked about their opinion of the Main Problems and Future Challenges MEABR system, 94 percent said they felt it had To date, government perceptions of the success of been good for conserving the loco fishery. the MEABR policy have been largely dependent on Nevertheless, the lack of freedom to manage the resource restoration data within MEABRs and the MEABRs and the lack of financial gains associated official statistics on MEABR adoption. The large with low prices for loco during the past two years, number of MEABR applications has been taken as along with the great problems associated with evidence that fishers are organizing and adopting enforcing their user rights, has made fishers react livelihoods as non-migrating members of the busi- quite strongly against the policy. Many of the cri- tiques emphasized that MEABRs have already been in place for nine years, that fishers are still expected FIGURE 5.3 to only apply harvesting norms and criteria for a few species defined by the consultants’ studies, and that Response to the Question “Do You there is no real management of the area or the free- Feel There is Real Management of dom to even attempt to manage it (see Figure 5–3). the MEABR or Do You Only Apply It is striking to see that 53 percent of fishers would Harvesting Norms?” not apply for an MEABR if they had the chance to do so again. However, this question needs to be put into context. Currently in Chile, fisher unions are lobbying to change the annual fee they must pay for MEABRs. They also wish more independence to manage the MEABR and support with policing the areas. So clearly fishers would not agree to a statement that involves applying for a MEABR under conditions they are trying to change.

The positive aspects of MEABRs are associated with their role in conserving biodiversity. Ninety-five percent of fishers agreed with the statement that “MEABRs act as reserves for benthic resources,” and Harvesting norms 74 percent agreed that “MEABRs act as reserves for Management norms other species and the ecosystem in general.” Fishers No norms who depend on diving to maintain their livelihood agree with this statement in a significantly higher Don’t know way, irrespective of geographic location.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_54 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 54

ness community, which was one of the original poli- 5.4. cy aims. 54 Lessons from Chile’s However, the results of interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires show the existence of important Experience with Coastal sources of conflict with MEABR implementation Marine Protected Areas and financial impacts. An important problem mentioned by fishers deals with the fact that open- The concept of MPAs and coastal MPAs (CMPAs) is access fishing sites are becoming scarce and widely used with different meanings and connota- overexploited. Thus, fishers who have historically tions. Unfortunately, the lack of specificity about maintained a livelihood as divers in these areas say these concepts has introduced serious misunder- that this lifestyle is at risk. One individual, for standings in the specialized literature, in conserva- example, noted that: “This law didn’t analyze the tion and protection, and in coastal management secondary effects. There is an indiscriminate exten- planning. sion of the management areas. They [the Fisheries Department] say that the sea cannot all be used by In its marine component, the Chilean National MEABR. But there is nearly nowhere to go and dive, Strategy for Biodiversity considers the implementa- everything is asked for and the little historically tion of a network for the 28 selected AMP-MUs open zones [open to all registered artisanal fishers along the country, consistent with the call made by and recreational divers] left have collapsed… the Convention on Biological Diversity with regard Divers have nowhere to dive” (fisher of Los Vilos to the establishment of coastal networks (Secretariat 2002 in Gelcich 2005). Despite this, 88 percent of of CBD 2004). The potential for the comprehensive interviewed fishers would not give up being arti- establishment of a large “marine network” in Chile sanal fishers for another job that offered similar con- is even greater than the perspective included in the stant income during the year. Chilean GEF-Marino plan. This potential stems from the many marine conservation and resource To summarize, MEABRs appear to be successful management tools (such as MEABRs, marine and popular mechanisms to rationalize the use of reserves for research, national monuments, marine bottom-dwelling coastal resources. Yet some con- concessions, and national sanctuaries) present cerns remain: along the Chilean coast, which may be easily incorporated into a national “marine network” • Income is declining, thus MEABRs should only (Fernández and Castilla 2005; Gobierno de Chile, be viewed as a partial or supplemental source of Proyecto GEF-Marino, PNUD 2006). overall income. The National Biodiversity Strategy plan for AMP- • Union members want more control of management MUs aims to protect 10 percent of relevant Chilean decisions, including the exercise of adaptive man- ecosystems by 2010 (Rovira 2006) and the configu- agement and experimentation with other species ration of an integrated “national marine network” of to enhance overall productivity of the MEABR. conservation and management sites by 2015. Such an overarching framework is much needed in Chile • Fishers need commitments of strong government and may represent a model to be followed in other support for enforcement and monitoring. Latin American countries.

• Fishers want fees (taxes) paid to government for The experience in Chile suggests that in order to rights to MEABRs to be based on income gener- scale up marine conservation practices, it might be ated rather than a flat tax. more effective to emphasize socioeconomic aspects of proposed management measures, along with bio-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_55 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 55

logical considerations, early in the process. Thus, if networks of coastal and Marine Protected Areas an overarching national framework for marine con- (that is, no-take zones or marine parks) covering 55 servation and management networks is to be estab- 10–20 percent of the world’s coasts. The solution lished in Chile, a few aspects of the functioning of must lie in an approach that includes networks of MEABRs within the AMP-MU framework for imple- strict MPAs within a more extensive system of mentation must be addressed. marine management areas that include sustainable use and areas set aside for exclusive/rational use, In the Marine Protected Area literature, there is sig- such as the MEABRs. This is consistent with an nificant interest in scaling up MPA practice by cre- overarching framework of spatial planning and zon- ating networks of MPAs or CMPAs with linkages ing called for by an integrated coastal management between them. This trend was given considerable (ICM) approach. impetus in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which called for nations The process of integrating marine conservation into to establish “representative networks of MPAs by a broader coastal management framework, as called 2012” (Cicin-sain and Belfiore 2005; Sceretariat of for by the Convention on Biological Diversity, must CBD 2004). be put in place, taking into account that MPAs will remain vulnerable to natural resource exploitation Scaling up in Chile would involve the creation of occurring outside (in non-protected areas) if these networks that include AMP-MUs, MEABRs, and are not integrated into spatial development strate- other conservation/management tools. The greatest gies of larger umbrella-like administration areas challenge will be fisher compliance with respect to (that is, AMP-MUs or ICMs more broadly). These in no-take marine reserves/parks within an AMP-MU turn must be part of an integrated strategy for nature framework. Generally, fishers tend to see such conservation (including no-take zones and parks) reserves as a threat; thus their participation in the and sustainable use (MEABRs) and have the abili- early part of the scaling-up process is extremely ty to coordinate action between intergovernmental important. It is also important to acknowledge, how- and intersectoral agencies. ever, that artisanal fishers have a strong favorable attitude toward marine conservation, which has Planning and management should encompass been generated from the co-management experience social, economic, and ecological aspects in order to (Gelcich and others, in press a) and which provides be balanced with economic development opportuni- a basic building block for increasing the prospects ties and living conditions of coastal communities. for effectively scaling up marine conservation and This is a great challenge for Chile and requires management networks. active stakeholder participation. Coastal-ocean zoning is perhaps the best way to achieve large-scale Unfortunately, ecosystem-based fishery reserve ecosystem-based management conservation. The approaches have become a buzzword within the AMP-MU and ICM approaches may serve to defuse fisheries management community and are perceived traditional confrontations between conservation and as the silver bullet to solve the present fishery use measures and to better reconcile these camps crises. Yet current fishery crises (particularly small- from a biological and fishery standpoint (biophysi- scale ones) are linked more to socioeconomic than cal) as well as from bioeconomic and social science biophysical variables. It seems unrealistic to expect perspectives (Castilla 2000; Castilla and Defeo that the fisheries crisis can be solved by setting up 2001; Gelcich and others 2005b).

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_56 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 56

References 56

Acheson J. 1990. The lobster fiefs revisited: Economic and ecological effects of territoriality in Maine lobster fishing. Pp. 37–65 in B. McCay and J. Acheson (eds.), The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Blyth, R., M. Kaiser, G. Edwards-Jones, and P. Hart. 2002. Voluntary management in an inshore fishery has conservation benefits. Environmental Conservation 29: 493–508. Castilla, J.C. 1976. A unique mollusc. Sea Frontiers 22(5): 302–04. ———. 1986. Sigue existiendo la necesidad de establecer Parques y Reservas Marítimas en Chile? Ambiente y Desarrollo, II (2): 53–63. ———. 1990. Clase Magistral: Importancia y proyección de la investigación en Ciencias del Mar en Chile. Revista Biología Marina, Valparaíso, 25(2): 1–18. ———.1994. The Chilean small-scale benthic shellfisheries and the institutionalization of new management practices. Ecology International Bulletin 21: 47–63. ———.1996. La futura red chilena de parques y reservas marinas y los conceptos de conservación, preservación y manejo en la legislación nacional. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 69: 253–70. ———.2000. Roles of experimental marine ecology in coastal management and conservation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 250: 3–21. Castilla, J.C., and M. Fernández. 1998. Small-Scale benthic fisheries in Chile: On co-management and sustainable use of benthic invertebrates. Ecological Applications 8: S124–32. Castilla, J.C., and O. Defeo. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: Emphasis on co-management and experimental practices. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11: 1–30. Castilla, J.C., and P. Schmiede. 1979. Hipótesis de trabajo sobre la existencia de zonas marítimas tampones en relación a recursos marinos bentónicos (mariscos y algas) en la Costa de Chile. Pp. 145–67 in V.A. Gallardo (ed.), Seminario- Taller sobre El Desarrollo e Investigación de los Recursos Marinos de la VIII Región, Chile. Vicerrectoría de Investigación, Universidad de Concepción. Castilla, J.C., P. Manríquez, J. Alvarado, A. Rosson, C. Pino, C. Espóz, R. Soto, D. Oliva, and O. Defeo. 1998. Artisanal Caletas: As units of production and co-managers of benthic invertebrates in Chile. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (Special Publication) 125: 407–13. Castilla, J.C., S. Gelcich, and O. Defeo. In press. Successes, lessons, and projections from experience in marine benthic invertebrate artisanal fisheries in Chile. In T.R. McClanahan and J.C. Castilla (eds.), Fisheries Management: Challenges and Accomplishment. Blackwell Publishing. Cicin-Sain, B., and S. Belfiore. 2005. Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: A review of theory and practice. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 847–68. Defeo, O., and J.C. Castilla. 2005. More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for co-management successes in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 15: 265–83. Fernández, M., and J.C. Castilla. 2000. Recruitment of Homalaspis plana in intertidal habitats of central Chile and implications for the current use of management and marine protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208: 157–70. ———. 2005. Marine conservation in Chile: Historical perspective, lessons, and challenges. Conservation Biology 19: 1752–62. Gelcich S. 2005. The Human Dimensions of Co-management in Chilean Coastal Fisheries. PhD Thesis, University of Wales Bangor, UK. Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, M.J. Kaiser, and E. Watson. 2005a. Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case of marine common property rights in Chile. Society and Natural Resources 18: 377–91.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_57 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 57

Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, and M.J. Kaiser. 2005b. Importance of attitudinal differences among artisanal fishers towards comanagement and conservation of marine resources. Conservation Biology 19: 865–75. 57 ———. In press a. Co-management policy can reduce resilience in traditionally managed marine ecosystems. Ecosystems. ———. In press b. Heterogeniety in fishers harvesting behavior under a Territorial user rights policy. Ecological Economics. Gobierno de Chile, Proyecto GEF-Marino, PNUD. 2006. Conservación de la biodiversidad de importancia mundial a lo largo de la costa chilena: áreas marinas y costeras protegidas de múltiples usos. Isla Grande de Atacama, Lafken Mapu Lahual y Francisco Coloane. (ed.) CONAMA – PNUD. Santiago, Chile. González, J., W. Stotz, J. Garrido, J.M. Orensanz, A. Parma, C. Tapia, and A. Zuleta. In press. The Chilean TURF system: How is it performing in the case of the loco fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science. Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. 1991. Ministerio de Economía Fomento y Reconstrucción, Gobierno de Chile. Ley N°18892 D.S N°430. Meltzoff, S., Y. Lichtensztajn, and W. Stotz. 2002. Competing visions for marine tenure and co-management: Genesis of a marine management area system in Chile. Coastal Management 30: 85–99. Minn, I., and J.C. Castilla. 1995. Small-scale artisanal fishing and benthic invertebrate management in Caleta Las Cruces, Central Chile. Out of Shell 5: 11–15. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Payne, H.E., and J.C. Castilla. 1994. Socio-biological assessment of common property resource management: Small- scale fishing unions in Central Chile. Out of Shell 4(3): 1–5. Reyes, E. 1988. Nuevo Colapso de la pesquería del “Loco.” Chile Pesquero 47: 41–44. Rovira, J. 2006. Politicas publicas para conservacion y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad: un aporte para la conviven- cia entre mineria y conservacion. Pp. 9–19 in A. Camaño, J.C. Castilla, and J.A. Simonetti (eds.). Mineria y Biodiversidad. Publicaciones de Sonami Chile. Quebecor World Chile S.A., Santiago. Schurman, R. 1996. Snails, Southern hake and sustainability: Neo-liberalism and natural resource exports in Chile. World Development 24. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Technical Advice on the Establishment and Management of a National System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas. CBD Technical Series no. 13. SERNAPESCA. 2004. Análisis de inversión en fomento productivo para la pesca artesanal. http://www.sernapesca.cl. ———. 2005. Informe sectorial pesquero artesanal. Departamento de Pesca Artesanal. http://www.sernapesca.cl Thorpe, A., A. Ibarra, and C. Reid. 1999. The New Economic Model and Fisheries Development in Latin America. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, Research Paper 141. University of Portsmouth, UK.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_58 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 58

Brazil: Dynamics and 6 Challenges of Marine Protected Area Development and Coastal Protection

Alarming changes have been taking place Brazil’s wealth of marine biodiversity and along the Brazilian shore and in the commercially valuable artisanal fisheries are con- country’s tropical shallow-water seas— centrated inshore, within 200 kilometers of the coast (SEAP/PNUD 2006; MMA/PROBIO 2002). changes not just of recent origin attribut- Fishery resources are being rapidly depleted, and able to sharp increases in population and marine biodiversity is severely threatened along the commercial pressures. French marine ecol- entire Brazilian coast (SEAP 2006). The pattern of ogist Jacques Laborel reported in 1969 decline in Brazil’s capture fisheries follows the tra- jectory for capture fisheries for the world as a whole, that the Itaparica reefs in Salvador, showing production increases from 1960 through Bahia, were practically dead due to the 1985, followed by a continual decrease up to the extraction of lime-rich deposits (Cordell present. Virtually all of Brazil’s offshore and shallow-water capture fisheries are stagnating or rapid- 1972). During this same period, analysis ly declining (SEAP/PNUD 2006) (see Figure 6–1). of shellmiddens revealed that even the most marginal “crab scavenger” man- Brazil has never used a system for managing fisheries grove fishing neighborhoods frequently in its coastal waters. For years, the only marine management practices that may have contributed to limiting had to be relocated as communities moved access to fishing grounds were unofficial, informal out in search of more productive foraging ones: local sea tenure systems based on artisanal fish- sites (Cordell 1978). During that period, ers’ vernacular environmental knowledge, kinship and there was no such thing as a Marine social networks, contracts, and alliances and collective sense of “use rights” (Begossi 2006; Cordell 1972, Protected Area (MPA) in Brazil. This 1983, 1989). Significantly, though, artisanal small- chapter highlights the role of marine scale fishing still flourishes in some coastal areas, extractive reserves (MERs) set up for the accounting for an estimated 60 percent of total fish landings in Brazil and 70 percent in the poverty-strick- sustainable use of marine resources by en northeast (Diegues 2002; SEAP/PNUD 2006). traditional communities with a long history and culture. This chapter is an abstract of the case study prepared by John Cordell. The full case study appears in Volume 2.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_59 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 59

Overfishing problems in Brazil began in the 1960s and sustainable resource use regimes. and 1970s, when monofilament nylon fishing gear Unfortunately, these initiatives have for the most 59 was widely introduced without any baseline stock part ignored the coast, fisheries, and a host of high- assessment by SUDEPE (the national fisheries ly threatened natural habitats—inland tropical development agency). Subsequent declining catch aquatic and wetland systems spanning the littoral trends mirror the complex interplay of causative fac- zone, the land-sea interface, and the inshore sea tors fueling the global marine crisis and the litany of (Diegues 2002). direct and indirect threats to coastal fisheries and protected areas, along with the contributing factors Brazil’s coast stretches for about 8,400 kilometers. identified in recent marine policy strategies by the Its population is approaching 185 million; 40 per- World Resources Institute (2000) and others. cent reside in coastal municipalities, which generate 70 percent of the country’s gross national product. Nearly 400 coastal municipalities have a 6.1. mean density of 105 inhabitants per square kilometer. Ninety percent of Brazil’s international com- Can Brazil Afford to Endure merce circulates through 34 major coastal ports, an Open-access Coastal creating more than $100 billion in port business yearly. The coastal zone contains almost a fifth of “Tragedy of the Commons”? the country’s population—about 36.5 million people. Brazilian industrial exports lie primarily in sec- The United Nations Conference on Environment tors with high potential to pollute coastal habitats and Development in Rio in 1992 catapulted Brazil (such as eucalyptus plantations that produce cellu- onto the world environmental stage as a staunch lose, which Brazil leads the world in exporting). supporter of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Economic activities within Brazil’s coastal zone Subsequently, the government embarked on a vigor- have the potential to influence not only the national ous campaign to develop a nationwide system of economy and society, but environmental conditions representative protected areas, more national parks, in the entire South Atlantic.

FIGURE 6.1

Capture Fisheries in Brazil, 1975– 1999 in thousands of metric tons

800

700

600

500

400

300 19751979 1984 1989 1994 1999

Source: SEAP 2006

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_60 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 60

The coast has thus had to bear the brunt of environ- The people and aquatic habitats taking the hardest 60 mental and social costs of post-WWII industrializa- hits—from pollution of land-sea transition zones by tion, urbanization, and modernization. Diegues off-site, upstream agricultural, forest, mining, (2000) notes that some of the worst trouble spots chemical industries and energy producers—are cluster around metropolitan centers, where there is those, like traditional fishers, who can least afford to rapid urbanization, high unemployment, chaotic bear the impacts and costs. growth of industrial (chemical and petro-chemical) complexes, and high-impact tourism. It comes as a shock to fisheries specialists working in countries poorer than Brazil that anyone who is pro- Different, though no less damaging, development fessionally registered and licensed as a member of a scenarios (irrigation, mining) threaten to engulf fishing guild (colonia) can still fish (by law) commer- more remote and still relatively intact rural coastal cially anywhere in Brazil. Aside from this registra- settings, including some locations that lie within tion, which formerly was the only way most declared ecological sanctuaries and biosphere impoverished artisanal fishers could claim a minus- reserves, such as the Saco de Mamangua lagoon cule pension, there is no limited entry, no quotas, and near Paraty in the state of Rio (Nogara 2001) and precious little systematic catch and effort monitoring. the proposed Petrobras/El Paso joint venture for natural gas exploration and production in the Bahia de Limits on fishing pressure are not mandated, nor Camamu, a rich traditional fishing area situated on could they be enforced in any event under the pres- the Costa do Dende in southern Bahia. ent chaotic conditions of resource competition in Brazil. The result has been catastrophic; for exam- Diegues (1998) traces the root causes of coastal habi- ple, export of undersized lobsters to the U.S. market tat and inshore fisheries decline in Brazil to the sin- and the continual use of “banned” hookah rig div- gle-minded pursuit and adoption of export-oriented ing. This is dramatically illustrated in the case of industrial models and policies to spur economic what was once Brazil’s premier rock lobster fishery, growth going back to the 1950s. He points out that which is now totally collapsed. It is questionable putting almost all heavy-polluting industries and whether this fishery could recover in the northeast industrial centers (chemical, petrochemical, fertilizer, and how long it would take (see www.mbayaq.org/cr/ sand and clay heavy-metal mining) in fragile coastal SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=128). areas, estuaries, and bays has spelled disaster for the environment and especially for artisanal fishers. 6.2. Other factors contributing to increasing degradation Taking Stock of the Coastal- of the coastal zone are urbanization and urban sprawl fueled by dramatic increases in migration to cities in Marine Management Toolkit the northeast, expansion of the transportation system linking capital cities along the coast, oil exploration It is important to understand how Brazil’s legislative and drilling, and especially state-sponsored tourism and regulatory frameworks operate and how MERs and recreation projects, notably PRODETUR. and a number of other important coastal marine man- Lucrative tax incentives to develop industrial fish- agement (CMM) tools—Environmental Protection eries and large-scale shrimp farming are generating Areas (APAs), Category II multiuse reserves zoned to short-term profits for investors, but also intensifying combine public and private property, and Category competition for limited coastal space and resources III Sustainable Development Reserves (RDSs)—are and contributing to extensive mangrove deforestation. codified and managed within the National System of (For more details on levels and the pattern of degra- Conservation Units (SNUC, for Sistema Nacional de dation of estuarine ecosystems in Brazil, see Diegues Unidades de Conservação da Natureza). The consti- 1995, 2005; also MMA no date.) tutional framework establishing Brazil’s integrated

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_61 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 61

coastal management (ICM) system and tools (known • II–Sustainable Use Areas, also called Direct-Use as GERCO), which also designated the coastal zone Conservation Units. These include environmental 61 as national patrimony in 1988, follows a separate leg- protection areas, areas of significant ecological islative process. (For details of the evolution of interest, national forests, extractive reserves, national ICM policies and management institutions in fauna reserves, sustainable development Brazil, see Asmus and others 2004.) reserves, and private reserves of natural heritage.

The federal law creating the SNUC was promulgat- The Brazil country study sought to document the ed in July 2000 and defines the management system range of management systems currently operating or for all Brazilian protected areas. Currently, all con- being developed in Brazil and officially known and servation units within the SNUC are classified in designated as MPAs, although on closer inspection two groups (summarized in SNUC 2004): MPAs there encompass tools ranging from Category I to IV in the study typology. As noted in Chapter 2, • I–Absolutely Protected Areas, also called Indirect- conventional terminology used to distinguish a Use Conservation Units. These include ecological highly enclosed Marine Park class of MPAs is stations, biological reserves, parks, natural mon- becoming increasingly blurred and blended with uments, and wildlife refuges. Categories II, III, and IV, so that MERs that belong

FIGURE 6.2

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_62 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 62

in Category IV (culture-ecological reserves) are now known marine parks are Atol das Rocas, Parque 62 widely referred to as Marine Protected Areas. Public Nacional dos Abrolhos in southern Bahia, and the and scientific debates are ongoing with respect to island of Fernando de Noronha (see MMA 2002). the adequacy of the existing reserve classification The multiuse tools represented in Brazil’s toolkit system and its ability to capture and reflect critical (Environmental Protection Areas) are established in distinctions among natural resource management almost every coastal state in Brazil and may also be approaches and tool types, most recently in connec- established on different levels—federal, state, or tion with proposals to establish more Sustainable even municipal. Development Reserves. Lima (2006) analyzed the legal (juridica) provisions for RDSs within the At this point, it is unlikely that any existing admin- SNUC framework and found numerous inconsisten- istrative or institutional governance framework in cies, contradictions, and problematic interpreta- Brazil’s MPA toolkit could be adapted to cross tions of the legislation in terms of supporting and jurisdictions and sectors or could bridge “ecosys- legitimizing proposals to create new RDS systems in temic” biological scales to achieve MPA network different regions, including critical discrepancies in benefits, with one notable exception: integrated SNUC as applied to land and marine settings. coastal management.

Figure 6–2 illustrates Brazil’s coastal marine biodi- After considering field reports, government docu- versity prioritization and ranking drawn from the ments, and specialized libraries in university base map Areas Prioritarias Para Conservacao research centers (nucleos de pesquisa), and after Utilizacao Sustentavel e Reparticao de Beneficios da extensive consultations with regulatory and policy- Biodiversidade Brasileira. setting agencies in Brasilia to compare CMM tools, the case study identified the two most promising Brazil possesses a number of national offshore tool types Brazil possesses that might serve as plat- marine parks (typology Category I). The most well forms for scaling up MPAs: the MER system, creat-

Sequentially deploying beach seines and encircling nets in the Extractive Reserve of Arraial do Cabo – photo by Acervo CNPT/IBAMA

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_63 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 63

ed in 1994 and still in an early phase, and a fairly 6.3. mature system of ICM. The Marine Extractive 63 The lead, coordinating agency for the MER system (and for all extractive reserves) is the Centro Reserve System Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado das Populacoes Tradicionais (CNPT, National Center of The case study determined that efforts to create a Traditional Peoples and Sustainable Development), national MER system—networking MER sites and located within IBAMA (the Brazilian Institute of the communities, and other protected area sites along Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). A Brazil’s coast—merited a special focus. MERs (or profile of the history and scope of work of CNPT in Portuguese Resex or Resex Azul, short for Reservas within IBAMA can be found at www.ibama.gov.br/ Extrativistas Marinhas) are characterized by a novel resex/cnpt.htm. GERCO, on the other hand, combination of a community-based, sustainable use operates within the Coastal-Marine Division (Núcleo framework that incorporates both conservation and da Zona Costeira e Marinha, Secretaria de cultural preservation values. MERs vary consider- Biodiversidade e Florestas) of the MMA. ably from one site to the next along the coast in respect to size, biogeographic setting, extractive MER is a community-based, site-specific, multiuse puprposes, zonation, and community composition land and sea resource management approach based (Maldonado 2000; Nogara 2005). They are unlike on claims of culturally distinct groups with long- most multiuse approaches in several key respects. standing livelihood ties to “artisan-scale” production Rather than being primarily biodiversity-driven, the territories. Many of these communities are artisanal MER framework enables communities to set up spe- fishers (Begossi 2004; Ramalho 2002; Pinto da Silva cial, limited-access, protected areas with use rights 2002, 2004). MER communities tend to be cultural- and zonation based on demonstrating and maintain- ly heterogeneous, traditional “non-indigenous” soci- ing collective, sociocultural, artisanal production eties. Some are quite remote. Many have come to identities, long-standing ties to coastal livelihood serve as refuge areas for fishers who are among the territories, and sustainable fisheries. poorest of the coastal poor. And some (such as Corumbau in southern Bahia) contain enclaves of MERs are essentially an effort to modify and extend Tupi-Guarani indigenous groups. The Brazilian coast the concept of extractive reserves— a conservation still harbors a surprising number of indigenous pop- and sustainable development framework successful- ulations (see MMA/PROBIO 2002; Diegues and ly instituted in western Amazonian forest (primarily Arruda 2001). Some groups and their coastal territo- rubber-tapper) economies—to coastal aquatic and ries and settlements are now being incorporated in marine domains of traditional fishing communities MERs, a process that is facilitated by the special pro- (ELI 1995; CNPT 2001; Cunha 2001; Diegues tected status of indigenous peoples under national 2001). The initiative is attractive in that it has the culture heritage and social legislation. potential to unify and reconcile elements that all too often are seen as incompatible: traditional culture GERCO (ICM), in contrast, is a centralized, scien- heritage and cultural resource preservation needs, tifically sophisticated, hierarchical, administrative sustainable local fisheries, and conservation of coastal development planning framework. To date, marine biological diversity (Cordell 2003). Focusing ICM in Brazil has mainly been used for mapping, on MERs in part stems from the World Bank’s geo-referencing, and meta-data management. It is expectation that Brazil’s experience since 1994 in designed to assist and guide rational development developing an extractive approach to MPAs may and protection of coastal territories and environ- provide lessons for MPA architects working on sim- ments at minimal municipal unit levels. (Brazil has ilarly impoverished tropical coasts where biodiver- 400 contiguous coastal administrative units.) sity is also extremely threatened.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_64 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 64

FIGURE 6.3

Marine Extractive Reserves in Brazil

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_65 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 65

Various provisions of national environmental and through the creation of national terrestrial parks protected area legislation (SNUC 2004), civil codes, (which prohibit extractive uses) and resident com- 65 and international treaties to which Brazil is a signa- munities inside the parks and, as noted earlier, tory (such as the Convention on Biological through urbanization and the increasing appropria- Diversity) endorse the principles on which collection and privatization of coastal space through the tively held marine extractive reserves are based, growth of state-sponsored tourism, luxury resorts, along with the mission of the National Center of and industries and port facilities. To date, marine Traditional Peoples and Sustainable Development parks in Brazil have had minimal impact in dislo- within IBAMA (Portaria IBAMA No. 22 / 2-10-92). cating or disenfranchising traditional, artisanal fishers (and several marine parks allow subsistence MER experiences in Brazil are also of interest fishing activities for long-established communities because of good practice guidelines they may reveal of traditional fishers and shellfishers). regarding social criteria, values, and indicators that may provide essential cultural compatibility ingredi- As shown in Figure 6–3, currently there are 28 ents for MPA effectiveness (including implications extractive reserves in nine Brazilian states, stretch- for strengthening tools in Typology Categories I–III). ing from Para to Santa Catarina and encompassing 735,000 hectares of sea space. Existing MER com- From the standpoint of this report’s objectives, the munities contain approximately 40,000 artisanal Brazil country study asks, How have MERs fishers. An additional 68 MER proposals are under evolved? How well are they working? What does the consideration by the Brazilian Environment future hold for the MER approach? And, finally, by Agency for strategic sites in 15 of Brazil’s 17 integrating fisheries, albeit on small scales, are coastal states. A new, very large MER (approxi- MERs a way to empower local communities in mately 100,000 hectares) was decreed in June marine management, to create sustainable inshore 2006 in Canavieras, Bahia, 500 kilometers south of fisheries, to forge a pathway out of poverty, and to Salvador, the state capital. build a foundation for scaling up to meet marine management challenges? A Success Story: Mandira Extractive Brazil has many culturally diverse small-scale (arti- Reserve, Southeast Brazil sanal) fishing societies—traditional raft, canoe, hull In the rural villages of Cananéia in southeastern sailboat (saveiro), and other small-boat fishers Brazil, marine-related activities are important, (Jangadeiros, Caicaras, Praieras, Ribeirinhos, along with small-scale agriculture and foraging and Caboclos, and Quilombolas). A recent report by subsistence economies, in a complementary rela- CNPT/IBAMA for the Environment Minister, who in tionship linked to natural cycles and market condi- 2005 created a National Sustainable Development tions (Sales and Maldonado 2000). Artisanal fishing Commission for Traditional Communities (including has a long history in the region, but shellfish har- 220 culturally distinct indigenous societies), esti- vesting has been of economic importance for at least mates that Brazil has 4.5 million traditional inhabi- 40 years and is mostly based on family artisan-pro- tants occupying 176 million hectares distributed duction units. Estuaries in the region are particular- across inland and coastal states. ly important in terms of their natural productivity.

CNPT/IBAMA is in the process of systematically Taking into account local communities' traditional assessing prospects for extending the MER system management practices and the initial recognition of to a wider range of traditional non-indigenous pop- the region's importance in the 1970s and 1980s, a ulations whose mixed economies still rely heavily on starting point for the history of the Mandira small-scale fishing. Many such communities are Extractive Reserve (Reserva Extrativista do being dislocated, fragmented, and marginalized Mandira) is the formative period 1984–89, when a

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_66 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 66

participatory process of coastal zone regional plan- MER projects, like nearly all MPAs, tend to be 66 ning was conducted in the area. This initiative was politically controversial. Some critics of Mandira reinforced during 1994–97 by the collaborative viewed the project as “primitive” and out of place in planning and zoning process for the Cananéia- a so-called more-developed region of Brazil (the Iguape-Peruíbe APA. A pilot project launched in coast of the state of São Paulo). Eventually, though, 1994 led ultimately to the creation of the Mandira Mandira won over opponents and created alliances Extractive Reserve (see Figure 6–4). and innovative partnerships that contributed significantly to its success (Sales and Maldonado 2000). The Mandira community has been in the area since the eighteenth century, first involved in agriculture but gradually shifting to seafood harvesting due to MER Benefits and Management changing economic conditions, pressures for land, Challenges and environmental restrictions. Mandira is a In the case of Mandira, project results include tan- quilombo—a community made up of slave-descen- gible benefits to the regional economy and the dants who trace their local residence and ancestry restoration of cultural values and environmental over generations (through Catholic Church records quality. Local communities that had been socially and oral histories). Mandira, like other quilombolas, and economically downtrodden have found pride has its collective rights over the land protected through their fishing activities and through working under Brazilian legislation. to enhance the quality of (and prices for) their products. At the same time, consumers in urban markets It took nearly 10 years (1994–2004) to establish the have access to a higher quality, safer, more sustain- Mandira Extractive Reserve participatory proposal able product based on harvesting and processing and the oyster regulation procedure. This is not activities that are environmentally sensitive. unusual in Brazil or in similar community-based MPAs in other parts of the world (such as the There have also been noticeable conservation and Philippines). In retrospect, however, a long-term cultural benefits. This has not only permitted the process of consultation for stakeholders, planning, maintenance and enhanced appreciation of artisan- and decision making is worthwhile and leads to bet- scale production, but good, locally available seafood ter outcomes and prospects for sustaining a reserve. encourages tourism and is starting to create conditions for future generations to make their own eco- All MER proposals legally require broad, thorough, nomic choices. In many ways, the experience of stakeholder consultation, participatory discussion of Mandira restores extractive activities to their proper regional problems (consultas publicas), and careful place—where knowledge and management prac- documentation of community membership and spe- tices of local communities are adapting to moderni- cial connections to extractive areas through tradi- ty while retaining elements of traditional knowledge tional economic practices and products (see Roteiro and livelihoods. Metodologico, CNPT 2005). In Mandira, as in most reserve communities, it was essential to provide a It is also important to highlight the extent of cultur- suite of technical training and support activities: to al documentation and ethnographic inputs required develop a bookkeeping system, explore new market to develop MERs—from original proposal submis- outlets, communicate the special circumstances and sion to monitoring and evaluation and to both inter- importance of sustainable production, and provide nal and external conflict resolution. And in Brazil, assistance in selling products and growing a busi- anthropologists with long-standing ties to communi- ness. Above all, MERs are required to develop ties tend to help legitimize and create a credible sound site management plans and principles guided image for reserves; they exercise a critical “gate- by the Roteiro Metodologico. keeping” and brokering role in relationships with regulatory agencies to affirm and reinforce the

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_67 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 67

FIGURE 6.4 67 Mandira Extractive Reserve

power of community decision making—as provided framework that could serve as a model for other under Brazil’s extractive reserve legislation in pro- countries whose coastal waters, like Brazil’s, do not posing reserve sites and preparing, approving, and contain extensive coral reefs, but where it still implementing site-specific management plans. essential to protect longshore coastal biodiversity distributed across many different coastal habitats. If the MER initiative is successful, Brazil may even- What is perhaps the most critical issue for MER at tually establish a socially responsive, economically this juncture, however, is that CNPT is far from hav- realistic, and environmentally sound multi-use MPA ing the technical capacity and experience working

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_68 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 68

with MPAs to implement and manage a full-fledged ers—to coordinate and oversee fisheries develop- 68 national MER network. Note, however, that the stage ment and management. The fact that steps were taken is set for a new era of capacity building to strengthen from the outset to create a special artisanal fisheries CNPT’s scope of work as a result of a series of insti- department within SEAP indicates the high priority tutional and management innovations recently com- and commitment the government assigns to deliver- pleted within IBAMA (in May-June 2006). CNPT is ing socioeconomic and resource management assis- now set to operate more effectively as an integral part tance to coastal fishing communities. These actions of the newly created Socio-Environmental kindled high expectations that SEAP could become a Directorate within IBAMA: DISAM (Diretoria strong advocate for artisanal fishing communities, SocioAmbiental), designed to unify various sociocul- taking the initiative as a public agency to deal fairly tural and biological dimensions of protected area with destructive conflicts within the fishing industry management (such as environmental education). and helping local fishers defend their interests in the overall development context of increasingly predatory, competing coastal economies. 6.4. SEAP’s efforts to establish socially just, sustain- SEAP: A Promising New able fisheries is a long-range goal that will eventually require a fundamental transformation in the Development on Coastal way fisheries resources, the coastal zone, and Management and Fisheries inshore waters are perceived, classified, used, and managed in Brazil. Instituting appropriate fisheries With the creation in 2002 of a first-of-its-kind policies, resource management, and use-rights national fisheries agency—the Special Secretariat frameworks that take into account the versatility for Aquaculture and Fisheries (SEAP), which is and regional variability of Brazil’s artisanal fish- going to have broad, national policy-setting and reg- eries and that can help bring about critically need- ulatory powers—an exceptional opportunity now ed changes within the fishing industry, related exists to take steps to counter and reverse alarming economies, and environmental sectors is going to coastal habitat degradation and depletion of marine be a gradual process. resources while at the same time extending socioeconomic assistance to marginal fishing communities. Overall, priorities and goals of the Lula government create favorable political conditions for 6.5. this. MER objectives are broadly compatible with Durability and Adaptability the aims of the Brazilian government’s Zero Hunger (Fome Zero) campaign. of Artisanal Fishing

For the first time in history Brazil is starting to Artisanal systems are highly vulnerable to a variety develop capacity and plans to manage fisheries, of pressures, including uncontrolled development in especially artisanal fisheries. Could this signal the other industries operating at the land-sea interface, end of the centuries-old, “open-to-the-public” phi- population pressure in the coastal zone, and expan- losophy of fisheries development? sion of other, more modernized inshore fisheries, as well as industrial fleets operating offshore. Yet The establishment of SEAP sent a strong message to small-scale inshore fishing traditions continue to Brazil’s coastal fishing communities and associations expand, and remain the economic backbone for (LeRoy and Silvestre 2003) about how seriously the Brazil’s coastal poor. An estimated 2 million or more government regarded the need for a specialized fishers and their families depend on the artisanal agency—with broad, national policy-setting pow- fishing economy. (See Figure 6–5.)

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_69 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 69

FIGURE 6.5 69 Total Landings: Share Artisanal and Industrial Fishing

800 60% Artesenal adas) l e 600 l a 40% tesa n

que (to n 400 Industrial % a r ba r 20% 200 Dese m

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Source: SEAP 2006 (Nas Redes Da Pesca Artesanal)

In Brazil, as in many other tropical countries, arti- wide range of traditional tenure arrangements and of sanal fisheries are typically embedded in mixed fishing and resource use-rights customs and princi- land and sea-based economies, having both com- ples involving systems of traditional resource man- mercial, semi-commercial, and subsistence compo- agement knowledge (conhecimento manejo nents. In some cases, very little of the catch from tradicional) (Cordell 2002). These traditional ele- artisanal production passes through the marketplace ments have been shown to have pronounced at all; however, this does not mean it is any less crit- resource impacts, though they are often hard to ical to the livelihood of impoverished populations. interpret and quantify. To the contrary, it is often the backbone for marginal communities in terms of food supply and income, Strong local stakeholder demands have recently led to where there are few alternatives. the creation of “fisheries forums” (forums de pesca) in several states (Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, A second feature distinguishing artisanal produc- Ceará). Local nongovernmental organization s (NGOs) tion is its extreme variability and versatility. in partnership with artisanal fishing communities, Artisanal fisheries are multi-species, multi-pur- plus fishers’ representative organizations (MONAPE, pose, and multi-dimensional. They use remarkably Pastoral de Pesca) and university research centers varied technologies in terms of equipment and fish- (such as NUPAUB-U of São Paulo) are networking and ing craft, which run the gamut from traditional to providing technical and scientific support to help high-tech. A diversity of habitats and coastal micro- drive these initiatives (such as TerraMar in Ceará). environments is used for fishing. These fisheries are These developments are very encouraging. In some also characterized by a division of labor across cases, they are becoming linked to existing MERs that households, communities, and task groups. This together provide useful structures and conceptual helps explain artisanal resiliency and staying power frameworks within which scaled up coastal-marine alluded to earlier and confirmed by catch data. management systems are starting to evolve.

A third characteristic is that artisanal fishing tends CNPT is a focal point and is becoming a “center of to be strongly associated with specific community- excellence” among government agencies in imple- based, inshore territories, which are held under a menting multi-use protected areas involving tradi-

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_70 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 70

tional populations. It stands to play a more exten- Itacolomis reefs are located in front of the Ponta do 70 sive role in future marine management, including Corumbau, close to where the Portuguese first land- fisheries management and extension work, as the ed in Brazil in 1500. From the sea, the terrestrial current government takes steps to foster greater park of Monte Pascoal can be seen. The Corumbau interagency cooperation in all areas of natural reefs, the largest group of reefs in the Abrolhos resource management, bolstered by initiatives of the Archipelago, until recently were practically Ministry of Science and Technology and Brazil’s unknown to scientists, especially outside of Brazil. National Research Council that are meant to The Itacomis have a rich coral fauna as well as rel- encourage applied research, policy inputs, and part- atively high cover, particularly of Mussismila caver- nerships with academic institutions relevant to gov- nos, M. brazilensis, and Siderastrea stellata, which ernment programs. are biologically representative of the range of Abrolhos corals. Furthermore, according to biological surveys carried out before the creation of the reserve, the richness of the species, the coralline 6.6. cover, and the condition of the colonies—particular- Scaling Up for Survival in ly the hydrocoral Milepora alcionis—indicate that the Itacolomis reefs are still in a good state of con- Southern Bahia: The Corumbau servation (CI-Brazil 2000, 2006). MER and an Emerging Mosaic The Bahia coastline also harbors some of the most of Land and Sea Reserves extensive remaining areas of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, the most important portions of which fall The Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau was within a range of land and sea protected areas. The established in 2000 through a Presidential Decree. MER at Corumbau, for example, borders on Monte The Corumbau MER comprises 98,174 hectares, Pascoal National Park, which includes both non- spanning the municipalities of Porto Seguro and indigenous traditional populations and indigenous Prado in the southern coast of Bahia. peoples’ reserves.

Corumbau is a federal conservation unit/entity, so Establishing Corumbau illustrates how MERs differ IBAMA is responsible for its management. from processes involved in creating other types of Corumbau is intended to protect marine biodiversi- protected areas in Brazil (national parks, APAs, or ty and improve livelihoods in five small fishing sustainable development reserves) in that the communities and one Indigenous Pataxós group. All demand came from the local Corumbau community, six villages depend on reef and soft-bottom fishes which in 1998 petitioned CNPT-IBAMA to conduct captured with hand-lines, spears, and nets; on feasibility assessments to find out whether local trawled shrimp (recently introduced); and on small- fishing areas could meet the criteria for a MER (or scale tourism. Corumbau was the first MER specif- some other MPA type). To expedite this process, ically designed to protect coral reefs. Considering IBAMA signed a technical cooperation agreement fishers and their families officially registered as with Conservation Internatiaonl–Brazil. That pro- members of the MER, roughly 1,750 people depend vided biological and socioeconomic surveys of the directly on the extractive activities in this area. areas and is also leading to the development of a monitoring program and a plan for the use and man- The Corumbau MER features important ecosystems agement of the unit. Although it is a new conserva- within the Abrolhos complex, which includes coral tion unit, the Corumbau MER already has a reefs and marine and coastal e-nvironments situat- Deliberative Council and is drafting a management ed south of the Jequitinhonra River to the border plan that embodies a strong participatory approach, between the states of Bahia and Espírito Santo. The with provisions for ongoing participatory monitor-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_71 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 71

6th anniversary celebration of the Ponta do Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve – photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura, Conservation International, Abrolhos, Brazil

ing, and decisions about zoning. This will include The process of establishing MERs and the prospects two fully protected marine areas (Itacolomis and for expanding the system have become increasingly Taua Reefs) and seven zones to restrict use of river- problematic and politically contested as entrepre- ine areas and resources with MER boundaries neurs and commercial enterprises, often tied to dis- (Carava, Corumbau, Cahy, and Imbassuaba); tant markets, explore opportunities to invest in restrictions on fishing gear (beach seines, trammel Brazil’s marginal, remote, and sparsely populated nets, trotlines, and longlines); and seasonal use of shores and seascapes. What were sea frontiers only nearshore habitats adjacent to the Indian Village of a few years ago are rapidly succumbing to commer- Barra Velha. These restrictions also extend to the cialization and colonization. As competition to Japara Basin and Tatuacu Reef, where there are appropriate coastal sea space intensifies, MER additional measures to protect species. sites—and for that matter, all protected area types in the littoral zone—are encountering formidable The case study found that perhaps the most grave, opposition from pro-development state and munici- immediate threat to coastal biodiversity, artisanal pal governments. fisheries, and the livelihoods of coastal residents in Brazil is the unregulated, highly speculative, often Southern Bahia provides a more striking illustration environmentally destructive expansion of large- of the nature of these conflicts, of why and how they scale shrimp farming (carcinicultura), especially in are escalating, and of the environmental and social the northeast (see LeRoy and Silvestre 2003; risks Brazil runs in allowing states and municipali- UNDP/GEF 2006see also Harvey 2003). Brazilian ties to actively promote high-impact coastal devel- shrimp farming exports jumped from $14 million in opment. A proposal to create the region’s largest 1999 to $244.5 million in 2003 and are projected to shrimp farm there endangers the unique, southern- reach $500 million by 2005—but at what price to most coral reef complex in the South Atlantic—the fragile coastal habitats? Abrolhos Archipelago. The proposed 1,500-hectare

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_72 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 72

large-scale shrimp farming operation would produce it could be applicable to MPAs facing similar prob- 72 an alien (Pacific) species (Litopenaeus vannamei) lems: IBAMA invoked its power recently to declare for the export market. Not only will the project an extension of the buffer zone (zona de amorteci- induce mangrove deforestation and sedimentation mento) surrounding the Abrolhos National Park (see and pollute estuarine larval areas, but IBAMA stud- Figure 6–6). This zone, 482 kilometers long and ies indicate that winds and currents will disperse 213 kilometers wide, now effectively encapsulates pollutants and potentially interfere in life cycles the Coopex impact zone. The upshot is that in order and reproduction of fish species over the long run to proceed, the company will now need an environ- throughout the Abrolhos Bank habitats. Moreover, mental license from IBAMA, a federal agency, Conservation International, which maintains a which trumps Bahia state and municipal authorities. research station in the region, estimates that the Coopex operation could adversely affect the liveli- A number of important points can be drawn from hoods of 20,000 artisanal fishers and displace 350 studying the politics of MPA development in Southern poor families who depend directly on shellfish with- Bahia. First, MER initiatives in the area at this point in the Cassuruba mangrove MER site. are less a trial of the comparative effectiveness of multi-use, social protection modalities in the MPA Local fishing communities, environmentalists, and toolkit than a test of whether demarcated, protected federal authorities have few legal alternatives for sea territories can withstand pressures from beyond contesting the project assessment and approval their boundaries at the sea edge and inland. The ques- process in Bahia. (Figure 6–6 indicates the direct tion is, Will MERs ever really be given a chance to impact zone of the shrimp farming project, in the fulfill their original zoning and marine management midst of a group of existing and proposed MER functions apart from becoming a stop-gap line of sites, the Abrolhos National Marine Park, Monte defense against off-site development threats? Pascoal National Park, and environs). Battle lines are now clearly drawn, with IBAMA, a coalition of Second, on the positive side, the prospect of shrimp local environmental and social advocacy NGOs farming in the Abrolhos region has generated a (SOS Abrolhos), MER communities, and traditional sobering assessment of the negative repercussions fishers facing off against local mayors, 16 powerful that a whole host of development plans (oil and nat- landowner associations, the Bahia state environ- ural gas exploration, pulp manufacturing, luxury mental permitting agency (CRA), the governor of resorts) could bring to the still unspoiled coast of Bahia, and six federal senators, including some Southern Bahia and of new strategies for protecting from the neighboring state of Espírito Santo who are biodiversity. Researchers, conservation NGOs in favor of the Coopex project. (including the SOS coalition), and CNPT-IBAMA and national park authorities are exploring novel In the absence of an effective ICM planning and possibilities of reinforcing and linking management governance regime, coupled with a rigorous, legally of protected areas in a way that would protect the enforceable environmental licensing system to sphere of interaction of biological processes and ensure enterprise compliance with regulations, the biodiversity at the land-sea interface. Existing only thing temporarily keeping the Coopex shrimp MPAs, though established somewhat opportunisti- farm from starting up is the previously gazetted cally, nonetheless form a “mosaic.” As in other complex of protected areas. How the politics of this parts of Brazil where mosaics have been identified conflict will play out and whether the MER of (such as Guaraquecaba), the social networking that Corumbau, the SOS coalition, and the new MER site is increasing across protected areas in Southern (Cassuruba) will succeed in holding the line Bahia may provide a foundation for scaling up through legal maneuvers is an open question. In the coastal management—helping to bridge both geo- meantime, IBAMA has come up with a strategy that graphic and institutional gaps that impede biologi- could provide a solution, which is noteworthy in that cal connectivity.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_73 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 73

Third, even if Brazil had the political will and Brazil. Along with open access, this has ominous resources to allocate in constructing an MPA network, implications for protected areas, particularly MPAs, 73 without concomitant integration of land and marine currently less capable of boundary defense and management, an MPA network— however strategical- enforcement than most protected areas on land. ly designed from a scientific standpoint—could still Companies frequently take advantage of a loophole be overrun by commercial expansion. Lack of clearly in licensing stemming from long-running federal- defined tenure provisions invites unsustainable devel- state jurisdictional conflicts and disjunctions. As opment of nearshore waters held as open-access com- things now stand, state environmental agencies have mons, which makes it difficult to locate and focus considerable autonomy and latitude to issue permits accountability for actions that have spillover effects. for development projects without IBAMA’s approval, thereby avoiding more stringent federal oversight. Fourth, the course of events in Southern Bahia exposes a fundamental flaw in the legal and organi- And fifth, the project approval/licensing loophole zational structure of environmental licensing in issue is only one gap in a chain of institutional

FIGURE 6.6

Distribution of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_74 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 74

weaknesses and national-to-local discontinuities remains the only existing, legally founded structure 74 contributing to environmental crises in Brazil. with conceptual integration and scientific potential Another major deficiency concerns the limited way to span administrative jurisdictions and coordinate ICM is currently practiced and set up to operate in competing economies and protected area measures Brazil (through GERCO). For example, GERCO on big-picture scales—the factors this study has does have key information, though not the power to identified as prerequisites for effective coastal- intervene in the predicament in Southern Bahia. To marine management. date, Brazil—like many other countries—has used ICM primarily as a methodology, a modeling tool Brazil is much better equipped than many wealthi- and GIS database. The system is not set up to work er countries to conduct environmental assessments in unison with policy setting, governance, and and protected-area planning with state-of-the-art resource management authorities, backed up by law technology. Capacity-building gains in this area are enforcement, to play the major, inter-agency, coordi- in large measure attributable to a series of World nating role that Brazil urgently needs to institute Bank/GEF investments and Bank-assisted projects science-based, cross-sectoral coastal management. to strengthen biodiversity conservation (see PNMA 2004). Brazil has recently conducted what is perhaps the most detailed assessment of coastal-marine 6.7. conservation priorities of any country in Latin The Case for Strengthening America. In 1973, increasing awareness of its strategic position as a coastal state led Brazil to cre- Integrated Coastal Management ate its first marine policy-making process, institutionalized as the Interministerial Commission of Sea The case study provided an opportunity for an Resources (CIRM), which in turn was authorized to update on Brazil’s ICM program (GERCO), which develop a national policy for coastal regions. In received substantial financing from the World Bank 1980, this culminated in Brazil’s National Marine (for example, Project Orla) (Tomassi 2004). ICM— Resources Policy. Its principal aim was to connect along with MERs and establishment of SEAP—is sectors and agencies within the government with the third alternative in Brazil’s coastal-MPA toolkit various jurisdictions and mandates for marine that warrants special attention in the country study resource management, including integration of the context. ICM, despite the limitations noted earlier, territorial sea and continental shelf. CIRM continues to act as the “articulator” between public and private sectors and marine policy setting.

To reiterate, GERCO has the only administrative portfolio in Brazil sufficient in scope to unify the management of activities in the coastal zone and to, in cooperation with IBAMA, facilitate and monitor compliance with international environmental agreements and mandates in coastal- marine areas. Currently, these functions are scattered across various ministries, some of which are reluctant to relinquish turf and responsibilities; for example, IBAMA is reluctant to divest its licensing and central data management duties to the new fisheries agency, the Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries.

Reefs at Cumuruxatiba marine extractive reserve — photo by Enrico Marone, CI Brazil

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_75 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 75

6.8. undercut from (uncontrolled) upstream, inland, and off-site network threats remain extraordinarily high. Lessons from Brazil’s Coastal 75 Paradoxically, on the issue of MPA expansion, in and Marine Management Brazil much more pressing near-term needs Experience involve, first, “scaling down” to consolidate and learn more from existing individual MPA experi- The only existing mechanism that could perform ences, which could subsequently become nuclei, higher-order marine management and coordinating building blocks, and learning centers for transfer- tasks in Brazil is ICM. The potential benefits of ring lessons to other areas via diffusion, replica- scaling up via ICM are clearly demonstrated in the tion, and adaptive radiation and, second, scaling Philippines country study. The economic and sector across sectors to help reserves defend against off- work carried out in Brazil confirms that GERCO has site threats and against destructive impacts of the analytical capacity and plans in place to imple- expanding extractive economies in surrounding ment ICM in Brazil’s 400 coastal municipalities. production landscapes. What GERCO faces (but eventually may be able to overcome) are a range of political and institutional Basic technical assistance, ideally within an ICM constraints, as well as private sector interests, that frameowrk, is urgently needed to jointly strenghten are encumbering implementation of the system at the Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and the local level to manage development. To date, Fisheries and CNPT-IBAMA, the Fishery Co- Brazil’s experience in ICM remains uneven because Management Forum, and Fisheries Accords mecha- constraints on and opportunities to implement ICM nisms—all of which have intersecting governance vary markedly across states and municipalities. At mandates, policy implementation, skills transfer the same time, it is important to point out that a and training needs (for instance, in the process of number of states are reporting good progress in preparing artisanal fisheries management plans and using ICM (such as Santa Catarina, São Paulo, MER site management plans, data management, Pernambuco, and Ceará). and tracking tools).

This first point comes back to this report’s examina- Future development assistance or investments that tion of issues not yet receiving adequate attention or the World Bank or other donors may decide to direct assessment in proposals and arguments from con- to the coastal-marine sector cannot afford to focus servation groups and marine management agencies exclusively on resource management issues, simply that are advocating creation of global MPA net- from a capacity-building and institutional strength- works. Even if the sea in Brazil were filled with a ening viewpoint. Conservation assistance strategies latticework or network of MPAs (closed areas) to cannot fail to address pressing socioeconomic con- match biological scales (geared to support connec- cerns and the need to create safety nets for artisanal tivity) and the country could overcome tactical fishers and MER communities—people who live in problems of enforcing closures, the likelihood and poverty and often in remote areas without access to risks that eventually such networks would still be basic services or infrastructure.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec2_76 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 76

References 76

Asmus, M.S., E.V. Marroni, and G.G. Vieira. 2004. Ocean Policy in Brazil (draft). Federal University of Rio Grande, Brazil. Begossi, A. 2006. Temporal stability in fishing spots: conservation and co-management in Brazilian artisanal coastal fisheries. Ecology and Society 11(1): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art5/ Begossi, A. (ed.). 2004. Ecologia de Pescadores da Mata Atlantica e da Amazonia. Ecologia e Cultura 6, direcao de Antonio Carlos Diegues. Editora HUCITEC, NUPAUB/USP, FAPESP, NEPAM/UNICAMP. São Paulo, Brazil. Conservation International (CI-Brazil). 2000. Abrolhos Aquatic Biodiversity Survey. Washington, DC. ———. 2006. Abrolhos pode ter mais especies do que o Caribe inteiro. O Estado de São Paulo. June 10. CNPT (National Center of Traditional Peoples and Sustainable Development). 2001. Reservas Extrativistas, Termos de Referencia, Plano de Manejo de Uso Multiplo. Documentacao Para Discussao Publica. IBAMA. Brasília. ———. 2005. Roteiro Metodologico: Plano de Manejo de Uso Multiplo das Reservas Extrativistas Fererais. (E. Rodrigues, A.C. de Paula, and C.M. Araujo, eds.). IBAMA. Brasília. Cordell, J. 1972. The Ecology of Estuarine Canoe Fishing Systems in Northeast Brazil. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Dept. of Anthropology, Stanford University. ———. 1978. Swamp dwellers of Bahia. Natural History. June: 62–74. ———. 1983. Locally Managed Sea Territories. In Proceedings, FAO Roundtable on Coastal and Lagoon Fisheries Management, J. Kapetsky (ed.), Studies and Reviews, 403–29, FAO Fisheries, Rome. ———(ed.). 1989. A Sea of Small Boats. Cultural Survival. Cambridge, Mass. ———. 2002. Remapping the Waters: The Significance of Sea Tenure-Based Protected Areas. Keynote Address. III Conference on Property Rights, Economics and the Environment: Marine Resources. Centre d’Analyse Economique de l’Universite d’ Aix-Marseille. In: Marine Resources, Property Rights, Economics and Environment. M. Falque, M. de Alessi, and H. Lamotte (eds.). Vol. 14, International Review of Comparative Public Policy. pp. 265–493. Elsevier Science. Amsterdam. ———. 2003. Brazil’s Coastal Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) Initiative:Protected Area Management Capacity- Building, Social Policy, and Technical Assistance Needs Assessment. Consultancy Report. The Ford Foundation (Rio Office) and IBAMA/CNPT (Centro Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado das Populacoes Tradicionais). Brasília. July. Cunha, L.H. 2001. Reservas Extrativistas: Uma Alternativa de Producao e Conservacao da Biodiversidade. Manuscript (unpublished). NUPAUB. Diegues, A.C. 1995. A realidades e falacias sobre pescadores artesanais. In A.C. Diegues (ed.). Povos e Mares. NUPAUB. ———. 1998. Human populations and coastal wetlands: conservation and management in Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management. 42. ——— (ed.). 2000. Ethnoconservacao da Natureza: Enfoques Alternativos. In A. Diegues (ed.) Ethnoconservacao. Hucitec / NUPAUB. ———. 2001. Traditional Fisheries Knowledge and Social Appropriation of Marine Resources in Brazil. Paper presented at Mare Conference: People and the Sea. Amsterdam. August/September. ———. 2002. Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil: Potential, Constraints and Strategies for Sustainable Development. NUPAUB. University of São Paulo. Diegues, A.C. and R.S.V. Arruda. 2001. Saberes Tradicionais eBiodiversidade No Brasil. Ministerio do Meio Ambiente- MMA / Programa Nacionalde Conservacao da Biodiversidade. Universidade de Sao Paulo-USP / NUPAUB. Brasília. Environmental Law Institute. 1995. Brazil’s Extractive Reserves: Fundamental Aspects of their Implementation. Washington, DC.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec2_77 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 77

Harvey, Brian. 2003. Biodiversity and Fisheries: A Primer for Planners. Biodiversity Planning and Support Program. Global Environment Facility. Washington, DC. 77 LeRoy, J.P., and D. Silvestre (eds.). 2003. Plataforma Brasileira de Direitos Humanos,Economicos, Sociais, e Culturais. Plataforma DHESC Brasil. Populacoes Litoraneas Ameacadas: Carcinicultura, Pesca Industrial,Turismo, Empreendimentos Publicos e Poluicao. Relatório da Missão a Pernambuco, Ceará e Rio Grande do Norte. Relatoria Nacional Para O Direto Humano Ao Meio Ambiente Lima, A. 2006. Parecer Preliminar: Análise Juridica sobre Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Paper presented at World Wildlife Fund Conference on Sustainable Development Reserves, February 11. Brasília. Maldonado, S.A. 2000. Caminho das pedras: percepcao e utilizacao do espaco na pesca simples. In A. Diegues (ed.) Imagem Das Aguas. Hucitec / Nupaub. MMA (Ministerio do Meio Ambiente). 2002. Atlas of Coral Reef Protected Areas in Brazil. Ana Paula Leite Prates (ed.). Brasília. ———. 2003. Atlas of Coral Reef Protected Areas in Brazil. Ana Paula Leite Prates (ed.). Brasília. MMA (Ministerio do Meio Ambiente/PROBIO. 2002. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestais. Areas Prioritarias Para A Conservacao Utilizacao Sustentavel, e Reparticao De Beneficios Da Biodiversidade Brasileira. Brasília. Nogara, P. 2001. Protecao e gestao participativa does recursos pesqueiros no saco de mamangua, RJ. In A. Diegues and V. Viana (eds.). Comunidades Tradicionais e o Manejo dos Recursos Naturais da Mata Atlantica. NUPAUB. ———. 2005. Mamangua: Bercario Marinho e Reduto Tradicional de Caicaras. NUPAUB. University of São Paulo. Pinto da Silva, P.S.V. 2002. Common Property to Co-management: Social Change and Participation in Brazil’s First Maritime Extractive Reserve. Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Economics. ———. 2004. From common property to co-management: lessons from Brazil’s first Marine Extractive Reserve. Marine Policy 28: 419–28. Ramalho, C.W. 2002. “Ah, Esse Povo do Mar!” Um Estudo Comparativo Sobre Trabalho e Pertencimento Na Pesca Artesanal Pernambucana. Project de Dissertacao / Mestrado em Sociologia. Universidade Federal Pernambuco. Recife. April. PNMA (Programa Nacional do Meio Ambiente/ National Environmental Program). 2004. National Environmental Program II 2000-2004 Activities Report. Brasília. Sales, R., and W. Maldonado. 2000. A reserva extrativista estadual do bairro do mandira e o ordenamento da explo- racao das ostraas em cananeia, SP. In A. Diegues and V. Viana (eds.). Comunidades Tradicionais e Manejo do Recursos Naturais da Mata Atlantica. NUPAUB. SEAP (Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries)/PNUD (United Nations Development Programme). 2006. Nas Redes Da Pesca Artesanal: Diagnostico Integrado Da Pesca Artesanal No Brasil. A. Lobo (ed.). Brasília. SNUC (Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza). 2004. Lei No. 9.985, de Julho de 2000 Decreto No. 4.340, de 22 Agosto de 2002. Brasília. Tomassi, L.R. 2004. Sustainable Development of Brazilian Coastal Marine Areas. Available at www.io.usp.br. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)/GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2006. Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento Governo do Brasil. Seção 1: Documento do Projeto “Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade de Manguezais em Áreas Protegidas no Brasil”. Washington, DC. World Resources Institute. 2000. Fostering Policies for Sustainable Coastal and Marine Resources Management and Conservation. The 2000–2003 Global Marine Strategy of the World Resources Institute. R.S. Pomeroy and J.E. Parks (eds.). Washington, DC.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_78 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 78

Part III Analysis and Conclusions 345109Sec3_79 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 79

Implications of Findings for Mainstreaming and Scaling 7 Up Marine Protected Areas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) clearly have an important role to play in countering the current crisis in the world’s oceans—a crisis manifest in severe declines in fisheries productivity, loss of habitat and species diversity, nutrient pollution, invasions of alien species, and, increasingly, disease. The latter may be linked to climate change, which exacerbates the stress already imposed on marine systems by bur- geoning human coastal populations. MPAs help preserve biodiversity that is representative or unique, endemic to a small, isolated part of the world, or essential to the life cycle of economically important or highly threatened species. They also are key to our understanding of natural processes, which requires research in areas with no or little human intervention. Apart from this scientific and ecological value, MPAs allow us to preserve areas of exceptional natural beauty, cultural heritage, and spiritual value. They are essential tools to help us retain a vision of where Bird Island, Algarrobo, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich we came from—the marine environment in its purest state—and what we have lost. In time, and with great effort, they may provide stepping stones to restoring what we have lost and returning our past to the future.

7.1. Putting MPAs in Context

Despite their utility and aesthetic appeal, experience around the world indicates that most MPAs function

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_80 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 80

TABLE 7.1 Evaluation and Summary of Key Factors for Successful MPAs in Case Studies

Key Factors Case Study Countries 80 Philippines Chile Brazil

Institutions and governance Commitment to marine conservation at national level • National policy framework in place • Yes • Yes • No • Consistent enforcement of the law/prosecu- • No; impunity for powerful • No tion of violators entities common; violence and threats common Governance indicators (percentile based on survey findings reported in Kauffmann and others 2004) • Control of corruption ranking • 36.5% • 88.7 • 53.2% • Voice and accountability • 47.6 • 83.0 • 55.8 • Rule of law • 38.1 • 87.1 • 50.0% Commitment at local level • Application of EIA, zoning • Sporadic EIA, commonly • Sporadic • Sporadic EIA: no commu- • Participatory planning in MPA/MMA ignored • For MEABR nity-based National establishment and management • Participatory planning • Unreliable Marine Parks • Enforcement reliable and fair strong • MER: high local-level • Enforcement minimal and support APAs: regional unreliable in most cases agreement driven (with notable exceptions) • Enforcement (all units): minimal unreliable Fisheries and Coastal Management Open access for artisanal fishing? • Movement of artisanal • No; now effectively con- • Open access: guild (colo- fishers unmanaged trolled nias) licensing ineffective Open access for industrial fishing? • Encroachment in munici- • No • Municipal encroachment pal waters common decreasing Controls on fishing effort? • No: fishing effort unsus- • Yes • Controls on gear (beach tainable and increasing seines & hooka) unen- forceable Excess capacity an issue? • Serious • No longer • Excess capacity (artisanal) slight MPAs/MMAs nested within a broader FM or • Variable: MPAs commonly • No • No ICM framework linked to ICM programs No-take MPAs included in MMAs? • Yes • Some, but not in MEABRs • Yes: MERs, APAs, Marine Parks Zoning enforced? • No • Zoning not enforceable

Sectoral policies regulating coastal develop- • No • Issues with salmon culture • No ment aligned with sustainable development? remain serious

Human Capacity Sufficient human capacity and experience with • Yes: strength at local level • Insufficient • Insufficient all levels MPA implementation, fisheries and coastal variable management at national and local levels Sufficient enforcement capacity • Strong in some areas, • Variable; poaching an • National Parks: extremely weak in many areas. issue weak Leadership/local champions? • Political leadership incon- • Very strong champions • High-level local leader- sistent; internationally ship and leadership net- recognized champions; works for MERs; less for local leadership variable APAs and Marine Parks

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_81 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 81

TABLE 7.1 CONTINUED

Key Factors Case Study Countries Philippines Chile Brazil

Sustainable financing 81 MPAs/MMAs self-financed? • No, highly dependent on • MEABR yes • Line items are minuscule external funds. Line item in national budget? • Limited government • Limited government support support Heavy external support? • Variable–some local • No external support • Modest external support is governments covering sufficient (even for large expenses reserves)

Social Equity/Empowerment Attention to participatory and equitable • Variable: yes in some • Variable; centralized • Yes: Fisheries Forums & planning and implementation process cases decision-making MER Public Consultations at the forefront Equitable distribution of MPA costs • Variable: benefits dissipat- • Yes, by and large • No reliable indicators to and benefits ed under open access date regime; control of some MPAs usurped Stakeholder conflict resolution mechanisms • Variable: conflict between • Yes • Conflicts unmanaged in place sectors common and (Federal Police interven- largely unmanaged tions)

Cultural Acceptability Appropriate to local culture • Yes • n/a • Yes Support from dominant cultural group • Yes • n/a • Yes

Science and Information Modern and traditional environmental knowl- • Plans incorporate some • Yes: basis for Legislation • MER sites only edge (TEK) integrated into plans science and TEK, but not of MBEARs consistently over time Adequate monitoring and adaptive manage- • Variable: monitoring data • No: need more • Nowhere ment in place commonly ignored Adequate information exchange between • Generally strong, but not • Not enough • University channels practitioners, policy makers, and resource always sustained users Public and private sector collaboratively • Variable: Weak but • Yes for MEABRS— • Petrobras support for M&E involved in M&E and reporting strengthening required for renewal of in Bahia permit Application of Precautionary Principle • No • Yes • No

as islands in a sea of trouble. The future of most completely eliminated, even in the largest MPAs, MPAs—however well intentioned, well designed, and getting close to that point is costly. and well managed they may be within the limits of their boundaries—is uncertain and depends in large Enhancing the viability and success of MPAs part on the health of surrounding waters and adja- depends on several factors, as assessed in the case cent landscapes. Large-scale MPAs, like the Great studies and the literature review described in this Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) Authority, are report. Table 7–1 summarizes these and the status of less vulnerable, but even that area is threatened by these indicators in the three case study countries. runoff from agricultural lands in coastal watersheds that brings with it sediments, nutrients, and pesti- In light of these results and the many challenges cides. While vulnerability to externalities such as that need to be addressed regarding MPA viability land-based pollution decreases with size, it is not and effectiveness, a few fundamental questions

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_82 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 82

remain. Are calls to dramatically increase the cov- A summary of key findings about scaling up MPA 82 erage of no-take MPAs around the world reason- coverage, as called for in many international confer- able? Is it feasible to attempt to scale up Marine ences and fora, is presented in Boxes 7–1 and 7–2. Protected Areas in response to the marine crisis as long as open-access and other destructive practices It is clear that MPAs are fragile institutions, operating persist in waters surrounding MPAs? As noted in against difficult odds and buffeted by ever-changing Part II, unregulated access to fishery resources pre- threats and political agendas. These threats may orig- vails as the default condition in most countries. The inate in watersheds high above the coastal zone, in analysis in this chapter will examine this question tourist resorts where mangroves used to be, or in fish and more fundamental questions about the viability markets half a world away. MPAs that have the support of MPAs as isolated entities and the utility of pro- of local communities in their design and implementa- moting them in isolation from larger spatial plan- tion are most likely to succeed, particularly if bene- ning frameworks. fits—usually from enhanced fisheries or tourism—are

BOX 7.1 Opportunities for Scaling Up MPA Coverage

• Frameworks are emerging to deal with issues of common property. • Strong international call for action heard along with local stakeholder demand to improve governance of coastal and marine resources and restore fisheries productivity and ocean health. • Legal frameworks in many countries create a precedent for moving forward. These include: • UN FAO Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries • Convention on Biodiversity • National laws to create and administer MPAs • National Coastal Management Policy (Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Namibia, Indonesia, China, Belize, and so on) • National plans and regulatory frameworks to implement these policies • Favorable conditions exist for spatial area management of coastlines at subregional scales. These include: • Decentralization and local government initiatives to administer coastal resources (Local Government Units in the Philippines, municipalities in Latin America) • Some reorganization and reform within management agencies with jurisdiction of the coastal zone • MPA/marine area management mosaics emerging at seascape scales (Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Tubbataha National Park, Kiribas, Banc d’Arguin, Argentina, Northwest Hawaiian Islands (GBRMP)) • New funding opportunities exist for capacity building in integrated coastal management (ICM) and sustainable fisheries management (USAID, World Bank, GEF, Nordic agencies). • Information/lessons learned are being exchanged between coastal managers within and across regions (GEF IW: Learn, ONEFISH, Sea Around Us Project, UN Atlas of the Oceans, ICRAN). • Mutually reinforcing agendas found within the environment, natural resource managment, and social sectors for more effective coastal and marine resources management.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_83 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 83

BOX 7.2 83 Constraints on Scaling Up MPA Coverage Environmental • MPAs cannot succeed in isolation. Externalities beyond their control can seal their fate and jeop- ardize local support that has taken years and many resources to build up (Philippines, Brazil–shrimp farming). • Most successful MPAs tend to be small, community-based, and fisheries-focused; large MPAs (thousands of square kilometers) are rare and tend to be isolated (Tubbataha, Banco Chinchorro, and Hawaiian Islands) and fisheries-oriented (Pacific Islands) or difficult to enforce (Banc d’Arguin, Galapagos Islands); notable exceptions include some Biosphere Reserves (Sian Ka’an) and the GBRMP, which are seascape in scale and zoned for multiple use. • Benefits to surrounding fisheries from no-take reserves may take several years to translate into increased harvests for fishers; biodiversity conservation benefits are difficult to monetize and less appreciated by some decision makers. • It is difficult for most MPAs to achieve conservation benefits at ecosystem scales. • Social and natural science has been inadequate or untapped to guide MPA design to make it efficient at delivering objectives (with the least cost to society). • There is inadequate knowledge of the social and ecosystem impacts of many activities allowed in multiple-use areas due to inadequate monitoring and carrying capacity studies. • Information and tools are inaccessible to local-level stakeholders to manage more effectively. Sociocultural • Lack of basic information on income distribution, gender, dependency on marine resources and on methods to apply it. • Intellectual property issues (land tenure information, income information, community control, research protocols for managing resources). • Socioeconomic costs—giving up access rights and short-term harvests/income. • Long time horizons to get MPAs established. • Tenure concerns. • Maintaining community buy-in and active participation is complex and unstable. • Benefit sharing not always transparent nor equitable. Political and Institutional Costs • Developing-country governments strongly resist setting up extensive MPAs and ecosystem-based management frameworks with a biodiversity conservation focus in line with northern nongovernmental organization (NGO) agendas and international targets. • Short-term planning horizons of leaders and politicians are inconsistent with longer-term planning frameworks. • Legal systems, at the local level, may not be consistent or compatible with national legislation. • Economic sectoral boundaries remain impediments to effective management—resulting in incompatible activities in surrounding seascapes and negative externalities. Financial Costs • Costs of establishing and maintaining MPAs are high (enforcement, surveying tenure and ecological conditions, management plans, infrastructure, training, monitoring and evaluation).

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_84 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 84

Fishers beaching their rafts in Batoque, Ceara, a recently created MER site – photo by Acervo CNPT/IBAMA tect coral reef biodiversity and associated demersal 84 fisheries in Balayan Bay was seriously undermined by pollution and multiple impacts from surrounding activities:

“Because of these exogenous factors operating on another scale, the traditional MPA approach under community-based models was no longer applicable nor effective in confronting these kinds of issues. There was compelling need to adopt a broad range of interventions covering a larger geographical scale, foster coordination across sectors, and facilitate integrated planning in both vertical and horizontal directions. If the MPAs in the pilot sites are to function as envisioned, these MPAs need to be nested within a broader ICM program.” (Tongson 2003)

Conclusion #1. To be effective, MPAs must forthcoming. But they need the institutional support of be designed and operated in the context of local government to respect their right to co-manage higher-order management frameworks, like resources and to keep nonstakeholders from gaining integrated coastal management, or some access to fishing grounds or no-take zones. The larger other comprehensive zoning scheme. the MPA, the greater the potential benefits, but also the greater the likelihood that competing interests will intervene. As in most cases, the higher the stakes, the 7.2. more difficult and costly it is to enforce access rights. This is true not only in terms of financial and political Stakeholder Participation capital, but in human terms as well. (The recent mur- der of JoJo Victoria, an outspoken critic of commercial In order to be viable, MPAs need to be more inclu- fishing interests poaching on artisanal fishing grounds sive of stakeholders who stand to benefit from them in the Philippines, is a case in point. Every year, sev- or, more importantly, to bear the cost of their cre- eral people are threatened or killed for taking a stance ation. The case studies (Part II), the legal analysis, against illegal fishing.) and the literature on MPAs) clearly indicate that a fundamental predictor of success is stakeholder par- In the absence of buffer zones to control economic and ticipation in the design and implementation. This is other human activity in surrounding waters and at the partly because local, traditional knowledge, in the land/sea interface, even well-managed MPAs are sub- absence of (or even in addition to) modern tech- ject to continuous and cumulative stress. Recent water niques, is critical to designing MPAs that both gen- quality monitoring in MPAs along the Mesoamerican erate local benefits and preserve biodiversity or Barrier Reef indicates very high levels of pesticide ecosystem services. residues in fish and sediments (www.mbrs.org.bz MBRS Project 2006). These are thought to have been Because of the need to rely heavily on compliance, transported through contaminated groundwater perco- where enforcement is lax (as it is in the vast major- lating through the karst geology of the Yucatan ity of cases), the early buy-in of all stakeholders to Peninsula and surrounding reef. In the Philippines, a the objectives and governance arrangements for the highly successful community-based initiative to pro- MPA and its benefit streams is essential. The Punta

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_85 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 85

Allen Lobster Fishery Cooperative within the Sian reductions in household income or to offset the risk Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, which was established as of moving out of the sector entirely, stakeholders are 85 a Biosphere Reserve by the Mexican government likely to reject such a plan. Violence may even and is also a World Heritage Site, is an excellent erupt, particularly if the proponent of the conserva- example of a successful governance arrangement tion intervention is viewed as an outsider with a designed by the stakeholder community to resolve northern conservation agenda (as in Torres Strait). the externalities associated with common property by allocating fishing rights, agreeing on fishing gear Conclusion #3. MPAs come at a high cost—in and limits, and regulating the selling price of lobster social, financial, and political capital. MPAs to foreign markets (Alvarez 2003). cannot be sustained in the absence of alternative income-generating activities that can Conclusion #2. Governance and legal frame- absorb the excess labor from areas newly works establishing MPAs must be inclusive of closed to harvesting. Such activities do not a broad stakeholder group and must ensure need to be linked to the marine environment active participation in the implementation but they need to be something that fishers can and management of these areas. and want to do.

7.3. 7.4. Bearing the Costs of MPAs The Cost and Political

Taking areas of the reef or seascape “out of produc- Economy of Scaling Up MPAs tion” creates a financial and social burden that many resource-dependent communities find diffi- The case studies and literature review point to the cult, even in anticipation of higher yields sometime high cost of establishment and maintenance of in the future. Their reluctance may be directly tied MPAs. Even assuming that benefits to biodiversity to their economic dependence on the resource and fisheries would justify or potentially outweigh being harvested. While creating no-take zones to these costs, the benefits are likely to be longer-term, forestall or restore depleted fish stocks is necessary while costs are faced immediately. These include in most fisheries with intensive use, abrogating not only the financial costs of operating the MPA, fishers’ access rights to fishing grounds is a hard but economic and social costs to resource users political sell, particularly if there are no viable eco- (such as economic displacement or the abrogation of nomic alternatives. traditional use rights, with implications for cultural and spiritual values in some cases). Decision mak- The Chile and Philippines case studies (as well as ers must expend significant political capital to con- reports from the literature) clearly show fishers’ vince communities to defer immediate benefits for reluctance to establish new no-take zones to comply the longer-term gains in the public good. with biodiversity conservation targets and ecosys- Furthermore, without policy and regulatory frame- tem-based fisheries management. Even acknowl- works to support good governance of coastal and edging the value of biodiversity and its links to marine resource use, the achievement of MPA ben- fisheries productivity, fishers in Chile’s manage- efits is severely undermined. ment and exploitation areas for benthic resources (MEABRs) were reluctant to establish no-take It will be difficult if not impossible to achieve the reserves within the management areas to protect kinds of area coverage being called for at interna- biodiversity, even if it meant future gains. Without tional conferences—on the order of 20–30 percent receiving some form of compensation to cover of main ocean habitats under no-take MPAs—within

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_86 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 86

the next decade or even longer, given the buy-in management areas in Tanzania (Martin and others, 86 required of key stakeholder groups and the resources in draft). Other reserves are designed for cultural- and capacity to manage and sustain the areas. ecological and social protection. These include the marine extractive reserves in Brazil, which despite Conclusion #4. Given the realities on the their name have been established primarily to pro- ground in most coastal developing countries, tect the informal use rights and way of life of tradi- where coastal poverty and good governance tional and indigenous coastal communities. These of marine resources are still a major problem, reserves are important examples of emerging meeting marine biodiversity conservation and resource management paradigms that have a high fisheries management objectives by signifi- potential for achieving ecosystem management cantly scaling up no-take reserves as the prin- goals at ecologically significant scales. cipal management intervention is unlikely to be viable. Figure 7–1 depicts the various management frameworks presented in Chapter 2’s typology in more graphic form within a hypothetical national context. On the y axis is area in square kilometers running 7.5. from 0 to greater than 10,000. On the x axis is Alternatives to Scaling Up degree of protection, ranging from none (essentially open access) to fully protected. The MPA/marine MPAs management area types are depicted more or less to scale relative to one another in terms of area, and While MPAs constitute an indispensable interven- they fall into nested hierarchies along the protection for particular aspects and challenges of ocean tion/restricted use continuum. These range from the and fisheries management, there are other instru- smallest MPA, a typical community-based no-take ments in the toolkit that should also be considered as reserve (on the order of hundreds of hectares) to a potentially more cost-effective and socially accept- biosphere reserve (thousands of square kilometers). able options for scaling up management in the near On the boundary waters between true protected area term. Because of their acceptability at the local level landscapes and open access lie the extractive and amenability to adaptive management, these have reserves. These vary in size from a couple of hun- the potential to accelerate restoration of depleted dred hectares (MEABRs) to hundreds of square fish stock and protect ecosystem goods and services kilometers (marine extractive reserves) and in that underpin coastal economies and livelihoods. aggregate cover an area ranging from 1,000 square Scaling up effective marine management (rather kilometers in Chile to nearly 8,000 in Brazil. than MPAs per se) is the desired outcome; this will necessarily involve a mix of tools and strategies. In Chile, there is great demand among communities to expand the number of MEABRs in light of per- The typology in Chapter 2 describes a whole spec- ceived benefits from allocating fishing rights over trum of spatial management tools for coastal and open access—a condition that prevailed until just 15 marine resources. The typology allows a distinction years ago, prior to passage of the Fisheries and between “protection” and “sustainable use” as the Aquaculture Law. In Brazil, marine extractive principal management objectives of individual reserves cover a huge area of Brazil’s coastline, nes- tools. Some tools fall outside the traditional defini- tled between shrimp farms, oil and gas wells, indus- tion of MPAs, such as areas designated specifically trial fishing ports, tourist resorts and sprawling or primarily for managed or extractive use, where urban communities. Because of their size and their protection of biodiversity or fish stocks is inciden- overlap with areas of significant marine biodiversity, tal—if indeed it occurs at all. These include such they hold real promise for enhancing biodiversity categories as MEABRs in Chile and collaborative conservation on a massive scale within the produc-

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_87 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 87

FIGURE 7.1 87 Nested Marine Management Area Framework

Area (km2) LME 5,000

ICM/Zoned Seascape

Biosphere Reserve 1,000 St r

500 Multiple Use MPAs ict Ma r No-take Rese r Fis

MEABRs Recreational Fishing

Eco Tourism h e i MER n r ies Aquaculture e Rese r 100 Indigenous ve Other Settlements ve Economic Activities Community-based MPA Minimal protection Full protection Extractive use Non extractive use

tion landscape. This should be of great interest to the exclusive entry/use, restricted multiple use, and Global Environment Facility (GEF), whose strategic full protection and noneconomic use—is perhaps priorities for the biodiversity focal area include pro- an ideal paradigm that more and more countries are tecting biodiversity outside protected areas, where subscribing to (Sorensen 2002). ICM has the sup- the greatest potential (and challenge) exists for port of government (ideally at various levels) when ramping up conservation of biological diversity. enacted through legislation and the mandate to implement a governance framework over relatively Figure 7–1 also shows the continuum and nested large spatial scales, including linked hydrological hierarchies of conservation and management areas systems that may extend from watersheds out to that fall neatly within the rubric of integrated sea. It is thus the logical governance framework in coastal management. This zoned seascape—which which to embed MPAs to address externalities at accommodates seemingly incompatible uses rang- scales large enough to buffer these and other ing from intense economic activity (ports, maritime coastal marine management areas from lethal traffic, offshore drilling, industrial fishing) to threats beyond their control.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_88 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 88

This is consistent with guidance prepared for the BOX 7.3 88 Fifth World Parks Congress in South Africa in 2003 by IUCN–The World Conservation Union, the Summary Guidance on Integration of Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, and MPAs into ICM other partners on incorporating MPAs into ICM (see Box 7–3) to lessen the impacts of coastal and Human activities in coastal areas, inland, marine uses on MPAs, to integrate MPA interests upland and offshore, often affect MPAs, into sectoral policies and regulations that have reducing their ability to protect coastal and influence over the coastal and marine area (extend- marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning out to Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) limits), ing. Furthermore, MPA managers have only and to formalize institutional arrangements between limited opportunities to influence the effects MPAs and other institutions with jurisdiction over of such activities. coastal and marine space. While far from perfect and still nascent in many developing countries, ICM Effective management of MPAs requires their creates an enabling environment for enhancing integration into wider coast and ocean gover- MPA effectiveness and offers the best platform for nance arrangements, including integrated taking marine biodiversity conservation and sus- coastal management programs and ocean tainable fisheries management to scale. policies, from local and indigenous community-based systems to regional legal instru- Note that before scaling up it may be necessary to ments, from land to sea, and from individual “scale down” first, supporting and consolidating marine habitats to large marine ecosystems numerous local initiatives to establish MPAs that and the High Seas. remain fragile. There is a need to ensure these are well grounded in local governance frameworks, with MPA network design must build on the best- active political support and local champions, before available natural and social science to create attempting to replicate or expand the area of cover- networks that are ecologically coherent and to age. Similarly, there is a need to strengthen institu- facilitate sharing of knowledge, skills, and tional arrangements for many nascent ICM experience in conservation and the achieve- initiatives to ensure policy harmonization between ment of sustainable socioeconomic benefits. competing economic sectors in the coastal zone in line with sustainable development principles. To provide ecological and social linkages Equally important is ensuring financial sustainabil- between landscapes and seascapes, gover- ity. The Marine Legacy Fund established in nance mechanisms should address watershed Tanzania is an example of an approach to recover management throughout the catchment area costs and generate revenues internally. and link between terrestrial and marine protected areas. Conclusion #6. ICM provides the overarching framework and most viable platform for Existing international and regional instru- scaling up elements within the coastal and ments will play a key role in supporting marine management areas toolkit, including national implementation of MPA networks. MPAs, to achieve management at ecologically relevant scales.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_89 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 89

7.6. BOX 7.4 89 Mainstreaming Biodiversity Namibian Coast Conservation and Conservation into Coastal Management Project and Fisheries Resources The project is designed to help the government of Namibia at national, regional, and Management local levels address key sector issues: the lack of a common vision for the coastal zone While no pat formula yet exists for mainstreaming and mainstreaming of biodiversity conserva- biodiversity conservation into coastal management tion into development planning and manage- or the management of marine fisheries—the case ment; increasing human threats to fragile studies in this report point to opportunities to piggy- coastal ecosystems, especially related to dia- back marine biodiversity conservation onto more mond mining and other uncontrolled econom- economically driven marine resources management. ic activities; and slow decentralization, with environmental functions not clearly articulat- For instance, using a framework that restricts ed or delegated. access to economic uses of coastal sea space (marine extractive reserves) in theory may offer The project’s main components are: Brazil a way to begin controlling the highly destructive and still basically unmanaged development of • A policy, legal, and institutional frame- its extensive coastal zone (which harbors a wide work for sustainable ecosystem manage- range of habitats of high conservation value, ment of the Namibian coast including coral reefs), while at the same time reinforcing the resource use rights and territorial • Targeted capacity building for coastal claims of local communities to the micro-environ- zone management and biodiversity con- ments of small-scale fishing. servation In Chile, the rapid proliferation of salmon farming • Targeted investments in critical ecosys- along the southern coast, putting Chile right behind tems for biodiversity conservation, sus- Norway as the world’s leading producer of farmed tainable use, and mainstreaming salmon, threatens benthic communities in the fjord- lands. A scientific workshop in June 2006 spon- • Project management and performance monitoring

Through these interventions, the project will deliver support for underprotected key ecosystems in the production landscape, improvement of livelihoods, a process of zoning coastal waters and adjacent lands, development of guidelines and environmental assessment of proposed projects, and biodiversity mainstreaming into Regional

Walvis Bay – photo by Rod Braby, NACOMA Project Development Plans and other land use plans, including at the local municipal level.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_90 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 90

sored by the government of Chile, the World Bank, Conclusion #7. It is important to start with what 90 the World Wildlife Fund, and leading representa- has popular acceptance and works well in a tives of the salmon industry reviewed results of given context and then shape it, through incen- research into environmental impacts of the salmon tives, information, science, and leadership, to industry, which confirmed pollution from effluent accommodate increasingly broader objectives. water of sediments and tissue of wild organisms in surrounding areas. The threat to natural food webs 7.7. and native fish stocks has signaled the need for stricter regulations on salmon farming practices and The Role of Science on the density and distribution of cages along the fragile fjordland coast (Buschmann and others Marine science has a crucial role to play in guiding 2006; WWF 2006). In this case, incentives for the efforts to network and scale up MPAs. Applied adoption of ICM as a framework for multiple use and research (on biological connectivity, gene flow, pro- environmentally sustainability may be tied to ductivity, and human behavior) can help reduce the demands for certification and eco-labeling of cost of management decisions regarding MPAs— Chile’s salmon production by environmentally con- where and how to deploy them relative to other inter- scious consumers in the North. ventions. The design of MPAs can be significantly enhanced to optimize such things as larval recruit- In Namibia, where diamond mining is a major ment and spillover effects relative to total area under threat to coastal ecosystems, the government is protection, in order to minimize trade-offs in restrict- embarking on a new program to enhance coastal ed access and production in the short term (Sale and and marine biodiversity conservation by main- others 2005; Botsford and others, in prep). This can streaming conservation and sustainable use into be done by measuring connectivity between proposed coastal policy, legislative frameworks, and institu- sites (Mumby and others 2006), monitoring biomass, tional and technical capacity. This is being under- and recruitment of larvae from protected areas to taken with help from GEF and the World Bank (see fishing grounds in surrounding waters, and describ- Box 7–4). ing the trophic relationships in healthy and diverse communities of marine organisms. Reducing uncer- Multiuse and higher-order coastal management sys- tainty about the outcomes of decisions, optimizing tems are promising in that they offer the potential to MPA design to maximize ecological, social and eco- facilitate scaling up marine management by unify- nomic benefits and helping stakeholders visualize the ing and helping to reconcile elements that may at trade-offs involved in their decisions through con- first seem incompatible with protecting marine bio- struction of future scenarios and other support tools diversity. In fact, exploring other tools in the coastal are other important contributions of science. area management toolkit opens up areas of intervention (such as allocating use rights, providing bene- In addition to ecological research, properly applied fits, empowering communities with knowledge about technology can contribute significantly to increasing natural systems and how their actions may enhance the effectiveness of spatial management. Remote or undermine innate productivity and resilience to sensing and geographic information systems are stress) that serve multiple objectives: protecting tra- obvious tools with clear application to coastal man- ditional culture heritage; enhancing the sustainabil- agement. These are used not only to help set bound- ity of local fisheries that provide the income, aries for spatial management frameworks and to nutrition, and livelihoods to sustain traditional com- track changes in system features over time, but also munities; and conserving marine biological diversi- to improve enforcement and as part of vessel moni- ty. These reinforce spiritual and cultural values as toring systems. A new engineering breakthrough in well as underpin local economies and feed into the design of Global Positioning System radio trans- ecosystem processes at larger scales. mitters will make these available at relatively low

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_91 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 91

cost to monitor the whereabouts of the artisanal fish- within a seascape of well-managed resource use, ing fleet, even in nonmotorized vessels. This simple adjacent land use, and control of nutrient, sedi- 91 device, which will be pioneered soon in the Maldives ments, and other emissions—with the judicious sit- with World Bank support, combined with registration ing of economic activities along the coast so that of small-scale fishing vessels, has the potential to they are compatible rather than antagonistic—are a transform governance of artisanal fisheries. more likely path toward an ecosystem-based Deployed in tandem with no-take reserves and reli- approach than the scaling up of MPAs. able stock assessments, such technology can substantially assist efforts to close open access and What is required is a mix of tools and spatial man- bring nearshore fisheries into compliance with the agement interventions that span the gamut of marine U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of management/MPA frameworks. This mix must Conduct for responsible fisheries. include a high ratio of zoned rational use to no-take reserves in order to address the socioeconomic needs Conclusion #8. Science and technology are of poor, marginalized coastal populations who essential to deploying MPAs and other tools in depend on marine resources for their livelihoods and the marine management area toolkit efficiently welfare, balanced with the need to sustain the pro- and effectively. They are particularly essential ductivity of coastal ecosystems and their ability to in guiding any effort to scale up and network to provide coastal populations with the continuous achieve ecosystem-based management. goods and services essential to their well-being.

Case studies from Chile and Brazil point to the con- 7.8. tribution of extractive reserves, which relegate resource access to a defined group of stakeholders Conclusion: Taking (hence creating a greater incentive for stewardship) Management to Scale and are being replicated on a large scale in response

In summary, biodiversity conservation and fisheries management objectives can and should be mutually TABLE 7.2 reinforcing. While MPAs are a vital tool in this effort, a clear message that emerges from the case Expansion of ICM Efforts by Region, studies and literature review is that ambitious tar- 1993 and 2000 Comparison gets for restoring degraded fish stocks, stemming the loss of biodiversity, and controlling invasive Coastal species and other threats to marine ecosystem Continent countries 1993 2000 health are unlikely to be met through a single focus North America 3 3 100% 3 100% on Marine Protected Areas. Central America 7 4 57% 7 100% Europe 33 11 31% 30 91% Similarly, progress in mainstreaming ecosystem- Asia 17 13 62% 14 82% based approaches to management of fisheries and South America 11 5 45% 8 73% other marine resources within the EEZs of develop- Caribbean 13 5 45% 8 73% ing counties is not likely to be achieved through Near East 15 6 40% 7 47% large-scale MPAs. To move toward the ecosystem- Oceania 17 7 33% 8 47% based approach that meets ecological-scale criteria Africa 37 5 13% 13 35% as well as being socially and culturally acceptable, effective networking of MPA and marine manage- Total 59 98

ment area mosaics will need to be deployed with the Source: Cicin-Sain et al 2000. help of science. Networked, smaller-scale MPAs

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_92 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 92

to local demand, toward eliminating open access and framework and, with the recent adoption by execu- 92 rationalizing use of coastal resources. Their potential tive decree of ICM as the national strategy for sus- evolution from extractive reserves to marine manage- tainable development of coastal and marine ment areas/conservation zones, with no-take zones resources, may be en route to wide-scale implemen- either embedded within them or interspersed at tation. This, combined with the proliferation of ICM appropriate intervals, may be one way to effectively efforts in other developing countries since 1993 achieve networks of MPAs at sufficient scale to have (see Table 7–2), particularly in Africa, is a hopeful an ecological impact without the socioeconomic dis- sign. Setting goals for bringing coastlines under placement implied by large-scale, no-take reserves. ICM or equivalent spatial management/zoning schemes is likely to be achievable far sooner and In the Philippines, integrated coastal management with greater effect than overly ambitious targets for has effectively provided an overarching planning MPAs alone.

References

Alvarez, O. 2003. Lessons from Punta Allen, Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve. In ITMEMS 2, Proceedings from a workshop on Community Based Coastal Resources Management and Marine Biodiversity Conservation. Botsford, L.W., F. Micheli, and A. Parma. Draft (June 2006). Biological and Ecological Considerations in the Design, Implementation and Success of MPAs. A report for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Buschmann, A., V. Riquelme, M. Hernández-Gonzalez, D. Varela, J. Jiménez, L. Henriquez, P. Vergara, R Guíñez, and L. Filún. 2006. A review of the impacts of salmonid farming on marine coastal ecosystems in the southeast Pacific. ICES Journal Marine Science 63: 1339–45. Cicin Sain, B. 2000. Meeting the commitments on oceans, coasts and small island developing states made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development: How well are we doing? From Co-chairs’ Report, Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands. Kauffmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2005. Governance Matters. IV: Governance Indicators for 1996–2004. World Bank. Washington, DC. Martin, K., M. Samoilys, A. Hurd, and C.G. Lundin. In draft (June 2006). Experiences in the Use of Marine Protected Areas with Fisheries Management Objectives—A Review of Case Studies. A report for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Guidelines for MPAs and Fisheries Management (in prep). MBRS (Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems) Project. 2006. Synoptic Monitoring Program. Available at www.mbrs.org.bz/english/data.htm. Last modified 25 July. Mumby, P. J., C.P. Dahlgren, A.R. Harborne, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, D.R. Brumbaugh, K.E. Holmes, J.M. Mendes, K. Broad, J.N. Sanchirico, K. Buch, S. Box, R.W. Stoffle, and A.B. Gill, 2006. Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 6 January: 98–101. Sale, P., R. Cowan, B. Danilowicz, G. Jones, J. Kritzer, K. Lindeman, S. Planes, N. Polunin, G. Russ, Y. Sadovy, and R. Steneck. 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(2): 74–80. Sorensen, J. 2002. Baseline 2000 background report: the status of integrated coastal management as an international practice. Available at www.uhi.umb.edu/b2k/baseline2000.pdf. Tongson, E.E. 2003 . ICM as a Strategy to Enable MPA Management: The Case of Balayan Bay. Case study presented at the ITMEMS II, Manila, The Philippines. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2006. Investigacion Ambiental en la Salmonicultura Chile: Gasto of Inversion? Report of a scientific workshop, Puerto Montt, Chile, 23–24 March.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_93 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 93

Recommendations and Next Steps 8

The recommendations flow from the conclusions discussed in Chapter 7. These are meant for consideration by the World Bank and its partners, including the Global Environment Facility (GEF), members of the U.N. and donor community engaged in coastal and marine resources management, the marine conservation community, and countries wishing to give priority to investments in coastal and marine area management. 8.1. Recommendations

1. Invest in integrated coastal management (ICM) as an essential enabling environment for Marine Protected Area (MPA) effectiveness. Support the necessary policy reform agenda for successful implementation of ICM in developing countries; finance institutional arrangements to align sectoral policies and proposed investments with sustainable development and urbanization of coastal areas; and develop and integrate sustainable financing mechanisms into ICM plans Paje Beach, Zanzibar – photo by Marea Hatziolos to make ICM a viable governance framework.

2. Drastically step up support for enforcement of existing and new limited access/restricted use regimes (including enforcement of polluters pays principle and other regulations), issuing

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_94 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 94

heavy penalties and fines for violations. Support to maximize ecological benefits and capture 94 community-based efforts to rationalize use of near-term socioeconomic benefits, and then link common property to achieve more sustainable these with other coastal and marine management benefit streams. In this regard, it may be possible zoning schemes to create networks that govern to piggyback on community-driven development marine space at relevant administrative and eco- initiatives as platforms for mainstreaming coastal logical scales. and marine management (CMM) area planning and implementation and to tap into Social 5. Explore possibilities for transforming and Protection Funds in highly indebted countries. scaling up community-based resource reserves into more biodiversity-friendly gover- 3. Invest in the creation of sustainable alter- nance regimes that have the potential to achieve native livelihoods and social protection for a triple bottom line of social, ecological, and those traditional users who must restrict their economic sustainability at meaningful scales. activities or who are forced to leave the sector to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem goods and 6. Increase support for and promote the services. The channeling of excess labor former- application of social and natural science ly involved in resource extraction through the and traditional knowledge to the design of creation of new small and medium-size enterpris- MPAs and CMM areas. This will increase stake- es and demand for services will be essential to holder participation and buy-in, heighten aware- the success of any efforts to scale up governance ness of benefits from effective management regimes that restrict access or use for the poor. regimes , raise the likelihood that biodiversity conservation and fisheries management objec- 4. Establish new biodiversity conservation- tives will be achieved, and thereby increase the oriented MPAs judiciously and strategically efficiency of management decision making.

Palau sunset – photo by Alan Lim, Coral Reef Targeted Research Project

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_95 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 95

7. Explore partnerships to help finance the pol- Increase the use of strategic environmental icy reform, institutional arrangements, and assessments to determine the impacts of devel- sustainable financing agenda required to opment assistance strategies on coastal implement ICM and create a viable gover- resources. Develop screening tools for impacts nance framework for MPAs. Consider strategic on the coastal zone. alliances between the public sector, international financial institutions, the GEF, nongovernmental 3. Through PROFISH and other ongoing programs organizations, and foundations to provide a long- targeting sustainable fisheries, support small- term commitment to the recommended activities. scale vessel registration programs and vessel monitoring systems, piloting new technology to regulate the artisanal sector. Introduce a new 8.2. coastal and marine initiative under the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund to target areas of Next Steps high marine biodiversity with ICM or equivalent zoning interventions and MPA tools to govern 1. Present findings to the U.N. Food and use of marine space and end open access. Agriculture (FAO) for incorporation into technical guidelines being prepared for establishment 4. Translate these priorities into guidelines for GEF of Marine Protected Areas that meet objectives investments in marine biodiversity conservation enshrined in the FAO Code of Conduct for (OP2) and in large marine ecosystems and sus- Responsible Fisheries; present findings to other tainable fisheries management at the ecosystem relevant fora targeting MPAs and ICM. level (OP8).

2. Identify upcoming Country Assistance Strategies 5. Hold stakeholder workshops in the regions with of coastal countries with high stakes in marine representatives of coastal communities and biodiversity. Ensure that coastal resources and marine resource managers to present this analy- ICM are considered in upstream discussions. sis and to develop priorities for investment.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_96 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 96

Explanatory Notes on Ax Connotations of “Tradition” and “Culture Heritage” Designations in Coastal Marine Management Typology

What Does and Does Not Constitute “Tradition”? In respect to indigenous peoples’ homelands and artisanal fishers’ territories, there is a tendency for management authorities to worry that upgraded technology somehow fundamentally changes the rules of the game—from a subsistence orientation using “traditional” methods to unsustainable economic pressure on species, including a few that are on the endangered list internationally.

What kind of economic activity qualifies as “tradi-

6th anniversary celebration of the Ponta do Corumbau Marine tional” and what does not? In terms of the meaning Extractive Reserve – photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura, Conservation of “traditional,” Nietschmann (1989:91) observes: International, Abrolhos, Brazil “traditional means what is self-referentially identifying, not necessarily what once was. Was an indigenous group more traditional in the year 500 that it was in 1200?” Or, as Albert Wendt writes: “Is there such a creature as ‘traditional culture’? If there is what period in the growth of a culture is to be called ‘traditional?’ If ‘traditional cultures’ do exist in Oceania, to what extent are they colonial creations? What is authentic culture?...Should there be ONE sanctified/official/sacred interpretation of a culture? And who should do the interpret- ing?” (Wendt 1978:1).

This is an empirical and semantic issue that requires careful case-by-case consideration and

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_97 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 97

interpretation. This terminology and related dis- although few members of indigenous communities courses enter into much of the literature reviewed in have licenses to fish commercially, there are indica- 97 the Marine Protect Area (MPA) analysis and the tions this situation is changing. There are glimmer- country studies themselves. Without attempting to ings of indigenous entrepreneurial activity and lay the issues to rest, the report can clarify some of commercial opportunities in aquaculture, the the disputes surrounding how indigenous peoples’ trochus industry, barramundi, trepang, crayfishing, and traditional artisanal fishers’ economic transfor- and fishery-related ventures such as “safari”-style mations should be interpreted. fishing and marine ecotourism. Certain Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal communities are genuinely It is necessary to appreciate certain characteristics of interested in opening up new avenues to participate indigenous production systems, including the princi- in the commercial fishing industry. (See Lawrence ple of diversification. It is difficult and somewhat (1991b.:16) for an interpretation of what is “tradi- arbitrary to separate fishing activity (or any other eco- tional” under the terms of the Torres Strait Treaty. nomic pursuit for that matter), from the totality of The definition of “traditional” has long been a con- household and community economic routines among tentious issue in Australia. The Commonwealth indigenous groups. Generally speaking, however, Government has adopted this working definition of fishing is a subset of an overall pattern of utilization Aboriginality: “An Aboriginal or Torres Strait of freshwater, estuarine, and marine aquatic Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait resources that includes foraging, collecting shellfish, Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or and in some societies ongoing marine hunting tradi- Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such in the tions (in Central America, for instance, and western community with which he/she is associated.” Oceania). Fishing and marine hunting are highly However, this terminology is confusing for Torres bound up in subsistence and food-sharing networks. Strait Islanders.) They can best be described as an important focus of indigenous “multi-enterprise” economies that usual- This historical perspective affirms an important ly include a mix of subsistence, cash-generating, and point about indigenous resource use: it is not inher- commercial production activities. ently or exclusively subsistence-oriented, nor something static. Therefore, the terms “subsis- It is important to obtain a clearer picture of cultural tence” and “traditional,” though used extensively principles reflected in the continuity of indigenous to distinguish indigenous peoples’ modes of pro- multi-enterprise economies. These are sometimes duction from other groups, do not do justice to the viewed as simply a transition phase in an inevitable diversity, flexibility, and potential for change in process of market assimilation. In the Brazilian con- indigenous resource economies. text and throughout Oceania, however, there is increasing evidence such economies may not prove Another important point is that participation in the as transitional as once was thought; rather, they may cash economy or adopting new technology does not endure as complete and dynamic modes of produc- imply that subsistence becomes any less significant, tion (cf. Poole 1989; Johannes 1989). culturally or socially. In Caring for Country, a wide- ranging study of Aboriginal involvement in existing At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that land management programs, Young and others the current relatively low level of involvement of (1991:111–18) amply demonstrate that although indigenous groups in commercial fishing was not contemporary hunting and foraging for subsistence always the case. Historically, and as recently as the now use non-Aboriginal techniques and elements, early 1970s, both Torres Strait Islanders and the centrality of subsistence is undiminished and Aborigines have been involved (primarily as labor- continues to reinforce peoples’ knowledge and con- ers rather than owner-operators) in trochus, pearl nection to ancestral countries. Moreover, without shell, trepang, and other marine industries. Today, modern gear and transport, people living in today’s

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_98 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 98

centralized settlements (such as Aurukun) could not tional conventions administered by UNESCO 98 return to their traditional countries to carry out vital (notably The World Heritage Convention adopted in cultural and ritual subsistence activities and Paris in 1972). These instruments in turn have responsibilities. Caring for Country contains com- become the foundation for national and other legisla- pelling evidence that subsistence practices, regard- tion. At the national or state level there are general- less of the technology used, constitute sound forms ly four kinds of legislation relevant to cultural sites: of land management in themselves. There is no con- heritage place protection acts, land management tradiction in the fact that it is necessary for indige- zoning or planning acts, notification or listing acts nous groups to earn cash to maintain subsistence that allow for the recording of important data on cul- practices. This observation also applies to the tural sites, and acts to conserve natural areas in marine economies discussed here, where fishing which cultural features are located. (often for a mixture of cash, barter, or subsistence production) and dugong and turtle hunting (solely Experience in development projects has shown that for household and ritual consumption) from out- certain sectors are particularly prone to affecting board-powered aluminum dinghies are now stan- heritage values: the energy sector—and the con- dard procedure. struction of oil and gas pipelines, in particular (Goodland and Webb 1987). Similar issues arise in This report suggests that the word “indigenous” be both small and large-scale marine conservation ini- retained as the generic point of reference for pat- tiatives. Lack of adequate cultural and ethnograph- terns of resource use and user groups encompassed ic information and provisions for integrating by indigenous communities. The term “traditional” cultural property and resource dimensions in pro- is far too imprecise and has too many confusing con- tected areas can be a significant constraint in imple- notations to do justice to the relevant contexts of menting site-specific MPAs or larger systems. In indigenous fishing. Indigenous resource systems are this connection, coastal and aquatic cultural and more aptly described as multi-enterprise, a mode of natural heritage identification and management lags production that encompasses subsistence and com- far behind strategies for documenting and caring for mercial or part-commercial activities. In any case, sites in other terrains. the crucial distinction is not between “traditional” and “non-traditional,” which is often seen as a function of technology, but intent—that is, whether a Clarification of “Culture Heritage” particular resource practice is intended for subsis- Meanings in Non-European MPA Contexts tence or commercial production, regardless of the It is worth pointing out problems that are often technology used. Our definition is consistent with encountered in operationalizing a standardized cul- the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform tural heritage framework where the homelands, Commission report on the recognition of Aboriginal value systems, and rights of indigenous peoples are customary laws (1986:70), which states that in affected. For example, the 1979 Burra Charter, a determining whether an activity is traditional, atten- version of the international Venice Charter of 1966 tion should focus on the purpose of the activity adapted to conditions in Australia, explains the rather than the methods. overall philosophy and guidelines for the conservation of heritage sites and places of cultural signifi- It is also useful to briefly review what is meant by the cance. Although the Charter has been applied to term “cultural heritage” in MPA studies. The term is the range of culture sites and customs for managing often used interchangeably with “cultural property,” them that have developed among indigenous soci- “cultural patrimony,” or “cultural resources.” In the eties, it was originally designed more for European broadest terms, it can be understood as the present “built” environments (Sullivan 1994:3). The scope manifestation of the human past. Today, cultural her- of the Charter does not do justice to many of the itage is legally protected under a number of interna- special conditions, features, documentation, and

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Sec3_99 10/5/06 8:39 PM Page 99

management needs associated with indigenous her- These sites that are difficult to characterize—power itage or sacred sites that are subject to complex, spots that seem to have no fabric—may be general- 99 non-European ownership, use rights, or steward- ly known in the community but are sometimes only ship arrangements. precisely distinguishable to the keepers of stories and storyplaces—that is, to individuals who have In the Australian case, widely occurring sites and knowledge of and can tell the proper stories of the storyplaces in the sea in some instances extend far travels and deeds of ancestral beings. Strict rules offshore (such as to the outer slopes of the Great have to be observed in the presence of certain of Barrier Reef). Often such places do not exhibit any these sites, which should only be visited in the com- readily identifiable physical alteration or construc- pany of their custodians. Behavioral restrictions tion or boundary markers. These areas may be quite may apply as well, such as no drinking, smoking, or extensive (spanning an entire reef complex or tidal eating; no speaking or cursing; and no removal of channel) or as minute as an octopus hole or sheer, objects (such as shell or coral). In addition, fishing apparently empty or featureless, waterspace. or hunting may be restricted on such sites.

References

Australian Law Reform Commission. 1986. The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws (2 Vols. plus Summary vol.). Australian Government Publishing Service. Canberra, Australia. Goodland, R., and M. Webb. 1987. The Management of Cultural Property in World Bank-assisted Projects: Archaeological, Historical, Religious and Natural Unique Sites. Vol. 1 World Bank Technical Paper No. 62. Washington, DC. Johannes, R.E. 1989. Managing small-scale fisheries in Oceania: unusual constraints and opportunities. In Economics of Fishery Management in the Pacific Islands Region. H. Campbell, K. Menz, and G. Waugh (eds). ACIAR Proceedings No. 26. Canberra, Australia. Lawrence, D. 1991. The Torres Strait Treaty: Bilateral Arrangements for Environmental Protection of the Marine Environment of the Torres Strait Region. Paper presented at the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, 10–21 February 1992. Caracas, Venezuela. Nietschmann, B.Q. 1989. Traditional sea territories, resources, and rights in Torres Strait. Pp. 60–94 in A Sea of Small Boats. J. Cordell (ed.) Cultural Survival, Cambridge, Mass. Poole, P. 1989. Developing a Partnership of Indigenous Peoples, Conservationists, and Land Use Planners in Latin America. Working Paper. Policy, Planning, Research, Environment. Latin American and Caribbean Technical Dept. World Bank. Washington, DC. Sullivan P. 1994. Exclusions Under S26(3) and (4) of the Native Title Act. 1993 From the Right to Negotiate. November 1994 Issues Paper No. 5. Native Title Research Unit. Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title. M. Edmunds (ed.). Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Canberra, Australia. Wendt, A. 1978. Reborn to Belong. Paper presented at the Seminar on the Role of Museums in Strengthening Indigenous Cultures. Adelaide, 10–15 September. Young, E., H. Ross, J. Johnson, and J. Kesteven. 1991. Caring for Country: Aborigines and Land Management. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra, Australia.

THE ROLE OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 345109Sec3_100 10/5/06 8:39 PM Page 100

100 Acknowledgements

This report was produced by the team of Marea Hatziolos (Task Team Leader), John Cordell (co-editor and author of the Brazil Case Study and Chapter 2), Patrick Christie (author of the Philippines Case Study, with contributions on governance and community participation), and Juan Carlos Castilla and Stefan Gelcich (authors of the Chile Case Study). Patrice Talla prepared a companion piece on legal frameworks, from which information on legal aspects in the report was derived. This analysis will be produced as a companion volume accompanying this report.

The team would like to thank all those who facilitated their work in the field, in particular colleagues, counterparts, fishing communities, and others con- Punta de Tralca, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich sulted in Brazil, Chile, and the Philippines. The report was significantly enhanced by comments from peer reviewers Daniel Owen and Ronald Zweig of the VICE PRESIDENT SDN: World Bank and from Craig Leisher and Scott Smith KATHERINE SIERRA of the Nature Conservancy, who offered constructive criticism. The authors are also grateful to Laura SECTOR DIRECTOR: Tlaiye for her continuing guidance on how to improve JAMES WARREN EVANS the manuscript, to Bob Livernash for assistance with editing, and to many other marine conservation col- SECTOR MANAGER: leagues in the Bank, the Global Environment LAURA TLAIYE Facility, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, and IUCN–the World Conservation Union for cat- TEAM LEADER: alyzing discussion and exchanging ideas on often MAREA E. HATZIOLOS controversial topics. Finally, the team would like to extend a special note of thanks to Grace Aguilar, Jim Cantrell, and Sharon Esumei for their valuable assistance in putting the document together.

SCALING UP MARINE MANAGEMENT 345109Cover 10/5/06 6:42 PM Page 2

Photo Credits