Bull Mar Sci. 94(2):423–442. 2018 research paper https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1129
Marine protected areas in Cuba
1 Centro Nacional de Áreas Susana Perera Valderrama 1, 2 * Protegidas, 18A No. 4114, 1 Miramar, Playa, Havana, Cuba Aylem Hernández Ávila 11300. Juliett González Méndez 1 1 2 Current address: Comisión Orestes Moreno Martínez Nacional para el Conocimiento y Dorka Cobián Rojas 3 Uso de la Biodiversidad, Av. Liga 1 Periférico-Insurgentes Sur 4903, Hakna Ferro Azcona Parques del Pedregal, 14010 Elvis Milián Hernández 1 Mexico City, Mexico. Hansel Caballero Aragón 4 3 Parque Nacional Pedro M Alcolado 5 Guanahacabibes, La Bajada, 6 Sandino, Pinar del Río, Cuba Fabián Pina-Amargós 24150. Zaimiuri Hernández González 7 4 Acuario Nacional de Cuba, 3ra Leonardo Espinosa Pantoja 7 y 62, Miramar, Playa, Havana, Lázaro Francisco Rodríguez Farrat 1 Cuba 11300. 5 Instituto de Oceanología 186 No. 18406, Miramar, Playa. Havana, Cuba 11300. 6 Centro de Investigaciones de ABSTRACT.—Cuba has recognized that conservation Ecosistemas Costeros, Cayo and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is a priority. One Coco, Morón, Ciego de Avila, of the main strategies it has developed is the creation of the Cuba 67210. National System of Protected Areas (Sistema Nacional de 7 Parque Nacional Cayos de San Áreas Protegidas, or SNAP), which includes an important Felipe, La Coloma, Pinar del Río, marine component. Here, we present the current status of the Cuba 20100. Cuban marine protected areas (MPAs) and their challenges * Corresponding author email: and prognoses. To date, 105 MPAs have been proposed; they
Bulletin of Marine Science 423 © 2018 Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science of the University of Miami 424 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are one of the primary tools for conserving ma- rine biodiversity and using it sustainably (Edgar et al. 2007, Charles et al. 2016). Case studies suggest that these areas can be used to manage fisheries (Pina Amargós et al. 2014, Yamazaki et al. 2015) and maintain coral cover (Selig and Bruno 2010, Howarth et al. 2015). Some scientists also emphasize that the environmental services provided by coastal marine ecosystems are positively affected by MPAs (Potts et al. 2014, Leenhardt et al. 2015). At the same time, these areas can provide reference sites to evaluate threats to biodiversity, and they can improve engagement and education of local communities (Lundquist and Granek 2005). The importance of creating MPAs and including them in systems of protected areas has been recognized throughout the world. By 1970, 118 MPAs had been es- tablished in 27 nations (Kelleher and Kenchington 1992). According to the Marine Conservation Institute (2016), at present more than 13,600 MPAs have been desig- nated globally, with over 500 in the Caribbean. However, despite increasing num- bers, MPAs represent <3% of the world’s marine area (Marine Conservation Institute 2016). Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean Sea, has the highest marine biodiversity in the region (Miloslavich et al. 2010). Coral reefs surround 95% of its insular shelf (Hernández-Zanuy and Alcolado 2010). Its long coastline contributes to the connec- tivity of marine populations in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico (Paris et al. 2005). Nevertheless, as throughout the Caribbean region, Cuban marine biodiversity is seriously threatened (Creary et al. 2008). The Cuban government has recognized conservation and sustainable use of its natural resources as a priority (González- Díaz 2015). One of the main strategies developed to guarantee their preservation was the creation of a National System of Protected Areas (SNAP; Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Cuba in Spanish) with an important marine component (National Center of Protected Areas, CNAP 2013). Here, we present the history, current status, challenges, and projections for the future of Cuban MPAs. We have compiled this information from documents that relate to implementation of the SNAP. Most of the data have been extracted from SNAP plans that have already been completed (CNAP 2002, 2009) or are undergoing implementation (CNAP 2013). Reports and publications from projects undertaken by the CNAP and other institutions have also been reviewed.
History of Cuban MPAs
The first proposals for protected areas date from 1968 and 1973; they were pre- pared by Kenton Miller, an FAO consultant (Miller 1984), and researchers of the Botanical Institute and the Flora and Fauna Commission of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. These proposals focused mainly on terrestrial environments, although mangroves, lagoons, and some other coastal ecosystems were included. The First National Protected Areas Workshop was conducted in 1989; it had a multi-organizational approach involving experts from several national and provin- cial institutions. The opening discussions on the topic of MPAs took place during this meeting, although terrestrial and coastal components were the main focus of the proposals (Estrada et al. 2004). In the Second National Protected Areas Workshop, held in 1995, 535 proposed areas were analyzed, and MPAs were formally recognized Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 425
(CNAP 2002). Many of the areas included in the current SNAP date from this meet- ing (CNAP 2013). The Institute of Oceanology (now called “ICIMAR”) provided con- siderable information on marine species and ecosystems and proposed 18 marine reserves (including no-take zones) to ensure the sustainable management of Cuban fishery resources (Instituto de Oceanología 1995). Currently, 15 of these areas are included in the SNAP (CNAP 2013). At that time, the Ministry of the Fishing Industry also began the process of declar- ing “Zones” under Special Regimes of Use and Protection. The proposed sites were Jardines de la Reina, Punta Francés, Ciénaga de Zapata, and Cayo Largo, areas that would later mostly overlap with MPAs (Estrada et al. 2004). After the 1995 work- shop, the limited representation of marine areas in the SNAP was acknowledged. To address this problem, the recently created National Center for Protected Areas (Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, or CNAP) initiated a marine planning process that continued in the Third National Protected Areas Workshop (1998). Most of the marine areas of SNAP were included in this last planning phase (Estrada et al. 2004). At present, eight national and international courses for MPA managers on plan- ning and management of MPAs have taken place in Cuba (CNAP 2013). In addition, three planning sessions to update SNAP have been held every 5 yrs, including three gap analyses. These planning processes have largely validated the existing MPAs and the new proposals, and they have demonstrated the importance of using eco- regional planning, geographic information systems, remote sensing, digital cartog- raphy, and decision-support systems in the design and management of Cuban MPAs (CNAP 2013).
Current Status of Cuban MPAs
Cuba has proposed 211 conservation areas for protection, including 105 MPAs (Fig. 1) (CNAP 2013). Fifty-seven of the proposed areas have been approved, and seven are currently in the approval process. Figure 2 shows the evolution of MPAs in terms of official approval and the area (in hectares) they cover. Approved MPAs protect >2.5 million hectares of marine and coastal territories in the 15 provinces of Cuba and the special municipality of Isla de la Juventud. Individual MPAs and their locations can be found at online (available at http://www.snap.cu/index.php/ct-menu-item-15). The proposed system of protected areas covers 25% of the Cuban insular shelf, with 19 percent of this marine area approved to date. About 30% of Cuban coral reefs, 24% of seagrass beds, and 35% of mangroves are protected in the SNAP (CNAP 2013). Of the 21 spawning sites of commercially important fish species identified by Claro and Lindeman (2003), 13 (62%) have protected area status. Cuba defines an MPA as a marine or coastal portion of the national territory of outstanding natural value devoted to the protection and maintenance of biodiver- sity, natural resources, and cultural values associated with the natural environment (CNAP 2013). These areas include marine ecosystems or a combination of marine and coastal ecosystems. Cuban MPAs have been chosen for their high conserva- tion value and the presence of important marine species such as snappers, groupers, sharks (see Box 1), spiny lobsters, mangroves, marine turtles, and corals, inlcuding the genera Acropora spp., Orbicella spp., and Agaricia spp. They have also been cho- sen because they are adjacent to terrestrial natural areas and would contribute to the regional protection of terrestrial and marine resources. 426 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018 Figure Cuban 1. marine protected Included areas are the (MPAs). all of the eight of management MPAs categories, but only the names the of marine national parks are presented. Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 427
Figure 2. Figure 2. Number of marine protected areas established in Cuba (gray bars) and total hectares covered (black line) from 2001 to 2012. Cuba has adopted the management categories of protected areas established by the IUCN, adapting them to the country. Eight such categories have been established (Comité Ejecutivo del Consejo de Ministros 1999). 1. Nature Reserve (Ia IUCN) 2. National Park (II IUCN) 3. Ecological Reserve (II IUCN) 4. Natural Outstanding Landscape (III IUCN) 5. Floristic Managed Reserve (IV IUCN) 6. Faunal Refuge (IV IUCN) 7. Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape (V IUCN) 8. Protected Area with Managed Resources (VI IUCN) Cuban MPAs are also classified according to national significancen ( = 46) and lo- cal significance n( = 59). Marine protected areas are considered to be of internation- al, national, or regional importance; they constitute the core of the SNAP because of their conservation value, representativeness, degree of conservation, uniqueness, and size (CNAP 2002). The MPAs of national significance are headed by the nine national parks (Table 1, Fig. 1). The remaining MPAs include areas of both national and local significance: 1 nature reserve, 15 ecological reserves, 11 natural outstand- ing landscapes, 11 floristic managed reserves, 37 faunal refuges, 11 protected natural landscapes, and 10 protected areas with managed resources (Table 1). A management coordination structure with three levels (national, provincial, and local) ensures the implementation of MPAs. The National Coordinating Board, chaired by CNAP, includes the main stakeholders of SNAP under the National Enterprise for Protection of Flora and Fauna (Empresa Nacional para la Protección de la Flora y la Fauna, or ENPFF), the Department of Fishing Regulations, the National Office of State Inspection of the Ministry of Food (formerly the National Office of Fishing Inspection), the Forest Ranger Corporation, and other departments. A coordinating board at the provincial level incorporates stakeholders and depart- ments from the provinces. Administration of MPAs at the local level is guaranteed by the management authorities. Seventy-three of the 106 proposed MPAs currently 428 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018 5.93 65.00 38.00 104.10 584.30 758.20 847.00 Total Total 7,411.00 9,038.00 1,965.02 5,212.00 area (ha) 39,830.00 26,250.00 37,100.00 19,210.00 40,210.00 82,590.00 10,017.73 19,524.91 14,661.00 108,396.32 418,921.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.26 40.00 509.30 502.50 416.00 7,411.00 5,843.00 8,120.50 5,554.00 Marine area (ha) 15,950.0 0 24,209.00 34,648.20 30,896.52 37,213.28 80,765.00 16,436.85 137,060.00 0.00 5.93 79.84 25.00 38.00 75.00 917.50 255.70 431.00 2,041.00 2,451.80 1,965.02 5,212.00 2,996.72 1,825.00 3,088.06 9,107.00 area (ha) 23,880.00 77,499.80 13,367.00 10,017.73 Terrestrial Terrestrial 281,861.00 Management authority CITMA ENPFF ENPFF JA JA NP NP ENPFF ENPFF NP CAP NP NP GEBH CAP CAP ENPFF NP ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF Status Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Identified Identified Identified Approved Identified Identified Identified Identified Identified Approved Approved Identified Identified Identified Approved Approved Approved Management category National Park National Park Ecological Reserve Natural Outstanding Landscape Area with Managed Protected Resources Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Floristic Managed Reserve Faunal Refuge Floristic Managed Reserve Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Floristic Managed Reserve National Park Ecological Reserve Natural Outstanding Landscape Significance National National National National National Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local National Local National Province Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Pinar del Río Artemisa La Habana La Habana La Habana La Habana La Habana La Habana Mayabeque Mayabeque Mayabeque Matanzas Matanzas Matanzas Table 1. Cuban marine protected areas. Management authority abbreviations are: CITMA = Ministry of Science, Technologyand Environment, ENPFF = National Enterprise for ENPFF Enterprise = National Environment, Technologyand = Ministry of Science, are: CITMA abbreviations authority areas. Management 1. Cuban marine protected Table Group for Working State GEBH = Administration, Provincial the of Council = CAP authority, No management = NP Directors, of Board = JA Fauna, and Flora of Protection EFI = Integral Forestry Enterprise. = Ministry of Food Industry, MINAL Integrated Environmental Management and Sustainable Development of Havana Bay, Name Guanahacabibes Cayos de San Felipe Los Pretiles Banco San Antonio Banco San Península de Guanahacabibes Humedal Sur de los Palacios Cayo Levisa - Corona de San Carlos Punta Caribe San Ubaldo-Sabanalamar Cayos Las Cayamas - Los Guzmanes Abra del Rio Cojímar Ensenada de Portier - Lamas Tarara del río Valle Ensenada de Tiscornia Rincón de Guanabo Laguna del Cobre - Itabo Golfo de Batabanó Sureste de El Inglés Boca de Canasí Ciénaga de Zapata Cayo Mono-Galindo Sistema Espeleolacustre de Zapata Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 429 645.20 966.00 124.70 810.00 846.80 447.00 853.00 Total Total 7018.34 3,611.00 3,038.00 2,935.00 6,378.00 8,477.00 area (ha) 28,831.00 87,070.00 55,970.00 29,890.00 20,490.00 279,645.74 219,063.84 0.00 0.00 99.00 451.70 144.00 400.30 846.80 733.85 447.00 6282.90 1,377.00 4,737.00 3,013.00 Marine area (ha) 11,990.00 66,097.78 28,717.00 76,490.00 40,250.00 24,770.00 155,131.27 0.00 0.00 114.00 193.50 565.70 124.70 810.00 734.44 754.00 3,467.00 1,661.00 2,201.15 5,120.00 1,641.00 8,500.00 5,464.00 area (ha) 10,580.00 15,720.00 63,932.57 Terrestrial Terrestrial 213,547.96 Management authority JA Tourism - Tourism Cubanacán ENPFF ENPFF CITMA ENPFF NP ENPFF NP CITMA- MINAL ENPFF Group Tourism Gaviota SA ENPFF ENPFF Tourism Group Tourism Gaviota SA Tourism Group Tourism Gaviota SA CITMA JA NP NP Status Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Identified Approved Identified Approved Approved Identified Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Identified Identified Management category Area with Managed Protected Resources Ecological Reserve Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape Natural Outstanding Landscape Faunal Refuge Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape National Park Natural Outstanding Landscape Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge National Park Protected Area with Managed Protected Resources Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Significance National Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local National National National National National National Local National National Local Local Matanzas Province Matanzas - Mayabeque Matanzas Matanzas Matanzas Matanzas Cienfuegos Cienfuegos Cienfuegos Villa Clara Villa Clara Villa Clara Villa Clara Villa Villa Clara Villa Villa Clara Villa Villa Clara Villa Sancti Spiritus Sancti Spiritus Clara - Villa - Ciego de Ávila Sancti Spiritus Sancti Spiritus . Continued Península de Zapata Name Bacunayagua Cayos de las Cinco Leguas Table 1. Table Laguna de Maya Varahicacos del Río Canimar Valle Ensenada de Rancho Luna Guanaroca - Punta Gavilán Guajimico Los Caimanes Ojo del Mégano Cayo Francés Lanzanillo - Pajonal Fragoso Las Picúas - Cayo Cristo Cayo Santa María Las Loras Caguanes Buenavista Delta Agabama del Delta del Higuanojo 430 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018 38.40 183.00 Total Total 6,044.00 1,221.00 9,058.00 6,967.00 5,688.00 6,588.00 1,492.00 area (ha) 11,267.00 11,636.50 36,040.00 19,100.00 13,030.00 14,050.00 22,580.00 30,400.29 17,440.00 23,262.00 195,888.90 217,036.00 220,844.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 732.00 676.00 6,112.00 5,175.00 4,539.00 9,068.32 1,658.00 9,210.00 Marine area (ha) 18,184.10 18,120.00 14,560.00 132,619.62 200,957.00 121,067.36 38.40 980.00 183.00 5,312.00 1,220.00 3,883.00 7,938.00 8,020.00 6,291.00 1,149.00 4,930.00 1,492.00 area (ha) 11,267.00 11,636.50 17,855.90 63,269.28 13,030.00 16,079.00 99,776.64 21,331.97 17,440.00 14,052.00 Terrestrial Terrestrial Management authority ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF NP ENPFF NP NP ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF NP Status Approved Approved Approved Identified In process Identified Identified Approved Approved In process Approved Approved Approved Approved In process In process In process Approved Approved Identified Approved Identified Management category Faunal Refuge Ecological Reserve Faunal Refuge Area with Managed Protected Resources Natural Outstanding Landscape Natural Outstanding Landscape Faunal Refuge National Park Ecological Reserve Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Protected Area with Managed Protected Resources Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Floristic Managed Reserve Area with Managed Protected Resources Ecological Reserve Protected Area with Managed Protected Resources Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Significance Local National National National Local Local Local National Local Local National National Local Local Local Local Local National Local Local National Local Sancti Spiritus Province Ciego de Avila Ciego de Avila Ciego de Avila Ciego de Avila Ciego de Avila Ciego de Avila Camagüey - Ciego de Ávila Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Camagüey Las Tunas - Las Tunas Camagüey Camagüey Las Tunas Las Tunas Las Tunas . Continued Avila la bahía de Nuevitas Tunas de Zaza Tunas Name Centro y Oeste de Cayo Coco Table 1. Table Cayos de Ana María Cayos de Humedales del Norte de Ciego Dunas de Playa Pilar Alegre Buchillones - Punta Loma de Santa María Jardines de la Reina Maternillos -Tortuguilla Correa Río Máximo Humedales de Cayo Romano Cayos Los Ballenatos y manglares de Cayo Cruz Macurije-Santa Maria Laguna Larga Cayo Guajaba Bahía de Nuevas Grandes - La Isleta Cayo Sabinal Bahía de Malagueta Ojo de Agua Cayo Rabihorcado Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 431 721.30 806.60 327.00 210.30 Total Total 5,765.00 4,478.00 7,422.00 2,147.00 5,169.90 2,569.50 2,701.00 1,566.00 1,158.70 1,445.00 1,854.00 6,274.00 area (ha) 32,576.00 89,970.00 66,370.00 14,310.00 16,550.00 70,752.00 70,680.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 40.00 71.30 281.00 626.00 213.20 133.30 282.17 432.80 282.00 949.00 884.00 3,126.00 6,396.00 2,250.00 Marine area (ha) 88,462.24 12,540.00 12,945.00 14,972.81 508.10 673.30 725.90 905.00 255.70 210.30 5,484.00 4,478.00 6,796.00 2,147.00 2,043.90 2,287.33 2,690.00 1,526.00 1,507.76 1,365.00 1,577.19 1,163.00 5,390.00 area (ha) 26,180.00 53,830.00 70,752.00 68,430.00 Terrestrial Terrestrial Management authority NP NP EFI NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF CITMA CITMA ENPFF JA ENPFF CITMA CITMA Status Identified Identified In process Identified Identified Identified Identified Identified Identified Identified Identified Approved Identified Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Management category Floristic Managed Reserve Floristic Managed Reserve Ecological Reserve Floristic Managed Reserve Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Floristic Managed Reserve Floristic Managed Reserve Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape National Park Natural Outstanding Landscape Faunal Refuge Ecological Reserve Faunal Refuge Nature Reserve Ecological Reserve Faunal Refuge Area with Managed Protected Resources Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape National Park Ecological Reserve Significance Local Local National National Local Local Local Local Local Local Local National National National Local Local National National Local National Local National National Las Tunas Province Las Tunas Holguín Holguín Holguín Holguín Holguín Holguín Holguín Holguín Holguín Granma Granma Granma - Las Tunas Granma Granma Santiago de Cuba Santiago de Cuba Santiago de Cuba Santiago de Cuba - Guantánamo Santiago de Cuba Guantánamo - Holguín Guantánamo . Continued Managuano Manzanillo San Miguel del Junco Name Las Nuevas Table 1. Table Caletones Loma de Miraflores Bahía de Tánamo y cayos Bahía de Balsas de Gibara Boca de Cananova Delta del Mayari Cabo Lucrecia - Punta de Mulas Península de Ramón Bahía de Naranjo Desembarco del Granma Banco de Buena Esperanza - Delta del Cauto El Macío Ensenada del Gua y Cayos de El Retiro Siboney - Juticí San Miguel de Parada Reserva de Biosfera Baconao Estrella - Aguadores Alejandro de Humboldt Hatibonico 432 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018 12.47 910.80 Total Total 4,424.00 9,178.00 2,535.00 2,329.00 1,763.20 2,296.00 5,450.00 4,598.00 5,189.12 area (ha) 24,118.00 70,905.00 34,130.00 99,150.00 83,589.00 12,977.41 119,336.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 20.00 134.00 1,549.00 1,662.00 3,266.00 3,036.00 7,403.50 9,646.50 Marine area (ha) 67,598.35 25,299.40 89,130.00 12,394.40 12.47 910.80 583.01 2,875.00 7,516.00 2,401.00 2,328.00 1,763.20 2,276.00 5,445.00 1,562.00 3,306.65 5,189.12 8,830.60 area (ha) 10,020.00 16,714.50 73,942.50 Terrestrial Terrestrial 116,070.00 Management authority ENPFF ENPFF NP NP JA ENPFF CITMA NP NP NP ENPFF NP ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF ENPFF NP Status Approved Identified Identified Identified Approved Approved Approved Identified Identified Identified Approved Identified Approved Identified Approved In process Approved Identified Management category Ecological Reserve Natural Outstanding Landscape Floristic Managed Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Area with Managed Protected Resources Natural Outstanding Landscape Natural Outstanding Landscape Natural Outstanding Landscape Floristic Managed Reserve Protected Natural Landscape or Seascape National Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Faunal Refuge Faunal Refuge Protected Area with Managed Protected Resources Faunal Refuge Significance National Local Local National National Local Local Local National National National National National National National National National Local Guantánamo Province Guantánamo Guantánamo Guantánamo Guantánamo - Holguín Guantánamo Guantánamo Guantánamo Guantánamo Guantánamo Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud Isla de la Juventud . Continued Baitiquirí Name Maisi - Caleta Table 1. Table Esparto Tacre Cuchillas del Toa Cañon del Yumurí - Majayara Yara Paso de los Alemanes Paso de los Macambo Maisí - Yumurí Punta Francés Cayo Largo Los Indios Punta del Este Cayo Campos - Rosario Ciénaga de Lanier Sur de la Isla Juventud Cayos Los Indios Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 433
have management plans in place that include Box 1 staff, budget allocation, and office infra- The Goliath Grouper, Sharks, and structure (Table 1). The ENPFF is the prin- Marine Protected Areas ciple management authority in Cuba, with Large marine species, such as the 50 MPAs under its jurisdiction. The Ministry Atlantic goliath grouper [Epinephelus itajara (Lichstenstein, 1822)] and sharks, are important of Science, Technology and Environment for the ecology, economy, and conservation (CITMA) manages eight MPAs. Other au- of Caribbean biodiversity, but they have been inadequately studied in Cuban waters. The goliath thorities include the State Working Group for grouper is one of the largest fishes on Earth; it Integrated Environmental Management and reaches 2.5 m in length, weighs up to 450 kg, and Sustainable Development of Havana Bay, the is critically endangered throughout its range. Yet it is not protected in Cuban waters. More than a Council of the Provincial Administration, the decade ago, four goliath groupers were tagged in tourism group Gaviota S.A., and the Board of Jardines de la Reina National Park. They were all caught by commercial fishers less than three years Directors (Table 1). The Board of Directors later outside the protected areas, an indication represents a group of several institutions that of heavy fishing pressure (Pina Amargós and Gonzales 2009). In 2013, scientists detected the co-manage an MPA. In general, it adminis- first spawning aggregation site for this species ters large MPAs such as those in the category in Cuba, located outside Jardines de la Reina of Protected Areas with Managed Resources. National Park (Pina-Amargós et al. unpub data). Goliath groupers are more abundant inside the park than outside, but their concentration is very Legal Framework low, probably due to fishing at the spawning site(s). Although the goliath grouper does not constitute an important fishery in Cuba, they are caught Laws, decrees, resolutions, and technical commercially during the spawning season and for subsistence year-round. The only regulation is a standards apply to both marine and terres- minimum size limit of 960 g. More than 20 years trial Cuban protected areas. The main legal ago, fishing for groupers generally took place in provisions concerning the management of shallower waters, which probably indicates the impact of fishing in species depth distribution. MPAs include: Many shark species are also threatened. Sharks are 2.5–18 times more abundant inside Jardines • Law 81 (1997), established the de la Reina National Park than outside (Pina- Ministry of Science, Technology, and Amargós et al. unpub data). Taking into account the recapture rate outside the protected area, the the Environment (CITMA in Spanish) National Park offers better protection for the lemon as responsible for directing activities shark [Negaprion brevirostris (Poey, 1868)] and Caribbean reef shark [Carcharhinus perezii (Poey, related to SNAP. 1876)] than for the nurse shark [Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre, 1788)] and blacktip shark • Decree Law 200 (1999), defined acts or [Carcharhinus limbatus (Müller and Henle, 1839)]. behaviors that are contraventions of Seventy-seven percent of recaptured tagged sharks the protection of the environment and have been taken outside Jardines de la Reina National Park, mostly by fishermen, an indication protected areas. of heavy fishing outside the protected areas (Pina- Amargós et al. unpub data). • Decree Law 201 (1999), established the Goliath grouper and sharks are the main legal administration of the SNAP. scuba-diving attractions in Jardines de la Reina (Figueredo et al. 2010). These megafauna have • Resolution 17 (1999), created the helped to define the first National Action Plan for the Conservation of Sharks and Rays in Cuba. National Center of Protected Areas Several new management actions are required for (CNAP). these species: a total ban on harvesting endangered species, protection of spawning aggregation Under these guidelines, 18 MPAs were ap- sites, modification of fisheries regulations, implementation of fishing-gear restrictions, proved in 2001, 3 more in 2008, 20 in 2010, establishment of catch quotas, and a requirement and 16 in 2012 through agreements issued that landings be recorded by species. To help the fishing community move beyond commercial by the Executive Committee of the Council harvest, alternative livelihoods, such as tourism of Ministers and published in the Official and scuba diving, should be promoted. Essential Gazette of the Republic of Cuba. research includes studies of the dynamics of spawning aggregation sites and movement patterns. 434 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018
Figure 3. Marine protected areas in Cuba protect a wide diversity of species. In Guanahacabibes National Park, these include (A) the staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis, and (B) the sponge Callyspongia vaginalis. Jardines de la Reina National Park protects (C) the goliath grouper, Epinepheluss itajara, and (D) the reef shark, Carcharinus perezi. Photos courtesy of C Contreras Koob (Guanahacabibes) and N López Fernández (Jardines).
Notable Marine Protected Areas of Cuba
Several MPAs are worth emphasizing because of their history and high profile. The Guanahacabibes National Park, in the Pinar del Rio province (Fig. 3), is of high eco- logical value because of its healthy coral reefs (Caballero-Aragón et al. 2007, Perera- Valderrama et al. 2016). In November 2015, an agreement between the United States and Cuba created a sisterhood between the Guanahacabibes National Park and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary—the first memorandum of understanding between the two countries concerning environmental conservation. Cayos de San Felipe National Park in the Pinar del Rio province has important sea turtle nesting populations, including the critically endangered hawksbill turtle [Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766)] (Espinosa-Pantoja et al. 2014). It also has the second largest colony of Least Terns (Sternula antillarum Lesson, 1847) in the West Indies (Hernández-González et al. 2016). Zapata Peninsula is considered the most important wetland in Cuba and the in- sular Caribbean region. The area contains some of the best-preserved reefs in the country, including the reef crest of Faro Cazones in Ciénaga de Zapata National Park, with >60% live coral cover (Caballero-Aragón et al. 2016), and the reefs of the Bahía de Cochinos, inside the Natural Outstanding Landscape Sistema Espeleolacustre de Zapata, with >35% live coral cover (Caballero-Aragón and Perera-Valderrama 2014). Jardines de la Reina National Park owes its significance to the existence of abun- dant populations of fish and invertebrates of commercial importance. The effec- tiveness of maintaining and increasing fish biomass in this national park has been Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 435 scientifically established (Pina Amargós et al. 2014). The largest biomass of fish of the families Serranidae and Lutjanidae in the Caribbean region is reported in this area (Hackerot et al. 2013). Punta Francés National Park in the Isla de la Juventud was one of the first MPAs. Preservation of its scenic reefs has been a priority. This park contains the oldest div- ing center in the country, and one of the most treasured areas for divers due to its beauty and preservation of coral reefs.
Tourism in MPAs
Given their natural, historical, and cultural value, Cuban MPAs have great po- tential for tourism. The SNAP works with the Ministry of Tourism (MINTUR) and with national and provincial groups concerned with ecotourism under the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers. After the legal approval of ecotourism groups, in 2013, new regulations were established to promote visits to protected ar- eas. In addition, a new proposal for the management of nautical activities in MPAs is currently being developed. New regulations have also been developed for individual MPAs, such as the Guanahacabibes National Park, where zoning was adjusted to manage the arrival of boats and cruises. The development of tourism is a central strategy for the SNAP. Scuba diving is considered a key component for tourist visits to MPAs. Many of the most im- portant diving centers of the island are in them, including María la Gorda in the Guanahacabibes National Park, El Colony on Isla de la Juventud, Playa Girón on the Bahía de Cochinos, and the Avalon Fleet on Jardines de la Reina. Catch-and-release sport fishing is also considered compatible with the management of Cuban MPAs and has been developed at Jardines de la Reina and Ciénaga de Zapata national parks and in Campos-Rosario Faunal Refuge. Future studies are needed to determine the effects of this recreational fishing on populations within the parks. Guidelines and methods have been developed to assure appropriate implementa- tion of tourism in the MPAs. These include: the Strategic Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism Development in the SNAP of Cuba; sustainable tourist products (e.g., div- ing, trekking, fly fishing) for Jardines de la Reina National Park, Ciénaga de Zapata National Park, and Guanahacabibes National Park; strategic guidelines for sustain- able tourism in the SNAP; and methods for monitoring visitation. The SNAP trains tour guides, travel agencies, MPA managers, and the private sector for these activities.
Community Involvement
In Cuba, it is estimated that in protected areas and buffer zones there are around 250,000 inhabitants, grouped in about 340 communities and settlements, and some isolated populations, mainly in mountainous, coastal, and wetland areas (ONE 2007). Although there is no specific study covering MPAs, most local communities associated with them are aware of the importance of various coastal and marine ecosystems, including mangroves, wetlands and coral reefs, for the development of diverse activities such as fisheries, tourism, agriculture and forestry (Ferro-Azcona et al. 2014). These activities allow improved living conditions in their communities, which is relevant, as several environmental problems are generated by the pressure their inhabitants apply toward natural resources. Recent research in marine and 436 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018 coastal protected areas in southern Cuba has found that many natural coastal and marine ecosystems that are conserved at these sites constitute an important source of food and support for the economic and social development of their communities (Ferro-Azcona et al. 2014). For this reason, several actions have been implemented to guarantee community involvement in conservation, and to improve the welfare of people living in MPAs. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the services provided by marine and coast- al ecosystems and to demonstrate the contribution they make to local economies within MPAs (Ferro-Azcona et al. 2014). Participatory workshops have been held with wide representation of community leaders, MPA managers, and productive sec- tors. Information has been gathered regarding the level of environmental awareness, understanding of environmental problems, use of natural resources, livelihoods, and conflicts (Ferro-Azcona et al. 2014). This information has been used in the partici- patory planning of MPAs, including the selection and implementation of economic alternatives. These alternatives accomplished in local communities include replace- ment of fishing gear, sponge aquaculture, sustainable fishing, beekeeping, sustain- able agriculture, and the development of new ecotourism activities. Throughout the entire SNAP, strong environmental educational work is contin- uously carried out involving communities and main stakeholders associated with MPAs. Every year, festivals, competitions, fishing tournaments, and biodiversity monitoring campaigns are organized in local communities using volunteers. In ad- dition, training sessions and workshops for dissemination of results are conducted with diving centers, fishing companies and forestry enterprises, among others.
Fisheries Management in Cuban MPAs
To reconcile fishery plans with conservation efforts, the Ministry of Food Industry (MINAL) proposed to overlap fishing reserves with MPAs. In the first stage, mapping of existing fishery reserves was updated to detect uncovered areas. Meetings and workshops were then conducted with fishermen and managers, which led to the dec- laration of new reserves within the MPAs. In other cases, negotiations are ongoing. Another successful example was the elimination of the bottom trawl net known as chinchorro. To eliminate this fishing gear item, used throughout almost all of the country, it was necessary to mitigate the social impact this would have. In workshops involving fishers, alternatives were evaluated and a joint strategy for acquisition of new fishing gear was developed. In August 2012, a resolution banning the use of the chinchorro was approved. With international support, raw materials for construc- tion of equipment for some fishing enterprises and communities within MPAs were acquired. Fishers built their own gear (mainly longlines, gill nets, and traps), which they are now using.
Cuban MPAs and International Policy
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has declared two Cuban MPAs as Natural World Heritage Sites. These are the na- tional parks Desembarco del Granma (established in 1999) and Alejandro de Humboldt (established in 2001). In Alejandro de Humboldt, the terrestrial values are more relevant, but there is an important marine component. Desembarco del Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 437
Granma National Park has the second largest and best preserved system of marine terraces of the world. UNESCO, through the Man and the Biosphere scientific program, also established five biosphere reserves in Cuba with a marine component, including MPAs as the core areas. In 1987, the biosphere reserves Guanahacabibes Peninsula, at the western end of the island, and Cuchillas del Toa and Baconao, in the eastern region, were ap- proved. In 2000, Península de Zapata and Buenavista were added. In 2001, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance declared the first Cuban Ramsar site (wetland of international importance), Ciénaga de Zapata, considered the largest and best preserved wetland in the Insular Caribbean. In 2003, five more sites were established: Buenavista, Ciénaga de Lanier, Northern Wetland of Ciego de Ávila, Cauto’s Delta and Rio Maximo. All sites are MPAs or include several of them within the Ramsar sites. The Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) lists pro- tected species and areas significant to the Caribbean region (CNAP 2013). In 2012, the Guanahacabibes National Park was included in the SPAW protected areas list. Currently, the status of Cayos de San Felipe National Park is being revised for inclu- sion in the list of protected areas under the SPAW Protocol.
Challenges
One of the principle challenges that MPA management faces in Cuba is insuffi- cient funding, a reflection of the country’s difficult economic situation. All MPAs have a specific budget, in local currency, guaranteed by the government. Depending on which management authority is involved, the MPAs receive their funding either through the National Fund for Forestry Development projects or through the annual budget of the ministries to which the managing authorities belong. International projects and tourism activities also attract funds to MPAs. The amounts are still in- sufficient, however, to ensure their proper management (CNAP 2013). Furthermore, revenues from tourism vary among MPAs, and most are not equitably distributed or reinvested in the protected areas once they are deposited in the centralized accounts. For these reasons, there are not yet enough legal and economic mechanisms to reinvest tourism profits generated by MPAs in the conservation of resources and management. With the intent of developing a nationwide income reinvestment strat- egy for protected areas, there have been numerous workshops, training sessions, and exchanges with other countries with experience in these areas, a process that has also involved the Ministry of Finance and Prices and the Ministry of Economy and Planning (CNAP 2013). As a result, a proposal presented to CITMA, and to the Parliamentary Commission on Services and the Parliamentary Commission on Environment and Energy suggested that one part of protected areas revenues should remain in the PAs, another should go to SNAP for redistribution among protected areas, and a third would go to the government’s budget. For several reasons, this was not deemed feasible in the current economic climate. Some successes have been achieved in individual MPAs, mainly in areas of the ENPFF like the Natural Outstanding Landscape Sistema Espeleolacustre de Zapata. Since 2013, this protected area has received fees from tourists for access to dive sites, and these have resulted in annual revenues of nearly 20,000 Cuban convertible pesos (CUC$), not counting the profits of the tourism sector. However, there remains a 438 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018 need to establish a national policy or financial mechanism so that such successes do not remain isolated cases, and that there be more consistency in MPA payments and the use of the revenues. Another major challenge is the increase in visitors to the MPAs. After the re-es- tablishment of relations between Cuba and the United States, the visits of US citizens increased rapidly (Anfuso et al. 2017). According to the Ministry of Tourism, the US visitors to Cuba increased by 108% as of the end of April 2017 over 2016 (Felipe 2017). It follows that we can also expect a significant rise in the number of visits to MPAs. Such growth can present a major challenge to the health of species and ecosystems in these areas. Although the increase in American tourism specifically to visit MPAs is not yet known (see section on Tourism in MPAs), various efforts have been put in place to ensure planned and orderly visits to these vulnerable areas. Another serious concern about MPA management is the occurrence of illegal ac- tivities due to inadequate investment in control efforts. The use of prohibited fishing gear, the taking of protected species, and violations of minimum catch sizes occur both within and outside the MPA borders (CNAP 2013). The species most affected by illegal fishing are those of the highest commercial value, such as snappers and groupers. Although these species are the most exploited, in areas where their populations have declined, other groups of lower economic value are also being illegally fished in MPAs. One such case is the parrotfish, a group of species with low commercial value, but with very high ecological importance as an herbivore. By contrast, the spiny lobster [Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804)], which has high commercial value and constitutes an important national export, is seriously pursued, and this affects the national economy. Marine turtles are also the subject of poaching. Although strong legislation bans the capture of many of these species and pun- ishes offenders, enforcement is largely ineffective due to limited economic resources and capacity in the MPAs. Generally, the most geographically isolated MPAs are least affected by illegal fishing. However, these areas may be more vulnerable to -ex ploitation due to greater enforcement limitations, while the incidence of illegalities may be underreported. In some areas, MPA personnel have been trained and certi- fied to perform enforcement tasks, but there is substantial turnover of personnel due to the difficult working conditions. Accordingly, although many MPA workers have received training, some no longer perform these activities. In addition to surveillance conducted by MPA managers, efforts have been made to ensure enforcement by involving other stakeholders. The implementation of a Cooperative Surveillance System, for example, consists of key stakeholders being placed in charge of law enforcement. They include MPA managers, inspectors of the Ministry of the Food Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, coast guard troops, and the Ministry of Armed Forces. Many surveillance activities have been conducted in the MPAs of several provinces by using this mechanism.
Achievements and Future Projections
Many improvements have been achieved in the design, planning, and management of MPAs in Cuba. Three SNAP plans have been implemented. The first plan,- im plemented between 2003 and 2008, laid the groundwork for the establishment and strengthening of the most significant protected areas, placing emphasis on terrestrial Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 439 national parks. Its implementation had the support of the Global Environmental Facility/United Nations Development Program (GEF/UNDP) through the project “Strengthening the National System of Protected Areas.” The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) gave support to individual MPAs such as Ciénaga de Zapata and Jardines de la Reina national parks and some of the Canarreos Archipelago. The second plan, implemented between 2009 and 2013, focused on MPAs through the support of the GEF/UNDP project, “Southern Archipelagos of Cuba.” This stage was characterized by strengthening cooperation with the Ministries of Tourism and Food Industries. The current implementation of the third plan (beginning in 2013, through 2020) has been undertaken with a SNAP of greater maturity. The actions today and in the immediate future are geared to assess the economic value of ecosystem services, to strengthen work with fishing communities, to achieve greater integration with the productive sectors, and to guarantee satisfactory management of tourism and fisheries in MPAs. Plans are also underway to improve the protection of marine eco- systems in the near future by increasing the size of MPAs to include a 3% additional cover of marine ecosystems on the Cuban insular shelf, and by increasing the size of MPAs to include a 3% additional cover of critical sites for marine species (fish spawning aggregation areas, turtles nesting beaches, etc.). This is to be achieved by establishing management authorities in the specific MPAs and, if possible, obtain their legal approval. Another success achieved by the SNAP has been the development of tools to plan and administrate MPAs: these include development of management plans, and of ways to assess both the management effectiveness and financial sustainability of pro- tected areas. Methods have also been created to improve and categorize tourist ac- tivities. Scientific protocols to monitor species and ecosystems have been developed with the participation of scientists and managers. Each MPA that has been approved has a management plan with a 5-yr duration. Implementation is executed through annual operational plans. All these activities are designed to improve MPA manage- ment in the future. Compared to terrestrial protected areas, marine area protection is of more recent development. They require more resources and their implementa- tion in Cuba has been difficult due to economic strictures and instability. However, despite these challenges, a strong political will has been maintained by the govern- ment. Although far from perfect, it has contributed to a great degree to ensure the conservation of Cuba’s rich marine biodiversity, whose relevance to the Caribbean region and to the world is of substantial importance. Biodiversity conservation has been a priority in the readjustment of Cuba’s economic model, which has been underway during the last 5 yrs. There has been increased collaborative work among government institutions, civil society, indepen- dent workers, and academia. The current plan is to continue to foster appropriate coordination among all parties involved or interested in the use of MPA resourc- es, with emphasis on the work of the national and provincial coordinating boards. The purpose of this is to ensure effective enforcement and strengthen the legal and regulatory framework. Furthermore, MPA management has been strongly support- ed by many national and international institutions. Their support has contributed more than 30 million Cuban pesos per year through the National Fund for Forestry Development, as well as one million US dollars from such organizations as GEF/ UNDP, WWF, Cooperation for the Development of Emerging Countries (COSPE), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), The Ocean Foundation, WILDCOAST, Ocean 440 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018
Doctor, Birdlife International, and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), among others (CNAP 2013). To ensure optimal management, it will be essential to preserve these partnerships and establish new ones. To maintain these trends, we need to assure that conservation actions and aware- ness continue to prevail over the goals, actions, and limitations that corporate and fi- nancial interests seek to impose. Despite its economic needs, Cuba has implemented strong legislation for marine protection. The results and experiences of this work should support the movement ahead toward sustainability and conservation of natu- ral resources.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge C Perera, J Roman, D Greger, and G Allez for their assistance in editing the manuscript. The authors also thank N López Fernández, C Contreras Koob, and COSTASALVAJE A.C. for the photographs.
Literature Cited
Anfuso G, Williams AT, Martínez GC, Botero CM, Hernández JC, Pranzini E. 2017. Evaluation of the scenic value of 100 beaches in Cuba: implications for coastal tourism management. Ocean Coast Manage. 142:173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.029 Caballero-Aragón H, González-Ferrer S, Cobián D, Álvarez S, Alcolado-Prieto P. 2007. Evaluación AGRRA del bentos en diez sitios de buceo de “María la Gorda”, Bahía de Corrientes, Cuba. Rev Invest Mar. 28:131–138. Caballero-Aragón H, Perera-Valderrama S. 2014. Resultados del programa de arrecifes corali- nos. Bentos. In: Hernández-Ávila A, editor. Estado actual de la biodiversidad marino-coste- ra, en la región de los Archipiélagos del Sur de Cuba. Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Impresos Dominicanos. Caballero-Aragón H, Alcolado PM, Rey-Villiers N, Perera-Valderrama S, Méndez JG. 2016. Coral communities condition in varying wave exposure: the gulf of Cazones, Cuba. Rev Biol Trop. 64:79–93. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v64i1.18231 Charles A, Westlund L, Bartley DM, Fletcher WJ, Garcia S, Govan H, Sanders J. 2016. Fishing livelihoods as key to marine protected areas: insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquat Conserv. 26:165–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2648 Claro R, Lindeman KC. 2003. Spawning aggregation sites of snapper and grouper species (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) on the insular shelf of Cuba. Gulf Caribb Res. 14:91–106. https://doi.org/10.18785/gcr.1402.07 CNAP (National Center of Protected Areas). 2002. Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Cuba. Plan 2003–2008. Sevilla, España. Escandón Imp. CNAP (National Center of Protected Areas). 2009. Plan del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas 2009–2013. (CD-ROM). La Habana, Cuba. CNAP (National Center of Protected Areas). 2013. Plan del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas 2014–2020. La Habana, Cuba. Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. del Consejo de Ministros CE. 1999. Decree Law 201 of the National System of Cuban Protected Areas. Gaceta Oficial de la República de Cuba. 84:1355–1363. Creary M, Alcolado P, Coelho V, Crabbe J, Green S, Geraldes F, Ainsley H, Hibbert H, Jones R, Jones-Smith L, et al. 2008. Status of coral reefs in the northern Caribbean and western Atlantic GCRMN Node in 2008. In: Wilkinson C, editor. Status of coral reefs of the world. Townsville, Australia. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. Edgar GJ, Russ GR, Babcock RC. 2007. Marine protected areas. In: Connell A, Gillanders BM, editors. Marine Ecology. Oxford University Press. Perera Valderrama et al.: Cuban MPAs 441
Espinosa-Pantoja L, Medina Y, Forneiro Y, Hernández-González Z, Gerhartz JL. 2014. Dinámica reproductiva de las tortugas marinas en el Parque Nacional Cayos de San Felipe. Flora Fauna. 2:32–36. Estrada R, Hernández A, Gerhartz JL, Martínez A, Melero M, Bliemsrieder M, Lindeman K. 2004. The National System of Marine Protected Areas in Cuba. La Habana. Felipe K. 2017. El mejor momento del turismo en la Isla. [Internet]. Granma. Accessed May 2017. Available from: http://www.granma.cu/cuba/2017-04-28/ el-mejor-momento-del-turismo-en-la-isla-28-04-2017-15-04-57 Ferro-Azcona H, Gómez-País G, Acosta-Rodríguez O. 2014. Áreas protegidas y comunidades humanas. Una mirada desde el sur. La Habana, Cuba. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente. Figueredo-Martín T, Pina-Amargós F, Angulo-Valdés J, Gómez-Fernández R. 2010. Buceo con- templativo en Jardines de la Reina, Cuba: caracterización y percepción sobre el estado de conservación del área. Revista de Investigaciones Marinas. 31:23–32. González-Díaz P. 2015. Manejo Integrado de Zonas Costeras en Cuba: estado actual, retos y desafíos. La Habana, Cuba. Ediciones Imagen Contemporánea. Hackerott S, Valdivia A, Green SJ, Côté IM, Cox CE, Akins L, Bruno JF. 2013. Native preda- tors do not influence invasion success of Pacific lionfish on Caribbean reefs. PLoS One. 8:e68259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068259 Hernández-González Z, Espinosa-Pantoja L, Perera-Valderrama S. 2016. Áreas propuestas para inclusión en la lista SPAW: Formato anotado para los informes de presentación para: Parque Nacional Cayos de San Felipe, Cuba. La Habana, Cuba. Hernández-Zanuy A, Alcolado PM. 2010. La biodiversidad en ecosistemas marinos y costeros del litoral de Iberoamérica y el cambio climático: I. Memorias del Primer Taller de la RED CYTED BIODIVMAR. La Habana, Cuba. Howarth LM, Pickup SE, Evans LE, Cross TJ, Hawkins JP, Roberts CM, Stewart BD. 2015. Sessile and mobile components of a benthic ecosystem display mixed trends with- in a temperate marine reserve. Mar Environ Res. 107:8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marenvres.2015.03.009 Instituto de Oceanología. 1995. Propuesta de áreas vedadas de pesca, para el manejo sos- tenible de los recursos de la plataforma cubana. La Habana, Cuba. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente. Kelleher G, Kenchington R. 1992. Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas. A marine conservation and development report. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. Leenhardt P, Low N, Pascal N, Micheli F, Claudet J. 2015. The role of marine protected areas in providing ecosystem services. In: Belgrano A, Woodward G, Jacob U, editors. Aquatic func- tional biodiversity: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. London, UK. Elsevier, Inc. Lundquist CJ, Granek EF. 2005. Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conserv Biol. 19:1771–1778. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00279.x Marine Conservation Institute. 2016. MPAtlas [Internet]. Seattle, WA. Accessed 10 February, 2016. Available from: http://www.mpatlas.org Miller K. 1984. Planificación de parques nacionales para el eco-desarrollo en Latinoamérica. Madrid, España. Fundación para la Ecología y la Protección del Medio Ambiente. Miloslavich P, Díaz JM, Klein E, Alvarado JJ, Díaz C, Gobin J, Bastidas AC. 2010. Marine biodi- versity in the Caribbean: regional estimates and distribution patterns. PLoS One. 5:e11916. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011916 ONE. 2007. Anuario Estadístico de Cuba 2006. La Habana. Imprenta Federico Engels. Paris C, Cowen R, Claro R, Lindeman KC. 2005. Larval transport pathways from Cuban snap- per (Lutjanidae) spawning aggregations based on biophysical modeling. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 296:93–106. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps296093 Perera-Valderrama S, Hernández H, Ruiz MA, Alcolado PM, Caballero-Aragón H, González J, Cobián-Rojas D. 2016. Condition assessment of coral reefs of two marine protected areas 442 Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 94, No 2. 2018
under different regimes of use in the north-western Caribbean. Ocean Coast Manage. 127:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.001 Pina-Amargós F, González-Sansón G. 2009. Movement patterns of goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara around southeast Cuba: implications for conservation. Endanger Species Res. 7:243–247. Pina Amargós F, Gonzalez Sanson G, Martin F, Valdivia A. 2014. Evidence for protection of targeted reef fish on the largest marine reserve in the Caribbean. Peer J. 2:e274. https://doi. org/10.7717/peerj.274 Potts T, Burdon D, Jackson E, Atkins J, Saunders J, Hastings E, Langmead O. 2014. Do marine protected areas deliver flows of ecosystem services to support human welfare? Mar Pol. 44:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.011 Selig ER, Bruno JF. 2010. A global analysis of the effectiveness of marine protected areas in preventing coral loss. PLoS One. 5:e9278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009278 Yamazaki S, Jennings S, Grafton RQ, Kompa T. 2015. Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries? Resour Energy Econ. 40:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.01.001
B M S