Ocean Zoning with Stakeholders for Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah, Malaysia

From Marxan to management: ocean zoning with stakeholders for Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah, Malaysia

R OBECCA J UMIN,AUGUSTINE B INSON,JENNIFER M C G OWAN,SIKULA M AGUPIN M ARIA B EGER,CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN,HUGH P. POSSINGHAM and C ARISSA K LEIN

Abstract Tun Mustapha Park, in Sabah, Malaysia, was ga- many other places embark on similar zoning processes on zetted in May  and is the first multiple-use park in land and in the sea. Malaysia where conservation, sustainable resource use and Keywords Biodiversity, Coral Triangle Initiative, marine development co-occur within one management framework. protected area, Marxan, representation, sustainable resource We applied a systematic conservation planning tool, use, systematic conservation planning, zoning Marxan with Zones, and stakeholder consultation to design and revise the draft zoning plan. This process was facilitated Supplementary material for this article can be found at by Sabah Parks, a government agency, and WWF-Malaysia, https://doi.org/./S under the guidance of the Tun Mustapha Park steering committee and with support from the University of Queensland. Four conservation and fishing zones, including no-take Introduction areas, were developed, each with representation and replication targets for key marine habitats, and a range of socio- arine ecosystems are threatened by human activities economic and community objectives. Here we report on Mon land and in the sea (Halpern et al., ). Coupled how decision-support tools informed the reserve design with growing human populations and economies, the main process in three planning stages: prioritization, government threats include overfishing (Jackson et al., ; Lotze et al., review, and community consultation. Using marine habitat ; Worm et al., , ), pollution (Vitousek et al., and species representation as a reporting metric, we describe ; Syvitski et al., ), and habitat modification and deg- how the zoning plan changed at each stage of the design pro- radation (Halpern et al., , ; Burke et al., ). cess. We found that the changes made to the zoning plan by Furthermore, climate change affects marine ecosystems the government and stakeholders resulted in plans that through changes in sea level, aragonite concentrations, compromised the achievement of conservation targets be- and temperature (Jackson et al., ; Hughes et al., ; cause no-take areas were moved away from villages and Hoegh-Guldberg et al., ). Marine protected areas are the coastline, where unique habitats are located. The design a key regional initiative that can help conserve marine bio- process highlights a number of lessons learned for future diversity and sustain coastal resources (Gaines et al., ; conservation zoning, which we believe will be useful as Hughes et al., ; Mumby & Harborne, ; Edgar et al., ). Given the growing threat to marine ecosystems, there is ROBECCA JUMIn* (Corresponding author) Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia an increasing incentive to establish marine protected areas; E-mail [email protected] for example, the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to   AUGUSTINE BINSON Sabah Parks, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia represent % of marine habitats in protected areas by  JENNIFER MCGOWAN and MARIA BEGER Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation (Convention on Biological Diversity, ). As protected Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia areas often constrain resource users such as fishers, estab-

SIKULA MAGUPIN WWF-Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia lishing various types of zones can accommodate multiple

CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN† The Global Change Institute, The University of conflicting and incompatible uses of the ocean (Crowder Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia et al., ; Yates et al., ). Ocean zoning thus aims to HUGH P. POSSINGHAM The Nature Conservancy, South Brisbane, Queensland, regulate activities in time and space to achieve specific ob- Australia, and The Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The jectives for industries and biodiversity (Agardy, ). University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia Many approaches have been used to design zoning plans, CARISSA KLEIN The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia, and School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, from stakeholder- to software-driven processes. For ex- Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ample, stakeholder groups were responsible for developing *Also at: WWF-Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia † networks of coastal marine protected areas in California Current address: Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan,   Queensland, Australia (Klein et al., ; Gleason et al., ), and a national mar- Received  February . Revision requested  August . ine conservation strategy in the Marshall Islands (Baker Accepted  November . First published online  May . et al., ). In Papua New Guinea (Green et al., ),

Oryx, 2018, 52(4), 775–786 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605316001514 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 52.0.234.91, on 24 Jan 2020 at 01:04:49, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514 776 R. Jumin et al.

Australia (Fernandes et al., ) and Indonesia (Grantham including dugongs Dugong dugon, otters Lutra perspicillata, et al., ), spatial planning software was used to identify humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae, and marine tur- priority areas for multiple human activities and biodiversity. tles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys Ideally, decision makers would utilize both stakeholder olivacea; Dumaup et al., ). The Park is home to input and spatial planning software to identify zone place- . , people living in three administrative districts ments to meet conservation and socio-economic objectives (Kudat, Pitas, Kota Marudu; Supplementary Fig. S), almost (Game et al., ). However, there is limited guidance on half of which depend on marine resources for their liveli- how best to integrate these approaches to design a zoning hood and well-being (Department of Statistics Malaysia, plan for multiple uses. Few examples in the literature de- ; PE Research, ). Fishing is a primary economic ac- scribe the challenges and opportunities associated with inte- tivity in the region, and contributed % of total marine grated approaches. Accessing lessons learnt from projects fisheries production in Sabah in  (PE Research, ). that pioneered such approaches remains a challenge. As Although trawl and purse seine fisheries are the largest fish- an increasing number of nations embark on ocean zoning eries in the region, the live reef fish trade, long-line and processes to conserve biodiversity and manage increasing small-scale artisanal fisheries are significant for local liveli- economic activity, such guidance is required urgently to hoods. Habitats and marine life are thus threatened by a support effective decisions. suite of human activities, including overfishing, destructive Here we describe the approach used to develop a zoning fishing, unsustainable coastal land uses, and illegal harvest- plan for Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, ing of marine turtles and eggs (Jumin et al., ). in which the planning tool Marxan with Zones (Watts We categorized the Park into four ecological regions, based et al., ) was integrated with stakeholder consultation. on geographical location, ocean currents and wind regimes Stakeholders included representatives from the government, that influence the development of coral reef ecosystems, academia, NGOs, and community members affected by the and report our results according to these regions (Fig. ). Park. One of the primary objectives of the plan was to meet The planning area is . million ha, which includes areas basic representation targets for key marine habitats and spe- three nautical miles (. km) from the mainland and two cies within the Park. We show how the representation of key nautical miles (. km) from the islands within the Park. marine habitats and species changed in each of three stages We excluded an area of c.  ha adjacent to Kudat Town be- of the design process, as well as how evenly habitats and spe- cause of heavy degradation and industrial development, in- cies are represented across each zone. We believe that les- cluding regional port and ferry terminals, and a landing jetty. sons learned from our experience can guide decisions about how to zone for conservation and human uses elsewhere. In particular, we believe this study will be useful Methods across the Coral Triangle, where an increasing number of zoning plans are underway, as the policy context and data Zoning process limitations are similar. In  the Sabah State Government approved the intention to gazette and zone the area for multiple uses, including Study area conservation and fishing. The Sabah State Government has three objectives for Tun Mustapha Park: () eradicate Tun Mustapha Park is located in the northern region of poverty, () develop economic activities that are environ- Sabah. Prior to gazettement the region had no effective for- mentally sustainable, and () conserve habitats and threa- mal natural resource management plans, and laws regulat- tened species. In  an Interim Steering Committee ing its resource use were not fully enforced. To address this (henceforth the Committee) was established to manage the Sabah Government approved, in , the intention to and guide the development of an integrated management gazette the Park and the gazettement was finalized in May plan for the Park. The Committee comprises stakeholders . During this period the Park became part of two representing the region’s interests and is chaired by the major initiatives: the Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment. There are Programme and the Coral Triangle Initiative for Coral six technical working groups focused on various aspects of Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security. The Initiative is a region- management, including a zoning working group, which fa- al multilateral collaboration to manage coral reef resources. cilitated all stages of the planning process described here, via Tun Mustapha Park is one of the top priority sites within the review, feedback and endorsement of the final draft to the region that will help fulfil multiple goals of the Initiative Committee. Stakeholder outreach was focused on the (Beger et al., ). The Park is globally significant for its three objectives, with emphasis on how they could be marine life, with a rich diversity of coral reef, mangrove achieved by a well-designed multiple-use marine protected and seagrass habitats as well as several threatened species, area.

FIG. 1 Coral reef types and ecological regions (R–R) within Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia.

Prior to this zoning effort two major marine zones practices are allowed. Certain types of commercial fishing existed within the proposed boundary of the Park: a com- activities, such as long line (rawai) and recreational fishing, mercial fishing zone (.  nautical miles from the mainland are also allowed in multiple use zones but not in the com- and .  nautical mile from the islands) and a traditional munity use zone. fishing zone (,  nautical miles from the mainland and The primary four design principles considered in the ,  nautical mile from the islands). Both zones were zoning process were protection of key habitats in no-take insufficient to protect key habitats such as mangroves and areas, replication, representation and connectivity (Lee & coral reefs, existing laws were not fully enforced and as a re- Jumin, ; Green et al., ). Specifically, the representa- sult overfishing occurred and threatened species were killed. tion goal was to ensure that all major habitats were included Potential new zone types were developed consultatively with within no-take zones, and the replication goal was to ensure key stakeholders from Sabah Parks, Department of Fisheries that each habitat was protected in multiple individual no- Sabah, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Land & Survey take zones. The zoning process was undertaken in three Department, Sabah Forestry Department, and Persatuan stages: prioritization, review and consultation (Fig. ), Pemilik Kapal Nelayan Kudat (Kudat Fishing Boat each of which produced a proposed zoning map. The entire Owners’ Association) and other NGOs (Weeks et al., process involved academics, government and NGO repre- ). The new zone types determined for the Park were sentatives, and local communities. Here we describe each () a preservation zone, prohibiting all extractive activities; stage of the process and evaluate how well each resulting () a community use zone, in which non-destructive zoning plan achieved the conservation and socio-economic small-scale and traditional fishing activities are allowed goals for the Park. and the nearby communities are encouraged to take part in the management of their own resources; () a multiple use zone, in which non-destructive and small-scale fishing Stage 1: prioritization using Marxan with Zones activities as well as other sustainable development activities, such as tourism and recreation, are allowed; and () a com- We used the systematic conservation planning software mercial fishing zone, in which large-scale extractive fishing Marxan with Zones (Watts et al., ) in the creation of

FIG. 2 The iterative planning process used for Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia (Fig. ; refer to Supplementary Fig. S for the full zoning process).

multiple use zoning plans to ensure a repeatable, transpar- reef area, combining reef data from Zulkafly et al. () and ent and scientifically credible methodology (Klein et al., UNEP-WCMC et al. (). Each reef type represents differ- ). We identified priority areas for three zones: () pres- ent reef assemblages based on the general influence of wind ervation, () community use, and () multiple use. We did and ocean current exposure. Mangrove data were sourced not include a zone for commercial fishing activities (i.e. from remotely sensed images from the SPOT- satellite, trawling and purse seine gear). Rather, the commercial fish- from . Turtle nesting and feeding grounds, dugong ing zone was restricted to .  nautical miles from the main- habitat, and traditional fishing grounds were mapped land, which is the legal limit for commercial fishing activity using data from a community survey conducted during in Sabah. However, this limit is not strictly enforced, and – by WWF-Malaysia and Sabah Parks (Jumin commercial fishing occurs closer to shore; a problem that et al., ). The survey team visited  villages, interviewed will be addressed when the zoning plan is implemented. .  people, using a structured questionnaire, and con- For each zone Marxan with Zones requires two types of ducted discussions and mapping with . , local com- information: () how much and what type of features (e.g. munity members. habitat, distribution, fishing grounds) should be included Many of the Park’s communities depend on fisheries for in each zone, and () the cost of implementing the zone. subsistence and livelihoods, and therefore we aimed to min- We targeted  conservation features (habitats and spe- imize the impact of preservation zones on these communi- cies) and two socio-economic features (fishing grounds ties. We developed a proxy of opportunity cost that was a and historical sites) in each of the four ecological regions function of distance from fishing villages (the closer to the for inclusion in preservation and community use zones village, the higher the cost) and important fishing grounds (Table ; Weeks et al., ). We set a target for each feature (higher cost where important fishing grounds existed). in each zone to address the principle of replication, which Furthermore, we targeted traditional fishing grounds in helps to ensure the zoning plan is resilient to catastrophic the community use and multiple use zones where traditional events (Green et al., , ). A minimum of % fishing is allowed. Distance from the village was used as the representation of habitats and species was set, in line with management cost for the community use zone: the further general recommendations from conservation science an area is from a village, the more costly it will be for the (Bohnsack et al., ;O’Leary et al., ). This is higher community to manage the area. As a cost is required for than the % target set for the broader Coral Triangle each zone, we defined the cost in the multiple use zones (White et al., ) but is justified by the prevailing threats as the area of the planning unit; this essentially identifies of unsustainable fishing practices, such as dynamite and the smallest area possible that achieves the conservation cyanide fishing. The Balambangan Island caves and histor- and socio-economic targets. We constrained Marxan with ical sites were fixed as targets to protect their unique status Zones to ensure that some of the preservation zones were (Lee & Jumin, ). adjacent to community use zones so that communities The coral reefs were divided into eight distinct types on could benefit from the spillover of adult fish from the pres- the basis of a rapid morphological assessment of the Park’s ervation zone.

TABLE 1 Representation targets for conservation and socio-economic features for preservation, community use, and multiple use zones in Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia (Figs  & ).

Targets for zones in each ecological region (%) Features Preservation Community use Multi-use Traditional/small-scale fishing ground No target set 30 70 Coral reefs (fringing reef exposed, fringing semi-sheltered, fringing very sheltered, 30 30 patch reef exposed, patch reef semi-sheltered, patch reef sheltered, limestone reef exposed, limestone reef sheltered) Dugong habitat 30 Estuary 30 Mangroves 30 Seagrass 30 Turtle feeding areas 30 Turtle nesting areas 30 Balambangan limestone caves Locked in Historical sites Locked in

Stage 2: review and enforceability assessment by Sabah surveys (Pitas, Kudat, Banggi, Matunggong). During the Parks ground surveys facilitators visited at least  coastal communities/villages and the commercial fishing group based The Marxan with Zones planning stage produced several in Kudat, to inform community groups about the proposed ’ zoning solutions that met the Park s conservation and socio- plans, and to establish contact with village heads to assist economic targets. As the analysis is based on a grid of small with information dissemination for the second step. planning units, the boundaries of the zones are jagged and The second step of the consultations involved the use of realistically cannot be enforced. Thus, the best solution a semi-structured questionnaire as a tool for systematic cap-  Marxan with Zones map (Fig. a) was submitted to Sabah ture of stakeholder feedback on the draft zoning plan, Parks to assess in terms of enforceability. Based on this including direct input to the draft zoning map attached to map, Sabah Parks identified general areas for each zone, the questionnaire. There were , respondents from using the map as a guide to refine zone boundaries. This the coastal villages (% of targeted respondents) and  produced the first draft zoning plan that was endorsed by from the commercial fishing group (% of targeted  the Committee for stakeholder consultation (Fig. b). respondents). Subsequent to the consultation with the coastal communities and the private sector, consultations were conducted Stage 3: stakeholder consultation with the district offices of Pitas, Kota Marudu, Kudat and The stakeholder consultation was conducted by Sabah Parks, the sub-district of Banggi, presenting the outcome of the with support from WWF-Malaysia, Department of Fisheries previous consultations. Feedback from the stakeholders Sabah, and Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Facilitators with in- was incorporated into the draft zoning plan and, when ne- depth knowledge of the Park, its stakeholders and their lan- cessary, follow-up consultations with specific stakeholders guages conducted consultations for feedback on the draft were undertaken to reach a consensus on their input to zoning plan produced in Stage , targeting three main stake- the zoning plan. The consultations resulted in a third zoning  holder groups: local coastal communities, the private sector, plan (Fig. c). in particular commercial fishers, and government agencies. Consultations were conducted in two steps, taking accessi- Evaluation of zoning maps produced in each planning bility and efficiency of information dissemination into con- stage sideration, as well as the role and influence of the stakeholders in the decision making process. The first step For each stage of the zoning process we calculated the involved discussions with district officers, briefing during amount of each conservation feature represented in each District Offices Development Committee meetings (Pitas zone by region (Fig. ). We also used an additional metric and Kota Marudu), an exhibition at the annual Kota to illustrate how evenly the habitats were represented within Marudu Corn Festival, pilot testing on Banggi Island, each zone. This metric is a modification of the Gini coeffi- where community leaders and members of the cient (Barr et al., ), which is widely used in economics as communities were invited to the district office of Banggi a measure of income equality. Here we used it to quantify for presentations about the zoning process, and early ground the evenness of habitat representation within each zone

FIG. 3 The evolution of the zoning plan for Tun Mustapha Park through each stage of the planning process: (a) prioritization: best solution from Marxan with Zones results; (b) review: draft zoning plan endorsed by the Tun Mustapha Park Interim Steering Committee; and (c) consultation: revised zoning plan incorporating feedback from the stakeholder consultation.

for each planning stage. We modified the coefficient so that Stage  met the design principles for the preservation a value of  indicates perfect evenness across conservation zones, representation of features and replication of features features, and values closer to  indicate uneven representa- across regions. We found an even representation of features tion. We also capped the coefficient, so that % protection in the preservation zones, and an unequal representation of was considered to be the maximum. For simplicity in the features in the other two zones (Table ). evaluation, we aggregated the coral reef types and report re- In Stage  Sabah Parks altered the zone boundaries. This presentation of coral reef habitat as a whole. process maintained the % habitat targets achieved for Region  and Region  but did not maintain the % targets for coral reefs and seagrass in Region  or for seagrass and   Results turtle nesting in Region (Fig. ). The Gini coefficient indi- cated reduced evenness in representation of features in pres- The zoning plan resulting from Stage  (Marxan with Zones ervation zones across the Park (Table ). The draft zoning prioritization) achieved all conservation targets (Table ). map from this stage produced large coastal preservation

FIG. 4 Percentage allocation of conservation features to each zone (multiple use, community use, preservation) across planning stages for each of the four ecological regions in Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia. The target for the preservation zone was % per feature.

TABLE 2 Modified Gini coefficients for each of the three stages of inclusion in preservation areas (corals, dugong), but in the zoning process for Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia Region  only % of corals were represented, and none of  (Fig. ), indicating habitat representation within each zone. the estuary, mangrove or seagrass features (Fig. ). The Higher values indicate a more even representation of habitats/ % targets for coral reefs and turtle habitat were achieved features. for Region  (Fig. ). Stakeholders’ preference to have pres- Zones ervation zones located away from their villages contributed Zoning stages Preservation Community use Multiple use to the lack of coastal habitats in the preservation zone. In Marxan (best) 1 0.57 0.63 some cases stakeholders recommended relocation of a pres- Sabah Parks 0.72 0.54 0.3 ervation zone to areas that do not contain conservation fea- Stakeholder 0.36 0.64 0.27 tures or important habitats. Some governmental decisions made during this process also contributed to the target shortfall, including excluding coastal land area and man- zones, particularly around Banggi Island, driven by the de- grove forest reserves from the Park boundary, and amend- sire to protect important coastal habitats such as seagrass ing the outer boundary in some regions (Fig. c). This and mangroves (Fig. b). development equates to a change in management objectives In Stage  the stakeholder consultation process produced during the process, where stakeholders decided that some a result that reflects the general preference of stakeholders nearshore habitats could not be represented, given their for more area assigned to community use and less for pres- socio-economic and political needs. ervation. No % targets were achieved in Regions ,  or Changing conservation objectives to accommodate eco- . In these regions some features still achieved some nomic and political realities is common (Sale et al., ;

Gormley et al., ; Goldsmith et al., ) but it compro- established under this law are no-take state parks (estab- mises management outcomes and the livelihoods of people lished as IUCN category II) that allow only non-extractive who depend on sustainable resource use. For example, many recreational activities. However, as demonstrated with Tun important fisheries species that are well protected on coral Mustapha Park, special provisions can be made to allow for reefs require nursery habitat in seagrasses and mangroves the establishment of multiple use parks (IUCN category VI). (Olds et al., ), which remain unprotected. Educating stakeholders on the benefits of no-take areas to The biggest change was evident in Region . After the fisheries and food security, as well as clear communication stakeholder process the coastal boundary of the Park was al- of the special provisions of law, might have prevented some tered significantly; in some areas it was moved to  m of the changes that occurred in Stage . away from the coastline, and the total area of the Park was The reduction of the Park’s outer boundary in Stage  re- reduced. Additionally, coastal habitats such as mangroves, flects concerns of government agencies. In Sabah different seagrass and turtle nesting areas were excluded from the government agencies have jurisdiction over different habi- Park. As in Region , mangroves are not represented within tats important for marine biodiversity (e.g. mangroves, estu- the Park in Region , although some mangrove areas are aries, turtle nesting areas). The Parks Enactment law does protected by forestry management regulations (Boon & not allow for collaborative management, and the sole man- Beger, ). The changes in the Park and zone boundaries date of management belongs to the Sabah Parks Board of reduced the Gini coefficient for the preservation zone but Trustees for a period of  years (Thandauthapany, ). increased it slightly for the community use zone (Table ; The lack of regulatory support for collaborative manage- Supplementary Fig. S). ment contributed to the doubts of other government agencies that the Park could be managed successfully by multiple agencies. Consequently, government agencies preferred to Discussion maintain current management practices. For example, the Forestry Department requested that mangrove forest re- The establishment of Tun Mustapha Park as a multiple use serves remain under their management, and the District park under IUCN Category VI (Protected Area with Offices requested the exclusion of some coastal area from Sustainable Use of Natural Resources) is the first of its the Park for development purposes (Binson, ). kind to be established in Malaysia, and the first under the Excluding these areas may influence the effectiveness of Coral Triangle Initiative (Weeks et al., ; Beger et al., the Park in terms of marine resource management and ). We believe the Park makes substantial progress to- biodiversity conservation. Most mangrove areas that are im- wards the protection of biodiversity and the ecosystem ser- portant for fish breeding will remain as mangrove forest re- vices it provides to the local communities. The planning serves under the management of the Forestry Department, process began with the approval of the intention to gazette which does not regulate fishing activities, and turtle nesting the Park by the Sabah State Government in , and beaches will remain as state land under the management of spanned more than a decade and included the establishment the Land Office, and will be subject to development. Overall, of a management plan and the design of the Park zoning the exclusions reduced the total area gazetted under Tun plan. However, it was not a perfect planning process and Mustapha Park from the proposed . million ha to we focus the discussion on the challenges and lessons learn- , ha (Warta Kerajaan Negeri Sabah, ). ed. Our aim is to assist other integrated planning processes We believe that if stakeholders had been involved earlier within the Coral Triangle, and elsewhere, to establish mar- in the planning process the resulting zoning plan would ine protected areas. have yielded better protection for biodiversity. Collective de- Our evaluation shows that the conservation targets were cision making on critical issues such as the park boundary, substantially compromised in Stage  of the planning pro- conservation objectives, features to be protected and their cess, during the stakeholder consultations, when areas conservation targets, and the types of zones is a crucial near the coastline were excluded from the Park and the step in conservation planning and the success of conserva- outer boundary of the Park was reduced. These modification plans (Margules & Pressey, ; Carwardine et al., tions reflect the concerns of the stakeholders, including ; Watts et al., ). Although the benefits of involving local communities, government agencies, and industries stakeholders at the beginning of the planning process are (e.g. commercial fishing), who thought that they would well known (Pollnac & Crawford, ; Beger et al., ; not have access to natural resources once the zones were es- Fernandes et al., ; Crawford et al., ; Gaymer tablished. These concerns are, in part, attributable to the et al., ), inadequate resources delayed the consultation perception that the law under which the Park was estab- process until funding from the USAID Coral Triangle lished (Sabah Parks Enactment ) is focused on protect- Support Partnership could be secured in , facilitating ing biodiversity and does not allow for extractive activities, a focused and structured effort to bring about the zoning such as fishing. This perception arose because most parks and design of Tun Mustapha Park. This effort commenced

with the establishment of the Interim Steering Committee in (Watts et al., ; Game et al., ). Marxan with Zones January . produces multiple options for decision making and in- The delay led to other, not yet mentioned, challenging formed selection of zones that can serve to guide an iterative negotiations during stakeholder consultation in Stage decision process in stakeholder consultations. However, be- . Several government agencies requested that new areas cause of the need to reach a large number of stakeholders for commercial fisheries, aquaculture and socio-economic rapidly, the approach used in Tun Mustapha Park was to development be identified. Stakeholders in the trawl fishery focus on the best solution produced by Marxan with were concerned that the exclusion of trawl fishing from Zones, which facilitated direct input from stakeholders multiple use zones would make their fishery unprofitable. into the Marxan design. Although this approach is flawed, Many of the trawl operators have to service significant by using Marxan with Zones the zoning team could assess loans taken out to buy boats and gear, which they feel whether conservation targets had been achieved and provide they will not be able to repay if spatial restrictions are placed recommendations where critical areas needed to be in- on their fishing effort (Cinner et al., ; Barrett et al., ; cluded in the zoning plan. Cinner, ; McNally et al., ). In line with institutional The use of Marxan with Zones was challenging because it and legal support, adequate funding of the process over was new to most people involved in the zoning process. multiple years is vital to maintain momentum and to WWF and Sabah Parks staff invested considerable time in achieve stakeholder buy-in throughout the process. learning and understanding how to use the software. Important hurdles tackled during the planning process Although the software itself is relatively simple to use, it re- arose from realities and perceptions of the legislation quires a sophisticated understanding of the principles of sys- relevant to Malaysian marine parks. The Sabah Parks tematic conservation planning, as well as spatial analysis Enactment is perceived to be a strong legislation that does skills. We learned that understanding the basic guiding not allow for multiple use and collaboratively managed principles of systematic conservation planning and the parks. We found that a legal framework that allows for the socio-economic benefits of marine protected areas is per- implementation of a conservation planning process geared haps more fundamental compared to understanding the towards multiple use and collaborative management would mechanics of a decision support tool, as such technical ex- ensure commitment and foster confidence among the stake- pertise can be sourced externally. This type of education re- holders involved in the process. quires long-term commitment and ideally would start in A decision support tool such as Marxan with Zones is university environmental programmes. useful because it translates the planning goals into spatial Future planning processes would benefit from explicit maps and provides several zoning options for consideration consideration of social implications, such as poverty traps, by stakeholders. In the development of a zoning plan for in planning tools. For instance, social equity is an important Tun Mustapha Park only one zoning map was given to consideration in trading off conservation, cost and equity Sabah Parks (Stage ) for consideration. The decision to outcomes in reserve design (Agardy, ; Barrett et al., use only the best option produced by the Marxan with ; Halpern et al., ). Although poverty traps were Zones analysis was based on the desire to keep communica- not considered explicitly in the tools used for the Tun tions with stakeholders simple, rapid and less technical. Mustapha Park planning process, the process has helped However, this was a mistake and we learnt that a number to start discussions between fishers and the government. of different zoning plans should have been submitted to These discussions have brought poverty traps to the govern- demonstrate that there are multiple ways to achieve the de- ment’s attention and it is seeking solutions, although imple- sired goals (Game et al., ; Linke et al., ). mentation (e.g. trawler buy-back) is hindered by inadequate The use of a planning tool and the associated internal funding. learning processes of the implementing agencies were a Zoning the ocean is one of many interventions used to novel step for Malaysian national parks planning. Many manage natural resources. There are other effective tools marine protected areas worldwide are planned without the that can be used either in isolation or in conjunction with use of decision support tools but although there are many ocean zoning, including various fisheries management re- valid planning approaches, decision support tools ensure gimes (e.g. quotas, gear restrictions; Day & Dobbs, ; that resulting plans achieve goals efficiently (Klein et al., Costello et al., ; Hilborn, ). The designing of the ). Furthermore, they identify places that are required zoning plan described here is part of the overall initiative to achieve goals and places that are not needed to achieve to develop an integrated management plan for the Park. goals, and provide stakeholders with alternatives for achiev- We hope that the lessons from this zoning process will pro- ing their goals. Marxan with Zones was chosen because vide guidance for implementation of similar initiatives in Sabah Parks and WWF-Malaysia required a decision sup- Malaysia and elsewhere, as ecosystem approaches to report tool that was transparent, repeatable and could directly source management become more important regionally identify areas required for various management types and globally. Collaborative planning processes that involve

representative stakeholders in all phases will lead to out- CINNER, J.E. () Social-ecological traps in reef fisheries. Global comes that foster the protection of biodiversity and security Environmental Change, , –.  of livelihoods for many generations to come. CINNER, J.E., DAW,T.&MCCLANAHAN, T.R. ( ) Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology, , –. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY () Aichi Biodiversity Acknowledgements Targets. Https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtml [accessed  October ]. The Tun Mustapha Park Project is funded by WWF and the COSTELLO, C., OVANDO, D., CLAVELLE, T., STRAUSS, C.K., HILBORN,  United States Agency for International Development Coral R., MELNYCHUK, M.C. et al. ( ) Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes, Proceedings of the National Triangle Support Partnership. Robecca Jumin received a Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, , –. PhD grant from the WWF Russell E. Train Education for Http://doi.org/./pnas.. Nature Fellowship. Carissa Klein was supported by a post- CRAWFORD, B., KASMIDI, M., KOROMPIS,F.&POLLNAC, R.B. () doctoral research fellowship from the University of Factors influencing progress in establishing community-based  Queensland and a Discovery grant from the Australian marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management, , – Research Council (DP ). . CROWDER, L.B., OSHERENKO, G., YOUNG, O.R., AIRAME, S., NORSE, E. A., BARON, N. et al. () Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance. Science, , –. References DAY, J.C. & DOBBS,K.() Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: Australia‘s  – AGARDY,T.() An environmentalist’s perspective on responsible Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy, , . fisheries: the need for holistic approaches. In Responsible Fisheries DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS MALAYSIA () Laporan Kiraan in the Marine Ecosystem (eds M. Sinclair & G. Valdimarsson), pp. Permulaan. Banci Penduduk dan Perumahan Malaysia, . Http:// –. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources/     AGARDY,T.() Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Housing% census% .pdf [accessed February ]. Effective. Earthscan, London, UK. DUMAUP, J.N.B., COLA, R.M., TRONO, R.B., INGLES, J.A., MICLAT,  BAKER, N., BEGER, M., MCCLENNEN, C., ISHODA,A.&EDWARDS,F. E.F.B. & IBUNA, N.P. ( ) Conservation Plan for the Sulu-Sulawesi () Reimaanlok: a national framework for conservation area Marine Ecoregion. WWF, Quezon City, Philippines. planning in the Marshall Islands. Journal of Marine Biology, http:// EDGAR, G.J., STUART-SMITH, R.D., WILLIS, T.J., KININMONTH, S., dx.doi.org/.//. BAKER, S.C., BANKS, S. et al. () Global conservation outcomes BARR, L.M., PRESSEY, R.L., FULLER, R.A., SEGAN, D.B., MCDONALD- depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature,  – MADDEN,E.&POSSINGHAM, H.P. () A new way to measure the , . world’s protected area coverage. PLoS ONE, (), e. FERNANDES, L., DAY, J., LEWIS, A., SLEGERS, S., KERRIGAN, B., BREEN,  BARRETT, C.B., TRAVIS, A.J. & DASGUPTA,P.() On biodiversity D. et al. ( ) Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great conservation and poverty traps. Proceedings of the National Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, , – protected areas. Conservation Biology, , –. . GAINES, S.D., WHITE, C., CARR, M.H. & PALUMBI, S.R. () BEGER, M., HARBORNE, A.R., DACLES, T.P., SOLANDT, J.-L. & Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and LEDESMA, G.L. () A framework of lessons learned from fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of community-based marine reserves and its effectiveness in guiding a Sciences of the United States of America, , –. new coastal management initiative in the Philippines. GAME, E.T., LIPSETT-MOORE, G., HAMILTON, R., PETERSON, N., Environmental Management, , –. KERESEKA, J., ATU,W.etal.() Informed opportunism for BEGER, M., MCGOWAN, J., TREML, E.A., GREEN, A.L., WHITE, A.T., conservation planning in the Solomon Islands. Conservation Letters,  – WOLFF, N.H. et al. () Integrating regional conservation , . priorities for multiple objectives into national policy. Nature GAYMER, C.F., STADEL, A.V., BAN, N.C., CÁRCAMO, P.F., IERNA,JR,J. Communications, , http://dx.doi.org/./ncomms. &LIEBERKNECHT, L.M. () Merging top-down and bottom-up BINSON,A.() Brief Report/Programme Technical Report on approaches in marine protected areas planning: experiences from Gazettement of Tun Mustapha Park. Unpublished report. WWF- around the globe. Aquatic Conservation, , –. Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. GLEASON, M., MCCREARY, S., MILLER-HENSON, M., UGORETZ, J.,  BOHNSACK, J.A., CAUSEY, B., CROSBY, M.P., GRIFFIS, R.B., HIXON,M. FOX, E., MERRIFIELD, M. et al. ( ) Science-based and A., HOURIGAN, T.F. et al. () A rationale for minimum –% stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: a no-take protection. Proceedings of the Ninth International Coral successful case study from north central California. Ocean & Coastal Reef Symposium, , –. Management, , –.  BOON, P.Y. & BEGER,M.() The effect of contrasting threat GOLDSMITH, K., GRANEK, E., LUBITOW,A.&PAPENFUS,M.( ) mitigation objectives on spatial conservation priorities. Marine Bridge over troubled waters: a synthesis session to connect scientific Policy, , –. and decision making sectors. Marine Policy, , –. BURKE, L., REYTAR, K., SPALDING,M.&PERRY,A.() Reefs at Risk GORMLEY, K.S.G., HULL, A.D., PORTER, J.S., BELL, M.C. & Revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. SANDERSON, W.G. () Adaptive management, international co- CARWARDINE, J., KLEIN, C.J., WILSON, K.A., PRESSEY, R.L. & operation and planning for marine conservation hotspots in a  – POSSINGHAM, H.P. () Hitting the target and missing the point: changing climate. Marine Policy, , . target-based conservation planning in context. Conservation Letters, GRANTHAM, H.S., AGOSTINI, V.N., WILSON, J., MANGUBHAI, S., , –. HIDAYAT, N., MULJADI,A.etal.() A comparison of zoning

analyses to inform the planning of a marine protected area network benefits from mangrove ecosystems. Proceedings of the National in Raja Ampat, Indonesia. Marine Policy, , –. Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, , – GREEN, A., SMITH, S.E., LIPSETT-MOORE, G., GROVES, C., PETERSON, . N., SHEPPARD, S. et al. () Designing a resilient network of MUMBY, P.J. & HARBORNE, A.R. () Marine reserves enhance the marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. Oryx, , recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. PLoS ONE, (), e. –. OLDS, A.D., CONNOLLY, R.M., PITT, K.A. & MAXWELL, P.S. () GREEN, A.L., FERNANDES, L., ALMANY, G., ABESAMIS, R., MCLEOD, Habitat connectivity improves reserve performance. Conservation E., ALIÑO, P.M. et al. () Designing marine reserves for fisheries Letters, , –. management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change O’LEARY, B.C., WINTHER-JANSON, M., BAINBRIDGE, J.M., AITKEN, adaptation. Coastal Management, , –. J., HAWKINS, J.P. & ROBERTS, C.M. () Effective coverage targets HALPERN, B.S., FRAZIER, M., POTAPENKO, J., CASEY, K.S., KOENIG, for ocean protection. Conservation Letters, , –. K., LONGO, C. et al. () Spatial and temporal changes in PE RESEARCH () Valuation Study of the Proposed Tun Mustapha cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nature Park. WWF-Malaysia Technical Report. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Communications, , http://doi.org/./ncomms. Jaya, Malaysia. HALPERN, B.S., KLEIN, C.J., BROWN, C.J., BEGER, M., GRANTHAM,H. POLLNAC, R.B. & CRAWFORD, B.R. () Discovering Factors that S., MANGUBHAI, S. et al. () Achieving the triple bottom line in Influence the Success of Community-Based Marine Protected Areas the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, in the Visayas, Philippines. Coastal Management Report No. . and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and of the United States of America, , –. Development Book Series No. . Coastal Resources Center, HALPERN, B.S., WALBRIDGE, S., SELKOE, K.A., KAPPEL, C.V., University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, USA, and Philippine MICHELI, F., D’AGROSA, C. et al. () A global map of human Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los impact on marine ecosystems. Science, , –. Banos, Philippines. HILBORN,R.() Marine biodiversity needs more than protection. SALE, P.F., AGARDY, T., AINSWORTH, C.H., FEIST, B.E., BELL, J.D., Nature, , –. CHRISTIE,P.etal.() Transforming management of tropical HOEGH-GULDBERG, O., MUMBY, P.J., HOOTEN, A.J., STENECK, R.S., coastal seas to cope with challenges of the st century. Marine GREENFIELD, P., GOMEZ, E. et al. () Coral reefs under rapid Pollution Bulletin, , –. climate change and ocean acidification. Science, , –. SYVITSKI, J.P.M., VÖRÖSMARTY, C.J., KETTNER, A.J. & GREEN,P. HUGHES, T.P., BAIRD, A.H., BELLWOOD, D.R., CARD, M., CONNOLLY, () Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to the S.R., FOLKE, C. et al. () Climate change, human impacts, and global coastal ocean. Science, , –. the resilience of coral reefs. Science, , –. THANDAUTHAPANY,L.() Policy Analysis for the Proposed Tun HUGHES, T.P., GRAHAM, N.A.J., JACKSON, J.B.C., MUMBY, P.J. & Mustapha Park. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. STENECK, R.S. () Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef UNEP-WCMC, WORLDFISH CENTRE,WORLD RESOURCES resilience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, , –. INSTITUTE &THE NATURE CONSERVANCY () Global JACKSON, J.B.C., KIRBY, M.X., BERGER, W.H., BJORNDAL, K.A., distribution of warm-water coral reefs, compiled from multiple BOTSFORD, L.W., BOURQUE, B.J. et al. () Historical overfishing sources, including the Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project, and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, , –. Version .. Http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/ [accessed  JUMIN, R., MAGUPIN,S.&KASSEM,K.() Community Survey in the October ]. Proposed Tun Mustapha Park. Unpublished report. WWF- VITOUSEK, P.M., MOONEY, H.A., LUBCHENCO,J.&MELILLO, J.M. Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. () Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science, , JUMIN, R., SYED HUSSEIN, M.A., HOEKSEMA,B.&WAHID, Z. (eds) –. () Tun Mustapha Park Marine Ecological Expedition. WARTA KERAJAAN NEGERI SABAH () Https://www.sabah.gov. Unpublished report. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. my/gazette/docs/.pdf [accessed  October ]. KLEIN, C.J., STEINBACK, C., SCHOLZ, A.J. & POSSINGHAM, H.P. () WATTS, M.E., BALL, I.R., STEWART, R.S., KLEIN, C.J., WILSON, K., Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing STEINBACK, C. et al. () Marxan with Zones: software for biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a comparison of optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. two approaches used in California. Conservation Letters, , –. Environmental Modelling & Software, , –. KLEIN, C.J., WILSON, K.A., WATTS, M., STEIN, J., CARWARDINE, J., WEEKS, R., ALIÑO, P.M., ATKINSON, S., BELIDA, II, P., BINSON, A., MACKEY,B.&POSSINGHAM, H.P. () Spatial conservation CAMPOS, W.L. et al. () Developing marine protected area prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: a case study of networks in the Coral Triangle: good practices for expanding the Australia’s biodiversity. Biological Conservation, , –. Coral Triangle marine protected area system. Coastal Management, LEE, Y.L. & JUMIN,R.() Workshop Report: Establishing , –. Sociological and Ecological Criteria for Zoning in the Proposed Tun WHITE, A.T., ALIÑO, P.M., CROS, A., FATAN, N.A., GREEN, A.L., Mustapha Park (TMP). WWF-Malaysia Technical Report. WWF- TEOH, S.J. et al. () Marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle: Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. progress, issues, and options. Coastal Management, , –. LINKE, S., WATTS, M., STEWART,R.&POSSINGHAM, H.P. () Using WORM, B., BARBIER, E.B., BEAUMONT, N., DUFFY, J.E., FOLKE, C., multivariate analysis to deliver conservation planning products that HALPERN, B.S. et al. () Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean align with practitioner needs. Ecography, , –. ecosystem services. Science, , –. LOTZE, H.K., LENIHAN,H.S.,BOURQUE,B.J.,BRADBURY, R.H., COOKE, WORM, B., HILBORN, R., BAUM, J.K., BRANCH, T.A., COLLIE, J.S., R.G., KAY,M.C.etal.() Depletion, degradation, and recovery COSTELLO, C. et al. () Rebuilding global fisheries. Science, , potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science, , –. –. MARGULES, C.R. & PRESSEY, R.L. () Systematic conservation YATES, K.L., SCHOEMAN, D.S. & KLEIN, C.J. () Ocean zoning for planning. Nature, , –. conservation, fisheries and marine renewable energy: assessing MCNALLY, C.G., UCHIDA,E.&GOLD, A.J. () The effect of a trade-offs and co-location opportunities. Journal of Environmental protected area on the tradeoffs between short-run and long-run Management, , –.

ZULKAFLY, A.F., MAGUPIN,S.&JUMIN,R.() Spatial Database for M C G OWAN is focused on developing novel methods for the conserva- the Proposed Tun Mustapha Park. Report for Tun Mustapha Park tion of mobile marine species, and integrating these methods into spa- Interim Steering Committee, TWG: Zoning. WWF-Malaysia, tial decision-support tools. S IKULA M AGUPIN is a geographical Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. information system specialist with an interest in coastal management and spatial conservation planning. M ARIA B EGER’s research interest is in spatial conservation planning, environmental management Biographical sketches and ecology, combining empirical and theoretical approaches. C HRISTOPHER B ROWN is interested in the conservation of marine R OBECCA J UMIN’s interest is in conservation planning, and especially ecosystems and sustainable management of fisheries. H UGH in the integration of science and human dimensions in marine conser- P OSSINGHAM is Chief Scientist of The Nature Conservancy and a pro- vation and resource management. A UGUSTINE B INSON is specialized fessor at The University of Queensland. C ARISSA K LEIN’s primary re- in park management, and ensures that a good governance and search interest is in supporting marine conservation decisions, management system is in place for Tun Mustapha Park. J ENNIFER especially in tropical ecosystems.