Community Involvement in Marine Protected Areas: the Case of Puerto Morelos Reef, Me´Xico

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef, Me´xico

R.E. Rodrı´guez-Martı´nezÃ

Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologıá, Universidad Nacional Autońoma de Me´xico, A.P. 1152, C.P. 77500 Cancuń, Quintana Roo, Mexico

Received 25 January 2006; received in revised form 30 May 2007; accepted 7 June 2007

Abstract

The case of Puerto Morelos reef marine protected area (MPA) provides an example of a community-based marine conservation initiative to protect a coral reef ecosystem. The establishment and maintenance of this MPA had five stages: (a) identification of community leaders who would participate in the project; (b) generation of consensus on the need to protect the reef through discussions among local stakeholders, NGOs and reef scientists; (c) involvement of government agencies in establishing the status of a MPA; (d) take-over of decision-making by centralized governmental agencies; and (e) continuous problem-solving process between the government and stakeholders. Over a 9-year period, the control of the MPA was taken over by government and stakeholders’ participation downgraded from a decision-making to an advice-giving role. Government shortcomings to manage this MPA could be circumvented via collaborative co-management. Given the small population size of the community and strong sense of ownership, there was a high level of participation in the decision-making processes and scientific advisors are present in the area. r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Management; Marine protected area; Coral reef; Tourism; Mexico

1. Introduction mere 35% of Caribbean and 10–15% of Indo-Pacific MPAs meet their stated management objectives (i.e. most Experience has demonstrated that the success of marine are ‘‘paper parks’’)) (Jameson et al., 2002). In Mexico, protected areas (MPAs) as a management tool improves some of the reasons for the low participation of local when the local stakeholders participate in planning and communities in management of natural resources are that decision-making activities together with the government (1) they are poorly organized and unmotivated; (2) they do (Harvey et al., 2001; Hildebrand, 1997; Jameson et al., not understand fully the importance of the resources or the 2002; Pollnac et al., 2001). Consequently, government negative impacts of particular anthropogenic activities; agencies must promote and facilitate community participa- (3) they are unaware of the mechanisms that exist for tion by providing the necessary finances, monitoring, law resource protection in terms of legal action, funding enforcement and technical expertise to ensure that the applications and for reporting crimes; and (4) they are MPAs meet their management objectives (Foucat, 2002; fearful of creating problems with the government if they Jameson et al., 2002). Also, communities need to uphold become organized and adopt a more critical and demand- the rules, procedures and values which predispose them to ing role. work collectively for mutual benefit (Rudd, 2000). Despite The Puerto Morelos reef MPA is located on the this knowledge, neither community-based nor co-manage- northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, in the state of Quintana ment conservation initiatives are frequently practiced in Roo, Mexico. This MPA was declared in 1998 and is Mexico, or in many other developing countries (where a among the first in Mexico to have been created through a community-based approach (Murray, 2005), with local ÃTel.: +52 987 100 09; fax: +52 987 101 38. stakeholders assuming the responsibility for elaborating E-mail address: [email protected] the management program (published in 2000). Funding for

0301-4797/$ - see front matter r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.008

Please cite this article as: Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, R.E., Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef,.... Journal of Environmental Management (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.008 ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 R.E. Rodrı´guez-Martıńez / Journal of Environmental Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] the management of the MPA began in 2002, with a fee 1973 off Cancun. By the end of 2006, the nation recognized charged to tourists for its use. The former high level of the decrees of 158 federal protected areas that in total stakeholder participation has declined significantly since occupied almost 19 million ha (9.6% of the country); 77% 2002, because (1) the MPA user fees collected by the were terrestrial and 23% were marine ecosystems. Ten government were not efficiently returned to fulfil the areas included the coral reef ecosystem: seven in the management program; (2) stakeholder opinions, recom- Caribbean, one in the Campeche Bank, one in the Gulf of mendations and complaints were not always considered, Mexico and one in the Pacific Ocean. Seven of them have and agreements made during Advisory Council meetings management programs, that were published between 1997 were not always honored; and (3) management decisions and 2004. were based often on centralized, regional, or generalist Me´xico’s interest in protecting natural resources is guidelines, rather than on the particular characteristics and reflected in the fact that over the last 90 years more than needs of the MPA. 500 protected areas have been created, covering more than In this paper, I share my experiences in the Puerto 50% of the nation’s territory. Unfortunately, the majority Morelos reef MPA as a promoter for its creation of them were ‘‘paper parks’’ and now do not exist (Go´mez- (1995–1998) and as president of the Advisory Council Pompa and Kaus, 1999). Initial motivation to create (2001–2006). Based on this experience I present my protected areas was mainly historical, economical, or perception of the multiple problems faced by the Puerto political, rather than biological or ecological, and environ- Morelos MPA and discuss possible alternatives for reach- mental policy did not consider evicting local people from ing efficient collaborative co-management of natural lands to create protected areas; it only restricted legal use resources in this and other MPAs. of the land—a precedent that has persisted until the present (Go´mez-Pompa and Dirzo, 1995). The lack of success of 1.1. Definitions and concepts several protected areas in Mexico has been attributed to (1) the weaknesses of the initial objectives, design and Co-management can be defined as the decentralization enforcement; (2) the minimal resources that have been of power and authority to various stakeholder groups who assigned for their management (Go´mez-Pompa and Dirzo, collaborate in the management of natural resources, 1995); (3) a highly fragmented coastal and marine legal primarily in or around a protected area (Leikam et al., framework; (4) a dispersed and overlapping body of 2004). Pomeroy et al. (2004), describe three degrees of co- governmental institutions with jurisdiction over coastal management: (1) consultative, when the government inter- and marine issues; and (5) the lack of experience acts often with stakeholders but makes all the decisions; in the creation and consolidation of intergovernmental (2) collaborative, when government and stakeholders work and multi-stakeholder participatory spaces (Bezaury-Creel, closely and share decisions; and (3) delegated, when the 2005). government lets formally organized users/stakeholders In the year 2000, a National Commission of Protected make decisions. Delegated co-management includes, but Areas (Comisioń Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas, is not limited to, community-based management, wherein CONANP) was created with the purpose of governing the people who live and work in coastal areas, and protected areas with a nationwide plan. This Commission depend on these resources, are enabled to take has a higher administrative rank and is the largest structure an active and responsible role and increasingly share that exists in Mexico to take care of natural protected planning and decision-making responsibilities with the areas. Its objective for the period 2001–2006 was to government (Hildebrand, 1997). The concept of stake- consolidate the protected areas system that already existed. holder refers to those who have influence on, or can be Progress has been made and principles that guide the affected by, the management process (Geoghegan and system on a national level have been created. CONANP’s Renard, 2002). report for the period 2000–2006, indicates that the number of natural protected areas increased from 127 to 158, the 2. Background protected surface area from 17 to almost 19 million ha and the budget to manage them from 147 to 617 million pesos 2.1. History of protection of natural resources in Mexico (http://www.conanp.gob.mx/dcei/l2005/). The document also mentions that there are still many things needed to Mexico’s first effort to protect natural resources started guarantee the conservation of ecosystems and their in 1876, when the Desierto de los Leones forest reserve was biodiversity, including reforms to (1) the Constitution, so created in order to protect water springs that supplied lands can be purchased to create protected areas; Mexico City. In 1917, this reserve became the first national (2) environmental law regarding natural protected protected area declared by a presidential decree. The first areas; and (3) fiscal regulations, so benefits for those decree for the protection of a coastal area was published in investing in conservation are created. Several NGOs, both 1937 and included the estuarine area of Lagunas de national and international, are advocating efforts to make Chacahua on the Pacific coast of Oaxaca (Bezaury-Creel, this and many other environmental legislation reforms 2005). The first coral reef protected area was created in possible.

2.2. Development of the Mexican Caribbean coast many instances is inadequate to protect the marine environment and enforcement mechanisms are absent or In the early 1970s, the Mexican government launched a inefficient due to the lack of cooperation among govern- large tourist project in Cancun on the pristine coast of ment agencies and limited personnel. northern Quintana Roo. Due to its success, most of the Quintana Roo coast with over 300 km of white sand 2.3. Puerto Morelos reef marine protected area beaches rimmed by coral reefs, is now being developed following a similar scheme. Concern among scientists, The Puerto Morelos reef MPA has an area of 9 066 ha government agencies and NGOs for the effects of this that extends for 21 km along the NE side of the Yucatan development led to the creation of several MPAs: the Peninsula (Fig. 1). The MPA contains a reef system that is Biosphere Reserves of Sian ka’an (1986) and Chinchorro close to shore (0.1–2.5 km) making it easily accessible to (1996) as well as marine parks of Cancun (1996), Cozumel visitors. The characteristics of this reef system have been (1996), Isla Contoy (1998), Puerto Morelos (1998), and described in several papers (Jordań, 1979; Jordań-Dahlgren Xcalak (2000). The adequate management of these MPAs and Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, 1998). The coral community, is a formidable challenge for authorities because (1) human which contains all of the important reef builders, is well settlements in the Mexican Caribbean coast has resulted developed, and maintains a dynamic growth process able mainly from immigration from inland environments and to compensate for natural impacts and disasters such as the majority of the population has little or no emotional or those generated by hurricanes (Jordań-Dahlgren and cultural attachment towards the local environment; Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, 1998). Since the 1980s, the corals of (2) tourist service providers compete for short-term this reef have been affected by pan-Caribbean infectious revenues; (3) the management of natural resources in diseases and by relatively widespread non-lethal bleaching Mexico has historically been centralized; and (4) the law in episodes (mild: 1997, 2002, 2003, 2006; moderate: 1998,

Fig. 1. Location map of the Puerto Morelos reef marine protected area and its management use zones and bathymetry. Modiﬁed from the Puerto Morelos Reef Management Program (Instituto Nacional de Ecologı´a-SEMARNAP, 2000).

2004; severe: 1995, 2005, personal observation), but their transport polluted waters from distant sources resulting in effects are still low. However, global warming and the pulsed outputs into the marine environment. In addition, overall deterioration of water quality, both at the regional the Yucatan current has the potential to transport and local scale, could strongly compound problems pollutants and nutrients to the Puerto Morelos reefs from associated with these phenomena (Daszak et al., 2001; large, up-current settlements along the coast, such as the Harvell et al., 1999; Jordań-Dahlgren et al., 2005). cities of Cozumel and Playa del Carmen, where waste water treatment is insufficient or absent (Jordań-Dahlgren et al., 2.4. Anthropogenic threats 2005). A source of direct damage to the Puerto Morelos MPA is In 1950, the population of Puerto Morelos village was 80 associated with tourist recreational activities. In 2006, 55 inhabitants and the economic exploitation of the coastal businesses had permits to operate in the MPA giving zone was limited to coconut plantations and gum produc- snorkeling and diving tours (http://www.conanp.gob.mx/ tion (Dachary et al., 1986). Lobster and fin fishing anp/permisos; reviewed in September 2006). The infra- intensified in the early 1960s with the opening of an export structure includes 87 medium-sized boats (20–40 ft) and fish-packing company in the village and increased further 129 motorized and 80 non-motorized personal watercrafts. with the creation of Cancun. In the early 1980s, tourism This fleet has a capacity of almost 1000 tourists daily, as became an important source of income for the community three tours are allowed per boat. In 2006, an estimate of and the population started to grow, increasing over an 155,000 tourists visited the MPA. In addition, commercial order of magnitude (from less than 1000 to almost 12,000) fishing is carried out within the MPA by one small fishing between 1980 and 2006. Spanish is the first language, cooperative that has 12 members, 30 assistants and 11 although Maya is still spoken by a minority of the medium-sized outboard boats (25 ft). There are no cultural community, and there are foreign residents, mainly or gear conflicts among cooperative members. The Americans and Europeans. cooperative has a 20-year concession (starting in 1994) Between 1998 and 2005, the number of hotel rooms and for the harvesting of spiny lobsters, fish and sharks within a visitors to Puerto Morelos experienced a three-fold large area that encompasses the MPA. Despite the increase, similar to the rest of the Riviera Maya (Table 1). concession, when the MPA was created fishermen agreed This development poses several threats to the well-being of to stop fishing in almost 50% of the shallow areas of the the coral reef communities of the Mexican Caribbean MPA, as this is now established in the management coast. Perhaps the most serious is the increase of nutrients program. Fishermen willingly gave up fishing grounds and pollutant levels in coastal waters due to the general because many of them are also tourist operators, or work lack of sewage treatment plants in the area (with the as tourist guides during close or low fishing seasons. exception of some hotels), the presence of pig farms, an Occasionally, illegal fishing occurs within the MPA and it is underground water circulation system that outfalls in carried out by fishers from other communities and by mangrove wetlands and submarine springs, and the members of the community that do not belong to the seepage through the sand bar in response to rain inputs. fishing cooperative. During the rainy season, this system has the potential to 3. Local community and the creation of the marine protected Table 1 area Number of hotel rooms and tourists for the Puerto Morelos village and the Riviera Maya Tourist Corridor in Quintana Roo, Me´xico from 1998 3.1. Creation of the marine protected area and preparation to 2005 of the management program Year Puerto Morelos Riviera Maya Puerto Morelos reef was used by divers of all ages and Hotel rooms Tourists Hotel rooms Tourists skills for recreational purposes without any conservation measures for many years. Until 1995, usage levels were low 1998 401 n.d. 10,095 595,050 1999 401 24,317a 12,653 801,521 due to the small size and lack of development of the village 2000 401 31,936a 15,297 1,215,727 of Puerto Morelos. By 1995, the reefs adjacent to Cancun 2001 598 48,018a 18,731 1,504,052 became saturated with visitors and a number of tourist 2002 1134 101,641a 20,014 1,793,864 a operators included the reefs of Puerto Morelos in their 2003 1368 122,263 22,624 2,021,989 trips, significantly increasing the load on the reefs in a 2004 1452 150,089a 23,512 2,418,623 2005 1455 118,361a 26,980 2,194,765 lawless manner and with little regard for its conservation. This alarmed the environmental groups, fishermen and n.d., no data. service operators based in Puerto Morelos for both Source: http://sedetur.qroo.gob.mx/estadistica; http://www.rivieramaya. economic and environmental reasons. In economic terms, com/esp/es-EstadisticasProy.htm. aNo official data exist for the number of tourists that visit Puerto local dive operators saw their interests threatened as they Morelos. They were estimated based on a proportion of the total number could not compete with the larger dive operators from of tourists to the Riviera Maya. Cancun. The fishermen were also concerned that the

Please cite this article as: Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, R.E., Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef,.... Journal of Environmental Management (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.008 ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Rodrı´guez-Martıńez / Journal of Environmental Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5 potential reef degradation could affect the fisheries in the Centro Regional de Investigacioń Pesquera of the Instituto area. In addition, local NGOs and scientific institutions Nacional de la Pesca. were concerned about the potential negative effects to the The MPA was officially created on February 2, 1998. In reefs that the direct physical destruction and pollution the same year, local stakeholders, through the Fishermen’s could cause due to the sudden changes in land and reef use. Cooperative, obtained a grant from the funding agency As there were already examples of the susceptibility of Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacioń de la Naturaleza coral reefs to abuse in the Cancun area, the conditions were for developing a management program. The program was set to address these concerns on the need to prevent prepared by the Puerto Morelos stakeholders, with the unsustainable use of Puerto Morelos reefs. The original support of three local NGOs (Lu’um K’aa nab A.C., effort to create a MPA in Puerto Morelos came from a Yumbalam A.C., and Sin Fronteras A.C.) and the Instituto group of seven individuals, four from Puerto Morelos de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologıá, UNAM. As required by NGOs, a fishermen leader, a tourist operator and the town law, the program was then reviewed and approved by the major, who then invited other community sectors, through National Institute of Ecology prior to its publication in their leaders, to participate in the decision-making pro- May 2000 (SEMARNAT, 2000). This achievement is cesses (Table 2). important because by the end of 2006 only 40 of the 158 At the beginning of the process, the federal government protected areas in Mexico had management programs and was reluctant to create the MPA because Puerto Morelos because the average time for preparing these programs was was not an ‘‘important’’ tourist destination and funds for 11.1 years after the presidential decree for protecting any its operation would be difficult to obtain. Three factors given area was issued (Source: http://www.conanp.gob.mx/ changed the government’s position: (1) the strong pressure anp/pcm.php; November 2006). The MPA was divided asserted by the Puerto Morelos community; (2) the work into nine management zones (Fig. 1). done by the community to fulfil the government’s require- ments to create the MPA; and (3) the substantial amount 3.2. Problems during the creation of the MPA of scientific information in existence for the reef, which is by far the best scientifically studied reef in Mexico. Two When the project began in 1995, negotiation among local research institutes have operated in Puerto Morelos since stakeholders was relatively easy because everyone shared a the 1980s: the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologıá common vision of low-level usage and sustainability and all of the Universidad Nacional Autońoma de Me´xico and the perceived a threat from overflow from the Cancun MPA. Conflicts began once the MPA was officially announced in 1998 and coincided with the realization by developers that Table 2 Stakeholders from the Puerto Morelos reef marine protected area Puerto Morelos could become an area of major investment. This situation polarized the interests of local stakeholders Stakeholder with some feeling that they were not being heard or that Local they were poorly represented. Conflicts were solved mostly Direct users by dialogue and negotiation among the local stakeholders, Fishermen both at formal and informal sessions. Occasionally, simple Tourist operators conflicts became complex and needed many months of Indirect users negotiation and in some cases external facilitators, Businesses (hotels, restaurants, shops, quarries) Transportation members (taxis, buses, and trucks) accepted by all stakeholders, were invited to assist in the Farming cooperative communication process. An Advisory Council was set up NGOs in 2001, with official representatives from all of the Scientists community sectors and involved governmental agencies Governmental agencies (Table 2), and a set of rules and procedures for its Management and surveillance operation were developed. Secretarıá del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Department of the Environment and Natural Resources), through the Comisioń Nacional 4. Governmental management of the marine protected area de A´reas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP—National Commission for Natural Protected Areas) Secretarıá de Marina (Department of the Navy) 4.1. Problems after the creation of the MPA Collect fees Secretarıá de Hacienda y Cre´dito Pu´blico (Fiscal Authority) Conflicts among stakeholders diminished considerably in Surveillance and enforcement the year 2000, when the management program was Procuradurıá Federal de Proteccioń al Ambiente (Environmental Protection Agency) published and an official, but part-time, director was Secretarıá de Comunicaciones y Transportes (Department of assigned to the MPA. The assignment of one director for Communications and Transportation) two or three protected areas is a common strategy of Secretarıá de Agricultura, Ganaderıá, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y CONANP to overcome the problem of insufficient funding Alimentacioń (Department of Agriculture, Livestock Rural development, and personnel. Between 2000 and 2004, the Puerto Morelos Fisheries and Food) MPA shared a director with the Yumbalam Protected Area

USD Boats Personal Water Craft

320000 160

240000 120

160000 80 No. of vessels Income (USD) 80000 40

0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Fig. 2. Puerto Morelos reef marine protected area information on the yearly income (USD) and number of motorized vessels authorized to give tours between 1998 and 2006.

(300 km away and not a coral reef area; Fig. 1). During this $2 USD) be charged to tourists for the use of some period, only a few components of the management protected areas in Mexico, including the Puerto Morelos program were implemented, surveillance was minimal, reef MPA. The funds were to be collected by the Secretarıá and many agreements reached during Advisory Council de Hacienda y Cre´dito Pu´blico (Fiscal Authority) and meetings were not executed. This disrupted the commu- transferred to CONANP, which had to return them within nication between the Council and the Director. The a month to the protected area within which they were Director was replaced by another part-time director in generated for its conservation and management. In 2002, mid-2004, who was also in charge of other two MPAs this law was modified such that all the collected funds (Cancun and Isla Contoy). The communication between would be freely administered by CONANP for the the Council and the authorities was re-established, and a conservation of any protected area in Mexico. workshop was held in 2005 to discuss the problems In 2006, 56 protected areas in Mexico were subjected to perceived by the stakeholders that made it difficult for the user fees and together collected approximately $3.3 the Advisory Council to function properly and to find ways million USD; 55% of the money was collected in 10 to overcome them. Several agreements were made includ- protected areas that are within the Yucatan Peninsula ing one with the Director of the MPA to follow a co- region and 84% of the total income of the region was management scheme. For this to occur, it was agreed that it generated by three coral reef MPAs: Cancun (41%), was necessary to increase the capacity for management of Cozumel (27%), and Puerto Morelos (16%) (Source: both the community and the institution. However, in mid- http://www.conanp.gob.mx/derechos/20061.pdf). Between 2006 the Director was assigned to other projects, and was 2001 and 2006, the monetary income to the Puerto Morelos released from his obligations towards the Puerto Morelos reef MPA increased from $8000 to almost $300,000 USD, MPA, and agreements made in the workshop have not due to an increase in the load of visitors (from an estimated been fulfiled. One problem of sharing directors with other 20,000 in 2001 to 155,000 in 2006), the number of boats MPA is that they spent little time in Puerto Morelos and operating in the MPA increased 18.2% and the number of could not attend to immediate problems and needs, as they motorized personal watercraft 90% (Fig. 2). Only about often have to travel from one protected area to another as 70% of the money collected through the user fees is usually well as to attend national and international meetings. returned to the Puerto Morelos MPA, the rest goes to the Yucatan Peninsula region to support protected areas with 4.2. Budget low or no budget. From 2003 to 2006, delays of almost 6 months in the partial return of the assigned funding were The MPA has never had a fixed federal budget. Between common for MPAs along the Eastern Yucatan Region 1998 and 2001, the MPA had no federal funding and some including the Puerto Morelos MPA. The lack of a fixed management actions were performed with the support of federal budget, the serious delay in the return of user fees, tourist operators that agreed to pay a monthly fee to and the only partial fulfilment of the agreed funding is of provide a salary for an enforcement agency employee and great concern to the Advisory Council members as it the maintenance and operation of a boat. They also prevents the staff of the MPA from adequately implement- installed buoys and respected the regulations established in ing the annual operating programs. the management program. Local scientists and NGOs volunteered their time to give environmental education 4.3. Personnel talks to boat operators, tourist guides, fishermen and local students. In 2002, a new federal law (Artıćulo 198 de la Ley Enforcement by federal authorities in the MPA was very Federal de Derechos) established that a fee (approximately limited until early 2004 because the village of Puerto

Morelos lacked a MPA office where emergent problems intensity. Puerto Morelos reef is also one of the four could be reported. Administrative matters were attended to ‘‘Centers of Excellence’’ for the development of the project in Cancun requiring time, effort and expense by the tourist ‘‘Coral reef targeted research and capacity building for operators. After several requests by the Advisory Council, management’’ financed by the Global Environmental CONANP financed a field office in Puerto Morelos in early Facility through the World Bank. In spite of these 2004. The same year a full time person was hired to be in activities, an academic sub-council to develop and advise charge of the office. Until mid-2007, the MPA personnel monitoring programs on specific topics, as well as to included a biologist in charge of the monitoring program, a provide management advice to the Director is still to be person responsible of the education, public awareness and consolidated. capacity building, two rangers, a boat captain and an administrator. At present the personnel, equipment and 5. Community participation in management actions at infrastructure to manage the MPA tends to lag behind the present needs generated coastal development. In 2007, it will be difficult to resolve these problems as CONANP’s budget 5.1. Communication between the government and was reduced 30% with respect to 2006. stakeholders

4.4. Surveillance and enforcement Community participation in the management of the MPA is promoted and enabled in several chapters of the Enforcement of the MPA regulations is particularly Management Program. Management of the MPA has to be limited because Mexico’s legislative framework, dealing according to ‘‘Annual Operating Programs’’ that are with coastal and marine issues, is highly fragmented prepared by the MPA staff, reviewed by the Advisory (Bezaury-Creel, 2005), many governmental agencies are Council and administered by CONANP with the Director involved, and coordination among them is inadequate. For of the MPA being responsible of their implementation and instance, when someone breaks a rule established in the evaluation. Annual Operating Programs for the Puerto management program, the MPAs ranger can only try to Morelos reef MPA have been made since 2003 but they verbally convince the person of the correct action but have been only partially fulfiled and have never been cannot sanction them because that is the responsibility of formally evaluated. the environmental protection agency (PROFEPA). Fish- The Advisory Council is expected to hold monthly eries infractions need to be resolved by the Department of meetings with the Director of the MPA to discuss the needs Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries, and and emerging problems. Council meetings are open to all Food. If the number of passengers exceeds the boat’s community members and minutes are available at the capacity, it becomes a matter for the Harbor Master. This MPA office. Unfortunately, meetings have become less implies that in order to efficiently address all the problems frequent due to the changes in the MPA directors, their that could occur within the MPA, it would be necessary to busy agenda and the low attendance of some stakeholders, have one person from each governmental agency on the which results mainly from their loss of interest due to the surveillance boat—an impractical and unlikely solution as un-fulfilment of agreements reached in previous meetings. most agencies have few personnel and reduced budget. In order to solve this problem, and improve management 5.2. Education and public awareness efficiency, agreements between federal, state and municipal agencies are required. Public education was an important factor in gaining community support for the creation and management of 4.5. Monitoring and research the MPA. General education programs on coral reefs began in Puerto Morelos in the early 1990s, with the Scientific research on the coral reef of Puerto Morelos participation of NGOs and the support of resident started in the early 1980s, and one institution is devoted to scientists. In 2003, an Environmental Education Sub- their scientific study (Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y council was formed by local teachers, researchers, tourist Limnologıá from the Universidad Nacional Autońoma de operators and the MPA personnel, in order to develop Me´xico). Currently, over 200 scientific articles on coral reef appropriate and continuously available educational pro- research have been published (Jordań-Dahlgren and grams. The first permanent educational program began in Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, 2003) and, although they are mostly 2004 to teach tourist guides about the values, functions, on basic science, they provide scientific background that uses and fragility of coral reefs, to increase their interest in can help to manage the MPA. Permanent monitoring of coral reef conservation and to provide them with better coral community parameters in the area started in 1992, tools for their work (i.e. first aid and navigational courses). when the Puerto Morelos reef became part of the Simultaneously, visual presentations have been conducted Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CAR- to educate students about the same issues. Students ICOMP). Monitoring by CONANP started in 2003 to periodically visit the MPA with the support of its staff, evaluate reef condition and tourist use frequency and tourist operators and volunteers. The sub-council and

CONANP, also prepared public awareness materials, such management program, an office, personnel, vehicles, as a web page (http://puertomorelos.conanp.gob.mx), fliers monitoring and surveillance equipment, mooring buoys, and booklets. Locals and visitors also receive orientation in as well as monitoring and educational programs. Commu- the MPA field office. In 2005, the MPA staff developed a nity participation resulted from intrinsic community 5-year program that promotes community participation in interests and was facilitated by the availability of scientific the conservation of their natural resources; unfortunately it information for the area, along with the participation of has not been executed due to lack of personnel. NGOs and resource users. Such unusual cooperation across stakeholder groups over time can be attributed to 5.3. MPA benefits to the local community several key factors, including the community awareness of (1) economic dependence on the marine resource, (2) the Since 2004, several community projects have been threats of coastal development to the reef and to the financed by the Programa de Desarrollo Sustentable community, (3) the importance of the MPA to preserve the (PRODERS, Sustainable Development Program), through quality of life in the town, and (4) the insufficiency of CONANP, which was designed to promote sustainable governmental means to protect the resource without the development in communities located in or near protected support of the local community. The Puerto Morelos areas. All projects have been successful and include (1) the experience suggests that in order to achieve community construction of a small orientation building adjacent to the support and involvement in the MPA it is required, as town’s pier for operators to orient tourists before their recommended by Jorge (1997), that all community sectors snorkeling trip to the reef; (2) a workshop for tourist are open to local participation during and after the creation operators on low-impact tourism; (3) a workshop to design stage, so that the community experiences a sense of an environmental interpretation program for Puerto ownership of the process. This case study shows that Morelos; (4) the construction of a building in the ‘‘House community support is easier to be obtained when key of Culture’’ that is used to conduct environmental and community leaders are involved in the project. It is also cultural programs; (5) a cleaning and restoration project recommendable to help unorganized community sectors to after hurricane Wilma (2005) with the participation of organize into NGOs, associations or cooperatives. tourist guides, volunteers and the MPA staff; (6) the At present, the federal government has jurisdiction over rehabilitation of the fishing cooperative building; and (7) the Puerto Morelos MPA and stakeholders participate as the creation of a visitors center in the town. The advisors in the decision-making processes. The original Sustainable Development Program provides positive ben- community-based project downgraded towards a manage- efits to communities that participate in the conservation ment scheme where the government interacts with the and management of protected areas. community, but has complete control on the use of Also, the presence of an MPA has helped the local financial resources and the ability to make final decisions community to prevent the development of several projects regarding management issues. Consequently, the participa- that threaten the well-being of people and the reef, such as tion by the community in management is subject to the a regional garbage dump, an aviation fuel depot, an sensitivity and attitude of the authorities in charge of the industrial port, a municipal jail and a tourist recreational MPA. To prevent the decline or disappearance of the park that would destroy a major mangrove area. Puerto community participation in the near future, it is necessary Morelos inhabitants demanded the enforcement of envir- that governmental policies and legislation are modified in onmental regulations and the projects were not authorized. order to support co-management efforts. Collaborative co- Community coherence has also been helpful when the area management (Pomeroy et al., 2004), appears to be a better is threatened or affected by hurricanes as they become option for the Puerto Morelos MPA than community- organized in order to move the boats to safe places and to based or centralized management, because local users clean and restore the town and the reef. would have difficulties in managing the natural resources alone, and there is overwhelming evidence that centralized 6. Discussion management of local resources is problematic (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). The MPA has several factors that have Historically, environmental management in Mexico has been described as ‘‘predictors of success of MPA’’ by been government centralized and community participation Pollnac et al. (2001) including (1) that the population has a has been low. A coral reef conservation strategy was small size; (2) there is a high level of community developed less than a decade ago and a National participation in the decision-making processes; and (3) Commission of Protected Areas was created until mid- scientific advisors are present in the area. For collaborative 2000. This study shows that participatory processes that co-management projects to succeed, managers need to are initiated by the civil society can help overcome increase their ability to plan and negotiate with stake- governmental constraints. The Puerto Morelos community holders who represent the needs and interests of each given is unusually highly motivated and the Advisory Council sector (Renard, 2001). Management could be more proactive at meeting its goals, even if slowly. In only 9 effective if different levels of government create agreement years, and without a fixed federal budget, this MPA has a amongst themselves to formalize a common commitment

Please cite this article as: Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, R.E., Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef,.... Journal of Environmental Management (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.008 ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Rodrı´guez-Martıńez / Journal of Environmental Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9 to public participation and if the role of each stakeholder is Acknowledgments clearly defined (Currie-Alder, 2004). These agreements must be respected by following governmental administra- Many thanks to E. Jordań-Dahlgren, L. Hildebrand, A. tions. Ambiguity about this issue can generate tension Aguilar, P. Blanchon, A. Banaszak, G. Jordań, M.A. among participants and diminish the degree of stake- Maldonado and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful holder commitment to the project (Ericson, 2006). Man- comments on this manuscript. agers should be willing to accept the risk that working in partnership with local people can involve compromise and that sometimes objectives may be altered or perhaps even References changed completely in the process (Ericson, 2006). It is recommended that joint planning of management actions Bezaury-Creel, J.E., 2005. Protected areas and coastal and ocean are conducted through annual programs, elaborated with management in Me´xico. Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (11/12), the participation of stakeholders and reviewed on a yearly 1016–1046. basis to evaluate their performance in terms of actions and Carlsson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodo- logical implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75, use of financial resources. For this to occur, it is necessary 65–76. to increase the communities’ capacity to co-manage the Currie-Alder, B., 2004. Sharing environmental responsibility in Southeast MPA. A way to do this is through environmental Mexico: participatory processes for natural resource management. education which is the only way to establish a sustainable, IDRC Working Paper. lasting motivation for residents to preserve and protect Dachary, C., Arnaiz, A., Estella, M., 1986. Estudios Socioecono´micos Preliminares de Quintana Roo, Sector Comunicaciones y Transportes, biodiversity (Leikam et al., 2004). The community should Comercio, Industria, Servicios y Finanzas. CIQRO, Quintana Roo, be full participants whose efforts are taken seriously, and Mexico. they should receive appropriate feedback regarding the Daszak, P., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., 2001. Anthropogenic outcomes arising from those efforts (Jacoby et al., 1997). environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in Sufficient and continuous funding is also needed. In the wildlife. Acta Tropica 78, 103–116. Ericson, J.A., 2006. A participatory approach to conservation in the case of the Puerto Morelos MPA, this problem is partially Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico. Landscape and overcome through user fees, but the federation still needs Urban Planning 74, 242–266. to increase the budget for the management of protected Foucat, V.S.A., 2002. Community-based ecotourism management moving areas in Mexico in order to be able to hire personnel with towards sustainability, in Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean & legal attributions. External funding can also be obtained Coastal Management 45, 511–529. Geoghegan, T., Renard, Y., 2002. Beyond community involvement: through local NGOs to support particular projects. lessons from the insular Caribbean. PARKS 12 (2), 16–25. Finally, management decisions should be based on solid Go´mez-Pompa, A., Dirzo R., 1995. Las reservas de la biosfera y otras scientific and monitoring data and evaluated periodically a´reas naturales protegidas de Me´xico. Publication of the Secretary of to detect and correct problems rapidly. the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries of Mexico (SEMARNAP) and The Commission for Biodiversity of Mexico (CONABIO), Me´xico, 159pp. Go´mez-Pompa, A., Kaus, A., 1999. From prehispanic to future conservation alternatives: lessons from Me´xico. Proceedings of the 7. Conclusion National Academy of Sciences 96, 5982–5986. Harvell, C.D., Kim, K., Burkholder, J.M., Colwell, R.R., Epstein, P.R., Mexico is increasing its institutional capacity to manage Grimes, D.J., Hofmann, E.E., Lipp, E.K., Osterhaus, A.D.M.E., Overstreet, R.M., Porter, J.W., Smith, G.W., Vasta, G.R., 1999. MPAs, but active collaboration of resource users and local Emerging marine diseases—climate links and anthropogenic factors. communities need to be promoted and facilitated, and with Science 285, 1505–1510. a faster pace, as coastal development is proceeding in an Harvey, N., Clarke, B.D., Carvalho, P., 2001. The role of the Australian exponential fashion and there has been a rapid increase in Coast care program in community-based coastal management: a case visitors to several relatively newly established MPAs. For study from South Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 44, 161–181. communities to trust and support governmental programs Hildebrand, L., 1997. Introduction to the special issue on community- it is recommended that (1) the law is modified in order to based coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 36 (1–3), give more importance to the role communities play in the 1–9. management of natural resources; (2) secure and clear Instituto Nacional de Ecologıá-SEMARNAP, 2000. Programa de mechanisms for the administration of financial resources Manejo Parque Nacional Arrecife de Puerto Morelos, Mexico, 222pp.+map. exist; (3) compromises are clearly defined and accepted by Jacoby, C., Manning, C., Fritz, S., Rose, L., 1997. Three recent initiatives all stakeholders; (4) agreements made between the com- for monitoring of Australian coasts by the community. Ocean & munity and the authorities are legalized, respected and Coastal Management 36, 205–226. fulfilled; (5) surveillance and endorsement is efficient and Jameson, S.C., Tupperb, M.H., Ridley, J.M., 2002. The three screen continuous; (6) management effectiveness is evaluated and doors: can marine ‘‘protected’’ areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 1177–1183. improved; and (7) communities obtain positive conserva- Jordań, E., 1979. Estructura y composicioń de arrecifes coralinos en la tion and financial benefits as a result of their involvement regioń noreste de la Penıńsula de Yucatań, Me´xico. Anales del Centro in management within a short time frame. de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologıá, UNAM 6, 69–86.

Jordań-Dahlgren, E., Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, R.E., 1998. Post-hurricane Sanctuary, Belice, MS, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, initial recovery of Acropora palmata in two reefs of the Yucatań 205pp. peninsula, Me´xico. Bulletin of Marine Science 63 (1), 213–228. Murray, G.D., 2005. Multifaceted measures of success in two Mexican Jordań-Dahlgren, E., Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, R.E., 2003. The Atlantic coral marine protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 18, 889–905 reefs of Me´xico. In: Corte´s, J. (Ed.), Latin American Coral Reefs. Taylor & Francis Inc. Elsevier, pp. 131–158. Pollnac, R.B., Crawford, B.R., Gorospe, M.L.G., 2001. Discovering Jordań-Dahlgren, E., Maldonado, M.A., Rodrı´guez-Martıńez, R.E., 2005. factors that influence the success of community based marine protected Incidence of coral diseases and colony mortality in the Montastraea areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 44 annularis complex in reefs on the Southeastern Gulf of Mexico and (11), 683–710. Northwestern Mexican Caribbean. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 63 Pomeroy, R., McConney, P., Mahon, R., 2004. Comparative analysis of (1), 3–12. coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean. Ocean & Coastal Jorge, M.A., 1997. Developing capacity for coastal management in the Management 47, 429–447. absence of the government: a case study in the Dominican Republic. Renard, Y., 2001. Case of the Soufriere marine management area Ocean & Coastal Management 36 (1–3), 47–72. (SMMA), St. Lucia. CANARI Technical Report No. 285. CANARI, Leikam, G., Otis, S., Raymond, T., Sielken, N., Sweeney, T., 2004. St. Lucia, 10pp. Evaluation of the Belize Audubon Society Co-Management Project at Rudd, M.A., 2000. Live long and prosper: collective action, social capital Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary and Cockscomb Basin Wildlife and social vision. Ecological Economics 34, 131–144.