Understanding and addressing the impact of threats to marine ecosystems in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories

Comparing coral reefs and dependent communities across Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands

WC1032 Final Report to Defra v5: October 2016

Clare Fitzsimmons, Sarah Young, Steve Newman, Selina Stead, Nicholas V.C. Polunin1

1) School of Marine Science & Technology Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU

1

With special thanks to the field team: Pia Schuchert, Katherine Hart, Georgina Beresford, Niall McLoughlin, Alex Scott, Beth Taylor, Phoebe Mottram, Charlie Dryden, Charlotte Wiseman, Christina Skinner; and the people of Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands and British Virgin Islands. Thank-you to Johanna Forster for training data entry assistants, introducing the field team to the FORCE methods and significant contributions to the survey instrument design with Rachel Turner on the FORCE project (www.force-project.eu).

In Anguilla: Dougie Carty from Special D Diving; Anguilla Fisheries Department; Department of Environment; National Trust; Chinnicks. In TCI: DEMA (Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs); TCI Reef Fund; Talbot’s Adventures; Grand Turk Diving. In BVI: the Department of Conservation and Fisheries, and special thanks to Commercial Diving BVI for logistical support throughout the project.

And many others in the UKCOTs who provided invaluable support…..

Thank-you to Defra, JNCC and OT government reviewers who provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of this document.

Report to be cited as:

Fitzsimmons C, Young S, Newman S, Stead SM, Polunin, NVC. Understanding and addressing the impact of threats to marine ecosystems in the UK Overseas Territories in the Caribbean. Final Report to Defra, March 2016

2 CONTENTS

Contents ...... 3

Executive Summary ...... 5 Aim ...... 5 Policy Context ...... 5 Methods ...... 5 Results ...... 5 Reef Health ...... 6 Community Perceptions ...... 6 Management Effectiveness ...... 7 Summary ...... 7 Implications ...... 8

1 Background ...... 9 1.1 The future of Caribbean coral reefs ...... 9 1.2 Threats to UK Caribbean Overseas Territories’ reefs ...... 10 1.3 The FORCE project – a precursor...... 10 1.4 Understanding and addressing the impact of threats to marine ecosystems in the UKCOTs ...... 11 1.4.1 Site selection ...... 11 1.4.2 Work completed ...... 13 1.5 The Purpose and structure of this document...... 13

2 Summary of Ecological Surveys ...... 15 2.1 Methods ...... 15 2.2 Anguilla, May 2013 ...... 15 2.2.1 Dive Survey Sites ...... 15 2.2.2 Results ...... 15 2.2.3 Implications...... 17 2.3 Turks and Caicos Islands, June 2013 ...... 18 2.3.1 Survey Sites ...... 18 2.3.2 Results ...... 18 2.3.3 Implications...... 20 2.4 British Virgin Islands Surveys, March 2014 ...... 21 2.4.1 Survey Sites ...... 21 2.4.2 Results ...... 21 2.4.3 Implications...... 23 2.5 Pan-Caribbean Comparisons ...... 24

3 Summary of Social Surveys ...... 25 3.1 Survey sampling ...... 25 3.2 Community level data ...... 26

3 3.2.1 Anguilla ...... 26 3.2.2 The Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) ...... 31 3.2.3 The British Virgin Islands (BVI) ...... 36 3.3 Key informant interviews ...... 41

4 National Level Consultation ...... 42 4.1 The policy cycle process as a basis for governance assessment for the UKCOTs ...... 42 4.2 Policy cycle reviews delivered at National level meetings ...... 43 4.2.1 Summary of Meetings ...... 45 4.2.2 The Turks and Caicos Islands ...... 47 4.2.3 The British Virgin Islands ...... 49 4.2.4 Management implications ...... 51 4.3 Reef Governance Surveys – Compared ...... 52

5 Conclusions ...... 55 5.1 Ecology ...... 55 5.2 Society ...... 55 5.2.1 Community Data ...... 56 5.2.2 National Consultations...... 56 5.3 Key points ...... 57 5.4 Final comments ...... 57

6 References ...... 58

7 Appendices ...... 61 7.1 Progress against Objectives ...... 61 7.2 Ecological data collection summary ...... 70 7.2.1 Rapid Visual Assessment Method via Snorkelling ...... 70 7.2.2 Detailed Ecological assessment Method ...... 70 7.2.3 References ...... 71 7.3 FORCE and UKCOTs - Reef Managers Workshop – List of Attendees ...... 72 7.4 UKCOTs ‘rapid assessment’ snorkel survey sites ...... 74 7.5 Ecological capacity building examples...... 75

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AIM

UK Caribbean Overseas Territories (UKCOTs) are small islands rich in biodiversity, inhabited by many unique species and surrounded by important marine habitats, such as coral reefs. Many of these species and habitats are threatened and levels of protection vary. This document describes a two year project that conducted ecological and social research in three of the UKCOTs. The aim was to provide an ecological assessment of the status and pressures of coral reef habitats, compare this with local community perceptions on reef value and threats, and by so doing, identify where education and community participation could supplement local conservation strategies.

POLICY CONTEXT

Biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) is globally significant. They support unique ecosystems and a large number of rare and threatened species, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. They provide ecosystem goods and services which benefit local populations; these play a critical role in helping to achieve sustainable development. For example, tourism is dependent on the natural environment in many territories, particularly in the Caribbean. So, reducing the rate of biodiversity loss, directly and indirectly, also provides support for livelihoods and economic and social development.

The UK supports the International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and its target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2020. It is also working to address the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and ensure environmental sustainability. A ‘Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories’ was produced by Defra and partner departments, to help OT governments contribute to these targets and develop priorities for biodiversity conservation action. This project was designed to meet UK strategic priorities outlined therein by: 1) obtaining baseline data on the location and status of biodiversity interests; 2) obtaining baseline data on the location and status of human activities affecting biodiversity; 3) identifying ecosystem services important to local communities; 4) developing multi-level understanding of local communities’ perceptions of climate change, to support adaptation in the longer term; 5) combining these for discussion with local decision makers to inform the preparation of policies and management plans; and 6) analysing perceptions of marine ecosystem health, for use as a basis for identifying and developing conservation capacity in UKCOTs communities, ensuring sustainable use of marine environments.

METHODS

Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), and the British Virgin Islands (BVI), were selected to represent UKCOTs that varied in wealth, with differing marine resources on which people depend for their livelihoods. The scientific objective of the project was to identify major threats to biodiversity and coral reefs were selected as the focal system. This involved measuring ecosystem health using standard scientific diving surveys to assess coral reef condition and fish numbers, and by comparison with data from across the Caribbean establish threats from the scientific perspective. In addition, the study documented: local communities’ perceptions of the same reefs, whether they believed that coral and fish were healthy; perceptions of threats to biodiversity held by local people; and the ways in which biodiversity loss might impact local livelihoods. A team of five ecologists undertook 160 reef assessments using dive survey methods, while a team of six social scientists completed 860 interviews, and facilitated 12 national and local meetings, with the help of local government officials and volunteers from local communities.

RESULTS

Overall, the team established a scientific baseline for the health of coral reefs in each territory, and then tried to identify how well public perceptions of coral reef health and the loss of biodiversity in that area matched-up.

5 Were the threats perceived by scientists, such as coral damage by hurricanes, algal dominance, coral bleaching and climate change the same as the concerns of local people? This is important because people’s perception of the status and health of reefs shapes the management measures they support. For example, a fisher who thinks that their local coral reefs are healthy, may not be supportive of a restrictive marine protected area (MPA) because they do not think it necessary. Difference in perceptions can indicate potential problems in the implementation of marine management or initiatives supporting biodiversity conservation.

REEF HEALTH Ecologically speaking, a range of studies show that most Caribbean reefs are in poor health. The reefs themselves exhibit low coral cover and high algal dominance, while in many locations fish sizes are small, fish numbers are low and predatory species are declining. On this regional scale, UKCOTs’ reefs were of average or relatively good health. They were far healthier than the well-studied, algal dominated, out-fished reefs of Jamaica, but far less healthy than the heavily protected reefs of Bonaire. In both Anguilla and TCI, coral cover was very low, but reefs were not yet completely covered in algae, so there remains some future potential for re-colonisation, which could be supported if herbivorous fish populations are effectively managed. In Anguilla, reef structure remained, which potentially offers good fish habitat, but fish populations remained among the lowest in the Caribbean. Fish populations were healthier in TCI, with more, larger predatory fish present than in many Caribbean countries. In both locations hurricanes and sedimentation, probably due to development, were viewed as primary threats to the reefs. By contrast, reefs in BVI appeared relatively healthy in the context of the wider Caribbean, algae cover was low and coral cover higher. Some large areas of staghorn coral were thriving; this is now rare in the region. However, some of lowest fish abundances in the region were recorded here, and very low numbers of larger fish were observed. Overfishing was cited by the scientific team as the primary threat to reef health in BVI, and close management of herbivorous fish is recommended. Scientists believed all UKCOTs sites had been impacted by bleaching, and were vulnerable to similar climate change impacts in the future.

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS In contrast, when asked, most people in the UKCOTs thought that their reefs and fish populations were healthy or very healthy. Most people did not believe they were impacted by climate change directly, nor did they believe that this would affect the health of reefs or abundance of fish. Most respondents were either unsure about, or indifferent towards, management effectiveness. More people were happy or ambivalent, than unhappy, with management overall. Therefore, there appears to be no incentive for action within communities. If people believe that reefs are not threatened and well managed, galvanizing support for restrictive environmental initiatives will be problematic. The study showed public perception of marine status to be very different from scientific perceptions of reef health. Public perceptions of threats were also very different. This could lead to problems when public support for new marine biodiversity protection measures is required.

Globally, other studies show similar trends, including Defra’s study ‘Engaging people with biodiversity issues’, which found 47 percent of people in England to be unaware of or unconcerned about biodiversity; but, in the UKCOTs, where small island resource users are more directly reliant on the marine environment, this could be particularly problematic. However, further discussions with community members were more nuanced. Those that spoke in more depth held more complex opinions of management, were motivated to protect the environment, and offered an array of local solutions to the problems they perceived to be significant.

In some areas, communities perceived the same threats to biodiversity as the scientists. Hurricanes and sedimentation were cited as issues by both groups, in all territories. Opinions then diverged. Anguillans blamed ground seas, spearfishers, fish traps and boat anchors for reef damage; in TCI communities saw fishing with bleach and other chemicals, divers and snorkelers, and cruise ships as threats to reef health; while in BVI sewage, rubbish and pollution, anchor damage and groundings were perceived as the main threats. More socially oriented concerns regarding lack of awareness, education and understanding were also often mentioned in BVI. In general, communities understood local threats to reefs, tending towards identification of visible impacts, such

6 as litter, but were far less clear about potential global impacts, such as climate change. Many were unaware that changes in climate could affect reefs and fisheries. Some observed that storms were becoming worse, but were unaware of global drivers for this. This will make it very difficult for local government to instigate longer term, climate adaptation and mitigation measures, unless very effectively communicated to local communities.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS When asked whether reef management worked, most people across Anguilla, TCI and BVI agreed that government departments did a good job with the resources they had. Lack of resources, specifically for enforcement of existing legislation, was the most common criticism. Communities in all locations did make practical suggestions for new local management measures, and felt a sense of ownership of their reefs, but people felt constrained unless additional resources and education were available to support their participation.

Anguillans held the most positive views about reef management. They felt they shared responsibility for reef health and could support their government in its conservation efforts. Fishers were the exception. They felt that their views were not considered and they were unable to challenge rules made about reefs. Meaningful efforts to encourage participation, and active co-management measures may improve this. Perceptions of governance were the most negative in TCI. Local people in all areas did not feel able to participate, and it was widely felt that organisations responsible for reef management were not working together or managing reefs effectively. Lack of enforcement, lack of co-operation, unfairness, and corruption were commonly mentioned, although lack of resources were often blamed; government organisations were believed to make best use of limited resources. Tensions within communities were also evident here, particularly where fishers and tourist activities co-existed. BVI residents’ perceptions fell between the previous two. People felt that the rules were good and protected reefs, but views of the reef management were mixed. People felt that they couldn’t participate in decisions, and that enforcement was either unfair or did not occur, due to lack of resources. Both the tourism sector and fishers that felt they did not receive information and that the reefs were not being managed well.

National level consultations revealed that major decision makers’ views were similar to those of communities. This offers considerable promise for future joint working and collaborative action to resolve large visible environmental problems. Everyone seems to recognise common problems; they are able to discuss them freely and the will to improve biodiversity management is high. In Anguilla, required legislative improvements were highlighted, alongside fragmentation between departments. Concerns over consultative processes and the need for public awareness strategies reflect positive working with communities. Both communities and government share concerns over enforcement. In TCI, the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), investors and ‘outside’ consultants play in developing policy was very evident. This affected perceptions of government legitimacy, and may reinforce communities’ sometimes negative perceptions, for example, of enforcement and effectiveness. NGO views were often free to dominate, as decision makers agreed that there was no clear vision from government to better direct effort. This perception was also held in BVI, where high profile, vocal NGOs and research agencies were seen to conduct independent studies that did not contribute to government strategy or positive community development. Resources were recognised as a constraining factor, alongside capacity and the power of private interests on the islands.

SUMMARY

Marine ecosystems provide important ecosystem services to coastal communities in Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands and he British Virgin Islands. These underpin livelihoods in sectors including fisheries and tourism, but are threatened by local activities like unsustainable fishing and pollution, and global uncertainties including climate change. Resulting impacts are complex, as health of both ecosystems and dependant societies are closely linked. For effective management, both resource condition and user needs and perceptions must be understood, as participation in local conservation initiatives, and compliance with management measures, have been shown to be less effective where resource users do not perceive the same problems as managers.

7 While the reefs in the three UKCOTs studied were relatively healthy on a Caribbean scale, they are not on a global scale. Fish populations are depleted, and a high percentage of coral reefs have already been destroyed. Without action, they are very vulnerable to both local and global impacts. Biodiversity in the UKCOTs is subject to immediate and significant threats, including invasive species, under-regulated development and climate change. But local people are not aware that their reefs are threatened in this way. Many people hadn't seen a reef and didn't know what a coral is. Though communities were aware of visible local threats, they were not aware that global issues such as climate change could affect the reefs or their livelihoods. Half of the people we spoke to in some communities did not know what climate change was, and ‘biodiversity’ was mentioned only a handful of times by anyone interviewed, including those in government. This has implications for management, as if people don’t understand global issues like climate change or biodiversity loss, then they cannot feel 'threatened' and are less motivated to act, or reluctant to support management measures that they perceive to be restrictive in the short term. At a National level, where biodiversity awareness was higher, lack of political will and departmental funding were repeatedly cited as barriers to action. The sometimes overwhelming influence of rich and powerful NGOs and private interests, also appears to compromise government priorities; this is recognised and while legislative improvements are called for, more comprehensive engagement strategies could also support government needs. Solutions at all levels can be supported by additional education and capacity building.

IMPLICATIONS

This research has important implications for the UK biodiversity strategy as it establishes baselines for both the status of coral reef biodiversity and the human activities affecting it. It has identified ecosystem services currently important to local communities, but also highlighted the fact that many communities take these for granted, and do not perceive that future threats from climate change or biodiversity loss will impact them. Policies are likely to be more effective if education and communication can address the gap between the scientific evidence and local perceptions. Effective communication initiatives will enhance understanding of longer term threats to the islands, and facilitate the effective implementation of policies aimed at climate change adaptation or mitigation. Funding was still cited as a barrier to progress at all levels, and while current arrangements have led to some notable successes, they are insufficient to fully meet the UK’s international commitments for biodiversity conservation via conventional means. Government volunteers across the UKCOTs helped this project, and embraced the participatory methods used. Working with communities will allow Territory governments to enlist the support of their citizens, helping them to meet international commitments. With the development of clearer vision and strategic direction, ad clear communication of these, negative past experiences of private sector and NGOs working could also be better channelled.

The project facilitated National meetings with key government figures to begin such discussions in the Territories, and an international workshop explored common issues with other governments across the Caribbean (with the pan-Caribbean ‘Future of Reefs in a Changing Environment’ EU-FP7 project). In combination, such activities have begun to support identification of both conservation needs and capacity to address them, within UKCOTs communities, supporting long-term sustainable use of the marine environment. While the usual response is that more education is needed, we believe that this project can help Territory governments go further. By using specific information on perceptions of motivated communities reliant upon marine environment, communication can be improved, strategies developed to target and engage more people, and engender greater support for biodiversity conservation.

8 1 BACKGROUND

1.1 THE FUTURE OF CARIBBEAN CORAL REEFS The marine ecosystems of the UKCOTs support a wealth of biodiversity which is of fundamental importance to the provision of social and economic benefits to the islands and their communities. In particular, coral reefs provide many important ecosystem services to coastal communities including support of fisheries, tourism, coastal defence from hurricanes, generation of sand and building materials, pharmacological products, and the highest marine biodiversity on Earth (Moberg & Folke 1999). Across the Caribbean, annual net benefits of reefs through fisheries, dive tourism, and shoreline protection exceeded $3.1 billion in 2000 (Burke & Maidens 2004).

Despite their great value, the ecological state of reefs across the Caribbean has deteriorated rapidly in the last few decades (Gardner et al. 2003). While megafauna, such as piscivorous fishes, turtles, and manatees have long been depleted (Jackson et al. 2001), a major reduction in living coral has only occurred within the last 3 decades. This decline in living coral poses a real threat for human societies as many ecosystem services derived from coral reefs stem from the coral itself; it is the coral that provides the complex reef structure that underpins biodiversity, fisheries production, and provision of a structural barrier to wave energy.

While ecosystem services of reefs are in decline, the human population of the wider Caribbean is expected to rise by more than 50% to 768 million by the year 2050 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2004). Thus, the demand for reef-based services is likely to increase considerably during this century. This increased demand for services coincides with an escalation of pressures on reefs, partly because of the increase in population, but largely because of climate change. Over the next few decades, hurricane severity is expected to increase (Emanuel 2005), coral bleaching events will become more frequent and intense (Donner et al. 2005), and ocean acidification will reduce reef accretion (Kleypas et al. 1999). There is an urgent need to improve resource management (Knowlton & Jackson 2008). The preservation of biodiversity is seen to be crucial for the sustainable development of the UKOTs, and efforts to combat predicted losses are essential1,2. To achieve this, threats must be clearly identified and impacts understood. The complexity of issues and inter-dependence of marine ecosystems and UKCOTs societies requires studies from both the natural and social sciences.

Reef research has largely focused on understanding the proximate causes of change to the health of reefs, such as coral bleaching, algal blooms, coral disease, and hurricanes. There is general consensus that such proximate drivers of reef degradation have already been identified (Mumby & Steneck 2008). While a better understanding of proximate drivers will lead to greater mechanistic insight of ecosystem dynamics, greater value may be derived from trying to understand the ultimate causes of such problems, such as overfishing, poverty, and poor governance (Sale 2008). These are important as many opportunities to improve reef management are tied intimately to the management of people, their behaviour, and expectations (Whittingham et al. 2003).

Obtaining a comprehensive understanding requires an integration of social and natural sciences (Folke 2007). In particular, social science methods can link coral reef ecosystem science to governance, which is of central importance to managing human behaviour in an ecosystem context (Mahon & McConney 2004). The unique legislative, policy, administrative, financial and contexts of the UKCOTs, and their tractable scale, offers great potential for such studies to successfully influence effective management of resources.

1 Walling, L J. 2008. Climate change in the UK OverseasTerritories: Guidance for Biodiversity Conservation and Management in a Changing Climate in the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335-uk-ot-strat-091201.pdf

9 1.2 THREATS TO UK CARIBBEAN OVERSEAS TERRITORIES’ REEFS

Although, generic threats to coral reefs have been well articulated, few studies have examined such threats in the context of the UKCOTs. Forster (2011) 3 identified development, pollution, overfishing, hurricanes and climate change, to be the top five short and long terms threats, but the extents of such impacts are yet to be coherently assessed across the territories4. Individual UKCOTs have identified a number of high priority marine research requirements, but longer term, cross territory, coordinated programmes require development5. The added complexities of the devolved UKOT governance structure, has been shown to have implications for environmental management (Forster et al 2011)3.

Collectively and individually, the UKCOTs make a significant contribution to global biodiversity and geological diversity. Many species found are endemic, found nowhere else in the world. Whilst, primary responsibility for biodiversity conservation lies with the respective OT governments, the UK government retains some responsibility for external relations and the international treaties. For example, governance devolved from the UK brings international obligations to protect biodiversity to some of the OTs 6, including the British Virgin Islands7. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity the UK committed to significant reductions in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, and this is supported by the Millennium Development Goal of ensuring environmental sustainability 8 . Additional multilateral commitments apply to some UKCOTs (e.g. the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Ramsar Convention), which contribute to the wider targets. Subsequent biodiversity targets agreed in Aichi for 2011-2020, now require the mainstreaming of biodiversity across government and society, to address underlying causes of biodiversity loss and reduction in direct pressures on biodiversity to equitably enhancing societal benefits and ecosystem services9.

Primary responsibility for biodiversity conservation and wider environmental management in the OTs is devolved to the local governments, who are then responsible for developing appropriate, applicable and affordable environmental policies, legislation and standards accordingly. However, ability to fully meet international obligations is restricted by factors, such as relatively small populations and consequent limited capacity/access to technical expertise and small economies that can be fragile due to low potential for diversification10. Their remoteness from the UK can also add to the costs of environmental and socio-economic projects11.

1.3 THE FORCE PROJECT – A PRECURSOR

Over the last 4 years, a large European Union funded research project, Future of Reefs in a Changing Environment (FORCE), has made substantial efforts to understand the relationship between people and reefs across the Caribbean. The initiative brought together a team of researchers from 20 organisations based in 10 countries within the Caribbean, Europe, the US and Australia. Dive surveys were completed in 11 countries; Honduras, Belize, Barbados, Curaçao, Bonaire, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Antigua, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines and Puerto Rico. Extensive interviews and community meetings were conducted in four countries, Barbados, Honduras, St Kitts and Nevis and Belize to determine what is needed to support sustainable marine resource development. By replicating four detailed social case studies in these four countries (3 sites in each country), representative snapshots of the wider Caribbean have been collected, and some of the regional geo-

3 Forster, J. et. al (2011) Marine Biodiversity in the Caribbean UK Overseas Territories: Perceived threats and constraints to environmental management. Marine Policy 35 (2011) 647-657. 4 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335-uk-ot-strat-091201.pdf 5 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UKOTSG_workplanFeb2011.pdf 6 http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/ 7 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework 8 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 9 http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 10 Walling, L J. 2008. Climate change in the UK OverseasTerritories: Guidance for Biodiversity Conservation and Management in a Changing Climate in the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee 11 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335-uk-ot-strat-091201.pdf

10 political and bureaucratic complexity captured. The social science of peoples’ attitudes, behaviour, dependency, livelihood diversity and perceptions in relation to coral reef health and coral reef management is currently being integrated with the natural science of coral reef ecosystems and ground-breaking modelling studies undertaken.

The overall aim of FORCE was to provide reef managers with advice on sustainable coral reef management, with the emphasis being to share sustainable management practices identified from across the Caribbean that take account of not only the environmental considerations but also social and economic considerations. The project teams worked with practitioners involved in coral reef management and coastal policy, to identify future challenges for communities and sectors dependent on coral reef ecosystems. The main anticipated research outcome being to make recommendations for governance, enabling countries to better take account of major policy drivers such as the rapid changes in health of coral reef ecosystems, human population, and socio- economic factors like livelihood diversity options.

1.4 UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF THREATS TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMS IN THE UKCOTS

Funded by Defra and running from April 2012 to March 2014, this project “WC1032: Understanding and addressing the impact of threats to marine ecosystems in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories” builds on FORCE, and seeks to connect UKCOTs with that existing larger scale project, utilising robust, comparable methodologies. The overall scientific objective is to identify major threats, the most appropriate management interventions for the UKOTs and the governance structures needed for their implementation. The project also aimed to improve the flow of information and advice with and between the Overseas Territories, and has actively supported engagement with regional and international initiatives, via the FORCE project (see Appendix 7.1, p.61). To this end, Newcastle University researchers have worked closely with the governments of four Overseas Territories, successfully delivering a complex field programme in three of these between January 2013 and March 2014. In particular, Anguilla’s Departments of Environment, and Fisheries and Marine Resources; TCI’s Department of Environment and Marine Affairs; and BVI’s Conservation and Fisheries Department are to be thanked for their commitment and support during project phases in these territories. Although we were unable to complete work in the Cayman Islands, due to the politically sensitive timing of our proposed visit with respect to the implementation of the National Conservation Law, 2013, and marine parks review consultations ongoing, the Department of Environment also allowed us to visit, devoted time to extensive discussions and were broadly supportive of future work.

With the assistance of the departments above, Newcastle University researchers conducted extensive social- ecological studies in Anguilla, Turks and Caicos, and the British Virgin Islands. Coral reefs provided a focus, due to their high biodiversity and economic value. Ecological and social surveys were successfully delivered as proposed at three sites within each territory. Teams visited: Anguilla from the 6th January - 25th April 2013, the Turks and Caicos Islands from the 26th April - 2nd August 2013 and the British Virgin Islands from the 6th January 2014 - 25th March 2014. Maps of the final case study territories are shown in Figure 1 and survey sites marked.

1.4.1 SITE SELECTION

Fieldwork for this project was carefully designed to collect information that represents a variety of human societies found across the UKCOTs; three territories were studied within the time and budget available. These were selected to represent varying gradients of social and economic conditions, and levels of marine resource dependency. A brief outline of data used to inform choice of case study sites is highlighted in Table 1. Anguilla was determined to be a critical site to the understanding of less wealthy and more tourism resource dependent OT communities, Turks and Caicos Islands representing a less-wealthy fisheries dependent society, while it was suggested that either BVI or the Cayman Islands could represent the wealthier, less resource dependent

11 economies. Eventual selection of the BVI as the third study site was driven by logistical constraints; 1) of working in Cayman around election time, and 2) well developed support for the project from within the BVI government.

By representing a gradient of wealth, population, industry, natural resources and geography, broad inferences can be drawn about human dependency on marine resources, management, policy and governance structured required in other UKCOTs and island states in the Caribbean region. Replicating three detailed case studies (3 sites in each country) creates snapshots of the overseas territories for comparison with wider Caribbean data. This captures some of the geo-political and bureaucratic complexity of the region, and the state of reefs and reef dependant societies in the UKCOTs to be put into the context of the wider Caribbean region. Further scientific analyses will fully develop these data.

Table 1: Example data used to inform choice of case study sites in 2011 (source CIA World Factbook, www.cia.gov), illustration gradients of wealth, population, industry, natural resources and geography

Anguilla Turks and Caicos British Virgin Cayman Islands Islands Islands

Size Gradient Smallest Largest Mid Mid Area (km2) 91 948 151 264 Coastline (km) 61 389 80 160

Population Gradient Smallest Med-Large Med-Small Largest Population 15,094 44,819 25,383 51,384 Wealth Gradient Mid Poorest Mid Richest GDP per capita ($) 12,200 11, 500 38,500 43,800 GDP $(PPP) 175.4 million 216 million 853.4 million 2.25 billion

Characteristics of resource dependency Most tourism dependent

% GDP tourism economy 71.9 31.8 45.212 37.6 Most fishing dependant % labour force fishing 4 20 0.6 1.9 /agriculture Resource dependent Economies removed from resource Sectors Luxury tourism Tourism, offshore Tourism, light Offshore finance, lobster fishing, finance, fishing industry, offshore tourism offshore finance finance

12 http://www.indexmundi.com/british_virgin_islands/economy_profile.html

12 1.4.2 WORK COMPLETED

In terms of contracted objectives, the full programme of field work was ultimately successfully delivered, following an amendment allowing the third site to be moved from Cayman to BVI (following a scoping exercise), as articulated in the proposal. A total of 27 ecological sites were fully assessed using detailed protocols (red circles). An additional 133 rapid ecological assessments were undertaken using snorkel based techniques (green circles). The social science teams worked in nine communities in total (blue circles), conducting a total of 682.5 interviews with 335 resource users, 224 householders, 66.5 key informants and 37 interviews to establish social networks. A summary of interviews conducted can be found in Table 3, p.25. Maps of all final study sites are found in Figure 1, overleaf. One useful KI interview was partially completed, and is recorded as 0.5 in Table 3.

1.5 THE PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This report provides a summary of work undertaken, and presents initial results obtained for project WC1032: Understanding and addressing the impact of threats to marine ecosystems in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories. Ecological and social surveys are summarised, alongside analyses of governance arrangements in each territory. Activities linking UKCOTs to wider initiatives through the FORCE project are highlighted.

Section 1 offers a basic introduction.

Section 2 provides a summary of the ecological data collected, by territory, by site. Specific implications for each territory are highlighted.

Section 3 summarises the social survey data collected. Community level data is then presented by territory, by issue, so that comparisons may be made between sites within each territory.

Section 4 then covers the formal process of National consultations, describing the policy cycle review process in detail and presenting the outputs from each territory. Finally short ‘likert’ survey results are presented, for both FORCE countries and UKCOTs studied, for comparison. These can act as ‘indicators’ of the health of the governance system, if correctly interpreted.

Section 5 closes the document with a review of the project and a review of recommendations/future work.

13 a) b)

c) d)

Figure 1: Maps of a) study territories, and b-d) study sites (dive, snorkel and social) within Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands and British Virgin Islands

14 2 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS

Ecological data was collected from the UK Overseas Territories: Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Dive surveys were conducted at 27 sites, between the 4th and 26th May 2013 in Anguilla, 1st and 16th June 2013 in TCI and the 6th and 15th March 2014 in BVI. An additional 133 rapid ecological assessments were undertaken using snorkel based techniques (green circles, Figure 1). This section summarises the ecological status of coral reefs surveyed.

2.1 METHODS

Fish and reef benthic communities were surveyed in detail at 9 locations for each Territory (Figure 2). These were selected by their use (tourism, fishing or mixed) determined from interviews and community meetings. Three ecological surveys were therefore conducted per category (tourism, fishing and mixed), in each of the three OTs visited. Surveys were conducted between depths of 5-15m. Benthic cover (live coral, dead coral, octocoral, sponge, algae, rock, sand etc) was recorded to species level where appropriate on four 10m transects at each site. The complex structure of the reef (rugosity) was measured by draping 10m of fine link (8mm) chain over the reef and measuring the total distance covered (the chain covers less distance on reefs that are more complex), and vertical relief of rock or corals was measured every 2.5m along the 10m transects. Small fish (<20cm) were identified, counted and size estimated 2 metres either side of the same four 10m transects, while large fish (>20cm), lobsters and urchins were identified and counted in eight 30 m by 4 m belt transects at each site at each site. An additional 50 sites were rapidly assessed visually in each territory, but these data are not presented here (locations of spot surveys are indicated in Figure 1). Basic surveys were derived from a modified AGRRA protocol [version 5.4]. This is available in the internet, where full details can be found at http://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.html. Modifications are described in Appendix 7.2.

2.2 ANGUILLA, MAY 2013

2.2.1 DIVE SURVEY SITES

Site Name 1 Dog Island 2 Prickly Pear 3 Sail Island 4 Sandy Island 5 Road Ground 6 Katouche 7 Limestone Bay 8 Shoal Bay 9 Scrub Island

Figure 2: Study sites (blue points) around Anguilla

2.2.2 RESULTS

Live coral cover was highest at Prickly Pear (Figure 3), and four of the nine sites had higher coral cover than algal cover, which suggests healthier areas with space for coral recruitment and development. Several sites in Anguilla had low algal cover (<15%), with lowest algal cover recorded on the site furthest from shore (site number 1: Dog

15 Island, Fig. 1), while several near-shore sites (Shoal Bay, Limestone Bay and Sail Island) had high algal cover. Reef rugosity was relatively uniform, but very high at Sail Island which had large stands of dead elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata). When dead coral cover is included with live coral cover at Sail Island, coral cover increased from 7% to 45%, illustrating the extensive decline in coral cover experienced at this site. While live coral cover may not presently be very high at some of these sites, remaining coral structure may still provide important habitat and refuge for fishes. Anguilla’s reefs have been historically subjected to several strong hurricanes. Extensive soft sediment, combined with dead elkhorn coral with the physical structure intact to the North and West of Anguilla, suggests that hurricane impacts on these reefs may not be physical damage but rather effects of sediment run-off carried West by prevailing regional currents. This was supported by the presence of substantial live stands of elkhorn coral to the east of Anguilla around Scrub Island.

Figure 3: Average percentage cover of coral (yellow), algae (green) and reef rugosity (brown line) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in cover at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 4: Average fish abundance (blue bars) and number of fish species (red line) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in abundance or number of species at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Fish abundance was relatively uniform, but low, across sites in Anguilla except for higher abundances at offshore sites Dog Island, Prickly Pear and Sandy Island (Figure 4). Large numbers of small wrasses contributed to the overall abundance of fishes which was low in comparison to some countries previously surveyed, largely due to low numbers of planktivorous fishes such as chromis. The number of fish species (richness) was highest at Katouche and Prickly Pear. Prickly Pear also had the highest observed coral cover, which many species of fishes prefer to settle on and inhabit. While Katouche averaged low coral cover, it had areas of high coral cover (evident by the large vertical line in Figure 3), which may have contributed to the high number of fish species observed there.

Grouper and snapper abundance was highly variable (Figure 5), which is typical in the Caribbean, with both species highly exploited for consumption. Grouper abundance was greatest offshore at Dog Island (although only coneys were observed), and snapper abundance was greatest at Sandy Island. Most groupers were smaller species such as graysbys, coneys and red hinds. Parrotfish are herbivores and important to coral reefs because they help control algal levels, which may threaten live coral. Parrotfish biomass was generally lowest at fishing sites with lowest biomass at Dog Island (Figure 6) while highest parrotfish biomass was recorded at Sandy Island.

16

Figure 5: Average density (number per hectare) of groupers (pink) and snappers (red) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in density at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 6: Average Biomass (kg per hectare) of parrotfish at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

2.2.3 IMPLICATIONS

Anguillan reefs show evidence of secondary effects of hurricanes due to run-off and siltation, with large stands of dead elkhorn coral retaining high complexity but covered in macroalgae along the reef north and east of Sail Island. High algal cover on northern sites (Shoal Bay, Limestone Bay and Sail Island) may be due to chronic sedimentation, possibly also related to development, with prevailing currents carrying silt westwards. Consequently Scrub Island, to the East of Anguilla, may prove to be an important location with live stands elkhorn coral. Overall, while coral cover was relatively low in places, so was algal cover, suggesting there is room for coral colonisation, which will be supported if parrotfish populations are effectively managed. Sandy Island may also be an important site to fishes despite extensive mortality of complex corals (Orbicella sp.) in the shallows.

a) Dead Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) at b) Healthy Elkhorn coral stands off Scrub Island c) Coral reef at Road Ground Sail Island – structure is retained but dead East of Anguilla coral is overgrown with algae.

Figure 7: Examples of coral reef found around Anguilla

17 2.3 TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS, JUNE 2013

2.3.1 SURVEY SITES

Site Name 1 West Caicos 2 Wiley Cut 3 Grace Bay 4 Dellis Cay 5 Molasses Reef 6 French Cay 7 Best Kept Secret 8 Library 9 Gibbs Cay

Figure 8: Study Sites (blue points) around the Turks and Caicos Islands

2.3.2 RESULTS

Live coral cover was highest at Best Kept Secret (Figure 9) south of Grand Turk (Figure 8), and six of the nine sites had higher coral cover than algal cover, which indicates healthier sites with space for coral recruitment and development. Several sites in the TCI had low algal cover (<20%), which was lowest at West Caicos, but other western sites (Wiley Cut and Molasses Reef) exhibited very high algal cover. The high algal cover at these two sites is potentially due to siltation from the Caicos bank. It may also be because surveys at Molasses Reef were carried out on top of the reef wall due to depth constraints rather than on the reef slope. Reefs at Grand Turk typically had higher coral cover and reef rugosity, particularly Best Kept Secret, which had high amounts of the common star coral (Orbicella annularis). Gibbs Cay also had high rugosity (Figure 9) due to large amounts of intact and partially broken dead elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), with this site on the exposed eastern shore and particularly hard hit during Hurricane Ike in 2008.

Fish abundance was highly variable (Figure 10) and generally low in comparison to other countries previously surveyed by the team. Fish abundance was lowest on sites nearest to Providenciales (Wiley Cut, Grace Bay, Dellis Cay), and at Gibbs Cay, with the latter likely due to the large amounts of dead coral. Low fish abundance was largely due to the absence of many small juvenile fishes on TCI reefs, which may be due to the presence of nearby suitable nursery habitat, with the TCI possessing extensive seagrass and mangroves on the Caicos Bank. High fish abundance at Library was due to many small glass gobies and blueheaded wrasses. Generally large individuals were abundant on reefs in the TCI. The number of fish species (richness) was highest at Best Kept Secret and French Cay, which also had large schools of grunts, and Caribbean reef sharks were observed.

18 Figure 9: Average percentage cover of coral (yellow), algae (green) and reef rugosity (brown line) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in cover at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 10: Average fish abundance (blue bars) and number of fish species (red line) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in abundance or number of species at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 11: Average density (number per hectare) of groupers (pink) and snappers (red) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in density at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 12: Average Biomass (kg per hectare) of parrotfish at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Snapper and grouper abundances in the Caribbean are typically low because of high levels of exploitation. Grouper abundances were relatively high across all sites in the TCI, predominantly due to extremely abundant coneys, but Nassau Grouper were also commonly recorded, with individuals up to 70 cm total length. Snapper abundance was more variable but typically low (Figure 11). Grouper abundances in the TCI were highest at Grace

19 Bay and Best Kept Secret, whilst highest snapper abundances were observed offshore at West Caicos and French Cay. Parrotfish are herbivores and important to coral reefs because they help control algal levels, which threaten live coral. Relatively high parrotfish biomasses were recorded (Figure 12), but as mentioned earlier, most of this biomass was from larger individuals with small parrotfish in much lower numbers on the reef than expected.

2.3.3 IMPLICATIONS

The reefs surveyed in the Turks and Caicos Islands for this project had comparatively healthy fish communities, and particularly abundant grouper populations, particularly on offshore reef areas. This is somewhat unusual in the wider Caribbean, with grouper typically overexploited for consumption. Despite having the highest average coral cover, the reef at Gibbs Cay exhibited extensive coral mortality and low fish abundance and diversity, possibly due to high levels of exposure and this area is particularly vulnerable to hurricanes. On the leeward side of the Caicos Bank, Molasses Reef and Wiley Cut both had very high algal cover which may be due to storm sedimentation or in part due to restrictions imposed by site selection. Overall, the TCI has large areas of coral reefs, a relatively low population density and extensive suitable shallow water fish nursery habitats such as mangroves and seagrass beds. Consequently, reef fish communities were good relative to other Caribbean UK Overseas Territories surveyed as part of this project.

a) Reef at Best Kept Secret with structurally complex corals (Orbicella b) Schools of grunts off Grand Turk annularis)

Figure 13: Examples of coral reef found around the Turks and Caicos Islands

c) Schools of French grunts (Haemulon flavolineatum) at French Cay d) Nassau grouper on TCI reef

20 2.4 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS SURVEYS, MARCH 2014

2.4.1 SURVEY SITES

Site Name 1 Brewer’s Bay 2 The Indians 3 North Peter Island 4 Red Bay 5 Virgin Gorda 6 Anegada 7 North Jost van Dyke 8 Norman Island 9 White Bay

Figure 14: Study sites (blue points) around the British Virgin Islands

2.4.2 RESULTS

On average, the BVI had higher coral cover than other countries surveyed by the team in the Caribbean as part of this project. Live coral cover was highest at Virgin Gorda, and five of the nine sites had higher coral cover than algal cover, which can be used as a rough indicator of reef health, and also suggests there is space for coral recruitment and development. Several sites had relatively low algal cover (<15%; Figure 15), with lowest algal cover recorded on the Northern coast of Jost van Dyke (high wave energy), at White Bay and at Red Bay, with the last two sites having high urchin densities (important grazers) as well as high sand cover which prevents algae and coral from recruiting to the substrate.

Two main types of reefs were observed in the BVI: high complexity reefs composed of common star coral (Orbicella sp.), staghorn or elkhorn coral (Acropora sp.), and low complexity reefs composed of “weedy” species such as mustard hill (Porites sp.) and starlet (Siderastrea sp.) corals. While coral cover on average was relatively high in the BVI, high coral cover alone does not indicate a well-functioning reef. Areas of high complexity provide habitat and refuge for many fish species, and rugosity levels reveal the degraded nature of Red Bay and White Bay despite high live coral cover (Figure 15). Neither fire coral nor dead coral were included in Figure 15, although both were recorded. Jost van Dyke had high levels of fire coral which when combined with live coral accounted almost 20% of the benthos, but contributed little to reef complexity, with Jost van Dyke, Red Bay and White Bay the areas of lowest reef rugosity (Figure 15). In contrast, Anegada had large amounts of dead coral (predominantly elkhorn Acropora palmata), which when combined with live coral represented almost 40% of the benthos. This reveals the extensive mortality and previous health of this reef system.

Highly abundant gobies and blennies inflated fish abundances at Norman Island, Peter Island and The Indians and therefore these species have been excluded to allow for a more meaningful comparison between sites in Figure 16. However, even without these species, fish abundance was greatest at these three sites. Fish abundance was lowest at Red Bay but generally lowest on the fished sites. The number of fish species (richness) was also highest at Norman Island and The Indians, and generally lowest at fished sites, especially areas with high exposure to waves or storms (Jost van Dyke and Anegada).

21

Figure 15: Average percentage cover of coral (yellow) and algae (green) and rugosity (brown line) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in cover at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use, indicated above.

Figure 16: Average fish abundance without blennies/gobies (blue bars) and number of fish species (red line) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in abundance or number of species at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 17: Average density (number per hectare) of groupers (pink) and snappers (red) at each site. Vertical bars indicate the amount of variability in density at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use.

Figure 18: Average Biomass (kg per hectare) of parrotfish at each site. Vertical dashed lines separate sites of different use, indicated above.

Grouper and snapper abundance was relatively low across all sites, which is typical in the Caribbean, with both species popular for consumption. The one exception was Norman Island which had highest abundance of both fish families (Figure 17). No large species of grouper (Mycteropercids e.g. black grouper, Nassau grouper etc) were observed, with most individuals small graysbys, with some small coneys and red hinds. Parrotfish are herbivores and important to coral reefs because they help control algal levels, which threaten live coral. Parrotfish biomass was generally low across the majority of the sites, although somewhat lower at mixed use sites, with very few large individuals observed. The lowest biomass was seen at Red Bay (Figure 18), while highest parrotfish biomass was recorded at Virgin Gorda.

22 2.4.3 IMPLICATIONS

The reefs around the BVI appear relatively healthy in the context of the wider Caribbean: generally algae cover was lower than coral cover, and staghorn and boulder star corals were widespread. Although not presented here in detail, rapid visual assessments across the BVI revealed large beds of staghorn coral in some areas. While the reef benthos may appear healthy, the fish communities tell a different story. Fish communities in the BVI appear to reflect widespread near-shore pot fishing, with few large parrotfish observed. The lack of larger parrotfish, which are important in controlling algal cover, may not have had as detrimental an impact on the reefs as expected because of localised high urchin abundance. However, it would suggest a delicate balance, and should urchin numbers decline, as they have in the past, reefs in the BVI may be at threat. Consequently management options of parrotfish in the BVI should be considered. Fishing is somewhat widespread in the BVI and it is hard to separate fishing areas from tourism areas, and some areas have been fished historically longer (e.g. Red Bay). High snapper abundances on near-shore reefs may reflect the propensity for fishers to target these species offshore, and for tourists to feed fish in certain sites.

a) Highly complex reef off Peter Island b) Large dead stands of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) at Anegada

c) Large beds of staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) in the BVI d) Degraded reef system at Red Bay dominated by soft corals

Figure 19: Examples of coral reef found around the British Virgin Islands

23 2.5 PAN-CARIBBEAN COMPARISONS

Richness and Coral abundance and Algae

Snapper and Grouper Parrot fish

Figure 20: Comparison of UKCOTs studies with other Caribbean countries’ ecological data. Study OTs Anguilla, TCI and BIV highlighted with red boxes

Note that: differences in benthic surveyors and site selection account for most of the difference in algal cover, but coral cover is believed to be directly Large parrot comparable. Mean country level comparisons are affected by the site selection fish process, where UKCOTs focused on heavily used areas, where FORCE did not, so UKCOTs reefs are likely to be relatively more healthy than portrayed here.

24 3 SUMMARY OF SOCIAL SURVEYS

An extensive programme of social surveys and workshops was successfully delivered in each of three UKCOTs, as proposed. Social science teams visited: Anguilla from the 6th January - 25th April 2013, the Turks and Caicos Islands from the 26th April - 2nd August 2013 and the British Virgin Islands from the 6th January 2014 - 25th March 2014. Ecological surveys were specifically designed to coincide, maximising integrative potential. Teams were led by Newcastle scientists experienced with the proposed methods, supported by MSc students, but opportunities to work with local volunteers, scientists and managers were successfully sought in each territory.

At three communities in each UKCOT, a multi-level series of interviews was successfully completed, allowing the team to collate a broad range of stakeholder views, ranging from local level reef resource-users and managers, to national policy makers, government and non-governmental officials. Structured interviews of randomly selected households (HH) and targeted resource users (RU) in each community elicited stakeholder perceptions of local reef health, and local threats to biodiversity, explicitly exploring the ultimate causes and proximate drivers of change, and the efficacy of current management.

At both the community and national levels, ‘key informants’13 (KIs) were identified, and interviewed in greater depth. These interviews were more open in format and engage more deeply with individuals’ views of salient issues. Social network data was gathered with a sub-set of relevant KIs. Both quantitative and qualitative information was gathered. Data on resource use patterns, dependence on marine resources, and local perceptions of what can affect and improve marine resources governance was collated.

This section of the report presents, first community level data, then discusses KI data collected, before reviewing outputs from consultations with national decision makers in each territory. The social programme was delivered in full, as described in the proposal.

Table 3: Detailed breakdown of interviews completed

Location Type Total Key Key Social Resource Household Informant Informant Network User (Local) (National) Analysis Anguilla 216.5 Sandy Ground (Road Bay) 41 24 4.5 69.5 Island Harbour 33 27 5 65 West End 30 22 5 57 National Level 9 16 25 Turks and Caicos Islands 240.5 The Bight & Turtle Cove 25 50 5 80 Five Cays 27 46 4 77 West Road 29 33 4 66 National Level 8.5 9 17.5 British Virgin Islands 225.5 East End (Long Look) 25 45 5 75 Cane Garden Bay 24 47 4 75 Anegada 10 41 2.5 53.5 National Level 10 12 22 Totals 244 335 39 27.5 37 682.5

3.1 SURVEY SAMPLING

Initial meetings in country were conducted to coordinate the investigators and UKCOTs partners, identifying and training UKCOTs participants and volunteers, and standardise approaches. This ensured all researchers and in-country partners were familiar with all survey methods, the specifics of each instrument, and different types of data to be collected.

13 Critical individuals with specialist knowledge or a unique perspective on local resource issues. 25 At each site, community boundaries were identified in conjunction with local people. Systematic sampling within the bounded communities was then undertaken to identify households for interview (each house within the bounded area was numbered and a random sample generated). A structured questionnaire was then administered. A target of seventy-five HH/RU interviews was set for each community. In some communities, this represented intensive sampling effort and fewer interviews were conducted. Some locations we were able to deliver a greater number of interviews. The team worked closely with UKCOTs partners to identify a suitable balance in each location, minimising disruption to communities.

Semi-structured interviews with key informants were selected using non-probabilistic sampling techniques, including convenience sampling (for example, a respondent will be approached during resource use activities) and snowball sampling (where an interviewee suggests appropriate respondents). This is required to effectively identify coral reef experts, who can act as KIs (the peer assessment provided during such sampling is important to establish credibility). All survey instruments and sampling methods had been successfully piloted in Caribbean small island settings previously, and were effective in the UKCOTs context. The smaller size of the territories meant that KI saturation was reached with a slightly smaller number of interviews than predicted, but we are confident that this reflects only the size of the available pool of experts.

3.2 COMMUNITY LEVEL DATA

This section presents results obtained from semi-structured interviews of households and resource users in each community. Information about a range of issues from local people in each community study site is derived from questions that addressed: resource use and perceptions of the importance of marine resources; perceptions of environmental change; the marine environment and broader climate change impacts; management of coral reefs; community, livelihood and seafood consumption; and demographics and material style of life indicators. Specifically in terms of the multi-level governance assessment, these interviews provided information on perceptions of good governance at a household level; to contrast with information provided by local and national key informants. Copies of all survey instruments are available on request.

3.2.1 ANGUILLA

Research focused on the three communities of Island Harbour (n=60), a fishing-based economy; West End (n=52), a tourism- based economy; and Sandy Ground (Road Bay) (n=65), a mixed tourism and fishing economy. Following a short scoping phase, interviews started on January 22nd 2013. Interviews with resource users and householders chosen randomly from the community are summarised on the following pages.

Road Bay Table 4: Data summary: Anguillan community perceptions of coral reef management. Island Sandy West End Further qualitative perspectives are provided in the following section. Harbour Ground (Tourism) (Fishing) (Mixed)

Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Do you understand who is in charge of the reefs? 63 37 96 4 59 41 When they make decisions, is information provided to you and the rest of the community? 74 26 86 14 70 30 Do you think the people that look after coral reefs in this area do a good job? 46 54 64 36 59 41 Are there ways you can challenge the rules made about reefs? 52 48 65 35 27 73 Do you have an opportunity to participate in decisions made about reefs? 43 57 85 15 45 55 When people enforce the rules, is everybody treated the same? (i.e. do you think it is fair) 61 39 76 24 42 58 Do different groups (e.g. fishers, government) that have an interest in coral reefs work well together? 46 54 82 18 51 49 Do the people in charge of reefs have enough resources, training and knowledge? 30 70 62 38 30 70 Do the people in charge of reefs make the best use of the resources they have? 44 56 64 36 55 45 Do you think people in charge of reefs have successfully responded to changes in the reef? 29 71 92 8 54 46 Do the people in charge of reefs have plans in place to respond to emergencies or future changes? 36 64 62 38 40 60

26 Island Harbour (IH) Fishing Road Bay/Sandy Ground (RB/SG) Mixed West End (WE) Tourism

seen

Are coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has seen a coral reef? YES How healthy are coral reefs? How many fish are there? coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has seen a coral reef? YES How healthy are coral reefs? How many fish are there? coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has a coral reef? YES How healthy are coral reefs? How many fish are there? Healthy or Most Okay or unhealthy 99% 83% Many 99% 50% people were Few fish 99% 63% Few fish healthy mixed unsure opinion

Summary of Responses in this initial report are from 42 men and 15 women The respondents in this initial report are from 36 men and 20 The respondents in this initial report are from 36 men and 20 Respondents ranging in age from 21 to 82. 31 people from this sample are women ranging in age from 18 to 87. women ranging in age from 20 to 86. involved in fishing, 3 people work in reef related tourism.

Uses of the sea Top 6 activities conducted in Island Harbour and number of times Top 6 activities conducted in Road Bay and number of times Top 6 activities conducted in West End and number of times mentioned: mentioned: mentioned: • Fishing (including conch diving) (25) • Fishing (37) • Swimming and bathing (24) • Swimming and bathing (20) • Swimming and bathing (34) • Fishing (23) • Enjoying the beach and the views (16) • Sailing (18) • Enjoying the beach and the views (13) • Diving and snorkeling (10) • Enjoying the beach and the views (15) • Diving and snorkelling (8) • Sailing/going out on boats/boat racing (8) • Diving and snorkelling (10) • Boat Racing (7) • Spear-fishing (5) • Boat racing (5) • Sailing (6) People also enjoyed whelk picking, tagging turtles, collecting sea salt People also enjoyed whelk picking and surfing. Other watersports were popular, as were activities such as whelk and surfing. As in Island Harbour (IH), commercial fishers use pots and traps picking and surfing. Additional benefits from the sea were mentioned, including the targeting similar reef species. A smaller number of fishers using lines Tourism and construction are the main sources of employment in healing power/healthiness provided by the sea, exercise and the and rigging, or dive for conch. Fish and lobster are sold to hotels and West End. Tourism is highly seasonal. West End is an important area enjoyment and happiness from being close to, in or on the water. restaurants or directly to local people. “Nobody is happy about the for tourism, large resorts such as Cap Juluca and the Viceroy attract Commercial fishers used either pots or traps to target lobster, fish high gas prices which mean fishers have higher expenses and lower large numbers of tourists, generating significant employment The or crayfish while others use lines, rigging and trolling to catch large profits”. Most commercial fishermen fish outside the reef. Quite a beaches and reefs here are used for recreational activities, by both pelagics such as mahi, wahoo, tuna or kingfish (not reef species). large number of recreational fishers go out when they have time to local residents and tourists (swimming, sailing, boat racing, fishing). Few people dive for crayfish and conch. Fish and lobster are sold to catch a cooler full of fish or enough for dinner or a BBQ. They mostly Resorts offer watersports instruction, relying on the sea for fish to hotels and restaurants or directly to local people. A lot of fishing in handlines or spearguns. Local fish consumption has otherwise been feed tourists, and the activities that attract them to Anguilla. Island Harbour is commercial and most fishermen fish outside the overtaken by cheaper frozen tilapia. As in other locations, commercial fishermen fish outside the reef, reef; only a small number are setting pots for crayfish on the reef or Tourism and construction are the main sectors of employment for only a small number setting pots for crayfish on the reef. Fishing go spear-fishing. people in Road Bay, with tourism being highly seasonal. Sandy methods are similar to IH, and recreational fishing is a popular Fishing, tourism and construction are the main sectors of Ground offers bars and restaurants where tourists and locals mix, contribution to family dinners. Recreational fishermen use mostly employment for people in Island Harbour, with tourism being highly three dive operators and several charter boats. Dive operators use handlines or spearguns. Fish has become a rare delicacy for those seasonal and many residents commuting to West End for work, the wrecks for their businesses, but charter boats and restaurants people who do not fish and people mentioned the high price and lack often depending on others for transport. on Sandy Island and Prickly Pear depend on the reefs for snorkelling. of availability, as most fish is sold to hotels and restaurants for tourists.

Recreational activities, are important to both residents and tourists: swimming, sailing, boat racing, fishing and enjoying the beach. North “High gas prices are a problem for fishermen in particular, driving up Hill residents like to use Benzies Bay and Katouche Bay for fishing. costs and reducing potential profit.”

27 Island Harbour Fishing Road Bay/Sandy Ground Mixed West End Tourism

Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish

99% 83% Okay / healthy Many 99% 50% Unsure Few fish 99% 63% Mixed Opinion Few fish

Environmental Change: Most people agreed that the climate was changing but descriptions of the nature of the changes varied widely. Some changes were accurately associated with climate change, others were more speculative. People were asked if Some people said it is getting hotter, some colder, some said it has Some people said that Anguilla is getting drier; some say hotter, Some think there are more storms and hurricanes, other say there are they had noticed any stayed the same. Many mentioned that it has become drier with some colder, some say more ground seas and hurricanes, some said less; some say it is hotter, others believe it is cooler. Many thought changes in the more frequent/ longer ground sea periods. the weather was calmer. that the hurricanes were stronger and more frequent, and a large weather. number say there is less rain, leaving Anguilla much drier. .. and how these Beach erosion was mentioned as a major affected on the sea. People were unsure if the changes were affecting the sea. People were unsure if these changes were affecting the sea. changes affect the sea. Most people were unable to describe what climate change is, or Most people were unable to say what climate change is or name Most people had heard of climate change but could not say name any affects it might have on Anguilla. However, those who any affects it might have on Anguilla. 27 people said they were not specifically what it is or what is causing it, or think of ways it might knew what climate change is, saw the loss of land and beaches as sure if climate change would impact coral reefs, 22 said it would impact Anguilla. Possible effects mentioned were increased the main local impact (14 people). impact reefs and 4 though it wouldn’t. hurricanes destroying the reef, and eroding local beaches.

People described coral “It is beautiful to enjoy, it is nice and full with fish” “Colourful and “Full of life” “Like a picture, so beautiful, so much to see” “Vibrant reefs as: slimy - it looks like pretty flowers.” “Beautiful, extremely beautiful, “Full of fish and corals” “Bountiful” “Beautiful like a garden” colours” full of its meaningful nature.” Older people describe Island Harbour as full of fish and lobster (just Older generations feel very differently about the marine Older respondents often gave very different answers than younger off the pier). Lobster was even used as bait for fish-traps. Now there environment than younger people. Older people describe Sandy respondents, generally describing the reefs as full of fish. Fish used to are less grouper and less rockfish. People noticed an increase in Ground as full of fish and conch, saying you could catch jack and be cheaper and more available when they were younger. They said turtle and believe that this would increase the number of sharks. Fry, snapper dipping a line off the pier, and walk out into the bay and that you could easily catch a variety of fish by using a hand line from sprats and baitfish used to come into the harbour. Now it is much pull up as many conch as you liked. Now there are fewer grouper, the shore. There used to be a lot more fish and lobster. Many people harder to catch baitfish. There are fewer and smaller fishes on the ballyhoo, goatfish, snapper, whiteback, parrotfish and sharks. stated that there are less fish now in general, although some said the reefs than previously. There used to be many more large fish, like jew fish, and urchins. marine life had just moved location. Both fishermen and local residents who buy fish stated that there used to be more, larger fish Participants stated that corals turned from vibrant yellow and red The corals are now described as brown and dirty, or white (dead). species, like grouper, and that fish sizes have decreased overall. to brownish, colourless or whitish (grey). There are fewer fish and smaller. Corals are described as brown and dirty, or white (dead). The water in the harbour used to be deeper and there used to be Younger fishers tended to say there had been no, or very few, Younger fishers tended to say there had been no, or very few, more sand on the beaches. changes . changes , but older fishers reported many differences in their Most people agree that the largest effect on the corals was Most people agree that the largest effect on the corals was catches since they started fishing. hurricane Luis in 1995 as it destroyed coral and changed the hurricane Luis in 1995 as it destroyed coral and changed the Most people agree that hurricane Luis in 1995 had the largest effect pattern of the reefs. pattern of the reefs. on coral reefs in recent history, with similar effects noted as IH and On the positive side, people say that they see the reef improving Fishers are worried about the increase in the number of lionfish. RB/ SG. slowly: the corals are coming back and there are plenty of turtles On the positive side people here also say that they see the reef Fishers were worried about an increase in the number of lionfish, around. improving slowly, as in IH, corals are perceived to be returning they perceived that little was being done to address this problem. Some people expressed an interested in potentially lifting the turtle slowly, and calls for a lifting of the turtle ban were made. ban for a while. What affects the health of corals in Anguilla? 1. Hurricanes and ground seas (38) 1. Hurricanes and ground seas (23) 1. Hurricanes and ground seas (14) Top 5 for each site. 2. Spearfishers and fishing traps (20) 2. Fishing pots and spearguns (18) 2. Pollution (oil/trash) (10) 3. Pollution (chemicals/trash) (15) 3. Pollution (oil/trash) (17) 3. Fishing pots and spearguns (5) (Number) indicates 4. Oil from boats (10) 4. Boat anchors (16) 4. Boat anchors (5) times mentioned. 5. Walking on / touching the reef (9) 5. Walking on / touching the reef (14) 5. Walking on / touching the reef (4) Participants also mentioned anchoring, boat traffic, boats in general; Participants also mentioned coral bleaching, leaking from the landfill Participants also mentioned removal of coral and sand, overfishing, sand-mining, coastal development, over-fishing and climate change. site, coral disease, lionfish, sewage and boat traffic. and tourists who are unaware of how to behave on the reef.

28 Island Harbour Fishing Road Bay/Sandy Ground Mixed West End Tourism

Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish 99% 83% Okay / healthy Many 99% 50% Unsure Few fish 99% 63% Mixed Opinion Few fish How can we improve the health of coral reefs?

People came up with Closed seasons for lobsters and fish, other temporal closures, coral Different fishing zones, biodegradable fish traps to reduce ‘ghost Temporary and seasonal closed areas for fishing, biodegradable fish many useful transplantation, stopping sand-mining and planting more trees to fishing’ in case of loss, moving fishing grounds to different areas, traps, enforcing current rules about fishing and the reef, increased suggestions on how to regulate the sand, pumping sand out of the harbour, stopping fishing enforcing rules about not touching the reef, educational signs for education for fishermen and local people, more rules regarding improve the health of on the reef and stopping discharges from boats. tourists, enforcing the rule of not taking little fish for bait, coral fishing practices, artificial reefs, coral transplantation, stopping coral reefs and their transplantation, stopping people building close to the shore, people building close to the shore, putting more moorings out, management. temporary fish closures, cleaning the reefs, letting the reefs rest for restricting certain types of fishing e.g. spearfishing and creating 4 years, stopping potting on reefs, stopping construction waster more protected areas. being dumped in the sea, killing lionfish, putting more moorings out.

The main suggestions were: laws which are enforced, close season The main suggestions were: Better enforcement of regulations, only for lobster, monitoring and education. The main suggestions were: enforcement, not catching small fish or catching certain sizes of fish or lobsters, not dropping anchors on the lobsters, not dropping anchors on the reef. reef, and not taking lobsters with eggs.

Less frequently mentioned were issues related to increased coastal Resource users (fishing & tourism) suggested no-take fishing zones or development, loss of mangrove and seagrass beds, increased temporal closures of reef areas to allow fish to recover. However demand for fish, leaking septic tanks, increase in algae on reefs and concerns were expressed about enforcement, as current rules are not loss of fish that eat algae. believed to be enforced well. Many mentioned education as key to improving reef health in Anguilla. Management of coral reefs: Everyone in IH and RB/SG and almost everybody in WE mentioned that coral reefs are important to provide food and habitat for fish and lobster, and as an attraction for tourists. A small number of people mentioned the importance of coral reefs A small number of people mentioned the importance of coral reefs A small number of people mentioned the importance of coral reefs for coastal protection from hurricanes, storms and tsunamis and as for coastal protection from hurricanes, storms and tsunamis. for coastal protection from hurricanes, and that the damage to the

a tourist attraction. reefs is making the island more vulnerable.

Most people said everybody is responsible, and many believe that When asked “who is Most people said the government (Fisheries Department). Many Almost half of the people asked said that everybody is responsible, the Fisheries Department is in charge of the reefs. responsible for looking people that fishermen should look after the coral reefs, possibly with and many believe that the Fisheries Department and the after coral reefs?” the help of fisheries. Some people believe that everybody is Government are in charge of the reefs in Anguilla.

responsible for looking after the reef. People were aware of Many mentioned the ban or moratorium on sea-turtles, and while Many were in favour of the moratorium on sea-turtle take, although Many mentioned that they were in favour of the ban or moratorium a number of rules turtle meat is perceived as traditional and tasty, most people were in it was acknowledged that turtle meat is a traditional and tasty on sea-turtles, although it was acknowledged that turtle meat is a regarding the marine favour of it. There was wide awareness of minimum sizes for source of food. Again there was broad awareness of lobster landing traditional and tasty source of food. However, a number of people environment and the lobsters and crayfish, and that berried females were not to be taken. regulations (minimum size and berried animals). People are aware of also believe it would be good to have small open seasons for turtle coral reefs. A small number of people mentioned the ban on jet-skis. Some regulations forbidding anchoring on the reef and seagrass beds. A fishing, especially around cultural events and festivals. There was people are aware of the Marine Parks, a minimum mesh size for fish few people mentioned the ban on jet-skis. Some people were aware also a wide awareness on the minimum size of lobsters and that traps, a law against sand-mining and discharge from boats. of the Marine Parks. lobsters with eggs were not to be taken. The minimum mesh size for fish and lobster traps was frequently mentioned. People stated that There are a number of informal behavioural norms in IH: not There are a number of informal behavioural norms in SG/RB: people sand mining, and removal of sand and coral is not permitted. Very walking on reefs, not touching coral and not throwing rubbish into should not walk on corals, touch them, break them off or throw few people are aware of the Marine Parks in Anguilla. the sea or onto the beach. garbage into the sea or on the beach. Enforcement of rules was perceived as very lax in general, though As IH, enforcement of rules was perceived as ineffective, and Enforcement of rules was generally perceived as very poor. Fines heavy penalties were mentioned for catching turtles. penalties were again mentioned for breaking the turtle ban. were mentioned for breaking the turtle ban on specific occasions. Overall perception of IH respondents were critical of current management efforts, they RB/SG participants appeared very supportive of current People in WE appear to be very supportive of current management current reef were particularly concerned about the resources and training of management efforts. The only slight concern was that people are efforts. However, many people are unsure about whether they are management people in charge, how they’d responded to past changes and their not sure if the government have successfully responded to changes able to challenge the rules, and whether the people in charge of plans (or lack of plans) to respond to future emergencies. Lack of seen in the reefs. reefs have enough resources, training and knowledge. See Table 4, p.26. collaboration between fishers and government was a serious issue. 29 Island Harbour Fishing Road Bay/Sandy Ground Mixed West End Tourism

Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish 99% 83% Okay / healthy Many 99% 50% Unsure Few fish 99% 63% Mixed Opinion Few fish What could be done to improve the situation?

A number of people, particularly resource users, suggested introducing no-take fishing zones or temporal closure of areas in the reefs to ------allow fish to recover. However there is a strong sentiment that those would have to be enforced. Many people also mentioned that education and outreach for both children and adults would be a good idea to help improve the health of reefs in Anguilla.

A need for alternative livelihoods for people that depend on reef Some suggested technical measures, such as artificial reefs or fishing was highlighted if there are to be closures. transplantation of corals.

Community: We asked a series of questions about each community. Detailed responses are summarised in Table 5, below.

In all communities only a few people were involved in community groups and organizations, and most people preferred to do things individually. Most people felt accepted as part of the community and believed See Table 5, below, for that relationships, are good in general, However, it is perceived that, increasingly people are only interested in their own welfare. summary data. However, quite a few are very supportive of the community and do Many state that people work together to solve problems. People do not always work together to solve problems. volunteer whenever there is a need or chance. One of the big concerns in both North Hill and Sandy Ground is the Some community members mentioned changes in the community in recent rise in crime, people often commented that they no longer recent years. A rise in crime has meant that many people no longer feel safe leaving their doors unlocked. feel safe leaving their doors unlocked.

Table 5: Summary data describing Anguillian community members’ Island Harbour Road Bay Sandy West End (Tourism) perceptions of belonging, cohesion and social capital. (Fishing) Ground (Mixed)

Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Do you think most people in the community are honest and can be trusted? 39 17 46 11 24 19 Are relationships in the community generally good? 51 6 51 6 30 12 Do you feel accepted as part of this community? 53 4 56 1 36 5 Does everyone work together to solve problems that affect the community? 35 22 48 8 17 25 Do you have the opportunity to participate in decision making within the community? 30 26 47 5 15 26 Do you think there are strong leaders in the community who are respected? 45 11 50 5 23 19 Do you think people are only interested in their own welfare? 48 9 44 13 27 15 Do you think the government should solve major problems in the community? 36 20 49 7 24 18 Are there unresolved issues or problems between people in this community? 21 36 49 8 18 23

30 3.2.2 THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS (TCI)

Research focused on the three communities of Five Cays (n=73), a fishing-based economy; The Bight & Turtle Cove (n=75), a tourism-based economy, both on Providenciales; and West Road (n=62), a mixed tourism and fishing economy on Grand Turk. Following a short scoping phase, interviews started on May 2nd 2013. Interviews with resource users, and householders chosen randomly from the community, are summarised on the following pages.

West Road, Bight &Turtle Five Cays Grand Turk Cove Table 6: Data summary: Turks and Caicos Island community perceptions of coral reef (Fishing) (Mixed) (Tourism) management. Further qualitative perspectives are provided in the following section.

Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Do you understand who is in charge of the reefs? 55 45 71 29 74 26 When they make decisions, is information provided to you and the rest of the community? 63 37 46 54 84 16 Do you think the people that look after coral reefs in this area do a good job? 53 47 33 67 62 38 Are there ways you can challenge the rules made about reefs? 44 56 51 49 44 56 Do you have an opportunity to participate in decisions made about reefs? 38 62 21 79 37 63 When people enforce the rules, is everybody treated the same? (i.e. do you think it is fair) 35 65 24 76 38 62 Do different groups (e.g. fishers, government) that have an interest in coral reefs work well together? 49 51 38 62 49 51 Do the people in charge of reefs have enough resources, training and knowledge? 39 61 26 74 32 68 Do the people in charge of reefs make the best use of the resources they have? 49 51 57 43 60 40 Do you think people in charge of reefs have successfully responded to changes in the reef? 32 68 38 62 55 45 Do the people in charge of reefs have plans in place to respond to emergencies or future changes? 38 62 29 71 44 56

Five Cays West Road, Grand Bight &Turtle Cove Table 7: Summary data describing Turks and Caicos Island community (Fishing) Turk (Mixed) (Tourism) members’ perceptions of belonging, cohesion and social capital.

Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Do you think most people in the community are honest and can be trusted? 46 54 52 48 69 31 Are relationships in the community generally good? 73 27 90 10 90 10 Do you feel accepted as part of this community? 86 14 88 12 82 18 Does everyone work together to solve problems that affect the community? 47 53 49 51 61 39 Do you have the opportunity to participate in decision making within the community? 49 51 36 64 42 58 Do you think there are strong leaders in the community who are respected? 66 34 80 20 78 22 Do you think people are only interested in their own welfare? 71 29 62 38 56 44 Do you think the government should solve major problems in the community? 79 21 74 26 62 38 Are there unresolved issues or problems between people in this community? 59 41 54 46 28 72

31 Five Cays (FC) Fishing West Road - Grand Turk (WR-GT) Mixed Bight &Turtle Cove (BTC) Tourism

Are coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has aseen coral reef? YES How are healthy coral reefs? How many fish are there? coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has aseen coral reef? YES How are healthy coral reefs? How many fish are there? coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has aseen coral reef? YES How are healthy coral reefs? How many fish are there? Mostly Okay or 97% 84% Many 95% 76% Healthy Very many 99% 90% Many healthy healthy

Summary of Responses are from 61 males and 7 females ranging in age from 25 to Responses are from 42 people are included in this initial report, 28 Responses of 68 people are included in this initial report, 46 men and Respondents 69. Most were involved in fishing, either commercially or male and 14 female, ranging in age from 18 to 84 years; 8 were 22 women, ranging in age from 22 to 86 years. Of these, 47 were recreationally. involved in the fishing sector, either commercially or recreationally, 16 involved in the tourism sector, working closely with coral reefs and in reef related tourism. Two people were involved in both sectors. the marine environment. Uses of the sea The top 6 general • Commercial fishing (36) • Fishing and freediving (23) • Fishing (47) activities conducted in • Swimming and walking on the beach (35) • Swimming and bathing (20) • Snorkeling and freediving (45) each community were: • Subsistence fishing (13) • Recreational snorkelling and freediving (19) • Swimming (36) • Diving and snorkelling (5) • Scuba diving (14) • Cruising (26) (number of times • • • mentioned) Tourism (4) Cruising/boating (13) Scuba diving (22) • Transport (3) • Enjoying the beach (11) • Enjoying the beach (12)

Other uses of the sea include for health benefits, sailboat racing, Other uses including whale watching and stingray encounters were Kiteboarding, waterskiing, and catching conch and lobster were also sponging, exercise, jet skiing, trade with other islands and also mentioned. Respondents regularly mentioned additional benefits discussed. Additional benefits such as health, opportunities to watersports. Although commercial fishing is the most important use from the sea such as food (fish, conch, lobster), health benefits and exercise, and the enjoyment of being close to, in or on the sea were in FC, in-terms of income, local residents value the sea for leisure the enjoyment and happiness from being close to, in or on the water. frequently mentioned. activities. This has implications for local management (sea & beaches). Commercial fishers primarily dive for conch and lobster (in season). Fishing on Grand Turk is conducted by 30-40 commercial and Other practices commonly mentioned were handlining, bottom recreational fishers. Commercial boats target different species, fishing, deep-sea fishing and spearfishing. Use of pots and traps is primarily conch and lobster (in season). Fishers also catch larger reef also carried out on a small scale. Conch and lobster are primarily sold fish (grouper, snapper, hogfish) by free-diving with spearguns and to Provo Seafood Ltd., although some is sold directly to hotel and other species such as sharks and turtles with hooks and line. Some restaurants (higher price), and some directly to local people. fish/conch/lobster is sold locally but the majority of the commercial Increased gas prices are an issue: ‘product’ is harder to find and conch catch is exported to Providenciales. prices don’t increase. It is harder to cover costs. Commercial diving for lobster occurs on different reefs around the islands; sandy banks close to reefs for conch. There are large numbers

of commercial fishers, both Islanders and Haitians. It was frequently mentioned that, historically, fishing was the most important occupation on the island, and a traditional practice for Islanders. Most fishing is recreational or tourism based, in the Bight & Turtle Demographics have shifted in recent years, the industry now Cove area, targeting non-reef species, such as mahi-mahi, wahoo, dominated by Haitians working for Provo Seafood Ltd. tuna, marlin and bonefish, as well as some bottom-fishing for reef- Large numbers of recreational fishers go out (less frequently) to catch related grouper and snapper. food for families/friends. They hand-line or dive (conch/lobster). The tourism industry on Grand Turk has two distinct parts, dive Residents often said that seafood is less accessible than previously, tourists and cruise ship visitors. The Cruise Ship Center is a major “It is the biggest asset the country has, the reef and the beaches” particularly for those who don't fish. Both fishermen and residents employer for people living in West Road area and the weekly think fish have decreased in number and size, and increased in price. community rhythm revolves around the arrival and departure of the Fishing and tourism are the main sectors of employment in FC, both ships. There are no large hotels on the island. The few local Tourism is the main sector of employment for resource users in The are seasonal. There are high levels of unemployment. Many working restaurants cater to dive tourists who stay between 1-2 weeks at a Bight & Turtle Cove. Top commercial uses were cited as: Snorkelling in fishing were keen to find more secure work. time. trips (25), Fishing trips (20), Other boat trips (20) & Scuba Diving (15).

32 Five Cays Fishing West Road - Grand Turk Mixed Bight &Turtle Cove Tourism Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish 97% 84% Healthy Many 95% 76% Healthy Very many 99% 90% Okay / healthy Many

Environmental Change: In recent years there has been a lot of discussion about climate change and impacts in different parts of the world. To elicit possible changes in TCI people about changes in the weather.

People were asked if The majority think the climate is changing, but they disagreed about Over half the respondents had not noticed any major changes. Some Most had not noticed any major changes. Some thought that the they had noticed any the nature of the changes. Some said there has been a shift in the said it had become slightly hotter and drier. weather had possibly become less predictable in recent years.. changes in the weather. seasons, some more rain, others less rain and more droughts. Some think the weather is better and some think it is worse. A number of people stated that the winters are colder but the hot days are hotter. Many people thought hurricanes were stronger and more frequent.

.. and how these changes People also had mixed views about whether these changes were Approximately 65% of interviewees had heard of climate change and Approximately 60% of interviewees have heard of climate change and affect the sea. affecting the sea. Most people were unable to say what climate think it will affect coral reefs. Respondents believed the biggest some believe it would affect coral reefs. Respondents believe the threats to the island are the loss of coral reefs or possibly tsunamis biggest threats to the area are a rise in sea-level, as Providenciales is a change is or think of any potential impacts to Providenciales. Some mentioned increased hurricanes that would destroy the reef, filling and hurricanes. low lying island, increased hurricanes and an impact on tourism.

holes where lobsters and fish live with sediment and sand, increased Respondents who’s work is related to reefs, particularly those who As WR-GT, reef workers had observed changes over the last 10 years. frequency of ground seas, change in water temperature that might had seen the reefs over the last 10 years, were more aware of They feel that reefs further away from human presence are in a impact fish and corals, more erosion of local beaches and increased changes. Shallower reefs frequented by inexperienced snorkellers better state than those in close proximity to the island. People noted risk of tsunamis. had suffered from the increase in tours with the arrival of the cruise that reefs do not seem as vibrant as they used to be and that there Many older fishermen stated that there are fewer fish in general now, ship. Some people mentioned a decline in fish in the national park, are fewer fish, particularly fewer grouper around the reefs. They

although some said this was just because they had moved and were and especially a decline in large “tame” fish that tourists like to see. commented that “the land is growing out into the water”, smothering ‘running deeper’ due to changes in temperature and noise from boat Both reef users and the community who do not use the reef areas of reef with sand. Some attribute this to coastal development engines. One fisherman stated that “the people who say there’s a lot mentioned the arrival of Lionfish; often mentioned as a reason for and dredging projects along the islands, as well as natural causes. of fish… they’re new. They don’t know what it used to be like”. Both declining fish numbers, particularly small and juvenile fish. Some of the dive sites are in the process of recovering from the fishers and residents who buy fish stated that there used to be a lot effects of dredging projects. more large fish and that fish sizes have decreased overall. Corals are now described as white (dead) in certain areas or a When asked about specific changes to coral reefs, people mentioned Observed differences in opinion (particularly in FC) regarding different colour to before, and the fish are fewer and smaller. that there are less fish and lobster on the East Side than previously, environmental change have significant implications for future Younger fishers tended to say there had been no or very few changes, smaller fish in general and fewer turtles, although these depend on management in TCI. If changes are not recognised, people are older fishers reported many more differences in their catch, and in the location. Asked to describe a less likely to support management and adhere to regulations. healthy coral reef , state of the reefs, since they started fishing. “Bright coloured with lots of soft corals and fish” people said: “Colourful, vibrant and lively”, “full of life” “Living and blooming like a beautiful garden”

Almost everybody Support the fishing industry by providing food and habitat for fish and Provide habitat for fish and other marine life, form an important part They provide habitat for fish and other marine life, are important for mentioned that coral lobster. Tourist attraction for snorkelling and diving. A large of the ecosystem, are important for tourism, provide protection from tourism, provide protection from storms and form an important reefs are important, proportion mentioned their importance for coastal protection from storms and support livelihoods for many people on the island. ecosystem. because… hurricanes, and that the reef damage is making the island more vulnerable. They are also important as something beautiful to look at. What affects the health of corals in the Turks and Caicos Islands? Top 5 for each site (Number) indicates times mentioned. Local Impacts 1. Use of bleach/chemicals (25) 1. Using chemicals including bleach to catch lobster (18) 1. Using bleach to catch lobster (21) 2. Hurricanes and bad weather 23) 2. Divers/snorkelers (13) 2. Boat traffic (18) Most people agree 3. People breaking bits of coral off (10) 3. Boats/ cruise ships (12) 3. Anchor damage (18) hurricanes Ike and 4. Boat anchors (9) 4. Hurricanes and bad weather (9) 4. Divers/Snorkelers (18) Hannah had the largest 5. Gas/oil from boats (6) 5. Anchoring (8) 5. Dredging (16) effect on coral reefs in Pollution–garbage/waste, Breaking the reef apart to get lobster, Rubbish, Bad fishing practices and poaching were also significant. Pollution, Sunscreen, Oil, Rubbish, Development, Hurricanes were also recent history, breaking hitting reefs with boats, lionfish, spearfishing, dredging, lack of Other impacts mentioned included over-fishing, climate change, all mentioned by many. Other impacts include over-fishing, climate up coral and changing education, suntan lotion, taking of undersize fish, lobster and conch development of the cruise ship centre and poor enforcement of change and lionfish. the pattern of the reefs. were all important. Fishers were worried about the increase in lionfish regulations. numbers in recent years, but nobody knows where they came from. 33 Five Cays Fishing West Road - Grand Turk Mixed Bight &Turtle Cove Tourism Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish 97% 84% Healthy Many 95% 76% Healthy Very many 99% 90% Okay / healthy Many

Management of coral reefs

We asked “who is Most people said DEMA (Department of the Environment and The government (DEMA, or DECR) and the Fisheries Department. The government (DEMA) was named frequently, but some believe the responsible for looking Maritime Affairs), the Fisheries Department and the Government. A Others believe that it is everybody’s responsibility to look after reefs. reef is everybody’s responsibility. Many people believed that all users after coral reefs?” number of people also stated: everybody is responsible. Rules were generally perceived positively as protecting peoples’ of the Princess Alexandra National Park should be responsible for management. livelihoods. We asked about rules People were aware of a number of rules. They mentioned the national People were aware of a number of rules regarding the national park, People are aware of national park rules, such as no fishing or taking relating to coral reefs park, and rules such as no fishing, and mandatory use of mooring such as no fishing or anchoring. anything from the area, and boating rules (mooring not anchoring). buoys inside the park. Mixed feelings were expressed about the and the marine Rules were generally perceived to be good as they protect peoples’ environment….. national park, but the majority were in favour as it “protects our livelihoods. livelihood”. People were also aware of size restrictions and seasonal

closures for conch and lobster, no use of nets, no use of chemicals (e.g. bleach) to remove marine products, and parrotfish catch bans. There are a number of informal behavioural rules, such as not walking Tour operators and dive operators try to encourage their customers to Informal rules include not walking on, touching or breaking off pieces on the corals, not touching or breaking bits of coral off and not follow informal rules, such as not touching the reef. of the corals, and not throwing garbage into the sea or on the beach.

throwing waste around the coast. However the perception of rule enforcement was poor. It is believed People held very mixed views about enforcement of rules. Some However, people were unhappy with the amount and effectiveness How are the rules there is not enough enforcement presence, only during office hours, thought that they were enforced effectively, but the majority believe of enforcement, many people stating that no enforcement existed on enforced? and that overall enforcement is not strict enough. Resource users enforcement to be poor. “It needs to be stronger and stricter”. Many Grand Turk. Fishermen were particularly concerned that the patrol mentioned that they try to assist with enforcement by reporting point out that DEMA do a good job with what they have. officers did not follow the rules themselves and would hassle some fishers more than others (corruption). Dive and tour operators illegal behaviour in the national park and would like to see a change. frequently mentioned enforcing the rules themselves and reporting illegal fishing to DEMA.

Overall perception of People in FC had mixed views about the success of current coral reef People living in, or using WR-GT area were quite critical of current People living in, or using the BTC area were critical of current current reef management in the area. Many positive comments were made but management efforts. Respondents said that not enough information management efforts. As in WR-GT, information and opportunity to management people believe there is room for improvement. is provided about decisions made about the coral reefs. They are participate in decision making were lacking. They also believed they Those who believe that the reef is in good condition and reported few concerned about not being able to participate in the decision-making could contribute knowledge of what is happening on a daily basis. process. Many believe they could contribute their knowledge of what Respondents felt the lack of resources, unfair enforcement and a A detailed summary of changes in reef health or fish size/number generally had a higher opinion of current reef management than those who reported is happening on a daily basis. Respondents believe that those in difficulty challenging the rules. data relating to charge lack resources and that enforcement isn’t carried out fairly. perceptions of deterioration of reefs and fish. There was also concern that the different groups do not work management can be There is also concern that the different resource users and groups do together or cooperate well. This is perceived to be due to competition found in Table 6, p. 31. not work together or cooperate well, though dive operators thought between tourism operators, as well as conflicting interests with they worked closely with each other. Dive operators also mentioned government. However, people mentioned successful combined that they install and maintain moorings, which they felt should be the efforts against the dolphinarium and the long-lining fishery. government’s responsibility

34 Five Cays Fishing West Road - Grand Turk Mixed Bight &Turtle Cove Tourism Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish 97% 84% Healthy Many 95% 76% Healthy Very many 99% 90% Okay / healthy Many

What could be done to improve the situation? All communities focussed on greater levels of enforcement of existing laws as their main recommendation, and suggested additional education would help.

How can health and Some fishers want to see the banks closed to export for between 2 Suggestions included: guidelines for national park users, stopping the Suggestions included: additional mooring buoys, artificial reefs/ reef management of coral and 5 years to allow stocks to recover. Stopping the use of use of bleach on reefs, minimum sizes for fish and more moorings on balls, privatised enforcement, cleaning the reef and beaches, reefs be improved? chemicals, like bleach, to extract lobster was frequently discussed, as snorkelling sites. An urgent need for resources for enforcement, guidelines for park-users, scientific research and monitoring, banning were artificial reefs and coral transplantation; more education for patrolling and monitoring was frequently expressed. bleach, and more care with coastal developments and dredging. fishermen and local residents, more marker buoys to indicate People proposed a wide Education was widely mentioned, from schools to increased training Education in schools, for tour operators and boat captains (awareness location of coral reefs, more restrictions for reef use and fishing, on ecological impacts for enforcement officers and more emphasis on of ecological impacts to pass on to tourists), and for enforcement range of useful more anchored buoys for mooring, less pollution, and better suggestions… the tour-operators to raise awareness with tourists (specifically cruise officers was suggested, with generally increased awareness and cooperation between DEMA, fishermen and tourism operators. ship passengers). education across the board (general public, tourists, and the above).

Major recommendations More enforcement. “More enforcement of existing laws by responsible patrol officers” More enforcement, more laws and education. were….. Increased presence of fisheries officers and patrols, particularly “Educate people who interact with the reef, more awareness on how More resources for enforcement and monitoring are needed. during lobster season. reefs live and what they need, especially children. Educate children to be proud of the reefs.”

Community: It is thought that communities with strong channels of communication and similar views and goals are able to deal with change more effectively. We asked a series of questions about each community. Detailed responses are summarised in Table 7, below.

We asked people to tell Few people were involved in community groups and organizations, most preferring to do things individually. People felt accepted as part of their communities, believing relationships were generally good. However, us about their all communities believed that people were increasingly only interested in their own welfare. communities… It was perceived that people did not always work together to solve There is a large ex-pat influence in WR-GT. 23 respondents were As 29 people interviewed were Turks Islanders, 20 US/Canada or problems. Turks Islanders, 7 USA/Canada or European nationals and 12 other European nationals and 17 other Caribbean nationals; islanders were Some community members mentioned changes in the community in Caribbean nationals. in the minority in this community. Despite not participating on recent years. Paradoxically, they felt both that the government should solve major formal groups, many were supportive of the BTC community or Providenciales in general, volunteering whenever there was a need problems affecting the community and that they were unable to be involved in decisions being taken. or opportunity. There were conflicts and unresolved issues in the community, and crime and unemployment were increasing. People did not feel as safe as they used to. Many were not interested in or did not feel able to be involved in decisions being taken in the community.

35 3.2.3 THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (BVI)

Research focused on the three communities of Anegada (n=51), a fishing-based island economy; Cane Garden Bay (n=71), a tourism-based economy; and East End-Long Look (n=70), a mixed tourism and fishing economy. The latter two communities are both on Tortola. Following a short scoping phase, interviews started on January 11th 2013. Interviews with resource users and householders chosen randomly from the community are summarised on the following pages.

East End, Anegada Cane Garden Long Look Table 8: Data summary: British Virgin Island community perceptions of coral reef management. (Fishing) Bay (Tourism) Further qualitative perspectives are provided in the following section. (Anagada data was received on (Mixed) 25th March 2014 and is yet to be analysed).

Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Do you understand who is in charge of the reefs? 60 40 68 32 58 42 When they make decisions, is information provided to you and the rest of the community? 63 38 58 42 46 54 Do you think the people that look after coral reefs in this area do a good job? 34 66 54 46 30 70 Are there ways you can challenge the rules made about reefs? 50 50 41 59 59 41 Do you have an opportunity to participate in decisions made about reefs? 40 60 43 57 47 53 When people enforce the rules, is everybody treated the same? (i.e. do you think it is fair) 39 61 32 68 38 62 Do different groups (e.g. fishers, government) that have an interest in coral reefs work well together? 40 60 42 58 38 62 Do the people in charge of reefs have enough resources, training and knowledge? 19 81 37 63 25 75 Do the people in charge of reefs make the best use of the resources they have? 44 56 52 48 42 58 Do you think people in charge of reefs have successfully responded to changes in the reef? 26 74 50 50 44 56 Do the people in charge of reefs have plans in place to respond to emergencies or future changes? 29 71 40 60 52 48

East End, Long Look Cane Garden Bay Anegada (Fishing) (Mixed) (Tourism) Table 9: Summary data describing British Virgin Island community members’ perceptions of belonging, cohesion and social capital (Anagada data was received on 25th March 2014 and is yet to be analysed).

Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Yes/Sometimes No/Unsure Do you think most people in the community are honest and can be trusted? 56 44 36 64 73 27 Are relationships in the community generally good? 70 30 75 25 82 18 Do you feel accepted as part of this community? 78 22 81 19 83 17 Does everyone work together to solve problems that affect the community? 47 53 54 46 55 45 Do you have the opportunity to participate in decision making within the community? 37 63 47 53 60 40 Do you think there are strong leaders in the community who are respected? 44 56 78 22 71 29 Do you think people are only interested in their own welfare? 92 8 60 40 60 40 Do you think the government should solve major problems in the community? 74 26 65 35 73 27 Are there unresolved issues or problems between people in this community? 60 40 63 37 52 48

36 Anegada Fishing East End - Long Look (EELL) Mixed Cane Garden Bay (CGB) Tourism

Are coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has aseen coral reef? YES How healthy are coral reefs? How many fish are there? coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has aseen coral reef? YES How healthy are coral reefs? How many fish are there? coralAre reefs Important? YES Who has aseen coral reef? YES How healthy are coral reefs? How many fish are there? Healthy Very Healthy/ in- Many/ in- unhealthy 98% 86% 97% 66% Healthy Many 96% 83% healthy or between between mixed healthy opinion Summary of Responses from 51 people are included here, 42 men and 8 women, Responses from 58 people are included here, 39 male and 19 Responses from 70 people are included, 47 male and 23 female, ranging from 18 to 92 years. Of these, 12 were involved in the fishing Respondents age range, 42 fishers versus 9 households, 34 fishers, I tourism, 7 female, ranging in age from 20 to 84 years. Gender disparity occurs people engaged in both and 9 people involved in neither occupation. as 31 respondents were involved in the male dominated fishing sector, either commercially or recreationally and 33 in the tourism 25 of the people we spoke to identified themselves as commercial sector; either commercially, subsistence or recreationally. Seven sector. The tourism sector does not have a direct connection with the fishers, a further 6 as recreational or subsistence fishers. were involved in the reef related tourism sector. coral reefs, but is heavily dependent on the white sandy beach.

Uses of the sea Top 5/6 activities • Fishing (all kinds inc. diving for conch) (47) • Fishing (31) • Swimming and bathing (46) conducted in BVI • Swimming (15) • Swimming and bathing (31) • Sailing/boating (29) communities, number • Snorkelling (9) • Cruising/boating (20) • Fishing and freediving (27) of times mentioned in • Sailing (6) • Recreational snorkelling and freediving (16) • Recreational snorkelling (24) brackets: • Going to the beach (3) • Scuba diving (10) • Scuba diving (12) • Relaxing / fun (2) • Enjoying the beach (10) Anegada is a much smaller more homogeneous, traditional Other direct uses mentioned included transport, and other Other uses including surfing, transport (ferry service), getting feet community than the others studied in BVI. The economy is based watersports, such as kayaking and wakeboarding. Respondents wet, taking children to the beach and desalination. Respondents also almost entirely on fishing. regularly mentioned additional benefits such as food (fish, conch and mentioned food (fish, conch and lobster), health and enjoyment as Commensurate with this, most direct uses mentioned by respondents lobster), health benefits and the enjoyment and happiness from benefits. Many people said the coral reefs helped form this beach were fishing oriented. Fishing offshore north and west of Anegada. being close to, in or on the water. and now protect it from erosion. Reef and line fishing on Horseshoe reef, east and along the north Commercial fishing boats from EE-LL primarily target nearshore reef CGB is used by 20-30 commercial and recreational fishers. Boats shore. Also the north side of Virgin Gorda. People enjoy swimming fish, conch and lobster (in season) using pots and traps. Larger reef target different species, an almost equal split between reef species and using the beach around Loblolly Bay and Blue Bamboo. fish (grouper, snapper, hardnose, hogfish) are caught using nets and (pot fish - hinds, snappers, grunts, grouper, parrot, jacks) and pelagic Seabed / mooring field leases were mentioned minimally, and no one by free-diving and scuba-diving with spearguns. Other species such as species (mahi mahi, bonito, king fish, wahoo). Hardly any people still used the sea for SCUBA Diving / free diving activities. Four people said sharks and turtles are caught with hooks and line. Some fishers had fish in CGB itself but travel further out to find fish, many going over to that they had no use for the sea. diversified into pelagic fishing (mahi mahi, wahoo, dolphin fish, Jost Van Dyke. kingfish and tuna) using trolling. Most fish, conch, lobster was sold The white sandy beach attracts hundreds of tourists each day. The locally with some taken to hotels and restaurants and to the BVI CGB tourism industry has two distinct parts, yachters and cruise ship Fishing Complex in Baughers Bay. visitors. Weekly community rhythm revolves around the arrival and Hodges Creek is a major employer in charter yachts and diving. departure of the ships. There are no large hotels in the bay but many People use the sea but rarely in East End-Long Look itself (except for bars and restaurants cater for the huge influx of cruise ship guests. mooring). People tend to go to Long Bay, Beef Island or Smugglers Cove for swimming, snorkelling and spending time at the beach.

37 Anegada Fishing East End, Long Look Mixed Cane Garden Bay Tourism

Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish

98% 86% Healthy or in-between 97% 66% Healthy Many 96% 83% Healthy/VH Mixed Environmental Change: Mixed responses were received from communities regarding long term climate change. Changes were noted, but descriptions of the nature of the changes varied widely. People were asked if 16% though it was getting hotter, and 14% noted seasons changing 21% of respondents believed it was getting hotter, others identified Mixed responses were recieved about long term changes in the they had noticed any (times when hurricane and ground seas occurred). “Summer lasts in heavier and longer periods of rainfall and fewer ground seas. weather. 23 people said that it is raining more now, with 5 saying it is changes in the to winter now and winter lasts longer” Specifically the lack of ground However 15% of respondents had not noticed any major changes in raining less. Some (13) said that the weather had become slightly weather. seas in 2014 was noted. “normally every year there is ground swell at the weather at all. hotter, particularly in summer. A few people mentioned that the beginning of year. Not happened this year” 8% of people felt it was seasons are becoming less pronounced and 18% mentioned the lack also getting drier. However, 22% of respondents said that they didn’t of ground sea this year.

understand the question. 63% of interviewees had no idea what climate change is. The 67% of interviewees had heard of climate change with half of all 66% of interviewees had heard of climate change, and most of these .. and how these remaining 37% had heard of it, from hearing someone talk about it on respondents thinking that it will affect coral reefs in BVI. Respondents thought that climate change will affect the reefs in BVI. changes affect the sea.. the news to slightly more detailed knowledge linking the concept to believed the biggest threats to the island relating to climate change are changes in air and water temperature – impacting corals, fish temperature increases, sea level rise or increased storm frequency. and hurricanes. However, 35% didn’t know how this would affect the sea and 36% either thought that it wouldn’t or couldn’t answer. 29% though that Respondents who work with coral reefs, in particular those who have

it would, but few specifics were mentioned. seen the reefs throughout the last 10 years, were aware of changes such as less colour in the reefs and fewer larger branching corals. Only 66% of respondents had seen a coral reef; surprising given high

dircet and indirect livelihood dependance on the sea. When asked about specific changes to coral reefs, Anegada was the only location in the UKCOTs surveyed that no one was able to When asked about specific changes to coral reefs, people mentioned When asked about specific changes people mentioned that reefs

describe any change. No responses were received, despite fewer fish and smaller than in previous years. The arrival of lionfish were not like they used to be. People no longer really snorkel in CGB. prompting. was mentioned by both reef users and householders. “Lionfish are The arrival of lionfish was mentioned by both reef users and eating all the little fish – soon there won’t be any fish!” Many community members. “it’s the whole nature of everything - no fishing without reefs, its identified a decrease in the number of jellyfish either in the water or where it all begins”. “plenty of fish, colourful, nice, beautiful” washing up on the beaches. There was a view that the number of People described coral “Beautiful, fans, fishes love it” “nice and brown - sometimes a little turtles around Tortola had increased slightly in recent years. reefs as: red. White is dead.” “Teeming with fish, lots of shapes and colours” “Vibrant, lots of colour, lots of fish life.” “Bursting with nice colourful “Corals, sponges, vibrant fan corals, just healthy.” corals, fish & eels, like when I was a child.” What affects the health of corals in the British Virgin Islands? Top 5 for each site (Number) indicates times mentioned. Nearly everybody 61% of people cited it as habitat for fish (including juveniles) , 36% ….they provide habitat for fish and other marine life (27), form an ..they provide habitat for fish and other marine life (36), provide mentioned similar mentioned protection from the sea, especially from storms and intrinsic part of the ecosystem (18), are significant for tourism (9), protection from storms (16), are key for tourism (15), form an reasons for the waves. “without it, no fish. They need it for protection. It protects the provide protection from storms (10) and support a livelihood for essential part of the ecosystem (9), and support a livelihood for many importance of reefs.... island from hurricanes. It’s a help for the island and fishing.” many people on the island (8). people on the island. 8% cited tourism and another 2% contribution to Anegada’s beauty.

Top 6 local impacts on 1. Hurricanes (9) 1. Lack of awareness, education and understanding (20) 1. Run-off (38) coral reefs were 1. Tourists standing or touching the reef (9) 2. Garbage and pollution (18) 2. Sewage (26) perceived as… 2. Rubbish / garbage, Chemicals, Sunscreen (8) each 3. Anchor damage and groundings (17) 3. Anchoring (14) 2. Anchors, Bad fishing practices (spearguns 4. Holding tank disposal (16) 4. Rubbish (15) foreign trawlers, bleach and small fish (8) each 5. Run off, landfill, development (10) 5. Hurricanes and bad weather (7) (number of times Others included: lionfish; overfishing; boats –sewage, fuel spills, 6. Climate Change (8) 6. Temperature of the sea (6) mentioned in brackets) grounding, traffic; weather, sewage, ghost fishing, natural disasters, Other impacts mentioned included lionfish, sewage from land, lack construction, lack of education, sediment, water temp increase, of enforcement, boat noise/traffic, over-fishing, snorkeler/diver Other impacts mentioned included over-fishing, climate change, sun- algae. 26 impacts mentioned all together. But 6 out of 51 people damage and ciguatera poisoning. While most respondents believed tan lotion, lionfish and poor enforcement of regulations. thought there were no impacts. “nothing can effect it, it's a stone”. the reefs to be healthy, 9% thought they were unhealthy. 38

Anegada Fishing East End, Long Look Mixed Cane Garden Bay Tourism

Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish

98% 86% Healthy or in-between 97% 66% Healthy Many 96% 83% Healthy/VH Mixed Management of coral reefs We asked “who is Everybody’s responsibility to look after the coral reefs was stated Conservation and Fisheries Department and the Government were The Government (Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour, or responsible for looking most frequently. Conservation and Fisheries Department were also named most frequently. It is also widely believed that it is Department of Conservation and Fisheries) as well as the National after coral reefs?” widely believed to be responsible everybody’s responsibility to look after the coral reefs. Parks Trust were named frequently. Others believe that it is everybody’s responsibility to look after the coral reefs. People were aware of a number of rules, mostly the fishing related, People were aware of certain rules, such as open and closed seasons People were aware of a number of rules regarding the reefs. such as the closed season for lobster. But an equal number of We asked about rules people claimed not to know of any. Other know rules were: for fish and lobster, the use of mooring buoys instead of anchoring on Mentioned most frequently were, no anchoring on the reef (15) and relating to coral reefs unspecified closed seasons; no anchoring on reefs – use mooring reefs and not releasing holding tank contents near shore. the closed seasons for catching certain species (10). Other rules and the marine mentioned included the ban on spear guns, the protected areas and buoys; closed seasons- turtle, hind, conch, whelks; no fishing in environment….. certain areas e.g. on the reef; no touching / standing; spearfishing the need for a fishing licence to fish. Respondents described a number of informal arrangements, such as ban ; fishing licences; fishing size restriction; no conch diving with There are also a number of informal behavioural norms such as, not “eyes in the sea” where dive operators and tour operators either tanks; no fishing with bleach. touching the reef and not throwing trash in the sea. “Closed seasons have helped significant - try to study and have on tackle any illegal issue themselves or reporting illegal practices to the

breeding season” Marine Police and the Conservation and Fisheries Department.

Closed seasons were mentioned the most frequently – 57% of People were split in opinion on the effectiveness of enforcement; people, however 16% couldn’t think of any rules and another 16% The vast majority of people were unhappy with the effectiveness of many people stated that no enforcement existed in CGB. enforcement. Many people stated that little to no enforcement Rules were generally were sure there were no rules. existed around BVI. Fishers were particularly concerned about non perceived to be good 43% of people thought the rules were good and beneficial. Less BVI fishers entering waters here and fishing (without a permit), as they protect the than 10% thought they were bad or a waste of time (due to lack of sometimes selling BVI landed fish back to BVI. reefs and peoples’ enforcement). “Makes no difference if they're good or bad - they livelihoods….But…. won't be enforced” 45% of people felt that there was no enforcement, vs 6% who thought there was… “It's alright. Up to the people to follow them - no one else is here to check. But we do follow them.” “Not as good as it should be. Need to have a patrol boat with at least 2-3 guys to monitor.” Overall perception of Anegadan’s had predominantly negative opinions of current EE-LL respondents had mixed opinions of current management CGB users’ and residents’ opinions of current management were current reef management. Some of the least positive from all of the UKOTs efforts. It was felt that information was provided, but people were divided. There was split opinion on whether information is provided management communities studied. Just over half of the predominantly coral reef concerned about not being able to participate in decisions made about decisions and whether people feel able to participate in the user sample was confident about who was in charge of managing regarding coral reefs. Some believed that even if they got a chance to decision-making process. A detailed summary of coral reefs. Half felt that information was provided when decisions contribute their local knowledge and suggestions for improving data relating to were made but the same amount (50%) did not think the people in management, it often ‘falls on deaf ears’. perceptions of charge were doing a very good job. 43% were confident that if they Respondents believed those in charge lack resources and that Some respondents believe that resources are lacking and that management can be needed to challenge a rule they could. Just over half felt like they enforcement is essentially non-existent. There is clear confidence in enforcement isn’t carried out fairly. Some mentioned privately found in Table 8, p.36. were not able to participate in decision making and also felt like the management around changes in coral reefs in the past. Opinion is operated mooring buoys in Cane Garden Bay (expensive), and rules, when they were enforced were not enforced fairly. divided on whether different groups with an interest in coral reefs believed that this should have been done by governmental and that Respondents felt that not enough resources were dedicated to work well together. However, the majority of respondents believe there should be enforcement to prevent people anchoring on the marine management, and were split over whether what was that people in charge of reefs in BVI do a good job. reef instead. allocated was used wisely. The majority of respondents didn’t think management had responded to change and were unsure or didn’t think there were plans in place to respond to future changes.

39

Anegada Fishing East End, Long Look Mixed Cane Garden Bay Tourism Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish Important Seen a reef Healthy here # Fish

98% 86% Healthy or in-between 97% 66% Healthy Many 96% 83% Healthy/VH Mixed What could be done to improve the situation? Respondents made many useful suggestions to improve coral reef health How can health and 38% of people didn’t have any suggestions for how coral reef health Suggestions included: increasing the number of mooring buoys, Some suggestions were: to start reef monitoring; a few people management of coral or management could be improved. installing effective holding tank storage systems for yachts, suggested that this could be carried out by dive companies; reefs be improved? significantly reducing the amount and type of garbage, sewage and implement regulations to prevent run-off, particularly in waste entering the sea from land, and restoring ponds which store construction (people thought this is why dirt and silt was running into Those that did felt that enforcing existing regulations (31%), and filter rain and run off from guts. the sea and turning the water brown); restoring the ponds or creating People proposed a improving education and awareness (15%) and stopping pollution & another way to catch and filter water coming off the hills before it wide range of relevant To improve the situation there was felt to be a clear need for more rubbish going on reefs (14%) were most important. Monitoring reefs enters the sea. Education was mentioned in a wide range of suggestions… resources for enforcement, patrolling and monitoring. and fisheries, and government and fishermen working together situations, starting at school level but also increased training on The main suggestions were: “More enforcement of existing laws by were also common, and in total 20 additional suggestions for ecological impacts for staff in the Conservation and Fisheries responsible and trained patrol officers” and “Education - it basically improvement were made. Department and more emphasis on the charter industry to raise boils down to education and raising awareness.” awareness with tourists, specifically bareboaters. Community: Strong communications and similar goals are thought to enable communities to deal with change effectively. We asked a series of questions about each community. Detailed responses are summarised in Table 9, p. 36Table 7 We asked people to tell 51 people were interviewed. 18 British Virgin Islanders, 21 USA or People interviewed included, 26 British Virgin Islanders, 8 USA or People interviewed included 31 BVI Islanders, 22 USA/Canada/South us about their European nationals and 12 other Caribbean nationals. European nationals and 19 other Caribbean nationals. Africa or European nationals and 15 other Caribbean nationals. communities… Few people were involved in community groups or organizations, as Few people were involved in community groups or organizations, Unlike elsewhere in this study, over 60% of people were involved in they felt they were too busy. identifying time constraints and family commitments as the reasons community groups or organizations. People feel accepted in Anegada and believe that relationships are for this. The most commonly referenced groups were religious. Most felt accepted as part of the community and believed that good, in general (though less so than elsewhere in BVI or the OTs People feel accepted in EE-LL and believe that relationships are good, relationships are good, in general. The majority of respondents felt visited). A, exceptionally high proportion (92%) felt people are only in general. A high proportion felt people are only interested in their that people are honest and can be trusted and that the community interested in their own welfare and that the government should own welfare and that the government should solve major problems has strong, respected, leaders. solve major problems (74%) affecting the community. Opinion was affecting the community. Opinion was divided over community divided over community trustworthiness. A high proportion (63%) of trustworthiness. A high proportion of people felt unable to be people felt unable to be involved in decisions being taken in the involved in decisions being taken in the community. community.

40 By developing a mean score for each category, responses from each OT can help identify potential problem areas.

Anguilla TCI BVI

Table 10: Deviation from Mean Response by OT.

Island Harbour (Fishing)Road Bay Sandy GroundWest End (Mixed) (Tourism) Five Cays (Fishing)West Road, GrandBight Turk &Turtle (Mixed) Cove (Tourism)Anegada (Fishing)East End, Long LookCane (Mixed) Garden Bay (Tourism) Do you understand who is in charge of the reefs? -6 28 -10 -14 2 5 5 0 -11 When they make decisions, is information provided to you and the rest of the community? 6 18 3 -5 -22 16 16 -10 -22 Do you think the people that look after coral reefs in this area do a good job? -5 13 8 1 -19 10 10 2 -21 Are there ways you can challenge the rules made about reefs? 4 18 -20 -3 4 -3 -3 -7 11 Do you have an opportunity to participate in decisions made about reefs? -1 41 1 -6 -23 -7 -7 -1 3 When people enforce the rules, is everybody treated the same? (i.e. do you think it is fair) 18 33 -1 -8 -19 -5 -5 -11 -5 Do different groups (e.g. fishers, government) that have an interest in coral reefs work well together? -3 33 2 0 -11 0 0 -8 -11 Do the people in charge of reefs have enough resources, training and knowledge? -4 27 -5 4 -9 -3 -3 2 -10 Do the people in charge of reefs make the best use of the resources they have? -10 10 1 -5 3 6 6 -2 -12 Do you think people in charge of reefs have successfully responded to changes in the reef? -21 42 4 -18 -12 5 5 0 -6 Do the people in charge of reefs have plans in place to respond to emergencies or future changes? -7 19 -3 -5 -14 1 1 -2 10

Do you think most people in the community are honest and can be trusted? 10 21 -4 -14 -7 9 -4 -23 13 Are relationships in the community generally good? 8 8 -10 -8 9 8 -11 -6 1 Do you feel accepted as part of this community? 7 12 1 0 2 -4 -8 -5 -4 Does everyone work together to solve problems that affect the community? 6 30 -15 -9 -7 5 -9 -2 -1 Do you have the opportunity to participate in decision making within the community? 3 40 -14 -1 -14 -8 -13 -3 10 Do you think there are strong leaders in the community who are respected? 9 19 -17 -5 9 6 -27 6 -1 Do you think people are only interested in their own welfare? 15 8 -5 2 -8 -14 22 -9 -10 Do you think the government should solve major problems in the community? -6 17 -14 9 3 -9 4 -5 2 Are there unresolved issues or problems between people in this community? -17 33 -10 5 0 -26 6 10 -2 Difference from mean score across all OTs

3.3 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

During the interview process Key Informants (KIs) were identified at both community and national levels. Interviews were then conducted with these individuals in much greater depth than at HH/RU level. They are more open in format and engage more deeply with individuals views of the salient issues. They are used to assess levels of ‘good’ environmental governance from a multi-level perspective (local and national scale) and will provide critical information on current issues relating to governance and management of coral reef ecosystems in each study country and community.

The purpose of these surveys was to provide a rich and detailed understanding of the governance context at the national level (for each study country), and at Table 11: Summary of KI interviews completed. the local level (for each study site). Semi-structured surveys included Location questions regarding: the respondents’ organisation or group; perceptions on Key Key status of reefs and impacts to reefs; issues in the country and/or the Informant Informant (Local) (National) community; reef management and governance; how decisions are made Anguilla about reef management; stakeholder involvement in reef management; and Community Level 14.5 social networks within and between organisations or groups engaged in reef National Level 9 management. Interviews ranged from 27 to 127 minutes in length. They were Turks and Caicos Islands recorded, transcribed and entered into NVivo database and qualitative Community Level 13 analysis software, where they were coded to identify threats to reef health. National Level 8.5 Both proximate and ultimate drivers were identified. British Virgin Islands Community Level 11.5 All interviews were successfully completed as required by Objective 1.4.2. National Level 10 Full analysis is too lengthy for presentation in this document, but will form Totals 39 27.5 the basis of scientific publications in conjunction with the UKCOTs government departments that supported our work, over the coming months.

41 4 NATIONAL LEVEL CONSULTATION

A major aim of the project, articulated in objective two of the initial proposal, was the investigation of the efficacy and appropriateness of reef management measures and tools for the management of UKCOT reef ecosystems and biodiversity. As well as desk work and legislative review (completed during the literature/data review phase, and delivered May 2012), pragmatic assessment relies heavily upon successfully integrating the experience of practitioners. This was achieved by holding a series of national level consultation meetings in each territory. Most of the results of this process have been delivered directly to the collaborating partners in the territories, but an overview is presented in this section.

Each meeting used two main exercises to elicit:

1) The historical context in each OT, identifying major past events, and exploring how these may shape the future development of coastal activities in the territories (these results are not presented here, but see National Reports at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/marine/research/project/4235 for a summary and additional outputs); 2) A policy cycle review exercise to identify the government, non-government and private sector stakeholder groups involved in formal and informal governance structures that exist and govern natural resource use; identifying strengths and weaknesses and gaps in the cycle. This is further discussed and results are presented in the following sections.

The results were presented back to participants in the week following each meeting, with the aim of facilitating advice on priority actions to promote sustainable management and decision-making on the OT’s marine resources including its important coral reefs.

4.1 THE POLICY CYCLE PROCESS AS A BASIS FOR GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE UKCOTS

The FORCE project developed a process based on analysis of ‘policy cycles’ as frameworks for determining the strengths and weaknesses in governance structures to analyse existing arrangements at a national level. Building heavily in the work of Robin Mahon and colleagues at CERMES and the University of the West Indies, Barbados, this is an approach similar to the Regional Ocean Governance Framework (ROGF) developed for the wider region, under the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) project (Mahon et al. 2012). This forms the conceptual ‘architecture’ to guide identification at multiple scales and multiple levels, of where actors are in the policy process and the roles they play in effective reef management (and, perhaps more importantly, where they are not – i.e. where there are gaps in the process that must be filled).

Mahon visualises Caribbean regional governance as shown in Figure 20. This highlights multiple local and national policy cycles effectively operating at country scales, and feeding into the regional framework. Linkages are made vertically (local and national) and horizontally (between sectors such as fishing and tourism) of governance.

Analysis is based on the assumption that two fundamental aspects of the governance system enable overall policy effectiveness: (i) complete policy processes that are linked vertically (nationally and regionally) and horizontally (aquifers, lakes, oceans and fresh water systems; sectors such as fisheries and tourism) as shown in Figure 20, and (ii) Figure 20: Schematic of linkages between (vertical) and within (horizontal) levels of complete, effective, individual policy cycles locally governance needed for effective governance. (Figure 21).

42 The concept underpinning the policy cycle is that to achieve effective governance, there must be a complete policy process for decision-making at any level. Policy cycles occur at several levels from local, national, sub-regional, regional and global (Figure 20). Within each of these levels there may be many policy cycles. For an efficient system of governance, the policy cycles need to be complete and there needs to be communication, not only between the different levels of governance (vertical connections) but also across the policy cycles at each level (horizontal connections).

Research in the FORCE project has pursued evaluation of governance arrangements at local to national levels within the context of this broader, framework. This work will be replicated here, seeking to broaden the understanding of good governance for reefs at these lower levels in the UKCOTs studied by: a) identifying individual territories’ policy cycles and their integrity (inferring effectiveness); b) comparison with work in other Caribbean countries, and c) providing Figure 21: The 5 stages of the generic policy cycle (redrawn from Fanning et al. 2007). The concept underpinning the policy cycle is to achieve recommendations on how to strengthen UKCOTs effective governance, there must be a complete policy process. This arrangements. includes the ability to (i) take up data and inform

4.2 POLICY CYCLE REVIEWS DELIVERED AT NATIONAL LEVEL MEETINGS

National level policy cycle review exercises were undertaken with workshop attendees in each of the three case study territories to identify involvement of various actors in management and policy. The processes underpinning different stages in the policy cycle are to ensure (1) appropriate data and information leads to (2) analysis and provision of advice that informs (3) decision-making, which then gets (4) implemented, and subsequently is (5) reviewed and evaluated to determine effectiveness of decisions (Figure 2). The exercise used is stakeholder-led and provides a way for workshop participants to assess how complete the policy cycle is in a particular country. As discussed above, the exercise provides a basis to inform what, if any, gaps exist at different stages of the policy cycle and what the implications are for effective governance. The policy cycle review process involves:

(i) Identifying the government, non-government and private sector stakeholder groups involved in formal and informal governance structures that exist and govern natural resource use; (ii) Identifying groups involved in the governance policy cycle; and (iii) Identifying strengths and weaknesses in the cycle.

Figure 22: Illustrates an example of a policy review exercise showing which organisations are involved in the different stages of the policy cycle according to the participants’ knowledge., illustrates an example of a policy review exercise showing which organisations are involved in the Figure 22: Illustrates an example of a policy review exercise different stages of the policy cycle (Figure 21). This work demonstrated a showing which organisations are involved in the different process that can be used at the national level, to identify the efficacy of stages of the policy cycle according to the participants’ current governance processes and suggestions for governance reform knowledge. where required. Focussed workshops of this kind can help governments identify likely structural issues associated with current governance arrangements and determine reforms needed to meet such challenges in future.

Results of the national meetings explaining the process and implications of the findings were documented and disseminated to attendees and government departments, research institutes and NGOs as well as being placed on the project website (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/marine/research/project/4235). Outputs are further presented in the following sections. 43

Figure 23: Photographs from the British Virgin Islands consultation, including the Policy Cycle exercise are show on the following page, as an example. Material from the other workshops is available on request.

Table 12: Summary of key dates of UKCOTs policy cycle completion and fieldwork validation during national consultation meetings with key coral reef decision makers in Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands and British Virgin Islands (participant lists available on request, or they can be found in the meeting reports at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/marine/research/project/4235). National Consultation Meeting National Meeting Outputs distributed - Location Date includes policy cycle for each country Anguilla Teachers Resource Centre in the Wednesday 27th  Public Library, The Valley, Anguilla February 2013 Turks and Caicos Dillon Hall, St Mary’s Anglican Friday 12th July 2013  Islands Church, Cockburn Town, Grand Turk British Virgin Fishlock Hall, Botanical Gardens, Tuesday 4th March  Islands Road Town, Tortola 2014

44 4.2.1 SUMMARY OF MEETINGS

4.2.1.1 ANGUILLA NATIONAL CONSULTATION MEETING

The project organised Anguilla’s first national marine management meeting on Wednesday 27th February 2013, at the Teachers Resource Centre in the Public Library. The meeting was opened by the Director of the Environment Department, Mr Karim Hodge, chaired by Professor Selina Stead from Newcastle University, UK, and attended by over 40 participants, with representatives from different government departments including the Fisheries Department, Environment Department, Environmental Health Department and the Anguilla National Trust, representatives of the fishing industry, tourism industry, the ALHS Environmental Club, Youth Environmental Society of Anguilla (YESA) and independent citizens.

The purpose of the meeting was to identify past and future events as a way to understand how Anguilla’s dependence on different activities like fishing can be locally managed so that both the marine environment and people can benefit.

Meeting participants took part in 2 exercises:

1) A historical time scan to contextualise major past events, and explore how these may shape the future development of coastal activities in Anguilla; 2) A policy cycle analysis to identify who is involved in management and policy development.

The results were presented back to participants the following week, with the aim of facilitating advice on priority actions to promote sustainable management and decision-making on Anguilla’s marine resources including its important coral reefs. The output of the policy cycle exercise is presented below.

4.2.1.2 ANGUILLA’S POLICY CYCLE

The policy cycle seeks to understand the ways in which government departments, other organizations and concerned citizens are involved in collecting information, analysing data, making decisions, implementing decisions and evaluating and monitoring progress. Participants were split into groups, one of the groups focussed on determining decisions made in the fisheries sector, another on the environment and community decision-making, and a third group on tourism and socio- economics. The goal was to highlight the strengths and weakness in the current process and be the starting point for a discussion on the future of coral reefs in Anguilla, and their management.

A draft cycle is for Anguilla is presented on the next page, Figure 25.

Figure 24: Participants at the national consultation meeting, Teachers Resource Centre in the Public Library, The Valley, Anguilla, Wednesday 27th February 2013

45 Fisheries: Disaster Management, Port Authority? Fisheries Dept., ANT, Tourist Fisheries: ANT, Dept. of Environment, Disaster Management, EIA (Private + Investment Committee, Dept. Requested by Planning), Fisheries Dept., Planning (reactive rather than of Environment proactive), Port Authority, Residents (incl. fishermen), Student research Tourism: AHTA, ATB, Chamber projects - local and UK, Disaster Management, Port Authority? (should be), of Commerce, Environmental Fisheries Dept., ANT, Tourist Investment Committee Agencies, Ministry of Tourism, Tourism: Hotels, Immigration and Customs, Inland Revenue, Port Authority, Private Sector, TIC Private sectors, Trip advisor and other forums Community Development: Community Development: Outside experts, Socio-economic analysis (visitor Community meetings, #s) Lobbyists Coastal Development: Concerned citizens, Developers / outside consultants, Coastal Development: ANT, Fisheries Dept. Dept. of Environment, Environment: ANT, ATB/AHTA, Community members, Dive operators, Developers --> outside Environment Unit consultants, Fisheries Dept. Fisheries Dept., Fishing community, OECS-NRMU ESDU (regional), Environment: Ministry, OECS, Visiting scientists (Southampton) Government Agencies.

Data & Information Analysis & Fisheries: ANT, AG's Chambers, Dept. of Advice Environment, Disaster Management, Fisheries Dept., Red Cross Review & Evaluation Tourism: AHTA, ATB, Environmental Agencies, Private Sector Community Development: Fisheries Dept., Water Lab Coastal Development: Environment: ANT, Fisheries Decision- Implementat Fisheries: Disaster Management, Making Monitoring, ion Executive Council, Land Development Agency, Minister of Home Affairs, Permanent Secretary, Port Authority Fisheries: AG's Chambers, Dept. of Environment, Tourism: ATB Executive Board, Disaster Management, National Trust AG's Chambers, Executive Council Tourism: AHTA, ATB, Ministry of Tourism, Port Community Development: Authority Community Feeling, Legal Court, Community Development: Private Enterprise Planning LDCC, Tourism Coastal Development: ANT, Concerned citizens, Community Customs, Dept. of Environment Coastal Development: Executive Fisheries Dept., Planning Department, Police Council, House of Assembly Environment: Attorney General, Customs, Environment: Permanent Fisheries Dept., Legal Draftsmen, Marine Police, Secretary, Politicians / Elected No agency responsible (particularly for Ministers enforcement).

Figure 25: An initial policy cycle for Anguilla

Acronyms are: TIC - Tourism Investment Committee; LDCC - Land Development Control Committee; OECS - NRMU ESDU Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States - Natural Resource Management Unit, Environment and Sustainable Development Unit; EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment; AHTA - Anguilla Hotel and Tourism Association; ATB - Anguilla Tourist Board; ANT - Anguilla National Trust; AG's Chambers - Attorney General's Chambers. 46 4.2.2 THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

4.2.2.1 NATIONAL CONSULTATION MEETING

The project organised the Turks and Caicos Island’s (TCI) first national marine management meeting on Friday 12th July 2013, at Dillon Hall, St Mary’s Anglican Church, Cockburn Town, Grand Turk. The meeting was chaired by Professor Selina Stead from Newcastle University, UK, and attended by over 15 participants, including representatives from the Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, Marine Enforcement, dive operators, hotel representatives, charter boat owners, the Centre for Field Studies, fishermen representatives and other independent citizens.

The purpose of the meeting was to identify past and future events as a way to understand how TCI’s dependence on different activities like fishing can be locally managed so that both the marine environment and people can benefit.

Meeting participants took part in 2 exercises:

1) A historical time scan to contextualise major past events, and explore how these may shape the future development of coastal activities in TCI; 2) A policy cycle analysis to identify who is involved in management and policy development.

The results were presented back to participants the following week, with the aim of facilitating advice on priority actions to promote sustainable management and decision-making on TCI’s marine resources including its important coral reefs. The output of the policy cycle exercise is presented below.

4.2.2.2 THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS' POLICY CYCLE

The policy cycle seeks to understand the ways in which government departments, other organizations and concerned citizens are involved in collecting information, analysing data, making decisions, implementing decisions and evaluating and monitoring progress. Participants were split into groups, one of the groups focussed on determining decisions made in the fisheries sector, another on the environment and community decision-making, and a third group on tourism and socio- economics. The goal was to highlight the strengths and weakness in the current process and be the starting point for a discussion on the future of coral reefs in TCI, and their management.

A draft cycle is for TCI is presented on the next page, Figure 27.

Figure 26: Participants at the national consultation meeting, Dillon Hall, St Mary’s Anglican Church, Cockburn Town, Grand Turk, Friday 12th July 2013

47 Fisheries: DEMA, outside individuals (conch farm), Smithsonian, fishermen, fish plant owners Tourism: Investors, stakeholders, DEMA (coastal engineers), consulting companies, local businesses, Tourist Board, Carnival consultants Fisheries: Fisheries Advisory Community Development: Town hall meetings, mix of government Committee, Permanent Secretary environment impact assessments, government and private feasibility Tourism: Local businesses, TCHTA, studies, private sector research consulting companies, Planning Coastal Development: Fish plant managers, local businesses, consultants, Dept., investors, LSD, DEMA, TCRF DEMA, stakeholders, LSD, TCRF, NGOS Community Development: Fisheries and Marine Protection, Environment: DEMA (mainly terrestrial data), conch farm, dive shops Tourism Dept. LSD, DEMA, Integrity (lionfish & grouper), MRAG, seafood plants, FCO (funds collection of data), Commission Billfish Foundation, SFS (radio range, beach patrol & whale watching), Coastal Development: LSD, Smithsonian Institute (algae & spider crabs), Universities , MCS turtle Consulting companies, NGOs, project, consultants (DEMA relies on consultants), DEFRA investors, DEMA Environment: SFS, universities, consultants, DEMA Fisheries: DEMA, fishermen, private evaluation (conch) Tourism: Finance Dept., Tourist Board, local businesses, Customs and Immigration Dept. TCI Islands Investment, investors (Carnival), media and social media Community Development: Investors, monitoring task forces put together by government Fisheries: Minister of Coastal Development: Local citizens, Fisheries and Agriculture, investors,, enforcement officers, LSD, private investor decisions

Tourist Board, DEMA, consultants Tourism: TCRF, government depts., DEMA, investors.

Community Development: Finance Minister, Premier, Fisheries: Crown Land, public Governor, Private decisions announcements Tourism: Investors based on studies (Carnival / Beaches), local Coastal Development: businesses, NGO’s ,TCRF, external Government depts., stakeholders Community Governor, DEMA, investors Development: Port Authority, Tourism Dept., DEMA, LSD Coastal Environment: Dept. Development: Enforcement Officers Environmental Health, Dept. Environment: Community, of Health and the criminals, seafood plants Environment, lobbyists, Governor's Office, DEMA

Figure 27: An initial policy cycle for the Turks and Caicos Islands

Acronyms are: DEMA – Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs FCO – Foreign & Commonwealth Office LSD – Lands and Survey Department NGO – Non-governmental organization MCS – Marine Conservation Society SFS – School for Field Studies TCHTA – Turks and Caicos Hotel and Tourism Association TCRF – Turks and Caicos Reef Fund

48 4.2.3 THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

4.2.3.1 NATIONAL CONSULTATION MEETING

The project organised the British Virgin Islands’ (BVI) first national marine management meeting on Tuesday 4th March 2014, at Fishlock Hall, Botanical Gardens, Road Town. The meeting was chaired by Professor Selina Stead from Newcastle University, UK, and attended by around 30 participants, including representatives Conservation and Fisheries, The National Parks Trust, BVI Fishing Complex, Town and Country Planning as well as several NGOs, fishing and charter industry representatives as well as interested persons.

The purpose of the meeting was to bring together people from different sectors to share their experience and views on the role coral reefs play in supporting livelihoods in BVI. Also, to discuss how growing sectors like tourism and traditional activities such as fishing can be better managed to support local communities and healthier coral reefs into the future. The results of the meeting are presented here with the aim of facilitating further discussion about sustainable marine management and the role coral reefs play in underscoring the BVI economy. The purpose of the meeting was to identify past and future events as a way to understand how BVI’s dependence on different activities like fishing can be locally managed so that both the marine environment and people can benefit.

1) A historical time scan to contextualise major past events, and explore how these may shape the future development of coastal activities in BVI; 2) A policy cycle analysis to identify who is involved in management and policy development.

The results were presented back to participants in the following month, with the aim of facilitating advice on priority actions to promote sustainable management and decision-making on BVI’s marine resources including its important coral reefs. The output of the policy cycle exercise is presented below.

4.2.3.2 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS’ POLICY CYCLE

The policy cycle seeks to understand the ways in which government departments, other organizations and concerned citizens are involved in collecting information, analysing data, making decisions, implementing decisions and evaluating and monitoring progress. Participants were split into groups, one of the groups focussed on determining decisions made in the fisheries sector, another on the environment and community decision-making, and a third group on tourism and socio- economics. The goal was to highlight the strengths and weakness in the current process and be the starting point for a discussion on the future of coral reefs in BVI, and their management.

The draft policy cycle is for BVI is presented on the next page, Figure 29.

Figure 28: Participants at the BVI National Consultation Meeting, Tuesday 4th March 2014, at Fishlock Hall, Botanical Gardens, Road Town.

49 Fisheries: Lobbyists, Agriculture Department, Private sector discussions, TCP, Reef Check, DPU, C&F, NPT, Researchers, Community College, Environmental Health, Solid Waste Fisheries: Divers, Fishing Complex (species, weights, prices, demand, Tourism: Maybe consultants, Tourist imported fish, ciguatera), MNRL, Dive shops, Scuba divers, Fishing Board, Marine Association, NPT, John licences, Word of mouth, Reef Guardians, Fishermen, C&F. Hallas External, Moor Secure. Tourism: Marine Association, NPT, Diver Operators Association, Community Development: Chief Officer Kraus Manning Consulting, Tourist Board, Maybe Consultants, of C&F, business owners, Kevin Gray, Customs, Development Planning Unit. Fishers, C&F, head of TCP, Community Development: Cabinet, Architects and builders, Town Environmental Health Department, and Country Planning, Environmental Health, Fishing Complex, Disaster Management, Public Works, Fisheries, Fishermen’s Associations, MNRL, C&F, GIS, Water and Finance, Ex-pat research community, Sewage Department. Pre-planning meeting. Coastal Development: Halcrow, Jaca, Sierre (Virgin Gorda Airport), Coastal Development: Private IRF, NPT, ATM, C&F consultants, Disaster Management, STM, Environment: MNRL, ARK, NPT, IRF, C&F, Barbara Lausche, Reef C&F, TCP, UWI Masters students, Pilots, Check, Reef Guardians, Fishermen, Masters and PhD students Sierra, Halcrow, Jaca Environment: ??

Fisheries: NPT, Fisheries, TCP, C&F, International Coastal Cleanups. Tourism: NPT, Cyril Romney, Tourist Board and property owners, Dive and Charter operators, Government? Community Development: Fishermen, IRF, NGO’s (Green VI), customers Coastal Development: Virgin Gorda Community Fisheries: MNRL Environment: ?? Tourism: Cabinet, L.Stoutt, Customs, Dr Pickering, Taxis, MOU’s, MNRL, Disaster Department, NPT, Ports

Fisheries: C&F, TCP, Customs, Authority, Tourist Board, Marine Association, Dive operators, Police, Charters, Dive operators Rotary, John H. Tourism: UK Government?, individual properties, Community Development: Department of Communication and Works, Port Authority, Customs, NPT, Marine Association, MNRL, Fisheries Advisory Committee, Statutory boards Phillip Elliot, John H and community, Canadian appointed by government, Government, Moor Secure. Community Development: Contractors, MNRL, Cabinet, Planning Authority, C&F, Customs Attorney General, Fishermen, Fishing Complex, Coastal Development: Virgin funding?, Planning Authority, Private citizens Islands Environment Council, reporting, Public Works, Water and Sewage. Coastal Development: Planning Inspector Raymond Hung, Quorum, Environment: ?? Leonard Nurse, Premier. Environment: ??

Figure 29: An Initial Policy Cycle for BVI

Acronyms are: ARK – Association of Reef Keepers; ATM – Applied Technology and Management; C&F – Conservation and Fisheries; DPU – Development Planning Unit; IRF – Island Resources Foundation; MNRL – Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour; NPT – National Parks Trust; TCP – Town and Country Planning; UWI – University of the West Indies; OECS - Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment AG's Chambers - Attorney General's Chambers.

50

4.2.4 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Identification of actors involved in a policy cycle, as well as its strengths and weaknesses, can lead build awareness of the many of organisations that can potentially be involved in reef governance. Fostering improved communication and cooperation between these organisations at different levels should improve the management of coral reef ecosystems through the Wider Caribbean region. The policy cycle exercise was undertaken at national level meetings in four countries FORCE social science team – Barbados, Belize, Honduras, and St Kitts and Nevis, as well as the three UKCOTS, Anguilla, TCI and BVI. This offers the ability to make powerful comparisons in future analyses.

For preliminary comparison, the diagram below presents a summary of the strengths and weaknesses in the policy cycles identified by participants at similar meetings in Barbados, Belize, Honduras, and St Kitts and Nevis.

Honduras: Improved data analysis, greater communication, and information-sharing is needed to support policy. Organisations are seen to be competing rather than working towards common goals due to unclear objectives Honduras: It was despite complementary roles and responsibilities. perceived that

Barbados: Stakeholder involvement is present in the ‘data recommendations about and information stage’, but the information is not currently reef management being used by decision makers. proposed by stakeholder groups are not

St. Kitts & Nevis: Transparency and collaboration between considered by central departments is weak. It is difficult and time-consuming to government. Reluctance share data between agencies due to lack of standardised in offering system for data collection and management recommendations based

on project conclusions. Belize: Participants identified a lack of review and evaluation, and a lack of feedback in the system. Not enough people focused on adaptive management, more groups needed in this area.

Honduras: Although many stakeholders generate information relating to reef management, participants felt there is little review and evaluation of this information, and data is not Barbados: Participants noted that the decision communicated effectively to decision- makers. making authority is highly centralised, mainly

residing in the Prime St Kitts & Nevis: Country has received funding, though Minister’s office. Data is desired environmental outcomes have not always been not being used in achieved. Projects are duplicated and/or implemented in decisions made. haphazardly. Belize: Resources in the implementation phase were perceived to be lacking; decisions and management plans are created, but not enough resources to implement them. Honduras: Participants felt improvements to the policy cycle could include greater resources for implementation (particularly for enforcement).

Figure 30: Key strengths and weaknesses in the policy cycle as identified by participants at meetings in the four countries studied. To achieve effective governance, there must be a complete policy process. This includes the ability to take up data and information, generate advice, make decisions, implement decisions, and review all aspects of the process.

51

4.3 REEF GOVERNANCE SURVEYS – COMPARED

As a final activity at all National consultations held in the Caribbean, under the auspices of both FORCE and the current project, a series of basic ‘Likert’ based questions, designed to obtain ‘indicators’ of the health of the governance system in each location. These are based on synthesis of principles of ‘good governance’ widely articulated in the literature. Results are summarised for the UKCOTs visited in the table below. Relative health is indicated using a ‘traffic-light’ system, and a basic overview of governance strengths and weaknesses can be easily assimilated.

Table 13: UKCOTs governance indicators (responses from National decision makers and reef managers)

On a 10 point scale, from 0 'strongly disagree', to 10 'strongly agree'. TCI BVI

Anguilla Stakeholders 6.1 6.6 7.7 Coral reefs are managed well and stakeholders support reef management: 5.5 5.9 4.3 The organisations that look after reefs are perceived by stakeholders as having integrity and commitment: 5.8 6.2 7.1 When a decision is made about reefs, information is provided to stakeholders to explain why it was taken: 4.5 7.5 6.8 Stakeholders and reef resource users understand who is in charge of reefs and how decisions about reef management are made: 5.8 6.1 6.1 Decisions about reefs are made at the appropriate management level (e.g. community, local/national government): 5.6 7.5 5.5 Stakeholders and other organisations are able to challenge rules, laws or decisions about reef management: 4.6 4.7 5.1 If there is a new law that affects how people use the reef, stakeholders are consulted: 4.1 5.9 4.4 Organisations involved in reef management try to include all relevant stakeholders (including marginalised or disadvantaged) in decision making: 5.8 7.4 7.1 Rules that affect how people use the reef are enforced fairly: 3.3 3.6 3.1 Some stakeholders have more influence than others on decisions made about reefs:

Management 5.8 7.4 5.5 All groups of people who use and manage the reef share a vision of future reef management: 5.5 6.1 4.7 Different organisations and stakeholder groups that have an interest in coral reefs work well together: 7.3 7.3 6.9 The people and organisations involved in reef management have enough resources, training and knowledge: 5.7 5.9 4.8 Reef management has improved as managers have learnt from past experiences and new knowledge: 5.6 5.9 7.7 People and organisations involved in reef management have plans in place to respond to emergencies: 4.9 6.3 5.9 The people and organisations involved in reef management use their time and resources efficiently: 6.1 6.8 6.6 There is a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities among all the organisations involved in reef management:

Simple questions in the same survey instrument also enabled us to compare forms of governance between UKCOTs studied (Table 14, p.53). The balance between top-down, market and participatory governance is explored, alongside an examination of priorities between environmental, social and economic imperatives. This can be compared with data from the FORCE study countries, Barbados, Belize, Honduras and St Kitts and Nevis (Table 15, p.54).

We will continue to work with the governments of Anguilla, Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands, to fully analyse and interpret these findings.

52

Table 14: Comparison of forms of governance between UKCOTs studied. The balance between top-down, market and participatory governance is explored, alongside an examination of priorities between environmental, social and economic imperatives. Anguilla Turks and Caicos Islands British Virgin Islands

53

Table 15: For the purposes comparison, the same data are shown from FORCE countries: Barbados, Belize, Honduras and St Kitts and Nevis. Forms of governance, top-down, market and participatory are measured, alongside an examination of priorities between environmental, social and economic imperatives.

Barbados Belize Honduras St Kitts and Nevis

54

5 CONCLUSIONS

This report attempts to very briefly summarise a huge amount of data collected for the project “WC1032: Understanding and addressing the impact of threats to marine ecosystems in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories”, while providing some initial comparisons with wider Caribbean data. Of necessity, this offers only superficial coverage of the full complexity of data gathered. The full scope of work was carried out successfully, as described in the contract, and full value will be realised on peer-reviewed publication in the coming years. Only final delivery of field work was delayed, due to a change in territory in the latter part of 2013, reporting was completed on time. Additional costs were covered by Defra, and the project team is very grateful for this. Thanks to Defra, JNCC, the Governments of Anguilla, TCI, BVI and Cayman, who helped us greatly, all of the main objectives have been realised. Ongoing work with interested UKCOT departments will develop full understanding of the implications of this work on both sides. We are confident that the data are robust, but interpretation is not simple.

5.1 ECOLOGY

From an ecological perspective, the reefs of BVI appear relatively healthy in the context of the wider Caribbean, as do the fish populations of TCI. In Anguilla, while coral cover was relatively low in places, so was algal cover, suggesting there is room for coral colonisation, which could be supported if herbivore populations are effectively managed. Data have been shared with/returned to the relevant government departments, and suggestions for further research and capacity building activities are made in Appendix 7.5. Some important ecological sites for the territories are identified in Section 2.

Ecological assessments of threats to reefs found Anguillan reefs to show evidence of secondary effects of hurricanes, due to run-off and siltation. Large stands of dead Elkhorn coral retained high complexity but were covered in macroalgae (NE Sail Island). High algal cover on northern sites (Shoal Bay, Limestone Bay and Sail Island) may be due to chronic sedimentation, related to development, with prevailing currents carrying silt westwards. Scrub Island, to the East is an important location for Anguilla as it continues to support live stands of Elkhorn coral. While coral cover was relatively low in places, so was algal cover, suggesting room remains for coral colonisation. This could be supported if parrotfish populations are effectively managed. Sandy Island may also be an important site to fishes despite extensive mortality of complex corals (Orbicella sp.) in the shallows. Reefs surveyed in the Turks and Caicos Islands for this project exhibited comparatively healthy fish communities. Grouper were abundant, particularly on offshore reefs. This is now rare across the wider Caribbean, as they are overexploited for consumption. Despite having the highest average coral cover in TCI, Gibbs Cay reefs exhibited extensive coral mortality with low fish abundance and diversity, possibly due to high levels of exposure. This area is particularly vulnerable to hurricanes. On the leeward side of the Caicos Bank, Molasses Reef and Wiley Cut both had very high algal cover, potentially due to storm sedimentation. Overall, the TCI has large areas of coral reefs, a relatively low population density and extensive suitable shallow water fish nursery habitats such as mangroves and seagrass beds, and supports healthier reef fish communities than other UKCOTs surveyed as part of this project. Reefs around the British Virgin Islands were relatively healthy in the context of the wider Caribbean. Generally algae cover was lower than coral cover, staghorn and boulder star corals were widespread. Rapid visual assessments revealed large beds of staghorn coral in some areas (now believed to be unique in the region). While the reef benthos appears healthy, fish communities reflect widespread near-shore pot fishing, with few large parrotfish observed. Larger parrotfish are important in controlling algal cover, and their absence is expected to have a detrimental impact on the reefs. This was not observed, possibly due to high localised urchin abundance, but it suggests a delicate balance. If urchin numbers decline, as has occurred previously, reefs in the BVI may be at risk. Consequently, management options for parrotfish should be considered. Fishing is widespread some areas having been historically fished for much longer (e.g. Red Bay). High snapper abundances on near-shore reefs may reflect the propensity for fishers to target these species offshore, and for tourists to feed fish in certain sites.

5.2 SOCIETY

Socio-economic, livelihoods and governance studies assessed people’s perceptions of reef health, impacts on reefs, existing management and governance. Extensive programmes of interviews and workshops were conducted in three communities in each territory, as proposed. Communities were selected to represent varying categories of reef dependency (fisheries, tourism or mixed economies). Surveys coincided with ecological work, maximising integrative potential. Householders and

55 reef users were interviewed in Anguillan communities at Island Harbour (n=60), fishing; West End (n=52), tourism; and Sandy Ground (Road Bay) (n=65), mixed. In TCI, research focused on the three communities of Five Cays (n=73), fishing; The Bight & Turtle Cove (n=75), tourism, both on Providenciales; and West Road (n=62), mixed economy, on Grand Turk. In BVI Anagada (n=51), represented fishing; Cane Garden Bay (n=71), tourism; and East End-Long Look (n=70), mixed use. Adjacent ecological sites allowed broad comparison of socio-economic factors influencing marine ecosystems for which threats and health had been independently established.

5.2.1 COMMUNITY DATA

Threats perceived by communities are presented in ranked order of importance. Anguilla - Hurricanes and ground seas, spearfishers and fishing traps, boat anchors, oil from boats, walking on/touching the reef. TCI - Use of bleach/chemicals, hurricanes and bad weather, divers/snorkelers, boats/ cruise ships, people breaking bits of coral off, boat anchors, gas/oil from boats and dredging. BVI: Sewage, lack of awareness, education and understanding, rubbish and pollution, anchor damage and groundings, holding tank disposal, run off, landfill, development, hurricanes and bad weather, the temperature of the sea and climate change (the number listed here is indicative of the level of agreement (or otherwise) between communities, a shorter list indicating a common picture). In general, communities understood local threats to reefs, but were less clear about potential global impacts, such as climate change. Improving Reef Management: the majority of respondents across the UKCOTs surveyed agreed that the government departments were doing a good job with the resources they had. However, lack of resources, specifically for enforcement of existing legislation, was the most common criticism. Communities made many practical and innovative suggestions for new local management measures, and felt a sense of ownership of their reefs, but the need for more resources and education was overwhelmingly recognised.

In general, perceptions of Anguillans are better than average across governance and community metrics, see Table 10. Areas for improvement would be to focus on education to combat poor perceptions that the government are not responding to changes in the reefs. In addition, people felt they could not challenge rules made about reefs, so additional participatory mechanisms or open for a may help combat this. Where poor perceptions were held in Anguilla, these were most marked in the fishing community. Perceptions of Turks and Caicos Islanders on the other hand, tended to be more negative than average. In particular, opportunities for participation were perceived to be lacking, and it was widely felt the reef managers were not working together or managing reefs effectively. However, it was also widely acknowledged that this was driven by availability of resources, and people did think that the government made the best use of what resources it had. Community metrics were more positive overall than those for governance in TCI. It was the mixed use community on Grand Turk that exhibited the most negative perceptions. BVI resident’s perceptions fell in-between those of the two other OTS. Perceptions were slightly below average overall, although not as negative as TCI. In particular perceptions of community were more negative here. Most governance perceptions were average, but in the tourism community there was a strong perception that people did not receive information and that the reefs were not being managed well. This was the opposite in the fishing community, who were generally for more positive.

5.2.2 NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS

Work was also conducted at a national level, with those involved in reef management, policy-making and governance. 'Key informants' were interviewed in-depth, to provide expert perspectives on the territories' reefs (Anguilla n=25, TCI n=17.5, BVI n=22). A national level meeting was successfully delivered in each territory, bringing together key territorial decision makers to discuss the future of coral reefs. A policy cycle review exercise sought to understand the ways in which government departments, other organizations and concerned citizens were involved in collecting information, analysing data, making decisions, implementing decisions and evaluating and monitoring progress. The goal was to highlight the strengths and weakness in the current process and be the starting point for a discussion on the future of coral reefs and their management, in each territory. Communities and national level decision makers were found to hold similar views. Resources were again recognised as a constraining factor, alongside capacity and the power of private interests on the islands. Data collected at this scale was amenable to comparison with other Caribbean data. Publications are in progress. National meetings helped raised the profile of the project and built understanding of the research process, threats and potential policy actions, ensuring wider application of the resultant process across UKCOTs and increased capacity for strategic marine planning in the islands.

56

5.3 KEY POINTS

• Reefs in the OTs studied were relatively healthy on a Caribbean scale, they are certainly not on a global scale and without actions they are vulnerable to continued threats listed, as well as large scale impacts form climate change. • Across the three OTs people generally did not know how healthy their coral reefs were. Many people hadn't seen a reef and didn't know what a coral is. In addition, though they were aware of local threats to them, people were not aware that global issues such as climate change could affect the reefs. • Many people in the OT societies were not aware that major global threats could impact them. Up to 50% of respondents in some communities did not know what climate change was and, for example, ‘biodiversity’ was mentioned less than 10 times in all interviews, including KI’s. This has implications for management, as if people don’t understand global issues like climate change or biodiversity loss, then they cannot feel 'threatened' and are less motivated to act. This was reflected at several levels. • At a National level, where awareness was higher, lack of political will and departmental funding were repeatedly cited as barriers to action. • Solutions at all levels would lie in additional education and capacity building.

Joint projects can continue to promote better co-operation and the sharing of experience and expertise between UKCOTs and with similar small island states and communities. For example, presentation of draft governance work to potential end- users was undertaken during a FORCE workshop with Caribbean regional coral reef managers in Texas in November 2013 (see Appendix 7.1, p.61). UKCOTs departments from Anguilla, BVI, Cayman and TCI were represented. This validated the completed work, publicised it more widely amongst regional managers, promoted regional networking and allowed practical experiences to be shared among territories and with other countries.

Data also reflect the political landscape within which the surveys were carried out. Those that had seen declines don't necessarily want to talk about them. For example, fishermen fear restrictions in an increasingly competitive fishing landscape and politicians are extremely sensitive to anything that might impact the tourism industry, i.e. BVI government dismissal of a 2005 coral bleaching event. Re-branding marine health in terms of positive examples of good practice and focusing on sharing inter-island experiences at all levels could be a way forward. For example, the day local politicians went on a glass bottom boat tour to the coral reefs in Shoal Bay, Anguilla (a site previous thought of as healthy coral reef) and instead saw algae covered rocks and dead coral was hailed as a game changing moment by interviewees.

The overall scientific objective was to identify major threats, the most appropriate management interventions for the UKCOTs and the governance structures needed for their implementation, but the major message from the surveys has been that understanding of the issues, and the significance of potential impacts expected locally must become clear to UKCOTs citizens and governments before people can be truly motivated to protect the marine environment beyond a superficial level, e.g. protection of clear water and white sand as simple and obvious ecosystem services for tourists. Considerable work is required if marine biodiversity is to be valued and conserved for its own sake.

5.4 FINAL COMMENTS

The full social-ecological study of three UKCOTs has been completed as described in the proposal, but many additional questions have been raised in the process. Fieldwork, involving both ecological and socio-economic surveys, was successfully delivered, but unlocking the full complexity of responses requires further analysis. Comparative studies of UKCOTs and other independent small island Caribbean states have provided a unique dataset from which biodiversity governance and management lessons for the UKCOTs can be derived, but this should be done in partnership with those that supported this work. Anguilla, Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands were enlightening places to work (a short visit to the Caymans ensured that work could be positively pursued there at another time also). Overall, their outlook is far more positive than other countries studied across the Caribbean, both in the sense that their reefs remain relatively healthy (in at least some parts of each territory), and that active communities are well engaged with their marine environments and feel that they have the capacity to act to protect the coral reefs.

57

6 REFERENCES ADGER, W. N., BROWN, K. & TOMPKINS, E. L. (2005) The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society, 10. ADGER, W. N., BROWN, K., TOMPKINS, E., BACON, P., SHIM, D. & YOUNG, K. (2000) Evaluating trade-offs between uses of marine protected areas in the Caribbean. Sustainable Development and Integrated Appraisal in a Developing World, 159-179 250. Agard et al. 2007. Caribbean Sea Ecosystem Assessment (CARSEA). Caribbean Marine Studies, Special Edition 2007:1–85. ANDERIES, J. M., RODRIGUEZ, A. A., JANSSEN, M. A. & CIFDALOZ, O. (2007) Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15194-15199. Armitage D, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur R, Charles A, Davidson-Hunt I, Diduck A, Doubleday N, Johnson D, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton E, Wollenburg E. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2009;6:95- 102. Armitage. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management (2005) vol. 35 (6) pp. 703-715 Berkes F, Folke C, Colding J, (Eds). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change Cambridge University Press, 2003. BERKES, F. (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15188-15193. Berkes, F., Hughes, T. P et al . (2006) Ecology - Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science, 311, 1557-1558. Berkes. From community-based resource management to complex systems: The scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society (2006) vol. 11 (1) Bodin Ö, Crona B. Management of Natural Resources at the Community Level: Exploring the Role of Social Capital and Leadership in a Rural Fishing Community. World Development 2008;36(12):2763-70. Bodin Ö, Crona B. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?. Global Environmental Change-Human And Policy Dimensions (2009) vol. 19 (3) pp. 366-374 Bodin Ö, Norberg J. Information network topologies for enhanced local adaptive management. Environmental Management 2005;35(175-193). Breton, Y., Brown, D. Davy, B., Haughton, M., Ovares, L., (Eds )2006, Coastal Management in the Wider Caribbean, Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston, Jamaica, and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada BROCK, W. A. & CARPENTER, S. R. (2007) Panaceas and diversification of environmental policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15206-15211. BUNDY, A., CHUENPAGDEE, R., JENTOFT, S. & MAHON, R. (2008) If science is not the answer, what is? An alternative governance model for the world's fisheries. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 152-155. Burke and Maidens (2004). Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Burt R. Sturctural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 2004;110(2):349-99. CARPENTER, S. R. & BROCK, W. A. (2004) Spatial complexity, resilience, and policy diversity: Fishing on lake-rich landscapes. Ecology and Society, 9, 31. CASH, D. W., ADGER, W. N., BERKES, F., GARDEN, P., LEBEL, L., OLSSON, P., PRITCHARD, L. & YOUNG, O. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11.(2) pp. 8 CHAKALALL, B., MAHON, R., MCCONNEY, P., NURSE, L. & ODERSON, D. (2007) Governance of fisheries and other living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean. Fisheries Research, 87, 92-99. Costanza. 1998 Principles for Sustainable Governance of the Oceans. Science (1998) vol. 281 (5374) pp. 198-199 Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (London: Sage). Crona B, Bodin Ö. What You Know is Who You Know? Communication Patterns Among Resource Users as a Prerequisite for Co- management. Ecology and Society 2006;11(2):7. Cross, R., Parker, A., Sasson, L., (Eds.) (2003) Networks in the Knowledge Economy, Oxford University Press, New York??? Need to double check what reference was used in text CROWDER, L. B., OSHERENKO, G., YOUNG, O. R., AIRAME, S., NORSE, E. A., BARON, N., DAY, J. C., BOUVERE, F., EHLER, C. N., HALPERN, B. S., LANGDON, S. J., MCLEOD, K. L., OGDEN, J. C., PEACH, R. E., ROSENBERG, A. A. & WILSON, J. A. (2006) Sustainability - Resolving mismatches in US ocean governance. Science, 313, 617-618. DUIT, A. & GALAZ, V. (2008) Governance and complexity - Emerging issues for governance theory. Governance-an International Journal of Policy and Administration, 21, 311-335. Ehler. Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management (2003) vol. 46 (3-4) pp. 335-345 Fanning, L., R. Mahon & P. McConney. 2009. Focusing on living marine resource governance: The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas Project. Coastal Management, 37, 219-34. Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney & B. Simmons. 2007a. The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) Project: Governance framework and project structure. In A. Acosta (Ed.), Proceedings for the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Vol. 28, 257-265. FANNING, L., MAHON, R., MCCONNEY, P., ANGULO, J., BURROWS, F., CHAKALALL, B., GIL, D., HAUGHTON, M., HEILEMAN, S., MARTINEZ, S., OSTINE, L., OVIEDO, A., PARSONS, S., PHILLIPS, T., ARROYA, C. S., SIMMONS, B. & TORO, C. (2007b) A large marine ecosystem governance framework. Marine Policy, 31, 434-443. FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations. ROME, 1995 Folke C, Hahn T, Ollson P, Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2005;30(441-473). 58

FOLKE, C. & GUNDERSON, L. (2006) Facing global change through social-ecological research. Ecology and Society, 11, 5. FOLKE, C. (2007) Social-ecological systems and adaptive governance of the commons. Ecological Research, 22, 14-15. FOLKE, C., CARPENTER, S., ELMQVIST, T., GUNDERSON, L., HOLLING, C. S. & WALKER, B. (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31, 437-440. FOLKE, C., PRITCHARD, L., BERKES, F., COLDING, J. & SVEDIN, U. (2007) The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecology and Society, 12, -. Gardner et al. Long-Term Region-Wide Declines in Caribbean Corals. Science (2003) Gibbs. Network governance in fisheries. Marine Policy (2008) vol. 32 (1) pp. 113-119 Glaeser E, Laibson D, Scheinkman J, Soutter C. Measuring Trust. Quartley Journal of Economics 2000;115:811-46. Grafton R, Knowles S, PD O. Total factor productivity, per capita income and social divergence. The Economic Record 2004;80:302-13. Grafton. Social capital and fisheries governance. Ocean and Coastal Management (2005) vol. 48 (9-10) pp. 753-766 Graham J, Amos B, Plumptre T (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century. Institute On Governance. Policy Brief No. 15, August 2003. Gray T. Theorising about Participatory Fisheries Governance. In: Gray T Participation in Fisheries governance. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005. p. 1-23. Hanna, S. (1999). Strengthening governance of ocean fishery resources. Ecological Economics 31:275-286 Hartley. Fishery management as a governance network Examples from the Gulf of Maine and the potential for communication network analysis research in fisheries. Marine Policy (2010) () pp. 1-8 HUGHES, T. P., BELLWOOD, D. R., FOLKE, C., STENECK, R. S. & WILSON, J. (2005) New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 380-386. HUGHES, T. P., GUNDERSON, L. H., FOLKE, C., BAIRD, A. H., BELLWOOD, D., BERKES, F., CRONA, B., HELFGOTT, A., LESLIE, H., NORBERG, J., NYSTROM, M., OLSSON, P., OSTERBLOM, H., SCHEFFER, M., SCHUTTENBERG, H., STENECK, R. S., TENGOE, M., TROLL, M., WALKER, B., WILSON, J. & WORM, B. (2007) Adaptive management of the great barrier reef and the Grand Canyon world heritage areas. Ambio, 36 Isaac M, Erickson B, Quashie-Sam S, Timmer V. Transfer of knowledge on agro-forestry management practices: the stucture of farmer advice networks. Ecology and Society 2007;12:32 Online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art32/. Jentoft S. The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy 2000;24(1):53-60. Katz E. Social Capital and Natural Capital: A Comparative Analysis of Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management in Guatemala. Land Economics 2000;76(1):114-32. King A. Managing without institutions: the role of communications networks in governing resource access control Department of Biological Sciences. Coventry: University of Warwick, 2000. Kooiman J, Bavinck M, Jentoft S, Pullin R, editors. (2005) Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press. Chapter 13 Krebs. Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections (2002) vol. 24 (3) pp. 43-52 Krishna A, Uphoff N. Mapping and measuring social capital through assessment of collective action to conserve and develop watersheds in Rajasthan, India. In: Grootaert C, Van Bastelaer T The role of social capital in development: an empirical assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Krishna A. Active Social Capital: Tracing the Roots of Development and Democracy (Rural India) Columbia, Columbia Univ Press, 2002. Lane. 2008 Strategic coastal governance issues in Fiji: The challenges of integration. Marine Policy (2008) vol. 32 (6) pp. 856-866 Langbein and Knack. 2010 The worldwide governance indicators: Six, one, or none?. Journal of Development Studies (2010) vol. 46 (2) pp. 350-370 Lebel, L; Anderies, JM; Campbell, B, et al. 2006 Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems Ecology and Society 11 (1) 19, 2006 LEVIN, S. A. & LUBCHENCO, J. (2008) Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. Bioscience, 58, 27-32. LEVIN, S. A. (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431-436. LIU, J. G., DIETZ, T., CARPENTER, S. R., ALBERTI, M., FOLKE, C., MORAN, E., PELL, A. N., KRATZ, T., LUBCHENCO, J., OSTROM, E., OUYANG, Z., PROVENCHER, W., REDMAN, C. L., SCHNEIDER, S. H. & TAYLOR, W. W. (2007a) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513-1516. LIU, J. G., DIETZ, T., CARPENTER, S. R., FOLKE, C., ALBERTI, M., REDMAN, C. L., SCHNEIDER, S. H., OSTROM, E., PELL, A. N., LUBCHENCO, J., TAYLOR, W. W., OUYANG, Z. Y., DEADMAN, P., KRATZ, T. & PROVENCHER, W. (2007b) Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio, 36, 639-649. Lockwood et al. 2010 Governance principles for natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources (2010) vol. 23 (10) pp. 986-1001 MAHON, R. & MCCONNEY, P. (2008) Reconciling the needs of fisheries and conservation in coral reefs. IN NIELSEN, J.. (Ed.) Reconciling Fisheries with Conservation, Vols I and Ii. Bethesda, Amer Fisheries Soc. MAHON, R. (2006) On the role of consulting in fisheries development. Marine Policy, 30, 593-595. Mahon, R., Fanning, F., McConney, P. & Pollnac, R. 2010. Governance characteristics of large marine ecosystems. Marine Policy 34 (5): 919-927. MAHON, R., MCCONNEY, P. & ROY, R. N. (2008) Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Marine Policy, 32, 104-112. Marín and Berkes. 2010 Network approach for understanding small-scale fisheries governance: The case of the Chilean coastal co- management system. Marine Policy (2010) () pp. 1-8 Marshall, G.R., 2007. ‘Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level’, Occasional Paper 2007/01, Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale, Australia. [online:] MAY, R. M., LEVIN, S. A. & SUGIHARA, G. (2008) Complex systems - Ecology for bankers. Nature, 451, 893-895. 59

Mcilgorm et al. 2009 How will climate change alter fishery governanceʔ Insights from seven international case studies. Marine Policy (2009) vol. 34 (1) pp. 170-177 Nevill. 2004 Ocean management: principles of good governance: An examination of hierarchical structure within the core principles of national and international agreements and similar instruments relating to ocean management. 2004 Newman L, Dale A. Homphily and agency: creating effective sustainable development networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2007;9:79. Newman L, Dale A. The role of agency in sustainable community development. Local Environment 2005;10:477-86. NYSTROM, M. & FOLKE, C. (2001) Spatial resilience of coral reefs. Ecosystems, 4, 406-417. OLSSON, P., FOLKE, C. & BERKES, F. (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34, 75-90. OLSSON, P., FOLKE, C. & HUGHES, T. P. (2008) Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9489-9494. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action Cambridge University Press, 1990. Ostrom E. Social Capital: A Fad or a Fundamental Concept. In: Dasgupta P, Serageldin I Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington: The World Bank, 2000. p. 172-214. Prell et al. 2009 Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources (2009) vol. 22 (6) Pretty J, Smith D. Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation Biology 2004;18:631-38. Pretty. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science (2003) vol. 302 (5652) pp. 1912-1914 Provan and Kenis. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (2008) vol. 18 (2) pp. 229-252 Putnam R. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY 1995;6:65-78. Ramirez- Sanchez S, Pinkerton E. The impact of resource scarcity on bonding and bridging social capital: the case of fishers' information -sharing networks in Loreto, BCS, Mexico. Ecology and Society 2009;14:22. Online http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art22/. Reed et al. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics (2006) vol. 59 (4) pp. 406-418 Riaño, et al. (2009). Global Corruption Barometer 2009. Transparency International. Sandström A. Policy networks: The relation between structure and performance Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences. Lulea: University of Tecnology, Lulea, Sweden, 2008. Sandstrom, A; Rova, C 2010 Adaptive Co-management Networks: a Comparative Analysis of Two Fishery Conservation Areas in Sweden ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 15 (3): 2010 SCHEFFER, M., BROCK, W. & WESTLEY, F. (2000) Socioeconomic mechanisms preventing optimum use of ecosystem services: An interdisciplinary theoretical analysis. Ecosystems, 3, 451-471. Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Mindruta D, Edwardson M. Building Consensual Institutions: networks and the National Estuary Programme. American Journal of Political Science 2003;47:143-58. Sobel J. Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic Literature 2002;40:139-54. Stoker. Governance as theory: five propositions. UNESCO (1998) Suárez de Vivero et al. The paradox of public participation in fisheries governance. The rising number of actors and the devolution process. Marine Policy (2008) vol. 32 (3) pp. 319-325 Symes. Fisheries governance: A coming of age for fisheries social science?. Fisheries Research (2006) vol. 81 (2-3) pp. 113-117 TOMPKINS, E. L. & ADGER, W. N. (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9. (2) pp. 10 TOMPKINS, E., ADGER, W. N. & BROWN, K. (2002) Institutional networks for inclusive coastal management in Trinidad and Tobago. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1095-1111. Townsend (Ed) Case studies in fisheries self governance. Edited by: Townsend, R., Shotton, R., Uchida, H., (2008) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 504, FAO, Rome WALKER, B., GUNDERSON, L., KINZIG, A., FOLKE, C., CARPENTER, S. & SCHULTZ, L. (2006) A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11, -. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and application Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994. WHITE, A. T., SALAMANCA, A. & COURTNEY, C. A. (2002) Experience with marine protected area planning and management in the philippines (vol 30, pg 1, 2002). Coastal Management, 30, 281-281. Woolcock M, Narayan D. Social Capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer 2000;15:225-49. Woolcock M. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2001;2(1):11-17. YOUNG, O. (2006) Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society, 11, 16. YOUNG, O. R. (2008) The architecture of global environmental governance: Bringing science to bear on policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 14-+. YOUNG, O. R., OSHERENKO, G., OGDEN, J., CROWDER, L. B., OGDEN, J., WILSON, J. A., DAY, J. C., DOUVERE, F., EHLER, C. N., MCLEOD, K. L., HALPERIN, B. S. & PEACH, R. (2007) Solving the crisis in ocean governance: Place-based management of marine ecosystems. Environment, 49, 20-32.Mahon, R., L. Fanning & P. McConney. 2008. A governance perspective on the large marine ecosystem approach Marine Policy 33, 317-321.

60

7 APPENDICES

7.1 PROGRESS AGAINST OBJECTIVES

The ultimate aim of this work was to improve understanding of the threats to reef biodiversity, developing solutions in conjunction with UKCOT governments to increase the effectiveness of resource management.

Within this broad aim, were four key project objectives, which relate directly to the research priorities identified by the Governments of the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) in the Caribbean, expressed in the Defra specification: Progress against these objectives is outlined in the table, below.

Original Objectives Progress

Improving understanding of threats to reef biodiversity OBJECTIVE 1: Assess the ultimate and proximate drivers (Table 1, Section 2.1) Field work was undertaken in Anguilla from 14th January 2013 to 25th April 213. The three of change in coral reef ecosystems and biodiversity. This will involve community sites chosen in collaboration with the Department of Environment were Island Harbour integration of natural and social science methods to understand the ecological (fishing based economy), West Bay (tourism based economy) and Sandy Ground (mixed). All 25 key and social processes that influence reef health and people’s use of reefs in the informant interviews were completed. Of a target of 225 household and resource user interviews UKCOTs. This will allow the team to identify and quantify the scale and nature 181 were finished (62 in Sandy Ground, 60 in Island Harbour and 59 in West Bay). Key Informant, of the threats, and assess both ecological and socio-economic impacts in the social network analysis and household data have all been entered. Six community meetings (two at UKCOTs context. each site) and the national meeting, held on 27th February were completed. The initial reports from these events were provided with the interim reports to Defra (evid3 August 2013), and are now provided in 'Supplementary Material.zip'. . Ecological surveys are Anguilla are completed, with a total of 3 dive sites per community and an additional 43 visual surveys of benthic cover, fish and coral abundance. Data have been checked and analysed. All data were successfully collected, but initial analyses revealed SNA samples obtained to be non-exhaustive. Complete covered is essential to SNA. To analyse these data on this basis would therefore lead to erroneous conclusions, and SNA results have been deliberately omitted from this report, until final samples can be acquired. Fieldwork was undertaken in the Turks and Caicos Islands from 1st May – 31st July 2013. The three community sites chosen in collaboration with the Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs (DEMA) were Five Cays (fishing based economy), The Bight and Turtle Cove (tourism based economy) and West Road in Grand Turk (mixed). These communities were good examples of each of the target economies, and represented a fair balance between the need to capture differences between islands against the logistical burden of operating in three areas. In May and June the field team were based on Providenciales and in the third month relocated to Grand Turk. Of a target of 225 household and resource user interviews 211 were completed (74 in Five Cays, 75 in the Bight and Turtle Cove and 62 In Grand Turk). Six community meetings were held over the course of the three months, all well attended. A total of 22 Key Informant interviews were completed. The Turks and Caicos Islands national meeting was held on 12th July 2013, on Grand Turk (the administrative capital), with

61

representation from a broad array of coral reef interests. Reports from these events are provided in 'Supplementary Material.zip'. Ecological surveys for TCI are complete and include 3 dive sites per community with an additional 41 visual surveys of benthic cover, fish and coral abundance. Data from these activities has been entered and analysed.

Dr Fitzsimmons and Dr Young visited the Cayman Island from the 13th – 25th May 2013 in order to continue dialogue with the Cayman Department of Environment (DoE) on the appropriateness and feasibility of conducting field work given their concerns regarding the timing coinciding with the national election. After lengthy discussions (with valuable input from JNCC and DEFRA) it was decided that the preferred option was to delay the research until a later date. The DoE showed commitment and interest in the project. Discussions sparked ideas for future areas of collaboration and how the methodology could be modified to better suit the Cayman Islands particular circumstances. It was suggested that a joint proposal be submitted for Darwin Plus funding in 2014. The trip held build important relationships and lay the ground work with regards to logistics and community identification. However, the timing was deemed inappropriate at that point (election). In consequence of this a move of site to BVI was agreed with Defra and a variation to the project contract agreed, 18th September 2013, Work was completed at this alternative third study site, the British Virgin Islands, between January and March 2014. Additional funding was agreed (£18,136.00) to offset the costs incurred by the change of site (pre-arranged accommodation and flights to the Caymans etc.). The British Virgin Islands (BVI), which was a potential site included in the original project proposal, agreed to go ahead with the project and work was successfully completed between 6th of January 2014 and March 26th 2014. The three community sites chosen in collaboration with the Department of EConservation and Fisheries were Anegada (fishing based economy), Cane Garden Bay (tourism based economy) and East-End, Long-Look (mixed). 21.5 key informant interviews were completed. Of a target of 225 household and resource user interviews 203.5 were finished (75 in East-End, Long- Look, 75 in Cane Garden Bay and 53.5 in Anegada). Key Informant, social network analysis and household data have all been entered and analysed. Six community meetings (two at each site) and the national meeting, held on Tuesday 4th March 2014 were completed. Reports from these events are provided in 'Supplementary Material.zip'. Ecological surveys were completed, with a total of 3 dive sites per community and an additional 42 visual surveys of benthic cove, fish and coral abundance. Data have been checked and analysed. 1.1 To fully understand the existing UKCOTs context. This will be achieved by: 1.1.1 Developing working partnerships with three UKCOTs to form the basis of Completed: Anguilla prior to arrival Jan 2013 (facilitated by JNCC Greening the Economy meeting); the study. Selected to represent varying gradients of social and economic TCI prior to arrival April 2013; Caymans piloted May 2013, issues with timing in relation to elections, conditions, and levels of marine resource dependency, Anguilla, British Virgin work moved to BVI; BVI prior to arrival January 2014. Relationships maintained and new Islands OR the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands have been workongoing with all three OTs. chosen as study site territories. All have been approached for support and confirmation is attached.

62

Indicator: Working with the UKCOTs partners, specific organizations and Sites contacted with JNCC help. Selection agreed JNCC/Defra at inception meeting/telecon at JNCC individuals in three UKCOTs will be indentified and contacted regarding their Peterborough 2nd May 2012. Initial selection Anguilla, TCI, Cayman. Amended in consultation with interest in training in project methods during field phases (end-March 2012). Defra 7th May 2013 to BVI, with additional support (CCN note from Defra). Defra and Dfid preferences incorporated into final site selection. 1.1.2 Completing a literature review (grey and peer reviewed) of relevant work See indicator below. previously conducted in the study territories, to familiarize the team with the local context, avoid duplication and capitalise on previous studies. Indicator: Literature review completed (end-March 2012). Indicator: Literature review completed. Submitted to Tony Weighill 01/06/2012 with 1.2.2 (Milestone 1). 1.2 To assemble a complete picture of the current understanding of ultimate and proximate drivers of reef health in UKCOTs study locations, explicitly identifying gaps to form the basis for subsequent study design. This will be achieved by: 1.2.1 Reviewing the unique datasets and reports, ecological, biophysical and See indicator below. social (e.g. physical classifications developed, see below[1]) available through the FORCE project. For example, AGRRA (Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA: Kramer 2003)) data provide a synoptic picture of the Caribbean, although their geographic coverage is still incomplete. But data can be extracted from the database giving information on herbivory, benthic community structure, coral recruitment rates, coral size frequency distributions, and the level of recent mortality from disturbance events. Suitable data for the UKCOTs can be selected and made available. 1.2.2 Combining literature review 1.1.2, and data review 1.2.1 to create See indicator below. country threat profiles for each of the three study UKCOTs. Indicator: Three UKCOTs threat profiles completed and circulated to Defra, Indicator: Three UKCOTs threat profiles completed and circulated to Defra, JNCC and UKCOTs partners JNCC and UKCOTs partners for feedback (end-May 2012). for feedback (end-May 2012). Achieved, circulated 01/06/2012 (Milestone 1). 1.2.3 Identifying gaps in current understanding of threats to marine See indicator below. biodiversity in the UKCOTS. From this, developing coherent criteria for site selection (e.g. those which maximise diversity of resource dependence in each UKCOT, or similar), and candidate community locations proposed for further study (draws on 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2). Indicator: (1) Site selection criteria circulated with threat profiles (1.2), Indicator: Each review completed prior to arriving in each UKCOT. Completed reviewed and feedback received from Defra, JNCC and UKCOTs partners (early-June 2012). (2) communities selected: Anguilla end-Dec 2012; TCI end-March 2013; Cayman end-May 2013 (but not Three reef dependent communities in each of the three selected UKCOTs pursued); BVI end-Dec 2013. Sent to OT government partners for assistance with site selection. recommended by Newcastle team as the final study sites (early-June 2012). (3) Final study sites agreed by Defra, JNCC and UKCOTs partners (mid-June 2012). (4) Newcastle team depart for the field (mid- July 2012).

1.3 To deliver a programme of new societally relevant ecological surveys in each of three UKCOTs. This will be achieved by:

63

1.3.1 Mapping reef use based on local ecological knowledge during community Community mapping completed at meetings in each study site. These meetings do not feature meetings at each community site (1.2.3). From these maps, reefs most used by heavily in this report, but outcomes were circulated to the communities involved and are provided in the communities will be selected for ecological survey. The use of novel 'Supplementary_Material.zip'. Night lights was explored, but found to offer no advantage over the datasets, such as NOAA’s ‘Night Lights’ data, and their suitability for community mapping process. Ipads were used to help the community contribute their use data by development as proxies for development/ population density will also be 'drawing on' areas relied upon for fishing, tourism, etc.. These were then imported into a GIS and explored http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Land/nightlights.html used with ecological criteria to select suitable sites for survey. Indicator: Reef use maps circulated to the Newcastle ecological team, Defra, Indicator: Reef use maps circulated to the Newcastle ecological team and UKCOTs partners (as agreed JNCC and UKCOTs partners for feedback by: Anguilla, end-Aug 2012; with JNCC) for feedback by: Anguilla end-Feb 2013; TCI end-May 2013; BVI end-Jan2014. BVI/Cayman, end-Dec 2012, and TCI, end-April 2013. 1.3.2 Selecting reef sites to represent varying categories of use (i.e. fisheries, See indicator below. Ecological programme completed and presented See Section 2 of this report. tourism). Ecological assessments will then be completed by combining existing literature and AGRRA data with new field surveys. 12-15 new sites will be surveyed in each OT. These will be located around the three communities selected (in 1.2.3), i.e. 4-5 ecological sites per ‘community’ reef. At each site reefs at 10-15m depth will be characterised in terms of sessile benthic communities (coral and algae), fish communities and structural complexity, using the non-destructive techniques described in Section 2.3. For logistical reasons, ecological surveys will be conducted in one block. Since these require workshops conducted by the social scientists to identify the most relevant sites (1.3.1), ecological work must lag the social components. Indicator: (1) Ecological surveys at 12-15 sites in each of the three UKCOTs Completed, Anguilla April 2013, TCI June 2013, BVI March 2014. Reported in full Section 2. Database completed between March and July 2013. (2) Basic summary of data and shared with OT governments. preliminary presentation of results delivered to Defra, JNCC and UKCOTs partners by end-Aug 2013. 1.4 To deliver an extensive programme of social surveys and workshops in each of three UKCOTs. This will be achieved by: completing a multi-level series of interviews which will allow the team to collate a broad range of stakeholder views, ranging from local level reef resource-users and managers, to national policy makers, government and non-governmental officials. 1.4.1 In each community, interviews conducted at the household level will Download community and national level workshop reports at: elicit stakeholder perceptions of local reef health, and local threats to reefs http://www.ncl.ac.uk/marine/research/project/4235 explicitly including the ultimate causes and proximate drivers of change, and the efficacy of current management. The views of those known to be reef dependent will be compared with a random sample of households. 1.4.2 At both the community and national levels, ‘key informants’[2] will be identified, and interviewed in greater depth. These interviews are more open in format and engage more deeply with individuals’ views of the salient issues (See also 2.2). 1.4.3 At both community and national levels novel work, involving ‘social Peterson A, Fitzsimmons C, Turner R, Forster J, Stead S, Mahon R. The role of bridging organisations network analyses’ (SNA) will be used to explore existing interactions, in Caribbean coral reef governance. In: International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). 2013, communications structures and efficacy. SNA questions are administered Maryland, USA. alongside the other instruments (1.4, 1.4.2). Indicator: The social programme is complex, but indicative completion dates Completed, Anguilla from the 6th January - 25th April 2013, the Turks and Caicos Islands from the are shown below (Table 3), for the purposes of guidance only. Ordering of 26th April - 2nd August 2013 and the British Virgin Islands from the 6th January 2014 - 25th March

64

territories visited may change for logistical reasons, or to better suit the 2014. All data promised were collected as specified. Reported in full Section 3. Database shared with schedules of the partner UKCOTs. OT governments. Within this Newcastle University undertakes to provide a brief report on Interim reports agreed with OTs and provided as requested. Interim reports (evid3 form) provided 6 activities shortly following completion of field work at each COT: i.e. assuming monthly to JNCC. August 2012, March 2013, August 2013, Final report March 2014. the order below: Anguilla, Nov 2012; BVI/Cayman, March 2013, and TCI, July 2013. These will be compiled into a final report (No.9, p18, milestones table). An introduction to Defra work with the UKCOTs and preliminary results will be An introduction to the project was given in 2012, but no results were available. 7 subsequent presented at the 65th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Conference, Santa publications arelisted here as a sample of work since developed. Marta, Columbia, Nov 2012. Full results will be presented at the 66th Gulf and Subsequent conferences have presented a comprehensive coverage of the work. Caribbean Fisheries Institute Conference, TBC, Nov 2013. The Newcastle team Turner R, Forster J, Peterson A, Fitzsimmons C, Stead S, Mahon R. Coral reef management in a are already funded to attend these meetings, so no additional budget is changing environment: livelihood responses and governance challenges. In: MARE Conference 'People required from Defra to support this activity. and the Sea VII’. 2013, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Centre for Maritime Research. Stead S, Fitzsimmons C, Turner R, Forster J, Peterson A, Mahon R. Future of Reefs in a Changing Environment (FORCE): a multi-layer adaptive governance framework for Caribbean coral reefs. In: MARE Conference 'People and the Sea VII’. 2013, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Centre for Maritime Research. Forster J, Turner R, Peterson A, Fitzsimmons C, Mahon R, Stead S. Ultimate and proximate drivers of Caribbean reef health: A common understanding?. In: MARE Conference People and the Sea VII. 2013, Amsterdam, Netherlands. IMCC conference Glasgow 2014-08-16 SY44.2 Lomond Auditorium Fitzsimmons, C; Turner, RA; Forster, J; Young, SE; Peterson, A; Gill, D; Mahon, R; Stead, SM Exploring futures for small-scale reef fisheries: Caribbean community visions and governance implications. 2014-08-16 CS2.7 Alsh McLoughlin, N C; Mottram, P; Young, S; Fitzsimmons, C Perceptions of reef health and support for coral reef management in three Caribbean UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) CARRON A ROOM Monday, 18 August, 15:30 Do residents of UK overseas territories (UKOTs) perceive Climate Change as a threat? Scott, A, Newcastle University; Taylor, B, Newcastle University; Young, S, Newcastle University; Fitzsimmons, C, Newcastle University 2014-08-18 C21.5 Alsh Turner, RA; Fitzsimmons, C; Forster, F; Mahon, R; Peterson, A; Stead, SM Measuring good governance for coral reefs: Perceptions of Caribbean communities 1.5 To successfully integrate socio-economic and ecological work, yielding analysis of the threats to marine ecosystems and biodiversity which fully addresses both threats and impacts in the UKCOTs context. Indicator: (1) Pioneering socio-ecological work, featuring UKCOTs published in 1) Conference publications see below, journal papers in production based on these. 2) international, peer reviewed journals (by project end date, March 2014). (2) Recommendations inluded in initial draft of final report. These are now being integrated in the Recommendations of changes in UKCOTs policy to incorporate findings (by conclusions section: see Section 5. project end date, March 2014). Work delivered on time Section 2 and 3. Publications have begun to successfully integrate the work, and joint analysis was successfuly completed with the FOrCE project prior to completion. Specifically 2014-08-16 SY44.2 Lomond Auditorium Fitzsimmons, C; Turner, RA; Forster, J; Young, SE; Peterson,

65

A; Gill, D; Mahon, R; Stead, SM Exploring futures for small-scale reef fisheries: Caribbean community visions and governance implications. 2014-08-16 CS2.7 Alsh McLoughlin, N C; Mottram, P; Young, S; Fitzsimmons, C Perceptions of reef health and support for coral reef management in three Caribbean UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) CARRON A ROOM However, far more potential remains in the data and the work of publication with the OTs is ongoing. 1.5.1 Analysis will be aligned with that of the FORCE project. Timescales are Section 2.5 presents ecological comparisons with FORCE ecological data. While Tables 16 and 17 in highly compatible, and this allows Newcastle and the FORCE partners to offer section 4.3 do the same for the governance work. Defra an unparalleled opportunity for collaboration, and exceptional value for money. So similar are the outputs/outcomes required, the UKCOTs data can be analysed alongside the FORCE data, resulting in no additional cost to Defra, for a 6 month analytical phase. Once analysis is complete, publications will separately be developed with UKCOTs partners. Indicator: (1) Analysis of UKCOTs data completed by FORCE team, supervised 1) Completed preliminary work, as above see Sections 2.5 and 4.3. More complex analyses are by Defra project leaders by End-2013. Presentation of preliminary results at progressing well. 2) Joint publications presented at GCFI, MARE and IMCC conferences, see above. 3) 66th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Conference Nov 2013. (2) At least NERC CASE submitted and awarded (July 2013) with DoE Anguilla, as part of the NEA Darwin Project. three further joint publications under development with FORCE and UKCOTs partners end-2013 to March 2014 (project end date). (3) At least one further funding bid(s) submitted by FORCE team, including UKCOTs partners (by project end date, March 2014). 1.6 To compare UKCOTs results with similar small island states across the Section 2.5 presents ecological comparisons with FORCE ecological data. While Tables 16 and 17 in region, using FORCE data. The challenges and issues that we are looking at in section 4.3 do the same for the governance work. Further work will now appear in peer reviewed FORCE, would be extended to the UKOTs, to meet the compatible research journals. needs of addressing and understanding the impact of threats to marine biodiversity, identifying the most effective management measures for reef ecosystems. The FORCE project is Caribbean-wide in scope and its activities are stratified across the region. Although it is not possible to represent all types of human society, a series of case studies have been implemented that span a broad range of governance and socio-economic levels. Nesting the UKCOTs within this framework offers considerable opportunity for advancing global understanding of good governance for the management of threats to marine biodiversity. Indicator: (1) Comparative analysis of UKCOTs data with data collected from 1) Completed preliminary work, as above see Sections 2.5 and 4.3. More complex analyses are other Caribbean locations by the FORCE project team. This will combine progressing well. 2) Joint publications presented at GCFI, MARE and IMCC conferences, see above. 3) governance assessments and the implications of varying governance contexts NERC CASE submitted and awarded (July 2013) with DoE Anguilla, as part of the NEA Darwin Project. on the efficacy of reef management in the UKCOTs and other FORCE study countries (Barbados, Honduras, St Kitts and Nevis, and Belize), providing an unparalleled assessment of governance with regards to reef management across the Caribbean, supervised by Defra project leaders, by end 2013. Presentation of preliminary results at 66th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries

66

Institute Conference Nov 2013. (2) At least one peer-reviewed publication under development with FORCE and UKCOT partners by end 2013 to March 2014 (project end date).

Developing solutions in conjunction with UKCOT governments to increase the effectiveness of resource management OBJECTIVE 2: To investigate the efficacy and appropriateness of reef management measures and tools for the management of UKCOT reef ecosystems and biodiversity. Given the diversity of problems facing reefs and the range of tools available (e.g. fisheries regulations, marine protected areas, environmental education programmes), the efficacy of individual management tools is poorly understood. The efficacy of management tools for improving reef health will be determined through a review of literature and the experience of practitioners. These will be compared with results from across the region, compiled by the FORCE project. Drawing on the outputs of objective 1, this will be achieved by: 2.1 Performing a legislative review in each UKCOT selected for study, and collating current management tools identified (see also 1.1.1 and 1.1.2). This comprehensive initial set of tools is required to properly frame interviews with stakeholders, practitioners and policy-makers during the fieldwork phase of the project. Indicator: Each review will be completed prior to arriving in each UKCOT. Indicator: Three UKCOTs threat profiles completed and circulated to Defra, JNCC and UKCOTs partners Anticipated dates are currently[3]: Anguilla, end-June 2012; BVI/Cayman, end- for feedback (end-May 2012). Achieved, circulated 01/06/2012 (Milestone 1). Oct 2012, and TCI, end-Feb 2013. 2.2 Collating reef stakeholders’ (i.e. local reef managers, national level government, NGO representatives) perceptions of the efficacy of different management tools through a series of ‘key informant’ interviews to explore perceptual gaps/comparing ‘measured’ and perceived reef health and threats (1.3). Indicator: At the end of each UKCOTs phase, a matrix summarising the Included in literature review completed. Submitted to Tony Weighill 01/06/2012 with 1.2.2 (Milestone legislative reviews in 2.1 will be produced, and populated with perceptions of 1). efficacy quantified during the interview process. This will be circulated to Defra, See section 4.2 and Tables in 3.2.1, 3.2.2and 3.2.3 for sections on the management of coral reefs. JNCC and UKCOTs for comment after fieldwork completion (End Aug 2013). Coded KI interview were to complex to present in full in the final report, but databases can be SNA approaches will be used to visualise the data and a publication for a peer- provided to OTs, and analysis will form the basis for future joint publications. reviewed international publication submitted[4]. 2.3 Reef stakeholder communications will be mapped (from resources users to government officials), to generate understanding of governance based interactions throughout the hierarchy. 2.3.1 SNA based approaches will explore existing interactions, communications Peterson A, Fitzsimmons C, Turner R, Forster J, Stead S, Mahon R. The role of bridging organisations structures and efficacy. in Caribbean coral reef governance. In: International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). 2013, Maryland, USA. Indicator: A joint authored paper exploring network structure in UKCOTs, will Two papers presented at conferences, see above and below. Joint publications to follow. be produced for submission to a peer-reviewed journal[5](Jan 2014). A second Conference proceedings publication will be completed in conjunction with the FORCE project exploring Understanding Collaboration in Governance Arrangements through Network Analysis differences between governance structures of UKCOTs and bio-geographically Bridging organizations and the role of information brokering in Caribbean coral reef governance similar but independent islands already studied (March 2014). networks Peterson A, Turner R, Fitzsimmons C, Forster J, Stead S, Mahon R Wednesday 7 May 2014 Resilience 2014 sciencesconf.org:resilience2014:39955

67

2.3.2 On the basis of this formal and informal improvements will be Recommendations made in conference papers, see above. Specifically regarding the importance of recommended, to facilitate better reef management. This will help understand 'bridging organisations' in the facilitation of pubic participation in resoure governance. Joint and improve information flows, both inter- and intra-UKCOT, and the publications to follow. exchange of environmental best practice, sharing of relevant research and advisory expertise. Indicator: Policy briefs for each UKCOT partner will be produced based on 2.2 Instead a pan-caribbean policy workshop was held with coral reef managers, in Texas Nov 2013. and 2.3.1 (March 2014). Case studies of the three UKCOTs will be added to the Representatives from Anguilla, TCI, Cayman and BVI contributed. See Section 7.3 for list of attendees. FORCE website, to facilitate regional interaction (March 2014). Pan-Caribbean recommendations are made in the resulting handbook: http://www.force- project.eu/node/252

OBJECTIVE 3: Identifying the governance structures needed for implementation of reef management tools. There are a number of important constraints to the implementation of management tools, many of which can be traced to economic and governance factors (e.g. funding limitations and lack of stakeholder engagement). Governance is the principal mechanism for managing human behaviour through government policies, regulations and incentives; therefore it is critical to identify the governance constraints to the implementation of particular management tools. This will be achieved by: 3.1 Combining data from literature searches, interviews and consultation meetings (1.1.2, 1.2, 1.4, 1.4.2) to investigate the implementation of management tools in each territory. These analyses will be discussed in national level consultation meetings. The process will evaluate constraints to management tool implementation, and the ultimate causes of tool success or failure. Detailed qualitative insight will be obtained through interviews and consultation meetings (1.4, 1.4.2). Indicator: (1) Analysis of UKCOTs data completed by FORCE team, supervised See section 4.2 and Tables in 3.2.1, 3.2.2and 3.2.3 for sections on the management of coral reefs by Defra project leaders, and presented at national level meetings in each study COT (see Table 3 for timeline). Feedback received at these meetings will inform the production of a report to Defra by End-2013. 3.2 Using the FORCE datasets to undertake comparative analyses, identifying potential successes in other small islands in the region, and making solution based recommendations to UKCOTs partners on this basis. Indicator: Comparative case studies using UKCOTs structures produced Feb See outputs from managers workshop Texas, Nov 2013. Representatives from Anguilla, TCI, Cayman 2014. Constraints to effective reef management in the UKCOTs will be and BVI contributed. See Section 7.3 for list of attendees. Pan-Caribbean recommendations are made highlighted in Policy Briefs alongside recommendations for governance change in the resulting handbook: http://www.force-project.eu/node/252 (End March 2014).

OBJECTIVE 4: Communication of the outcomes and outputs of the research to a wide range of users. The user groups range from high-level policy makers in donor agencies, government and non-governmental practitioners, reef stakeholders and local communities. During the project, consultation will be held with a range of stakeholders (from local to national level), on how they prefer to receive technical advice and recommendations. This will play an important role in ensuring that the project targets its outreach in the most effective and user-friendly manner. This will be achieved through: 4.1 A programme of integration and capacity building: Ecological and socio-economic results will be integrated locally (at the community meetings for each site), using models for visualisation of the scientific data, during an interactive future scenario-based planning process, conducted with members of each UKOT government (at the ‘National Level Consultation Meeting’). This will validate the data collected, build understanding of the research process, threats, potential policy actions and overall local capacity for strategic marine planning, and allow policy makers to consider the legislative, policy and practical processes for addressing the threats. Data will be compared between UKOTs, and across the wider Caribbean (based on FORCE data).

68

Indicator: Results from the ecological and social studies will be integrated and Completed, March 2014, see Section 4.2. validated during future-based scenario meetings with local and national level stakeholders. A workshop will be held in each UKCOT studied (Feb-March As well as the core activities of interviews, community meetings and the national meeting, a variety 2014). of other activities were undertaken in Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ecological capacity building activities are listed in Section 7.5. The social field team conducted many school outreach visits in all OTs, regularly ran coral reef based activities e.g. Youth Groups and conducted a future scenarios workshop with the Junior Park Warden summer camp in TCI. The project was featured regularly in local press. The team conducted 16 radio interviews across the three OTs, including a live call in show in both English and Creole. Community meetings in several sites e.g. Bight & Turtle Cove and Five Cays TCI were also covered by the local television networks. A day-long social methods and interviewing course was conducted at the request of DEMA ing TCI and was well attended by their staff and marine enforcement teams. Over the course of the project 16 in-country counterparts were trained to conduct survey interviews. Follow up work is ongoing with anguilla, where the team are developing social methods training as part of the NEA project. 4.2 Social Network Analysis (SNA) of multi-level interactions gathered during the social research will form a powerful vehicle for dissemination, allowing identification of effective communication networks and channels across the UKCOTs. Key ‘nodes’, i.e. well networked individuals, will be identified, and used as dissemination hubs. Indicator: Key communication nodes identified and used as basis for No longer considered appropriate. Less formal channels used on Ethics grounds (in practice we had dissemination strategy End-2013. to anonomise the SNA respondants to met good ethical practice in research guidelines). 4.3 Consultation with stakeholders will establish the most user-friendly mode of information transfer and the communication of results. However, the existing pan-Caribbean FORCE network and its dissemination platforms e.g. internet[6], public GIS[7] and management tools will also be exploited. Dissemination of results is expected to take place through a variety of fora and may include regional conferences and meetings (e.g. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, e.g.1.5.1 above), community and national level feedback reports and workshops, journal papers and established websites and mailing lists, e.g. reefbase and coral-list. Indicator: UKCOTs data contributed to FORCE web platforms (end-2013). This Conducted extensively as part of interviews and workshops. For full details the database can be will promote regional interaction and integration of UKCOTs with the project supplied. Web hosting is in progress, as technical issues slowed integration. Broad dissemination and for further EU project work. All attribution correctly assigned to Defra, UKCOTs networking occurred at the Texas managers meeting, and Handbooks were distrubuted across the throughout. region, including the OTs. All outputs added to reefbase by project end (March 2014), wider audience In progress. Pending approval of reports. sought by publishing their location on coral-list and through similar mailing lists. See other Dissemination activities, and outputs listed above. For example conference presentations 1.4.3, 1.5.1, joint peer-reviewed publications with UKCOTs 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and Policy Briefs produced and circulated to governments across the region 2.3.2.

69

7.2 ECOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY

7.2.1 RAPID VISUAL ASSESSMENT METHOD VIA SNORKELLING

7.2.1.1 AIMS • To develop a simple and easily repeatable method to rapidly survey a section of the reef while snorkelling. • To establish a link between the perceptions of local people towards reef health collected through social science surveys and quantitative values of reef health collected through accurate coral reef surveys using scuba.

7.2.1.2 OBJECTIVES • Produce a rapid visual assessment data sheet. • Carry out rapid visual assessments of areas of the reef in a team of four. • Compare data collected to the results of the social science surveys and the more precise measures obtained through quantitative reef survey methodologies.

7.2.1.3 METHODS • Data will be collected during a short timed swim at each detailed survey site and a number of additional locations. • Details of each individual swim survey will be noted including; time and date of survey, observer name, site name and survey number, temperature and reef type. • Rapid visual surveys of the benthos, corals, fish and invertebrates will be carried out using a variety of methods (Hill & Wilkinson 2004). • Benthos: Visual estimates of percent cover of sand, algae, live coral, dead coral and areas of bleaching will be recorded (Borstard et al., 1997; Hill & Wilkinson 2004). When bleaching occurs the forms and families affected will also be noted. In order to achieve a high level of precision training in estimating percent cover will be carried out prior to data collection. • Corals: Percent cover of Acropora sp., Montastrea sp., and Porites sp. will be visually estimated and recorded using the same training applied for estimates of the benthos (Hill & Wilkinson 2004). • Fish: Abundances of fish will be recorded using the Rapid Visual Census method (Hill & Wilkinson 2004; Jones & Thompson 1978; Kimmel 1985). Fish are separated into families and the estimated abundance of each family encountered during each timed swim will be recorded. Abundances will be sorted in to categories; Absent, Rare, Common and Abundant. • Invertebrates: The relative estimated abundance of Diadema and Strombus gigas will be separated into several categories; Low, Medium and High. • Notes: In addition a Notes section will allow the inclusion of any interesting or unusual observations.

7.2.2 DETAILED ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHOD

7.2.2.1 AIMS • Describe the current status of coral reef health in key locations around Anguilla in relation to previously surveyed countries in the Caribbean • Understand the associations between refuge availability and reef fish • Assess the effects of fine-scale complexity measures on different facets of reef fish community structure.

70

7.2.2.2 OBJECTIVES • Collected detailed, transect specific data on the fish, benthic and coral reef complexity at 8 – 10 sites in around Anguilla • Identify key components of reef complexity and the way in which a number of key species utilise these • Identify how coral species identity and growth forms influences the fish species associated.

7.2.2.3 METHODS • Ecological survey locations will be selected based on information gained from the stakeholder interviews. The surveys will likely be at three distinct locations within Anguilla’s coral reef system, which each relate to a usage group or community. Surveys will also aim to target specific areas of protection or usage. • Surveys will all take place using SCUBA at a depth of between 5 – 15 m. A team of four researchers will be collecting the data. This will be achieved using three methods:

1. Fish surveys: Fish will be identified to species, counted, and total length estimated to the nearest centimetre in four 10 x 4 m belt transects. Larger individuals (> 10 cm) and all groupers and snappers were identified and counted in eight 30 by 4 m belt transects. 2. Benthic surveys: Benthic cover will be measured using the point intercept method. Coral, octocoral, sponge and algal species will be identified and recorded at equal points along the short fish transects. 3. Reef structure surveys: A range of methods will be used to measure complexity on the 4 short fish transects, these include: chain length (rugosity), relief height measurements, visual estimates and reef slope angle. 4. Fish – reef structure surveys: Data will be collected on the range of refuge types (holes, overhangs, platforms etc.) available and the fish species that are utilising them. This will also be performed on the fish transects 5. The structural complexity of individual corals will be assessed by recording a number of different metrics relating to coral colony complexity, including: visual assessments of coral rugosity (on a scale of 0-5), counting the number of holes of different size in each colony and measuring height. A complexity index will also be calculated for individual corals by draping a chain (Risk, 1972) over each colony and measuring the actual distance covered to assess how rugosity changes with species-specific coral sizes.

7.2.3 REFERENCES Borstad, G., L. Brown, W. Cross, M. Nallee, and P. Wainwright. 1997. Towards a management plan for a tropical reef- lagoon system using airborne multispectral imaging and GIS. Hill, J., Wilkinson, C. (2004) Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs: Version 1. A Resource for Managers. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Jones, R.S., Thompson, M.J. (1978) Comparison of Florida reef fish assemblages using a rapid visual technique. Bulletin of Marine Science 28(1): 159 – 172 Kimmel, J.J. (1985) A new species-time method for visual assessment of fishes and its comparison with established methods. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 12(1): 23 – 32 Risk, M.J. (1972) 'Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands', Atoll Res Bull, No. 153.

71

7.3 FORCE AND UKCOTS - REEF MANAGERS WORKSHOP – LIST OF ATTENDEES

72

UKCOTs representatives from Anguilla, Cayman, BVI and TCI were all present.

73

7.4 UKCOTS ‘RAPID ASSESSMENT’ SNORKEL SURVEY SITES

Table 16: UKCOTs ecological study sites, highlighting additional snorkel surveys completed.

Anguilla

Turks and Caicos Islands

British Virgin Islands

74

7.5 ECOLOGICAL CAPACITY BUILDING EXAMPLES

Activity Organisations Attending Date Potential Follow on Activity Capacity Building Anguilla - Provision of local ecological knowledge of Assorted dive operators 03/05/2013 identified dive locations Capacity Building Anguilla - Meeting and discussion of project objectives Fisheries 06/05/2013 Capacity Building Anguilla - Meeting and discussion of project objectives Department of the Environment 13/03/2013 Capacity Building Anguilla - Meeting and discussion of project objectives National Trust 13/03/2013 Capacity Building Anguilla - Workshop on coral reefs. Fisheries, National Trust, invited Fishers and dive operators 23/05/2013 (total 35) Dissemination Anguilla - Presentation on coral reefs. Department of the Environment 27/05/2013 Dissemination Anguilla - Local discussion on findings Dive operators in Sandy Ground 28/05/2013 Capacity Building TCI - Meeting and discussion of project objectives Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs (DEMA) 30/05/2013 Capacity Building TCI - Local support provided in terms of free dive Big Blue Diving 30/05/2013 equipment Capacity Building TCI - Evening event with local NGO's, GO's, businesses DEMA, plus numerous NGO's including environmental, dive 05/06/2013 involved in environmental work, with certificate awarded operators, hotels, businesses etc. Televised event with for helping with the environment presentations from Minister of the Environment for the TCI Capacity Building TCI - Provision of local ecological knowledge of areas Grand Turk Diving 13/06/2013 around Grand Turk, acquisition of local support and discounted provision of diving Dissemination TCI - Presentation on coral reefs and findings Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs, TCI Reef 20/06/2013 Fund, Big Blue Dive, reporter for local magazine Dissemination TCI - TV Interview (PTV8) Nationally televised 20/06/2013 Funding TCI Reef Fund proposal accepted TCRF - Turks and Caicos Reef Fund 12/06/2013 Capacity Building BVI - Meeting and discussion of project objectives Fisheries and Conservation 6//3/14 Capacity Building BVI - Local support provided - sharing of local ecological Commercial Dive BVI 06/03/2014 knowledge of sites around BVI, and provision of unlimited free dive equipment Dissemination BVI - Presentation on coral reefs and findings Fisheries and Conservation, Necker Island Conservation 19/03/2014 Future Work BVI - Presentation on coral reefs and findings Fisheries and Conservation, Necker Island Conservation 19/03/2014 1. Surveys of large Acropora cervicornis beds found. BVI had more A. cervicornis than any other Caribbean country survyed by the team (which includes 12 others as part of an EU funded project). Future Work BVI - Presentation on coral reefs and findings Fisheries and Conservation, Necker Island Conservation 19/03/2014 2. Local capacity building: BVI Conservation and Fisheries lack personnel trained to dive and conduct these surveys. Department members could be trained to conduct surveys, as well as in the necessary background ecological information, in 2-3 weeks intensive training. A local dive operator who supported the ecological field team by providing all diving logistical support has also offered to collaborate with the team and provide dive training for their staff as part of a joint venture. Dissemination BVI - Newspaper interview Conducted on phone with email to follow up 19/03/2014

NOTE: The ecological team delivered several activities geared towards building capacity in each territory. These are listed above. Social capacity building was integral to the programme, though it is not presented here, as activity was extensive, contributions being made on a near daily basis by committed field teams and enthusiastic local participants. 75