Combining Information from Benthic Community Analysis and Social Studies to Establish No-Take Zones Within a Multiple Uses Marine Protected Area
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) Published online 13 December 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1239 Combining information from benthic community analysis and social studies to establish no-take zones within a multiple uses marine protected area ÚRSULA ROJAS-NAZARa,b,†, CARLOS F. GAYMERb,a,*, FRANCISCO A. SQUEOc,a, ROSA GARAY-FLÜHMANNb,d and DAVID LÓPEZa aCentro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas (CEAZA), Casilla 599, La Serena, Chile bDepartamento de Biología Marina, Universidad Católica del Norte. Casilla 117, Coquimbo, Chile cUniversidad de La Serena and Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad (IEB), Benavente 980, La Serena, Chile dUniversidad Santo Tomás, Sede La Serena. Ruta 5 Norte No. 1068, La Serena, Chile ABSTRACT 1. A decision support tool was used to determine priority sites for marine conservation within the Isla Grande de Atacama multiple uses marine protected area (MUMPA) in northern Chile, based on both biological and social information. Scuba diving, and an unweighted paired-group method using arithmetic average (UPGMA) analyses were used to determine the main benthic communities found in the shallow rocky and soft-sediment subtidal. 2. To establish the costs of conservation, a social survey was undertaken to identify major users, uses and localities within the MUMPA. A multi-layer database with biological, physical, and social information was generated and further defined 28 approximately 70 ha analysis units. Explicit conservation criteria were then determined and four conservation goals defined (protection of 10, 20, 50, and 70% of each of the communities). 3. Seven rocky reef and three soft-sediment communities were identified in the shallow subtidal. Four of the 28 units had high costs of conservation owing to high frequency of use by fishermen, divers, and algae harvesters (main users). These areas represented the highest risks for potential conflicts with the main users. 4. Under the conservation goals of 10% and 20%, 36.8 and 44.4% of the whole marine area were selected as priority areas for protection respectively. The units selected presented low and medium costs of conservation, thus they had low risks of potential conflicts with users. 5. This is the first study that uses a decision support tool to identify priority sites (i.e. units) in the shallow subtidal based on benthic communities and also incorporates social aspects to assess conservation costs. The use of social aspects enables the establishment of management strategies that agree both with biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development of fishing communities. This approach can be replicated for the planning of other coastal MPAs where artisanal fisheries and tourist activities co-occur and interact with conservation efforts. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 27 January 2011; Revised 12 September 2011; Accepted 9 October 2011 KEY WORDS: Chile; coastal marine conservation; conservation costs; multiple uses marine protected area; benthic ecology; social ecology INTRODUCTION theoretical basis of marine conservation less developed relative to that of terrestrial ecosystems The implementation of marine protected areas (Allison et al., 1998; Carr et al., 2000; NRC, 2001; (MPAs) remains in its infancy, with the new Estrada et al., 2004). Beck and Odaya (2001) *Correspondence to: C.F. Gaymer, Departamento de Biología Marina, Universidad Católica del Norte. Casilla 117, Coquimbo, Chile. E-mail: [email protected] †Present address: School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington. PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 75 recommend four steps to implement eco-regional to science and ensure the prevalence and diversity conservation plans and identify conservation priority of biological species and their habitats. sites: (1) identify conservation targets (e.g. habitat, A new marine-coastal management category called species); (2) gather information on the ecology and the multiple uses marine and coastal protected areas distribution of species; (3) determine conservation (MUMPAs) has recently been implemented by the goals for all the targets that must be protected; and former National Environment Commission (CONAMA, (4) identify a group of sites that meet these conservation from Spanish acronyms, presently Ministry of the targets and goals. In addition, Margules and Pressey Environment) in Chile, based on international (2000) include the additional step of establishing each agreements under the Convention for Biodiversity site and its subsequent monitoring. (CBD, 2006) and the Permanent Commission for the In general, the majority of marine protected areas South Pacific (CPPS, from Spanish acronyms). The (MPAs) have been established based on experts’ central aim of these areas is to integrate environmental criteria and ad-hoc processes focused on economic conservation needs with socio-economic interests of the and political criteria (Thiel et al., 2007; Vega, local populations, in order to contribute to biodiversity 2011). However, the recent use of decision support conservation and socio-economic development. tools (DSTs) allows for simplification of the growing Typically, the information used for the selection complexity in decision-making processes. DSTs are of priority sites for biodiversity conservation is systematic and transparent selection methods for based on physical and biological aspects (Ward areas to conserve, through the identification and et al., 1999; Beck and Odaya, 2001; Airamé et al., consideration of a combination of characteristics 2003; Ferdaña, 2005), with social aspects (e.g. (e.g. high diversity, distance from pollution sources, uses, users, effects) rarely taken into account. etc.). Therefore, this approach permits maximization The lack of limited incorporation of stakeholders of the long-term conservation goals, while seeking to and traditional users’ knowledge in the creation minimize the area protected and the associated of new MPAs has generated serious problems with conservation costs (Leslie et al., 2003). A number of the implementation and operation of MPAs, resulting different DSTs have been developed; such as in the failure of some (Mascia, 2004). In Chile, SPEXAN and MARXAN (developed at University the designation of MPAs has been a top down of Adelaide in 2000), SPOT (developed by The process, where authorities, supported by the opinions Nature Conservancy in 2003) and the newest software of experts, unilaterally decide and declare an MPA called ZONATION (developed at University of without consulting stakeholders and traditional users Helsinki in 2006). The main differences between (Thiel et al., 2007). This has prevented transparency these various DSTs are the ease of workflow between in the selection process of MPAs (Rojas-Nazar, DSTs and GIS, the facility to work with numerous 2007; Thiel et al., 2007). It has, however, been shown datasets at the same time, the ability to make that when relevant users and stakeholders are and work with thousands of grid cells (selection involved in the process it can lead to the successful units), and the degree of connectivity between grid creation of MPAs (for example see Port-Cros cells. For example, MARXAN and SPOT utilize National Park, France, Francour et al., 2005). the minimum-set framework in which the objective In the present study, a DST was used for the is to achieve a target level of each conservation feature, identification of a group of priority sites for while minimizing cost. In comparison, ZONATION conservation within the MUMPA Isla Grande de utilizes the maximum coverage framework in Atacama (northern Chile), by integrating biological which the objective is to maximize the amount of and social information. Shallow benthic communities conservation benefits, given a fixed budget. were considered as conservation surrogates because In Chile, MPAs are established under the General they are good at representing all the processes Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture (GLFA). This law and interactions that structure the shallow subtidal defines two categories of marine protected areas: zone of the central and northern Chilean coast (a) Marine Reserves: for the preservation of biological (Thiel et al., 2007). In addition, social information resources, their breeding grounds, nursery areas, fishing about the different users, types, and places of use grounds, and repopulation areas by management, within the MUMPA were considered. This study where extractive activities can only be made in presents a novel small-scale approach to the planning extraordinary circumstances; and (b) Marine Parks; process, which has normally been limited to physical to specifically preserve ecological units of interest and biological information. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 76 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL. METHODS survey was undertaken using scuba diving by Vásquez (2002). The most important gap, for which Study site data were subsequently collected, corresponded to The study was carried out in the MUMPA Isla biological data from sandy beaches. Scuba divers Grande de Atacama, located between Punta Morro used an air-lift apparatus (Gaymer et al., 2004) to and the mouth of the Copiapó River, Atacama collect all macro-invertebrates (minimum length 2 Region, Chile (Figure 1). The MUMPA has an