345109Cover 10/5/06 6:41 PM Page 1 Public Disclosure ...

345109Cover 10/5/06 6:41 PM Page 1

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb112742

Typewritten Text

36635

Photo CreditsCover images: clockwise starting from top left: Marine Extactive Reserve, community ofArraial do Cabo, state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—source CNPT/IBAMA; girls fromBorneo—photo by Steve Turek, www.Coralreef.org; results of group mapping by artisanalfishers of Mangement and Exploitation Area for Benthic Resources in Matanzas, Chile—photo by Stefan Gelcich; artisanal fishing boats used in caleta Quemchi in Chiloe, south-ern Chile—photo by Stefan Gelcich; Diver in Fiji—photo by Rich Wilson,www.Coralreef.org. Background image is a school of yellow and blueback fusiliers, Fiji—photo by Rich Wilson, www.coralreef.org.

Part I opening images: clockwise starting from top left: Hull sailboat (saveiro) in Bahia—photo by John Cordell; Coral reef, Almond Point, Bequia—photo by DennisSabo/iStockphoto; Joint social science MPA research, Indonesia—photo by PatrickChristie; Anemone fish, Hurghada, Red Sea—photo by Thomas Jundt, www.coralreef.org.

Part II opening images: clockwise starting from top left: Coastal Brazil—photo bylucato/iStockphoto; Coral reefs at Itacolomis marine extractive reserve at Ponta doCorumbau—photo by Enrico Marone, CI Brazil; Penguin, Chile—photo by Curt Carnemark.

Part III opening images: clockwise starting from top left: 6th anniversary celebration ofthe Ponta do Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve—photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura,Conservation International, Abrolhos, Brazil; Coral reef monitoring, Palau—photo byAlan Lim, Coral Reef Targeted Research Project; Rocky shore in Las Cruces, Chile—photo by Juan Carlos Castilla; Artisanal fishing boats in Bucalemu, Chile—photo byStefan Gelcich.

345109Cover 10/5/06 6:42 PM Page 2

Scaling Up Marine

ManagementThe Role

of Marine Protected AreasAugust 2006

Report No.36635 – GLB

Environment Department

Sustainable Development Network

345109Fronti 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page i

© 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA

Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.orgE-mail: [email protected]

All rights reserved.

Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this workwithout permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permissionto reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete informa-tion to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone:978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com . All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office ofthe Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].

345109Frontii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page ii

Table of Contents

Acronyms vi

Executive Summary viii

Part I: MPAs in ContextChapter 1 — Introduction 11.1. Putting MPAs in Perspective 21.2. Objectives of This Study 41.3. Organization of the Study 51.4. Audience and Dissemination 5

Chapter 2— A Typology of Coastal-Marine Management Tools and Approaches 72.1. Typology Categories 92.2. Typology Use and Significance 12

Chapter 3 — Significance and Diversification of Marine Protected Areas in Coastal 14Marine Management: Key Issues3.l. Common Property Issues and Problems Associated with Managing Marine Environments 143.2. MPA (Category I) Benefits 163.3. Multiple Benefits of Multiuse MPAs 183.4. Networking Protected Areas 203.5. Higher-Order, Cross-Sectoral Management Tools: Integrated Coastal Management 203.6. Governance Frameworks for CMM Systems 213.7. Legal Aspects 223.8. Costs of Establishing MPAs 223.9. Stakeholder Participation 233.10. Poverty Considerations 243.11. Importance of Local Sea Tenure Systems in Marine Management 253.12. Locally Managed Marine Area Initiatives 26

Part II: Country StudiesChapter 4 — The Philippines: Lessons for Marine Protected Area Governance 31and Effective Design4.1. The Philippine Context 324.2. Fisheries Management in the Philippines 354.3. Strategies to Integrate MPAs into Larger-Scale Management Systems 364.4. Combining ICM and Ecosystem-based Management 374.5. Governance Matters 384.6. Governance Challenges and Opportunities 394.7. Governance Challenges to Scaling Up 414.8. Conclusions and Recommendations 42

345109Frontiii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page iii

Chapter 5 — Chile: Experience with Management and Exploitation Areas for 45Coastal Fisheries as Building Blocks for Large-Scale Marine Management5.1. Toward a Dual Management and Conservation Approach 465.2. Drivers of Change and the 1991 Fisheries and Aquaculture Law 475.3. Management and Exploitation Areas for Benthic Resources 495.4. Lessons from Chile’s Experience with Coastal Marine Protected Areas 54

Chapter 6 — Brazil: Dynamics and Challenges of Marine Protected Area 58Development and Coastal Protection6.1. Can Brazil Afford to Endure an Open-access Coastal “Tragedy of the Commons”? 596.2. Taking Stock of the Coastal-Marine Management Toolkit 606.3. The Marine Extractive Reserve System 636.4. SEAP: A Promising New Development on Coastal Management and Fisheries 686.5. Durability and Adaptability of Artisanal Fishing 686.6. Scaling Up for Survival in Southern Bahia :The Corumbau MER and an Emerging 70

Mosaic of Land and Sea Reserves6.7. The Case for Strengthening Integrated Coastal Management 746.8. Lessons from Brazil’s Coastal and Marine Management Experience 75

Part III: Analysis and Conclusions Chapter 7 — Implications of Findings for Mainstreaming and Scaling Up 79Marine Protected Areas7.1. Putting MPAs in Context 797.2. Stakeholder Participation 847.3. Bearing the Costs of MPAs 857.4. The Cost and Political Economy of Scaling Up MPAs 857.5. Alternatives to Scaling Up MPAs 867.6. Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Coastal and Fisheries 89

Resources Management7.7. The Role of Science 907.8. Conclusion: Taking Management to Scale 91

Chapter 8 — Recommendations and Next Steps 938.1. Recommendations 938.2. Next Steps 95

Annex — Explanatory Notes on Connotations of “Tradition” and “Culture 96Heritage” Designations in Coastal Marine Management Typology

Acknowledgements 100

S C A L I N G U P M A R I N E M A N A G E M E N T

iv

345109Frontiv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page iv

T H E R O L E O F M A R I N E P R O T E C T E D A R E A S

vFiguresF 1.1. Value of Global Marine Products Trade 2F 2.2. Relative Value of Fish Exports in Developing Countries 3F 3-1. Tools of Manage MPAs in the Context of ICM 21F 4.1. The Philippines 33F 4.2. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Philippines 34F 4.3. Municipal or City Management Area with Various ICM Interventions, including 37

MPAs, in the PhilippinesF 4.4. Distribution of MPAs in the Central Visayas Region of the Philippines 39F 5.1. Study Sites of MEABRs among Caletas (Coves) in 12 Regions of Chile 50F 5.2. Response to Open-ended Question “What is the Main Problem You Have with 52

the MEABR?”F 5.3. Response to the Question “Do You Feel There is Real Management of the MEABR or 53

Do You Only Apply Harvesting Norms?”F 6.1. Capture Fisheries in Brazil, 1979-85 59F 6.2. Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for the Brazilian Coast 61F 6.3. Marine Extractive Reserves in Brazil 64F 6.4. Mandira Extractive Reserve 67F 6.5. Total Landings: Share Artisanal and Industrial Fishing 69F 6.6. Distribution of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia 73F 7.1. Nested Marine Management Area Frameworks 87

BoxesB 2.1. Increasing Range of Uses and Zonation Purposes Attached to MPAs 8B 3.1. Findings from Selected Scientific Reviews of Marine Reserve Efficacy 17B 3.2. Findings on Social Benefits of Marine Reserves 18B 3.3. MACEMP in Tanzania 24B 7.1. Opportunities for Scaling Up MPA Coverage 82B 7.2. Constraints on Scaling Up MPA Coverage 83B 7.3. Summary Guidance on Integration of MPAs into ICM 88B 7.4. Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project 89

TablesT 2.1. Coastal-Marine Management Tool Typology 11T 3.1. Cost of Financing Large-Scale MPAs and Networks 23T 7.1. Evaluation and Summary of Key Factors for Successful MPAs in Case Studies 80-81T 7.2. Expansion of ICM Efforts by Region 91

345109Frontv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page v

Acronyms

AMP-MU Multiple-Use Marine Coastal Protected Areas (Chile)APA Environmental Protection Areas (Brazil)BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Philippines)CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBMPA Community-based MPACERIPT Culture-Ecological Indigenous Peoples TerritoryCERTC Culture-Ecological Reserve Traditional CommunitiesCIRM Interministerial Commission of Sea Resources (Brazil)CMM Coastal and Marine ManagementCMA Collaborative Management AreaCMPA Coastal Marine Protected AreaCMT Customary Marine TenureCMT-MUMPA Customary Marine Tenure-based MPACNPT National Center for Traditional Peoples and Sustainable Development (Brazil)CRTR Coral Reef Targeted Research ProgramDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines)EBFM Ecosystem-based Fishery ReserveEBM Ecosystem-based ManagementEBRMPA Ecosystem-based Reserve/Marine Protected AreaEEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneER Extractive ReserveFAL Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Chile) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations)FISH Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (Philippines)FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (United States)FMR Fishery Management ReserveGBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia)GEF Global Environment FacilityGERCO System of Coastal Zone Management (Brazil)GESAMP Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental ProtectionIBAMA Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources


vi

345109Frontvi 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page vi


vii

ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectsICM Integrated Coastal ManagementICRAN International Coral Reef Action NetworkILMA Indigenous Landscape Management AreaIUCN World Conservation UnionLGCMP Local Governance for Coastal Management Project (Philippines)LME Large Marine EcosystemLMMA Locally Managed Marine AreasMACEMP Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Project (Tanzania)MEABR Management and Exploitation Area for Benthic Resources (Chile)MER Marine Extractive ReserveMMA Marine Management AreaMONAPE National Movement of Fishermen (Brazil)MPA Marine Protected AreaMPANET MPA NetworkMPANP National Marine ParkMS Marine SanctuaryMSS Marine Sacred SitesMUMPA Multiple-Use MPANACOMA Namib Coastal Conservation and Management (Project)NGO Nongovernmental OrganizationNIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System (Philippines)NTMR No-Take Marine ReserveNUPAUB-U Research Center on Human Population and Wetlands in BrazilPROBIO Project of Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Brazilian Biological DiversityRAMSAR Wetlands Convention, Ramsar, IranRDS Sustainable Development Reserve (Brazil)RESEX Marine Extractive Reserve (Brazil)SEAP Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries (Brazil)SERNAPESCA Servicio Nacional de Pesca (Chile)SNUC Nacional System of Conservation Units (Brazil)TAC Total Allowable CatchTBMPA Treaty-Based MPATEK Traditional Environmental KnowledgeTERPESCAR Terminal Pesquero de Carelmapu (Chile)TURF Territorial User Rights for FishersUNCLOS U.N. Convention on the Law of the SeaWHS World Heritage SiteWMAMPA Wildlife Management Area MPAWSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF World Wildlife Fund

All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

345109Frontvii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page vii

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,the first global scorecard on the health of Earth’secosystems, reported that marine and coastal sys-tems are among the most threatened on the planet.Marine capture fisheries peaked in the mid-1980sand have been declining ever since, with the high-est valued species (including large marine preda-tors) disappearing first. Marine biodiversity is alsodegrading rapidly in response to this fishing downthe food web, triggering serial depletion of key ele-ments in the food chain. Conversion of highly pro-ductive and diverse habitats like mangroves andcoral reefs (which are thought to harbor between 1million and 10 million species) is proceeding apaceto make way for urban expansion, tourist resorts,aquaculture, and other coastal development.

Pollution from land-based sources (both non-pointand point), including untreated human waste andindustrial effluent, is disrupting marine ecosystemprocesses and making once productive areas deadzones. Marine-based pollution from tanker traffic,offshore drilling, and cruise ships, which threatensto overwhelm resident populations with water, ener-gy, and waste management needs, adds to the strainon coastal ecosystems.

Superimposed on this cascade of ills, climatechange impacts are increasingly apparent, leadingto reduced fisheries productivity, increased storm


viii Executive Summary

Artisanal fishing boat preparing shelfish extraction in El QuiscoMEABR, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich and Juan Carlos Castilla

345109Frontviii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page viii

frequency, coral bleaching, and disease. Togetherthese impacts erode the innate resilience of ecosys-tems to stress and undermine the production ofmarine goods and services, which are the mainstayof Small Island Developing States and many coastaleconomies. Global trade in marine productsaccounts for over $35 billion in goods annually fromdeveloping countries, while marine tourism (muchof it based on coral reefs) is a multibillion-dollarindustry in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Inaddition to their productivity and biodiversity value,mangroves and coral reefs provide essential coastalprotection to low-lying coastal states and are thefirst line of defense against rising sea levels.

The ChallengeEffectively addressing these threats remains an elu-sive goal, as population pressure mounts and urban-ization in the coastal zone expands. More than halfthe world lives within 100 kilometers of a coast, andsoon more than half will live in cities. The majorityof the world’s megacities (with a population of 10million or more) are located in the coastal zone—most of these are in the developing world. In themarine environment, controlling fishing effortremains a problem in most territorial waters, but it isespecially acute in near-shore waters, where openaccess prevails in most small-scale fisheries. This isexacerbated by the use of inappropriate fishing gearand methods, and often by encroachment by indus-trial vessels. With the rise in fuel prices, explorationfor offshore oil, gas, and other minerals increases thehuman footprint and its impacts in the coastal zone.

Although coastal ecosystems are among the mostproductive and biologically diverse in the world,they are unable to sustain their productivity orremain resilient in the face of such pressure. Anumber of management interventions have beenintroduced to prevent or mitigate human impacts inthe marine environment. These include integratedcoastal management, zoning, environmental legisla-tion and regulations to limit use through licensingand concessions, restrictions on gear and seasonal

closures for fisheries, development of standards foremissions and effluent water quality for industryand municipal government, and protection status forthreatened species and habitats.

Site-based interventions include spatial area man-agement, which focuses management on specificstretches of coastline or expanses of marine space.While this may take many forms, perhaps the mostwell known for protecting prescribed areas ofmarine space are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).These were originally dedicated to the protectionand maintenance of marine biodiversity but haveevolved to include other objectives, including sus-tainable use and the protection of culturalresources. Currently, less than 1 percent of theworld’s oceans (about 6 percent of territorial seas)are under some form of protected area status, com-pared with nearly 13 percent of the terrestrial envi-ronment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of theseprotected areas are not managed effectively. Many,in fact, are paper parks.

Nevertheless, given the very small percentage ofmarine habitat currently under protection and theserious gaps in biogeographic representation atnational and regional levels, many international forahave advocated significant scaling up to achieve onthe order of 20–30 percent coverage of the world’smajor coastal and marine habitats under no-takereserves by 2012. These targets, endorsed at theFifth World Parks Congress in 2003, follow on theheels of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementationfrom the World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD), which called for establishing effective,representative networks of marine protected areasby 2012. Such targets are probably overly ambi-tious, however, given that most MPAs are not con-sidered to be managed effectively and that there isgrowing resistance to the concept of no-take (non-extractive) reserves.

Most paper parks suffer from inadequate commit-ment by governments and the necessary politicalwill to sustain designated sites in the face of eco-nomic trade-offs or perceived political costs.Related to this is the inadequacy of resources and


ix

345109Frontix 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page ix

knowledge available for proper design and estab-lishment of MPAs and their operation. Maintenanceis costly, and enforcement remains a major hurdle.Yet research shows that where they are effectivelymanaged, MPAs can bring a range of benefits wellbeyond biodiversity conservation. These includesocial and economic benefits to local communitiesin the form of improved livelihoods, purchasingpower, cultural cohesion, social empowerment, andvoice in decision making. Demonstrating these ben-efits and ensuring that they are equitably distrib-uted to a wide spectrum of users is fundamental tothe acceptance and long-term success of MPAs.

The challenge of harnessing the potential of MPAs toboth protect vulnerable marine biodiversity andenhance the productivity of marine resources for sus-tainable use is particularly acute in tropical coastalnations, which harbor the highest concentrations ofthe world’s biodiversity and significant fish stockswithin their Exclusive Economic Zones. At the sametime, developing economies are struggling to meetcompeting resource demands for infrastructure,social services, water, energy, and agriculture, leavinginvestments in marine conservation lagging behind.Especially for the poor, the challenge remains captur-ing the benefits of MPAs and realizing them at scalesrequired to protect ecosystem processes while alsoaddressing the social, cultural, and political realitiesof restricting access and regulating what has tradi-tionally been considered common property.

This study was originally conceived to assess whatfactors are most likely to determine MPAs successbased on experience to date and to identify opportu-nities for the World Bank and its partners for scal-ing up MPAs to help meet the WSSD targets. In thecourse of the review, several additional questionsemerged. Can the factors most important in deter-mining the success of MPAs be reinforced andreplicated? Given the trade-offs involved, is it fea-sible to think of scaling up MPAs in line with theambitious targets set by various international callsto action within the conservation community? Howcan MPAs with a focus on biodiversity conservationachieve their biological objectives at ecologicallymeaningful scales while delivering the range of

social and economic benefits required to sustaincommunity support in a developing country? Shouldother tools in the spatial area management toolkit belooked at in conjunction with MPAs to facilitatemeaningful scaling up? Are alternative livelihoods anecessary ingredient for MPAs? What role shouldthe international financial institutions and the donorcommunity play in helping advance this process?

Objectives and MethodsThis study answers the key questions on MPAs byassessing country experience with these and othertools along the marine management area continuumthat have been adopted to address loss of biodiver-sity and fisheries and other marine resource degra-dation, which have eroded traditional use rights andcultural identify. In light of the confusing array ofMPA types and other Marine Management Areas,the report creates a typology of tools based on theirstructure and objectives and commented on theirrelative effectiveness in achieving objectives,including marine conservation. Finally, the reportassesses the best way of scaling up these interven-tions to achieve results at meaningful scales throughreplication, networking, or mainstreaming ontoother platforms.

Among the factors examined are government com-mitment, ecological relevance, social and culturalacceptability, legal frameworks, community buy-in,MPA benefits, costs and financial sustainability, andthe role of science. The analysis is based on a reviewof the literature and three detailed case studies onthe Philippines, Chile, and Brazil. An analysis oflegal frameworks associated with MPA establishmentand operation was also prepared as part of the analy-sis (available in a companion volume).

Main Findings1. Open access is a principal driver of

resource degradation in coastal commons.Open access prevails in most small-scale, arti-


x

345109Frontx 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page x

sanal fisheries in near-shore waters reserved forthis group. There is no or inadequate registra-tion of vessels in most countries, and this—combined with failure to place limits onindividual and total allowable catch—gives riseto the tragedy of the commons, which is playedout repeatedly along the coastal margins ofcountries, where 90 percent of the marine catchis produced.

2. Enforceable governance systems will berequired to begin to deal with the formidableproblem of regulating access (including types andrates of resource exploitation)—systems that canaccommodate different marine coastal and marineenvironments and that do not undermine localcultural values and practices. Institutionally andlegally, countries must find ways to bring theirunmanaged, still open-access, coastal-marinecommons under some form of rational control.

3. While they can be successful in regulatingaccess and use, particularly at the scale of localcommunity-managed reserves, MPAs are frag-ile governance structures. They requireongoing stakeholder participation in co-management arrangements with authorities andadequate resources to enforce limited entry anduse. The process of establishing MPAs will haveto be socially acceptable and equitable, offeringfeasible livelihood alternatives and social pro-tection should communities need to relocate ordiversify within or outside the use sector.

4. MPAs are costly to establish and maintain.They require substantial resources beyond the ini-tial investment in order to operate and retain theireffectiveness and achieve public acceptance.While some have introduced diversified financingschemes, including the use of trust funds, userfees, green taxes, and fines, most developing-country governments rely on external donor sup-port to establish MPAs, and few have sufficientpublic sector budgets to defray recurrent costs.

5. MPAs cannot survive in isolation. In theabsence of mechanisms to buffer them against

nearby human activities and other externalitiesat the land/sea interface, even well-managedMPAs are subject to continuous and cumulativestress, which undermines their effectiveness andthreatens their existence. MPAs must be embed-ded in higher-order frameworks of coastal andmarine area governance.

6. A broad spectrum of MPA and otheremerging coastal and marine management(CMM) frameworks are now in use, account-ing for some 30 different types. All involve zon-ing and designation of coastal management rulesand restrictions, and may be classified into fourmajor categories of use:• Frameworks primarily for biodiversity con-

servation and habitat protection• Multiuse marine management character-

ized by balanced conservation and sustain-able use

• Frameworks primarily designed for extractivepurposes within a framework of managed use

• Culture-ecological and social protectionreserves set up primarily to protect culturalheritage or land/seascapes and the use rightsof traditional peoples.

While MPAs constitute an indispensable interven-tion for particular aspects and challenges of oceanand fisheries management, other instruments in thetoolkit may offer more cost-effective and sociallyacceptable options for scaling up effective marinemanagement in the near term to accelerate restora-tion of depleted fish stock and protect ecosystemgoods and services that underpin coastal economiesand livelihoods. These lie along a continuum of spa-tial area management tools and governance frame-works, such as integrated coastal management(ICM). (See the Figure for various spatial area man-agement tools in a (hypothetical) national context,within a nested hierarchy in which ICM providesthe overarching framework.) More than a spatialmanagement tool, ICM is an intersectoral approachthat aims to align policies and incentives acrosseconomic sectors to minimize environmentalimpacts from coastal resource use while maximizingbenefits to society at large.


xi

345109Frontxi 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xi

The typology prepared for this study allows a dis-tinction between “protection” and “sustainableuse” as the principal management objective of indi-vidual tools. Some fall outside the traditional defini-tion of MPAs, such as areas designated specificallyor primarily for managed use. Here, protection ofbiodiversity is incidental, if it occurs at all. Theseinclude such categories as management andexploitation areas for benthic resources (MEABRs)in Chile (Chapter 4) and collaborative managementareas in Tanzania. Other reserves are designed forcultural-ecological and social protection. Theseinclude the marine extractive reserves (MERs) inBrazil, which, despite their name, have been estab-lished primarily to protect the informal use rights

and way of life of traditional and indigenous coastalcommunities in Brazil. These extractive reserves areimportant examples of emerging resource manage-ment paradigms that are iterative, with a high poten-tial for achieving ecosystem management goals atecologically significant scales.

These management areas vary in size from a cou-ple of hundred hectares (MEABRs) to hundreds ofsquare kilometers (MERs), and in aggregate coveran area ranging from 1,000 square kilometers inChile to nearly 8,000 square kilometers in Brazil.In Chile, there is great demand among communi-ties to expand the number of MEABRs in light ofthe perceived benefits of allocating fishing rights


xiiNested Marine Management Area Framework

LME

ICM/Zoned Seascape

Biosphere Reserve

Multiple Use MPAsRecreational FishingEco TourismAquaculture

IndigenousSettlementsOther

EconomicActivities

Area (km2)

5,000

1,000

500

100

Minimal protectionExtractive use

Full protectionNon extractive use

Community-based MPA

FisheriesN

o-take Reserve

Strict Marine R

eserve

ME

R

ME

AB

Rs

345109Frontxii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xii

versus open access—a condition that prevailedjust 15 years ago. In Brazil, marine extractivereserves cover a huge area of the coastline, nes-tled between shrimp farms, oil and gas wells,industrial fishing ports, tourist resorts, andsprawling urban communities. Because of theirsize and their overlap with areas of significantmarine biodiversity, these hold real promise forenhancing biodiversity conservation on a massivescale within the production seascape. This shouldbe of great interest to the Global EnvironmentFacility, whose strategic priorities for the biodiver-sity focal area include protecting biodiversity out-side protected areas, where the greatest potential(and challenge) exists for ramping up conserva-tion of biological diversity.

Because integrated coastal management has thesupport of government (ideally at various levels)when enacted through legislation and the mandateto implement a governance framework over relative-ly large spatial scales, including linked hydrologicalsystems that may extend from watersheds out to sea,it is the only framework that can begin to addressexternalities at scales large enough to buffer MarineProtected Areas and other CMM areas from lethalthreats beyond their control. While far from perfectand still nascent in many developing countries (ICMinitiatives now exist in about 100 countries, usuallysubnationally), ICM can create an enabling environ-ment for MPAs and offers the best platform for tak-ing marine biodiversity conservation andsustainable fisheries management to scale.

Multiuse and higher-order coastal management sys-tems emerging in the Philippines, Chile, and Brazilare promising in that they offer the potential to facil-itate scaling up marine management by unifying andhelping to reconcile elements that may at first seemincompatible with protecting marine biodiversity.Indeed, other tools in coastal area management pro-vide some idea of the areas of intervention that servemultiple objectives: protecting traditional cultureheritage; enhancing the sustainability of local fish-eries that provide the income, nutrition, and liveli-hoods to sustain traditional communities; andconserving marine biological diversity—all of

which reinforces spiritual and cultural values aswell as underpinning local economies and feedinginto ecosystem processes at larger scales.

Other Key FindingsMarine science and traditional knowledge have acrucial role to play in guiding efforts to network andincrease the effective coverage of MPAs. Appliedresearch (on biological connectivity, gene flow, pro-ductivity, and human behavior) can help reduce thecost of management decisions regarding MPAs—where and how to deploy them relative to otherinterventions. Use of traditional knowledge can alsoincrease stakeholder participation, heighten aware-ness of benefits from effective management regimes,and increase stakeholder buy-in, thus enhancingthe sustainability of MPAs.

In terms of the need to scale up marine manage-ment to achieve results over ecologically meaning-ful scales, the case studies and literature suggestthat the greatest opportunities for achieving theseoutcomes may lie outside traditional protected areaboundaries, in the production landscape. The tran-sition zones of managed use surrounding strict no-take reserves or areas demarcated for exclusive useby communities may offer the greatest scope forexpanding an ecosystem-based approach to marineresource conservation. The diverse array of coastal-marine management areas—including MPAs—need to be networked and linked administrativelyand ecologically through zoning regulations thatallow ecological processes to be protected in theproduction landscape. Use of strategic environmen-tal assessments and environmental impact assess-ments should be promoted, along with strictenforcement of the polluter pays principle andother means to mitigate off-site impacts and harmo-nize policies across sectors to comply with princi-ples of ecosystem integrity—as good practice underICM. The ICM framework would ideally provide amix of tools that would include a high ratio ofzoned/managed use to no-take reserves. This willallow governments to address socioeconomic needswhile helping to sustain the productivity of coastal


xiii

345109Frontxiii 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xiii

ecosystems so that they can continue to provide thegoods and services essential to the well-being ofcoastal communities.

As with MPAs, promoting a more integratedapproach such as ICM to effectively scale upmarine management will need to include measuresfor sustainability. Institutional arrangements align-ing economic sectors and coastal development poli-cies with sustainable development principles thatreflect a balance between marine resource use andmarine ecosystem health will need to be internal-ized. Financing needs to be provided for the policyreform measures and recurrent costs of ICM imple-mentation over the long term. Ideally, this will beavailable through internal mechanisms such aspublic expenditures, enhanced production andcapture of resources rents, user fees, and other eco-nomic instruments.

Recommendations• Support implementation of ICM as an enabling

governance framework for Marine ProtectedAreas by investing up front in the necessary poli-cy reforms, institutional arrangements, and self-financing mechanisms required to sustain it overthe long term.

• Dramatically step up enforcement of agreedboundaries around areas of restricted access by,among other things, strengthening communities toassume this role, and promoting uptake of new,cost-effective monitoring control and surveillancetechnologies.

• Invest in creating sustainable alternative liveli-hoods and social protection for those affected byreallocation of use rights.

• Establish new biodiversity conservation-orientedMPAs to meet “representative system” targetsjudiciously and strategically.

• Look into transforming and scaling up communi-ty-based resource reserves to mainstream biodi-versity protection in the production landscape.Explore community-driven development as aplatform for mainstreaming local ICM initiatives.

• Promote the use of science and traditional knowl-edge to network MPAs with other CMM areas toachieve greater effectiveness at scale.

• Explore partnerships to help finance the policyreform, institutional arrangements, and sustain-able financing agenda required to implementICM and create a viable governance frameworkfor MPAs.


xiv

345109Frontxiv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xiv


xv

345109Frontxv 10/5/06 7:20 PM Page xv

Part IMPAs in

Context

345109Sec1_S1 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page S1

After 30 years, coastal-marine management isstill in a formative phase compared with the exten-sive knowledge bank, tools, and financial supportavailable for sustainable development and conser-vation of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.Marine management and biodiversity conservationare rapidly expanding, generating a profusion ofproposals and quests for new kinds of protected areatools and spatial frameworks. Monitoring theseefforts requires constant updating, data-gathering,and evaluation. The rationale, objectives, and seriesof questions about marine protected areas addressedin this study stem from these considerations and theneed to provide accurate information that will assistthe World Bank in setting priorities and mappingout strategic interventions to enable poor countriesto deal with the adverse impacts of a worseningglobal marine crisis.

The once widely held premise that oceans are aninexhaustible resource has been replaced by verydifferent perceptions of both marine resource man-agers and many fishers in the twenty-first century.Fisheries productivity and coastal ecosystem healthshow alarming signs of decay in many regions.Globally, fish catches have been declining since the1980s (Watson and Pauly 2001). The biomass ofhigh-trophic-level fish has declined by two-thirdssince 1950 in the North Atlantic (Christensen andothers 2003), while that of predatory fish over largeportions of the ocean has dropped by 90 percentsince industrial fisheries began globally (Myers andWorm 2003). There are now 528 species from the


Increased pressures on reefs broughtabout by spectacular demographicgrowth in the coastal zone, expanding tourism, changes inagricultural practices, destructivefishing and the influence of climatechange phenomena such as El Niñohave left us swimming against thetide in a race against time.

ISMAEL SERAGELDINVICE-PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLYSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, WORLD BANK

All measures and practices to conserve marine biodiversity andecological processes must takehuman needs into account.WWF/IUCN MARINE POLICY SUMMARYCREATING A SEA CHANGE (WWF/IUCN 1998)

Introduction 1

345109Sec1_1 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 1

marine biome listed on the Red List of ThreatenedSpecies of IUCN-the World Conservation Union(Woods and others 2005).

In addition, as the world’s last tropical sea frontiersvanish, once-remote traditional and artisanal fishingsocieties are being increasingly marginalized or dis-appearing altogether, as are once-productive and stillpotentially sustainable small-scale fisheries, cultur-ally based local marine ecological knowledge, andlow-impact fishing systems and technologies. Recentpolicy studies by the U.N. Food and AgricultureOrganization, the World Resources Institute, IUCN,the WorldFish Center, and other researchers under-score the pressing need not only for marine conserva-tion but also for efforts to enhance thecomplementarity of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),integrated coastal management, ecosystem-basedmanagement, and coastal fisheries sustainability, aswell as helping coastal communities preserve socio-cultural values embedded in their fishing traditions.

The orientation and conceptual frameworks for MPAdevelopment, notably during the 1970s and 1980s,were opportunistic, largely site-specific, and notdesigned or established to cope with off-site andupstream threats or the extent of the global marinecrisis today. To begin to address unprecedentedthreats to coastal environments, overfishing, and

biological diversity, a new generation of adaptableMPA concepts and associated tools is being devisedto accommodate and correspond to actual biologicalscales and processes that support the natural cycleson which all sealife depends.

1.1.Putting MPAs in PerspectiveThe original conceptual focal point for this study isMPAs, broadly conceived. (The many evolving defi-nitions of MPAs are discussed in Chapter 2.) Thereis a tendency for MPAs to be perceived as things inthemselves, practically isolated entities in the vast-ness of seas. International, national, and local prideand a sense of collective ownership and responsibil-ity for an individual MPA can evolve and take onsymbolic significance, ranging from Australia’sGreat Barrier Reef to tiny Apo Island in thePhilippines. Charismatic qualities that MPAsassume and the enthusiasm for certain categories ofMPAs, particularly those that have flagship “nation-al park” status, have helped advance marine con-servation worldwide and increased awareness ofhow threatened and precarious much sealife andassociated habitats has become.

But MPAs also have an important role to play inenhancing or restoring the productive potential ofcoastal and marine fisheries. Figure 1–1 shows theincreasing value of world trade in marine products,the majority of which now originates in developingcountries. Figure 1–2 shows the value of fish exportsrelative to other export commodities of developingcountries. The economic benefits of MPAs in termsof providing a haven for female brood stock, spawn-ing aggregations, juveniles, and corridors formigrating species, among other functions related tostock recovery, are also being documented, alongwith spillover effects into fishing grounds.

In addition to being concerned about the severityand complexity of marine protection issues andthe ability of MPAs to address these concerns, thestudy is also concerned with issues of scale and


2

1982

Developed

Developing Countries

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

1988 1994 2000

FIGURE 1.1

Value of Global Marine Products Trade in $US billions

Source: FAO 2002

345109Sec1 10/9/06 1:47 PM Page 2

dimensions that key biological processes in thesea require to keep operating productively overtime, marine interfaces with coastal and inlandareas, and economic activities on land and sea,some of which increasingly are jeopardizingentire ecosystems.

The World Bank has substantial, long-standinginterests in coastal-marine management. It is amember and founding partner of the InternationalCoral Reef Initiative since 1995, and in the sameyear produced, along with IUCN and the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a piece on pri-orities for establishing A Globally RepresentativeSystem of Marine Protected Areas. This was the pre-cursor to the concept of MPA networks to ensurebiogeographic representativeness within a systemof Marine Protected Areas designed to protectmarine biodiversity and the integrity of marineecosystem structure and function. Subsequently,the Bank has developed a large portfolio of coastaland marine resource management projects—fromintegrated coastal management to coral reef conser-vation and targeted research and sustainable fish-

eries—nearly all of which include MPAs as man-agement tools.

Incorporating the social dimension is essential forsuccessful MPAs. This was a major theme of VoicesFrom the Village in the South Pacific (World Bank2000). This work is being used today in policy andplanning contexts by the South Pacific Commission.More recently, the Bank has attempted to incorpo-rate societal dimensions into measures of coral reefecosystem health, noting the need to include met-rics beyond the biophysical, in order to capturehuman-ecological interactions and feedback indetermining the true state of health of a givenecosystem (World Bank 2006).

The principal objectives of the economic and sectorwork in this report are in keeping with the criticalneed to scale up management interventions andapproaches in response to a global marine crisis (cf.WRI 2000; Wilkinson 2004; Pauly and others 1998,2005). They include developing a much clearerunderstanding of the range, potential, and limita-tions of MPAs as coastal management tools and the


3

0

$5

-$5

$10

$15

$20

fish coffee cocoa bananas rubber sugar tea

1982 1992 2002

rice tobacco meat

FIGURE 1.2

Relative Value of Fish Exports in Developing Countries in $US billions

Source: FAO 2004

345109Sec1 10/9/06 1:47 PM Page 3

context in which mainstreaming MPAs in combina-tion with other management tools to achieve large-scale marine conservation may be most appropriate.

The study looks as well at what societies are doingto contend with these mounting problems—that is,whether, where, and how countries in differentregions are responding to the challenges of scalingup MPAs by synchronizing and adjusting theirmarine policies, management frameworks forcoastal development, fisheries, and coastal-marinebiological diversity in ways that effectively take sci-ence-based, biological scales and processes in thesea into account. The study also analyzes how poortropical coastal countries are dealing with socioeco-nomic challenges that inevitably accompany effortsto scale up coastal-marine management andwhether they are equipped to do so.

Individually or collectively, are MPAs achieving orcapable of achieving results on biologically signifi-cant scales? Can they cope with increasing develop-ment and population pressures and with off-sitethreats? Are they operating or suited to support func-tions to foster sustainable fishing economies on dif-ferent scales? Can they be adapted for purposes offishery recovery to reverse the overall pattern of fish-eries decline in countries like Brazil and thePhilippines? What new systemic modifications andspecific measures need to be adopted to facilitatescaling up and mainstreaming to improve MPA effec-tiveness and move toward ecosystem management?

In developing an interdisciplinary perspective onthese questions the study will present in-depthcase studies of MPA/Marine Management Areadevelopment in three important World Bank clientcountries, leading to a clearer exposition of what“scaling up” means in different developing-countrycontexts and what it may imply in terms of recali-brating environmental and economic priorities; thestudy will also identify and explain the roles andfunctions of various MPAs and their possible entrypoints in the comparative context of coastal man-agement challenges, habitat, and biogeographicsettings, which tend to vary remarkably withincountries and across regions.

1.2.Objectives of This StudyFirst, the study aims to document and evaluate therange of MPA tools currently in use in differenttropical coastal settings. This is necessary to cap-ture and delineate the the rapidly expanding uni-verse of MPA classifications and related coastaland resource management tools based on theirzonation, uses, structure, and management func-tions. Second, the study seeks to clarify and con-textualize uses of this MPA “toolkit” in differentcontexts. At present, confusion abounds as to whattools and approaches belong in the toolkit—whenis an MPA not an MPA, in other words (cf.Kenchington 2005)? By clarifying MPA designa-tions and purposes, the study gauges the applica-bility, effectiveness, and sustainability of tools andapproaches under various conditions. Criteria forMPA success include ecological relevance, appro-priateness in the sociocultural context, supportinglegal frameworks, degree of community participa-tion and commitment, inclusion in a larger marinemanagement framework, basis in science, finan-cial sustainability, and provision of expected ben-efit streams, including meeting communitylivelihood objectives.

Numerous studies and international conferences,including the International Marine Protected AreasCongress in 2005, have stressed the need to scaleup MPAs, including through replication and net-working as well as through large-scale programsthat increase their areal coverage as a first line ofdefense against marine environmental degradation.The lessons that emerge from this analysis can helpguide the design of MPA interventions in WorldBank and other donor-supported projects to bestmeet client needs and approach sustainability. In sodoing, the study may bring us closer to realizing theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development’s targetfor establishing effective networks of MarineProtected Areas by 2012 and its related marine con-servation targets.


4

345109Sec1 10/9/06 1:47 PM Page 4

1.3.Organization of the StudyThe study is divided into three parts, which will beavailable in three volumes published sequentially.The full Country Studies appear in Volume 2, whilethe Legal Analysis appears in Volume 3.

In this volume, Part I consists of three chaptersdesigned to put the concept of MPAs in context.Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 con-structs a typology of MPA tools and other marinespatial planning and management techniques. Thistypology helps frame the case studies and literaturereview and forms a pivotal platform for subsequentanalysis. Chapter 3 introduces the key questionsrelated to MPA success and failures and the issuesof scaling up. These are presented in a brief reviewof the literature and are discussed in light of pre-vailing socioeconomic, equity, and political econo-my concerns. The study could not begin to reviewthe voluminous literature on MPAs and related top-ics in many fields. However, a useful resource anddatabase around these topics has been compiled.

Part II contains the country studies. Chapters 4, 5,and 6 contain much of the source material for thisanalysis and include case studies of MPA experi-ences and trends in the Philippines, Chile, andBrazil. Illustrations of similar problems, as well asinnovative MPA, coastal zone, and multiuseresource and area management approaches are alsocited from experiences in other countries, includingfrom Africa, the Indo-Pacific, and Australasia.. Thereport seeks to capture and convey a sense ofdynamics and diversity of MPA experiences bybringing to light and analyzing the potential of manylocal and some national initiatives that contribute toour understanding of the challenges and opportuni-ties for scaling up and mainstreaming marine con-servation efforts to achieve dual environmental andsocial objectives.

In Part III, Chapter 7 provides the analysis and dis-tillation of findings from the case studies and the lit-erature, along with the conclusions drawn from the

analysis. It returns to cross-cutting themes in termsof key challenges and management options thatdeveloping countries may wish to pursue to achieveconservation objectives on a scale sufficiently largeto reverse coastal biodiversity loss and overfishingof inshore waters and to ensure stability and integri-ty of surrounding human communities that dependon well-functioning marine ecosystems. Chapter 8provides a succinct list of recommendations for con-sideration by developing countries and the interna-tional community, along with suggested next stepsfor the Bank itself.

1.4.Audience and DisseminationThe work is geared toward several different audi-ences. A primary target is the Bank’s clients, whohave a large stake in maintaining the long-term pro-ductivity of their coastal and marine resources. Thedonor community is another prime user of informa-tion contained in the study, particularly how MPAsand other spatial management tools can be main-streamed into ongoing operations and strategies forfuture economic development assistance. In light ofthe substantial assistance it provides to protectmarine biodiversity and promote sustainable fish-eries, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is amajor audience for this report, which will be dis-seminated at the GEF Assembly in August 2006 inCape Town. Finally, the authors hope that other part-ners in the larger marine conservation communitywill find this discussion interesting and valuable inevaluating the role of MPAs relative to other tools intrying to find the most cost-effective and viablestrategies for achieving common objectives.

In addition to being distributed through the GEFAssembly, the findings will also be presented in aseries of workshop and conferences in the secondhalf of 2006 in Latin America (ITMEMS in Cozumelin October and the Gulf and Caribbean FisheriesInstitute meetings in Belize in November) and Asia.A videotape will be available to accompany theChilean case study.


5

345109Sec1_5 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 5

References

Christensen, V., S. Guénette, J.J. Heymans, C.J. Walters, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2003. Hundred yeardecline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4(1): 1–24.

Kenchington, R. 2005. Biophysical Principles to Design A Network of No-Take Areas: Great Barrier Reef Case Study.Paper Presented at First International Marine Protected Area Congress, Geelong, Australia. Global MarineProgramme, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN–World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland.

Myers, R., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280–83.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860–86.

Pauly, D., R. Watson, and J. Alder. 2005. Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and foodsecurity. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 360: 5–12.

Watson, R., and D. Pauly. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414: 534–36.

Wilkinson, C. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. Vols. 1 and 2. Australian Institute of Marine Science.Townsville, Australia.

Wood, L.J., and others. 2005. A Global Review of Marine Protected Areas. Paper Presented at First International MarineProtected Area Congress, Geelong, Australia. Global Marine Programme, World Commission on Protected Areas,IUCN–World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland.

World Bank. 2000. Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the PacificIslands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series number 9. Washington DC.

———. 2006. The World Bank and Biodiversity 1988–2005: Mountains to Coral Reefs. Washington, DC.

WRI (World Resources Institute). 2000. Fostering Policies for Sustainable Coastal and Marine Resources Managementand Conservation. The 2000–2003 Global Marine Strategy of the World Resources Institute. R.S. Pomeroy and J.E.Parks (eds.). Washington, DC.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund)/IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1998. Creating a Sea Change: A Vision for Our BluePlanet. Gland, Switzerland.


6

345109Sec1_6 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 6

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) areliterally and figuratively all over the map.Mounting ambiguity about where a particular MPAtype fits in this expanding lexicon and what specif-ic elements of MPAs are being referenced in a dis-cussion tends to obstruct assessments of MPAeffectiveness and the uses and potential of varioustool types to help take marine management toscale. In addition, lack of clarity and agreement inclassifying tools and how they are used can hindertransferability of MPA models and experiencesacross countries and regions.

Box 2-1 indicates how numerous, wide-ranging,cross sectoral, and multi-dimenstional functionsascribed to MPAs have become. This gives someindication of how numerous, wide-ranging, sector-spanning, and multidimensional the functionsascribed to MPAs have become. To date, interna-tional and country agencies charged with standard-izing protected area terminology have had littlesuccess in restoring order to the rapidly proliferat-ing terminology in this field.

Clarifying and simplifying MPA classification com-plexities became a priority at the outset of thisstudy. MPAs have come to cover a diverse reper-toire of tools and spatial, temporal, and resourcemanagement frameworks – from scientific researchstations to extractive reserves, multiuse marine


A Typology of Coastal-Marine Management Toolsand Approaches

2

Fish market in Ecuador – photo by Patrick Christie

345109Sec1_7 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 7

management areas, biosphere reserves, fisheryreserves, and underwater parks. The meaning of theterm “marine reserve,” for instance, can varymarkedly, depending on national, local, and inter-national contexts (Agardy and others 2003; Agardy2005; Cordell 2002; Christie and White 2006;FAO 2006; Ray 2004; IUCN 2003). MPA connota-tions have become confusing, which in a way isunfortunate because the best, most widely acceptedworking definitions are clear.

MPAs have been equated with “fish sanctuaries,”“fishery reserves,” and “no-take areas” (Robertsand Hawkins 2000; World Bank 2004) and alsowith “marine reserves.” Roberts and Hawkins’definition, adapted from IUCN–the World

Conservation Union’s, reads: “MPAs are any areaof intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with itsoverlaying water and associated flora, fauna, his-torical, or cultural features, which has beenreserved by law, or other effective means, to beprotected from all fishing, extractive, or harmfuluses” (Roberts and Hawkins 2002). Hence, in thiscase MPAs are directly equated with “no-takeareas” (equal to full protection from all fishing orextractive uses).

On the other hand, the Subsidiary Body onScientific, Technical and Technological Advice ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (AdHoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and CoastalProtected Areas) adopted the following definition:“Marine and Coastal Protected Areas mean anydefined area within or adjacent to the marine envi-ronment, together with its overlying waters andassociated flora, fauna, and historical and culturalfeatures, which has been reserved by legislation orother effective means, including customs, with theeffect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversityenjoys a higher level of protection than its surround-ings” (Secretariat of CBD 2004). (Biodiversity isdefined in the CBD.) The idea that such an areamust enjoy “a higher level of protection than its sur-roundings” is fundamental in the CBD definition,which is more inclusive and wider than Roberts andHawkins’ definition. For instance, under the CBD’sdefinition, a “no-take area” as well as a Chileanmanagement and exploitation area would be consid-ered as part of a Coastal and Marine Protected Area(CMPA) network.

This analysis suggests that not enough emphasis hasbeen placed on untangling the conceptual dispari-ties concerning what does or does not constitute anMPA, as this issue remains unresolved and prob-lematic in international calls for the urgent imple-mentation of MPA networks. Taken at face value, theRoberts and Hawkins concept versus CBD’s inter-pretation would entail different strategies and goalsfor setting up MPA networks. The CBD documentrecommends that countries establish a national sys-tem of CMPAs, permitting a variety of sustainablehuman uses. The document describes these areas as


8BOX 2.1

Increasing Range of Uses andZonation Purposes Attached to MPAs

Biodiversity conservation goals• Habitat and biodiversity protection• Ecosystem form and function relative to

unexploited conditions• Protecting nontarget species• Ecosystem restoration

Fishery goals• Improved or restored fishery• Maintenance of spawning stock

Social goals• Religious/spiritual fulfillment• Aesthetics• Economic vitality• Environment stewardship and education• Food supply and other fundamental needs• Pride• Increased government support and

accountability• Empowerment

Source: Christie, P. and A.T. White. 2006.

345109Sec1_8 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 8

“ancillary MPAs” to distinguish them from the high-ly protected (that is, “no-take”) areas.

Bearing in mind that this study aims to explore thequestion of scaling up MPAs, any examination ofthe tools lumped in the MPA category in poor trop-ical coastal countries soon must determine whatconstitutes an MPA—where an MPA begins andends, and how MPAs relate to managing fisheries,local marine tenure systems, and developmentthreats. Individual countries are developing theirprotected area classifications systems idiosyncrati-cally (not all countries follow IUCN’s I –VICategories). In this connection, governments (par-ticularly in the developing world) that need to usethese MPA tools to solve fishery crises (Fernándezand Castilla 2005) would react very differentlyunder the CBD rather than the Roberts andHawkins definition. Developing countries likeChile and Brazil have been more inclined to opt forthe more comprehensive and inclusive approachoffered by the CBD, while still recognizing that no-take areas must remain essential, central compo-nents of their MPA systems.

The coastal and marine management (CMM) typol-ogy constructed for this report lets readers visualizeand examine systematically what is today oftenreferred to as the MPA “toolkit” (but that actuallyinvolves much more than MPAs, narrowly con-ceived). A sound typology can help pinpoint wherevarious marine management regimes are located,conceptually and pragmatically, including MPAs ashistorically conceived (that is, as instrumentsdesigned primarily to protect the marine environ-ment). The typology presented in Table 2–1 isintended to facilitate understanding of how individ-ual sets of tools are distributed biogeographicallyand how types that might superficially appearincompatible in terms of function have come to co-exist and operate in mutually reinforcing combina-tions in different countries. The CMM typology isalso instructive as it forms a basis for evaluatingopportunities and prospects (relative limitations oradvantages) that MPAs, as well as other kinds oftools, offer as platforms for taking coastal marinemanagement to scale.

2.1.Typology CategoriesThe typology constructed for this report is an effortto inventory, sort, and clarify the range of CMMalternatives and to identify important differencesand similarities within the overall toolkit. MPAs andinterrelated marine resource, coastal area, fisheriesmanagement, and culture-ecological protectiontools are grouped into four major categories. Notethat a “tool” is not simply a technical instrument orintervention or a spatial unit or targeted area. Inreality, all CMM tools are embedded in managementframeworks—that is, they have administrative, con-ceptual, methodological, legal-regulatory, andaction-implementation underpinnings. Sets of toolscan be separated and classified according to theirdistinct primary functions.

Category I. MPAs: Tools DesignedPrimarily for Biodiversity Conservationand Habitat Protection On this point it is useful to defer to IUCN’s defini-tion of MPA functions: Marine Protected Areas areareas of restricted access or activity whose primaryobjective is the protection of a coastal or marineecosystem, the resources (such as goods) they con-tain, or processes (such as services) essential tomaintain ecosystem function and productivity. “Anyarea of intertidal or subtidal terrain together with itsoverlying water and associated flora, fauna, histori-cal and cultural features, which has been reservedby law or other effective means to protect part or allof the enclosed environment.”

Category II. Multiuse Marine Management Tools Diverse, hybrid forms of multiuse coastal, resource,and fisheries management strategies and frame-works now exist, many of which intersect with MPAsand have become attached to MPA agendas but thatnonetheless have been implemented with different,sometimes apparently contradictory (that is, notexclusively or strictly conservation) purposes.


9

345109Sec1_9 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 9

The key word and distinguishing feature of Category IIreserves is balanced zoning and management. In otherwords, the reserve design and implementationexpressly aim to balance conservation and manageduse objectives (where access to sea space andresources is carefully controlled and limited). Thefocus of Category II is to restrict and manage econom-ic activities, but only in ways that clearly will notthreaten ecosystems and habitats. Moreover, CategoryII tools have equally strong provisions for science-based, restricted area components designed to protector help restore biodiversity and degraded habitats.

Category III. Sustainable Extractive UseMarine Resource Management ToolsThis tool category is primarily designated fordemonstrably sustainable, managed extractiveuse(s) or sustainable development focused on spe-cific resources. Typically, the predominant objectivefor such reserves is single or multiple sustainableextractive activities (such as artisanal fisheries, col-lection of ornamental shells, ecotourism, permitsportfishing, or community livelihood support, as inthe case of marine foraging to sustain local subsis-tence economies). Territorial user rights for fishersfall under this category. While some may interpretthis as a subset of IUCN Protected Areas CategoryVI (Managed Resource Protected Area), protectionof biodiversity is not the primary, or even secondary,focus of such managed use. However, it may be a by-product if coupled with other interventions.

Category IV. Culture-Ecological / SocialProtection ReservesA variety of conservation and sustainable use meas-ures and tools, including biodiversity protectionzoning, are typically featured in Category IV.However, Category IV reserves and sanctuaries areprimarily based on special culture heritage preser-vation considerations and on national or interna-tional legislation intended to protect the territories,tenure systems, cultural resources, and resource userights of indigenous peoples and, in certain cases,non-indigenous traditional societies (as in the caseof marine extractive reserves in Brazil). Category IV

reserves integrate culture heritage and culturallysignificant natural coastal-marine features or land-scapes and seascapes. (See the Annex on connota-tions of “tradition” and “culture heritage”designations in the CMM typology.)Countries and management agencies give differentnames to tools that have quite similar functions. Soin constructing this typology, in order to reduce con-fusion surrounding the global repertoire of MPAtools and for comparative analysis, the study madean effort first to capture as much of the universe ofvariation in tools and names for tools recorded byIUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas (andothers) as possible. Second, the analysis separatednational toolkits, irrespective of local names,according to primary design objective and functionof tool types. Significantly, the analysis suggeststhat current toolkits can be broken down into onlyfour basic categories reflecting their primaryintended function and emphasis. This is what deter-mines how and where they are implemented, wheredifferent countries are placing more or less empha-sis, and where countries stand or are moving interms of the possibilities for increasing spatialscales—whether toward managed marine resource(extractive use) or increased coastal-marine (biodi-versity and habitat protection) or both. Individualtools (especially MPAs with circumscribed, highpercentage no-take zones) are often erroneouslyrepresented as static or rigid. But this four-categorytypology highlights the continuum along whichMPAs and other marine management areas areevolving, demonstrating the dynamic, flexible, andadaptable nature of the CMM toolkit.

The four main CMM designations are not totally dis-crete categories. There are no absolute polarities inthe typology aggregations; differentiation in classifi-cation is a matter of degree. All categories contain arange of tool types or management units on scalesascending from local-level to higher-order, fromnational to international (Peace Parks, RegionalSeas MPA Networks, or International Sea Border,Treaty-Based Frameworks). Included in the higher-order special management frameworks are integrat-ed coastal management (ICM), ecosystem-basedframeworks for managing fisheries, and MPA net-


10

345109Sec1_10 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 10


11

TABLE 2.1

CMM Tool Types

Increasing ecological protection

Increasing managed useand social protection

Marine ProtectedArea Tools:Primarily forBiodiversityConservation andHabitat Protection

CBMPANTMRMPANETMPANPWHSRamsar

MPANPMSRSMPACBMPARamsar

MPANPRamsar

MPARamsar

MPANPEBRMPAMPANETNTMRRamsar

MPAWHS

MPA

Multiuse MarineManagement Tools:Primarily forBalancedConservation andSocioeconomic Uses

ICMMUMPA

LMEMUMPA

ICMMUMPA (APAs)

ICMMUMPACBMPAMPANET

ICMTBMPAWHSBR

ICMTBMPALME

ICMTBMPA

Sustainable UseMarine ResourceManagement Tools:Primarily forExtractive Use

FMREBFMRLMMA

ER (MEABRs)FMR

SD (RDS)

CMA

FMR

WMAMPA,FMR

WMAMPAFMR

Culture-Ecological/Social ProtectionReserves: Primarilyfor Indigenous andTraditional Non-indigenousCommunities

CERTC (MERs)MSSCERIPT

CERIPTCMT-MUMPAIMPAILMAMSS

CMT-MUMPAMSS

CMT-MUMPAMSS

CountryProfiles

Philippines

Chile

Brazil

Tanzania

Australia

Solomon Is.

Papua NG

•APA: Environmental Protection Area

•BR: Biosphere Reserve

•CBMPA: Community-based MPA

•CERIPT: Culture-ecological IndigenousPeoples Territory

•CERTC: Culture-ecological ReserveTraditional (Non-indigenous) Communities

•CMA: Collaborative Management Area

•CMT-MUMPA: Customary Marine Tenure-based MPA

•EBFMR: Ecosystem-based Fishery Reserve

•EBRMPA: Ecosystem-based Reserve

•ER: Extractive Reserve

•FMR: Fishery Management Reserve

•ILMA: Indigenous Landscape Management Area

•IMPA: Indigenous MPA

•ICM: Integrated Coastal Management

•LME: Large Marine Ecosystem

•LMMA: Locally Managed Marine Area

•MEABR: Management and Exploitation Areafor Benthic Resources

•MER: Marine Extractive Reserve

•MPA: Marine Protected Area

•MPANET: MPA Network

•MPANP: National Marine Park

•MS: Marine Sanctuary

•MSS: Marine Sacred Sites

•MUMPA: Multiuse MPA

•NTMR: No-take Marine Reserve

•Ramsar: Ramsar Site

•RDS: Sustainable Development Reserve

•RSMPA: Regional Seas MPANET

•SD: Sustainable Development

•TBMPA: Treaty-based MPA

•WHS: World Heritage Site

•WMAMPA: Wildlife Management Area MPA

345109Sec1_11 10/5/06 7:39 PM Page 11

works spanning large areas (over hundreds ofsquare kilometers, such as the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park, Blueprint 2020 for Tanzania, and FijiLocally Managed Marine Networks).

The integrating planning and management frame-works are designed to deal with large-scale biologi-cal and economic processes that can span land andsea. They are typically science-based, coordinateacross economic sectors and coastal ecosystems,and attempt to reconcile the full range of economic,sociocultural, and ecological uses that societydemands through zoning and regulations designedto maintain the productive potential of coastal andmarine systems as the basis for sustainable develop-ment. There are also some categories of higher-order management frameworks (such as UNESCO’ssystem of Biosphere Reserves and World HeritageSites, and Large Marine Ecosystems).

Inside each cell, tool types and approaches can belocated in terms of where they fit on a continuum:large-scale to small-scale; more or less territorialaccess closure; zonation purposes (extractive versusnon-extractive uses and benefits); centralized todecentralized administration; distance of reservefrom shore and administrative center; degree oflocal community association with and commitmentto reserve boundaries; and de jure versus de factolegal systems or a combination of the two (for exam-ple, in Melanesian societies, the constitution recog-nized both “traditional” owners’ property rights andnational-level resource administration and regulato-ry rights).

2.2.Typology Use and SignificanceThe typology has not been constructed in order toset standards. It reflects developments in variousregions in the direction of scaling up administra-tively (and, to a lesser extent, biologically).Countries and practitioners can use the typology tolocate their specific tool types and variants on acontinuum of management frameworks and can con-

sider selecting different modalities (some of whichmay not yet be represented in their respective toolk-its), drawing on case study assessments associatedwith different kinds. For instance, numerous coun-tries are searching for socially acceptable, econom-ically viable, logistically operable ways to addressserious overfishing problems; they might considerboth higher-order and local-level options inCategories I, II, and III. Many countries urgentlyneed closed-access measures and optimal solutionsto preserve marine biodiversity; Category I providesalternatives and examples.

The typology is thus a reference resource for weigh-ing the pros and cons of alternative CMM modelsand applications that can be considered in a com-parative context of case studies across countries andregions. In order to understand where and how tostrategically apply MPA tools over time, it wouldhelp if practitioners could better ascertain the rightpoint of entry and pick more workable, integratedmultidimensional approaches suited to interwovenenvironmental and social problems of poor coun-tries. The typology is intended to make some head-way in reducing sources of confusion surroundingterminology and uses of the toolkit. MPAs can anddo function as important management strategieswithin larger, area-wide coastal management frame-works (ICM, for example), with geographically far-ranging and inclusive goals. These includemaintaining essential ecological processes and life-support systems, maintaining genetic diversity,ensuring sustainable use of species and ecosystems,and managing watersheds.

At the same time, the impression of cross-nationaland cross-cultural diversity in CMM approachesand tool designations that the typology seeks to con-vey (even its profusion of acronyms) may also beregarded as a positive development, reflecting ver-satility, ingenuity, and adaptability of tool design tocope with widely varying national contexts and bio-geographic conditions. Ray (2004: 215) makes asimilar point: that MPA diversity, complexity insemantics and terminology, and ambiguity may beinterpreted as something healthy—as “not neces-sarily a bad thing” for a work in progress.


12

345109Sec1_12 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 12

References

Agardy, T.S. 2005. Global marine conservation policy versus site level implementation: the mismatch of scale and itsimplications. Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS). pp. 242–248. Politics and Socio-economics of Ecosystem-based Management of Marine Resources. H. Brownman, I. Konstantinos, and I. Stergiou, Idea and Coordination. Vol.300: 241–296.

Agardy, T.S., P. Bridgewater, M.P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R. Kenchington, D. Laffoley, P. McConnery, P.A. Murray,J.E. Parks, and L. Peau. 2003. Dangerous Targets? Unresolved Issues and Ideological Clashes Around MarineProtected Areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 13(4): 353–67.

Christie, P. and A.T. White. 2006. Best Practices in Governance and Enforcement of Marine Protected Areas: AnOverview. Report for the Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues andConsiderations. Rome, June 2006. 45 pp. Fernandez, M., and J.C. Castilla. 2005. Marine conservation in Chile: his-torical perspective, lessons, and challenges. Conservation Biology. 19: 1752–62.

IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2003. Influence of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories on National,Regional and International Legal and Policy Frameworks. B.J. Dillon (ed.) Draft Working Paper. IUCNEnvironmental Law Center. Bonn, Germany.

Ray, G.C. 2004. Reconsidering ‘dangerous targets’ for marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems. 14: 211–15.

Roberts, C.M., and J. P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully-Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide. WWF Endangered Seas Programand Environment Department of the University of York. Washington, DC, and York, UK.

Secretariat of CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2004. Technical Advice on the Establishment andManagement of a National System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas, CBD Technical Series no. 13.

World Bank. 2004. Saving Fish and Fishers: Toward Sustainable and Equitable Governance of the Global FishingSector. Report No. 29090- GLB. Agriculture and Rural Development Department. Washington, DC.


13

345109Sec1_13 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 13

This chapter provides more backgroundabout Marine Protected Area (MPA) work, recenttrends, and alternative approaches that directlyrelate to the paramount question about the potentialfor various coastal marine management (CMM) tooltypes to scale up CMM in developing countries. Thediscussion here draws on expertise from within theBank and the wider community of practice as wellas examples from the literature.

The chapter covers a set of widely occurring andinterdependent issues that are especially critical forunderstanding roles and relationships of CMM toolCategories I–IV (see Chapter 2), all of which areaffected by and enter into assessments of how toscale marine management up to meaningful biolog-ical levels in order to meet social and ecologicalchallenges posed by unmanaged development thathas local and global economic dimensions.

3.l.Common Property Issues andProblems Associated withManaging Marine EnvironmentsOne of the most severe, long-standing threats—ifnot the prime driver—of ocean and fisheries


3 Significance and Diversificationof Marine Protected Areas inCoastal Marine Management:Key Issues

Galapagos – photo by Claudia Sobrevilla

345109Sec1_14 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 14

decline is unquestionably the prevailing conditionof the sea as open-access. Although the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grant-ed coastal states sovereignty over living and nonliv-ing resources in Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZs), little has been done to generate sustainablefisheries or to ensure that effective marine manage-ment and protection occurs within the 200-mileextended boundary provisions of individual coun-tries (Cordell 1989: 8–15; Warner 1982). Overtime, UNCLOS does seem to be working to keepsome distant-water fleets out of a country’s lucra-tive home grounds, but this does not get to the rootsof world overfishing problems or to the sea rightsand territorial conflicts that are fueling the globalmarine crisis. The overfishing record is clear: man-agement failures arise internally from chaotic com-mercial expansion within national borders, notnecessarily from pressure created by long-distancefleets (Kent 1980).

Under UNCLOS, coastal states are specificallyrequired to conserve living resources in their EEZsin order to stabilize fisheries and the biodiversityheritage of humankind. Part XII of the conventionprovides a comprehensive framework for marineconservation—defining rights, obligations, and prin-ciples upon which other international environmentaltreaties are based. All states parties are obligated bythe treaty to cooperate in the conservation of marinelife through technical assistance and monitoring,among other measures. The convention addressessources of marine pollution, such as vessels, seabedactivities, ocean dumping, and land-based activities,in a manner that effectively balances interests ofstates in protecting the environment and naturalresources with their interests in freedom of naviga-tion and communication. In addition, the treaty pro-motes scientific research and protects the right toconduct it. In fact, the most innovative internationalfisheries agreements developed in the last decadehave as their basis UNCLOS’s statements of the obli-gations of each party to conserve and manage livingmarine resources in their own EEZs and on the highseas. The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO Compliance Agreement elaborated onthese obligations.

Yet the weaknesses of the control and monitoringsystem in the EEZs, especially in developing coun-tries, have exposed the total resource base to theunrestrained predation of a growing number ofinshore fleets. It is estimated that more than 90 per-cent of commercially valuable fish species are nowtaken within 320 kilometers of the shore (Kapetsky1981; Holt and Segnestam 1982). Ecologicallyspeaking, the coastal zone and territorial watersarguably are now in a far more precarious positionthan the open ocean beyond national EEZs.

Great confusion over how to reverse problems ofmarine degradation—fisheries losses from “rentdrain” and overcapacity being a dramatic symp-tom—does not simply stem from unmanageabletechnological advances with unpredictable impactson fish population dynamics and ecological process-es. Rather, the problems reduce to long unresolvedcontroversies concerning the ownership status ofinshore seas, private versus public sea claims, con-flicting legal philosophies, and jural rules and prin-ciples (Cordell 1989; Prescott 1978). Virtuallywherever there are seacoasts, these conflicts persistand are being played out under the rubric of “com-mon property” as economic theory and national andcultural tradition (cf. Christy 1982; Ciriacy-Wantrup and Bishop 1975).

Common property has become a universal referencepoint in political economy for classifying and ana-lyzing any kind of nonprivatized resources. Oneenduring interpretation eclipses all others: the viewthat marine resources, more than land-basedresource systems, are by definition (or intrinsically)open-access. Several conditions are thought to flowfrom this definition, notably that no single resourceuser has exclusive rights or the right to prevent oth-ers from sharing in the resource (Christy 1982).Where there are simultaneous resource users, thisimplies a lack of incentives for individuals torestrain production—the underlying micro-econom-ic premise is individual profit maximization.

The parable often cited to illustrate this is the“tragedy of the commons” (Hardin 1968)—whatGarrett Hardin viewed as “the remorseless working


15

345109Sec1_15 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 15

out of things.” This model carries an implicit view ofhuman nature as atavistic and ecologically naivewhen confronted with the possibility of exploitingresources having no fixed access rule or proprietor-ship. No allowance is made for cooperative ethics,reciprocity, social sanctions, conservation incentives,or a whole range of real-world property relations.

It is clear now, however, particularly from the worldmaritime ethnographic record, that numerous soci-eties have invented diverse, often ingenious customsand practices to appropriate sea space (Cordell1989). The problem is that no single government orgovernance authority has yet been able to effectivelymanage or harmonize competing uses and claims.The result is that both de jure and de facto tenure sys-tems that have limited marine resource exploitationto some degree in the past are now being underminedby uncontrolled expansion of coastal economies. Thequestion of property relations and tenure systems forMarine Protected Areas was a paramount issue inmeetings of the Commission on National Parks andProtected Areas of the IUCN–World ConservationUnion in Caracas and led to a series of recommenda-tions for action (see McNeely 1993).

Currently, coastal commons contain enormouslyvariable conditions in terms of access and userights. They may be:

• Totally open-access and unmanaged, with anarray of economic activities ranging from indus-trial and artisanal fishing to oil exploration toports, tourism, and heavy industry juxtaposed atrandom and with little regulation

• Partially managed (for example, where there arenational parks that are off-limits to exploitation ofany kind except low-impact tourism) but sur-rounded by open access

• Under certain restrictions (for example, combina-tions of fisheries limited-entry and individualtransferable quotas).

All but the areas set aside for nonuse pose somethreat to coastal and marine biodiversity. Those with

chaotic or unregulated development activities posethe greatest threat. At present, no coastal country iseffectively controlling and managing what goes onwithin its coastal-marine commons. The result isthat the tragedy of the commons persists and mani-fests itself in countless ways on the shores of indi-vidual countries.

Devising workable solutions is arguably more prob-lematic than protecting or restoring degraded terres-trial systems. However, communal sea tenuresystems and other systems of traditional use rightshave resulted in de facto (and occasionally de jure)limited access to extensive coastal sea space, espe-cially in island areas and semi-enclosed, nearshoreseas. Such systems associated with traditional envi-ronmental knowledge and resource managementpractices contain valuable lessons for scaling upmarine management and approaching an ecosys-tem-based fisheries management spatial framework.Thus, sea tenure customs may act either as con-straints or opportunities, depending on how CMMinitiatives are structured to incorporate community-based management.

Demonstrating the benefits of MPAs as alternativesto open-access regimes is essential for countriesthat recognize the consequences of leaving coastalwaters in open-access, common property condi-tions and that are trying to develop legally enforce-able approaches to common property problems.The effectiveness of MPAs and alternative gover-nance systems depends on whether and how theyare constructed to handle and accommodatediverse formal and informal systems of propertyrelations in the sea.

3.2.MPA (Category I) BenefitsCompelling scientific evidence indicates that certainMPA types and sites, under a variety of conditions—but especially where management, research andmonitoring procedures, and multiyear funding areadequate—are doing their job. (See Box 3–1.) One


16

345109Sec1_16 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 16

BOX 3.2


17

Findings from Selected Scientific Reviews of Marine Reserve Efficacy

1 Marine reserves, regardless of their size, and with few exceptions, lead to increases in density,biomass, individual size, and diversity in all functional groups. The diversity of communities andthe average size of the organisms within a reserve are between 20 and 30 percent higher relativeto unprotected areas. The density of organisms is roughly double in reserves, while the biomassof organisms is nearly triple. These results are robust despite the many potential sources of errorin the individual studies. (Halpern 2003, p. S129)

2 Based on evidence from existing marine area closures (i.e., marine no-take reserves) in both temper-ate and tropical regions, marine reserves and protected areas will be effective tools for addressingconservation needs as part of integrated coastal and marine area management. (NRC 2001, p. 2)

3 There is compelling, irrefutable evidence that protecting areas from fishing leads to rapid increas-es in abundance, average body size, and biomass of exploited species…increased diversity ofspecies and recovery of habitats from fishing disturbance…in a wide range of habitats…rangingfrom tropical to cool temperate zones…Marine reserves typically lead to at least a doubling in thebiomass of exploited species after three to five years…[and] can increase [biomass and offspringproduction] by orders of magnitude over levels in fishing grounds…Even relatively small reservescould produce regionally significant replenishment of exploited populations. (Roberts andHawkins 2000, p. 16-17)

4 Networks of no-take marine reserves can: (1) help recover fishery populations; (2) eliminate mor-tality of nontargeted species within protected areas due to bycatch, discards, and ghost fishing; (3)protect reserve habitats from damage by fishing gear; and (4) increase the probability that rare andvulnerable habitats, species, and communities are able to persist. (Murray and others 1999, p. 15)

5 Reserves will be essential for conservation efforts because they can provide unique protection forcritical areas, they can provide a spatial escape for intensely exploited species, and they canpotentially act as buffers against some management miscalculations and unforeseen or unusualconditions. Reserve design and effectiveness can be dramatically improved by better use of exist-ing scientific understanding. (Allison et al. 1998, p. S79)

6 The benefits that can reasonably be expected from an appropriate system of marine reserves areextensive and substantial. Many have been repeatedly documented and conclusively establishedat a number of existing reserves in a variety of environments. (Sobel 1996, p. 16)

7 There is overwhelming evidence from both temperate and tropical areas that exploited popula-tions in protected areas will recover following cessation of fishing and that spawning stock bio-mass will be rebuilt. (Roberts et al. 1995, p. 5)

8 Marine reserves commonly support higher densities and larger sizes of heavily fished species thanare found outside reserves. (Rowley et al. 1995, p. 233)

9 Evidence from existing marine reserves indicates that increased abundance, individual size,reproductive output, and species diversity occurred in a variety of marine species in refuges ofvarious sizes, shapes, and histories in communities ranging from tropical coral reefs to temperatekelp forests. (Dugan and Davis 1993a, p. 2029)

10 It has now been well established that the abundances of and average sizes of many larger carniv-orous fishes increase within protected areas. (Roberts and Polunin 1991, p. 82)

Source: Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004: 92–93. References cited are available in the original publication.

345109Sec1 10/5/06 8:05 PM Page 17

of the first major studies of marine reserves aroundthe world presents compelling evidence that reservesare working—that the world’s little-known underwa-ter parks and off-limits, ecological reserves containbigger fish and a greater array of marine species thanthe waters open to fishing and other human activi-ties, even where these uses in surrounding waters arerestricted (Roberts and others 2001).

Box 3–2 contains a series of parallel findings fromsocial science research on MPA efficacy from a

human dimensions perspective. In order to meetlinked societal and ecological goals, it is importantto demonstrate economic benefits combined withecological improvements as the foundation for thedurability of any MPA.

Although a number of studies (Agardy 2005, 2006)suggest that Category I MPAs may provide unantic-ipated community sociocultural and spillover envi-ronmental benefits for other categories of reserves(such as Category III and IV in the Brazilian case),it is important to note this does not mean MPA effec-tiveness ought to be judged in terms of the increas-ing tasks or zonation purposes the reserves arebeing drawn into but were never intended to per-form (such as support for sustainable extractiveuses, stemming land-based threats to the marineenvironment, or local poverty reduction).

Most Category I MPAs operate within quite narrowlyconfined jurisdictional and administrative frame-works, few of which are empowered or authorized tomanage intersecting economies that have unpre-dictable (or unintended) coastal-marine impacts andside effects. This does not mean MPAs cannot bemodified or recast, rezoned, or upgraded in broader-scale administrative and governance frameworks. Butthere is no guarantee that proposals currently beingput forward to create expanded MPA networks wouldbe better equipped to handle cross-sectoral conflictsand integration challenges than existing individualMPAs. This is partly why other categories of CMMtools represented in the typology have evolved, orwhy Category I tools are being transformed to moreeffectively incorporate a multiplicity of uses.

3.3.Multiple Benefits of Multiuse MPAs Zoning Category II MPAs for multiple purposes isone of a number of management options that can beadopted to help Category I MPAs reach their objec-tives. Legal provisions related to zoning can be


18BOX 3.2

Findings on Social Benefits of Marine Reserves

MPAs have the potential to provide social, eco-nomic, and educational benefits to various con-stituencies. Benefits derive from increased fishyields, associated activities such as tourism,and use taxation.

MPAs, especially community-based or co-man-aged ones, provide an opportunity for resourceuser communities to reassert their claim overimportant resources that they controlled histor-ically. They can also create an increased senseof cohesion within a community as a collectivevision and stewardship norms for importantresources are re-established.

MPAs can become a rallying point that cat-alyzes increased attention to law enforcementand sustainable harvesting of marine resources.

MPAs provide a benchmark for comparativeresearch and a means to identify how socioeco-logical systems change over time.

MPAs provide learning opportunities that caninspire further experimentation with marineresource management.

Source: Christie 2003.

345109Sec1_18 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 18

found within sectoral regulatory frameworks such asfisheries and nature conservation. These provisionsmay permit or exclude particular activities fromparts of the MPAs. Each zone is therefore likely tosupport a range of activities, although some may beidentified for exclusive use by one sector.

Multiuse zoning (where a concerted effort is made tobalance conservation and development needs) iswell established in US National Marine Sanctuaries(Gubbay 2005). In the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary (FKNMS), the stated objective ofzoning is to focus protection on critical portions ofsensitive habitats while not restricting activitiesmore than necessary. Only a small part of the sanc-tuary is zoned; in the remaining area the focus ofmanagement is on improving water quality and pro-viding habitat protection. Three types of zones areidentified in the sanctuary: Ecological Reserves,Sanctuary Preservation Areas, and Special UseAreas. These are strictly protected and are definedto protect critical habitat, preserve species diversi-ty, and relieve pressure from some coral reef areas.

The approach taken in the FKNMS also illustrateshow zoning arrangements that are already present (inthis case, the existing management areas such as StateParks and Aquatic Reserves and the wildlife manage-ment areas that are the responsibility of the US Fishand Wildlife Service) can be incorporated into thenational MPA zoning scheme. Findings from theMarine Zone Monitoring Program indicate some suc-cess as a result of zoning, particularly with regard toshifting food webs within the fully protected marinezones toward a more natural un-fished state (Belfioreand others 2001). The number and size of spiny lob-ster and certain reef fish have increased within thefully protected marine zones. Benthic species such ascorals and sponges have not shown significantchanges, possibly because the zoning plan was imple-mented relatively recently. No negative socioeconom-ic impacts of marine zoning were determined.

Another example is found in South Africa, wherearound 15 percent of the 3,000-kilometer coastline iscovered by protected areas. Both Coastal and MarineProtected Areas are managed through the establish-

ment of “controlled zones” allowing for limited fish-ing, “restricted zones” allowing for controlledtourism development while protecting fish popula-tions, and “sanctuary zones” in which complete pro-tection is applied. The Cape Peninsula MPA wasdeclared in 2004, so it is too early to judge the effectsof the zoning scheme. But this approach was modeledon the success of the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park,where prohibitions on mining were introduced in1996 and an integrated development and land useplanning strategy was developed for the entire region.

The best known example of a multiuse MPA is prob-ably the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP),with annual operating costs of $28 million. Zoningschemes were developed over a number of years tocover the entire area of the park. The multiple useszoning approach has provided high levels of protec-tion for specific areas while allowing reasonableactivities to occur in other zones and separating outconflicting uses. Zoning has been regarded as thecornerstone of the planning and management. Thestrategy is based on the premise that a broad-areaintegrated network of zones within a large MPA ismore effective than a series of small isolated highlyprotected areas within a broader unmanaged area(Belfiore and others 2004). The zoning provisionsfor the GBRMP were developed in partnership withstakeholders and tested through public consulta-tion, although final decisions rested with the MarinePark Authority.

Inclusion of the public in development of multiuseMPAs reflects efforts over the last two decades tocombine development and environmental concerns.Integrated conservation and development projects(ICDPs) attempt to ensure conservation of biologicaldiversity by harmonizing the management of pro-tected areas with the social and economic needs oflocal people. ICDP frameworks, which in somecases include land and sea corridor components,have been useful in developing conservation part-nerships and cooperative management with indige-nous peoples (Poole 1989).

ICDP initiatives and policies emphasize cultural fac-tors. Yet they should not be seen as efforts simply to


19

345109Sec1_19 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 19

transfer more management authority or power to localpeople. Rather, they seek to fashion a mixed system ofshared benefits and responsibilities, a balancebetween local and regional concerns and national per-spectives (Wells and others 1992:xi). ICDPs and thephilosophy behind them represented an evolution inconservation thinking toward a greater emphasis onthe broader societal role of protected areas and theirpotential contributions to sustainable development.

Yet no matter how well interdependencies of localpopulations and resources are taken into account ina multiuse zoning scheme for MPAs, if the areas areequipped to operate on just small scales or as isolat-ed systems they can play only a modest role in mit-igating forces causing environmental degradationthat originate in the world economic system, far out-side protected area boundaries or buffer zones.

3.4.Networking Protected AreasGiven the small average size of MPAs and the some-time vast home ranges of species that need protec-tion, there is growing recognition of the importanceof networking to protect critical stages in the lifecycle of species that move from one habitat to anoth-er as they mature or that migrate over long distancesas adults. Similarly, there is a recognized need toachieve biodiversity conservation at ecologicallyrelevant scales to ensure that ecosystem processesare preserved. This has given rise to the notion ofnetworking of Marine Protected Areas—the equiva-lent of creating vegetation corridors on land.Strategically placed MPAs can create steppingstones of genetic and ecological connectivity, or rep-resentative ecosystems within the larger ecoregion,to ensure that the full range of biogeography, habi-tats, biological communities, and genetic diversityis represented within the collection of MPAs.

A study published recently in Science (Mora and oth-ers 2006) suggests that the current global network ofMarine Protected Areas is inadequately configuredand managed to provide effective protection to coral

reefs globally. Despite some 18 percent of theworld’s coral reefs being included within the currentglobal network, less than 2 percent are consideredadequately protected due to weak management andenforcement (poaching), to externalities that putcoral reef resources within MPAs at risk, and to theisolation of MPAs, which does not allow for larvalconnectivity between protected sites. To provide ade-quate protection to 30 percent of the world’s coralreefs (the minimum for sustainability of theseecosystems), the authors suggest expanding the net-work by 2,559 small no-take MPAs of some 10square kilometers, dispersed within 15 kilometers ofone another in areas where there is currently no cov-erage. This would require effectively protecting anadditional 5 percent (25,590 square kilometers) ofcoral reef habitat, compared with the 18 percent nowin gazetted MPAs but inadequately protected.

3.5.Higher-Order, Cross-SectoralManagement Tools: IntegratedCoastal ManagementThe Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects ofMarine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) definesintegrated coastal management (ICM) as “a broad anddynamic process that requires the active and sustainedinvolvement of the interested public and many stake-holders with interests in how coastal resources are allo-cated and conflicts are mediated. The ICM processprovides a means by which concerns at local, regionaland national levels are discussed and future directionsare negotiated” (GESAMP 1996:66).

ICM should encompass coastal and upland areas,the uses of which can affect coastal waters and theirresources. The ICM process tries to break down thebarriers erected by traditional sectoral managementof natural resources as well as the divide that existsamong local government, national agencies, com-munity groups, and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) (Christie and White 1997; Cicin-Sain andKnecht 1998; Courtney and White 2000; Kay and


20

345109Sec1 10/5/06 9:16 PM Page 20

Alder 2005). ICM strives to improve and integratethe administrative, policy, and regulatory processesthat affect coastal management (see Figure 3–1).

The GESAMP definition of ICM most closely resem-bles the goals and practice of ICM in the Philippinesand many tropical developing countries. Dependingon community needs and management concernswithin the context of a larger ICM plan, MPAs can bedesigned and managed to accommodate variousobjectives and activities. Pursuing one benefit (suchas sustaining biodiversity or fisheries production)therefore does not necessarily exclude pursuit of oth-ers such as revenue generation or tourism and thusallows various management options. A typical ICMprogram will have a variety of interventions toaddress the needs of coastal and fisheries resourcesmanagement (DENR and others 2001).

3.6.Governance Frameworks forCMM SystemsMatters of governance are a key topic of this study.The global literature on MPAs, fisheries, and coastalmanagement clearly indicates that neither conser-vation nor sustainable use objectives can be

achieved without effective area and resource usegovernance arrangements. The country surveys inthis project underscore the need to implement new,far more unified and enforceable regulatory frame-works for coastal development, including better spa-tial planning and zoning to rationalize use and toprotect habitats and resources that underpin essen-tial ecosystem goods and services.

Governance may be conceived of as “the formal andinformal arrangements, institutions, and moreswhich determine how resources or an environmentare utilized; how problems and opportunities areevaluated and analyzed, what behavior is deemedacceptable or forbidden, and what rules and sanc-tions are applied to affect the pattern of resourceand environmental use” (Juda 1999). MPA gover-nance is that de facto or de jure regulatory frame-work by which MPA objectives are achieved, takinginto account ecological, socioeconomic, and cultur-al concerns of beneficiaries. Good governance isbased on robust science, cost-effective use ofresources, transparent decision making, measurableoutcomes, and equitable distribution of benefits.

The case study on MPAs in the Philippines (seeChapter 4) is a particularly instructive account ofwhy and how restoring fisheries productivity andbiodiversity conservation is being generated by


21

Watershed planning

Environmental impact assessment

Coordinating mechanisms

Participatory approaches

Conflict resolution

Regulatory instrumentsEconomic instruments

Monitoring and evaluation

Funding coordination

Representative systemof MPAs

ICM strategies and plans

FIGURE 3.1

Tools to Manage MPAs in the Context of ICM Adapted from Belfiore et al 2004

Managing MPAswithin ICM

345109Sec1_21 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 21

local demand for governance reform, facilitated byincreasingly integrated national MPA planning inthe context of wider, more participatory coastal man-agement and co-management.

3.7.Legal AspectsOne of the most problematic areas for countriesexploring strategies to expand their CMM systemshas to do with multiple, nonintegrated, yet inter-secting legal frameworks. (See Volume 3 of thisreport and Young 2006.) There are several differentapproaches, ranging from new and specific-purposelegislation to continued use of existing legislationwith relatively minor modifications. In many casesMPAs have been established under fisheries legis-lation, while in others they come up under forestrylegislation. The right approach requires a detailedunderstanding of each country's culture, tradition,and legal processes. Before legislation is proposed,MPA planners need to decide whether to advocatea large number of small MPAs or a few large multi-use ones. A second fundamental question iswhether the national law should provide a detailedframework of administrative aspects or only thebroad basis for a management regime.

What works for one nation or group of nations canrarely be transposed unmodified to another ecolog-ical or socioeconomic environment. The definitionof size, boundaries, traditional rights, and userestriction is always important for the effectivenessof MPAs. Historically, Marine Protected Areashave been regulated under general conservationlaws that can be designated as traditional conser-vation laws. Other categories of MPA regulationsare the ad hoc legislation relating to the creationand operation of specific Marine Protected Areas,environmental management acts, and generic reg-ulations providing a framework for the designationof such areas with some degree of flexibility intothe management arrangements applicable to spe-cific MPAs.

3.8.Costs of Establishing MPAsA considerable volume of work has been done onthe question of sustainable financing of MPAs andthe innovative mechanisms being introduced toachieve this (IUCN/WCPA 2005; TNC 2002).While some researchers argue that MPAs are rela-tively inexpensive to establish and maintain as toolsfor fisheries management, especially relative toother means of controlling fishing and the expectedbenefits, there is substantial debate as to whetherthe true costs of MPAs have been internalized andwhether MPAs are really effective, particularly indeveloping countries.

Experience indicates that while MPAs can enhancefisheries productivity, they are not a substitute forgood fisheries management, particularly in cases ofsevere overcapacity, which prevails in most fish-eries today (Sanchirico 2000). Rigorous cost/benefitanalysis across a statistically valid sample of simi-lar kinds of MPAs (such as small no-take reservesversus Multiple-use areas or managed use zones)under similar conditions (within an existing fish-eries management framework, for instance, or inotherwise open access conditions) and similar coststructures (industrial versus developing country)remains to be done.

The value of coral reefs has been estimated for var-ious regions based on the value of goods and servic-es they provide (Cesar and others 2003). Thesevalues, ranging from $142,000 per square kilometerin Southeast Asia to $31,000 in the Pacific and$97,500 in the Caribbean, suggest the kinds ofreturns that could accrue to countries with well-managed coral reefs. Whether MPAs, as currentlyconfigured, are the most effective tools to achievethese results is debatable.

MPA operating costs relative to income generatedhas, however, been analyzed. A study to estimate theworldwide cost of protecting the world’s oceans inresponse to targets set by various international fora,including the World Summit on Sustainable


22

345109Sec1_22 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 22

Development and the Fifth World Parks Congress(Balmford and others 2004), found that for the 83“representative” MPAs examined, recurrent costsranged from zero to $27 million per square kilome-ter, with a median operating cost of $775 per squarekilometer. On average, annual income met less thanhalf the annual operating costs. Smaller MPAs werefound to be more expensive to operate than largerones, given economies of scale, and those closer tothe coast and human habitation were more costlythan remoter reserves. The authors went on to modelthe cost of scaling up MPAs at different scales ofcoverage for the world’s oceans. These results arepresented in Table 3–1, along with figures for oper-ating costs of already established MPAs.

Included in this study was Tubbataha National Parkin the Philippines—a large no-take marine reserveof 332 square kilometers that is a dive tourism des-tination and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. SianKa’an Biosphere Reserve, at 5,260 square kilome-ters, is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site andspans 120 kilometers, or roughly one-third thelength of the Mexican Caribbean coast. Tourism isthe major economic activity in the reserve, whichincluded resident indigenous populations of Mayaand allows sustainable development in the bufferzones. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park wasrecently rezoned to include 30 percent of its area asno-take fishery reserve. The cost of this rezoningwas estimated at $40 million in compensation tocommercial fishing interests; however, gross bene-fits from tourism are over $1 billion annually.

As indicated in Table 3–1, the costs of scaling upare substantial. Costs rise in direct proportion tocoverage and would require an increase in currentarea and marine conservation expenditures of abouttwo orders of magnitude (Balmford and others2004). Clearly, any such investment would need tobe largely financed from international sources in theindustrial world. Such financing introduces aninherent dependency that can destabilize manage-ment in the long term (Christie 2005).

While insufficient funding is commonly identified asa limiting factor in MPA implementation, poorly

managed large sums that overwhelm institutionalcapacity is common in many developing countries(Olsen and Christie 2000). It is likely that consistentmodest funding is most constructive (Milne andChristie 2005). Ideally, such financing should beinternally generated from MPA revenue streams.Similar findings were echoed in the results of a pre-liminary survey on factors associated with the suc-cess (in the minds of stakeholders) of locallymanaged marine areas (LMMAs) in the Pacific andIndo-Pacific. Large infusions of external resourceswere found to be inversely correlated with success,presumably due to the loss of decision-makingauthority with the introduction of experts and top-down management that comes with external funding.

3.9.Stakeholder ParticipationRecent experience has shown that a MarineProtected Area is likely to be successful only if localpeople are directly involved in its selection, estab-lishment, and management. This strategic principle

TABLE 3.1

Cost of Financing Large-Scale MPAs and Networks


23

MPA Cost of OperatingIntervention Establishment Costs /Year

Tubbataha $5 million $0.4 millionNational Parka

GBRMP 30% $28 millionno-take5% ocean $340 millioncoverageb

20% ocean $9.5–10 billioncoveragec

30% ocean $12–14 billioncoveragec

a. Arquiza and White 2000.b. Conservation International 2003. These conservative estimates donot include the cost of enforcement.c. Balmford and others 2004.

345109Sec1_23 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 23

has only recently been internalized by the conserva-tion community, which, along with governments, hashistorically tended to follow a top-down approach tothe establishment of MPAs.

Samoa is one example of many exceptions to thatpattern, however, in the Pacific. A Fisheries Actthere allows for the recognition of community by-laws provided they are compatible with nationallegislation. Once the community leaders choose toestablish an MPA, a meeting is held with nationalfisheries officers to decide whether local manage-ment rules are compatible with the national act.When this is established, the local rules are enact-ed as by-laws and disseminated to adjacent villagesthrough community meetings. Once the networkhas been set up, the small MPAs can be expandedinto large, multiple-use MPAs, with specific provi-sions that benefit local communities.

3.10.Poverty ConsiderationsEstimates of the number of people dependent oncoral reefs vary widely, according to the definition of“reef dependency.” Some sources put the figure atover 1 billion (ICRI 2002; ICRAN 2002), but evenif that is too high it is clear that coral reefs provideincome, livelihoods, nutrition, and coastal protec-tion to tens if not hundreds of millions of people.Many of these individuals, including the most mar-ginalized of society—fisherfolk—are poor.


24BOX 3.3

MACEMP in Tanzania

The Tanzania Marine and CoastalEnvironment Management Project aims tostrengthen the sustainable management anduse of the Tanzania’s EEZ, territorial seas,and coastal resources, leading to enhancedrevenue collection, reduced threats to theenvironment, better livelihoods for participat-ing coastal communities living in the coastaldistricts, and improved institutional arrange-ments. Blueprint 2050 lays out the vision forprotecting and managing 100 percent of theseas and coastline of Tanzania and Zanzibar,to be implemented with support fromMACEMP. It draws on the best available sci-ence (ecological, cultural, and social), withinputs from a range of stakeholders represent-ing the 8 million people who inhabit thecoastal districts. Sustainable financing andcreation of alternative income-generatingactivities are important elements of this strat-egy. Stakeholder involvement in decisionmaking is another major strategy and keycross-cutting theme.

The project has three main components. First,it aims to establish and implement a commongovernance regime for the EEZ that con-tributes to the long-term sustainable use andmanagement of EEZ resources based on anintegrated coastal management approach.Second, it aims to establish and support acomprehensive system of managed marineareas (networks) in the territorial seas, build-ing on ICM strategies that empower and ben-efit coastal communities. The thirdcomponent empowers coastal communities togain access to opportunities so that they canrequest, implement, and monitor subprojectsthat contribute to improved livelihoods andsustainable marine ecosystem management.A Marine Legacy Fund is being established toensure financial sustainability.

Fishermen repairing boat in Stonetown, Zanzibar –photo by Alex Grant

345109Sec1_24 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 24

The links between poverty and reefs have beenexplored in a major study by the UK Department forInternational Development (DFID 2003), in whichcoastal populations in East Africa and South Asiawere identified as being most at risk in terms oftheir reliance on healthy reefs for livelihoods(300,000 in East Africa and 20 million in SouthAsia) and nutrition. Such dependence on these frag-ile ecosystems puts a high premium on their healthand productivity for surrounding populations.

In light of this, what is likely to be the relationshipbetween MPAs and poverty? Are MPAs, particularlythose involving restricted access, more likely to be aburden or a source of sustained benefits to poor,dependent fishing communities? Clearly, the answerlies in how MPAs are conceived and designed andhow the benefits are distributed relative to the coststo the communities involved. Failure to deliver prom-ised benefits from marine protection could result inincreased degradation from more-intensive use ofmarine resources, reduced productivity of goods andservices, and greater poverty. This understandinghas influenced the way NGOs and governments arenow approaching the establishment of MPAs.

In Tanzania, where rapidly growing coastal popula-tions are among the poorest in the country, marineconservation now includes programs to addresspoverty alleviation. This is in line with IUCN’s state-ment that “It is unacceptable to carry out conserva-tion activities in areas of high or endemic povertywhile turning a blind eye to the needs of the poor peo-ple who live there and depend on the same biologicalresources that are often those that we wish to con-serve” (IUCN 2003). The government of Tanzania,with financing from the World Bank and the GlobalEnvironment Facility, has embarked on an ambitiousproject to embed marine conservation in the coun-try’s poverty alleviation agenda through the estab-lishment of MPA networks within an integratedcoastal management framework. Box 3–3 describesthe Marine and Coastal Environmental ManagementProject (MACEMP), a six-year, $65-million project topromote economic development of Tanzania’s coastalareas by integrating local economic development withsustainable natural resources management.

3.11.Importance of Local SeaTenure Systems in MarineManagementA relatively broad range of cultural protection toolsand frameworks is found in Category IV of the CMMtypology. This is one of the least well known areas inMPA analysis and comparative studies (Cordell2002). Communities throughout the world have pro-tected sacred sites, which may be natural featuressuch as a rock or mountain, particular groves oftrees, springs, or lakes. The fact that these siteshave high spiritual value means that they are oftenfar better protected by local communities than offi-cially protected state-designated areas. The FifthWorld Parks Congress supported the idea that offi-cial protected areas should be more accommodatingof sacred sites, although in practice many of theseare likely to remain outside protected areas. In pro-posals to scale up CMM or create more MPAs, muchcare should be taken not to overlook sacred seaspace and culture sites as the foundation for bring-ing cultural resource management to biologicalscales. (Many areas scattered throughout Oceaniaprovide cultural conditions conducive to scaling upMPAs—for example, in the Torres Strait.)

Few conservation organizations and planners havehad the expertise, motivation, or resources toaddress pivotal issues of property rights in relationto marine conservation systematically, even thoughit is widely accepted that the pervasive problem of“externalities” surrounding property rights issuesare a fundamental cause of mismanagement andoverexploitation of marine resources (Cordell 1989,2001; Hanna and Munasinghe 1995; Hooten andHatziolos 1995).

It is important to note that communities with com-munal customary marine tenure (CMT) have well-defined property rights (sometimes these do havelegal status, as in the “dual legal” systems and con-stitutions of nations in Melanesia). But in manycases (until the 1993 adoption of the Native Title


25

345109Sec1_25 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 25

Act in Australia, for example), CMT has beenmasked or suppressed by post-colonial governmentdesignations of national waters as open access. Ascustomary rights governing property relations innon-western settings, however, CMT and other tradi-tional sea tenure systems develop for many differentreasons and have complex connotations—cultural,historical, economic, and religious—that may noteasily be transcribed and translated into westernstatutory legal frameworks. CMT institutions aredistinct from western property laws regarding pri-vate, public, or state ownership and from open-access commons or “common pool” resources.

3.12.Locally Managed MarineArea InitiativesCMM concepts and customary resource and areamanagement practices known as locally managedmarine areas have developed in many small-scalefishing societies and are well documented (seeCordell 1983). It is worth briefly mentioning twokey LMMA-oriented projects and associatedresearch carried out in the South Pacific that areexploring pathways to network community-basedMPAs across a wide region. In some cases long-existing LMMAs have considerable potential tobecome more fully inscribed in contemporary man-agement frameworks for marine and coastal protect-ed areas and coral reef fisheries. This work has acentral focus in the Western Pacific’s “coral trian-gle” and associated megadiversity countries.

The LMMA initiatives in question have largely beeninitiated and until recently led by non-local conser-vation NGOs with a special interest in catalyzingcommunity-based MPAs (such as the CommunityConservation Network in Hawaii). The lead conser-vation groups have received major start-up andongoing funding from U.S. foundations. In this case,LMMA work has focused not on fostering a manage-ment network to bridge scales in a biological sense,but on creating a collective “learning network”

drawing MPA specialists and community leaderstogether to conduct research and pool experience.

The hypothesis-testing comparative “learningportfolio” format for one major study (Fish for theFuture?), spanning a wide range of Pacific Islandand Southeast Asian societies and coastal set-tings, adopts an intellectually rigorous posture toask whether locally managed marine areas in part-nerships with western conservation groups reallydo work for conservation (Parks and Salafsky2001). This initiative, originally sponsored by theWorld Resources Institute’s Global MarineStrategy Program, has much to recommend it as analternative to standard “results-only” conserva-tion frameworks.

While useful, the way this LMMA program was con-ceived misses a fundamental point about LMMAs inthe South Pacific, which tend to be built on princi-ples of customary marine tenure. Highly diversetenure systems, related values, and knowledgeunderpinning LMMAs in the South Pacific evolve inspecific sociocultural contexts; taking them out ofcontext is extremely problematic. Certainly nonewere ever intended to preserve anything approach-ing “biodiversity” or “hotspots” as conceived byconservation science. Conservation benefits of CMTmay well exist, but if so this cannot be viewed as anintentional resource management outcome. Shouldindigenous CMT systems (not designed for conser-vation in the first place but for cultural, ritual, andsocial purposes) be required to pass a western sci-ence conservation test to prove their validity or util-ity? A similar problem arises in asking (or insisting)that science-based MPAs (Category I tools in thetypology) contribute to poverty reduction when theywere never designed to do this in the first place.

An earlier World Bank project, which had similargoals but was guided by a very different approach,led to Voices from the Village: A Comparative Studyof Coastal Resource Management in the PacificIslands (World Bank 2000). This project involvedan extensive survey of 31 coastal communities infive Pacific Island countries—Fiji, Palau, Samoa,Solomon Islands, and Tonga—to improve under-


26

345109Sec1_26 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 26

standing among the region’s coastal fisheries andprotected area managers of the factors that con-tribute to successful resource management.Significantly, this study relied primarily on commu-nity perceptions of trends in the condition of coastalresources and a whole array of internal and externalfactors affecting resource management at the villagelevel, where decisions are constantly made aboutresource use and availability. The cross-section ofsites surveyed included open-access as well ashighly restricted access sites, with sea tenure-basedexclusivity of access. Local rules governingresource rights were found to vary widely along acontinuum from open-access to full closure.

The study reported that few national regulationswere seen to be relevant at the local level (not sur-prisingly). Among other instructive outcomes of thisresearch, though, were a number of findings thatunderscored the ongoing significance and advan-tages of using local CMT practices such as tradition-al closure systems for spawning grounds, penalties

for poaching, and bans on night diving in contempo-rary frameworks for establishing and managing con-servation areas. Note that this is not a prescriptionfor locking people into “tradition,” where everyoneshould revert to old systems of community manage-ment. Rather, new mechanisms are needed toenable villages and the keepers of tradition to mean-ingfully represent, reinvent, and use their culturalrights and interests in new resource managementand protected area structures.

At the same time, Voices from the Village pointed outpotential limitations of community-based manage-ment, in that CMT systems by themselves cannot becounted on to prevent overexploitation of resources(World Bank 2000). Neither strictly centralized norpurely community-based protected area systems arelikely to be able to cope with the future challengesof tropical coastal resource management and devel-opment threats to local fisheries, which are regionaland global in nature.


27

References

Agardy T.S. 2005. Global marine conservation policy versus site level implementation: the mismatch of scale and itsimplications. Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS). pp. 242–248. Politics and Socio-economics of Ecosystem-based Management of Marine Resources. H. Brownman, I. Konstantinos, and I. Stergiou, Idea and Coordination. Vol.300: 241–296.

———. 2006. Understanding Displacement. Literature Review and Discussion (draft). Prepared for the MLPA TaskForce. Sound Seas. Bethesda, Md.

Arquiza, Y.D., and A.T. White. 2000. Tales from Tubbataha. The Bookmark, Inc., and Sulu Fund for MarineConservation, Inc., Cebu City, Philippines.

Balmford. A., P. Gravenstock, N. Hockley, C. McClean, and C. Roberts. 2004. The worldwide cost of marine protect-ed areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101(26): 9694–97.

Belfiore, S., B. Cicin-Sain, and C. Ehler (eds.). 2004. Incorporating Marine Protected Areas into Integrated Coastaland Ocean Management: Principles and Guidelines. IUCN–World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland.

345109Sec1_27 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 27

Cesar, H., L. Burke, and L. Pet-Soede. 2003. The Economics of Costal Reef Degradation. Cesar EnvironmentalEconomics Consulting. Arnhem, Netherlands.

Christie, P. 2005. Is integrated coastal management sustainable? Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 208–32.

Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White, R. Stoffle, D.L. Fluharty, L. Talaue-McManus, R.Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D.O. Suman, B.G. Blount, D. Huppert, R.L. Villahermosa Eisma, E. Oracion, K. Lowry,R.B. Pollnac. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine pro-tected areas. Fisheries 28(12):22-26.

Christie, P., and A.T. White. 1997. Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: from cen-tral to community orientation. Coastal Management 25:155–81.

Christy, F.T., Jr. 1982. Territorial Use Rights in Marine Fisheries: Definitions and Conditions. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper No. 227. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome.

CI (Conservation International). 2003. Defying Ocean’s End. Washington, DC.

Cicin-Sain, B., and R. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management, Concept and Practices. Island Press.Washington, DC.

Ciracy-Wantrup, S., and R. Bishop. 1975. Common property as a concept in natural resources policy. NaturalResources Journal 15(4): 713–27.

Cordell, J. 1983. Locally Managed Sea Territories. In Proceedings, FAO Roundtable on Coastal and Lagoon FisheriesManagement, J. Kapetsky (ed.), Studies and Reviews, 403–29, FAO Fisheries, Rome.

———. (ed.) 1989. A Sea of Small Boats. Cultural Survival Report 26. Cultural Survival. Cambridge, Mass.

———. 2001. Reconfiguring Marine Conservation to Connect Societies, Landscapes, and the Sea. Global MarineConservation Scoping Study and Needs Assessment. Consultancy Report. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.San Francisco, CA. October.

———. 2002. Remapping the Waters: The Significance of Sea Tenure-Based Protected Areas. Keynote Address. IIIConference on Property Rights, Economics and the Environment: Marine Resources. Centre d’Analyse Economiquede l’Universite d’ Aix-Marseille. In: Marine Resources, Property Rights, Economics and Environment. M. Falque, M.de Alessi, and H. Lamotte (eds.). Vol. 14, International Review of Comparative Public Policy. pp. 265–493. ElsevierScience. Amsterdam.

Courtney, C.A., and A.T. White. 2000. Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: testing new paradigms.Coastal Management 28: 39–53.

DENR, DA-BFAR, and DILG (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture—Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and Department of the Interior and Local Government). 2001.Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook Series: Coastal Law Enforcement. Coastal Resource Management Projectof DENR. Cebu City, Philippines.

DFID (Department for International Development). 2003. Poverty and Reefs. (Vols. 1 and 2). E. Whittingham, J.Cambell, and P. Townsley, eds. Exeter. UK.

GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. TheContributions of Science to Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 61.

Gubbay, S. 2005. Marine Protected Areas and Zoning in a System of Marine Spatial Planning. WWF-UK.

Hanna, S., and M. Munasinghe (eds.). 1995. Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context: Case Studies andApplications. The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank. Washington, DC.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 163: 1243–48.

Holt, S., and M. Segnestam. 1982. The Seas Must Live: Why Coastal and Marine Protected Areas Are Needed. Paperpresented at the Third World Congress on National Parks, Coastal and Marine Workshop. International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Bali, Indonesia.

Hooten, A., and M. Hatziolos (eds.). 1995. Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for Coral Reef Conservation:Proceedings of a Workshop. ESD Proceedings Series No.9. World Bank. Washington, DC.


28

345109Sec1_28 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 28


29

ICRAN (International Coral Reef Action Network). 2002. People and Reefs: A Partnership for Prosperity.

ICRI (International Coral Reef Initiative). 2002. The Cancun Declaration: Regional Workshop for the TropicalAmericas: Improving Reef Condition through Strategic Partnership. 12–14 June.

IUCN/WCPA (World Conservation Union/World Commission on Protected Areas). 2005. First International MarineProtected Area Congress, Geelong, Australia. Global Marine Programme. Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2003. Influence of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories on National,Regional and International Legal and Policy Frameworks. B.J. Dillon (ed.). Draft Working Paper. IUCNEnvironmental Law Center. Bonn, Germany.

Juda, L. 1999. Considerations in the development of a functional approach to the governance of large marine ecosys-tems. Ocean Development and International Law 30: 89–125.

Kapetsky, J. 1981. Some Considerations for the Management of Coastal Lagoon and Estuarine Fisheries. FAO TechnicalPaper No. 218. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome.

Kay, R., and J. Alder. 2005. Coastal Planning and Management. Spon Press. London, UK.

Kent, G. 1980. The 200 Mile Diversion. Environment and Policy Institute. East-West Center. Honolulu, HI

McNeely, J.A. 1993. Parks for Life. People and Protected Area Workshops, Fourth World Congress on National Parksand Protected Areas, 10–21 February 1992. Caracas, Venezuela.

Milne, N., and P. Christie. 2005. Financing integrated coastal management: experiences in Mabini and Tingloy,Batangas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management. 48(3–6): 427–49.

Mora, C., S. Andrèfouët, M. Costello, C. Kranenburg, A. Rollo, C. Veron, K. Gaston, and R. Myers. 2006. Coral reefsand the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312 (5781): 1750–51.

Olsen, S., and Christie, P. 2000. What are we learning from tropical coastal management experiences? CoastalManagement 28: 5–18.

Parks, J.E., and N. Salafsky (eds.). 2001. Fish for the Future? A Collaborative Test of Locally-Managed Marine Areasas a Biodiversity Conservation and Fisheries Management Tool in the Indo-Pacific Region: Report on the Initiationof a Learning Portfolio. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC.

Poole, P. 1989. Developing a Partnership of Indigenous Peoples, Conservationists, and Land Use Planners in LatinAmerica. Working Paper. Policy, Planning, Research, Environment. Latin American and Caribbean Technical Dept.World Bank. Washington, DC.

Prescott, J.R. 1978. Maritime boundaries. In Boundaries and Frontiers. Pp. 133–65. London: Croom-Helm.

Roberts, C.M., J.A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J.P. Hawkins, and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects of marine reserves on adjacentfisheries. Science. 294(5548): 1920–23.

Sanchirico, J.N. 2000. Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits.Discussion Paper 00-23. Resources For The Future, Washington, DC.

Sobel, J., and C. Dahlgren. 2004. Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Island Press. Washington, DC.

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2002. Transforming Coral Reef Conservation in the 21st Century: A Global InitiativeLed by Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund. Draft Proposal and CapacityBuilding Workshop. June. Honolulu.

Warner, W. 1982. Distant Water. Boston: Little Brown & Co.

Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with LocalCommunities. World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, and U.S. Agency for International Development. Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2000. Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the PacificIslands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series number 9. Washington DC.

Young, T.R. 2006. The Legal Framework for MPA and Successes and Failures in Their Incorporation into NationalLegislation (draft). Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome.

345109Sec1_29 10/5/06 7:40 PM Page 29

Part IICountry

StudiesThe three country case studies in Part II show why archipelagic nations(the Philippines) and developing countries with long coastlines (Braziland Chile) are particularly dependent on healthy marine ecosystemsfor food, livelihoods, and so on and why marine conservation and fish-eries management are becoming a top priority for these countries.

Moreover, though geopolitically far apart, these three key countriesare among the world’s richest reservoirs of maritime cultural diversi-ty, linked to coastal habitats that are highly productive and diversebiologically. Similar culture change and economic developmentprocesses, threats to coastal environments, poverty alleviation prob-lems in fishing communities, and fisheries management challengesoffer prospects for sharing marine management experience andknowledge across tropical coastal countries around the world.

It is important to note that the country profiles and surveys in thisproject are intended to be indicative of basic challenges many coun-tries face. They are by no means exhaustive or definitive concerningthe full range of development issues on Marine Protected Areas.

345109Sec2_30 10/5/06 8:28 PM Page 30

This chapter raises a number of key chal-lenges and opportunities for Marine ProtectedAreas, many of which emerge from the Philippineexperience with MPAs and ocean governance. ThePhilippines has some of the longest-standing andmost well documented examples of MPAs designedto improve coral reef and artisanal fishery manage-ment. The country is notable for its highly decen-tralized ocean governance and its manycommunity-based MPAs. There are critical lessonsto glean regarding the importance of legal consisten-cy, institutional upward and downward accountabil-ity, human and institutional capacity development,the importance of participatory and equitable plan-ning processes, and the challenges of consistent ruleenforcement. The underlying open-access manage-ment regime and the long colonial history, which hasbred long-standing institutional dysfunction anddependency, provide a challenging context. On theother hand, Filipino MPA practitioners are amongthe most competent in the world, and in many caseslocal fishing communities are embracing MPAs.

The open-access regime was most obviously mani-fest in ever-increasing fishing effort, and it must beended if MPAs are to attain important ecological andsocial goals in the long term. Integrated coastal


The Philippines: Lessons for Marine ProtectedArea Governance andEffective Design

4

The Philippines has a long history of coastalresources management and Marine ProtectedArea (MPA) experience on which to draw.Support has largely come from the interna-tional community working with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) toconserve marine biodiversity in one of theworld’s major hotspots and assist thePhilippines in decentralization to manage itscoastal resources. As an archipelagic state,the Philippines is highly dependent oncoastal resources, with a strong tradition ofcommunity organization, which has led tothe evolution of a diverse array of MPAs andother coastal and marine management areas.The Philippines is well positioned to networkthese under a larger framework of integratedcoastal management (ICM), which it haspiloted at the provincial level in the Visayas.An Executive Order was recently signed bythe President officially designating ICM asthe national strategy to ensure the sustain-able development of the country’s coastal andmarine resources.

This chapter is an abstract of the case study prepared by Patrick Christie.The full case study appears in Volume 2.

345109Sec2_31 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 31

management, ecosystem-based management, andzonation schemes are in various states of develop-ment and are making important progress towardtransforming Philippine ocean governance to a moresustainable form. Progress is slow and not consis-tent, however. In this perpetually unstable context,more immediate needs intervene and leadership isdifficult to maintain. However, it is increasinglyapparent to a wide range of Filipinos that lax stew-ardship of the ocean—an important foundation ofthe Philippine economy and its most importantsource of protein—is a very risky strategy. As thecenter of marine biodiversity, degradation of thesemarine ecosystems is of global concern.

Despite considerable successes in MPA implemen-tation in some sites, the overall trends are notencouraging. Fisheries are collapsing as fishingeffort continues to spiral upward. Critical ecosys-tems are being severely altered, to the point whereit will take decades or centuries for them to recoverfrom the effects of removal, sedimentation, and—currently in the case of coral reefs—bleaching.Resource and habitat-dependent economies such asfisheries and tourism are being undermined, withtremendous opportunity costs. In short, thePhilippines represents the best and worst of marineresource management in need of renewed and ongo-ing attention. Without ongoing engagement by vari-ous international organizations with the Philippinegovernment, NGOs, resource users, and the busi-ness sector, there will be serious economic, social,and ecological consequences.

4.1.The Philippine ContextThe Philippines has a particularly wide range ofexperience with MPAs—both some of the world’sbest documented successes and examples of failedones (White et al 2006). Approximately one-sixth ofthe country (see Figure 4–l) is under some form ofcoastal management planning, which provides thebasis for MPA implementation.

There are, in effect, three forms of MPAs in thecountry. The most common term used for a MPA issanktuaryo, or sanctuary, which is strictly off limitsto extractive uses. These are typically small no-takeareas ranging from 2 to 200 hectares and surround-ed by “traditional fishing reserves,” or buffers,where certain extractive activities are either bannedor closely regulated. The use of explosives, poison,and fine mesh nets is usually specifically banned inthe traditional fishing reserves around sanctuaries,even though such activities are already illegal underPhilippine law. These MPAs are established prima-rily through a community-based or co-managementplanning process, the former suggesting a communi-ty-led process and the latter suggesting joint man-agement by communities and government entities.

If an area is considered of national significance eco-logically or as an exemplary MPA, it may bedeclared a “Protected Seascape,” the third form ofMarine Protected Area, under the NationalIntegrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). Suchareas have multiple zones and a multisectoralProtected Areas Management Board, but few ofthese are functional, and most NIPAS seascapes arenot effectively managed. In fact, declaration underNIPAS has eroded community commitment to someMPAs when the national government becomes inti-mately involved in MPA planning decisions former-ly made at the community or municipal governmentlevel. A limited number of marine national parksalso exist and prohibit extractive activities.Tubbataha National Marine Park (332 square kilo-meters), a World Heritage Site, is the most success-ful example. There are 13 MPAs proclaimed by thePhilippine national government, but there are some400 municipal-level sanctuaries. (See CoastalConservation and Education Foundation MPA data-base at www.coast.ph.)

The Philippines is at the global epicenter of marinebiodiversity (Carpenter and Springer 2005), withapproximately 950 species of fish and 561 species ofcorals, and is highly dependent on marine resourcesfor protein and employment (see Figure 4–2).Marine resources such as mangroves are already inan advanced state of degradation, with little protec-


32

345109Sec2_32 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 32


33

FIGURE 4.1

345109Sec2_33 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 33

1,800

1,400

1,000

600

200

FIGURE 4.2

Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Philippines

Average Annual Capture of Marine Fish, Philippinesin thousands of metric tons

Total Aquaculture Production, Philippines, 1984-2000in thousands of metric tons

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

1970

1984 1989 1994 1999

1980 1990 2000

Freshwater

Aquatic Plants

Marine Fish

Diadromous Fish

Crustaceans


34

Asia (excl.Coastal Statistics, 2000 Philippines Middle East) World

Length of coastline {a} (km) 33,900 288,459 1,634,701Percent of population within 100 km of the coast 100% X 39%Area of continental shelf (km2) {b} 244,493 5,514,288 24,285,959Territorial sea (up to 12 nautical miles) (km2) 679,774 5,730,868 18,816,919Claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (km2) 293,808 11,844,193 102,108,403

Coastal Biodiversity and Protected Areas Data, 1990sArea of Mangrove Forests (km2) 23 40,330 169,452Percent of Mangrove forests protected 0% 27% 13%Number of Mangrove Species 30 51 70Number of Seagrass Species 19 27 58Number of Scleractinia Coral Genera {c} 74 79 XInternational Legal Net Trade in Live Coral, 1997 -3,785 -773,430 X

(number of pieces) {d}Number of Marine or Littoral Protected Areas, 1999 159 831 3,636Wetlands of International Importance, Extent (km2), 2000 684 31,212 730,116

Fisheries ProductionAverage Annual Capture (excludes aquaculture) in metric tons:Marine Fish, 2000 1,742,299 36,516,371 84,411,066Mulluscs and Crustaceans, 1997 132,673 7,959,125 12,055,801Aquaculture Production (in metric tons):Total (includes freshwater), 2000 1,044,311 41,305,773 45,715,559Marine and Diadromous Fish, 1997 162,418 1,325,644 2,623,888Mulluscs and Crustaceans, 1997 70,836 8,677,590 9,889,688Aquatic Plants, 1997 627,105 7,123,694 7,241,754

Fish Consumption and Trade, 2000Per Capita Food Supply from Fish and Fishery Products (kg/person) 30 18 16

Source: World Resources Institute (http://earthtrends.wri.org)

345109Sec2_34 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 34

tion in place. From an estimated 450,000 hectares ofmangroves in 1918, fewer than 140,000 hectaresremain, of which 95 percent is secondary growth(White and de Leon 2004). Coral reefs and associat-ed fisheries are also in a highly threatened status,but the country-wide rate of decline is unknown(Alino and others 2004). Nationwide surveys basedon over 700 transects sampled in 14 provinces fromthe 1970s to the 1990s observed that 4–5 percent ofthe reefs were in excellent condition, 25–27 percentwere good, 39–42 percent fair, and 27–31 percentpoor (World Bank, in press).

There are approximately 1 million fishers in thecountry, of whom about 70 percent are artisanalfishers. In 1991, the Philippines was rankedeleventh globally in terms of overall fisheries pro-duction. The fisheries yield is currently approxi-mately 2 million tons per year, with about 33percent of this total coming from artisanal fishersusing boats smaller than 3 gross tons. Beginning inthe early 1990s, yields from artisanal fishing beganto decline despite ever-increasing fishing effort,with greater amounts of fish coming from the large-scale commercial sector. Aquaculture production,especially milkfish (Chanos chanos) and seaweed,has grown rapidly in the last decade. About 60 per-cent of aquaculture production is seaweed forindustrial purposes. The volatility of the seaweedtrade and the ecological impacts of large-scaleaquaculture (with eutrophication and overharvest-ing of feed fish) are the costs associated with grow-ing reliance on this form of fishing. Distribution offish-based protein is also changing, with proteinintake declining among poor Filipinos.

The impetus to change fisheries management in thePhilippines is strong. Rent dissipation from over-fishing is approximately $130 million for demersal(bottom-associated) fisheries and $290 million forsmall pelagic (offshore) fisheries. Many Philippinemarine fisheries are best described as in a state ofadvanced degradation (DA-BFAR 2004; Green andothers 2003, 2004; Pauly 2000). The biomass offish stocks in several important fishery bays in thePhilippines is less than 10 percent of what it was in1950. Fisheries catch-per-unit-effort is declining in

most places (Barut and others 2004). Maximum sus-tainable yields of marine small pelagic and demer-sal fisheries were exceeded in the late 1970s.

4.2.Fisheries Management in the PhilippinesThe country’s marine areas are under an open-access regime, resulting in ever-increasing fishingeffort every year. Artisanal fishers are free to fishanywhere they have access to (except no-take areas)and likely are focusing their fishing effort at theedges of MPAs. While proximal causes are readilyidentified for declining marine resources, theunderlying causes are diffuse and chronic, limitingmanagement options available to policy makers.Poverty, now directly affecting about 40 percent ofFilipinos, is worsening. The rising national Giniindex for the Philippines—now at 47 out of 100 andamong the highest in the world—indicates thatwealth is becoming increasingly concentrated infewer hands (CIA 2006). Natural resources areextracted at ever-increasing rates as the Philippinepopulation grows (approximately 89.5 million peo-ple increasing at 1.8 percent annually in a countryabout the size of Arizona) and as pressures mount toexport commodities to service external debt ($67.6billion, which is four times the annual nationalbudget expenditure) (CIA 2006).

The current unwillingness (and inability) of nation-al leaders to close the open-access managementregime will eventually undermine the current func-tional MPAs. While they are an important manage-ment tool, MPAs are not a substitute for basicfisheries and integrated coastal management.Fishing effort or yield is not effectively managed inthe Philippines. Artisanal fishers are not licensedand regulated beyond gear-type restrictions (toavoid gears that affect habitats negatively and catchjuveniles). In the commercial fishing sector (greaterthan 3 gross tons), boats are licensed but fishingeffort is not restricted. Nowhere in the Philippinesare total allowable catches or minimum/maximum


35

345109Sec2_35 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 35

size limits established for artisanal fisheries. Theminimum legal gill net size of 3 centimeters catch-es most juveniles and is frequently ignored by arti-sanal fishers. Similarly, the movement of artisanalfishers from one area to another is not regulated aslong as legal fishing methods are used.

Three key Philippine laws—the 1991 LocalGovernment Code, the 1997 Agriculture andFisheries Modernization Act, and the 1998Fisheries Code—shape fisheries policy and juris-dictions for the Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources (BFAR, a national agency), theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR, a national agency), and municipal govern-ments (Cruz-Trinidad 1998; Eisma and others 2005;White and Vogt 2001). The Fisheries Code man-dates an updated national fisheries managementplan every five years; the most recent one was com-pleted in 2006.

Since the passage of the Local Government Code in1991, the management of coastal areas has beendecentralized to the municipal government level. Asperhaps the most decentralized marine governancesystem in the world, Philippine coastal municipalgovernments have jurisdiction over marine spaceand use out to 15 kilometers offshore. DENR retainscontrol over permitting of structures proposed inmarine and foreshore areas, although local govern-ments are responsible for ensuring that these per-mitting laws are enforced.

The BFAR, while technically mandated to manage allfisheries, has relinquished almost all managementwithin municipal waters to municipal and city gov-ernments. Commercial fishing vessels, defined asgreater than 3 gross tons, are supposed to fish outsidemunicipal waters (unless they have municipal gov-ernment approval to enter the 10–15 kilometer zone).Municipal governments therefore have de facto regu-latory control over artisanal fisheries, while theBFAR has regulatory control over commercial fish-eries where such fisheries are defined by vessel size.

The Local Government Code was a turning point inthe legal-institutional landscape and supported the

proliferation of community and municipal-levelmarine resource management projects. However,there is growing realization that overreliance on alimited suite of management tools, in this case com-munity-based MPAs, is problematic. Major fishstocks straddle the 15-kilometer municipal watersboundary (as migrating adults and over their lifes-pan). Furthermore, the municipal water boundary isperceived as arbitrary by many commercial fishingoperations that had historic access to areas nowlegally off limits. Many of these commercial fishingoperations continue to fish within municipal watersthroughout the country, and enforcement capacity isnot sufficient to restrain them. Increasingly, vio-lence is being used to silence activists working toenforce these boundaries.

4.3.Strategies to Integrate MPAsinto Larger-ScaleManagement SystemsMPAs can function as an important managementstrategy within a larger area-wide managementframework with broader goals, such as maintainingessential ecological processes and life-support sys-tems, preserving genetic diversity, ensuring sustain-able utilization of species and ecosystems,managing watersheds, and so on. The two mostinfluential management frameworks currently areintegrated coastal management and, most recently,ecosystem-based management (EBM).

ICM in tropical countries frequently focuses onreducing conflicts between stakeholders and pro-vides a process to integrate sectors, levels of govern-ment, and government and civil society. It maydepend on a variety of management tools andapproaches (see Figure 4–3). In practice, ICM in thePhilippines has relied heavily on MPAs as a pre-ferred management tool (White et al 2005).Depending on community needs and managementconcerns, MPAs can be designed and managed toaccommodate various objectives and activities.


36

345109Sec2_36 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 36

FIGURE 4.3

Municipal or City Management Area with Various ICM Interventions, including MPAs, in the Philippines

Pursuing one benefit (such as sustaining biodiversi-ty or fisheries production) therefore does not neces-sarily exclude pursuit of others such as revenuegeneration, tourism, or other social benefits, and itthus allows various management options. But thereare trade-offs to be considered, and not all benefitscan be simultaneously maximized.

As an example, the ICM program for Balayan Bayimplemented by the Batangas provincial govern-ment provides useful lessons in addressing thelong-term and short-term threats surrounding theconservation areas and sanctuaries found in thelocal government areas of jurisdiction within theprovince. Several towns in the area—Mabini andTingloy, in particular—host a high diversity ofcoral and fish species. But the threats to marinediversity include land use changes, off-site pollu-tion, incompatible land uses between towns, water-shed impacts on coral reefs, sedimentation,foreshore developments, oil spills, and destructivefishing. ICM provides for intermunicipal, intersec-

toral planning and for coordinated actions toaddress these threats. In acknowledgment of this,President Arroyo recently signed an ExecutiveOrder adopting ICM as the national strategy toensure the sustainable development of the coun-try’s coastal and marine habitats and resources andproviding mechanisms for its implementation.

4.4.Combining ICM andEcosystem-based ManagementThrough the 1980s and 1990s, integrated coastalmanagement served as the overarching planningframework through which most MPAs were estab-lished. Recent calls from influential scientists anddonors for management systems that function atecosystem-scale levels has begun to establish a newframework, ecosystem-based management, as thebroad management framework. This new model is


37

Source: White and others 2006.

345109Sec2_37 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 37

similarly broad in its goals, but its main distinguish-ing characteristics are its emphasis on protecting orrestoring ecological processes and management atecologically relevant scales. The disciplinaryunderpinnings of this model are mainly ecologicalat present, representing a notable shift away fromthe sustainable development goals of ICM. Whileecological processes must be attended to, especial-ly since rapid global environmental change is underway, there is a risk of scaling up beyond institution-al capacity and incentive structures.

Currently, at least two major initiatives in thePhilippines explicitly use an ecosystem-based man-agement model and have advanced to implementa-tion stages—the Fisheries Improved for SustainableHarvest (FISH) Project and the Local Governancefor Coastal Management Project (LGCMP) of theCoastal Conservation and Education Foundation.(FISH is funded by the United States Agency for International Development for $8 million forseven years; see www.oneocean.org for more infor-mation. The LGCMP is funded by the David andLucile Packard Foundation; see www.coast.ph formore information.)

FISH and the LGCMP represent two complementa-ry project types common in the Philippines andother tropical countries: a large donor-led projectwith considerable international financial and tech-nical support and central government involvementand an NGO-led project with private foundationsupport that is committed to community-basedstrategies. The dynamic synergy between thesecomplementary EBM approaches is fundamental tofuture progress at multiple levels.

Based on project goals and previous experiencewith fisheries and coastal management, FISH willemphasize a suite of specific fisheries manage-ment activities:

• Implementing MPA networks designed to protectand rehabilitate coral reef and other coastal habi-tats, support fish stocks through spillover ofadults and larval dispersal, and provide socialand economic benefits

• Limiting access to fishery resources through reg-istration, licensing, zoning, gear restrictions, andother options as appropriate for a given area

• Strengthening coastal and fisheries lawenforcement.

The LGCMP is approaching EBM with a novel bot-tom-up approach that consists mainly of formingclusters of adjoining municipalities that shareresources and manage their community-basedMPAs as a network.

4.5.Governance MattersThe case study considered key governance issuesand how the Philippines experience may informMPA efforts, especially those that use community-based and co-management options for fisheries andintegrated coastal management. As a starting point,it is critical that MPA designers and donors recog-nize that context is important even as general prin-ciples emerge from around the world. EffectiveMPA governance is heavily influenced by the par-ticular sociopolitical, historical, and socioeconom-ic context of a site. The careless exportation ofglobalized management models will lead to majormanagement failures. While there are many exam-ples of successful MPAs in the Philippines, thelack of systematic and consistent intervention tostrengthen MPA governance is currently a majorshortcoming for Philippine MPAs, resulting in highfailure rates.

Certain management processes and conditions—including strong participation, local awareness,equitable distribution of benefits, and consistentimplementation of laws—are emerging as consis-tently important in various countries(McClanahan and others 2005; Pinto da Silva2004; Pollnac and others 2001; Pollnac andPomeroy 2005; World Bank 2000). These studiesclearly show that centralized managementregimes, reliant on strong formal institutions and


38

345109Sec2_38 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 38

FIGURE 4.4

Distribution of MPAs in the Central Visayas Region of the Philippines

A

large funding bases, are not generally effective inmuch of the developing world. In post-colonial,impoverished, institution-weak contexts, manage-ment effectiveness depends on community-basedprocesses. Attention should be focused, therefore,on how to scale up from successful community-based resource management while monitoringmanagement process effectiveness.

Figure 4–4 illustrates that MPAs have become acommon management strategy in some areas of thePhilippines (White and others 2002). MPAs have infact become a replacement for standard fisheriesmanagement for nearshore areas. This is a limitedand risky policy, especially considering the highrate of MPA failure that is partially linked to open-access fisheries regimes, under which fishing effortincreases continuously and free-ridership under-mines local commitment to MPAs. The diffusion ofbenefits from any MPA to non-local fishers andother constituencies, who do not bear the cost ofmanagement, rapidly erodes local community sup-port for an MPA.

4.6.Governance Challengesand OpportunitiesBroad constituency formation of MPAs is of centralimportance if these areas are to be effective.Currently, the global MPA planning effort is largelytaking place at high-level planning events (such asthe World Parks Congress or Convention onBiological Diversity meetings). Although suchmeetings are important to set scientific and donoragendas, there is increasingly a need to bring thediscussion to the public level and to local govern-ments and NGOs within a country.

The sources and forms of knowledge that supportpolicy decisions is also a matter of central impor-tance. Not only is there a critical need for discipli-nary parity and integration, but there is also a needto balance social and natural science knowledgewith local and traditional knowledge (Christie andothers 2003).


39

Source: SUAKCREM (http://www.su.edu.ph/suakcrem/main.htm)

Research and experience demonstrates that consis-tent international institutional commitment andleadership is key to maintaining progress with anyinternational environmental regime. Some mecha-nisms exist for communication through internationalconferences, but there is surprising little inter-insti-tutional coordination of the MPA planning andimplementation processes. The intense competitionfor grants and recognition, based on an individualincentive structure, fosters this behavior at all levels.

Use of the so-called two-track approach, whereattention is paid to both national and local policydevelopment, is important, particularly to developcomplementary rather than contradictory policies.MPAs and integrated coastal management can bederailed when national policies contradict andundermine local initiatives. In this regard, nationalpolicies in the Philippines, for example, must fullyrecognize the degree of overfishing that is occurringand the consequent need to limit entry through avariety of creative and effective mechanisms.

National regulations are in place to segregate arti-sanal and commercial fishing activities, but they arenot fully operational. Artisanal fishers are develop-ing increasingly efficient fishing methods to com-pete with commercial operations as stocks dwindleand as coral reef fisheries and habitats collapse.The use of spatial management tools such as zoningmay help address this conflict, but eventually diffi-cult decisions restricting access and timing of fish-ing must be made to avoid serial stock collapses.The formal delineation of municipal water bound-aries is a first step that requires the assistance of

central government agencies. But without the polit-ical will, institutional capacity, and financing tomake necessary changes in fishery policies, excessfishing effort will swamp the contributions fromMPAs toward stabilizing resource conditions.

MPA management requires both upward (from localto national agency) and downward (from national tolocal) coordination and accountability. Local gov-ernments and resource user communities areempowered and engaged in community-basedresource management, but they frequently lack thenecessary financial and technical assistance.National governments must remain engaged in sup-porting local initiatives and developing enablinglegislation. The decentralization of coastal manage-ment and fisheries management policy-makingauthority to local government agencies and resourceuser groups without commensurate fiscal decentral-ization and capacity development is likely to doomthe programs to failure (Lowry and others 2005).

Fair and effective law enforcement, knowledge ofthe law, and consistency between national and locallaws and institutional goals are important to MPAeffectiveness and sustainability. Influential entitiesthat pollute the environment, manage destructivefishing networks, ignore fisheries regulations, orusurp MPA control for personal gain quickly under-mine commitment to MPA management—an unfor-tunately common condition in many contexts.

A key lesson for the Philippine context is that com-munity involvement and influence over the plan-ning and implementation process is essential toMPA success and sustainability. This principle ofactive local participation is not unique to thePhilippines and is relevant in both developing andindustrial countries. Other predictors and indica-tors of success in MPA establishment and opera-tion include:

• Relatively small population size (of nearby communities)

• A perceived crisis in terms of reduced fish populations before the MPA project


40

Coastal Mayors’ Workshop at Pangasinan – photo by Ed Gomez, CRTR Program

345109Sec2_40 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 40

• Successful alternative-income activities to minimize trade-offs

• A relatively high level of community participationin decision making

• Educated stakeholders

• Influential champions promoting the cause ofMPAs or ICM

• Inputs from the municipal government

• Early and ongoing economic benefits to comple-ment ecological benefits

• Equitable distribution of benefits.

Improvements in the ecological conditions of a coralreef will influence resources and policy-maker will-ingness to support an MPA. But the equitable distri-bution of benefits is likely as important as overallimprovement in environmental conditions in influ-encing long-term resource user support. Successfulfisheries management in the Philippines will likelydepend on implementation schemes that build fromand strengthen fragile community-level and munic-ipal-government-level efforts with national-leveltechnical and legal support.

4.7.Governance Challenges toScaling UpInternational MPA and ocean policies and agree-ments directly influence Philippine MPA imple-mentation by affecting funding, managementsystem preferences, and the trade of marine prod-ucts. Efforts to create global MPA targets and fund-ing mechanisms will directly influence the futuredirection of MPA planning and implementation inthe Philippines. Such agendas and funding can fos-ter and support nascent efforts to scale up MPAefforts, but only if plans are developed in an equi-table and transparent manner and if they grow fromexisting efforts.

There is ongoing friction between practitioners andacademics who support distinct models of MPAs.The clearest schism exists between those who favora more environmental and ecologically dependentframework and those who favor a more sustainabledevelopment and social science-dependent frame-work. Some of the friction emerges from questions ofequity and resentment that northern-based institu-tions are making important decisions with globalimpact. While debate is expected, the current deci-sion-making process is not notably inclusive of mul-tiple perspectives, which in turn may affect thechance for consensus on MPAs. Much of the dispar-ity between the central organization policies from aninternational perspective on MPAs and the nationaldown to local is mostly between a more science-based and idealistic view to planning contrastedwith what can practically be implemented in thefield. These tensions are always present within thePhilippines, as seen, for example, between whatnational planners and scientists recommend andwhat is acceptable to local stakeholders and thosewho depend on the marine environment for food andincome on a daily basis.

Ecosystem-based management and large marineecosystem efforts are expected to contribute to theattainment of ambitious international targets forMPAs. The interest in large-scale efforts is under-standable. As ocean and fisheries issues become moreacute and as understanding of ecological complexityincreases, there is a tendency to advocate for what areconsidered “ecologically relevant” scales of interven-tion. There is a tendency to forward global natural-sci-ence-dominated agendas without a commensurateunderstanding of associated human dimensions. Inother words, we are simply unaware of the linkedsocioecological dimensions of ocean ecology and gov-ernance—the complexity that matters most for MPAmanagement (Christie et al. 2005).

The scaling up of MPAs beyond institutional capac-ities and the belief that there are generalizable man-agement models that can be applied globally isnaive and may erode what progress has been made.As some entities push to scale up to multinationalefforts, field efforts may not be well grounded in a


41

345109Sec2_41 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 41

deep understanding of historical, social, legal, eco-nomic, and ecological dimensions of local contextsand may pay too little attention to the careful nur-turing of fragile management processes. Formalinstitutions (government and NGO agencies) andinformal ones (families and communities) respondto feedback from their constituencies or members.As such, careful attention must be paid to incentivestructures that will encourage support for MPAs.These incentives may be monetary, but also socialand cultural.

A related important consideration is the distributionof limited financial resources for MPA implementa-tion. Large marine ecosystem strategies are alreadybeginning to take potential resources away frommore locally relevant MPA management efforts.These large-scale efforts have depended on hun-dreds of millions of support dollars, and manysmaller NGO or government-led efforts operatingunder different and more locally defined models arestruggling to keep field efforts afloat.

If MPA implementation is scaled up, the cost ofenforcement and communication will also rise. Atpresent, MPA enforcement in the Philippines isbased on a system of local initiatives that rangefrom deputized fish wardens with local municipalgovernment and NGO financial aid to more sophis-ticated systems that rely on radar and PhilippineNavy surveillance at the Tubbataha NationalMarine Park. The communication in-country amongMPA practitioners and policy makers is facilitatedby international projects, academic institutions,and an NGO community that is constantly creatingopportunities for critical exchanges of scientificand management experience. Communication ofthe Philippine MPA community with the interna-tional community is facilitated by their command ofEnglish and the well-developed Filipino scientificcommunity. The creation of enforcement and com-munication systems across large, multinationalareas will create significant challenges and requirecareful planning. For example, language and cul-tural barriers between the one large marine ecosys-tem project involving the Philippines, Indonesia,and Malaysia are likely to be formidable.

Communication between English-speaking techni-cians and government policy makers is only onetype of exchange needed.

Enforcement of MPA rules represents a constantstruggle in almost all cases. Vigilance is essentialand, at times, undermined by international incidents.The poaching of Tubbataha (well within Philippineterritorial waters) by Chinese fishing operations in2001 that resulted in the removal of giant clams andother valuable marine organisms highlights the vul-nerability of even well-managed MPAs. In this case,the apprehended poachers were released after sixmonths as a result of diplomatic pressures from theChinese government. Remote and relatively pristineMarine Protected Areas are increasingly being target-ed by illegal fishing syndicates looking for valuableand increasingly rare organisms.

4.8.Conclusions andRecommendationsThe Philippine case clearly documents particularkey messages relevant to this study:

• The severity of the fisheries problem should notnecessarily translate into a mandated MPAresponse at inappropriate institutional scales thatmay erode whatever progress, albeit limited, hasbeen made.

• There is an increasing need to focus on the con-text within which MPAs exist. MPAs are vulnera-ble to the effects of an open-access regime thatdoes not limit fishing effort or offer tenure tocoastal communities.

• Marine protected areas that are planned throughparticipatory processes and that function at eco-logically significant scales are a potent tool with aproven track record. The challenge ahead is howto scale these up without losing institutional andsocial functionality.


42

345109Sec2_42 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 42

Experience in the Philippines provides a consider-able base to build on. The current ICM frameworkrequires ongoing and consistent international andnational-level support. These efforts have created abroad and ongoing process that warrants ongoingsupport. (See www.oneocean.org and World Bank2006.) But given the case study’s scope of work andthe World Bank’s unique role internationally—inparticular, its ability to influence national policyand engage high-level officials—several focusedrecommendations are made at this juncture:

• Close open-access regimes and establish marinetenure and fishing effort control

• Rationalize fishing effort

• Step up enforcement

• Develop human and institutional capacity

• Monitor and benchmark progress

• Experiment with MPA models.


43

References

Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 2006. No-take Marine Reserves and Reef Fisheries Management in the Philippines: ANew People Power Revolution. Ambio 35: 245-254.

Alino, P.M., C. Nanola, W. Campos, V. Hilomen. A. Uychiaoco, and S. Mamauag. 2004. Philippine coral reef fisheries:Diversity in adversity. Pp. 65–69 in In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project. Cebu City, Philippines.

Barut, N.C., M.D. Santos, and L.R. Garces. 2004. Overview of Philippine marine fisheries. Pp. 22–31 in In TurbulentSeas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries, Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines.

Carpenter, K., and V.G. Springer. 2005. The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: the PhilippineIslands. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 467–80.

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). May 2006.www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

Christie, P., K. Lowry, A.T. White, E.G. Oracion, L. Sievanen, R.S. Pomeroy, R.B. Pollnac, J. Patlis, L. Eisma. 2005.Key findings from a multidisciplinary examination of integrated coastal management process sustainability. Oceanand Coastal Management 48:468-483.

Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White, R. Stoffle, D.L. Fluharty, L. Talaue-McManus, R.Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D.O. Suman, B.G. Blount, D. Huppert, R.L. Villahermosa Eisma, E. Oracion, K. Lowry,and R.B. Pollnac. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marineprotected areas. Fisheries 28(12):22–26.

Cruz-Trinidad, A. 1998. The Fisheries Code of 1998: Something old... something new... something better? Tambuli4:17–24.

DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture–Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 2004. In Turbulent Seas: TheStatus of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines.

Eisma, R.V., P. Christie, and M.J. Hershman. 2005. Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated coastal manage-ment in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 336–59.

Green, S.J., A.T. White, J.O. Flores, M.F. Carreon III, and A.E. Sia. 2003. Philippine Fisheries in Crisis: A Frameworkfor Management. Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Cebu City, Philippines.

345109Sec2_43 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 43


44Green, S.J., J.O. Flores, J.Q. Dizon-Corrales, R.T. Martinez, D.R.M. Nunal, N. Armada, and A.T. White. 2004. TheFisheries of Central Visayas, Philippines: Status and Trends. Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City,Philippines.

Indab, J.D. and P.B. Suarez-Aspilla. 2004. Community-based Marine Protected Areas in the Bohol (Mindanao) Sea,Philippines. NAGA, WorldFish Center Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 1 & 2 Jan-Jun 2004.

Lowry, K., A.T. White, and C. Courtney. 2005. National and local agency roles in integrated coastal management inthe Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 48:314–35.

McClanahan, T.R., S. Mwaguni, and N.A. Muthiga. 2005. Management of the Kenyan coast. Ocean and CoastalManagement 48: 901–31.

Pauly, D. 2000. Fisheries in the Philippines and in the world: An overview. Tambuli 6:23–25.

Pinto da Silva, P.S.V. 2004. From common property to co-management: Lessons from Brazil’s first maritime extractivereserve. Marine Policy 28: 419–28.

Pollnac, R.B. and R.S. Pomeroy. 2005. Factors affecting the long-term sustainability of integrated coastal managementprojects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management: 233-251.

Pollnac, R.B., B.R. Crawford, and M.L.G. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors influencing the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 44: 683–710.

White, A.T., P.M. Alina and A.T. Meneses. 2006. Creating and managing marine protected areas in the Philippines.Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project, Coastal Conservation and Education foundation, Inc., andUniversity of the Philippines. 83 p. Available at www.oneocena.org

White, A.T., R.L. Eisma-Osorio, S.J. Green. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas:Complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 948–971.

White, A.T., and R.O.D. de Leon. 2004. Mangrove resource decline in the Philippines: Government and communitylook for new solutions. Pp. 84–89 in In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project. Cebu City, Philippines.

White, A.T., A. Salamanca, and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Experience with Marine Protected Area planning and manage-ment in the Philippines. Coastal Management 30:1–26.

White, A.T., and H.P. Vogt. 2001. Philippine coral reefs under threat: Lessons learned after 25 years of community-based reef conservation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 537–50.

World Bank. 2006. Philippines Environment Monitor. Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Management.Washington, DC.

———. 2000. Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study of Coastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands.Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series number 9. Washington DC.

In the developing world, examples of lim-ited access fisheries tend to be isolated and do notnecessarily reflect national policy (Blyth and others2002; Acheson 1990). The adoption of a nationalpolicy in Chile that restricts access to many areas ofthe seabed to achieve sustainable exploitation istherefore an exception. This policy is due to thesocial and economic importance of the artisanalfisheries that are restricted to coastal waters(Castilla and Defeo 2001). As a result, the manage-ment of benthic (bottom-dwelling) resources is aspecific component of the Chilean 1991 Fisheriesand Aquaculture Law (FAL) (Ley de Pesca yAcuicultura 1991). The FAL redefines artisanalfishers and incorporates new regulations that affecttheir user rights through three management steps.First, it assigns exclusive fishing rights within azone that extends 5 nautical miles (9 kilometers)from the shoreline to artisanal fishers. Second, itrestricts artisanal fishers to working (or diving)within the coastal zone adjacent to their area of res-idence (regionalization). Third, the FAL assigns toregistered artisanal fishing unions exclusive divingrights to given areas of seabed, under what havebeen termed management and exploitation areas forbenthic resources (known as MEABRs) (Gelcichand others 2005a).


Chile: Experience withManagement and ExploitationAreas for Coastal Fisheries asBuilding Blocks for Large-Scale Marine Management

5

Chile has considerable recent experi-

ence in response to a crisis in inshore

benthic small-scale fisheries and

pelagic/demersal fisheries. Solutions to

the problems were implemented and

institutionalized in the Chilean 1991

Fishery and Aquaculture Law. This

chapter mainly focuses on artisanal

fishery management experience over

the past 15 years and on artisanal

fishers’ perceptions of the process. In

addition, it analyzes the role played by

the implementation of pure conserva-

tion measures (such as no-take Marine

Protected Areas (MPAs), marine parks,

and marine sanctuaries) and sustain-

able use “limited access” measures.

This chapter is an abstract of the case study prepared by Juan CarlosCastilla and Stefan Gelcich. The full case study appears in Volume 2.

345109Sec2_45 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 45

According to SERNAPESCA (2005), in Chile therewere 547 MEABRs decreed as of May 2005, ofwhich 301 had a benthic resource management planfully approved and in operation. The remaining 246are not allowed to operate until they have such aplan approved. The total area of sea floor withMEABRs in operation was 102,338 hectares.

In addition to MEABRs, Chilean policy allows forthe establishment of marine parks and reserves.Chile has 11 coastal area natural sanctuaries and 11no-take marine concessions, mainly used for scien-tific purposes or as genetic reserves (there are threegenetic reserves) (Fernández and Castilla 2005).Current efforts to further develop the fishery-con-servation network comes in the form of the firstthree government-administered multiple-usemarine coastal protected areas (AMP-MUs), whichwere implemented through a partnership betweenthe Chilean national environmental commission andthe Global Environment Facility.

This review focuses on Chilean experiences in small-scale coastal fisheries management. There is not a sin-

gle fishery crisis but a multifaceted series of crises(Defeo and Castilla 2005). Although no-take MPAsand the reduction of fleets and subsides are muchneeded, other key elements have not been sufficientlyconsidered for achieving marine biodiversity conserva-tion and sustainable fisheries at global scales, such as:

• The role of governance, specifically the role ofcommon property rights (such as territorial userrights for fishers, TURFs), which if managed wellcan increase income, retain and enhance commu-nity and cultural identity, and serve as a basis forcommunity empowerment

• The role of coastal-ocean small and extensivezoning, identifying spatial separation betweenindustrial and artisanal fisheries

• The role of alternative management schemes to indi-vidual transferable quotas, such as the implementa-tion of common/communal total allowable catches

• The key role of co-management and bottom-uppolicy processes.

5.1.Toward a Dual Managementand Conservation ApproachThe main legal tools in Chile for the managementand preservation of marine ecosystems and speciesare natural sanctuaries, national monuments,marine parks, marine reserves, marine coastal pro-tected areas, marine concessions, and managementand exploitation areas for benthic resources(Fernández and Castilla 2005).

The goal of establishing natural sanctuaries, naturalmonuments, and marine parks is to preserve naturalecosystems while allowing educational andresearch activities. In marine parks (no-take areasin coastal or open ocean waters), marine resourcesare off-limits to any extractive uses. In marinereserves, the exploitation of resources may occur ina sustainable way, although they can also bedecreed to preserve reproductive or genetic stocks(for example, La Rinconada Scallop Marine


46

Artisanal fishing diver with hooka equipment – photo by Natalio Godoy

345109Sec2_46 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 46

Reserve, Antofagasta) (Fernández and Castilla2005). Marine reserves, concessions (other than foraquaculture purposes) (Fernández and Castilla2005), and MEABRs can be established only incoastal areas, where artisanal fishers operate. Themain goal of the MEABRs is to rationalize thesmall-scale exploitation of benthic resources (inver-tebrates and algae). Since exploitation rates arelower inside MEABRs than in open-access fishinggrounds, however, some level of protection may alsooccur. A conservation and management umbrella-like designation—marine coastal protected areas—has recently been implemented in Chile. TheAMP-MU is meant to be used as a multiple-useMarine Protected Area instrument; it thereforeincludes marine reserves, ecotourism areas, no-takeareas, and even MEABRs.

If properly planned—that is, considering stakehold-er participation, alternative livelihood options, andthe devolution of management authority—andimplemented, these conservation and managementtools may be used to develop a network of MarineProtected/Managed Areas in Chile that includesboth fully and partially protected zones (Castilla2000; Fernández and Castilla 2005).

5.2.Drivers of Change and the1991 Fisheries andAquaculture LawSmall-scale fishery resources in Chile prior to 1991operated under an open-access regime. At the endof the 1980s, it was clear that this system neededimportant modifications. These modifications wereinstitutionalized in the 1991 FAL. Three major fac-tors can be considered as key policy drivers.

First, there was heavy overexploitation of wild shell-fish resources traditionally consumed in Chile andhighly valuable in external markets. In the 1970sand 1980s, the exploitation of artisanal marineresources (shellfish and algae) under an open-

access regime led to notorious signs of overexploita-tion. This was aggravated due to the sudden andexplosive opening of the Chilean economy to exter-nal markets (known as the “Chicago boys” policies,implemented in the 1980s; see Castilla 1990). As aresult, the fishery authority in the late 1980s facedserious problems with the sustainability and man-agement of artisanal resources, and a series of totalor partial fishery closed seasons were decreed (insome cases for up to four years; see Castilla 1990,1996). These measures were not effective and led toillegal fishing and social unrest to the extent thatstrong fisheries such as the Venus antigua clam orthe Concholepas concholepas gastropod (“loco”) hadto be closed (Castilla and others, in press).

Certain areas of coastal land in Chile are officiallydesignated as “coves” (caleta in Spanish). Thesestrips of land above the high-tide mark provide cer-tain rights to users, including the right to haveaccess to the sea, land a boat, remove catch, anderect certain buildings (Gelcich and others 2005a).According to the Servicio Nacional de Pesca (SER-NAPESCA 2005), 558 artisanal caletas are foundalong the Chilean coast. Of these, 453 are consid-ered permanent caletas (343 rural and 110 urban),and 105 as temporary ones (landing sites), whichhave no official designation and therefore can beclosed at any time.

The second policy driver was the organized systemof artisanal fisher communities in local unions orsyndicates (at the caleta level) and national associ-ations (Castilla 1994; Payne and Castilla 1994;Minn and Castilla 1995). In most Chilean caletas, afishery community has been established andobtained legal benefits from the government longbefore the implementation of the 1991 FAL regula-tions. In the majority of cases, caletas have tradi-tions that go back 50–100 years or more. TheUndersecretary of the Navy assigns concessions fordemarcated coastal territories, which have beenused to establish official caletas since 1960(Decreto con Fuerza de Ley [DFL] 340).

The third policy driver was the existence of availableand convincing basic and applied fishery and eco-


47

345109Sec2_47 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 47

logical knowledge, which facilitated its institutional-ization into a legal framework (Castilla 1994). Theexistence of such knowledge can undoubtedly beconsidered a key driver for the drafting and imple-mentation of the 1991 FAL policies (Castilla 1996;Castilla and others 1998; Castilla and Fernández1998; Gelcich and others 2005a, 2005b).

In 1991, under the FAL, artisanal fishery activitieswere subjected to three important policy changes:

• The exclusive reservation of a stretch of 5 miles ofterritorial sea waters for the artisanal fishery, fromthe northern border of Chile to latitude 41º 28’ 6”south and around oceanic islands.

• The establishment of management and exploita-tion areas for benthic resources and the allocationof exclusive communal/community territorial userrights for fisheries

• The establishment of a national register for arti-sanal fishers and boats or vessels, by region alongthe country, aiming to build a continuous registerof users and fleets and to control increased fish-ing pressure due to voluntary seasonal migrationof fishers, allowing activities exclusively inregions where fisherfolk were registered.

These policy initiatives were intended to tackle theincrease in the number of artisanal fishers migratingalong the coast, which was occurring simultaneous-ly with the overexploitation of benthic resources(Castilla and Schmiede 1979; Schurman 1996;Fernández and Castilla 2000). Biological impacts ofoverexploitation were particularly clear for thepredatory gastropod C. concholepas (Castilla, 1990,1994, 1996; Castilla and others 1998; Castilla andFernandez 1998). As loco is the single most eco-nomically important shellfish in Chile, this fisheryis used as a basic case study to illustrate the imple-mentation of changes in the Chilean fishery legisla-tion. The loco fishery is considered the main onethat catalyzed the novel benthic resources fisherypolicy changes in the Chilean legislation (character-ization and phases of the loco fishery are modifiedfrom Castilla 1996; Castilla and others, in press).

The loco fishery went through three phases prior tothe implementation of the 1991 FAL. The firstphase (1960–74) was characterized by small land-ings of around 2,000–6,000 tons, used mainly fordomestic consumption. Then Chile adopted a neo-liberal policy framework. This policy, and theimplementation of an aggressive exchange rate pol-icy in 1974/75, substantially improved fishingexport earnings and produced the necessary incen-tives for Chile to become the region’s leading fishand shellfish exporter (Thorpe and others 1999).Between 1976 and 1981, loco landings increasedabruptly, reaching a peak of 24,800 tons in 1980.During these years, the fishery benefited from highpay for divers and the emergence of new interna-tional export markets.

Demand from Asian markets for shellfish (mainlyloco, sea urchins, key-hole limpets) was constantlyincreasing, and local credit programs created by thegovernment meant favorable investment opportuni-ties for new boats, diving gear, and processingplants, thereby stimulating even more productdemand (Schurman 1996). At that time, most fish-eries in Chile operated under an open-access poli-cy, and artisanal fishers—although based at specificartisanal caletas (Castilla and others 1998)—usedto migrate along the coast. As the new export mar-kets grew, fishers intensified their migrations to takeadvantage of the new opportunities. Buyers beganrecruiting groups of divers from caletas and trans-porting them to distant fishing grounds, targetinghigh-valued species such as the loco (Meltzoff andothers 2002). Thousands of divers moved aroundChile, mainly to the southern regions, sparkingfights between locals and outsiders in a “loco war”or “loco fever” (Meltzoff and others 2002; Reyes1988). From 1982 to 1988, loco landings decreased,most probably due to overexploitation, resulting in acomplex series of management steps (Castilla andFernández 1998; González and others, in press).

According to a Fisheries Department official, theopen-access state of benthic resource fishing inChile and the newly opened export markets wereenough to lead to a “tragedy of the commons”(Gelcich 2005). Consequently, the loco fishery was


48

345109Sec2_48 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 48

completely closed between 1989 and 1992. Duringthis period, there was great social unrest among arti-sanal fishers (divers), and illegal extractions of locoincreased. Subsequently, the government developedthe 1991 Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Decreto430, approved in September 1991), which regional-ized artisanal fishers and allocated TURFs in theform of management and exploitation areas for ben-thic resources. The policy of “regionalization”sought to prevent the previously observed massmigration of divers to areas of high resource value(Gelcich and others 2005a). For administrative pur-poses, Chile is divided into 12 regions. The “region-alization” policy confined fishers to just one region,usually the one containing their home port (Meltzoffand others 2002). The rationale behind theMEABRs was a common property approach, whichproposes that property rights will create institution-al incentives among fishers for long-term resourceuse (Ostrom 1990).

5.3.Management and ExploitationAreas for Benthic ResourcesUnder the co-management arrangements of MEABRpolicy, the Chilean Undersecretary of Fisheriesassigns temporary territorial user rights to artisanalfisher unions in defined geographical coastal areas.This includes the right to exclude nonmembers fromexploiting the same area of seafloor (Castilla 1994;Gelcich and others 2005a, 2005b). Fisher unionsmust establish surveillance programs in order toenforce these exclusion rights. If poachers arecaught, they can be prosecuted.

Unions wishing to obtain TURFs must identify anarea of sea floor over which they wish to make aclaim and then cofinance a baseline study of thisarea, from which total allowable catches (TACs) forunions and management plans are established.These quotas are allocated to unions but not indi-viduals. The unions must also contract with externalconsultants to undertake yearly follow-up assess-

ments of stock in the management area and to deter-mine changes in the TAC. These annual assess-ments must be presented to the Undersecretary ofFisheries.

All resources extracted from a MEABR must bedeclared to the Fisheries Department, which super-vises compliance with the management plan (SER-NAPESCA 2004; Gelcich and others 2005b).Resource stocks in MEABR may be enhanced bybringing resources from other areas of the seaflooronly once at the beginning of the process, before theMEABR is officially harvested. After this, stocksmust be maintained by “natural seeding” throughrecruitment processes (Castillan and others 1998).Effectively, fishers’ harvesting decisions withinMEABRs are confined to four main issues: theamount of TAC to be gathered and the timing of thisharvest within the officially designated harvest sea-son; the price fishers will accept for the resources,the number of buyers, and how income is distributedwithin the unions (Gelcich and others, in press b).The remainder of this section analyses fishers’ per-ceptions of the MEABR policy in five areas: compli-ance, enforcement, financial sustainability andempowerment, achievement of fishery and biodiver-sity management objectives, and main problems andfuture challenges. Within each area, responses arereported according to main livelihood strategy(divers, fin-fishers, intertidal food gatherers, or fish-ers who depend mainly on off-sector activities suchas agriculture, construction, or forestry), geographicarea, and urban versus rural unions in order to


49

Puertecillo, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich

345109Sec2_49 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 49

determine which factors might account for any dif-ferences in perceptions. In theory, getting to knowthese perceptions could help in understanding thefishers’ responses to the existing MEABR policy, aswell as to predict their likely responses to Chile’snew approaches to marine conservation, such asinclusion of no-take marine reserves and AMP-MUs.

A total of 31 semi-structured interviews were heldwith fishers from seven different fishing unions (seeFigure 5–1), representing a range of livelihoodstrategies and rural/urban geographic positions. Inaddition, two focus groups with four to six partici-pants each were held in every fishing union.Interviews and focus groups aimed at understandingfishers’ perceptions and experiences regarding theimplementation of MEABRs. To provide some quan-tifiable basis of these experiences, 143 fishers

belonging to the same seven fishing unions answereda 50-question survey in face-to-face interviews.

ComplianceIn order to comply with the regulations of theUndersecretary of Fisheries, unions must follow reg-ulations related to the application and maintenanceof MEABRs. As noted, fishers applying forMEABRs have to organize and cofinance a baselinestudy of the MEABR from which resource TACs andthe management plan is established. In general,compliance on this has been extremely good, to thepoint that by 2005 policy uptake has alreadyreached 547 MEABRs. Cofinancing agreements forinitial baseline studies have had high levels of com-pliance, and fishers feel it is something important todo in order to obtain a MEABR (Focus group union,El Quisco). In fact, 78 percent of all surveyed fish-ers agreed or strongly agreed that “it is important forme to follow the rules imposed by my union andobey harvest dates and the law.” Fishers agree tofollow the rules irrespective of their livelihoodstrategies or if they live in urban or rural areas. Thissame pattern was found when fishers were askedabout their family’s opinion on the need to followMEABR regulations. Support from governmentinstitutions to pay initial baseline studies has hadan important role in promoting this compliance.

There is additional evidence that government sup-port is important. Sixty-nine percent of surveyedfishers agreed or strongly agreed that “government’sfinancial support has been crucial for the develop-ment of MEABRs.” This view was shared to a sig-nificantly larger extent by fishers who belong torural areas in Chile. This is mainly because urbanunions have had the support of universities andNGOs as important contributors for the establish-ment of MEABRs (Meltzoft and others 2002;Gelcich and others 2005b).

To maintain the MEABR, fishers are required toarrange the yearly follow-up assessments of stock byexternal consultants and to pay an annual fee to thegovernment. This fee is paid after the fourth assess-ment and is fixed per hectare of seafloor; it is not

FIGURE 5.1

Study Sites of MEABRs among Caletas (Coves) in 12 Regions of Chile


50

Caleta:1. Los Vilos (Urban)2. Chigualoco (Rural)

Caleta:3. El Quisco (Urban)4. Algarrobo (Urban)

Caleta:5. La Boca (Rural)6. Puertecillo (Rural)

Caleta:7. Carelmapu (Rural)

345109Sec2_50 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 50

related to catch or revenue obtained from the man-agement area.

The interviews found that there is an increasingsense that the yearly follow-up studies (which do nothave government financial support) are a waste ofmoney for the unions. Fishers must still comply withthis regulation, but many union directorates arebeginning to say that the unions themselves shouldbe trusted to do these studies. This is supported bysurvey results, where 58 percent of fishers agreed orstrongly agreed that “the fisher union could carryout the work of the consultants.”

Fishers’ desire to achieve independence for manag-ing their MEABR is not directly related to theirevaluation of the consultants’ work. This is shownby a Spearman rank correlation between fishers’perceptions of the quality of consultants work andthe fishers’ desire to do the assessments themselves(correlation coefficient = -0.04, n = 144, p =0.57). This desire is driven by the feeling that theydo the work and understand what goes on in theMEABR without having to spend important finan-cial resources on studies every year.

Fisher unions in Chile have to pay the governmentan annual fee for the right to maintain the manage-ment area. Compliance with respect to this issue isa legal obligation; if the unions do not comply, theylose the rights over the MEABR. Thus everyonepays. But they feel this is not a fair measure; thiswas made quite clear in the focus groups, as fishersfelt they are helping the whole Chilean society byconserving resources.

Paying to maintain MEABRs is having importantconsequences, as some unions (for example, ElQuisco) are beginning to return MEABRs. In fact,86 percent of surveyed fishers, irrespective of dif-ferences in livelihood or geographic position, feltthey should not have to pay this annual fee.

In addition, a common response in many focusgroups was that the annual fees will never be eradi-cated, and therefore as fishers pay them, unionsmust have more freedom to manage the MEABR. As

some fishers propose, this management freedomwould include experimentation with harvest methodsor target species, aquaculture of any species (96 per-cent of all surveyed fishers saw aquaculture as a pos-itive change), and the exploitation of new species.

Currently, fishers must maintain their MEABRsthrough “natural seeding” (Sensu Castilla and oth-ers 1998) and extract only resources included intheir management plans. The level of compliancetoward these aspects is unknown. It is clear from theinterviews that some level of restocking occurs inmanagement areas, although this was always attrib-uted to “other unions.”

When interviewees were asked why they wouldnot restock their area, the main response was thatloco would eat up all the food and not growenough. Nevertheless, 80 percent of surveyedfishers disagreed with the statement “If the fish-eries service catches a union re-stockingresources in the MEABR, the area should beclosed for a year.”

Enforcement The lack of logistical support, mainly to stop andprosecute poachers and thus to achieve effectiveenforcement of the exclusive territorial user rights,was one of the main problems mentioned by fishersin all interviews and focus groups. In fact, within theone-on-one questionnaire, 65 percent of the fishersasked the main current problem they have with theMEABRs mentioned encroaching (theft) from otherfishers (see Figure 5–2).

It is easy to understand that enforcement of the userrights associated with MEABRs is a problem, espe-cially considering that 100 percent of fishersthought that “fishers who are caught stealing fromthe MEABR should be punished more severely,”with no differences in terms of livelihoods or geo-graphic position. In general, fishers felt they hadbeen left alone with the duties of enforcement,including stopping encroachment within theMEABR, and they were advocating for more supportfrom the Fisheries Service.


51

345109Sec2_51 10/5/06 8:29 PM Page 51

Although all those surveyed agreed with the need formore support, fishers in rural, less accessible areashad a significantly stronger opinion of the need forthe Fisheries Service (SERNAPESCA) to becomemore involved with enforcement. In these rural areas,due to the lack of official support, violence betweenfishing unions and fishers who steal from MEABRs isbeginning to become an important issue. As one fish-er from Puertecillo noted: “We call SERNAPESCAwhen we see boats in our area, but they never sendanyone. We are going to have to buy guns as in otherplaces to defend our resources.” This problem shouldnot be taken lightly; violence due to resource accesscould have negative effects on fishers’ social bondsand their potential for future collective bargaining.

Financial Sustainability and EmpowermentIn general, fishers talk about the financial successof MEABRs during the first two to three years of

establishment of the policy, but they do not current-ly see MEABRs as a financial success. Fully 85 per-cent of fishers disagreed with the statement “Iincreased my income significantly through theMEABR.” This perception was shared by fisherswith different livelihood strategies and from differ-ent geographic regions. Yet 55 percent of fishersagreed that “I didn’t increase my income signifi-cantly with the MEABR but the union was empow-ered and collective work has increased.”

In general, MEABRs have been perceived by fish-ers as a positive aspect to increase collective actionand generate new ideas, as evident in their responseto the statement “The inclusion of MEABRs hasbeen important to generate new ideas (business,conservation etc.) within the union.” Seventy-eightpercent of fishers agreed with this statement; thegroup that depends mainly on diving for a livelihoodscored significantly higher values.

As part of MEABR consolidation, innovative strate-gies that account for fishers’ entrepreneurshipinclude attempts to sell harvested resources collec-tively from various associations, forming sellingcooperatives. Some of these, like TERPESCAR insouthern Chile, have been transformed into privatecompanies whose aim is to “consolidate MEABRs,have strong barging power and get a fare price for ourproducts” (interview with TERPESCAR director).This association has also managed to administer thelanding port, thus acquiring new responsibilities andincome. In 2004, members of the group sold1,197,227 loco worth nearly $2 million. They havealso managed to contract the services of a generalmanager for the company and an accountant. Othergroups, like Pacificoop, are trying to find new exter-nal markets in response to a fall in prices locally andare currently trying to export live loco to Asian mar-kets. These initiatives show how the MEABR policyhas opened new ways for fishers’ long-term engage-ment as resource stewards and how it has encour-aged self-empowerment to solve fishery problems.

Although many fishers feel MEABRs have been pos-itive in generating new ideas and cooperation and inhelping them to self-organize, 59 percent of surveyed


52FIGURE 5.2

Response to Open-ended Question “What is the Main Problem You Have with the MEABR?” (n = 143)

Theft

Not profitable (prices are too low)

Lack of government planning

Lack of resources

345109Sec2_52 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 52

fishers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the state-ment “There is an active participation of fishers inplanning the future of the MEABRs policy,” with alllivelihood groups averaging scores under 3 (dis-agree). Nevertheless, 64 percent of fishers felt thattheir involvement in MEABR processes might helprevoke this trend and increase their representation.

Achievement of Fishery and BiodiversityManagement ObjectivesWhen fishers were asked about their opinion of theMEABR system, 94 percent said they felt it hadbeen good for conserving the loco fishery.Nevertheless, the lack of freedom to manage theMEABRs and the lack of financial gains associatedwith low prices for loco during the past two years,along with the great problems associated withenforcing their user rights, has made fishers reactquite strongly against the policy. Many of the cri-tiques emphasized that MEABRs have already beenin place for nine years, that fishers are still expectedto only apply harvesting norms and criteria for a fewspecies defined by the consultants’ studies, and thatthere is no real management of the area or the free-dom to even attempt to manage it (see Figure 5–3).

It is striking to see that 53 percent of fishers wouldnot apply for an MEABR if they had the chance todo so again. However, this question needs to be putinto context. Currently in Chile, fisher unions arelobbying to change the annual fee they must pay forMEABRs. They also wish more independence tomanage the MEABR and support with policing theareas. So clearly fishers would not agree to a state-ment that involves applying for a MEABR underconditions they are trying to change.

The positive aspects of MEABRs are associated withtheir role in conserving biodiversity. Ninety-five per-cent of fishers agreed with the statement that“MEABRs act as reserves for benthic resources,” and74 percent agreed that “MEABRs act as reserves forother species and the ecosystem in general.” Fisherswho depend on diving to maintain their livelihoodagree with this statement in a significantly higherway, irrespective of geographic location.

The fact that MEABRs are seen as a way to conservebiodiversity and ecosystem functions is extremelyimportant. It clarifies to some extent that bottom-upmanagement of resources through territorial userrights is not affecting in unwanted ways the marineenvironment. It is heartening to see how these fish-ers find conservation of non-target species andmarine conservation important issues within theiractivities.

Main Problems and Future Challenges To date, government perceptions of the success ofthe MEABR policy have been largely dependent onresource restoration data within MEABRs and theofficial statistics on MEABR adoption. The largenumber of MEABR applications has been taken asevidence that fishers are organizing and adoptinglivelihoods as non-migrating members of the busi-


53

FIGURE 5.3

Response to the Question “Do You Feel There is Real Management of the MEABR or Do You Only Apply Harvesting Norms?”

Harvesting norms

Management norms

No norms

Don’t know

345109Sec2_53 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 53

ness community, which was one of the original poli-cy aims.

However, the results of interviews, focus groups, andquestionnaires show the existence of importantsources of conflict with MEABR implementationand financial impacts. An important problem men-tioned by fishers deals with the fact that open-access fishing sites are becoming scarce andoverexploited. Thus, fishers who have historicallymaintained a livelihood as divers in these areas saythat this lifestyle is at risk. One individual, forexample, noted that: “This law didn’t analyze thesecondary effects. There is an indiscriminate exten-sion of the management areas. They [the FisheriesDepartment] say that the sea cannot all be used byMEABR. But there is nearly nowhere to go and dive,everything is asked for and the little historicallyopen zones [open to all registered artisanal fishersand recreational divers] left have collapsed…Divers have nowhere to dive” (fisher of Los Vilos2002 in Gelcich 2005). Despite this, 88 percent ofinterviewed fishers would not give up being arti-sanal fishers for another job that offered similar con-stant income during the year.

To summarize, MEABRs appear to be successfuland popular mechanisms to rationalize the use ofbottom-dwelling coastal resources. Yet some con-cerns remain:

• Income is declining, thus MEABRs should onlybe viewed as a partial or supplemental source ofoverall income.

• Union members want more control of managementdecisions, including the exercise of adaptive man-agement and experimentation with other speciesto enhance overall productivity of the MEABR.

• Fishers need commitments of strong governmentsupport for enforcement and monitoring.

• Fishers want fees (taxes) paid to government forrights to MEABRs to be based on income gener-ated rather than a flat tax.

5.4.Lessons from Chile’sExperience with CoastalMarine Protected AreasThe concept of MPAs and coastal MPAs (CMPAs) iswidely used with different meanings and connota-tions. Unfortunately, the lack of specificity aboutthese concepts has introduced serious misunder-standings in the specialized literature, in conserva-tion and protection, and in coastal managementplanning.

In its marine component, the Chilean NationalStrategy for Biodiversity considers the implementa-tion of a network for the 28 selected AMP-MUsalong the country, consistent with the call made bythe Convention on Biological Diversity with regardto the establishment of coastal networks (Secretariatof CBD 2004). The potential for the comprehensiveestablishment of a large “marine network” in Chileis even greater than the perspective included in theChilean GEF-Marino plan. This potential stemsfrom the many marine conservation and resourcemanagement tools (such as MEABRs, marinereserves for research, national monuments, marineconcessions, and national sanctuaries) presentalong the Chilean coast, which may be easily incor-porated into a national “marine network”(Fernández and Castilla 2005; Gobierno de Chile,Proyecto GEF-Marino, PNUD 2006).

The National Biodiversity Strategy plan for AMP-MUs aims to protect 10 percent of relevant Chileanecosystems by 2010 (Rovira 2006) and the configu-ration of an integrated “national marine network” ofconservation and management sites by 2015. Suchan overarching framework is much needed in Chileand may represent a model to be followed in otherLatin American countries.

The experience in Chile suggests that in order toscale up marine conservation practices, it might bemore effective to emphasize socioeconomic aspectsof proposed management measures, along with bio-


54

345109Sec2_54 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 54

logical considerations, early in the process. Thus, ifan overarching national framework for marine con-servation and management networks is to be estab-lished in Chile, a few aspects of the functioning ofMEABRs within the AMP-MU framework for imple-mentation must be addressed.

In the Marine Protected Area literature, there is sig-nificant interest in scaling up MPA practice by cre-ating networks of MPAs or CMPAs with linkagesbetween them. This trend was given considerableimpetus in 2002 at the World Summit onSustainable Development, which called for nationsto establish “representative networks of MPAs by2012” (Cicin-sain and Belfiore 2005; Sceretariat ofCBD 2004).

Scaling up in Chile would involve the creation ofnetworks that include AMP-MUs, MEABRs, andother conservation/management tools. The greatestchallenge will be fisher compliance with respect tono-take marine reserves/parks within an AMP-MUframework. Generally, fishers tend to see suchreserves as a threat; thus their participation in theearly part of the scaling-up process is extremelyimportant. It is also important to acknowledge, how-ever, that artisanal fishers have a strong favorableattitude toward marine conservation, which hasbeen generated from the co-management experience(Gelcich and others, in press a) and which providesa basic building block for increasing the prospectsfor effectively scaling up marine conservation andmanagement networks.

Unfortunately, ecosystem-based fishery reserveapproaches have become a buzzword within thefisheries management community and are perceivedas the silver bullet to solve the present fisherycrises. Yet current fishery crises (particularly small-scale ones) are linked more to socioeconomic thanbiophysical variables. It seems unrealistic to expectthat the fisheries crisis can be solved by setting up

networks of coastal and Marine Protected Areas(that is, no-take zones or marine parks) covering10–20 percent of the world’s coasts. The solutionmust lie in an approach that includes networks ofstrict MPAs within a more extensive system ofmarine management areas that include sustainableuse and areas set aside for exclusive/rational use,such as the MEABRs. This is consistent with anoverarching framework of spatial planning and zon-ing called for by an integrated coastal management(ICM) approach.

The process of integrating marine conservation intoa broader coastal management framework, as calledfor by the Convention on Biological Diversity, mustbe put in place, taking into account that MPAs willremain vulnerable to natural resource exploitationoccurring outside (in non-protected areas) if theseare not integrated into spatial development strate-gies of larger umbrella-like administration areas(that is, AMP-MUs or ICMs more broadly). These inturn must be part of an integrated strategy for natureconservation (including no-take zones and parks)and sustainable use (MEABRs) and have the abili-ty to coordinate action between intergovernmentaland intersectoral agencies.

Planning and management should encompasssocial, economic, and ecological aspects in order tobe balanced with economic development opportuni-ties and living conditions of coastal communities.This is a great challenge for Chile and requiresactive stakeholder participation. Coastal-ocean zon-ing is perhaps the best way to achieve large-scaleecosystem-based management conservation. TheAMP-MU and ICM approaches may serve to defusetraditional confrontations between conservation anduse measures and to better reconcile these campsfrom a biological and fishery standpoint (biophysi-cal) as well as from bioeconomic and social scienceperspectives (Castilla 2000; Castilla and Defeo2001; Gelcich and others 2005b).


55

345109Sec2_55 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 55

References

Acheson J. 1990. The lobster fiefs revisited: Economic and ecological effects of territoriality in Maine lobster fishing.Pp. 37–65 in B. McCay and J. Acheson (eds.), The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of CommunalResources. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Blyth, R., M. Kaiser, G. Edwards-Jones, and P. Hart. 2002. Voluntary management in an inshore fishery has conser-vation benefits. Environmental Conservation 29: 493–508.

Castilla, J.C. 1976. A unique mollusc. Sea Frontiers 22(5): 302–04.

———. 1986. Sigue existiendo la necesidad de establecer Parques y Reservas Marítimas en Chile? Ambiente yDesarrollo, II (2): 53–63.

———. 1990. Clase Magistral: Importancia y proyección de la investigación en Ciencias del Mar en Chile. RevistaBiología Marina, Valparaíso, 25(2): 1–18.

———.1994. The Chilean small-scale benthic shellfisheries and the institutionalization of new management practices.Ecology International Bulletin 21: 47–63.

———.1996. La futura red chilena de parques y reservas marinas y los conceptos de conservación, preservación ymanejo en la legislación nacional. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 69: 253–70.

———.2000. Roles of experimental marine ecology in coastal management and conservation. Journal of ExperimentalMarine Biology and Ecology 250: 3–21.

Castilla, J.C., and M. Fernández. 1998. Small-Scale benthic fisheries in Chile: On co-management and sustainable useof benthic invertebrates. Ecological Applications 8: S124–32.

Castilla, J.C., and O. Defeo. 2001. Latin American benthic shellfisheries: Emphasis on co-management and experi-mental practices. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11: 1–30.

Castilla, J.C., and P. Schmiede. 1979. Hipótesis de trabajo sobre la existencia de zonas marítimas tampones en relacióna recursos marinos bentónicos (mariscos y algas) en la Costa de Chile. Pp. 145–67 in V.A. Gallardo (ed.), Seminario-Taller sobre El Desarrollo e Investigación de los Recursos Marinos de la VIII Región, Chile. Vicerrectoría deInvestigación, Universidad de Concepción.

Castilla, J.C., P. Manríquez, J. Alvarado, A. Rosson, C. Pino, C. Espóz, R. Soto, D. Oliva, and O. Defeo. 1998. ArtisanalCaletas: As units of production and co-managers of benthic invertebrates in Chile. Canadian Journal of Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences (Special Publication) 125: 407–13.

Castilla, J.C., S. Gelcich, and O. Defeo. In press. Successes, lessons, and projections from experience in marine ben-thic invertebrate artisanal fisheries in Chile. In T.R. McClanahan and J.C. Castilla (eds.), Fisheries Management:Challenges and Accomplishment. Blackwell Publishing.

Cicin-Sain, B., and S. Belfiore. 2005. Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: Areview of theory and practice. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 847–68.

Defeo, O., and J.C. Castilla. 2005. More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for co-management suc-cesses in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 15: 265–83.

Fernández, M., and J.C. Castilla. 2000. Recruitment of Homalaspis plana in intertidal habitats of central Chile andimplications for the current use of management and marine protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208:157–70.

———. 2005. Marine conservation in Chile: Historical perspective, lessons, and challenges. Conservation Biology 19:1752–62.

Gelcich S. 2005. The Human Dimensions of Co-management in Chilean Coastal Fisheries. PhD Thesis, University ofWales Bangor, UK.

Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, M.J. Kaiser, and E. Watson. 2005a. Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case ofmarine common property rights in Chile. Society and Natural Resources 18: 377–91.


56

345109Sec2_56 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 56

Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, and M.J. Kaiser. 2005b. Importance of attitudinal differences among artisanal fisherstowards comanagement and conservation of marine resources. Conservation Biology 19: 865–75.

———. In press a. Co-management policy can reduce resilience in traditionally managed marine ecosystems.Ecosystems.

———. In press b. Heterogeniety in fishers harvesting behavior under a Territorial user rights policy. EcologicalEconomics.

Gobierno de Chile, Proyecto GEF-Marino, PNUD. 2006. Conservación de la biodiversidad de importancia mundial alo largo de la costa chilena: áreas marinas y costeras protegidas de múltiples usos. Isla Grande de Atacama, LafkenMapu Lahual y Francisco Coloane. (ed.) CONAMA – PNUD. Santiago, Chile.

González, J., W. Stotz, J. Garrido, J.M. Orensanz, A. Parma, C. Tapia, and A. Zuleta. In press. The Chilean TURF sys-tem: How is it performing in the case of the loco fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science.

Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. 1991. Ministerio de Economía Fomento y Reconstrucción, Gobierno de Chile. LeyN°18892 D.S N°430.

Meltzoff, S., Y. Lichtensztajn, and W. Stotz. 2002. Competing visions for marine tenure and co-management: Genesisof a marine management area system in Chile. Coastal Management 30: 85–99.

Minn, I., and J.C. Castilla. 1995. Small-scale artisanal fishing and benthic invertebrate management in Caleta LasCruces, Central Chile. Out of Shell 5: 11–15.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Payne, H.E., and J.C. Castilla. 1994. Socio-biological assessment of common property resource management: Small-scale fishing unions in Central Chile. Out of Shell 4(3): 1–5.

Reyes, E. 1988. Nuevo Colapso de la pesquería del “Loco.” Chile Pesquero 47: 41–44.

Rovira, J. 2006. Politicas publicas para conservacion y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad: un aporte para la conviven-cia entre mineria y conservacion. Pp. 9–19 in A. Camaño, J.C. Castilla, and J.A. Simonetti (eds.). Mineria yBiodiversidad. Publicaciones de Sonami Chile. Quebecor World Chile S.A., Santiago.

Schurman, R. 1996. Snails, Southern hake and sustainability: Neo-liberalism and natural resource exports in Chile.World Development 24.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Technical Advice on the Establishment and Managementof a National System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas. CBD Technical Series no. 13.

SERNAPESCA. 2004. Análisis de inversión en fomento productivo para la pesca artesanal. http://www.sernapesca.cl.

———. 2005. Informe sectorial pesquero artesanal. Departamento de Pesca Artesanal. http://www.sernapesca.cl

Thorpe, A., A. Ibarra, and C. Reid. 1999. The New Economic Model and Fisheries Development in Latin America.Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, Research Paper 141. University of Portsmouth,UK.


57

345109Sec2_57 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 57

Brazil’s wealth of marine biodiversity andcommercially valuable artisanal fisheries are con-centrated inshore, within 200 kilometers of thecoast (SEAP/PNUD 2006; MMA/PROBIO 2002).Fishery resources are being rapidly depleted, andmarine biodiversity is severely threatened along theentire Brazilian coast (SEAP 2006). The pattern ofdecline in Brazil’s capture fisheries follows the tra-jectory for capture fisheries for the world as a whole,showing production increases from 1960 through1985, followed by a continual decrease up to thepresent. Virtually all of Brazil’s offshore and shal-low-water capture fisheries are stagnating or rapid-ly declining (SEAP/PNUD 2006) (see Figure 6–1).

Brazil has never used a system for managing fisheriesin its coastal waters. For years, the only marine manage-ment practices that may have contributed to limitingaccess to fishing grounds were unofficial, informalones: local sea tenure systems based on artisanal fish-ers’ vernacular environmental knowledge, kinship andsocial networks, contracts, and alliances and collectivesense of “use rights” (Begossi 2006; Cordell 1972,1983, 1989). Significantly, though, artisanal small-scale fishing still flourishes in some coastal areas,accounting for an estimated 60 percent of total fishlandings in Brazil and 70 percent in the poverty-strick-en northeast (Diegues 2002; SEAP/PNUD 2006).


6 Brazil: Dynamics andChallenges of MarineProtected Area Developmentand Coastal Protection

Alarming changes have been taking placealong the Brazilian shore and in thecountry’s tropical shallow-water seas—changes not just of recent origin attribut-able to sharp increases in population andcommercial pressures. French marine ecol-ogist Jacques Laborel reported in 1969that the Itaparica reefs in Salvador,Bahia, were practically dead due to theextraction of lime-rich deposits (Cordell1972). During this same period, analysisof shellmiddens revealed that even themost marginal “crab scavenger” man-grove fishing neighborhoods frequentlyhad to be relocated as communities movedout in search of more productive foragingsites (Cordell 1978). During that period,there was no such thing as a MarineProtected Area (MPA) in Brazil. Thischapter highlights the role of marineextractive reserves (MERs) set up for thesustainable use of marine resources bytraditional communities with a long his-tory and culture. This chapter is an abstract of the case study prepared by John Cordell.

The full case study appears in Volume 2.

345109Sec2_58 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 58

Overfishing problems in Brazil began in the 1960sand 1970s, when monofilament nylon fishing gearwas widely introduced without any baseline stockassessment by SUDEPE (the national fisheriesdevelopment agency). Subsequent declining catchtrends mirror the complex interplay of causative fac-tors fueling the global marine crisis and the litany ofdirect and indirect threats to coastal fisheries andprotected areas, along with the contributing factorsidentified in recent marine policy strategies by theWorld Resources Institute (2000) and others.

6.1.Can Brazil Afford to Endurean Open-access Coastal“Tragedy of the Commons”?The United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in Rio in 1992 catapulted Brazilonto the world environmental stage as a staunchsupporter of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Subsequently, the government embarked on a vigor-ous campaign to develop a nationwide system ofrepresentative protected areas, more national parks,

and sustainable resource use regimes.Unfortunately, these initiatives have for the mostpart ignored the coast, fisheries, and a host of high-ly threatened natural habitats—inland tropicalaquatic and wetland systems spanning the littoralzone, the land-sea interface, and the inshore sea(Diegues 2002).

Brazil’s coast stretches for about 8,400 kilometers.Its population is approaching 185 million; 40 per-cent reside in coastal municipalities, which gener-ate 70 percent of the country’s gross nationalproduct. Nearly 400 coastal municipalities have amean density of 105 inhabitants per square kilome-ter. Ninety percent of Brazil’s international com-merce circulates through 34 major coastal ports,creating more than $100 billion in port businessyearly. The coastal zone contains almost a fifth ofthe country’s population—about 36.5 million peo-ple. Brazilian industrial exports lie primarily in sec-tors with high potential to pollute coastal habitats(such as eucalyptus plantations that produce cellu-lose, which Brazil leads the world in exporting).Economic activities within Brazil’s coastal zonehave the potential to influence not only the nationaleconomy and society, but environmental conditionsin the entire South Atlantic.


59

FIGURE 6.1

Capture Fisheries in Brazil, 1975– 1999in thousands of metric tons

19791975 1984 1989 1994 1999

800

700

600

500

400

300

Source: SEAP 2006

345109Sec2_59 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 59

The coast has thus had to bear the brunt of environ-mental and social costs of post-WWII industrializa-tion, urbanization, and modernization. Diegues(2000) notes that some of the worst trouble spotscluster around metropolitan centers, where there israpid urbanization, high unemployment, chaoticgrowth of industrial (chemical and petro-chemical)complexes, and high-impact tourism.

Different, though no less damaging, developmentscenarios (irrigation, mining) threaten to engulfmore remote and still relatively intact rural coastalsettings, including some locations that lie withindeclared ecological sanctuaries and biospherereserves, such as the Saco de Mamangua lagoonnear Paraty in the state of Rio (Nogara 2001) andthe proposed Petrobras/El Paso joint venture for nat-ural gas exploration and production in the Bahia deCamamu, a rich traditional fishing area situated onthe Costa do Dende in southern Bahia.

Diegues (1998) traces the root causes of coastal habi-tat and inshore fisheries decline in Brazil to the sin-gle-minded pursuit and adoption of export-orientedindustrial models and policies to spur economicgrowth going back to the 1950s. He points out thatputting almost all heavy-polluting industries andindustrial centers (chemical, petrochemical, fertilizer,sand and clay heavy-metal mining) in fragile coastalareas, estuaries, and bays has spelled disaster for theenvironment and especially for artisanal fishers.

Other factors contributing to increasing degradationof the coastal zone are urbanization and urban sprawlfueled by dramatic increases in migration to cities inthe northeast, expansion of the transportation systemlinking capital cities along the coast, oil explorationand drilling, and especially state-sponsored tourismand recreation projects, notably PRODETUR.Lucrative tax incentives to develop industrial fish-eries and large-scale shrimp farming are generatingshort-term profits for investors, but also intensifyingcompetition for limited coastal space and resourcesand contributing to extensive mangrove deforestation.(For more details on levels and the pattern of degra-dation of estuarine ecosystems in Brazil, see Diegues1995, 2005; also MMA no date.)

The people and aquatic habitats taking the hardesthits—from pollution of land-sea transition zones byoff-site, upstream agricultural, forest, mining,chemical industries and energy producers—arethose, like traditional fishers, who can least afford tobear the impacts and costs.

It comes as a shock to fisheries specialists working incountries poorer than Brazil that anyone who is pro-fessionally registered and licensed as a member of afishing guild (colonia) can still fish (by law) commer-cially anywhere in Brazil. Aside from this registra-tion, which formerly was the only way mostimpoverished artisanal fishers could claim a minus-cule pension, there is no limited entry, no quotas, andprecious little systematic catch and effort monitoring.

Limits on fishing pressure are not mandated, norcould they be enforced in any event under the pres-ent chaotic conditions of resource competition inBrazil. The result has been catastrophic; for exam-ple, export of undersized lobsters to the U.S. marketand the continual use of “banned” hookah rig div-ing. This is dramatically illustrated in the case ofwhat was once Brazil’s premier rock lobster fishery,which is now totally collapsed. It is questionablewhether this fishery could recover in the northeastand how long it would take (see www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=128).

6.2.Taking Stock of the Coastal-Marine Management ToolkitIt is important to understand how Brazil’s legislativeand regulatory frameworks operate and how MERsand a number of other important coastal marine man-agement (CMM) tools—Environmental ProtectionAreas (APAs), Category II multiuse reserves zoned tocombine public and private property, and CategoryIII Sustainable Development Reserves (RDSs)—arecodified and managed within the National System ofConservation Units (SNUC, for Sistema Nacional deUnidades de Conservação da Natureza). The consti-tutional framework establishing Brazil’s integrated


60

345109Sec2_60 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 60

coastal management (ICM) system and tools (knownas GERCO), which also designated the coastal zoneas national patrimony in 1988, follows a separate leg-islative process. (For details of the evolution ofnational ICM policies and management institutions inBrazil, see Asmus and others 2004.)

The federal law creating the SNUC was promulgat-ed in July 2000 and defines the management systemfor all Brazilian protected areas. Currently, all con-servation units within the SNUC are classified intwo groups (summarized in SNUC 2004):

• I–Absolutely Protected Areas, also called Indirect-Use Conservation Units. These include ecologicalstations, biological reserves, parks, natural mon-uments, and wildlife refuges.

• II–Sustainable Use Areas, also called Direct-UseConservation Units. These include environmentalprotection areas, areas of significant ecologicalinterest, national forests, extractive reserves,fauna reserves, sustainable developmentreserves, and private reserves of natural heritage.

The Brazil country study sought to document therange of management systems currently operating orbeing developed in Brazil and officially known anddesignated as MPAs, although on closer inspectionMPAs there encompass tools ranging from CategoryI to IV in the study typology. As noted in Chapter 2,conventional terminology used to distinguish ahighly enclosed Marine Park class of MPAs isbecoming increasingly blurred and blended withCategories II, III, and IV, so that MERs that belong


61

FIGURE 6.2

345109Sec2_61 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 61

in Category IV (culture-ecological reserves) are nowwidely referred to as Marine Protected Areas. Publicand scientific debates are ongoing with respect tothe adequacy of the existing reserve classificationsystem and its ability to capture and reflect criticaldistinctions among natural resource managementapproaches and tool types, most recently in connec-tion with proposals to establish more SustainableDevelopment Reserves. Lima (2006) analyzed thelegal (juridica) provisions for RDSs within theSNUC framework and found numerous inconsisten-cies, contradictions, and problematic interpreta-tions of the legislation in terms of supporting andlegitimizing proposals to create new RDS systems indifferent regions, including critical discrepancies inSNUC as applied to land and marine settings.

Figure 6–2 illustrates Brazil’s coastal marine biodi-versity prioritization and ranking drawn from thebase map Areas Prioritarias Para ConservacaoUtilizacao Sustentavel e Reparticao de Beneficios daBiodiversidade Brasileira.

Brazil possesses a number of national offshoremarine parks (typology Category I). The most well

known marine parks are Atol das Rocas, ParqueNacional dos Abrolhos in southern Bahia, and theisland of Fernando de Noronha (see MMA 2002).The multiuse tools represented in Brazil’s toolkit(Environmental Protection Areas) are established inalmost every coastal state in Brazil and may also beestablished on different levels—federal, state, oreven municipal.

At this point, it is unlikely that any existing admin-istrative or institutional governance framework inBrazil’s MPA toolkit could be adapted to crossjurisdictions and sectors or could bridge “ecosys-temic” biological scales to achieve MPA networkbenefits, with one notable exception: integratedcoastal management.

After considering field reports, government docu-ments, and specialized libraries in universityresearch centers (nucleos de pesquisa), and afterextensive consultations with regulatory and policy-setting agencies in Brasilia to compare CMM tools,the case study identified the two most promisingtool types Brazil possesses that might serve as plat-forms for scaling up MPAs: the MER system, creat-


62

Sequentially deploying beach seines and encircling nets in the Extractive Reserve of Arraial do Cabo – photo by Acervo CNPT/IBAMA

345109Sec2_62 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 62

ed in 1994 and still in an early phase, and a fairlymature system of ICM.

The lead, coordinating agency for the MER system(and for all extractive reserves) is the CentroNacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado dasPopulacoes Tradicionais (CNPT, National Center ofTraditional Peoples and Sustainable Development),located within IBAMA (the Brazilian Institute of theEnvironment and Renewable Natural Resources). Aprofile of the history and scope of work of CNPTwithin IBAMA can be found at www.ibama.gov.br/resex/cnpt.htm. GERCO, on the other hand, operates within the Coastal-Marine Division (Núcleoda Zona Costeira e Marinha, Secretaria deBiodiversidade e Florestas) of the MMA.

MER is a community-based, site-specific, multiuseland and sea resource management approach basedon claims of culturally distinct groups with long-standing livelihood ties to “artisan-scale” productionterritories. Many of these communities are artisanalfishers (Begossi 2004; Ramalho 2002; Pinto da Silva2002, 2004). MER communities tend to be cultural-ly heterogeneous, traditional “non-indigenous” soci-eties. Some are quite remote. Many have come toserve as refuge areas for fishers who are among thepoorest of the coastal poor. And some (such asCorumbau in southern Bahia) contain enclaves ofTupi-Guarani indigenous groups. The Brazilian coaststill harbors a surprising number of indigenous pop-ulations (see MMA/PROBIO 2002; Diegues andArruda 2001). Some groups and their coastal territo-ries and settlements are now being incorporated inMERs, a process that is facilitated by the special pro-tected status of indigenous peoples under nationalculture heritage and social legislation.

GERCO (ICM), in contrast, is a centralized, scien-tifically sophisticated, hierarchical, administrativecoastal development planning framework. To date,ICM in Brazil has mainly been used for mapping,geo-referencing, and meta-data management. It isdesigned to assist and guide rational developmentand protection of coastal territories and environ-ments at minimal municipal unit levels. (Brazil has400 contiguous coastal administrative units.)

6.3.The Marine ExtractiveReserve SystemThe case study determined that efforts to create anational MER system—networking MER sites andcommunities, and other protected area sites alongBrazil’s coast—merited a special focus. MERs (orin Portuguese Resex or Resex Azul, short for ReservasExtrativistas Marinhas) are characterized by a novelcombination of a community-based, sustainable useframework that incorporates both conservation andcultural preservation values. MERs vary consider-ably from one site to the next along the coast inrespect to size, biogeographic setting, extractivepuprposes, zonation, and community composition(Maldonado 2000; Nogara 2005). They are unlikemost multiuse approaches in several key respects.Rather than being primarily biodiversity-driven, theMER framework enables communities to set up spe-cial, limited-access, protected areas with use rightsand zonation based on demonstrating and maintain-ing collective, sociocultural, artisanal productionidentities, long-standing ties to coastal livelihoodterritories, and sustainable fisheries.

MERs are essentially an effort to modify and extendthe concept of extractive reserves— a conservationand sustainable development framework successful-ly instituted in western Amazonian forest (primarilyrubber-tapper) economies—to coastal aquatic andmarine domains of traditional fishing communities(ELI 1995; CNPT 2001; Cunha 2001; Diegues2001). The initiative is attractive in that it has thepotential to unify and reconcile elements that all toooften are seen as incompatible: traditional cultureheritage and cultural resource preservation needs,sustainable local fisheries, and conservation ofmarine biological diversity (Cordell 2003). Focusingon MERs in part stems from the World Bank’sexpectation that Brazil’s experience since 1994 indeveloping an extractive approach to MPAs mayprovide lessons for MPA architects working on sim-ilarly impoverished tropical coasts where biodiver-sity is also extremely threatened.


63

345109Sec2_63 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 63


64

FIGURE 6.3

Marine Extractive Reserves in Brazil

345109Sec2_64 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 64

Various provisions of national environmental andprotected area legislation (SNUC 2004), civil codes,and international treaties to which Brazil is a signa-tory (such as the Convention on BiologicalDiversity) endorse the principles on which collec-tively held marine extractive reserves are based,along with the mission of the National Center ofTraditional Peoples and Sustainable Developmentwithin IBAMA (Portaria IBAMA No. 22 / 2-10-92).

MER experiences in Brazil are also of interestbecause of good practice guidelines they may revealregarding social criteria, values, and indicators thatmay provide essential cultural compatibility ingredi-ents for MPA effectiveness (including implicationsfor strengthening tools in Typology Categories I–III).

From the standpoint of this report’s objectives, theBrazil country study asks, How have MERsevolved? How well are they working? What does thefuture hold for the MER approach? And, finally, byintegrating fisheries, albeit on small scales, areMERs a way to empower local communities inmarine management, to create sustainable inshorefisheries, to forge a pathway out of poverty, and tobuild a foundation for scaling up to meet marinemanagement challenges?

Brazil has many culturally diverse small-scale (arti-sanal) fishing societies—traditional raft, canoe, hullsailboat (saveiro), and other small-boat fishers(Jangadeiros, Caicaras, Praieras, Ribeirinhos,Caboclos, and Quilombolas). A recent report byCNPT/IBAMA for the Environment Minister, who in2005 created a National Sustainable DevelopmentCommission for Traditional Communities (including220 culturally distinct indigenous societies), esti-mates that Brazil has 4.5 million traditional inhabi-tants occupying 176 million hectares distributedacross inland and coastal states.

CNPT/IBAMA is in the process of systematicallyassessing prospects for extending the MER systemto a wider range of traditional non-indigenous pop-ulations whose mixed economies still rely heavily onsmall-scale fishing. Many such communities arebeing dislocated, fragmented, and marginalized

through the creation of national terrestrial parks(which prohibit extractive uses) and resident com-munities inside the parks and, as noted earlier,through urbanization and the increasing appropria-tion and privatization of coastal space through thegrowth of state-sponsored tourism, luxury resorts,and industries and port facilities. To date, marineparks in Brazil have had minimal impact in dislo-cating or disenfranchising traditional, artisanal fish-ers (and several marine parks allow subsistencefishing activities for long-established communitiesof traditional fishers and shellfishers).

As shown in Figure 6–3, currently there are 28extractive reserves in nine Brazilian states, stretch-ing from Para to Santa Catarina and encompassing735,000 hectares of sea space. Existing MER com-munities contain approximately 40,000 artisanalfishers. An additional 68 MER proposals are underconsideration by the Brazilian EnvironmentAgency for strategic sites in 15 of Brazil’s 17coastal states. A new, very large MER (approxi-mately 100,000 hectares) was decreed in June2006 in Canavieras, Bahia, 500 kilometers south ofSalvador, the state capital.

A Success Story: Mandira ExtractiveReserve, Southeast BrazilIn the rural villages of Cananéia in southeasternBrazil, marine-related activities are important,along with small-scale agriculture and foraging andsubsistence economies, in a complementary rela-tionship linked to natural cycles and market condi-tions (Sales and Maldonado 2000). Artisanal fishinghas a long history in the region, but shellfish har-vesting has been of economic importance for at least40 years and is mostly based on family artisan-pro-duction units. Estuaries in the region are particular-ly important in terms of their natural productivity.

Taking into account local communities' traditionalmanagement practices and the initial recognition ofthe region's importance in the 1970s and 1980s, astarting point for the history of the MandiraExtractive Reserve (Reserva Extrativista doMandira) is the formative period 1984–89, when a


65

345109Sec2_65 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 65

participatory process of coastal zone regional plan-ning was conducted in the area. This initiative wasreinforced during 1994–97 by the collaborativeplanning and zoning process for the Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe APA. A pilot project launched in1994 led ultimately to the creation of the MandiraExtractive Reserve (see Figure 6–4).

The Mandira community has been in the area sincethe eighteenth century, first involved in agriculturebut gradually shifting to seafood harvesting due tochanging economic conditions, pressures for land,and environmental restrictions. Mandira is aquilombo—a community made up of slave-descen-dants who trace their local residence and ancestryover generations (through Catholic Church recordsand oral histories). Mandira, like other quilombolas,has its collective rights over the land protectedunder Brazilian legislation.

It took nearly 10 years (1994–2004) to establish theMandira Extractive Reserve participatory proposaland the oyster regulation procedure. This is notunusual in Brazil or in similar community-basedMPAs in other parts of the world (such as thePhilippines). In retrospect, however, a long-termprocess of consultation for stakeholders, planning,and decision making is worthwhile and leads to bet-ter outcomes and prospects for sustaining a reserve.

All MER proposals legally require broad, thorough,stakeholder consultation, participatory discussion ofregional problems (consultas publicas), and carefuldocumentation of community membership and spe-cial connections to extractive areas through tradi-tional economic practices and products (see RoteiroMetodologico, CNPT 2005). In Mandira, as in mostreserve communities, it was essential to provide asuite of technical training and support activities: todevelop a bookkeeping system, explore new marketoutlets, communicate the special circumstances andimportance of sustainable production, and provideassistance in selling products and growing a busi-ness. Above all, MERs are required to developsound site management plans and principles guidedby the Roteiro Metodologico.

MER projects, like nearly all MPAs, tend to bepolitically controversial. Some critics of Mandiraviewed the project as “primitive” and out of place ina so-called more-developed region of Brazil (thecoast of the state of São Paulo). Eventually, though,Mandira won over opponents and created alliancesand innovative partnerships that contributed signif-icantly to its success (Sales and Maldonado 2000).

MER Benefits and ManagementChallengesIn the case of Mandira, project results include tan-gible benefits to the regional economy and therestoration of cultural values and environmentalquality. Local communities that had been sociallyand economically downtrodden have found pridethrough their fishing activities and through workingto enhance the quality of (and prices for) their prod-ucts. At the same time, consumers in urban marketshave access to a higher quality, safer, more sustain-able product based on harvesting and processingactivities that are environmentally sensitive.

There have also been noticeable conservation andcultural benefits. This has not only permitted themaintenance and enhanced appreciation of artisan-scale production, but good, locally available seafoodencourages tourism and is starting to create condi-tions for future generations to make their own eco-nomic choices. In many ways, the experience ofMandira restores extractive activities to their properplace—where knowledge and management prac-tices of local communities are adapting to moderni-ty while retaining elements of traditional knowledgeand livelihoods.

It is also important to highlight the extent of cultur-al documentation and ethnographic inputs requiredto develop MERs—from original proposal submis-sion to monitoring and evaluation and to both inter-nal and external conflict resolution. And in Brazil,anthropologists with long-standing ties to communi-ties tend to help legitimize and create a credibleimage for reserves; they exercise a critical “gate-keeping” and brokering role in relationships withregulatory agencies to affirm and reinforce the


66

345109Sec2_66 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 66

power of community decision making—as providedunder Brazil’s extractive reserve legislation in pro-posing reserve sites and preparing, approving, andimplementing site-specific management plans.

If the MER initiative is successful, Brazil may even-tually establish a socially responsive, economicallyrealistic, and environmentally sound multi-use MPA

framework that could serve as a model for othercountries whose coastal waters, like Brazil’s, do notcontain extensive coral reefs, but where it stillessential to protect longshore coastal biodiversitydistributed across many different coastal habitats.What is perhaps the most critical issue for MER atthis juncture, however, is that CNPT is far from hav-ing the technical capacity and experience working


67FIGURE 6.4

Mandira Extractive Reserve

345109Sec2_67 10/5/06 8:30 PM Page 67

with MPAs to implement and manage a full-fledgednational MER network. Note, however, that the stageis set for a new era of capacity building to strengthenCNPT’s scope of work as a result of a series of insti-tutional and management innovations recently com-pleted within IBAMA (in May-June 2006). CNPT isnow set to operate more effectively as an integral partof the newly created Socio-EnvironmentalDirectorate within IBAMA: DISAM (DiretoriaSocioAmbiental), designed to unify various sociocul-tural and biological dimensions of protected areamanagement (such as environmental education).

6.4.SEAP: A Promising NewDevelopment on CoastalManagement and FisheriesWith the creation in 2002 of a first-of-its-kindnational fisheries agency—the Special Secretariatfor Aquaculture and Fisheries (SEAP), which isgoing to have broad, national policy-setting and reg-ulatory powers—an exceptional opportunity nowexists to take steps to counter and reverse alarmingcoastal habitat degradation and depletion of marineresources while at the same time extending socioe-conomic assistance to marginal fishing communi-ties. Overall, priorities and goals of the Lulagovernment create favorable political conditions forthis. MER objectives are broadly compatible withthe aims of the Brazilian government’s Zero Hunger(Fome Zero) campaign.

For the first time in history Brazil is starting todevelop capacity and plans to manage fisheries,especially artisanal fisheries. Could this signal theend of the centuries-old, “open-to-the-public” phi-losophy of fisheries development?

The establishment of SEAP sent a strong message toBrazil’s coastal fishing communities and associations(LeRoy and Silvestre 2003) about how seriously thegovernment regarded the need for a specializedagency—with broad, national policy-setting pow-

ers—to coordinate and oversee fisheries develop-ment and management. The fact that steps were takenfrom the outset to create a special artisanal fisheriesdepartment within SEAP indicates the high priorityand commitment the government assigns to deliver-ing socioeconomic and resource management assis-tance to coastal fishing communities. These actionskindled high expectations that SEAP could become astrong advocate for artisanal fishing communities,taking the initiative as a public agency to deal fairlywith destructive conflicts within the fishing industryand helping local fishers defend their interests in theoverall development context of increasingly predato-ry, competing coastal economies.

SEAP’s efforts to establish socially just, sustain-able fisheries is a long-range goal that will eventu-ally require a fundamental transformation in theway fisheries resources, the coastal zone, andinshore waters are perceived, classified, used, andmanaged in Brazil. Instituting appropriate fisheriespolicies, resource management, and use-rightsframeworks that take into account the versatilityand regional variability of Brazil’s artisanal fish-eries and that can help bring about critically need-ed changes within the fishing industry, relatedeconomies, and environmental sectors is going tobe a gradual process.

6.5.Durability and Adaptabilityof Artisanal FishingArtisanal systems are highly vulnerable to a varietyof pressures, including uncontrolled development inother industries operating at the land-sea interface,population pressure in the coastal zone, and expan-sion of other, more modernized inshore fisheries, aswell as industrial fleets operating offshore. Yetsmall-scale inshore fishing traditions continue toexpand, and remain the economic backbone forBrazil’s coastal poor. An estimated 2 million or morefishers and their families depend on the artisanalfishing economy. (See Figure 6–5.)


68

345109Sec2_68 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 68

In Brazil, as in many other tropical countries, arti-sanal fisheries are typically embedded in mixedland and sea-based economies, having both com-mercial, semi-commercial, and subsistence compo-nents. In some cases, very little of the catch fromartisanal production passes through the marketplaceat all; however, this does not mean it is any less crit-ical to the livelihood of impoverished populations.To the contrary, it is often the backbone for margin-al communities in terms of food supply and income,where there are few alternatives.

A second feature distinguishing artisanal produc-tion is its extreme variability and versatility.Artisanal fisheries are multi-species, multi-pur-pose, and multi-dimensional. They use remarkablyvaried technologies in terms of equipment and fish-ing craft, which run the gamut from traditional tohigh-tech. A diversity of habitats and coastal micro-environments is used for fishing. These fisheries arealso characterized by a division of labor acrosshouseholds, communities, and task groups. Thishelps explain artisanal resiliency and staying poweralluded to earlier and confirmed by catch data.

A third characteristic is that artisanal fishing tendsto be strongly associated with specific community-based, inshore territories, which are held under a

wide range of traditional tenure arrangements and offishing and resource use-rights customs and princi-ples involving systems of traditional resource man-agement knowledge (conhecimento manejotradicional) (Cordell 2002). These traditional ele-ments have been shown to have pronouncedresource impacts, though they are often hard tointerpret and quantify.

Strong local stakeholder demands have recently led tothe creation of “fisheries forums” (forums de pesca) inseveral states (Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul,Ceará). Local nongovernmental organization s (NGOs)in partnership with artisanal fishing communities,plus fishers’ representative organizations (MONAPE,Pastoral de Pesca) and university research centers(such as NUPAUB-U of São Paulo) are networking andproviding technical and scientific support to helpdrive these initiatives (such as TerraMar in Ceará).These developments are very encouraging. In somecases, they are becoming linked to existing MERs thattogether provide useful structures and conceptualframeworks within which scaled up coastal-marinemanagement systems are starting to evolve.

CNPT is a focal point and is becoming a “center ofexcellence” among government agencies in imple-menting multi-use protected areas involving tradi-


69FIGURE 6.5

Total Landings: Share Artisanal and Industrial Fishing

800 60%

40%

20%

600

400

200

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Des

emba

rque

(ton

elad

as)

% a

rtes

anal

Industrial

Artesenal

Source: SEAP 2006 (Nas Redes Da Pesca Artesanal)

345109Sec2_69 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 69

tional populations. It stands to play a more exten-sive role in future marine management, includingfisheries management and extension work, as thecurrent government takes steps to foster greaterinteragency cooperation in all areas of naturalresource management, bolstered by initiatives of theMinistry of Science and Technology and Brazil’sNational Research Council that are meant toencourage applied research, policy inputs, and part-nerships with academic institutions relevant to gov-ernment programs.

6.6.Scaling Up for Survival inSouthern Bahia: The CorumbauMER and an Emerging Mosaicof Land and Sea ReservesThe Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau wasestablished in 2000 through a Presidential Decree.The Corumbau MER comprises 98,174 hectares,spanning the municipalities of Porto Seguro andPrado in the southern coast of Bahia.

Corumbau is a federal conservation unit/entity, soIBAMA is responsible for its management.Corumbau is intended to protect marine biodiversi-ty and improve livelihoods in five small fishingcommunities and one Indigenous Pataxós group. Allsix villages depend on reef and soft-bottom fishescaptured with hand-lines, spears, and nets; ontrawled shrimp (recently introduced); and on small-scale tourism. Corumbau was the first MER specif-ically designed to protect coral reefs. Consideringfishers and their families officially registered asmembers of the MER, roughly 1,750 people dependdirectly on the extractive activities in this area.

The Corumbau MER features important ecosystemswithin the Abrolhos complex, which includes coralreefs and marine and coastal e-nvironments situat-ed south of the Jequitinhonra River to the borderbetween the states of Bahia and Espírito Santo. The

Itacolomis reefs are located in front of the Ponta doCorumbau, close to where the Portuguese first land-ed in Brazil in 1500. From the sea, the terrestrialpark of Monte Pascoal can be seen. The Corumbaureefs, the largest group of reefs in the AbrolhosArchipelago, until recently were practicallyunknown to scientists, especially outside of Brazil.The Itacomis have a rich coral fauna as well as rel-atively high cover, particularly of Mussismila caver-nos, M. brazilensis, and Siderastrea stellata, whichare biologically representative of the range ofAbrolhos corals. Furthermore, according to biologi-cal surveys carried out before the creation of thereserve, the richness of the species, the corallinecover, and the condition of the colonies—particular-ly the hydrocoral Milepora alcionis—indicate thatthe Itacolomis reefs are still in a good state of con-servation (CI-Brazil 2000, 2006).

The Bahia coastline also harbors some of the mostextensive remaining areas of Brazil’s AtlanticForest, the most important portions of which fallwithin a range of land and sea protected areas. TheMER at Corumbau, for example, borders on MontePascoal National Park, which includes both non-indigenous traditional populations and indigenouspeoples’ reserves.

Establishing Corumbau illustrates how MERs differfrom processes involved in creating other types ofprotected areas in Brazil (national parks, APAs, orsustainable development reserves) in that thedemand came from the local Corumbau community,which in 1998 petitioned CNPT-IBAMA to conductfeasibility assessments to find out whether localfishing areas could meet the criteria for a MER (orsome other MPA type). To expedite this process,IBAMA signed a technical cooperation agreementwith Conservation Internatiaonl–Brazil. That pro-vided biological and socioeconomic surveys of theareas and is also leading to the development of amonitoring program and a plan for the use and man-agement of the unit. Although it is a new conserva-tion unit, the Corumbau MER already has aDeliberative Council and is drafting a managementplan that embodies a strong participatory approach,with provisions for ongoing participatory monitor-


70

345109Sec2_70 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 70

ing, and decisions about zoning. This will includetwo fully protected marine areas (Itacolomis andTaua Reefs) and seven zones to restrict use of river-ine areas and resources with MER boundaries(Carava, Corumbau, Cahy, and Imbassuaba);restrictions on fishing gear (beach seines, trammelnets, trotlines, and longlines); and seasonal use ofnearshore habitats adjacent to the Indian Village ofBarra Velha. These restrictions also extend to theJapara Basin and Tatuacu Reef, where there areadditional measures to protect species.

The case study found that perhaps the most grave,immediate threat to coastal biodiversity, artisanalfisheries, and the livelihoods of coastal residents inBrazil is the unregulated, highly speculative, oftenenvironmentally destructive expansion of large-scale shrimp farming (carcinicultura), especially inthe northeast (see LeRoy and Silvestre 2003;UNDP/GEF 2006see also Harvey 2003). Brazilianshrimp farming exports jumped from $14 million in1999 to $244.5 million in 2003 and are projected toreach $500 million by 2005—but at what price tofragile coastal habitats?

The process of establishing MERs and the prospectsfor expanding the system have become increasinglyproblematic and politically contested as entrepre-neurs and commercial enterprises, often tied to dis-tant markets, explore opportunities to invest inBrazil’s marginal, remote, and sparsely populatedshores and seascapes. What were sea frontiers onlya few years ago are rapidly succumbing to commer-cialization and colonization. As competition toappropriate coastal sea space intensifies, MERsites—and for that matter, all protected area typesin the littoral zone—are encountering formidableopposition from pro-development state and munici-pal governments.

Southern Bahia provides a more striking illustrationof the nature of these conflicts, of why and how theyare escalating, and of the environmental and socialrisks Brazil runs in allowing states and municipali-ties to actively promote high-impact coastal devel-opment. A proposal to create the region’s largestshrimp farm there endangers the unique, southern-most coral reef complex in the South Atlantic—theAbrolhos Archipelago. The proposed 1,500-hectare


71

6th anniversary celebration of the Ponta do Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve – photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura, Conservation International, Abrolhos, Brazil

345109Sec2_71 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 71

large-scale shrimp farming operation would producean alien (Pacific) species (Litopenaeus vannamei)for the export market. Not only will the projectinduce mangrove deforestation and sedimentationand pollute estuarine larval areas, but IBAMA stud-ies indicate that winds and currents will dispersepollutants and potentially interfere in life cyclesand reproduction of fish species over the long runthroughout the Abrolhos Bank habitats. Moreover,Conservation International, which maintains aresearch station in the region, estimates that theCoopex operation could adversely affect the liveli-hoods of 20,000 artisanal fishers and displace 350poor families who depend directly on shellfish with-in the Cassuruba mangrove MER site.

Local fishing communities, environmentalists, andfederal authorities have few legal alternatives forcontesting the project assessment and approvalprocess in Bahia. (Figure 6–6 indicates the directimpact zone of the shrimp farming project, in themidst of a group of existing and proposed MERsites, the Abrolhos National Marine Park, MontePascoal National Park, and environs). Battle linesare now clearly drawn, with IBAMA, a coalition oflocal environmental and social advocacy NGOs(SOS Abrolhos), MER communities, and traditionalfishers facing off against local mayors, 16 powerfullandowner associations, the Bahia state environ-mental permitting agency (CRA), the governor ofBahia, and six federal senators, including somefrom the neighboring state of Espírito Santo who arein favor of the Coopex project.

In the absence of an effective ICM planning andgovernance regime, coupled with a rigorous, legallyenforceable environmental licensing system toensure enterprise compliance with regulations, theonly thing temporarily keeping the Coopex shrimpfarm from starting up is the previously gazettedcomplex of protected areas. How the politics of thisconflict will play out and whether the MER ofCorumbau, the SOS coalition, and the new MER site(Cassuruba) will succeed in holding the linethrough legal maneuvers is an open question. In themeantime, IBAMA has come up with a strategy thatcould provide a solution, which is noteworthy in that

it could be applicable to MPAs facing similar prob-lems: IBAMA invoked its power recently to declarean extension of the buffer zone (zona de amorteci-mento) surrounding the Abrolhos National Park (seeFigure 6–6). This zone, 482 kilometers long and213 kilometers wide, now effectively encapsulatesthe Coopex impact zone. The upshot is that in orderto proceed, the company will now need an environ-mental license from IBAMA, a federal agency,which trumps Bahia state and municipal authorities.

A number of important points can be drawn fromstudying the politics of MPA development in SouthernBahia. First, MER initiatives in the area at this pointare less a trial of the comparative effectiveness ofmulti-use, social protection modalities in the MPAtoolkit than a test of whether demarcated, protectedsea territories can withstand pressures from beyondtheir boundaries at the sea edge and inland. The ques-tion is, Will MERs ever really be given a chance tofulfill their original zoning and marine managementfunctions apart from becoming a stop-gap line ofdefense against off-site development threats?

Second, on the positive side, the prospect of shrimpfarming in the Abrolhos region has generated asobering assessment of the negative repercussionsthat a whole host of development plans (oil and nat-ural gas exploration, pulp manufacturing, luxuryresorts) could bring to the still unspoiled coast ofSouthern Bahia and of new strategies for protectingbiodiversity. Researchers, conservation NGOs(including the SOS coalition), and CNPT-IBAMAand national park authorities are exploring novelpossibilities of reinforcing and linking managementof protected areas in a way that would protect thesphere of interaction of biological processes andbiodiversity at the land-sea interface. ExistingMPAs, though established somewhat opportunisti-cally, nonetheless form a “mosaic.” As in otherparts of Brazil where mosaics have been identified(such as Guaraquecaba), the social networking thatis increasing across protected areas in SouthernBahia may provide a foundation for scaling upcoastal management—helping to bridge both geo-graphic and institutional gaps that impede biologi-cal connectivity.


72

345109Sec2_72 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 72

Third, even if Brazil had the political will andresources to allocate in constructing an MPA network,without concomitant integration of land and marinemanagement, an MPA network— however strategical-ly designed from a scientific standpoint—could stillbe overrun by commercial expansion. Lack of clearlydefined tenure provisions invites unsustainable devel-opment of nearshore waters held as open-access com-mons, which makes it difficult to locate and focusaccountability for actions that have spillover effects.

Fourth, the course of events in Southern Bahiaexposes a fundamental flaw in the legal and organi-zational structure of environmental licensing in

Brazil. Along with open access, this has ominousimplications for protected areas, particularly MPAs,currently less capable of boundary defense andenforcement than most protected areas on land.Companies frequently take advantage of a loopholein licensing stemming from long-running federal-state jurisdictional conflicts and disjunctions. Asthings now stand, state environmental agencies haveconsiderable autonomy and latitude to issue permitsfor development projects without IBAMA’s approval,thereby avoiding more stringent federal oversight.

And fifth, the project approval/licensing loopholeissue is only one gap in a chain of institutional


73

FIGURE 6.6

Distribution of Protected Areas in Southern Bahia

345109Sec2_73 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 73

weaknesses and national-to-local discontinuitiescontributing to environmental crises in Brazil.Another major deficiency concerns the limited wayICM is currently practiced and set up to operate inBrazil (through GERCO). For example, GERCOdoes have key information, though not the power tointervene in the predicament in Southern Bahia. Todate, Brazil—like many other countries—has usedICM primarily as a methodology, a modeling tooland GIS database. The system is not set up to workin unison with policy setting, governance, andresource management authorities, backed up by lawenforcement, to play the major, inter-agency, coordi-nating role that Brazil urgently needs to institutescience-based, cross-sectoral coastal management.

6.7.The Case for StrengtheningIntegrated Coastal ManagementThe case study provided an opportunity for anupdate on Brazil’s ICM program (GERCO), whichreceived substantial financing from the World Bank(for example, Project Orla) (Tomassi 2004). ICM—along with MERs and establishment of SEAP—isthe third alternative in Brazil’s coastal-MPA toolkitthat warrants special attention in the country studycontext. ICM, despite the limitations noted earlier,

remains the only existing, legally founded structurewith conceptual integration and scientific potentialto span administrative jurisdictions and coordinatecompeting economies and protected area measureson big-picture scales—the factors this study hasidentified as prerequisites for effective coastal-marine management.

Brazil is much better equipped than many wealthi-er countries to conduct environmental assessmentsand protected-area planning with state-of-the-arttechnology. Capacity-building gains in this area arein large measure attributable to a series of WorldBank/GEF investments and Bank-assisted projectsto strengthen biodiversity conservation (see PNMA2004). Brazil has recently conducted what is per-haps the most detailed assessment of coastal-marineconservation priorities of any country in LatinAmerica. In 1973, increasing awareness of itsstrategic position as a coastal state led Brazil to cre-ate its first marine policy-making process, institu-tionalized as the Interministerial Commission of SeaResources (CIRM), which in turn was authorized todevelop a national policy for coastal regions. In1980, this culminated in Brazil’s National MarineResources Policy. Its principal aim was to connectsectors and agencies within the government withvarious jurisdictions and mandates for marineresource management, including integration of theterritorial sea and continental shelf. CIRM contin-ues to act as the “articulator” between public andprivate sectors and marine policy setting.

To reiterate, GERCO has the only administrativeportfolio in Brazil sufficient in scope to unify themanagement of activities in the coastal zone andto, in cooperation with IBAMA, facilitate andmonitor compliance with international environ-mental agreements and mandates in coastal-marine areas. Currently, these functions arescattered across various ministries, some of whichare reluctant to relinquish turf and responsibili-ties; for example, IBAMA is reluctant to divest itslicensing and central data management duties tothe new fisheries agency, the Special Secretariatfor Aquaculture and Fisheries.


74

Reefs at Cumuruxatiba marine extractive reserve — photo by Enrico Marone, CI Brazil

345109Sec2_74 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 74

6.8.Lessons from Brazil’s Coastaland Marine ManagementExperienceThe only existing mechanism that could performhigher-order marine management and coordinatingtasks in Brazil is ICM. The potential benefits ofscaling up via ICM are clearly demonstrated in thePhilippines country study. The economic and sectorwork carried out in Brazil confirms that GERCO hasthe analytical capacity and plans in place to imple-ment ICM in Brazil’s 400 coastal municipalities.What GERCO faces (but eventually may be able toovercome) are a range of political and institutionalconstraints, as well as private sector interests, thatare encumbering implementation of the system atthe local level to manage development. To date,Brazil’s experience in ICM remains uneven becauseconstraints on and opportunities to implement ICMvary markedly across states and municipalities. Atthe same time, it is important to point out that anumber of states are reporting good progress inusing ICM (such as Santa Catarina, São Paulo,Pernambuco, and Ceará).

This first point comes back to this report’s examina-tion of issues not yet receiving adequate attention orassessment in proposals and arguments from con-servation groups and marine management agenciesthat are advocating creation of global MPA net-works. Even if the sea in Brazil were filled with alatticework or network of MPAs (closed areas) tomatch biological scales (geared to support connec-tivity) and the country could overcome tacticalproblems of enforcing closures, the likelihood andrisks that eventually such networks would still be

undercut from (uncontrolled) upstream, inland, andoff-site network threats remain extraordinarily high.

Paradoxically, on the issue of MPA expansion, inBrazil much more pressing near-term needsinvolve, first, “scaling down” to consolidate andlearn more from existing individual MPA experi-ences, which could subsequently become nuclei,building blocks, and learning centers for transfer-ring lessons to other areas via diffusion, replica-tion, and adaptive radiation and, second, scalingacross sectors to help reserves defend against off-site threats and against destructive impacts ofexpanding extractive economies in surroundingproduction landscapes.

Basic technical assistance, ideally within an ICMframeowrk, is urgently needed to jointly strenghtenthe Special Secretariat for Aquaculture andFisheries and CNPT-IBAMA, the Fishery Co-Management Forum, and Fisheries Accords mecha-nisms—all of which have intersecting governancemandates, policy implementation, skills transferand training needs (for instance, in the process ofpreparing artisanal fisheries management plans andMER site management plans, data management,and tracking tools).

Future development assistance or investments thatthe World Bank or other donors may decide to directto the coastal-marine sector cannot afford to focusexclusively on resource management issues, simplyfrom a capacity-building and institutional strength-ening viewpoint. Conservation assistance strategiescannot fail to address pressing socioeconomic con-cerns and the need to create safety nets for artisanalfishers and MER communities—people who live inpoverty and often in remote areas without access tobasic services or infrastructure.


75

345109Sec2_75 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 75

References

Asmus, M.S., E.V. Marroni, and G.G. Vieira. 2004. Ocean Policy in Brazil (draft). Federal University of Rio Grande,Brazil.

Begossi, A. 2006. Temporal stability in fishing spots: conservation and co-management in Brazilian artisanal coastalfisheries. Ecology and Society 11(1): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art5/

Begossi, A. (ed.). 2004. Ecologia de Pescadores da Mata Atlantica e da Amazonia. Ecologia e Cultura 6, direcao deAntonio Carlos Diegues. Editora HUCITEC, NUPAUB/USP, FAPESP, NEPAM/UNICAMP. São Paulo, Brazil.

Conservation International (CI-Brazil). 2000. Abrolhos Aquatic Biodiversity Survey. Washington, DC.

———. 2006. Abrolhos pode ter mais especies do que o Caribe inteiro. O Estado de São Paulo. June 10.

CNPT (National Center of Traditional Peoples and Sustainable Development). 2001. Reservas Extrativistas, Termos deReferencia, Plano de Manejo de Uso Multiplo. Documentacao Para Discussao Publica. IBAMA. Brasília.

———. 2005. Roteiro Metodologico: Plano de Manejo de Uso Multiplo das Reservas Extrativistas Fererais. (E.Rodrigues, A.C. de Paula, and C.M. Araujo, eds.). IBAMA. Brasília.

Cordell, J. 1972. The Ecology of Estuarine Canoe Fishing Systems in Northeast Brazil. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.Dept. of Anthropology, Stanford University.

———. 1978. Swamp dwellers of Bahia. Natural History. June: 62–74.

———. 1983. Locally Managed Sea Territories. In Proceedings, FAO Roundtable on Coastal and Lagoon FisheriesManagement, J. Kapetsky (ed.), Studies and Reviews, 403–29, FAO Fisheries, Rome.

———(ed.). 1989. A Sea of Small Boats. Cultural Survival. Cambridge, Mass.

———. 2002. Remapping the Waters: The Significance of Sea Tenure-Based Protected Areas. Keynote Address. IIIConference on Property Rights, Economics and the Environment: Marine Resources. Centre d’Analyse Economiquede l’Universite d’ Aix-Marseille. In: Marine Resources, Property Rights, Economics and Environment. M. Falque, M.de Alessi, and H. Lamotte (eds.). Vol. 14, International Review of Comparative Public Policy. pp. 265–493. ElsevierScience. Amsterdam.

———. 2003. Brazil’s Coastal Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) Initiative:Protected Area Management Capacity-Building, Social Policy, and Technical Assistance Needs Assessment. Consultancy Report. The Ford Foundation (RioOffice) and IBAMA/CNPT (Centro Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentado das Populacoes Tradicionais). Brasília. July.

Cunha, L.H. 2001. Reservas Extrativistas: Uma Alternativa de Producao e Conservacao da Biodiversidade. Manuscript(unpublished). NUPAUB.

Diegues, A.C. 1995. A realidades e falacias sobre pescadores artesanais. In A.C. Diegues (ed.). Povos e Mares.NUPAUB.

———. 1998. Human populations and coastal wetlands: conservation and management in Brazil. Ocean and CoastalManagement. 42.

——— (ed.). 2000. Ethnoconservacao da Natureza: Enfoques Alternativos. In A. Diegues (ed.) Ethnoconservacao.Hucitec / NUPAUB.

———. 2001. Traditional Fisheries Knowledge and Social Appropriation of Marine Resources in Brazil. Paper present-ed at Mare Conference: People and the Sea. Amsterdam. August/September.

———. 2002. Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil: Potential, Constraints and Strategies for Sustainable Development.NUPAUB. University of São Paulo.

Diegues, A.C. and R.S.V. Arruda. 2001. Saberes Tradicionais eBiodiversidade No Brasil. Ministerio do Meio Ambiente-MMA / Programa Nacionalde Conservacao da Biodiversidade. Universidade de Sao Paulo-USP / NUPAUB. Brasília.

Environmental Law Institute. 1995. Brazil’s Extractive Reserves: Fundamental Aspects of their Implementation.Washington, DC.


76

345109Sec2_76 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 76

Harvey, Brian. 2003. Biodiversity and Fisheries: A Primer for Planners. Biodiversity Planning and Support Program.Global Environment Facility. Washington, DC.

LeRoy, J.P., and D. Silvestre (eds.). 2003. Plataforma Brasileira de Direitos Humanos,Economicos, Sociais, e Culturais.Plataforma DHESC Brasil. Populacoes Litoraneas Ameacadas: Carcinicultura, Pesca Industrial,Turismo,Empreendimentos Publicos e Poluicao. Relatório da Missão a Pernambuco, Ceará e Rio Grande do Norte. RelatoriaNacional Para O Direto Humano Ao Meio Ambiente

Lima, A. 2006. Parecer Preliminar: Análise Juridica sobre Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Paper presented atWorld Wildlife Fund Conference on Sustainable Development Reserves, February 11. Brasília.

Maldonado, S.A. 2000. Caminho das pedras: percepcao e utilizacao do espaco na pesca simples. In A. Diegues (ed.)Imagem Das Aguas. Hucitec / Nupaub.

MMA (Ministerio do Meio Ambiente). 2002. Atlas of Coral Reef Protected Areas in Brazil. Ana Paula Leite Prates(ed.). Brasília.

———. 2003. Atlas of Coral Reef Protected Areas in Brazil. Ana Paula Leite Prates (ed.). Brasília.

MMA (Ministerio do Meio Ambiente/PROBIO. 2002. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestais. Areas Prioritarias ParaA Conservacao Utilizacao Sustentavel, e Reparticao De Beneficios Da Biodiversidade Brasileira. Brasília.

Nogara, P. 2001. Protecao e gestao participativa does recursos pesqueiros no saco de mamangua, RJ. In A. Dieguesand V. Viana (eds.). Comunidades Tradicionais e o Manejo dos Recursos Naturais da Mata Atlantica. NUPAUB.

———. 2005. Mamangua: Bercario Marinho e Reduto Tradicional de Caicaras. NUPAUB. University of São Paulo.

Pinto da Silva, P.S.V. 2002. Common Property to Co-management: Social Change and Participation in Brazil’s FirstMaritime Extractive Reserve. Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Economics.

———. 2004. From common property to co-management: lessons from Brazil’s first Marine Extractive Reserve. MarinePolicy 28: 419–28.

Ramalho, C.W. 2002. “Ah, Esse Povo do Mar!” Um Estudo Comparativo Sobre Trabalho e Pertencimento Na PescaArtesanal Pernambucana. Project de Dissertacao / Mestrado em Sociologia. Universidade Federal Pernambuco.Recife. April.

PNMA (Programa Nacional do Meio Ambiente/ National Environmental Program). 2004. National EnvironmentalProgram II 2000-2004 Activities Report. Brasília.

Sales, R., and W. Maldonado. 2000. A reserva extrativista estadual do bairro do mandira e o ordenamento da explo-racao das ostraas em cananeia, SP. In A. Diegues and V. Viana (eds.). Comunidades Tradicionais e Manejo doRecursos Naturais da Mata Atlantica. NUPAUB.

SEAP (Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries)/PNUD (United Nations Development Programme). 2006.Nas Redes Da Pesca Artesanal: Diagnostico Integrado Da Pesca Artesanal No Brasil. A. Lobo (ed.). Brasília.

SNUC (Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza). 2004. Lei No. 9.985, de Julho de 2000 DecretoNo. 4.340, de 22 Agosto de 2002. Brasília.

Tomassi, L.R. 2004. Sustainable Development of Brazilian Coastal Marine Areas. Available at www.io.usp.br.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)/GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2006. Programa das NaçõesUnidas para o Desenvolvimento Governo do Brasil. Seção 1: Documento do Projeto “Conservação e Uso Sustentávelda Biodiversidade de Manguezais em Áreas Protegidas no Brasil”. Washington, DC.

World Resources Institute. 2000. Fostering Policies for Sustainable Coastal and Marine Resources Management andConservation. The 2000–2003 Global Marine Strategy of the World Resources Institute. R.S. Pomeroy and J.E. Parks(eds.). Washington, DC.


77

345109Sec2_77 10/5/06 8:31 PM Page 77

Part III Analysis

andConclusions

345109Sec3_78 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 78

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) clearly havean important role to play in countering the currentcrisis in the world’s oceans—a crisis manifest insevere declines in fisheries productivity, loss of habi-tat and species diversity, nutrient pollution, invasionsof alien species, and, increasingly, disease. The lattermay be linked to climate change, which exacerbatesthe stress already imposed on marine systems by bur-geoning human coastal populations. MPAs help pre-serve biodiversity that is representative or unique,endemic to a small, isolated part of the world, oressential to the life cycle of economically importantor highly threatened species. They also are key to ourunderstanding of natural processes, which requiresresearch in areas with no or little human intervention.Apart from this scientific and ecological value, MPAsallow us to preserve areas of exceptional naturalbeauty, cultural heritage, and spiritual value. Theyare essential tools to help us retain a vision of wherewe came from—the marine environment in its pureststate—and what we have lost. In time, and with greateffort, they may provide stepping stones to restoringwhat we have lost and returning our past to the future.

7.1.Putting MPAs in ContextDespite their utility and aesthetic appeal, experiencearound the world indicates that most MPAs function


Implications of Findings forMainstreaming and ScalingUp Marine Protected Areas

7

Bird Island, Algarrobo, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich

345109Sec3_79 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 79


80

TABLE 7.1

Evaluation and Summary of Key Factors for Successful MPAs in Case Studies

Institutions and governance

Commitment to marine conservation at national level • National policy framework in place• Consistent enforcement of the law/prosecu-

tion of violators

Governance indicators (percentile based onsurvey findings reported in Kauffmann andothers 2004)• Control of corruption ranking• Voice and accountability• Rule of law

Commitment at local level• Application of EIA, zoning • Participatory planning in MPA/MMA

establishment and management• Enforcement reliable and fair

Fisheries and Coastal Management

Open access for artisanal fishing?

Open access for industrial fishing?

Controls on fishing effort?

Excess capacity an issue?

MPAs/MMAs nested within a broader FM orICM framework

No-take MPAs included in MMAs?

Zoning enforced?

Sectoral policies regulating coastal develop-ment aligned with sustainable development?

Human Capacity

Sufficient human capacity and experience withMPA implementation, fisheries and coastalmanagement at national and local levels

Sufficient enforcement capacity

Leadership/local champions?

Key Factors Case Study Countries

Philippines Chile Brazil

• Yes• No; impunity for powerful

entities common; violenceand threats common

• 36.5%• 47.6• 38.1

• Sporadic EIA, commonlyignored

• Participatory planningstrong

• Enforcement minimal andunreliable in most cases(with notable exceptions)

• Movement of artisanalfishers unmanaged

• Encroachment in munici-pal waters common

• No: fishing effort unsus-tainable and increasing

• Serious

• Variable: MPAs commonlylinked to ICM programs

• Yes

• No

• No

• Yes: strength at local levelvariable

• Strong in some areas,weak in many areas.

• Political leadership incon-sistent; internationallyrecognized champions;local leadership variable

• Yes

• 88.7• 83.0• 87.1

• Sporadic• For MEABR• Unreliable

• No; now effectively con-trolled

• No

• Yes

• No longer

• No

• Some, but not in MEABRs

• Issues with salmon cultureremain serious

• Insufficient

• Variable; poaching anissue

• Very strong champions

• No• No

• 53.2%• 55.8 • 50.0%

• Sporadic EIA: no commu-nity-based NationalMarine Parks

• MER: high local-levelsupport APAs: regionalagreement driven

• Enforcement (all units):minimal unreliable

• Open access: guild (colo-nias) licensing ineffective

• Municipal encroachmentdecreasing

• Controls on gear (beachseines & hooka) unen-forceable

• Excess capacity (artisanal) slight

• No

• Yes: MERs, APAs, MarineParks

• Zoning not enforceable

• No

• Insufficient all levels

• National Parks: extremelyweak

• High-level local leader-ship and leadership net-works for MERs; less forAPAs and Marine Parks

345109Sec3_80 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 80

as islands in a sea of trouble. The future of mostMPAs—however well intentioned, well designed,and well managed they may be within the limits oftheir boundaries—is uncertain and depends in largepart on the health of surrounding waters and adja-cent landscapes. Large-scale MPAs, like the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) Authority, areless vulnerable, but even that area is threatened byrunoff from agricultural lands in coastal watershedsthat brings with it sediments, nutrients, and pesti-cides. While vulnerability to externalities such asland-based pollution decreases with size, it is not

completely eliminated, even in the largest MPAs,and getting close to that point is costly.

Enhancing the viability and success of MPAsdepends on several factors, as assessed in the casestudies and the literature review described in thisreport. Table 7–1 summarizes these and the status ofthese indicators in the three case study countries.

In light of these results and the many challengesthat need to be addressed regarding MPA viabilityand effectiveness, a few fundamental questions


81

TABLE 7.1 CONTINUED

Sustainable financing

MPAs/MMAs self-financed?

Line item in national budget?

Heavy external support?

Social Equity/Empowerment

Attention to participatory and equitable planning and implementation process

Equitable distribution of MPA costs and benefits

Stakeholder conflict resolution mechanismsin place

Cultural Acceptability

Appropriate to local culture

Support from dominant cultural group

Science and Information

Modern and traditional environmental knowl-edge (TEK) integrated into plans

Adequate monitoring and adaptive manage-ment in place

Adequate information exchange betweenpractitioners, policy makers, and resourceusers

Public and private sector collaborativelyinvolved in M&E and reporting

Application of Precautionary Principle

• No, highly dependent onexternal funds.

• Limited government support

• Variable–some local governments coveringexpenses

• Variable: yes in somecases

• Variable: benefits dissipat-ed under open accessregime; control of someMPAs usurped

• Variable: conflict betweensectors common and largely unmanaged

• Yes

• Yes

• Plans incorporate somescience and TEK, but notconsistently over time

• Variable: monitoring datacommonly ignored

• Generally strong, but notalways sustained

• Variable: Weak butstrengthening

• No

• MEABR yes

• Limited government support

• No external support

• Variable; centralized decision-making

• Yes, by and large

• Yes

• n/a

• n/a

• Yes: basis for Legislationof MBEARs

• No: need more

• Not enough

• Yes for MEABRS—required for renewal ofpermit

• Yes

• Line items are minuscule

• Modest external support issufficient (even for largereserves)

• Yes: Fisheries Forums &MER Public Consultationsat the forefront

• No reliable indicators todate

• Conflicts unmanaged(Federal Police interven-tions)

• Yes

• Yes

• MER sites only

• Nowhere

• University channels

• Petrobras support for M&Ein Bahia

• No

Key Factors Case Study Countries

Philippines Chile Brazil

345109Sec3_81 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 81

remain. Are calls to dramatically increase the cov-erage of no-take MPAs around the world reason-able? Is it feasible to attempt to scale up MarineProtected Areas in response to the marine crisis aslong as open-access and other destructive practicespersist in waters surrounding MPAs? As noted inPart II, unregulated access to fishery resources pre-vails as the default condition in most countries. Theanalysis in this chapter will examine this questionand more fundamental questions about the viabilityof MPAs as isolated entities and the utility of pro-moting them in isolation from larger spatial plan-ning frameworks.

A summary of key findings about scaling up MPAcoverage, as called for in many international confer-ences and fora, is presented in Boxes 7–1 and 7–2.

It is clear that MPAs are fragile institutions, operatingagainst difficult odds and buffeted by ever-changingthreats and political agendas. These threats may orig-inate in watersheds high above the coastal zone, intourist resorts where mangroves used to be, or in fishmarkets half a world away. MPAs that have the supportof local communities in their design and implementa-tion are most likely to succeed, particularly if bene-fits—usually from enhanced fisheries or tourism—are


82

BOX 7.1

Opportunities for Scaling Up MPA Coverage

• Frameworks are emerging to deal with issues of common property.

• Strong international call for action heard along with local stakeholder demand to improve gover-nance of coastal and marine resources and restore fisheries productivity and ocean health.

• Legal frameworks in many countries create a precedent for moving forward. These include:• UN FAO Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries• Convention on Biodiversity• National laws to create and administer MPAs• National Coastal Management Policy (Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Namibia, Indonesia,

China, Belize, and so on)• National plans and regulatory frameworks to implement these policies

• Favorable conditions exist for spatial area management of coastlines at subregional scales. Theseinclude:• Decentralization and local government initiatives to administer coastal resources (Local

Government Units in the Philippines, municipalities in Latin America)• Some reorganization and reform within management agencies with jurisdiction of the coastal zone• MPA/marine area management mosaics emerging at seascape scales (Sian Ka’an Biosphere

Reserve, Tubbataha National Park, Kiribas, Banc d’Arguin, Argentina, Northwest HawaiianIslands (GBRMP))

• New funding opportunities exist for capacity building in integrated coastal management (ICM) andsustainable fisheries management (USAID, World Bank, GEF, Nordic agencies).

• Information/lessons learned are being exchanged between coastal managers within and acrossregions (GEF IW: Learn, ONEFISH, Sea Around Us Project, UN Atlas of the Oceans, ICRAN).

• Mutually reinforcing agendas found within the environment, natural resource managment, andsocial sectors for more effective coastal and marine resources management.

345109Sec3_82 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 82


83BOX 7.2

Constraints on Scaling Up MPA Coverage

Environmental• MPAs cannot succeed in isolation. Externalities beyond their control can seal their fate and jeop-

ardize local support that has taken years and many resources to build up (Philippines,Brazil–shrimp farming).

• Most successful MPAs tend to be small, community-based, and fisheries-focused; large MPAs(thousands of square kilometers) are rare and tend to be isolated (Tubbataha, Banco Chinchorro,and Hawaiian Islands) and fisheries-oriented (Pacific Islands) or difficult to enforce (Bancd’Arguin, Galapagos Islands); notable exceptions include some Biosphere Reserves (Sian Ka’an)and the GBRMP, which are seascape in scale and zoned for multiple use.

• Benefits to surrounding fisheries from no-take reserves may take several years to translate intoincreased harvests for fishers; biodiversity conservation benefits are difficult to monetize andless appreciated by some decision makers.

• It is difficult for most MPAs to achieve conservation benefits at ecosystem scales.• Social and natural science has been inadequate or untapped to guide MPA design to make it effi-

cient at delivering objectives (with the least cost to society).• There is inadequate knowledge of the social and ecosystem impacts of many activities allowed

in multiple-use areas due to inadequate monitoring and carrying capacity studies.• Information and tools are inaccessible to local-level stakeholders to manage more effectively.

Sociocultural• Lack of basic information on income distribution, gender, dependency on marine resources and

on methods to apply it.• Intellectual property issues (land tenure information, income information, community control,

research protocols for managing resources).• Socioeconomic costs—giving up access rights and short-term harvests/income.• Long time horizons to get MPAs established.• Tenure concerns.• Maintaining community buy-in and active participation is complex and unstable.• Benefit sharing not always transparent nor equitable.

Political and Institutional Costs• Developing-country governments strongly resist setting up extensive MPAs and ecosystem-based

management frameworks with a biodiversity conservation focus in line with northern nongovern-mental organization (NGO) agendas and international targets.

• Short-term planning horizons of leaders and politicians are inconsistent with longer-term plan-ning frameworks.

• Legal systems, at the local level, may not be consistent or compatible with national legislation.• Economic sectoral boundaries remain impediments to effective management—resulting in

incompatible activities in surrounding seascapes and negative externalities.

Financial Costs• Costs of establishing and maintaining MPAs are high (enforcement, surveying tenure and ecolog-

ical conditions, management plans, infrastructure, training, monitoring and evaluation).

345109Sec3_83 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 83

forthcoming. But they need the institutional support oflocal government to respect their right to co-manageresources and to keep nonstakeholders from gainingaccess to fishing grounds or no-take zones. The largerthe MPA, the greater the potential benefits, but alsothe greater the likelihood that competing interests willintervene. As in most cases, the higher the stakes, themore difficult and costly it is to enforce access rights.This is true not only in terms of financial and politicalcapital, but in human terms as well. (The recent mur-der of JoJo Victoria, an outspoken critic of commercialfishing interests poaching on artisanal fishing groundsin the Philippines, is a case in point. Every year, sev-eral people are threatened or killed for taking a stanceagainst illegal fishing.)

In the absence of buffer zones to control economic andother human activity in surrounding waters and at theland/sea interface, even well-managed MPAs are sub-ject to continuous and cumulative stress. Recent waterquality monitoring in MPAs along the MesoamericanBarrier Reef indicates very high levels of pesticideresidues in fish and sediments (www.mbrs.org.bzMBRS Project 2006). These are thought to have beentransported through contaminated groundwater perco-lating through the karst geology of the YucatanPeninsula and surrounding reef. In the Philippines, ahighly successful community-based initiative to pro-

tect coral reef biodiversity and associated demersalfisheries in Balayan Bay was seriously undermined bypollution and multiple impacts from surroundingactivities:

“Because of these exogenous factors operatingon another scale, the traditional MPA approachunder community-based models was no longerapplicable nor effective in confronting thesekinds of issues. There was compelling need toadopt a broad range of interventions covering alarger geographical scale, foster coordinationacross sectors, and facilitate integrated plan-ning in both vertical and horizontal directions.If the MPAs in the pilot sites are to function asenvisioned, these MPAs need to be nested with-in a broader ICM program.” (Tongson 2003)

Conclusion #1. To be effective, MPAs mustbe designed and operated in the context ofhigher-order management frameworks, likeintegrated coastal management, or someother comprehensive zoning scheme.

7.2.Stakeholder ParticipationIn order to be viable, MPAs need to be more inclu-sive of stakeholders who stand to benefit from themor, more importantly, to bear the cost of their cre-ation. The case studies (Part II), the legal analysis,and the literature on MPAs) clearly indicate that afundamental predictor of success is stakeholder par-ticipation in the design and implementation. This ispartly because local, traditional knowledge, in theabsence of (or even in addition to) modern tech-niques, is critical to designing MPAs that both gen-erate local benefits and preserve biodiversity orecosystem services.

Because of the need to rely heavily on compliance,where enforcement is lax (as it is in the vast major-ity of cases), the early buy-in of all stakeholders tothe objectives and governance arrangements for theMPA and its benefit streams is essential. The Punta


84

Fishers beaching their rafts in Batoque, Ceara, a recentlycreated MER site – photo by Acervo CNPT/IBAMA

345109Sec3_84 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 84

Allen Lobster Fishery Cooperative within the SianKa’an Biosphere Reserve, which was established asa Biosphere Reserve by the Mexican governmentand is also a World Heritage Site, is an excellentexample of a successful governance arrangementdesigned by the stakeholder community to resolvethe externalities associated with common propertyby allocating fishing rights, agreeing on fishing gearand limits, and regulating the selling price of lobsterto foreign markets (Alvarez 2003).

Conclusion #2. Governance and legal frame-works establishing MPAs must be inclusive ofa broad stakeholder group and must ensureactive participation in the implementationand management of these areas.

7.3.Bearing the Costs of MPAsTaking areas of the reef or seascape “out of produc-tion” creates a financial and social burden thatmany resource-dependent communities find diffi-cult, even in anticipation of higher yields sometimein the future. Their reluctance may be directly tiedto their economic dependence on the resourcebeing harvested. While creating no-take zones toforestall or restore depleted fish stocks is necessaryin most fisheries with intensive use, abrogatingfishers’ access rights to fishing grounds is a hardpolitical sell, particularly if there are no viable eco-nomic alternatives.

The Chile and Philippines case studies (as well asreports from the literature) clearly show fishers’reluctance to establish new no-take zones to complywith biodiversity conservation targets and ecosys-tem-based fisheries management. Even acknowl-edging the value of biodiversity and its links tofisheries productivity, fishers in Chile’s manage-ment and exploitation areas for benthic resources(MEABRs) were reluctant to establish no-takereserves within the management areas to protectbiodiversity, even if it meant future gains. Withoutreceiving some form of compensation to cover

reductions in household income or to offset the riskof moving out of the sector entirely, stakeholders arelikely to reject such a plan. Violence may evenerupt, particularly if the proponent of the conserva-tion intervention is viewed as an outsider with anorthern conservation agenda (as in Torres Strait).

Conclusion #3. MPAs come at a high cost—insocial, financial, and political capital. MPAscannot be sustained in the absence of alterna-tive income-generating activities that canabsorb the excess labor from areas newlyclosed to harvesting. Such activities do notneed to be linked to the marine environmentbut they need to be something that fishers canand want to do.

7.4.The Cost and PoliticalEconomy of Scaling Up MPAs

The case studies and literature review point to thehigh cost of establishment and maintenance ofMPAs. Even assuming that benefits to biodiversityand fisheries would justify or potentially outweighthese costs, the benefits are likely to be longer-term,while costs are faced immediately. These includenot only the financial costs of operating the MPA,but economic and social costs to resource users(such as economic displacement or the abrogation oftraditional use rights, with implications for culturaland spiritual values in some cases). Decision mak-ers must expend significant political capital to con-vince communities to defer immediate benefits forthe longer-term gains in the public good.Furthermore, without policy and regulatory frame-works to support good governance of coastal andmarine resource use, the achievement of MPA ben-efits is severely undermined.

It will be difficult if not impossible to achieve thekinds of area coverage being called for at interna-tional conferences—on the order of 20–30 percentof main ocean habitats under no-take MPAs—within


85

345109Sec3_85 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 85

the next decade or even longer, given the buy-inrequired of key stakeholder groups and the resourcesand capacity to manage and sustain the areas.

Conclusion #4. Given the realities on theground in most coastal developing countries,where coastal poverty and good governanceof marine resources are still a major problem,meeting marine biodiversity conservation andfisheries management objectives by signifi-cantly scaling up no-take reserves as the prin-cipal management intervention is unlikely tobe viable.

7.5.Alternatives to Scaling UpMPAsWhile MPAs constitute an indispensable interven-tion for particular aspects and challenges of oceanand fisheries management, there are other instru-ments in the toolkit that should also be considered aspotentially more cost-effective and socially accept-able options for scaling up management in the nearterm. Because of their acceptability at the local leveland amenability to adaptive management, these havethe potential to accelerate restoration of depletedfish stock and protect ecosystem goods and servicesthat underpin coastal economies and livelihoods.Scaling up effective marine management (ratherthan MPAs per se) is the desired outcome; this willnecessarily involve a mix of tools and strategies.

The typology in Chapter 2 describes a whole spec-trum of spatial management tools for coastal andmarine resources. The typology allows a distinctionbetween “protection” and “sustainable use” as theprincipal management objectives of individualtools. Some tools fall outside the traditional defini-tion of MPAs, such as areas designated specificallyor primarily for managed or extractive use, whereprotection of biodiversity or fish stocks is inciden-tal—if indeed it occurs at all. These include suchcategories as MEABRs in Chile and collaborative

management areas in Tanzania (Martin and others,in draft). Other reserves are designed for cultural-ecological and social protection. These include themarine extractive reserves in Brazil, which despitetheir name have been established primarily to pro-tect the informal use rights and way of life of tradi-tional and indigenous coastal communities. Thesereserves are important examples of emergingresource management paradigms that have a highpotential for achieving ecosystem managementgoals at ecologically significant scales.

Figure 7–1 depicts the various management frame-works presented in Chapter 2’s typology in moregraphic form within a hypothetical national context.On the y axis is area in square kilometers runningfrom 0 to greater than 10,000. On the x axis isdegree of protection, ranging from none (essentiallyopen access) to fully protected. The MPA/marinemanagement area types are depicted more or less toscale relative to one another in terms of area, andthey fall into nested hierarchies along the protec-tion/restricted use continuum. These range from thesmallest MPA, a typical community-based no-takereserve (on the order of hundreds of hectares) to abiosphere reserve (thousands of square kilometers).On the boundary waters between true protected arealandscapes and open access lie the extractivereserves. These vary in size from a couple of hun-dred hectares (MEABRs) to hundreds of squarekilometers (marine extractive reserves) and inaggregate cover an area ranging from 1,000 squarekilometers in Chile to nearly 8,000 in Brazil.

In Chile, there is great demand among communitiesto expand the number of MEABRs in light of per-ceived benefits from allocating fishing rights overopen access—a condition that prevailed until just 15years ago, prior to passage of the Fisheries andAquaculture Law. In Brazil, marine extractivereserves cover a huge area of Brazil’s coastline, nes-tled between shrimp farms, oil and gas wells, indus-trial fishing ports, tourist resorts and sprawlingurban communities. Because of their size and theiroverlap with areas of significant marine biodiversity,they hold real promise for enhancing biodiversityconservation on a massive scale within the produc-


86

345109Sec3_86 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 86

tion landscape. This should be of great interest to theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF), whose strategicpriorities for the biodiversity focal area include pro-tecting biodiversity outside protected areas, wherethe greatest potential (and challenge) exists forramping up conservation of biological diversity.

Figure 7–1 also shows the continuum and nestedhierarchies of conservation and management areasthat fall neatly within the rubric of integratedcoastal management. This zoned seascape—whichaccommodates seemingly incompatible uses rang-ing from intense economic activity (ports, maritimetraffic, offshore drilling, industrial fishing) to

exclusive entry/use, restricted multiple use, andfull protection and noneconomic use—is perhapsan ideal paradigm that more and more countries aresubscribing to (Sorensen 2002). ICM has the sup-port of government (ideally at various levels) whenenacted through legislation and the mandate toimplement a governance framework over relativelylarge spatial scales, including linked hydrologicalsystems that may extend from watersheds out tosea. It is thus the logical governance framework inwhich to embed MPAs to address externalities atscales large enough to buffer these and othercoastal marine management areas from lethalthreats beyond their control.


87FIGURE 7.1

Nested Marine Management Area Framework

LME

ICM/Zoned Seascape

Biosphere Reserve

Multiple Use MPAsRecreational FishingEco TourismAquaculture

IndigenousSettlementsOther

EconomicActivities

Area (km2)

5,000

1,000

500

100

Minimal protectionExtractive use

Full protectionNon extractive use

Community-based MPA

FisheriesN

o-take Reserve

Strict Marine R

eserve

ME

R

ME

AB

Rs

345109Sec3_87 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 87

This is consistent with guidance prepared for theFifth World Parks Congress in South Africa in 2003by IUCN–The World Conservation Union, theIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, andother partners on incorporating MPAs into ICM (seeBox 7–3) to lessen the impacts of coastal andmarine uses on MPAs, to integrate MPA interestsinto sectoral policies and regulations that haveinfluence over the coastal and marine area (extend-ing out to Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) limits),and to formalize institutional arrangements betweenMPAs and other institutions with jurisdiction overcoastal and marine space. While far from perfectand still nascent in many developing countries, ICMcreates an enabling environment for enhancingMPA effectiveness and offers the best platform fortaking marine biodiversity conservation and sus-tainable fisheries management to scale.

Note that before scaling up it may be necessary to“scale down” first, supporting and consolidatingnumerous local initiatives to establish MPAs thatremain fragile. There is a need to ensure these arewell grounded in local governance frameworks, withactive political support and local champions, beforeattempting to replicate or expand the area of cover-age. Similarly, there is a need to strengthen institu-tional arrangements for many nascent ICMinitiatives to ensure policy harmonization betweencompeting economic sectors in the coastal zone inline with sustainable development principles.Equally important is ensuring financial sustainabil-ity. The Marine Legacy Fund established inTanzania is an example of an approach to recovercosts and generate revenues internally.

Conclusion #6. ICM provides the overarch-ing framework and most viable platform forscaling up elements within the coastal andmarine management areas toolkit, includingMPAs, to achieve management at ecological-ly relevant scales.

BOX 7.3


88

Summary Guidance on Integration ofMPAs into ICM

Human activities in coastal areas, inland,upland and offshore, often affect MPAs,reducing their ability to protect coastal andmarine biodiversity and ecosystem function-ing. Furthermore, MPA managers have onlylimited opportunities to influence the effectsof such activities.

Effective management of MPAs requires theirintegration into wider coast and ocean gover-nance arrangements, including integratedcoastal management programs and oceanpolicies, from local and indigenous communi-ty-based systems to regional legal instru-ments, from land to sea, and from individualmarine habitats to large marine ecosystemsand the High Seas.

MPA network design must build on the best-available natural and social science to createnetworks that are ecologically coherent and tofacilitate sharing of knowledge, skills, andexperience in conservation and the achieve-ment of sustainable socioeconomic benefits.

To provide ecological and social linkagesbetween landscapes and seascapes, gover-nance mechanisms should address watershedmanagement throughout the catchment areaand link between terrestrial and marine pro-tected areas.

Existing international and regional instru-ments will play a key role in supportingnational implementation of MPA networks.

345109Sec3_88 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 88

7.6.Mainstreaming BiodiversityConservation into Coastal and Fisheries ResourcesManagementWhile no pat formula yet exists for mainstreamingbiodiversity conservation into coastal managementor the management of marine fisheries—the casestudies in this report point to opportunities to piggy-back marine biodiversity conservation onto moreeconomically driven marine resources management.

For instance, using a framework that restrictsaccess to economic uses of coastal sea space(marine extractive reserves) in theory may offerBrazil a way to begin controlling the highly destruc-tive and still basically unmanaged development ofits extensive coastal zone (which harbors a widerange of habitats of high conservation value,including coral reefs), while at the same time rein-forcing the resource use rights and territorialclaims of local communities to the micro-environ-ments of small-scale fishing.

In Chile, the rapid proliferation of salmon farmingalong the southern coast, putting Chile right behindNorway as the world’s leading producer of farmedsalmon, threatens benthic communities in the fjord-lands. A scientific workshop in June 2006 spon-


89BOX 7.4

Namibian Coast Conservation andManagement Project

The project is designed to help the govern-ment of Namibia at national, regional, andlocal levels address key sector issues: thelack of a common vision for the coastal zoneand mainstreaming of biodiversity conserva-tion into development planning and manage-ment; increasing human threats to fragilecoastal ecosystems, especially related to dia-mond mining and other uncontrolled econom-ic activities; and slow decentralization, withenvironmental functions not clearly articulat-ed or delegated.

The project’s main components are:

• A policy, legal, and institutional frame-work for sustainable ecosystem manage-ment of the Namibian coast

• Targeted capacity building for coastalzone management and biodiversity con-servation

• Targeted investments in critical ecosys-tems for biodiversity conservation, sus-tainable use, and mainstreaming

• Project management and performancemonitoring

Through these interventions, the projectwill deliver support for underprotectedkey ecosystems in the production land-scape, improvement of livelihoods, aprocess of zoning coastal waters andadjacent lands, development of guide-lines and environmental assessment ofproposed projects, and biodiversitymainstreaming into RegionalDevelopment Plans and other land use

plans, including at the local municipal level. Walvis Bay – photo by Rod Braby, NACOMA Project

345109Sec3_89 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 89

sored by the government of Chile, the World Bank,the World Wildlife Fund, and leading representa-tives of the salmon industry reviewed results ofresearch into environmental impacts of the salmonindustry, which confirmed pollution from effluentwater of sediments and tissue of wild organisms insurrounding areas. The threat to natural food websand native fish stocks has signaled the need forstricter regulations on salmon farming practices andon the density and distribution of cages along thefragile fjordland coast (Buschmann and others2006; WWF 2006). In this case, incentives for theadoption of ICM as a framework for multiple use andenvironmentally sustainability may be tied todemands for certification and eco-labeling ofChile’s salmon production by environmentally con-scious consumers in the North.

In Namibia, where diamond mining is a majorthreat to coastal ecosystems, the government isembarking on a new program to enhance coastaland marine biodiversity conservation by main-streaming conservation and sustainable use intocoastal policy, legislative frameworks, and institu-tional and technical capacity. This is being under-taken with help from GEF and the World Bank (seeBox 7–4).

Multiuse and higher-order coastal management sys-tems are promising in that they offer the potential tofacilitate scaling up marine management by unify-ing and helping to reconcile elements that may atfirst seem incompatible with protecting marine bio-diversity. In fact, exploring other tools in the coastalarea management toolkit opens up areas of interven-tion (such as allocating use rights, providing bene-fits, empowering communities with knowledge aboutnatural systems and how their actions may enhanceor undermine innate productivity and resilience tostress) that serve multiple objectives: protecting tra-ditional culture heritage; enhancing the sustainabil-ity of local fisheries that provide the income,nutrition, and livelihoods to sustain traditional com-munities; and conserving marine biological diversi-ty. These reinforce spiritual and cultural values aswell as underpin local economies and feed intoecosystem processes at larger scales.

Conclusion #7. It is important to start with whathas popular acceptance and works well in agiven context and then shape it, through incen-tives, information, science, and leadership, toaccommodate increasingly broader objectives.

7.7.The Role of ScienceMarine science has a crucial role to play in guidingefforts to network and scale up MPAs. Appliedresearch (on biological connectivity, gene flow, pro-ductivity, and human behavior) can help reduce thecost of management decisions regarding MPAs—where and how to deploy them relative to other inter-ventions. The design of MPAs can be significantlyenhanced to optimize such things as larval recruit-ment and spillover effects relative to total area underprotection, in order to minimize trade-offs in restrict-ed access and production in the short term (Sale andothers 2005; Botsford and others, in prep). This canbe done by measuring connectivity between proposedsites (Mumby and others 2006), monitoring biomass,and recruitment of larvae from protected areas tofishing grounds in surrounding waters, and describ-ing the trophic relationships in healthy and diversecommunities of marine organisms. Reducing uncer-tainty about the outcomes of decisions, optimizingMPA design to maximize ecological, social and eco-nomic benefits and helping stakeholders visualize thetrade-offs involved in their decisions through con-struction of future scenarios and other support toolsare other important contributions of science.

In addition to ecological research, properly appliedtechnology can contribute significantly to increasingthe effectiveness of spatial management. Remotesensing and geographic information systems areobvious tools with clear application to coastal man-agement. These are used not only to help set bound-aries for spatial management frameworks and totrack changes in system features over time, but alsoto improve enforcement and as part of vessel moni-toring systems. A new engineering breakthrough inthe design of Global Positioning System radio trans-mitters will make these available at relatively low


90

345109Sec3_90 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 90

cost to monitor the whereabouts of the artisanal fish-ing fleet, even in nonmotorized vessels. This simpledevice, which will be pioneered soon in the Maldiveswith World Bank support, combined with registrationof small-scale fishing vessels, has the potential totransform governance of artisanal fisheries.Deployed in tandem with no-take reserves and reli-able stock assessments, such technology can sub-stantially assist efforts to close open access andbring nearshore fisheries into compliance with theU.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code ofConduct for responsible fisheries.

Conclusion #8. Science and technology areessential to deploying MPAs and other tools inthe marine management area toolkit efficientlyand effectively. They are particularly essentialin guiding any effort to scale up and network toachieve ecosystem-based management.

7.8.Conclusion: TakingManagement to ScaleIn summary, biodiversity conservation and fisheriesmanagement objectives can and should be mutuallyreinforcing. While MPAs are a vital tool in thiseffort, a clear message that emerges from the casestudies and literature review is that ambitious tar-gets for restoring degraded fish stocks, stemmingthe loss of biodiversity, and controlling invasivespecies and other threats to marine ecosystemhealth are unlikely to be met through a single focuson Marine Protected Areas.

Similarly, progress in mainstreaming ecosystem-based approaches to management of fisheries andother marine resources within the EEZs of develop-ing counties is not likely to be achieved throughlarge-scale MPAs. To move toward the ecosystem-based approach that meets ecological-scale criteriaas well as being socially and culturally acceptable,effective networking of MPA and marine manage-ment area mosaics will need to be deployed with thehelp of science. Networked, smaller-scale MPAs

within a seascape of well-managed resource use,adjacent land use, and control of nutrient, sedi-ments, and other emissions—with the judicious sit-ing of economic activities along the coast so thatthey are compatible rather than antagonistic—are amore likely path toward an ecosystem-basedapproach than the scaling up of MPAs.

What is required is a mix of tools and spatial man-agement interventions that span the gamut of marinemanagement/MPA frameworks. This mix mustinclude a high ratio of zoned rational use to no-takereserves in order to address the socioeconomic needsof poor, marginalized coastal populations whodepend on marine resources for their livelihoods andwelfare, balanced with the need to sustain the pro-ductivity of coastal ecosystems and their ability toprovide coastal populations with the continuousgoods and services essential to their well-being.

Case studies from Chile and Brazil point to the con-tribution of extractive reserves, which relegateresource access to a defined group of stakeholders(hence creating a greater incentive for stewardship)and are being replicated on a large scale in response

TABLE 7.2


91

Expansion of ICM Efforts by Region, 1993 and 2000 Comparison

Coastal Continent countries 1993 2000

North America 3 3 100% 3 100%Central America 7 4 57% 7 100%Europe 33 11 31% 30 91%Asia 17 13 62% 14 82%South America 11 5 45% 8 73%Caribbean 13 5 45% 8 73%Near East 15 6 40% 7 47%Oceania 17 7 33% 8 47%Africa 37 5 13% 13 35%

Total 59 98

Source: Cicin-Sain et al 2000.

345109Sec3_91 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 91

to local demand, toward eliminating open access andrationalizing use of coastal resources. Their potentialevolution from extractive reserves to marine manage-ment areas/conservation zones, with no-take zoneseither embedded within them or interspersed atappropriate intervals, may be one way to effectivelyachieve networks of MPAs at sufficient scale to havean ecological impact without the socioeconomic dis-placement implied by large-scale, no-take reserves.

In the Philippines, integrated coastal managementhas effectively provided an overarching planning

framework and, with the recent adoption by execu-tive decree of ICM as the national strategy for sus-tainable development of coastal and marineresources, may be en route to wide-scale implemen-tation. This, combined with the proliferation of ICMefforts in other developing countries since 1993(see Table 7–2), particularly in Africa, is a hopefulsign. Setting goals for bringing coastlines underICM or equivalent spatial management/zoningschemes is likely to be achievable far sooner andwith greater effect than overly ambitious targets forMPAs alone.


92

References

Alvarez, O. 2003. Lessons from Punta Allen, Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve. In ITMEMS 2, Proceedings from a work-shop on Community Based Coastal Resources Management and Marine Biodiversity Conservation.

Botsford, L.W., F. Micheli, and A. Parma. Draft (June 2006). Biological and Ecological Considerations in the Design,Implementation and Success of MPAs. A report for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Buschmann, A., V. Riquelme, M. Hernández-Gonzalez, D. Varela, J. Jiménez, L. Henriquez, P. Vergara, R Guíñez, andL. Filún. 2006. A review of the impacts of salmonid farming on marine coastal ecosystems in the southeast Pacific.ICES Journal Marine Science 63: 1339–45.

Cicin Sain, B. 2000. Meeting the commitments on oceans, coasts and small island developing states made at the 2002World Summit on Sustainable Development: How well are we doing? From Co-chairs’ Report, Global Forum onOceans, Coasts and Islands.

Kauffmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2005. Governance Matters. IV: Governance Indicators for 1996–2004.World Bank. Washington, DC.

Martin, K., M. Samoilys, A. Hurd, and C.G. Lundin. In draft (June 2006). Experiences in the Use of Marine ProtectedAreas with Fisheries Management Objectives—A Review of Case Studies. A report for the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations on Guidelines for MPAs and Fisheries Management (in prep).

MBRS (Mesoamerican Barrier Reef Systems) Project. 2006. Synoptic Monitoring Program. Available atwww.mbrs.org.bz/english/data.htm. Last modified 25 July.

Mumby, P. J., C.P. Dahlgren, A.R. Harborne, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, D.R. Brumbaugh, K.E. Holmes, J.M. Mendes, K.Broad, J.N. Sanchirico, K. Buch, S. Box, R.W. Stoffle, and A.B. Gill, 2006. Fishing, trophic cascades, and theprocess of grazing on coral reefs. Science 6 January: 98–101.

Sale, P., R. Cowan, B. Danilowicz, G. Jones, J. Kritzer, K. Lindeman, S. Planes, N. Polunin, G. Russ, Y. Sadovy, andR. Steneck. 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution20(2): 74–80.

Sorensen, J. 2002. Baseline 2000 background report: the status of integrated coastal management as an internationalpractice. Available at www.uhi.umb.edu/b2k/baseline2000.pdf.

Tongson, E.E. 2003 . ICM as a Strategy to Enable MPA Management: The Case of Balayan Bay. Case study present-ed at the ITMEMS II, Manila, The Philippines.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2006. Investigacion Ambiental en la Salmonicultura Chile: Gasto of Inversion? Report ofa scientific workshop, Puerto Montt, Chile, 23–24 March.

345109Sec3_92 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 92

The recommendations flow from the con-clusions discussed in Chapter 7. These are meantfor consideration by the World Bank and its part-ners, including the Global Environment Facility(GEF), members of the U.N. and donor communityengaged in coastal and marine resources manage-ment, the marine conservation community, andcountries wishing to give priority to investments incoastal and marine area management.

8.1.Recommendations1. Invest in integrated coastal management

(ICM) as an essential enabling environmentfor Marine Protected Area (MPA) effective-ness. Support the necessary policy reform agendafor successful implementation of ICM in develop-ing countries; finance institutional arrangementsto align sectoral policies and proposed invest-ments with sustainable development and urban-ization of coastal areas; and develop and integratesustainable financing mechanisms into ICM plansto make ICM a viable governance framework.

2. Drastically step up support for enforcementof existing and new limited access/restricteduse regimes (including enforcement of polluterspays principle and other regulations), issuing


Recommendations and Next Steps 8

Paje Beach, Zanzibar – photo by Marea Hatziolos

345109Sec3_93 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 93

heavy penalties and fines for violations. Supportcommunity-based efforts to rationalize use ofcommon property to achieve more sustainablebenefit streams. In this regard, it may be possibleto piggyback on community-driven developmentinitiatives as platforms for mainstreaming coastaland marine management (CMM) area planningand implementation and to tap into SocialProtection Funds in highly indebted countries.

3. Invest in the creation of sustainable alter-native livelihoods and social protection forthose traditional users who must restrict theiractivities or who are forced to leave the sector toensure the sustainability of ecosystem goods andservices. The channeling of excess labor former-ly involved in resource extraction through thecreation of new small and medium-size enterpris-es and demand for services will be essential tothe success of any efforts to scale up governanceregimes that restrict access or use for the poor.

4. Establish new biodiversity conservation-oriented MPAs judiciously and strategically

to maximize ecological benefits and capturenear-term socioeconomic benefits, and then linkthese with other coastal and marine managementzoning schemes to create networks that governmarine space at relevant administrative and eco-logical scales.

5. Explore possibilities for transforming andscaling up community-based resourcereserves into more biodiversity-friendly gover-nance regimes that have the potential to achievea triple bottom line of social, ecological, andeconomic sustainability at meaningful scales.

6. Increase support for and promote theapplication of social and natural scienceand traditional knowledge to the design ofMPAs and CMM areas. This will increase stake-holder participation and buy-in, heighten aware-ness of benefits from effective managementregimes , raise the likelihood that biodiversityconservation and fisheries management objec-tives will be achieved, and thereby increase theefficiency of management decision making.


94

Palau sunset – photo by Alan Lim, Coral Reef Targeted Research Project

345109Sec3_94 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 94


7. Explore partnerships to help finance the pol-icy reform, institutional arrangements, andsustainable financing agenda required toimplement ICM and create a viable gover-nance framework for MPAs. Consider strategicalliances between the public sector, internationalfinancial institutions, the GEF, nongovernmentalorganizations, and foundations to provide a long-term commitment to the recommended activities.

8.2.Next Steps1. Present findings to the U.N. Food and

Agriculture (FAO) for incorporation into techni-cal guidelines being prepared for establishmentof Marine Protected Areas that meet objectivesenshrined in the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries; present findings to otherrelevant fora targeting MPAs and ICM.

2. Identify upcoming Country Assistance Strategiesof coastal countries with high stakes in marinebiodiversity. Ensure that coastal resources andICM are considered in upstream discussions.

Increase the use of strategic environmentalassessments to determine the impacts of devel-opment assistance strategies on coastalresources. Develop screening tools for impactson the coastal zone.

3. Through PROFISH and other ongoing programstargeting sustainable fisheries, support small-scale vessel registration programs and vesselmonitoring systems, piloting new technology toregulate the artisanal sector. Introduce a newcoastal and marine initiative under the CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund to target areas ofhigh marine biodiversity with ICM or equivalentzoning interventions and MPA tools to governuse of marine space and end open access.

4. Translate these priorities into guidelines for GEFinvestments in marine biodiversity conservation(OP2) and in large marine ecosystems and sus-tainable fisheries management at the ecosystemlevel (OP8).

5. Hold stakeholder workshops in the regions withrepresentatives of coastal communities andmarine resource managers to present this analy-sis and to develop priorities for investment.

345109Sec3_95 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 95


What Does and Does Not Constitute “Tradition”?In respect to indigenous peoples’ homelands andartisanal fishers’ territories, there is a tendency formanagement authorities to worry that upgradedtechnology somehow fundamentally changes therules of the game—from a subsistence orientationusing “traditional” methods to unsustainable eco-nomic pressure on species, including a few that areon the endangered list internationally.

What kind of economic activity qualifies as “tradi-tional” and what does not? In terms of the meaningof “traditional,” Nietschmann (1989:91) observes:“traditional means what is self-referentially identi-fying, not necessarily what once was. Was anindigenous group more traditional in the year 500that it was in 1200?” Or, as Albert Wendt writes: “Isthere such a creature as ‘traditional culture’? Ifthere is what period in the growth of a culture is tobe called ‘traditional?’ If ‘traditional cultures’ doexist in Oceania, to what extent are they colonialcreations? What is authentic culture?...Shouldthere be ONE sanctified/official/sacred interpreta-tion of a culture? And who should do the interpret-ing?” (Wendt 1978:1).

This is an empirical and semantic issue thatrequires careful case-by-case consideration and

Explanatory Notes onConnotations of “Tradition”and “Culture Heritage”Designations in CoastalMarine Management Typology

Ax

6th anniversary celebration of the Ponta do Corumbau MarineExtractive Reserve – photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura, Conservation

International, Abrolhos, Brazil

345109Sec3_96 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 96

interpretation. This terminology and related dis-courses enter into much of the literature reviewed inthe Marine Protect Area (MPA) analysis and thecountry studies themselves. Without attempting tolay the issues to rest, the report can clarify some ofthe disputes surrounding how indigenous peoples’and traditional artisanal fishers’ economic transfor-mations should be interpreted.

It is necessary to appreciate certain characteristics ofindigenous production systems, including the princi-ple of diversification. It is difficult and somewhatarbitrary to separate fishing activity (or any other eco-nomic pursuit for that matter), from the totality ofhousehold and community economic routines amongindigenous groups. Generally speaking, however,fishing is a subset of an overall pattern of utilizationof freshwater, estuarine, and marine aquaticresources that includes foraging, collecting shellfish,and in some societies ongoing marine hunting tradi-tions (in Central America, for instance, and westernOceania). Fishing and marine hunting are highlybound up in subsistence and food-sharing networks.They can best be described as an important focus ofindigenous “multi-enterprise” economies that usual-ly include a mix of subsistence, cash-generating, andcommercial production activities.

It is important to obtain a clearer picture of culturalprinciples reflected in the continuity of indigenousmulti-enterprise economies. These are sometimesviewed as simply a transition phase in an inevitableprocess of market assimilation. In the Brazilian con-text and throughout Oceania, however, there isincreasing evidence such economies may not proveas transitional as once was thought; rather, they mayendure as complete and dynamic modes of produc-tion (cf. Poole 1989; Johannes 1989).

At the same time, it is important to bear in mind thatthe current relatively low level of involvement ofindigenous groups in commercial fishing was notalways the case. Historically, and as recently as theearly 1970s, both Torres Strait Islanders andAborigines have been involved (primarily as labor-ers rather than owner-operators) in trochus, pearlshell, trepang, and other marine industries. Today,

although few members of indigenous communitieshave licenses to fish commercially, there are indica-tions this situation is changing. There are glimmer-ings of indigenous entrepreneurial activity andcommercial opportunities in aquaculture, thetrochus industry, barramundi, trepang, crayfishing,and fishery-related ventures such as “safari”-stylefishing and marine ecotourism. Certain Torres StraitIslander and Aboriginal communities are genuinelyinterested in opening up new avenues to participatein the commercial fishing industry. (See Lawrence(1991b.:16) for an interpretation of what is “tradi-tional” under the terms of the Torres Strait Treaty.The definition of “traditional” has long been a con-tentious issue in Australia. The CommonwealthGovernment has adopted this working definition ofAboriginality: “An Aboriginal or Torres StraitIslander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres StraitIslander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal orTorres Strait Islander and is accepted as such in thecommunity with which he/she is associated.”However, this terminology is confusing for TorresStrait Islanders.)

This historical perspective affirms an importantpoint about indigenous resource use: it is not inher-ently or exclusively subsistence-oriented, norsomething static. Therefore, the terms “subsis-tence” and “traditional,” though used extensivelyto distinguish indigenous peoples’ modes of pro-duction from other groups, do not do justice to thediversity, flexibility, and potential for change inindigenous resource economies.

Another important point is that participation in thecash economy or adopting new technology does notimply that subsistence becomes any less significant,culturally or socially. In Caring for Country, a wide-ranging study of Aboriginal involvement in existingland management programs, Young and others(1991:111–18) amply demonstrate that althoughcontemporary hunting and foraging for subsistencenow use non-Aboriginal techniques and elements,the centrality of subsistence is undiminished andcontinues to reinforce peoples’ knowledge and con-nection to ancestral countries. Moreover, withoutmodern gear and transport, people living in today’s


97

345109Sec3_97 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 97

centralized settlements (such as Aurukun) could notreturn to their traditional countries to carry out vitalcultural and ritual subsistence activities andresponsibilities. Caring for Country contains com-pelling evidence that subsistence practices, regard-less of the technology used, constitute sound formsof land management in themselves. There is no con-tradiction in the fact that it is necessary for indige-nous groups to earn cash to maintain subsistencepractices. This observation also applies to themarine economies discussed here, where fishing(often for a mixture of cash, barter, or subsistenceproduction) and dugong and turtle hunting (solelyfor household and ritual consumption) from out-board-powered aluminum dinghies are now stan-dard procedure.

This report suggests that the word “indigenous” beretained as the generic point of reference for pat-terns of resource use and user groups encompassedby indigenous communities. The term “traditional”is far too imprecise and has too many confusing con-notations to do justice to the relevant contexts ofindigenous fishing. Indigenous resource systems aremore aptly described as multi-enterprise, a mode ofproduction that encompasses subsistence and com-mercial or part-commercial activities. In any case,the crucial distinction is not between “traditional”and “non-traditional,” which is often seen as a func-tion of technology, but intent—that is, whether aparticular resource practice is intended for subsis-tence or commercial production, regardless of thetechnology used. Our definition is consistent withthe recommendations of the Australian Law ReformCommission report on the recognition of Aboriginalcustomary laws (1986:70), which states that indetermining whether an activity is traditional, atten-tion should focus on the purpose of the activityrather than the methods.

It is also useful to briefly review what is meant by theterm “cultural heritage” in MPA studies. The term isoften used interchangeably with “cultural property,”“cultural patrimony,” or “cultural resources.” In thebroadest terms, it can be understood as the presentmanifestation of the human past. Today, cultural her-itage is legally protected under a number of interna-

tional conventions administered by UNESCO(notably The World Heritage Convention adopted inParis in 1972). These instruments in turn havebecome the foundation for national and other legisla-tion. At the national or state level there are general-ly four kinds of legislation relevant to cultural sites:heritage place protection acts, land managementzoning or planning acts, notification or listing actsthat allow for the recording of important data on cul-tural sites, and acts to conserve natural areas inwhich cultural features are located.

Experience in development projects has shown thatcertain sectors are particularly prone to affectingheritage values: the energy sector—and the con-struction of oil and gas pipelines, in particular(Goodland and Webb 1987). Similar issues arise inboth small and large-scale marine conservation ini-tiatives. Lack of adequate cultural and ethnograph-ic information and provisions for integratingcultural property and resource dimensions in pro-tected areas can be a significant constraint in imple-menting site-specific MPAs or larger systems. Inthis connection, coastal and aquatic cultural andnatural heritage identification and management lagsfar behind strategies for documenting and caring forsites in other terrains.

Clarification of “Culture Heritage”Meanings in Non-European MPA ContextsIt is worth pointing out problems that are oftenencountered in operationalizing a standardized cul-tural heritage framework where the homelands,value systems, and rights of indigenous peoples areaffected. For example, the 1979 Burra Charter, aversion of the international Venice Charter of 1966adapted to conditions in Australia, explains theoverall philosophy and guidelines for the conserva-tion of heritage sites and places of cultural signifi-cance. Although the Charter has been applied tothe range of culture sites and customs for managingthem that have developed among indigenous soci-eties, it was originally designed more for European“built” environments (Sullivan 1994:3). The scopeof the Charter does not do justice to many of thespecial conditions, features, documentation, and


98

345109Sec3_98 10/5/06 8:38 PM Page 98

management needs associated with indigenous her-itage or sacred sites that are subject to complex,non-European ownership, use rights, or steward-ship arrangements.

In the Australian case, widely occurring sites andstoryplaces in the sea in some instances extend faroffshore (such as to the outer slopes of the GreatBarrier Reef). Often such places do not exhibit anyreadily identifiable physical alteration or construc-tion or boundary markers. These areas may be quiteextensive (spanning an entire reef complex or tidalchannel) or as minute as an octopus hole or sheer,apparently empty or featureless, waterspace.

These sites that are difficult to characterize—powerspots that seem to have no fabric—may be general-ly known in the community but are sometimes onlyprecisely distinguishable to the keepers of storiesand storyplaces—that is, to individuals who haveknowledge of and can tell the proper stories of thetravels and deeds of ancestral beings. Strict ruleshave to be observed in the presence of certain ofthese sites, which should only be visited in the com-pany of their custodians. Behavioral restrictionsmay apply as well, such as no drinking, smoking, oreating; no speaking or cursing; and no removal ofobjects (such as shell or coral). In addition, fishingor hunting may be restricted on such sites.


99

References

Australian Law Reform Commission. 1986. The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws (2 Vols. plus Summaryvol.). Australian Government Publishing Service. Canberra, Australia.

Goodland, R., and M. Webb. 1987. The Management of Cultural Property in World Bank-assisted Projects:Archaeological, Historical, Religious and Natural Unique Sites. Vol. 1 World Bank Technical Paper No. 62.Washington, DC.

Johannes, R.E. 1989. Managing small-scale fisheries in Oceania: unusual constraints and opportunities. InEconomics of Fishery Management in the Pacific Islands Region. H. Campbell, K. Menz, and G. Waugh (eds).ACIAR Proceedings No. 26. Canberra, Australia.

Lawrence, D. 1991. The Torres Strait Treaty: Bilateral Arrangements for Environmental Protection of the MarineEnvironment of the Torres Strait Region. Paper presented at the Fourth World Congress on National Parks andProtected Areas, 10–21 February 1992. Caracas, Venezuela.

Nietschmann, B.Q. 1989. Traditional sea territories, resources, and rights in Torres Strait. Pp. 60–94 in A Sea of SmallBoats. J. Cordell (ed.) Cultural Survival, Cambridge, Mass.

Poole, P. 1989. Developing a Partnership of Indigenous Peoples, Conservationists, and Land Use Planners in LatinAmerica. Working Paper. Policy, Planning, Research, Environment. Latin American and Caribbean Technical Dept.World Bank. Washington, DC.

Sullivan P. 1994. Exclusions Under S26(3) and (4) of the Native Title Act. 1993 From the Right to Negotiate.November 1994 Issues Paper No. 5. Native Title Research Unit. Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title. M.Edmunds (ed.). Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Canberra, Australia.

Wendt, A. 1978. Reborn to Belong. Paper presented at the Seminar on the Role of Museums in StrengtheningIndigenous Cultures. Adelaide, 10–15 September.

Young, E., H. Ross, J. Johnson, and J. Kesteven. 1991. Caring for Country: Aborigines and Land Management.Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra, Australia.

345109Sec3_99 10/5/06 8:39 PM Page 99


100

This report was produced by the team ofMarea Hatziolos (Task Team Leader), John Cordell(co-editor and author of the Brazil Case Study andChapter 2), Patrick Christie (author of thePhilippines Case Study, with contributions on gov-ernance and community participation), and JuanCarlos Castilla and Stefan Gelcich (authors of theChile Case Study). Patrice Talla prepared a com-panion piece on legal frameworks, from which infor-mation on legal aspects in the report was derived.This analysis will be produced as a companion vol-ume accompanying this report.

The team would like to thank all those who facilitat-ed their work in the field, in particular colleagues,counterparts, fishing communities, and others con-sulted in Brazil, Chile, and the Philippines. Thereport was significantly enhanced by comments frompeer reviewers Daniel Owen and Ronald Zweig of theWorld Bank and from Craig Leisher and Scott Smithof the Nature Conservancy, who offered constructivecriticism. The authors are also grateful to LauraTlaiye for her continuing guidance on how to improvethe manuscript, to Bob Livernash for assistance withediting, and to many other marine conservation col-leagues in the Bank, the Global EnvironmentFacility, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization,and IUCN–the World Conservation Union for cat-alyzing discussion and exchanging ideas on oftencontroversial topics. Finally, the team would like toextend a special note of thanks to Grace Aguilar, JimCantrell, and Sharon Esumei for their valuable assis-tance in putting the document together.

VICE PRESIDENT SDN:

KATHERINE SIERRA

SECTOR DIRECTOR:

JAMES WARREN EVANS

SECTOR MANAGER:

LAURA TLAIYE

TEAM LEADER:

MAREA E. HATZIOLOS

Acknowledgements

Punta de Tralca, Chile – photo by Stefan Gelcich

345109Sec3_100 10/5/06 8:39 PM Page 100

Photo CreditsCover images: clockwise starting from top left: Marine Extactive Reserve, community ofArraial do Cabo, state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—source CNPT/IBAMA; girls fromBorneo—photo by Steve Turek, www.Coralreef.org; results of group mapping by artisanalfishers of Mangement and Exploitation Area for Benthic Resources in Matanzas, Chile—photo by Stefan Gelcich; artisanal fishing boats used in caleta Quemchi in Chiloe, south-ern Chile—photo by Stefan Gelcich; Diver in Fiji—photo by Rich Wilson,www.Coralreef.org. Background image is a school of yellow and blueback fusiliers, Fiji—photo by Rich Wilson, www.coralreef.org.

Part I opening images: clockwise starting from top left: Hull sailboat (saveiro) in Bahia—photo by John Cordell; Coral reef, Almond Point, Bequia—photo by DennisSabo/iStockphoto; Joint social science MPA research, Indonesia—photo by PatrickChristie; Anemone fish, Hurghada, Red Sea—photo by Thomas Jundt, www.coralreef.org.

Part II opening images: clockwise starting from top left: Coastal Brazil—photo bylucato/iStockphoto; Coral reefs at Itacolomis marine extractive reserve at Ponta doCorumbau—photo by Enrico Marone, CI Brazil; Penguin, Chile—photo by Curt Carnemark.

Part III opening images: clockwise starting from top left: 6th anniversary celebration ofthe Ponta do Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve—photo by Dr. Rogrigo Moura,Conservation International, Abrolhos, Brazil; Coral reef monitoring, Palau—photo byAlan Lim, Coral Reef Targeted Research Project; Rocky shore in Las Cruces, Chile—photo by Juan Carlos Castilla; Artisanal fishing boats in Bucalemu, Chile—photo byStefan Gelcich.

345109Cover 10/5/06 6:42 PM Page 2

345109Cover 10/5/06 6:41 PM Page 1

Date post:	22-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

345109Cover 10/5/06 6:41 PM Page 1 Public Disclosure ...

Documents