MPAs

[PeterIMA]

The following posting is taken from MPA News Vol 7 No. 6 (December 2005/January 2006).

Editor's note: Alan White is president of Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, a Philippine NGO, and Anna Meneses is coordinator of the organization's Marine Protected Area Project, described in the following essay. The project is supported by the Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation (an initiative of the Pew Institute for Ocean Science) as well as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, (US) National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, and the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project of the United States Agency for International Development (implemented by Tetra Tech EM Inc. in the Philippines).

MPA Perspective:
PAPER PARKS IN THE PHILIPPINES: IMPROVED INFORMATION TELLS A NEW STORY

By Alan T. White and Anna Blesilda T. Meneses

Since the 1970s, more than 600 MPAs have been designated throughout the Philippines. Past studies on the effectiveness of these sites have suggested that many were failing to achieve their goals. One figure in particular - that less than 20% of Philippine MPAs are fully enforced - has been cited widely as evidence of an epidemic of "paper parks" in the Philippines.

However, new monitoring research on MPAs nationwide indicates that the percentage of ineffective sites in the Philippines is actually lower than that figure. In fact, there appears to be a trend underway toward effective MPA management in the country.

The new findings come from the Marine Protected Area Project (MPA Project), launched in 2001 by the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, or CCE Foundation, a Philippine conservation NGO. With a goal to help increase the number of functional MPAs in the Philippines, the project provides a framework to monitor and evaluate MPAs based on several specific and standardized indicators of success, related to such factors as implementation of management programs and public compliance. This framework, embodied in the project's MPA Database and Rating System, promotes good governance, collaborative effort, and better understanding of the functions and benefits of MPAs ("Rating system available for MPA management in Philippines", MPA News 6:3).

Following an initial pilot test of the system in 16 MPAs, it has been applied to 360 MPAs throughout the Philippines, in collaboration with national government agencies, NGOs, academic institutions, and development projects in the field of coastal resource management.

The great majority of these sites (93%) are small MPAs designated by municipal or city governments; the others are larger sites designated by the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Management systems vary from site to site, including management by local governments, local people's organizations, NGOs, multi-sectoral boards, and/or dive resort operators.

The project rates MPAs based on a five-level scheme:

Level 1: Initiated phase - MPA has been initiated but no management activities have begun
Level 2: Established phase - MPA is legalized and management has begun, but no enforcement is underway
Level 3: Enforced phase - MPA regulations are implemented and enforced, and management activities are maintained for two years or more
Level 4: Sustained phase - MPA is well-enforced over the years, and participation/support from local government and community is consistent
Level 5: Institutionalized phase - MPA management and enforcement are consistently maintained and assured by additional legal support

Percentage of non-enforced MPAs

Since 2001, 61% of the MPAs assessed using this rating system were at Level 1 (20%) or Level 2 (41%), meaning no enforcement activity was yet occurring. Although this figure is still unacceptably high, it is significantly below the commonly cited 80% figure for paper parks in the Philippines. Furthermore, the sites that were enforced, sustained and/or institutionalized accounted for more than one-third of all Philippine MPAs assessed: 29% were at Level 3; 6% were Level 4; and 2% were Level 5.

The fact that most MPAs have some degree of management in place (Levels 2-5), and that the average degree of management is somewhat better than expected, reflects a very positive trend in the management of MPAs in the Philippines. We believe this can be attributed to the increasing number of capable local governments and communities, and the increasing use of monitoring and evaluation.

As observed by the project, the challenge for many sites lies in sustaining management operations after the establishment phase. In some cases, especially for older MPAs (more than 10 years old), enforcement activities and program implementation tends to become sporadic and inconsistent. MPAs have difficulty in sustaining management efforts due to the lack of technical support, insufficient budget, and weak law enforcement.

A few key lessons from the project:

The database and rating system helps communities and local governments to gauge their management efforts and what is needed to improve management effectiveness.
A stable source of financing and strong political support and partnership with key government agencies to enforce the law are essential for well-managed MPAs.
Local government capacity and empowered communities ensure longer term and stable management.
Having a management plan builds sustainability when coupled with regular monitoring and evaluation to provide focus on the desired goals for the MPA.
The database and information system puts in perspective - for all involved, from field level to national government - what is being accomplished and what to focus on next; it also determines which MPAs should be undesignated due to ineffectiveness.
For more information
Alan T. White and Anna Blesilda T. Meneses, Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc., 302 PDI Condominium, Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Banilad, Cebu City 6000, Philippines. Tel: +63 32 2336909; E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]; Web: www.coast.ph

 

[PeterIMA]

The following is taken from MPA News Vol 7 No. 7. February 2006.

Editor's note: Bill Ballantine is a marine biologist at the Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland, New Zealand. He has advocated the concept of no-take marine reserves since the 1960s and helped promote many of the existing reserves in New Zealand waters. In the April 2003 edition of MPA News (4:9, "Scientific Principles for Marine Reserve Systems"), Ballantine outlined a set of scientific principles he described as necessary for the planning of systems of no-take marine reserves.

MPA Perspective
A MARINE RESERVE MANIFESTO

By Bill Ballantine

Marine reserves have been discussed for many years, and there are now examples in many countries. We know that they are practical and that, once established, they are generally popular and successful. We have carried out enough trials and tests. It is time to create full systems of marine reserves. To do this we need a clear policy based on principles that everyone can understand.

In 2004, experts on marine biodiversity presented a report for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that provides the necessary principles. (The report is available in PDF format at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-ts-13.pdf.) I have crafted the following manifesto to summarize these principles in plain language:

1. There are many kinds of marine life (species diversity); these occur in many different habitats and communities; and they interact in many ways. Marine life existed before people became active in the sea, and it maintained itself.

2. This natural marine life is abundant, varied and complex. It occupies 70% of our world. It carries out many processes that are important to the planet. Marine life is far more than a set of things directly useful to people, but we are only dimly aware of how the whole system operates.

3. Despite increasing rates of study, we are still very ignorant about marine life. Less than half the species have been described, few regions have had their habitats mapped, and we know only some examples of the natural processes. We do not know how much of anything is necessary to sustain the whole in a healthy state, but it is clear that the natural processes are critical to all life on the planet.

4. Many human activities in the sea (fishing, dumping, dredging, etc.) can kill or degrade marine life and its habitats. The range and intensity of human-induced damage have increased over the years; have already caused multiple and widespread changes to marine life; and now threaten its sustainability.

5. Our existing ways of planning and managing human activities in the sea are useful and necessary, but they are not sufficient to prevent or adequately control this damage. Existing management mostly tries to solve problems, but the problems (e.g., damage) have to occur and be noticed before action is taken (reactive management).

6. More positive action is also needed. Setting aside areas of the sea (marine reserves) that are protected against all direct human interference will help maintain, or allow the recovery of, the full natural biological diversity.

7. These marine reserves will have many additional benefits. They will make it easier for people to appreciate and understand natural marine life. They will help us recognize the changes our activities have caused, and distinguish these from natural variation. Marine reserves will help us measure these changes, and show how we could adjust our activities sensibly. Marine reserves are important to science, management, education, and recreation, as well as essential for conservation.

8. Marine reserves are a new, different, and additional form of management. They do not aim to solve particular problems, but rather to maintain the natural biodiversity. They do not depend on particular information (e.g., identifying damage), and all potentially disturbing activities are excluded on principle. Problem-based, data-dependent planning and management will continue in the rest of the sea.

9. Standard planning will steadily improve. The introduction of zoning is one such improvement. When spatial planning is adopted in a region, marine reserves will be included as the first and most important zone. Indeed, reserves will help lead to this form of management.

10. All these points are universal. They apply everywhere, and are independent of climate, the marine life that occurs, what people are doing to it, or who is in charge. To maintain (or recover) the full natural marine life, marine reserves are needed in all regions. In each region, the reserves must form a system that is sufficiently large and comprehensive to be self-sustaining despite human activities in the rest of the sea.

Each region requires a policy that includes the following principles:

11. The reserves are highly protected. All potentially damaging human activities are banned on principle, as far as is practical and sensible. These rules are efficiently enforced.

12. The reserves are permanent. The basic reasons for reserves are valid for the foreseeable future, and the benefits and values of reserves accumulate over time.

13. Each reserve aims for the ability to maintain itself. Single reserves cannot be totally self-sufficient unless enormous, but each should aim for a reasonable degree of ecological viability (i.e., capacity to maintain itself).

14. Examples of all major habitats are included in reserves. Different habitats have different marine life, so all must be represented.

15. There are several spatially separate examples of each habitat. This replication provides insurance against local accidents, such as cyclones or oil spills, and allows inclusion of a more natural range of variation.

16. The reserves are spread throughout the region (a network). There are many reasons for a network design, including encouraging the interchange of drifting eggs and larvae, and spreading benefits and any inconvenience.

17. Public interest is actively encouraged. For all reserves, active measures are taken to provide visual material (photographs, film, video, etc.) and written information (maps, articles, books, web sites, etc.). Direct public access is actively encouraged where it can be arranged with minimal damage.

18. Research and monitoring are promoted. These efforts will include surveys, original research and monitoring inside the reserves, and comparisons with the exploited areas outside. The data will be freely distributed to managers and the general public.

19. This policy will be adopted by the authorities to ensure that action occurs. But in each region, there will be many arrangements of reserves that conform to the policy and its principles. Precise decisions will include the full democratic process. Anyone interested can and should become involved at the detailed level, but no local or sectional interests will be allowed veto powers.

20. The matter is urgent. Safeguarding our children's future requires action now. The policy and its principles provide the necessary guidelines for practical action. Using these, existing information is sufficient for action in all regions.

For more information

Bill Ballantine, Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland, Box 349, Warkworth, New Zealand. Tel: +64 9 422 6071; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.marine-reserves.org.nz


Reader: Do you agree with the principles of Bill Ballantine's manifesto? E-mail us at [email protected]. We will print responses in a future issue.

 

[PeterIMA]

The following is taken from MPA News Vol. 7. No. 4(October 2005)

Editor's note: The authors of the following perspective piece all work for Conservation International (CI), an international NGO. Eduard Niesten is director of the Conservation Economics Program at CI's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science. Richard Rice is chief economist in that program. Mark Erdmann, formerly USAID's marine protected areas advisor for Bunaken National Park (Indonesia), is senior advisor for the Marine Program of Conservation International Indonesia.

MPA PERSPECTIVE CONSERVATION INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS AS A TOOL FOR DEVELOPING AND MANAGING MPAs

By Eduard Niesten, Richard Rice, and Mark Erdmann, Conservation International

One of the most common challenges in setting up and managing MPAs throughout the world is the difficulty of "competing" against fisheries and other marine resource sectors that offer the prospect of tangible economic benefits such as employment and revenues to both governments and local stakeholders. Though the medium and long-term benefits of MPAs to sustainable fisheries and marine tourism are increasingly well-known, it can be difficult to sell this long-term view to cash-strapped governments or subsistence fishers in the face of short-term gains offered by commercial interests. One potential solution to this dilemma involves an approach known as "conservation incentive agreements" - a strikingly simple idea which immediately and tangibly benefits key stakeholders by providing continuous, long-term financial or material incentives to conserve marine resources rather than exploit them for short-term gain. Although certainly not universally applicable, this approach has scored several important successes in terrestrial conservation, and is now actively being applied to the marine realm. Below we examine the key features of this approach and how it may be used in an MPA setting.

The fundamental premise underlying incentive agreements is that if properly structured, conservation can compete on a level playing field with much of the destructive exploitation that is commonplace today. A conservation incentive agreement seeks to secure conservation services in a well-defined area of land or sea in exchange for a negotiated package of sustained benefits. The approach avoids some of the pitfalls of indirect approaches to conservation in which there is no formal conservation agreement with local beneficiaries and where success requires the creation of self-sustaining markets for non-destructive activities, often in extremely remote locations. Given its flexibility, the approach allows benefits to be tailored precisely to a given situation. Examples of benefits in ongoing initiatives include funding for school fees in a project in the Solomon Islands and financial support for protecting an indigenous territory in Ecuador.

A defining feature of the model is that continued provision of benefits depends on compliance, as verified using measurable conservation performance indicators. Thus, the approach resembles conservation easements and other incentive mechanisms that are common in industrialized nations, but whose potential remains largely untapped in the developing countries that house much of the world's remaining biodiversity.

Conservation International (CI) first used this approach after observing logging companies acquire the lease rights to large areas of forest in Guyana at very low cost, suggesting that conservation organizations might well do the same without intending to log. In 2002 the Government of Guyana granted CI a renewable, 30-year lease to manage 80,000 ha of forest for conservation. Under this agreement, CI is paying the government exactly what they would have received had the area been logged.

Since then, similar initiatives have been launched in a wide range of settings around the world, from agreements with governments involving remote lowland rainforests to agreements with traditional Indian communities in the high Andes - and, increasingly, agreements involving marine conservation as well. The tool has proven particularly useful in situations where local communities are the legal resource owners - as is true, for example, in most marine settings in Melanesia. (In industrialized nations, incentive-based approaches have been applied mostly in terrestrial settings - where resource ownership is predominantly private - as opposed to marine settings where resources are typically under government ownership. However, opportunities do exist in the marine realm: agreements can conceivably be made with government authorities or with groups of resource users, such as providing long-term compensation to fishermen for retiring their licenses.)

One concrete example of a marine application in developing countries is in the Arnavon Islands group within the Solomon Islands, where local communities recognized the impact of over-harvesting sea cucumbers, sea turtles, and other marine resources and designated an 8,558-ha marine and terrestrial area as a Provincial wildlife reserve. In exchange, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) provides training and salaries to local community members who patrol the area and monitor sea turtle nesting and foraging sites. Annual onsite project costs are less than US$25,000. TNC and CI are working to establish a US$500,000 endowment to guarantee long-term financing for this project and ensure that incentives, including employment and training, continue to flow to local communities - contingent of course upon measurable compliance with the area's protection plan.

Given some general enabling conditions, conservation incentive agreements can be applied in a wide variety of contexts. Important conditions include the ability of resource owners and users to act as a viable counterpart in an agreement, and on-the-ground capacity to effectively manage stakeholder issues, both of which can be developed with appropriate investments if necessary. Effective agreements also require a firm legal basis, which can range from private contracts to public leases. Similarly, a robust long-term agreement depends on sufficient funding to guarantee a stable flow of benefits. Project-specific endowments offer the most secure guarantee for such funding, but can present a considerable challenge for fundraising. Fortunately, as the potential of this approach is becoming more widely recognized, we are finding that donors are increasingly interested in providing the necessary long-term support. Though no substitute for more traditional approaches, incentive agreements offer a flexible complement that could greatly extend our ability to achieve conservation objectives in marine settings.

Readers interested in learning more about experiences in implementing this approach are urged to contact the authors directly.

For more information

Eduard Niesten and Dick Rice, Conservation International, 1919 M St, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA. Tel: +1 202 912 1000; E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Mark Erdmann, Conservation International Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Muwardi No. 17, Denpasar, Bali 80361, Indonesia. Tel: +62 361 327245; E-mail: [email protected]