Incentivizing co‐management for impact: mechanisms driving the successful national expansion of Tonga's Special Management Area program

Stone²,

Ceccarelli

et al. 2020

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

Combining no-take marine reserves with exclusive access by communities to unreserved waters could provide the required incentives for community management to achieve positive impacts. However, few protected areas have been critically evaluated for their impact, which involves applying counterfactual thinking to predict conditions within protected areas if management had never occurred. Here, we use statistical matching to conduct a rigorous impact evaluation of dual management systems on coral reef fishes in Tonga, with communities having both full no-take areas and areas of exclusive fishing rights. No-take areas generally had positive impacts on the species richness, biomass, density, and size of target reef fish, while exclusive access areas were similar to predicted counterfactual conditions. The latter is likely because overall fishing pressure in exclusive access areas might not actually change, although more fish could be exploited by communities with access rights. Our findings suggest that dual management is effective at incentivizing effective community-based no-take areas for biodiversity conservation and resource management.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community management yields positive impacts for coastal fisheries resources and biodiversity conservation

Stone²,

Ceccarelli

et al. 2020

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

“…Evidence for improving access and custom targets is weak because permanent closures typically restrict access and are generally not part of customary management practices in the region (Foale et al., 2011 ; Love, 2021 ). A notable exception is in Tonga, where local tenure arrangements were abolished in the 19th century and permanent closures are being expanded as part of efforts to reestablish community‐based management through the development of Special Management Areas (Smallhorn‐West et al., 2020c ). Only one study (Cakacaka et al., 2010 ) examined patterns of women's and men's participation in management following the establishment of permanent closures.…”

Section: Evidence Of Co‐management Impacts On Furthering Un Sdgs In T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking small‐scale fisheries co‐management to U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

Cohen

Phillips

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

Small‐scale fisheries account for 90% of global fishers and 40% of the global catch. Effectively managing small‐scale fisheries is, therefore, crucial to progressing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Co‐management and community‐based fisheries management are widely considered the most appropriate forms of governance for many small‐scale fisheries. We outlined relationships between small‐scale fisheries co‐management and attainment of the SDGs, including evidence for impacts and gaps in dominant logic. We identified 11 targets across five SDGs to which small‐scale fisheries co‐management (including community‐based fisheries management) can contribute; the theory of change by which these contributions could be achieved; and the strength of evidence for progress toward SDG targets related to various co‐management strategies. Our theory of change links the 11 SDG targets by qualifying that progress toward some targets is contingent on others being achieved first. We then reviewed 58 case studies of co‐management impacts from the Pacific Islands––a region rich in local marine governance––to evaluate evidence of where, to what degree, and with how much certainty different co‐management strategies conferred positive impacts to each SDG target. These strategies included access restrictions, permanent area closures, periodic closures, and gear and species restrictions. Although many studies provide evidence linking multiple co‐management strategies to improvements in resource status (SDG 14.4), there was limited evidence of follow‐on effects, such as improvements in catch (SDG 2.3, 2.4), livelihoods (SDG 1.2), consumption (SDG 2.1), and nutrition (SDG 2.2). Our findings suggest that leaps of logic and assumptions are prevalent in co‐management planning and evaluation. Hence, when evaluating co‐management impacts against the SDGs, consideration of ultimate goals is required, otherwise, there is a risk of shortfalls between aspirations and impact.

“…Common examples include direct payments to land and water stewards for ecosystem conservation and restoration, with corresponding changes to deforestation and water quality (Milder et al, 2010; Sone et al, 2019). Non‐monetary incentives can also be provided, such as the legal recognition of fishing access rights in exchange for implementation of no‐take MPAs or other marine management measures (Smallhorn‐West, Sheehan, et al, 2020). However, while strategies that incentivize conservation have obvious potential for improving tolerance of opportunity costs, they also come with risks.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Conservation Impact and Other Socie...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why does conservation minimize opportunity costs?

Pressey

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

Effective management of depleted natural resources can be achieved only through changes in human actions. Opportunity costs represent the forgone benefits that would have flowed in the absence of conservation interventions. To the extent that opportunity costs reflect lost opportunities for extractive uses (e.g., fishing or logging), and to the extent that those extractive uses present threats to nature, opportunity costs therefore reflect the positive differences for natural values that can be made through conservation management. Thus, logic dictates that, if conservationists make choices to minimize opportunity costs, they are also necessarily limiting their impact. Unfortunately, empirical evidence from many conservation contexts implies that conservationists indeed make choices consistent with an aim to minimize opportunitycosts, and hence impact. A better understanding of the relationship between opportunity costs and conservation impact will make the language used to communicate conservation progress, targets, and planning more honest and accountable and more explicitly focused on the differences our actions make.