Locally-managed marine areas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies

Abstract

Community-based management and co-management are mainstream approaches to marine conservation and sustainable resource management. In the tropical Pacific, these approaches have proliferated through locally-managed marine areas (LMMAs). LMMAs have garnered support because of their adaptability to different contexts and focus on locally identified objectives, negotiated and implemented by stakeholders. While LMMA managers may be knowledgeable about their specific sites, broader understanding of objectives, management actions and outcomes of local management efforts remain limited. We interviewed 50 practitioners from the tropical Pacific and identified eight overarching objectives for LMMA establishment and implementation: (1) enhancing long-term sustainability of resource use; (2) increasing shortterm harvesting efficiency; (3) restoring biodiversity and ecosystems; (4) maintaining or restoring breeding biomass of fish or invertebrates; (5) enhancing the economy and livelihoods; (6) reinforcing customs; (7) asserting access and tenure rights; and (8) empowering communities. We reviewed outcomes for single or multiple objectives from published studies of LMMAs and go on to highlight synergies and trade-offs among objectives. The management actions or ʻtoolsʼ implemented for particular objectives broadly included: permanent closures; periodically-harvested closures; restrictions on gear, access or species; livelihood diversification strategies; and participatory and engagement processes. Although LMMAs are numerous and proliferating, we found relatively few cases in the tropical Pacific that adequately described how objectives and management tools were negotiated, reported the tools implemented, or empirically tested outcomes and seldom within a regional context. This paper provides some direction for addressing these research gaps.

The sharks and rays of the Solomon Islands: a synthesis of their biological diversity, values and conservation status

“…Widespread opposition to commercial fishing in communities with well established CMT has prevented the switch to large-scale fishing (Ruddle et al 1992). These examples demonstrate the potential of participatory community-based approaches such as CMT and LMMAs to successful small-scale fisheries management in coastal communities (Jupiter et al 2014;Cohen et al 2015), and managing shark and ray catches should be integrated with these processes. Nevertheless, changing needs and aspirations concerning food security and livelihoods, and the potential for economic gain, may weaken the influence of CMT over the harvest of resources (Cohen et al 2015) such as shark fins.…”

“…In the meantime, future shark and ray management and conservation in coastal artisanal and subsistence fisheries will probably depend on forms of Customary Marine Tenure (CMT) or Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs), which embody a set of understood rules and relationships over access to, and use of, fishing areas and resources between groups and communities (Hviding 1988;Jupiter et al 2014). Estimates suggest that access to, and use of, over 90% of inshore coastal areas is controlled by these community-based arrangements (Albert et al 2015), and formal governance arrangements exist to support CMT-and LMMA-based management.…”

Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework

“…When external programs are introduced that do not align with local efforts this can crowd out local initiatives (Murtinho et al 2013;Jupiter 2017). Procedural considerations, such as inclusion of stakeholders, participation in planning, social learning, knowledge co-production, cooperative management, trust building, negotiation, and conflict resolution, can also enable the effective stewardship of resources (Lockwood et al 2010;Jupiter et al 2014;McConney et al 2014;Turner et al 2014). Moreover, this past research demonstrates that local actors and communities can be empowered to steward local resources or their agency can be undermined by governance processes (e.g., top-down, co-managed, or bottom-up governance) or by structural power differentials or inequalities.…”

“…However, these environmental objectives are often directly linked to or associated with desired social outcomes, which might be social, cultural, economic, health, physical or governancerelated (Donatuto et al 2014;Biedenweg et al 2016;Breslow et al 2016;Kaplan-Hallam and Bennett 2017). Social objectives also include process considerations-e.g., how stewardship decisions are made and the roles that different actors play in stewarding the resource (Jupiter et al 2014;. Local resource users and communities may pursue both ecological and social objectives simultaneously (Kittinger et al 2016).…”

“…Our focus on local stewardship also aligns with an increasing emphasis on local communities and resource users in conservation and environmental management policies, programs and practice globally, as evidenced in initiatives such as community-based conservation (CBC), community-based management (CBM), community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs), integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs), locally managed marine areas (LMMAs), "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs), and urban stewardship initiatives (Barrett and Arcese 1995;Berkes 2004;Cinner and Aswani 2007;Govan et al 2009;Krasny and Tidball 2012;ICCA 2013;Jupiter et al 2014;Jonas et al 2014;Riehl et al 2015;Campos-Silva and Peres 2016). As these examples show, locally-oriented stewardship practices, policies and programs have emerged in fisheries, agriculture, forestry, protected areas, wildlife, ecosystem service, and water management across rural to urban environments.…”