Policy analysis for tropical marine reserves: challenges and directions

Abstract

Marine reserves are considered to be a central tool for marine ecosystem-based management in tropical inshore fisheries. The arguments supporting marine reserves are often based on both the nonmarket values of ecological amenities marine reserves provide and the pragmatic cost saving advantages relating to reserve monitoring and enforcement. Marine reserves are, however, only one of a suite of possible policy options that might be used to achieve conservation and fisheries management objectives and have rarely been the focus of rigorous policy analyses that consider a full range of economic costs and benefits, including the transaction costs of management. If credible analyses are not undertaken, there is a danger that current enthusiasm for marine reserves may wane as economic performance fails to meet presumed potential. Fully accounting for the value of ecological services flowing from marine reserves requires consideration of increased size and abundance of focal species within reserve boundaries, emigration of target species from reserves to adjacent fishing grounds, changes in ecological resilience, and behavioral responses of fishers to spatially explicit closures. Expanding policy assessments beyond standard cost-benefit analysis also requires considering the impact of social capital on the costs of managing fisheries. In the short term, the amount of social capital that communities possess and the capacity of the State to support the rights of individuals and communities will affect the relative efficiency of marine reserves.Reserves may be the most efficient policy option when both Community and State capacity is high, but may not be when one and/or the other is weak. In the longer term, the level of social capital that a society possesses and the level of uncertainty in ecological and social systems will also impact the appropriate level of devolution or decentralization of fisheries governance. Determining the proper balance of the 'State' and the 'Community' in tropical fisheries governance will require broad comparative studies of marine reserves and alternative policy tools.3

From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: Governance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas

“…Policies that support effective management and natural-resource dependent livelihoods include clear rules of access and territorial rights, recognition of title/tenure, laws to support enforcement, legal mechanisms to support and guarantee meaningful participation in design and implementation, and clarity of MPA objectives [11,40,54,55,116,[118][119][120][121]. Congruence is also required between formal regulations, informal rules, and customary norms and practice [120], facilitated by policies that support the incorporation of local management systems and rules into MPA management and regulations [122,123]. Local norms that support conservation and restraint in resource harvesting may provide the most valuable platform for the sustainable management of common pool resources such as MPAs [120,124,125].…”

“…Congruence is also required between formal regulations, informal rules, and customary norms and practice [120], facilitated by policies that support the incorporation of local management systems and rules into MPA management and regulations [122,123]. Local norms that support conservation and restraint in resource harvesting may provide the most valuable platform for the sustainable management of common pool resources such as MPAs [120,124,125].…”

“…National level grassroots organizations, such as Pamana in the Phillipines [130], may be perceived as the most legitimate outside organization and as a result might be in the best position to support community outcomes in MPAs, through networking at various scales, advocating for communities nationally and internationally, and empowering communities through on-the-ground actions. Lastly, levels of social capital -a term which refers to trustful, cooperative and reciprocal relationships within and between groups [130] -may be an important indicator of the quality of collaborative interactions [120]. Various authors, for example, emphasize the importance of having forums and networking opportunities for creating trust, building relationships, facilitating communication and colearning, and creating greater awareness and knowledge amongst partners [116,122,131,132].…”

“…Though a top-down approach may be suitable where there is no resident population, centralized management has often been criticized for alienating local people, increasing local conflict, resulting in limited levels of local benefit, and even resulting in failure [73,96,100,118,139]: "The unpopularity of the top-down regime [lies] in its failure to respect local sensibilities" [88]. Though a bottom up approach may be more acceptable than top-down approaches see [120], this approach may also have issues with corruption and changes in the local government may result in MPA failure [88,154]. Furthermore, unless specific capacity building efforts are implemented, bottom-up approaches may lack the expertise to undertake the ecological monitoring to determine whether the ultimate purpose of MPAs, biodiversity conservation, is being achieved.…”

“…Legitimacy and support are gained through the sharing of power and participation [107]. Yet comanagement also faces challenges related to increased bureaucracy, funding uncertainty, time commitments, local capacity and willingness to participate, and achievement of an appropriate balance of governmental and community input and control [120,139,155]. McConney and Pena [156] recommend that attention is paid to building and supporting the capacity for comanagement.…”