Reef fish biomass recovery within community-managed no take zones

Gilchrist, Hannah; Rocliffe, Steve; Anderson, Lucy G.; Gough, Charlotte

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105210

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 118 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…existing no-take zones, and decade-long cycles of more collaborative, inclusive stakeholder engagement. These findings tentatively link seascapes to recent related research around the effectiveness of appropriately-scaled, ecosystem-based, collaboratively-governed marine management that balances strict protection with sustainable use (Bobiles & Nakamura, 2019; Campbell et al, 2020; Gilchrist et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Towards ecological and social impact through collaborative governance of a seascape of marine protected areas in Honduras

Steadman

2021

Oryx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protecting marine biodiversity and ensuring sustainable use through a seascape approach is becoming increasingly widespread in response to the ecological, social and institutional challenges of scaling ocean management. A seascape approach means clustering spatial management measures (marine protected areas) based around the principles of ecological connectivity, and developing or enhancing collaborative governance networks of relevant stakeholders (managers, community groups, non-governmental organizations) based around the principles of social connectivity. As with other large-scale approaches to marine management, there is minimal evidence of long-term impact in seascapes. This study uses a theory-based, participatory impact evaluation to assess perceived changes attributed to the Atlántida seascape in Honduras (initiated in 2015), encompassing three well-established marine protected areas and the non-legally managed waters between them. Using an adapted most significant change method, 15 interviews with a representative subset of seascape stakeholders yielded 165 stories of change, the majority (88%) of which were positive. Enhanced social capital, associated with cross-sectoral collaboration, inter-site conflict resolution and shared learning, was the most consistently expressed thematic change (32% of stories). Although most stories were expressed as activity- or output-related changes, a small proportion (18%) were causally linked to broader outcomes or impact around increased fish and flagship species abundance as well as interconnected well-being benefits for people. Although minimal (and occasionally attributed to prior initiatives that were enhanced by the seascape approach), this impact evidence tentatively links seascapes to recent related research around the effectiveness of appropriately scaled, ecosystem-based and collaboratively governed marine management that balances strict protection with sustainable use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Towards ecological and social impact through collaborative governance of a seascape of marine protected areas in Honduras

Steadman

2021

Oryx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although Velondriake is an ongoing initiative that is yet to be systematically evaluated, we suggest it can be considered a qualified success in terms of its social and environmental impacts. In conservation terms the impact of the LMMA is not known, but fish biomass in the five permanent reef reserves increased by 189% six years after implementation (Gilchrist, Rocliffe, Anderson, & Gough, 2020). However the LMMA has made limited progress in addressing the overexploitation of extremely high value and vulnerable species such as sharks and sea cucumber, the collection of which has essentially wiped out these species from within Velondriake and the wider region (Cripps & Gardner, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A decade and a half of learning from Madagascar's first locally managed marine area

Gardner

Cripps

Day

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the participatory management of small scale fisheries has been widely promoted, we have limited understanding of the factors influencing its effectiveness. Here, we highlight lessons learnt from the implementation of Madagascar's first locally managed marine area (LMMA), drawing on our insights and experiences as staff of a comanaging nongovernmental organization (NGO). We describe the LMMA's context and history, and highlight aspects of our approach that we feel underpin its outcomes, including: (a) comanagement rather than communitymanagement; (b) the permanent field presence of a supporting NGO; (c) a management focus on locally important natural resources; (d) the implementation of poverty alleviation initiatives aimed at reducing barriers to management; (e) decision-making by resource users rather than scientists; (f) a diversified, entrepreneurial funding model; and (g) an emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management. We also highlight several challenges, including: (a) the inability to influence fishery supply chains; (b) promoting participation and good governance; (c) promoting rule application; (d) standing up to outsiders; (e) promoting environmental management in the long term; and (f) maintaining funding. Our experiences suggest that small scale fishers can be effective natural resource managers in low-income contexts, but may need extended support from outsiders; however, the role of supporting NGO is nuanced and complex.

show abstract

“…LMMA determinations do not explicitly recognize most of the biological and ecological features given priority by the other labels. This possibly reflects the very different governance status of LMMAs; Inherent in the concept of LMMAs are the use of local community knowledge and the right of communities to identify features of nature important to their well-being (Gilchrist et al, 2020). There is ample evidence that when efforts of communities in the LMMA network to identify areas of importance are acknowledged and supported, communities are well aware of the value of areas of high productivity, representative biodiversity, special habitat features, and the life histories of key species in the ecosystems, and give such areas careful consideration in planning their activities in the LMMAs (Govan et al, 2009;Cinner et al, 2012;Cohen et al, 2014;Kawaka et al, 2017;Gilchrist et al, 2020).…”

Section: Biological and Ecological Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This possibly reflects the very different governance status of LMMAs; Inherent in the concept of LMMAs are the use of local community knowledge and the right of communities to identify features of nature important to their well-being (Gilchrist et al, 2020). There is ample evidence that when efforts of communities in the LMMA network to identify areas of importance are acknowledged and supported, communities are well aware of the value of areas of high productivity, representative biodiversity, special habitat features, and the life histories of key species in the ecosystems, and give such areas careful consideration in planning their activities in the LMMAs (Govan et al, 2009;Cinner et al, 2012;Cohen et al, 2014;Kawaka et al, 2017;Gilchrist et al, 2020). When contrasted with other labels, this does leave a potential weakness in areas identified as warranting enhanced risk aversion in management, as areas important to globally or regionally rare or endangered species and habitats are not explicitly prioritized.…”

Section: Biological and Ecological Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Contrast of Criteria for Special Places Important for Biodiversity Outcomes

Rice

Friedman

Garcia³

et al. 2022

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contrasts seven spatial biodiversity conservation area designations by six different bodies: Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs), and the Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); the Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) of the Food And Agriculture Organization (FAO); the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) under criteria developed by the IUCN; the Areas of Particular Environmental Interest (APEIs) of the International Seabed Authority (ISA); the Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO); and the Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) used by small island States in the Pacific Ocean; on five themes: biological and ecological features, functions served by areas receiving these labels, governance, threats and pressures, and other considerations. The seven different labels for such areas were generally similar in the biologically and ecological criteria to be met, and the functions typically served by these areas. Differences among the labels increased when considering governance, threat and pressures, and other considerations. Implications of these similarities and differences for policy development and outcomes are discussed. Performance reviews of the various labels under these themes could provide insight into both the effectiveness of the provisions in the Agreements and Decisions and how evidence is acquired and used to inform their application, allowing improvements to each approach to learn from experiences with other labels.

show abstract

Reef fish biomass recovery within community-managed no take zones

Cited by 20 publications

References 118 publications

Towards ecological and social impact through collaborative governance of a seascape of marine protected areas in Honduras

Towards ecological and social impact through collaborative governance of a seascape of marine protected areas in Honduras

A decade and a half of learning from Madagascar's first locally managed marine area

A Contrast of Criteria for Special Places Important for Biodiversity Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About