SESmini Symposium 21

7/28/2019 SESmini Symposium 21

1/27

P ROCEEDINGS OF THE

Mini-Symposium 21:

Social-ecological Systems

Convened and edited by:

T. Hughes, M. Nystrom, J. Cinner, S. Foale

961


2/27

Proceedings of the 11 th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008Session number 21

Measuring the effects of Marine Managed Areas:A global management effectiveness study

T. W. Campson 1, R. Pomeroy 2

1) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA2) Senior Research Fellow, WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia

Abstract. This paper presents preliminary results from a multidisciplinary research project on factorsinfluencing the performance of Marine Managed Areas. This study is unique in that it investigates the impact of the timing of management interactions on a number of performance outcomes, across a global sample of MMAs.Data sources for the study comprise an extensive review of literature, key informant interviews, and householdsurveys in 24 villages from eight MMA sites in tropical regions. Analysis of household surveys indicate thatadequate funds at the beginning, enforcement, shared benefits, community organizations, conflict managementmechanism, and external support during implementation, and education and training programs, governmentsupport, and legislation today together account for 18% of the variance in the socio/ecological component of

MMA performance. Alternative livelihoods, shared benefits, and leadership in the beginning, education andenforcement during implementation, and legislation, conflict management, and accountability today account for 17% of the variance in the empowerment and security component of MMA performance. Finally, the combinedeffects of community influence and education in the beginning, consultations, leadership and education

programs during implementation, and influence, shared benefits, community organizations, and legislationtoday, account for 20% of the variance in the conflict component of MMA performance.

Key words: Marine Protected Areas, Economics of natural resources.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to assess the factorsrelated to the social and environmental effects of Marine Managed Areas (MMAs). In particular, it

explores the links between socioeconomic,governance, and ecological circumstances, events, or interventions and changes in the human or naturalenvironment of the MMA over time.

Attention to the links between MMA design andimplementation processes and their longer-termoutcomes has increased in recent years. In June of 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations convened an expert group to developrecommendations for the use of Marine ProtectedAreas as a fisheries management tool. The panel,composed of social and environmental scientists frommany disciplines, developed numerous

recommendations for the effective design andmanagement of MPAs. The panel noted that thedesign of MPAs would benefit from more support for effectively designed and conducted studies of MPAs,emphasizing the diversity of situations in whichMPAs have been applied, design and implementation

processes, monitoring and performance, andultimately, lessons learned. (FAO 2006)

This study support the goals articulated in the FAOdocument by investigating the relationships between

socioeconomic, governance, and ecological factorsand MPA outcomes. As noted by Pomeroy andMascia in the FAO report, The four principalelements of MPA design decision-making

arrangements, resource use rules, monitoring andenforcement systems, and conflict resolutionmechanisms directly and indirectly shape humanresource use patterns and, ultimately, the biologicaland social performance of MPAs. (FAO 2006)

Material and MethodsData sources for the study comprise an extensivereview of literature, key informant interviews, andhousehold surveys in 24 villages from eight MMAsites in tropical regions.

Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the analyticframework for this study. The outcomes (effects) of

the MMAs are defined as a difference in the levels of MMA performance indicators from a time before theMMA was initiated to today. Socioeconomic,governance, and ecological factors were measured atthree time periods in the early phases of the MMA

project, during implementation of the MMA, andtoday. The curved arrows in the graphic representrelationships between the socioeconomic, governance,and ecological factors that are related to the outcomesof MMAs. The dark, straight arrows represent

962


3/27

Figure 1: Analytic framework for GME study

relationships between independent variables(socioeconomic, governance, and ecological factors)and dependent variables (the change in performanceindicators, or the effects of the MMA).

In order to conduct a quantitative assessment of therelationships between these dependent andindependent variables, it was necessary to obtaincomparable data from each MMA site. Althoughthese sites were chosen based in part on theavailability of secondary data, the data onsocioeconomic and governance factors was notdirectly comparable across sites. Therefore, it was

decided to conduct surveys with 40-60 households ateach MMA. These surveys utilize the baseline-independent method for impact evaluation developed

by Pomeroy et al. (1997) and widely employed byauthors involved in coastal management researchsince that time (for example, Cinner et al. 2005;McClanahan et al. 2006). These household surveys

provide comparable data on socioeconomic andgovernance factors present at each site and their timing, as well as the levels of socioeconomic andgovernance performance indicators before the MMA

project and today. A significant difference in thereported level of a performance indicator isconsidered an effect of an MMA.

The household surveys were developed following areview of guidelines on the socioeconomicassessment of MMAs and coral reef management(Bunce et al. 2000; Pollnac 1998; Pomeroy et al.2004). The survey instrument consists of threesections and about 50 questions. The first sectioncontains questions about general householdcharacteristics, respondent demographics, andcommunity characteristics. The first section also asks

the respondents whether they consider the MMA asuccess. The second section asks about the timing of factors that might be important in establishing andmanaging an MMA. These are our CriticalDetermining Factors, or CDFs.

The third section asks about respondent perceptionsof the level of indicators (before the MMA and today)that could be considered the outcomes or outputs of MMAs. This study uses a visual, self-anchoring,ladder-like scale which allows for making fine ordinal

judgments, places minimal demands on informantmemory, and can be administered rapidly. Using this

technique, the subject is shown a ladder-like diagramwith 10 steps. The subject is told that the first steprepresents the worst possible situation. For example,with respect to coastal resources, the subject might beinformed that the first step indicates an area with nofish or other resources, that the water is so foulnothing could live in it. The highest step could bedescribed as rich, clean water, filled with fish andother resources. The subject would then be askedwhere the situation was before the MMA, and whereit is today.

In all cases, local partners were enlisted to lead theimplementation of the household surveys. The

research team worked on-site with each local projectleader to ensure that the survey questions were clear,and that they were appropriate to the communities

being surveyed. Samples were drawn from the population of stakeholders in communitiessurrounding or near to the MMA who are involvedwith or are knowledgeable about the MMA. Theseindividuals were either identified by the surveyenumerators on-site by asking a screening question of randomly selected community members, or pre-

Socioeconomic Factors

Governance Factors

Ecological Factors

Today In the early

phases of theMMA

Duringimplementation of

the MMA

Time = 0... presen t

Before theMMA was

initiated

Performanceindicators

963


4/27

screened by MMA management prior to the researchvisit.

ResultsFor the overall sample, there was a statisticallysignificant increase in perceived levels of all 12 of theimpact indicators (p


5/27

Figure 2: timeline representation of significant regressors

Likewise in Table 3(B), alternative livelihoods,shared benefits, and leadership in the beginning,education and enforcement during implementation,and legislation, conflict management, andaccountability today account for 17% of the variancein the Empowerment and security component score.Finally in Table 3(C), the combined effects of community influence and education in the beginning,consultations, leadership and education programsduring implementation, and influence, shared benefits,community organizations, and legislation today,account for 20% of the variance in the Conflictcomponent score. Figure 2 is a timeline-typerepresentation of these regression results.

DiscussionThe most striking result of the component regressionsis that some of the coefficients are negative, contraryto expectations. Recall that these are supposed to becritical success factors; therefore all coefficientswould be expected to be positive. Thinking about theimplications of measuring perceptions can help tomake sense of these counterintuitive findings.

For example, there may be some psychology at play

in which respondents feel a sense of bondingtogether in a difficult situation that would explainwhy the coefficient on adequate funds is negative.Similarly, both alternative livelihoods and leadership at the beginnings are negatively related to theempowerment and security component score. Recallthat the empowerment and security component isloaded most highly with perceptions of changes ininfluence and participation. It might be the case that if a strong leader comes in to a community with newideas about changing traditional ways of life, thatsituation could be alienating and disempowering for some members of the community.

In general, the variables with negative coefficientsare associated with situations that may be generatedfrom outside the community itself for example,strong leadership, legislation, education and training

programs associated with the MMA, governmentsupport.

It is also noteworthy that some of the coefficients are positive for one component but negative for another.Education and training programs, for instance, have a

positive effect on the Empowerment and security

At the beginning or early phases of the MMA

During implementation Today

Socio/ecological component score

Respondent is a fisherman (-)-----------------------------------------------------

MMA has adequate funds (-) Enforcement Education and training programs (-)

Shared benefits Government support (-)External support Accountable managementCommunity organizationsCommunity consultations (-)Conflict management mechanism (-)

Empowerment and security component scoreReligious diversity in the community ------------------------------------------------Alternative livelihoods

promoted (-)Education and training programs Legislation

Shared benefits Enforcement Conflict managementLeadership (-) Enabling legislation Accountable managementEnforcement Community organizations Community organizations (-)

Conflict component scoreRespondent is a fisherman (-)-----------------------------------------------------Socioeconomic diversity in the community -----------------------------------------Education and training

programs (-)Community influence Leadership

Enforcement Education and training programs (-) Shared benefitsCommunity influence Community organizations

Legislation (-)

MMA is a success

Respondent is a fisherman (-)-----------------------------------------------------Community organizations Education and training programs Accountable managementEnforcement (-) Enforcement

965


6/27

component score but a negative effect on the other two components. Strong leadership has a negativeeffect on the Empowerment and security componentscore but a positive effect on the Conflict score.Investigating the robustness of this finding will be afruitful area for further research.

This paper reports results from the first phase of anongoing research project. Further steps will involveintegrating quantitative ecological data from studysites into a comprehensive analysis. The authorswelcome comments from readers to improve futureversions of this report.

AcknowledgementsThis research was made possible with the financial support of Conservation Internationals Marine Management Area Science

program. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to thecommitted teams of local researchers who made this project happen,especially Haji Mahingika, Narriman Jiddawi, and Ali Abdullah inTanzania, Michael Pido in the Philippines, Kim Ahn in Vietnam,and Nadia Sonia Cazaubon in Saint Lucia.

ReferencesBunce, L., P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy, and R. Pollnac (2000)

Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management ,Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia

Cinner J, Marnane M, McClanahan T. (2005) Conservation andCommunity Benefits from Traditional Coral Reef Management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. ConservBiol 17141723.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006)Report and documentation of the expert workshop on marine

protected areas and fisheries management: review of issuesand considerations. Rome, 1214 June 2006

McClanahan T, Marnane M, Cinner J, Kiene W. (2006) AComparison of Marine Protected Areas and AlternativeApproaches to Coral-Reef Management. Current Biology 16 :14081413.

McClanahan T, Verheij E, Maina J. (2006) Comparing themanagement effectiveness of a marine park and a multiple-use collaborative fisheries management area in East AfricaAquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 16: 147165.

Pollnac, R. (1998), Rapid Assessment of Management Parameters for Coral Reefs , ICLARM Contribution #1445, CoastalManagement Report #2205, Coastal Resources Center,University of Rhode Island.

Pomeroy R, Pollnac R, Katon B, Predo C. (1997) Evaluatingfactors contributing to the success of community-basedcoastal resource management: the Central Visayas RegionalProject-1, Philippines. Ocean Coastal Management 36:97120.

Pomery R, Parks J, Watson L. (2004) How is your MPA doing?IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

966


7/27

Proceedings of the 11 th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008Session number 21

Towards a close integration of social and natural sciencesA. Coghlan 1

1) James Cook University, School of Business, Cairns PO Box 6811, Qld 4870, Australia

Abstract. Interdisciplinary teams are now commonplace in natural resource research centers. The evolutionfrom pure biologists to a systems approach with ecologists and later on, social scientists and geographersreflects our understanding that no natural environment is exempt from human impacts; to protect the naturalenvironment we must incorporate the human dimensions within the environment. Whilst conceding thatinterdisciplinary research is vital to the conservation of natural resources, I review our state of knowledge oninterdisciplinary research and identify several barriers to successful integration. To address these, it is necessaryto first articulate and understand these barriers. Only then can they be identified as they arise betweenresearchers and successfully overcome in order to achieve sustainable natural resource management. This paper identifies four major barriers that hinder efforts at successful integration of social and natural science. These are(i) differences in epistemology, (ii) the place and hierarchy of each science within the wider community, (iii)researcher time constraints and (iv) publication pressures. The paper also provides a list of recommendations toovercome these issues in order to guide researchers through the challenges of producing integrated, quality, out-come driven research that serve both the community and the natural environment.

Key words: Interdisciplinary research natural social science

IntroductionA cursory glance at some of the major naturalresource research centres around the globe reveal atrend towards interdisciplinary research teams. Oneexample of this trend include the Australian Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef studies, which employsecologists, biologists, geneticists, sociologists,economists and anthropologists.

The evolution of teams based in one discipline, e.g. biologists, to a system approach with ecologists andlater the addition of social scientists and geographersreflect our understanding of the complexity of naturalenvironment and its interconnectedness with humansociety and its impacts; we now realize that we mustexamine the system as a whole if we wish to protect it.For example, a relatively simple but pertinentquestion such as How can the harmful environmentalimpacts of human activities be reduced? can draw onthe disciplines of demography, ecology economics,engineering, sociology, psychology, anthropology,

political science, law and ethics in order to reach a

satisfactory answer (Daily and Ehrlich 1999).In addition, there is a recognition that, in order to

successfully protect a natural resource such as coralreefs, there must be local support for the projects, andsome incentive to preserve and manage the resource.Often in cases where no social scientist isimmediately available, the responsibility falls to thenatural scientist who has been working near or alongside the local community for many years todevelop the incentive to preserve and manage the

resource. However, as highlighted by the review of issues in interdisciplinary research that follows, an adhoc, cross- disciplinary approach may not always besuccessful or achieve the desired outcomes; indeedauthors such as Lele and Norgaard (2005) suggest thatcharged with providing policy recommendations,natural scientists have to make judgments about howsociety works. They do not have adequate training todo this, but they are perhaps emboldened to do so bytheir positions and are likely to adopt simplisticmodels of social dynamics.

In this paper, I look first at the growing need for interdisciplinary research teams in natural resourcemanagement and environmental conservation. Next Idraw on the literature, as well as personal experience,to identify and articulate some of the issues that suchinterdisciplinary research appears to face. Finally, andagain based on existing literature in the area, some of the recommendations for overcoming these issues arediscussed.

Literature reviewWhen it comes to incorporating the social sciencesinto natural resource management, both naturalscientists and social scientists may find themselvesfrustrated. Campbell recounts her experiencesworking with natural scientists at a turtle hatchery: Iwas once asked to conduct research that wouldshow that tourism was more valuable than anextractive-use project. Biologists may see results thatdo not see a desired conservation outcome as a

967


8/27

betrayal, both personally and professionally(Campbell 2005). One reason for this, according toCampbell, is that natural scientists may haveunconscious or assumed expectations about whatresults of socio-economic studies will show, andwhich do not always reflect the research paradigms or

priorities of the social sciences.Indeed, some authors suggest that several

misunderstandings may be at work here. First, a more palatable form of social science may be co-opted intoa primarily natural science research team. In thewords of Redclift (1998) There is considerableevidence that some kinds of research in the socialscience can be fashioned to meet the demands of thenatural sciences, e.g. demographic analyses can

provide scenarios of food availability, surpluses, andresource scarcities. But is this social science? Is itrather what natural scientists think that socialscientists are doing? As a more extreme example wefind the following In my experience, naturalscientists turn to social scientists to better package or market their eco/bio principles to the general public.True collaboration suggests mutual recognition of thedistinct theory and methods that respective disciplinescan bring to complex problems (Fox et al. 2006).

Conversely, however, it has been argued that socialscientists must also be able to demonstrate thatconservation-relevant social science is legitimate,worthy of pursuit and capable of answering questionsof profound theoretical significance (Mascia et al.2003). Clearly there is some feeling amongst thenatural scientists that social science has in the pastfailed to provide the conservation outcomes required

for adequate protection of a natural resource, and acertain level of frustration felt by social scientistsworking within conservation-oriented research teams.

Aims and ObjectivesThe aims of this paper are to:1. To articulate some of the issues that face

interdisciplinary teams2. To help think about them and identify them as they

arise3. To make some recommendations for overcoming

them

Material and MethodsThe principle methodology for this paper is a reviewof the literature on interdisciplinary research, with a

particular focus on those issues that arise in mixedsocial and natural science teams. The review is setwithin the authors own experience as a graduate inmarine and environmental sciences, a doctoral degreein tourism, and a postdoctoral position in the Schoolof Business, managing a research project on

sustainable use of marine resources within a tourismcontext.

ResultsBased on some of the ideas presented above, as wellas a more complete review of the existing literature, itwould appear that there are four main issues that maylead to communication breakdowns ininterdisciplinary teams. These are (i) differences inepistemology, (ii) the place and hierarchy of eachscience within the wider community, (iii) researcher time constraints and (iv) publication pressures.

(i) Differences in Epistemology:Differences in epistemology is arguably the biggestarea of potential conflict between social and naturalscientists. (Lele and Norgaard 2005). It can besuggested that natural scientists believe in an absolutetruth, which should be reached through a reductionist,

positivist approach to reach general consensus, whilstsocial scientists may employ far more interpretivetechniques that encourage debate and move awayfrom consensus, admitting the existence of competingcontroversial universalities or distinct epistemiccommunities (Redclift 1998).

A range of other related issues also appear in theliterature. For instance, language issues may arise, asdifferences between a clearly technical language anda science built upon more common language may leadto misunderstandings. In particular social scientistswho often use common language in their researchcomplain that the uninitiated reader, may mistakenlyconclude that he understands what is being said

(Pearce 2008, pers. comm.; Wear 1999). An examplefrom personal experience is the confusion betweenthe terms tourists and holiday-makers. In these cases,interdisciplinary research requires a clearer description of framing theory and methodology, andsome insights into constitutive metaphors in order to

build a common language that may usefully serve both groups of researchers (Wear 1999).

A second sub-issue resolves around the sensitivetopic of values. This issue arises at all stages choiceof questions, theoretical positions, variables chosen,styles of research. And whilst natural scientists like tothink that they are value-neutral, e.g. through the use

of the passive tense in reports, social scientistsrecognize the importance of the context of all research(Lele and Norgard 2005) allowing subjectivity to

become part of the research. Moreover, Campbell(2005) points out that advocacy issues can be strongin conservation biology, sometimes to the detrimentof science. The goal of conservation biologists is to

preserve biodiversity. There is often therefore a value placed on social science that is able to achieve thisconservation goal more effectively through

968


9/27

deliverables. Campbell suggests however, that issuesof advocacy will influence human subjects throughtheir perceptions of the overall research team and

project and not just by the social scientists with whomtheir interact. This will have detrimental effects on thequality and validity of the social science.

(ii) The place of science in society:Another sensitive issue that is identified in theliterature is that of the place of science in society andassociated issues of funding (Roughley 2005). A formof hierarchy of intellectual rigor appears to exist inthe sciences from the so-called hard sciences suchas physics and chemistry through to softer sciencessuch as ecology and psychology, leading finally toanthropology and sociology. This hierarchy of worth,and the funding discrepancies associated with it has

been accused of creating arrogance or defensivenesswithin disciplines, and forming a barrier to successfulinterdisciplinary research. Some authors thereforeargue for personal characteristics of interdisciplinaryresearchers to be carefully considered, and point tothe need for trust, patience, responsibility and honesty(Naiman 1999).

This may also help to overcome apparent issues of power imbalances, whereby research leaders are often based in the natural sciences and the natural scientists, by the nature of research methods, may outnumber the social scientists. The interpersonal skills of theresearch leader will therefore also play an importantrole in creating good interdisciplinary science withinlarge teams. He or she will need to ensure thateveryone shares the same general vision, but have

specific parts of the overall project so that they haveownership. This may require the commitment of senior people who have little to risk professionallyand are anxious to involve bright junior people intheir efforts. Furthermore, whilst there is often onlyone social scientist in the team, this person will berequired to represent a broad suite of social scienceconcerns and represent the team in a social context,e.g. educate local people or fix socio-economic

problems. Both of these roles are demanding and can be exhausting, and again, require good interpersonalskills and a strong commitment to the project.

(iii) Issues of time:When talking about interdisciplinary research, it has been suggested that mutual understanding andcooperation build slowly (Daily and Ehrlich 1999).Social interaction and long-term association thatallow friendships to develop create stronger interdisciplinary teams. Furthermore, it takes time todevelop common language and familiarise oneself with other disciplines, as well as build the research

program around several disciplines so that it may be

truly inclusive, empowering and truly reflect theissues at hand (Naiman 1999). On the other hand,conservation has a certain level of urgency associatedwith it. It may be therefore that much of socialscience research and methodology are a luxury thatconservation practioners cannot afford (Brosius 2006).

Another issue that is related to time constraints isthe issue of good science: the commitment of timeand energy into understanding other disciplinesinvariably detracts from the time and commitment putinto maximising ones own mastery of a singlediscipline. The result is a perception thatinterdisciplinary scientists are less competent or accomplished, and that interdisciplinary science isless exacting (Fox et al. 2006).

(iv) Publishing IssuesA final major issue that has been noted in theliterature comes with the publication process for researchers. Pressures to publish in high rankingacademic journal may limit incentives to publish inthe newer interdisciplinary journals, or in journals thatmay not lead to high citation rates. Furthermore,reviewing processes might be more difficult asinterdisciplinary articles require more time and effortfrom editors and reviewers. Review processes for interdisciplinary journal are also felt to be biasedtowards natural scientists, and reviewers are ofteninterested in and familiar with the issues addressed

but unfamiliar with theories and methods. Accordingto Campbell (2005) this does not stop reviewers fromsuggesting related revisions, usually inappropriately.It is suggested that there is a need to expand list of

social scientists on editorial boards and use thesemore fully.

DiscussionWhilst this review does not provide a comprehensivelist of all issues facing indisciplinary research teams,it had highlighted some of the key issues. Byarticulating some of the more commonly cited issuesthat arise in interdisciplinary research, it is hoped thatresearchers in this situation will be able to recognizeand circumvent barriers as they arise. Somerecommendations highlighted in the literature,

particularly in Naimans (1999) and Mascia et al. s

(2003) papers, include the following: Make a conscious commitment to cooperate, andvisualise and acknowledge the personal and

professional sacrifices as well as the rewards Cooperate with colleagues who have a similar

level of commitment to team research. Teamresearch is freely sharing ideas, a commitment toexcellence, being honest and having an arena of mutual respect in which to work

969


10/27

Choose people that are willing to assume andshare leadership and responsibility.

Take the time to educate new team members andto ensure their ownership of a significant aspectof the project. Build confidence as well asownership

Find ways to encourage continuouscommunication of new ideas, even though onemay not always agree, do validate the person aswell as his/her willingness to share

Never forget that we are all individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses. Value everyonein the group, not just those with the best work habits or ideas.

Learn how to continue learning in an ever changing world, practice tact and patience;demonstrate respect.

Encourage social scientists to make a greater effort to initiate and obtain funding for their own

environmental management or conservation projects, to which they could include naturalscientists.

Hire social scientists for leadership positions and provide them with the mandate to build socialscience into organisational decision-making

Enlist social scientists to develop and managerapid social assessment programs, which would

provide decision-makers with a rough sketch of critical social information at potentialconservation sites through short-term butintensive inquiry.

Document and share success stories that illustratethe value of social scientific information to onthe ground conservation results. Such successstories not only foster organisational learning,internal support and conservation success, butalso justify donor and organisational investmentin the social sciences.

By adopting some or all of the recommendationsoutlined above, it may be possible to achieve a greater integration of natural and social sciences and achievesignificant progress in interdisciplinary research. Inconclusion, the greater integration of social andnatural science may adopt a more outcome drivenapproach that creates good, creative interdisciplinary

research, in turn allowing communities to adapt torapidly changing natural environments. Finally, moredialogue between social and natural scientist isencouraged through such media as peer-review

publications (examples include the Journal of Environmental Management, Natural ResourcesJournal and Society and Natural Resources) andconference presentations. The emerginginterdisciplinary teams can and should add new

perspectives to each science and allow them to learnfrom each other, particularly, in the words of Lele and

Norgaard (2005), once each side acknowledges whatthe other does not know.

ReferencesDaily GC and Ehrlich PR (1999) Managing Earths Ecosystems: an

Interdisciplinary Challenge. Ecosystems 2: 277-280Balmford A. and Cowling, R.M. (2006) Fusion or Failure? The

Future of Conserv Biol 20(3): 692-695.Brosius J (2006) Common ground between Anthropology and

Conservation Biology. Conserv Biol 20(3): 683-685.

Campbell L (2005) Overcoming Obstacles to InterdisciplinaryResearch. Conserv Biol 19(2): 574-577.

Dailey G and Ehrlich P (1999) Managing Earths Ecosystems: aninterdisciplinary Challenge. Ecosystems 2:277-280.

Fazey I, Fischer J and Lindenmayer D (2005) What doconservation biologists publish? Biol Conserv 124: 63-73

Fox HE, Christian J, Nordby J, Pergams O, Peterson G and Pyke C(2005) Perceived Barriers to Integrating Social Science andConservation. Conserv Biol 20(6): 1817-1820.

Hatcher B (1999) Varieties of Science for Coral Reef Management.Coral Reefs 18: 305-306.

Lebel L, Anderies J, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S,Hughes T and Wilson, J (2006) Ecology and Society 11(1): 19.

Lele S and Norgaard R (2005) Practising Interdisciplinarity.Bioscience 55(11) 967-975.

Mascia M, Dobson T, Forbes B, Horowitz L, McKean M andTurner N (2003) Conservation and the Social Sciences. ConservBiol 17(3): 649-650.

Naiman R (1999) A perspective on Interdisciplinarity Ecosystems2: 292-295

Nyhus P, Westley F, Lacy R, and Miller P (2002) A role for Natural Resource Social Science in Biodiversity Risk Assessment. Society and Natural Resources 15(10): 923-932.

Redcliff M (1998) Dances with wolves? Interdisciplinary Researchon the Global Environment. Global Environ Change 8(3): 177-182

Roughley A (2005) Knowing People: Reflections on integratingsocial science 1978- 2002. Land and Water Australia; Canberra.

Wear D (1999) Challenges to Interdisciplinary Discourse.Ecosystems 2: 299-301

970


11/27

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 711 July 2008Session number 21

The political aspects of resilienceMichael Fabinyi

Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia.

Abstract. This study investigates the political aspects of resilience in social-ecological systems. Basedon long-term anthropological fieldwork in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines, the study focuses on thediverse and contested human interests that make up social-ecological systems. In the Calamianes, what

promotes the interests of one group of people may impact negatively for another group of people, or the ecosystem in which they live. Fishers, for example, have struggled greatly to preserve their patternsof marine resource use, and to oppose various forms of regulation that have been introduced. FollowingArmitage and Johnson (2006), this study has found that deciding for what and for whom are we tryingto promote resilience? becomes a critical question. Answering such a question will require decisionsthat will favour certain elements or resource users within any social-ecological system, anddisadvantage others. The study concludes therefore that such political aspects of resilience thinkingrequire greater attention, and that more attention could be paid to negotiations over tradeoffs amongvarious stakeholders, if the resilience concept is to be more widely accepted in policy and managementarenas.

Key Words: resilience, social-ecological systems, politics, anthropology, Philippines

IntroductionThis paper emphasises how greater attentioncould be paid to the political nature of resilience,and of policies designed to promote resilience.Building on the notion that social-ecologicalsystems are made up of diverse and contestedhuman interests, the paper shows how anyattempt to promote resilience for the overallsocial-ecological system will have differentiatedimpacts and effects among the diverse elementswithin it. The paper will show how policiesdesigned to improve social-ecological resiliencewere transformed, and ultimately rejected, byfishing communities concerned with resistingthese policies. Here, there is a significant gap

between the particular social and economicinterests of fishers, and the resilience of the

broader social-ecological system. The paper suggests that resilience must therefore be

understood within its political context, and thatwe need to pay more attention to the need for negotiations over tradeoffs among variousstakeholders.

MethodsThe paper takes an anthropological perspective toexamine the issues surrounding the politicalaspects of resilience and social-ecologicalsystems. Research was conducted for twelvemonths between September 2005 and January2007 in the Calamianes Islands. The author was

based in two locations during this period:

Esperanza, a small coastal community withinCoron municipality, and Coron town, the capitalof Coron municipality and the largest town in the

Calamianes. Coron municipality was chosen tostudy the political aspects of marine resourcemanagement because of the high importance of commercial and small-scale fishing, and the highnumber of marine resource regulationsimplemented at the time of fieldwork. Esperanzahas a particularly high population of fishers, andseveral of the MPAs that are discussed in the

paper were located in fishing grounds used byfishers from Esperanza. Specific methods adoptedfor the study included observation at meetings,and numerous formal and informal interviewswith a variety of different stakeholders. Theseincluded dive operators and divers, fishers of allages and types, government officials, and non-government organization workers. Interviewswith fishers were conducted in Tagalog. Inaddition to the in-depth data gathered from Coronand Esperanza, the author frequently visited and

interviewed residents at other locations of theCalamianes.

Diverse and contested human interestsScholars in resilience theory have typicallytended to reduce the differences between socialand ecological systems. Berkes et al. (2003), for example, state that the delineation betweensocial and natural systems is artificial andarbitrary. Social science scholars, however,have tended to emphasise the distinctiveness of human systems because of the vital presence of human agency. Social scientists have long

affirmed that human relations with theenvironment cannot be reduced to energy flows;they contain value and agency (Burnham and


12/27

Ellen 1979). Because of the complexity of humanagency, this means that social systems containdiverse and contested human interests. It followsthat resilience has to take account of suchcontested interests if it is to be practicallyapplied. As Johnson and Armitage (2006) point

out, [f]or resilience to be useful in assessingsocial institutions and in marking roads tosustainability and social justice, it has to besituated in the context of complex, contested andchanging human interests, and the uncertainty of the outcomes of human interactions.

The Calamianes Islands can be seen as anexample of a social-ecological system thatcontains diverse and contested human interestswith regard to the management of marineresources. The main livelihood for the region is avariety of fisheries, both small-scale andcommercial. While several fisheries have boomed

and busted since the 1970s, the live fish for foodtrade is currently dominant; an estimate of thevalue of the trade in the Calamianes for 2002 wasabout US$5.3 million (Pomeroy et al. 2005). Thisfishery has been extremely profitable for localtraders and fishers, but has also been highlyecologically destructive, characterised byoverfishing and the common use of sodiumcyanide (Fabinyi 2007). Stakeholders from thefishing industry have generally attempted to

preserve the status quo, with minimal or noregulation of their activities.

Conservationist organisations have been

promoting the development of marine protectedareas to work with dive tourism, and regulationsdesigned to reform the live fish trade, whichincluded a lengthy closed season. Muchgovernment planning and the everyday lives of residents in the broader region can becharacterised by contestation over how best toaccess, exploit and manage these marineresources (Eder and Fernandez 1996).

Socio-political interests vs. social-ecologicalresilience While not explicitly framed in terms of resiliencetheory, both sets of environmental reforms wereattempts to promote social-ecological resilience

by reducing both the long-term poverty of thecoastal communities of the Calamianes, anddegradation of the marine environment. The

policy brief behind the development of the livefish regulations, for example, stated that [t]he

policy goal is for a sustainable fishing industry inPalawan Province that ensures viable fish stocks,ecosystems and livelihoods for present and futuregenerations (Pomeroy et al. 2005). Similarly,marine protected areas have been cited as ameans of promoting resilience. In theCalamianes, their development was aimed at bothmaintaining the ecological integrity of particular

marine ecosystems, and at livelihoods through thedevelopment of tourism and by increasing theoverall level of fish stocks.

MPAsThe ways local fishers understood and responded

to many of these MPAs was extremely significantin determining their ultimate outcomes (Fabinyi2008). Importantly, fishers placed their fishing

practices within a social and political context.Small-scale fishers generally represented their

patterns of fishing as possessing two key features:it was harmless to the environment, and it wasclosely tied to poverty. In contrast, tourists andtourist businesses were frequently objects of resentment by fishers, the latter seen asundeservingly profiting from the beautiful reefsof the Calamianes. From this perspective, anyregulations to try and reduce problems of

environmental degradation should not impact onthe small time fishers, who could not afford it.They felt that any regulation that interfered withthe activities of small-scale fishers, such asMPAs, would have to be accompanied byfinancial benefits of tourism. These perceptionsmeant that some [particularly younger] fisherswere sometimes opposed to the creation of MPAsif they were not seen as benefiting localcommunities, and indeed felt justified in stillfishing within them. Fishers would only tend tosupport MPAs if they did not impact significantlyon their fishing practices, focusing instead on

taxing tourists. Essentially, the perspective of many local fishers was that MPAs whichinterfered with existing fishing activities were to

be opposed, unless they gave significant benefitsin terms of tourism money.

The planning processes for many of theseMPAs illustrated this perspective of local fishersclearly. What was notable was the ways in whichcoastal people refused to allow the MPA to haveany impact on their particular patterns of marineresource use. During the planning meetings for example, the core or no-take zones werechanged from the original locations drawn up bythe marine scientists in the conservation projectsto account for the presence of several fish trapsowned by local residents. And, in the buffer zones of the MPAs, residents ensured that their fishing practices would be allowed, whileactively pushing for the fishing practices of neighbouring communities to be disallowed. For all of the fishers, the MPA had no ecologicalfocus, but was viewed as something to supportthe community; something that was solely aboutassisting and protecting their livelihoods.

Another key aspect of this planning process of the MPAs could be seen in the desire amongfishers to obtain greater benefits out of thetourism industry in the form of user fees, which


13/27

were demanded by participants as an essentialcomponent of the MPA. For many coastalresidents in the Calamianes, the socio-economicdifferences between foreign tourists andthemselves were stark and inescapable. Foreigntourists were typical of the rich foreigner. Their

very presence in a place like the Calamianes, pursuing nothing but leisure activities likeSCUBA diving, was proof to locals that they hadincredible amounts of money to burn. Versions of refrains such as You foreigners throw moneyaway like it is rubbish were commonly statedassumptions among local fishers. In contrast, thePhilippines was understood to be the most

poverty-stricken place on Earth.The development of MPAs in the Calamianes

can be seen as stimulating a sense of territorialityover the protected areas. In effect, they producedan artificial form of marine tenure or ownership

among coastal communities. The rationale behindfishers support for these MPAs had less to dowith conservation or even fisheries management,

but more to do with an expression of political,livelihood claims. Fishers viewed MPAs as a wayin which they could address some of the massiveinequalities between themselves and thoseinvolved in the tourism sector. The claims of fishers about MPAs were based not on a logic of environmental management, rather on a belief that their poverty ought to be the focus of anyexternal environmental intervention. For fishers,no purely technical, scientific management of

MPAs would be fair or legitimate without takinginto account their claims. As it turned out, theseclaims favoured the development of particular types of MPAs that had minimal restrictions onlocal fishers, were loosely enforced when it cameto fishers, and involved user fees for tourists.

The status of many of the MPAs in theCalamianes could be seen as somewhatambiguous. Many were being created, but mostof them were marked by serious shortcomingsand limitations. Core zones were often minimisedas much as possible and seen as a concession toconservationists, buffer zones were adapted toinclude the fishing techniques and gears of localfishers, and enforcement was rarely effectivewhen it was conducted by locals. Whether theMPAs produce the increase in fish stocks asdesired by the conservationists (and the fishers)remains very unclear because of these sorts of shortcomings. So, from this perspective, the

proliferation of MPAs is not so much a victoryfor wise fisheries management or the promotionof social-ecological resilience, but more a way inwhich local fishers and some sympathetic localgovernment officials were able to successfullyadvance their interests.

Live Fish Trade Regulations

The second piece of environmentalmanagement that coastal communities respondedto was the implementation of a series of regulations designed to reform the live fish trade.These regulations were approved in March 2006at the provincial level, but the political system of

the Philippines requires that provincial laws haveto be approved by municipal laws before they areactually implemented in those specificmunicipalities. So, for most of 2006, the

provincial council and the various municipalcouncils that supported live fishing were lockedin a stalemate arguing about the new live fishregulations.

At different points through 2006, the provincialgovernment threatened the municipalitiesinvolved in live reef fishing with a moratorium onthe renewal of all live reef fishing accreditationsif these regulations were not adopted. Finally, in

December, after a whole year had passed withoutthe municipal governments creating specificmunicipal ordinances, the provincial Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources enforced a banon all live fish exports from Palawan.Immediately after this, furious lobbying andnegotiations occurred. Fishers went to the tradersthat supported and financed their fishingactivities, asking for help. They argued that theimposition of the regulations was extremelyunfair; that if there were any problems in the livefish trade it was, according to them, only becauseof a small number of fishers who used cyanide.

The rest of the fishers who used legal methodsshould not be punished for the actions of a few.They argued that by imposing a closed seasonand creating MPAs in the best fishing grounds,this would send them back to the poverty-strickenlives they had lived before the introduction of thelive fish trade in the Calamianes. In particular,fishers emphasised that the live fish trade was theonly significant commercial industry in theCalamianes, and no alternative livelihoodsexisted that could even come close to the live fishtrade in terms of financial benefits. Many peoplewould go hungry, the fishers argued, and other community members also protested at theregulations, claiming businesses such as generalstores would also suffer. Gaining nationalheadlines in the newspapers, more than 500fishers eventually trooped to the capital of the

province to protest at the creation of theregulations.

It seemed for a while that the provincialcouncil was not going to back down, and that themoratorium would hold. Eventually however,they gave in to intense pressure by their localconstituents. The ban was overturned at the NewYear, and shipments were allowed to go throughagain. Another year and a bit on in 2008, and the


14/27

live fish trade continues in Coron with littleregulation.

Adger has defined social resilience as theability of communities to withstand externalshocks to their social infrastructure (2000: 361).In the terms of this and other definitions the

overall social resilience of fishers was probablyquite low, given their high dependence on fishingand their lack of economic flexibility. However,suddenly taking a large part of this livelihoodaway through powerful regulations would havecertainly increased their vulnerability in the short-term at least, no matter how immensely importantthe ecological justifications were. In both of thesecases, fishers were acting against what they

perceived as a clear potential shock to their socialand economic infrastructures. In a region withfew available alternative livelihoods, theintroduction of MPAs and a closed season for the

live fish trade would have had a significanteconomic impact. It was therefore in their interests to oppose the live fish regulations and toinfluence the implementation of MPAs the waythey did.

DiscussionIn this context then, a contradiction can beobserved between the resilience of the overallsocial-ecological system, and the interests of fishers and local government. Supported by themunicipal government, fishers were able to

promote their interests by manipulating the

design of MPAs so that their social and economic benefits remained, and by rejecting the live fishtrade regulations that would have heavilydisrupted their most important economiclivelihood. In doing so, such outcomescompromised the ecological resilience of thesocial-ecological system. This basic contradictionleads to a fundamentally important question aboutsocial-ecological resilience how is it possibleto promote social-ecological resilience when anysocial-ecological system is composed of diverseand contested human interests? Or as Armitageand Johnson ask, [h]ow do we balance thesedivergent interests and the interest of ecologicalsustainability to define the ideal resilient system?(2006).

Many analysts have argued strongly for the principles of good governance, as articulatedthrough the themes of adaptive co-management,

polycentric governance, interactive governanceand other related terms (Armitage 2008). Lebel etal. (2006), for example, hypothesise that theexistence of participation, polycentric andmultilayered institutions, and accountable and

just authorities can be associated with an increasein resilience for social-ecological systems.

But while in many cases good governance mayclearly be associated with resilient social-

ecological systems, in many cases it is not, asLebel et al. also acknowledge (2006). AsArmitage (2008) argues, governance attributessuch as those described by Lebel et al. (2006) areproductive and important, but they arecircumscribed by context, and provide only

partial direction for governance innovation. Theyrepresent a set of prescribed and normativegovernance values or principles. During theintroduction of the environmental regulations inthe Calamianes, for example, attention was paidto various principles of good governance outlinedearlier. Indeed, it was the very existence of strong

participation by the fishers in the design of theMPAs that led to their ecological compromise. In

both instances, governments ultimately wereaccountable to their constituents and responded towhat the majority of the stakeholders wished for,which were MPAs that fulfilled short-term social

and economic objectives but had little ecologicalfunction, and the rejection of regulations for thelive fish trade that would have been beneficialecologically, but undoubtedly socially andeconomically damaging in the short-term. Thiscan be seen as an example of governance that isgood when understood from the perspective of the interests of fishers and the municipalgovernment, but clearly damaging when viewedfrom the long-term perspective of the social-ecological system.

Some have lauded the potential of goodgovernance to provide a situation which will be

mutually beneficial to all stakeholders. Incontrast, perhaps what we need to be more awareof is the inevitability of hard choices in marineresource management (Bailey and Jentoft 1990).Any decisions taken at the scale of the social-ecological system are going to privilege someelements within this system, and alienate others.As in the case of the Calamianes, what may

promote resilience for the system as a whole maynot always be in the direct interests of particular groups within that system. Therefore, resilience,and activities undertaken to promote resilience atthe scale of the social-ecological system, must beseen as a political concept. Resilience, like anyother concept for ecological management,including those that emphasise good governance,cannot remove the need for political decisionsand negotiations among diverse stakeholders to

be made in particular local contexts.Similarly, practitioners in the field of integrated

conservation and development projects haverecently emphasized the need for greater attentionto and understanding of the goals and interests of all the stakeholders around protected areas,noting that win-win solutions are usuallyunachievable: Once these different interests areidentified, clarified, and understood, they argue,


15/27

the opportunities for negotiation and tradeoffscan be explored (Wells et al. 2004).

This paper has argued that we need to placegreater emphasis on such political aspects of resilience if it is to succeed as a viable and

practical management or policy concept. While

resilience may be a useful metaphor tounderstand features of social-ecological systems,focusing on issues at this level of abstractionactually obscures somewhat the diverse socialand political relations that actually make up thesesocial-ecological systems, and how resilienceaffects and is affected by these relations indifferent ways.

AcknowledgementsThis research was conducted while I was a Visiting ResearchAssociate at the Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo deManila University, and was funded by an AustralianPostgraduate Award at the Australian National University. I

thank both institutions for their support. Thanks to Colin Filer,Simon Foale and an anonymous reviewer for helpfulcomments on earlier versions of the paper, and thanks to allthe residents of the Calamianes who assisted in the research.

ReferencesAdger, WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they

related? Progress in Human Geography, 24:347364.Armitage D. (2008) Governance and the commons in a

multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons,2:732.

Armitage D, Johnson D (2006) Can Resilience be Reconciledwith Globalisation and the Increasingly ComplexConditions of Resource Degradation in Asian CoastalRegions? Ecology and Society, 11(1):2 (online).

Bailey C, Jentoft S (1990) Hard Choices in FisheriesDevelopment. Marine Policy 14:333344.

Berkes, F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Introduction. In BerkesF, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating Social-EcologicalSystems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burnham PF, Ellen RF, eds (1979) Social andEcological Systems. Academic Press, London, New York and San Francisco.

Eder JF, Fernandez JO, eds (1996) Palawan at theCrossroads: Development and the Environment on aPhilippine Frontier. Ateneo de Manila Press, Quezon City.

Fabinyi M (2007) Illegal Fishing and Masculinity in thePhilippines: A Look at the Calamianes Islands in Palawan.Philippine Studies 55:50929.

Fabinyi M(2008) Dive tourism, fishing, and marine protectedareas in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Marine Policy32:898904.

Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-DoddsS, Hughes TP, Wilson J (2006) Governance and theCapacity to Manage Resilience in Social-EcologicalSystems. Ecology and Society 11: (online).

Pomeroy RS, Pido MD, Pontillas J, Francisco BS, WhiteAT, Silvestre GT. 2005. Evaluation of Policy Options for

the Live Reef Food Fish Trade: Focus on CalamianesIslands and Palawan Province, Philippines, withImplications for National Policy: Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project and Provincial Government of Palawan.

Wells MP, McShane TO, Dublin HT, OConnor S, RedfordKH (2004) The Future of Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Projects: Building on What Works. InMcShane TO and Wells MP (eds) Getting BiodiversityProjects to Work: Toward More Effective Conservationand Development. Columbia University Press, New York.


16/27

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session Number 21

New eco-development initiatives involving local peoplein the conservation of Mahatma Gandhi Marine National

Park, Wandoor (India)A. Saxena 1 & M. Saxena 2

1 Women Scientist, Port Blair, A & 2 Managing Director, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Forests & Plantation Development CorporationLimited, Van Vikas Bhawan, Haddo, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands (India) Email: [email protected]

N Islands (India) Email: [email protected]

Abstract. Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park situated at Wandoor about 29 km from Port Blair isamong the first three Marine National Parks in India. Established in 1983 with the objective of conservingthe unique marine diversity and the coral reefs, it also comprises 15 uninhabited islands. There are 6villages in the adjoining area with a population of about 4157. The main occupation is fishing. No fishingis allowed within the Marine National Park but routes are demarcated for providing safe passage to localfishermen. MGMNP is an important eco-tourist site because of its unique marine biodiversity. In order to

involve the local people in the conservation efforts, the Park authorities initiated action at a small level in2003-04. The tsunami of 2004 affected not only tourism but also the efforts of Park authorities in peoples

participation. Increased tourist inflow in the last two years led the park authorities to revive their eco-development initiatives. New initiatives are being taken for providing livelihood means to locals andinvolving them in the conservation efforts.

Key Words: Eco-development, tourism, fishing routes, livelihood options, Peoples participation

IntroductionMahatma Gandhi Marine National Park

(MGMNP) was established in 1983 under theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, with a view to

protect and conserve the rich marine life found in

this area. This was the first Protected Area notifiedin this Union Territory and also among the firstthree Marine Protected Areas of India. It is situatedaround 29 km from Port Blair, the Capital town of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The otal area of MGMNP is 281.50 km 2 which includes 220.5 km 2 of territorial water and 61 km 2 of land area of 15Islands located within the boundary of the NationalPark. All the Islands within MGMNP areuninhabited. Only two Islands namely Jollybuoyand Redskin are open for tourism, but no night haltis allowed. The Park is completely free from allrights. It is managed by the Department of

Environment & Forests, Andaman & Nicobar Administration.

Biodiversity StatusThe Park is known for its rich biodiversity-

both plant and animals. There are 279 species of plants. Most of the islands have tropical evergreenforests and mangroves on the fringes. The treespecies include Dipterocarpus, Terminalia,

Pterocarpus, Diospyrus marmorata, Artocarpus

chaplasha etc. Littoral species are dominated by Manilkara littoralis and important mangrovespecies are Rhizophora, Bruguiera, Avicenniaofficinalis, Ceriops tagal.

The terrestrial fauna include Andaman wild

pig, spotted deer, water monitor lizard and a varietyof snakes including sea snakes. The birds includeAndaman teal, white-bellied sea eagle, parakeets,sea herons among many others.

The Park is rich in marine biodiversity. Morethan 280 species of fish, 57 species of mollusc, 52species of echinoderms, 122 species of corals

belonging to 54 genera, salt water crocodiles, four species of sea turtle, dolphin, dugong, a variety of sea weeds and sea grasses are reported to occur (Kulkarni et al., 2000, 2004).

Socio-economic status of communities livingaround

There are no inhabitants within the boundary of MGMNP. However, six villages adjoin the

boundary of the Marine National Park. Populationfigures of these villages as per 2001 census aregiven in Table 1. Occupational pattern of thevillagers is depicted in Figure 1 (Kulkarni et al.,2004). The data shown in Figure 1 is pre-tsunamidata (i.e., before 2004). There has been a significant

976


17/27

Table 1: Population of villages adjoiningvillages

Sl.No.

Name of village Population

1. Wandoor 1511

2 Hashmatabad 616

3 Guptawara 716

4 Manglutan 575

5 Manjeri 585

6 Rutland 154

change in the occupational pattern after the areawas struck by a Tsunami in December 2004. Anumber of farmers lost their land due tosubmergence and have turned to other opportunities. A number of fishermen have takenup tourism related activities.

Figure 1: Occupational patterns of locals near MGMNP Source: Kulkarni et al., 2004

Fig. 2: Tourist inflow to MGMNP.

This Park is an important tourist destination.The inflow of tourists was adversely affected by theTsunami but in subsequent years the inflowincreased again (Figure 2). Though the number of tourists visiting the Marine National Park appearsto be still less than 50% of visitors in 2003-04, butthe number of tourists visiting Wandoor in 2007-08

was higher than in 2004-05. Two new touristattractions (New Wandoor beach and Mahua Dera

beach) were identified and developed by the local people. Even without proper record, increase in thenumber of tourists was confirmed by the local

people and the Park authorities.

ObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to evaluatemeasures taken by the Park authorities to addressthe expectations of the local communities residingin the vicinity of the Park and to involve them inthe conservation efforts being taken up in theMGMNP, Wandoor.

MethodologyFour villages (Wandoor, Guptawara,

Hashmatabad and Manglutan) fell in the zone of influence. In addition to collection of basic data onthe socio-economic profile of these villages, asurvey was conducted to understand the extent of

Awareness about the MNP Its objective and impact on occupations Their perception about changes taking

place Their expectations Relation with Park Authorities Initiatives by the Park Authorities

A questionnaire was developed and interviews werethe main tool of data-collection. Stratified randomsampling design was used. Sample size of eachstratum was based on population as well as therelative importance. Strata-wise percent distribution

of sample size is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Occupations in the zone of influence of MGMNP.

Results and DiscussionIt is revealed from Table 2 that there has been

anincrease in economic activities particularly in the post-tsunami period. The number of bus servicesfrom Port Blair to Wandoor has almost doubled.The number of private taxis visiting Wandoor per day is presently around 50. The numbers of lodges

Occupation Pattern in Zone of Influence

24%

13%

13%11%10%

7%

1%

21%Agriculture

Labour

Govt. Jobs

Fishing

Private jobs

Shops/Traders

Hotels

Others

Tourist Inflow in MGMNP

4723150808

5412959970

191 1217

1703622255

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

2000

01

2001

02

2002

03

2003

04

2004

05

2005

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

Year

N o .

o f T o u r i s

t s

Strata wise Percent Distribution of Sample size

24%

16%

15%3%

4%

10%

7%

4%

17% Fishermen

Tourism Service provider

Shopkeepers

Small vendors

PRI Members

Farmers

Govt. Service

Labours

Students

977


18/27

and restaurants did not increase much, probably because tourists visit this area during day time for enjoying the beach, swimming, snorkeling andviewing marine life. Local tourist services havealso increased from nil to 12. It is quite evidentfrom this Table that local people have realized the

potential of tourism as an important livelihoodoption and therefore not only have they identifiednew areas of tourist attractions but have alsoacquired loans from Bank mainly to purchase boatsfor tourism purpose.

Activity Pre2000

2000-04

2004-08

Restaurants &Lodges

3 5 6

Ration shops 1 2 3Bus Service (No. of trips)

16 16 28

Schools 2 2 2Tourist Services Nil Nil 21Other commercialEstablishments

7 8 12

Loans availed for boat

Nil Nil 37

New tourist Areasidentified by local

people

Nil Nil 2

Table 2: Pattern of emerging economic activities

Other important findings of the survey are asfollows:

About 93 % of the local people wereaware of the objectives of the establishment of

MGMNP in some form or the other. Of thetotal people interviewed, 66 % knew that thePark was constituted for protection of marinelife, 22 % think that the purpose was for

promoting tourism and 5% think it to be protection of Wildlife. (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Awareness of the MGMNP.

On effect of establishment of MGMNP ontheir occupation, 38 % responded that it

has adversely affected their occupations.Of this 91 % were fishermen as fishing isnot permitted inside the Park and theyhave to go to far distances for fishing.Thirty six percent responded that theestablishment of the Park has favorablyaffected their occupations. These includemainly tourist service providers,shopkeepers, small vendors etc. Four

percent did not respond while remainingfeels unaffected by the establishment of Park.

About 99 % of the people interviewedwere aware about the purpose of touristsvisiting Wandoor. Of them, 65 % knewthat tourists were coming for viewingmarine life, 33 % think that they come for enjoying beaches and nature and 1 % think that wildlife is the major attraction for tourists.

95 % view the Park authorities behaviour towards them to be good and supporting.They expressed that there is regular interaction between them and Park authorities. Five percent (mainlyfishermen) complained about occasionalharassment.

Following were the main reasons for discont among the local communities:

Ban on fishing inside the MNP No proper berthing place for fishing boats Occasional harassment by Forest/Police

personnel within MNP Assurance of development made at the

time of creation not fulfilled After Tsunami

o Fish catch declined tremendouslyo Agricultural land also affectedo No alternative means of livelihood

except Tourism related jobs

Recent restriction imposed on tourist boats plying to Mahua Dera beach, which is anew site with a beautiful beach and richcoral diversity attracting a large number of tourists. The site has been closedtemporarily, which generated a lot of discontent since a number of fishermenturned tourist service providers had takenloans to buy motorized boats for tourismand faced difficulties in repaying loans dueto the ban.

Awareness about objective of MGM

66%

22%

5%

1%

1%

1%

4%

Protection o f marinelifeTourism

Protection o f wildlifeProtection of forestsMaking Zoo/MuseumProtection of sea sandDon't know

978


19/27

On interviewing people about their expectations from the Park authorities, theyexpressed following points:

Permission within MNPo To carry tourists in small

boats/country boatso For fishing

Safe fishing routes through MNP to bedemarcated

Opening of Mahua Dera Beach for tourismthrough local tour operators

Permission for country boats to carryeatables for sale to tourists within MNP

Employment of local people aso Tourist Guides/Guardso Labourers

Permission to open Shops and Restaurantsnear entrance of the Park

It was revealed during the interviews with Park authorities that they have, after a series of meetingswith local village leaders, initiated followingactions/measures:

Safe passage routes for fishing boatsthrough MNP has been demarcated

Alternative berthing site for fishing boathas been identified outside MNP inconsultation with stakeholders

Fish landing facility is being developed byFishery Department

Additional Island (Alexendra) has beenopened for tourism

Formation of eco-development committeeis in final stage

Employment of local youth in seasonalworks

Agreed to

provide space to small vendors torun their shops near the entranceof Park

provide training and employingunemployed youth as touristguides inside MNP

open Mahua Dera for tourism permit boats of local tour

operators inside MNP after clearance of certain legalrequirements

These initiatives will be within the legalframework of existing Acts and Rules

It is evident from the survey done that the potential of tourism is realized by local people. Asa result they are identifying new areas for tourismand also making investments. However, they needsupport of the Administration, particularly theForest Department. In response the Authorities

have initiated peoples involvement in conservationefforts through alternative livelihood options.

AcknowledgementThe assistance rendered by Mr. Rajkumar, Forest

Ranger and in-charge of the MGMNP rendered inthis study is gratefully acknowledged.

Reference

Kulkarni, S., Saxena A., & Choudhury B. C. (2000) Ecologicalassessment of coral reefs in Mahatma Gandhi Marine

National Park, Wandoor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands:Conservation implication.. A technical Report (No.Coral/WII & RW/2000/6), Wildlife Institute of India,Dehradun (

Kulkarni S., Saxena A., Choudhury B. C., Kakkar M. D. &Jagdale R. (2004) Dynamics of reef coral in MahatmaGandhi Marine National Park, Andaman Islands:Conservation Implications, A report (No. Coral/WII &RW/20040/116) by Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun(India).

979


20/27

Proceedings of the 11 th International Coral Reef Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008Session Number 21

Integrated economic valuation in coral reef management:Demonstration, appropriation and utilization of coral reef

economic values for sustainability and conservation

Rodelio F. Subade 1, 2

1) Division of Social Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences2) Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Abstract Underappreciation of the true economic value of coral reef resources is a major problem in developingcountries like the Philippines leading to a lack of accounting and accountability in policy and developmentdecision-making. This paper aims to highlight the vital need to integrate economic valuation in coral reef management and in integrated coastal zone management. It uses the total economic value framework, and

argues that much of the economic values of coral reef resources have not been properly demonstrated andexpressed in the market and policy making, thereby resulting to over exploitation, damage and decimation of coral reefs. Mechanisms on how to demonstrate such economic values (like entrance fees, conservation fees andothers) and policies towards their capture are crucial aspects of integrated economic valuation. A few cases inthe Philippines show that this is possible and can provide a good framework in helping attain sustainability andconservation of such national treasures.

Key Words: integrated economic valuation, coral reef management, economic values

IntroductionCoral reefs are highly productive and valuablemarine resources and home to thousands of species.They provide habitats and food sources for

countless organisms and reef-based tourism/ eco-tourism is a major source of livelihood for variouscoastal communities. Other benefits include coastal

protection, biodiversity and the reefs value asclimate change indicators. The economic value of coral reefs is important, from direct use to indirectuse and non use values (Table 1; Cesar 2000;Subade 2005).

However, coral reefs are threatened by over fishing, destructive fishing, coastal development,marine-based pollution, climate change impacts,and many other global and local factors. Philippinecoral reefs cover an estimated area of 27,000 sq km,and are considered to under threat (BFAR-NFRDI-PAWB 2005). A large proportion of the impactstems from anthropogenic causes, caused by thevery high population density of the country. Over-fishing, destructive fishing practices (blasting andthe use of toxic substances) and sedimentation topthe list of these impacts.

Thus, most of the countrys coral reefs are in adegraded state, with over 70% with poor or fair

quality and quantity of coral cover; and only 5% inexcellent condition (BFAR-NFRDI-PAWB 2005).

Most reef areas in the Visayan Sea Basin, and in

gulfs and bays are heavily overfished. In theVisayan seas, particularly in protected areas, poaching and fishing-related threats are the worstthreats to coral reefs, followed by sedimentation,tourism related-activities, crown-of-thorns starfishinfestations, and coastal development. Fishing andgleaning on coral reef areas account for 10-15% of the countrys total fish catch (BFAR-NFRDI-PAWB.2005).

Table 1. Economic Values of Coral Reefs

DIRECT USEVALUES

INDIRECT USEVALUES

NONUSEVALUES

980


21/27

Direct benefitsGoods &Services,Usually marketedvalues, like fish,sea cucumber,

and scuba diving(with dive fees)

Functional benefitsEnvironmental andecosystem values- nutrient retention- flood control- storm/ coastal

protection-external ecosystemsupport

BequestExistenceOptionQuasi-option

A recent compilation of studies through time bythe Philippine Coral Reefs Information Network (Philreefs 2008), showed mixed trends on thecountrys coral reefs indicator such as hard coralcover, fish biomass and fish abundance. Generallymarine protected areas (MPA) sites have hadincreasing or no net change trend, while most non-MPA sites have had decreasing or no net changetrend.

Usual Valuation ProblemFailure to account adequately for their economicvalues in development decision making could beconsidered a major reason for coral reef decline.Since natural and managed environmental/ marineresources are not bought and sold on markets, theyare generally ignored in private and publicdevelopment decisions. Coastal development isoften preferred over pristine/preserved coastalhabitats because only market values are considered.Inclusion of non-market values might have causedmany coastal development projects appear lessattractive investment options.

Reef fisheries are an over-capitalized sector where resources are invested to give lower net

benefits. Because environmental/degradation costsare usually not included in cost/benefit calculations,the returns even from an over-fished fishery appear higher than they are in reality. Another undervaluation example is destructive fishing -fines and penalties are not based on economicvalues of damages caused, thus the activity persists.

Need to Integrate Economic Valuation in CoralReefs ManagementCoral reefs management therefore should not be

devoid of economic valuation. Moreover, coralreefs research needs to include economic valuationas an integrated component and not just an after thought.

Economic valuation involves three major phases(Fig. 1). First demonstration of coral reef economicvalues (Georgiou et al. 1997). Then appropriation,which is capture of coral reefs economic valuesthrough appropriate policies and mechanisms(Georgiou et al. 1997). Third is utilization, which

concerns the use of measured coral reef economicvalues and/or captured coral reefs economic valuesin IEC, decision making and in financing of conservation

The economic valuation of coral reefs, i.e. thedemonstration, appropriation and utilization of their economic values is a crucial impetus toattaining their sustainability and conservation.

Figure 1. Integrated economic valuation in coral reefsmanagement

Integrated Economic Valuation of Coral ReefsImproving coral reef management, in the context of Integrated Coastal Resource/Zone Managementinvolves the integration of economic valuation andmakes integrated economic valuation or (IEV) aninseparable part of sustainable ICZM or ICRM.IEV provides researched-based incentive/disincentive mechanisms to: (i) attain sustainability,and (ii) generate financing source for conservationand / or coastal resource management. IEV doesnot end at mere study/ measurement of economicvalues but provides mechanisms to capture or appropriate them. IEV transcends policy analysistowards policy advocacy.

In the ICZM or ICM developed at various sites by the UNDP-funded Partnership in EnvironmentalManagement of the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA),economic valuations were embedded in variousstages such as: preparing, initiating, developing,adopting, implementing, refining and consolidationof management plans (www.pemsea.org).

Examples of IEV in Coral Reef ManagementThe integration of economic valuation in coral reef management is evident in the examples of Mabiniand Tingloy, Batangas and the Tubbataha Reefs

Human Activities Natural Disturbances

CORAL REEFS

CONSERVATION

SUSTAINABILITY

ADAPTATION(To potential climate

change effects)

DEMONSTRATION(Measurement)

APPROPRIATION(Capture of Economic Values)

UTILIZATION

981


22/27

National Marine Park, a UNESCO World HeritageSite, where scuba diving tourism is a major activity.

Economic valuation was undertaken by a WWF-Philippines-led team to demonstrate andappropriate coral reef economic values mainlythrough divers fees. A conservation fee surchargeor an annual divers pass was collected from divers(Padilla et al. 2005). The IEV process framework involved: Project design, marketing the project toLGU officials & stake holders, research /surveys,sectoral briefings & consultations, drafting of ordinance, stakeholders consultations, refinement& finalization of draft ordinance, provincialapproval of the ordinance, IRR formulation,implementation, monitoring & evaluation. Over a

period of eight months (September 2003 to May2004) a total of 1.3 million pesos was collectedfrom conservation fees. Proceeds from thecollection were used for incentive rebates to

boatmen (who are fishers) and for financing lawenforcement through the Bantay Dagat (Sea Watch)that protected coral reefs and other coastalresources.

At Tubbataha Reefs NMP, a similar process of economic valuation was also undertaken, thoughthe implementing rule was for the TubbatahaManagement Office (TMO) to collect theconservation fees both from the divers and the boatoperators. A willingness to pay survey wasundertaken that determined the entrance fees andconservation fees per diver as follows US$50 for foreign divers and US$ 25 for local divers : (Mejia

et al. 2000; Tongson and Dygico 2007)The realized revenue is allocated among a seed

fund for conservation, core park administrativecosts, and livelihood of adjacent communities inCagayancillo, Palawan.

Resource Rent for Resource ConservationResource utilization generates resource rent(benefits or revenues less costs), alternativelycalled economic profit or profit. This rent rightfully

belongs to the resource, and should be used toconserve it and allow it to replenish, therebyattaining sustainability.

ICZM should therefore incorporate IEV which isa major factor (perhaps the key?) towardssuccessful and sustainable ICZM (MPA). IEV canassure MPA sustainability and thereby providessustainable financing mechanisms for marineconservation.

AcknowledgementThe author thanks the ICRS for the conference travel stipend/scholarship which enabled him to present this paper in the 11 th ICRS held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA on July 7-11, 2008.

ReferencesBarbier E Acreman M, Knowler D (1997) Economic valuation

of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners.Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Bureau, 127p.

Cesar HJ (2000) Coral reefs: their functions, threats andeconomic value. In Cesar, H. 2000. Collected Essays onthe Economics of Coral Reefs. Boras, Sweden: CORDIOand SIDA.

Coral Reefs Information Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs)(2008) Reefs through time 2008: initiating the state of thecoasts reports. Coral Reefs Information Network of thePhilippines (PhilReefs), MPA Support Network, MarineEnvironment and Resources Foundation, Inc. and theMarine Science Institute, University of the Philippines.Diliman, Quezon City. 152p

BFAR-NFRDI-PAWB (2005) Biodiversity Indicators for National Use (BINU): Philippine Report on Coastal andMarine Ecosystems. BINU Project supported by UNEP(United Nations Environmental Programme) GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF). Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources (BFAR), National Fisheries Researchand Development Institute (NFRDI), Department of Agriculture; and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau(PAWB), Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Quezon City, Philippines. 68p.

Georgiou S, Whittington D, Pearce D, Moran D (1997)Economics values and the environment in the developingworld. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers Lt.

Mejia MN, Dygico M, Spergel B, Subade RF (2000) Paying for marine conservation through sustainable financing: theTubbataha experience. Paper presented in the InternationalCoral Reefs Symposium held in Bali, Indonesia.

Padilla JE, Ansula AD, Tolosa MO (2005) Getting users to payfor conservation: a guide to site-based sustainable user feeschemes. WWF-Philippines

Subade RF (2005) Valuing biodiversity conservation in a worldheritage site: citizens non-use values for Tubbataha Reefs

National Marine Park, Philippines. Research Report No.2005-RR4. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). Singapore.

Tongson E, Dygico M (2004) User fee system for marineecotourism. The Tubbataha reef experience. CoastalManagement 32:17-23

982


23/27

1

Proceedings of the 11 th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7 11 July 2008Session number 21

Towards Local Fishers Participation in Coral Reef Monitoring:A Case in Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines

A.L.A. Subade1,3

, R.F. Subade2

, Z.B. Catalan1

1) School of Environmental Science & Management, University of the Philippines Los Banos2) IFPDS-CFOS, and DSS-CAS, University of the Philippines Visayas;

3) University of the Philippines Visayas

Abstract. The five-island municipality of Tingloy is a popular diving site known for its rich coral reefs.However, these reefs are being threatened by man-made stresses and natural disturbances. A monitoringframework was developed through the integration of scientific and indigenous knowledge in determining andassessing the present status of coral reef environment. One of the benefits of the developed monitoringframework is the empowerment of the fishermen. Institutions and fishermen in the area in cooperation with theacademe provided the major backbone of the framework. The fishermen were interviewed, trained and

participated in the whole year monitoring of the coral reef environment. The monitoring framework developedserved as an overall guide for monitoring activities and the data gathered served as the baseline information of the coral reef environment in the area.

Key words : coral reefs, fishermen, monitoring framework, baseline information, Tingloy

IntroductionThe Philippines is blessed with one of the mostdiverse coral reef ecosystems in the world as it liesin the region known as The Coral Triangle.However, Philippine coral reefs are increasinglythreatened ecosystems. Coral cover is rapidlydeclining, fish populations are low and reef

productivity dropped by one-third during the last

decades (Jameson et al. 1995). The damage thatoccurs to coral reefs is usually the result of naturaland man-made interference.

In Luzon, one of the most extensive coral reef ecosystems which is a favorite destination of scubadivers is found along the municipality of Tingloy,Mabini and its vicinity. Tingloy is located inMaricaban Island, Batangas, 120 km south of Manila. Tingloy is situated in the southern coast,and the coral reefs are found along Batangas Bayand Maricaban Strait . The western side of Tingloy(e.g. Sepoc point., Sombrero and Caban islands), isconsidered one of the best diving sites in the area(Uychiaoco and Alio 1995). The coralcommunities of Mabini and Tingloy are said tohave traditionally supported rich near-shore fishingand in recent years, a growing tourism industry. Inthe early 80s however, increased fishing effortusing destructive methods, uncontrolleddevelopment of the land, increased visitation byscuba divers and day-trippers and increased

pollution

Documents

SESmini Symposium 21