TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND … · PRESSE ice sea: B.MARCON/BIOS/ALPHA PRESSE diver: Y.LEE/UNEP/ALPHA PRESSE boats: T.RAUPACH/ARGUS/ALPHA PRESSE Citation Secretariat

13TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT ANDMANAGEMENT OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS

CBD Technical Series No.Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity

ALSO AVAILABLE

Issue 1: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal Instruments Applicable to Invasive Alien Species

Issue 2: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 3: Assessment Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperate and Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

Issue 7: Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, Forest Biological Diversity

Issue 8: Status and trends of, and threats to, mountain biodiversity, marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems: abstracts of poster presentations at the eighth meeting ofthe Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Issue 9: Facilitating Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity Abstracts of poster presentations on protected areas and technology transfer and

cooperation at the ninth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

Issue 10: Interlinkages between Biological Diversity and Climate ChangeAdvice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol

Issue 11: Status and Trends of Biodiversity of Inland Water Ecosystems

Issue 12: Solutions for Sustainable Mariculture - avoiding the adverse effects of mariculture on biological diversity

TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE

AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS

Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas

January 2004

Technical advice on the establisment and management of a national system of marine and coastal protected areas

2

Published by the Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological Diversity. ISBN: 92-807-2407-XCopyright © 2004, Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological Diversity

The designations employed and the presentationof material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on thepart of the Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity concerning the legal statusof any country, territory, city or area or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries.

The views reported in this publication do notnecessarily represent those of the Convention onBiological Diversity nor those of the reviewers.This publication may be reproduced for educa-tional or non-profit purposes without specialpermission from the copyright holders, providedacknowledgement of the source is made. TheSecretariat of the Convention would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publications that usesthis document as a source.

Layout and printing: COMMUNICATIONS CDG

Photo credits:life underwater : J.KASSANCHUK/UNEP/ALPHA

PRESSE

ice sea: B.MARCON/BIOS/ALPHA PRESSE

diver: Y.LEE/UNEP/ALPHA PRESSE

boats: T.RAUPACH/ARGUS/ALPHA PRESSE

CitationSecretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (2004). TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THEESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ANATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE ANDCOASTAL PROTECTED AREAS, SCBD, 40 pages(CBD Technical Series no. 13).

For further information, please contact:Secretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversityWorld Trade Centre 393 St. Jacques Street, suite 300Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.biodiv.org


3

The programme of work on marine and coastal bio-diversity aims to assist the implementation of theJakarta Mandate at the national, regional and globallevels. It identifies operational objectives and priorityactivities within five key programme elements,name-ly: implementation of integrated marine and coastalarea management, marine and coastal livingresources, marine and coastal protected areas, mari-culture, and alien species and genotypes.

The Convention’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in itsrecommendation VIII/3 has acknowledged thatmarine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs) are anessential element in the conservation and sustainableuse of biodiversity. Well-managed MCPAs, whichafford a high degree of protection, have been shownto aid the recovery of fisheries and habitats from over-exploitation and environmental stresses, thus helpingcountries achieve the goal of sustainable use of livingresources. MCPAs in which extractive uses are pro-hibited can also help improve the livelihoods of localcommunities through tourism and increased fishcatches in areas outside of the MCPAs. This kind of“spill-over” effect has had a great effect on howMCPAs are perceived by resource users, and manyfishermen are now their strongest supporters.MCPAswork best when applied in a framework of integratedmarine and coastal area management over the widerenvironment, and their importance is such that theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development agreed,in its Plan of Implementation, to establish, by 2012, aglobal network of MCPAs.

Nevertheless, the current degree of protection afford-ed to the marine environment worldwide is too low tobe effective. While the oceans cover 70 per cent of theEarth's surface, less than 0.5 per cent of the marineenvironment is adequately conserved. Therefore,increasing the number, coverage, representativenessand effectiveness MCPAs is essential for achievingsustainable use of marine resources, and for meetingthe target of significantly reducing the current rate ofbiodiversity loss by 2010.

The objective of this document is to provide technicaladvice on the establishment and management ofMCPAs and networks of MCPAs. The documentcontains, in a succinct format, the key relevant infor-mation that is needed to make MCPAs function atthea national level. The document is a result of aforum in which researchers from around the worldcame together, reviewed the scientific knowledge baseon MCPAs and their contribution to sustainable use,and provided advice on their establishment and man-agement. It is my hope that this report provides use-ful guidance for national level implementation of theJakarta Mandate. I also believe that its perusal canhelp to build connections between researchers fromdifferent disciplines and nations who are concernedwith the conservation and sustainable use of themarine and coastal environment.

This report is being distributed to reach out to publicsectors, research centres and other interested parties. Iam confident that the information contained in thisdocument can provide invaluable assistance as theConvention strives to achieve the target of significant-ly reducing the current rate of biodiversity loss by theyear 2010.

I wish to thank all those individuals and institutionswho have contributed substantially to the completionand preparation of this technical report.

Hamdallah ZedanExecutive Secretary

FOREWORD BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


4

The Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity wishes to acknowledge with appreciationthe Governments of New Zealand and the UnitedStates of America, and the World ConservationUnion (IUCN), for their financial, organizationaland technical support for this work. The Secretariatwould also like to express its gratitude to the mem-bers of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group onMarine and Coastal Protected Areas for developingthis technical advice; to Mr. Murray Hosking ofNew Zealand for chairing the meetings of theexpert group; and to the observers and resourcepersonnel for their invaluable contributions.Finally, the Secretariat would like to thank themembers of the Informal Advisory Group to the AdHoc Technical Expert Group for peer review of thisdocument.

Acknowledgements List of Authors

This document was produced by the Ad HocTechnical Expert Group on Marine and CoastalProtected Areas. The expert group members,including observers are (in alphabetical order):

Ms. Margarita Astralaga (Ramsar)Mr. James Bohnsack (USA)Mr. Juan C. Castilla (Chile)Mr. John Collie (Seychelles)Mr. Phillip Da Silva (Guyana)Ms. Beatrice Padovani Ferreira (Brazil)Mr. Miguel D. Fortes (Philippines)Ms. Sarah George (St. Lucia)Mr. Kenneth Grange (New Zealand)Ms. Dalia Gudaitiene-Holiman (Lithuania)Mr. Thomas Hourigan (NOAA)Mr. Nelson Kile (Solomon Islands)Mr. Dan Laffoley (United Kingdom)Mr. Robin Leslie (South Africa)Mr. Mohamed Menioui (Morocco)Mr. Per Nilsson (Sweden)Mr. Arthur Patterson (IUCN WCPA)Ms. Mary Power (SPREP)Mr. Aprilani Soegiarto (Indonesia)

The following also contributed considerably to this document:

Mr. Murray Hosking (Chair of the Ad HocTechnical Expert Group)Mr. Eduardo Villouta (Department ofConservation, New Zealand)Ms. Kathy Walls (Department of Conservation,New Zealand)Ms. Paula Warren (SBSTTA Bureau)Mr. Sarat Babu Gidda (CBD Secretariat)Mr. Kalemani Jo Mulongoy (CBD Secretariat)Ms. Marjo Vierros (CBD Secretariat)


5

FOREWORD 3ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4LIST OF AUTHORS 4CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND, SCOPE AND PURPOSE 6

Background 6

Scope and purpose 7

CHAPTER 2. WHY HAVE MCPAS? 8

Introduction 8

The Convention on Biological Diversity 8

Activity regulation or area protection? 9

Benefits of highly protected MCPAs 11

Benefits to fisheries management 11

The need for highly protected MCPAs 12

Changing perspectives on MCPAs 13

CHAPTER 3. THE CONTEXT FOR MCPAS: THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (IMCAM) 14

Characteristics of marine ecosystems 14

A framework for achieving integrated coastal and marine management (IMCAM) 15

CHAPTER 4. CREATING AND DESIGNING MCPAS AND NETWORKS 20Networks and connectivity 20

Priorities 20

Establishing objectives 21

Ecological considerations 22

Choosing a cost-effective approach 22

Design principles for highly protected MCPAs 23

Representativeness 25

CHAPTER 5. MANAGING MCPAS 26General issues 26

Who manages 26

Setting the rules 26

Compliance and enforcement 27

Making decisions on discretionary activities 28

Controlling outside activities that affect the MCPA 29

Management planning 29

Sustainable financing 29

CHAPTER 6. EVALUATING AND IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS 30Evaluating effectiveness 30

Adaptive management 31

Monitoring 32

CHAPTER 7. PEOPLE AND MCPAS 34Participation 34

Traditional uses and rights 36

Public awareness 38

CHAPTER 8. LITERATURE AND EXPERIENCE 39Key publications 39

Country experience 39

ANNEXES Terms of reference 40

Members of the Ad hoc Technical Expert Group on marine and coastal protected areas 40

Table of Contents


BACKGROUND

The Convention on Biological Diversity enteredinto force in 1993, and currently has 188 Parties.The objectives of the Convention are the conserva-tion of biological diversity, the sustainable use of itscomponents, and the fair and equitable sharing ofthe benefits arising out of the utilisation of geneticresources. The Convention includes an article(Article 8) relating to in situ conservation, whichamong other things requires Parties (as far as pos-sible and as appropriate) to:

(a) Establish a system of protected areas of areaswhere special measures need to be taken toconserve biological diversity; and

(d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, naturalhabitats and the maintenance of viable popu-lation of species in natural surroundings.

At its first meeting, the Conference of the Parties ofthe Convention (COP) identified marine andcoastal biodiversity as an early priority. This wasreflected in the issuance of the Jakarta Mandate onMarine and Coastal Biological Diversity in Jakarta,Indonesia, in 1995, in conjunction with the secondmeeting of the COP. The Jakarta Mandate is a global

consensus on the importance of marine and coastalbiological diversity, and is a part of the MinisterialStatement on the Implementation of theConvention on Biological Diversity. TheMinisterial Statement affirmed the critical need toaddress the conservation and sustainable use ofmarine and coastal biodiversity, and urged Partiesto initiate immediate action to implement COPdecisions on this issue. COP IV adopted a workprogramme and made other decisions. That workprogramme included a programme element onmarine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs).

As part of its ongoing work to provide advice toParties on marine and coastal biodiversity, COP Vdecided to establish an Ad Hoc Technical ExpertGroup (AHTEG) to consider issues relating toMCPAs. The terms of reference for the group areset out in Annex 1.

The group was formed in accordance with themodus operandi of the Convention. Members ofthe group are set out in Annex 2.

This document is the main product from theAHTEG.

6

1. BACKGROUND, SCOPE AND PURPOSE


7

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

Areas set aside for protection in the marine envi-ronment range enormously in size, location andpurpose. They also provide a highly variable degreeof protection to biodiversity, which was not neces-sarily the prime purpose for which the areas wereset aside. Reserves can be only a few hectares in sizeor encompass hundreds of thousands of squarekilometres (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef MarinePark). In 1996 the World Conservation MonitoringCentre (WCMC) recorded about 1.5 million km2 ofmarine protected areas (though including someislands), compared with some 11.6 million km2

protected on land. Information on many marineprotected areas is not robust, though sites rangeacross all of the world’s marine regions.

In some parts of the world the commonly usedterm ‘marine protected area’ is taken not to includecoastal areas or cross the land/sea interface, andomits important parts of the overall marine envi-ronment such as estuaries, marine salt marsh. TheAHTEG used the term Marine and CoastalProtected Area, not necessarily to argue for achange in terminology for all purposes, but ratherto make it quite clear that its advice to the Parties tothe Convention on Biological Diversity applies tocoastal areas as well as the sea. MCPAs are consid-ered to include not only the wider salt water marineenvironment in all its dimensions, but also areas ofcoastline which influence, and are in turn influ-enced by, the marine environment.

The AHTEG adopted the following definition of MCPA:

‘Marine and Coastal Protected Area’ means anydefined area within or adjacent to the marine envi-ronment, together with its overlying waters and asso-ciated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural fea-tures, which has been reserved by legislation or othereffective means, including custom, with the effect thatits marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higherlevel of protection than its surroundings.

Areas within the total marine environment includepermanent shallow marine waters; sea bays; straits;lagoons; estuaries; subtidal aquatic areas (kelpforests, sea-grass meadows); coral reefs; intertidalmud, sand or marine salt flats and marshes;seamounts; deep water corals; deep water vents;and open ocean habitats.

This report seeks to provide a summary of currentscientific understanding and best practiceapproaches to MCPAs, together with references tokey literature that can provide further details.

In undertaking this task, the AHTEG were con-scious of the fact that the scientific understandingon some key issues is poor or contradictory (e.g.the effects of MCPAs on fisheries outside theMCPA). They have responded to this problem bypresenting either their consensus view of issues, oridentifying a cautionary approach to deal withuncertainty and risk.

This report is designed to provide advice to deci-sion-makers - policy makers within government,MCPA and other marine and coastal managers,users and communities.

REFERENCES:CBD Secretariat. 2001. ‘Value and Effects of Marine and CoastalProtected Areas (MCPAs) On Marine and Coastal Biodiversity: AReview of Available Information.’ Paper for AHTEG First MeetingOctober 2001. UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-MCPA/1/2


8

INTRODUCTION

This section is designed to provide policy makersand managers with a summary of:• The obligations of Parties under the Convention

on Biological Diversity;• The benefits of MCPAs; and• The importance of MCPAs for an effective

coastal and marine biodiversity managementsystem.

MCPAs are not cost-less instruments. Their cre-ation and ongoing management will require sub-stantial investments from governments or commu-nities, and most MCPAs have impacts on existingusers of the marine and coastal environment.These costs need to be offset by the benefits thatMCPAs provide.

THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

The Convention on Biodiversity calls on Parties,inter alia, to (as far as possible and appropriate):a) Develop national strategies, plans or pro-

grammes for the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity or adapt for thispurpose existing strategies, plans or pro-grammes which shall reflect, inter alia, themeasures set out in the Convention relevant tothe Party concerned.

b) Integrate the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity into the sectoral and cross-sec-toral plans, programmes and policies.

c) Establish a system of protected areas or areaswhere special measures need to be taken toconserve biological diversity.

d) Develop guidelines for the selection, establish-ment and management of such areas.

e) Regulate or manage biological resourcesimportant for the conservation of biologicaldiversity whether within or outside protectedareas, with a view to ensuring their conserva-tion and sustainable use.

f) Promote the protection of ecosystems, naturalhabitats and maintenance of viable popula-tions of species in natural surroundings.

g) Promote environmentally sound and sustain-able development in areas adjacent to protect-ed areas with a view to furthering protectionof these areas.

h) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystemsand promote the recovery of threatenedspecies, inter alia, through the developmentand implementation of plans or other man-agement strategies.

i) Adopt measures relating to the use of biologi-cal resources to avoid or minimise adverseimpacts on biological diversity.(from articles 6, 8 and 10)

2. WHY HAVE MCPAs?


9

These responsibilities arise because of the value ofbiodiversity, both as a contribution to humansocial and economic development, and also for itsown sake. The first preambular paragraph of theConvention refers to “the intrinsic value of bio-logical diversity” and also “the ecological, genetic,social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural,recreational and aesthetic values.” MCPAs are rel-evant to all these values, and the full range of val-ues should be considered when designing a MCPAnetwork.

These values include provision of constructionmaterials, medicines, biochemical and geneticinformation for pharmaceuticals, wild genes fordomestic plants and animals, tourism and recre-ation, maintaining hydrological cycles, cleansingwater and air, maintaining the gaseous composi-tion of the atmosphere, regulating climate, storingand cycling essential nutrients, absorbing anddetoxifying pollutants of human origin, satisfyingspiritual and cultural needs, providing sources ofbeauty and inspiration and providing opportuni-ties for research.

REFERENCES:The text of the Convention, and other material relating to theConvention (e.g. decisions) can be found on the Convention website: www.biodiv.org.

MCPAs therefore have several potential roles inimplementation of the Convention in the coastaland marine area:

1. The Convention sees the establishment andmaintenance of protected areas as an essentialelement in the management of biologicaldiversity. For coastal countries, MCPAs areessential to provide a complete protected areanetwork covering all ecosystems.

2. The Convention requires Parties to protect orrestore ecosystems, natural habitats and speciespopulations. MCPAs represent one method toprovide that protection, or to allow naturalrecovery of degraded resources. As discussedbelow, they provide the only method to main-tain marine ecosystems in a truly natural state.

3. The Convention requires Parties to ensurethat, in using biological resources, adverseimpacts on biological diversity are avoided orremedied. As discussed further below, protect-ed areas can provide a simple and effectivemeans to minimise the potential adverseeffects of activities such as fishing in themarine and coastal environment.

ACTIVITY REGULATION OR AREA PROTECTION?

Healthy and well-functioning marine and coastalecosystems and the biodiversity they contain areincreasingly threatened by human activities, resultingin:• over-exploitation of biodiversity• impacts of extraction methods (e.g. bottom

trawling, long-lining, mining and dredging) andseismic surveys

• sedimentation arising from activities on adja-cent land

• infilling of estuaries, alteration of sedimentmovement by groynes, and other physicalchanges to the marine environment

• water pollution• impacts of tourists and divers (e.g. on coral reefs)• climate change• alien species invasions• subdivision and development on the coast• fragmentation of habitats• changes in genetic composition• biomass reassignment

As outlined above, the Convention requires actionsto be taken to conserve biodiversity and prevent itsunsustainable use. There are two broad approach-es to achieving this. One is to regulate activities thatmight threaten biodiversity. In the marine environ-ment this might include controlling sand dredging,prohibiting the collection of live corals, or estab-lishing exploitation limits and controlling fishingmethods and applying this to the entire stock of afishery. The other is to establish protected areas, in

which most or all damaging activities are prevent-ed or strongly controlled, while allowing greaterlevels of use and impact outside those areas. Thesetwo approaches are, of course, able to be usedtogether, as complementary strategies.

Regretfully, in many cases current marine andcoastal management practices (e.g. controls onfishing catch levels and methods, land use regula-tion) appear inadequate to deal with the complexi-ty and magnitude of present threats to biodiversity.The inadequacy arises because we are trying tomanage through inadequate knowledge andthrough managing systems that are not necessarilystable. Management is also compromised ecologi-cally (by loss of big fish and long-lived, slow grow-ing biota), financially (perverse incentives andfinancial pressures) and cognitively (‘the sea looksokay to me’). There is therefore a need to takeactions that will provide rapid and effective controland removal of such threats.

In addition, many of our current methods rely onhaving a comprehensive understanding of marineecosystems. In most cases, this is lacking.

In order to increase such understanding of themarine environment, we need to maintain areaswhere human interventions are excluded. Forexample, to measure natural mortality of coralreefs, fish stocks, marine turtles, etc. informationthat is needed to assess the impacts of humanexploitation, highly protected MCPAs are essential.(This issue is explored further below.)

REFERENCES:Conover, David O. and Stephan B Munch. 2002. Sustaining fish-eries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96 exam-ines the potential for fishing pressure to generate evolutionarychanges in fish populations.

Angel, M.V.1987 ‘Criteria for protected areas and other conserva-tion measures in the Antarctic region’ Environmental Internatonal13: 105-14

Experience to date has shown that using an area-based approach, i.e. creating MCPAs, is an essentialelement in integrated marine and coastal area man-agement (IMCAM) regimes, if these are to be ableto achieve the objectives of the Convention.

REFERENCES:Agardy, M.T. 1994. ‘Advances in marine conservation: the role ofmarine protected areas.’ Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:267-270

Ballantine, W.J. 1991 ‘Marine Reserves for New Zealand’. LeighLaboratory Bulletin No. 25 University of Auckland

Kelleher, G. 1999 ‘Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas.’ BestPractice Protected Areas Guidelines, Series No. 3. IUCN Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

In any particular IMCAM regime, the proportionof the area which should be set aside in protectedareas will depend to some extent on the effective-ness of non-area based regulatory measures. Theless effective the activity controls are, or the lesscertain we are of their effectiveness, the more func-tions the protected area component of IMCAMwill need to fulfil, and therefore the greater cover-age needed within the MCPA network.

REFERENCES:Bohnsack, J.A. and Ault, J.S. 1996 ‘Management strategies to conserve marine biodiversity’ Oceanography 9:1:73-82

Bohnsack, J.A., B. Causey, M.P. Crosby, R.G. Griffis, M.A. Hixon, T.F.Hourigan, K.H. Koltes, J.E. Maragos, A. Simons, and J.T. Tilmant (inpress). A rationale for minimum 20-30% no-take reef protection.Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Conference in Bali.

Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. and Hofman, R.J. 1995.‘Environmental effects of marine fishing.’ Conservation: Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems 5:205-232

Fogarty, M.J. 1999. Essential habitat, marine reserves, and fisherymanagement. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 133-134.

Kelleher, G and Kenchington 1992. ‘Guidelines for establishingmarine protected areas’. Marine Conservation and DevelopmentReport, Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Sustaining marine fish-eries. National Academy Presss, Washington, D.C., USA.

Rachor, E. and Guenther, C.-P.. 2001. Concepts for offshore naturereserves in the southeastern North Sea. Senckenbergiana maritima31: 353-361.


10


11

BENEFITS OF HIGHLY PROTECTED MCPAs

MCPAs that incorporate prohibition of extractiveuses can generate a wide range of benefits. Theseinclude:• protecting ecosystem structure, functioning and

beauty, allowing recovery from past damage, andserving as stepping stones for migratory/disper-sive species;

• protecting the genetic variability of exploitedspecies;

• improving fishery yields, including through pro-tecting spawning stocks, enhancing recruitment,reducing over-fishing of vulnerable species,reducing conflicts between users, and protectingessential habitats;

• providing other direct and indirect social andeconomic benefits, such as attractions fortourists, by providing benefits to traditionalusers of biodiversity, or preserving reefs or kelpbeds which prevent wave erosion of the shore orshelter moorings;

• increasing our understanding of marine biodi-versity and systems, including by providing abaseline benchmark for identifying human-induced changes, allowing measurement of nat-ural conditions including mortality, and provid-ing areas for research where experiments are notaffected by uncontrolled human activities; and

• providing opportunities for the public to enjoynatural or relatively natural marine environ-ments, and opportunities for public educationand to allow the public to develop an under-standing of the effects of humans on the marineenvironment.

BENEFITS TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The question of benefits to the sustainable use ofmarine living resources from the establishment ofMCPAs has been particularly controversial. It isalso a particularly important issue for decision-makers, given that fishers are often one of the stake-holders most strongly affected by MCPA establish-ment and management.

There is extensive literature addressing this issue.While this literature does not provide a clear andsimple answer to the question “do MCPAs benefitfisheries outside them”, they do provide increasingevidence that the answer is yes, although many ofthe benefits arise most readily where the MCPAscontain heavy constraints on extraction of biota orare ‘highly protected MCPAs.

Such benefits can arise in a number of ways:• producing fish of exploitable size, which then

directly disperse “spill over” into the surround-ing area where they become available to fishers;

• producing more offspring (from a greater densi-ty of breeding adults within MCPAs) which arethen dispersed by currents to eventually recruitinto surrounding fisheries;

• providing information that is necessary to makeregulatory decisions about controls (e.g. meas-ures of natural mortality, reproduction, maxi-mum size, trophic interactions, etc.);

• providing insurance against resource manage-ment mistakes outside of MCPAs by providing arefuge from the collection of organisms (e.g.,corals, sponges, aquarium fish), and from fishingand making overfishing more difficult;

• providing insurance by preserving populations

REFERENCES:Agardy, M.T. 1994. ‘Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:267-270

Ballantine, W.J. 1997a. ‘No-take’ marine reserve networks support fisheries. Pages 702-706 in ‘Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources:The State and Management’, D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant, and J.P. Beumer (eds.). 2nd World Fisheries Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 797 p.

Ballantine, W.J. 1997b. Design principles for systems of ‘no-take’ marine reserves. Paper for workshop: The Design and Monitoring of MarineReserves at Fisheries Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Feb 1997.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1998. Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries management. Aust. J. Sci. 23: 298-304.Murray et al. 1999 ‘No-take reserve networks: sustaining fishery populations and marine ecosystems’. Fisheries 24:11:11-25.

Thorne-Millert, B & Carena, J. 1991 ‘The living ocean. Understanding and protecting marine biodiversity.’ Washington DC, Island Press.

Rachor, E. and Guenther, C.-P.. 2001. Concepts for offshore nature reserves in the southeastern North Sea. Senckenbergiana maritima 31: 353-361.


12

that can accelerate stock recovery in cases ofrecruitment failures from either overfishing ornatural disasters;

• protecting key habitats or life-stages from fisheryrelated damage (e.g. protecting critical spawningand nursery habitats, vulnerable juveniles, andspawning adults);

• protecting the genetic potential of populationsfrom detrimental effects of selective fishing; and

• helping to develop biodiversity indicators forgood ecological quality.

Some forms of MCPAs may also play a role in allo-cation of fisheries. For example, areas in only cer-tain traditional harvest methods may be usedmight have biodiversity benefits and also act toallocate fisheries to local communities that are ableto use sustainable methods. Or MCPAs may have adirect allocation purpose, as is the case with many“artisanal fisheries reserves”.

Anticipated benefits to fisheries can have a signifi-cant effect on community support for existing andfuture MCPAs. Allocation effects of MCPAs canhave a significant poverty alleviation benefit.

REFERENCES:Ward, Trevor J., Dennis Heinemann and Nathan Evans. 2001. Therole of marine reserves as fisheries management tools: a review ofconcepts, evidence and international experience. Bureau of RuralSciences, Canberra, Australia. 192pp. This publication reviews theliterature and experience internationally to determine the extent towhich MCPAs in which fishing is prohibited have been used to pro-vide effective support for fisheries management. It uses a conceptu-al model to identify key elements and processes that might be affect-ed by fishing and such MCPAs.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1998. Application of marine reserves to reef fisheriesmanagement. Aust. J. Sci. 23: 298-304.

Hauser, L.,Adcock, G.J., Smith, P.J., Bernal Ramirez, J. H. andCarvalho, G. H. 2002. ‘Loss of microsatellite diversity and low effec-tive population size in an overexploited population of New Zealandsnapper (Pagrus auratus)’ PNAS, Sept 3, 2002, vol 99, no 18pp.11742-11747.

Plan Development Team. 1990. The potential of marine fisheryreserves for reef fish management in the U.S. southern Atlantic.Snapper-Grouper Plan Development Team Report for the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council. NOAA TechnicalMemorandum NMFS-SEFC-261. 45 p.

Sylvie Guénette and Tony J. Pitcher, An age-structured model show-ing the benefits of marine reserves in controlling overexploitation,Fisheries Research 39 (3) (1999) pp. 295-303

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guenette, S., Pitcher, T.J. Sumaila, U.R.,Walters, C.J., Watson, R., and Zeller, D. (2002) ‘Towards sustainabil-ity in world fisheries’. Nature Vol. 418, Aug 2002, 689-695.

THE NEED FOR HIGHLY PROTECTED MCPAs

Some of the benefits of MCPAs can only be provid-ed with a high degree of certainty by highly pro-tected MCPAs, in which extractive uses are pre-vented. Examples of such benefits are:• restoring natural population structures of

exploited species (age, size, gender and genepools);

• protecting all biodiversity and biodiversity at alllevels;

• eliminating fishing gear impacts and bycatchwithin the area;

• providing undisturbed spawning conditions,habitats, settling sites and stepping stones;

• providing some essential fisheries managementdata including estimates of natural mortality;

• providing opportunities to enjoy relativelyundisturbed/unmodified areas, and experiencewilderness;

• allowing the public to see and understand theeffects humans can have, and the benefits ofmanagement; and

• providing long term monitoring, benchmark,control areas, and places where research proj-ects can be conducted unaffected by humanactivities.

Such areas are also unique in allowing benefits tobe provided with a high level of certainty wherethere is poor understanding of the marine environ-ment. They can provide insurance against theeffects of management mistakes arising from igno-rance or uncertainty. Compliance and manage-ment is simplified in comparison to other types ofMCPAs or sustainable use regimes.


13

Single highly protected MCPAs can provide someof the benefits. But in other cases, a network ofareas is likely to be required. For example, only anetwork can potentially protect the range of biodi-versity in a region. A recent development is theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD), South Africa 2002. One of the key out-comes of this meeting was a fishing accord inwhich, inter alia, a timeframe for the establish-ment of a global network of representative marineprotected areas was set for 2012. Referhttp://www.johannesburgsummit.org

REFERENCES:Ballantine, W.J. 1991. ‘Marine Reserves for New Zealand.’ LeighLaboratory Bulletin No. 25, University of Auckland.

Ballantine, W.J. 2002. ‘MPA Perspectives: MPAs improve generalmanagement, while marine reserves ensure conservation’. MPA New4:1:5

Fogarty, M.J., Bohnsack, J.A. and Dayton, P.K. 2000 ‘Marine reservesand resource management.’ In Sheppard (Ed). ‘Seas at theMillenium: An Environmental Evaluation 375-392. Pergamon 2000

Lauck, T., Clark, C.W., Mangel, M. and Munro, G.R. 1998.‘Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries managementthrough marine reserves.’ Ecological Applications 2(1) SupplementS72-S78

Murray, S.N., R.F. Ambrose, J.A. Bohnsack, L.W. Botsford, M.H.Carr, G.E. Davis, P.K. Dayton, D. Gotshall, D.R. Gunderson, M.A.Hixon, J. Lubchenco, M. Mangel, A. MacCall, D.A. McArdle, J.C.

Ogden, J. Roughgarden, R.M. Starr, M.J. Tegner, and M.M.Yoklavich. 1999. No-take reserve networks: protection for fisherypopulations and marine ecosystems. Fisheries 24(11):11-25.

Sobel, J. 1996. ‘Marine Reserves: necessary tools for biodiversity conser-vation?’ Canadian Museum of Nature Global Biodiversity 6(1):8-18.

Walls, K and McAlpine, G. 1993. ‘Developing a strategy for a networkof marine reserves around New Zealand - A Manager’s Perspective.’In Battershill et al (Eds) Proceedings of the Second InternationalTemperate Reefs Symposium (7-12 January, 1992) 57-62. NIWAMarine, Wellington.

CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MCPAS

Over the last twenty years the number of MCPAshas grown, and now almost every coastal countryhas at least one. They have also increasinglybecome recognised in the policy approaches ofcountries, as a core element in marine biodiversitymanagement. This reflects the increasing recogni-tion of their benefits, and of the failure of othermethods to provide some of those benefits.

Experience in relation to many individual MCPAshas also been positive. There is increasing evidencein the literature of significant changes in marinebiodiversity and ecosystems within highly protect-ed MCPAs, changes which were often not predict-ed, and which have provided valuable new under-standing of marine ecosystems. While there is notyet sufficient experience for definitive statements tobe made on most important issues, there is enoughto justify expectations of significant benefits (seethe section below) from MCPA establishment.Many of these benefits are so obvious that evenmembers of the public who initially opposed thecreation of the MCPA have come to value the areas.For example in New Zealand, surveys of stakehold-ers in relation to two highly protected MCPAsshowed that in a relatively short period (10 years inone case) stakeholders who had strongly opposedthe creation of the MCPAs had become strong sup-porters of their continuance.

REFERENCES:Kocklin, C. and Flood, S. 1992 ‘ The socio-economic implications ofestablishing marine reserves.’ Report to the Department ofConservation, N.Z. Department of Geography, University ofAuckland, New Zealand.

Kocklin, C., M. Craw, and I. McAuley. 1998. Marine reserves in NewZealand - use rights, public attitudes and social impacts. CoastalManagement 26: 213-231.

Halpern, Benjamin S. and Robert R Warner. 2002. Marine reserveshave rapid and lasting effects. Ecology Letters 5: 361-366. Thisreport evaluated 112 measures of biodiversity change in 80 MCPAsin which fishing is prohibited, to assess biological change within theMCPAs.

Walls.K. 1998. ‘Leigh Marine Reserves, New Zealand.’ Parks,Vol 8:2:5-10.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.


14

CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

Key aspects of the marine and coastal environmentthat are relevant to MCPAs are:• Ocean and coastal environments cover most of

the earth, and contain all of marine biodiversity.All of the 29 known Phyla of free living, multicel-lular animals are known to have occurred in theocean and 14 are only known from the oceans.

• Most marine organisms in offshore waters arevery sensitive to “unknown” disturbances andpollution, especially as they are physiologically“open systems”, not well protected against exter-nal harmful agents.

• Marine and coastal environments are threedimensional and highly dynamic in space andtime. Primary productivity is often accomplishedby small, mobile organisms. Marine food websare in general more complex than terrestrial foodwebs. There are strong linkages between thepelagic and benthic components, as well asbetween the land and nearshore waters. All ofthese characteristics make the understanding ofmarine biodiversity, and its management, morecomplex and difficult.

• Most marine organisms have at least one free-swimming or floating stage in the life cycle,enabling wide dispersal. It is not possible to phys-ically enclose the marine portion of MCPAs. Thishas the advantage of allowing dispersal from theMCPAs to enhance biodiversity in the surround-ing areas (“stepping stone” function), but carriesthe substantial disadvantage that the MCPA isstrongly affected by “up-stream” events, e.g. waterquality, sedimentation, etc.

• Human exploration of these areas is difficult, sothat we cannot easily observe and measure whatis happening. Our knowledge of marine biodi-versity is poor (e.g. new species are constantlybeing discovered), as is our knowledge of the wayin which marine ecosystems and processes oper-ate. Acquisition of new information is generally agood deal more expensive and requiring moresophisticated equipment than terrestrial equiva-

lents. Environmental degradation is less easilyobserved by both scientists and others than thaton land, making it more likely that degradationwill need to reach a catastrophic level before it isrecognised and addressed. It also makes gainingpolitical and public support for measures such asMCPAs more difficult.

REFERENCES:Vallega A. 1999, ‘Fundamentals of integrated coastal management.’Dordrecht, Netherlands; Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Anonyme 1997. Les aires protégéé de la Mediterranee. De Geneve1982 a Barcelona 1995’ PNUE/PAM/RACSP

These characteristics have some important impli-cations for marine management and MCPAs,including:• The uniqueness of marine biodiversity makes

marine biodiversity management a critical part ofany coastal country’s response to the CBD.

• The complexity of the marine environment,combined with our lack of understanding ofmarine biodiversity, and the problems of detect-ing what is happening in time to take correctiveaction, means that good management will needto rely on simple, certain methods, which are pre-cautionary in nature. As discussed above, pro-tected areas that exclude most human interven-tions can provide that simplicity and certainty.

• If we are to have long term, effective and sustain-able management of marine biodiversity, we willneed to greatly increase our knowledge, and ourability to observe changes. Highly protectedMCPAs are important sources of informationabout the natural functioning of marine ecosys-tems, and also provide vital controls to allow us tobetter detect the effects of management decisions.

• The relative absence of physical limits, the pres-ence of mobile reproductive stages, and stronginteractions across long distances for many wide-ranging species means that a network approachto MCPAs will be essential. It also increases boththe potential for detrimental impacts withinMCPAs from outside activities, and conversely,the potential for recovery within MCPAs to ben-efit areas outside their boundaries.

3. THE CONTEXT FOR MCPAS:THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (IMCAM)


15

A FRAMEWORK FOR ACHIEVING INTEGRATED COASTAL AND MARINE

MANAGEMENT (IMCAM)

COP II in its decision II/10 encouraged the use ofintegrated marine and coastal area management(IMCAM) as the most suitable framework foraddressing human impacts on marine and coastalbiological diversity, and for implementing the prin-ciples of the ecosystem approach in promotingconservation and sustainable use of this biodiversi-ty. The decision did not define IMCAM, and COPV identified the need for further guidance onIMCAM.

The AHTEG addressed the issue by looking at themarine and coastal environment in spatial terms,and identifying the type of management that mightbe applied in different parts of the overall marineand coastal area, and the way these would interact.

They recognised that a framework for IMCAMneeded to be able to fulfil the three principal objec-tives of the Convention, namely conservation ofbiodiversity, sustainable use of biodiversity, and theequitable sharing of the benefits derived from useof genetic resources. Given past degradation (e.g.the serious overfishing of many fish stocks, anddestruction of inshore ecosystems by infilling, sed-imentation and enclosure for marine farming), theframework needed to allow for recovery as well aspreventing future losses of biodiversity.

The framework also needed to be precautionary innature, given our limited knowledge of the marineand coastal environment, and our limited ability tocontrol and measure human impacts.

It should address:• All coastal and marine areas.• All elements of biodiversity (including at the

genetic, species, seascape and ecosystem levels).• All values included in the Convention preamble

(including intrinsic, ecological, economic, cul-tural, scientific, aesthetic).

Given the dynamic, open and interactive nature ofthe marine and coastal environment (see sectionabove), the framework also needs to take a net-working approach, to ensure that interactionsbetween spatially-defined management regimeswould result in the desired performance of theoverall system.

Elements of the Framework

The AHTEG concluded that a national frameworkthat would deliver IMCAM should comprise thefollowing three elements representing, respectively,high, intermediate, and low levels of resource pro-tection for biodiversity:• a representative network of highly protected

areas where extractive uses are prevented, andother significant human pressures are removed(or at least minimised) to enable the integrity,structure, functioning, and exchange processesof and between ecosystems to be maintained orrecovered;

• an ancillary network of areas that support thebiodiversity objectives of the highly protectednetwork, where specific perceived threats aremanaged in a sustainable manner for the pur-poses of biodiversity conservation and sustain-able use; and

• sustainable management practices over the widercoastal and marine environment.


16

Network of Highly Protected MCPAs

This network of areas would be managed to main-tain their integrity, structure, functioning,resilience, persistence and beauty, or to takerestorative or rehabilitative steps for biodiversity.They would encompass a full range of marine andcoastal ecosystems (including both representativeareas and those that are unique or special), and beprotected from human impacts and, where possi-ble, the effects of alien species. The key purpose ofthis network would be to provide for intrinsic val-ues, to allow us to better understand the marineand coastal environment, to provide ecologicalcoherence and contribute towards marine environ-mental recovery and as insurance against failures inour management.

The AHTEG considered that there was no simpleformula for identifying whether a network is repre-sentative, as this will depend on local circumstances(e.g. variability in habitats). Nevertheless, experi-ence in terrestrial protected areas, the work onMCPAs to date, and the literature, all indicate thata viable and representative network will not be pro-vided by a few small MCPAs. A number of papershave attempted to provide guidance on the mini-mum area needed. Recommendations in thosepapers vary, ranging from 10 to 75% of the marinearea. At least five governing entities or initiatives(the Bahamas, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, theGalapagos Islands, the Great Barrier Reef andGuam) have set targets ranging from 20 - 30% forthe primary network.

How Big Should the Highly Protected Network Be?

There are recommendations in the literature for how much area should be set aside in no-take marinereserves. This will depend on the ecological effectiveness of measures outside the highly protected net-work, but Ballantine (1991) suggested a number of reasons for protecting at least 10% of the New Zealandcoastal marine area, including, having a goal to aim for and implementation of the precautionaryapproach. Fogarty et al. (2000) reviewed a number of studies which suggested a range of 35% to 75% of thearea must be protected by a marine reserve to optimise yield or exploitation of fisheries outside the reserves.

Bohnsack et al. (2000) consider that a minimum of 20 - 30% full protection is required to conserve coralreef ecosystems. Factors used to support their view were: reproductive theory, degree of vulnerability of reefspecies to harvesting, analysis of fisheries failures and empirical and modelling studies of marine reserves.

Consideration of the required size of no-take marine reserve was applied to the Channel Islands NationalMarine Sanctuary, off the United States Pacific coast (hereafter termed “CINMS”). Scientists recom-mended that a reserve should comprise 30 - 50% of CINMS waters (SSC, 2001). The recommendationswere made in relation to two goals for the CINMS: (i) to protect representative and unique marine habi-tats, ecological processes and populations of interest (termed “the biodiversity goal”); and (ii) to achievesustainable fisheries by integrating marine reserves into fisheries management. Factors used to arrive atthe recommendation included a default harvest rate policy; dispersal rates of macro-algae, invertebratesand fish; issues related to emerging fisheries; and a general review of marine reserves literature. Most studiescited indicated a minimum of 10 - 40% of marine habitats would need to be protected to conserve ecosys-tem biodiversity, while 20 - 50% of fishing grounds would require protection for fishing sustainability.The central tendency of the two distributions was 30 - 50% that became the panel’s recommendation afterconsideration of all the factors.

As a result of a new (2003) zoning plan, no-take areas cover approximately 30% of the Great Barrier Reef


17

Marine Park. These highly protected areas total ~115,000 km2; an area about half the size of Victoria inAustralia or about the same size as the US State of Ohio. The zoning plan was produced through theRepresentative Areas Program (RAP), which aims to protect ‘representative’ examples of all the different habi-tats and communities and was based on a bioregional classification of the marine park. More informationabout the RAP is available on-line at http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/rep_areas/.

In New Zealand, Davidson et al. (2002) suggested that marine reserves of more than 10 km coastlinewould be more desirable than reserves of smaller coastlines to protect rocklobster. This recommendationwas based on studies of rocklobster densities, sizes and sex ratios at the Tonga Island Marine Reserve, AbelTasman National Park. Willis et al. (2001) investigated snapper (Pagrus auratus) at the Cape Rodney -Okakari Point Marine Reserve at Leigh, Northland and concluded that a proportion of the population ofthis species of fish exhibited site fidelity to relatively small areas within a 518 ha reserve.

For open North Sea habitats, Rachor & Guenther (2001) proposed to also consider sizes of hydrologicalstructures like eddies and transportation by residual currents for effective protection within a MCPA andarrived at minimum necessary sizes of 100 to 200 km2 in the German Bight.

Halpern & Warner (2002) reviewed 89 separate studies on marine reserves and concluded that nearly anymarine habitat can benefit from protection. The results suggested that the effects of marine reservesincrease directly rather than proportionally with the size of a reserve, however, larger reserves nearlyalways showed greater absolute differences in biological measures than smaller marine reserves.Sala and others (2002) describe an algorithmic modelling approach to establish marine reserve networks,maximising conservation benefits and reducing social conflicts. They describe a network covering 40% ofrocky reef habitats in the Gulf of California.

From the discussion above, it is clear there are different opinions on the subject of how much area isrequired to be protected in no-take marine reserves. However, the area is likely to vary according to whatis to be protected and the purpose of protection.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:Ballantine W.J. 1991. Marine reserves for New Zealand. Leigh Laboratory Bulletin No.25, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Bohnsack J.A., B.Causey, M.P. Crosby, R.B. Griffis, M.A. Hixon, T.F. Hourigan, K.H. Koltes, J.E. Maragos, A. Simons & J.T. Tilmant (2000). A ration-ale for minimum 20 - 30% no-take protection. Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia. Oct. 2000.

Davidson R.J., E. Villouta, R.G. Cole & R.G.F. Barrier. (2002). Effects of marine reserve protection on spiny lobster (Jasus edwardsii) abundance andsize at Tonga Island Marine Reserve, New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 12:213-227.

Fogarty M.J., J.A. Bohnsack & P.K. Dayton. 2000. Marine reserves and resource management. In: Sheppard (Ed.). Seas at the Millenium: AnEnvironmental Evaluation, 37 - 392. Pergamon, 2000.

Halpern B.S. and R.R.Warner 2002 Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecology Letters 5: 361-366.

Willis T.J., D.M. Parsons & R.C. Babcock. 2001. Evidence for long-term site fidelity of snapper (Pagrus auratus) within a marine reserve. NewZealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 35(3): 581-590.

Anonyme, 1997. Les aires protégée de la Mediterranee. DeGeneve 1982 a Barcelona 1995.’ PNUE/PAM/RACSPPNUE/PAM/PAP 2001. Livre Blanc: Gestion des zones cotieres en Mediterranee’ Split, Programme d’Actions Prioritaires, 2001.

Pacific Fishery Management Council 2001. Scientific and Statistical Committee report on status of marine reserve proposals for Channel IslandsNational Marine Sanctuary. Supplemental SSC Reports, Nov. 2001.

Department of Environmental Afairs and Tourism 1998. ‘Coastal Policy Green Paper.- Towards Sustainable Coastal Development in South Africa’Coastal Management Policy programme, South Africa.

UNEP, 1989. Directory of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Region 5, part 1; Sites of biological and ecological Zvalue. MAPTechnical Reports series No 26, Athens.

Rachor, E. and Guenther, C.-P.. 2001. Concepts for offshore nature reserves in the southeastern North Sea. Senckenbergiana maritima 31: 353-361.

Sala, S., Aburto-Oropeza, O.,Paredes, G., Parra, I., Barrera, J.C., and Dayton, P.K., 2002, ‘A general model for designing networks of marine reserves’Science Vol 298 6 Dec 2002 pp.1991-1993


18

Protection from human impacts would mean thatany removal of indigenous biota would be prevent-ed except to the extent necessary to allow essentialscientific research and education (i.e. no-takereserves). Also, other practices which significantlyimpact on biodiversity (e.g. substrate alteration,changes in sediment movements, pollution, visitordisturbance of sensitive species) would need to beprevented or controlled.

The highly protected MCPA network would needto be viable in perpetuity, in the face of changingthreats and long-term environmental change (e.g.climate change). These MCPAs would be perma-nent. Viability might depend on matters such as thenature of the legal protection, the presence of repli-cates, the design of the individual MCPAs, and theconnectivity between MCPAs (directly or using theancillary network as stepping stones).

Although public access may be encouraged in orderto generate educational and enjoyment benefits,these benefits would be treated as secondary to theprimary purposes listed above and public accessmay need to be controlled to prevent unacceptableimpacts.

Networks would need to be geographically dis-persed across biogeographic regions and wouldneed to be ecosystem-based, rather than effortsdirected at protecting a single species to the detri-ment of other parts of the ecosystem, as is seen insome current efforts.

The Ancillary MCPA Network

The ancillary MCPA network offers an intermedi-ate level of protection that would contain areas thatare subject to site-specific controls with either anexplicit biodiversity objective or at least a recog-nised biodiversity effect, but also other primaryobjectives that support sustainable use (e.g. eco-nomic or social objectives). In such areas uses aremanaged with the aim of sustainability with themost damaging uses prohibited. Examples of suchcontrols include controls on fishing methods (e.g.restricting bottom trawling), controls on theremoval of certain species (e.g. habitat formingspecies), rotational closures, and controls on pollu-tion and sedimentation.

Important biodiversity protection roles for ancil-lary MCPAs are to maintain connectivity across theoverall network, and also buffer highly protectedareas from intensive human activities.


19

The Wider Environment

The MCPA network of highly protected and ancil-lary MCPAs should sit within a framework of sus-tainable management practices over the widermarine and coastal environment including spatialplanning and wise/proper spatial “ordering” ofhuman uses (“Raumordnung” in German).

Sustainable management practices over the widercoastal and marine environment should includegeneral restrictions that would apply to the entirearea (e.g. environmental constraints on mining,bans on certain destructive fishing methods such asdynamite and cyanide fishing), as well as site-spe-cific restrictions imposed for non-biodiversity pur-poses (e.g. trawling restrictions to protect cables,restricted areas for defence purposes). These prac-tices can contribute to biodiversity protection in anumber of ways, including:• providing direct benefits to biodiversity (e.g.

restrictions on trawling to prevent cable damagecan also protect sensitive biodiversity such ascorals and sponges);

• protecting wide-ranging marine and coastal bio-diversity values which are difficult to addressthrough site-specific measures (e.g. restrictionson fishing practices that cause a bycatch ofspecies such as albatross, marine mammals andturtles); and

• reducing negative impacts on the connectiveprocesses operating between MCPAs, e.g. byallowing the movement of larvae betweenMCPAs.

Relative Roles of the Different Elements

No one element by itself can adequately fulfil allthree primary CBD objectives (biodiversity con-servation, sustainability, and equity). A frameworkthat includes all three elements is required, sinceeach provides a particular contribution to theoverall goal.

The section above on benefits outlines the benefitsthat can only be provided by highly protectedMCPAs. The key roles of the network of highlyprotected MCPAs are:• to provide areas in which natural processes are

able to operate, to act as a baseline for identify-ing the effects of human interventions in otherareas (see monitoring), and a place to undertakescientific work to improve our understanding ofthe marine and coastal environment;

• to deliver benefits related to intrinsic, social, cul-tural, recreation and aesthetic values thatrequire the existence of areas not subject to sig-nificant human impacts; and

• to ensure that management failures in otherareas cannot result in irreversible biodiversityloss, by protecting representative examples of allbiodiversity.

The ancillary network’s primary roles for biodiver-sity protection are:• to protect or augment values or processes which

cannot be achieved adequately within the highlyprotected network, in order to prevent cross-boundary impacts on the highly protectedMCPAs;

• to support sustainable use of biodiversity, forexample by protecting vulnerable life cycle stagesof exploited biota, or providing refugia for by-catch species; and

• potentially provide resource allocation toenhance the equitable sharing of benefits (e.g.artisanal fishing reserves).

The wider marine and coastal environment will bethe site of most sustainable use activities.


20

NETWORKS AND CONNECTIVITY

The aim of the MCPA network should be to createa coherent whole, with emergent properties andvalues, not simply a collection of individualMCPAs and regulatory controls.

Connectivity between MCPAs is critical, given thepresence of mobile life stages in most organisms(see context section above). This means that theviability of one area may be dependent on whathappens elsewhere (e.g. in the area where spawningoccurs). There is also strong connectivity betweenmarine and terrestrial processes, particularly inrelation to movement of water, sediments, seabirdsand all other organisms that use both environ-ments.

In general, creating a large number of smallreserves will provide greater connectivity benefitsthan fewer larger ones, but smaller reserves may beless effective in achieving settlement of dispersingorganisms (Roberts and Hawkins, 2000. See alsoRachor & Guenther, 2001, who consider sizes anddistances of MPAs). It has been suggested that themore critical issue is the proportion of marinespace protected: with increasing levels of connec-tivity achieved as the proportion increases. Robertsand Hawkins note that the great variability in dis-persal abilities among species necessitates high lev-els of connectivity (achieved by reserve networks)for assuring persistence of the full spectrum of bio-diversity. The authors summarise the importanceof a network of marine reserves (highly protectedmarine areas) based on the following:• isolated reserves have many benefits but will only

be able to protect a limited fractions of marinebiodiversity;

• large numbers of marine species have open waterdispersal phases and can potentially be trans-ported long distances from where they werespawned;

• individual reserves may be able to sustain self-recruiting populations of species that disperse

short distances, but networks will be necessary toprotect many species that disperse long dis-tances; and

• reserves in networks need to be close enough forprotected populations to interact through dis-persal.

REFERENCES:Roberts,C.M. and Hawkins, J.P. 1999. ‘Extinction risk at sea.’ Trendsin Ecology and Evolution. 14:6:241-246

Roberts, C.M. and J.P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully-protected marinereserves: a guide. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. p 131.

Warner, R.R., S.E. Swearer, and J.E. Caselle. 2000. Larval accumula-tion and retention: Implications for the design of marine reservesand essential fish habitat. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66(3): 821-830.

Botsford, L.W., A. Hastings, and S.D. Gaines. 2001. Dependence ofsustainability on the configuration of marine reserves and larval dis-persal distance. Ecol. Lett. 4: 144-150.

Some other aspects re.distances and sizes of MCPAs are treated inRachor, E. and Guenther, C.-P.. 2001. Concepts for offshore naturereserves in the southeastern North Sea. Senckenbergiana maritima31: 353-361

PRIORITIES

A strategic planning approach, embracing sustain-able use and ecosystem-based management, toenable the implementation of an ecologically viableframework for MCPA development, should beadopted at the national and regional levels. Thisshould enable future MCPA development to bebased on important aspects such as past experiencein effective management, large scale factors affect-ing MCPA viability and long term goals.

For a country with no or very few MCPAs, the pri-ority would be to establish some. These firstMCPAs should have objectives relating to increas-ing the community’s understanding and accept-ance of MCPAs as a tool for marine and coastalbiodiversity management. The location of thesemay be dictated largely by where it is easiest toestablish the MCPA in terms of community accept-ance, feasibility of establishment and managementand similar considerations, or where the MCPAwill provide the greatest flow of benefits to thecommunity. The process should also establishappropriate governance arrangements that willfacilitate future MCPA creation.

4. CREATING AND DESIGNING MCPAS AND NETWORKS


21

For a country that already has a significant numberof MCPAs, the priorities would be to:1. improve effectiveness of existing MCPAs;2. address the most significant gaps in terms of

representativeness, addressing urgent threats,and providing benefits to all communities;

3. begin to develop local, national or regionalnetworks; and

4. achieve an improved balance between thethree framework elements.

If offshore MCPAs are lacking, the creation of suchreserves should be encouraged.

ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES

It is vital to clearly establish the objectives of eachMCPA and MCPA networks. For ‘highly protected’MCPAs the prime objective should be to protectmarine and coastal biodiversity, including the prin-ciple of full representation and with a short-termpriority of attention towards rare, threatened,declining or degraded habitats or species. Theseobjectives should influence the following:

1. The choice of where to establish the MCPA.For example, if the primary objective of theMCPA is to protect a particular value (e.g. aseabird-nesting colony, or the occurrence ofan important, but rare offshore habitat), thenthe location of that value will dictate the loca-tion of the MCPA. But if the primary objectiveis to provide an educational resource, thenproximity to an educational lodge may be theimportant consideration, regardless of thediversity of marine environment presentthere.

2. The choice of how to establish the MCPA. Forexample, if a primary objective is to improvecommunity acceptance and understanding ofMCPAs, then development through a carefulparticipatory approach will be essential, evenif this delays establishment. But if the primaryobjective is to address an urgent threat, then afaster and less participatory approach may be

unavoidable.3. The choice of type of MCPA. If the primary

objective is to provide a basis for research intothe normal functioning of an ecosystem, thena highly protected MCPA with no extractiveuses will be necessary. If the primary objectiveis to protect a marine mammal population,then restrictions on certain fishing methodsand protection from harassment and exploita-tion may be all that is required.

4. The type of management regime. This wouldinclude consideration of who should beinvolved in management, the type of enforce-ment approaches that would be used, and thepriorities for management effort. For exam-ple, if a key objective of the MCPA is toincrease community support for the establish-ment of an MCPA network, then increasingcommunity involvement in management maybe particularly important even if this wasmore costly or would take longer to produce afully effective regime.

5. The methods of evaluating success. As dis-cussed in the section below, evaluation of suc-cess would be done in terms how well theMCPA or network met the objectives.

6. There should be considered an additional“objective”: to establish a protected area as acompensation measure for destructive humanactivities on neighbouring marine areas (e.g.as a result of an environmental impacts assess-ment for a permission of a destructive/dis-turbing use).


22

ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The context section above addressed the key char-acteristics of marine environments and their impli-cations for MCPAs.

MCPAs, particularly highly protected MCPAs, willin effect become islands in the same way that natu-ral vegetation remnants on land behave like islands.This occurs especially if the pressures on the sur-rounding areas lead to ecosystems losing speciescritical to sustaining functionality and biodiversity.Work to address fragmentation issues in terrestrialecosystems may, therefore, help to inform ourthinking about MCPAs.

Ideally, MCPAs should be large enough to encom-pass all the key processes that affect the ecology ofthe area. Such processes might include sedimentmovements, spawning and recruitment, foodwebs and natural dynamic patterns. Where this isnot possible, providing protection for the cross-boundary processes (e.g. through establishmentof an ancillary MCPA, through networkingbetween MCPAs, or through regulatory controls)will be essential if the MCPA is to be viable in thelong term.

Connectivity issues that are important in themarine environment include the following:• Allowing species to continue to access their

required range of food sources, whether thesevary on a diurnal, seasonal or age-related pattern.

• Allowing species to continue to access theirrequired range of habitats during their life cycle(e.g. spawning, juvenile feeding and dispersal,settlement, adult migration habitats).

• Maintaining metapopulation complexes.

Vulnerability to invasion by alien species may alsobe an important ecological issue. Identifying vul-nerability will require a knowledge of likely entrypoints (e.g. ports), and natural dispersal patternsfrom those points.

As on land, the marine areas that lie betweenMCPA ‘islands’ will determine the extent to which:1. there are impacts from the general marine area

directly on the MCPA (e.g. pollution, invasionof alien species, loss of biomass as a result ofspillover, changes in natural sediment move-ment); and

2. the connectivity between MCPAs is main-tained or lost.

Therefore management of the wider marine andcoastal environment needs to be designed toaddress these key ecological issues for the MCPAnetworks.

CHOOSING A COST-EFFECTIVE APPROACH

Decisions on alternative approaches to marine bio-diversity management, or alternative designs/loca-tions for MCPAs, will need to consider both costsand benefits. The approach chosen needs to beeffective in meeting its objective, but it is also clear-ly desirable to minimise (as far as practical) thecosts and maximise the benefits of MCPAs and net-works. To do this will require an assessment ofthose costs and benefits.

The direct costs of establishing and maintainingMCPAs may include infrastructure, equipment,administration, demarcation, monitoring andassessment. Indirect costs also need to be consid-ered, and these may include economic impacts ontraditional livelihoods, and socio-cultural impactsof increased tourism-related activities on coastalcommunities. Benefits will include ecological ben-efits, but may also include protection of culturalvalues, provision of a more diversified economyfrom new sources of income to local communities(e.g. from tourism operations or servicing scientif-ic centres), knowledge to support resource man-agement, and support for fisheries in surroundingareas. Costs and benefits may be short or longterm, and must be adequately defined if there is tobe a complete assessment.


23

In most cases, costs and benefits of MCPAs havenot been assessed in detail, and have not beenlooked at over the full range of protection levels.

An assessment of alternative biodiversity and eco-nomic development strategies may well result inidentification of highly protected MCPAs as themost cost-effective means of sustainable marineand coastal resource management. One of the rea-sons for this is that they are the only mechanismthat can provide some benefits with any certainty(see the section above). Another is that the rulesassociated with them tend to be simple, and admin-istration costs are therefore likely to be lower.

Similarly, the benefits of facilitating effective par-ticipation by stakeholders have often been underes-timated, in comparison to the direct costs (finan-cial and human resources, and delays in decisions).A fuller assessment of costs and benefits would belikely to show the long term net benefit of such par-ticipation, including through reduced compliancecosts, greater effectiveness, reduced social impacts,and improved design.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR HIGHLY PROTECTED MCPAs

These principles draw on material provided by DrW. J Ballantine to the first meeting of the AHTEG.The material in relation to individual principleswas elaborated by AHTEG from reference to therelevant literature.

REFERENCES:Ballantine, W.J. 1997a. ‘No-take’ marine reserve networks supportfisheries. Pages702-706 in ‘Developing and Sustaining WorldFisheries Resources: The State and Management’, D.A. Hancock,D.C. Smith, A. Grant, and J.P. Beumer (eds.). 2nd World FisheriesCongress, Brisbane, Australia, 797 p.

Ballantine, W.J. 1997b. Design principles for systems of ‘no-take’marine reserves. Paper for workshop: The Design and Monitoringof Marine Reserves at Fisheries Center, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, Feb 1997.

Murray et al. 1999. ‘No-take reserve networks: sustaining fisherypopulations and marine ecosystems.’ Fisheries 24:11:11-25.

Principles for Individual Highly Protected MCPAs

Principle 1: Minimising human disturbance on allbiodiversity.

By definition, a highly protected MCPA is one inwhich human disturbances are minimised. Thiswill require control of extractive activities (e.g. fish-ing, mining, sand extraction); activities whichchange natural processes (e.g. changes to sediment,salinity, wave action through structures, pollutionor changes to sediment and water inputs from theland); any other human disturbance (e.g. fromrecreational uses, fish feeding).

All species within highly protected MCPAs shouldbe protected, because ecological interactions arecomplex and mostly unknown. Allowing any fish-ing jeopardises goals of maintaining ecologicalstructure and function and confounds the scientif-ic ability to achieve understanding.

A key role for highly protected MCPAs is to allowscientific research and increase public understand-ing of marine biodiversity. Both scientific researchand public education may require some extractionor deliberate disturbance. Extraction should onlybe allowed where it is necessary to support essentialscientific research and public education, andshould be limited and controlled through a permitsystem.

Principle 2: PermanenceThe protection of the MCPA should be permanent,based on their selection as areas of critical habitat,highly productive ecosystems, source areas for eggsand larvae, key areas for biodiversity protection, orprime examples of naturally functioning systems.Long term changes cannot be effectively measuredif highly protected areas are temporary. Since theestablishment of two highly protected marinereserves in New Zealand there have been significant


24

changes in fish, invertebrates and kelp forest cover.The overall change to community structure andfunction was not apparent until over 20 years afterreserve establishment. Fisheries benefits may notaccrue for several years and resources can be over-fished and habitats damaged very rapidly.

REFERENCE:Babcock , R.C., Kelly, S., Shears, N.T., Walker, J.W. and Willis, T.J.1999. ‘Changes in community structure in temperate marinereserves’ Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 189, November 1999.

Principle 3: ViabilityThe MCPA should be ecologically viable. This willrequire it to be large enough so that most ecologi-cal processes will be able to operate within the area.

The MCPA should also be legally and sociallyviable, so that the rules established are observed inpractice. Ideally, boundaries should be simple toidentify and enforce.

Principle 4: Human EnjoymentAs with national parks, a key role for highly pro-tected MCPAs is to allow people to experience andappreciate the resulting natural state. Appropriatenon-extractive use should facilitated, and informa-tion provided to allow people to better understandthe MCPA and the marine and coastal environ-ment. The one exception to this would be wheresuch access jeopardises biodiversity protectionobjectives. Minor impacts on the biodiversity inhighly protected MCPAs are acceptable if it allowspublic understanding and support to be built.Under these circumstances, such impacts shouldbest be confined to a part of the MCPA therebyenabling the impacts to be managed.

Principles for a Network of Highly Protected MCPAs

Principle 1: RepresentativenessAll biogeographic regions should be represented.Within each region, all major habitats should berepresented. Conservative and widely accepted

definitions should be used when identifyingregions and habitats. The section below providesfurther guidance on identifying representative net-works.

Principle 2: ReplicationAll the habitats in each region should be replicatedwithin the network, and these should be spatiallyseparate, to safeguard against unexpected failuresor collapse of populations. Where replication is notpossible then other design principles may need tobe reconsidered, such as size and number.

Principle 3: ViabilityThe ultimate objective is to create a network ofgeographically dispersed sites that are self-sustain-ing, independent (as far as possible) of what hap-pens in the surrounding area (Murray et al 1999).The network should be ecologically viable withMCPAs achieving viability collectively and avoid-ing (genetic) isolation.

Principle 4: Precautionary DesignIn designing the network, a precautionaryapproach should be taken wherever there is uncer-tainty (e.g. regarding habitat diversity, species habi-tat needs, threats by human activities, connectivityprocesses, etc). The precautionary approach in thiscircumstance is to use best available information tomake decisions rather than delaying to await moreand better information. Where there is uncertainty,the precautionary approach would favour erringon the side of biodiversity protection. While it isimportant to maintain as natural an IMCAM aspossible, the network of MCPAs should ideally bedesigned so that complete failure of the manage-ment regime in the IMCAM will not significantlyaffect the viability of the MCPA network.

REFERENCE:Lauck, T., C.W. Clark, M. Mangel, G.R. Munro. 1998. Implementingthe precautionary principle in fisheries management throughmarine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 8(1): Supplement: S72-S78.


25

Principles for the Broader Network of AllMCPAs (highly protected and ancillary)

Principle 1: Design the NetworkA network design should be prepared for eachnational or regional area, including the exclusiveeconomic zones and the High Seas. The networkshould incorporate ancillary MCPAs as support fora primary network of highly protected MCPAs

Principle 2: Maximise connectionsPotential connections between MCPAs should bemaximised.

REPRESENTATIVENESS

A key principle identified above is the need for thenetwork of highly protected MCPAs to be repre-sentative of the full range of biodiversity. A repre-sentative network will include protected areasincorporating all habitat types, with the amount ofeach habitat type being sufficient to cover the vari-ability within it, and to provide duplicates (as aminimum), so as to maximise potential connectiv-ity and minimise the risk of impact from large-scale effects.

To assess representativeness it is necessary to beable to classify habitat (or ecosystem) types. Oneexample of such approach is provided by theRepresentative Areas Program (RAP) of the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park. The Park was classifiedinto 70 bioregions based on the physical and bio-logical diversity of the entire area. Each bioregioncontains plant and animal communities, togetherwith physical features, that are significantly differ-ent from the surrounding areas and the rest of thePark. A zoning plan to ensure representativeness ina network of highly protected areas was then devel-oped based on this classification (Day et al, 2003).

In general, detailed data on biodiversity distribu-tion will not be available, but classifying habitatsusing physical factors, which are more readilymeasured, may provide an alternative basis fordeveloping an initial MCPA network.

In addition to available biological information, thefollowing are the key factors which should be usedto undertake a high level classification of habitats:• Benthic or pelagic• Abyssal/slope/shelf/intertidal• Sediment or hard rock/stony substrate• Salinity (marine/estuarine)• Presence of habitat forming organisms (e.g. coral

reefs)

The classification of habitats should be undertakenwithin a broad biogeographic zoning system. Thereare existing systems which, while somewhat crude,should be adequate for the immediate task ofestablishing representative MCPAs

REFERENCES:Day, J., Fernandes, L., Lewis, A. and J. Innes. 2003. RAP - An ecosys-tem level approach to biodiversity protection planning. A paper pre-sented at the second meeting of the International Tropical MarineEcosystem Symposium (ITMEMS2), Manila, Philippines, March2003.

Sulivan Sealey, K. and G. Bustamante. 1999. Setting geographic pri-orities for marine conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean.The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. USA. p. 125.

Murray et al ANZECC, TFMPA. 1999. ‘Strategic Plan of Action forthe National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas: AGuide for Action by Australian Governments. EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra.


26

GENERAL ISSUES

The purpose of management is to ensure that theMCPA or network is able to achieve the intendedobjectives. Key elements of management mayinclude the following:• Having clear rules and boundaries.• Ensuring adequate enforcement.• Undertaking active restoration work where nec-

essary to help an area recover from past damage.• Provision of goods and services for users (e.g.

visitor facilities).• Gathering information to assess the achievement

of the objectives and support management deci-sions.

• Undertaking activities to facilitate stakeholderunderstanding and support, and to allow stake-holder participation.

• Undertaking activities to ensure appropriatebenefits are generated and equitably shared (e.g.allocation of resource usage).

• Controlling activities within or affecting the areato prevent additional damage occurring.

• Preventing entry of or eradicating/controllingalien species.

Management regimes should be adjusted over timein light of experience and increased knowledge (seebelow).

WHO MANAGES

There should be a management structure whichclearly defines the responsibility, authority andcapacity for core management work.

There should also be community/stakeholderinvolvement for the following reasons (see also thesection on participation above):• to provide economic, social, and cultural bene

fits to communities;• to take advantage of the knowledge and

resources that communities and other stakehold-ers can contribute to management efforts;

• to respect traditional rights and uses (see the sec-tion above);

• to enhance community skills, pride, and sense ofownership of the MCPA; and

• to promote equitable sharing of benefits, restoresocial accord, and reinforce the creative poten-tials of individuals and communities.

SETTING THE RULES

The rules applying within the MCPA need to be setat the time of creation (or adjusted through anappropriate process subsequently). They should bedesigned to ensure that the objectives of the MCPAcan be met. They should be clear, and embodied inan appropriate legal or customary framework thatwill allow their enforcement.

5. MANAGING MCPAs


27

The rules should be able to fit into one of threebasic categories:• Allowing activities that support the objectives,

with clear conditions/restrictions to ensure thatsuch activities will be appropriate.

• Prohibition of activities that would likely pre-clude achieving the objectives of the MCPA.

• Providing a decision-making process for activi-ties that do not clearly fall into either (1) or (2),i.e. discretionary activities. In general, the num-ber of discretionary activities should be min-imised, in order to reduce the potential for inap-propriate decisions that may conflict with theprimary requirement to protect biodiversity.

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

MCPAs represent special places, containing specialqualities. The value of an MCPA will be likely toincrease over time, as a result of recovery of theecosystem, and scientific research at the site.Enforcement needs to recognise the time it takesfor an MCPA to reach a high value and reflect itsimportance to regional biodiversity. Enforcementis therefore an essential component in the success-ful management of MCPAs. There are manyapproaches used in MCPA enforcement globally.Successful management rests on a foundation ofcommunity consensus around the MCPA’s goals,objectives, measures and benefits.

The ideal is full compliance with the rules withoutactive enforcement being necessary. This wouldrequire communities that support the rules, andself-manage themselves to achieve compliance(either individuals comply voluntarily, or complybecause of peer pressure from other members ofthe community). While this ideal is probably notoften achievable, high levels of voluntary compli-ance and community support have been achievedin many MCPAs.

But in most cases there will always be some userswho will not willingly follow rules. An enforce-ment regime is usually necessary to effectively con-trol such users, both to ensure that the objectives ofthe MCPA can be met, and that these individualsdo not unfairly benefit at the expense of the rest ofthe community.

Enforcement should be managed as an integral partof management, and in a way that facilitates andencourages voluntary compliance. Involving thecommunity in enforcement processes (e.g. provid-ing information, warning/educating first timeoffenders, and acting as voluntary wardens) can bea useful way to increase compliance and the effec-tiveness of enforcement.

An effective enforcement regime should have thefollowing elements.

Optimal enforcement capacity.• Enforcement responsibilities must be clearly

assigned. If they are assigned to more than onebody, then the relative roles of each body shouldbe clear.

• Good cooperation and coordination should existbetween enforcement bodies (which may includein the case of transboundary MCPAs, authoritiesin different countries).

• The enforcement authorities must have the nec-essary resources to undertake the various tasks(e.g. financial resources, equipment, liftingawareness and training).

• Enforcement authorities must have well trainedpersonnel who are able to operate in an appro-priate manner to maximize compliance andcommunity support.

• The enforcement body must have the necessarylegal or customary powers for executing theirtask, including recognition of their role by thecommunity.


28

Appropriate Penalties and Associated Legal Provisions

• Penalties should exist at a level that sends theright signal to the community, resource users,and the judicial system to illustrate the serious-ness of the infringement and should provide adisincentive for non-compliance. The level ofpenalty should not be such that it provides a dis-incentive for prosecution (e.g. where the penaltyappears so low that it discourages prosecution, orseems excessive).

• Legal provisions should facilitate achieving suc-cessful prosecutions.

• Where the penalty is a fine, some componentshould be made available to the enforcement ormanagement authority, to help sustain the sys-tem. This can provide an incentive for enforce-ment and also assist capacity, and may alsoincrease support by communities involved incompliance work.

• The judiciary or other bodies imposing thepenalties may need to be sensitised to the envi-ronmental consequences and seriousness of vari-ous offences.

• It is advantageous to provide alternatives to judi-cial channels to allow immediate application ofpenalties (e.g. instant fines, compounding ofoffences).

MAKING DECISIONS ON DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES

The way in which decisions are to be made shouldbe clear. This should allow for the law or formalrule system specifying:• Who will take the ultimate decision• What factors will be considered in making vari-

ous types of decisions, e.g. the criteria that willdetermine the outcome of the decision

• The process that will be used, e.g., whether anEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) mustbe prepared and who can be involved (e.g. whohas the right to make submissions)

The law may allow the decision-maker to refuse toprocess an application for an activity until a strategicplanning process had considered wider implicationsof the proposal, and of other similar or related pro-posals that may arise as a result of the activity.

EIAs and strategic assessments can be useful toolsfor assisting in decision-making processes. TheConvention on Biological Diversity has establishedguidelines for EIAs.

REFERENCES:UCN, WWF, UNEP & WB 1993, Marine Biological Diversity, ElliottNorse (ed).


29

CONTROLLING OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES THATAFFECT THE MCPA

In most cases, where the body controlling activitieswithin the MCPA does not have jurisdiction orauthority to control activities occurring outside theMCPA, it is desirable to have legislation or othermechanisms in place to ensure that such externalactivities will be adequately considered and con-trolled. This may include providing an avenue forthe MCPA manager to be included in the broadercoastal zone and national policy and managementplanning.

MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Management planning is a useful tool for generat-ing clear short and long term management objec-tives and associated programmes. This approachcan also offer a valuable mechanism for involvingthe community in longer term/broader planning,increasing the level of community consensus onboth the day-to-day and longer-term operations ofthe MCPA and the community’s level of confidencein area management.

Management plans also provide a means to deter-mine longer term budgets, and provide a soundbasis for seeking financial support.

SUSTAINABLE FINANCING

Traditionally, protected areas have been managedby government agencies and have thus tended torely almost exclusively on government financing. Incertain cases, however, these arrangements arechanging, and new models are emerging. Novelinstitutional arrangements are being created to pro-vide greater flexibility and more innovative meansof securing financial resources from public and pri-vate sources.

Protected areas in developing countries receive anaverage of less than 30 percent of the funding nec-essary for basic conservation management (Jameset al., 1999). Over the past decade, many govern-ments of developing countries have substantiallycut their budgets for protected areas as a result offinancial and political crises (Dublin et al., 1995).International aid for biodiversity conservation hasalso been on the decline since the 1992 EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro (James et al., 1999). As aresult, many protected areas in developing coun-tries remain or have become mere “paper parks”lacking sufficient funds to pay for staff salaries,patrol vehicles, or wildlife conservation programs.

Potential alternative sources of finance or practicalsupport include:• Income from fees charged for conducting com-

mercial activities within the MCPA (e.g. touristoperations) or user fees (e.g. the fee for enteringthe Galapagos Islands goes in part to the marinereserve; the fees for diving, snorkelling and yachtmooring in the Soufriere Marine ManagementArea in Saint Lucia all go directly back into areamanagement).

• Contributions from NGOs (e.g. “Friends of”groups), corporate sponsors or other independ-ent groups.

• Contributions from local communities and users(e.g. funding from fundraising events, and con-tribution of free labour for enforcement, areacleanups and public awareness work)


30

EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS

Why Evaluate?Evaluating the effectiveness of MCPAs is vital forimproving management over time. It is alsoimportant for demonstrating the benefits of theMCPA to stakeholders and funders.

What are the Measures of Effectiveness?Effectiveness must be assessed in relation to theobjectives of the MCPA. Where there are multipleobjectives, those that are most important may begiven a greater focus in terms of evaluation.

Possible factors that may be measured to assesseffectiveness include the following:

Socio-economic Benefits• Stakeholders perceptions of value• Economic benefits to communities• Effects on employment opportunities, living

conditions and population movements• Level of conflict between users• Reduction in catch variability, dampening

‘boom-bust’ cycles• Trends of public use

Management• Effectiveness of management in preventing

unwanted human impacts• Financial sustainability (willingness of funders

to support management, willingness of visi-tors/users to pay)

• Changes in activities within the area to alterna-tive uses which are more appropriate given theobjectives of the area

• Governance of the area

Biodiversity• Changes in habitats• Changes in species populations• Changes in fecundity and size range• Productivity levels• Levels of fragmentation of habitat types• Changes in ecosystem function• Species diversity and composition

Knowledge and Understanding• Use of the area for education and research

purposes• Baseline areas for monitoring• Levels of awareness in the local community• Levels of understanding of the marine

environment derived from research in the area• Levels of knowledge on matters that affect

MCPA and network effectiveness and viability

Network Issues• Representativeness of the network• Ability for one part of the network to support

the objectives of other parts

How to Undertake EvaluationsThere is a wide range of methodologies availablefor evaluation. Chapter 8 of this report providessome key literature and case studies.

For each evaluation, an appropriate and affordabletechnique should be designed. There is not cur-rently any clear best practice for any aspect of eval-uation, nor is there likely to be in the near future.

Evaluation may be undertaken for individualMCPAs, or for the network. Where the country orregion has a number of MCPAs, it is desirable tocarry out the evaluations of individual MCPAs inways that can feed into national or regional assess-ments across the networks.

6. EVALUATING AND IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS


31

Among the broad tools which can be used for eval-uation are:• Holding workshops or other consultative

processes• Undertaking surveys of stakeholders and

employees• Assessing available data (e.g. census information

and economic information collected for otherpurposes)

• Compliance monitoring and testing• Biological monitoring• Measuring levels of physical impact (e.g. pollu-

tion, sedimentation)

Stakeholder participation in the evaluationprocesses is often invaluable (see Chapter 7, Peopleand MCPAs).

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management, as schematically presentedbelow in Figure 1 in its simplest form, has beenidentified as the most appropriate approach towardthe management of biological resources because ofits ability to deal with uncertainty and natural vari-ation (more flexible than other systems), its itera-tive nature (acquires information on the biologicalresource through the management cycle), and itsfeedback mechanisms (see Decision V/6:Ecosystem Approach Principle 9 i.e. ‘Managementmust recognise that change is inevitable’).Adaptive management can be distinguished fromless effective trial-and-error management in thatseveral alternatives are tested simultaneouslyinstead of sequentially.

Adaptive management can be applied at each com-ponent of biological diversity, and the appropriate-ness of each component will be defined by the scaleof the management programme and its potentialimpacts. Adaptive management systems shouldoperate within the context of a higher order of pol-icy objective concerning the use of biologicalresources, and should strive to integrate diverse orconflicting objectives into a single target for man-agement action.

Figure 1.

Management target

Actions

Monitor impacts 1 2 3through indicators

REFERENCES:Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources.McMillan Publishing Co., N.Y. USA. p 374.

Walters, C.J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparianand coastal ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 1(2): 1.


32

MONITORING

Successful application of adaptive management isstrongly dependent on monitoring. Uncertaintyabout the appropriateness of monitoring tech-niques, limited skills and resources for monitoring,and the long-term sustainability of monitoringprogrammes can be regarded as constraints.Ecosystem-based management of biologicalresources will also require the commitment ofadditional resources for monitoring. The monitor-ing component in adaptive management systemsshould therefore be designed and refined to ensurethat these constraints are addressed. Some initialobservations in this regard are that:• the scale of monitoring should match the scale of

management, but should not ignore ‘down-stream’ effects of management (see EcosystemApproach Principle 3);

• the cost of monitoring should be internalised(the resource user should contribute significant-ly) to ensure the maintenance of monitoring pro-grammes (see Ecosystem Approach Principle 4);

• resource users should participate in the designand implementation of the monitoring system(see Ecosystem Approach Principle 2);

• local and traditional knowledge of resourcesshould be incorporated into monitoring systems,(and the use of such local and traditional knowl-edge in the management of biological resourcesmay promote the maintenance of local and tra-ditional knowledge systems, e.g. in the mappingof resources by communities) (see EcosystemApproach Principle 11);

• monitoring systems should be appropriate, cost-effective and achievable (see EcosystemApproach Principle 12);

• monitoring systems and the evaluation of theresults of monitoring should involve a transpar-ent and consultative process (see EcosystemApproach Principle 11);

• the integrity of monitoring systems can beenhanced by measures for long-term data ware-housing.

It is often advisable that monitoring be conductedat three levels, i.e.:• monitoring the status of the component of bio-

logical diversity that is the focus of the manage-ment programme (in order to obtain informa-tion about its status independently from any har-vest programme);

• monitoring the take (in order to obtain detailedinformation about the biological characteristicsof the component harvested, and trends in char-acteristics such as age and sex distribution andfecundity);

• monitoring fishing effort and other forms ofextractive take (in order to determine changes inthe yield per unit effort as an index of the impactof the management programme, taking intoaccount improvements in technology relating tothe efficiency of harvesting).


33

Monitoring at these three levels need not be con-ducted at the same frequency, by the same agenciesand following the same methodologies, but thecombination of monitoring at these three levelsmay result in a greater probability that use-relatedimpacts will be detected and that monitoring sys-tems will be maintained in the long-term.Monitoring at multiple levels is particularly impor-tant in cases where limited information is availableabout the current status of the component of bio-logical diversity that is being used, or to avoid biasresulting from information derived as the result ofharvesting (harvesting is most often targeted atspecific components only).

It is also important to consider other impacts on aresource (e.g. illegal takes), and to use all other rel-evant sources of information to generate conclu-sions about the trends in resource status and rec-ommendations concerning its management.

Monitoring should be conducted within all com-ponents of the marine management system (highlyprotected MCPAs, ancillary MCPAs and withinIMCAM), in order to fully assess the effectivenessof the various components of the overall system.

Monitoring needs to go beyond simply focusing onexploited species, as if extraction of these species isthe sole or principal impact. As is often the caseunexpected changes result from a combination offactors. Therefore, monitoring the health of ecosys-tems is also important, with the choice of reliableindicators essential. Research efforts are needed forthe development of such indicators. Coral reefmonitoring programmes such as Reef Check andthe Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network aregood examples of well-established programmes tomonitor the health of an ecosystem around theglobe.

REFERENCE:Wilkinson, C. 2000. Status of coral reefs of the World: 2000.Australian Institute of Marine Science. 363pp.


34

PARTICIPATION

The Importance of Stakeholder Participation

Stakeholder participation is essential for the estab-lishment and maintenance of individual MCPAsand regional networks. Stakeholder participationwould be particularly important in achieving theequitable sharing of benefits accruing from the cre-ation of MCPAs. In addition stakeholder participa-tion would:1. allow decisions to be made in an inclusive

andtransparent way;2. facilitate the involvement in decision-making

and management of a wide range of players,increasing the likelihood of success;

3. facilitate the monitoring of biodiversity in MCPAs;

4. recognise traditional rights and customs,and other interests of stakeholders; and

5. allow decisions and management to be undertaken at the appropriate level (i.e. decentralisation).

Identifying Stakeholders

Stakeholders are those who have an interest in theissue. This interest may arise because:• their livelihoods are potentially directly affected

by the project. That effect may change theirlivelihood in a way perceived as beneficial ordetrimental, or a mix of the two;

• they have a decision-making role, formally orinformally (e.g. they may be influential membersof the community;

• they represent a community of interest (e.g. environmental NGOs, industry);

• their activities will affect the success ofthe MCPA project; and

• they represent the future generations ofstakeholders.

As well as identifying stakeholders, it will be usefulto identify the nature of their interest, and theircapacity to participate, and tailor the participationprocess to that interest and capacity.

Different types of protected areas may cater to dif-ferent sets of stakeholders or beneficiaries, depend-ing on the types of goods and services offered bythe protected area. The array of benefits flowingfrom a protected area, and the stakeholders theybenefit, will be determined by a range of factorsincluding:• the ecological character of the area (generally the

most important factor);• how accessible it is to stakeholders and users; and• the way the area is managed.

7. PEOPLE AND MCPAs


35

Participation Process

It is recognised that the type and extent of partici-pation will depend on local circumstances, includ-ing issues such as custom and tradition, availablemechanisms and governance approaches, and thedegree of interest of stakeholders.

Principles underlying participation include:• giving stakeholders access to relevant informa-

tion in a form they can understand;• giving stakeholders sufficient time to be able to

prepare and participate;• giving the stakeholder the chance to participate

in monitoring programme;• making the method of consultation appropriate

to the stakeholder group involved; and• taking into account the results of the participa-

tion process, i.e. consultation should be genuineand meaningful.

It is important to incorporate and recognise tradi-tional knowledge in the establishment of MCPAs.Indigenous and traditional communities have awealth of knowledge about biodiversity and oftenhave developed a sense of respect for nature thatmust be enhanced and sometimes rescued. Theconcept of sanctuaries, or “untouchable places”, ispresent among indigenous populations of manydifferent ethnic groups.

In designing participation, it is important to con-sider the effect that this may have on accountabili-ty and authority of managers. It is essential to beclear about the matters that are relevant to the deci-sion and their relative importance. This will helpdefine the weight that participant’s views will havein the decision-making processes (which mayrange from being a minor matter to consider, tobeing in effect a veto).

Where participation in management is being pro-vided, by transferring certain management func-tions to stakeholders (e.g. allowing communitymembers to become rangers), the stakeholdersmust be given sufficient authority and resources(e.g. training, equipment) to allow them to fulfilthose functions effectively. There must be clearaccountability arrangements to ensure that theiractivities are not detrimental to the interests ofother stakeholders or the biodiversity managementobjectives.

Approaches that may be used to promote stake-holder participation include:• recognition of tradition, custom and rights• using the media and other mechanisms for the

provision of information• workshops, public meetings, public hearings• employment of community interest advocates• individual interviews, surveys, questionnaires• advisory panels, working groups, task forces• demonstration projects• formal consultation processes• identifying incentives or compensatory actions• transferring functions to stakeholders.There is a considerable body of literature availableon methods for facilitating stakeholder participa-tion. Chapter 8 provides references to some thatare particularly relevant to MCPAs.


36

TRADITIONAL USES AND RIGHTS

The Convention recognises the importance of tradi-tional knowledge in several of its provisions, whichstress the right for indigenous and local communi-ties to share in the benefits derived from ideas andinnovations they have developed that prove usefulto others. The Convention calls upon Parties torespect, protect and encourage customary use ofbiological resources. Central to these commitmentsis Article 8(j), which provides that Parties should:

“respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, inno-vations and practices of indigenous and localcommunities embodying traditional lifestyles rel-evant for the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity and promote their widerapplication with the approval and involvement ofthe holder of such knowledge, innovations andpractices and encourages the equitable sharing ofthe benefits arising from the utilisation of suchknowledge, innovations and practices”;

“Indigenous and local communities” covers a widerange of groups, including indigenous people whooccupied areas subsequently colonised by ex-patri-ot settlers, and local farming communities whohave developed specialised uses and techniques forlocal biodiversity.

It cannot be assumed that traditional uses andpractices are necessarily sustainable, particularlygiven changes in human population sizes, socialand economic practices (e.g. the introduction of acash economy or loss of migratory lifestyles). Newexploitation techniques (e.g. introduction of newtypes of boats), or changes in the environment (e.g.

where alien species or sedimentation have resultedin additional stress for exploited species) may affectsustainability. Nor will sustainable traditionalpractices have been developed for all resources orlocations.

MCPAs can be a tool for preserving traditionaluses and rights. They can also be a tool for allow-ing traditional users to alter their practices to takeadvantage of new opportunities (e.g. ecotourism,markets for new biodiversity products). Part 5contains case studies relating to subsistence/arti-sanal fishers efforts to establish no-take areas.The recognition of traditional uses and rightsdoes not, per se, require them to be preserved.But any restriction or change to those uses andrights should be done through a process that:• facilitates adequate participation of the affect-

ed users and right-holders;• balances those rights equitably with the inter-

ests of other stakeholders and the need toachieve the objectives of the Convention; and

• provides adequate compensation or alterna-tive rights, to ensure that there is an equitablesharing of the cost of biodiversity manage-ment across the community.


37

Box 1Northern Tanzania In Tanga region fishing villages have grouped together to establish collaborative fisheries manage-ment plans (‘collaborative’ because this is done with the support of the local government authori-ties) within which destructive forms of fishing are outlawed and various other regulatory measuresimplemented. In addition, within each fishery management area, a few reefs have been closed to fish-ing by the villages themselves. Initially this was for a period of just a few years, but the participato-ry monitoring programme that is being carried out, involving the fishers themselves, has shown thatreef health and fish abundance has increased. This has led to the villages extending the ‘life’ of theNTAs. In the Comoros, a similar initiative has taken place in the newly established Moheli MarinePark, which is collaboratively managed by the government and the 10 villages surrounding the park.Each village has identified and is in the process of implementing an NTA within the park.

REFERENCE:Salm, RV, J Clark and E Siirila. 2000 Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: a guide for planners and managers. IUCN

BrazilIn Brazil a new law establishing categories of protected areas has been recently approved. Under thenew system, there are 12 different categories of fully protected and sustainable use Protected Areas.In Brazil, the sea is a common property, but in two categories of sustainable use MCPAs the use isgranted only to the traditional populations. The Extractive Reserves (RESEX) are created afteranalysing the demand of traditional populations who have been exploiting the natural resources inan area for a long period. The Environmental Protection Areas (APA) also has this potential, asshown by a new experience that is under trial in Northeast Brazil in the Coral Coast MCPA. In thismultiple use area of just over 400 thousand ha., which includes coral reefs, mangroves and sea grassbeds, the right of fishing has been restricted according to fishing tradition, determined by an electedcouncil who will also be involved in the zoning plan. Smaller no-take zones have been established inaccordance with the fisherman and local environmental councils and the results have been moni-tored by research agencies and presented to the community. In both cases The traditional users haverights and obligations and in many cases they decide themselves to create no-take areas inside theMCPAs. Other management measures have been implemented after discussion, such as banning ofpredatory fishing practices, seasonal closures, etc.

REFERENCE:Ferreira, B. P. and M. Maida 2001. Fishing and the Future of Brazil´s Northeastern Reefs.InterCoast 38:22-23

New ZealandThe maori people in New Zealand have been empowered over the last several decades by recognitionof both traditional rights and those guaranteed by treaty, of access to coastal fisheries and fishresources. Some maori tribes are antagonistic towards what they consider to be the imposition of ‘no-take’ marine reserves through a process managed by a government agency under the Marine ReservesAct. They see such reserves as an alienation of access rights and regard such reserves as a last resort.

At least two coastal tribes have seen beyond the short-term closure of areas to fishing access and haveeither applied for, or supported marine reserves proposals in their areas for the sake of the demon-strated spill over benefits available in the longer term. One of the tribes, as applicant, has successfully argued the case against opposition from commercial and recreational fishers and has gained approval

PUBLIC AWARENESS

Education and public awareness are significantissues for MCPA managers for two key reasons:1. MCPAs can be important tools for educa-

tion and awareness building about marineand coastal biodiversity.

2. Improved public understanding of marineand coastal biodiversity, the need for biodi-versity management, and the particular roleplayed by MCPAs is likely to be an essentialcomponent of the establishment and main-tenance of effective MCPAs and networks.

The objective should be to achieve increases inunderstanding and awareness that changebehaviour - reduce unsustainable activities,increase engagement in biodiversity manage-ment, increase active support for MCPAs andnetworks, etc. Increasing public awareness canbe a critical element in facilitating participation(see the section above).

In developing education and awareness strate-gies, the following key target groups should beconsidered:• Current stakeholders who will be participants

in establishment or management decisionsand those whose activities within the area havea direct impact on it (e.g. fishers).

• Managers (those actively involved in manage-ment including employees of the managementagencies who contribute to management.

• Beneficiaries of the MCPA (including poten-

tial future stakeholders) for whom the flow ofbenefits will be increased by improved aware-ness or understanding.

Methods for education and public awareness canrange from formal training/education courses tothe use of popular theatre and the provision ofsimple signs or brochures.

Some approaches that might be consideredinclude:• Enhancing existing technical and sub-techni-

cal training in MCPA management.• Development and implementation of a code

of conduct to reduce the impact of commonactivities (e.g. for recreational fishing meth-ods, shell collecting, firewood or dead seaweedcollection from beaches).

• Providing opportunities for stakeholders tobecome involved in management activities,with appropriate training provided (e.g. hon-orary warden systems, volunteer biodiversitymonitoring work, beach clean-ups, waterquality measurement).

• Developing an information strategy and asso-ciated action plan to impart information tostakeholders, relating to sustainable manage-ment practices, MCPA benefits, etc.

In designing and executing a public awarenessprogramme, there should be clear links with par-ticipation processes. Involving stakeholders inpublic awareness work is highly desirable.


38

for the most recently established marine reserve (November 2002) on the New Zealand coast, TeTapuae o Rongokako. The maori people of that tribe are now the reserve’s strongest advocates andbest managers to deal with poaching. In addition, some tribes are pursuing reserves under theFisheries Act, set up specifically to provide for maori participation in the management and regula-tion of controlled fishing, and there is discussion of the potential value of such mataitai reserves asso-ciated with ‘no-take’ marine reserves on coastal reef systems.

New Zealand is now developing a public relations strategy which intends to generate wide debatewithin any region over the placement of marine reserves so that local views are not only taken intoaccount but are instrumental in the definition of locations to be protected.


39

KEY PUBLICATIONS

The following have been selected as key publica-tions that provide an overview of a wide range ofissues relating to MCPAs. References on specificmatters are incorporated into the text of thisreport above.

Salm, RV, J Clark and E Siirila. 2000 Marine andCoastal Protected Areas: a guide for planners andmanagers. IUCN

Roberts, C and JP Hawkins. 2000 Fully ProtectedMarine Reserves: a guide. WWF

National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Marine andCoastal Protected Areas: tools for sustaining oceanecosystems. National Academy Press, WashingtonDC.

Crosby MP, KS Geenen and R Bohne. 2000.Alternative Access Management Strategies formarine and Coastal Protected Areas: a referencemanual for their development and assessment. USMAB program, USA.

COUNTRY EXPERIENCE

The AHTEG identified the following countries ashaving experience which might be of particularvalue to other countries, and that have expressed awillingness to share their experience.• New Zealand has a small and growing network

of highly protected MCPAs, and has undertak-en significant scientific monitoring work tolook at the effectiveness of these MCPAs. Theyalso have experience in involving local commu-nities and indigenous people in the creationand management of these areas.

• Chile has extensive experience in establishingartisanal fishing reserves, and some recent expe-rience in assessing their effectiveness.

• Australia has had long experience of manage-ment of the very large Great Barrier ReefMarine Park, and of a range of federal and StateMCPAs for a variety of purposes and degrees ofprotection for biodiversity. It also has had therecent distinction of setting aside the world’slargest ‘no take’ marine reserve in the Australiansubantarctic.

• Philippines and ASEAN in general have experi-ence with transboundary considerations

• USA has well studied models in the Tortugas(Florida) and the Channel Islands (California)

• Germany has a network of Reserves andNational Parcs along its North Sea and BalticSea coasts and at Helgoland Island. Currently,the creation of first really offshore Reserves(within the European NATURA 2000 network,see “Habitats Directive” of the EU Commission)is in its planning stage

• Many regional seas conventions and actionplans are central to implementing regionalapproaches to the establishment and manage-ment of marine and coastal protected areas.Examples include, but are not limited to,OSPAR (NE Atlantic), the SPA Protocol of theMediterranean Action Plan, The SPAW Protocolof the Cartagena Convention (Wider CaribbeanRegion), and HELCOM (the Baltic Sea).

8. LITERATURE AND EXPERIENCE

1. Identify pilot research and monitoring proj-ects, based on current proposals and ongo-ing projects aimed at assessing the value andeffects of marine and coastal protected areasor similarly restricted management areas onsustainable use of marine and coastal livingresources.

2. Review the desk-study called for in theoperational objective 3.1, activity (c), of theprogramme of work (decision IV/5, annex).The desk-study to be conducted by theExecutive Secretary consists of gatheringand assimilating information relevant to thevalue and effect of marine and coastal pro-tected areas on sustainable use of marineand coastal biodiversity.

3. Identify linkages between conservation andsustainable use of marine and coastal biodi-versity.

4. Prepare recommendations on types ofresearch to be carried out to understand theeffects of marine and coastal protected orclosed areas on population size and dynam-ics, subject to national legislation.

* In accordance with programme element 3, operational objective 3.1,of the Jakarta Mandate programme of work.

Duration of work

The ad hoc technical expert group on marine andcoastal protected areas should start its workimmediately after approval by the Conference ofthe Parties of the terms of reference and shallendeavour to complete the work not later thanthe eight meeting of SBSTTA, at which “protect-ed areas” will be an item for in-depth considera-tion (see SBSTTA programme of work in recom-mendation IV/1 C), and the seventh meeting ofthe Conference of the Parties at which “protectedareas” will be an item for in-depth consideration.1, 3 and 4 can be undertaken immediately, butitem 2 will start when the desk-study is complete.


40

ANNEX ITERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ONMARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS*


41

Technical expertsMr. James Bohnsack (USA)Mr. Juan C. Castilla (Chile)Mr. John Collie (Seychelles)Mr. Phillip Da Silva (Guyana)Ms. Beatrice Padovani Ferreira (Brazil)Mr. Miguel D. Fortes (Philippines)Ms. Sarah George (St. Lucia)Mr. Kenneth Grange (New Zealand)Ms. Dalia Gudaitiene-Holiman (Lithuania)Mr. Nelson Kile (Solomon Islands)Mr. Dan Laffoley (United Kingdom)Mr. Robin Leslie (South Africa)Mr. Mohamed Menioui (Morocco)Mr. Per Nilsson (Sweden)Mr. Aprilani Soegiarto (Indonesia)

ObserversMs. Mary Power (SPREP)Mr. Arthur Patterson (IUCN WCPA)Ms. Margarita Astralaga (Ramsar)Mr. Thomas Hourigan (NOAA)

ChairMr. Murray Hosking

SBSTTA Bureau representativeMs. Paula Warren

Resource personnelMs. Kathy Walls (Department of Conservation,New Zealand)Mr. Eduardo Villouta (Department of Conservation, New Zealand)

CBD SecretariatMs. Marjo Vierros

ANNEX IIMEMBERS OF THE AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON MARINE ANDCOASTAL PROTECTED AREAS

13TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT ANDMANAGEMENT OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS

CBD Technical Series No.Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity

ALSO AVAILABLE

Issue 1: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal Instruments Applicable to Invasive Alien Species

Issue 2: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 3: Assessment Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperate and Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

Issue 7: Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, Forest Biological Diversity

Issue 8: Status and trends of, and threats to, mountain biodiversity, marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems: abstracts of poster presentations at the eighth meeting ofthe Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Issue 9: Facilitating Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity Abstracts of poster presentations on protected areas and technology transfer and

cooperation at the ninth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

Issue 10: Interlinkages between Biological Diversity and Climate ChangeAdvice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol

Issue 11: Status and Trends of Biodiversity of Inland Water Ecosystems

Issue 12: Solutions for Sustainable Mariculture - avoiding the adverse effects of mariculture on biological diversity

Documents

TECHNICAL ADVICE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND … · PRESSE ice sea: B.MARCON/BIOS/ALPHA PRESSE diver: Y.LEE/UNEP/ALPHA PRESSE boats: T.RAUPACH/ARGUS/ALPHA PRESSE Citation Secretariat