Alan T. White

Marine reserve benefits local fisheries.

The utility of no-take marine reserves as fisheries-management tools is controversial. It is hypothesized that marine reserves will help to sustain fisheries external to them by becoming net exporters of adults (the “spillover effect”) and net exporters of propagules (the “recruitment effect”). Local fishery benefits from spillover will likely generate support from fishing communities for marine reserves. We used underwater visual census to show that biomass of Acanthuridae (surgeonfish) and Carangidae (jacks), two families of reef fish that account for 40–75% of the fishery yield from Apo Island, Philippines, tripled in a well-protected no-take reserve over 18 years (1983–2001). Biomass of these families did not change significantly over the same period at a site open to fishing. The reserve protected 10% of the total reef fishing area at the island. Outside the reserve, biomass of these families increased significantly closer to (200–250 m) than farther away from (250–500 m) the reserve boundary over time. We used published estimates of fishery catch and effort, and fisher interviews (creel surveys) to show that the total catch of Carangidae and Acanthuridae combined at Apo Island was significantly higher after (1985–2001) than before (1981) reserve establishment. Hook-and-line catch per unit effort (CPUE) at the island was 50% higher during 1998–2001 (reserve protected 16–19 years) than during 1981–1986 (pre-reserve and early phases of reserve protection). Total hook-and-line effort declined by 46% between 1986 and 1998–2001. Hook-and-line CPUE of Acanthuridae was significantly higher close to (within 200 m) than far from the reserve. CPUE of Carangidae was significantly higher away from the reserve, possibly reflecting a local oceanographic effect. The benefits of the reserve to local fisheries at the island were higher catch, increased catch rate, and a reduction in fishing effort. The fishery and tourism benefits generated by the reserve have enhanced the living standard of the fishing community.

Experience with Marine Protected Area Planning and Management in the Philippines

Marine protected areas were established in the Philippines as early as 1974. These early models on Sumilon and Apo Islands and others set forth a framework for coral reef management that has been shown to enhance fish yields to traditional fishers as well as protect and maintain nearshore coral reef habitats for biodiversity and multiple economic uses. The history of marine protected areas in the Philippines is described in relation to their present context. Devolution of authority for management of natural resources to local governments (municipalities and cities) in 1991 is highlighted as a major national policy shift that has supported more localized management efforts. Current policies and laws that influence marine protected areas are explained in relation to field management and results. One community and local government based marine protected area on San Salvador Island is contrasted with a National Marine Park being implemented under the National Integrated Protected Areas System. Important lessons include, among others: the importance of a well-articulated process that includes community participation and ownership in collaboration with municipal governments; the role of multiple stakeholders, government, and donor agencies in planning and management; the creative use of financial mechanisms to create long-term self-supporting marine protected areas; and the need for more integrated forms of coastal management to support marine protected area networks through broad area planning.

Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: From central to community orientation

The development phases of coastal management in tropical countries are described. Precolonial, centralized, community based, and collaborative coastal management are identified as forms of management which have evolved to what today is called integrated coastal management. Centralized management began during colonial times when any attempt at management was orchestrated from the top of government. Community based coastal management, in response to the failures of more centralized approaches, began in the Philippines through several projects, the experience of which spread to other countries in Southeast Asia and to Ecuador in the 1980s. The concept of collaborative management is now accepted as a description of variations in joint management arrangements between government and community or with the private sector stakeholders. It is suggested that collaborative management and integrated coastal management are more or less synonymous. The trends identified within tropical coastal management include interdi...

Healing small-scale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems

The current global fisheries crises have immense implications for the health and viability of animal populations, as well as the ecosystems and habitats that support this biodiversity. These crises have provoked a wide variety of management solutions and alternatives that are closely aligned with other small-scale resource extraction conservation approaches, but have been analyzed separately from the common-pool resource management literature. We summarize findings from an analysis of progressive small-scale fisheries worldwide and find that solutions arise from a historical trial and error management process as problems become dire. We find high success in the social organization and regulation of resources among these progressive fisheries but poor evidence for improved ecosystems. Based on evidence provided by the most progressive fisheries, we suggest a change in policy towards the management of small-scale fisheries. This change includes four major avenues of problem solving that focus on facilitating socio-ecological processes rather than primarily promoting a high level of quantitative science and implementing findings, technological concepts, or tools. Adoption is often culturally and context specific and, therefore, the above often have poor success when not socially integrated. We encourage facilitating and catalyzing local-level adoption of rules that create limits to appropriation and technology, since it is increasingly recognized that such limits are key solutions to the threats. This will be achieved if policy and actions (1) encourage professionalism (formation of “societies”, setting standards, certification, self-policing, appropriate technology, etc.), (2) create forums where all opinions about solutions, the status of targeted species, and environmental requirements are represented, (3) promote social rules that consider the realities and limits of the households and local social economy, and (4) craft solutions tailored to the specific and agreed upon diagnoses. We predict that as this socio-ecological process matures, it will also increase the inclusiveness of resource management goals to include non-use factors, such as biodiversity and other ecosystem services, which are still poorly evaluated and managed in even the most progressive small-scale fisheries.

Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation

Quantifying the extent to which existing reserves meet conservation objectives and identifying gaps in coverage are vital to developing systematic protected-area networks. Despite widespread recognition of the Philippines as a global priority for marine conservation, limited work has been undertaken to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of existing marine protected areas (MPAs). Targets for MPA coverage in the Philippines have been specified in the 1998 Fisheries Code legislation, which calls for 15% of coastal municipal waters (within 15 km of the coastline) to be protected within no-take MPAs, and the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy (2004), which aims to protect 10% of coral reef area in no-take MPAs by 2020. We used a newly compiled database of nearly 1000 MPAs to measure progress toward these targets. We evaluated conservation effectiveness of MPAs in two ways. First, we determined the degree to which marine bioregions and conservation priority areas are represented within existing MPAs. Second, we assessed the size and spacing patterns of reserves in terms of best-practice recommendations. We found that the current extent and distribution of MPAs does not adequately represent biodiversity. At present just 0.5% of municipal waters and 2.7-3.4% of coral reef area in the Philippines are protected in no-take MPAs. Moreover, 85% of no-take area is in just two sites; 90% of MPAs are <1 km(2). Nevertheless, distances between existing MPAs should ensure larval connectivity between them, providing opportunities to develop regional-scale MPA networks. Despite the considerable success of community-based approaches to MPA implementation in the Philippines, this strategy will not be sufficient to meet conservation targets, even under a best-case scenario for future MPA establishment. We recommend that implementation of community-based MPAs be supplemented by designation of additional large no-take areas specifically located to address conservation targets.

Larval dispersal and movement patterns of coral reef fishes, and implications for marine reserve network design

Well‐designed and effectively managed networks of marine reserves can be effective tools for both fisheries management and biodiversity conservation. Connectivity, the demographic linking of local populations through the dispersal of individuals as larvae, juveniles or adults, is a key ecological factor to consider in marine reserve design, since it has important implications for the persistence of metapopulations and their recovery from disturbance. For marine reserves to protect biodiversity and enhance populations of species in fished areas, they must be able to sustain focal species (particularly fishery species) within their boundaries, and be spaced such that they can function as mutually replenishing networks whilst providing recruitment subsidies to fished areas. Thus the configuration (size, spacing and location) of individual reserves within a network should be informed by larval dispersal and movement patterns of the species for which protection is required. In the past, empirical data regarding larval dispersal and movement patterns of adults and juveniles of many tropical marine species have been unavailable or inaccessible to practitioners responsible for marine reserve design. Recent empirical studies using new technologies have also provided fresh insights into movement patterns of many species and redefined our understanding of connectivity among populations through larval dispersal. Our review of movement patterns of 34 families (210 species) of coral reef fishes demonstrates that movement patterns (home ranges, ontogenetic shifts and spawning migrations) vary among and within species, and are influenced by a range of factors (e.g. size, sex, behaviour, density, habitat characteristics, season, tide and time of day). Some species move <0.1–0.5 km (e.g. damselfishes, butterflyfishes and angelfishes), <0.5–3 km (e.g. most parrotfishes, goatfishes and surgeonfishes) or 3–10 km (e.g. large parrotfishes and wrasses), while others move tens to hundreds (e.g. some groupers, emperors, snappers and jacks) or thousands of kilometres (e.g. some sharks and tuna). Larval dispersal distances tend to be <5–15 km, and self‐recruitment is common. Synthesising this information allows us, for the first time, to provide species, specific advice on the size, spacing and location of marine reserves in tropical marine ecosystems to maximise benefits for conservation and fisheries management for a range of taxa. We recommend that: (i) marine reserves should be more than twice the size of the home range of focal species (in all directions), thus marine reserves of various sizes will be required depending on which species require protection, how far they move, and if other effective protection is in place outside reserves; (ii) reserve spacing should be <15 km, with smaller reserves spaced more closely; and (iii) marine reserves should include habitats that are critical to the life history of focal species (e.g. home ranges, nursery grounds, migration corridors and spawning aggregations), and be located to accommodate movement patterns among these. We also provide practical advice for practitioners on how to use this information to design, evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of marine reserve networks within broader ecological, socioeconomic and management contexts.

Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being used globally to conserve marine resources. However, whether many MPAs are being effectively and equitably managed, and how MPA management influences substantive outcomes remain unknown. We developed a global database of management and fish population data (433 and 218 MPAs, respectively) to assess: MPA management processes; the effects of MPAs on fish populations; and relationships between management processes and ecological effects. Here we report that many MPAs failed to meet thresholds for effective and equitable management processes, with widespread shortfalls in staff and financial resources. Although 71% of MPAs positively influenced fish populations, these conservation impacts were highly variable. Staff and budget capacity were the strongest predictors of conservation impact: MPAs with adequate staff capacity had ecological effects 2.9 times greater than MPAs with inadequate capacity. Thus, continued global expansion of MPAs without adequate investment in human and financial capacity is likely to lead to sub-optimal conservation outcomes.

Scaling Up to Networks of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines: Biophysical, Legal, Institutional, and Social Considerations

The growing number of marine protected areas (MPAs) globally represents an increasing interest in marine conservation and fisheries management and the potential of planned and managed MPA networks as a way of strengthening local management. This study documents the development of MPA networks in the Philippines and identifies critical success factors and issues. Methods were field observation by participation in MPA and fisheries management projects and focused interviews that gathered opinions and observations of primary MPA network stakeholders in the central Visayas region. Findings show that an MPA network is defined through social and ecological criteria. From a social perspective, a network is comprised of people and organizations that manage component MPAs, benefit from the network, and promote the networks viability through shared administrative responsibility and information. To qualify as part of an ecological network, individual MPAs must interact ecologically (e.g., source or sink of larvae and propagating organisms, protection for habitat, and threatened or endangered species) to enhance fisheries and biodiversity conservation. The study found that while social and ecological criteria are shaping MPA networks through science-based planning, integrated management, and coordination, there exist numerous institutional issues related to scaling up to networks from single MPAs. Issues pertain to: limiting access to resources, boundary delineation, monitoring compliance, finding common goals and identity, and conflict resolution. Factors correlated with management success included common institutional processes and legal support, improved understanding of benefits from a network and improved habitat conditions and fishery yields associated with MPAs.

Philippine Coral Reefs Under Threat: Lessons Learned After 25 Years of Community-Based Reef Conservation

The Philippine archipelago consists of more than 7000 islands. Most of these islands have extensive coral reefs or coral communities. For centuries, reefs and their associated resources have provided the livelihood for a large portion of the coastal population. However, reefs as sources of income are threatened by over-exploitation and by the use of destructive fishing methods. The scientific community, natural resource managers and many of the small-scale fishermen are aware that catches are falling rapidly while the fast growing population requires increasing amounts of fish. Since the early 1970s, various programs have tried to counter the decline of Philippine coastal resources. This article reports about successful examples of reef conservation in the provinces of Negros Oriental, Batangas and the Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park, Palawan. In all three localities, significant areas of reefs are legally protected and sustainable management regimes are working effectively. In Negros and Batangas this success is partly a result of intensive education programs that contributed to the active involvement of the traditional fishermen and the larger coastal community. Community participation and co-operation of all institutions involved in resource management are regarded as the key elements of sustainable reef management in these areas. This paper presents the objectives, programs and achievements as well as the fruitful networking of the participating organizations. Particular emphasis is placed on the experiences and lessons emanating from 25 years of reef conservation while showing the overall objective of sustainable use is still far on the horizon. It is suggested that more integrated forms of management, involving various stakeholders, and that address the numerous intertwined issues, will save Philippine reefs.

Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation

Overfishing and habitat destruction due to local and global threats are undermining fisheries, biodiversity, and the long-term sustainability of tropical marine ecosystems worldwide, including in the Coral Triangle. Well-designed and effectively managed marine reserve networks can reduce local threats, and contribute to achieving multiple objectives regarding fisheries management, biodiversity conservation and adaptation to changes in climate and ocean chemistry. Previous studies provided advice regarding ecological guidelines for designing marine reserves to achieve one or two of these objectives. While there are many similarities in these guidelines, there are key differences that provide conflicting advice. Thus, there is a need to provide integrated guidelines for practitioners who wish to design marine reserves to achieve all three objectives simultaneously. Scientific advances regarding fish connectivity and recovery rates, and climate and ocean change vulnerability, also necessitate refining advice for marine reserve design. Here we review ecological considerations for marine reserve design, and provide guidelines to achieve all three objectives simultaneously regarding: habitat representation; risk spreading; protecting critical, special and unique areas; reserve size, spacing, location, and duration; protecting climate resilient areas; and minimizing and avoiding threats. In addition to applying ecological guidelines, reserves must be designed to address social and governance considerations, and be integrated within broader fisheries and coastal management regimes.