1
|
Ban NC, Darling ES, Gurney GG, Friedman W, Jupiter SD, Lestari WP, Yulianto I, Pardede S, Tarigan SAR, Prihatiningsih P, Mangubhai S, Naisilisili W, Dulunaqio S, Naggea J, Ranaivoson R, Agostini VN, Ahmadia G, Blythe J, Campbell SJ, Claudet J, Cox C, Epstein G, Estradivari, Fox M, Gill D, Himes-Cornell A, Jonas H, Mcleod E, Muthiga NA, McClanahan T. Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes. Conserv Biol 2023; 37:e14156. [PMID: 37728514 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 07/14/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023]
Abstract
Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area-based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area-based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social-ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo-Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear-specific, species-specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area-based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area-based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area-based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass-a key measure for coral reef functioning-compared with reference sites with no area-based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area-based management rather than counting areas because of their designation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie C Ban
- School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Emily S Darling
- Marine Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - Georgina G Gurney
- College of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Whitney Friedman
- National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA
| | - Stacy D Jupiter
- Melanesia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Suva, Fiji
| | - W Peni Lestari
- Indonesia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bogor, Indonesia
| | - Irfan Yulianto
- Indonesia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bogor, Indonesia
| | - Sinta Pardede
- Indonesia Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bogor, Indonesia
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Josheena Naggea
- Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Ravaka Ranaivoson
- Madagascar Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, Madagascar
| | - Vera N Agostini
- Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
| | - Gabby Ahmadia
- Oceans Conservation, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jessica Blythe
- Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Joachim Claudet
- National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, Paris, France
- Laboratoire d'Excellence CORAIL, Moorea, French Polynesia
| | | | - Graham Epstein
- School of Politics, Security and International Affairs and Sustainable Coastal System Cluster, National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA
- School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
| | - Estradivari
- Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT), Bremen, Germany
- Marine Ecology Department, Faculty of Biology and Chemistry (FB2), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | | | - David Gill
- Duke University Marine Laboratory Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina, USA
| | - Amber Himes-Cornell
- Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
| | - Harry Jonas
- Conservation Areas, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | - Tim McClanahan
- Global Marine Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
van Putten I, Longo C, Arton A, Watson M, Anderson CM, Himes-Cornell A, Obregón C, Robinson L, van Steveninck T. Correction: Shifting focus: The impacts of sustainable seafood certification. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0235602. [PMID: 32589684 PMCID: PMC7319318 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
|
3
|
van Putten I, Longo C, Arton A, Watson M, Anderson CM, Himes-Cornell A, Obregón C, Robinson L, van Steveninck T. Shifting focus: The impacts of sustainable seafood certification. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0233237. [PMID: 32433702 PMCID: PMC7239462 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2019] [Accepted: 04/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Alongside government driven management initiatives to achieve sustainable fisheries management, there remains a role for market-based mechanisms to improve fisheries outcomes. Market-based mechanisms are intended to create positive economic incentives that improve the status and management of fisheries. Research to understand consumer demand for certified fish is central but needs to be mirrored by supply side understanding including why fisheries decide to gain or retain certification and the impact of certification on them and other stakeholders involved. We apply semi-structured interviews in seven different Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified fisheries that operate in (or from) Western Australia with the aim of better understanding fisheries sector participation in certification schemes (the supply side) and the impacts and unintended benefits and costs of certification. We find that any positive economic impacts of certification were only realised in a limited number of MSC fisheries in Western Australia, which may be explained by the fact that only a small proportion of Western Australian state-managed fisheries are sold with the MSC label and ex-vessel or consumer market price premiums are therefore mostly not obtained. Positive impacts of certification in these Western Australian fisheries are more of a social and institutional nature, for example, greater social acceptability and increased efficiency in the governance process respectively. However, opinion is divided on whether the combined non-monetary and monetary benefits outweigh the costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ingrid van Putten
- CSIRO, Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
- Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Catherine Longo
- Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Snow Hill, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashleigh Arton
- Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Snow Hill, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matt Watson
- Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Marine Terrace, Fremantle, WA, Australia
| | - Christopher M. Anderson
- University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Seattle, WA, United States of America
| | | | - Clara Obregón
- College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Harry Butler Institute, Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia
| | - Lucy Robinson
- CSIRO, Oceans & Atmosphere, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Oceans Graduate School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Herr D, Blum J, Himes-Cornell A, Sutton-Grier A. An analysis of the potential positive and negative livelihood impacts of coastal carbon offset projects. J Environ Manage 2019; 235:463-479. [PMID: 30710856 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2018] [Revised: 01/12/2019] [Accepted: 01/20/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Carbon offset credits, and associated projects, are acclaimed to address economic, environmental and social issues simultaneously. However, critics argue that carbon offset mechanisms are ill equipped to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development. Social standards now exist to provide robust methods for assessing the social and biodiversity performance of carbon offset projects and credible impact assessments to help ensure positive outcomes for local people and biodiversity. Following such a standard, and simultaneously applying the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, we develop the Coastal Carbon Impacts Framework (CCIF) as a conceptual framework to document the potential positive and negative impacts of coastal carbon offset projects on local livelihoods. We apply the CCIF to four case studies and derive its main livelihood outcomes as well as describe potential long-term impacts. By using the capitals approach, the CCIF is able to dismantle the different impact areas into smaller entities. This allows a more detailed analysis on the positive and negative impacts a project has on communities - across the natural, financial, social, human, physical, cultural and political capital. While the case studies analysed show mainly positive outcomes, certainly no project is without risk of negatively impacting the community. The CCIF is however able to demonstrate potential social risk areas. If applied to additional coastal carbon offset projects, best practice documents, community engagement and the monitoring and evaluation process of such projects can be improved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dorothée Herr
- Global Marine and Polar Programme, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
| | | | - Amber Himes-Cornell
- UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Rome, Italy.
| | - Ariana Sutton-Grier
- Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA; The Maryland/DC Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ramos J, Lino PG, Himes-Cornell A, Santos MN. Local fishermen's perceptions of the usefulness of artificial reef ecosystem services in Portugal. PeerJ 2019; 6:e6206. [PMID: 30647998 PMCID: PMC6330946 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2018] [Accepted: 11/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Proponents of artificial reef (AR) deployment are often motivated by the usefulness of such structures. The usefulness of ARs is related to their capability of providing ecosystem services/additional functions. We present two distinct Portuguese AR case studies: (1) The Nazaré reef off the central coast of Portugal and (2) the Oura reef off the Algarve coast. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with local fishermen in the fishing towns of Nazaré and Quarteira pre-and post-AR deployment. The main focus of the interviews was to understand fishermen’s perception of AR usefulness (or lack thereof) in terms of nine ecosystem services/additional functions potentially provided by the ARs. We tested the null hypothesis that ARs do not provide additional ecosystem services/additional functions. When queried pre-AR deployment, fishermen indicated that ARs are most likely to provide three ecosystem services: “habitat and refuge,” “biodiversity preservation” and “food production.” Fishermen had similar perceptions post-deployment. For the Nazaré reef, fishermen tended to have a positive or neutral perception of ecosystem services/additional functions being provided by ARs. For the Oura reef, fishermen tended to have a mostly neutral perception of AR ecosystem services; however, there were also some positive and other negative perceptions. It was difficult for stakeholders to conceptualize some of the ecosystem services/additional functions provided by ARs prior to actively using them. As a result, some stakeholders changed their perception of the ecosystem services/additional functions after using the structures. These results indicate that stakeholders likely need to perceive ARs as useful in order for them to provide their support for AR installation. Likewise, their support is often needed to justify the use of public funds to install ARs, therefore making it imperative for resource managers to undertake similar interviews with fishermen when considering the use of ARs in other areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jorge Ramos
- IPMA-Portuguese Institute for the Ocean and Atmosphere, I.P., Lisbon, Portugal.,MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ESTM, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Peniche, Portugal.,CinTurs/CIEO-Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
| | - Pedro G Lino
- IPMA-Portuguese Institute for the Ocean and Atmosphere, I.P., Olhão, Portugal
| | - Amber Himes-Cornell
- Ifremer, CNRS, UMR 6308, AMURE, IUEM, University of Brest, Plouzané, France.,Fisheries Policy, Economics and Institutions Branch, Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Resources Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
| | - Miguel N Santos
- IPMA-Portuguese Institute for the Ocean and Atmosphere, I.P., Olhão, Portugal.,ICCAT-International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Outeiro L, Ojea E, Garcia Rodrigues J, Himes-Cornell A, Belgrano A, Liu Y, Cabecinha E, Pita C, Macho G, Villasante S. The role of non-natural capital in the co-production of marine ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 2017. [DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1415973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Outeiro
- Department of Applied Economics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Department of Fisheries Ecology, Instituto de Investigacións Mariñas (CSIC), Bouzas, Vigo, Spain
| | - Elena Ojea
- Future Oceans Lab, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain
- Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain
| | - João Garcia Rodrigues
- Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain
- Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | | | - Andrea Belgrano
- (SLU) Department of Aquatic Resources, Institute of Marine Research, Lysekil, Sweden
- Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment (SIME), Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Yajie Liu
- Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Edna Cabecinha
- Department of Biology and Environment, Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
| | - Cristina Pita
- Department of Environment and Planning & Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
| | - Gonzalo Macho
- Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain
- Departamento de Ecoloxía e Bioloxía Animal and Campus do Mar, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Sebastian Villasante
- Department of Applied Economics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain
- Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| |
Collapse
|