Open Collections

UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples : a review Guénette, Sylvie; Ratana Chuenpagdee; Jones, Russ 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Guenette_S_Marine_protected_areas.pdf [ 453.36kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0348127.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0348127-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0348127-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0348127-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0348127-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0348127-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0348127-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0348127-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0348127.ris

Full Text

ISSN 1198-6727Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities andIndigenous Peoples: a reviewFisheries Centre Research Reports2000 Volume 8 Number 1Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheriesCentreResearch Reports2000   Volume 8   Number 1Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communitiesand Indigenous Peoples: a ReviewbySylvie Guénette 1Ratana Chuenpagdee 1Russ Jones 2published by the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2204 Main MallVancouver, B.C., CanadaISSN 1198-6727 1 Fisheries Centre, University of British Colum bia2204 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC B6T 1Z42 P.O. Box 98, Skidegate, Haida Gwaii, BC VOT 1SOShould be cited as :Guénette, S., R. Chuenpagdee, and R. Jones. 2000. Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on LocalComm unities and Indigenous Peoples: a Review. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 8(1): 57pp.Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 5ABSTRACTThis report presents a literature review of marine protected areas (MPA s) throughout the world, with anemphasis on 16 case studies that involve community participation and indigenous peoples. Deta ils of threeMP As, namely the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia, San Salvador Marine Reserve in thePhilippines, and the Fagatele Bay Marine Sanctuary in American Samoa, are included to illustrate theimportance of community involvement in establishing MPAs. A table summarises each MPA reviewed in termsof its establishment, purpose, level of protection, planning and management process, enforcement, communityinvolvement, problems and results.The successful establishment of marine reserves or marine protected areas depends largely on public supportand community participation in as early stage as in the planning process. Yet, in practice, many M PAs areestablished using a traditional 'top-down' approach. Opposition from users groups, resource use conflicts andeconomic concerns are com mon and are the most important factors  which often lead  to MPAs not being fullyimplemented. Participation of indigenous people is further limited due to barriers in the planning process suchas cultural differences, and the time and format constraints. As a result, indigenous peoples' interests andconcerns are not well represented in MPA  design and planning.page 6; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1DIRECTOR’S FOREWORDFew will dispute that marine protected areas(MPA s) can bring many conservation benefits  interms of conserving biodiversity, but theiracceptance by the local communities wherein theyare emplaced depends on two critical issues. First,MPAs must be perceived as bringing tangiblebenefits to local fishers. Secondly, the trade-offsamong various local usage groups must be broadlyaccepted by the community. If these conditions arenot met, then compliance with MPA regulationswill be poor and the establishment of MPAs will becompromised. Moreover, where the localcommunity has an ancient and structuredperspective on local natural resources, such as w ithindigenous and aboriginal Peoples, these issues ofacceptance and consent become param ount.   Almost no ‘top down’ policy initiatives have beenable to, or even recognised the need for, a localcommunity perspective. Even the well-meaningconservation movement initiatives usually recordsuccess by influence at the top political level ofdecision making. The concept of complex,interconnected and diverse ecosystems is deeplyembedded in the culture of many Aboriginalpeoples, but, until very recently, virtually absentfrom contemporary resource m anagement.Traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) ofpast abundances casts a particular and definedcultural shadow on the aboriginal view of presentseascapes.  This report reviews the world literature on theseissues, and describes sixteen case studies thatinvolve indigenous and community participation.One of the principal conclusions is that communitysupport must be present from the planning stageonwards for MPAs to stand a chance of success.And finding a valid and acceptable way of involvingthe o f ten-disadvantaged comm unit ies  ofindigenous Peoples is not a trivial issue to beaddressed by the organisers of such initiatives.The report is the latest in a series of researchreports published by the UBC Fisheries Centre. Alist is shown on our web site at http:/fisheries.com.The series aims to focus on broad multidisciplinaryproblems in fisheries management, to provide asynoptic overview of the foundations and themes ofcurrent research, to report on work-in-progress,and to identify the next steps and ways thatresearch may be im proved. Edited reports  of the workshops or research inprogress are published in Fisheries CentreResearch Reports and are distributed to all projector workshop participants. Further copies areavailable on request for a modest cost-recoverycharge. Please contact the Fisheries Centre by mail,fax or email to  ‘office@ fisheries.com’.Tony J. PitcherProfessor of FisheriesDirector, UBC Fisheries CentreMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 7TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................ 5DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................... 6TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 7PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................. 8ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 8INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 9METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................ 9SYNOPSIS OF SELECTED RESERVES ................................................................................................................... 9Australia ...................................................................................................................................................... 9The Great Barrier Reef M arine Park ................................................................................................. 9South Africa .............................................................................................................................................. 11Philippines ............................................................................................................................................... 13Handumon Reserve .......................................................................................................................... 13San Salvador Island .......................................................................................................................... 14Sumilon Island Reserve ................................................................................................................... 15Kenya ......................................................................................................................................................... 16Mediterranean ........................................................................................................................................ 16France ............................................................................................................................................... 16Spain ................................................................................................................................................. 16New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................ 17Indo-Pacific .............................................................................................................................................. 18Seychelles .......................................................................................................................................... 18Carribean .................................................................................................................................................. 18St. Lucia ............................................................................................................................................ 18Belize ................................................................................................................................................. 18USA ............................................................................................................................................................. 19The Florida Keys N ational Marine Sanctuary ................................................................................ 19The Fagatele Bay (Tutuila, American Samoa) ................................................................................ 19La Parguera Marine Sanctuary, Puerto Rico ................................................................................. 20Canada ....................................................................................................................................................... 21Whytecliff Park ................................................................................................................................. 21SUMM ARY TABLE .............................................................................................................................................. 22REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 48APPENDIX 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 51page 8; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1PREFACEThis literature review was prepared at the U .B.C. Fisheries Centre under a contract with the British ColumbiaAboriginal Fisheries Comm ission (BCAFC) to provide a context for understanding the general policyimplications of MPAs for First Nations of British Columbia, Canada. It was made available for broaderpublication as it was recognized that it would also be of interest to a variety of interests including individualFirst Nations, m arine stakeholders, policy analysts and researchers who were interested in MPA planning. Theinformation was gathered in the winter of 1998 to help BCAFC to respond to a draft Marine Protected AreaStrategy for the B.C. Pacific Coast that had been developed by the federal and provincial governments. Theliterature review was complemented by a series of workshops to delve into specific issues that were held in fiveFirst Nation com munities from Decem ber 1998-January 1999. The analysis of the results of these workshopsare not included in the present report.The review illustrates the importance of developing planning processes for the B.C. Pacific Coast that aresupported by both The First Nations and local coastal communities. MPA s are management tools that canaddress broad overall conservation  concerns, but their success relies on political support and buy-in by localpeoples at all stages of planning and im plementation.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis work was funded by the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. Russ Jones developed the terms ofreference for the literature review on behalf of the BCAFC. The BCAFC received financial support for theproject from both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Oceans Directorate) and the B.C. Land UseCoordination Office. W e thank Dr D aniel Pauly for reviewing and providing helpful suggestions on an earlierversion of the manuscript.Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 9INTRODUCTIONThis literature review provides a general overviewof selected features of Marine Protected Areasthroughout the w orld with an emphasis oncommunity and indigenous peoples' involvementin planning, management and its relative success.Marine Protected  Areas (M PAs), refer tomanagement areas in which usage, often regulatedby zoning for different activities. MPAs includemarine reserves, which are defined as no-takeareas. This review was intended to be of assistanceto B.C. First Nations considering involvement inMPA planning in their traditional territories andwas generously approved for wider circulation bythe B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. Thereport provides a starting point for anyoneinterested in the status of MPAs in other parts ofthe worlds, the degree of involvement of local orindigenous peoples and examples of MPAssuccesses and  shortcomings. This report isespecially timely here in British Columbia, due tothe announcement of the establishment of fourMPA pilot projects and the release of a draftdiscussion paper on a Marine Protected Areastrategy. METHODSThis report is a synopsis of selected reserves bycountry, which illustrates unique aspects of eachreserve, particularly relating to planning andmanagement approaches. The primary literaturewas searched using the ASFA (Aquatic Science andFishery Abstract) database for the years 1979-1998.The list of articles extracted consisted mainly ofcase studies and reviews on marine reserves andtheir references were used to locate other relevantpapers. Although the final list of references maynot be exhaustive, it includes the most welldocumented cases. A synopsis of information on reserves in differentcountries is presented including country's policies,the type of organisation and the general problemsencountered. This information is summarised foreasy reference in a summ ary table. For eachcountry, the MPA s investigated are listedindividually with comments on their specialfeatures. Three examples were selected andexplored in more detail to highlight the differentlevels of comm unity involvement, i.e. the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) in Australia,San Salvador Marine Reserve in the Philippines,and the Fagatele Bay M arine Sanctuary inAmerican Samoa. Both GBRMP and Fagatele Bayinvolved indigenous groups, while San Salvadorinvolved a local comm unity that relied on fishing.SYNOPSIS OF SELECTED RESERVESAustraliaThe Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkThe Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, or GBRM P, isa good example of a combination of two integratedapproaches involving small highly protected (or'no-take') marine reserves placed within a larger,multi-use managem ent area. Its characteristicsinclude a large size and, managem ent for m ultipleobjectives involving zoning of uses and welldeveloped reef m onitoring and edu catio nprograms. The Park Authority was established todevelop a management plan based on the Park Act.The Park is also considered unique in its effort toinvolve the public  in the process, as publicparticipation is required according to  the Act. Infact, it was the concern from conservation groupsregarding the threat of mining for oil on the reefthat led to the establishment of the Park in the m id1970's. Since then, the Park has undergone severalphases of community involvement, starting from aconsultative process under the Great Barrier ReefConsultative Com mittee to a m ore participatoryapproach by establishing Marine ResourcesAdvisory  Com mittees. Yet, one importa ntcommunity that has not been properly included inthe process is the indigenous people who have longbeen living in the area. Their concerns have notbeen fully recognised and the process of involvingthem in the decision-making has not been verysuccessful. Nonetheless, the GBRM P offers a goodexam ple for management of large marine areasthat involves active participation of various usergroups whose interests may be in conflict.The GBRMP  comprises about 95 per cent of theGreat Barrier Reef Region, which is the w orld'slargest system of coral reefs, ranging over 2,000km. It was established in 1975 by the federalgovernment in response to public concern for themanagement and protection of the reef region, asit faced rapid economic growth, especially  intourism and aquaculture. The designation of theGreat Barrier Reef on the W orld Heritage List,under the UNESCO convention in 1981, hasheightened the obligations of the Australiangovernment to meet global concerns over theprotection of the world's natural and culturalheritage. To fulfil this role, the federal governmentestablished the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Actin 1975 and designated the GBRM P Authority to beresponsible for the management of the park, aswell as the preparation of zoning plans and generalpolicy. As the reef region supports a wide range ofpage 10; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Zone Objectives and UsesGeneral Use 'A' No restriction on use, except non-research operations for the recovery ofminerals and commercial spear fishing using SCUBA.Habitat Protection or EstuarineConservationSame as General Use 'A', with additional prohibition on trawling andnavigation of vessels greater than 500 tonnes.Conservation Park Primarily for recreation and tourism purposes; fishing is allowed subjectto gear restrictions.Buffer Primarily for non-extractive recreation; trolling is allowed.National Park Area designated for non-extractive uses and appreciation.Scientific Specific provision for scientific research.Preservation Management of an area undisturbed by human activities, except forscientific research which cannot be conducted elsewhere.activities such as commercial and recreationalfishing, shipping, and other coastal and marineresource related industries, the GBRMP ismanaged as a multiple use area to provide bothprotection and wise use. Zoning plans aredeveloped to specify what uses may occur withineach zone and to determine the conditions of eachuse. The current zones and their objectives anduses are summ arized as follows (Alder, 1995): In formulating these zoning plans, the GBRM P Actrequires that public consultation be undertaken inthe decision-making processes. This is done in twophases: the first occurs before the zoning plantakes place, to gauge the issues and concernsamong members of the public; and the secondphase follows the preparation of a draft zoningplan after considering public comm ents (Smyth,1995). The Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee,established in 1977 under the 1975 Act, was thefirst forum providing the opportunity forcommunity involvement in the management. Themem bers of the committee, though appointed fortheir expertise, represent a range of interest groupsincluding government and non-government,commercial and subsistence (Tarte and H egerl,1996). The Committee serves the role ofinformation transfe r by bringing togetherindividuals who are leaders in their sector todiscuss the m anagement issues. It was not until early 1990's, how ever, that publicinvolvement shifted from consultation toparticipation. This came in the formation of theRegional Marine Resources Advisory Committees(RMRAC) and the development of the 25 YearPlan. The eleven RMRACs are run by localrepresentatives and operate on a consensus basis,and are facilitated by the GBRMP A uthority andQueensland Department of Environm ent. The aimsof the committees are to formalise and providecommunication links between managers anduser/interest groups; to provide advice on marineresource issues, to assist in increasing awareness ofthe public; and to pursue and endorse the conceptsof viable and sustainable use (Tarte and H egerl,1996).Although the management of the GBRM P is anexam ple of a successful program that involvesextensive public participation, it has fallen short ofrecognition of the indigenous peoples' maritimeinterests, especially those associated withownership, use and management rights andresponsibilities for many clan estates which liewithin the marine park (Environment Australia,1997). Two major indigenous populations withcultural, historical and economic interests inenvironments and resources contained within theGBRMP are the Torres Strait Islanders and coastalAboriginal people (Smyth, 1995). Cultural interestsinclude the protection of sacred sites and theability to conduct ceremonies. Some of the maineconomic activities are  subsistence hunting andfishing, and commercial exploration of marineresources, such as lobster fishing, clam and oysterfarming. As for legal interests, the indigenouspeople have long demanded legal recognition ofcustomary ownership of land and sea and theirrights to resources (Smyth, 1995). The two Land Acts, nam ely the Aboriginal LandAct and the Torres Strait Islander A ct, were passedby the Queensland governm ent in 1991. While theydo not provide indigenous ownership of subtidalmarine areas, they identify the traditional ownersfor particular tracts of coastline and emphasisetheir important involvement in the management(Smyth, 1995). In addition, the custom aryownership or the Aboriginal native title to the landin Australia was formally recognised as valid underAustralian common law in 1992 under M aboMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 11decision. Although it currently deals with landownership, there is an anticipation that this nativetitle to land m ay lead to recognition of custom arymarine tenure and thus would raise the status ofthe indigenous people from user groups to ownergroups (Smyth, 1995).A recently formulated strategic plan for theGBRMP, developed over the last twenty years, hasnow recognised several Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islanders’ interests. These include anestablishment of the Aboriginal membership ofZonal Advisory Committees and the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Coastal Reference Group toprovide advice on indigenous issues relevant to thedevelopment and implementation of policies andprograms related to coastal land and marinemanagement. Despite the effort to involve theindigenous people in the planning and themanagement of the GBRM P, the style, the pace andthe format used in the process have discouragedthe indigenous people from full participation. Forexample, most of the indigenous people do nothave access to new spaper where the invitation toparticipate is placed and they are not in commandof the English language used in the process(Smyth, 1995). Consequently, it took 13 years afterthe establishment of the GBRMP before the firstAboriginal person was appointed to theConsultative Committee (Smyth, 1995).In addition to the amendments to the GBRM P Actto provide for indigenous representation on theAutho rity board and on the ConsultativeCom mittee (Environment Australia, 1997), otheropportunities include attendance at m arine parkworkshops and conferences, participation inresearch projects and in community liaisonmeet ings . Mo reo v e r , c o a s t a l A b o r ig i na lcom munities act as rangers and some are trainedand employed by the Park A uthority to assist inresearch and management of the projects (Smyth,1995). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandersare also included in the development of the 25-Year Strategic Plan that involves 60 stakeholdergroups. The strategic plan outlines five objectivesthat accomm odate the interests of the Aboriginaland Islanders, to be accomplished during the firstfive-year period. These are (Smyth, 1995):1. To ensure that the interests of Aborigines andTorres Strait Islanders are reflected in themanagement of the area.2. To inform the general public of the cultures andeconomies of Aborigines and Torres StraitIslanders.3. To develop a culturally appropriate informationprogram for Aborigines and  Torres StraitIslanders.4. To establish co-operative managemen tarrangem ents between Aborigines and TorresStrait Islanders and stakeholder agencies in thearea.5. To ensure that projects relating to social,cultural and econom ic interests of Aboriginesand Torres Strait Islanders are included inresearch and monitoring programs.Although the strategic plan does not directlyaddress the native title implications, it doescontain provisions which could greatly improveAboriginal control over customary marine estateswithin the park (Smyth, 1995).The experiences in  the management of the GBRMPhave direct implications for establishment of othermarine protected areas. The GBRMP, while beingregarded as a good model of a large-scale marineecosystem management, accomm odating multipleuses and providing opportunities for publicparticipation, does not sufficiently address theinterests of the indigenous people (Smyth, 1995).Other measures that should be taken intoconsideration, as suggested by Smyth (1995)include early and ongoing consultation andnegotiation process; recognition of indigenouspeoples’ interests in all enabling legislation;recognition of intrinsic cultural values; andfacilitation of ongoing liaison with indigenouscomm unities.South AfricaMost literature consulted did not consider the factthat managem ent regimes were largely establishedduring the apartheid era. Hence, indigenous rightswere unlikely to be considered and traditional useswere considered illegal. This may explain the highdegree of non-compliance and “poaching” observedby researchers.Attwood et al. (1997) reviewed the processes andthe state of marine reserves in South Africa. Thecountry has 112 m arine reserves and restrictedareas established by the government for verydiverse reasons and that were governed by variouslegislation and levels of government (Attwood etal., 1997). Proposals for marine reserves sites arereviewed by a committee that receives oral andwritten submissions. Such comm ittees have beenestablished for short periods (1976, 1984 and 1996)to develop guidelines and assess the current stateof affairs. The authors note the lack of clear goalsand the frequent accommodation of extractive useswhich makes enforcement inefficient, and mayturn no-take marine reserves into ordinary fishingzones. The pressure for access to the reservepage 12; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1resources is rather intense and in consequence,some reserves are not protecting anything ofsignificance. Lack of enforcement is caused by poordemarcation of boundaries, lack of publication ofinformation concerning the reserve and lack ofconsistencies in the regulations. For example,m a r i n e res e rv e s , w h i c h a r e  pr o v in c ia lresponsibilities, regulate fishing activities but haveno power concerning other sources of degradationsuch as pollution and ecologically unsound urbanor recreational development. In comparison,National Parks created under the National ParksAct have regulatory control over such activities, arewell staffed and have adequate enforcementresources. In both cases, how ever, monitoring andresearch programs are poor because of the lack oftrained staff within responsible institutions and/orbias towards terrestria l ecosystems. The province of KwaZulu-Natal has its own set ofregulations that enable better protection. They alsohave a well organised patrol and an informationprogram for the public. Monitoring and researchprograms are conducted w ith local users andachieved through advisory assistance from aresearch institute which is an excellent start.However, management and enforcement are stillinsufficient and hence “poaching” is said to be amajor problem (Attwood et al., 1997).Parks and reserves established in the last decadedid  not encourage extensive com m un ityinvolvement. How ever current negotiations aboutthe development of new parks show morewillingness to formally include the com munity inthe management process (Attwood et al., 1997).The process to develop the new NamaqualandNational Park includes a project aimed atfacilitating the involvement of interest groups. ThePlanning Forum (which includes representatives ofgovernment departm ents, farmer’s organisations,rural communities and other resources users) isguided by commonly accepted principles ofparticipatory decision-making, equitable access,conservation, and opportunities for education andresearch. Subsistence harvesting has been a major source ofconflict between the authorities (within anapartheid regime) and local comm unities. Thereserve is seen as curtailing access for traditionaland subsistence purposes which lead to massive“poaching”. In the KwaZulu-N atal province, therehas been some experimen tation with thedevelopment of controlled subsistence andtraditional fisheries. The key element is a jointcomm ittee between managers, scientists and thecommunity that starts with workshops and anassessment of irritants. Typically the problems andthe need for research and experimentation areidentified. The resulting research program is ajoint process and encompasses subjects such as theimpact of particular management tools, the level ofby-catch, and the quantity of organisms (fish andinvertebrates) that can be taken from the grounds.Attwood et al. (1997) listed guidelines for theseprojects to work: 1. Power has to be shared between the authorityand the community including decision-makingin resource allocation, regulation and planning.Community groups need training in that kind ofprocess to be enabled to participate.2. The community has to participate  in datagathering, and receive regular feed-back, forinstance, by visual demonstration of theimpacts of different harvest rates. Propertraining in recording harvests and in otherrelated tasks has been found to be necessary.3. Co-management must be based on jointproblem-solving. The problems may be arisingfrom conflicting interests within the com munityor between the community and the authority. The authors report three examples of conflictsdealing with traditional uses and growing demandfor marine resources. The Lake St. Lucia case dealswith “illegal” net fishing in an estuarine reserve.Traditional fishing conflicted with the reservepolicy and resulted in illegal fishing that was takingclose to the sustainable yield. Co-management anda controlled legal fishery were implemented butnot without problems and not entirely successfully.Some communities were still not satisfied by therestriction in the fishery and  the local leaders didnot support the reserve. Consequently, the legalfishing allowances that were part of the agreementwere increasingly used as a loophole to scale upillegal fishing activities. Even in communitieswhere poaching decreased, no sense of ownershipor self-policing was developed. Some emergingprinciples from that experience are:1. The need for well defined harvestingboundaries which may develop a sense ofownership among local communities that canexpect to benefit from the reserve2. Resources users should be restricted to thosewho live close to the resource areas. It isgenerally those living close to protected areasthat are disadvantaged by restricted access andit is these people who should receive somebenefit from resource utilization within theprotected areas (Attwood et al., 1997)3. Resource users must have a goodunderstanding of the concepts b ehin dMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 13management approaches such as sustainableyield.4. User groups should be small and should havestrong leadership. Violations should carry apenalty.5. Subsistence resource utilisation should beallowed (i.e. sanctioned) by the authorityalthough control of this activity can requireenormous management effort. Education,information, monitoring of yield and regularmeetings should be part of the process. PhilippinesCreating a marine reserve in a country like thePhilippines where reefs are still a major source ofprotein and subsistence for coastal com munities isnot a trivial matter. Since practically all reefs areexploited, the unilateral creation of a closed areaimplies displacing fishers and it would likely createresentment within the community (Castañeda andMiclat, 1981). Marine reserves were not created asa result of a national policy, but due to the basis oflocal initiatives. However, once created by the localcommunity, the reserve can be supported bynational legislation. The Marine Conservation andDevelopment program  (MCDP) developed by theSilliman University has been designed to prom otethe conservation of coral reefs in the Visayas regionthrough com munity-based m anagem ent (Savinaand White, 1986). This organisation has helped thecomm unities organise themselves by providingeducation and facilitators to provide support andguidance. All reserves have been created followingthe same general procedure (although SumilonIsland was created through a more rudimentaryprocess as will be seen below). The process startswith informal education activities and consultationof the comm unity on perceived problems. Most ofthe times, fishers complaints were about reefdegradation and diminished  yields. Then, localmanagement plans developed by interested localpeople, are submitted to the general public lead toa more general discussion. Management actionsand control measures to enforce these plans arethen defined (Christie et al., 1994). Other aspectsof the program  such as agroforestry measures andincome augmentation, support the central themeof reef restoration and com mun ity-basedmanagement (White, 1988). In 1990 there were 18 marine reserves in thePhilippines (Alcala and Russ, 1990). The study ofthe six marine reserves documented hereil lustrates the impo rtance  of co m m un ityinvolvement in the planning and management ofthe reserve. There is evidence that seriousdegradation of the Philippines coral reefs hasoccurred and that the majority may be overfished(Alcala and Russ, 1990). In the Philippines, 10-15%of the yield in fish is taken from the coral reefs andover 50% of this yield is taken by artisanal fishers(Alcala and Russ, 1990) using traditional methodssuch as hook and line and spear (Savina andWhite, 1986). In the desperate search for fish,dynam ite and other destructive fishing gears havebeen used throughout the Philippines (Alcala andGomez, 1987; Gom ez et al., 1987; Samoilys, 1988;Russ and Alcala, 1989). Fishers suffered from thedecrease in catch caused by the decline in fishabundance due to overfishing and the destructionof corals (White, 1988; Christie et al., 1994). Thereserves were aiming at the maintenance of theenvironment with imm ediate and long-termbenefits to the people who use the immediateecosystem. The reserve of Apo, Pamilacan,Balicasag, Handumon and San Salvador all have asanctuary excluding fishing, surrounded by abuffer zone where ecologically sound fishing ispermitted. Sum ilon Island is fished by fishersresiding on Cebu Island, 5 km away. In all othercases, resident communities are totally dependenton the exploitation of marine resources. OnPamilacan and Apo Island fishers feel vulnerable toexploitation by outsiders (Savina and White, 1986).Communities lack alternative livelihood optionsand do not participate in any tourism activities(Savina and White, 1986; Christie et al., 1994). Handumon ReserveThe Handum on reserve has been created becauseof the need to protect sea horses that are animportant source of livelihood in the community.Like other Philippines comm unities presentedhere, most households live on a combination offishing, agriculture, firewood gathering and otherrelated activities. The reef was overexploited and asa consequence fishers had difficulty to catchenough fish to feed their  families. Catches of seahorses, the source of cash for the fishers, haddeclined by 60-70%  between 1985-1994 (Vincentand Pajaro, 1997). The 25 seahorse fishersidentified a need for management and contributedtime for meetings, patrols, gathering data andother activities relating to conservation. Thereserve was placed in an area accessible for studyand that was so degraded that it was not deprivingfishers of vital yield. Fishers gathered informationon biology and behaviour in collaboration withbiologists as well as recording fishing effort andcatch for each day. They also donated sm allseahorses from their own catch to restock thereserve. The information is shared on a regularbasis in feedback and planning sessions with thecommunity and problems are solved by fishers andthe community in original ways. The sea horsefishery has been improved by a combination ofpage 14; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1buyers rules to define acceptable sea horses,changes in fishing techniques and the start of searanching. The project also includes education,training, mangrove tree replanting and incentivessuch as high school scholarships. Alternativesources of income, such as an artisanal craft“industry”, have been developed (Vincent, 1998). Although the fishers themselves feel that there isprogress, the success can be measured by the factthat neighbouring communities are evaluatingtheir resources and asking for help to set up theirown marine reserves (Vincent, 1998). On the otherhand, replenished resources around the reserveattract fishers from other communities to the pointwhere the establishment of exclusive zonesaccessible only to the local fishers are beingconsidered (Vincent, 1998).San Salvador IslandThe process used to implement the six Philippinesmarine reserves presented earlier relied heavily onstrong comm unity-involvement. The principlesand schedule of implementation are detailed here,using the San Salvador Island as a case study.Differences with the experience from SumilonIsland Reserve, a  less successfu l case, arehighlighted. San Salvador Island has an area of 380 ha. Theisland became inhabited three generations ago andthus no traditional managem ent system existed(Christie et al., 1994). In 1989, 1500 people (255families) lived on the island among which 60%derived their income from  fishing and 36% fromfarming. The fishery is a mosaic of subsistence andcommercial fishers who operates on a domesticand international scale. However, 75% of fishersrely on traditional methods and sell their catch atthe local market. Highly priced fish (tunas,groupers) are bought by middleman and aquariumfish and transported to the capital to be exported.Typically, traditional fishers earn 50% less thanaquarium fish collectors. The rapid increase in thenumber of residents and access to external marketshas led to overfishing and habitat destruction andthe use of more desperate measures to  get fish inorder to survive (Christie et al., 1994). In 1988, fishers complained about the scarcity offish and the destruction of the reefs (Christie et al.,1994). Preliminary studies on the socio-economicstatus of the villages revealed that local fisherswere concerned about declining resources but feltthat resource managem ent w as beyond theircontrol (Christie et al., 1994). They wereoverwhelmed by the market dem ands along withdestructive fishing methods being supported bysome leaders preoccupied by their own gains. Inaddition, the Philippines government does nothave the resources to effectively manage the fishery(Christie et al., 1994).The comm unity-based approach developed by theMarine Conservation and Development Program(MDCP) of S illiman University aimed atencouraging communities to address the problemof resource mismanagement. The aim of thecomm unity-based managem ent plans are toempow er the community to participate andbecome self-reliant, and to train the communitymem bers to develop appropriate attitudes,knowledge and skills for sustainable resourcemanagement (Christie et al.,  1994).  Thecollaboration of external organizations (the USDept. of Agriculture and the Haribon FoundationAgency) and municipal representatives was foundto be instrumental when the project was initiatedand for gathering of necessary resources. Typically,a project begins with the assessment of thecommunity's socio-economic status, their needsand perceptions, and their level of understandingof ecological concepts (McManus, 1996). Inaddition, baseline studies of the environm ent wereconducted which included the informal biologicalknowledge of the residents. The whole process tookone year in San Salvador. The comm unityorganiser acted as a facilitator for the comm unitydevelopment meetings and developed educationactivities in informal small groups. Informal andactive education activities were found to be m oree f fi c ie n t a n d  lo n g - l a s t i n g  t h a n  f o r m a lpresentations. Already at this stage, comm unityinvolvement and direct actions were encouraged(Gilman, 1997). Comm unity organisers also formeda community group called the Marine ManagementCommittee (MCPSS), which coordinated theprocess for creating the reserve. A  field trip to ApoIsland Reserve inspired the creation of anEnvironment Management Committee (LTK) whoacted as another education and motivation group,and served as a grass-root com mittee that passedon the peoples resolutions to the MPCP SS. Thestaff also served as links with the national level(McManus, 1996). Surveys show  that theeducation/involvement program increased the“ e c o lo g i c a l a n d  e n v ir o n m e n t  co n c e p t sunderstanding score” from 68 to 86% w ithin 14months (Christie et al., 1994). The community developed and implemented amanagement plan based on the results of thebiological and social surveys. They also set theirown rules, tailored to their needs. For instance, thecommunity drafted a resolution, later adopted bythe municipality, for the establishment of a 125 ha,Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 15no-take reserve and banned ecologically unsoundfishing around the island. The collection ofaquarium fish has also been banned because of itshistorical use of poison. (McManus, 1996).Although fish collectors were first antagonised,training sessions in using alternative gearssmoothed the transition. Enforcement was done byboth the residents and the municipal governance,and a system of incremental sanctions established.The municipality made a boat available forpatrolling purposes. Violations diminished rapidly.Other community activities such as the building ofa pub lic meeting hall and an erosion controlprogram by replanting trees were organised.Mariculture of giant clams has been startedalthough it has encountered low survival rates dueto less than optimal marine conditions (Christie etal., 1994). As community leadership skillsincreased, they relied less on the communityorganisers and created, for instance, an alternativeincome committee who is soliciting projects plansfrom residents of the islands. To this effect smallloans were granted to families to develop theirproject. As all these activities are very demandingon the volunteers, various w orkshops w ere held tohelp define the appropriate role of each committeemember, and develop leadership and planningskills. They aimed at ensuring the community'sability to continue the project when the externalaid decreases. Although the restoration process is slower than  inApo Island, probably due to decades of fishing withdynam ite and poison (Christie et al., 1994), theproject is considered successful. Followingimplementation of the reserve, coral coverageimproved considerably. Fishers have notedincreases in juveniles of species previously targetedby blast fishers, and surveys in dicate a 43%increase in fish density.From the social perspective, the project was alsovery positive. The comm unity w ent from  poorlyorganised (from their own description) to dynamic,organised  and confident in their own institutions.Small-scale projects allowed people to diversifytheir income. All these changes imply a profoundmodification of attitude and training in leadershipand conflict-resolution helped enormously. Ofcourse, tensions between user groups areinevitable, especially when lucrative activities suchas the collection of aquarium fish, are bannedcompletely. Training workshops on other types ofgears helped to decrease the tension and toreintegrate the collectors. Also, political rivalry andpolitical inertia within municipal council createdconflicts and made the process difficult at times. Itwas also found that the need for externalcommunity organisers extended beyond the twoyears initially planned for the process.Sumilon Island ReserveRuss and Alcala (1994) provide a detailed accountof the tumultuous history of the Sum ilon IslandReserve. After an extensive campaign to convincefishers of the potential benefits of a reserve, themunicipality and the university, both located ondifferent Islands, designated and declared a no-take reserve. When problems in complianceoccurred in 1983, the university made appeals tothe national government. The reserve was thendeclared the first National Fish Sanctuary andthus, a national body controlled the reserve whichled to resentment in the community. With thechange in local government to people  lessfavourable to the reserve, and as a result of thereserve being perceived as imposed from outside,extreme fishing pressure and the use of destructivefishing practices begun in 1984. Episodes of acutefishing occurred twice: 1984-1987 and 1992-1993.The fishing stopped briefly in 1985 due to an adhoc decision at the municipality  level, inanticipation of the possibility of building a touristresort on the island. All forms of fishing werebanned for the whole island from 1988 to 1992 atwhich time the resort was completed and fishingresumed. This case brings out the importance ofcommunity leadership. When fishers are aminority of the population and not adequatelyrepresented or when the representatives (mayor orother) have interests that go against the fishery andconservation objectives, reserves or otherconstraints are easily overturned (Daniel Pauly,pers. comm). In contrast, the other reserves, rootedmore deeply in the community, are consideredsuccessful and are deeply supported by thepopulation.Sumilon Island seems to be a very productive siteand was in fact chosen for its richness andproductivity (Russ, 1985). Therefore comparisonswith other reserves and reefs in the same area werenot successful because of intrinsic differences inproductivity that confounded the effect of fishing(Russ, 1985). For example, the Apo reserve, whichhas been successfully protected for 11  years, stillshows lower abundance and diversity of largepredators than  the Sum ilon reserve (Russ andAlcala, 1996b). In 1974, the Sumilon Island Reserve also startedwith an education program developed by SillimanUniversity. After the cam paign, 80% of surveyedfishers approved of the reserve project, which wasconsidered successful (Cabanban and White, 1981).page 16; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1The main difference between Sumilon and the fiveother reserves is that the control of the reserve didnot stay with the local community but was insteadconcentrated in the hands of the University staff(Gilman, 1997). In other comm unities, like SanSalvador, people are credited with the reservessuccess and take responsibility for solvingproblems. As a result, in Sum ilon, the reservebegan to be seen as imposed and external and waseasily overturned when political leaders changed.When the management process is initiated by athird party such as the Marine Conservation andDevelopment Program of Silliman University , it isessential to form a user group committee to takecharge of the m anagem ent (Gilman, 1997).The tumultuous history of the Sumilon reserveprovides interesting insights by repeated closuresand openings to fishing. One or two years ofintense unregulated fishing within the reserve w eresufficient to eliminate by one-half the gain indensity and biomass accumulated during theprevious nine years of closure (Alcala and Russ,1990; Russ and Alcala, 1996b). Catch per uniteffort (CPU E) also declined by half after the breakdown of the closure (Alcala and Russ, 1990). Therebuilding of the populations of large predatorsoccurred slowly over the years. For example, it took3-5 years to register an increase in  biom ass w ithinthe reserve (Russ and Alcala, 1996b). The Sumilonexperience shows that reserves can maintain theyield in the nearby fished area  through adultmigration (Alcala and Russ, 1990). The presence ofseveral stations located at increasing distancesfrom the Apo reserve, provided evidence ofspillover despite intense fishing occurring outsidethe reserve (Russ and Alcala, 1996a). KenyaKenya's economy is largely dependent on tourismand export of fish. The fishery is largelyunm anaged  outside parks  and reserves(McClanahan and Obura, 1995). Parks exclude alltype of fishing, while reserves allow a traditionalfishery. In 1986, annual landings were 6,000tonnes including shellfish of which 50% are fromreef-associated organisms. Most of the catch islanded by 12,000 artisanal fishers whose livelihoodis strongly dependent on the reefs (Samoilys,1988). National Parks, which are  closed to thefishery, were created between 1968 and 1990 andare very important to the tourism industry withabout 124,000 visitors a year in 1985. The creationof the M arine Parks reduced considerably the areaof the fishing grounds and resulted in som e fishersleaving the fishery (McClanahan and Obura, 1995).Catches per fisher are so low that fishing is rarelyadequate to sustain a family, which is attributed tothe overexploitation of the reefs (McClanahan andObura, 1995). Sam oylis (1988) did not find any difference in fishabundance between unprotected and protectedareas because some protected areas have beenand/or were still subject to destructive fishing orsiltation from terrestrial habitats. However,experiments (McClanahan and Shafir, 1990;McClanahan, 1994) in Malindi and WatamuNational Parks showed how fishing changed theinteraction between species and modifies theh a b i ta t  a n d  t h e  c o m m u n i t y  s t r u c tu r e(McClanahan, 1994; M cClanahan and Shafir,1990). By targeting large predators such as those ofsea urchin, fishing leads to an increase in seaurchin population, followed by overgrazing anderosion of coral, and exclusion of less competitivefinfish. Large predators were four times denser andsea urchins 100 times less numerous in protectedreefs (McClanahan and Shafir, 1990; McClanahan,1994). Species diversity were also  higher inprotected areas. MediterraneanFranceIn France Regional Parks are initiated by local andregional communities and managed through aspecial organisation form ed by local government,that includes all villages in the territory. Becausethe Corsica Regional Natural Park (Parc RégionalNaturel de Corse) includes a long coastline, andsince the marine environment is a nationalresponsibility, the national government alsoparticipates in the managem ent process(Leenhardt, 1990). Regional Parks objectives are toprotect nature and sites of interest and rejuvenatethe rural economy with livestock farming andtourism (Leenhardt, 1990). The Scandola andLavezzi reserves, both related to the Regional Park,were created because of local initiatives and theirgoals are mainly nature conservation and research.Anthropogenic disturbances such as waste waterdisposal by adjacent developments, overgrazing bylive stock, and over-utilisation by visitors createproblems for the reserves that have to be dealt withwithin a broader management plan. SpainIn Spain, regional administrations are in charge ofdeclaring marine reserves within their territories.In cases of mixed jurisdictions however, thenational government is in charge (Suárez de Viveroand Frieyro, 1994). There are nine marine reservesand parks that have been declared including sixalong the Mediterranean and three along theAtlantic coast. By 1994, more than 32840 ha hadMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 17been declared as marine protected areas (MPA),which encompasses 2.3% of Spain’s interiorwaters, and more MPAs are planned. MPAs differin their level of protection and purposes (Suárez deVivero and Frieyro, 1994). MPAs are part of aglobal strategy of regeneration and marineenvironmental protection with links to theadministration of fishing and are covered in theFishing Adm inistration's plan (Suárez de Viveroand Frieyro, 1994). Areas protected by MP As wereproductive and/or diversified areas and perceivedas being over-exploited (Ramos-Espla and  McNeill,1994). The Island of Tabarca reserve, declared in1986, is the oldest marine reserve in Spain.Management successes are attributed to the cleardefinition of the reserve goals at their creation,close surveillance and extensive knowledge of thearea (i.e. survey before the creation of the park)(Garcia-Rubies and Zabala, 1990). New ZealandNew Zealand had 13 marine reserves in 1995, ten ofwhich were created in the 1990's (Department ofConservation, 1995). The goal of the presentDepartment of Conservation is to create a networkof marine reserves to conserve the variety ofhabitats and marine life found on the coast and inthe sea. Several ministries, local authorities andthe New Zealand Conservation Authority (anational body of appointed members standingalongside the Department of Conservation) have aconcurrent role in the creation and administrationof marine reserves, along with the Department ofConservation. The first proposal for the Marine Reserve of New-Zealand (Leigh M arine Reserve) came from theUniversity of Auckland and w as turned down bythe Government. It was established after a 10 yeareffort involving an information campaign andmobilisation of volunteers. The law, createdespecially for this occasion, required that a non-governmental organisation propose the marinereserve (this rule was abolished in 1987) (Cocklinet al., 1998). The community was not involved inthe planning of the Leigh Reserve. As aconsequence, there was resistance to anyrestrictions on access and considerable incentive topressure politicians and influence the process(Ballantine, 1991). However, the reserve is nowconsidered to be a success and is well accepted bythe general public  and the fishers who police it(Ballantine, 1991; Cocklin et al., 1998). The reservehas become a major tourist attraction to the pointwhere the new management plan recommendedthat the access be limited (Cocklin et al., 1998). The second marine reserve, the Poor KnightsReserve, was planned without antagonising toomany of the existing users. Consultations amongstuser groups tended to stress harmful activities.Complex rules made it difficult to set a strictconservation goal and left the reserve open topressures for increased access (Ballantine, 1991).On several other occasions, opposition by variousgroups, including commercial fishers, resulted inmodification to the proposed reserve size or led toproposal rejection (Cocklin et al., 1998). Loss ofrights  to fish or practice other activities generatesa lot of unrest (Cocklin et al.,  1998). In 1987, theDepartment of Conservation was created whichhelped modify attitudes. The number of reservesincreased form 2 to 13, and more are proposed.The new process includes public consultation andinvolvement of public interest groups early in theprocess. Going back to the Poor Knights Reserve, a newround of consultation was started in December1995 seeking submissions from all interestedgroups. Interestingly, the interests of the nativecommunity became more important in the debatethis time for two m ajor reasons. First, the Maorilived on the Poor Knights Islands before theinvasion and slaughters in the early 1800's. TheIslands remained uninhabited since. The Maoriclaim  the Islands as part of traditional territoryand made a submission strongly in favour ofprohibiting all fishing within the reserve. Second,the Treaty of Waitangi (1992) has provisions forthe creation of “protected areas” dedicated at theprotection of traditionally important areas for localfisheries or other native uses (Sullivan, 1997). TheDepartment of Conservation has the legalresponsibility to interpret and administer theConservation Act (1987) so as to give effect to theTreaty even though it is not mentioned in theMarine Reserve Act (created in 1971). Therefore,consultation with the local tribes early in theprocess is considered important (Department ofConservation, 1995). Eventually in 1997, all fishingwas prohibited in the reserve (Cocklin et al., 1998).Cocklin (1998) recounts the process for thecreation of the Hahei reserve in 1993 and describesthe public opinion. In this case, the peninsulacommunities were consulted about the properlocation of the a reserve. Although mostrespondents supported the reserve, long-timeresidents, retired people and comm ercial fisherswere concerned about losing their fishing groundsand more generally about the impact of increasedtourism in the region. Boundaries were discussedand finally agreed upon. The local tribe of Maoristrongly supported the reserve since its initiallyproposed boundaries would have protected sacredpage 18; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1sites as well as their fishing resources. In the finaldecision however, Maori interests were overlookedto maintain recreational fishing access to fishinggrounds. Recently, on the other hand, the Maori have gainedmore control over commercial fisheries. Despitethe Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 by the Queenof England and the Maori tribes, Maori fishingrights were never respected (Sullivan, 1997). Theestablishment of the Quota Management System(QMS) in 1986 was done without any provisionsfor Maori rights. The Maori successfully arguedwith success that the New Zealand Governmentwas not in a position to give property rights on aresource that belonged to them. This led to aprocess of negotiation exploring how M aori rightscould be given effect. In 1989, the Maori FishingRights Act was passed and enabled Maori to obtain10%, and in 1989, 20% of the quotas and exclusivefishing rights in 12-mile territorial limit (SirO'Reagan, 1997). The M aori Fisheries Commissionactively increased its power in the commercialfishing industry by acquiring a larger proportion ofprocessing and exporting businesses (SirO'Reagan, 1997). Maori criticism of the presentquota management scheme is that it does notaccount for relationships between species,disturbing the productive balance of thoseresources (Sir O'Reagan, 1997).Indo-PacificSeychellesThe Seychelles relies almost exclusively on fishexports and tourism for foreign revenues. Marineprotected areas are seen as a key approach toassuring the  success fu l  co-existence ofconservation and exploitation activities. Jenningset al. (1996) note that although the Seychelles haveseveral marine reserves, quantitative data aboutthe effectiveness of marine reserves is very rare.They compared four marine reserves with differentlevel of enforcem ent and fishing effort. From theirstudy it seems that, on coral reefs, even smallreserves could be efficient at protecting fishtargeted by the fishery. How ever even a modestamount of fishing (e.g. in Sainte Anne reserve)would be sufficient to eliminate the reservebenefits. CarribeanSt. LuciaThe Maria Islands Reserve was compared with twoother comm unities: Laborie, where the fishing forurchins was traditionally restricted to one m onth ayear (not for conservation purposes), and Aupicon,where no restriction was imposed (Smith andBerkes, 1991). Markets for urchins outside theislands led to overexploitation. The village ofLaborie, with a population of 800, controls andenforces the informal closure for most of the year.Because collecting urchins is labour intensive, itwas traditionally done before the start of school sochildren could help. After 1987, the density ofurchins increased in the reserve and aroundLaborie where the village controlled harvesting,but remained  low at Aupicon. The authorsmentioned that even fishers who don’t like thereserve enforce it to prevent others from  using it.In Laborie, individual harvesters can afford toshow restraint because the whole village does thesame and because the resource is plentiful whenfishing reopens.The Soufrière Marine Management Area has beencreated recently and seems promising for futurecommunity management. The management area iszoned for different purposes and includes reservesthat are closed to fishing. Although the goal was todevelop community-based management, coastalfishers were not part of the decision-makingprocess and were deprived of their fishing grounds(secure shallow waters w ith the right type ofhabitat). Hence, compliance is rather low, withfishers feeling they have no choice but to fish  ifthey are to feed their family. Zoning may have tochange, and already has in two reserves, toaccom modate the needs of artisanal fishers. BelizeIn Belize, marine reserves have been establishedthrough a grassroots approach. The need formarine reserve and protection came from thegeneral population as they became aware of theimpacts of unsustainable exploitation of the reef.The first attempts were resisted because thetourism industry was perceived as the solebeneficiary of any proposed protection activity. Adecade later the need for protection was perceivedas vital for the whole community and planningmeetings took place. The originality of the processis that all interest groups were truly consulted andtheir needs influenced the management plan. Inthis case, convenient fishing grounds w ere kept forcoastal fishers using non-destructive methods.Only when artisanal fishers were satisfied, did theFishery Ministry officially designate the reserve(Vincent Gillett, Fisheries Centre, UBC, pers.com m.). Belize now has several marine reservesestablished usin g the same process. Thegovernment has created management structures tohelp establish and manage the reserves and fundsare available for special projects (Vincent Gillett,pers. comm.). The reserves have played anMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 19important role in protecting and restoring thereefs. It  seems to be generating enthusiasm withinthe population. However, other sources ofenvironmental degradation such as coastaldevelopm ent, pollution and uncontrolled tourismactivities continue to be ecological threats to thereefs (Carter et al., 1994). USAThe USA has a national program for theestablishment and managem ent o f marinereserves. The US Marine Protection, Research andSanctuaries Act was passed in 1972. Title III of thisAct authorised federal designation of marinesanctuaries for the purposes of preserving orrestoring unique marine environments for theirconservation, recreational, ecological or aestheticvalues (Harvey, 1983). The National  Oceanic andAtm ospheric Administration (NOAA) is in chargeof reviewing and selecting appropriate sites, as wellas formulating a management system. The steps inthis process generally include:1. Identify representative sites for potentialmarine sanctuaries, a process involvingscientists;2. Select candidate sites and meet with stateresource managers to assess interest level;3. Evaluate candidate sites through a process ofpublic and legislative review;4. Prepare of a Draft Environmental ImpactStatement and a proposed management plan;5. Hold public hearings and regional meetings forcomm ents;6. Prepare a Final Environmental ImpactStatement and distribute for comments; and7. Get approval from the US President fordesignation of the area, which, if there areobjections, may be appealed to the USCongress and the governor of the state orterritory (Fiske, 1992).Several marine sanctuaries have been establishedsince the mid-1970s. This synopsis focuses on thelargest and the m ost integrated sanctuary in  theEast Coast USA, the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary, which includes two previouslydesignated sanctuaries, i.e. the Key Largo NationalMarine Sanctuary and the Looe Key NationalMarine Sanctuary. As well, the Fagatele Bay(Tutuila, Am erican Samoa) is presented as anexam ple of a process that incorporates socio-cultural factors, and that contributed to thesuccessful in the establishment of the marinesanctuary. Other examples presented in the table,but not in this summary, are the Tortugas ShrimpSanctuary and the Everglades National Park, alobster nursery sanctuary.The Florida Keys National Marine SanctuaryThe Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (orFKNM S) encompasses North America's mostextensive living coral reef, as well as naturalcomm unities of seagrass meadows and coastalmangroves. Hum an use in the Florida Keys area isvery inten sive,  particularly  tourism andrecreational activities, with resulting pressures onmarine resources in the area. In 1990, FKNMS wasestablished and the National Oceanic andAtm ospheric Administration (NOAA) was chargedwith formulating an integrated management planby bringing together representatives of user groupsand the public with federal and state agencyofficials (Barley, 1993).NOAA uses a variety of tools to develop the planand to gain support of the public. For exam ple, a'core group' involving different agencies is createdto brainstorm about problems and solutions, withhelp from the public and advisory council. Severalmeetings are held with various users includingscientists, divers, commercial fishers and treasuresalvagers (Barley, 1993). The federal-statepartnership in  the m anagem ent of Florida Keys isanother special feature characterising the FKNMSprocess. The final management plan for FKNMSincludes ten action plans consisting of zoning,water quality, submerged cultural resources,regulation of fishing, channel marking, mooringbuoys, permitting, enforcement, research andeducation (Suman, 1997).The Fagatele Bay (Tutuila, AmericanSamoa)The process of establishing the Fagatele BayMarine Sanctuary in American Samoa is a successstory showing the importance of socio-culturalconsiderations in the process of planning anddesignating the sanctuary. It serves as an exampleof management of a small marine area with arelatively complete understanding of the resourcesand a full recognition of their cultural importanceto the local people. The Samoan peopleparticipated in the entire planning process. Keyfactors for successful designation of the sanctuarywere  the acknowledgement of the culturalimportance of traditional lifestyles and existentvillage regulations as. Fagatele Bay is also anexam ple of co-operative management between theAmerican Samoan Government and the NationalOceanic and Atm ospheric Administration (USA).The success of Fagatele Bay M arine Sanctuarycontrasts with the failure to establish a marineprotected area in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Thecomparison further emphasises the importance ofconsidering socio-cultural aspects in the planningprocess.page 20; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Fagatele Bay is a small bay with an area of about160 acres on the southwest coast of Tutuila, thelargest and most populated island in AmericanSamoa (Thomas, 1988). The island is surroundedby fringes of coral reefs that provide subsistencefishing grounds and wave protection (Templet,1986). With its pristine condition, Fagatele Bayprovides habitat for fish and coral species as w ellas hum pback whales, sperm whales, hawksbill andgreen turtles. Activities in the area includesubsistence fishing, shellfish gathering from thereefs and commercial fishing (Fiske, 1992). Theproposal for designation of Fagatele Bay as aNational Marine Sanctuary by American SamoanGovern ment in 1982 came as a result of aninfestation of the coral-eating Crown-of-Thornsstarfish (Acanthaster planci) that destroyed morethan half of the coral reefs around the island(Thomas, 1988). Apart from ecological objectivesto provide protection to the bay's coral reefecosystem and to promote research on coralrecovery, the bay was intended to contribute to thepreservation of the traditional culture of Samoanpeople. The designation of the bay as a marinesanctuary in 1986 prohibits activities such asspear-fishing, trawling, seining, damaging ofnatural and cultural resources and the taking of seaturtles. Subsistence fishing and traditionalgleaning of shellfish are allow ed. Although American Samoa is an unincorporatedterritory of the United States, it has an enduringcultural heritage, a traditional com munal lifestyleand com munal ow nership of land and marineareas, all revolving around extended family. Matai,the village chief, is responsible for managing thecommunal economy, distributing and controllingland uses, and has authority over access andactivities affecting natural resources in the island(Templet, 1986; Fiske, 1992). As matai is generallywell respected in the area, his opinion has a strongweight in the decision-making for the island.The importance of village life, the role oftraditional culture and the existence of villageregulations were highly recognised during theplanning process for the Fagatele Bay MarineSanctuary. In American Samoa, societal decisionsare made based on consensus, starting at thevillage level where people discuss their problemswith their matai. The consensus is then related bythe matai to the village council, to obtain againanother consensus decision. This consensusbuilding process, although time consuming, hasproven to be essential for the planning of thesanctuary. Through this process, Sam oan peoplewere encouraged to participate and their concernsover the lifestyle and continuation of traditionaluses of resources were considered. In  1984, apublic hearing on the draft plan was held with aconsiderably large turnout and compromise wasmade to redesign the sanctuary to include acommercial fishing zone (Fiske, 1992). NOAAofficials met first with the Governor of theAm erican Samoa to gain approval, then with thematai to discuss the proposed plan. NOAA agreedto adjust the proposed boundaries to coincide withthe custom ary marine tenure area that belonged tothe village (as recognised by their property rightsystem ). Samoan territorial agencies helpeddevelop the D raft Environmental ImpactStatement and the management plan, that wasdesigned to address the concerns of Sam oan elders(Fiske, 1992). The plan was generally supported bythe public and was revised as  a compromise withcommercial fishing interests. The management plan for the Fagatele Bay MarineSanctuary included an interpretive centre, aneducational program  and a community advisoryboard (Fiske, 1992). The interpretive centre,displaying practices and traditions of the Samoanpeople, was in response to the concerns of theelders who wanted to prevent cultural loss. Thesanctuary designation was seen as an opportunityto enhance public education by providing researchfindings to the general public and promotingenvironmental awareness. As well, the educationprogram included the history of traditional rightsin Sam oa and outline their roles in conservationefforts (Thomas, 1988). Because of the concernabout the lack of qualified Samoans to manage thesanctuary, the plan was to provide m echanism toassist in the training of local personnel in resourcemanagem ent techniques.La Parguera Marine Sanctuary, Puerto RicoThe proposed La Parguera M arine Sanctuary inPuerto Rico provides an interesting com parison toFagatele Bay. The designation process of LaParguera was initiated in 1979 and ended infrustration and failure for natural resourcemanagers, officials, and citizen supporters in 1984(Fiske, 1992). The proposed  sanctuary was to coveran area of about 230 square kilometres, with theobjectives of providing environmental protection,as well as recreational opportunities. Althoughfishing was to be allowed in the sanctuary, theproposed plan was opposed by artisanal fishersand other interest groups, such as local residents,small businesses and vacation-home owners.Fishers felt that the sanctuary would prevent themfrom fishing and from maintaining their way oflife, while local residents and business wereconcerned with the loss of revenues due to theclosing of the area for recreational fishing andMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 21tourism activities. The vacation-home ownersopposed the sanctuary since most of their homesare illegally built without ownership titles and thusmay have becom e public property after thedesignation of the sanctuary (Fiske, 1992).One important cultural attribute of life in PuertoRico that was not considered during the planningprocess was the highly politicised nature of socialactivity on the island (Fiske, 1992). Fishers havehistorically been active in opposing the control andresource allocation policies, and have used thefishermen associations as their lobbying agenciesto serve their social, economic and politicalinterests (Valdés-Pizzini, 1990). W hen they feltthat they were not being consulted properly aboutthe sanctuary plan, fishers sought help fromgovernment-sponsored legal services and receivedsupport from a political party, looking for votes ina new election (Fiske, 1992). This political party(the Puerto Rican Independence Party, or PIP)used this occasion to represent community groupsin expressing the general dissatisfaction of manyPuerto Ricans in the intervention of the UnitedStates government in local affairs (Valdés-Pizzini,1990).Clearly, at the time La Parguera Marine Sanctuarywas proposed, resource m anagers were not fullyaware of the importance of public participation andsocio-economic and political considerations in thedevelopment process. When faced with a situationwhere a recent election brought a new Governorwho was not in favour of the designation, all effortsto establish the sanctuary were discontinued(Fiske, 1992). CanadaThe establishment of MPA s in Canada has beenexceedingly slow, despite the recent passage of theOceans Act. This could be due to low publicperception of the value of the preservation of themarine environment in relation to terrestrial parksand government policies that generally favourresource harvesting in order to minimise conflictswith historical and subsistence users (Paisley,1995). Up until a few years ago, public interestgroups focussed on a few key sites and in somecases went as far as to develop management plansand education and interpretation program s. Yet,they were less active in identifying and selectingcandidate sites (Paisley, 1995). Both the Oceans Acts and the proposed MarineConservation Areas Act (which is currently beforeparliament) can provide protection for marineareas. On the Pacific coast, a joint federal-provincial approach is being taken to develop ani n t e g r a t ed  s t r a t e g y  f o r e s t a b l is h i n g  acomprehensive system of MPA s (Barr et al., 1998).The draft strategy includes a comm itment bygovernment agencies to employ an inclusive,shared decision-making process with stakeholders,First Nations, coastal communities and the generalpublic (Governm ent of Canada and BritishColumbia, 1998). Traditionally, the establishmentof protected areas has been done using a top-downapproach where government regulations areimposed on resource users (Kelsey et al., 1995),and very little collaboration among governmentagencies is observed (Government of Canada andBritish Columbia, 1998). One exam ple of adifferent approach found in the literature is that ofWhytecliff Park.Whytecliff ParkAlthough Whytecliff was first declared as marinepark in 1973 by the Municipality of WestVancouver, marine resources continued to bedepleted as there was no legal authority and acomprehensive management plan (Solin, 1993).With an annual fishery closure of 100 metre fromthe shoreline, Whytecliff is now considered bymany to be the first 'no-take' MPA  in Canada,despite the lack of legal designation (Scott Wallace,Resource Man agement and  Environm entalStudies, UBC, 1999, pers. comm.). It was not until1993 that the W hytecliff project was successful inits attempt for bottom-up approach to m arineresource management, as a new process-orientedpartnership model was being applied (Kelsey et al.,1995). This process involves all stakeholders,government and non-governm ent agencies, increating a system by which their differentknowledge, skills and expertise are shared andcommon goals may be obtained.The process of establishing W hytecliff Park wasunique in its utilisation of a co-operative, cost-effective management strategy, focussing a diversegroup of stakeholders towards achieving commongoals, and in its approach towards conservation asa people-oriented process (Kelsey et al., 1995).Regular meetings took place to ensure a steadyflow of information between various comm itteesand a negotiation process is used for conflictresolution. Because individuals w ere activelyinvolved in the Whytecliff project, they felt thattheir actions contributed to conservation success,and were motivated to bring about changes in themanagement of the marine protected area (Kelseyet al., 1995). page 22; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1SUMMARY TABLE Complete references for this table are listed in Appendix 1 Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsAustraliaThe Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP)GBRM P is a large biosphere reserve covering 350,000 km 2 with  120  core  pre serv ation  area s, sub ject to m ultipl e use , inclu ding  com m ercia l fishin g, tou rism , recre ation al fish ing, tr aditio nal fis hin g, scie ntificresearch,  diving,  camping and shipping (1-3). 1. Conservation of the GreatBarrie r Re ef.2. Re gulation  of the u se toprotect th e Re ef wh ileal lowing reasonable use of  theRegion.3. Regulation of activities thatexploit th e resou rces so a s tominimise their effects  on theRee f.4. Reservation of the area forpublic appreciation andenjoym ent.5. Preservation of some areasin their n atural stateundisturbed by man exceptfor scientific researchactivities (3)1.  Three major categories ofzones: (a) preservation andscientific research zone(only human activity forcontrolled scientific researchis permitted); (b) nationalpark zones (scientific,educational,  andrecreational use perm itted);and (c) general use zones(commercial andrecreational fishing allowedsubject to some lim itations)(3)The re are a lso som e shor t-term zones such as speciesreplenishm ent regions (3). 2. The on ly activities whichare prohibited throughoutGBRM P are oil  exploration,mining, littering, spearfishing with SCUBA and thetaking of large specimens ofcertain species of  fish (2).3.  Only two per cent ofGB RM P is closed  to allfishing activities (2).1. The Great Barrier ReefM arine P ark A uthor ity(GBR MPA ) was establishedin 1976 to provide for  theprotection, wise use,understanding andenjoyment of the GreatBarrie r Re ef in perp etuitythrough the care,understanding andd ev elo pm en t o f th e G BR M P(4).2. Zoning is required bylegislation to involve aninteractive process with thepublic and governmentdepartm ents (3).3. Zon ing pla ns are la rgelybased on how w ell theysatisfy expressed andinferred demands frominterest groups, includingusers, conservationists,  andon-site man agers (3).1. Managem ent is achievedthrough  zoning plans,which are implemented forfive year periods aftercon sider able  pub licp ar ti ci pa ti on  an d r ev ie w  (4).2. Existing shipping lanescould not, for politicalreasons and underinternational shippingconventions, be relocatedin the zoning plan (5).3.  Day-to-day managementis done by the QueenslandNation al Park s and W ildlifeService (QN PW S) (4).4. Policing is also done bythe QNPWS and theQueensland Boating andFisheries Patrol (a divisionof the QueenslandDepartm ent of PrimaryIndustries) (4).Coast watch andsurveillance aircraft areinvolved in aerialsurveillance (4).1. G BR M PA  pro m otes p ublicappreciation of the existencevalue of the Great BarrierReef and nationalistic pridein the GB RM P and closeinvolvement in zoning plandevelo pm ent (3).2. Zo ning  invo lves p ublicparticipation in severalstages, such as in the firststep of drafting up the plan s,the draft plan is then releasedagain to the public andaccount is taken of thereactions of the public  in thefinal plan (3).3. Comm ercial FisheriesCon sulta ncy  Pro gra m  isestablished to provide liaisonbetween the Authority andthe fishing industry (4).4.  Recently switched fromconsultative approach(minimal opportunity forindigenous people to provideinformation and noopp ortu nity to  par ticipat e indecision-mak ing) to a mo reinteractive approach (seeSection 3) (6).5. Be cause o f spillover e ffect,trawlers have begun to sup-port closures and to concen-trate their f ishing along theedges of protected area s (7).1 .  Zoning plans,  althoughallowing for adjustment fordem ands by interest grou ps,can become a way ofjustifying the opinion of  theclient whether that opinionis well ba sed or n ot (3).2. More research is neededto evaluate the effectivenessand value of  zoning in theGBRM P (3).3. Le gisla tion fo r zon ing iseffected for five years and,so is relatively inflexible andnot responsive to sho rt-termchange (4).1.  Trawl fishery loses less than 5per cent of trawling  area (4).2. A study, using scub a searchtechnique, showed that densitiesand modal size classes of coraltrout (most popular anglingspecies) were considerably lowerin fished reefs than in protected,unfis hed  area  in th e Ca prico rniaSection of the GB RM P, after 5years of protection (8).3. Another study, comparing sizeand a ge of co ral trout in r eefsthat have been protected fromfishing for 3-4 years an d thoseunprotected, showed nosignificant differences in meansize and age (9).4.  More prawns  caught 'f ishingthe line' (i.e. in the watersimm ediately adjacent to M PAs)(2).Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 23Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsSouth Africade Hoop reserve (Western Cape province)1.  Southern South Africa established in Dec 1985 (10)2. 46 km  of coastline consisting of sandy beach an d rock platform s (11),  the reserve covers the surf zone3. The area w as heavily fished by sh ore anglers (11)1. Prim arily  a stra tegicmilitary zone  (Trevor Hutton,p er s c om m )2. Fish ery m anag em ent,protection of depleted stockssuch as galjoen (Coracinidae)and dassie (Sp aridae) that aretarget species for sport fishery(11)1. Closed to all activitiesexce pt re sear ch w ith p erm it( Tr ev or  Hu tto n, p er s c om m )2. Little control ofdetrimental activities (1)N/A 1. M onito ring  beg an in19842. Management planscurrently being drafted (1)3. Pr ovin cial au tho rities incharge  (1)4. Badly enforced,  no sea-going capacity (1)5.  Monitoring of  fish,intertidal comm unities,visitors number1. Very little input from usergroups except public  hearingsand w ritten inputs (1)2. Coastal land wasexpropriated (1)1.  Pressure to re-open thereserve by local ang lers,authors do not recommendit (12)2. Poach ing is frequ ent;fishing vessels have right ofpassage (1)3. Incomplete monitoringp ro gr am  (1)1. CPUE higher for 6 species(97% o f the catch) (10)2. Mark-recapture data showexport of adults (10)Tsitsikamm a National Park  (Western Cape Province)1.  60km of  coast and 5.6 km wide; established in 1964 (13,14)2. rocky  reefs an d sand , high e nerg y env ironm ent (15)3 . M a rin e r es er ve  su pp le m en tin g te rr es tr ia l r es er ve  (T re vo r H u tto n, p er s c om m )biodiversity conservation 1.closed to fishing except3km stretch where shorelinefishing permitted (13)2. control activities(shore line dev elopm ent,pollution, etc,) which maybe detrimen tal to the Park(16)N/A 1. Has management plan (1)2. Under nationalgove rnm ent (1)3.  B adly  enfo rced , shortage of sea-goingcapacity (1)4. M onitoring of offshorereef fish, visitors num ber (1)1. Very little input from usergroups except public  hearingsand w ritten inputs (1)2 . F is hin g r ig hts  we re  re m -oved (1)1. Po ach ing is  frequ ent; fishing vessels have right ofpassage (1)2. Incomplete monitoringp ro gr am  (1)1 . S ub tid al a nd  in te rtid al c om m -unity  differ ent in  rese rves  and  inexploited areas (15)2. Increase in number and m odalsize of targeted species (15)page 24; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsPhilippinesSumilon Island1.Central Philippines2. reserve comprise 25% of the subtidal coastal coral reef (0.5 km 2 to the 40m  isobath) (17)750m long (18)closed from Dec. 1974 to May 1984 (17) and 1987-19923. displaced 100  small-scale fishers (artisanal and subsistence) (19) coming  from C ebu the m ainland (no resident on  Sum ilon) (20)4. Nearby  area  subm itted to high fishing pressure an d provides very  high yields (21)1. Conservation of coral reefs  1. Exclu sion of allexploitation (17)1. Declared by municipalgovernment as a result ofagreement between SillimanUniversity and OslobM unicipal co uncil (19)1.  Administration,protection and surveillanceby caretaker provided bythe University (19)2. Monitoring of catches bycaretaker (20)1. People not really involvedin the process; only receivedinform ation:  pro gram s toconvince local population ofthe potential benefits  for  thefishery (19)1.  Fishers unsure of  thepurpose of the reserve (19)2.  Community resented theoutsider' authority resultingin  fishing violations startingin 1983 (19,21)1.By the  late 1970 s, fishersconvinced that yield hadincreased (19)2. Rapid decrease in size, abun-dance and  densities of fusiliers and large predatory fishes afterresuming fishing (19,21)3. Yield increase around reserve (18) attributed to adult dispersionfrom the reserve (17,20)4 . 5 0 %  de cr ea se  in  yi el d in  C PU Eafter reserve fished again (20)Balicasag1.  Established in 1986 (23)2. San ctuary ( 8 ha ) com prises 26 % of th e 31 h a of the r eef (23)3. Buffer zone is 147 ha and extends to 500 m offshore (23)1. Con servation  of coral re efsthrough comm unity-basedma nage me nt (78)1. Two zo nes:No fishing in the sanctuary,non -des tructiv e m etho ds inthe reserve (buffer) (23)1. Supported and managedby the local community (19) 1.  Local managementcomm ittee1.  Involved in planning andmanagement1. Lack of alternativeecono mic a ctivity1.Af ter 1 y ear, in crea se innumber of species andabundance of genus targeted byfishers and som e non-target fish(23)Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 25Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsPamilacan1.  Established in 1985 (23)2 . C o ra l r ee f,  co ra l c ov er ag e o f 1 7%  (24)3. San ctuary ( 14 ha ) com prises 8 % of th e 18 h a of the r eef (23)4. Buffer zone is 339 ha and extend to 500 m  offshore (23)5. Fish ing relies o n pela gic specie s (80 % of th e catch) b ecause  of tradition o r lack of re ef (24)6. Invertebrate collecting at low tide is very important and  is heavily exploited (24)1. Con servation  of coral re efs(23,24) through comm unity-based  ma nage me nt (78)1. Two zo nes:No fishing in the sanctuary,non -des tructiv e m etho ds inthe buffer (23)1. Supported and managedby the local community  (19)contradicted by Savina (24)1.  Local managementcomm ittee(23)1.  Involved in planning andmanagement1. Fishing is the principalactivity of th e 50 0 resid entsof the island2. Lack of alternativeeconomic activities1.Af ter 1 y ear, in crea se innumber of species and abund-ance of genu s targeted by fishersand some non-target  fish (23)Apo Reserve1.  Established in 1982 (22) a lthough legal framework completed in 1985 (22)2.  Shallow coastal  reef,  coral coverage of  64%3. Reserve, 4.5 km long, constitutes 10% of the total area (1.06 km 2 to the 60m  isobath) (22)4. Restricted fishing  zone is 284 ha and extends to 500 m  offshore (23)5. 200  fishers on the Island ge nerating high  fishing pressure; 500  perm anent residents (22)6. Fishing relies on reef (68 % of the catch) (24)1. Con servation   of coral re efsthrough comm unity-basedma nage me nt (23)1.  Closed to fishing (25)2.  Organised in 2 zones: thereserve (closed to fishing )and the restricted fishingzone (non-destructivemeth ods only) 1 .  Agreement between themu nicipality, the  univer sityand the comm unity (22) (23)2. Marine conservation andeducation progra m since1979 (23)1. Enfo rcem ent no t strict (25) 2.  Controlled by thecommunity (22)1.  Community involved in theplanning2. Local managementcomm ittee (23)1. Fishing is the principalactivity of th e 50 0 resid entsof the island2. Lack of alternativeeconomic activities1. Mean density and meanspecies richness of largepreda tors increa sed stea dily w ithtime after  the closure in thereserve  and the fished area,attributed to fish dispersingoutside the reserve as aconsequence of biomass build-upin reserve (22)2. Increa se in den sity by eig ht-fold with time  (21,22)3. Serves as example for othercommunities e.g. Handumonand San Salvadorpage 26; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsHandumon reserve (26)1. Jandayan Island, Philippines2.  Double barrier reef of 33 ha, includes several habitats: corals, sargassum, m angrove and deeper water3. Adjacent area closed to destructive fishing techniques4. This area was once the richest fishing area and  key area for sea horses5. Decline caused by overfishing and destructive fishing techniques6. Half of the families rely primarily on fishing for income and food7. Poor com mu nity: income low er than the na tional poverty thresho ld; sea horses contribute to 31-40 % of ann ual income for 4 0%  of fishers 1.  Seahorse conservationproject2. Re build eco system  tosustain viable fishery3. Associated with creation ofaltern ative  econ om icactivities1. Sanc tuary clo sed tofishing2. Reserve open to non-destructive fishing1. Area designated bycommunity 2. Team of scientists, socialorganizers and otherworke rs as facilitators 1. Comm unity controlledand patrolled (fishers andmunicipal police)1. Fis her s do  rese arch  inbiology of sea horses2. Fis her s par ticipat e insurveys3. Comm unity informedregularly of the new  results 4.  Involved in planning andmanagement1. Lack of alternativeeconom ic activities 2. Part of th e projec t is tocreate alternatives forincome (27)1.  Improved yield of  fish;abundan ce and body  size of fishreported (27)2. High compliance San Salvador Island (28)1 . Legal ised in 19892.  Sanctuary: 125 ha,  surrounded by f ishing reserve (circling the island to approximately 20 m isobath)3. Community of diverse ethnic backgrounds and fishing tradition (29)4.  250 families (1500 people)  l ive on the island; 60% derive income from fishing and 36% from farming (29)1.  Better management ofresources2. Rebuild destroyed ando ve ru se d e co sy ste m s1. Sanctuary close to fishing2. Reserve open to non-destructive fishing1. Volunteers andcomm unity organisersserved as facilitators andhad support frominternational organisationand national government2. R esolu tions  draf ted ingeneral assem bly me etings 1. Enfo rcem ent by  residen tsand municipality  2. Municipality declaredreserv e and  later a na tional ordina nce rein forces it 3. Two  organisations:MPSS, a conservationcomm ittee for SanSalvador) and LTK(man agem ent body) (29)4. Project includesexploration of alternativeseconomic activities anderosion control byreplanting trees (29)1.  Involved in planning andmanagement1. Aliena tion of pe opleadversely affected by theproject2. Lack of coordination ofdifferent leaders forimplementation phases3.  Weakness of  themanagement body1 . V io la tio ns  de cr ea se d w ith  tim e2. Survey show substantialincreases in populationabundan ces 3. Increase in yield noted byfishers (29)4. Slow rebuilding because ofpast destruction (29)Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 27Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsKenyaMalindi and Watanu Marine National Park (MNP)1 .Protected since  1968 (30)2. Encom passes shallow  reefs close to the coast, very accessible to artisanal fishers (31)3. Malindi is 6 km2 and Watanu is 10 km 2 (32)N/A 1. No fishing or collectingallowed (31)2. Good record of protectionalthough p oaching occurs (30)N/A N/A N/A 1. Past history of overfishingand destructive practicesstill have a n im pact (31)2. Siltation on reef is ap ro ble m  (31)1. Level of  habitat destruction bydynamiting before closure andsiltation decr eases th e bene fitsfrom  closu re e.g . M alind i (31)2. In crea se in d ens ity  of c ertainspecies, increase in predatoryspecies (30)3. Impact on keystone speciessuch as urchins (30) Mombasa MNP1.  Established in 1986 (32),  pol iced s ince 1990 (33)2. 10 km2 (32)N/A 1.  No f ishing or col lecting (33) N/A N/A N/A N/A 1. Rapid rebuilding of fish andcoral population observed (32)Kisite Marine National Park (KMNP)1.  Established in 1974 (32) but  policed since 1989 (34)2. 28 km2 (32)3. Coral reef4. Close to the city of Shimoni and adjacent to the Mpungiti reserve (35)5 . L oc al p op ula tio n d ep en de nt o n fis hin g ( ofte n o nly  re ve nu e)  an d to ur is m  (35)N/A 1.  No f ishing (34) N/A 1. Managed by KenyaW ildlife Service (34)N/A 1. Potential conflict betweenfishers an d peo ple relate d totourism industry for accessto res our ces. T he p ark isseen as depriving fishers offishing ground s (35)1.  Survey in Sept.  1992 and Jan.1994 for com mercial species:h ig he r d en sitie s o f s om ecommercial  species than theMpunguti MNP  (34,35)2. More urchin in the reservethan the park because ofoverfishing of their predatorspage 28; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsMpungiti MNP (MMN P)1.  Policed since 1989 (34)N/A 1. Traditional fishing (hand-lining and basket trapping)permitted (34)N/A 1. Managed by KenyaW ildlife Service (34)N/A N/A 1. Lower densities of commercialspec ies than  Kisi te  MNPMediterranean   FranceScandola Natural Reserve   (within the Corsica Regional National Park)1.  Created in 1975 at the Corsica Regional Natural Park  instigation (36)2. Peninsula, 1000 ha of marine and 1000 ha of terrestrial habitat, within the Park territory (36) 3. Rocky  and steep bottom , shore: sea cliffs  (36)4. Access difficult, low frequenting1. Co nse rvat ion a nd s cient ificobservation andexperimentation (36)1. No unde rwater and  sportfishing, no scuba diving(integral) (36)2. Commercial fishingpermitted in a non-integralpart of the reserve (36)1.  Initiative of the Park,created by nationalgove rnm ent  (36)1. Within the  RegionalNatural Park (36)2. Managed by anorganisation under of theProvincial adm inistrator (36)3. Scientific comm itteecreated  to help  withdecisions and researchdevelo pm ent (36)1.  Management organizationincludes local villages andNational government1.  High disturbance in thenon-integral part of  thereserve by boat anchors andfishing (37)1. Density and biomass (largerindividuals) of large andcom m on s pecie s incr ease d inintegral reserve abundance 4times of rocky sub strata)   (37)2. Effect undetectable in seagrassbed because fishing p ressurelower in this habitat combinewith high er num ber of predatorsin the reserve (37)3. Integral reserve harb our m orerare species (37)4.  less seasonal variation in thereserve (38)Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 29Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsLavezzi Islands Natural Reserve1. Created in 1982  at the instigation of the Association of the Park`s friends (36)2. Ou tside the P ark territo ry, 70  ha of ter restrial and  500 0 ha  ma rine ha bitat   (36)3. Archipelago, sheltered beaches, high frequentation1. Co nse rvat ion a nd s cient ificobservation andexperimentation (36)1.  No underwater f ishing (36) 1. Local people initiative (36) 1. Managed by m unicipalgovernment and theassociation of the Park`sfriends (36)2. Scientific comm itteecreated  to help  withdecisions and researchdevelo pm ent (36)1.  See management 1. Excessive number ofvisitors (36)2. Degradation by boatanchors  and  trampling,endang ering habitats   (36)3. Overg razing by stocks   (36)4. Waste water by non-reserv e islands  withincreased urbandevelo pm ent  (36)N/ACarry-le Rouet (39)1.85 ha extending to  26-28m depth 2. Protected since  19823. Near an urbanised area4. Rocky  bottom w ith mosaic of sandy , rock and seagrass p atches 5. A rather common  instead of an exceptional site N/A 1. No fishing, no scubadiving, no anchoring N/A N/A N/A N/A 1. A 3-year census comparedreserve with non-reserve sitesafter 10 years of protectionshow ed larg e increas es in den sityand size of target species forsport and com mercial fisherypage 30; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsMediterranean SpainTabarca Island Reserve (40)1. 1400 ha (40)2. Declared in  19863. Ro cky re efs, seagr ass bed s,  and se veral islets4. Total interdiction of the coastal fishery considered unfeasible because of the economic importance of that activity (41)1.  Protection of seagrass bedshabitats 2. Conserve commercialspecies,  (R eserve  wou ldrestock the adjacent fishinggrounds) (41)3. Allow regionaldevelopment, and traditionaluses1.  Management zoning:A . Core area (100ha): noactivity  exce pt re sear ch; B .Buffer area (630ha): aroundthe core area;  controlledscuba diving and selectivefishin g se ason al allo we d;  C.Peripheral (670ha): selectivefishing,  sport f ishing,swimm ing controlled scubadivin g,  ve ssels  m oorin g inmark ed sections 1. Created by governmentaldecree but process notdescribed1. Strictly enforced:artificial reef pre ventstrawling b (41)2. Management by aspecially createdcommission composed ofrepres entatives  of all levelsof gov ernm ent, centr al,region al and m unicipal 3.  One scientific advisorcoor dina tes scie ntificactivities (41)4.  Enforced by 2 fish-keepers w ho alsoparticipate in surveys (41)5. Have visual census offauna, surveys of  fishing,monitoring of artificialreefs (41)1.  Commercial fishermen,ecological associations andother organisations may havea representative (at  thecomm ission)  who m aypropose resolution but haveno decision-m aking pow ers  2. Fish ers w ere orig inallyopposed to the reserve 1 .  Population of 500 in thesummer,  25 in winter whomake a living from artisanalfis he ry  an d to ur is m  2. Regulation of visitors andsurveillance rema ins ap ro ble m  1.  Increase in stock size (in 6years) 2.  Increase in yield around ther es er ve  by  5 0- 85 %  Medes Islands Reserve1.  Created in 19902.  550 ha3. Two  islets and small em ergent rocky ree fs, algae beds (42)1. Pro tection  of be nth iccomm unities (40)1.  Restricted fishing (41,42) 1. Created by governmentaldecree but process notdescribed N/A N/A N/A 1. Target species for spear fishingmore abundant in reserve (42)2. Higher density,  larger size andspecies richness in reserve (42)4. Low er density of sm all fish(unexplained)5. D ocum ente d a ch ang e indiurnal pattern of fish activity (42)Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 31Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsNew ZealandLeigh Marine Reserve1.  Established in 1975 (43) while management committee began its  work in Dec. 1986 (44)2. Voluntary  ban on spear f ishing s ince 1970 (43)3. Very varied h abitat including: hard substrate dow n to 4m  deep covered  with algae; echinoid-d ominated  flats between 4-10 m ke lp forest in deeper w ater  (43)4. 500 ha on the N orth East Coast, 5km of coast line (44);  isolated location (45)1.  Conservation forexp erim enta l and  scien tificvalue around the University ofAuckland  Ma rine Laboratory(44)1.  No f ishing or col lecting,no disturbance (44)1.  Campaign of informationand mobilisation initialisedby a professor of  theUniversity laboratory (44)2. Several organizationsbecam e active in the processand finally the MarineDepartment produced alegislation specific to thatreserve (adopted  in 1971).The w hole process took 10years (44)3. The law requires thatnon-governmentorganizations propose areserve (44)1.  Appointed managementcomm ittee of 5 composedof 1 officer of the FisheriesM ana gem ent D ivision , 2from local county, 1 fromAu cklan d U nive rsity, 1from N.Z. Underw aterAssociation (44) that hiresthe rangers to en forceregulations (44)2. M onito ring  beg an in1976-1977 (44) 1 .  Not involved at thebegin ning a nd pe opledeprived of their usualaccess. It took several yearsto convince large sections ofthe population that  thereserve was a good thing (44)1.  Local fishers,  divided onthe issue are now fishing atthe bound ary and arevigilant against poaching ofrock lobster. They alsosupport the reserve (44)1.  Monitoring within the reserveshowed no clear trend between1976-1982 (43)2. Com parison  with c ontrol sitein 1988 showed largerabundance of commercialspecies (  rock crab, snapper, bluecod, red moki.) within thereserve  (43)3. Increase in size and number ofrock lobster in the reserve (44)4. Red moki abundance andbody size larger in the reservethan heavily fished adjacentgrounds (46)page 32; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsPoor Knight Islands1. Uninhab ited islands 20km  offshore in the path o f warm  currents (44)2. H abita t of inte rests , m ost d ivers e m arine  life, be st div ing s ite in N .Z.  (44)3.  Established in  1981 (47)4. Extend from shoreline to 800 m  seaward (47)1.  Preserve underwater faunaand flora and en hancerecreational opportunities (47)1.  Small no-fishing zonesurrounded  by a zone w hereregulated recreationalfishing is allowed (47)2. The general populationseemed to agree with thatproposition at the time ofthe reserve creation (47)3. The spe cial fishing noticeexp ired in  198 9 an d th isgenerated a debate opposinglocal comm ercialassociations related to sportfishery and the generalpopulations (tourists fromother regions of N Z) (47)1.  Managed by theDepartment of Conservation 2. In resp onse to  the de bate(previous cell) a widerconsultation began in Dec1995. It seeks submissionsform natives, fishers, localand national pop ulations (47)1. Fishing rules are complex(44) and some fishingtech niqu es g ene rate a  fairamount of  by-catch (47) N/A 1. Ecological issues includethe impact of sport fishing(and its by-catch) in aterritory d edicated  toconservation. The relativesmall size of the no-fishingzone m ay no t be eno ugh  toachieve the protection of themarine o rganism s (47)2. Sport fishing constitutesthe livelihood of severalcharter boat operators andfishing p ressure  is likely toincre ase. P ublic s upp ort ishigh against f ishing (47)3. Fishing rules are complexand confusing complicatinglaw e nforcem ent (44,47)4. M aori p eop le are  infavour of  prohibiting thefishing (47)N/AMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 33Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsSeychellesCousin Island Nature Reserve (48)1. Established in 1968, also declared as a special reserve by the governm ent in 1975 so all wildlife is protected2. 1.5 km 2,   400 m wide3.   No tourist  diving occurring 4. Coral reef1. Started  as a bird a nd tur tlereserve1. No fishing, no habitatdisturbance N/A 1. M anag ed by  Bird L ifeInternational2. E nfor cem ent e ffectiv e; 1resident Seychellois warden N/A N/A 1. Comparison of diurnally activer ee f- as so ci at ed  sp ec ie s s ho w :higher spe cies richness, higher biomass  than less protectedareas (Baie Tern ay and C urieuseParks) 2. Targeted species by fisherieshave high er biomass th an in lessprotected sites3. Efficient p rotection o f turtleadults  and eggsSainte Anne Marine National Park (48)1. Established in 1973, enforcement began in 19752. 14.2 km 23. The most popular tourist site for diving4. Coral reef1.  Fish and wildlife protection 1. No fishing, no habitatdisturbance2. Consumptive fishingallowed for residents of theparkN/A 1.  Managed by theGovernm ent of Seychelles2. Actively patrolled butclose to the capital sopoaching is a problemN/A N/A 1.  See Cousin reserve, point  #12. No improvem ent for targetfish because of poaching andlimited f ishing allowed in thereserve page 34; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsBaie Ternay Marine National Park (48)1. Established in 19792. 0.8 km23. Not w idely used by tourist4. Coral reef1.  Fish and wildlife protection(48)1. No fishing, no habitatdisturbanceN/A 1.  Managed by theGovernm ent of Seychelles2. No effort to enforceN/A N/A 1.  See Cousin reserve, point  #12. No improvem ent for targetspeciesCurieuse Marine National Park (48)1. Established in 19792 . 1 3.7  km  23. W idely us ed by  tourists4. Coral reef1.  Fish and wildlife protection 1. No fishing, no habitatdisturbance N/A 1.  Managed by theGovernm ent of Seychelles2. Patrolled by day only dueto lack of  resources;  in 1995resour ces w ere sup posed lyincreased N/A N/A 1.  See Cousin reserve, point  #12. No improvem ent for targetspeciesMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 35Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsNew CaledoniaSoutheast Lagoon of New Caledonia1.  Four coralline and one continental islands and their reefs in a lagoon, close to Nouméa. Total area: 27 km 2 (49)2. Declared in  1989,  enforced in  1990 (49)(contradicted by Jourde 1985 (50) who  stated that Am edée Ligh thouse Island an d M aître were declared closed to fishing in 19 81)3. High fishing pressure around Noum éa, the capital, low elsewhere (50)4. M ain uses were  comm ercial and recreational fishing (including spear fishing) (50)1.  Protect and restore fromdamages caused by excessiveto ur is m   (50) and p robab lyoverfishing 1.  Closed to fishing andharvesting (49,50)N/A N/A N/A 1. Islands  not equ allyprotected and at differentdistances from Noum éa 1. Mon itoring before and after 5years of protection for referenceand closed stations (49)2. Reserves sh owed  an increasein species  richne ss and  densityand biomass for exploited andnon-exploited species (51)3. In fished grounds, nodifferences in density except for3 spec ies that w ere attribu ted tointerannual variation (50)4. Species considered as index ofreef h ealth  hav e incr ease d inboth reserve and non-reservewh ich a ttribu ted to   incre ase inrecruitment patterns(49)5. Reserve e ffect stronger whe repatrolling  mo re efficient  (49)page 36; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsIle de M ayotte   (Indian Ocean)Langogori Marine Reserve (52)1.  Created in 1990, enforced in 19922. Cora l reefs3. In recent years, observed  decreases in CPU E:  decrease of yield by 5 7% an d increase in num ber of artisanal fishers from 170 0 to 260 0, and cha nges to m otorised and seaw orthy boats 1.  Protection fromoverexploitation and siltationdue to mismanagement of  theterrestrial habitatN/A N/A N/A N/A 1. Fishers depend mainly onthe lagoon 1.  Comparison of reserve andnon-reserve site after 3 years(1995) 2. Mo st exploited species aremore  abundan t and biom asslarger in  reserv e (espe ciallycarnivores)3. S ize str uctu re of c ertainspecies changed for largerindividuals in the reserveSt. Lucia, West IndiesMaria Island Marine reserve (53)1 . Declared in  1982 but  boundaries  sett led  in  1988,  fishing stopped in  19872. Fishing for sea urchins went from family-based subsistence to comm ercial because of high market price 3.  Stocks of urchins depleted N/A 1. No fishing N/A N/A 1.  Involved in planning of  thereserve and decision-making;boundaries have socialapproval2. Fishers inform ally enforcethe boundaries although theyma y not a gree p erson allywith the reserve N/A1. Study com pares open -access,reserve and traditional control(vil lage-controlled access to thefishe ry; se e Se ction  1):  Increase in densities of white-spined sea urchins in reserve andtraditional managementMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 37Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsSoufrière Marine M anagement Area (SM MA) (54)1.  Became operational  in 19952. 10 km  of coast3. coral re efs1.  Integrated management ofthe area that allows for non-conflicting sustainable use ofmarine resources2. Com mu nity-level resourcemanagement1. Composed of 5 marinereserves (no fishing), 10Fish ing P riority  Are as, 4Multiple Use Areas,  4 YachtMooring Areas2. In 1996, protectionrelaxed  in 3 rese rves toallow licensed fishers to fishin specific areas 1.  Created during a series ofconfl ict  resolution meetingsat the community levelwhere agreem ent wasreached on use andmanagement of the marineresources in the area2. Near shore fishers were largely unrepresented andhen ce not ad equate lyconsidered in zoning 1. Co-managed underSoufrière Foundationthrough a TechnicalAdvisory Comm itteecomprising representativesof resources user-grou ps,NGOs and governmentmanagem ent agencies1. Fishers, dive operators,yachtsmen, NGOs andgove rnm ent 1. Marine reserves have beenset in Near shore fishers’preferr ed sites (C lose toshore, less dangero us.Individ uals fishin g w ithsmall pots and gillnets haddifficulty findin g suitablegrounds o utside reserves).Hence , most of them  arefishing i llegally  in thereserve1. After the creation of reserves,there has been a turnover offishers and new  fishers choselarge pots (used in deeperwate rs) over  gillnets an d sm allpots (shallow grounds), andeffort increased 2. By w orking hard er, fishersmaintained their CPUE althoughthey lost 50% of their fishinggro und s. BarbadosBarbados M arine Reserve (55)1 . Established in  19812 . S ho re  le ng th  of 2 .2  km  3. Fringing reefs separated by sand and hard-bottomN/A 1. No fish ing exc ept cast-netting for clupeids N/A 1. Managem ent by NationalConservation Commission(within a Ministry)2. Enforcement insufficientto prevent some illegalfishing including spearfishingN/A N/A 1. Comparison of reserve andnon-reserve in 19922.  Higher density of largetrappable fish in the reserveespecially for sedentary species3. De crease fro m c entre toboundaries for mobile species3 . L ar ge r m e an  siz e fo r s om especiespage 38; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsBaham asExuma Cays (56)1.  Protected since 1958 but closed to f ishing in 1986 (57)2. 456km2, , 40 k m o f coastline to th e 30  m iso bath line , located be twee n dev elopm ents3. Shallow platform covered with sand and seagrass,  going to deeper water and varied bottoms (sand, hard-bottom, vegetation)1. Preserve the naturalheritage of the Exuma Caysand not specifically forfisheries m anag em ent (57)1.  No collection or fishing N/A 1. Enfo rcem ent by  1 full-time wardenN/A N/A 1. Study of effect of reserve onqueen conch (Strombus giga),compared of fished grounds andreserve2. Density of adults and larvaehigher in reserve3. Importance of protectingmigrating path of the juvenilesagainst exploitation (juvenilesmigrate to deeper water as theyg ro w )4. T he s ucce ss of th e res erve  isdue to the fact that it is a naturalsite of accumulation of larvaefrom  outs ide a nd th at it isprotecting spaw ning adults. Itwould be too small to sustain theentire coa st by itself.5.  Studies since 1990 on spinylobster and grouper (targeted byfishery) show greater speciesdiversity, biomass, abundance,potential reproductive outputand larval densities (57)Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 39Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsNetherlands AntillesSaba1. Created in 1987 (58)2. Represent 25% of the circumference of the island (58)3. Mixture of corals, gorg onians and true ree fs (58)4. F ew  com m ercia l fishe rs (15 ), inten sive fis hin g in o ffsho re re gion s. 5. Recreational fishing (han dline, spear diving) on reefs (58)N/A 1.  No f ishing in 15% of  thePark (59)N/A 1. Patrolled by parkperso nnel (58) highcompliance (59)N/A N/A 1. Comparison between reserveand non-reserve (1991 and 1993)showed  increase in density,biomass and size in severaltarget species (58,59)page 40; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsBelizeHol Chan M arine Reserve1. 4 km  south  of a tow n, reef an d cha nnel (58),  2.6 km 2 (60)2. Created in 1987 (58)3. Subsistence fishing for 100 yrs in the region, snapper and grouper caught by commercial fishing and exported. Offshore fishing has declined by 90% in the 1980's because ofinvolvement of fishers in tourist industry (58)1. Preserve and restore arepresentative sample of coralreef, mang rove sea grassareas, provide recreation andtourism services and preservevalue of the area for fisheriesand education (61)1. 3 zo nes : A . No fishing, nocollecting, no anchoringexcept in provided mooring,regulated and controlleddiving  B . local fishers only,no trawling, netting spearfishing; sports such as waterskiing and sailing permittedC. f ishing under license, nomangrove clearing (61)1.  In 1972, awareness ofneed for protection andcreation of marine reservebut no agreement amonginterests groups; in mid-1980's, social awareness ofnee d for  pro tection  for th eirlivelihood awaren ess (59)2. Local advisory comm itteeincluded the To urismind ust ry,  fish erm en ’scooperative (existing sincethe m id-sixties), Touristguide association, Belizefishery u nit, and th e W ildlifeCon servation  Society . Helpfrom scientists to guide thepro cess. (61)3. Managem ent plan basedon qu estionn aire give n tousers (61)4.  Ordinance from theGovern men t when  fishersagreed too (61)1.  Small  team to managethe park: w arden, m anager,biologist 2. Link s with  com mu nitymaintained and localadvisory committee havecontinu ed inp ut (61)3. Continuous training ofstaff on research,interpretative activities,perm anent m oorings,scuba diving (61)1. Com mu nity totallyinvolved in the process andthe management1. Development and habitatalteration adjacent to thereserve (mangrove cutting,increased siltation andpollution) (58)1.  Census in 1991 and 1993;A lt ho ug h  th e p ow e r is  lo w ,cens us sh ow   an in crea se inden sity, b iom ass a nd s ize inseveral target species (58)Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 41Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsUSAFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNM S)The largest marine  sanctuary  on the  East  Coast,  USA.1.  Covers 8,899 km 2 of  coastal water and one of the most utilised coral reefs in the world (1).2. Includes interdepend ent and interconne cted habitats such as patch an d bank reefs, seagrass m eadow s, soft and hard bottom , and coastal man groves.3.  FKNM S was designated in 1990, as inspired by a series of ship groundings in 1989 coupled with the growing threats of coral diseases and increased water quality problems (Florida-Keys.info-access.com ).4.  Two previously established NMS (Key Largo in 1975 and Looe Key in 1981) are incorporated in the FKNMS.1.  Preserving or restoring theconser vation, re creationa l,ecological, or aesthetic valuesof localised areas (62).2.  The purposes of FloridaKeys National MarineSanctuary an d Protection Act(FKNM SPA) are:(i) Protect marine resourcesof Florida Keys.(ii)  Educate the public aboutthe ree f environ me nt.( ii i)  Promote marine research.(iv) Develop a san ctuaryma nage me nt plan  that w ouldregulate human uses thatadversely affect the resourcesof  the FKNMS (63).1.  Five different types ofzon es to r egu late ce rtainuses within sensitive areasof high ecological value, thusprom oting resourceprotection and separatinguser g roup s: (i) wildlifem ana gem ent a reas , (ii)ecolo gical  rese rves , (iii)sanctuary preservation areas(SPAs), (iv) existingmanagement areas, and (v)special use areas (63).1.  The overall managementplan inc ludes e nforcem ent,monitoring and visitoreducation programmes anda reef-restoration plan.2. NOAA  coordinateddevelo pm ent of th e Dra ftManagement Plan andEnvironm ental Imp actS tate me nt fo r th e F KN M Sover a 4-year period andreleased  these d ocum ents tothe public  in March 1995 (63).3.  In September 1996,NOA A released the FinalManagement Plan, butNOAA, Congress and theState of Florida m ay revisethe p lan fu rthe r befo re it isimplemented (63). 1. Hav e a legislation  toprotect coral reefs andseagrass beds from ph ysicaldestruction (1).2. Ha s a w ater-qu alityprotection  prog ram me , tocontrol water at the source,which also provideseffective control overresidential run-off andr iv er in e f lo w  (1).3. FKNM S is supervised bythe SanctuarySuperintendent and anadministrative staff in thecentral location for thepopulated portion of  theKey s, plu s oth er off icers inregional offices (Florida-Keys.info-access.com ).4. NOAA  will take the leadresponsibility forimplementation of zoningand will provide the bulk offunding for the ecologicalreserv es, SPA s and s pecial-use areas (63).5. Other agencies, such asthe Florida Dept.  ofEnvironmental Protection,the U S Fish  and W ildlifeService, the US  CoastGua rd and  NG Os w ill1 .  Public  hearing followed therelease of the document ofthe Draft Managem ent Plan(63).2. Use of  "citizengovernance" system byestablishing the Sanctua ryAdvisory Council  (SAC)who se 22 selected m emb ersinclude sanctuary m anagers,mem bers of governmentagencies,  representatives ofconservation grou ps,recreational and comm ercialuser  gro ups  and  the s cient ificcomm unity, as well asrepresentatives from theFlorida Governor's Office ofEnvironmental Affairs andthe Monroe County Board ofCounty C omm issioners (63).3. The S AC m emb ers ensurethat the interests of usergroups are represented in theplanning process andimplem entation. They alsoserv e as lia ison s to ex plainsanc tuar y po licies to  theirrespective interest groups,and they were able to developan acce ptable a nd feas ibleplan for the debatedsanctuary zone s (63).1.  Large number of differenttypes o f federal a nd stateMP As in the Florida K eys,although is an ev idence for ashare d conc ern, sug gestspotential duplication ofresources, coordinationdifficulties and  possiblyunharmonious managementgoals.2. An organized localopp osition  to an y M PA s inFlorida Key s existed sincethe state attempt to establisha marine re serve in M onroC o un ty , a nd  fo re sh ad ow sthe protracted battles thatcontinue to surroundestablishment of FKNMS (63).Conch Coalition conducted apersisten t grassro otscampaign against theFKNM S. Other groupsunited treasure salvors,comm ercial fishers,developers and otherresid ents  of th e cou ntry  inopposing the plan (63).3.  NOAA's revisions of  theDra ft M ana gem ent P lan inan attemp t to minim isesome public criticism m aybe viewed by mem bers ofN/Apage 42; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsprovide assistant in variousactivities.6.  Enforcement by theFlorida Marine Patrol(FM P) (63).4. Plan  to prom otestewardsh ip by sanctuaryusers by involvingcommunity throughpreve ntive law  enforce me nt,worksh ops, public lectures,and  scho ol pr ogr am s inenvironmental education (63).the public and NGOs as'watering down',  andsignificantly  weakening theplan so  that it har dlydeserves their continuedsupp ort (63).4.  Funding limitations anduncertainties (63).Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary (64)1. Established in 1981, as pro mp ted by  the de signa tion of th e K ey L argo N M S 70  miles  north a nd the  aw arene ss of th e threa ts to the re efs from  ove r-use. 2. A 19 km 2 sanctuary in the only fully developed bank reef in the region. A high productivity reef which attracts a high level of visitation leading to a variety of human-related impacts affecting theresou rces o f Loo e K ey R eef, su ch as  shell c ollecting , coral d am age, fis h rem ova l from  spea r fishing , tropica l fish co llecting, w ire fish trap s and  hoo k-and -line fishin g. 1. To protect the marineenvironment and resources of theSanctuary.2. To encourage recreational usethat is co mp atible w ith San ctuaryresources, commercial uses andresearch purposes.3. To use interpretation andedu cation  to incre ase p ublicawareness of the resources andsignificance of the Sanctuary.4. To direct research activitiestowards increased understandingof the Sanctuary.1. Ban on coral collecting anddamage2. Ban on spear fishing, use offish or lobster traps, livecollection of small tropical andother damaging activities.N/A Enforcement has taken severalpha ses. 1. Th e initial ph ase p rima rilyutilised 'officer presence' as adeterring influence,com bining  with p ublicedu cation . 2. A more aggressive phasewas later used with issuanceof w ritten w arning s. 3. Th e curre nt pha se co nsistsof a combination of verbalwarnings, written warnings,citations and arrests. The levelof compliance is now high,especially in the group ofcom me rcial fishe rs. 4. Installation of 52 mooringbuoysLesson learned -- a combinationof clear demonstration ofma nag em ent su cces s and  we ll-executed public informationprograms best enhances visitorcom plianc e and  pub lic sup port.1. Although supported byconservation groups, the planfaced opposition from manylocal b usine sses  (particu larlydiver-related) who questionedthe practical benefits and theextent o resource protectionthat would result from creatinga M PA . 2. Comm ercial fishers alsoopp osed  the pla n as th ey feltthey w ould n ot ben efit from  it,but rath er w ould s uffer.1. One study compared fishpopulations on reefs with andwitho ut spe ar fishin g. Th e resu ltsshowed that the abundance of manyf ish species  increased in the  twoyears  follow ing S anctu arydesignation (snappers increased by93 per cent and grunts by 439 percent). The spear fishing ban is amajor reason for the increase.2. Installation of buoys wassuccessful, as measured by thenoticeable reduction in the extent ofanchor damage suffered by corals.3. A study by Hunt (1991), foundthat sp iny lob ster left the  sm all (0.5km 2) core a rea of th e rese rve w herethey were completely protected andeach night foraged over a largesurrou nding  area w here th ey w erecaptu red by  divers  and  traps. T hissugg ests tha t min ima l protec tion isp ro vid ed  to  co ve r th e n ig ht- tim eforaging range of lobsters (7). Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 43Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsKey Largo National Marine Sanctuary 1. Established in 1975, total area of 260 km2,  featuring coral reef and hard bottom comm unities (62).1. Research oriented marinesanctuary. Some of the majorresearch efforts include a studyof curre nt and  tem peratu repatterns; a study to assess theeffects of spear fishing onsnap pers a nd g roup ers; abiological inventory and reefhealth assessment project; and aninterdisciplinary researchprogram to study recovery ofreef corals damaged by a tankergrounding (62).1.Sanctuary regulations prohibit (i) removal ordestruction of natural reeffeatures or marine life (exceptspiny  lobste rs and  stone  crabs ),(ii) disruption of any bottomform ation o r grow th, (iii)dredging, (iv) tropicalspecimen collecting, and (v)contact with coral formations(62).N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATortugas Shrimp Sanctuary1. Es tablishe d in 19 81, o ff south we st Florid a, cov ering p art of the  Tortu gas fis hing g roun ds, to th e w est of K ey W est (65).1. To increase production of pinkshrimp (Penaeus duorarum) bypreventing the harvest ofundersized shrimp of less than103 mm  in length (65,66).1 . I nitia lly  clo se d to  all s hr im ptrawling in 1981. Later in 1983,a sm all part w as op ened  tocommercial trawling andclosed again in 1984 (65).1. Closing of the area fortrawlin g w as do ne b y the S tateof Florida and the federalgovernment, as recommendedby the  Gu lf of M exico  Fishe ryM anag em ent C oun cil(GM FM C) (67).1. G M FM C p rovide d fun ds toconduct studies to evaluate theeffectiv enes s of the  sanc tuary(67). Fishing comm unities were nothappy with the plan. Forexample:1. M any  com me rcial sh rimp ersand operators believed thatprohibition of trawling in thearea would only decreaseproduction and cause financialhardship (65).2. Seafood industry argued thatmodern technology enable themto utilise smaller shrimp withoutwa ste an d it wa s not in  theirinteres t to proh ibit traw ling. 1. Induced illegal trawling asthe are a bec am e m oreproductive (65).2. Council vs. NMFS  (seeSec tion 1) (66). 1. H igh rec ruitme nt varia bility in1981-83 and illegal trawling insidethe sa nctua ry cau sed v ariation  incom me rcial land ings a nd the  failureof the s anctu ary reg ulation s toincrease shrimp size and production(68).2. However, the 1981-83 surveydata indicated the 1981 TortugasSanctuary accomplished a majorgoal of the management planbecause it enclosed a highproportion of small pink shrimp asthey were recruited to the fishingground (65).3. No difference in catch, CPUE orsize c om positio n w eredisting uisha ble du e to the  closu re(mainly because of poor compliancewith th e regu lation b y fishe rs) (68).page 44; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsEverglades National Park (a lobster nursery sanctuary)1. First established as a marine park in 1947, with an underwater area of 268,615 ha (69).2.  In 1980, a lobster nursery sanctuary was created in the Everglades NP (70).1. To restore the naturalconditions of the bay.2. To provide more lobsters forharvest in adjacent fisheries (70).1. Only recreational harvest, bynet, trap  and  line fishin g, ispermitted (69)N/A N/A N/A N/A 1. Fishery harvests altered the sizestructure of the lobster populationby selectively removing nearly all ofthe larger individuals (70).2. C reation  of lobs ter san ctuarydisplaced about 1000 recreationaldivers, each of whom enjoyed about8 da ys of lo bsterin g  in the  parkeach  year, b ut incre ased  availa bilityof lobs ters for fish eries a djace nt tothe park and should have restoredthe lob ster po pulatio n in the  park tonear natural conditions (70).Fagatele Bay (Tutuila, American Samoa) (71)1. A very small marine sanctuary of  0.85 km2, desig nated  in 198 5. H abitat o f num erous  fish an d co ral spe cies, a s w ell as se veral th reaten ed o r enda nge red sp ecies  such  as hu mp back  and  sperm  wh ales, a nd h aw ksbilland green turtles.1. To protect the pristinecondition of the Bay.2. To  resea rch on  coral re cov eryfrom  infesta tion of c row n-of-thorns starfish.1. Allow subsistence fishing.2. Zoning for commercialfishing.1. Preliminary visit by thefedera l progra m o fficials w iththe Governor of AmericanSam oa to e xpres s intere st.2. Meet with the village head,the Samoan elders and thevillage  cou ncil.3. Worked with Samoanterritorial ag encie s indev elopin g the D raftEnvironmental ImpactStatement and to formulate themanagement plan.1. The plan included theestablishment of interpretivecentre, where Samoanpractices and oral traditionswould be displayed, aneducational curricula-development program and acom mu nity bo ard ad visory  tothe manager of the sanctuary.1. Pu blic he aring o n the d raftplan.2. Concerns from comm ercialfishers were heard and the planwas adjusted accordingly.1. A traditional cultural valuesupported the process: theopinion of the village headcannot be challenged by thoseof lesser standing.N/AMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 45Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsChileMehuin Marine Reserve, and Las Cruces Marine Reserves 1.  Mehuin, a small  reserve in the southern Chile, was established in 1978, and Las Cruces, in the central Chile,  was established in 1982 (72)1.  To protect intertidal andsha llow -w ater g raze rs, inparticular  keyh ole lim petsand urchins, as they  are mo revulnerable to humanexploitation because of  theeasy access (72). 1.  Exclusion of exploitationand other disturbances byhum ans (72)N/A N/A N/A 1. Ripple effects andmultispecies fisheries.  Forexample, interactionbetween limpets and algal(more lim pets, less algal),and subsequent effects onother organ isms (72).2.  Secondary effects ofprotection -- protection ofthese sites has transformedthe inter tidal reserv es intovery different comm unities(presence of locos reduceddensity of mussels andherbivorous g astropods;barnacles replaced algae) (7).1. Keyhole limpets in Las Crucesreserves increased in density andsize relative to exploited areas,after two years of humanexclusion (72).2. Sim ilar re sults f oun d inMehuin where densities ofkeyholes limpets almost tripledwithin two years, and urchinsincreased in size to reach 140mm  within  4 yea rs (com pared  to60 m m in exp loited areas)(72).3. Study of population densitiesof intertidal ascidian, Piure(Chile's comm ercially exploitedinvertebrate species) at  theMeh uin marine reserve,compared w ith four exploitedsites,  showed that densities ofPiure were more than 3 orders ofmagnitude higher in Mehuin.Maximum size of Piure in thereserve was 112 g, whereasoutside of the reserve,individuals rarely achieved a sizeof more than 20 g. This studyunde rscored  the dr am atic effectsof human harvesting on rockyintertidal comm unities, andurged  the C hilean a uthor ities toestablish more M PAs (73).4.  Populations of loco gastropods( a k ey -s to ne  pr ed at or ) in  th e t w oreserv es w ere stud ied. Re sultsshowed increase in size of locoswithin the reserves whenexcluding from hum anharvesting (74-76)page 46; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsVenezuelaArchipielago de Los Roques National Park1. An in sular ree f com plex loca ted on  the no rth-cen tral coast, con sisting of 4 2 islands  and m ore tha n 20 0 san dban ks and  reefs distribu ted aro und a  shallow  lagoon  of 1-5 m etre dep th (77).The size of the national park is about 225,000 ha (78).2.  Important habitat  for  queen conch.N/A 1. Zoning is beingconsidered (78).2. Q uee n co nch  fishin g isprohibited in some area (77).N/A 1. Division of NationalParks, Ministry ofAgriculture has amanagem ent authority overthe park (78).N/A 1. The size of the park posesa real challenge forma nage me nt (78).2.  Illegal construction ofhouses after the creation ofthe park (78).3.  Il legal f ishing (78).1.  There is a lack of adults andthe p redo m inan ce of ju ven iles inthe fished zone, when com paredto the protected zone (77).2.  Queen conch populationdensity  and m ean sh ell lengthwere significantly lower in fishedthan in protected areas (78).Indonesia  (Overview)  (79)1. 24 M PAs, encom passing 2.8 m illion ha., have been declared since 19 73. M ost areas are coral-reef dom inated, with seagrass an d m angrove com mu nities.1 .  Initiated by thegovernment, acknowledgingthe need for a balan cebetween growth andsustained use of naturalresources to meet thecountry's needs in the nextcentury. MPAs are consideredto have a major role in themanagement of marineresources. The governmenthas set the target of 10 millionha. of M PAs.N/A 1. PH PA (D irectorateGenera l for ForestProtection and N atureCon servation ) is respon siblefor drafting andimplementing managementplan, but the nomination ofMPA is based not only onPHP A 5-yea r plan, but alsoon provincial input, and thesite inventory in the MarineConservation D ata Atlas.Other sources and agenciessuch as the RegionalPlanning Office and the localsu b-regio n a dm ini str ato r'soffice are also consulted.2. Criteria for site selectionof proposed M PAs areada pted  from  thos e use d inselecting terrestrialprotected areas, i.e.diversity, naturalness,1.  Established legislationand organisationalstructures. Key legislationused fo r m anag em ent of allpro tected  area s inInd one sia is th e La w n o. 5(1990), Conservation ofLiving Natural Resourcesand  their  Eco syste m  Act. 2. Departm ent of Forestryis the leading agency formanagement of marineconservation. 1. Law no. 5 requirescom m unity  invo lvem ent inthe m anagem ent of M PAs.2. All programmes include acommunity participationcom pone nt closely  linked tocommunity awareness andedu cation . 3.  Plans at 2 MPAs includeprop osals for co mm unitydevelo pm ent officers to  helpcommunity participation andpark aw areness.4. Help comes also fromW W F and oth er NG Os.1.  Management planningand implementation havenot kept pace with thedeclaration of MPAs. Only 3of the 24 MPAs havecompleted managementplans and they have not yetbeen approved by PHPA andremain unimplemented.2. Re asons: p roxim ity tomajor urb an centres,jurisdictional disputes,  co-ordination, conflicting uses,scientists' participation,community awareness andtraining.N/AMarine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 47Purpose Level of protection Planning pro cess Ma nagem ent process/enforcementComm unity involvement I ss ue s/ pr ob le m s Resu ltsrepresentativeness,uniqueness, rareness, size,accessibility andeffectiveness.3. The management plan forMPA is prepared by aproject leader or theregion al conse rvation s taff.The plan should outl ine the25-year strategy for p arkmanagement,  the initial 5-year wo rk plan and th e firstannual m anagem ent workplan.CanadaWhytecliff Park1. First declared  a marine park in 1973, but without any protection to marine life.2.  Whytecliff  Park is Canada's first no-take (fishery closure) MPA in 1993 (80) using bottom-up approach.  It  was not  designated as an MPA under the Oceans Act at  this t ime (Jan 1999)1. Overall purpose : to protectthe marine l ife  within thepark from  all consump tive use(80).2. Four specific objectives:ecological (protectingbiodiversity), multiple-userecreational activities,education and socio-econom ic (81).1. Marine reso urceharv esting clo sure for  allspecies.2. Prohibition of removal ofany plant or animal speciesfrom the terrestrial  part ofthe park.3. Prohibition of harmful ordam aging  activities tospecies a nd na tural ha bitats(81)1.  Bottom-up andpartnership process: using acooperative, cost-effectivemanagement strategy,focussed on diverse group ofstakeholders towardsachieving common goal (80).2.  Use meetings andnegotiation process as aforum for stakeholders andresource users to findsolutions to their concernsand  to acc om m oda te th eirinter ests. 1.  Changing the legal statusin the w ater adjac ent toW hytec liff Park pu rsuan t tothe F isheries A ct.1 .  Involving public in thewhole process of establishingthe MPA, by forming varioustactical committees (80).2. Creating positive attitude,motivation and sense ofresponsibility amongindividuals (80)N/A N/Apage 48; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1REFERENCESThis list excludes references from the Summary Table which are given in Appendix 1 Alcala, A. C., and Gomez, E. D., 1987. Dynamiting coral reefs for fish: a resource destructive fishing method.pp. 51-60. In: B. Salvat, ed. Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and recommendations, AntenneMuseum Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, French Polynesia.Alcala, A. C., and Russ, G. R., 1990. A direct test of the effects of protective management on abundance andyield of tropical marine resources. Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer,46:40-47.Alder, J., 1995. A management analysis of tropical marine protected areas: Indonesia and the Great BarrierReef Marine Park - two Case Studies. PhD thesis,  Department of Tropical Environmental Studies andGeography, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.  234 pp.Attwood, C. G., Mann, B. Q., Beaumont, J., and Harris, J. M., 1997. Review of the state of marine protectedareas in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Sciences, 18:341-367.Ballantine, B., 1991. Marine reserves for New Zealand. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, LeighLaboratory Bulletin, 25, 196 pp.Barley, G., 1993. Integrated coastal management: The Florida Keys example from an activist citizen's point ofview. Oceanus, 36(3):15-18.Barr, J., Henwood, B., and Lewis, K., 1998. A marine protected areas strategy for the Pacific Coast of Canada.pp. 161-168. In:  N. W. P. Munro and J. H. M. Willison, eds., Linking Protected Areas with WorkingLandscapes Conserving Biodiversity. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Scienceand Management of Protected Areas, 12-16 May 1997, Science and Management of Protected AreasAssociation, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada.Cabanban, A. S., and White, A. T., 1981. Marine conservation program using non-formal education at ApoIsland, Negros Oriental, Philippines. pp. 317-321. In:  Proceedings of the 4th International Coral ReefSymposium. 1.Carter, J., Gibson, J., Carr, A., III, and Azueta, J., 1994. Creation of the Hol Chan Marine Reserve in Belize:A grass roots approach to barrier reef conservation. The Environmental Professional, 16(3):220-231.Castañeda, P. G., and Miclat, R. I., 1981. The municipal coral reef park in the Philippines. pp. 283-286. In:  E.D. Gom er, C. E. Birkeland, R. W. Buddem eier, R. E. Johannes, J. A. M arsh, Jr., and R. T. Tsuda, eds.,4th International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, Philippines , 18 22 May 1981. 1.Christie, P., White, A. T., and Buhat, D., 1994. Community-based coral reef management on San SalvadorIsland, the Philippines. Society and Natural Resources, 7:103-117.Cocklin, C., Craw, M., and M cAuley, I., 1998. Marine reserves in New Zealand: use rights, public attitudes, andsocial impacts. Coastal Managem ent, 26:213-231.Department of Conservation, 1995. Marine reserves. A Department of Conservation information paper.Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy PO Box 842, Whangarei,, 21 pp.Environment Australia, 1997. Australia's Oceans Policy. Socio-cultural considerations. Department ofEnvironm ent, Australia, , Issues Paper 6, .Fiske, S. J., 1992. Sociocultural aspects of establishing marine protected areas. Ocean Coastal Managem ent,17(1):25-46.Garcia-Rubies, A., and Zabala, M., 1990. Effects of total fishing prohibition on the rocky fish assemblages ofMedes Islands marine reserve NW  Mediterranean. Scienta Marina, 54(4):317-328.Gilman, E. L., 1997. Comm unity based and multiple purpose protected areas: a model to select and manageprotected areas with lessons from the Pacific Islands. Coastal Management, 25:59-91.Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 49Gom ez, E. D., Alcala, A. C., and Yap, H. T., 1987. Other fishing methods destructive to coral reefs.  pp. 67-75.In: B. Salvat, ed. Human impacts on coral reefs: facts and recom mendations, Antenne M useum  EcolePratique des Hautes Etudes, French Polynesia.Government of Canada and British Columbia, 1998. Marine Protected Areas, A strategy for Canada's PacificCoast. , 28 pp.Harvey, S., 1983. Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act: issues in programimplementation. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 11:169-197.Jennings, S., Marshall, S. S., and Polunin, N. V. C., 1996. Seychelles' marine protected areas: comparativestructure and status of reef fish communities. Biological Conservation, 75:201-209.Kelsey, E., Nightingale, J., and Solin, M., 1995. The role of partnerships in implementing a new marineprotected area: a case study of Whytecliff Park.  pp. 235-239. In: N. L. Shackell and J. H. M. Willison,eds., Marine protected areas and sustainable fisheries, Science and Management and Protected AreasAssociation, Centre for Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia,Canada.Leenhardt, M., 1990. Le parc naturel régional et les réserves marines de Corse. pp. 85-92. In:  A. Cossu, V.Gazale, and I. Milella, eds., Marine parks in the M editerranean. Biological and m anagement aspects.,San Teodoro, Sassari, Italy.McClanahan, T. R., 1994. Kenyan coral reef lagoon fish: effects of fishing, substrate complexity, and seaurchins. Coral Reefs, 13:231-241.McClanahan, T. R., and Obura, D., 1995. Status of Kenyan coral reefs. Coastal Management, 23:57-76.McClanahan, T. R., and Shafir, S. H., 1990. Causes and consequences of sea urchin abundance and diversityin Kenyan coral reef lagoons. Oecologia, 83:362-370.McM anus, J. W., 1996. Social and economic aspects of reef fisheries and their m anagement.  pp. 249-281. In:N. V. C. Polunin and C. M. Roberts, eds., Reef fisheries, Chapman and Hall, London, 20.Paisley, R. K., 1995. Science and the establishment of marine protected areas.  pp. 257-264. In: N. L. Shackelland J. H. M. Willison, eds., Marine protected areas and sustainable fisheries, Science and Managementand Protected Areas Association, Centre for Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Acadia University,Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada.Ramos-Espla, A. A., and McN eill, S. E., 1994. The status of marine conservation in Spain. Ocean CoastalManagement, 24:125-138.Russ, G., 1985. Effects of protective management on coral reef fishes in the central Philippines. pp. 219-224.In:  Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti, 1985. 4.Russ, G. R., and Alcala, A. C., 1989. Effects of intense fishing pressure on an assemblage of coral reef fishes.Marine Ecology Progress Series, 56(1-2):13-27.Russ, G. R., and Alcala, A. C., 1994. Sumilon Island Reserve: 20 years of hopes and frustration. NAGA, theICLARM Q uarterly, 7 (3):8-12.Russ, G. R., and Alcala, A. C., 1996a. Do marine reserves export adult fish biomass? Evidence from Apo Island,central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 132:1-9.Russ, G. R ., and Alcala, A. C., 1996b. Marine reserves: rates and patterns of recovery and decline of largepredatory fish. Ecological Applications, 6:947-961.Samoilys, M. A., 1988. Abundance and species richness of coral reef fish on the Kenyan coast: the effects ofprotective management and fishing. pp. 261-266. In:  J. H. Choat, D. Barnes, M. A. Borowitzka, J. C.Coll, P. J. Davies, P. Flood, B. G. Hatcher, and D. Hopley, eds., Proceedings of the Sixth Internationalcoral reef symposium, Townsville, Qld, Australia. 2.page 50; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 1Savina, G. C., and W hite, A. T., 1986. A tale of two islands: som e lessons for marine resource m anagem ent.Environmental Conservation, 13(2):107-113.Sir O'Reagan, T., 1997. Maori fisheries rights and the quota management system. pp. 325-328. In:  D. A.Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J. B. Beumer, eds., Developing and sustaining wo rld fisheriesresources: the state of science and managem ent: 2nd World Fisheries Congress proceedings, Brisbane,Australia, August 1996, CSIRO, PO Box 1139 Collingwood, V1C 3006 Australia.Smith, A. H., and Berkes, F., 1991. Solutions to the 'Tragedy of the com mons': sea-urchins managem ent in St-Lucia, West Indies. Environmental Conservation, 18(2):131-136.Sm yth, D., 1995. Caring for sea country - accommodating indigenous people's interests in marine protectedareas.  pp. 149-173. In: S. Gubbay, ed. Marine Protected Areas: principles and techniques formanagement, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Solin, M., 1993. Final report: Achieving true marine protected areas status for Whytecliff Park. WestwaterResearch Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada,, 18 pp.Suárez de Vivero, J. L., and Frieyro, M. C., 1994. Spanish marine policy: role of marine protected areas. MarinePolicy, 18:345-352.Sullivan, K., 1997. Management of New Zealand's snapper fishery: allocation of a limited resource betweencommercial and non-com mercial uses. pp. 344-351. In:  D. A. Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J.B. Beumer, eds., Developing and sustaining world fisheries resources: the state of science andmanagement: 2nd W orld Fisheries Congress proceedings, Brisbane, Australia, August 1996, CSIRO,PO Box 1139 Collingwood, V1C 3006 Australia.Suman, D. O., 1997. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: A case study of an innovative federal-statepartnership in marine resource management. Coastal Management, 25:293-324.Tarte, D. M., and Hegerl, E. J., 1996. Community involvement in  the management of the Great Barrier Reef.pp. 396-402. In:  Proceedings of The Great Barrier Reef Science, Use and Management, James CookUniversity of North Queensland, Townsville, Australia, 25-29 November 1996. 1.Templet, P. H., 1986. American Samoa: establishing a coastal area management model for developingcountries. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 13:241-264.Thomas, W. J., 1988. Fagatele Bay: a sanctuary in Samoa. Oceanus, 31(1):18-24.Valdés-Pizzini, M., 1990. Fishermen associations in Puerto Rico: praxis and discourse in the politics of fishing.Human Organization, 49:164-173.Vincent, A. C. J., 1998. Seahorses and subsistence: a tale of overlooked fisheries. Fisheries Seminar, FisheriesCentre, UBC, Vancouver, Canada.Vincent, A. C. J., and Pajaro, M. G., 1997. Community-based management for a sustainable seahorse fishery.pp. 761-766. In:   D. A. Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J. B. Beumer, eds., Developing andsustaining world fisheries resources: the state of science and management: 2nd W orld FisheriesCongress Proceedings, Brisbane, Australia, CSIRO, PO Box 1139 Collingwood, V1C 3006 Australia,ISBN 0 643 059857.White, A. T., 1988. The effect of community-managed marine reserves in the Philippines on their associatedcoral reef fish populations. Asian Fisheries Science, 2:27-41.Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 51APPENDIX 11. Attwood, C. G., Harris, J. M., and Williams, A. J., 1997. International experience of marine protected areasand their relevance to South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Sciences, 18: 311-332.2. Rigney, H., 1990. Marine reserves - blueprint for protection. Australian Fisheries, 49: 18-22.3. Tisd ell, C., and Broadus, J. M., 1989. Policy issues related to the establishment and management of marinereserves. Coastal Management, 17: 37-53.4. Shorthouse, B., 1990. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: how does it work for fishermen? AustralianFisheries, 49: 16-17.5. Cooks, K. D., 1994. A systematic method of public use zoning of the GBRMP, Australia. Coastal ZoneManagement Journal, 12: 359-383.6. Beaum ont, J., 1997. Comm unity participation in the establishment and management of marine protectedareas: a review of selected international experience. South African Journal of Marine Sciences, 18: 333-340.7. Rowley, R. J., 1994. Case studies and reviews, Marine reserves in fisheries management. Aquaticconservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems, 4: 233-254.8. Craik, W. J. S., 1981. Underwater survey of coral trout Plectropomus leopardus (Serranidae) populationsin the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef M arine Park. In: Proceedings of the 4thInternational Coral Reefs Symposium, , , pp. 53-58.9. Ferreira, B. P., and Russ, G. R., 1995. Population structure of the leopard coral grouper, Plectropomusleopardus, on fished and unfished reefs off Townsville, Central Great Barrier Reef, Australia. FisheryBulletin, 93: 629-642.10. Bennett, B., and Attwood, C. G., 1993. Shore-angling catches in the De Hoop N ature Reserve, South Africa,and further evidence for the protective value of marine reserves. South African Journal of MarineSciences, 13: 213-222.11. Bennett, B. A., and Attwood, C. G., 1991. Evidence for recovery of a surf zone fish assemblage following theestablishment of a m arine reserve on the southern coast of South Africa. Marine Ecology ProgressSeries, 75:(2-3) 173-181.12. Bennett, B . A., and Attwood, C. G., 1993. In defence of the de Hoop Marine Reserve. In: L. E. Beckley andR. P. van der Elst, eds., Fish, Fishers and Fisheries. Proceedings of the Second South African marinelinefish symposium, Durban, South Africa, Oct. 1992, Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban, pp.175-176.13. Sauer, W. H. H ., 1995. South Africa's Tsitsikamma National Park as a protected breeding area for thecom mercially exploited chokka squid Loligo vulgaris reynaudii. South African Journal of MarineSciences, 16: 365-371.14. Buxton, C. D., and Smale, M. J., 1989. Abundance and distribution patterns of three temperate marine reeffish (Teleostei: Sparidae) in exploited and unexploited areas off the southern Cape Coast. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 26: 441-451.15. Buxton, C. D., 1993. The distribution and abundance of the littoral ichthyofauna in the TsitsikammaNational Park. In: L. E. Beckley and R. P. van der Elst, eds., Fish, Fishers and Fisheries, Second SouthAfrican M arine Linefish Symp., Durban, South Africa, , Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban,pp. 45-51.16. Attwood, C. G., Mann, B. Q., Beaumont, J., and Harris, J. M., 1997. Review of the state of marine protectedareas in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Sciences, 18: 341-367.page 52; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 117. Russ, G. R., Alcala, A. C., and Cabanban, A. S., 1992. Marine reserves and fisheries management on coralreefs with preliminary m odelling of the effects on yield per recruit. In: Proceedings of the SeventhInternational Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, , , pp. 978-985.18. Russ, G. R., 1989. Distribution and abundance of coral reef fishes in the Sumilon Island reserve, centralPhilippines, after nine years of protection from fishing. Asian Marine Biology, 6: 59-71.19. Russ, G. R., and Alcala, A. C., 1994. Sum ilon Island Reserve: 20 years of hopes and frustration. NAGA, theICLARM Q uarterly, 7 (3): 8-12.20. Alcala, A. C., and Russ, G. R., 1990. A direct test of the effects of protective management on abundance andyield of tropical marine resources. Journal du  Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 46:40-47.21. Russ, G. R., and Alcala, A. C., 1996. Marine reserves: rates and patterns of recovery and decline of largepredatory fish. Ecological Applications, 6: 947-961.22. Russ, G. R., and Alcala, A. C., 1996. Do marine reserves export adult  fish biomass? Evidence from ApoIsland, central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 132: 1-9.23. White, A. T., 1988. The effect of community-managed m arine reserves in the Philippines on theirassociated coral reef fish populations. Asian Fisheries Science, 2: 27-41.24. Savina, G. C., and White, A. T., 1986. A tale of two islands: som e lessons for marine resource m anagem ent.Environmental Conservation, 13:(2) 107-113.25. Russ, G., 1985. Effects of protective managem ent on coral reef fishes in the central Philippines. In:Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti, 1985, , pp. 219-224.26. Vincent, A. C. J., and Pajaro, M. G., 1997. Community-based management for a sustainable seahorsefishery. In: D. A. Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J. B. Beum er, eds., Developing and sustainingworld fisheries resources: the state of science and management: 2nd W orld Fisheries CongressProceedings, Brisbane, Australia, , CSIRO, PO  Box 1139 Collingwood, V1C 3006 Australia, ISBN 0 643059857, pp. 761-766.27. Vincent, A. C. J., 1998. Seahorses and subsistence: a tale of overlooked fisheries. , Fisheries Seminar,Fisheries Centre, UBC, Vancouver, Canadapp.28. McManus, J. W., 1996. Social and economic aspects of reef fisheries and their management. In: N. V. C.Polunin and C. M. Roberts, eds., Reef fisheries, Chapman and H all, London, 20, pp. 249-281.29. Christie, P., White, A. T., and Buhat, D., 1994. Community-based coral reef management on San SalvadorIsland, the Philippines. Society and Natural Resources, 7: 103-117.30. McClanahan, T. R., and Shafir, S. H., 1990. Causes and consequences of sea urchin abundance anddiversity in Kenyan coral reef lagoons. Oecologia, 83: 362-370.31. Samoilys, M. A., 1988. Abundance and  species richness of coral reef fish on the Kenyan coast: the effectsof protective managem ent and fishing. In: J. H. Choat, D. Barnes, M. A. Borowitzka, J. C. Coll, P. J.Davies, P. Flood, B. G. Hatcher, and D. Hopley, eds., Proceedings of the Sixth International coral reefsymposium, Townsville, Qld, Australia, , , pp. 261-266.32. McClanahan, T. R., and Obura, D., 1995. Status of Kenyan coral reefs. Coastal Management, 23: 57-76.33. McClanahan, T. R., 1994. Kenyan coral reef lagoon fish: effects of fishing, substrate complexity, and seaurchins. Coral Reefs, 13: 231-241.34. Watson, M ., Righton, D., Austin, T., and Orm ond, R., 1996. The effects of fishing on coral reef fishabundance and diversity. Journal of Marine Biology Association U.K., 76: 229-233.35. Watson, M., and Ormond, R. F. G., 1994. Effect of an artisanal fishery on the fish and urchin populationsof a Kenyan coral reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 109: 115-129.Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 5336. Leenhardt, M., 1990. Le parc naturel régional et les réserves marines de Corse. In: A. Cossu, V. Gazale, andI. Milella, eds., Marine parks in the Mediterranean. Biological and management aspects., San Teodoro,Sassari, Italy, , , pp. 85-92.37. Francour, P., 1994. Pluriannual analysis of the reserve effect on ichthyofauna in the Scandola naturalreserve Corsica, northwestern Mediterranean. Oceanologica Acta, 17:(3) 309-317.38. Francour, P., 1993. Ichthyofauna of the natural reserve of Scandola Corsica, north western Mediterranean: Analysis of the pluriannual reserve effect. Marine Life, 3:(1-2) 83-93.39. Harmelin, J. G., Bachet, F., and Garcia, F., 1995. Mediterranean marine reserves: fish indicies as tests ofprotection efficiency. P. S. Z. N. I.: Marine Ecology, 16: 233-250.40. Ramos-Espla, A. A., and McNeill, S. E., 1994. The status of marine conservation in Spain. Ocean CoastalManagement, 24: 125-138.41. Ramos-Espla, A. A., and Bayle-Sempere, J., 1989. Management of living resources in the marine reserveof Tabarca Island Alicante, Spain. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 114:(4) 41-48.42. Garcia-Rubies, A., and Zabala, M., 1990. Effects of total fishing prohibition on the rocky fish assemblagesof Medes Islands marine reserve NW  Mediterranean. Scienta Marina, 54:(4) 317-328.43. Cole, R. G., Ayling, T . M., and Creese, R. G., 1990. Effects of marine reserve protection at Goat Island,northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 24: 197-210.44. Ballantine, B., 1991. Marine reserves for New Zealand. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand,Leigh Laboratory Bulletin, 25, 196 pp.45. Cocklin, C., Craw, M., and McAuley, I., 1998. Marine reserves in New Zealand: use rights, public attitudes,and social impacts. Coastal Management, 26: 213-231.46. McCorm ick, M . I., and Choat, J. H., 1987. Estimating total abundance of a large tem perate reef fish usingvisual strip transects. Marine Biology, 96: 469-478.47. Department of Conservation, 1995. Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve, recreational fishing review;discussion paper. Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy PO Box 842, Whangarei, 15pp.48. Jennings, S., Marshall, S. S., and Polunin, N. V. C., 1996. Seychelles' marine protected areas: comparativestructure and status of reef fish communities. Biological Conservation, 75: 201-209.49. Wantiez, L. P., Thollot, P., and Kulbicki, M., 1997. Effects of marine reserves on coral reef fish communitiesfrom five islands in New Caledonia. Coral Reefs, 16: 215-224.50. Jourde, J. L., 1985. M arine reserves in New Caledonia. In: P. E. J. Thom as, ed. Report of the Third SouthPacific National Parks and Reserves Conference, Apia, Western Sam oa, , South Pacific Reg.Environment Programme, Noum ea, New Caledonia, pp. 74-78.51. Wantiez, L., Thollot, P., and Kulbicki, M., 1995. Effets de réserve sur les comm unautés de poissons récifauxde cinq îlots du Parc du Lagon Sud de Nouvelle-Calédonie. In: P . Dalzell and T. J. H. Adam s, eds.,South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency W orkshop and the M anagem ent of SouthPacific Inshore Fisheries, Noumea, New Caledonia, , SPC, pp. 393.52. Letourneur, Y., 1996. Réponses des peuplements et populations de poissons aux réserves marines: le casde l'île de Mayotte, Ocean Indien occidental. Ecoscience, 3: 442-450.53. Smith, A. H., and Berkes, F., 1991. Solutions to the 'Tragedy of the commons': sea-urchins managementin St-Lucia, West Indies. Environmental Conservation, 18:(2) 131-136.54. Goodridge, R., Oxenford, H . A., Hatcher, B. G., and Narcisse, F., 1997. Changes in the shallow reef fisheryassociated with implementation of a system of fishing priority and marine reserve areas in Soufriere,St. Lucia. In: Proceedings of the 49th Gulf and Carribean Fisheries Institute, Christ Church, Barbados,Nov. 1996, Gulf and Carribean Fisheries Institute, Fort Pierce, Florida, pp. 316-339.page 54; UBC Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol 8, No 155. Rakitin, A., and Kramer, D. L., 1996. Effect of a marine reserve on the distribution of coral reef fishes inBarbados. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 131: 97-113.56. Stoner, A. W., and Ray, M., 1996. Queen conch, Strombus gigas, in fished and unfished locations of theBahamas: effects of a  marine fishery reserve on adults, juveniles, and larval production. FisheryBulletin, 94: 551-565.57. Chiappone, M., and Sullivan Sealey, K. M., 1998. Establishing goals and assessing the success of marinereserves: a case study of the Exuma Cays Land ans Sea Park, Bahamas. 1998 W illiam R . and LenoreMote International Symposium: Essential F ish H abitat and M arine reserves, Sarasota, Florida, .58. Polunin, N. V. C., and Roberts , C. M ., 1993. Greater biomass and value of target coral-reef fishes in twosmall Carribean marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 100: 167-176.59. Roberts, C. M., 1995. Rapid build-up of fish biomass in a Carribean marine reserve. BiologicalConservation, 9: 816-826.60. Roberts, C. M., and Polunin, N. V. C., 1994. Hol Chan: demonstrating that marine reserves can beremarkably effective. Coral Reefs, 13: 90.61. Carter, J., Gibson, J., Carr, A., III, and Azueta, J., 1994. Creation of the Hol Chan Marine Reserve in Belize:A grass roots approach to barrier reef conservation. The Environmental Professional, 16:(3) 220-231.62. Laist, D., Bigford, T., Robertson, G., and Gordon, D., 1986. Management of corals and coral ecosystemsin the United States. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 13: 203-239.63. Suman, D. O., 1997. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: A case study of an innovative federal-state partnership in marine resource management. Coastal Management, 25: 293-324.64. Clark, J. R., Causey, B., and Bohnsack, J., 1989. Benefits from coral reef protection: Looe Key reef, Florida.In: O. T. Magoon, H. Converge, D. Miner, L. T. Tobin, and D. Clark, eds., Coastal zone '89: Proceedingsof the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Charleston SC, , Am erican Society of CivilEngineers, pp. 3079-3086.65. Roberts, T. W., 1986. Abundance and distribution of pink shrimp in and around the Tortugas Sanctuary,1981-1983. North American Journal Fisheries Management, 6: 311-327.66. Klima, E. F., Roberts, T. W., and Jones, A. C., 1986. Overview of the Tortugas Sanctuary studies. NorthAmerican Journal Fisheries Management, 6: 297-300.67. Gitschlag, G. R., 1986. Movement of pink shrimp in relation to the Tortugas Sanctuary. North AmericanJournal Fisheries Management, 6: 328-338.68. Klima, E. F., Matthews, G. A., and Patella, F. J., 1986. Synopsis of the Tortugas pink shrimp fishery, 1960-1983, and the impact of the Tortuga sanctuary. North American Journal Fisheries Management, 6:301-310.69. Davis, G. E., 1981. On the role of underwater parks and sanctuaries in the management of coastal resourcesin the southeastern United States. Environmental Conservation, 8:(1) 67-70.70. Davis, G. E., and D odrill, J. W., 1989. Recreational fishery and population dynam ics of spiny lobsters,Panulirus argus, in Florida Bay, Everglades National Park, 1977-1980. Bulletin of Marine Science, 44:78-88.71. Fiske, S. J., 1992. Sociocultural aspects of establishing marine protected areas. Ocean Coastal Management,17:(1) 25-46.72. Branch, G. M., and Moreno, C. A., 1994. Intertidal and subtidal grazers. In: W. R. Siegfried, ed. Rockyshores exploitation in Chile and South Africa., Spring-Verlag, Berlin, 103, pp. 75-100.73. Davis, A. R., 1995. Over-exploitation of Pyura chilensis  (Ascidiacea) in southern Chile: the urgent need toestablish marine reserves. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 68: 107-116.Marine Protected Areas with an Emphasis on Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples: a review.;  page 5574. Moreno, C. A., Lunecke, K. M., and Lépez, M. I., 1986. The response of an intertidal Concholepasconcholepas (Gastropoda) population to protection from Man in southern Chile and the effects onbenthic sessile assemblages. OIKOS, 46: 359-364.75. Durán, L. R., and Castilla, J. C., 1989. Variation and persistence of the middle rocky intertidal com munityof Central Chile, with and without human harvesting. Marine Biology, 103: 555-562.76. Castilla , J. C., and Durán, L. R., 1985. Human exclusion from the rocky intertidal of Las Cruces, centralChile: the effects on Concholepas concholepas (Gastropoda). OIKOS, 45: 391-399.77. Weil, E. M., and Laughlin, G., 1984. Biology, population dynam ics and reproduction of the queen conchStrombus gigas Linné in the Archipelago De Los Roques N ational Park. Journal of Shellfish Research,4: 45-62.78. Silva, M., and Desilvestre, I., 1986. Marine and coastal protected areas in Latin A merica: A preliminaryassessment. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 14: 311-347.79. Alder, J., Sloan, N. A., and Uktolseya, H., 1994. Advances in marine protected area management inIndonesia: 1988-1993. Ocean Coastal Management, 25: 63-75.80. Kelsey, E., Nightingale, J., and Solin, M., 1995. The role of partnerships in implementing a new marineprotected area: a case study of Whytecliff Park. In: N. L. Shackell and J. H. M. Willison, eds., Marineprotected areas and sustainable fisheries, Science and Management and Protected Areas Association,Centre for Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada, pp.235-239.81. Solin, M., 1993. Final report: Achieving true marine protected areas status for Whytecliff Park. WestwaterResearch Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 18 pp.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0348127/manifest

Comment

Related Items