Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Imprecise and weakly assessed: Evaluating voluntary measures for management of marine protected areas Charlotte K. Whitney a,n, Julie Gardner b, Natalie C. Ban a, Chantal Vis c, Soonya Quon c, Suzan Dionne c a
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, B243-3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5C2 Dovetail Consulting, 2208 Cypress Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6J 3M5 c Marine Policy Division, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation Directorate, Parks Canada Agency, 30 Victoria Street, Gatineau, QC, Canada J8X 0B3 b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 3 February 2016 Received in revised form 7 April 2016 Accepted 7 April 2016 Available online 19 April 2016
Voluntary measures may be an alternative or addition to legislation for marine protected areas (MPAs), yet the effectiveness of these measures is rarely analyzed. The application and effectiveness of voluntary measures was reviewed for MPA management in developed nations where complex jurisdictions and legislative processes make voluntary measures appealing to management. Four types of voluntary measures were identified: sacrifice of access, sector- or activity-specific restrictions, voluntary stewardship, and education or outreach, with sector- or activity-specific measures being the most common. Very few papers (only 20 of 144) provided thorough assessments of outcomes or effectiveness of voluntary measures; of these, less than a quarter pointed to successful outcomes in connection with voluntary measures for MPAs or marine conservation more broadly, while half indicated mixed or uncertain results. The main factor to which failure of voluntary measures was attributed was the lack of leverage to discourage non-compliance. Key factors for the success of voluntary measures included community support, cohesive user organizations, and good governance (i.e., leadership, financing, a perception of fairness). To improve efficacy of voluntary measures for MPAs, empirical research is needed to establish effective circumstances where, when, and how voluntary measures can be applied to address management objectives. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Voluntary measures Marine protected areas Management Marine parks Marine protection Non-statutory tools
1. Introduction Exploitation, mismanagement, and climate change threaten the health and function of the world's oceans [1,2]. Marine conservation efforts using marine protected areas (MPAs) – clearly defined areas managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values – are increasingly being implemented to protect biodiversity and ecosystem function while supporting sustainable fisheries [3–7]. MPAs can provide environmental, social, and economic benefits, yet the establishment of well-regulated MPAs can be challenging and time-consuming, as these tools demand effective institutions and governance [8–10]. The complexity of legal systems in the marine environment and processes associated with regulation and enforcement make regulatory management often slow to enact, unresponsive and n
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (C.K. Whitney),
[email protected] (J. Gardner),
[email protected] (C. Vis),
[email protected] (S. Quon),
[email protected] (S. Dionne). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.011 0308-597X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
difficult to modify [11,12]. Development of regulations and legislation can be held up by complex governance processes, be suspended due to lack of funding or effective legal standing, and take years of involvement by those at the highest levels of governance, often disconnected from local stakeholders [12,13]. When statutory MPAs are established, government agencies may lack sufficient resources for monitoring and enforcement programs [14], or lack statutory powers to enforce the range of regulations required to support conservation objectives. In contrast, voluntary measures are non-enforceable approaches adopted by an individual, organization, agency or community in order to constrain or modify behaviors in support of specific objectives, and can therefore require fewer resources or management [12,13]. Voluntary conservation approaches have been applied in terrestrial land management and forest conservation with some success, although mostly on private land and with monetary compensation to those private landholders [15,16]. Non-monetary voluntary participation has been far less explored or described in the literature [16]. There is growing interest in understanding and applying voluntary measures that complement regulations for both spatial and non-spatial conservation management in marine
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
environments [11]. Such measures include voluntary restrictions on access or use of an area, restrictions on specific activities or sectors, stewardship or monitoring activities, and education to raise awareness of conservation or management goals. The hypothesis is that voluntary measures, when endorsed by users, can avoid many of the issues associated with a regulatory approach to MPA management (e.g. timeliness, funding constraints, legal authority, lack of ownership of the measure by users). However, research on voluntary measures for marine protected areas is limited [17–19], and as far as we could determine, no comprehensive review of the types of voluntary measures applied to MPAs or their effectiveness exists. The purpose of this review is to document voluntary measures used in the management of MPAs in developed countries and to identify factors contributing to success or failure of voluntary measures in MPA management. We focus on developed countries, where centralized governance structures mean that the establishment and management of MPAs can be complex, take a long time and be especially costly [20], hence where voluntary measures are of particular interest. We focused on two key questions: What voluntary measures are used for MPA management, and what factors contribute to the success or failure of those measures?
93
keywords of the initial search results (265 articles) for two selection criteria: first, that the study focused on MPAs or marine conservation in developed countries, and second, that the study mentioned or focused on voluntary measures for conservation management or codes of conduct. This step was used to identify and describe the different types of voluntary measures applied in marine conservation. The 144 articles that were relevant to the objectives of the review were analyzed, and found that only a subset of 39 articles had sufficient focus on voluntary measures to be useful for the specific question. This subset included some papers addressing aspects of marine conservation not directly focused on MPAs, but which were informative about voluntary measures, as well as papers about MPAs where voluntary measures were more often a peripheral theme than a central focus. Of the 39 articles, only 20 documented or evaluated the outcomes or effectiveness of voluntary measures for MPA or conservation management; these key papers formed the basis for the interpretation of factors contributing to the success or failure of voluntary measures.
3. Results 3.1. Types of voluntary measures: from limits to access, to education
2. Methods A literature search was conducted using Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge on a combination of search terms: (voluntary OR “code of conduct” OR “self-regulation” OR “community-driven”) AND (“marine protected area” OR “marine reserve” OR “no-take”) AND (ocean OR marine OR coastal). The search was limited to articles that were published in English since 1990 (including articles up to February 7, 2015). We reviewed the abstract and
Voluntary measures used in MPA management were classified into four categories (Table 1): sacrifice of access, sector- or activityspecific restrictions, voluntary stewardship, and education or outreach. While there is some overlap among these categories for some voluntary measures, papers were placed into the most relevant category (Table 2). Sector- or activity-specific voluntary restrictions had the most examples in the literature (Table 2, Fig. 2), and were mostly applied to the commercial recreation sector (tourism, etc.; Fig. 1). Education or outreach activities
Table 1 Types of voluntary measures, divided into two main categories of regulation and positive action. Management Measure Self-regulation: Sacrifice of access
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
Included measures, examples
Initiation
Voluntary restrictions on area/location or timing of activities, including: The initiative to close an area to a certain use may be taken by a user group, community, or user-agency collaboration.
Self-imposed no-take area or zone Long-term, area-based fisheries closures Areas to be avoided or Particularly sensitive areas
Voluntary restrictions on conduct of activities, including restrictions on The restrictions may be initiated (and codified) by a range of equipment and practices such as: bodies, from quasi-governmental, international organizations, Voluntary bycatch reduction devices to recreational groups. Catch and release angling Keeping distance from cetaceans, etc. The voluntary restrictions may be applied through: Codes of conduct Codes of practice Standards, etc. (Codes of conduct are sometimes used as well in applying sacrifice of access restrictions and they are also used in the case of statutory regulation.)
Promotion of positive activities: Voluntary stewardship Voluntary conservation activities, such as monitoring of species and habitat, and Voluntary surveillance and enforcement (or monitoring of human use), such as: Incident reporting “Eyes and Ears” programmes Education or outreach Encouraging behaviors consistent with management objectives and increasing the potential for adherence to other voluntary measures through measures such as: Educational programs Awareness-raising, outreach, etc. The intended audience may be the general public, local communities or user groups.
Stewardship activities are usually undertaken in cooperation with MPA management agencies.
These are usually initiated by MPA management agencies, but may originate in other organizations.
94
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
Table 2 Focus of each reference related to types of voluntary measures according to the classification scheme. Types of voluntary measures Focus
Education or outreach
Sacrifice of access
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
Steward-ship
Voluntary measures central, in MPAs Vol. measures central, beyond MPAs Vol. meas. peripheral, in MPAs Vol. meas. peripheral, beyond MPAs Total
6 0 4 0 10
4 0 5 0 9
4 5 8 0 17
1 1 1 0 3
Fig. 1. Types of voluntary measures related to categories of sectors where measures are applied.
(sometimes termed “interpretive enforcement” in the literature [21,22]) were also a focus in many publications. Stewardship activities received relatively little attention in the literature reviewed. 3.2. Voluntary measures application: geographical and time-series While research on the evaluation of effectiveness of voluntary
measures for MPAs in developed nations is clearly lacking (only 20 out of 144 papers conducted any sort of effectiveness evaluation), the number of these studies have increased over time (Fig. 2). From the literature review, analyses and evaluations of voluntary measures for MPAs has occurred largely in Europe, and specifically in the UK (Fig. 3; [e.g. [16]]) These have most often been applied as regulations to limit access (such as to the fishery sector), or as sector-specific regulations (e.g. for fisheries or recreational
Fig. 2. Papers that effectively evaluated the effectiveness of voluntary measures over time (1997–2014). *We did not include 2015 as the year was not over at the time of the literature review.
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
95
Fig. 3. Geographical distribution of papers that evaluated the effectiveness of voluntary measures for MPAs, described by the 4 classes of voluntary measures as described in this review. Sacrifice of access most commonly refers to a fisheries closure.
activities). 3.2.1. Self-regulation: sacrifice of access Sacrifice of access includes voluntary restrictions on area/location or timing of activities such as: self-imposed no-take areas, setting aside an area for a key purpose (e.g., diving or species recovery) where non-compatible users voluntarily cease or limit their activities, temporal restrictions, areas to be avoided or sensitive areas, and long-term, area-based fisheries closures. The initiative to close an area to a use may be taken by a user group, community organization, or user-agency collaboration. For example, in San Juan County, Washington State, USA, there are eight voluntary MPAs that exclude all fishing except salmon, established by the local Marine Resources Committee [12,23,24]. In the UK, a voluntary exclusion area that prohibited scallop dredging was established by an agreement with local fishers and an environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) [17,18,25]. In the UK case, fishers felt poorly treated in the process of establishing and monitoring the voluntary agreement, and although environmental advocates took note of fishers’ infringements and non-compliance with the agreement, fishing pressure still increased. Through consultation and compromise, the voluntary agreements led to a closed area protected through the new legislation of a Marine Act seven years after the initial voluntary exclusion [25]. In Newfoundland, Canada, a voluntary restriction to protect lobster habitat, motivated and developed by lobster fishers, again preceded the successful establishment of a statutory MPA (two years later), a transition requested by local communities [26]. The policing of that MPA continues to be voluntary (through peer enforcement), and has generally been deemed effective [26,27]. Spatial restrictions include recreational boating restrictions, transportation limitations, and shipping restrictions. In British Columbia, Canada, a sanctuary for orca whales (the Robson Bight ecological reserve) requests recreational boaters to voluntarily comply with a no-entry policy intended to protect marine habitat. This measure appears to have been successful in encouraging whales to use that area, although the reasons for this are unknown. Meanwhile, the reserve has been criticized as a “fallacy of tokenism”, in part due to the lack of legislation and insufficient protection [28]. Another example of restrictions on access is off the coast of Nova Scotia, in an area set aside as a whale sanctuary from activities of the oil and gas sector. There, large ships are thought to
generally comply with a notice to mariners established through an agreement with government that asks shipping fleets to avoid the area [29,30]. Sacrifice of access measures are often community-led efforts, but they can be instigated and managed by large organizations as well. The International Marine Organization (IMO), responsible for regulation of international shipping, follows a procedure for designating sensitive sea areas as ‘areas to be avoided’ to reduce whale collisions with shipping traffic [31,32]. High compliance has been observed, likely because the shipping industry is already highly regulated so users are accepting of this additional restriction [32]. 3.2.2. Self-regulation: sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions include limitations on permitted activities (e.g. fishing, [23], boating, [28]) and restrictions on equipment and practices (e.g. scallop harvesting [18,25]). These restrictions can be initiated by a range of groups, from local recreational groups to quasi-governmental or international organizations. Voluntary restrictions on marine activities can be expressed in a code of conduct or other agreement outlining the responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an individual, party or organization. Examples include bag limits for Atlantic salmon in the UK, voluntary catch limits on charter fisheries in the USA, catch limits for fishing guides in Germany, and size-based harvest limits on New Zealand and Canadian recreational anglers [11]. However, the effectiveness of these restrictions is rarely studied [11]. In one case study in Florida, the effectiveness of voluntary restrictions for reducing recreational catches was determined to be poor, while regulated restrictions for commercial fisheries were deemed effective [33]. Membership-based organizations can influence the success of voluntary restrictions. In a mixed fishery (crab and scallop) with some conflicting uses and needs in the UK, conversations between several, less complex fisher organizations with high membership buy-in resulted in highly successful voluntary self-regulation within the two fisheries [34]. Also in the UK, where voluntary restrictions were implemented for commercial bait collection within MPAs, compliance was higher where bait collectors belonged to a recognized organization. The organization made reaching users with educational posters and leaflets more effective; in contrast, compliance was low where fishers were
96
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
unaffiliated and thus harder to reach [35]. Also important were sustained face-to-face conversations with NGO officers [35]. 3.2.3. Voluntary stewardship Voluntary stewardship encompasses activities related to MPA management that contribute time, labour, or knowledge, such as voluntary surveillance and enforcement, or population monitoring for species of interest. These activities encourage compliance by raising awareness and engagement [16] and can also provide useful data for monitoring, conservation, and enforcement [36]. By promoting ‘pride of ownership’ amongst the stakeholders involved, voluntary stewardship may engender an attitude of advocacy for conservation measures that can grow within communities [37]. Examples of voluntary stewardship include education and community monitoring for groundfish in Puget Sound, US [24], for estuarine MPAs in Atlantic Canada [38], Reef Guardian Fishers in Australia [39], and student-led monitoring of National Marine Sanctuaries along the California coast [36]. The two studies that assessed the effectiveness of these stewardship measures both showed mixed results and identified funding as a key factor ([29,32], Table 3). 3.2.4. Education or outreach Educational measures make users aware of the conservation value and benefits of a site, increasing likelihood of cooperation and adhering to management objectives while reducing objection or conflict [41]. Education-based compliance may augment or have advantages over enforcement because it can improve awareness and increase support for conservation over time [42]. Education is likely to be especially applicable as a cost-effective compliance strategy in larger MPAs where the cost of monitoring for compliance and enforcement is higher [22] [e.g. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park]; [33–36]. No studies specifically assessed the effectiveness of education programs for voluntary measures, though all three of the other categories of voluntary measures depend to some degree on education and/or outreach.
4. Discussion 4.1. Successes and failures of voluntary approaches for conservation Overall, few papers provide thorough assessments of effectiveness of voluntary measures, and those that do indicate limited success. Most articles provide short descriptions of measures without assessing effectiveness or contributing factors. Others provide qualitative conclusions about effectiveness without thorough assessments. Only 20 papers analyzed outcomes or effectiveness of voluntary measures; of these, less than a quarter pointed to successful outcomes in connection with voluntary measures for MPAs or marine conservation more broadly, while half indicated mixed or uncertain levels of success (Table 3). Several themes emerged from these studies that affect the success of voluntary measures, including (1) leverage to encourage compliance, (2) community support, and (3) socio-economic and governance factors. Since the number of studies is so small, these themes could be considered as potentially important factors that warrant further investigation. The main factor to which failure of voluntary measures was attributed was the lack of leverage to discourage non-compliance. If even a small minority of users consistently disregards the measures, effectiveness of the measures will be compromised and those users previously inclined to comply lose motivation to do so. Several observers believed that deterrence by statutory enforcement is inevitable if MPA management is to be effective [17, 18, 25].
Community support is important to the success of voluntary measures. Community support relates to proximity of communities to MPAs, bottom-up mechanisms [17] and attachment to place. Proximity has a greater influence if the community is identifiable and has unambiguous ownership or stewardship of the protected area or resource in question [47]. Cultural and socioeconomic circumstances (summarized below) affect the strength of community support, and can reduce the effect of proximity to the MPA. Conservation ethics can also play a role when communities value ecological integrity, biodiversity, or nature viewing [48]. Factors working against community support include urbanization, heterogeneous community demographics (leading to disagreement), multifaceted resource users and uses, cumulative threats to the coastal marine environment, and a limited recognition of traditional governance or tenure [49]. Indeed, the success of voluntary measures may be limited to small communities, areas where local communities have a “user-social” attachment to an area [27], or to simple issues that are “easy wins” or conservation management [17]. Especially in smaller communities, peer pressure can be sufficient for ensuring voluntary compliance, as non-compliance may damage relationships or reputations [11]. Socio-economic factors are nuanced in their impact on voluntary measures. Factors that appear to be influential include self-interest, “free-ridership”, sector organizations and rewards for complying with codes of conduct. Self-interest is an example of an “easy in” in situations where conservation benefits from voluntary measures clearly accrue to stakeholders or users [17]. In contrast, high seas fisheries conservation, for example, is not easily connected to direct user action [51]. Self-interest can work against effective voluntary measures if users’ interests weaken management efforts [35]. “Free riding” occurs where non-compliant resource users may benefit from a conservation action, but their behavior undermines the overall conservation outcome, leading to the eventual failure of the voluntary measure [25]. This problem can be offset through the influence of sector organizations that have high membership, if the organizations see the advantages of supporting conservation. When compliance is met with rewards to members of an organization, in privilege, funding, profits or increased promotion [11,17,52,53], then voluntary compliance can improve. More subtle rewards for compliance relate to normative drivers, or norms of behavior, which can have a powerful influence on adherence to voluntary measures [11,48,27]. Community expectations around behavior and ethics support peer pressure, customs, and habits that relate directly to community support factors such as attachment to place, self-interest, and organization behavior. In contrast, a lack of a conservation ethos or normative drivers may tie to high self-interest and low compliance to voluntary codes [17]. Governance factors include stakeholder engagement, clarity, legitimacy, financial resources, leadership, non-statutory policing, fairness and compromise, and full participation. Stakeholder involvement is important from the beginning of a voluntary measures process in order to generate agreement on the measures and their benchmark for success. Involvement encourages information exchange, builds confidence in decision-making and its outcomes, and leads to ownership of mutually acceptable provisions that users are more likely to adhere to. Clear guidelines are essential for effective compliance, to the extent that compliance can be extremely poor if guidelines are confusing [38,45]. Similarly, when communication is clear, users are more likely to support voluntary measures [e.g. [29]]. Policing of voluntary measures is helpful or even necessary; this can be through self-enforcement by user groups or by non-statutory officers. Non-statutory policing is more effective if conducted by user peers [26]. Education can also
Table 3 Factors contributing to voluntary measure success or failure, ranked by outcomes and sectors to which the measure was applied. Only the subset of key references (n ¼20) where effectiveness was actually evaluated were included here. Reference
Specific MPA (or other location/focus)
Sector
Voluntary measure
Factors contributing to success or lack thereof
(Fisheries management and aquatic stewardship, not MPA-specific)
Fishing
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions, Sacrifice of access and Education or outreach
Davis et al. [70]
Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia
Recreation (commercial)
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions, Education or outreach
[47]
(Coastal waters off Queensland and New South Wales)
Recreation (commercial)
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
[28]
Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve, British Columbia
Recreation (noncommercial)
Sacrifice of access
Several factors drawn from a literature review, including increased chance of success when there is a single stakeholder group or when the capacity to enforce statutory regulations or to invest in stock assessments is limited A combination of management approaches is required for a sustainable industry, including research on impacts of activity. Short season, geographical isolation, clear management objectives, transparent charges to participants and education contribute to success. Satisfactory compliance may be attributable to guideline clarity, ease of establishing diver-shark interactions, stakeholder involvement in management processes and diver perceptions of sharks. Mentions requests for voluntary compliance through an on-the-water warden service.
Successful outcomes [11]
Includes voluntary Inshore Potting Agreement in UK, no- Fishing take MPAs in San Juan County, Wash., and Bonavista Bay, Nfld lobster closure
Various
[18]
Includes case study of Lyme Bay, UK – initially a voluntary MPA
Fishing
Sacrifice of access
[35]
Portsmouth Harbour EU Special Protection Area (SPA), Dell Quay local MPA, Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve and SPA, UK Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves
Fishing
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
Multiple
Various
[21]
[40]
(UK Management Schemes under the EU Habitats Directive)
Multiple
Stewardship
[54]
(Hawaii and Mesoamerica coral reef conservation)
Kelly et al. [71]
Scotland and Wales case studies including Pembrokeshire
Recreation (commercial) Recreation (commercial)
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
[38]
Musquash Estuary MPA, New Brunswick
Not specified
Stewardship
Various factors provided that focus on effectiveness of MPAs as a fisheries management practice. Context matters, and MPAs must be considered on a case by case basis. Consistent compliance cannot be guaranteed by voluntary measures, but depends on strong community support (e.g. peer enforcement). Voluntary agreements may be insufficient for particularly vulnerable or sensitive species. Stakeholder interactions in process of establishing Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves influence success or lack of success. Disagreements and miscommunications in process and planning can disrupt or derail the implementation and success of voluntary MPAs. Clarity in governance intent and political will to follow through is essential for combining voluntary and statutory measures for MPAs. Success is attributed to regular on-the-ground ‘unofficial’ enforcement by the managing NGO. Stakeholder interactions in process of establishing Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves have various influences on success or lack of success. Need for meaningful stakeholder participation in process and planning to achieve successful outcomes. Factors contributing to success include ease of achieving a particular outcome; presence of a project officer; the availability of funding, with collaborative approaches. Factors against success include lack of commitment, insufficient evidence to demonstrate cause and effect, lack of funds. Success of depends on transparency, having locally-based partnerships, industry ownership, using incentives and building momentum. Various factors influence success including strength of partnerships, perceived fairness, adequacy of funding and rewards such as accreditation. Lack of knowledge about MPA regulations has a negative effect on voluntary surveillance and reporting; Voluntary monitoring needs funding and partnerships to be successful.
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
Mixed outcomes [26]
97
98
Table 3 (continued ) Reference
Sector
Voluntary measure
Factors contributing to success or lack thereof
Lyme Bay Scallop Dredging Closure, Marine Conservation Zones, UK
Fisheries
Sacrifice of access
Sparks et al. [24]
Voluntary bottom fish recovery zones
Fisheries
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
[48]
(Hypothetical MPA alter- natives)
Fisheries
[51]
(High seas fisheries conservation, not MPA-specific)
Fisheries
Sacrifice of access; Sector or activityspecific voluntary restrictions Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions
Wiley et al. [72]
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, NE USA
[17]
Review
Recreation (commercial) Multiple
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions Multiple
A gradual deterioration of trust: non-compliance of a “free-riding” minority and lack of effective collaboration between different marine interests contributed to lack of success. Fishermen felt a lack of empowerment in the agreement, and communications amongst stakeholders failed. Lesson: Need a clear, integrated planning framework supported by government and inclusive of all stakeholders throughout the process to enable successful voluntary closures. Lack of success is due to fishing pressure stemming from lack of enforcement and lack of compliance with voluntary no-take provisions; and possibly lack of understanding of MPA boundaries. Various factors are connected to the extent to which anglers favor or oppose different MPA alternatives (e.g., place of residence, species of fish). Factors that would improve conservation in high seas fisheries include greater consultation and incorporation of stakeholders in policy-making and enforcement and devoting more resources to monitoring and enforcement. Failure is in part due to guidelines being difficult to follow, and economic self-interest of operators. Success requires clarity and leadership, adequate resources, broad community support and involvement, and good information.
Uncertain [30]
Includes case study of The Gully MPA, Nova Scotia
Multiple
Charles and Wilson [27]
Includes The Gully MPA, Nova Scotia, and Eastport community-based, then Oceans Act MPA, Nfld
Fisheries
Sector or activity-specific voluntary restrictions Sacrifice of access
Unsuccessful outcomes [25]
Variable compliance of shipping fleets and limited surveillance to monitor compliance make assessment of effectiveness uncertain. Human dimensions in MPA management are (i) objectives and attitudes, (ii) people-orientated “entry points”, (iii) attachment to place, (iv) make participation meaningful, (v) knowledge has a “people side” (vi) effective governance is critical, (vii) get the rights right, (viii) costs, benefits, and distribution, (ix) deal with displacement, and (x) see MPAs in the bigger picture.
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
Specific MPA (or other location/focus)
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
provide incentives for compliance that can pair well with nonstatutory policing efforts and other tools to increase success. Stakeholders must regard voluntary measures as legitimate, transparent and fair if they are to adhere to those measures [17,35,38,54]. An inclusive and equitable approach is critical to the success of voluntary measures to prevent “free-riders” [17], yet too much compromise can weaken voluntary measures, and consensus can take time and resources. Strong leadership is another key to the success of voluntary measures, which can come from champions within communities, from MPA managers or from stakeholder groups [16]. A lack of clear leadership or authority may be the main shortcoming of unsuccessful MPA management using voluntary measures [40]. 4.2. Voluntary versus regulatory management tools: comparisons and connections Many parallels exist between voluntary and regulated conservation. In both cases, planning and management requires careful decision making amongst stakeholders and other actors [55–57]. Full stakeholder participation and buy-in is critical for MPA planning that depends on voluntary measures, as it is for statutory MPAs [21,25,27,36,58–60]. Involving local communities in conservation planning processes increases the likelihood that they will support and comply with conservation measures, whether the measures are implemented in a top-down or bottom-up way [17,59,61]. Voluntary stewardship, which promotes ‘pride of ownership’ amongst the stakeholders involved, may engender an attitude of advocacy for both voluntary or statutory MPAs [37]. Collections of key lessons for regulatory MPAs reflects the themes described here for voluntary measures success, including clear criteria for siting and evaluation, transparency, awareness and education, and monitoring [6,27,62]. Voluntary approaches tend to be more effective when there is a threat that other regulatory instruments will be introduced if voluntary objectives fail [25]. Broadly, evolution from voluntary to regulatory measures can occur in several ways: (1) voluntary measures can be a purposeful, short-term step along the way to a regulatory approach; (2) a regulatory approach to the management of an activity may result from the failure of the voluntary approach; or (3) a regulatory approach may follow from a voluntary approach as a natural consequence of the importance of the area and/or changes in the regulatory framework facilitating designation of a legislated site [17]. When statutory and voluntary approaches for management co-exist, careful integration of voluntary measures into regulatory approaches can avoid confusion [49]. The advantages of voluntary measures for MPAs include timeliness, decreased dependency on political will and action, increased flexibility and adaptability, and often decreased cost [17,26]. In the UK, the Better Regulations framework offers practical guidance for non-regulatory approaches to reduce unnecessary regulation and administrative costs, and suggests regulatory measures only when non-regulatory approaches fail to achieve satisfactory outcomes [63]. Voluntary measures may reduce non-compliance, a serious issue for MPA outcomes that regulatory frameworks struggle with [60]. Since the attributes that determine effectiveness of voluntary measures for conservation planning are similar to those for regulated MPAs, and considering that conservation actions cannot wait for the challenges of political will and scientific certainty to be resolved [64], voluntary measures are likely to play an important role in effective marine management [6,65].
99
5. Conclusions The lack of research on voluntary measures for MPAs is a main shortfall in our understanding of the best practices or lessons learnt in this review. However, some lessons emerged from the literature in terms of social relevance and social benefits of voluntary measures applied to MPAs in developed nations. Some best practices include: cultivate industry ownership and understanding of voluntary standards; promote transparency; establish clear guidelines that are easy to follow; engage stakeholders throughout the process; and facilitate local partnerships and coordination to implement standards and support conservation initiatives. These lessons can prepare managers for situations that compromise voluntary measures for conservation by utilizing education, incentives, and momentum to promote user behaviors consistent with those objectives. Organizations or groups using voluntary measures for MPAs would do well to employ well-structured education and outreach tools including mainstream media and learning materials describing conservation goals, for example, reaching users at recreation areas, businesses, and organizations (e.g. fishing clubs, marinas, shoreline access points, boat rental businesses). Ongoing monitoring of conditions at an MPA that demonstrates the effectiveness of management measures can motivate resource users by appealing to self-interest (e.g. spillover of fish stocks) or normative drivers (ethics, values). While the cost effectiveness of voluntary measures may be an advantage, they still require adequate resources for long-term viability and community buy-in [17]. Joint or matching funding from government or other sectors is a means of ensuring longerterm effectiveness [40]. In this way, voluntary measures can work effectively alongside regulatory tools through management with partnerships between, variously, communities, user groups and/or governments. Applying a diversity of management tools through governance, institutions, and self-governance is widely applicable to marine conservation, and is more likely to lead to resilience in ecosystems and social-ecological systems [66,67]. This review revealed that very few studies thoroughly assess the effectiveness (qualitatively or quantitatively) of voluntary measures relevant to MPA management. Too few studies drew definitive conclusions about the relative effectiveness of specific types of voluntary measures, or the conditions under which various measures should be applied. Given the need to improve and increase global MPA designation for marine biodiversity protection [68], the financial and temporal challenges of employing complex statutory tools and regulations for protected areas management [9,10], and the sometimes decreasing federal interest in conservation [69], the application of voluntary measures may augment MPA planning and management in many jurisdictions. Certainly, more empirical studies are needed to develop the understanding of voluntary measures as a viable alternative to statutory tools for MPAs, and if they are, when, where and how voluntary measures can be applied to best address MPA management objectives.
Acknowledgements This research was based on an initial contract to the Parks Canada Agency (PCA), but the results and conclusions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the PCA. Additional support to CKW was through an NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship (475091), and to NCB through SSHRC (37866) and NSERC (35182) grants. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for edits on previous versions of this manuscript.
100
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
References [1] C.D.G. Harley, A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C. S. Thornber, et al., The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems, Ecol. Lett. 9 (2006) 228–241, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x. [2] B.S. Halpern, K.L. McLeod, A.A. Rosenberg, L.B. Crowder, Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning, Ocean Coast. Manag. 51 (2008) 203–211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2007.08.002. [3] C.M. Roberts, J.A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J.P. Hawkins, R. Goodridge, Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries 80-., Science 294 (2001) 1920–1923, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.294.5548.1920. [4] F.R. Gell, C.M. Roberts, Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves, Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 (2003) 448–455, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00189-7. [5] R.L. Pressey, M. Cabeza, M.E. Watts, R.M. Cowling, K.A. Wilson, Conservation planning in a changing world, Trends Ecol. Evol. 22 (2007) 583–592, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001. [6] B.C. O’Leary, R.L. Brown, D.E. Johnson, H. von Nordheim, J. Ardron, T. Packeiser, et al., The first network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas: the process, the challenges and where next, Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 598–605, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.003. [7] G. Kelleher, R. Kenchington, Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901290304. [8] J.S. Jones, Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergence and the search for middle ground, Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 11 (2002) 197–216, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1020327007975. [9] M. Mills, R. Weeks, R.L. Pressey, M.G. Gleason, R.-L. Eisma-Osorio, A. T. Lombard, et al., Real-world progress in overcoming the challenges of adaptive spatial planning in marine protected areas, Biol. Conserv. 181 (2015) 54–63, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.028. [10] S.J. Boyes, M. Elliott, The excessive complexity of national marine governance systems – has this decreased in England since the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009? Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 57–65, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.019. [11] S.J. Cooke, C.D. Suski, R. Arlinghaus, A.J. Danylchuk, Voluntary institutions and behaviours as alternatives to formal regulations in recreational fisheries management, Fish Fish. 14 (2013) 439–457, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-2979.2012.00477.x. [12] R.W. Osborne, K.L. Koski, R.E. Tallmon, Voluntary Marine Protected Areas and Adaptive Management in the San Juan Islands, Proc. 2001 Puget Sound Res. Conf., 2002. [13] J. Gardner, S.M. Bicego, S. Jessen, M. Baker, Challenges and Opportunities in Progress towards Canada's Commitment to a National Network of MPAs by 2012, CPAWS-BC, Vancouver Canada, 2008. [14] T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P.C. Stern, The struggle to govern the commons (80-), Science 302 (2003) 1907–1912, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015. [15] H. Lindhjem, Y. Mitani, Forest owners' willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: a contingent valuation approach, J. Econ. 18 (2012) 290–302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.004. [16] A. Santangeli, T. Laaksonen, Voluntary nonmonetary conservation approaches on private land: a review of constraints, risks, and benefits for raptor nest protection, Environ. Manag. 55 (2014) 321–329, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-014-0385-9. [17] S. Prior, The use of voluntary management in the protection of UK marine biodiversity, Report to Wales Environmental Link, 2011. [18] P.J.S. Jones, Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining topdown and bottom-up approaches to governance, Environ. Conserv. 39 (2012) 248–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892912000136. [19] C.F. Gaymer, A.V. Stadel, N.C. Ban, P.F. Cárcamo, J. Ierna, L.M. Lieberknecht, Merging top-down and bottom-up approaches in marine protected areas planning: experiences from around the globe, Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (2014) 128–144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2508. [20] P.J.S. Jones, J. Burgess, Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 77 (2005) 227–243, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2005.04.004. [21] P.J.S. Jones, Marine nature reserves in Britain: past lessons, current status and future issues, Mar. Policy 23 (1999) 375–396. [22] G. Lee, B. Cook, Task Force Policy Report: “ Arm the Fish!”: Addressing the Global Challenges of Marine Protected Areas, Henry M. jackson School of International Studies – University of Washington, 2012. [23] P. Dinnel, I. Dolph, J. Moorad, J. Robinette, D. Semrau, Potential for marine protected areas for rocky reef bottomfish in Skagit County, Washington, in: Proc. 2001 Puget Sound Res. Conf., 2002, pp. 1–8. [24] S.L. Sparks, Marine Protected Areas in the Puget Sound: Can a Network Design of MPA's Offer Greater Protection Than Isolated Reserves for Critical Rockfish Populations?, The Evergreen State College, Olympia WA, 2010. [25] D.M. Fleming, P.J.S. Jones, Challenges to achieving greater and fairer stakeholder involvement in marine spatial planning as illustrated by the Lyme Bay scallop dredging closure, Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 370–377, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.07.006. [26] C.J. Sweeting, N.V.C. Polunin, Marine Protected Areas for Management of Temperate North Atlantic Fisheries, School of Marine Science and Technology,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2005. [27] A. Charles, L. Wilson, Human dimensions of marine protected areas, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (2009) 6–15. [28] R. Williams, D. Lusseau, P.S. Hammond, The role of social aggregations and protected areas in killer whale conservation: The mixed blessing of critical habitat, Biol. Conserv. 142 (2009) 709–719, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2008.12.004. [29] T. Agardy, G.N. di Sciara, P. Christie, Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 35 (2011) 226–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2010.10.006. [30] S. Guénette, J. Alder, Lessons from marine protected areas and integrated ocean management initiatives in canada, Coast Manag. 35 (2007) 51–78, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/10.1080/08920750600970578. [31] K.M. Gjerde, A. Rulska-Domino, Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: some practical perspectives for moving ahead, Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 27 (2012) 351–373, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157180812X633636. [32] C.K.A. Geijer, P.J.S. Jones, A network approach to migratory whale conservation: Are MPAs the way forward or do all roads lead to the IMO? Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 1–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.06.002. [33] A. Bartholomew, J.A. Bohnsack, A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves, Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 15 (2005) 129–154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11160-005-2175-1. [34] R.E. Blyth-Skyrme, M.J. Kaiser, G. Edwards-Jones, P.J.B. Hart, Voluntary management in an inshore fishery has conservation benefits, Environ. Conserv. 29 (2009) 493–508, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000358. [35] G.J. Watson, J.M. Murray, M. Schaefer, A. Bonner, Successful local marine conservation requires appropriate educational methods and adequate enforcement, Mar. Policy 52 (2015) 59–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2014.10.016. [36] S.M. Wiggins, Marine protected area management: diving to the depths to discover how best practice is achieved in California, New South Wales and the Great Barrier Reef, 2011, 102 p. [37] K. Hastings, Engaging Stakeholders in Marine Conservation Planning: Recommendations For Moving Forward with a Bioregional Marine Protected Area Network on the Scotian Shelf, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2011. [38] J. Corkum, Incorporating Participatory Approaches into the Management of Musquash Estuary Marine Protected Area, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, 2013. [39] L.S. Evans, N.C. Ban, M. Schoon, Keeping the “Great” in the great barrier reef : large-scale governance of the great barrier reef marine park, Int. J. Commons 8 (2014) 396–427. [40] R.K.A. Morris, T. Bennett, R. Blyth-Skyrme, P.J. Barham, A. Ball, Managing Natura 2000 in the marine environment – an evaluation of the effectiveness of management schemes in England, Ocean Coast. Manag. 87 (2014) 40–51, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.017. [41] P.J.S. Jones, Marine nature reserves in Britain: past lessons, current status and future issues, Mar. Policy 23 (1999) 375–396, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0308-597X(98)00056-6. [42] P. Dearden, K.N. Topelko, Ensuring compliance with marine protected area regulations : a review of soft and hard enforcement approaches with recommendations for application in Canada, Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Victoria, BC, 2006. [45] J.C. Day, K. Dobbs, Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: australia's great barrier reef, Mar. Policy 41 (2013) 14–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.020. [47] K.R. Smith, C. Scarpaci, M.J. Scarr, N.M. Otway, Scuba diving tourism with critically endangered grey nurse sharks (Carcharias taurus) off eastern Australia: tourist demographics, shark behaviour and diver compliance, Tour. Manag. 45 (2014) 211–225, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.002. [48] R.J. Salz, D.K. Loomis, Saltwater anglers’ attitudes towards marine protected areas, Fisheries 29 (2004) 10–17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2004) 29. [49] E. Gilman, Guidelines for coastal and marine site-planning and examples of planning and management intervention tools, , Ocean Coast Manag. 45 (2002) 377–404, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(02)00076-5. [51] P. D’Arcy, The lawless sea? policy options for voluntary compliance regimes in offshore resource zones in the pacific, Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 1 (2014) 297–311, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app5.28. [52] J. Ardron, K. Gjerde, S. Pullen, V. Tilot, Marine spatial planning in the high seas, Mar. Policy 32 (2008) 832–839, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2008.03.018. [53] R. Greiner, M. Young, A. McDonald, M. Brooks, Incentive instruments for the sustainable use of marine resources, Ocean Coast Manag. 43 (2000) 29–50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(99)00067-8. [54] R. MacPherson, R. Wilson, L. Foote, Voluntary standards as a tool for increasing the sustainability of the marine recreation industry and improving MPA effectiveness in Hawaii and Mesoamerica, Proc. 11th Int. Coral Reef Symp., 2008, pp. 1170–1172. [55] R.L. Pressey, M. Mills, R. Weeks, J.C. Day, The plan of the day: managing the dynamic transition from regional conservation designs to local conservation actions, Biol. Conserv. 166 (2013) 155–169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2013.06.025. [56] H.A. Malcolm, E. Foulsham, R.L. Pressey, A. Jordan, P.L. Davies, T. Ingleton, et al., Selecting zones in a marine park: early systematic planning improves cost-
C.K. Whitney et al. / Marine Policy 69 (2016) 92–101
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
efficiency; combining habitat and biotic data improves effectiveness, Ocean Coast. Manag 59 (2012) 1–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2011.12.001. N.C. Ban, M. Mills, J. Tam, C.C. Hicks, S. Klain, N. Stoeckl, et al., A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations, Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (2013) 194–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110205. S. Gubbay, Viewpoint. management of marine protected areas in the uk: lessons from statutory and voluntary approaches, Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 3 (1993) 269–280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3270030310. R. Costanza, F. Andrade, P. Antunes, M. Van Den Belt, D. Boesch, D. Boersma, et al., Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans, Ecol. Econ. 31 (1999) 171–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00077-4. A.D. Read, R.J. West, M. Haste, A. Jordan, Optimizing voluntary compliance in marine protected areas: A comparison of recreational fisher and enforcement officer perspectives using multi-criteria analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011) 2558–2567, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.022. M. Vasiliki, M. Meidinger, M. Sano, E. Oikonomou, G. di Carlo, M. Palma, et al., Stakeholder participation and the use of web technology for MPA management, Adv. Oceanogr. Limnol. 4 (2013) 260–276, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19475721.2013.851117. H.E. Fox, J.L. Holtzman, K.M. Haisfield, C.G. McNally, G. a Cid, M.B. Mascia, et al., How are our MPAs doing? challenges in assessing global patterns in marine protected area performance, Coast. Manag. 42 (2014) 207–226, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2014.904178. Department for Business Information and Skills, Better Regulation Framework Manual: Practical Guidance for UK Government Officials, 2015, p. 90. 〈https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 468831/bis-13-1038-Better-regulation-framework-manual.pdf〉.
101
[64] C.M. Roberts, Deep impact: the rising tool of fishing in the deep sea, Trends Ecol. Evol. Ecol. Evol. 17 (2002) 242–245. [65] H.E. Fox, M.B. Mascia, X. Basurto, A. Costa, L. Glew, D. Heinemann, et al., Reexamining the science of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action, Conserv. Lett. 5 (2012) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00207. x. [66] P.J.S. Jones, W. Qiu, E.M. De Santo, Governing marine protected areas: socialecological resilience through institutional diversity, Mar. Policy 41 (2013) 5–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.026. [67] P.J.S. Jones, Governing Marine Protected Areas: Resilience Through Diversity, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, 2014. [68] C.J. Klein, C.J. Brown, B.S. Halpern, D.B. Segan, J. McGowan, M. Beger, et al., Shortfalls in the global protected area network at representing marine biodiversity, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 17539, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17539. [69] M. Bailey, B. Favaro, S.P. Otto, A. Charles, R. Devillers, A. Metaxas, et al., Canada at a crossroad: The imperative for realigning ocean policy with ocean science (In Press), Mar. Policy (2015) 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2015.10.002. [70] D. Davis, S. Banks, A. Birtles, P. Valentine, M. Cuthill, Whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine Park: managing tourism in an Australian marine protected area, Tour. Manag. 18 (1997) 259–271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(97)00015-0. [71] C. Kelly, S. Essex, G. Glegg, Reflective practice for marine planning: a case study of marine nature-based tourism partnerships, Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 769–781, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.023. [72] D.N Wiley, J.C Moller, R.M Pace, C. Carlson, Effectiveness of voluntary conservation agreements: Case study of endangered whales and commercial whale watching, Conserv. 22 (2008) 450–457, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1523-1739.2008.00897.x.
