domain: sde sdv

text:
Santa Luzia

Branco E Raso

Rn Marine De L'île De

L A Réunion

Cacheu

Marin Kisite -M'punguti

Park

Marin Park

Banc D'arguin

Bamboung

Delta Fleuve Senegal

Cousin

Chumbe

GREAT BARRIER REEF 44 RESERVES OF TASMANIA 45 SANYA 46 NAVAKAVU (FIDJI) 47 ARNAVON ISLANDS 48 KARIMUNJAWA 49 WAKATOBI 50 BUNAKEN (INDONESIA) 51 PARC KOMBO 52 LEIGH RESERVE 53 TWIN ROCKS 54 SAN SALVADOR 55 TUBBATAHA (NATIONAL PARK) 56 RESERVES OF PHILIPPINES 57 APO ISLAND 58 SUMILON 59 CLAVERIA 60 MPAs NETWORK OF VANUATU Africa -Indian Ocean 1 KOSI BAY (NATURAL RESERVE) 2

■ centralizing information and harmonizing some instruments at the sub-regional level ;

■ focusing the attention of its member States around recommendations and establishing regional projects or taking a

Foreword

If the stakes of conservation are being structured in the establishment of many Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the SRFC region, the growing ishing pressure calls for strengthening of a space-based management of ishing activities. MPAs constitute spatial management tools that are available, and which are to be valorised. Likewise, it is also important to improve the application of the other existing spatial management instruments.

Given a growing demand in the sub-region for the creation of MPAs, it is necessary to better plan their implementation so that they can be ef icient and become isheries management tools. In this context, the SRFC must be a crucial stakeholder that should enable isheries to bene it from this dynamics and ensure that MPAs ef iciently achieve their objectives of sustainable exploited resources.

A workshop held from 13 to 15 December 2011 speci ied the expectations of participants who notably acknowledged the SRFC as an institution capable of:

INTRODUCTION 1.1
An international Analysis on MPAs and Fisheries ☞ The international context shows that many MPAs overall objectives, identi ied in international Conventions, were not achieved in 2012 and consequently were repeated: "By 2020, at least … 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes" (CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020, Goal C, Target 11, CBD CoP10, Decision X2, Nagoya 2010).

The present document aims to present the results of an analysis of the world literature, draw lessons from learned experiences, and share relevant recommendations with regard to situations experienced in the SRFC zone on the best ways and means to use MPAs as isheries management tools.

Through the future programs of the SRFC and States of the region, the challenges will be the best utilization of the recommendations contained therein in order to, on the one hand, improve the relations between the governances of coastal management, isheries, and MPAs and, on the other hand, to develop solutions enabling a better integration of the concerns of isheries in the management of MPAs and of the MPAs in the management of isheries..

The work, conducted by a group of experts from the University of Brest (UMR Amure) -Agrocampus from Rennes ( isheries) -the IUCN-CEM Fisheries Expert Group coordinated by BRL Engineering and EBCD and supported by many international contributions, has highlighted a series of illustrative examples and case-studies on MPAs in three main documents:

■ A "technical report" in french representing the State of the Art made up with 4 volumes dealing with "Governance", "socio-economic and bio-economic modelling", "bio-ecological and bioecological modelling", and "Element of Re lection for the SRFC and its partners" in support to the regional Workshop;

■ The present "Synthesis Report" ;

■ A ten-page note summarizing the outcomes of the study (www.spcsrp.org).

These works as well as the supporting document and thoughts they produced enabled the holding of a regional workshop in December 2011 in Dakar during which the outcomes of the review were presented. Exchanges with several representatives of isheries and environmental institutions and other stakeholders throughout the subregion ( ishermen, funders, scientists, etc.,) led to con irmation of the relevance of the supporting documents of the Workshop and speci ied further the recommendations presented in this document.

☞ Three main questions are asked in this study:

■ Are MPAs tools preferable to conventional ishery management tools when it comes to promoting :(1) the particular protection of certain areas, habitats or, species; (ii) the, allocation of resources; and (iii) the participation of communities in the decision-making process?

■ What lessons have been learned on the effects of MPAs on ishing and on the tools associated to the measurement of these effects?

■ Are there any lessons to be drawn from the international experience on governance of MPAs in relation to ishing that could lead to improvements in management?

examples are highlighted in the study

Europe -Mediterranean

☞ Main Characteristics of the 72 MPAs Illustrated in this Study

In addition to the analyses from meta-reviews which often focused on tens or hundreds of MPAs, 72 speci ic MPAs have been particularly scrutinized in this study so as to highlight the impacts of MPAs on isheries across the different chapters and themes. 80% of these MPAs have been created before 2000 and thus provide a rich experience.

Among these 72 MPAs, 48% are small (<100 km2, half of which are < 10 km 2 ); 38% are average size (from 100 to 1000 km 2 ); 15% are large (1000-20 000 km2) and 5 % are very large, (> 20 000 km 2 ) and exclusively located in the open ocean . Among these MPAs, 40% are associated to islands, 54% to coastal sites, and 6% to offshore sites. According to IUCN, in 2010 I , II , the existing 6800 MPAs accounted for 1,17% of the surface of the oceans and 7,2% of the coastal areas (within the 12 nautical miles limit). The countries of Oceania followed by countries of Southeast Asia and Latin America are among those who have the more developed MPAs over the last years.

Nevertheless, 0,01% of the oceans consist of areas known as "Reserve-MPAs" or "no-take zones". One study has shown that out of 255 reserves only 12 were regularly controlled and therefore ef iciently managed III .

To better understand the changes to be initiated, all the review work, the analyses and the selected illustrative examples have taken into account the main characteristics of the SRFC zone of relevance to the topic being dealt with, namely:

1. An Essential Fisheries Sector from the Socio-Economic Viewpoint: The isheries sector in the SRFC zone is characterized by the coexistence of local and regional artisanal isheries (often with a free-access regime) with industrial isheries (often foreign). It represents a sector in which employment and foreign currencies drawn from the export of products represent important political stakes.

A Weak Governance:

The legal and institutional framework in place enables neither the ef icient protection of ecosystems nor true regulation of access and users' rights. In addition, MPAs are often created in a rather opportunistic way without much involvement of local populations, without proper management mechanism or without effective management, have become, for the larger part, "paper MPAs". The weak research mechanisms (degradation of inancial and human means) are also less mobilized and adapted to management needs. The conclusions drawn from the analyses of ishery systems in 2005 still remain relevant to characterize the SRFC zone: the overcapacity and the absence of regulation of access to resources explain the continuing degradation of the stocks which are now overexploited.

A Very Productive Environment in Constant Degradation:

The SRFC zone is located around one of the 4 great upwelling zones of the planet, thus explaining its extraordinary abundance and productivity (in sandy area, mangrove, and oceanic zone). Studies of the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) networks of the region con irm the constant degradation at the regional scale.

Diversi ied ishery Resources and Migrations:

Resources consist of a mix of demersal species and small and big pelagic species with acute migratory behaviour, explaining the regular migratory phenomena of ishermen.

An Analysis Integrating the Regional Context of the SRFC Zone

☞ Governance within the SRFC zone remains less ef icient notably because of: (i) limits of the conventional approach to Several de initions are mentioned in the technical report "Introduction and Governance Aspect". The notion of MPAs is not precise in that: (i) there are many de initions of the term; (ii) there are many types of MPAs, corresponding to different management objectives and approaches; (iii) the same type of area can have different names according to countries and publications, including in of icial texts.

The IUCN categories, albeit progressively validated by countries, are more complicated than would require a debate around MPAs and ishing. Some confusion on their nomenclatures complicates cross-cutting analyses and comparisons. Moreover, IUCN does not recognize as MPAs, the closed areas and other time-space restrictions implemented in isheries.

This situation has prompted us to specify the nomenclature chosen for this study so as to avoid unconstructive debates on the topic. We use the term MPAs, in the sense of IUCN, to refer to an area that is designated for conservation of nature (ecosystem and biodiversity) whereas spatio-temporal restrictions (STRs) are developed for the optimization of ishery system.

☞ De initions of MPAs for the purpose of this study ■ Reserve MPA: or no-take zones, integral reserve, totally protected conservation areas, where removals are prohibited or are negligible.

• Multi-use MPAs: space designed for conservation, used by several types of stakeholders and generally presenting, over its total area, or in some of its zones access restrictions and different regimes for each type of user. They generally contain a part of their surface that is totally protected as no-take zone.

• Fishery MPAs:

The term is used to refer to an IUCN-type MPA used in a ishery as ishery management tool . Spatio-temporal restrictions (STRs) include " ishing reserves" and aim at protecting sea resources and optimizing ishing grounds.

Map 2

The area and ecological zones covered by the SRFC and its seven member countries

De initions of the MPAs used in the Study

SYNTHESIS OF LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON BIOECOLOGICAL ASPECT

Generalities on Bio-ecological Effects of MPAs

A worldwide analysis of the literature highlights several positive effects of Reserve-MPAs notably in species under high ishing pressure at the top of the trophic chain (predators). The outward movement of adult individuals (spillover effect) may contribute to increase biomasses around reserves, but always at a limited distance from the reserve whereas the diffusion of larvae out of the MPs may contribute to a greater resilience of ecosystems. The enclosure of some areas as reserves may have unexpec-ted and highly variable effects from one site to another, particularly on habitats.

However, in the present state of knowledge, theoretical predictions of MPAs effects are often different from the really observed ones for many reasons (diversity of MPAs and situations, socio-economic context). So, the type and amplitude of impacts that have been observed for a given example cannot always be replicable elsewhere and forecasts must always be made with precaution.

Effects inside Reserve-MPAs

UNDENIABLE POSITIVE EFFECTS

Generally, literature con irms the following positive biological effects of reserve MPAs:

■ On Abundance, Biodiversity and the Average size of Species, notably Predators: The protection of an area leads to the increase of species richness, abundance, and the average size of ish and marine invertebrate within Reserve-MPAs. These effects are visible for species undergoing high ishing pressure outside the reserve and for species at the top of the trophic chain (predators), but there does not appear to be any signi icant difference in the case of non-targeted species (gobies for example).

■ On Resilience and Stability of Ecosystem: The increase of the reproductive potential (bigger specimen, which are more abundant in Reserve-MPAs are more fertile and have a longer spawning period) and the maintenance of the features of life story contribute to better population resilience.

■ On different geographical areas: the effects on size and speci ic richness are identical between the tropical and temperate zones; by contrast, the effects on biomass and diversity are slightly more important in temperate zones.

☞ Some studies show that the best results of MPAs on ishing are obtained when the ef iciently protected surface is at least 10 to 35% of the area exploited by the isheries sector VII . The optimal size of a reserve-MPA increases with the intensity of ishing effort.

The species which have a larger maximal size show a stronger positive answer to protection and their density may, in some cases, be 33 times more important inside the reserve VIII .

VARIABLE EFFECTS (POSITIVE, NEGATIVE) ACCOR-DING TO SPECIES AND SITES However, it is essential to keep in mind that while the positive effects of reserves widely observed, they do not happen in all of the reserves. Species interactions lead to complex effects. Sometimes, some MPAs can see their small size, sedentary and non-targeted species decrease inside after their creation because of an increase in predators or modi ications of inter-species interactions (trophic cascades).

Thus, the fact that some areas have been turned into re-serves can have unexpected and very variable effects from site to site. Likewise, the effect of reserves on habitats is dif icult to understand and remains today nearly unknown. The instances when the effects of reserves are nil or negative are not well-documented.

A global study made in 2004 con irmed the difference in ish response to the creation of a reserve, with 61% of ish species becoming more abundant inside the MPA (often predator) whereas 39% of ish species become more abundant outside (mainly species without any commercial value) .

☞ Example of Trophic Cascade Effect:

Abalone, initially protected in six MPAs in the USA, have inally seen their populations decreasing because of (unexpected) predation by sea otters protected by the new MPAs. In another MPA in New Zealand X, XI , the same phenomenon has been observed on sea urchins, the preferred preys of lobster. The example of abalone in Tasmania also con irms this observation (cf. examples below p.20).

Effects of MPAs outside their boarders

AN INTERESTING AND LIMITED SPILLOVER EFFECT

The movement of adult and juvenile individuals towards the surrounding environment (spillover effect) and the outward spreading of larvae produced within the reserves can contribute to the increase in the biomass of the surrounding reserves. The spillover effect, although dif icult to study, can be detected by the analysis of the distribution of catches as a function of their distance from the reserve boundary.

THE EFFECT OF LARVAL DIFFUSION IS MORE IMPOR-TANT THAN THE SPILLOVER EFFECT

There are very few studies in the ield of larval diffusion and the creation of a network of MPAs remains relevant, for the moment, only from a theoretical point of view. However, some examples of oceanic MPAs or of tight networks show results on the diffusion of larvae that contribute to con irming their interest. In addition to the spillover phenomenon, the diffusion of larvae outside reserve-MPAs can contribute to a reduction of the risk of stock collapse and to the improvement of catch rates in some isheries. At population scale, export of larvae and eggs effect is generally more important than spillover of biomass (through migration of adults and juveniles).

☞ Small MPAs, if well managed, may have some effects on neighbouring isheries. On Apo Island (Philippines), the effects were 45 times higher in the 200 meters area around the reserve boarder than in other ishing areas of the island. The fact that several small MPAs have been turned into reserves in Santa Lucia (USA) has led to 46 to 90% increases in catch in neighbouring isheries depending on ishing gears.

☞ Spillover phenomena are limited, and their effects on isheries are perceptible only in the neighbourhoods of MPAs, that is:

■ From 200 to a few hundred meters maximum (in coral reefs or small MPAs like Bamboung)

■ Between 500 m and a few kilometers (in big MPAs like the Banc d' Arguin).

☞ A monitoring of the reserve effects over 17 years in the Sumilon and Apo reserves (Philippines) shows that biomass of large predators is still increasing exponentially after 9 and 18 years of protection respectively. The study concludes that the period of total restoration of biomasses may reach 15 years for the reserve of Sumilon and 40 years for that of Apo islands XIII .

Long-term Positive Effects that Can Be Very Rapidly Suppressed

On average, the direct effects inside reserve-MPAs start to be visible after 5 to 7 years, whereas indirect effects (resulting from interactions among species) are detected after 11 to 15 years XII . The full bene its of an MPA are generally observed only after a long time (10 to 40 years).

Several studies show that restoration/stabilization of biomass to the carrying capacity of the area requires a protection over a long time (several decades) because the effects continue to be generated over several decades.

☞ The positive effects can be lost within one year in case of suppression of the Reserve-MPA independently of the duration of the MPA management (5-10 years or more) XIV . So, the management of an MPA must be effective and maintained over a long term so as to take into account both the long time that is required for the restoration of ecosystem balance, and the extreme rapidity with which pressures can occur and suppress years of efforts and public investments.

Bio-ecological Considerations for Networks of MPAs and Management of MPAs

Very few studies exist on MPAs networks. The institution of MPA-reserves and managed zones in large multi-use MPAs can improve the impact of an MPA on ishing (e.g.: the Great Barrier Reef, in Australia) and may represent an alternative to a big MPA-reserves. From a practical point of view, the creation of several small reserves is often the only option that can be envisaged along highly urbanized coasts, and remains the most realistic option in a context of strong constraints on the coastal area XV .

☞ The structuring of networks of MPAs (e.g. is size of reserves and distance between them) should be grounded on the functional relations between MPAs and their connectivity (the vicinity of MPAs that is necessary to facilitate the spreading of larvae/juveniles is variable and depends on species, environment, and currents).

☞ The study of biological effects of zoning within Great Barrier Reef Marine Park shows that most bene ic effects for ish populations are observed within integral reserves whose access is strictly prohibited. However, a simple network of integral reserves could not have achieved the same effects on the whole ecosystem because the framework offered by multi-use MPAs allows an optimization of management in the areas between reserves. The zoning of the reserve and the management of ishing effort avoid the mere displacement of the effort outside integral reserves. Moreover, while the zoning of the Marine Park can contribute to spatial management of ishing effort, it is widely completed by a nonspatial isheries management system in authorized ishing areas and a by-catch reduction effort.

Effects of STRs, MPAs, and Management of Mobile Species

Spatial management of marine resources can be organized in the form of closures that may be permanent ( ishing reserves), seasonal (biological "rest") or ad hoc (real-time closures). The effects of these spatio-temporal restrictions (STRs) of ishing depend on scales, species or groups of target species, degree of protection, etc. STRs represent interesting tools for the management of stocks under several conditions.

Nevertheless, some examples illustrate that partial and seasonal closures can be ef icient to reduce stocks ishing mortality. But, in many cases in which closure corresponds to reproduction periods, ishing mortality is temporarily reduced but it is dif icult to know the extent of the impact on the annual ishing mortality.

The review of literature shows that there are few MPAs targeting large or mobile pelagic resources. Their impacts on the protection of these stocks are therefore still hypothetical and controversial. To ensure that species can proit from the protection of an integral reserve, a part of the population must spend a signi icant part of its lifetime inside the reserve. Given the fact that pelagic systems are not static (as most benthic marine habitats are), the use of marine protected area for the preservation of pelagic resources raises a few issues with regard to their utility even though some models predict that they could be interesting.

☞ Spatio-temporal restrictions (STRs), either seaso- nal (for protection of breeders) or for longer periods(temporary reserves) might be ef icient or provide a temporary respite if correctly placed (in terms of location and opening/closure dates) and if bene iting from strict surveillance during their closure and after their re-opening to ishing so as avoid losing the bene it of the reserve effect XVI . In fact, these STRs do not resolve overcapacity issues and, in the long term, they are doomed to failure if ishing capacity is not ef iciently controlled or restricted.

The lessons learned on biological "rests" shows that, without ishing capacity control, they contribute scarcely to sustainable exploitation of ish stocks. Bene its are systematically undermined by overcapacity as soon the area is reopened, and also by lack of complementary measures of reductions of access to isheries.

In addition, it is important to measure the overall and annual (or multi-annual) impact of these closure periods, and not just their local, immediate, impact, in order to appreciate their real effects on stocks and ecosystems.

☞ Lessons that have been drawn from research on the ☞ In 1977, a series of closures of long-line ishing has been established in the Baja California area, in the Mexican EEZ, in order to reduce ishing mortality of marlins.

The results show that temporary restrictions of long-line ishing in this area between 1977 and 1980 and between 1984 and 1985 have led to a swift effect on the local abundance of marlins: a 12-22% increase after the irst a four-years closure and a 6-12% increase after the subsequent two-years closure XIX .

Given the sizes of the areas to manage or the dif iculty in their siting (e.g. in nurseries often located on areas with strong economic activities) and the existence of speci ic ishery management measures (STRs) for several mobile species (cf. below), the cost/bene its trade-offs involved for these species remain complex The various questions that are raised are addressed in the technical reports (see SRFC website), which also deal with high sea MPAs.

☞ A reserve-MPA will only ensure the protection of migratory species if:

■ The site is relevant and chosen according to species and their biology to protect one or several key phases of the biological cycle (reproduction, nursery) ■ This MPA contributes to a reduction of the overall ishing mortality. Otherwise, the only effect of the reserve will be to displace ishing effort outside its borders.

■ The effects of the transfers (of effort) on other species are measured and the indirect impacts of the MPA are identi ied

From the strict ishery and bioecological points of view, the establishment or development of Marine Protected Areas, as indeed the establishment of spatio-temporal restrictions (STRs) of ishing activities may, in general, have the following consequences:

■ A limited increase of exploitable biomass, related to the spillover effect, mainly close to reserves. This effect will be more important for large-size MPAs and species migrating between the reserve area and the outside environment. It might be signi icantly superior to the catch potential inside the reserve catch, foregone by isheries with the establishment of the reserve (cf. socio-economic section).

■ An increase and greater stability of recruitment related to the protection of breeders in the reserve or to the exportation of larvae, spawns or irst juvenile stages. This effect can be signi icant for intensively exploited species, provided that the reserve is very judiciously localized on critical habitats (reproduction area or nursery area for larvae and small juvenile stages).

■ Global reduction of ishing mortality, when the reserve is located in areas with high concentration of biomasses and/or high catchability. Even when the ishing effort remains constant, MPAs reduce the ishermen's eficiency and their impact on resources and hence the effect of overcapacity. This effect is limited though, and thus this reduction is effective when general measures are in place to limit the transfer of ishing or to directly regulate ishing capacity.

■ Establishment of a reserve of biomass as a true "risk insurance". One can thus imagine (the observations are rare) that in case of abruptly aggravated overexploitation or unexpected bio-climatic event, the reserve of biomass could facilitate stock restoration. However, it must be noted that this reserve biomass can fully play a role only if it is relatively important, which implies the setting large-size, naturally productive MPAs and the existence of great connectivity between the areas closed and open to ishing (resource mobility).

■ Protection of vulnerable ishery species and bycatch regulation. This potential function of MPAs can turn out to be important for particularly vulnerable exploited species (low fecundity; dependent on vulnerable habitat, etc.), in particular when they are by-caught by different isheries, and can hardly be subjected to speci ic management measures.

Role of MPAs as Fisheries Management Tools

☞ From the strict isheries point of view, MPAs appear as a tool among others, not necessarily more ef icient than others, and which will be fully signi icant if integrated into a global approach to management of the ishing level (e.g. through ishing capacity management, catch or effort quotas) of the ishing pattern (e.g. regulation of mesh size, landing sizes), and ecosystem exploitation strategy (e.g. which species to catch given their role in the ecosystem).

☞ In the medium term, this global approach to management should be part of a spatial planning approach in which the different forms of MPAs (reserve, multi-use) will constitute available options, together with STRs. The analysis of costs and bene its of the different options should be conducted in order to take an adequate decision (cf. socio-economic and governance sections).

Fisheries management entails two different concerns related to the common and renewable nature of marine resources, differently developed under different circumstances: resource conservation and access regulation:

■ Conservation of resources: The protection of productive and reproductive capacity of resources will require an overall limitation of ishing mortality and leads to an improvement of the ishing pattern;

■ Regulation of access to resources: The sharing of resources productive and reproductive capacity among ishermen requires determining the ishermen authorized to exploit them and the portion each one can withdraw.

It remains therefore true that, irst and foremost, MPAs are conservation tools. Yet, they may aim and certainly facilitate reaching good ishery management objectives. Even though ishermen might not draw an immediate bene it (this is likely to be the case in many situations), they have an objective interest to improve: (1) their enterprises sustainability through reconciliation of conservations imperatives with marine production objectives;

(2) the social acceptability of their activity to contribute, in a context of societal environmental concerns, through their involvement in this reconciliation.

☞ Some Issues Relating to the objectives of creating MPAs in Connection with ishing and isheries:

The creation of an MPA can be justi ied for many reasons.

■ e) Maintenance of a Trophic Network and Biodiversity -protection of areas with strong primary production -protection of habitats (mangroves and seagrass beds in particular)

The analysis of bio-ecological effects is often made through data from ield studies XX . The monitoring of MPAs requires non-destructive observation methods such as in situ observation through visual counting, sub-marine photos/video, acoustic techniques ( ixed or trolled) and monitoring & evaluation of isheries (monitoring of catch/efforts of professional and/or recreational ishing).

At the level of ish stock, the two indicators that are mostly used are ishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, with the more or less explicit objective to maintain ishing pressure to a sustainable level permitting the maintenance of the stock reproduction capacity. There are also other associated indicators of spatial distribution and movement which could prove useful in the future for the monitoring of MPAs.

At ecosystem level, several indicators may be generally required to assess the state of an ecosystem component potentially impacted by the establishment of an MPA. On the opposite, a single indicator is sometimes proposed to assess the state of several ecosystem components XXI .

reduce variability.

The models, their limits, and their characteristics are described in the appendix together with recommendations regarding their development.

Indicators, Monitoring System, and Bio-Ecological Models

☞ A bio-ecological indicator of MPAs performance must be suf iciently complex to capture the main ecological information, but also suf iciently simple to be unders- Moreover, empirical indicators (observed and calculated from observations) are distinguished from simulated indicators (model-based). The former are "local" in space and in time whereas the latter are "global" (they most often encompass the whole community) and can cover the entire time vector (past and future). Many indicators can be regrouped according to the scale of time they cover and the effects they address.

It must also be noted that information on habitat, and generally the components of spatial variability must be integrated into models and interpretations in order to

☞ he indicators and monitoring mechanisms should be used for management, to help the stakeholders to make decisions related to space-based restrictions (zoning) or to the regulation of ishing effort …and to consult each other in order to adapt MPAs management plans as required.

The monitoring of an MPA through time requires the creation of a database organizing a set of indicators which will serve for the periodical monitoring and evaluation of performances as well as continuous management. These indicators themselves will represent a dashboard to be used by those responsible for managing MPAs towards the stated objectives.

☞ There are several monitoring networks at the global, national, and local level, for isheries or MPAs (Natura 2000, EUROPARC, MEDPAN, ICCAT, etc.). All of them have the same objectives: to help managers and decision-makers in the decision-making process and raise awareness of stakeholders and users.

Prompted by the CBD Aïchi Targets, a majority of transnational MPA networks are presently elaborating their monitoring mechanisms and changes are fast. The main challenges these networks are facing are generally:

■ The slowness and complexity of the harmonization of the mechanisms of collection, monitoring and indicators face to the differences of cultures and means between MPAs, ishing systems, and among countries.

■ The dif iculty relating to centralization of data and that which consists in specifying who is in charge of processing and property of information.

The main utility of these large scale monitoring networks and systems are:

Time scale Effects Empirical indicators Mathematical model-based indicators

Evaluation of the relevance of establishing an MPA for isheries management

The use of MPAs and Spatio-Temporal Restrictions (STRs) (including ishing reserves) and their respective roles, as well as the prospect of their introduction into a Marine Spatial Planning, raises forcefully and with a sense of urgency, the issue of spatialization of ishery management. Recommended for a long time but rarely implemented, this spatialization is at the basis of ecosystem management, the allocation of territorial use rights in the coastal area, and the articulation between ishing and MPAs.

However, the space-based data on ishing and exploited ecosystems (habitats, resources, stakeholders, users) are generally missing or incomplete. This may contribute to errors in the siting of MPAs and in the management strategies selected for a given for isheries management systems and MPAs. In the majority of cases, MPAs have been established in an opportunistic way and both their limits and zoning have not taken into account functional links or essential stakes for ecosystems and isheries.

2.4

Recommendations on the "Bio-Ecological" Aspect ☞ In order to face the emerging bio-ecological challenges regarding the establishment of connections between MPAs and isheries, it is particularly recommended to: ■ To digitalize information in GIS format so as to valorize regional data and atlases.

■ Spatialize information

☞ Recommendations: "Ask good questions before establishing an MPA and prioritizing objectives"

■ To analyze the relevance and feasibility of the establishment of an MPA associated to isheries management in the light of target objectives: Before establishing any MPA, a study of relevance and impact will explain the reasons of the creation of an MPA and its isheries interest (whether isheries concerns relate to the whole MPA or only a part of it). The bene its of using an MPA rather than a conventional STR will be speci ied. This study should necessarily specify the protection issues and objectives as well as the objectives of isheries and MPA management, the expected minimum size, etc.. ■ To prioritize ecological and resource management objectives related to MPAs: this should go beyond registering declarations of intent, often vague and less poorly prioritized, found in of icial texts and documents of international organisms. It should be based on the analysis of local issues and constraints.

☞ Recommendations:

"To establish a minimum state of reference and cooperate for its realization " So as to measure the performances of MPAs and support management, it is necessary to:

■ Establish a thorough, robust inventory (reference state) inside and outside MPAs aiming at pragmatism and reliability:

✔ Maintain coherence with the subsequent monitoring. The latter will be based on the same information and spatialization criteria as those mentioned in the recommendation relating to monitoring.

✔ Initially, mobilize more important in order to build a solid database allowing the establishment of a lighter and regular monitoring mechanism.

✔ Rely on the analysis of long and complete historical series in order to take into account both of trends and natural variability of the system studied as well as its components.

✔ Valorize empirical communities knowledge to complement in situ short-term (annual) measurements for optimized cost/effectiveness and appropriation of the approach by the stakeholders ■ Give priority both to existing MPAs and new MPAs: it is important for the sub-region (SRFC) that existing MPA which do not have reliable « reference state » should be able to develop one in order to support management in the long term.

Biological State of Reference (baseline)

The absence of "zero state" (baseline situation before the creation of MPAs) is nearly systematic, which reduces the possibilities to assess management performances, makes it dif icult to promote MPAs, and greatly affects exchanges with the populations concerned by management strategies. Reference data are particularly weak and insuf icient regarding the spatio-temporal mobility of species that are exploited beyond the limits of the MPAs, where most effects expected by stakeholders should take place. In the few instances where baseline studies and zero state have been established, the geographical scope of the data collection has often been limited to the MPAs boundaries itself, while interactions between resources and users of MPAs take place on spaces that are necessarily wider.

N.B : Interferences between direct effects of protection and natural system variability may bias the assessment of an MPA ef iciency. However, methods involving regular samplings before and after the establishment of the MPA, both inside and outside its borders, and in several points of control outside it, can limit these biases. Thus, multiple control points must be established in order to distinguish the effect of natural variability from that of MPAs.

Local Monitoring Based on a Few, Reliable, Replicable and Simple Indicators

While there is consensus on the necessity to monitor the effects of MPAs, very few stakeholders take the time to clarify the objectives of the monitoring and the recipients of the results. In addition, many MPAs indicators concerning ishing are not documented, affecting management decisions and the functioning of the MPAs as well as the estimation of bene its. The lessons learned from biological indicators are becoming adequate while those relating to management ef iciency and socio-economics aspects are still insuf icient. The cross-analysis [multi-disciplinary] of information that would be necessary for a good analysis is often missing. The lack of centralization of monitoring and information constitutes a major weakness for an analysis of temporal data. MPAs remains experimental stocks management tools, and require important information. The monitoring and their communication of performance could enable an adaptation of zoning and of management as well as ensuring stakeholders' involvement. Monitoring undertaken only inside MPAs is only partly relevant in that it overlooks one major part of the effects, those on ishing which operates outside the reserved areas.

SYNTHESIS OF LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

General Information on Socio-Economic Analysis of MPAs

The evaluation of the ef iciency of an MPA for isheries is dif icult because the potential bene its of ishing essentially accrue outside of the reserved area. The dif iculty is due, in part, to the insuf iciency of data concerning the effect of larval diffusion on recruitment, the mobility of resources between the reserve and the ishing areas, as well as the behavior of ishermen. It can also be explained by the lack of attention to the socio-economic aspects inside and outside MPAs (at the scale of a wider territory corresponding to the ishing grounds affected by the area).

The positive effect that is sometimes observed (increase of catch per unit effort (CPUE) around MPAs) in the long term does not always compensate the negative effect of the ishing closure on ishing (opportunity cost of the reserve) that is observed in the short term. The complexity of the analysis of socio-economic effects does not only concern the bene its of the closure for the populations (and the equity in their distribution), but also the relevance and effectiveness of the compensation and supporting measures (including Alternative Income Generation Activities, AIGAS).

Objectives of the Socio-economic and Cost-Bene it Analysis

From the economic point of view, an MPA represents an investment of the society in the conservation of its natural resources. Thus, the socio-economic analysis of MPA mainly aims to assess the costs and bene its of this investment for the society, and to characterize the allocation of these cost and bene its over time, in space, and among social groups. It also aims to analyze the inancial viability of the investment and the economic and social implications of compensation measures.

✔ non-usage values (existence, heritage, option) linked to biodiversity conservation, of remarkable ecosystems, emblematic species ✔ usage values linked to the conservation/enhancement of the services given by protected ecosystems to the different users of the ecosystem (including ϐishermen)

✔ "running costs", management, surveillance, etc… Objectives of the socio-economic assessment Assessing the advantages and the social costs of the MPA in order to:

Socio-Economic Analysis Tools

The socio-economic analysis of MPAs falls within three categories of tools:

■ Project Appraisal & evaluation Methods, which include a set of procedures aiming at the establishment of an overall balance and distribution of project impacts on communities [cost-bene it analysis (CBA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), and multi-criteria analysis (MCA)] ;

■ Bio-economic Models, which propose a simpli ied and formalized representation of interacting biological and economic processes within areas impacted by protection measures; several bio-economic models are presented in the study.

■ Socio-economic Indicators, which are intended to characterize the level of the different effects of MPAs on the economic and social situations of impacted individual groups (monitoring).

These three categories of tools are complementary in principle. However, the application of the irst two categories to the analysis of MPAs impacts is often hindered in practice by huge dif iculties, which include the following ones:

■ Regarding CBA assessment methods, the expression in monetary terms of non-market values (utilization value related to non-market activities and also non-utilization values) is a problem ; CEA, a weaker variant of the CBA, helps to partially address this dif iculty but requires to set a priori quantitative conservation objectives; ■ As far as the MCA-based assessment methods are concerned, the weighting of the different criteria to be taken into account (political problem of the de inition of the group of individual that determines the weighting factors; technical problem of the non-transitivity of collective preferences) ; ■ For bio-economic models, the insuf iciency of scientiic knowledge on bio-ecological process and on user behaviors, on ecosystem services, as well as the weak quality and robustness of monitoring and databases.

In these conditions, the socio-economic analysis of MPAs is often based in practice on "dashboards" of indicators operating in an autonomous way. However, this practice presents some drawbacks, in particular:

■ Dif iculty to isolate the impact of protection measures from other factors affecting the levels of observed indicators;

■ Dif iculty to produce a synthetic evaluation the MPA eficiency and to integrate adjacent territories.

☞ Precautions to take concerning the use of socio-economic tools:

It is recommended not to overestimate the operational capacity of assessment tools theoretically e available, and match the costs of their implementation to the budgets and available human capital (cf. Appendix: modeling recommendations). On the socio-economic plan, it seems more realistic to privilege an approach based on frequency indicators and perception of MPAs by users and local populations, provided that the protocol of elaboration of these indicators meet some requirements of transparency and neutrality, and that the results be cross-checked with available statistical data ( isheries information systems, demographic and economic data at the national and regional scales). Priority must be given to the capacity of MPA managers to sustainably feed the indicators system (with data) and to interpret the results by themselves, with a minimum of external technical and inancial support.

From the isheries point of view, the creation of an MPA is based on the imposition of restrictions on isheries activities that are more signi icant inside the protected perimeter than outside it. As isheries management tools, MPAs enter into the category of conservation measures even though their regulatory systems can include an aspect relating to access regulation (reserving the right to ish in some areas to certain categories of ishermen for example). This characteristic suggests that in the absence of adequate regulatory mechanisms of access to resources in the areas impacted by MPAs, the expected bene its of the latter for ishing risks to be jeopardized.

Socio-economic Analysis of MPAs as Fisheries Management Tools

☞ It is important not to overestimate the ef iciency of MPAs as isheries management tools. In fact, like the "bio-ecological" aspect, it seems dif icult, a priori, to consider MPAs as a global alternative to "conventional" methods of isheries management, and it appears important to agree that MPAs are only one of the management tools among others.

MPAs are conceived as conservation tools and even though their ishery bene its might be real, they are generally dif icult to quantify and, in any case, they largely depend on the degree of control of ishing mortality exercised outside the protected perimeter.

☞ According to literature, the reliability of data and associated methods measuring socio-economic effects on ishing still remains weak. The major dif iculty concerning the assessment of the isheries ef iciency of an MPA is due to the fact that its potential bene its for ishing are essentially located outside the protected area, contrary to bene its for other uses (particularly activities related to tourism) which are measured inside. Further, all these dif iculties explain why bio-economic modeling of MPAs as isheries management tools has not yet reached the operational phase. Such modeling is generally hindered by the insuf iciency of knowledge concerning the effect of larvae spreading on recruitment, as well as the mobility of exploited resources between reserves and ishing areas. This obstacle is frequently reinforced by the insuf iciency of knowledge relating to the spatial mobility of ishermen.

Explanations of the Weakness of Studies on Socio-economic Effects

☞ Going beyond the strict framework of MPAs, several recent reports have attempted to assess the economic value of services offered by marine ecosystems, particularly for ishing XXII , XXIII , XVIV , XXV . These studies mainly deal with coral reefs. Yet, within the framework of the metaanalysis conducted on 52 studies providing suf icient statistical information (over a total of 166 listed), Brander et al. (2007) worry about the quality of these assessments, which they consider as often weak.

Faced with multiple dif iculties relating to the collection of socio-economic information, ield studies that aim to assess the isheries ef iciency of AMPs generally adopt one of the two following methods:

■ Estimate of spatio-temporal CPUE gradients: This irst approach is hindered by the necessity to take into account the adaptive behavior of ishermen, which impacts the CPUE. Moreover, the fact an increase in the CPUE in the ishing area may be observed does not necessarily indicate a positive overall effect of MPAs on catch. The negative effect of the closure of an area to ishing (opportunity cost of the reserve) and the limits of the spillover effect. must also be taken into account ■ Perception surveys aiming to understand the way in which ishermen appreciate the effect of MPAs on their activities: These methods are often conducted in order to make up for the absence of socio-economic monitoring of ishing in MPAs. Their methodological dif iculties are also related to whether a isherman's declaration corresponds to the reality (inadequate perception, strategic declarations). They often mix the effect of protection on marine resources with the global effect of MPAs on ishing activities (cf. for example the study of Pollnac et al., 2000, on 45 MPAs in Philippines) XXVI . Results vary according to the surveyors, the moment of the survey, local strategies, etc. For instance, some surveys are conducted using « experts' opinions » that is the views of the MPAs managers themselves. However, the perceptions of managers and those of the ishermen do not always converge, as is shown by [START_REF] Mcclanahan | Factors in luencing resource users and managers' perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya[END_REF] XXVII in Kenya. Yet, these surveys sometimes enable researchers to detect a trend, and they can complement other studies that are more precise. The available results generally show mitigated perceptions of ishermen who have been

☞

The scienti ic dif iculties in assessing the socio-eco- nomic balance of MPAs are compounded by institutional dif iculties related to the inancing of their development "by project". Assessments are often made by funders or project managers, which does not always guarantee the rigor and/or independence of the conclusions. In addition, the temporal horizon of assessments is too brief to allow for the evaluation of the long-term effects of MPAs, on either isheries or variability of AIGAs that have been planned in the project (see below).

interviewed.

Irrespective of the methods used, methodological weaknesses or even the absence of methodological descriptions are often mentioned.

Key Elements on Socio-economic Effects and Fisheries Ef iciency of MPAs

Despite the overall dif iculties mentioned, including the lack of data or the low reliability of results, the literature as well as progress made in model development over the past ifteen years have clari ied some aspects of the debate relating to the ef iciency of MPAs in isheries.

✔ Positive biological effects on the resource : creation of a "safety stock" within the reserve; larval spread from the reserve, export of the exploitable biomass from the reserve to ϐishing zones.

✔ Participatory and spatial management of ϐishing and other usages of the MPA ecosystem, favoring conϐlicts reduction.

✔ Development of alternative income-generation activities (AIGA) to ϐishing, in order to reduce pressure on ϐishing resources. It also contains several limitations.

✔ Management costs which includes surveillance, monitoring, and expenses induced by participatory management. On the top of these management costs comes the cost of compensatory measures and other alternative income-generation activities.

These costs are to be compared with the implementation costs of "traditional" management measures ✔ Costs of opportunity for ϐishermen change according to the level of use of the zone and it is immediate for ϐishermen when the beneϐits they could have are not immediate (it is estimated that the spill-over effect of an MPA reserve is between 6 to 9 years)

✔ Indirect costs resulting from a displacement of the ϐishing effort towards other areas/or other ϐisheries

Potential beneϐits of the MPA Costs of the MPA

✔ Few studies assess the cost of MPAs. Available results show that sometimes the effect is positive, sometimes it is negative. Nevertheless, as a rule and except for a few little atolls, studies show that spill-over effects are not very often sufϐicient to compensate direct catch losses due to an access restriction to ϐishing zones. MPAs can still slow down the decrease of the yields while ensuring an overall balance of the system.

✔ No effect on price (increase of the prices due to the decrease of the production linked to the creation of an MPA) which could improve the ϐishermen's income in the context of a catch decrease has been shown.

✔ For an overexploited ϐishery, if the ϐishing effort can be similar to the one before the creation of the MPA, the MPA can participate in the increase of the catch but can also improve the resource rent.

The optimal size of the reserve must increase with the ϐishing effort.

Socio-economic effects of the MPA on ϐishing

☞ Management and control of access are compulsory around MPAs:

Today, everyone agrees that the major part of the failures in isheries management is caused by the insuf iciency and inadequacy of effective mechanisms regulating the access to resources so as to neutralize the trend towards overcapacity of isheries. Generally, overcapacity results in negative externalities among exploiters of common resources, and which also engenders overexploitation of these resources and con licts among resource exploiters.

The absence of management and control of access to isheries undermines conservation measures, which will be incapable of mastering the phenomenon of overcapacity. The problem is all the more acute because the technical effectiveness of ishing and the socio-economic pressures on ishermen are strong.

In the absence of control of access to ishing areas, the creation of a reserve-MPA is not likely to restore isheries yield (net income generated by sustainable exploitation of resources) ; yet, in certain circumstances, it can increase the global size of sustainable catches (effect that is all the more likely when the isheries technical effectiveness is high).

☞ In the case of reef isheries, several authors XXVIII , XXIX note that the increase of catch by unit area observed is not enough to compensate for the loss of income caused by the closure of part of the ishing area.

☞ On the basis of an estimate of productivity of artisa- nal ishing by km2, Emerton (2000) estimates the opportunity cost of creating two contiguous MPAs (the national marine reserve of Kiste and the national marine reserve of Mpunguti) in Kenya from 1973Kenya from -1978. . Then, he compares the opportunity cost with the turnover generated by ishing (in 1998) in these two MPAs.

The author concludes that the opportunity cost is superior (by a factor of 5). Yet, the creation of MPAs seems to have slowed down the decrease in yield resulting from a signi icant level of overexploitation.

☞ Are MPAs contributes or represent a factor in reducing con lict ?

While it is interesting to envisage MPAs (coastal) as an element of Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), they do not constitute a magic panacea to resolve user con licts.. MPAs can even bring about certain con licts, which can be mitigated in part with good governance mechanisms, followed, where possible, by an adequate compensation system (cf. Chapter below on alternative activities). Nevertheless, the main potential con licts are those among ishermen due to the displacement of ishing effort or con licts between excluded ishermen and other users who are bene iciaries of MPAs.

It must be kept in mind that the creation of an MPA is, in itself, inef icient in relation to the major cause of user con lict in the ishery sectors which stems from ishing overcapacity.

Key Elements on Socio-economic Monitoring and Reference States

Monitoring systems and socio-economic reference states are often of weak quality due to methodological gaps and lack of liability. Yet, their reliability contributes both to the ef iciency of management and inancing capacity of MPAs (valuation of socio-economic results, services offered by ecosystems).

The key elements of synthesis drawn from the bibliographical analysis con irm the importance of space-based information both on land and at sea, and the consideration of speci ic attributions for indicators.

Socio-economic baseline studies which present a certain robustness, all use a dynamic approach, completed by qualitative and quantitative data characterized by their dynamic and zoned presentation, and more particularly by: ■ Quantitative information, notably ishing effort, catch, touristic frequentations (overnight stay, volume of recreational activities offered by tour operators).

■ An assessment of the socio-economic context in the land area that is directly impacted by MPAs (cf. igure below-T1-T2): demography, health, poverty, markets, equipment, etc. ✔ Ratio between recurrent resources and running costs of the MPA, and part of the own resources (assets) entering recurrent resources ✔ Relevant elements that could be routinely collected from pre-existing databases (e.g. demography, health and living conditions): zone T2 or immediately higher geographical scale

Objectives Indicators

✔ Provide reliable information on the operation of the MPA, in particular the achievement of the objectives assigned to it..

✔ Being easily interpretable by the MPA manager and stakeholders

✔ Once set, indicators should be updated regularly by the manager of the MPA (collection, analysis), without or with minimal external assistance. This implies that the indicators are not too many, and they can be updated with realistic cost and technology.

Required properties for indicators

consolidation of the MPA (change of activities taking place in these areas, nature of activities and leets, employment, vocations, landed volumes, seasonality, geographical origin of ishermen, touristic visits, con licts etc.)

AIGAs, Compensation and Accompanying Measures-Many precautions to take

There is an obvious spatio-temporal imbalance between the costs and expected bene its of MPAs. That is why particular attention is given to their bene its for the local populations and to the compensation measures that may be implemented regarding these populations. Known as « Alternative (or additional) Income Generating Activities », the AIGAs can be classi ied into three major categories according to the rationale behind their establishment:

■ Transitional accompanying measures associated with general territorial development: The creation of MPAs often boosts the development of touristic and recreational activities (diving, naturalist and cultural outings, snorkeling, etc.) but this does not necessarily mean that local populations are the main bene iciaries. These AIGAs are proposed until the MPA bene its are fully realized and the MPAs are well received.

■ Measures compensating restrictions on ishing areas (compensation of opportunity costs):

To compensate for the restrictions on ocean use, MPAs provide either direct compensation (e.g. donations, purchase of gear) or indirect assistance (e.g through port infrastructures, provision of ish aggregating devices (FADs) , or valorization of catch). Generally, direct assistance contributes more strongly to the increase in ishing effort than indirect assistance Compensation through allocation of exclusive Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs) remains the only positive example of measure that do not increase ishing effort.. ✔ Support to value addition to catches (labeling, marketing, processing ...)

✔ Diversifying activities to agriculture, aquaculture (rarely compatible with MPA), crafts and tourism -Note that they provide more support to local development than support for the reduction of activity sea ϐishing ϐishermen.

✔ Allocation of exclusive ϐishing rights (already seen as effective when developed nearby)

* In descending order of likelihood of increased pressure ☞ With a view to acknowledging that the ishermen that are negatively impacted by the establishment of a reserve are those who will ultimately bene it from the positive effects of this measure, the Italian law reserves the access to adjacent ishing areas only to professional ishermen so that they can withdraw the eventual beneits of ish spillover from the reserve towards adjacent ishing areas. These can take the form of catch quotas or territorial exclusive use rights XXX , XXXI . This type of regulation is not always easy to implement, in particular in the case of migrant ishermen.

☞ Measures relating to AAIGAs raise many issues:

■ their inancial cost and who bears this cost (the determination of which is sometimes dif icult). The agreement of "winners" to pay for the cost can be dif icult to obtain;

■ their impact on resource conservation that MPAs are supposed to promote;

■ the long term economic viability of AIGAs, whose initial development is frequently inanced as part of MPA creation projects ;

In general, the success of AIGAs and AIGAs projects or components depends on three factors: (i) existence of a market (realism of the market must be considered), (ii) qualitative and quantitative adaptation of supply to this market, and (iii) a return of a substantial part of the generated bene its towards local populations.

The meeting of the irst two conditions can face various obstacles: the local market is not large, coastal communities are landlocked, and the lack of capacity of available manpower.

The third condition is not often well met in the case of tourism. In addition, in some cases, the latter generates negative socio-cultural and environmental impacts for local populations. It can even be a hindrance to conservation objectives, urging for example ishermen to ish under-sized lobster in order to meet the demand of restaurant managers in Belize. It can also bring about tensions in local markets or con licts relating to access to common resources (water, space, coast), as recent studies show in Madagascar.

Sources [START_REF] Chaboud | Le modèle vertueux de l'écotourisme : mythe ou réalité ? L'exemple d' Anakao et d'Ifaty-Mangily à Madagascar[END_REF] XXXII , King (1997) XXXIII , Pascal (2011) XXXIV ☞ Fleet-reduction programs are generally disappoin- ting; this is mainly due to the fact that the effective decrease of ishing capacity is often sharply inferior to the decrease of the nominal decrease because it is the less performing vessels which leave the leet. When such programs are recurrent (as in Europe in the 90s), they are inally anticipated by ishermen and no longer produce the expected effects.

☞ Projects of AIGAs developed for the bene its of isher- men remain often anecdotal or weakly sustainable , and rarely present positive economic results for the stakeholders involved (inaccuracy on the monitoring of many projects), and do not have any effect on the reduction of local ishing pressure that their objectives led to expect.. When some examples of recreational-ishing or guided visits yield an apparent slight reduction of ishing pressure, it always involves a very limited number of stakeholders, and the attractiveness of the sites leads to an increase in the demand of ish consumption by tourists, and therefore to an increased ishing pressure on some local species. Collective projects implemented by women (welcome, eco-lodge) remain effective for local development when they are well supported and managed in the long term and when a market exists for those services. However, these projects have little impact on ishing and ishermen, and can be considered merely as local development initiatives.

Yet, the donors and institutions engaged in the strengthening of an MPA, rarely take into account the duration that is necessary for the building new collective governance change, or consolidation of social processes and socio-economic activities. Actually, the short duration of projects (3-4 years) the disruption of the inancial lows and the weakening of the support with time contributes in part to the non-sustainability of local economic development projects in MPAs.

Developing a Rationale (justi ication) for the Creation of MPAs

In addition to the usual justi ication, relating to protection of resources and habitats, the creation of a "secure stock" and the spillover effect, it seems important to realize that the establishment of an MPA has an impact on the economic development of local populations. This impact will not be limited to the MPA's potential impact on local ishermen because the MPA also affects the activity of the ishery sector upstream (suppliers, builders etc.) and downstream (market, processing) which have induced effects on the local economy and on other activities related to services offered by ecosystems. Unfortunately, the necessary studies are seldom undertaken.

Recommendations on the "Socio-economic" Aspect

☞ Recommendation:

"To produce spatial information and management"

■ To promote the development of a spatially-driven management and the production of national atlases that are coordinated at the regional level: This management should value the dynamics of use (surveys) and migrant ishermen.

■ To reinforce the production of local databases covering areas both outside and inside MPAs. Regarding socio-economic matters, it should include notably:

✔ Biological zoning, con irming spaces affected by spillover

✔ Administrative and regulatory zoning on land and at sea ✔ Zoning of isheries activities ( leets, efforts, strategies, catch) and other coastal activities ✔ Origins of stakeholders and their degree of dependence on the area

✔ Migratory phenomena and seasonality of activities ■ To capitalize and valorize socio-economic elements and ishing strategies

■ To digitalize information in a GIS format so as to valorize the regional data and develop an atlas.

☞ Recommendation: "To analyze the relevance of the establishment of an MPA and specify its objectives"

■ To analyze the relevance and feasibility of the establishment of an MPA that is intended for isheries management: To rely on a study of the opportunities and impacts and to specify the advantages of such MPAs with regard to a conventional Space-time Restriction (STR). This study should :

✔ Specify if there are similar examples that can enable the development of reports on other ishing areas and their impacts ✔ Estimate the relevant size of MPAs taking into account migrations and ishing movements , administrative frameworks, and the socio-cultural context (to take into account the migrant ishermen in the area)

✔ Ensure that the MPA will be inancially viable and specify mechanisms to be established in order to ensure its effective management in the long term. In fact, without inancing, management will remain ineffective and the MPA will become "a paper MPA".

■ To prioritize management objectives and sustainable economic development activities associated with MPAs:

The analysis of problems, regulations and proper constraints on MPAs and their broader environment should rely on surveys among stakeholders in order to facilitate the concerted de inition of management and economic development objectives. This also implies that the list of these "stakeholders" has been deined beforehand, through a process that is not only technical (de inition of who will be really impacted by MPAs), but also political (speci ication of who are the legitimate stakeholders).

De inition of a Socio-economic State of Reference (baseline)

Socio-economic Baseline studies ("Zero state") or "Socioeconomic states of reference" are unfortunately mostly missing or very weak. Yet, such studies remain an essential element to inform the creation of an MPA, to support management measures, and to allow the adaptation of management measures to the local context. They facilitate consultations and decision-making processes that have a co-management objective. The success of these operations depends not only on the monitoring of performance and impacts on local populations, but also on

Establishment of Sustainable Socio-economic Monitoring and Evaluation Tools

All the stakeholders agree on the relevance to establish a socio-economic monitoring system covering both inside and outside MPAs. This system should be developed in the long term and be based on pertinent indicators. Experience on socio-economic indicators and monitoring of management ef iciency show dramatic weaknesses both at the methodological level, in the effort to collect and analyze data, and in the involvement of inancial institutions. Despite the existing experiences (notably within the framework of the BioCos and CEPIA projects at the level of the SRFC region), no sustainable mechanism is operational. It is also often noted that cross-checking of information to ensure a better analysis of results is often overlooked.

the quality of the evaluation of the services offered by ecosystems and MPAs. Thus, such quality is useful to facilitate access to inancing, mobilize policy-makers and decision-makers, and support the inancial sustainability of the MPA management. In addition, such agreed "state of reference" also help improve coherence between MPAs and measures regulating access to ishing areas, for example through an institutional mechanism linking the Ministry of Fisheries and that of the Environment (cf. governance), often greatly coveted by stakeholders. The absence of standard methods or adapted to the national level also contributes to the lack of development of these studies.

☞ ✔ To take into account ishing migrations by insisting in particular on their differences and the typology of the migrants;

■ To give priority both to existing MPAs and to new MPAs : A state of reference that is established even after the creation could encourage a new starting point, and support long-term management as well as inancing on the basis of results.

☞ Recommendation: "establish a sustainable socio-economic monitoring and evaluation inside and outside MPAs"

■ To be judicious in the use of perception surveys and ensure their reliability: To use them as the preferred method of analyzing the impacts of MPAs on ishing and zoning of uses, the development of AIGAs, and governance. To avoid consulting involved experts and managers for this analysis so as not to distort results.

■ To optimize cost-effectiveness through two levels of monitoring: de ined along with stakeholders and adapted to available means; they should be conducted inside and outside of MPAs: ■ To restrain the system to a small number of indicators, aiming at optimized cost/effectiveness, synthesis, easy replication and reliability as well as easy interpretation.

✔ An
■ To ensure transparency and communication with local stakeholders: The modalities of feedback on results (stakeholders, periodicity, etc.) will be speci ied from the system elaboration stage. To process the results and to communicate in a transparent manner (disseminate monitoring results in local languages and with adapted communication aids).

Precautions in the Implementation of AIGAs

In principle, the consideration of AIGAs remains useful because they are supposed to facilitate the acceptability of the project by taking into account either compensation or measures intended to reinforce the local socio-economic fabric. However, the development of AIGAs is often anecdotal or unsustainable; h does not present positive economic results and even increase ishing pressure. The possibility for ishermen to sustainably undertake alternative income generating activities is often nearly inexistent, because either there is no market or this market is not adapted to their wishes and capacities. When such activities correspond to the needs of stakeholders (tourism, market gardening, etc.), supports are often not professional enough to be suf icient. Errors are often repeated in this matter because past lessons are not taken into account. AIGAs successful establishment requires long-term support (more than 3 years) and this is incompatible with the short-term nature of donors' projects inancing. In addition, experiences have shown that compensatory measures may have often had negative effects on ishing activity and thus require precaution.

☞ ■ To ensure that MPAs bene it the local community: taxing new uses (tourism) can be an element enabling the transfer of bene its towards collective activities carried out by ishermen or the local sector, thus increasing the acceptability of the project.

Financial Viability and Sustainability of MPAs

While political commitment and the institutional framework are fundamental, it has been noted throughout the world that in the absence of adequate or sustainable inancing mechanisms, MPAs often are inef iciently managed, and therefore lead to a poor level of conservation and non-sustainable use of resources.

Financing of isheries management like MPAs is often limited to its launching phase while it remains a crucial factor of sustainability and performance. The development of autonomous management of an MPA will take at least

☞ Recommendation: "To develop sustainable inancing of MPAs that are integrated into central inancing mechanisms "

■ To take into account inancing beyond the launching period of MPAs: At the creation of MPAs, the inancing plan should take into account in a realistic way the needs and permanent costs of MPAs (surveillance, monitoring, and expenditure induced by participatory management), and this should be done beyond the launching phase. A budget for the irst 5 years should be provided along with a support budget during the transition period leading to self-suf iciency (the subsequent 5 years at least).

■ To develop economies of scale: Very large MPAs (whether multi-use or not) require substantial budgets and combination of resources from the Navy, conservation, isheries, tourism, as well as other sectors which should be organized and negotiated. Since the major part of the problems and solutions are common both to ishing and to MPAs, economies of scale are possible through operational collaborations, or in some justi ied cases, integration of the two systems of governance.

12 -15 years (even more depending on local cultures) and should be inancially supported during establishment and transition phases (renewal of co-management bodies).

Insuf iciency of human and inancial resources (mainly at the decentralized level) is a major factor of failure.

The search for external funding is not easy, and if it succeeds, it will create a potentially dangerous dependency on donors. Complementarities of local, national, public, and private inancing sources and their diversity allow for limiting risks and ensuring sustainability of the operation of MPAs.

SYNTHESIS OF LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE GOVERNANCE OF MPAS AND FISHING

Weak Performance of MPAs and Fisheries Management

The conceptual frameworks of isheries management and conservation have progressed separately and their relative failure is largely due to the same causes. The two systems of governance present today synergies that are quite stronger than in the past, and mutual interests, which may facilitate the development of institutional links. Recommendations to improve the management of MPAs and the performance of ishing are similar: e.g. implementation of "good governance"; institutionalization of management plans and establishment of effective users' rights. In both cases, the form of governance that seems more ef icient for the management of natural resources is "shared" governance or co-management, at the regional, national, and local level.

Several authors including Mora and Sale (2011) show that despite a sharp increase in the number of marine protected areas at the global level, terrestrial and marine biodiversity are declining, since the 1970s on land and since the 1990s in the oceans.

These authors have highlighted the contrast between many studies emphasizing the advantages of MPAs and other studies showing that these effects are not universal.

According to them and to meta-analyses conducted by the World Bank, several systematic reviews indicate that the failure of MPAs is more the rule than the exception. This situation strangely reminds us of what is happening in the isheries sector. The impact on people and on their livelihoods is also less systematically documented and restricted activities are hardly replaced and compensated. When the socio-economic impact is negative, it tends to undermine the possible positive results on resources. The realization of positive impacts is highly dependent on factors that are external to MPAs such as the politico-economic framework, demography, neighboring activities, user s culture, etc. In these conditions, even though the possibility for an MPA to produce a positive effect is relatively well established, there is no guarantee that such effect will be obtained (Botsford, 2010), or that the positive effects will suf iciently compensate the potentially negative ones, even if they have not been thoroughly studied. While acknowledging the progress achieved, these authors suggest that MPAs, which are important as emergency and functional if they are well managed, are not able, alone, to stop the degradation of biodiversity. New complementary approaches are necessary, attacking more speci ically the known causes of this degradation: e.g. overpopulation and excessive consumption of resources. In addition, the authors have underscored the lack of evaluation of the performance of MPAs for decades, as well as known limitations, of strategies based on MPAs: (i) very slow growth of their coverage; (ii) inadequate size and connectivity ; (iii) ef iciency limited to some human threats; (iv) insuf icient inancing; (v) con lict with the development needs.

☞ One century of "protection" by human exclusion (zones turned into sanctuaries) did not prevent a strong erosion of biodiversity and one century of isheries management (under open access) did not prevent overexploitation of resources. It is clear that MPAs are considered by some people as a fundamental tool, despite a dramatic failure rate ("paper MPAs", weakness of management), while the same can be said of isheries and the conventional tools they use. Yet, convergence points do exist today because in both ields we have modi ied their paradigm:

■ From conservation of species or populations to that of spaces, structures, and functions (ecosystem approaches, space-based management, marine spatial planning);

■ From top-down to participative management with the inclusion of stakeholders in the governances and allocation of exclusive user rights.

☞ Ef iciency of the management of MPAs in Brazil XXXV

In Brazil, in 2008, among the 299 federal protected areas, 210 did not have a management plan, 184 had no established Management Council, and 161 did not have any infrastructure. The analysis of Brazilian MPAs illustrates the situation and shows the high level of pessimism, an acute perception of the weakness of the national system and weak results achieved on the ield. The main identi ied weaknesses are as follows:

■ poor institutional coordination between coastal and oceanic management coupled with an administration and management system that is much bureaucratic ; ■ Mismanagement of individual MPAs and problems with the management of regional networks of MPAs ;

■ Insuf iciency of inancial means which generates structural problems;

■ Lack of connection between MPA policy and it implementation; and ■ Lack of professional motivation. The further designation of additional MPAs without resolving these problems may not enable Brazil to ful ill its international commitments in terms of of marine biodiversity.

An Historic Change towards more Synergy and Coherence between " ishing" and "MPAs" systems

Although the conceptual framework of isheries management and MPAs have emerged at the same time, in late 19th century, during practically one century, conservation and isheries management have evolved separately to ultimately face their relative and respective failures, particularly since CNUCED (1992). Formerly dominated by the concepts of preservation through exclusion of use, MPA management has progressively changed towards concepts of integration and sustainable resources use.

Fisheries, formerly dominated by "growth and expansion", have moved towards the concept of sustainable development and, more recently, of responsible isheries and ecosystem approach to isheries, thus reinforcing its biodiversity conservation rules.

☞ Until the 1970s, ishery management measures that are quali ied today as "technical" or "conventional" were known as « conservation measures » as opposed to more modern measures such as limitation of catch, effort, or introduction of ishing rights.

There are still tensions both between the two management systems (of isheries and of biodiversity) as well as within each system, and between those who believe in radical strategies and those who believe in more moderate consensus-building strategies. Notwithstanding, the common ground or convergence points that are explained below are more important nowadays than ever, and should lead to greater convergence between isheries and environment of icials:

■ The two systems of "MPAs" and " isheries" management share the same management process steps: decision-making, implementation planning and evaluation of performance. The two management mechanisms take place with a degree of active participation of the stakeholders concerned; more or less sophisticated scientiic support, integrating traditional knowledge; and information management. The decision-making process is greatly facilitated and more effective if it takes place in a national framework that sets the modalities and objectives, deadlines and resources;

■ The two systems of "MPAs" and " isheries" management have often failed for similar reasons and require corrections that largely depend on the same ☞ The role of isheries reserves need reconsideration.

For centuries, the concept of " isheries reserves" or "refugia" has been a key factor in isheries management because of their importance for ensuring reproduction, food and protection of juveniles.

These refuges are now less used in many areas and when envisaged, they have been, like MPAs, often urgently established without any assessed objectives or indicators in a context dominated by no control of ishing capacity, thus preventing the objective analysis of their effectiveness.

Caricatured positions that encourage growth and increased exploitation of resources or those tending towards human exclusion for conservation are outdated, and moderate stances present a growing set of options on which a general consensus can be found, provided that quick generalizations are avoided, and people acknowledge that : (i) each ishery and each MPA is a particular case deserving a particular examination and an adapted solution ; and (ii) the introduction of a reserve.MPA in a ishing area may or may not be an appropriate solution depending on the speci ic case. In both situations, dogmatism is not useful for the resolution of problems.

principles. In both cases: governance is a problem; excess ishing capacity should be eliminated; increase of human pressure and degradation is more rapid than the development of corrective measures; the state of uncertainty is permanent, and information is incomplete. Evolution of the concepts of isheries and conservation management (Modi ied from Garcia, SM 2010). Con licts indicated are internal to both governances, between extremists and moderates ☞ The connection between MPAs and ishing raises an issue of "cross-governance" and a classical challenge in the management of complex systems. The main questions arising in the debate are as follows:

■ The role of MPAs as a isheries management tool: are the effects and bene its for isheries obvious? Do isheries reserves present advantages for isheries or conservation? Isn't there any risk of confusion between the two? (cf. "Socio-Economic" aspects) ■ Tolerance of MPAs with regard to isheries varies. How could it be better developed?

■ Spatio-temporal dynamics of complex ishery and MPA systems imply an adaptive and space-based management.

How to establish it and what are its consequences?

■ How can isheries management contribute to ful ill the international political commitments and achieve national objectives in the matter of establishment of MPAs while optimizing potential cost-bene its?

Principles of Good Governance

There are many convergent de initions of governance. The term was coined to re lect the extension of the public decision-making process of the State to representatives of civil society and the private sector. It refers to the decision-making process, de inition of objectives, responsibility, organization, and evaluation of results. The whole notion of governance is perfectly integrated today with the principles (if not in the facts) of governance in isheries (Garcia, 2009) and MPAs (Graham et al., 2003).

Governance typologies

Generally, there is a distinction between, on the one hand, "top-down" conventional governance or State governance, seen as interventionist and paternalistic and, on the other hand, self-governance (or self-management), which is popular and community-based and referred to as "bottomup". Different examples of typologies are mentioned in the technical report.

Co-management

☞ Co-management is not a formula, but rather an adap- tative process that changes, grows, and matures with time. It implies the democratization of the process, the social emancipation of stakeholders, decentrailization, sharing of power, and social empowerment. In short, the principles and characteristics are those of « good governance ». Its implementation generally contains 4 interconnected components.

Conventional management / centralized and descending MPAs can be characterized by three main types of governance:

Private management

Role of communities Role of the State

■ Co-management: It is a partnership agreement in which stakeholders (e.g. ishermen, State institutions, other stakeholders of the sector or territory, NGOs, and researchers) share responsibility and authority over the management of a ishery. Through consultation and negotiation, partners develop a formal agreement specifying their respective roles, responsibilities, and rights in the management -their negotiated power . This is presently the most recommended form of governance and the most ef icient for the management of natural resources, isheries, and MPAs. It can intervene at the regional (among States), national (among ministries), and local scales (among sectors). It has been progressing slowly but surely since at least two decades.

■ Private management is extremely rare in the maritime ield, but it exists for MPAs. In this case, bene its can be drawn from activities taking place within these reserves, and tax reductions can encourage such a type of governance.

■ "Ghost management" is unfortunately the most frequent in artisanal ishing as they are in MPAs. It is characterized by a lack of interest of the State (unwilling or incapable to manage) and also a lack of social cohesion of user groups who are hardly capable of organizing themselves. However, should we examine closely this apparent form of governance, we can realize that it is nothing but a failed bottom-up or top-down governance.

Co-Management

Management of biodiversity resources

Shared governance is an approach that is greatly recognized and practiced in several types of national isheries (in particular when they include allocation of ishing rights), and international ones (in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, RFMOs) where it is a legal requirement that UNCLOS 1 imposes on States. It is particularly recommended for community protected areas. ☞ (4) creation of a team of municipal guards, and (5) support for community initiatives.

Key Elements of Good Governance and Management in the Context of Uncertainty

The establishment of MPAs or isheries management measures in the context of poverty presents some challenges that are often more important than in other countries because of social and economic pressures which can be exercised. Without underestimating these constraints, examples of several developing countries having formerly developed good governance approaches despite poverty contexts demonstrate the opportunities offered by this approach to stakeholders and policy-makers in particular. Political frameworks and the development of speci ic local solutions, or regulation mechanisms that take into account the general interest for sustainable development are necessary.

☞ Need for an adaptive management:

Phenomena stemming from the complexity of isheries systems and to which managers should be prepared, raise questions regarding the ability of governance mechanisms to accurately predict the impacts of the measures they decide and therefore their capacity to thoroughly control the events. In return, they prompt managers and leader to adopt an adaptive management approach(cf. Chapter on "planning of management").

☞ Based on the above, good governance can be charac- terized by (inspired by UNDP, 1997;Dudley, 2008):

■ Based

Role of MPAs and long-term management: they participate in the reinforcement of co-management through compliance with socio-ecological dynamics and the close involvement of communities in their implementation (decentralization, process of co-management strengthened, and clari ication of access rules and management);

■ Self-control and surveillance mechanisms: they signiicantly contribute to the ef iciency of co-management notably when they are about clear particular interests and are associated with strong mechanisms of penalties implemented by ishermen themselves, social organizations and clear restrictions of access.

Basics -A Clear Institutional and Legal Framework and Institutional Links to Develop

States are legally legitimate to organize and regulate the access to resources and to marine areas for the conservation of general interest. The State has the monopoly of legal competences, but political, economic, and social texts and relationships between stakeholders (national and internal scales) impact the content of the rules. Rules constituting MPAs are: (i) de inition of an administrative perimeter; (ii) obligations and rights in force within these perimeters; (iii) status of users and public property within these perimeters; and (iv) compensation policies.

Beyond formal law and active integration of some traditional laws into the formal law, there is often in MPAs a syncretic law that has stemmed from practice. The framework for isheries is generally summarized in a Fishery Code (or Fisheries Act). Long limited to so called "conservation" measures (modifying the exploitation pattern), this frameworks tends to be enriched nowadays by measures enabling a better control of ishing capacity and exploitation level.

☞ Traditional rights:

In the management of coastal MPAs (as in the management of artisanal isheries) traditional rights, long neglected if not fought, are progressively recognized. In the case of MPAs, there is a large consensus on the necessity to protect traditional populations and to recognize: (i) their rights to use and manage their resources; (ii) their institutions; (iii) their conservation measures; and (iv) their own development priorities, provided that they are consistent with the conservation objectives of protected areas.

INFLUENCE OF NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS

Management of MPAs and isheries aim et objectives that overlap largely with regard to sustainability of resources and services, as well as ecosystems producing them.

There are clear-cut differences in focus and in priorities of these two systems of management. Often, there are tensions between the respective central administrations concerned ( ights for in luence, for budgets, and in media) and also tensions that are internal to each administration, between those in favor of radical strategies and those in favor of moderate strategies. Thus, in spite of the "One State" principle which should bring coherence between administrations, in practice, the different administrative "cultures" and practices lead to tensions among them. These tensions undermine the ef iciency of the States' action in the absence of an effective arbitration system.

Type of administration

Further, many analysts note that international policies of structural adjustments over the last twenty years under the aegis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) aiming at reducing budgetary de icits and giving a new impulse to economies (through liberalization of exchanges), have led to a sharp decrease of the State's capacities and roles, in particular its role of providing incentives and suppor in relation to the main issues faced by society.

☞ Despite convergent rhetorical developments on res- ponsible isheries and conservation, the prevailing legal layering, from regional to local scale, requires clari ication. Actually, international and regional organizations and States allocate, with a somewhat confusing distribution of mandates, overlapping responsibilities to actors that have variable power and capacity. The system remains very often incomplete, fragmented, and complex with many partially overlapping tools. The lack of coherence at the national level often leads to a lack of coherence in the decisions made by a given country in various international institutions.

The reduction of central power has led to signi icant deregulation and a transfer of responsibilities from centralized institutions towards the periphery (Subsidiarity Principle), but also an increased dependence (often fed by all arties) on external support, and in particular from NGOs However, paradoxically the reduction of States' intervention tools has automatically diminished their capacity to implement this decentralization in a tidy and effective manner. This has resulted in a notable weakening of decentralized administrations (involved in the management of MPAs).

It is within this changing context that is situated the management of MPAs over these last 20 years with ive main dif iculties:

■ Insuf icient inancial resources: The establishment of MPAs or large MPAs, likely to tolerate and/or have an impact on ishing, requires corresponding inancial and administrative effort for management and monitoring. The use of traditional knowledge and participative management should reduce operations costs but the latter remain signi icant. Under such conditions, unilateral law-making and regulations stand for administrative control, while the means needed to enforce them, are lacking, resulting in weak policies or enforcement, and related drawbacks ■ Weakness of the State: Given the weakness of the State in many countries, presenting MPAs as pilot projects for a new form of governance, as is often the case, appears complex and even questionable. The introduction of MPAs as privileged means of isheries management in a context dominated by weakening of peripheral management capacities risks diverting the State from their other sovereign functions of management of resources integrated in the general development of EEZ resources.

■ Administrative Confusion and Layering: An administrative system characterized by an inextricable layering of institutions has been established. MPAs appear to be supported by a multitude of institutional competences operating in a weakly transparent framework with little or no precise directions. Administrations' objectives are often unclear; publicly available data is often absent; budgetary allocations are weak or dif icult to access; compounding the confusion..

■ A chaotic and uncoordinated legal-institutional framework:

Straddled between land, water, and forests, coastal MPAs have an operational and potential interface with several specialized agencies, making their governance more complex than that of isheries. The latter is generally under one authority only. The Integrated Management of Coastal Areas (IMCA) has not been very successful, and the more recent concept of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is still to demonstrate its ef iciency. So, the respective legal and institutional frameworks of isheries and conservation remain with little or no coordination and numerous dif iculties will result from the fact that the respective legal-institutional frameworks have not been developed to facilitate the collaboration between isheries and conservation or between MPAs and isheries management. This will result ina potentially con lictual scattering of decision responsibilities.

■ Lack of adhesion of the populations and (sector):

It is dif icult to obtain adhesion of the populations to a project that imposes to them changes which are likely to negatively affect their incomes, their livelihoods, and their traditions, in name of a "general interest" that does not always appear equitable or on other bases hard to decipher by local actors. Faced to this reality, public protection action, in its relation with MPA stakeholders, progress on a narrow path between resistance to change and new expectations for livelihoods.

☞ The terrestrial origin of the concept of protected area leads to conceptual "friction" when adapted to the sea. Indeed, the rules governing the utilization and property of resources as well as the needs in control and surveillance are different in the ocean, and depend on the distance to the coast.

☞ Gerhardinger et al. (2011) underline that in Brazil the multiplicity of MPAs in a given region, each one having its consultative committee, leads to an overload of stakeholders meetings and to loss of interest for mechanisms due to redundancy of issues examined These authors consider that a higher level of governance (at the level of a set of or a ("network" of MPAs) or at the level of an MPA Agency would be more effective from this point of view.

☞ The integration of biodiversity conservation (through MPAs) and isheries management raises problems of adaptation, assessment of common decisions, and of the fundamental differences to compromise with, after an objective analysis of the advantages and drawbacks. Thus, the developments of bridges at all scales, among different institutions represents one of the major stakes of the coming years, certainly with innovative experimentation at the institutional level.

Even though many NGOs have facilitated the establishment of MPAs and the maintenance, through their presence, of local co-management mechanisms, the prominent role played by large NGOs and their inancial Foundations did not facilitate, in many cases, local governance or the reinforcement of the State.

The chain of inancing has been organized by Northern NGOs responsible for mobilizing funds and Southern ones responsible for spending it in local communities. The State is often de facto "short-circuited" and the resulting confusion is aggravated by the fuzziness in the roles and responsibilities of these institutions, the articulation of their authority, the weakness or absence of formal consultation mechanisms, and con licts for in luence. In the absence of an adequate framework, NGOs mushroom in an ad hoc way, establishing MPAs within the framework of projects, often operating without "on the edges" of national legislation. Problems arise at the end of projects and when pilot projects need to be extended (scaling up) and passed under a national law that has not been well prepared to receive them.

under the responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment (National Parks Department), Presidency, Governor of region, Ministry responsible for isheries (Direction of Communitarian Affairs)).

In Philippines, MPAs are under the responsibilities of three jurisdictions: Department of environment and natural resources, Department of agriculture (Bureau of isheries and aquatic resources), and local governments (Cf. FAO, 2011:71). As a result, there are a plethora of institutions and high costs of interactions.

☞ Institutional relations in Australia: the Great Barrier Reef

The management of the Great Barrier Reef is under the responsibility of a federal independent Authority which has an exclusive mandate for regulations of access to and utilization of the area, according to the principles of sustainable utilization. A fragile consensus is emerging which needs to be analyzed by objectively recognizing the strong points and laws of each system, the meeting points related to changes in their own governance and management systems. So far, the biggest opportunities for collaboration and synergies between « ishing » and « MPAs » are as follows:

■ In multi-use MPAs where acceptable modalities of regulation and enforcement of standards of responsible ishing can be developed.

■

In high sea MPA where the absence of well de ined territories for isheries and conservation opens some better perspective of coherence.

■ In the creation of new institutional bridges in States being restructured or showing a strong political will towards the creation of linkages between isheries and environment administrations for improved effectiveness and optimization of costs

At the supra-comminatory level At the community level At the individual level

Some factors of success of good governance of MPAs-cum-ϐisheries

4.4

Fisheries management through MPAs or STRs?

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

MPAs aim to contribute to regional and national strategies of conservation and to be used within a system of « good governance ». Conservation is ensured by exclusion (in Reserve-MPAs) or reinforced management (in multiuse MPAs). The question of the management of ishing activities in MPAs is rather recent and is still subject to intense debates.

Different MPA typologies are described and analyzed in the technical report: (i) jurisdictional; (ii) oceanographic;

(iii) according to governance. States use many terms to describe a wide range of areas bene iting from a special administrative status and a particular protection (theoretical or real), more important than that applying in their immediate environment: MPA, marine reserve, sanctuary, natural reserve, community conservation area, managed marine area or locally managed marine area (MMA or LMMA), ecologically and biologically signi icant area (EBSA), vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME), etc.

One of the particular complexities of MPAs stems from their localization in the ocean and in particular their position in relation to the jurisdictional zones established by UNCLOS : in internal and territorial waters; in the EEZ; in the areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ); between two EEZs; straddling between one EEZ and the high sea; on a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, etc.

☞ The majority of large MMAs (measuring tens of hun- dreds of km²) are protected in a permanent way. The smaller ones (smaller than 100 km²) are closed only seasonally and according to our nomenclature; they are similar to isheries space-time restrictions (STRs). The ef iciency of these areas is not well known as only 2% among them have a monitoring system with data and baseline reference data enabling a comparison between the evolution in the MMA and outside XXXVIII .

☞ As reserve-MPAs are often considered as nothing else then a conservation tool [to be used for isheries management],

it is possible to compare them with other isheries management tools (STRs for example). From that perspective, ishery-MPAs should meet isheries requirement.

It should be noted, however, that multi-use MPAs are also space-based integrated cross-sectoral management frameworks. ☞ This example brings elements in favor of the esta- blishment of reserves in isheries. One of the advantages has been to match the governance scale to the scale of the ishing grounds, thus creating real management units. One part of the positive effects results from active participation, including participatory planning. This result is not related to the status of the MPA but to the implementation of rules of "good governance". The fact that villagers accept reserves as management tools is a success indicating that for them MPAs bring more advantages than drawbacks, either in terms of resources (even though the are "mixed") or in terms of new distribution of bene its and responsibilities.

☞ MPAs Ef iciency and isheries co-management:

Hilborn et al. ( 2004) have underlined that reserves seem to be a promising tool for isheries management and conservation of biodiversity, but they are no magic panacea.

■ Negative impacts of MPAs: (i) an increase of ishing intensity in open areas (if capacity is not reduced), including on other vulnerable species that had not been threatened so far; (ii) additional negative impacts on human populations who are often already stressed. According to these authors, the advantage of MPAs on modern management measures would be weak in the case of mono-speci ic isheries on mobile species, without bycatch and without any impact on habitat.

■ Advantages of MPAs: A positive contribution would be more likely in the case of multi-speci ic isheries on sedentary species having a signi icant impact on habitat. Their success rests on good understanding, case by case, of the structure of isheries, the ecosystem, and the human communities who use them.

Associated with modern conventional measures of management, reserves can help achieve conservation and biodiversity objectives provided that they are well planned and carefully evaluated in order to draw lessons. Otherwise, the risks of disillusion and loss of credibility of a potentially useful tool are high.

MPAs Networks

There is a growing interest to take MPAs to a higher level by connecting them with networks, in particular in order to take into account representativeness of ecosystems and species at the level of each eco-region, but also valorize the possibility of creation of ecological corridors guaranteeing connectivity among protected areas on the terrestrial model.

The term "network" is often wrongly used to indicate the whole set of MPAs in the region (RAMPAO, MedPAN) instead of a set of MPAs designed to be functionally interconnected. Truly functional MPA networks have the advantage of connecting MPAs at the ecosystem level, thus enabling an integrated consideration of utilization, protection, and governance. Networks can facilitate management, by reducing (for the same degree of protection) the proportion of to be closed to ishing and through providing a more affordable and equitable distribution of costs and responsibilities.

Networks can be particularly useful for migratory species, ensuring their protection all along their life cycle migration. In that regard, it is particularly obvious that in a situation of overcapacity and over ishing, such a network would be totally useless because mortality of target species between the MPAS of the network would be higher than the protection provided to them in the PAs. Networks are a good example of the necessity to combine MPAs with conventional measures. Very wide and transboundary networks can raise particular problems relating to coordination of measures and will require complex international agreements to implement in the absence of an existing institution such as Regional isheries Management Organizations (RFMOs).

☞ The ef iciency of ecologically operational and rele- vant networks of MPAs remains to be tested, but the situation in the SRFC area requires reinforcing the effective management of existing MPAs before developing an MPA network approach. On the contrary, valorization of structures like the regional network of MPAs managers (e.g.: MedPAN or RAMPAO) contributes to improving exchange of experiences, promotes the involvement of national policy-makers and, consequently, plays a role in the upgrading of the management performances of MPAs.

Spatio-Temporal Restrictions (STRs) in Fisheries

Fisheries management aims to regulate the exploitation rate ( ishing pressure) and the ishing pattern (its distribution of ishing pressure on ages and species). Spatio-Temporal Restrictions (STRs) aim to modify the ishing pattern by protecting juveniles, breeders or certain particular ish species. They are also used to reduce con licts for space and to reduce ishing pressure (with doubtful ef iciency).

STRs TYPOLOGY

■ Permanent spatial restrictions ( isheries reserves or parks) can reduce impacts on critical habitats and species. They most often prohibit all forms of exploitation, but certain areas can be prohibited to trawling and open to angling, for example.

■ The periods of "biological rest" are temporal restrictions (and often simultaneously spatial).

■ "Refuges" spatial restrictions that are often permanent, and sometimes used on a rotating basis.

☞ Reserve-MPAs seem to be a promising tool for ishe- ries management and conservation of biodiversity, but they are no panacea. It has been demonstrated in East Africa that traditional management systems of reef isheries based on STRs were more ef icient in terms of resources conservation than larger permanent MPAs, promoting tourism and weakly or not controlled: it was also shown that a combination of MPAs and traditional STRs could turn out to be successful.

Simulation models suggest also that in a sub-optimal ishery management context, classical isheries management measures are more performing than MPAs XL .

☞ Utilization of biological rest:

Octopus in Morocco XLI

Faced with the increase of ishing capacity and decrease of yields it was decided in 1989 to close ishing for one month. In the course of the following years, this so called "biological rest" had to be progressively extended from 1 to 7 months without any improvement on the situation of resources. The causes of this inef iciency were recognized by the authorities: (i) excessive removals; (ii) uncontrolled leet development; and (iii) perverse economic incentives to promote added value.

In order to correct this situation, complementary measures have inally been taken : (i) freezing of investments ; (ii) abrogation of the Code of Investments ; (iii) establishment of a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) ; (iv) withdrawal of 30 freezing vessels (probably the least ef icient) and freezing of new registrations and allocation of transitory ishing licenses for other species for some ships ; (v) progressive extension of biological rest which practically becomes a moratorium; (vi) tougher controls and penalties, up to complete withdrawal of ishing license. In conclusion, without control of capacity

and effort, no biological rest will be effective.

51

☞ Ef iciency of STRs:

Ad hoc STRs (established in real time) and seasonal STRs (established to protect recruitment) will be ef icient if they are correctly placed (optimal opening and closure dates). Seasonal closures established to protect breeders can bring a temporary respite to ish but this does not resolve the problem of overcapacity. Longer temporary closures (temporary reserves) that are used in some communities to restore exploitation reserves are apparently also ef icient. Seasonal closures placed according to industry operational convenience rather than on biological criteria are obviously incapable of protecting resources. Even perfectly placed, seasonal closures, will be ultimately doomed to fail if ishing capacity is not controlled. The success of STRs established to reduce con lict depends on the difference of value between protected areas and not protected ones, as well as on economic alternatives offered to those who are excluded.

Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) such as CCAMLR, NEAFC, ICCAT, and GFCM have established areas permanently closed to trawling aiming to protect resources and biodiversity (e.g. the trawling ban beyond 1000 m dept in the Mediterranean Sea since 2005 decided by GFCM). The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) could do the same thing, but this decision could be applicable only to its members since it is not an RFMO.

☞ Success of permanent closure (Australia) XLII

One of the most illustrative and most studied examples of successful utilization of permanent closures is shown by multi-speci ic isheries management on the Northwest

Australian shelf. In this ecosystem modi ied by ishing (in terms of biodiversity, dominant species, and benthic habitats), the establishment of a system of closures to trawling has been combined with the use of ixed gears (lobster pots, traps). Results include: (i) in the areas closed to trawling: an important increase of abundances of highly-value species and small benthic species, and stabilization of abundance of large epibenthic species, (ii) in the areas open to trawling, reduction of ish and all benthic species. It has been demonstrated that it was possible to restore highly-valued ish communities by protecting habitats, and that the restoration of epibenthic populations (sponges and others) was slower than expected (taking 15 years instead of the expected 6-10).

4.5 Planning and Management of MPAs-Fisheries

A common Cycle of Adaptive Management

Decision-making processes relating respectively to isheries and to MPAs management have adopted de facto very similar decision cycles characteristic of decision-making in an uncertain environment and in complex systems.

These cycles transcend scales of decision (global, regional, national, or local) and are characterized by: ■ Many feedback loops which help improving performance assessment as well as the management strategy, and possibly the sector policy, at any point of the cycle;

■ The constitution of a more or less formal catalogue of good practices, representing the social memory (about issues, actions and effects) that develops during iterations on the site.

Obviously, this process is more complex when MPAs are large, heterogeneous, and contain various economic activities. Beyond a certain size, managing an MPA is as complex as implementing marine spatial planning (MSP). The Australian Great Barrier Reef is an illustrative example of the latter.

In the ield of isheries, this planning process can be followed for: (i) establishment of new management measure (STRs or MPAs) in a particular ishery; (ii) development of a management plan or a pluri-annual plan of sector development; (iii) establishment of larger MPAs containing one or several ishing grounds, and possibly other uses; or (iv) for the planning of a network of MPAs in an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or a large marine ecosystem. This general process can be found in management of Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) like for example in Fidj.

Management plans: a fundamental process of co-management

The road map for an MPA can be structured in 3 important phases for its success: (i) Preliminary or creation phase; (ii) Pioneer (or pilot) management phase; and (iii) Autonomous management phase. The development of sustainable autonomous management of an MPA takes at least 15 years (and even more according to local cultures) and must be supported (institutionally and inancially) during establishment and transition phases (renewal of co-management organs, etc.) but this is not often the case in developing countries. All the stakeholders are concerned (researchers, NGOs, administrations, and donors). The complexity also lies in spatial management at the ecosystem, national, or regional level. This implies that re lection should not be limited to the integration of MPAs into isheries management, but also address the spatialization of isheries management in a higher level federative spatial framework accounting for the following:

■ (i) MPA

Simpli ied cycles of creation and management of MPAs

☞ Meta-analyses con irm management weaknesses and the inexistence of management plans or their weak implementation in most countries. There are few industrial isheries management plans in the SRFC region, and some artisanal isheries plans are being elaborated. MPAs Management plans, when they do exist, are not always designed with local stakeholders and are sometimes too ambitious or not realistic enough to be implemented, even partially. Because of this, in many countries, the present priority is to act towards more effective MPAs management.

The best way to introduce an MPA in an existing ishing area would be to integrate this consideration in the elaboration process of the isheries management plan. This implies that the authorities responsible for isheries, who leads the preparation of the plan and its implementation, should develop it in collaboration with agencies responsible for MPAs, industry, and NGOs concerned.

Once the plan has been approved by authorities, its implementation is greatly facilitated if it is considered as legitimate and enjoys the adhesion of the majority of stakeholders. It will also be facilitated if the roles of each stakeholder group are clearly stipulated in the plan with speci ic tasks, schedule of activities, modalities of con lict resolution, control and surveillance, system of coercion (possible penalties), etc.

It is important that the adopted plan be formally revisable within the framework of a simple procedure, according to a schedule adopted in the plan itself, which provides the necessary authority.. For this purpose, the collected data will be used for monitoring of the plan implementation. Training of the executives and of the populations concerned on isheries management should facilitate communication, consultation, and implementation of pragmatic measures. Structures of management plans are set out in the "technical report" in the chapter relating to "Governance Aspects".

☞ Financing of management and management plans:

insuf iciency in human and inancial resources for the management of MPAs is a key factor of failure. However, the budget of the State is bound to be limited and research of external funds, when it succeeds, will create a potentially dangerous dependence towards the external funding source. Complementarities of inancing sources and their diversi ication will limit risks in that respect ensuring certain sustainability to the MPAs operations (cf. recommendation: "socio-economic aspects").

Management plans may take different forms. They may sometimes be simple documents de ining access rules and controls and penalties (e.g. in the South Paci ic countries). They may also consist of more complex documents (e.g. in Europe, USA).

Decision to create an MPA and Choice of the Site

The entry point of the MPA creation process is variable. The "demand" may come from "the top" or the bottom of the decision pyramid. In the management of marine resources, the demand, even though locally expressed, should be validated by the State or its institutions. Whatever the case may be, it is important to take into account the whole set of selection criteria of selection, and the mobilization of stakeholders should facilitate the decisionmaking process.

Two main scenarios might be imagined for the creation of an MPA:

■ In a proactive and planned Cartesian approach, following the international commitments of the State, competent Ministers look for adequate spaces to transform them into MPAs. With stakeholders and specialists, they identify conservation problems, ecosystems that are in a good state, and constraints, so as to trace a irst map of possibilities, with the help of specialists if required and with a good representation of the actors. As discussions among stakeholders go on, potentialities and dif iculties become more apparent. The isheries sector should be integrated into this strategic analysis right from the start. During this process, con licts are inevitable, and arbitrations (including from the State) will be required.

■ In a reactive and pragmatic approach, the entry point can be a violent con lict among users in a region or depletion of resources important for food security. This can lead local stakeholders to request assistance from the State, an NGO, or both. This opens an opportunity to see if an MPA could be used, combined or not with other ishery management instruments in order to resolve the problem or the con lict.

☞ The development of a regular audit procedure by an independent agency is most often overlooked in the management mechanisms of MPAs.

Certainly, State's inancing dif iculties will progressively lead to mechanisms that strongly favor ef iciency of the management of MPAs. In Italy, harmonized mechanisms of management evaluation are being created, thus enabling to ultimately envisage allocations of inancial resources primarily to those MPAs that properly develop provisional plan of action and ensure effective management.

☞ The use of MPAs in the management of migratory re- sources raises new issues in relation to ef iciency of that measure, optimal size and localization, relevance for management of the ishing grounds, etc. Serious doubts have been put forwards on the usefulness of MPAs for mono-speci ic pelagic stocks of highly mobile species, but even for the latter, it is recognize that the protection of nurseries might be useful (cf. recommendations). In the absence of access regulation and capacity control outside the protected area, these MPAs are even less likely to be effective than those aimed at demersal low mobility species.

☞ The choice of the MPA site is often opportunistic while a politico-scienti ic compromise based on justi ications of relevance for both ecosystems protection and isheries management through a well-informed participative process, should prevail. In the case of an MPA to be incorporated in a isheries management plan, an analysis should examine: (i) its utility compared to that of alternative tools (cf. chapter on MPAs and STRs above); (ii) the adequacy of its location; (iii) and its operational feasibility ( inancial viability). Collecting space-based information, inside and outside the protected area, according to bioecological or socioeconomic zoning, on land and in the sea, is a prerequisite (cf. bio-ecological and socio-ecological chapter).

☞ To develop a strategic vision at the national and regional level administration should quickly develop a general framework, covering legal, and institutional aspects, conduct a national diagnosis, and develop a large scale (low resolution) typology of regions that can serve as framework for future initiatives. This will allow the integration of research in planning for a coherent network of representative and connected MPAs. For existing MPAs, their analysis would lead to identify gaps, check ecological relevance, and de ine priorities for new MPAs or new ishery management measures, within a national strategy and a coherent ecosystem approach. MPA Selection Criteria (from Kelleher 1999)

Allocation of spaces and resources (management zoning)

The space and resources allocation rules (through zoning) require negotiations in order to be respected. Simple mechanisms implemented by stakeholders themselves and a courageous arbitration of the State, if need be, are fundamental. Optimizing the participation of stakeholders through a framework that organizes participation and the low of information is essential. The consideration of migrants who come back each year to a site remains a challenge for management.

Zoning is only a management tool of a large MPA where other measures can be used (temporary closures, regulation of access, etc.) to reduce impacts. Similarities with isheries management are obvious.

☞ Zoned multi-use MPA:

the Australian Great Barrier Reef.

That MPA authorizes, within its 344.000 km2 area various commercial (including ishing) and recreational activities, but excludes mining or oil and gas prospections. In the areas where ishing is authorized, its management (e.g. allocation of licenses, control of equipment and practices, etc) is under the competence of the isheries Authority (e.g. the local State or the federal isheries authorities according to the distance the coast However, these authorities should monitor their own management performances and present reports that could be submitted to reviews or external audit for veriication. If a isheries regulation appeared not to be compatible with the objectives of protected area, it is the legislative act establishing this protected area that has primacy. In general, zoning and applicable rules have been established in a collegiate manner so as to avoid incoherence, and, in the MPA, the major part of important areas for ishing has remained accessible to ishing. The constraint of sustainability is rather well accepted by ishing industry, and the danger most often comes from modern and over-equipped sport ishing. The example shows that an MPA can contain ishing activities provided that sustainability criteria and procedures of veri iable reports are established.

In less developed areas, the uncertainty and the precautionary principle would call for a more important part of the area be strictly protected.

☞ In highly populated developing regions, good scienti- ic monitoring and control and surveillance systems are necessary to guarantee protection and possibly reduce the proportion of the total area to be turned into reserves.

☞ "An MPA with shared governance":

MPA of Joal-Fadiouth (Senegal) XLIII

Created thanks to the obstinate action of a small group of ishermen, an external support, and an intelligent cooperation with local administration, this MPA, born in 2004, is now being managed according to a regime of shared governance. The original motivation has found its source in the threat of ishing gears (kilis and beach seines) on seagrass beds, and in the presence of turtles, sea birds and manatees, in particular.

The MPA is based on a simple zoning :

(1) a central core where only autochthonous ishing practiced on foot is allowed ;

(2) area with multiple utilization where responsible ishing is allowed with the use of angling and nets (100 mm of mesh size) ; and (3) a mangrove area with precise rules for picking. The two problematic ishing methods have been prohibited.

The MPA of Joal-Fadiouth has enabled for example to improve yields and sizes. The community is mobilized. The co-management institution exists (cf. technical report). Yet, this MPA remains weak and several improvements are required: in the frequency of General Assembly; sound inances ; elimination of confusion between the management plan and internal modus operandi; inancial autonomy; Finding a balance between the MPA needs and the presence of alarge neighboring ish landing center, etc.

See more in chapter 5

Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms and Scienti ic support

INTRODUCTION

Scienti ic support is generally recognized as being important if not essential to increase credibility and legitimacy of management plans. When this support is weak, incomplete, or lacking, local and traditional knowledge, which should be taken into account in any case, can play the main role. This process is practically identical for the management of isheries and that of MPAs in as much as space-based isheries management tends to spread.

Yet, one of the characteristics of most MPAs is still the absence of data and multidisciplinary analysis allowing their performance assessment. This quasi chronic lack affects the political frameworks and the ef iciency of MPA administration systems (centralized or decentralized) as well as the quality of consultation with local civil society. It blurs the consequences for populations of the prohibition of access to their former territories, as well as costs and bene its for the Nation and the « general interest » in the name of which MPAs are often established.

The situation is changing, and long dominated by biology and ecology, the science of MPAs has been enriched for some years by the contribution of social sciences (economy, law, political science, ethnography) which are required to analyze processes and resolve dif iculties and "crises" created by their establishment on a territory.

☞ Absence of requirement for systematic evaluation of the management scheme certainly explains partly the predominance of "paper MPAs" and de icient isheries management systems. Guidelines are now clear, and progress has been noted for about one decade. There are three main types of evaluation: (i) "expert-opinion" when there is lack of means for an empirical assessment;

(ii) analytical, when these means are available; or (iii) mixed, i.e. combining the irst two types. Good evaluation is based on a transparent and participative process as well as on robust indicators that are adapted to local conditions.

The monitoring and evaluation process of management is of paramount importance. It prepares strategic and operational decisions and it is part and parcel of the continuing process of management. It mobilizes scientists and uses also informal knowledge, but ideally, it should not integrate experts already involved in the implementation of the plans to be evaluated. Monitoring and evaluation may address: (i) the MPA con iguration; (ii) the planning development process; and (iii) the implementation of this plan. The evaluation may be institutionalized (preferably); internal or external; regular or occasional; operational (every 1 -3 years) or strategic (every 5 -10 years). Its form depends on the context and in particular on the required scale (local, sector-based, national, and regional) and capacities that are available to conduct it.

☞ In the case of simple monitoring and management, exclusively organized by local populations (example of Paci ic Islands), using traditions has been an asset, but experience has shown the importance of a support lasting 15 years or more so as to allow time for the evolution of practices and of mentalities in most management system components (surveillance, time management (social memory); renewal and transfers of powers; etc.).

MONITORING SYSTEM AND INDICATORS OF GOVERNANCE

The indicators of governance are possibly the most homogeneous and also the most comparable between MPAs and isheries. The objectives attached to governance are however rarely listed as management objectives. The latter are generally expressed (when they are) in terms of improvement of resources, ecosystem, and socio-economic conditions. However, reaching these fundamental "material" objectives imply reaching also (and often irst of all) some speci ic governance objectives which are not less fundamental.

The methodological framework must be adapted to circumstances and can be complex or simpli ied. What is important, though, is to conserve the intent and sprit of integration and participation. It is also important to identify right from the start: the key questions/issues; the useful and in luent actors; the required scienti ic disciplines; the methods to be used; the available local knowledge; the ways to facilitate the participation of stakeholders in data collection, analysis, interpretation, and in the elaboration of options, etc.

Experience shows the range of questions to be asked for a local analysis is relatively similar from one community to another.

The important elements in monitoring are presented in the "bio-ecological" and "socio-economic" sections as well as relevant Technical Reports (see FRSP website).

Indicators can be extremely numerous, but experience shows that in most cases even minimal indicators relating for instance to abundance, diversity, incomes of populations, number of infractions, amount of management budgets, or degree of satisfaction of stakeholders are not collected. It is therefore illusory to lengthen the list. ☞ Still, few MPAs practice the existing rapid self-eva- luation approaches or budget internal audits enabling to regularly reevaluate and improve their management. The prescribed lists are often exhaustive, long, and complex and they can be compared with lists of indicators that are really collected and used, often reduced to their most simple expression and below any useful minimum. Comparison indicates that prescriptions (usually of academic nature) are often not very realistic, with high costs, whereas available resources for management are often insigni icant.

☞ On the monitoring and indicators mechanisms there is a gap between theory and practice, and between what is necessary and what is available. The problem is more serious in MPAs than in isheries where embryos of monitoring systems often exist; they are sometimes very simple, but most often subsidized by the State. No matter how much effort is made to be parsimonious, to use qualitative indicators and non-conventional sources of information, the lists of indicators remain intimidating.

There is therefore a serious risk that ideal systems that have been proposed, logical but overoptimistic in the light of available means, will not be taken into account. So, it is important to distinguish simple operational indicators (to be collected continuously for annual decisions) from strategic indicators (to be collected with a lower frequency for long-term decisions). ■ Ef iciency of management and reduction of con licts: (a) Management/reduction of con licts among users, between them and the community; between the community and neighboring populations.

☞ Types of governance indicators

Mechanisms of Control, Surveillance, and Enforcement of Penalties

A mechanism of control and surveillance that is effective and optimized is a permanent challenge (a costly one too) and one of the main factors guaranteeing the ef iciency of an MPA or isheries management, and can contribute to reduction of con licts. A lack of compliance by stakeholders can be explained in particular by absence of legitimacy, lack of means and organization as well as lack of political will.

Generally, the Ministry of isheries is responsible for isheries surveillance (in collaboration with the Navy). The support of the Navy is instrumental for larger MPAs. ☞ Progress underway in low-cost detection systems such as radar systems -Automatic Identi ication Systems (AIS) combined with coastal telescopes (like in South Africa), has highly increased the potential for improving detailed surveillance of ishing vessel and other activities up to several nautical miles offshore.

The temporary reinforcement of control, for political reasons or for advertisement purposes has often a positive effect (Mascia, 2000). The main dif iculty is to maintain these efforts for a long period owing to their cost.

Beyond surveillance, the judicial monitoring of offenders is a recurrent problem in MPAs and isheries. Most often, judicial authorities do not follow-up the cases. An effective solution, when the coastal community is strong, consists in delegating this role to local communities themselves or to their leaders through payment of ines by offenders (using the social pressure of the group).

Synergy among institutional stakeholders must be developed, both in surveillance and in the mechanism of enforcement of penalties at the level of MPAs and isheries so as to envisage economies of scale through cooperation between " isheries" and "MPA" systems.

☞ Decades of experience in isheries and in MPAs lead to admit that the only way to reduce the cost of control is to ensure that human populations concerned integrate the need to comply with rules into their ethics and fully collaborate in their implementation.

Surveillance mechanisms are improving, owing to cooperation with communities concerned (low cost mechanisms), utilization of less costly detection systems, better cooperation among administrations, and coherence between actions of central and local surveillance institutions and those in charge of enforcement of penalties (justice).

☞ Control and Surveillance in Africa -

Some Useful Examples

Available systems of surveillance are often inadequate for effective surveillance of coastal MPAs, even more so of high sea ones. The weakness of developing countries' institutions creates the risk that MPAs be managed with speci ic laws, or ad hoc ones, some of which can be in contradiction with isheries law for example, weakening their application to ishers.. There are many forms of ishery migration, internal, across or around MPAs. Seasonal migration is not only the cause of the problems (con licts, over ishing) encountered in the area; it is also the response of human populations to seasonal and inter-annual variations of natural productivity and living conditions.

In
Migrant ishermen are a relatively frequent characteristic in West Africa but also in many countries of the world and probably in most archipelagos (e.g. Philippines, Indonesia). A variable part of the ishing communities seasonally migrates towards more or less far away, attracted by better meteorological conditions, markets, more abundant resources. They represent a useful manpower to local investors and a source of incomes for chiefs of villages who issue their ishing authorizations. In addition, they are skillful competitors to sedentary farmers/ ishers.

Migrant ishermen can be farmers/ ishers alternating utilization of very various ishing techniques and farming activities in a complex schedule of seasonal activities. They can also be mobile for economic reasons (movement in case of climatic phenomena or con licts). They play an important role in terms of production (volume and value), employment, and food security. They migrations have grown in number over the last decades (from Senegalese, Guinean, and Sierra Leonean households) with migrations over longer distances and durations.

☞ In the ield of isheries, opportunistic temporary mi- grants often practicing illegal ishing are less associated to sustainability of resources (seasonal or occasional phenomena of maximization of immediate bene its) whereas seasonal or regular migrants of the area, although more concerned and presenting an interest for sustainability of exploitation, are seldom associated to management decisions or to organization of ishing grounds.

One can distinguish three forms of migrations in relation to MPAs XLIV : "offshore" migration targeting resources around the limits of MPAs; internal migration of MPA residents; and seasonal immigration with settlement of non-residents. Even though migrants are regular, they are generally considered as "foreigners".

☞ In mangrove areas where marine and fresh waters mix, interactions are still more complex, with ishermen working full time ("professionals") ; part time or occasional ishermen ; migrants or residents ; master isher or seamen ; preferring continental or marine waters. This diversity, the con licts and synergies it breeds constitutes a factor of complexity that is very important for the management of MPAs integrating isheries.

☞ The big challenges on the involvement of migrants in management mechanisms often lie in the:

■ Reinforcement of knowledge on ishermen's migration in the MPA, the area around it, of within the network of MPAs, differentiating regular migrants and opportunistic or occasional migrants.

■ Consideration of ishermen's migrations in the establishment of an MPA or in the de inition of local management rules (being careful to maintaining the local power in place).

■ Integration of migrants into ecosystem approaches.

MPAs, Migrant Fishermen, and Climate Change

☞ The migration phenomenon remains nearly unknown on account of the fact that isheries data collection does not take it into account.

Movements caused by climatic changes will affect both isheries and MPAs, and there are also important connections between these changes and migrations:

■ It is in the interest of both isheries and conservation to see biodiversity and abundance maintained or possibly increased as a consequence of climate change;

■ Displacements of ishing grounds and MPAs will have the same ecological cause. Fish stocks will move and so will economic activities depending on them. The new "map" of resources and isheries will be progressively drawn up, and the same might be necessary for the MPAs. The luidity of this situation is dangerous. It would be surprising that tensions do not arise. The present clashes arising from allocation of static resources and spaces cn only worsen if the resources location becomes "dynamic", leading to permanent renegotiations.

■ Yet, there should be large opportunities of collaboration : (i) among interested scientists who are facing the same challenges, and will be bound to collaborate and exchange data, visions, models, and management options, etc. ; (ii) among interested managers (of isheries and MPAs) in order to maximize their actions and thus reduce clashes.

■ Lessons that are already available on viability strategies in risky situations should be taken into account both by isheries and MPAs in a context of climatic change. Management responses include: (i) to reduce excessive rates of removal in order to facilitate breeding; (ii) to avoid reducing habitats that are potentially viable whatever the climate may be (e.g. : coastal lagoons, estuaries, hydraulic dunes, rocky reefs) ; (iii) to establish cheap monitoring systems in order to measure changes at the local level ;

(iv) to provide lexible processes of assignation correction or displacement of MPAs when conditions change. This could be dif icult in territories occupied by less "mobile" activities than isheries.

☞ A reasonable precautionary approach is required to face the consequences of climatic changes. It is important to reduce stress on ecosystem to facilitate its adaptation to change. This will imply reducing ishing effort and maintain or develop reserve-MPAs to facilitate rebuilding of age structures and composition of "old" species assemblages and facilitate the establishment of new species brought in by climate changes.

4.6 Recommendations on Governance and Management of MPAs -Fisheries

The improvement of governance of MPAs and Fisheries systems and their interfaces mainly lie in the reformulation of recommendations of this document for the different categories of stakeholders concerned, especially in their implementation.

The recommendations concern, at times, small reserve-MPAs to be integrated in existing isheries; ishing grounds to be totally or partly embedded in large reserve-MPAs or multi-use MPA, or else operating in an MPAs network. In the following, MPAs, created speci ically for/in isheries are called ishery-MPAs.

☞ Political commitments are the starting points of decision making and good governance:

The adoption of rules of « good governance », the clariication of national frameworks (cf. chapter 5.3.4) ✔ Set the regulatory framework to be implemented by clearly indicating the connection between regulations and political objectives, nature of legal and administrative provisions (binding, non-binding ; mandatory, voluntary, etc. ; ✔ Clarify institutional mandates, powers, and modalities of institutional coordination;

✔ Specify the arenas for coordination and management and the role of each party, including in the process monitoring and evaluation ;

✔ Improve the inancial framework and take innovative iscal measures to inance MPAs: delegate to managers the responsibility to generate a part of the resources required for inancing MPA management ✔ Foresee the formalization of traditional users rights and, eventually, traditional management systems.

Legal and Institutional Governance Framework

There are big differences between terrestrial and marine protected areas (e.g. property, use, surveillance). In MPAs, the administrative prerogatives of different ministries tend to overlap and the institutional basis of governance is not always clear. MPAs sometimes develop in an ad hoc way, for example within the framework of projects operating at the edge of national law.

Furthermore, lack of convergence and collaboration is frequent between national systems of isheries and MPA management at all geographical levels (local, national), explaining the dif iculties in implementing management actions.

☞ ■ Nominate a legitimate management facilitator who will report regularly on performances, monitoring, decision-making, and mobilization of stakeholders for decision-making ■ Verify the transparency of decision making , surveillance, monitoring and evaluation processes, and improve them if need be; verify also the degree of understanding of the processes of stakeholders

Implementation of Good Governance and Co-management

The existence of an ef icient co-management and consultation process is a guarantee of better stakeholder capacity to manage their areas, resources, and to resolve con licts likely to arise. This process will develop differently in different sites according to the diversity of stakeholders, their history, and their cultures. Although it is recognized that lexible and adaptable management plans are essential, there are few isheries management plans in the region and a few of them are really operational in the world. When they do exist, management plans of MPAs are not always prepared with the participation of local stakeholders and they are sometimes too ambitious to be applied, even partially.

"Optimize the surveillance and regulations enforcement mechanism"

■ Specify the authority responsible for surveillance, promoting synergy of existing authorities and establishment of optimized cost-effective systems (e.g. Radar-AIS systems combined to coastal telescopes)

■ Encourage the involvement of national surveillance institutions in the elaboration of modalities and means of pooled surveillance (between isheries and MPAs) and ensure an active participation of stakeholders in the determination of measures, ines, and in the implementation of the control system ■ Adopt strong dissuasive sanctions and adapt them to the gravity of infractions; allow them to be improved as required along the time while reinforce the judicial mechanism associated with the enforcement of sanctions

■ Widely and openly communicate on encroachments, arrests, penalties, their consequences for communities, etc., in order to increase the feeling of justice for those abiding by regulations ■ Establish required and recurrent resources. Possibly, use the funds generated by ines to inance controls (at least at the beginning)

Utilization of MPA for Migratory Resources and Development of the Networks of MPAs

The management of MPAs associated with the management of migratory ishery resources poses new problems in terms of ef iciency, localization of MPAs, relevance of MPAs as tool for the improvement of isheries management. It must be noted that serious doubts have been expressed regarding the utility of MPAs in the case of mono-speci ic pelagic stocks. However, MPAs dedicated to the protection of nurseries are considered as potentially useful. In this context, MPAs remain inef icient if measures to regulate access and control isheries capacity are not reinforced and effective. In addition, the concepts of "functional ecological network" and of "connectivity" among MPAs should be more adequately integrated. Most often, there is insuf iciency (or weak use) of knowledge on biology, life histories, migratory schemes of ish communities, in the design of functional ecological networks.

Research mechanisms in the SRFC region remain weak in comparison to the needs for management of isheries and MPAs: However, value addition is possible through pooling of resources, for the bene it of the two systems of governance.

Compliance with management regulations by the majority of stakeholders and surveillance are essential. An adequate institutional and administrative framework and capacity are essential, especially to reinforce the perception of stakeholders concerning the legitimacy of measures constraining them.

The following recommendations aimed to improve the implementation of management and good governance on ishery-MPAs and other existing MPAs.

☞ In the SRFC region there exist a large number of transboundary resources for which coordinated national MPAs and transboundary networks might be useful. However, besides the usual constraints relating to the creation of classical MPAs (siting, sizing, choice of perimeter, zoning, regulations), transboundary networks raise have additional dif iculties (formal signing of international agreements, coordination of national administrations, etc.). The potential for incoherencies remain high on both sides parts of the national borders, between management instruments and regulations methods and rules of management of isheries and of stocks and protected areas. Progress in the area of ishery management of shared stocks in the region has remained extremely weak for since decades and this does not augur well for the establishment of transboundary MPAs. ■ Improve the capacity of the SRFC, at the level of the Conference of Ministers, to make binding decisions for its members in relation to the required regional agreements;

■ Evaluate costs and bene its of different options of possible collaboration.

☞ Recommendation: "Improve the development of networks of MPAs"

■ Aim to develop functional ecological networks that are useful for isheries by taking into account ecosystems and critical habitats of ish communities; develop knowledge and re lections at the ecosystems level; carry out an inventory of migratory, transboundary, and straddling resources and their critical habitats in order to determine the relevance of developing MPAs (cf. chapter on "establishment of an MPA"), with special attention to pelagic resources.

■ Reinforce the operation of the existing network (RAMPAO) at the level of individual sites before envisaging functional network approaches justifying the creation of new MPA;

■ Formalize a SRFC -RAMPAO agreement and deepen the systematic analysis of RAMPAO de iciencies in reference to isheries management. The model developed by [START_REF] Apostolaki | Modelling the effects of establishing a marine reserve for mobile ish species[END_REF] describes the effects of an integral reserve on spawning biomass and on short-term yields s of ishing populations. It shows that the positive effects of the reserves are registered for overexploited stocks with reduced mobility as well as for under-exploited stocks and mobile species Best results are achieved when the protection area includes both spawning and nursery areas. But when spawning and nursery areas are separate, bene its are higher if the protected area corresponds to the area occupied by animals of the size targeted by ishing. However, the model used also shows that the establishment of a reserve in an inappropriate area can have negative effects on populations. At the establishment of an integral reserve, spatial and temporal variations of ish populations should be taken into account in order to optimize their protection.

Source : Apostolaki et al. 2002 XLV

☞ Ef iciency of a Network of MPAs

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park of Australia [START_REF] Mesnildrey | Analyse des effets des réserves de pêche[END_REF] The Great Barrier Reef is an illustrative example of the combined ef iciency of a network of reserves (33% of the area is in reserves) and of areas of large regulated use. However, mobile ish species (e.g.: sharks) bene it less from protection than resident species.

The density of the main species ished by angling on the Great Barrier Reef is signi icantly higher in the reserves than in areas where ishing is authorized. After only two years of protection, the abundance and biomass of the leopard trout (Plectropomus leopardus), emblematic species of importance for isheries, have notably doubled (Russ et al 2008). These positive effects are globally the same for the many reserves of the park, even though there are variations according to regions and intensity of exploitation before closure. The increase of average size within reserves is particularly important.

Since the establishment of reserves, the frequency of star ish invasion (a cause of important coral mortality) has been about four times lower in reserves than in areas open to ishing.

This phenomenon could in part the result of trophic cascades and a related increase of predation over juveniles of star ish in the reserves.

The populations of reef sharks, apex predators or super predators of coral reefs, show an important positive effect due to zoning with substantial bene its in terms of abundance within reserves the access which access is strictly prohibited. Therefore, the zoning applied for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef seems to have been bene icial and contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity by impacting several species attached to the site (star ish, corals, leopard trout, etc.) or mobile (e.g.: sharks). However, ecological effects in areas where access is strictly prohibited seem stronger than in those reserves where ishing is prohibited but access is authorized.. 2010) XLVI shows that one simple network of reserves could not have enabled to obtain the same effects on the whole ecosystem. The zoning of the Park and management of ishing effort make it possible not to avoid the transfer of effort outside the reserves. In addition, even though the zoning of the Marine Park contributes to space-based management of ishing effort, the latter is signi icantly completed by a conventional system of ishery management with an effort to reduce by-catch.

The study of McCook et al. (

Source : [START_REF] Mesnildrey | Analyse des effets des réserves de pêche[END_REF][START_REF] Mccook | Adaptative management of the Great Barrier Reef : A globally signi icant demonstration of the bene its of networks of marine reserves[END_REF]et Russ et al. 2008 Abundance The irst marine reserves of Tasmania were established in 1991. They differ in size and in the ecosystems they protect. The common objectives of these four reserves were to reach biomasses populations levels close to non-exploitation levels inside their border.

After six years of protection, Maria Island reserve, the largest among the four, seems to be the most effective in terms of conservation and improvement of the state of isheries resources. The numbers of ish species, of invertebrate and seaweed, the density of large ish and lobster, and the average size of some ish species have signi icantly increased in the reserve compared to the unprotected sites. Nevertheless, these improvements have slowed down after 10 years of protection: the ish speci ic richness and the abundance of large ish species have come back to the 1992 level After ten years of protection, the effects on ish populations in the reserve of Tinderbox with regard to adjacent areas were the most signi icant. Abundance and speci ic richness of large ish have been multiplied respectively by 10 and by 2 .

After only six years of protection, however, these changes were not yet signi icant, showing that the effects of reserves are not immediate. These changes suggest that ishing had signi icantly affected the structure in size of ish species before protection. The slow restoration rate can be explained by the weak growth rate of species studied.

After ten years of protection, the abundance of lobster species of Australian coasts (Jasus edwardsii) has increased by 250% in the reserve of Maria Island with regard to areas remained open to ishing. Thus, the average size of individuals in the reserve has increased from 90 to 120 mm while it has stayed stable in the adjacent areas (78 mm). Biomass has sharply increased during the ten years of protection while it has stayed stable in neighboring sites. The same phenomenon has been observed in the reserve of Tinderbox. The fact the abundance of small lobster did not increase inside reserves underlines that important increase of large individuals had not have any in luence on local recruitment or survival of juveniles. It is therefore possible that density-dependent processes compensated the effects of reserve over the irst ten years of protection [START_REF] Barrett | Changes in invertebrate and macroalgal populations in Tasmanian marine reserves in the decade following protection[END_REF].

Unlike the irst two reserves, no difference due to the protection of lobster has been observed in the reserves of Ninepin Point and Governor Island. The absence of effect may be due to the small size of reserves and poaching.

Like lobster, abalone is under heavy exploitation pressure in Tasmania. Thus, the same trend of increase in reserves was expected. On the contrary, in the reserve of Maria Island, the abundance of abalone decreased by half during the ten years of protection while it remained stable in exploited areas. This reduction is therefore the result of protection and may be due to reduction by a factor of 7 of the abundance of small size individuals. Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this decrease but scientists have favored one of them: intensi ication of predation on abalone juveniles subsequent to an increase of a predator, the lobster. The objective of reserves was to protect populations exploited by ishing, but for abalone the result was the opposite. This result suggests that for reserves whose objective is o protect a particular (prey) species, for instance abalone, protection conditions should take into account trophic interactions and predation. Reserves do not seem to be, in this case and for the speci ic objective of abalone conservation, , the most appropriate management tool.

Source : Mesnildrey et al. 2010, Barrett et al 2007 et Edgar & Barrett 1999 XLVIII

Other Examples on "Governance" Aspect

☞ The National Fisheries Conservation Center of the United States (http://www.nfcc-isheries.org ;) (NFCC, 2004) has publish a statement of consensus on the role that well-managed MPAs could play for isheries : to increase abundance, protect critical habitats; facilitate multi-speci ic management; reduce risks related to uncertainty (insurance, security); protect sedentary species presenting recruitment de icits and mobile species regularly sharing the same sites.

Such MPAs are more likely to satisfy these expectations and to appear more legitimate in the following conditions :

■ If ishing pressure has already been reduced ;

■ If conventional measures have failed, are more expensive, or appear to be less ef icient (e.g.: for protection of habitat);

■ If they are integrated with the other isheries management measures within the framework of a coherent ecosystem approach, and not only added to existing measures (mainly applicable to Reserve-MPAs ;

■ If the design takes correctly into account environment and management objectives, including sustainability of exploitation. Therefore, a robust experimental design must be elaborated to evaluate performances of the reserve inside and outside the protected area, both on resources and human populations.

■ If suf icient knowledge is available: there is lack of experimentation designed to measure/predict the impacts, mainly effects induced inside protected areas, on resources and human populations. Given the dif iculties of an experimentation, multi-disciplinary modeling is a necessary approach to evaluate these effects ;

■ If particular attention is given to the effects of MPAs on allocation of resources, movements of ishing activities, needs in support research, and costs of control and surveillance.

☞ OSPAR and high sea MPAs

OSPAR took the initiative in 2010, and after several years of political process, to create six high sea marine protected areas in the Northeast Atlantic. Yet, the mere designation of marine protected areas is not suf icient and should necessarily be followed by the adoption of binding management plans for all the MPAs, adapted to threats on ecosystems and broadly enforceable.

Actually, according to the present law, these areas only de ine areas that are ecologically sensitive (similar to FAO VMEs: cf. technical report). However, parties to OSPAR Convention do not have the competence required to regulate human activities (e.g. ishing or pollution), and the areas they have de ined are not enforceable with non-contracting parties to this convention. One additional particularly thorny point is the prohibiting costs of control and surveillance. Given the stakes and the weight of maritime navigation in the world economy, the debate risk being particularly con lictual.

It would be quite irresponsible and potentially costly, given the dif iculties of governance encountered in most MPAs, in a much easier EEZ context, to underestimate the obvious management dif iculties of pelagic MPAs, mainly in ZAJN (cf. technical report).

Source : OSPAR, Rochette and Druel (2011).

Localization of OSPAR Marine Protected Areas beyond national jurisdictions

Zones marines protégées OSPAR dans les zones au-delà de la juridiction nationale A ZMP Charlie-Gibbs méridionale B ZMP du complexe du mont sous-marin Mine C ZMP du complexe du mont sous-marin Altair D ZMP de haute mer de la dorsale médio-atlantique au Nord des Açores E ZMP de haute mer du mont sous-marin Antialtair F ZMP de haute mer du mont sous-marin Josephine ☞ Integration of Traditional Laws: Samoa Islands XLIX Samoa Islands constitute an exception to the general trend of authoritarian establishment (top-down governance) of MPAs legislative frameworks. The Fisheries Act of this country enables the recognition of community laws as long on as they are consistent with national legislation. When local leaders decide to establish an MPA, a meeting with isheries executives allows to decide on the compatibility with the Act. Subsequently, local rules are implemented as State regulations (by-laws) and disseminated in neighboring villages through community meetings. Once the network has been set up, small MPAs can be turned into larger MPAs or multi-use MPAs, with speci ic bene its for communities.

☞ LMMAs L , as multi-use areas (including ishing, tourism, research, and education) managed by local communities are comparable to Community Heritage Areas (Aires du Patrimoine Communautaire, in French) such as the Kawawana of Casamance Region, in Senegal).

More than 12.000 km 2 of marine and coastal territory of South Paci ic, including more than 1.000 km² of reserves (no-take zones), are actively managed according to the LMMA concept by 500 communities of 15 different countries. This result should be compared with 14.000 km2 of older « paper parks » existing under centralized management, are mentioned in regional databases, and must be imperatively reviewed. (Fiji and Salomon Islands) show that this integrated approach is feasible and less costly in comparison with centralized science-based approaches (for which cost-bene its analyses may be de icient) (cf. http://www.lmmanetwork.org). Thus, an exclusive focus on objectives related to creation of Reserve-MPAs would be costly and dif icult to maintain sustainably. Potential bene its of no-take zones will be hard to reach if communities do not also target also other objectives, using other tools in their exploitation areas and watersheds.

Recent reviews on LMMAs and the examples of the Paci ic region

Schematic representation of a Locally-Managed

Marine Area (LMMA). Reserves and refuges can be temporary. These small-size reserves (<1km 2 )are a good example of potential utilization by isheries management of small no-take zones (sanctuaries) as management tools in a coastal environment that is tropical and rural, with weak administrative capacities, and with populations highly dependent of aquatic resources. The reserves have been established in a context of resources and habitats very degraded by various human activities, including over ishing.

From a governance point of view, the Fisheries Code of Philippines and the Local Government Code provide the action framework. They give mandate to municipalities which are called Local Government Units (LGUs) and declared as owners of resources, to establish MPAs within 12 miles. The establishment of these MPAs requires a "Presidential Proclamation" or a parliamentary act published by municipal order. MPAs can be integrated into the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS).

Municipalities can generate funds to support the management of these areas, including building their management capacities. They are included in coastal resources management plans established with the participation of Village Teams. These plans include management plans of sanctuaries, an objective of which is to increase resources available outside them. Management activities include: (i) evaluation of resources; (ii) on-site consultations; (iii) compliance with legal obligations; (iv) establishment of the Management Council, (v) formulation of management plans, and (vi) monitoring of implementation at the community level. Compliance with regulations is ensured by : (a) mooring of delimitation buoys ; (b) building of a house for the security guard in the sanctuary ; (iii) a team of guards with a daily assignation sometimes using patrol vessels (in the best monitored areas). Monitoring is ensured in collaboration with scientists. This initiative has built a high community spirit and intense participation by Popular Organizations. It is has been strongly supported at the local level. Monitoring shows clear positive impacts despite inevitable variations, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the sanctuary. It demonstrates the importance of clear legal framework, advertisement and dissemination campaigns as well as education of stakeholders.

Arising problems are relating to: (i) inancial sustainability of the system that has long been inanced by external subsides even though a budgetary contribution is now provided by the municipality, (ii) insuf icient capacity at the village level (iii) illegal ishing has not been totally controlled yet, (iv) absence of demonstration of positive impacts on neighboring areas, (v) weak participation of the government, (vi) increase of human population which erodes the potential bene its of MPAs, and (vii) absence of formal procedures of adaptive management with recurrent evaluation of performances.

☞ Territorial Use Rights in Chile

This example is interesting for the SRFC since it deals with an ecosystem characterized by an upwelling zone that induces important species migrations. Over the last decade, the Areas for the Management and Exploitation of Benthic Resources (AMEBRSs) (Areas de Manejo y Explotacion de Rescursos Bentonicos) have rapidly mushroomed after the overexploitation period of 1980s, in order to: (i) reduce ishing effort and overexploitation; and (ii) improve the acceptance and effective implementation of management measures, owing to an allocation system of coastal spaces and benthic resources they contain.

Chilean law provides 3 types of MPA: AMEBRSs, reserves, and parks. The last two categories are less applied. AMEBRs allow the allocation of exclusive Territorial Use Rights, and since their introduction in 1990s, they have become the main tool of artisanal isheries management in Chili. The objectives are : (i) to conserve benthic resources (seaweeds and invertebrates) ; (ii) to support artisanal economic activities ; (iii) to maintain or increase biological productivity of resources ; (iv) to increase knowledge on the functioning of ecosystem ; and (v) to promote and encourage participatory management. AMEBRs would therefore be similar, through their objectives, to MPAs of the IUCN category VI. There are 450 AMEBRs, established in a range of 5 miles from the coast, and 1200 other are requested. Their surface is variable (average = 190 ha), and they now support more than 30% of Chilean artisanal ishermen.

The establishment process is highly participatory, and associations or ishermen's cooperatives are entrusted with the management of AMEBRs. The process requires the establishment of reference data on benthic resources and presentation of an exploitation and management plan whose quality norms are set by regulation that have to be approved by Under-Secretariat for Fisheries (SubPesca). They specify target species, seasons and ishing techniques, as well as criteria used for the determination of Total Allowable Catches (TAC). Aquaculture is authorized in an AMEBR provided it does not impact on natural resources and abide by enforced regulations. Then, an "Agreement of Use" is established for 4 years with the National Fisheries Service which transfers obligations and privileges of the State to the said associations/cooperatives. The plan speci ies rights and obligations of each member in the community who adopts its Code of Conduct. Control is carried out by the associations themselves, through a Committee of Control whose appointment system is rotating. The Executive Bureau of the Association sets vigilance norms and the amount of sanctions. Management performances are evaluated by the National Fisheries Service which can inspect ishing and management operations and take corrective measures. In case of infraction, the Association can lose its use rights.

Studies have shown improvement of resources and socio-economic conditions. From management point of view, AMEBRs seem to be a positive solution which has reduced over ishing and built local management capacities in a system of exclusive users' rights. The system is transparent, and the associations control -and conduct themselves-scienti ic analyses that are submitted to the National Fisheries Service.

Dif iculties are faced in: (1) control and surveillance and ulterior improvement of control by stakeholders themselves ;

(2) absence of economic and social considerations in the elaboration of regulations ; (3) ignorance of internal rules of control and coercion ; (4) lack of local capacity building in planning and auto-management; (5) remoteness of AMEBRs; not replaced in the national context of conservation and isheries management; and (6) lack of pluri-disciplinary analysis of AMEBRs performances.

☞ An MPA with Shared Governance : Marine Protected Area of Joal-Fadiouth (Senegal) LII Created thanks to the obstinate action of a small group of ishermen, the MPA of Joal-Fadiouth was born in 2004 and is now managed under a regime of shared governance. The original motivation was the threat represented by ishing gears (kilis and beach seines) for seagrass beds. The presence of turtles and manatees, real touristic attractions, and the need to preserve the mangrove were also determining factors.

The MPA is based on a simple zoning : (1) a central core where only autochthonous ishing practiced on foot is allowed ; (2) area with multiple utilization where responsible ishing is allowed with the use of angling and nets (100 mm of mesh size) ; and (3) a mangrove area with precise rules for picking. The two problematic ishing methods have been prohibited, but, the concern of the MPA was also to ind alternative livelihoods for impacted ishermen by striving to combine conservation and equity.

Owing to the combination of strong and continuing commitment of some individuals, the support of an international NGO, a favorable international context (projects), and an intelligent cooperation with services of the local administration, the MPA has been created and delimited, and its governance organs have been set up. The analysis of the state of reference of the ecosystem has been prepared, and the internal regulation and management plan have also been developed. Surveillance is regularly ensured by active and well-trained volunteers.

No less than sixteen different stakeholders groups are actively participating in the life of this MPA in the three organs of governance : (i) Management Committee, which meets at least once a month ; (ii) Annual General Assembly, (iii) the Bureau, composed of six persons, representing the executive power of the management committee and supported by four technical commissions (surveillance, sustainable ishing, and management of con licts; management of environment; technical and touristic development; sensitization). The Bureau meets at least twice a month.

The MPA of Joal-Fadiouth has already delivered important results: improvement of yields, increase of the average size of ish, come back of turtles and some noble species. What is more, community is mobilized. Youngsters are involved in the governance and benevolent surveillance.

However, this MPA remains weak, and many problems are persistent and require particular attention in the future : to improve co-management and frequency of General Assembly meetings; to resolve the problem relating to kilis ( ishing gear) ; to eliminate confusion between management plan and internal regulations ; to improve the inancial self-suf iciency of the MPA which is too dependent from donors ; to preserve MPA functions in an area close to a large landing site (high pressure) ; to support the rotation of leaders ; to further adapt governance with the integration of new community groups and the diversi ication of the community beyond ishing.

Two main questions are asked in terms of information related to cost-bene it ratios:

■ What is the return on investment of an MPAs project? (project approach) ; ■ What is the economic impact of MPAs effects on stakeholders and on their territory? (MPAs « effects » approach).

"CBA" is a method of evaluation of the social ef iciency of a public project based on the monetary evaluation of the overall positive and negative effects this project can generate for the society. The expression of such ef iciency can take the form of a Net Updated Value (NUV) or an Internal Rate of Return (IRR). CBA can help in the selection or evaluation of projects, but it is also designed to apply to MPAs. Nevertheless, it is hindered by serious practical obstacles.

The irst category of obstacles stems from the necessity to evaluate in monetary terms non merchant effects, which are generally very important in the case of MPAs (values related to recreational use or to the very existence of the AMP, the well-being, or the transfer towards future generations). Methods that have been developed for that purpose remain heavy and costly to implement. Their domain of validity is limited, and the risks of bias in the interpretation of their results are important. In addition, there is no consensus about the legitimacy of attempts to express non-monetary values in monetary terms In order to minimize these dif iculties, one corrective mechanism that is often used is the resort to "bene it transfer" which consists in taking, from the literature, evaluations conducted in other contexts, transferring them to one's context. This method has the advantage of being easy and less costly, but also present obvious risks on account of the the speci icity of each MPA context. One alternative to CBA is the resort to "cost-effectiveness analysis" (CEA) which is in fact a weakened variant of CBA, in which only the costs incurred for realization of one or several objectives are used. If CEA can help to circumvent the dif iculty of monetary evaluation of bene its generated by MPAs, it leaves unresolved the issue of the protection levels to be decided a priori.

Concerning more speci ically the evaluations of isheries effects of MPAs, the implementation of CBA is frequently hindered by insuf iciency of knowledge relating to spatiotemporal mobility of isheries resources. Generally, this insuf iciency does not allow the appraisal of the effect of biomass spillover out of the MPA, or the bene it for ishermen of a possible effect of larval diffusion from the protected area.

A subsidiary dif iculty lies in the frequent ignorance of the adaptive behavior of ishermen confronted to restrictions imposed on them within the MPA framework.

The reasons which make it dif icult the application of CBA to MPAs have often been worsened by the following factors:

■ Insuf iciency of information concerning the situation prior to the MPA establishment (« zero state » or baseline) and of implementation monitoring (particularly at the socio-economic level). This is particularly frequent in the "projects" rationale or "project based approaches".

■ Insuf icient temporal perspective. The ex-post analyses are undertaken within the framework of projects, the inancing of which ceases too early to allow the effects of MPAs to fully develop (in particular in terms restoration of isheries resources).

In these conditions, CBA applied to MPAs or to projects of international donors often presents important weaknesses:

■ Resort to assumptions that are not empirically well grounded (in the matter of restoration of isheries resources in particular) or to hazardous extrapolations (uncontrolled use of "bene it transfer" approaches) ;

■ "Partial" application of CBA, in which effects that are too dif icult to estimate are let outside the scope of analysis, a practice which can obviously generate important biases (for instance to the detriment of non-value aspects of ecosystem conservation).

The understanding of these phenomena is sometimes made uneasy by an incomplete (partial) presentation of the tools and methods employed to calculate NUV or IRR of MPAs.

Synthesis on Cost-Bene its Analysis (CBA) Methods and Recommendations

☞ Key Recommendations on Cost-Bene it Analyses ■ Ensure transparency in the description of methodologies used: explain calculations;

■ Do not conduct this type of study in the absence of "Zero state" providing reliable and useful data obtained at the start of the project.

■ Do not undertake these analyses if there the substantial means needed (for surveys, analysis, disciplinary teams, etc.) are not available;

■ Select evaluation methods matching the empirical data available;.

■ Give priority to the analysis of the effects of MPAs on the socio-economic situation of local populations, who are very often impacted by negative effects of MPAs (in particular in the matter of opportunity cost for isheries), and whose acceptance and cooperation largely determine the success of implementation.

An approach for the evaluation of the ef iciency of MPAs consists in using dynamic mathematic models. There are many of them for isheries whereas simple conceptual models are often used for the evaluation of MPAs, and should provide an understanding of the possible consequences of MPAs on the dynamics of resources and their exploitation. There are also more complex models, spatially explicit, including mixed isheries, or trophodynamic ones that take into account other important process.

There is sometimes a gap between assessment approaches (evaluation) based on modeling and on empirical observations. The irst approach may be considered as too theoretical but the second is not suf iciently used by modelers to tune their models. Yet, dynamic models are indispensable. The development of more realistic models based on ield data shows that the two approaches are complementary. One of the main improvements to the mathematic approach is to reach a compromise between parsimony (which consists in using only the minimum number of elementary causes possible to explain a phenomenon) and complexity (which increases with model realism). Another improvement is to estimate model parameters and to tune the models with real observation data.

There are three main observations relating to bio-economic or biological modeling on MPAs and isheries ■ There is no perfect model that is replicable on any site: for each situation, models and combinations of models are to be developed according to the speci ic characteristics of the areas concerned and, mainly, the questions asked (the objectives of the analyses)).

■ Data required for feeding models are often missing or very insuf icient: monitoring mechanisms remain insuf icient to regularly feed models. The SRFC region is therefore not mature enough to develop a space-based model to be regularly used (Europe is not capable of doing so, either).

■ Modeling the relationship between MPAs and isheries is necessarily complex. For an MPA, the model should: (i) have a clear-cut objective; (ii) be space-based, distinguishing spaces inside the MPA and outside; and (iii) be dynamic so as to take into account migrations of ishermen and ish species. The requirements in terms of data therefore remain too important to imagine realizing, in a near future, an operational model on MPAs of the SRFC. Moreover, data input and implementation of models require sustainable (in the short and long terms) national and regional research capacities, which are not available at the moment (cf. State of the research).

There is no precise list of models according to issues and stakes to which they respond.

Synthesis and Recommendations on Biological and Bio-economic Modeling of MPAs-Fisheries

  of the situation of MPAs in the world

  isheries management when applied to MPAs; (ii) lack of stability and inancial sustainability; (iii) the disproportionate role played by international NGOs and external inancing; (iv) incomplete decentralization process and (v) the fragmented or weakened State and civil society.

■

  Their capacity of exchange of experiences among managers ■ The presentation of the change at the different scales of stocks and ecosystems, and the measurement of global phenomena (climate changes, migrations)■ The positioning of each [site] within the global system and the comparison of a particular country, MPA, or ishery with regard to the overall system.

■

  Consideration of spatio-temporal changes in the areas concerned: they integrate different human dimensions (economic, social, cultural, historical, etc.) of spaces and isheries concerned. They present a dynamic vision of territorial change and stakeholders in order to specify how indicators evolved before the creation of and after the An in-depth socioeconomic state-zero (baseline study) inside and outside the MPA

✔

  Fishing effort, catches, employment (jobs) and revenues (income) (zones M1-M2-M3) ✔ Jobs and income by activity type (zones M1-T1-T2) ✔ Use conϐlicts in zones M1-M3 (frequency and severity perceived by the actors)

■✔

  Measures contributing to the reduction of ishing effort while reducing poverty: To limit the pressure on ishing areas, projects or NGOs propose alternative income-generating land-based activities to ishermen such as development of eco-lodges; land-based animal or vegetal production (wildlife, aquaculture) or use of canoes for tourism instead of ishing. Direct support to ϐishing effort development (subsidies for the purchase of engines, ...) ✔ Monetary compensation to ϐishermen ✔ Indirect support to ϐishing effort development (port infrastructure, FAD, artiϐicial reefs ...)

  Figure 2 Global Change in Biodiversity (light blue) and the spaces covered by marine protected areas (dark blue). Source: Mora and Sale (2011). Retraced from Science Daily (2011)

  Numerous authors have pointed out the paradox of the development of a rhetoric of decentralization and empowerment of local communities by developing States, NGOs and funding agencies, while putting in place legal and regulatory systems which, through co-management and standards, in fact strengthen the central authority. Several examples are given in the technical report.

✔

  Figure 4Representation of the types of governance

Figure 7 Types

 7 Figure 7 Types of national administration and corresponding typology of MPAs (Developed from the exemples provided by F. Feral and B. Cazalet)

Figure 8

 8 Figure 8 Main types of imaginable MPAs, depending on their position in the competent jurisdiction, in the water column and on the bottom. Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) are delimited by dashes.

D

  iv e r s iϐ ic a t io n / d e p e n d e n c y Co m pe ti ti on O th er s B io d iv e r s it y T r e n d s o f ϐ i s h s t o c k s F i s h e r i e s p r a c t i c e t i t u t i o n a l c a p a c i t y L e g a l fr a m e w o rk P la n n in g o f d e m o g ra p h ic g ro w th C o n ϐ li c t s , o t h e r u s e

  Figure 11 Radar-plot of the major issues that typically arise in a ishing community (reproduced from Garcia et al., 2011, with permission of the FAO)

■■

  Structural ef iciency and strategy: (a) Correct management planning with effective processes; (b) Clear de inition of management rules ; (c) organs of decision and control present, effective, and with clear responsibilities ; (d) human and inancial resources suf icient and well used ; (e) Local governance recognized and involved (f) Monitoring and evaluation effectively conducted ; (g) Plans adapted accordingly. ■ Ef iciency of legal framework: (a) Adequate legislation ; (b) Formal and informal legislations are compatible ; (c) Local and national legislations incorporate international provisions ; (d) Local, national, regional, and international legislations are compatible ; (e) Provisions in force are applicable in practice. ■ Ef iciency of representation and participation: (a) Representativeness, equity and ef iciency of collaborations ; (b) Suf icient capacity of participants in co-management ; (c) Community organizations reinforced and empowered. Users compliance: (a) Effective monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS); (b) Increase of responsible behaviors (sustainable development) ; (c) Building of local capacities in sustainable use of resources ; (iv) Participation of users in monitoring, control, surveillance, and coercion ; (d) Adequate enforcement of law and regulations ; (e) Accessibility, transparency and simplicity of plans ; et (f) Improvement of compliance.

  For artisanal and coastal ishing in MPAs, a shared management framework is highly recommended to increase legitimacy and reduce costs of control. The control can then be ensured by local authorities with sometimes the intervention of of icial guards of the Ministry in charge of MPAs and coast guards. A participatory control using community members is very useful, but requires training of guards, their formal recognition, and possibly their remunerations. Rapid intervention means that are necessary represent important investments and operating costs. Depreciation (and replacement) of logistic means is often neglected Securing the necessary means (which should be partly drawn from MPAs revenues) should be taken into account from the start of MPA planning, and represents one of the major challenges of MPA management. Nevertheless, ba-sing control and surveillance inancing exclusively on ines can turn out to be a perverse mechanism in that ines can decrease if control is improving or often end up at the Public Treasury (without any stimulation for MPA controllers).

☞

  Effects of integral reserves on mobile ish speciesEffects of integral reserves on mobile ish speciesThe Mediterranean hake (Merluccius merluccius) is one of the most important commercial ish species in the Mediterranean Sea. Immature individuals account for the bulk of the catch and undergo the highest ishing mortality rate. Hake is characterized by periods of seasonal migrations and spawning and nursery areas that are well delimited in space.

  of reef sharks in different areas in the north and central part of the Great Barrier Reef. Abundance of sharks based on visual observations (A) and (B). (C) represents catch rates of sharks (data from samplings by long line ishing) basées sur des observations visuelles (A) et (B). (C) représente les taux de capture de requins (données issues d'échantillonnages par pêche à la palangre) Marine Park of the Great Barrier Reef ☞ Differentiation of Effects -Network of Reserves in Tasmania, Australia

☞

  Community Fisheries Reserves in Philippines (Bohol, Central province of Visayas) LI

Table of contents

 of

	in	fisheries
		MANA	EMENT

Map 1 Map of MPAs considered in the study

	OS MINARZOS
	CABO DE PALOS
	TABARCA
	BENIDORM
	COLUMBRETES ISLAND
	MEDES ISLANDS
	LA GRACIOSA
	LA RESTINGA
	RN. DES BOUCHES DE BONIFACIO
	PARC NATUREL MARIN D'IROISE
	RÉSERVE NATURELLE DE CERBÈRES
	BANYULS
	PARC NATIONAL DE PORT CROS
	CÔTE BLEUE
	COLUMBRETES ISLAND
	SINIS MAL DI VENTRE
	GOLF DE CASTELLAMARE
	TUSCANY ARCHIPIELAGO
	RDUM MAJJIESA /
	RAS IR RAHBED MPA
	MEDITERRANAN MPAs
	FORMIGAS
	MONTE DA GUIA / FAIAL
	DARWIN MOUNDS
	Americas -Caribbean
	AMERB
	EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC SEASCAPE
	SEAFLOWER
	GALAPAGOS ISLANDS
	CAYOS COCHINOS
	PORTLAND BIGHT
	ISLA NATIVIDAD
	BAJA CALIFORNIA
	MPAs NETWORK OF PUERTO PENASCO
	(GOLF OF CALIFORNIA)
	SOUFRIÈRE
	BIG CREEK RESERVE, CALIFORNIA
	GREAT SOUTH BAY MC AREA

Comparison of improve- ments within Reserve-MPA and the outside for ish, invertebrates, and seaweeds V, VI

	446%
	300%
	250%		Study by FAO 2011 (69 AMP)
			Méta-Analyse
	200%
	150%
	192%	166%
	100%
	50%	91%
	0%		91%	91%	23%	21%
	Density	Biomass	Fish size	Spéciϔic riches
		(production)			(biodiversité)

(Lester et al 2009: 55 AMP)

Figure

1

of life cycle phases that are critical

	Before making a decision to create one, particu-
	larly in connection with ishing, it is important to specify
	what the expected objectives are:
	for the renewal and growth of the populations exploited
	by ishing (spawning areas, nurseries, etc.)? Its validity
	closely depends on the localization of the MPAs, the bio-
	logy of species concerned, and the type of ishing (selec-
	tivity of ishing gear).

■ (a) Reduction of ishing pressure, globally or on critical phases of the life cycle? ■ b) Protection ■ c) Creation of a "safety stock" (e.g.

safe minimum biomass level, SMBL), improvement of yields and an improved productivity? This argument is valid only if the creation of the selected MPAs is large enough and can be backed-up by an effective exclusion of ishing from the reserved areas. The latter is not that obvious given the considerable number of « paper parks » that have been noted in the world. Is the area remaining open to ishing acceptable? What would, a priori, be irst the impact of the transfer of effort on areas that remain open to ishing?

■ d) Generation of a Net Spillover Effect of Exploitable Biomass from the reserved area to the ishing area: So far, very few empirical evidences have been given showing a positive average balance between new biomass transfer and losses due to restriction of ishing area. This assessment can turn out to be particularly dif icult in countries where overcapacity of the isheries sector constitutes an issue widely beyond the scope of the sole ishery sector (a situation characterizing a number some developing countries).

Studies on indicators propose two types of indicators that are useful to the ecosystem approach of isheries: state indicators and pressure indicators.

tandable and regularly updated. Several recent research programs have identi ied lists of potentially interesting indicators for the assessment of MPAs performance.. There is no prede ined unique list of indicators, and for each MPA objective, relevant indicators must be adapted. The ecosystem indicators lists are numerous (and not yet stabilized) and some examples are mentioned in the technical document.

Table 1 List of Potential Ecological Indicators for the Assessment of the Ef iciency of MPAs. Additional Metrics (not stemmed from literature) are suggested in italics (Pelletier et al. 2008)

 1

	Short term
	effects

Recommendations: "To spatialize information and management"

  and management

	☞ ■ To promote the development of spatial management
	and the production of national atlases coordinated at
	■ Analyze the relevance of using the MPAs tool in isheries management before establishing an MPA; prioritize objectives regional level
	■ Establish a minimum state of reference and cooperate for its elaboration ■ To reinforce the production of local space-based da-
	tabases covering both inside and outside the MPA. In ■ Establish a long-term bio-ecological monitoring system (inside and outside the MPA) relying on relevant and restric-ted set of indicators terms of bio-ecology, this should include :
	■ Limit oneself to a restricted number of indicators regarding optimized costs/bene its that are synthetic and easily re-✔ Identi ication of vulnerable or critical habitats
	plicable, reliable, and easy to interpret ✔ de inition of distribution areas of the identi ied
	stocks, strong biodiversity/productivity areas, ex-■ Strengthen research and national monitoring of MPA management performances and reinforce coherence between i-change rates and migrations, allocation of ishing ef-shing and MPAs in the monitoring systems fort and catches;
	✔ Zoning of spaces where spillover effects are expec-
	ted or foreseen.
	■ To take into account network objectives of coherence
	and representativeness; notably in relation with gap
	analyses and eco-regional analyses
	■ To capitalize information and valorize knowledge:
	These mapping efforts do not systematically require the
	conduct of speci ic studies because traditional know-
	ledge as well as information produced by former pro-
	jects have not yet been fully valorized and still remain
	under-used if not con idential

☞ Recommendations: "To limit oneself to a restricted number of indica- tors with optimized cost/effectiveness, that are synthetic, easily replicable, reliable, and easy to in- terpret (reality principle) for example:

	■ At the population (stock) level: basic indicators such
	as indicators of abundance, biomass and mean size in-
	form about populations, and yield.
	■ At the biological communities level: the indicators
	that are mostly used are: speci ic abundance (useful to
	compare effects), average asymptotic size, and the tro-
	phic level. The monitoring of associated and target spe-
	cies leads to a better understanding of the effects.

"To establish a long-term biological monitoring (internal and external) relying on a restricted number of relevant indicators" ■ To adapt monitoring to objectives and means available: The

	nature and complexity of the system will
	vary depending on whether it wants to achieve strictly
	scienti ic objectives or pragmatic management objec-
	tives as well. To strive for optimized cost/effectiveness,
	it should cover both inside and outside MPAs, on the
	basis of a robust but yearly light monitoring, and an in-
	depth multiannual monitoring at a more spaced inter-
	vals (4 -5 years). The latter will specify the performances
	and effects of MPAs.

■ To

simplify the lists and types of indicators while

	maintaining robustness and regularity of that is useful
	management information (cf. chapter on "monitoring"
	of the "bioecology technical report").

■ To

rely as much as possible on pre-existing and standardized information and to harmonize me- thods: to

	use the good data collection grid or to adapt it,
	to harmonize monitoring methods and indicators (up-
	date methodological manuals), at the national and re-
	gional scale. The work on indicators should provide, at
	least, a manual for the interpretation of indicators va-
	riation and the centralized registration of the results
	(memory).

■ To

ensure the monitoring is budgeted in the long term in order to guarantee its regularity. ■ To ensure the conditions for transparency and communication towards local stakeholders: In

	any
	case, monitoring should be de ined with the stakehol-
	ders. To establish progressively a mechanism of infor-
	mation processing and to institutionalize the feedback
	of monitoring outcomes to stakeholders. To disseminate
	the main results of monitoring in local language and
	with adapted communication aids.

■ To

take the habitats into account: In fact, habitats represent an important source of variability for ish com- munities. 2.4.4 Support to Monitoring-related Research

	At any step in the MPA or STR management cycle (plan-
	ning, implementation and management), knowledge
	constitutes a fundamental basis for decision-making. Re-
	search and monitoring mechanisms are essential in order
	to deal with trade-offs at local, national, and regional le-
	vels, or to help involved communities to establish reliable
	mechanisms. Yet, research mechanisms in the SRFC area
	remain weak with regard to the needs in isheries mana-
	gement and MPAs. National monitoring of ishing systems
	remain rather poorly connected with MPA research and
	yet a combination of means available to each could be be-
	ne icial to both management systems.

☞

Recommendations: "To strengthen research and national monitoring of the management performances of MPAs and toreinforce coherence between isheries and MPAs" ■ To strengthen means of intervention of national structures responsible

	for regular isheries monitoring
	in order to provide users and isheries and MPA mana-
	gers with useful information;

■ To

mobilize isheries research on MPAs issues and to promote integration with

	national monitoring and
	research. To involve both scientists and decision-makers
	in the monitoring structures. To provide articulations
	with pre-existing standardized systems (e.g.: isheries
	monitoring systems), including by ensuring the smooth
	integration of the different scales. To promote the
	convergence of scienti ic and empirical approaches ini-
	tiated by local stakeholders (co-construction of [infor-
	mation]) and to valorize traditional knowledge.

■ To

promote the integration of ishery re- search/monitoring programs with those on MPAs: To combine means and information likely to clarify the evolution of the local situation and its effects on the glo

  bal level; to develop joint monitoring systems. This research should in particular participate in the assessment of the contribution of MPAs to the state of the exploited resources as well as to the state of health and resilience of ecosystems.

Potential MPA beneϐits resulting from the creation of two types of values Costs themselves are of two types Determine if the overall result is positive (effectiveness) Check how beneϐits and costs are shared (equity)

	✔ "opportunity costs", generated by the use restrictions
	put on certain type of activities (notable ϐishing)

Fishing activities on the zoning at sea Other activities performed at M1, T1, T2 Zoning at land Zoning at sea Administrative zoning Biological zoning

		M1. Area (s) where	T1. Area (s) where	Types de pêche	Other activities related
		speciϐic ϐishing	compensatory	pratiqués : pêche	to services provided by
		restrictions (and, where	measures and speciϐic	artisanale, industrielle,	the ecosystem of the
		applicable, other uses	regulations will be	récréative. Flottilles,	MPA (including
		of the marine ecosys-	provided	effort, métiers, captures	recreational activities:
		tem) are intended to be			ecotourism, diving ...)
		applied to
		M2. Area (s) where
		signiϐicant spillover		Saisonnalité des
		effects from these		activités de pêche
		measures are expected
		M3. Area (s) of ϐishing	T2. Area (s) of	Origine géographique	Other major economic
		activity may be	employment and	des pêcheurs et degré	activities in areas T1-T2
	Socioeconomic zoning	negatively impacted by these measures (including area of	housing affected by the measures taken in relation to the MPA (if	d'inféodation à la zone
		potential displacement	not identical with T1)
		of the ϐishing effort)
	1

. MPA's impact on ϐisheries 2. Development of AIGAs (Alternative Income Generation Activities)

Recommendation: "To establish a minimum socio-economic state of reference and cooperate for its realization"

■ To establish a thorough and robust inventory (Baseline study-state of reference) inside and outside MPAs based on pragmatism and reliability :

✔ To maintain coherence with subsequent monitoring efforts integrating the in luence zone outside the MPAs boundary. It will be based on the same information and spatially-driven criteria such as those mentioned in the recommendations on monitoring.

✔ To go beyond simple monitoring and ensure close collaboration among stakeholders

(biologists, socioeconomists, managers, stakeholders)

.

✔ To measure potential impact: to identify, locate, and quantify activities (existing or future) likely to be positively or negatively impacted by MPAs

✔ To develop a dynamic approach of spatio-temporal analysis at the level of stakeholders and territory, using quantitative and qualitative data

(cf. chapter 3.2.3)

✔ To adopt a standard nomenclature and simple, robust and standardized protocols for surveys and analysis, adapted to local contexts. The building of a common vocabulary and conceptual reference is required to enable meaningful dialogue between disciplines.

simplify mechanisms, capitalize on past efforts and harmonize methods. The

	existing experiences can
	serve as a basis (cf. AMPhore project or SocMon me-
	thod), but the elaboration and implementation of moni-
	toring systems should be realized in a cooperative
	manner (scientists/managers/user), and should corres-
	pond with the objectives of MPAs. The de inition of a re-
	ference area, as similar as possible to the MPA will be
	also useful.

annual low-cost and robust monitoring conducted by managers concerning: (i) spatio-temporal dynamics and quanti ication of utilization on formerly de ined area ; (ii) perception surveys of the effects of MPAs conducted on representative samplings ; (iii) self-evaluation of governance by the monitoring team with feedback provided to stakeholders. ✔ A more detailed framework survey at spaced intervals (4-5 years) to specify look at: (i) Costs and bene its as well as their allocation among stakeholders, and (ii) governance and ef iciency of management (functioning of consultation bodies, control measures, allocated means), but also global changes occurring in the territory.

■ To establish a long-term budgeted monitoring based on a limited number of operational and spatial indicators.

■ To ■ To

rely on pre-existing or otherwise available in- formation and promote the integration with natio- nal monitoring systems and research: To

	provide
	articulations with pre-existing standardized information
	systems ( isheries monitoring system), and ensuring that
	different scales are interconnected. These studies should
	also enable the evaluation of the contribution of MPAs
	to the local and national economy. National capacity of
	socio-economic research on MPAs and ishing should be
	strengthened.

Recommendation: "To clarify the role and nature of compensatory and accompanying measures, and particularly AIGAs "

	■ To avoid inducing transfers of ishing efforts: AIGAs
	measures should not have effects that are potentially
	contrary to the objectives of MPAs (no farming of intro-
	duced species for instance) and/or contrary to the sus-
	tainable management of isheries (inducing effort
	transfer ) (cf. above chap. 3.2.4).

■ To focus more on management improvement and economic performance of the isheries sector rather than on secondary actions (until now called AIGAS for isheries) that often produce perverse effects and mobilize substantial resources. Focusing on control and surveillance, stimulation of isheries dialog mobilizing ishery sector will produce in the long term more signi icant impacts on the local ishing area than AIGAs.

■ To realistically secure the economic viability of relevant socio-economic projects. The feasibility and commercial markets of AIGAs should be assessed in a realistic way and with professionalism by specialized structures. If the technical support is relevant, it should be provided beyond 5 years so as to secure the learning process and self-suf iciency of stakeholders.

study the possibility of realistic self-suf iciency,

	knowing that this can never take in charge all the costs
	related to management. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile
	to study the possibility of establishing a sustainable me-
	chanism contributing to the inancing of MPAs by those
	who draw real bene its from them and have suf icient
	capacity (tour operators, visitors, and collectivities). All
	the possibilities of development of self-generated re-
	sources of MPAs must be exploited.

■ To

■ To

analyze and promote in a realistic way the dif- ferent mechanisms known as sustainable inancing

	(taxation of ecosystem services, trust funds, etc.). Ser-
	vices provided by MPAs regionally generate bene its that
	are global in nature. The global context is not conducive
	to broad inancing but nonetheless, international bene-
	iciaries should participate and national ones as well in-
	cluding in reinforcing national institutions. Local
	ishermen and States should develop mechanisms that
	are adapted to local and regional means to participate
	in this management even though the measures might

not cover all the costs. Such mechanisms are being established in forestry and increasingly developed in coastal MPAs (see MARFUND, Banc d'Arguin, MedPAN…) and could serve as source of inspiration. National taxation mechanisms associated with transportation, cruise, and national gambling, or those relating to the establishment of trust funds do exist throughout the world, and could also provide inspiration.

synergies between the two systems studied on a case-by-case basis are made possible by

  combining approaches, by carefully placing Reserve-MPAs in isheries and integrating isheries in large multi-use MPAs. However, these synergies should be convincingly analyzed ex ante, in their speci ic context and integrated in a federal spatial framework.

		Policies		1950-70	1970-90		1990-2010	2010-30
	MIN	non-sustainable Ecologically	Developpement Growth	Growth		IUU Growth	Growth
				Management Management			The other
		Ecologically			Sustainable	common dif iculties are notably natural variability, de-
		unsustable			development mographic growth, absence of recognized and defensible Responsible user rights, insuf icient institutional investment, and lack Responsible fisheries
		Sustainable development and utilization		ICD	MED CDI	of participation and legitimacy; ■ The technical recommendations to improve mana-fisheries EA, MPAs, EA, MPAs, ICM ICAM ICM ICAM gement performance are similar: (i) implementation Biodiversity Biodiversity
						of « good governance » ; (ii) systematization of manage-Sustainable Sustainable
		unstable Socially			Utilization Sustainable	ment plans and their implementation ; (iii) and esta-blishment of effective user rights; Conservation Utilization Utilization
				Conservation	Conservation	Conservation r
		Socially
		non-sustainable	Protection	Protection		Protection	Protection
	EA : Ecosystem Approach		ICM : Integrated Coastal Management	ICD : Integrated Conservation & Development
	PPP : Public-Private Partnerships	MPA : Marine Protected Area		SLA : Sustainable Livelihood Approach
	MSP : Marine Spatial Planning

■ The

MAX Protection MAX MIN Utilization Co nϔ lic t Co nϔ lic t Co nϔ lic t Co nϔ lic t Figure 3

Table 2 Shift in the MPA paradigm. From Phillips (2003) cited by Lee and Middleton (2003) Objectives Governance Local people Wider context Perceptions Management techniques Finance Management skills Topic As it was: protected areas were… As it is becoming: protected areas are…

 2 Run by many partners and involve an array of stakeholders✔ Run with, for, and in some cases by local people

✔ Set aside for conservation ✔ Established mainly for spectacular wildlife and scenic protection ✔ Managed mainly for visitors and tourists ✔ Valued as wilderness ✔ About protection ✔ Run by central government ✔ Planned and managed against people ✔ Managed without regard to local opinions ✔ Developed separately ✔ Managed as 'islands' ✔ Viewed primarily as a national asset ✔ Viewed only as a national concern ✔ Managed reactively within a short time scale ✔ Managed in a technocratic way ✔ Paid for by taxpayer ✔ Managed by scientists and natural resource experts ✔ Expert led ✔ Run also with social and economic objectives ✔ Often set up for scientiϐic, economic and cultural reasons ✔ Managed with local people more in mind ✔ Valued for the cultural importance of so-called "wilderness" ✔ Also about restoration and rehabilitation ✔ ✔ Managed to meet the needs of local people ✔ Planned as part of national, regional and international systems ✔ Developed as 'networks' (strictly protected areas, buffered and linked by green corridors) ✔ Viewed also as a community asset ✔ Viewed also as an international concern ✔ Managed adaptively in a long term perspective ✔ Managed with political considerations ✔ Paid for from many sources ✔ Managed by multi-skilled individuals ✔ Drawing on local knowledge

Development of Co-management in the reserve of San Salvador (Philippines) XXXVII

	In late 1970s, the ishery of San Salvador island (Philip-
	pines) showed signs of overexploitation (decrease of
	catch; scarcity of highly-valued species, utilization of poi-
	son and dynamite). The ishery was de facto a free-ac-
	cess one and not managed. The central government was
	too distant and ishermen were not organized enough to
	be able to react. Following a serious crisis, an NGO had
	provided subsequent support programs enabling the im-
	provement in community management and the creation
	of a no-take zone and a regulated zone 1987, 1989). A
	local decree was passed in 1989, establishing reserves
	and sanctuaries, prohibiting ishing in sanctuaries and
	destructive ishing in reserves. These programs have en-
	abled the development of a management plan, the or-
	ganization of the community, the generation of new
	incomes, the introduction of regulations, and the educa-
	tion and training of stakeholders. Mobilized local stake-
	holders have become active in the control and
	surveillance, and participation has increased. Although

no management was decided at irst, it emerged naturally with the municipal government. Thus, in 1991, the political support for management was reinforced by the adoption of the Municipal Government Code, granting to municipalities the jurisdiction over coastal waters. This has enabled the: (i) development of legislation required for sanctuaries and control; (ii) resolution of con licts among internal users and external ones; (3) provision of vessels and equipment for patrol activities;

Table 4 Some success factors of good governance of MPAs in relation to isheries

 4

✔ Political will and clear institutional frameworks ✔ Creation of institutional bridges to improve governance and decision-making ✔ Right for the community to organize, in clarifying responsibilities ✔ Presence of external agents (NGOs, ϐinancing and research institutions) which support and help to ϐind solutions, etc. ✔ Integration of projects into national legal and institutional framework ✔ Well deϐined and transparent limits of jurisdiction ✔ Strong co-management institutions ✔ Group cohesion and good participation via appropriation of the process and greater responsibility of stakeholders ✔ Support of the local leadership ; good local organization ✔ Users' rights on resources ✔ Adequate ϐinancial resources ✔ Adhesion of individuals ✔ Positive perception of the of the costs/beneϐits ratio ✔ Fair, legitimate management rules and credible deterrent control

Table 5 Types of governance of MPAs, Adapted from Féral and Cazalet (2011, Unpublished).

 5

	Main	Classical, centralized, and	A forum of users-oriented
	characteristics	bureaucratic State management	management, in which the State
		practiced also by federal States	is voluntarily a minority-
		(Australia) and delegated	stakeholder, while conserving
		(autonomous) governments	sovereign competencies and an
		operating as States in terms	executive role in relation to
		of international public law	implementation of agreed
			decisions. It is the French
			Marine Park Model.
	Legitimacy	Stately	Societal	Autochthonous
	Governance, process, and	Centralized, bureaucratic top down (vertical)	Co-managed, interactive, participatory, forum	Decentralized, community-based, horizontal, social discipline
		To control marine space through	Mixed : recreational and	Livelihoods and occasionally
		science and administration	commercial	commercial
		Unilateral	Reϐlecting balance of power	Consensual
		Costly	Costly	Inexpensive
		By professionals	By corporations, or user categorizes	By clanic leaders
		Science	Negotiated knowledge	Experience
		Open		Closed

Open

Locally-based model, reinforced by geographical isolation (e.g. paciϐic islands): villages manage the MPA themselves, alone or with the support of scientists and NGOs, but they are "recognized" by State organs.

organization Function Decision Cost Operation Information Relation with other participants Criteria State-managed Participative AMP Traditional AMP ☞ Collaborative Management Areas of Tanga (Tanzania) XXXIX

	The Collaborative Management Areas (CMAs) of Tanza-
	nia are emerging as a result of the State's and commu-
	nities' concerns about the degradation of coral reefs
	through the use of dynamite and other destructive i-
	shing practices as well as mangrove overexploitation.
	These areas contain permanent no-take zones. CMAs are
	formally managed by three district government of ices.
	The management of each CMA and the monitoring and
	evaluation of performances are assigned to a Central
	Coordinating Committee (CCC) composed of representa-
	tives of the States and communities which sometimes
	calls upon experts. Patrols are ensured by the State and
	communities. Participation of women at the decision-
	making level in CCC is important (30-40 %°). Plans are
	formally adopted in village by-laws and approved by the
	Director of Fisheries. The review of management plan,
	which is initially due every 3 to 5 years, remains very oc-
	casional and more super icial than expected. A tempo-
	rary disappearance of destructive practices has been
	noted (but they have recently been resumed). Yields have
	improved for some isheries and not for others. Herbivo-
	rous species have increased whereas carnivorous ones
	have decreased.

Figure 9 Decision cycle and collaborative implementation in an uncertain environment for isheries and MPAs

  and isheries are often badly managed ;

	Figure 10
	Preliminary analysis
	Problem identification
	Considering solutions
	MPA creation?
	MPA creation Localization / objectives / IUCN category /	■ (ii) past experiences of integrated spatial manage-ment at a large scale turn out to be more dif icult than
	tools / budget / administration / governance	expected;
		■ (iii) in most of the countries, there is not yet any hi-
	MPA management Management plan / regulations / control and surveillance / Performance analysis	gher-level framework (e.g. ICAM, ICM or MSP) under which to nest these managements, or such frameworks are just in at their starting phase, and do not therefore
		represent the immediate solution.
	Effective
	management?
	☞ Management plans are fundamental elements repre-
	senting the social contract between authorities and sta-
	keholders (plans are published) concerning objectives
	and expected results, actions and means available for
	implementation, roles and responsibilities, as well as
	measures and penalties. They also enable to mobilize
	and maintain the attention of the political system (at the
	central and local level), and to energize consultation and
	management mechanisms. When isheries are concer-
	ned, they should rather be involved right from the start.
	Management plans present the advantage of being lexi-
	ble and revisable according to local evolution.

Table 6 Criteria for selection of an MPA

 6 important ecological processes; wilderness, complete ecosystem; Variety or rarity of habitats; area of concentration of larvae, juveniles; feeding areas; genetic diversity economic potential/economic contribution of protection; ecosystem services: recreation, subsistence, traditional use, tourism, species of economic interest ✔ Social importance: potential, local, national, international, historic , cultural, educational, and recreational values isolation from destructive inϐluences; social acceptance and political support; accessibility to tourism and education ; compatibility with local usage; degree of management difϐiculty/ compatibility with existing management, ; duplication and replication.

✔ Bio-geographic criteria: rare biogeographical types; unique or unusual geomorphological elements ✔ Ecological criteria: ✔ Degree of conservation: degree of protection or change of the area ✔ National/international importance: formal designation; potentially listed in a national or international register ✔ Economic importance: ✔ Scientiϐic importance: Value for research and monitoring ✔ Easiness and feasibility:

and building of institutional bridges for better coordination and integration of isheries management and conservation. ■ Good governance and improved management im- plementation for new and existing ishery-MPAs;

	and
	the development of collaborations between conservation
	and isheries call for a higher-level (supra sectorial) ar-
	bitration, clear political commitments, and the develop-
	ment of strong local and central institutions to enforce
	the rules. A clear national framework should enable the
	attainment of the required degree of collaboration
	among institutions, transparency, participation, and le-
	gitimacy. In the light of the present dif iculties, it appears
	necessary, as a matter of priority, to look for the follo-
	wing:
	■ Joint review and harmonization of national legal
	and institutional frameworks to ensure that man-
	dates and power are in place to enforce principles of
	good governance for integrated management of ishe-
	ries and MPAs, and the improvement of institutional fra-
	mework related to inancing of management.
	promotion of co-management and integration of stake-
	holders in a transparent process; development and/or
	implementation of simple management plans, regularly
	updated, and equipped with effective means; optimiza-
	tion of surveillance and regulations enforcement me-
	chanisms.

■ Promotion

■ Improved

management of migratory resources and the development of networks of MPAs, and

  secondly, develop only transboundary MPAs.

	☞ Recommendation:
	"Building bridges to improve governance
	of ishery-MPAs and integrated management
	of isheries and MPAs "
	at the national and local level, strengthening the part-
	nership, pooling resources, reducing of competence; and
	improving governance, decision-making and responsi-
	bility:
	■ If it does not exist yet, establish a higher-level na-
	tional integrated framework which obliges/mobilizes
	structures to collaborate and develop a spatial integra-
	tion of isheries and MPAs, and creates supervisory, ad-
	visory and audit institutions.
	■ Develop framework agreements, joint political de-
	clarations at local and inter-ministerial level between
	government agencies and stakeholders (delegating sur-
	veillance functions; pooling resources); establish coor-
	dination commissions (between MPAs and isheries
	managers for instance).
	■ Act to decentralize and delegate/transfer certain
	State competencies locally, for participatory manage-
	ment of isheries resources; Delegate State authority
	with cautious (Surveillance).
	■ Develop hybrid institutions that are recognized at
	the local and national level (e.g. between the public and
	private sectors).

■ Identify an institution which can ensure leadership in a co-management context.

■ De

ine and develop management plans in a coor- dinated and participative manner

  (at the national level in partnership with local representatives and at the local level by promoting local innovation and adaptation capacities.

	☞ Recommendation:

"Review and harmonize legal and institutional frameworks of governance of MPAs -isheries and integrated management of isheries and MPAs "

	■ Develop legal expertise so as to promote harmoni-
	zation of regulatory frameworks.

■ Clarify

the legal and institutional frame, the

  respective roles of isheries and conservation authorities inMPAs, for the elaboration of management regulations, control (and its inancing), judicial procedures, penalties, etc.

	✔ Establish standards and processes for the designa-
	tion of areas : specify typology and statutes of pro-
	tected areas that are most practical and effective for
	isheries (e.g. conservation MPAs, community-based
	MPAs, ishery protection zones;), considering alter-
	natives and complementarities ; indicate applicable
	types of governance, looking for the most effective
	mechanism and taking into account the means available;

Recommendation: "Transparently Promote Co-Management" ■ Identify and take into account preexisting sys- tems of governance

  (central and local ones) so as to avoid mistakes in the decisions and organization of management

	■ Clearly specify the respective roles and responsi-
	bilities of the different stakeholders in management
	structures and in allocation and control of access ; avoid
	any brutal modi ication of existing situations and radi-
	cal decisions (hardly reversible)
	■ Establish a consultation and decision making fra-
	mework as well as a clear framework of renewal of de-
	cision-making organs

■ Identify

and take into account stakeholders po- wers and representation systems and

	existing mana-
	gement regulations; act on existing principles and
	reinforce legitimacy of local stakeholders ; take into ac-
	count cultural dimension (particularly the minorities)
	when relevant ; distinguish between vital interests and
	rights of stakeholders from mere expectations

■ Analyze

and take into account the various types of migrant ishermen differentiating

  their respective roles and impacts (permanent/regular or opportunistic migrants)

Recommendation: "Elaborate and/or implement simple, formal, regularly updated and effectively supported management plans "

■ Build social, institutional, and scienti ic capacities in order to prepare management plans, carry out and control closures (exclusions), take part in the management of isheries and MPA, while also monitoring and evaluating their implementation ■ Identify and formulate with users the rules of access to resources, as well as conventional measures that the MPAs would strengthen (e.g.: in the restoration of depleted stocks) ■ Promote the signing of formal social contracts and other agreements facilitating the transfer of State's management competencies ■ Study

and agree on exceptional measures to put in place in case of emergency, for

instance, when detecting signs of stock collapse; needing to reduce ishing effort or to implement ad hoc closure of critical areas ■ Experiment with adaptive management on the basis of jointly elaborated monitoring results covering both the bioecological, socioeconomic and governance aspects ■ Provide

the MPA or the area concerned and its manager with the substantial means

needed to coordinate and implement management plans (including in the sea)

■ Support mechanisms facilitating sustained MPAs inancing (cf. socio-economic section)

■ Systematize periodic evaluation of management plans and an audit system "

Improve management of mobile resources and migratory species"

	Are MPAs the best management tools?
	■ Ascertain the relevance of the creation of MPAs to re-
	solve the problems relating to the management of the
	species considered;
	■ Imperatively regulate ishing capacity before establi-
	shing MPAs for migratory species;
	■ If MPAs are the chosen tool, set them as priority in
	nursery areas and apply temporary closures on spaw-
	ning concentrations and nurseries;
	■ Compensate the activity losses in isheries located on
	these nursery areas, during closed periods, reducing the
	risk of effort transfer if the measure generate losses for
	the sector;

■ Integrate migrant ishermen into management

(cf. technical report on "governance" aspect)

an addendum or additional protocol to the Regional Convention of Minimal Access Condi- tions

	☞ Recommendation:
	"Develop transboundary MPAs with
	great caution"
	■ Strengthen governance and national systems of i-
	sheries and of MPA management before envisaging the
	development of transboundary MPAs whose manage-
	ment is more complex;
	■ Analyze legal constraints and make changes, as
	needed in order to enable decision-making and signing
	of agreements relating to the management of straddling
	stocks (beyond EEZ in this area) or transboundary ones;
	■ Develop collaborations between the members
	States of the sub-region on the choice of management
	measures and tools for transboundary and straddling
	stocks and MPAs ; contribute to the development of pro-
	tocols for the establishment of MPAs for migratory and
	straddling species within the framework of relevant
	conventions (in particular Abidjan Convention and MCS);

■ Develop (RCMAC) concerning MPAs and their role for isheries management ;

Table 7 Summary of biological models that can to be applied to a range of management stakes likely to be faced while managing MPAs LIII

 7

	Question asked in each model	Mono-speciϐic models	Space-based or coupled models MSVPA OSMOSE EwE ISIS-FISH Atlantis
	Functioning of an
	ecosystem
	Change of state of
	an ecosystem
	Impact on the target
	species
	Restoration of
	depleted stocks
	Modiϐication of
	habitat
	Larvae dispersion
	Spillover effect
	Trophodynamic
	forcing

✔ Output should answer questions relating to the impact of MPAs on ishing; ✔ Are data accessible at acceptable costs ? At this point, the reinforcement of the national and regional research infrastructure and the realization of important scienti ic activities (survey cruises) seems to be fundamental in order to answer the main questions that should provide the required data (mobility, benthos and food chain, catches and productivity by area, situation inside and outside the MPAs, etc.).

■ Consider undertaking To envisage only experimental programs: It is possible to envisage developing a a research program at the level of the sub-region and within an the framework of international collaboration frameworks aiming at experimenting assessment and modeling of MPA geared to experimentation on the impacts on the ecosystem valuation and modeling of the functioning of MPAs on ecosystem by taking 1 or 2 MPAs with different characteristics and whose management already exists and is recognized (in priority a large MPA so as to have an impact on a ishing system).