Using the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas to promote conservation impact through marine protected areas
Abstract
- With the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) growing rapidly and progress being made towards protecting 10% of the ocean, as called for by the Convention on Biological Diversity, there is equally a need to increase efforts and provide incentives for effective management of these sites.
- The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA), a voluntary global standard that protected areas and their agencies may decide to commit to working towards, has been set up to contribute to this.
- Protected areas can achieve Green List status by demonstrating a certain performance level and by meeting outcomes measured against a set of defined criteria. An assured verification process is followed before sites are recognized. The GLPCA will thus encourage and identify those protected areas (both terrestrial and marine) that are effectively managed, have equitable governance and achieve significant conservation impacts.
- The GLPCA pilot phase announced the first 25 protected areas to meet the criteria at the IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney in November 2014. These included four MPAs: Iroise Natural Marine Park, Cerbère-Banyuls Natural Nature Reserve, and Guadeloupe National Park in France, and Gorgona National Park in Colombia. Italy and China also participated in the pilot phase and each has an MPA that is continuing to work towards GLPCA status.
- The experiences of these sites are described, as well as three other programmes (two regional and one global) that are being developed to promote improved management of MPAs. This information will be useful for other MPAs considering participation in the GLPCA initiative.
Introduction
The rush to create new and larger MPAs in order to meet the 10% coverage of the oceans as laid out in Aichi Target 11 (CBD, 2011; Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014) has raised concern among practitioners and scientists about the push for ‘quantity over quality’, with the risk of increasing numbers of ‘paper parks’ that are neither effectively nor equitably managed (De Santo, 2013; Coad et al., 2015). There is an urgent need to build capacity and provide incentives to ensure that sites are managed to achieve their objectives.
The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA) 1 is designed with this in mind and has been set up to identify terrestrial and marine protected areas that are considered to be effective according to a global standard. Protected areas wishing to be included on the GLPCA have to satisfy a threshold of agreed criteria and minimum standards, appropriate for the local and national context. This includes meeting their conservation goals, achieving effective management and facilitating equitable governance. The aim is to create a tool that uses a Global Standard to demonstrate conservation outcomes of protected areas in a measurable fashion, based on performance and quality of governance and management. The Global Standard will provide the benchmark for recognition of successful ‘Green List’ protected and conserved areas, and encourage and support commitment from protected areas agencies to improve performance.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) have both demonstrated how voluntary standards can strengthen the management of forests and marine resources, and there is good reason to believe that a similar approach could be used for protected areas. The idea of a global GLPCA was first formally discussed in 2008 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). At the World Conservation Congress in Jeju, South Korea, in September 2012, an IUCN Resolution WCC5.041 on ‘Green Listing’ was passed (IUCN, 2012). Subsequently, a specific request (CBD COP 11 Decision XI/24) was made by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to the IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme (GPAP) for assistance to help the Parties to the Convention achieve the qualitative aspects of Aichi Target 11 (CBD, 2012). Good progress is being made on the quantitative aspects of the target (i.e. in the case of MPAs that 10% of coastal and marine areas should be protected), but less progress is being made on the requirement that protected areas should be ‘effectively and equitably managed’. In response, the IUCN Green List Initiative was established in early 2013.
The 2008 Plan of Action for WCPA-Marine (Laffoley, 2008) had already noted the role that certification schemes could play in promoting effective management of MPAs. This was discussed further in 2012 at a meeting convened by the French MPA Agency, which concluded that a single approach, crossing the land/sea divide, would be important and that an MPA-specific process is not necessary (Laffoley, 2012). The GLPCA is thus designed for all protected areas, whether terrestrial or marine, regardless of the size or location of the site.
The GLPCA is designed to recognize those sites that have a clear understanding and articulation of their natural and social values, and can demonstrate that the conservation objectives for these values are being achieved. Participation is voluntary. Sites do not necessarily need to protect globally important biodiversity, such as key biodiversity areas (KBAs) 2 (a primarily terrestrial conceived and focused initiative).
The pilot phase (2013–2014) of the GLPCA process involved IUCN, national and other partners (Korea (National Park Service), Colombia (Parques Nacionales Naturales), France, Italy, Spain (Andalucia), Australia (NSW), China, Kenya), and a wide variety of experts and conservation NGOs. A total of 28 protected areas were nominated and of these, 25 sites were successful and achieved GLPCA status, as announced at the World Parks Congress in Sydney in November 2014. Four of these were MPAs.
This paper describes the pilot phase of the GLPCA programme and looks at the experiences and challenges faced by the six MPAs that took part in the pilot phase in order to share these with other MPAs interested in participating. The paper also reviews related initiatives concerned with the assessment of MPA management effectiveness and discusses how these can be used to help MPAs work towards GLPCA recognition.
GLPCA process during the pilot phase
The GLPCA Global Standard is structured around four ‘pillars’ of conservation success: (1) sound planning; (2) equitable governance; and (3) effective management, that together will (4) achieve successful outcomes in terms of both social equity and conservation of natural values. Under these four pillars, there are criteria (20 in the pilot phase, Table 1) which apply globally. Each criterion is linked to indicators which can be adapted locally and that detail the specific requirements that must be met within a particular thematic or geographical jurisdiction to demonstrate conformity with that criterion. The criteria ensure global consistency, and the indicators provide the flexibility to account for the specific context of the jurisdiction in which the protected area is located. The first version of the GLPCA Global Standard (IUCN GPAP and WCPA, 2014) was approved by the GLPCA Management Committee in May 2014 and used for the pilot phase.
| GLPCA Criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Pillar 1. Sound planning | Clear, long-term conservation goals, based on a sound understanding of their natural and social context |
| 1.1. Highlighting core conservation values | Core nature conservation, ecosystem services and cultural values are clearly articulated and listed. |
| 1.2. Designed to protect core values for the long term | Designated area contains suitable core areas, and is large enough and/or well enough connected to other suitable areas to protect the nominated values in the long term. |
| 1.3. Understanding the threats and challenges to core values | Threats/challenges which could damage the nominated values, or which are incompatible with the site's IUCN management category, identified and analysed. |
| 1.4. Understanding the social and economic impacts of protection | Potential social and economic impacts (positive and negative) of designation and management identified and analysed in consultation with potentially affected rights holders and other stakeholders. |
| 1.5. Equitable establishment | Site is legally established in compliance with relevant international agreements and national and applicable regional legislation; legal status and boundaries clearly defined and not subject to major ongoing legal or social dispute. |
| Pillar 2. Equitable governance | Equitable governance demonstrated |
| 2.1. Legal, equitable and effective governance | A clearly defined, legally mandated, functional and locally recognized governance structure in place, with all stakeholder groups fairly represented. |
| 2.2. Participation in planning | Key stakeholders are effectively involved in the assessment, review and updating of the management goals, planning and practices over time. |
| 2.3. Transparency and accountability | Governance and decision-making open to scrutiny by all stakeholders, with information presented in appropriate format and reasoning behind decisions evident. |
| 2.4. Complaints, disputes or grievances | Appropriate, accessible process in place to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes or grievances related to governance or management. |
| Pillar 3. Effective management | Effective management demonstrated |
| 3.1. Long-term management plan or equivalent | Up-to-date management plan providing a clear explanation of the objectives, key management strategies and associated activities to be implemented to achieve the objectives. |
| 3.2. Management of natural resources | Able to demonstrate that natural resources are being managed appropriately to achieve both conservation and social objectives. |
| 3.3. Management of social aspects | Able to demonstrate that stakeholders and rights holders are effectively engaged by management and their interests are proactively identified and responded to; cultural aspects recognized and being maintained. |
| 3.4. Management of threats | Able to demonstrate that threats to the achievement of conservation and social objectives are being actively and effectively responded to; restrictions on access or use effectively enforced; impacts of climate change and other issues that threaten nominated values in the long term identified and being responded to proactively. |
| 3.5. Management for visitors and other approved activities within the PA | Able to demonstrate that management of visitors and/or other activities is compatible with and supports the achievement of the conservation and social objectives, and meets the needs of visitors and other users. |
| 3.6. Objective measures of success | Objectively verifiable and technically justifiable performance thresholds defined, documented, and made publicly available. |
| 3.7. Monitoring and evaluation | An effective programme in place to monitor and evaluate the achievement of the conservation and social performance thresholds (as identified in 3.6). |
| 3.8. Resources | Adequate financial or human resources, access to equipment, and infrastructure available for management effectiveness monitoring and evaluation. |
| Pillar 4. Successful outcomes | Successful conservation of nature and contribution to a just world are demonstrated |
| 4.1. Conservation performance thresholds are achieved | Site meets or exceeds the performance thresholds which determine whether its nominated values are being successfully managed and/or management has demonstrated exceptional responses to special conservation challenges as defined in Criterion 4.3. |
| 4.2. Social performance thresholds are achieved | Site meets or exceeds the performance thresholds which determine whether its impacts on the local community are positive, or at least neutral and stable or improving, and/or management has demonstrated exceptional responses to special conservation challenges as defined in Criterion 4.3. |
| 4.3. Exceptional responses to conservation challenges | Where the external context is recognized by the GLPCA Steering Committee as being especially challenging, management demonstrates protection of the critical elements of the protected area and exceptional dedication or innovation directed towards achievement of the objectives. |
- Sustainability, relevance and truthfulness: covered by the GLPCA standard.
- Accessibility and efficiency: addressed in local adaptations of the GLPCA standard.
- Improvement: covered in the GLPCA standard and the GLPCA standard development procedure.
- Rigour, engagement, impartiality and transparency: covered in the GLPCA assurance procedure.
IUCN is a subscriber to the ISEAL Alliance, and the use of the principles provides assurance at all stages in the process, that the protected areas are being listed on merit and gives global credibility to and recognition of the efforts of protected area agencies.
It is worth noting that although there is a link between the GLPCA and the FSC's certification criteria which allow for the presence of ‘conservation zones’ or ‘protection areas’ to add credit to the scoring of a forest area seeking certification by the FSC, this is not the case with the MSC. There is no requirement under the MSC Standard for a fishery management regime to include MPAs if it is to be certified. However, if MPAs exist in a fishery seeking certification, any benefits that could affect the scoring of Performance Indicators should be considered.
For the pilot phase, the GLPCA was managed by IUCN's GPAP and WCPA, together with IUCN's regional offices. The IUCN GLPCA Committee was appointed by the IUCN Director General and was responsible at the global level for the GLPCA Standard and Assurance Procedures, strategy and operation, and the final decisions. In order to meet the assurance requirements, members of the Committee had to declare interests and abstain from voting where necessary.
- Registration: basic data on the protected area(s) submitted; protected areas commit to the Global Standard; candidacy applications prepared.
- Nomination: sites prepare documents to demonstrate potential for success.
- Achieving GLPCA status: sites demonstrate conservation impact; the IUCN GLPCA Committee awards GLPCA status to successful protected areas.
Reference Groups (RGs) (in future phases to be called Expert Assessment Groups – Green List or ‘EAGLs’) were set up at jurisdictional level (site, country or region) to manage the process, adapt the standards to local needs, assist with the documentation, and ensure that the sites met the GLPCA Global Standard before they were nominated. These voluntary, expert advisory groups were composed of 8–12 members with diverse skills and backgrounds, who were approved by IUCN-WCPA. For the pilot phase, the assurance process required that members of these groups provided signed declarations of interest, submitted appropriate CVs, demonstrated commitment to the process and agreed to the WCPA code of conduct.
Specific tasks of the groups included: adapting the GLPCA global standard to the local situation, promoting the GLPCA process within the jurisdiction, helping to identify the sites that took part, engaging mentors and evaluating each nomination. Engagement with local stakeholders is an important aspect of the process, but, since this varies with local and cultural circumstances, the methodology for this was not overly prescriptive in the pilot phase, and the requirement was for ‘suitable means of stakeholder engagement’, which were evaluated by the RG and Independent Reviewer.
A further key element in the process was the independent reviewers, trained and accredited by ASI and appointed by IUCN to the RGs to help verify evidence and ensure that the work undertaken was compliant with the Assurance Procedures. These individuals were auditing experts with an ‘out of country perspective’, but culturally and linguistically familiar with the protected area jurisdiction they supported. They provided feedback, shared best practices and captured and shared their view of the process and informed the final decision-making.
As a result of the experience gathered during the pilot phase, the Global Standard is being revised. An online public consultation was held in 2015 and the feedback is being used to develop a revised version that will be finalized in 2016. The GLPCA development phase, over the subsequent two years, will include the incorporation of more countries and sites into the programme, the reassessment of the 2014 GL listed sites, the promotion of experiences and lessons learned from sites involved in the GLPCA, and the identification of synergies with other protected area conservation programmes, tools and initiatives.
MPA experiences during the pilot phase
- Parc Naturel Marin d'Iroise and Réserve Naturelle Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls, mainland France
- Parc National de Guadeloupe, Guadeloupe, Caribbean French overseas territory
- Gorgona National Park, Colombia
- Torre Guaceto Riserva Marine, Italy
- Guangdong Nanpeng Islands National Nature Reserve (NNR), China
The three French MPAs and the Colombian MPA achieved GLPCA status in November 2014. The other sites are continuing to work towards listing. The experiences of these six MPAs are described below; key information on the sites is provided in Table 2. Three coastal protected areas (Montague Island National Park (NP), Arakwal NP and Cape Byron State Conservation Area) in Australia also achieved GLPCA status but do not qualify as MPAs as they do not include intertidal or subtidal habitat; they are not discussed further in this paper.
| Protected area | Year estab. | IUCN cat | Total km2 | Marine km2 | No-take km2 | Key biodiversity | Main activities within the MPA including use and visitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLPCA accredited | |||||||
| Parc Naturel Marin d'Iroise - France (Atlantic) | 2007 | IV | 3428.0 | 3428.0 | 30 | Large populations of marine mammals, mainly dolphins and seals; seabirds; 120 species of fish, including basking sharks; kelp forests; important spawning grounds and nurseries.
The MPA includes 16 coastal and marine habitats of EU interest; 19 bird species listed in Annex I and eight bird species listed in Annexes II and III of the Birds Directive: six species listed in Annexes II, IV and V of the Habitats/Wild Fauna and Flora Directive |
Commercial fishing (2008 figures): 195 commercial boats; 37 400 tonnes of kelp and 10 000 tonnes of other species generating over 18 million euros; almost 9000 tonnes fish; and 1200 tonnes shellfish and bivalves.
Recreational fishing (2009 figures): 13% of people in Finistère made recreational fishing trips. Tourism, yachting: almost one million tourists from outside the département each year; approximately 100 000 beds in the immediate vicinity of the MPA; 57 water sports providers within the MPA (sailing, canoeing, surfing and diving). Shipping: naval, passenger ferries and cargo transport. |
| Réserve Naturelle Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls - France (Mediterranean) | 1974 | IV/Ia | 6.5 | 6.5 | 0.65 | Rocky submarine cliffs and boulders, Posidonia beds, sand banks, important grouper populations | Fishing: 15 commercial boats and some 1000 recreational boats use the MPA.
Tourism: some 25 000 dives and snorkel visits each year). |
| Parc National de la Guadeloupe - France (Caribbean) | 1989; extended 2009 | V | 2350.0 | 1340.0 | 33.0 | Coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves, turtle nesting beaches and a range of forest-related habitats and species | Tourism: about 50 tourism operators provide services within the MPA including diving (over 55 000 dives in the core zone in 2014), snorkelling, glass-bottom boat and guided boat tours, kayaking.
Fishing. |
| Gorgona Natural National Park - Colombia | 1984 | II | 617.0 | 603.0 | 603.0 | Coral reefs, high pelagic fish diversity (e.g. snapper, grouper, hake), four species of marine turtle, humpback whales, breeding seabirds | Tourism: trekking, birdwatching, natural heritage interpretation, snorkelling, diving (dive centres, plus 2 dive tour companies). |
| Working towards GLPCA status | |||||||
| Guangdong Nanpeng Islands National Nature Reserve - China | 2003 | V | 36.57 | 35.68 | 0 | Islands, up-wellings, coral reefs, seaweeds, migratory birds, seabirds, marine turtles (five species), marine mammals, whale sharks, basking shark, great seahorse (Hippocampus kelloggi) | Fishing. Tourism. |
| Torre Guaceto Riserva Marine - Italy | 1991 | IV | 22.2 | 22.2 | 1.8 | Rocky habitats and boulders, Posidonia beds, sand banks, important coastal fish populations | Fishing: 10 commercial boats.
Tourism: several thousands of tourists use the visitors centre and beaches. |
For the successful pilot sites, the GLPCA award will be valid for three years and a number of conditions were added recognizing the pilot nature of the programme. To maintain GLPCA status, these sites will be reviewed to ensure that compliance with the Global Standard and GLPCA process is being maintained, and that any changes made to the process following evaluation of the pilot phase have been incorporated. Sites that did not meet the Standard were given detailed feedback and encouraged to improve their performance for renomination.
Sites that achieved GLPCA status
France
Characteristics of the French sites
Five protected areas (three marine and two terrestrial) were chosen by France for participation in the pilot phase, their selection based on including sites with different governance types, IUCN management categories, and management approaches, and reflecting a diversity of biogeographical regions (the three MPAs thus represent three regions: Caribbean, Mediterranean and Atlantic). An additional consideration was that the managers should already be involved in the national protected area evaluation process and thus have a good understanding of the work required. The French participants strongly supported the GLPCA policy that any protected area should be able to apply to the programme, independent of its size, management objectives or protection status.
Parc Naturel Marin d'Iroise, off the coast of Finistère in Brittany, is entirely marine apart from emergent rocks and uninhabited islets. It was the largest MPA in the pilot phase, extending from the territorial sea limit to high water mark. The rich habitats of the MPA provide a refuge for a huge diversity of species, one of the largest kelp forests in Europe and important spawning grounds and nurseries in the deeper rocky areas and shallow bays. In line with the requirements for designation as a Parc Naturel Marin, the MPA is designed to ensure full community participation and has three generic objectives: (1) promotion of knowledge and understanding of the marine environment; (2) protection of designated marine sites of importance; and (3) sustainable development of economic activities dependent on the sea. The carte des vocations, or ‘objectives map’ lays out the zonation which includes a number of no-take areas (Parc Naturel Marin d'Iroise, undated). The MPA is also recognized as a maritime protected zone under the OSPAR Convention, and is part of the EU Natura 2000 network of protected areas.
The main issues that this MPA has to address are recreational and commercial fisheries, kelp harvesting, maritime activities (both commercial and maritime), land-based sources of pollution (notably intensive pig farming), water-based recreation and tourism, and maintenance of the area's cultural heritage. The 10 goals that have been defined for the MPA reflect these, and are laid out in the management plan (Parc Naturel Marin d'Iroise, 2011).
In contrast, the Réserve Naturelle Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls, off the coast of France south of Perpignan, extends just 2 km offshore and is the smallest MPA in the pilot phase. As with all Réserves Naturelles, it is aimed at protecting sites of high value for their biodiversity, geology or other natural features and for fragile, rare and threatened ecosystems; there is no sustainable development objective. The reserve is entirely subtidal and is also designated as a Special Protected Area of Mediterranean Interest (SPAMI) under the Barcelona Convention. It is zoned and includes a highly protected area in which fishing, anchoring and other damaging activities are prohibited. The main issues are the seasonal but intensive tourist visitation which is difficult to regulate effectively, local and commercial fishing, and land-based sources of pollution from viticulture which affects the tourist areas.
Unlike the two MPAs described above, about 50% of the third French MPA, Parc National de Guadeloupe in the French overseas territory of Guadeloupe, is terrestrial. As a National Park, its primary objective is biodiversity protection and it is run by the State, with several strictly protected core zones and a wide adjacent zone within which the objectives are related to sustainable development. As with the parcs naturels marin, a ‘carte des vocations’ is adopted by the consultative body for a period of 15 years which lays out the zonation (Parc National de la Guadeloupe, 2014). This MPA is also listed under the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol), is very active in regional cooperation processes set up for Caribbean MPAs, and hosts the SPAW Regional Activity Centre. The main threats are tourism and leisure activities (including disturbance from whale watching), fishing, dredging and waste disposal associated with nearby ports, and pollution from adjacent banana and sugar plantations.
Application of the Green List standard and results
The French GLPCA expert group (equivalent to an RG) was established in September 2013 with 10 permanent members and 36 associate experts, representing key aspects of protected area expertise, and including a non-voting representative from the French MPA agency. As required by the GLPCA process, the group helped to interpret and adapt the GLPCA standard and indicators to the local context and secure approval for their use in France. The MPA managers were involved from the beginning, in order to share their experiences in self-assessment and to ensure the practicability of the GLPCA process at site level and its integration with existing national management effectiveness systems.
- a comprehensive process for stakeholder participation; for example, at the Parc National de Guadeloupe a collaborative programme is underway with the fishers who use the park and surrounding areas to reduce illegal fishing;
- a legal requirement to produce a management plan, and the inclusion within this of a set of clear objectives;
- dedicated scientific and field research teams undertaking a range of monitoring, surveys and other studies that have demonstrated a conservation impact. For example, The Réserve Naturelle Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls has had demonstrated measurable success in protecting fish populations such as grouper (Hackradt et al., 2014). In the Parc National de Guadeloupe, a higher biomass of fish and greater size of individuals are found in the no-take zones than outside (Kopp, 2007); vegetation clearance and visitor management has improved the nesting success of seabirds; and a successful mongoose eradication programme has led to more successful turtle nesting on the beaches.
Colombia
Characteristics of the site
Gorgona Natural National Park consists of a forested island (about 3% of the total area) and its surrounding waters, lying about 35 km off the Pacific coast of Colombia. It includes the largest and best developed coral reefs in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Pelagic fish diversity is high, the rocky sea bed providing shelter and feeding sites for many species of commercial importance. The Park is one of the main turtle foraging sites in the Colombian Pacific and is an important breeding and nursery area for migrating humpback whales, the population of which has been recovering since 1986. Gorgonilla Island is a highly protected zone for breeding seabirds such as pelicans and boobies, and has a colony of a subspecies of Sula leucogaster that is endemic to the Eastern Tropical Pacific (Gutiérrez, 2012).
The MPA is entirely no-take (although fishers operating outside the boundaries may come into the park to rest).
Application of the Green List standard and results
The Colombian Reference Group was set up with members from key NGOs, research institutes, and academia with relevant research expertise in social sciences, economics, and biology. In consultation with staff from many Colombian protected areas, the group adapted the GLPCA indicators to suit the national context. A management effectiveness assessment was undertaken in 2010, using a nationally developed management effectiveness tool: La Metodología de Efectividad de Manejo con Participación Social (AEMAPPS) or Management Effectiveness Assessment with Social Participation. This led to recommendations that the Park is progressively putting into place, and provided a solid foundation for participation in the GLPCA process.
Preliminary results were presented at the World Conservation Congress in Jeju Island, 2012, which led to further support from the international community and reinforced links with IUCN and the other countries taking part. A Support Group was also established composed of park stakeholders and WWF. The two groups (Reference and Support) then devised the GLPCA assessment methodology, which was based on AEMAPPS. All the national parks in Colombia were assessed using the GLPCA method, and three sites, including Gorgona National Park, were selected to go through the full GLPCA process.
The MPA has a management plan (UAESPNN, 2005) and well established suite of management activities including capacity building of the park staff, long-term monitoring to ensure that the conservation objectives are achieved, research, and enforcement (regular patrols are undertaken especially in the marine zone, to ensure that there is no fishing). Coral reefs, sandy shores, sea turtles, seabirds and pelagic ecosystems are particularly well studied and there are good data on physical variables as a result of a weather station on the island and an oceanographic monitoring programme. Research has been undertaken in partnership with academics for several decades and a Scientific Committee was established in 2009 that provides advice and participates in the updating and implementation of the management plan. A data information centre, using particular software, ensures that reports on patrols, maps and data on the most vulnerable areas are brought together. This has been a useful tool for park planning and financial resources optimization, and allows for better relations with artisanal fishermen and their community organizations.
During the GLPCA process an agreement with fishing communities, local government, and environmental organizations was developed, covering a wider area and including a second protected area, Sanquianga National Park on the Pacific mainland coast, that is important for mangroves and productive estuaries. This agreement will help to ensure, not only that the MPAs meet their ecological objectives, but also that the fisheries resources are managed sustainably and the local communities who use the surrounding marine resources, many of whom are very poor (Moreno-Sánchez and Maldonado, 2013), benefit and their traditional livelihoods and culture are maintained.
The pilot experience provided an opportunity to scientifically assess management effectiveness more thoroughly, to improve monitoring systems, to look at the requirements for ecological representation within the country, and to improve stakeholder engagement. The importance of effective enforcement of no-take areas in Eastern Tropical Pacific MPAs (including Gorgona National Park) in terms of ensuring successful biodiversity has been shown by Edgar et al. (2011); the GLPCA process is providing a means of promoting this.
MPAs working towards GLPCA status
China
Characteristics of the site
The number of MPAs in China has increased rapidly over the last 10 years, with 260 designated by the end of 2014, in three categories: marine nature reserves, marine special protected areas and marine parks. Guandong Nanpeng Islands National Nature Reserve (NNR) lies off the coast of Nan'ao County, Guangdong Province in the South China Sea and covers a chain of four islands, located at the interface of shallow coastal and deeper oceanic waters and at the confluence of two upwellings. It was established in 2003 to protect a diversity of marine living resources and ecosystems including islands, upwellings, coral reefs, seaweeds, marine mammals, whale sharks and other rare species (Chunhou et al., 2009). The 1300 marine species recorded in the MPA include 17 ‘first and second class national protected’ animals. The MPA also protects spawning grounds for important artisanal fisheries species, and was designated a Ramsar site on account of its important populations of about 60 species of migratory birds.
Application of the Green List standard and results
The IUCN China Country Programme Office and Conservation International China Program organized and coordinated the GLPCA pilot process including introducing the GLPCA Global Standard, establishing the Chinese Reference Group and communicating with the IUCN GLPCA Committee. Guandong Nanpeng Islands NNR was selected, along with nine terrestrial protected areas, to take part in the pilot phase as, within China, it was considered one of the best managed MPAs and most ready to participate in the process. A member of the China Reference Group acted as advisory expert and ‘mentor’ and assisted with the production of the documentation describing how the MPA meets the GLPCA standards. The independent GLPCA Reviewers reviewed the assurance procedures in October, 2014.
MPA management in China has recently improved significantly. Management goals, methods, institutional arrangements and financial issues are clearly laid out, and regulations and standards for use of the marine area and enforcement have been determined for each site. The MPA Authority undertakes enforcement activities with the national Coastguard. Monitoring, ecological surveys, management impact evaluation and scientific research are carried out in major MPAs, and some restoration has been carried out to improve ecological functions. Most national level MPAs have set up independent management bodies and have sufficient capacity; others have combined their management bodies with related marine resources and environment management agencies. The public awareness of MPAs is improving as MPAs increasingly become the basis for ecotourism or educational activities. A national level assessment of management performance based on standardized criteria is organized by the MPA authority every two years.
The Chinese MPA authority requires conservation of core values and that an appropriate legal framework and long-term management plan are put in place. The authority also tries to identify and address threats through application of marine ecosystem-based management, visitor management, effective monitoring and evaluation, and by improving management capacity by supporting infrastructure, facilities, funding and professional staff.
The GLPCA assessment concluded that the site met the criteria in relation to planning, equitable governance, effective management and successful outcomes. However, it was felt that the MPA did not entirely meet the criteria relating to social and community involvement, and the need to address threats from global climate change and other long-term changes. While local people are beginning to engage in management decisions and there is a growing awareness of the value of the MPA for local fisheries and livelihoods which has increased support for the MPA among the local stakeholders, the criteria were still not fully met in this area. The GLPCA standards require clear indicators for community participation, transparency and accountability, and a complaints and dispute resolution mechanism, which are still lacking for MPAs in China. The MPA is therefore currently working towards final GLPCA certification and the experience here will benefit other MPAs in China that wish to join the programme, particularly as many may have these same shortcomings.
Italy
Characteristics of the site
Torre Guaceto Riserva Marine lies in the Adriatic Sea off the coast of south-eastern Italy and was initially designated in 1991 as a no-take area. Following the initiation of effective enforcement in 2001, monitoring showed that by 2003, the MPA had 2–10 times as many sea bream (a key commercial species) compared with fished areas outside the MPA. The increase in this species, a predator of sea urchins, was considered to be the cause of the 10-fold decline in sea urchin abundance within the MPA, which in turn resulted in increased cover of large seaweeds; seaweed cover reached 47% of the sea bed inside the reserve, compared with 15% in surrounding areas. In 2005, given the increase in sea bream abundance, a plan was developed jointly between scientists and the local fishing community to allow fishing in a large part of the MPA, leaving two no-take zones totalling 1.8 km2 in area. Fishing gear and time (one day a week only) were restricted to minimize damage. On opening this fishery, catch rates of commercially fished species, including striped red mullet, octopus, and peacock wrasse, were on average four times higher than those outside the MPA; catch rates have now stabilized but are, nevertheless, about double those outside the MPA. Local support for the MPA, including the closed area is, not surprisingly, much higher than when the entire MPA was no-take (Guidetti et al., 2010).
Application of the Green List standard and results
Torre Guaceto was included as one of two protected areas for the pilot GLPCA phase in Italy, and the only MPA. The initial stages of the process were completed and the MPA embarked on compiling evidence for the criteria and Italian-adapted indicators. The match to available documentation and means of verification for an MPA was not seen as too difficult, especially as the site had conducted management effectiveness assessments, and has a robust stakeholder engagement programme with negotiated agreements with local artisanal fishers and tourism enterprises. The monitoring programme has demonstrated increased fish abundance, and there has been a clear demonstration of adaptive management as a result of this, in the form of a reduced area of no-take, and improved stakeholder support.
However, Torre Guaceto was not listed because of what is essentially a legal technicality. The staff are not employed on long-term contracts, which is one of the current requirements of the GLPCA Global Standard. Instead, their contracts are renewed each year through an agency, because under Italian legislation (394/91), protected areas cannot have permanent personnel. In practice, however, the Torre Guaceto management body can count on the same specialized staff being in place each year. This demonstrates the sort of problems that can be encountered in adapting a rigorous and standardized global process to different local and national situations. Given the success of Torre Guaceto as an MPA, it is hoped that a solution can be found to this issue.
Other MPA management effectiveness incentive initiatives
The GLPCA is the only global scheme for recognizing protected areas through an accredited verification process. There are, however, many national and regional initiatives to assess MPA management effectiveness and provide incentives for good management and effective conservation impact. Two of these, the Coral Triangle MPA System (CTMPAS) and the SPAW Protocol for marine and coastal areas in the Caribbean, are described below since sites participating in these initiatives are likely to have a good foundation for registering in the GLPCA programme but this may not be immediately apparent. A proposed global incentive programme, GLORES, is also described as, once in place it will be important that the distinctions between this and the GLPCA are clear.
Coral Triangle MPA System (CTMPAS)
The CTMPAS Framework and Action Plan (CTI-CFF, 2013), endorsed by the six Asia-Pacific Coral Triangle countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste), contains a framework for MPA management effectiveness evaluation which the countries have agreed to follow (White et al., 2014). This was adapted from the MPA management effectiveness assessment tool (MPA Support Network, 2010) which was developed for the Philippines. The evaluation framework is based on the methodologies developed by Pomeroy et al. (2004) and for the World Bank/GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) and this is then adapted to the national legal, social and cultural contexts of each Coral Triangle country.
In order to be included in the CTMPAS, an MPA must meet a set of criteria that are broadly similar to those for the GLPCA process (Table 3).
| GLPCA Criteria | CTMPAS criteria | GLPCA/ CTMPAS equivalence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1. Highlighting core conservation values | Sites must describe and protect marine ecological services within accepted cultural norms. | yes |
| 1.2. Designed to protect core values for the long term | Sites must contain no-take core areas and be part of an ecological network within or external to the MPA. | yes |
| 1.3. Understanding the threats and challenges to core values | Sites should describe and address threats to the site in its management plan. | yes |
| 1.4. Understanding the social and economic impacts of protection | Socio-economic component of the CTMPAS stipulates that social and economic consideration must be given to local communities. | partial |
| 1.5. Equitable establishment | Sites must be legally established under national and/or local legislation and in compliance with existing laws and agreements. | yes |
| 2.1. Legal, equitable and effective governance | Governance structures must be in accordance with local and/or national government protocols with local stakeholder involvement. | yes |
| 2.2. Participation in planning | Participation in planning among all relevant stakeholders is emphasized. | yes |
| 2.3. Transparency and accountability | Open decision making is emphasized but mechanisms for scrutiny not fully clarified. | partial |
| 2.4. Complaints, disputes or grievances | Conflict resolution is part of the management process but not fully documented or tracked. | partial |
| 3.1. Long-term management plan or equivalent | Long-term management plan mandatory. | yes |
| 3.2. Management of natural resources | Protected area must show some evidence of trends in natural resource and social status. | Yes |
| 3.3. Management of social aspects. | Participation in planning, so that all interests are considered, is emphasized. | partial |
| 3.4. Management of threats | Threats must be addressed within the objectives set out for management and be part of the management plan which is monitored through a management effectiveness system. | Yes |
| 3.5. Management for visitors and other approved activities within the PA | Not explicit although the management plan should cover this. | |
| 3.6. Objective measures of success | Each site has locally appropriate indicators that feed into the regional indicators (e.g. area of habitat, area in no-take, etc.) in the framework. | Yes |
| 3.7. Monitoring and evaluation | Each site should show evidence of monitoring and evaluation; and the regional system is tracked through a monitoring and evaluation system. | Yes |
| 3.8. Resources | The need for financial and human resources is emphasized but is not a requirement. | Partial |
| 4.1. Conservation performance thresholds are achieved | The need to determine and track indicators at each site is emphasized but not required. | Partial |
| 4.2. Social performance thresholds are achieved | The need to determine and track indicators at each site is emphasized but not required. | Partial |
| 4.3. Exceptional responses to conservation challenges | Some management plans take full account of the external environment in planning and activities, but this is not a requirement. | Partial |
- Recognized CTMPAS Sites: These MPAs meet the minimum data requirements required by the Coral Triangle Atlas (legal status and name, geo-referenced coordinates, knowledge of main habitats protected) and are listed in this database (www.ctatlas.reefbase.org). All Philippine, Malaysian and Indonesian MPAs are ‘recognized CTMPAS’ sites as well as most sites in Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.
- Effectively Managed Regional Sites: These MPAs are reviewed by the relevant National Advisory Committee to determine whether they meet the requirements of that country's national management effectiveness system and the regional criteria set out in the CTMPAS. The national decision-making process may vary between countries, but Category 2 MPAs must meet all regional criteria relating to design and management effectiveness (unlike Category 1 sites).
- Priority Development Sites: These are either MPAs of regional ecological, governance or socio-economic importance that are not yet effectively managed and thus need additional assistance to achieve their full potential, or new MPAs recommended by a regional gap analysis (Beger et al., 2015) because they make a specific contribution to the regional system as a whole. Nominations for this category are reviewed and approved by the regional CTMPAS Advisory Committee.
- Flagship Sites: Large, effectively managed MPAs of regional importance. Nominations for Flagship Sites are reviewed and approved by the regional CTMPAS Advisory Committee. The first flagship sites are Turtle Island Transboundary Park (Malaysia and Philippines); Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (Philippines); and Wakatobi National Park (Indonesia).
Categories 1 and 2 MPAs are thus selected nationally on the basis of national management effectiveness monitoring systems and the criteria set out in the CTMPAS Framework. Categories 3 and 4 MPAs are nominated by their respective national governments and then reviewed for approval by the Regional CTMPAS Advisory Committee working with the Regional MPA Technical Working Group. Ultimately the CTMPAS will include all recognized MPAs and MPA networks within the Coral Triangle region that meet the criteria. Given the rigorous nature of this process, it is likely that many of these MPAs could successfully achieve GLPCA status.
Protocol concerning specially protected areas and wildlife (SPAW protocol)
Two of the UNEP Regional Seas Programmes and Conventions (the Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean, and the Cartagena Convention for the Caribbean) promote MPA management effectiveness through specific Protocols. The example of the SPAW Protocol, one of three protocols developed to implement the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention), is given here. This requires the 16 signatory States to establish marine and coastal protected areas and specifies criteria for establishment and management. To qualify for listing under the Protocol, a site must demonstrate that it meets these criteria. Listed sites then become part of a programme that assists them in complying with the operational/management requirements and are considered priorities for scientific and technical research and mutual assistance.
The guidelines and criteria were adopted in September 2008, and a pilot project was launched in September 2009. Nine MPAs from five countries took part: Belize (Hol Chan Marine Reserve, Glover's Reef Marine Reserve); Colombia (Sanctuary Cienaga Grande de Santa Marta, Regional Seaflower Marine Protected Area); France (Grand Connétable Island Nature Reserve in French Guyana and Guadeloupe National Park); USA (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary); and the Netherlands Antilles (Bonaire National Marine Park; National Park the Quill and Boven on St. Eustatius). A Protected Area Criteria working group was established and the MPA managers completed a set of documentation for their sites and provided comments on the process. The working group used this material to revise the guidance on how the criteria should be met and the documentation prepared and presented; the guidance was approved in 2010.
To be eligible for listing, a protected area must be established under a legal framework that guarantees long-term protection in conformity with the Party's national legislation and international law, consistent with the SPAW Protocol. The management framework must include evaluation (with indicators that measure both effective management and achievement of biophysical and socio-economic objectives) and stakeholder participation in both the planning and management of the site. The site must meet at least one of the Ecological Criteria (representativeness, conservation value, rarity, naturalness (level of disturbance), critical habitats, diversity, connectivity/coherence, resilience) and, where applicable, at least one of the Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria (productivity, cultural and traditional use, and socio-economic benefits). If a site meets several criteria, the case for its inclusion is strengthened.
The SPAW Focal Points review the nominations and request modifications if required, before validating the report and sending it to the SPAW-Regional Activity Centre (RAC). The SPAW Secretariat with the support of the SPAW-RAC uses a standardized process, which includes external review, to determine whether the protected area is consistent with the guidelines and criteria. The results are presented to the SPAW Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee for discussion and recommendation; the final decisions are made at the SPAW Conference of the Parties.
To date, 31 marine and coastal protected areas in nine countries (Belize, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, USA, and Grenada) have been listed. A matrix of issues and strengths for each site has been drawn up, linkages with the Caribbean Marine Protected Areas Managers Network and Forum (CaMPAM) mentorship programme developed and a small grants programme founded to support site needs and to assist with further nominations. Listed sites will be reviewed every five years and, if the status has changed, either measures will be taken to improve management and restore ecosystems, or the site will be de-listed, if there is evidence that it no longer has those characteristics which determined its listing.
Sites that qualify for SPAW listing are in a good position to register for the GLPCA programme, given that many of the criteria are similar; for example, the evidence gathered during the SPAW process, which was readily available and already recognized as credible, contributed to the inclusion of the Parc National de la Guadeloupe on the GLPCA.
Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES)
The Marine Conservation Institute's proposed Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES) is an award and incentive scheme that is being designed to help catalyse MPA establishment and encourage more effective management. The scheme is geared towards a target of protecting at least 30% of the ecosystems in each marine biogeographic region by 2030, a target figure based on recent work by O'Leary et al. (2016). GLORES will also provide a geographic framework to promote the establishment of MPAs in all marine regions, thus improving representation (Devillers et al., 2015).
The criteria that will be used for assessing sites for GLORES status are based on the five major features found by Edgar et al. (2014) to be critical, in combination, for successful MPAs: no-take protection, strong enforcement, time since protection began, size and isolation (by deep water or sand). Having only one, two or three of these features was found to be insufficient to achieve maximum conservation benefits; MPAs had to have at least four and preferably all five features to be successful. Using these features, two types of criteria for Global Ocean Refuges have been identified: those in the form of thresholds that MPAs must meet; and those that will be subject to a scoring system. The draft criteria (Table 4) are being developed and once agreed will be tested and optimized using pilot MPAs.
| Threshold criteria that would need to be met | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Biodiversity importance | MPAs must conserve a range of populations i.e. demonstrated historical or predicted refugia; high endemism; high species richness representing the region; endangered, large-bodied or key structure-forming species. They may also be intermittently important as breeding grounds, nursery sites, haul-outs, feeding areas, stopovers, migratory pathways and chokepoints. |
| 2 | Viability in a rapidly changing climate | The GLORES project is using climate modelling to evaluate areas that are at greatest risk from acidification, ocean warming and hypoxia; and the results will be used as part of the assessment. |
| 3 | Effective management | MPAs must be durable and have: legal authority; implemented or implementable plans to manage activities incompatible with biodiversity; and adequate resources and enforcement capacity. The GLPCA process may be suitable for meeting this criterion. |
| 4 | Social equity | MPAs must avoid harming human communities, including those who make their living from the sea, while ensuring that biodiversity conservation objectives are met. |
| Criteria that would be scored | ||
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Allowed activities | Involves a risk assessment. |
| 6 | Size | Larger sites (over 100 km2) would score higher. |
| 7 | Isolated by deep water or sand | More isolated sites would score higher (sensu Edgar et al., 2014). |
| 8 | Rarity | Species or habitats. |
| 9 | Spatial distribution | For sites within a network. |
Three levels of award are anticipated. Gold MPAs must be no-take reserves (i.e. no extraction of marine life or minerals) as these are considered by Edgar et al. (2014) to be the most effective and robust type of MPA. Silver and Bronze MPAs will be sites that allow for more activities, provided that these are consistent with sustaining a healthy marine environment and that the MPAs are shown to be effectively managed by GLPCA or similar standards.
Any type of MPA may apply for GLORES status, recognizing that sites without a no-take area will be excluded from Gold status. The process for nomination and evaluation is still being developed, which provides an opportunity for developing a collaborative approach with the GLPCA whereby MPAs that have achieved GLPCA status might be eligible for a GLORES award, provided other GLORES criteria are met.
Discussion
Benefits and costs of the GLPCA
- international recognition as a well-managed site;
- increased political and financial support, as a result of demonstrating effective use of resources and successful outcomes;
- motivation to meet and maintain high management standards, through the generation of local and national pride;
- acknowledgement of benefit sharing for local communities;
- recognition of a quality experience, providing justification for further marketing of the site to visitors.
The GLPCA also emphasizes the importance of protected areas working towards demonstration of ecological impact and achievement of their conservation outcomes (i.e. the environmental benefits of conservation efforts). Some management effectiveness assessment methodologies currently put little emphasis on determining whether biodiversity is being maintained or restored in a protected area. The GLPCA pilot phase clearly demonstrated the importance of having rigorous systems for assessing management effectiveness in place, that include measurement of outcomes. The French MPA Agency required that MPAs developed their scorecards as a first step for registering with the GLPCA initiative and this ensured that they had assembled and collated much of the key documentation required for the process. The Agency is developing an assessment process that addresses the other pillars of the GLPCA (sound planning, governance and effective management) that will help large multiple use MPAs to participate.
Assessments of management effectiveness are recognized by the CBD as a key mechanism for improving management. At the CBD COP 10, Parties agreed to a target of undertaking management effective assessments in more than 60% of the total area of all protected areas by 2015 (CBD, 2011). Only 17.5% of countries met this target (Coad et al., 2015) and, although statistics are not available, there is broad consensus that MPAs lag behind terrestrial protected areas. MPA management effectiveness assessments are nevertheless being undertaken in a number of countries and methods are being tested. Most are based on the IUCN-WCPA Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) framework (Hockings et al., 2006), including: the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) (Ervin, 2003); a method for management assessment of Western Indian Ocean MPAs, used for a period in East Africa (Wells, 2006); and the system developed by the Enhancing our Heritage project for UNESCO natural World Heritage Sites (Hockings et al., 2008). An MPA-specific approach developed by Pomeroy et al. (2004) has been used mainly in the USA and Latin America. One increasingly widespread method is the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), a scorecard based on PAME and used in all protected areas that receive funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) (Stolton et al., 2007; Geldmann et al., 2015). The assessment methods used in France and in the Coral Triangle have been described above.
Although the GLPCA is still a ‘work in progress’, the MPAs that participated in the pilot phase felt that it has considerable value even where further work is required before successful listing can be achieved. MPA site managers and government agencies involved saw the GLPCA process as an opportunity to improve the management effectiveness in their sites and to make them more credible both nationally and internationally. There was also consensus, reiterated in the public consultation on the Standards, that this single unified approach is appropriate for all types of protected area, whether terrestrial or marine.
- The amount of data and material that has to be assembled, collated, analysed and written up in order to assess the criteria. This work often falls to the MPA managers, in addition to their normal duties. In the case of the long-established MPAs in France, the managers found it difficult and time-consuming to gather all the information required, especially for assessing conservation outcomes, as it is held in many different sources.
- The protected area personnel may not understand what is required (the criteria can be difficult to understand for those not familiar with evaluation techniques), and training and external support may be necessary. The managers need to understand that the process is not a direct evaluation of their performance; if they perceive that this is the case, they may not provide objective information. Participants must recognize that GLPCA status primarily reflects national policies, and that the process can help both authorities and managers to implement these.
- The data and materials required to support the verification process are often not readily available in the protected areas agencies or at the sites themselves, and language differences can be an obstacle.
- The GLPCA was in its pilot phase; protected area personnel needed to understand the experimental nature of the process and that they were required to participate actively in the development of the programme. For example, the French pilot sites found the application process straightforward but felt the registration form was unclear and complicated.
There is a risk that an incentive mechanism such as this could be biased towards protected areas that are well resourced and have the capacity and experience to prepare the documentation and undertake assessments, however, this is recognized and will be addressed during the forthcoming GLPCA development phase. One change as a result of the pilot phase is the introduction of an additional stage in the overall process. Following registration, sites will go through a Candidacy stage, during which they will be able to demonstrate that they have the potential to achieve full GLPCA status 4. This will allow more protected areas to participate and emphasizes the capacity building aspect of the programme. For all protected areas, staff capacity, skills and qualifications are an important factor in how well a site is managed and whether it can achieve GLPCA status. Further training and mentoring is needed particularly for MPAs, with expansion of programmes such as MPA-PRO (Certification of Marine Protected Area Professionals) in the Western Indian Ocean (Ricci and Francis, 2014).
Recommendations and further work
There are a number of issues associated with the GLPCA and assessing management effectiveness in MPAs that need further work and consideration that were raised through the pilot phase and in the recent work undertaken to revise the Standards.
Improved communications and guidance
Improved guidance is needed on many aspects of the GLPCA if the process is to be widely adopted. The standards and overall approach and requirements must be fully understood and supported by national protected area authorities and incorporated in the overall framework so that managers use them automatically. Improved communications materials and stronger branding are essential to help inform sites and stakeholders about the GLPCA.
Language and terminology are a particular issue as the concepts involved are not always easily understood across different cultures. This is particularly important for MPAs: the guidance will need to be clear about how the Criteria and Global Standard should be used in a marine context, must make sure that the characteristics and context of MPAs are recognized and understood and, where appropriate, ensure that the guidance is interpreted in the terminology used by the MPA community. This applies equally to the more general methodologies for assessing management effectiveness. For example, the language used in the METT is biased towards terrestrial protected areas, with questions that are ambiguous when used in relation to MPAs, resulting in different interpretations. Although a version of the METT was produced specifically for MPAs (Staub and Hatziolos, 2004), this is rarely used.
Assessing equitable management and social aspects of protected areas
Governance criteria have proved difficult to measure both for the GLPCA and in more general assessments of management effectiveness, requiring a site visit and extended interviews with stakeholders for objective assessment. The GLPCA Standards also put greatest focus on natural heritage values and, since MPAs often have other objectives (e.g. protection of cultural values, maritime history, archaeology), some feel that the process should be expanded to cover other objectives.
A review of the results of assessments of 24 MPAs that used the biophysical, social, and governance indicators in Pomeroy et al. (2004) revealed that the five MPA goals and 20 MPA objectives most commonly monitored and evaluated were biophysical, as these can be measured with a small number of indicators, compared with governance and socio-economic goals and objectives which are much more complex to measure (Fox et al., 2014). This reflects the findings from some of the MPAs involved in the GLPCA pilot phase that there is a need for greater social science capacity to plan and undertake monitoring and research in order to assess the social consequences of an MPA.
This issue is not unique to MPAs and general guidance on assessing governance of protected areas is available (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013). However further work is required and the extensive experience of marine practitioners in addressing a wide range of social and economic challenges when developing protected areas will be of great value in the identification of solutions.
Development of indicators
Once the GLPCA Standard has been revised, attention will turn to producing guidance on how indicators are to be developed for the sites that participate. The fluidity and dynamic nature of marine ecosystems, which make MPAs particularly sensitive (probably more so than terrestrial protected areas) to events taking place outside their boundaries or globally (such as climate change) must be considered at this point. For example, specific indicators will be needed to assess how well an MPA is integrated with a wider management framework that will sustain and restore the functioning of adjacent ecosystems and address upstream and downstream effects. These are largely lacking in current assessment systems.
The question of whether presence of one or more no-take zones should be an indicator of success for an MPA will also need to be considered. A lively debate continues on this issue in the scientific literature and many studies show that fully no-take MPAs have a highly positive impact on biodiversity (Babcock et al., 2010; Edgar et al., 2014; Fox et al., 2014; Costello and Ballantine, 2015). There is also good evidence that zoned MPAs that include well enforced no-take zones have positive conservation impacts: for example, the four MPAs that have achieved GLPCA status have no-take areas and, in the Coral Triangle, MPAs in the higher categories must have such a zone. In tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean MPAs the effective implementation of no-take zones clearly helps to maintain and/or restore the biodiversity of ecosystems such as coral and rocky reefs and other hard bottom types with sedentary species, and leads to benefits for local stakeholders, as demonstrated at Torre Guaceto and Cerbere-Banyuls. The impact of no-take zones in temperate and boreal regions is less well documented but may be important; and there continues to be some doubt about their value for ecosystems dominated by seasonal species or pelagic species with large dispersal ranges. A more complex array of indicators may be needed to evaluate the sustainable management of marine populations that provide essential livelihoods for local communities in and around an MPA, and the maintenance of critical trophic functions as is the case with the kelp forest in the Parc Naturel Marin d'Iroise (Bajjouk et al., 2015). Attention will therefore be needed in the guidance as to how no-take zones can be used as indicators.
Climate change is a particular concern, as demonstrated by Guangdong Nanpeng Islands NNR, which is finding this issue challenging to address. Indicators may be needed to assess whether appropriately selected ‘refugia’ (e.g. corals resistant to bleaching) have been included within the boundaries, and whether these are appropriately located and managed or networked with other adjacent MPAs. For the same reason, it may well be more important for MPAs than for terrestrial protected areas, to be part of a network that maximizes recruitment and takes account of the location of ‘source’ and ‘sink’ communities (IUCN-WCPA, 2008). Further work is urgently needed on this, given the rapidly escalating impacts of coral bleaching and storms on marine ecosystems.
Use of quantitative data
Although the PAME methodologies provide clear guidance on using quantitative as well as qualitative information (Hockings et al., 2009), in practice, evaluations tend to provide a qualitative assessment of objectives only, often based on expert judgement (Coad et al., 2015). The GLPCA programme takes account of this, but it is important to recognize that the subjective nature of expert judgement often lacks accuracy (Cook et al., 2014) when compared with more transparent and repeatable evaluation of biodiversity outcomes using monitoring data (Legge, 2015).
Even when long-term quantitative data are available, they are often not used if the data are not readily available to the agency, are in the wrong form for use in the assessment, or there is a lack of in-house skills or capacity for the analysis required (Addison et al., 2015; Legge, 2015). Monitoring data collected in MPAs must therefore be analysed according to correct scientific protocols and the results presented in a form that makes them readily available for use in management effectiveness assessments (Edgar et al., 2014; Fox et al., 2014) and ultimately for GLPCA documentation. Clearer specification of the types of data sets needed and the analysis methods to be used would facilitate this.
Conclusion
The GLPCA is a valuable boost to efforts to improve management effectiveness of protected areas, whether terrestrial or marine. As the Red List is a rallying point for species conservation, so the Green List has the potential to signal a new era of investment and effort, ensuring that area-based conservation is effective and meaningful. Inevitably, though, it will take many years for all MPAs to reach this standard and indeed the programme itself will not have the capacity in the immediate future to accept all those that might want to take part.
However, by providing a global standard against which sites can measure their performance, all protected areas can start to put in place the necessary measures to improve their management effectiveness. Initiating a regular programme of assessments of management effectiveness is clearly an important first step. The regional initiatives that are already undertaking such assessments, and other global incentive programmes that are in the pipeline, can help further by aligning their approaches and methodologies to the GLPCA standard. Guidance on how to adapt methodologies and develop indicators for MPA assessments is needed, and MPA training and capacity building initiatives should include the topic of management effectiveness assessment.
Ultimately, regular assessments and registration with the GLPCA programme should be seen as a part and parcel of the development programme for any MPA, and government agencies and management bodies should be promoting this. In many countries, this will require support from donor agencies initially and indeed, some agencies already see the vital importance of this such as the GEF, with its METT. Nevertheless, we still have no real sense of whether the Parties to the CBD will meet the target of ‘effective and equitable’ management of protected areas by 2020. There is thus an urgent need for as much investment in this qualitative aspect of Aichi Target 11 as has gone into the quantitative aspects.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to James Hardcastle, Marc Hockings, members of the IUCN GLPCA programme, Dan Laffoley, Marnie Bammert, Frederic Cadene, Jean-Francois Sys and the personnel of the GLPCA pilot protected areas for their support in compiling this paper, and for the two reviewers for their very helpful comments.
References
- 1 During the pilot phase, the term ‘Green List of Protected Areas’ (GLPA) was used.
- 2 http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_biodiversity/gpap_wcpabiodiv/gpap_pabiodiv/key_biodiversity_areas
- 3 Adapted from http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_greenlist/gpap_greenlistwhy/
- 4 Primer on the IUCN GLPCA Standard for Review - September 2015 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/primer_on_the_iucn_glpca_standard_for_review_sep_2015.pdf
