Mike Mascia, Helen Fox, & Al Lombana WWF Conservation Science Program

1. Solving the Mystery of MPA Performance:linking governance, biodiversity conservation, & povertyWorking Draft Mike Mascia, Helen Fox, & Al Lombana WWF Conservation Science Program

2. Overview • Background • Conceptual framework • Research options • Moving forward

3. Marine protected areas Marine reserves Open access Multiple use (not zoned) Multiple use (zoned) Nonconsumptive use only No human use Definitions Source: redrawn from Mascia (2004).

4. Marine Protected Area (MPA) coverage ~4600 MPAs Source: MPA global

5. MPA growth Source: MPA global

6. The MPA debate Proponents • MPAs benefit both fish & fishermen Opponents • MPAs place fish before fishermen Evidence? • Varies • Largely anecdotal • Causality unclear

7. 3 key questions What are the social impacts of MPAs? • Monitoring & evaluation/management effectiveness • Describe outcomes What determines MPAsocial impacts? • Scientific research • Explain outcomes How should we design MPAs to alleviate poverty? • Conservation policy • Deliver outcomes

8. Fisheries Science (from Ward, Heinemann & Evans 2001)

9. Results Chains

10. Contextual variables Political Theory MPA governance Resource use patterns Biological condition Social condition

11. MPA governance User demographics Population size Decision making arrangements Wealth Catch x effort Resources used Biomass Health Mortality x habitat Location of use Empower- ment Monitoring & enforcement systems Richness Education Timing of use Diversity Mode of use Cultural environment Contextual variables Climate change Economic environment Political environment Demo- graphics Pollution & sediment’n Ecosystem type Resource use patterns Biological condition Social condition Resource use rights Rules x compliance Conflict resolution mechanisms

12. MPA governance Decision-making arrangements • Users participate in decisions-making • Users may self-govern resource use Resource use rights • Resource users defined clearly • Resources defined clearly • User costs-benefits ratio roughly proportional • Use rights linked to local conditions Monitoring and enforcement systems • Monitors assess resource conditions • Monitors assess user behavior • Monitors are or accountable to users • Sanctions for noncompliance likely • Sanctions for noncompliance graduated • Sanctions for noncompliance context-dependent Conflict resolution mechanisms • Conflict resolution mechanisms accessible to users • Conflict resolution mechanisms accessible to officials

13. Social condition Wealth • Income • Material assets • Natural assets • Food security Health • Nutrition • Infant mortality • Childhood stunting Political empowerment • Resource control • Involvement in broader political activities Education • School attendance

14. Research options Survey MPA managers Mgmt. effectiveness meta-analysis Field-based retrospective Field-based prospective Less cost turn around time precision predictive power More

15. Moving forward WWF • Indicator review & framework development • Global lit review of MPA social impacts • Natural experiments to explain MPA performance SCB Social Science Working Group (SSWG) • Online catalog of social science tools • SCB 2007 • symposiums • workshops • short courses • Working paper series • Discussion list

17. Global survey Concept: • examine governance-performance links based on collection & analysis ofMPA managers’ perceptions • survey specific MPAs/MPA managers • provide constrained-choice responses • use statistical data analysis Pros & Cons • rapid, inexpensive, powerful • no context, may miss subtleties, possible response bias Example: • Bruner, et al. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125-128.

18. Management Effectiveness meta-analysis Concept: • Analyze existing assessments of MPAs for links between governance, biophysical, and socioeconomic indicators • Regional: East Africa • Global: How is your MPA doing? Pros & Cons • data from a variety of sites, potentially very useful • data quality, data access, indicator quality Example: • Halpern, B.S. 2003 The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications

19. Retrospective field research Concept: • measure MPA governance-performance links through field-based reconstruction of historic patterns and trends • construct natural experiments • employ mixed methods • use statistical data analysis Pros & Cons: • relatively quick and inexpensive, rigorous, powerful • logistically complex, difficult to fund? Example: • Cinner, et al. 2005. Conservation and community benefits from traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1714-1723.

20. Field-based prospective: Windows of opportunity Concept: • obtain baseline data as MPAs are established, measure changes in social and ecological indicators • “before” data: Primeiras and Segundas, Tun Mustafa • still early: Quirimbas Pros & Cons: • most rigorous “proof” of effects, indicator quality control • long-term, expensive, low power Example: • Apo Island, Philippines

21. Resource use patterns MPA governance Biological condition Social condition User demographics Population size Decision making arrangements Wealth Resources used Biomass Health Location of use Empower- ment Monitoring & enforcement systems Richness Education Timing of use Diversity Mode of use Cultural environment Contextual variables Climate change Economic environment Political environment Demo- graphics Pollution & sediment’n Ecosystem type Catch x effort Resource use rights Mortality x habitat Rules x compliance Conflict resolution mechanisms