Social Dimensions of MPAs Ramya Rajagopalan International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

Marine Protected Areas Area/place based tools managed at international, regional, national and local levels, for implementing “ecosystem approach” and “ precautionary approach” Often implemented to protect the ecosystems (habitat and species specific), and rarely used as fisheries management tool in the region Design of MPAs involves managing pressures from human uses, adopting a degree of protection ranging from strict protection with no activity allowed to multiple use areas where different activities are allowed and regulated MPAs are often seen from biological perspective, but not as social spaces, socially conceived and perceived by fishing communities

Social Dimensions: MPAs Current focus more target-driven approach, expanding areas under MPAs than on the management effectiveness of the existing areas Numerous studies have focused on the biological implications and ecological considerations (spill over effect, increase in species diversity etc.,) Few studies look at the social profile of communities, and social implications of MPAs especially on communities and other stakeholders Not much information on the cost-and- benefits from MPAs

India: Marine Protected Areas In the Indian context, MPAs are declared under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, includes  National parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and biosphere reserves  Besides these categories under the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, includes community reserve and conservation reserve Community reserves not applicable for marine and coastal areas, as it requires communities to have ownership over the area  31 MPAs designated in India Five are important: Gulf of Mannar National Park and Biosphere Reserve, Gahirmatha (marine) Wildlife Sanctuary, Malvan (marine) Wildlife Sanctuary, Sundarban Tiger Reserve and Biosphere Reserve, and Gulf of Kutch National Park and Sanctuary The 2002 and 2006, has provisions for community participation in the management (elected representatives participate through advisory committees, )

Social dimensions India Ten per cent of active fisher population of India affected by unfair restrictions on fishing operations in/near MPAs  In Gulf of Mannar National Park and Biosphere Reserve, 150,000 fishers and other dependents affected due to restrictions  includes 35,000 small-scale fishers (including 5,000 women seaweed collectors)  In Gahirmatha (marine) Wildlife Sanctuary, Over 50,000 fishers directly affected Number of fishing days drastically reduced from 240 a year to fewer than 100 days a year. Access to nearshore fishing grounds are greatly restricted Need to review the effectiveness of regulations and its impacts on communities Similar issues are seen in Indonesia and Thailand Example: In Bunaken and Wakatobi National Parks, Indonesia, conflicts commonly reported between different user groups, and with management authorities due to changes in zoning systems. Traditional rules, norms and management systems largely ignored

Key Issues In most countries, MPAs are often designated and implemented mainly by environment and forest ministries, having a terrestrial approach Fisheries Departments often not part of this process. Only recently in Indonesia and Thailand, Fisheries Departments are part of the process. MPAs are often not seen as a tool for fisheries management. Fisheries management, however, often use various area-based/ spatio-temporo-based management tools (such as art zones, seasonal closures…), which, if fine-tuned and better implemented achieve the same purposes. Most countries of the region have little recognition of/ support to community-based management initiatives, many of which use area- based measures:  In Trang Province, Thailand, small-scale fishing communities have set up “Four-village Marine Conservation Zone” to regulate fishing (areas and gear)  In Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia, common protection areas have been established (Tuba Dikatutuang)

Gaps in addressing social issues Legal framework does not provide for participation of communities in the decision-making process at all stages, especially in identification and evaluation. Increasingly “token participation” seen in management process Legal framework does not recognize/ support community-based institutions (CBIs) (traditional governance systems) Inadequate institutional capacity, and lack of co-ordination had led to conflicts between communities and authorities Lack of gender-segregated socio-economic data, and socio- cultural information on the people living in/near MPAs No proper monitoring of social impact, undertaken as part of methodology (Information as to whether MPAs make a direct contribution to poverty alleviation not available). Lack of long-term, appropriate and adequate alternate livelihood options for fishing communities

International Legal Framework Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)  Programme of Work on Protected Areas (2004), Programme Element 2: Governance, Participation, Equity and Benefit sharing “Full and effective participation by 2008, of indigenous and local communities, in full respect of their rights and recognition of their responsibilities, consistent with national law and applicable international obligations, and the participation of relevant stakeholders, in the management of existing, and the establishment and management of new, protected areas”  However, reporting on implementation of this goal is very poor  Decision X/31 (2010) of the Tenth Conference of Parties invited Parties to, Recognize the role of indigenous and local community conserved areas and conserved areas of other stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, collaborative management and diversification of governance types; Twenty-sixth session of FAO’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI), members agreed  “ …the use of MPAs as a fisheries management tool should be scientifically-based and backed by effective monitoring and enforcement and an appropriate legal framework…”

Recommendations Clear policy framework that make community participation a must, recognizing conservation efforts that do not address socioeconomic issues are unlikely to succeed Legal frameworks for MPAs should provide for community participation at all stages of MPA design and implementation, and for the use of local and traditional knowledge. Legal frameworks should  Recognize a range of types of management initiatives as MPAs (including zones declared for protection of artisanal fisheries).  Recognize and support community-based initiatives  Recognize the rights of communities to manage resources.  Recognize the principle of sustainable use Better implementation and enforcement of existing area-based fisheries management measures that exist in most countries (particularly artisanal trawl-free zones)

Recommendations (Contd.,) Build institutional capacity to ensure community participation in MPAs designation and management Capacity building of communities to more effectively manage resources in partnership with government and other agencies Socio-economic profile of communities dependent on these resources in/near MPAs for their livelihood (socio-economic spill overs also need to be considered) Implementation of social assessment methodologies (using appropriate indicators) to monitor and evaluate various issues on an ongoing basis:  Whether costs and benefits of MPAs are being equitably shared, among different stakeholders (assessments need to be done both before and after designation of MPAs)  Whether the intervention is making a direct contribution to poverty alleviation  Enhanced/ alternative livelihoods are providing effective