| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | "New Order" Indonesian Forest Governance System, 1965-1998 | | The central government was highly centralized and did not recognize local rights to decision-making. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | "Reformasi" Indonesian Forest Governance System, 1998-2012 | Low - no recognition (1) | During this time period, a decentralization program was put in place, devolving decision-making power over forests partially to the district level. In addition, "adat communities" customary laws received some (limited) recognition during this period, in contrast to the earlier period under Suharto when they received none. |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | ICCAT states have the ability to create rules that are consistent with agreements made with other ICCAT states |
|---|
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica | High - complete recognition (3) | |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | ICCAT recognizes the rights of countries to implement their own rules within ICCAT agreements. |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Montreal Protocol | | Regulations are developed at the international level. Nation states must implement regulations corresponding to those regulations. |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | ICCAT member states have some authority to implement regulations within the context of ICCAT level agreements. |
|---|
| International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) | Governance | Rhine Chemicals Convention | Low - no recognition (1) | The Convention had to be ratified by all ICPR members |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999 | | Managed exclusively by GBRMPA/QPWS. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Low - no recognition (1) | Managed exclusively by GBRMPA/QPWS. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999 | | |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Pre-Montreal Protocol Ozone Governance | Low - no recognition (1) | Only nation states are able to make decisions |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Governance decision-making is largely still the remit of Federal and state agencies but they do emphasise education, awareness and voluntary compliance mechanism. They also support flexibility in rule-making above and beyond existing regulation e.g., in the ornamental/aquarium fishery. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Low - no recognition (1) | Indonesia has a decentralisation policy, and the local government play an active role in management of corals by controlling blast fishing in this interaction. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Low - no recognition (1) | Indonesia has a decentralisation policy, and the local government play an active role in management of fish aggregations by controlling fishing in this interaction through no-take zones |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi National Park 2008-current | Low - no recognition (1) | Indonesia has a decentralisation policy, and the local government play an active role in management of turtles by controlling blast fishing in this interaction. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Act 2006 | High - complete recognition (3) | Co-trusteeship that includes Federal and State government and also recognises rights of native Hawaiians. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Act 2006 | High - complete recognition (3) | Co-trusteeship that includes Federal and State government and also recognises rights of native Hawaiians. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Act 2006 | High - complete recognition (3) | Co-trusteeship that includes Federal and State government and also recognises rights of native Hawaiians. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | The governance system recognizes the role and enforcement authority of various agencies, so the Coast Guard, Sanctuary, and NMFS can all have jurisdiction and they all work together. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | The governance system recognizes the role and enforcement authority of various agencies, so the Coast Guard, CDFW, Sanctuary, and NMFS can all have jurisdiction and they all work together. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | Moderate - some recognition (2) | The Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan is implemented by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Services department who hold some but limited autonomy to design regulations. Regulations must be consistent with national level policies such as the The Recovery Plan for Albatrosses and Giant Petrels, as well as international obligations such as the convention on migratory species, agreement on the conservation of albatrosses and petrels, |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | All decisions are made by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority within the context of relevant legislation |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | The AFMA holds all rights to manage the toothfish fishery outside of protected areas. |
|---|
| Community A (Fiji fisheries) | Governance | Community A Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Respondents feel that 68% of rules in use are derived from local or traditional sources. |
|---|
| Community B (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community B Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Respondents indicate that 56% of rules have a local or traditional origin. |
|---|
| Community C (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community C Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Respondents feel that 74% of rules are derived from local or traditional sources. |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | Co-management system - so yes, higher level jurisdictions (government) do acknowledge the lower-level jurisdictions and local ownership and tenure of resources. |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | Co-management system - so yes, higher level jurisdictions (government) do acknowledge the lower-level jurisdictions and local ownership and tenure of resources. |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | Co-management system - so yes, higher level jurisdictions (government) do acknowledge the lower-level jurisdictions and local ownership and tenure of resources. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan | High - complete recognition (3) | Jurisdictions are clearly laid out and agencies work with each other. For example, the Sanctuary can enforce vessels that ground on Sanctuary habitat, but CDFW/the Council imposes and enforces quotas. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | Moderate - some recognition (2) | This Act was created by the central government and outlines the regulations, but it offers the Governor of Svalbard the ability to govern over individual cases and to add additional rules (as long as they are consistent with the larger Act). |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Management of GMR is based on participation of actor groups. Decisions by the Participatory Management Board (PMB), comprised of representatives of all sectors involved, are usually approved by the Inte-Institutional Management Authority (IMA). The IMA is the executive decision making body of the GMR, and can make decisions by majority vote in the event that the PMB does not reach consensus. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Management of GMR is based on participation of actor groups. Decisions by the Participatory Management Board (PMB), comprised of representatives of all sectors involved, are usually approved by the Inte-Institutional Management Authority (IMA). The IMA is the executive decision making body of the GMR, and can make decisions by majority vote in the event that the PMB does not reach consensus. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Governance System 1998-current | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Management of GMR is based on participation of actor groups. Decisions by the Participatory Management Board (PMB), comprised of representatives of all sectors involved, are usually approved by the Inte-Institutional Management Authority (IMA). The IMA is the executive decision making body of the GMR, and can make decisions by majority vote in the event that the PMB does not reach consensus. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | Moderate - some recognition (2) | A Steering Committee of Australian and South Australian government agencies guides the day-to-day management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. However, the Director retains direct control of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters). A non-government Consultative Committee of stakeholders was established during the first management plan (2000 - 2005). This Committee advises the Australian and South Australian governments about management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. The Consultative Committee represents general community interests, Indigenous interests, commercial interests and scientific interests in the Park (CW) and the State Park. The Great Australian Bight Marine Park Steering and Consultative Committees helped in the development of the second Management Plan and reviewed the first Management Plan. The Director also consults with the Steering and Consultative Committees about proposed operations in the Park (like mining). |
|---|
| Community F (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community F Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Respondents indicate that 38% of rules are derived from local or traditional sources. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | Moderate - some recognition (2) | A Steering Committee of Australian and South Australian government agencies guides the day-to-day management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. However, the Director retains direct control of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters). A non-government Consultative Committee of stakeholders was established during the first management plan (2000 - 2005). This Committee advises the Australian and South Australian governments about management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. The Consultative Committee represents general community interests, Indigenous interests, commercial interests and scientific interests in the Park (CW) and the State Park. The Great Australian Bight Marine Park Steering and Consultative Committees helped in the development of the second Management Plan and reviewed the first Management Plan. The Director also consults with the Steering and Consultative Committees about proposed operations in the Park (like mining).
|
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | Low - no recognition (1) | The regulations were created by the central government. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012 | Moderate - some recognition (2) | A Steering Committee of Australian and South Australian government agencies guides the day-to-day management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. However, the Director retains direct control of the GABMP (CW). A non-government Consultative Committee of stakeholders was established during the first management plan (2000 - 2005). This Committee advises the Australian and South Australian governments about management of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park. The Consultative Committee represents general community interests, Indigenous interests, commercial interests and scientific interests in the Park (CW) and the State Park. The Great Australian Bight Marine Park Steering and Consultative Committees helped in the development of the second Management Plan and reviewed the first Management Plan. The Director also consults with the Steering and Consultative Committees about proposed operations in the Park (like mining). |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | The Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan recognizes the need to coordinate regulations with the Government of Tasmania, and the Australian Fisheries management authority. The nature reserve component of the island which governs areas out to 3 nautical miles is managed by the Government of Tasmania. They have elected to adopt the same regulations for the marine component as those used in the marine park. However, the Australian government still holds authority to implement regulations as they see fit within the Marine Reserve. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | The Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan regulations supersede regulations imposed by the AFMA. Fishing is not permitted in the highly protected zone and must follow marine reserve guidelines within the species protection zone |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan | Moderate - some recognition (2) | The Tasmanian government has the right to implement decisions within the Nature Reserve for the conservation of Royal Penguin. |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower MPA Act 2005 | Not Applicable | |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan | High - complete recognition (3) | The Tasmanian government and Parks and Wildlife service hold considerable autonomy to govern the use of toothfish resources within marine portion of the nature reserve. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current | Moderate - some recognition (2) | The GBR is co-managed between the federal and provincial governments through agreements which outline their joint responsibility. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | All decisions are made by the AFMA within the context of the relevant legislation. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Moderate - some recognition (2) | HIMI is an AU territory with an AU EEZ, but the area also falls under CCAMLR's jurisdiction. CCAMLR and CCAMLR States recognize AU's authority over the area, however there has been significant IUU fishing in the past and this remains a threat to Light Mantled Albatross. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Moderate - some recognition (2) | The Heard and McDonald Islands are an Australian Territory with an Australian EEZ in the Southern Ocean (south of the Polar Front), thus also fall within the jurisdiction of CCAMLR. CCAMLR and CCAMLR States functionally recognize Australia's autonomy over HIMI. However, there has been significant IUU fishing in the past, suggesting that IUU vessels are not respecting AU's EEZ. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan | Moderate - some recognition (2) | The AFMA is the ultimate authority in managing HIMI toothfish, however, they work in consultation with CCAMLR, the AAD, and with an advisory committee (SouthMAC - the Subantarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee) and scientific assessment group (SARAG - Subantarctic Resource Assessment Group) on all decision rules. SouthMAC and SARAG include representatives from the fishing industry, conservation groups, scientists and other relevant experts. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan | Low - no recognition (1) | The AFMA and CCAMLR are the main authorities who make decisions regarding this commons, however, they work closely with the AAD who implements the MPA management plan. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Environmental Protection Act | Moderate - some recognition (2) | This Act was created by the central government and outlines the regulations, but it offers the Governor of Svalbard the ability to govern over individual cases and to add additional rules (as long as they are consistent with the larger Act). |
|---|
| Community D (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community D Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | Respondents indicate that 100% of rules are derived from local/traditional sources. It is worth noting that this group appears unaware of national-level policies that should apply. |
|---|
| Community E (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community E Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Respondents indicate that 53% of rules are derived from local and/or traditional sources. |
|---|
| Community G (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community G Governance System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Respondents indicate that 81% of rules are derived from local and/or traditional sources. |
|---|
| Community H (Fiji Fisheries) | Governance | Community H Governance System | High - complete recognition (3) | Respondents indicate that 100% of rules are derived from local and/or traditional sources. |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower MPA Act 2005 | High - complete recognition (3) | It is part of the Colombian constitution |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih governance system | Low - no recognition (1) | Indonesia has a decentralisation policy |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih governance system | Low - no recognition (1) | Indonesia has a decentralisation policy |
|---|
| Falkland Islands squid | Governance | The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Department’s Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ) | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Argentina does not recognize their rights, but a number of nations (including USA) recognize Falkland Islands. UK recognizes Falkland Islands government and their right. Management is at national level. Higher levels of management recognize autonomy of those who focus on one specific fishery. |
|---|
| New Zealand squid | Governance | New Zealand Quota Management System | Moderate - some recognition (2) | Mostly national level decision making, but do take community requests into consideration and look to DWG to implement their own standards. Minister makes ultimate decision, but court can overturn to recognize other interests. |
|---|
| California squid | Governance | California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Fishery Management Plan | High - complete recognition (3) | While federal policies take precedence, CDFW is recognized to be the primary management body, and the CPS team within that the responsible decision making party. |
|---|
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture | | |
|---|
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture | | |
|---|
| Caete-Teperacu Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Braganca, Brazil | Governance | Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil | High - complete recognition (3) | |
|---|
| Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism | Governance | Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving | Low - no recognition (1) | |
|---|
