| Variable Type | Ordinal |
|---|---|
| Variable Component Type | Actor |
| Variable Kind | Interaction |
| Theme | Context (learn about themes) |
| Projects | SESMAD |
| Question | How high was the level of participation of this actor group or their representatives in siting of the marine protected area? |
| Select Options | 1 Low, 2 Medium, 3 High |
| Unit | |
| Role | CommonsUser |
| Importance | According to a number of studies marine protected areas are experiencing a governance crisis due to a number of factors (Mora et al. 2003, Green et al. 2011, Hargreaves-Allen et al. 2011. One of those factors is a lack of community/actor involvement in MPA institutional design (Ban et al. 2011). Governance processess that involve local actors in the MPA management from the very beginning are more successful in reaching their proposed goals and objectives. |
| Definition | This variable describes the level of participation this actor group or their representatives has in the the siting of the MPA. High: The actor group is in charge of managing the resource with or without the support of the lead management agency. Medium: The lead management agency consults the actor group during the decision-making process. Low: The lead management agency informs the actor group of their decisions. None: The lead management agency does not seek input from the actor group. |
| Sectors |
Theory Usages
| Theory | Value Used |
|---|---|
| Critique of fortress conservation | Low |
Associated Studies
| Study Citation |
|---|
Case Usages
| Case | Interaction Type | Component | Value Used | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR recreational fishers | Not Applicable | |
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Missing | The GBRMP was established in 1975. Not much information about siting process (but haven't looked thoroughly) |
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers | High (3) | Local communities originally designated the MPAs through adat/traditional declarations and have marine tenure |
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers | High (3) | MPAs were first declared through adat/traditional declarations |
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Paquera-Tambor AMPR Costa Rica | High (3) | |
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Artisan Fishermen | Low (1) | Galapagos National Park was first designated in 1959 - so participation in general siting was low. |
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Medium (2) | Fishers were able to participate in the design and zoning of the Macquarie Island Marine Park via the Sub-Antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (SouthMAC). Their is limited overlap between the fishery and the marine park. Moreover the small area in which fishing might take place along the Macquarie Ridge is designated as a species protection zone in which some fishing is allowed. |
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Tourism Sector | Low (1) | Galapagos National Park was first designated in 1959 - so participation in general siting was low. |
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi Bajau fishers | Low (1) | Bajau had not involvement in siting of MPA (The WNP was originally designated in 1996 by Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta, without any public consultation) |
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi Bajau fishers | Low (1) | The WNP was designated in 1996 by Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta, without any public consultation |
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi Bajau fishers | Low (1) | Bajau had no involvement in siting of MPA (The WNP was originally designated in 1996 by Ministry of Forestry in Jakarta, without any public consultation) |
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Sanctuary Recreational Users | Medium (2) | Recreational users influence siting of the Sanctuaries through stakeholder input, but do not make decisions. Recreational user needs were considered in siting. |
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Academic Researchers | Medium (2) | While NOAA designates the MPA, the reports submitted to request such designation incorporate the best available science. Researchers are consulted and their work is incorporated into siting of the MPAs. |
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Groundfish Fishermen | Medium (2) | Fishermen influence siting of the Sanctuaries through stakeholder input, but do not make decisions. Fishermen needs were considered in siting. |
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Academic Researchers | Medium (2) | While NOAA designates the MPA, the reports submitted to request such designation incorporate the best available science. Researchers are consulted and their work is incorporated into siting of the MPAs. |
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Tourism | Low (1) | Overall, tourism wasn't involved in siting and the tourism section of the government was established after the MPAs. Although the Misool MPA was heavily influenced by the eco-resort. |
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers | High (3) | MPAs were first declared through adat/traditional declarations |
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Tourism | Low (1) | |
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR recreational fishers | Low (1) | The GBRMP was established in 1975. Not much information about siting process (but haven't looked thoroughly) |
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers | Medium (2) | Commercial fishers were involved in negotiation and consultation with Environment Australia (EA) in the siting of the MPA during the decision-making process. Stakeholders remained engaged in the consultation process because EA provided opportunities for their input into the design and management of the park, a process that eventually resulted in the determination of boundaries, objectives, zoning and management intentions (Tacconi, 2000). |
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Shrimp Fishers | Low (1) | |
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers | Medium (2) | Commercial fishers were involved in negotiation and consultation with Environment Australia (EA) in the siting of the MPA during the decision-making process. Stakeholders remained engaged in the consultation process because EA provided opportunities for their input into the design and management of the park, a process that eventually resulted in the determination of boundaries, objectives, zoning and management intentions (Tacconi, 2000). |
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Not Applicable | |
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Medium (2) | Fishers were able to participate in the design and zoning of the Macquarie Island Marine Park via the Sub-Antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (SouthMAC). Their is limited overlap between the fishery and the marine park. Moreover the small area in which fishing might take place along the Macquarie Ridge is designated as a species protection zone in which some fishing is allowed. |
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Medium (2) | The AAD was the management body that put forward the original MPA proposal (with proposed boundaries). Upon releasing the proposal they formed a HIMI Stakeholder Group (HSG), comprised of members of the fishing industry (as well as NGOs, and policy and research representatives from the AAD). The HSG reached consensus on 85% of the area that AAD proposed for protection, but could not reach consensus on the remaining areas, some of which were of value to the fishing industry. The AU government adopted the MPA, siting the areas agreed to via consensus as no-take zones. The remaining 15% was deemed a "conservation zone" with interim protection until further information could be obtained, including information on the potential impact of fishing on conservation value and the importance of fish resources in the Conservation Zone to the overall viability of the HIMI fishery. In 2014 (which is beyond the snapshot at hand), a percentage of the Conservation Zone was added to the HIMI no-take zone and the rest were left out and remain open to fishing (See Welsford et al. 2011). |
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Medium (2) | The industry was part of the HIMI Stakeholder Group (HSG). While the AAD did the work to develop an MPA proposal, they presented the proposal to the HSG. The AAD sough consensus from the HSG for the proposal and modified it accordingly, including based on input from the fishing industry (see e.g., Welford et al. 2011). |
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers | Medium (2) | Commercial fishers were involved in negotiation and consultation with Environment Australia (EA) in the siting of the MPA during the decision-making process. Stakeholders remained engaged in the consultation process because EA provided opportunities for their input into the design and management of the park, a process that eventually resulted in the determination of boundaries, objectives, zoning and management intentions (Tacconi, 2000). |
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Tourism | Low (1) | |
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Low (1) | |
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower artisanal fishers | High (3) | Artisanal fishers were involved in the MPA siting process from the beginning |
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower artisanal fishers | High (3) | Artisanal fishers were involved in the MPA siting process from the beginning. |
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih fishers | Low (1) | MPA was designated by central government. |
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih fishers | Low (1) | MPA was designated by central government. |
| Falkland Islands squid | Governance | Patagonian Squid Trawlers | Not Applicable | |
| New Zealand squid | Governance | New Zealand Arrow Squid Fishers | Not Applicable | |
| California squid | Governance | California market squid fishermen | Not Applicable | |
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Lombok aquaculture farmers | Not Applicable | |
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Lombok aquaculture farmers | ||
| Caete-Teperacu Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Braganca, Brazil | Governance | Association of Users in the Caete-Teperacu RESEX (ASSUREMACATA) in Brazil | High (3) | |
| Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism | Governance | SCUBA diving businesses on Gili Trawangan | High (3) | |
| Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism | Governance | Gili Indah Dive Association (GIDA) | High (3) | |
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Isla Caballo AMPR Costa Rica | Low (1) | |
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Palito-Montero AMPR Costa Rica | High (3) |