|Variable Component Type||Governance System|
|Theme||Outcomes (learn about themes)|
|Question||To what extent has this governance system achieved its goals in relation to the environmental commons?|
|Select Options||1 Failed to meet goals, 2 Mixed effects on goals, 3 Met goals|
|Importance||One of the core interests of this research project is the effect of governance on commons. Although we are often interested in the condition of resources over time; environmental commons are often managed with a number of different goals in mind, both social and ecological. This question therefore is concerned with the performance of environmental governance systems in relation to the goals that groups set for the management of those resources. It is therefore possible that a resource might experience considerable declines, but still be considered to have met goals.|
The governance system effect variable measures whether a governance system has met, failed to meet, or had mixed effects in relation to the goals
|Case||Interaction Type||Component||Value Used||Explanation|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||1 Failed to meet goals||Coral cover has continued to decline. The current governance system appears to be unable to deal effectively with external influence from land-use change and run-off, coastal development, and climate change.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||3 Met goals||The governance system has largely met its goal to improve ecological outcomes. It does not necessarily prioritise and track social outcomes.|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Monument Act 2006||3 Met goals||Fishing closed in 2011. Trophic structure continued to be maintained.|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Governance System||3 Met goals||Fish biomass reported to be higher in no-take zones compared to take, and an increase in predators has been recorded (M. Erdmann, pers comm).|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan||2 Mixed effects on goals||The management plan has helped recover some stocks, but not all. Some might argue it has had mixed social benefits.|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||3 Met goals||Southern right whale populations are increasing in the area, and probably less interactions with fishing vessles/entanglement due to marine mammal protection zone. Population increase is more likely due to the international ban on whaling, not the impact of this governance system. "Although several countries have designated marine protected areas that include right whale breeding habitat, it is not always clear what additional level of protection is offered over and above that applying to whales in the country’s waters generally" IUCN redlist page|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||2 Mixed effects on goals||The management of SBT isn't directly linked to the GAB management plan - so no real effect|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||3 Met goals||Within the snapshot of this management plan, light-mantled albatross have seldom to not been caught or injured in the HIMI toothfish fishery.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||2 Mixed effects on goals||De facto protection of land-based breeding sites has been achieved due to remoteness (isolation) and lack of human visitation more than as a result of active management. The no take marine reserve provides some protection of foraging grounds, but was not heavily fished prior to becoming a no take area. (fisheries management has provided protection, but that does not fall under the Marine Reserve Management Plan)|
|Cenderwasih National Park||Governance||Cenderwasih governance system||3 Met goals||The aims relating to fish are: • Strengthen the management of the region to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems • Strengthen protection, law enforcement and rehabilitation efforts preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem resources And these have probably be met. The "existence of Cendrawasih Bay National Park" is noted as a factor of success in the management plan.|
|Falkland Islands squid||Governance||The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Department’s Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ)||3 Met goals||The primary management objectives are: 1) To conserve the resource, and thus ensure its continued productivity. 2) To maintain the economic viability of the fisheries as a whole. 3) To enable the Falklands to enjoy greater benefits from the resource. (Barton 2002) Yes met goals in that population is still productive, economic is still viable, and greater community is profiting from the industry (e.g. fish license fees pay for roads). ITQ goals: Increased cooperation with industry on research and development, enforcement, marketing, and environmental issues, increased compliance, increased environmental stewardship (Harte and Barton 2007a). Primary goal: Stability. Met.|
|Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia||Governance||Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture||1 Failed to meet goals|
|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||1 Failed to meet goals|
|Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism||Governance||Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving||2 Mixed effects on goals|
|Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance||Governance||Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica||Missing|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||3 Met goals||management target for coral is to maintain existing levels of hard coral cover (which are estimated to be ~35–40%) - no evidence of major declines in coral cover|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Monument Act 2006||3 Met goals||Lobster populations have not improved, but as this is no longer a fished species and the fishery is highly unlikely to ever be opened again it is not a management priority. Not enough known about lobster ecology/sub-populations etc. to understand why populations aren't recovering. Lobster research and monitoring was fishery-dependent research so stopped when the fishery closed and it was clear was unlikely to be re-opened.|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||3 Met goals||Appears to be have been no further declines in fish spawning numbers|
|Wakatobi National Park||Governance||Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||2 Mixed effects on goals||No specific target for green turtles in the management plan. In line with the vague goals, turtles are still present and nesting beaches are protected.|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Governance System||3 Met goals||Poaching has been significanlty reduced - on one rookery poaching has been reduced from 95% to 0 (CI Seascape Factsheet 2008). Nesting females are increasing.|
|Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument||Governance||NWHI Monument Act 2006||3 Met goals||No take area and population of green turtles increasing|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||3 Met goals||Condition report shows how many goals have been reached.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan||3 Met goals||Fishing is not permitted in reserve; toothfish stocks remains within targets.|
|Central California National Marine Sanctuaries||Governance||Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||3 Met goals||Condition report shows how many goals have been reached.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||3 Met goals|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan||3 Met goals||The nature reserve management plan has met its goals in relation to the management of light-mantled albatross. Nesting sites have been protected and threats from invasive species have been addressed in recent years.|
|Seaflower MPA||Governance||Seaflower MPA Act 2005||1 Failed to meet goals||Coral cover continued to decline since the implementation of the MPA|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan||3 Met goals||Light mantled albatross have not been caught as bycatch in the fishery; interactions have been minimal.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan||3 Met goals||Goals for the toothfish fishery management plan have been met.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan||3 Met goals||The Nature Reserve Management Plan has achieved its goal in reducing threats to royal penguins and other birds.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||3 Met goals||Goals for the marine park in relation to toothfish fishery have been met.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park||Governance||Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||3 Met goals||The marine park management plan has achieved its goals to reduce and limit threats within the MPA.|
|Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)||Governance||Raja Ampat Governance System||3 Met goals||Coral cover remains stable across the region and local people have more seure marine tenure|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||3 Met goals||Polar bear protected, and populations probably stable|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||3 Met goals||No specific goal for turtle populations established in the management plan other than an understanding that turtles are important for tourism and that the Galapagos is an important area for turtles. Populations of green turtles are stable, so in terms of maintaining turtles for tourism this 'goal' has been achieved.|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||1 Failed to meet goals||During this time period the fishery has completely crashed and the brown sea cucmber is 'economically extinct'|
|Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)||Governance||Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||2 Mixed effects on goals||Goal to conserve the biodiversity and function. Some shark populations appear stable whereas some have declined - so coded as mixed effects.|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||3 Met goals||The shrimp stock in the Barents Sea has been at a relatively high level since 2005, and ICES has the last years recommended an annual catch up to 60 000 tons. Due to market challenges and low prices, the total annual catch has been just over 20 000 tons the recent years, only slightly more than a third of the scientists' recommendations.|
|Great Barrier Reef Marine Park||Governance||GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||3 Met goals||The 2004 re-zoning plan protects the most important nesting areas, along with 5-10km of the surrounding ocean, in addition to 20% of the main foraging areas. Since turtles show strong site fidelity to nesting areas, protecting important nesting sites therefore protects a critical stage of the turtle’s life cycle. As a migratory species, the GBR does not encompass the entire range of green turtles, but it does protect a substantial amount of important habitat - so coded as met goals, but it is acknowledged that GBR is not adequately addressing threats. However, Even with the recent management initiatives to reduce threats and improve resilience, the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is expected to further deteriorate in the future.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||2 Mixed effects on goals||The management plan has achieved its goals in protecting the Penguins, but not in research and monitoring of the population. Note that protection has largely been by default and may have occurred without the plan in place due to remoteness and inaccessibility of the Heard and McDonald Islands.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||3 Met goals||Management Plan goals have been met.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve||Governance||Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||2 Mixed effects on goals||Commercial fishing (for Icefish and Toothfish) is considered the main potential threat to the conservation values of the HIMI region. Having a no take area in the MPA (and having strict fisheries management rules outside the MPA) preserves some of the conservation values of the MPA. However, the MPA management plan also includes research and monitoring focused on better understanding foraging areas of land-based predators (mammals and seabirds) and their potential interaction with HIMI fisheries, including toothfish. Most of this monitoring and research has yet to be conducted.|
|Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)||Governance||GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||3 Met goals||The management plan states it aims to 'protect habitat for the Australian sea lion' - this has been achieved - although there are no major threats to the actual habitat of the sea lions so this is protected by default. There is no specific goal on Australian sea lion populations (otherwise wouldn't have met goals as population has declined).|
|Svalbard Nature Reserves||Governance||Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||3 Met goals||Breeding grounds protected|
|Seaflower MPA||Governance||Seaflower MPA Act 2005||2 Mixed effects on goals||Based on the biological monitoring report from 2014, there was no statistical difference in the abundance of groupers between 2000 and 2014. However, the authors not the that this is largely due to high data variability as the biomass of groupers in 2000 was twice as high as in 2014. This is only for Old Providence and Santa Catalina.|
|Cenderwasih National Park||Governance||Cenderwasih governance system||2 Mixed effects on goals||The main aims for the coral reefs/biodiversity of the park are: • Strengthen the management of the region to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems • Strengthen protection, law enforcement and rehabilitation efforts preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem resources And these have probably be met. The "existence of Cendrawasih Bay National Park" is noted as a factor of success in the management plan.|
|New Zealand squid||Governance||New Zealand Quota Management System||3 Met goals||In the current fisheries legislation, the overriding goal is to achieve sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources. In reality, goal is to minimize sea lion capture and numbers have been decreasing, so yes met. Also secondary goal is to keep TACC stable, and this has been met. Observed capture rate (sea lions per 100 trawls) and estimated sea lion captures have decreased (2016 FAP). Interactions have fluctuated.|
|California squid||Governance||California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Fishery Management Plan||3 Met goals||The goals of the MSFMP are to manage the market squid resource to ensure long term resource conservation and sustainability, reduce the potential for overfishing, and institute a framework for management that will be responsive to environmental and socioeconomic changes. Fishery has been economically profitable and stable, not reaching catch limit.|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.