• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Variables

Variable TypeOrdinal
Variable Component TypeActor
Variable KindInteraction
ThemeOutcomes (learn about themes)
ProjectsSESMAD
QuestionWhat is the effect that this actor group has had on this commons?
Select Options1 Negative, 2 No real effect or mixed effects, 3 Positive
Unit
Role
ImportanceThis variable is an important commons-level outcome that project users can try to explain with other, independent (particularly actor-level) variables.
Definition"ActorEffect describes the effects that an actor group has had on a commons. This a subjective variable, based on the author's causal interpretation of the case. For natural resources units, this would indicate whether this actor group has led to decrease (worsened) or increase (improved) the population of the unit. For natural resource systems, this would indicate whether this actor group has caused the deterioration (worsened), maintenance (remained the same), or improvement of system structure, connectivity, biodiversity levels, habitat coverage, etc. For pollutants, this would indicate whether this actor group has caused the emission levels of the pollutant to decrease (improved), stay the same (remain the same), or increase (worsened)."
Sectors

Theory Usages

TheoryValue Used

Case Usages

CaseInteraction TypeComponentValue UsedExplanation
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceLarge Extractive Industries in IndonesiaNegative (1)This actor group was the primary actor responsible for spreading deforestation and forest degradation.
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Academic ResearchersPositive (3)Researchers have identified hot spots of humpback whale locations and associated highly likely locations with shipping lanes to minimize ship strike occurrences, which have decreased.
Seaflower MPAGovernanceCORALINANo real effect or mixed effects (2)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.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernance"New Order" Indonesian Central Government (1965-1998)Negative (1)The governance system in this period aimed to increase profitability of forest related industries by liquidating existing stocks of forests, and thus contributed to worsening the condition of the forests.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian Local entrepreneursNegative (1)This group has contributed to undermining effective forest law enforcement.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian "Adat" CommunitiesNo real effect or mixed effects (2)unclear. Most studies of this period do not focus on this actor group, which historically was held responsible for degrading some commons (i.e. see Heydir 1999).
Forests in IndonesiaGovernance"Reformasi" Indonesian Central Government (1998-2012)Negative (1)This is very debatable. Some would argue that the govt. has improved the govenrance of the forests, resulting in lower deforestation, but there is substantial evidence that any decreases in deforestation rates may be due to other factors, and that this group contributed to increasing deforestation. See Arnold (2008) and Fleischman et al. (2014).
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceCivil society organizations in Indonesia not clear if they've had an effect?
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone Depleting Substance Industrial ProducersPositive (3)Significant decline in ODS emissions
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian District Governments ?
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)GovernanceICCAT Contracting Parties No real effect or mixed effects (2)Between 1985 and 1995, eastern stocks were generally stable and relatively near their historical peaks. Catches had increased over this period and may have contributed to later declines. Nonetheless, during the interval ICCAT's activities appear to have contributed to a relatively stable resource stock.
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)GovernanceICCAT Contracting Parties Negative (1)Clear declines in Eastern stock over this snapshot, some suggestions that ICCAT has not done enough to ensure that contracting parties adequately implement regulations, and that quotas have been too high.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceLarge Extractive Industries in IndonesiaNegative (1)Extractive industries are a major driver of forest degradation in Indonesia.
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)GovernanceICCAT Eastern MembersNegative (1)Decline in Eastern ABFT catches and stocks during this snapshot. A lack of appropriate monitoring is often cited as a potential cause of this decline.
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)GovernanceICCAT Eastern MembersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)There was no appreciable increase or decline in resource stocks. There was also a fairly large increase in catches.
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone Nation States Positive (3)Emissions of ODS has declined substantially since implementation of the Protocol.
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone SecretariatPositive (3)ODS levels have declined substantially during this snapshot, and although not all of this can be attributed to the efforts of the Ozone Secretariat, they do play an important role in the governance of the Montreal Protocol
International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)GovernanceICPR nations (1976-1986) 
International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)GovernanceRhine chemical firmsPositive (3)Important abatement efforts since the 1970s in advance of tighter regulations by governments at national and international level. Concentrations of some pollutants like Cadmium and Zinc decreased by more than 80%
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR recreational fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Recreational fishing has limited direct effects on coral cover, and thus is unlikely to have influenced coral cover much.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR government co-managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Effect based on zoning system, which is what GBRMPA and QPWS use for management. At the scale of the whole reef, too much land-based run-off (sedimentation, nutrients) negatively affects coral cover, so zoning is not enough to reverse trends of declining coral cover. Locally, though, no-take areas can increase coral cover by maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR government co-managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Effect based on zoning system, which is what GBRMPA and QPWS use for management. At the scale of the whole reef, too much land-based run-off (sedimentation, nutrients) negatively affects coral cover. Locally, though, no-take areas can increase coral cover by maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR recreational fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Recreational fishing has limited direct effects on coral cover, and thus is unlikely to have influenced coral cover much.
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)GovernanceICCAT Contracting Parties No real effect or mixed effects (2)ICCAT contracting parties have not had an appreciable positive or negative effect on Western stocks over this snapshot. Western stock is, however, well below its historical peak.
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT)GovernanceICCAT Western MembersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Western members have not had an appreciable positive or negative impact on resource stocks over this snapshot.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian "Adat" CommunitiesNegative (1)This is actually the subject of debate. Many argue that adat communities did not have a significant impact on forests - or if they did it was the result of their exclusion from other economic activities - see for example, Peluso 1992 & Dove 1996. However other studies show that there was an impact, and that activities by these communities did have a negative impact (e.g. Heydir 1999). In resolving this debate, it is probably useful to consider proximate and underlying causes - rural communities may have frequently been the proximate cause of forest cover change, while the ultimate cause of their activities may have rested elsewhere in the political system.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersNegative (1)Fisheries declined in this time period
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersNegative (1)If there was no commercial fishing. fish populations would be higher. But through buy-outs and exiting of some fishers from the fishery, fish are better off than they used to be. Also some benefits from compliance to re-zoning
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone Depleting Substance Industrial ProducersNegative (1)Emissions of ODS have tended to increase over this snapshot
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Highly variable throughout the park.
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone Nation States Negative (1)Nation states have failed to adequately regulate ODS, and as a result emissions increased over this snapshot
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersNegative (1)Toothfish stocks have declined over this snapshot; although this is in keeping with the goals of the toothfish management plan.
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National MonumentGovernanceNWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship Positive (3)All anthropogenic threats have been eliminated as they whole area is no-take, so the actor effect is positive. But the lobster populations are yet to recover.
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGMR managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Populations of green turtles are stable - so management has helped maintain a healthy population
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi managersMissingCheck
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi managersPositive (3)Have introduce zoning of the MPA including no-take areas which protect spawning aggregations.
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Tourism SectorPositive (3)Coded as positive because of interest in dive tourism and shark conservation and education, huge lobbying effort by tourism sector for areas with high shark densities to be protected (Jones 2013, Hearn et al 2013)
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGMR managersNegative (1)Fishery has become depleted and is now closed because it is economically extinct. During this time period, the limits set by the managers were based on consensus rather than science, with fishing allowed even when densities were too low, and poor enforcement of rules and regulations. Huge outside pressure from Asian markets driving illegal and over-fishing. Multiple papers state that governance effectiveness has been undermined by consensus rather than science-based policies. (Shepherd et al 2004)
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat ManagersPositive (3)Turtle rookeries considered to be well protected and poaching has been reduced. A turtle nest-guarding team developed by local NGO Papuan Sea Turtle Foundation (YPP) and staffed by local villagers has effectively reduced turtle poaching from an estimated 95 percent mortality of nests and nesting turtles to zero in the Piai Island Rookery, with over 1400 green turtle nests successfully laid and hatched since September 2006. (CI Seascape Factsheet 2008)
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National MonumentGovernanceNWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship Positive (3)Population increasing
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Artisan FishermenNegative (1)During this snap shot the fishery has become 'depleted' and the brown sea cucumber economically extinct. Fishery began in early 1990's to peak in 2002 with catch of 8 million individuals and declined steeply after that. Quotas not filled in 2004 and 2005, and complete closure of fishery in 2006. Drop to less than 10% of maximum recorded values. (See Hearn et al 2005, Hearn 2008, Shepherd et al 2005, Wolff et al 2011, Jones 2013)
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi Bajau fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Difficult to determine due to lack of data on turtple populations and catch composition. But likely that any offtake of turtle - an endangered, long-lived, and slow to reproduce species - will have negative imacts on the population, but offtake is limited and it is not a prefered target species.
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi Bajau fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Bajau are commonly associated with destructive practices, including blast and poison fishing. Reports that blast fishing declined after 2005/6 (Exton), but apparently an increase 2011-2012 (Clifton 2013). - therefore coded as mixed effects
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Tourism SectorNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Turtle populations are stable. Tourist trampling on nesting beaches and boat strikes are a threat to green turtles - tourist numbers are limited on beaches to prevent this (Zarate 2006) and measures are being put in place to manage boat strikes (Stuart Banks pers comm).
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceNational Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAAPositive (3)Humpback whale populations have increased and ship strikes and strandings have decreased. Research and monitoring has increased knowledge of Humpback populations. Tourism focused on Humpback whales has increased as well.
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National MonumentGovernanceNWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship Positive (3)Bottom trawling and pealgic fishing banned in 2011 - now completely no take so no direct effects on trophic density.
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Academic ResearchersPositive (3)Monitoring and observing has led to more information about this ecosystem to better protect and restore the habitat.
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat Artisanal FishersPositive (3)Some areas are no-take and cyanide fishing is almost eliminated, closure of certain areas (sasi) (Boli, 2014).
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat ManagersPositive (3)Coral cover remains high, and use of destructive fishing practices almost eliminated
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat ManagersPositive (3)Coral cover remains high, and use of destructive fishing practices almost eliminated
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat TourismPositive (3)The fee from tourism is used to pay for community projects, including paying for community patrols of MPAs. The revenue is now overseen by raja ampat governement (previously suuported by CI).
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat Artisanal FishersPositive (3)Local poaching and use of turtles has dramiatically declined - not using pigs as alternative protein source, so positive impact on turtles. (population increasing - approx. 2007-2012 they were seeing ~20% annual increases M.Erdmann pers comm)
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia State and Federal Fisheries AgenciesPositive (3)By limiting trawling in areas, establishing rockfish conservation areas, and created quotas, the habitat is protected from major threats and can recover.
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceAustralian Fisheries Management AuthorityNegative (1)Fish stocks have declined, but they remain above the threshold goal of 50% of unfished levels.
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceMacquarie Island ManagersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The population has remained stable based upon the best available evidence. It is possible that the eradication of invasive rats, mice, rabbits and cats will benefit the population over longer time periods.
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceAustralian Fisheries Management AuthorityNo real effect or mixed effects (2)It is generally believed that the light mantled albatross population on Macquarie Island is stable; and there have been no known fatal interactions between light-mantled albatross and the toothfish fishery.
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceMacquarie Island ManagersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Most estimates indicate that populations of Royal Penguin are stable. It is possible that pest eradication programs might yield long-term net benefits, but as of now they do not appear to have significantly improved or harmed Royal Penguins.
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Charles Darwin FoundationPositive (3)Increased knowledge on ecology of sharks within the GMR, including movement patterns, aggregations, susceptibility to long-lining, nursery areas (see Hearn et al. 2014)
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceNational Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAAPositive (3)Protection has led to increased protection of rocky shore habitat from trampling, pollution, oil spills, maintaining biodiversity in systems and likely leading to the fast resilience of the habitat. The Sanctuary's efforts to increase water quality has had a positive impact on this habitat.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR government co-managersPositive (3)The MPA and its enforcement have had significant benefits for fisheries. Coral cover and economic species continue to decline however due largely to external threats for land-use changes, pollution, and climate change
Seaflower MPAGovernanceCORALINANegative (1)Coral cover definitely decreased since 2000. However, it is not that CORALINA used the commons in any way. They managed it.
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard Resource ManagersPositive (3)Monitoring that people are abiding by the rules (e.g. no hunting, not going to close to the bears) and enforcing infractions has likely prevented unnecessary bear deaths, which would have a positive outcome for the population. However, this positive benefit may be small in magnitude.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersNegative (1)Toothfish stocks have declined over this snapshot; although this is in keeping with the goals of the toothfish management plan.
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)No Light mantled albatross or other seabird species for that matter has been taken as bycatch in the Macquarie Island Toothfish fishery.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Antarctic DivisionNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The population would likely be doing the same without the management plan in place. Protection of breeding sights on the islands is largely de facto based on isolation rather than active management. Effective protection on the water has less to do with the no-take marine reserve, but is rather a result of fisheries measures which work to prevent the incidental catch of albatross.
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial FishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Entanglement and vessel disturbance are threats to southern right whales caused by commercial fishing. Reports, although an underestimate, appear to be minimal with 1 fatal entanglement and 12 non-fatal entanglements of southern right whales recorded 1950–2006 (Kemper et al. 2006).
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR recreational fishersNegative (1)If there was no recreational fishing, target fish would be better off. That said, participation in recreational fishing has declined. While rec fishing is still considered an important impact on target fish, reduced participation and compliance to fisheries regulations and MPA rules means they are having less of an effect than they used to.
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Sanctuary Recreational UsersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Mixed effects. Recreational users are significant players in monitoring this species, and in contributing to data to relate to industry to reduce ship strikes. However, some studies have shown whale watching vessels could be influencing behavior or masking foraging capabilities.
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks Positive (3)Populations are increasing in the area
Falkland Islands squidGovernanceFalkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries ManagersPositive (3)Management has been proactive in closing the fishery before overfishing has occurred (before biomass declines).
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard TourismNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The impacts of viewing polar bears are considered to be very low at the present time. At the current levels of tourism it is unlikely that disturbance to an individual bear(s) would have any effects at the population level.
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard Resource ManagersPositive (3)Implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the regulations has helped ensure that the fish stocks have remained in satisfactory condition - the shrimp stock in the Barents Sea has been at a relatively high level since 2005 http://www.fisheries.no/ecosystems-and-stocks/marine_stocks/shellfish/shrimp/#.VfxI2Zf08ms
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard Shrimp FishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Fishing reduces the shrimp population. However, regulations aim to keep the population healthy, and the NAFO (2012b) indicates that the shrimp population is in ‘satisfactory condition’. The estimates of shrimp biomass have fluctuated throughout the snapshot, but appear reasonably stable over time. Therefore, although fishing would always have a ‘negative impact’ this impact on the population may be well-regulated so that the impact is small.
Seaflower MPAGovernanceSeaflower artisanal fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)This is debatable given that overfishing of certain species within this ecosystem might had have a negative impact on coral reefs.
Seaflower MPAGovernanceSeaflower artisanal fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)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.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersNegative (1)Although the effects of bycatch are difficult to assess (in part because there is likely many instances where it is not reported (GBR Outlook Report 2014)), bycatch may be considerable (Robbins 1999, Hays et al 2003).
Cenderwasih National ParkGovernanceCenderwasih managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Some positive impacts inlcuding zoning and management. introducing enterance fee for tourists (although this goes striaght to central government)
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGMR managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Coded as mixed effects - as different for mnay species, many of which have probabably experienced a decline. From Hearn interview: "there are still schools of sharks. But population trends depends who you speak to - dive guides will say there’s a lot less sharks than there were in the past especially in the centre of the archipelago. Overall, no long term data sets, so more focussed on people’s perception of shark numbers. Inferences are that whale sharks numbers have been unaffected, Hammerheads keep on declining. Reef sharks are increasing, and tigers are more common. But there are also a lot more divers now."
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard Resource ManagersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Overall, the kittiwake population is stable when averaged across all sites. Declines appear linked to prey availability rather than any management actions.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Antarctic DivisionNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The population would probably be doing the same without the management plan in place. Protection is largely de facto based on isolation rather than active management. Very few tourists visit the islands and even fewer scientists..
Cenderwasih National ParkGovernanceCenderwasih fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)
Cenderwasih National ParkGovernanceCenderwasih managersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Some positive impacts inlcuding zoning and management. introducing enterance fee for tourists (although this goes striaght to central government)
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial FishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Although SBT populations are heavily depleted, Australian Commercial fishers have followed their alloted quotas for SBT and for this snap-shot and SBT stocks appear stable - so coded as no real effect for this snap shot. The SBT has been intensively fished since the 1950s and the decline in the total population of SBT to 7-15% of the 1960 parental biomass is well documented (FSC 2009). Based on the median results of this most recent stock assessment, there has been an estimated 85.4% decline in spawning stock biomass over the past 36 years from 1973 to 2009 (CCSBT 2010).
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR government co-managersPositive (3)Monitoring and enforcement of legislation and adherence to the marine zones have most likely had a positive impact on the turtle population - protection of major rookeries, mandatory use of turtle excluding devices for fishing since early 2000s
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR fisheries managersPositive (3)The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) tracks the location of commercial vessels, and Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol conducts on the water monitoring to ensure compliance with the laws. This monitoring has likely increased compliance and has contributed to a positive impact on the green turtle population.
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard TourismNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The impacts of the tourism industry viewing kittiwakes are likely fairly low. They nest on steep cliffs so physical access is difficult. Noise from vessels and zodiacs may be an issue, especially when considering cumulative effects through time and space (Weilgart 2007).
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Charles Darwin FoundationNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The science collected by the CDF has provided baseline and information on green turtles - populations are thought to be stable (Stuart Banks pers comm, and CDF reports)
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks No real effect or mixed effects (2)Although commercial fishing for tuna in the GABMP (CW) is carried out under a permit issued by the Director, the amount of tuna harvested and enforcement of this fishery is managed by the CCSBT and the AFMA.
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Charles Darwin FoundationNo real effect or mixed effects (2)The research and guidelines put forward by CDF was not adhered to
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi Bajau fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Bajau are generally blamed for over-fishing and destructive fishing methods - but the extent that is actually occuring and is conducted by the Bajau is difficult to determine and unclear if this applies to fish spawning sites, or the MPA as a whole
Cenderwasih National ParkGovernanceCenderwasih fishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National MonumentGovernanceNWHI ResearchersPositive (3)Led to increasing understanding of the system
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersNot Applicable
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Groundfish FishermenNegative (1)Trawling was the primary negative effect this actor group had on the commons. Now, less so with the regulations, though trawling still exists. While bycatch is substantially lower than before, bycatch was historically and is somewhat an issue today, especially with long lines. Lost fishing gear is a negative effect as well, especially with trap pots.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR fisheries managersPositive (3)Through enforcement of fisheries management and the re-zoning.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Fisheries Management AuthorityNegative (1)Fish stocks have declined over the course of management, but they remain above the "sustainable" management goal of reducing the stock by 50%.
California squidGovernanceCalifornia market squid fishermenNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Population is likely the same (or slightly under) without fishing.
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks Negative (1)GABMP/Bunda Cliffs population has undergone ~64% decline over three generations - IUCN. Study by Hamer et al. (2011) states gillnetting was formally identified as a key threat to the conservation of Australian sea lions in 2005 and management has continued to permit the use of gillnets across most of the GABMP. Harmer et al. (2011) suggests imposing bycatch limits and year round exclusion of gillnetting.
New Zealand squidGovernanceNew Zealand Fishery ManagersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Unsure. Likely positive since before QMS lots of foreign vessels fishing. Now is effort limited.
New Zealand squidGovernanceNew Zealand Arrow Squid FishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Help monitor, but also extract. No evidence or reports of overfishing.
California squidGovernanceCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid ManagersPositive (3)Protect habitat and population status.
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat Artisanal FishersPositive (3)Some areas are no-take and levels of destructive fishing are low. Appears to be high complicane with local rules
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial FishersNegative (1)Bycatch of Australian sealions in gillnets has been proposed as a key threat to the conservation of Australian sealions (DEWHA 2008, Hamer et al. 2011).
Falkland Islands squidGovernancePatagonian Squid TrawlersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Fishermen are extractors and so have natural negative impact, but also are monitors and contribute to sustainable use (positive impact). Fishery has been stable ecologically.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersNo real effect or mixed effects (2)While the threat remains for light mantled albatross to be incidentally caught in toothfish longline operations at HIMI (this area is considered a Category 4: average to high risk of incidental mortality of seabirds; CCAMLR 2013), there have been no reported deaths of light mantled albatross (between 2004-2013, data reported to ACAP) and very few reported deaths of all seabirds.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Fisheries Management AuthorityNo real effect or mixed effects (2)Through the development and implementation of seabird bycatch mitigation measures, the AFMA has theoretically had a positive effect on the light mantled albatross. However, there is no data to support that the light-mantled albatross populations have increased.