| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian "Adat" Communities | Low (1) | Adat communities had customary rules governing forest use, however these were ignored by the central government, which undermined all ability of local forest users to govern forests during this period. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Large Extractive Industries in Indonesia | High (3) | This actor group was very involved in the governance process. That said, their power was subordinate to that of the central government and the dictator, Suharto. See Barr (1998). |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | "New Order" Indonesian Central Government (1965-1998) | High (3) | This is the group that makes the rules. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian "Adat" Communities | Low (1) | Although this group can now vote in elections & has some modest formal recognition of its customary laws, most of the decisions about resource use are made in distant regional & national capitals, and the level of power, while in a sense higher than under the Suharto regime, is still low. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Large Extractive Industries in Indonesia | High (3) | Although perhaps less important than in the final years of the Suharto regime, extractive industries continued to play an important role in the process of determining how forests were governed during this period. More broadly, see Fukuoka (2013) for a description of the persistence of the old oligarchy in the reformasi regime. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Civil society organizations in Indonesia | Medium (2) | This group has some influence at the national level, yet it remains limited. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | "Reformasi" Indonesian Central Government (1998-2012) | High (3) | This group is the group that sets the rules. |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian Local entrepreneurs | Medium (2) | This group has some power to shape arrangements at the local/regional level, much less at the national level |
|---|
| Forests in Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian District Governments | Medium (2) | At the district level, important decisions are made about the management of forests by district governments, under the decentralized political order. Some of these decisions are permitted by national law, and others are authorities claimed by the district authorities without national sanction. See Arnold (2008) for more details on this. While these actors are very active, they are not necessarily very powerful. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Academic Researchers | Medium (2) | The management bodies rely heavily on the best available science. Researchers are constricted by the results of their research in terms of influencing governance, but if the science reflects a clear directive in governance then the power they have is great. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR recreational fishers | Medium (2) | Final outcomes ultimately decided by government management actors, though recreational fishers do have a powerful voice through lobbying during political elections. |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | CORALINA | High (3) | CORALINA is legally in charge of managing the MPA |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR fisheries managers | Medium (2) | Manage the fisheries and co-management the Reef with reef managers |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Contracting Parties | High (3) | |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Groundfish Fishermen | Medium (2) | Fishermen are engaged in the policy process through formal public hearings and through representatives sitting on various committees. However, they are not the final deciding party. |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Contracting Parties | High (3) | ICCAT is ultimately responsible for the development of rules and assignment of quotas. Although they have considerable political power, they lack the authority to ensure that those rules are adequately implemented. |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Contracting Parties | High (3) | |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Western Members | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Eastern Members | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Ozone Secretariat | Low (1) | The ozone secretariat has limited authority to take actions other than those authorized by the parties to the Montreal Protocol |
|---|
| Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT) | Governance | ICCAT Eastern Members | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Ozone Nation States | High (3) | |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Ozone Depleting Substance Industrial Producers | Medium (2) | Industry is able to leverage their influence on political processes through national-level representatives. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Sanctuary Recreational Users | Medium (2) | Recreational users can influence policy through stakeholder input, but the governance of this resource is rarely up for change or debate. Recreational users can influence governance through reporting sightings and voicing their opinions in public hearings. |
|---|
| International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) | Governance | ICPR nations (1976-1986) | | |
|---|
| International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) | Governance | Rhine chemical firms | Medium (2) | Chemical industry in polluting countries (Germany particularly) is very strong economically.
The density of industrial activity in the Rhine historically has been perhaps the highest in the world, accounting for 10-20% of the total chemical industrv in countries belonging to the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR government co-managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act. External factors beyond their control do influence the governance of the resource (e.g., proposed coal ports) |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR recreational fishers | Medium (2) | Political lobbying common |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR government co-managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act. External factors beyond their control do influence the governance of the resource (e.g., proposed coal ports) |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR recreational fishers | Medium (2) | Final outcomes ultimately decided by government management actors, though recreational fishers do have a powerful voice through lobbying during political elections. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Low (1) | Final outcomes ultimately decided by government management actors. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Medium (2) | Final outcomes ultimately decided by government management actors, but commercial fisheries have a fair bit of political influence on decisions (e.g., in the rezoning, initial proposal of no-take areas was changed to avoid key commercial fishing areas) |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California Academic Researchers | Medium (2) | The management bodies rely heavily on the best available science. Researchers are constricted by the results of their research in terms of influencing governance, but if the science reflects a clear directive in governance then the influence they have on rule-making is great. |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Ozone Depleting Substance Industrial Producers | Medium (2) | Industry is able to leverage their influence on political processes through national-level representatives. |
|---|
| Montreal Protocol | Governance | Ozone Nation States | High (3) | Nation states have considerable authority to regulate production and use of ODS, however, they are generally unwilling to take unilateral action. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Artisan Fishermen | High (3) | Significant political power, represented on the PMB which has decision making power in the GMR. Fishermen protested when they didn't get what they wanted. Strong pressure from fishers kept sea cucumber fisheries open in 2001 and 2002 even though adult densities were below the limit reference point of 0.4ind/m2 at which the IMA resolved to close fisheries (Shepherd et al., 2004) |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Low (1) | Although fishers have some influence on management plan and have successfully lobbied to allow for longlining; it appears that in the case of the toothfish fishery that environmental interests precede interests of fishers. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship | High (3) | This is the main organization that influences all changes in relation to the Monument Act 2006 of NWHI. It has more power over any other actor group in this case. Ref: Kittinger et al. 2011. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | GMR managers | High (3) | High power as they set the rules and regulations for the park |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | GMR managers | High (3) | Managers (PMB and IMA) are the main decision making body |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Tourism Sector | Medium (2) | Tourism representative on both the PMB and the IMA.
Ecuador is a signatory to International laws and agreements, e.g. CITES, which ban the use and trade of green turtles. |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi Bajau fishers | Low (1) | Bajau are a marginalised group throughout Indonesia, and prefer to maintain their identity through abstaining from participation in offical government initatives (Majors 2008; Clifton 2013). |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Tourism Sector | High (3) | Chamber of Tourism representative on PMB and as advisory role in IMA. Zoning of the GMR was highly influenced by tourism, tourist zones had higher densities of pelagic fish (ie sharks) |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi Bajau fishers | Low (1) | Bajau are a marginalised group throughout Indonesia, and prefer to maintain their identity through abstaining from participation in offical government initatives (Majors 2008; Clifton 2013). |
|---|
| Wakatobi National Park | Governance | Wakatobi Bajau fishers | Low (1) | Bajau are a marginalised group throughout Indonesia, and prefer to maintain their identity through abstaining from participation in offical government initatives (Majors 2008; Clifton 2013). |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | GMR managers | High (3) | Main management body. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship | High (3) | The main governing organisation |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Managers | High (3) | This group holds full authority to govern the ways in which tourists and researchers interact with royal penguins within the reserve and marine park. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship | High (3) | They are the main governing organization for this commons. |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA | High (3) | The Sanctuary office has the authority through the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to protect the species from take (harassment, hunting, capture, or killing) of any marine mammal. The Sanctuary office is one of many that oversee the governance of humpback whale populations, others including primarily NMFS and the Coast Guard. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks | High (3) | |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA | High (3) | The Sanctuary can enforce sanctions on any harm that comes to sanctuary habitat. Poaching and other violations can be enforced by other agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, but the Sanctuary can as well and has legal jurisdiction over Sanctuary habitat. |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers | High (3) | MPAs managed by co-management and local communities originally designated the MPAs and have ownership of resources |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Australian Fisheries Management Authority | High (3) | The AFMA retains the right to make all decisions regarding this fishery; although they must follow guidelines established for the marine park and nature reserves; and voluntarily chose to implement policies consistent with CCAMLR. |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Managers | High (3) | |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers | Medium (2) | MPAs managed by co-management so involvement of local fishers is medium through local representatives |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Tourism | Low (1) | Tourism comes under local government so there is probably some representation and there are tourism zones as part of the MPAs, but they can't really determine the governance of the commons |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers | High (3) | MPAs managed by co-management and local communities originally designated the MPAs and have ownership of resources |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Managers | High (3) | collaborative management between local government and indigenous peoples, with donor funds (NGOs) - Boli et al. 2014. |
|---|
| Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004) | Governance | Raja Ampat Managers | High (3) | |
|---|
| Central California National Marine Sanctuaries | Governance | California State and Federal Fisheries Agencies | High (3) | This group has to power to allocate exact quotas, create spatial and temporal closures, and dictate gear types in the fishery. All have an impact on the groundfish fishery habitat. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Australian Fisheries Management Authority | Medium (2) | The AFMA holds authority to create rules to limit seabird bycatch. However, they are somewhat constrained by other Australian government policies and international agreements. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Macquarie Island Managers | Medium (2) | They have considerable authority to protect breeding sites and activities in the marine park and nature reserve. However, decisions are somewhat constrained by other government policies and international agreements (i.e. ACAP) |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower artisanal fishers | Medium (2) | Artisanal fishers were active participants in the governance since the very beginning. They have been consulted on a regular basis by the management agency CORALINA. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Tourism | Low (1) | Tourism agencies cannot directly change the governance of the resource. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Resource Managers | High (3) | The Governor has the ability to implement additional rules governing the resource. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation | Medium (2) | CDF were originally on the PMB and advisory to IMA, but left the PMB in 2008 - and now have advisory role. So they used to have decision making power, but less so now. However, the science and conservation perspective is often undermined by the requirement to reach consensus. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR government co-managers | High (3) | Together make the management decisions regarding the MPA |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers | Low (1) | Low - regulations are made by the Commonwealth government and carried out by the Director of National Parks and Parks Australia employees. Commercial users can influence policy through stakeholder input as participants in the non-government Consultative Committee and as members of fisheries associations like the Commonwealth Fisheries Associations Inc. but have limited power in the process that determines the governance of this resource. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Shrimp Fishers | Low (1) | Regulations are made by a government agency – The Directorate of Fisheries (which is coded as part of the Resource Managers group). Fishermen do not have any direct ability to change the regulations. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Resource Managers | High (3) | The Directorate of Fisheries (a Resource Manager) has the ability to set regulations.
|
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Resource Managers | High (3) | The Governor has the ability to implement additional rules governing the resource. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks | High (3) | Administration, management and control of Commonwealth reserves are the function of the Director of National Parks (a corporation that includes The Director and 4 senior executives). Activities not authorized by the Management Plan can be allowed under a permit issued by the Director. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers | Medium (2) | There is a SBT Management Advisory Committee that is made up of members from industry, managers, researchers, environment and conservation groups, and state government officers. Four of the 11 committee members are an industry member. The SBT Management Advisory Committee is the principal forum where issues relating to the SBT Fishery are discussed, problems identified and possible solutions developed. This Committee reviews the international and domestic science and management of SBT and recommends to the AFMA Commission what they think the allowable catch should be each season. Each fishing season, AFMA officers visit the major fishing ports of the SBT Fishery. These visits allow AFMA to meet directly with fishers to discuss any concerns they might have, and also to gain current information on the trends in fishing and catches during the season. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks | High (3) | Administration, management and control of Commonwealth reserves are the function of the Director of National Parks (a corporation that includes The Director and 4 senior executives). Commercial fishing in the GABMP (CW) can be carried out under a permit issued by the Director or under a Commonwealth or State law. The Director may make determinations controlling fishing gear and fishing practices. The AFMA manages fishing activities and fisheries (including fishery quotas and licensing) in the Australian Fishing Zone under the provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The Australian Fishing Zone extends from three nautical miles offshore (the limit of State coastal waters) to the outer limits of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (generally 200 nautical miles offshore) and includes the waters of the GABMP (CW). |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | CORALINA | High (3) | Coralina is the authority on the governance of the whole MPA. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation | Medium (2) | CDF was on PMB and now has advisory role on IMA |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Low (1) | Fishermen do not have any direct authority in the creation of legislation. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR government co-managers | High (3) | There have been satellite telemetry studies monitoring the movements and migrations of turtles |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR fisheries managers | High (3) | The fishing managers have the ability to set fishing regulations which will directly affect turtles. |
|---|
| Macquarie Island Marine Park | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Low (1) | Fishers cannot change the rules with regard to seabird bycatch mitigation measures, however, some industry representatives may have been involved in the development of rules. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Antarctic Division | Medium (2) | AAD holds authority over managing all fauna on HIMI and within the marine reserve, but is constrained by international agreements (e.g., ACAP, Convention on Migratory Species). |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Fisheries Management Authority | Medium (2) | The AFMA holds the authority to create rules to limit seabird bycatch in the HIMI EEZ, however they have no authority over the governance of seabirds outside of their EEZ. They are further constrained by other Australian government policies and international agreements. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Low (1) | Fishers cannot change the rules with regard to seabird bycatch mitigation measures, however, some industry representatives may have been involved in the development of rules. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Antarctic Division | High (3) | AAD holds full authority over managing all fauna on the Heard and McDonald Islands. |
|---|
| Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) | Governance | Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation | Medium (2) | CDF were originally on the PMB and advisory to IMA, but left the PMB in 2008 - and now have advisory role. So they used to have decision making power, but less so now. However, the science and conservation perspective is often undermined by the requirement to reach consensus. |
|---|
| Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine National Monument | Governance | NWHI Researchers | Medium (2) | Don't make the rules but contribute to science, which is used - adapative management is explicit in management plan. Permits would have been granted by managers. |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Toothfish Fishers | Medium (2) | Through consultative forums, toothfish fishers play an active role in the governance and management of toothfish, including in the setting of total allow catches and other management measures (e.g., through industry representatives at SouthMAC - the Subantarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee and SARAG - the Subantarctic Resource Assessment Group). |
|---|
| Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve | Governance | Australian Fisheries Management Authority | High (3) | The AFMA is the ultimate authority that manages HIMI toothfish, however they must follow CCAMLR management rules and consult with a variety of stakeholders (e.g., SARAG - the Subantarctic Resource Assessment Group, and SouthMAC - the Subantarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee. SARAG and SouthMAC include representatives from the fishery industry, conservation NGOs, and AAD. |
|---|
| Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters) | Governance | GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers | Low (1) | Low - regulations are made by the Commonwealth government and carried out by the Director of National Parks and Parks Australia employees. Commercial users can influence policy through stakeholder input as participants in the non-government Consultative Committee and as members of fisheries associations like the Commonwealth Fisheries Associations Inc. but have limited power in the process that determines the governance of this resource. |
|---|
| Svalbard Nature Reserves | Governance | Svalbard Tourism | Low (1) | Tourism agencies cannot directly change the governance of the resource. In the creation of the first management plan in 2013 (after this snapshot of 2004-2012), their influence in the plan was limited to consultation. Government agencies (the Resource Managers) drafted the final management plan. |
|---|
| Great Barrier Reef Marine Park | Governance | GBR commercial fishers | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Seaflower MPA | Governance | Seaflower artisanal fishers | Medium (2) | They seem to be organized and the constitution grants them the right to have a say in issues that impact them (in this case restrictions on fishing). |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih fishers | Low (1) | Low involvement of local communities. Mainly controlled by central governement. |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih managers | High (3) | The managers determine the rules, within the limits of the powers given to them by the Act |
|---|
| Cenderwasih National Park | Governance | Cenderwasih fishers | Low (1) | Low involvement of local communities. Mainly controlled by central governement. |
|---|
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Paquera-Tambor AMPR Costa Rica | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Falkland Islands squid | Governance | Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Managers | High (3) | Managers can make changes to rules themselves. Economic sector is completely independent. |
|---|
| Falkland Islands squid | Governance | Patagonian Squid Trawlers | Medium (2) | Joint Ventures are consulted with by management in formal and informal processes. |
|---|
| New Zealand squid | Governance | New Zealand Arrow Squid Fishers | High (3) | Consulted with, but do not make changes for legal regulations. However, are in charge of many of the in practice standards and requirements through DWG decisions. |
|---|
| New Zealand squid | Governance | New Zealand Fishery Managers | High (3) | MPI can change rules. Can always be contested, but can change rules on their own. |
|---|
| California squid | Governance | California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Managers | High (3) | While any action can be discussed and debated, CDFW managers can make rules on their own. |
|---|
| California squid | Governance | California market squid fishermen | Medium (2) | Fishermen are formally and informally consulted with. |
|---|
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Indonesian Institute of Sciences - LIPI | High (3) | Provides needed subsidy aid to local framers and conducts development research on aquaculture. |
|---|
| Pond aquaculture on Lombok, Indonesia | Governance | Lombok aquaculture farmers | Medium (2) | Largely self.governed aquaculture ponds and canals |
|---|
| 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 | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| 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) | |
|---|
| Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism | Governance | Gili EcoTrust on Gili Trawangan | High (3) | |
|---|
| Gili Trawangan Coastal Tourism | Governance | Gili Indah Dive Association (GIDA) | Medium (2) | |
|---|
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Isla Caballo AMPR Costa Rica | High (3) | |
|---|
| Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica fisheries governance | Governance | Palito-Montero AMPR Costa Rica | Low (1) | |
|---|
