The FAO Technical Guidelines on MPAs and Fisheries in the context of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Pedro de Barros FAO Fisheries Department

Summary  MPAs within the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Process  The Guidelines in the context of the FAO work on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries  The process of preparation of the Guidelines  A summary of the contents of the Guidelines  Future perspectives for FAO work on MPAs and Fisheries

The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries ■ Practical approach for implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries ■ Framework for fisheries management for sustainable fisheries ■ Extension of “traditional” fisheries management  Makes explicit many aspects previously implicit ■ Complementary use of many tools usually necessary for adequate fisheries management

EAF-Key features ■ Comprehensive  All key components of the fishery system are taken into consideration  Also takes into account external drivers ■ Participatory ■ Encourages use of the ‘best available knowledge’ in decision-making ■ Promotes the adoption of an adaptive management system ■ Evolves from existing fisheries management institutions and practices.

EAF is expansion of previous frameworks ■ EAF:  Expansion of previous practices and concepts

MPAs in the context of Fisheries Management The right tools for the right job MPAs are one of these tools (Pope 2009)

Potential uses of MPAs in EAF ■ Controlling fish mortality of sedentary species in data-poor situations ■ Assisting management of multispecies fisheries ■ Minimizing bycatch ■ Protecting habitat and biodiversity ■ Buffering against uncertainty ■ Delegating management responsibilities or tasks ■ Protecting traditional and cultural use rights and practices ■ Protecting and enhancing local livelihoods ■ Resolving user conflicts

Why these guidelines ■ MPAs important fisheries management tool ■ Need to organise knowledge about how MPAs work in the context of fisheries ■ Increasing recognition of the need to make more explicit the reconciliation of conservation and fisheries objectives (EAF) ■ Response to COFI requests and UNGA recommendations

FAO’s work leading to the Guidelines ■ Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries ■ Series of FAO Technical Guidelines for Fisheries Management

Purpose and scope ■ Address the interface between fisheries management and biodiversity conservation ■ Provide guidance in implementing MPAs with multiple objectives  When one of the primary objectives is related to fisheries management ■ Focus is on those aspects of MPAs related to fisheries  Not exhaustive guide on MPAs

Process and target audience ■ FAO expert workshop on MPAs and fisheries in 2006 → final document 2011 ■ Target audience  policy and decision-makers  Scientists, managers and practitioners  (Fisheries and biodiversity conservation disciplines)

Guidelines contents ■ Part 1: WHAT:  What are MPAs  what are their likely effects and impacts  what is their place within a Fisheries Management framework ■ Part 2: HOW:  How to Plan an MPA/MPA network  How to Implement an MPA

PART 1: WHAT ARE MPAS AND WHAT DO THEY DO?

MPA definition within the Guidelines Any marine geographical area that is afforded greater protection than the surrounding waters for biodiversity conservation or fisheries management purposes

Fisheries management under EAF ■MPAs are historically some of the most common fisheries management measures  Fisheries closures…. Explicit widening of scope of fisheries management +Explicit account of spatial dimension =Increased importance of spatial management measures (inc. MPAs)

Potential Bioecological Effects ■ Possible protective effects inside MPAs:  More and bigger animals of some species (more reproductive output),  Preservation of genetic diversity  Protection of critical habitats  Local increases in biodiversity ■ Potential positive effects outside MPAs:  Spillover of animals  Dispersal of fish eggs and larvae  Maybe contributing to higher fishery production

Potential Bioecological effects (2) Source: Botsford et al., 2006; Halpern, 2003.

Likely Socioeconomic impact ■ Direct and indirect effects on people  Different stakeholder groups may be affected in different ways (resource reallocation mechanisms). ■ Costs and benefits unevenly allocated  Those who benefit are different from those that pay the costs! ■ An MPA network can be more flexible than a single MPA when it comes to distributing costs and benefits. ■ Both the environmental and human dimensions need to be taken into account when planning and implementing MPAs and MPA networks. ■ Successful MPAs require people-oriented and processes  Participatory approaches  Like rest of EAF

Likely Socio-economic impacts (2) ■ Benefit and cost allocation ■ User conflicts

Roles of MPAs within EAF ■ MPAs can be an important tool with EAF to, e.g.,:  Protect fragile or critical habitats from human activities  Protect areas of high species diversity  Protect zones where species of concern are particularly vulnerable to capture

PART 2: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING MPAS

Legal, institutional and policy structures ■ Necessary to support planning and implementation of MPAs/MPA networks ■ Including  Cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms  Provisions for stakeholder participation. ■ Policy coherence ■ Linkage to broader planning frameworks  EAF  Marine Spatial Management ■ New processes for coordination and collaboration

Legal, institutional and policy structures (2) ■ May differ depending on areas:  MPAs in coastal areas ■ Stakeholder participation in decision- making and co-management arrangements  MPAs in transboundary and international waters ■ Special institutional and legal arrangements

MPA planning

MPA management planning Follow general EAF process

MPA implementation ■ Appropriate rules and regulations ■ Compliance and enforcement  Incentive-based (like rest of EAF) ■ Permanent Communication ■ Conflict-resolution mechanisms ■ Management effectiveness and monitoring systems ■ Effective adaptive management ■ Political commitment and sustainable resourcing

Information for MPAs ■ Information for  Design, planning, implementation  Monitoring and Evaluation ■ Information is needed on all aspects of MPAs  Bioecological  Social, financial and economic  Institutional and governance ■ Look beyond conventional scientific methods and learn how to access other information  traditional, indigenous and local knowledge  Participatory data collection methods

THE FUTURE FOR MPA USE ■ Opportunities  Decentralization policies and co-management  Integrated marine spatial management  Political support and innovative approaches to financing  Research and new technologies ■ Challenges  Competition for resources  Legal, institutional and policy frameworks  High seas management  Food security and poverty reduction  Climate change

Key messages ■ MPAs/MPA networks potentially useful tool  Possible positive fisheries management outcomes ■ Including conservation of biodiversity ■ Really useful if embedded in appropriate management framework(s)  EAF/MSM ■ Like in all EAF components, Process is key:  Stakeholder participation;  Use of Best Available knowledge; ■ Need to create awareness, support good practices and learn more

MPAs: The magic bullet? ■ MPAs effective for fisheries management  Within a broader functioning framework ■ MPAs alone can lead to worsening the situation for fish stocks and marine habitats  Concentration of fishing on smaller areas ■ MPA declaration often shifts the benefits of resource use among stakeholders  Small-scale fishers TO tourist operators ■ NOT the same people

There is a place for MPAs in EAF THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!