Análisis de tendencia estado de resultados

MPAs may be designated for the purpose of either ecosystem preservation or sustainable use (Polunin 2002; Ray 2004) (Figure 1.1), though many are generally advocated as an approach to meet both sets of objectives (Gaines et al. 2010), and the design of such a network will generally reflect trade-offs between ecological, socio-economic, and political interests (van Haastrecht & Toonen 2011).

Figure 1.1 The spectrum of underlying values that underpin MPA designation.

Under a purely nature conservation framework MPAs may be used to protect unique underwater features, biodiversity hotspots, and threatened or rare species (Kelleher et

Sustainable use Protect nature for continued use

(e.g. Sustainable Development) Preservation

Protect nature for nature’s sake

(e.g. Deep Ecology)

MPAs

10

al. 1995), for their non-use and bequest value (Farrow 1996; Grafton et al. 2011)¹⁵. Historically, most MPAs have been designated for this purpose (Jones 1994) (Table 1.2). In a fisheries management context MPAs may be used as a conservation measure to protect essential fish habitat (Botsford et al. 2003), reduce fishing mortality on aggregations of spawning adult (Chiappone & Sealey 2000) and undersized juvenile fish (Schopka 2007). In certain circumstances MPAs may also be used to enhance fisheries yields (Russ et al. 2004) though empirical evidence for this is sparse (Chapter 5).

In a fisheries context, MPAs are also often advocated as a buffer against uncertainty (Lauck et al. 1998; Clark 1996). MPAs can be used as a risk management strategy for two reasons: 1) conventional management through catch or effort controls may fail due to stock assessment errors and an inadequate institutional framework (Finlayson 1994; Daw & Gray 2005); and 2) the functional roles a habitat and associated species assemblage have in contributing to valued ecosystem productivity are often not known (Frid & Paramor 2006). Given these uncertainties some scientists argue that it is wise to designate MPAs to protect part of a fish stock from exploitation (Lauck et al. 1998), and habitats and species that are sensitive to fishing (Watling & Norse 1998).

Paradoxically, while MPAs have the potential to mitigate against uncertainty in the effects of management mistakes or loss of essential habitats/species, at the

operational level often the lack of relevant biological knowledge to design MPAs to meet these objectives adds further uncertainty (Hilborn et al. 2004) (see Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion).

15 Though economic value may be derived from non-exploitive activities such as eco-tourism (Dicken 2010). MPAs established to conserve nature may also have wider societal value such as for the purpose of education and scientific research (Leisher et al. 2012).

11

Table 1.2 Timeline showing the major international events that have affected policy on MPAs (adapted from: (NRC 2001; Toropova et al. 2010a)). [Note: binding International agreements are highlighted in bold].

Date Meeting/ event Outcome

1935 President Roosevelt designates the world’s first MPA through the US Antiquities Act 1906.

Establishment of Fort Jefferson National Monument, USA; the first formally designated MPA.

1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea Provided the international framework for the protection of living resources.

1962 First World Conference on National Parks Led to the concept of protecting specific areas and habitats.

1971 The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR) considering marine environmental issues regionally. MPAs were identified as one means of addressing some of these issues. the establishment of MPAs and the conservation of marine resources could be developed for areas beyond territorial seas.

1974 Meeting of Man and the Biosphere taskforce in Paris.

Prepared criteria and guidelines for the selection and establishment of biosphere reserves, embodying ecological and genetic principles of nature conservation.

1975 IUCN conducts a conference on MPAs in Tokyo. Conference report calls for the establishment of a well-monitored system of MPAs representative of the world’s marine ecosystems. of marine and coastal protected areas.

The outcome of these workshops was the

Meeting recognises that integrated, multiple-use MPAs can conform to all of the scientific, administrative, and social principles that define a Biosphere Reserve under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.

1984 IUCN publishes Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A guide for planners and managers

Guidelines describe approaches for establishing and planning protected areas. accelerating the establishment and effective management of a global system of MPAs.

The world’s seas divided into 18 regions based mainly on biogeographic criteria, and by 1990, working groups established in each region.

1987-1988

Fourth World Wilderness Congress passes a resolution that establishes a policy framework for marine conservation.

Resolutions adopted a statement of a primary goal, defined “marine protected area”, identified a series of specific objectives to be met in representing all major biogeographic types and ecosystems should be established.

1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit

Agenda 21 called on coastal states to maintain biological diversity and productivity of marine species and habitats under national jurisdiction

12

through the establishment and management of protected areas.

1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) come into force.

These two international conventions greatly increase the obligations of nations to create MPAs in the cause of the conservation of biological diversity.

1995 The GBR Marine Park Authority, the World Bank, and the IUCN publish a Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas

Listed existing MPAs, and identified priorities for new ones in each region and costal country.

1997 The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Seattle

1999 IUCN publishes guidelines for marine protected areas.

Describes the approaches that have been successful globally in establishing and managing MPAs.

2000 The International Conference on the Economics of Marine Protected Areas

Held at the University of British Columbia, Canada, this conference aimed to establish the circumstances in which MPAs would likely benefit a fishery.

2001 Scientific consensus statement on marine reserves and marine protected areas

A call from the NCEAS working group of marine scientists for the establishment of a network of marine reserves.

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)

Called for the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international laws and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012.

2003 Evian agreement, signed by G8 Nations in 2003

Agreement of the terms set by the WSSD 2003 Durban Action Plan, recommendation of the

5^th World Parks Congress

Calls for regional action and targets to establish a network of protected areas by 2010. maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas that collectively, inter alia through a global network contribute to achieving the three objectives of the Convention and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss;

2006 CBD adopts sub-targets and indicators for its strategic plans

“at least 10% of each of the world’s marine and coastal ecological regions to be effectively conserved” by 2010

2008 IUCN published a new set of Guidelines to Protected Area Categories, which included a new definition of a protected area, replacing the 1994 definition and the separate IUCN definition

MPAs were aligned more closely with terrestrial protected areas. Conservation aims within protected areas were strengthened.

13

Several definitions for MPAs exist, though the most commonly cited is that provided by the IUCN:

‘any area of inter-tidal or sub-terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical, or cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other

effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment’

(Kelleher & Kenchington 1991)

This 1992 definition has subsequently been revised by the IUCN and now states:

‘a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with

associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Dudley 2008)

An MPA can be summed up as a spatial management measure that places restrictions on certain user groups. Partially protected areas, fishery reserves, fishery closures, gear restriction zones, and buffer zones are all specific cases of MPA where one or more extractive uses are restricted or managed (Claudet 2011). A no-take marine reserve (NMR) (synonymous with no-take zones and fully protected areas) on the other hand is a specific type of MPA where all extractive uses are forbidden, and in some cases non-extractive uses (e.g. swimming, diving, boating) may also be excluded (Claudet 2011). In both IUCN definitions for MPAs, it is significant that reference is made to cultural features/ values¹⁶. Some authors argue that this aspect has been ignored in many cases during the planning of MPA networks (Christie et al. 2003), with pressure from some environmental groups (e.g. the PEW Conservation Trust) to establish very large NMRs. Such an approach has been criticised by some as the return to the fortress conservation paradigm (De Santo et al. 2011).

This thesis uses the term MPA to describe an area where some fishing may still be allowed, and the term NMR where all fishing is banned. It is also worth bearing in mind that terms describing different types of MPA are not used consistently internationally.

For example, many countries in East Africa use the term ‘marine reserve’ to describe a less restrictive management measure, and ‘marine park’ to describe areas where all fishing is banned (McClanahan et al. 1999).

16The author attended a conference in Greenwich (May 2011) on this issue.

14

Evidently, then, MPAs can be used to accomplish a broad range of objectives and have different meanings to different people (Agardy et al. 2003). Significantly, these

different interpretations may correspond to where an actor’s environmental ethic falls on the spectrum shown in Figure 1.1¹⁷. For example, NMRs may be the only type of MPA recognised as legitimate by many people whose environmental attitudes lie towards the more preservationist end of the spectrum (Figure 1.1), with prohibited trawl areas (PTAs) being favoured by more moderate environmentalists, scientists, and some static gear fishermen.

One could argue that NMRs are associated with the preservationist mind set, and that less restricted MPAs are associated with sustainable use, but many scientists/

practitioners would say that this is a false dichotomy, since the type of restrictions that are put in place will depend on the management objectives of the MPA (Agardy et al.

2003). For example, from a nature conservation perspective, one may want to ban towed bottom gears to protect existing benthic habitats or allow benthic communities to recover from disturbance, but it may not make sense to ban static gear and pelagic gears due to the negligible impact of these on the conservation features (JNCC 2011).

Likewise, in a fisheries management context, if one wanted to protect a proportion of a mixed species fish assemblage from harvesting then it might make sense to

designate an NMR, on the premise that even light levels of selective fishing can truncate the natural age structure of a population (Di Franco et al. 2009a; McCook et al. 2010). Many would argue that policy makers should analyse a designated

conservation feature’s susceptibility to different types of human activity, and taking into account the management objectives for that feature scope out the range of human impacts that will need to be restricted or mitigated¹⁸ (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). This discriminating approach differs significantly from that initially taken by many environmentalists who call for the blunt application of NMRs or PTAs often on the basis of the precautionary principle¹⁹ (Appleby & Jones 2012).

17 Though this is a hypothesis and not been empirically tested.

18 This is the approach being taken by the English MCZ project, though in reality the situation is not this simple due to uncertainty and differences in stakeholder attitude’s to risk.

19 The ‘precautionary principle’ is the English translation of the term ‘Vorsorgeprinzip’ that evolved out of German socio-legal tradition in the 1930s. In an environmental context the 1992 Rio Declaration states that: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a

15

MPAs are often cited as a key tool for the ecosystem-based approach to management (EBM) (Fraschetti et al. 2011), a view that considers the wider impacts of human use on an ecosystem other than just commercially important fish species (Fogarty &

Murawski 1998) (see 1.3.3). In the revised MPA categories of the IUCN, areas designated at level VI should now only be considered MPAs if they ‘have the

sustainable use of natural resources as a means to achieve nature conservation’ and

‘protection of natural ecosystems and promotion of sustainable use must be integrated and beneficial’. Whilst this suggests that fishing and other forms of

exploitation are consistent with this category of MPA, it does so, on the premise that current levels of exploitation are sustainable and that any damage to nature is mitigated. Many ‘MPAs’ currently recognised by national governments, would not be considered MPAs on this revised IUCN definition (Dudley 2008), because they just function as ‘paper parks’. Evidently, then, MPAs face the same short-term political interests and apathy that has caused the perceived failure of other resource management tools (Christie et al. 2003; Kaiser 2004) (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3 Five potential shortcomings of MPAs with examples for each one (Agardy et al.

2011).

Shortcoming Examples

Are ecologically insufficient by virtue of their small size or poor design.

Bloomfield et al (2012)

Are inappropriately planned or managed. Gerhardinger et al (2011) Fail due to the degradation of the unprotected

surrounding ecosystems.

Mora et al (2009)

Do more harm than good due to displacement and unintended consequences of management.

Greenstreet et al (2009), Abbott & Haynie (2012)

Create an illusion of protection when in fact no protection is occurring.

Kareiva (2006)

reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”The ‘precautionary approach’

is subtly different in that: (1) it recognizes that there may be differences in local capabilities to apply the approach, and (2) it calls for cost-effectiveness in applying the approach, e.g., taking economic and social costs into account.”

The ‘approach’ is generally considered a softening of the ‘principle’(Garcia 1995).

16

In document UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA DE AMBATO FACULTAD DE CONTABILIDAD Y AUDITORÍA CARRERA DE CONTABILIDAD Y AUDITORÍA (página 52-0)