Estabilización inicial

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are well known as an efficient management tool for their contribution to food security and sustainable livelihoods while protecting resources and restocking adjacent fisheries. The benefits of MPAs are well documented, including an increase in the diversity, density, biomass, body size and reproductive potential of many species (particularly key fisheries species) within their boundaries (Babcock 2010; Lester et al. 2009; Halpern, 2003; Palumbi, 2004; Russ, 2002). MPAs can also provide conservation and fisheries benefits to surrounding areas through the export of eggs, larvae and adults to other reserves and fished areas. However, to be effective, MPAs have to be correctly designed and developed from an ecosystem perspective integrating adjacent communities (when existing) in its implementation and monitoring.

A usual principle in designing MPA is to consider a total area large enough to include 20-40% of the fishing stock and to ensure that the species’ home range pattern is protected. While surgeonfishes, goatfishes, parrotfishes or groupers have a home-range from 1 to 5 km, larger parrotfishes, small snappers and emperors have a home-range over a length of 10km and large snappers, emperors as well as sharks and jacks can have a home-range way bigger than 10km (Green et al. 2013). It doesn’t seem very realistic to consider implementing such a large MPA in Vava’u’s main group of island. However, given the repartition of reefs and islands of Vava’u, a network including different types of small reserves not distant from each other for more than 10km may have a significative impact in resource recovery. Indeed, distance between MPAs, is important because it influences the degree to which populations are connected through adult, juvenile and larval movements. This connectivity among populations helps maintain fish stocks, diversity and build ecosystem resilience by ensuring that marine reserves are mutually replenishing to facilitate recovery after disturbance (Green et al. 2013). Several priority areas for conservation stand out from this survey and the following management options are suggested for further conservation strategies in Vava’u

■ The islands of Maninita and Fangasito stand out from the analysis as locations of particular interest for conservation due to the comparatively higher abundance and diversity of fish and better balanced fish community structure. The existing network of reefs surrounding the sites and the influence of oceanic waters may contribute to provide a set of various habitats and good conditions allowing a greater range of species – including planktivores, piscivores and apex predators’ species - to settle on these sites. Both located closed to a site that could benefit from a protection status (respectively Taula Island and Fonua’one’one Island), an integrative management including neighbours sites is advised. Different management approach can be suggested to ensure efficient conservation and recovery of fishes ‘stocks. A permanent enclosure could be considered for both areas. However permanent enclosure is usually badly perceived by fishermen while in the meantime, given the distance of these sites from the first villages, only a limited number of fishers actually fish on these reefs and the impact of such a strong regulation will be limited. Another option would then be to consider protecting specific families. Several groups were highlighted in this survey as poorly or underrepresented and this two sites could constitute Marine Protected Area where, as an example, fishing of groupers, snappers, emperors, rabbitfishes, sweetlips and/or jacks could be prohibited. While including two neighbour sites within one area will ensure protection and connectivity of species with a small home-range, the protection of two adjacent area (Maninita Island - Taula Island / Fangasito Island - Fonua’one’one Island) will ensure protection and connectivity of species with a greater home-range. ■ With the same configuration as the previous locations, ‘Euakafa Island and Euiki Island stand out from the analysis as sites

that could be included within the same management strategy with ‘Euakafa being a priority island for conservation and Euiki Island that could benefit from such a protection status. However, these two islands are located right next to two Special Management Areas (SMA) including Fish Habitat Reserve (FHR) (Ovaka and Taunga). In a context where these two sites may already benefit from an efficient management of the adjacent SMAs, it seems interesting to support these benefits by applying simple and light regulations. While it doesn’t seems necessary to ban fishing for any specific families, it might be interesting however to ban the use of nets and spears and only allow line fishing (with a limited number of hooks per boat). By doing so, fishing pressure may be reduce as well as selectivity and the whole area (including two SMAs with two FHR and one Gear Restriction Area) with its central position in the Vava’u group may contribute to stock recovery through spill over effect.

■ Umana Island wasn’t standing out from the analysis as a high priority site for conservation. However, despite a low species richness, the site presents quite good characteristics and could quickly presents higher quantities and diversity of fishes from a proper management. As ‘Euakafa Island and Euiki Island, this island is located closer from villages which could benefit from such a management. Even more and for better results adjacent villages could be involved in the management of the site which could be identified as a Special Management Area. Both Ofu and Olo’ua are located closed by Umana island with Ofu being the closer. According to local social organisation one of the two sites or both if feasible, could be

Rapid Biodiversity Assessment of the Vava'u Archipelago, Kingdom of Tonga 173 highly recommended on the island of Umana and including both lagoon and reef-slope seaward in order to protect larger carnivores and piscivores species.

■ Remotely located from the main group of islands, the area including Fonualei Island, Toku Island and Joe’s Spit could easily constitute a marine park with different type of zoning corresponding to different management objectives. While both Fonualei Island and Joe’s Spit appears to be spawning aggregation grounds, Joe’s Spit is also richer and more abundant location of the whole survey while Toku Island is pretty much poor and may benefit from a protection status. Even if the whole area is far from the main group of island and may not be submitted to high fishing pressure, a management strategy may definitely worth it. Indeed, recent studies for a range of species (including key fisheries species), have shown that some larvae move long distances (10s to 100s of km), while other stay close to home (10s to 100s of m). So varying the spacing of marine reserves from one to more than 20 km apart (with a mode of 1 to 10 km) will accommodate the larval dispersal patterns of most species (Green et al. 2013). While potential MPAs in the main group of Vava’u will be relatively closed to each other, a large and distant MPA like this may have significant impact for the stock recovery. As protecting a big area like this with specific zoning may also have an “attractive” effect for fishermen as it is distant and hard to survey, managers have to be careful with their strategy. Indeed, protecting Joe’s Spit on its own will put under the spotlight an isolated reef which is quite hard to find otherwise. Thus, including Joe’s Spit in a zone that include a wider area (As an example including Fonualei) may be more strategic. Whatever the management strategy that could be adopted for this area, it seems important to 1) protect the spawning grounds (prohibit fishing on reefs for 6 month a year between August and February for example), 2) Limit the fishing pressure (allowing bottom-fishing and offshore fishing but limiting reef fishing to line-fishing) 3) make sure that the area remain a sanctuary for large-bodied under represented fishes families such as groupers, snappers, jacks, sharks, mackerels, barracudas…

These are just recommendations from a two weeks survey and are based on a snapshot of reefs showing various states of richness at one time of the year. Further options for management would be to identify and protect key habitats such as mangroves, seagrass beds, fringing reefs as they constitute nurseries for a great number of reef species as well as they constitute the main habitats of several species such as the Emperors.

No matter which management strategy is chosen, MPAs should be designed from a long term perspective. Indeed, MPA’s primary benefits such as an increase in size of fish, offspring production and spill-over effects can be realised within a short period (>0-5 years). However, as the Vava’uan fisheries are heavily overfished, long term protections should be considered (20 years at least) to ensure effective stock recovery and benefit to Vava’u’s fisheries at the global level overtime. Using these guidelines to design the MPAs, several community consultations should be conducted to ensure acceptance of the various projects. Moreover, management initiatives that involve communities in the planning and monitoring activities such as the SMAs must be encouraged and further more develop. As implementation of MPA’s with fishing restriction may impact the fishing ground of many fishermen, strong incentives have to be developed to provide new alternatives for local communities’ livelihood. As examples, such alternatives could include:

■ The MPA monitoring to ensure that rules and regulations are respected. This implies mediation, communication and awareness trainings as part of a capacity building project.

■ The monitoring of the protected resources overtime to evaluate the efficiency of the MPA. This implies underwater visual census, organism identification and data collection as trainings for part of a capacity building project. As highlighted in this report, the lake of previous studies on the same sites limit the comparisons and it is very difficult to identify any trends of evolution of fish stocks overtime. It seems absolutely necessary to consider further surveys on the same sites in the years coming.

■ The development of touristic and educational activities. Guides from local communities could be trained and involved. These are only few examples of what can be developed within such a MPA. A comprehensive guide “economic incentives for marine conservation” was developed by Conservation International to help better understanding how to motivate sustainable behaviour by constructing economic alternatives. This approach may help in understanding how to distribute cost and benefits from conservation. The Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) Network established in 12 Pacific Island countries could also represent an efficient help for the Ministry of fisheries to benefit as well as sharing experience with other community-based management projects and help identifying important milestones.