these challenges
1.4. MPA management must become more effective
The part of all MPAs that have a management structure is of only 42%. Across the panel of 80 surveyed MPAs, over half (56%) still don’t have a management plan. 67% of MPAs who already have a management plan have already evaluated it. Most of the MPAs (76%) are governed by the government whether at a local, regional or national level, with only 11% having shared governance in co-management or joint
70
collaboration611. Only three MPAs reported being directly managed by local
communities, but more than 60% of MPAs declared that local stakeholders were involved in the planning and management, and nearly half of the MPAs have developed a charter of good conduct with users (fishermen, divers ...). As for the involvement of scientists in management, half of the MPAs have no scientific committee. MPAs are strongly taken into account in policy local planning (91% of MPAs). Half of the MPAs have a good cooperation with other Mediterranean MPAs, indicating that the human network for exchanging experiences (particularly MedPAN) works quite well.
The ability to rely on an ecological baseline (habitat change, species populations, or functionality of the MPA) or socio-economic status (MPA visitor numbers, MPA- induced benefits for the population ...) and ensuring regular monitoring of parameters and corresponding indicators is essential to give support to management decisions and adapt them regularly. Many MPAs have indicated a baseline on habitats and species (70% of MPAs) even if it is not always complete, and a socio-economic baseline (56% - against 48% in 2008), with respect to regular monitoring this is provided in 80% of MPAs surveyed (against 39% in 2008) and three-quarters of them also provide specific studies on different relevant MPA topics. The managers and their teams are involved in about 30% of monitoring alongside scientists.
On human resources management, 84% of MPAs reported having permanent staff, the most often supplemented by seasonal and temporary staff, which is quite important even if it is difficult to know what kind of staff they are (in administrative offices or technical staff actually assigned to MPA management in the field). Ten MPAs (12%) however indicated having no full-time/permanent staff (including five with no staff at all). Enforcement is recognized critical elements to ensure the good management of MPAs. If only a quarter of the MPAs reported having sworn-in personnel, most of them rely on partners for surveillance such as coast guards, marine police, armed forces or the police. MPAs are fairly well equipped in boats (surveillance and research), with only 12% indicating none and 30% having more than 2 boats. They are quite well equipped in GIS equipment too (more than 3/4 of the MPAs), this is a significant improvement on 2008. In contrast, signs of demarcation at sea showing the
6 In the "collaborative" management, decision-making and responsibility is assigned to an organization,
but it is required by law or by political decision to inform or consult other stakeholders. Participation in collaborative management can be enhanced by giving bodies which are composed of various stakeholders the responsibility of developing technical proposals for the regulation and management of the protected area, which will then be subject to the final approval of the decision-making body. In "joint" management, various stakeholders sit on a management body that has the authority and responsibility for decision-making. Decisions may or may not require a consensus.
71
boundaries of the MPAs are rare (11% of MPAs), as well as diving equipment, thus MPAs are generally poorly equipped.
Financial resources are essential for good management, but very few MPAs gave information on their operating budgets or investment and among those who responded their budgets differ vastly with 7 MPAs whose operating budget is between 20 000 and 100 000 €/km², 8 between 10 000 and 20 000 €/km², and 15 MPAs between 1 and 10,000 €/km². Funding is mainly from government (89% of MPAs); few MPAs get funding from NGOs and international donors, while 36% of MPAs are self-financed, which is still too little to ensure the sustainability of MPAs who have no other resources, including some countries in the South or the North-East. The commitment of the private sector is currently low (only eight MPAs mentioned it).
4
MedPAN contribution to challenges on Mediterranean MPAs
Since 1990, the MedPAN network has brought together the managers of Mediterranean MPAs and has supported them in their management activities. Activities were temporarily ceased between 1996 and 2004, due to lack of funding. In 2004, the MedPAN network was revived by the Port-Cros National Park and WWF France that coordinated an Interreg IIIC project with 23 partners in the Mediterranean. After the first Mediterranean MPA Conference in 2007; MPA managers decided then to create a long-term organization with an independent governance to coordinate the network. In 2008, MedPAN became a legally independent association (established under the French law) with international governance and a permanent Secretariat was established in Hyeres.
Currently, the MedPAN organization has 9 founding members, 31 members (MPA managers), 24 partners (activities related to MPA) in 18 Mediterranean countries. MedPAN is organized through a Board of Directors, a General Assembly, a Scientific Committee, an Advisory Committee and several expert committees. MedPAN aims to promote the establishment, the operation and sustainability of the network of MPAs contributing to the Convention on Biological Diversity, to the Barcelona Convention and to different European policies on marine issues.
The MedPAN network's mission is to promote, through a partnership approach, the sustainability and operation of a network of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean which are ecologically representative, connected and effectively managed to help reduce the current rate of marine biodiversity loss. MedPAN developed a 2013-2017 strategy with 3 main axis:
72
- Reinforce the vitality of the network, interactivity between members and building their capacity for an effective management of MPAs with stakeholders
- Reinforce the MedPAN network’s sustainability, prominence, governance and resources.
Main activities implemented include: MPA database (MAPAMED) and Status Report of the network, call for small projects, trainings and exchange visits and workshops, link with scientist on monitoring and information-watch, communication through website and e-newsletter, representation of the MPA network in priorities political arena. MedPAN and its partners, the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA), the General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection (Turkey) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Turkey, also organize the 2012 Forum of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Mediterranean being held from November 25th to 28th, 2012 in Antalya, Turkey.
This Forum will serve as a platform to review the progress of the Mediterranean MPA network developed over the last years, and establish a common roadmap for 2020 in order to meet marine conservation challenges in the region. It will also provide an opportunity to:
- Bring together the representatives of the national agencies for the environment, fisheries, tourism and economy in the Mediterranean countries; managers of marine protected areas; scientists; regional and international partners; and local economic actors to share experiences and knowledge,
- Articulate a common vision among the Mediterranean MPA community through constructive dialogue and engagement and,
- Help demonstrate the economic, social and cultural importance of MPAs.
Given the current economic crisis and political upheaval, the preservation of the natural, cultural and social features of the Mediterranean region will only be possible if all riparian countries and stakeholders are committed to pursuing a common vision to strengthen the marine protected areas network for the benefit of our Mediterranean communities especially those living in fragile and vulnerable eco-systems.
5
References
Gabrié C., Meola, B., Webster, C. (2012): Status of the Network of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean. MedPAN & RAC/SPA. Ed.: MedPAN Collection.
www.medpan.org www.mapamed.org
73