Many examples of freshwaterprotectedareas have been established specifically to protect fish from exploitation. However, a major deficiency in protected area policy is that regulations are limited, often permitting fishing by a sub-set of methods or by imposing temporary restrictions. For instance, special rights are often granted to recreational fishers in many areas of the world under the assumption of minimal or no impact to the target or non-target species. For example, downstream of Yarrawonga on the Murray River, Australia, the nationally endangered trout cod (Maccullochella macquariensis) is protected by a complete ban on harvest by any method, but fishing for other species is permitted in the protected zone. Trout cod often comprise unwanted by-catch and therefore endure unquantified post-release mortality or physiological impairment. Similarly, the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve (Peru, South America) was established to protect migratory fish (specifically Arapaima gigas). The freshwater reserve is hailed as a conservation success as netting is completely prohibited in the region. However, the ban has given rise to a strong sports fishery. Many thousands of tourists fish the region annually in hope of catching an Arapaima, which can exceed 100kg. From a long term perspective, large-bodied freshwater species are at the greatest risk of extinction from over-harvest due to small numbers and lower growth rates compared to smaller fish (Allan, Abell et al. 2005). However, this is seldom formally recognised in any PA planning processes. The broader conservation impacts of sustained harvest are seldom considered significant in the context of PA planning.
There are now more than 100,000 protected area sites worldwide. However, according to best available data, the current global systems of protectedareas not sufficiently large, sufficiently well planned, nor sufficiently well managed to maximize their contribution to biodiversity conservation. They do not adequately cover all ecosystems, habitats and species important for conservation. In particular, while 12% of the Earth's land surface is withinprotectedareas, less than one per cent of the World's marine ecosystems are pro- tected and other biomes including major freshwatersystems and grasslands are poorly represented. This necessitated an urgent need to take action to improve coverage, repre- sentativeness and management of protectedareas nationally, regionally and globally. The seventh meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) adopted a programme of work on protectedareas. The overall purpose of the programme of work on protectedareas is to support the establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial and by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protectedareas that collectively, inter alia through a glob- al network contribute to achieving the three objectives of the Convention and the 2010 tar- get to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels and contribute to poverty reduction and the pursuit of sus- tainable development, thereby supporting the objectives of the Strategic Plan of the Convention, the World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation and the Millennium Development Goals.
Ships may transfer species via biofouling (through organism attachment to vessel hulls) or through ballast water discharge (being collected during ballast water up-take). To reduce the transmission of NIS, international and domestic efforts have been made to regulate both the standard to which ship hulls are maintained (IMO 2011) and also the way ballast water is managed (IMO 2004). These approaches are currently in transition around the world (Frazier et al. 2013). With respect to ballast water management, the primary method of regulation has been to require ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing (collectively referred to as BWE – Frazier et al. 2013) to reduce invasion threat. In theory, these practices should reduce species abundance and richness of ballasted organisms by either purging individuals, or killing taxa through osmotic shock. In practice, it appears BWE can effectively reduce invasion risk for freshwater ecosystems, though efficacy is less apparent in marine ecosystems (Wonham et al. 2005, Briski et al. 2013). Requirements to install ballast water treatment systems in ships to limit (or even eliminate) NIS transfer will likely be realised in the coming years under the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO 2004, Gollasch et al. 2007, Norwegian Ministry of Environment 2009, Frazier et al. 2103). Technological and logistical hurdles are expected to delay the immediate impact this requirement will have (Gregg et al. 2009, Balaji et al. 2014), and until such time that systems are installed on all vessels discharging ballast water for a given shipping network, some level of species introduction threat will likely remain.
♦ Recommendations. On a general level, of course, but highly corresponding to the recent Situation of the PA the expert system provides a set of recommendations. These are automatically generated by the system. The conceptual structure behind these recommendations is the analysis of the difference between FoAs needed in the very Situation and the FoAs that really have been executed (well) so far. The recommendations are provided in standardised reports. So, they also allow reporting on the progress of the development or management o fth e PA (time series). The systems information are illustrated by some examples of "best practice" and furthermore lead to the most detailed information that is provided in the knowledge base.
Despite of the growing consensus, many PAs are not functioning as intended and the management standards of a vast majority of PAs remains ambiguous thus regarded as “paper parks” (Geldmann et al. 2015). Substantial gaps remain in the PA coverage and the establishment is still influenced by the availability of land that is easy to protect and away from strategic areas for biodiversity (Venter et al. 2014). Figure 2 below shows the PAs coverage by country across the world. It is clear that in many countries PA coverage and networks are still under the global standard to represent the unique habitats, flora, and fauna. There is also considerable debate on the extent to which PAs deliver conservation outcomes in terms of habitat loss and species conservation. Limited information regarding conservation outcomes in the context of different management inputs in PAs is quite common (Laurance 2013). A recent study by Gray et al. (2016) revealed that globally species richness is 10.6% higher and species abundance is 14.5% higher in PAs than in the surrounding landscapes. It is also true that in tropical developing region many PAs have been established after being modified by human activity and habitat conversion does not decline significantly following gazette notification of PA. In South Asia, for instance, about 25% of the land inside PAs are human-modified and within a dynamic socioecological systems (Clark et al. 2013). Establishment of PAs under such circumstances creates major conflicts with local communities posing significant management challenges (Mukul et al. 2010). This is largely due to the lack of recognition of traditional knowledge and practices, livelihood and dependency prior to the declaration of the area as PA (Chowdhury et al. 2014). In this regard, involvements of local communities in PAs management and incentives to communities dependent on PAs in many instances bring positive outcomes (Mukul et al. 2014; Rashid et al. 2013).
The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning system was developed in response to growing recognition in the U.S. that attempts to define and implement recreational carrying capacities for national park and wilderness protectedareas were both excessively reductionistic and failing. The carrying capacity concept itself, while useful in a generic way to encourage discussion about visitor impacts, was based on biological models of the capability of resources to sustain a given number of animals over a period of time on a particular range or pasture. Such models did not transfer well into ecosystems being managed for human benefits based primarily on recreational experiences that were not themselves well understood. LAC was based on the recognition that (1) specific objectives were needed to identify what it was that management was to protect, (2) change is always present in nature-dominated systems, (3) any recreational use leads to some change, (4) management is therefore confronted with the question of how much change is acceptable, and (5) monitoring of the outcomes of management is needed to determine if actions were effective. In the U.S., LAC was first implemented in designated Wilderness managed by the USDA Forest Service. Since that time, additional work has been conducted in other areas, such as national parks using a derivative system termed the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection planning process. It has also been tested as system for management of tourism development.
From a total of twenty-four identified threats, the study identified the following thirteen major threats that affect the biodiversity eastern Ethiopia protectedareas. These include: Domestic animal grazing in, Shortage of funding for PA management, Destruction of wild animal habitats as result of increased human population, Expansion of invasive alien species in protectedareas, Lack of well-organized law enforcement/Customary rules to punish people who violates the PA rules and regulations, Encroachment of human settlement in or around PA, Human wildlife conflict in/around PA communities, Lack of alternative livelihood activities for the people who rely on the PA for survival, Loss and degradation of wildlife migration and dispersal, Lack PA impact assessment and monitoring by concerned bodies, Firewood and charcoal harvesting from PA destroys wild animal habitat, Lose communication between field and main office staffs to solve PA problems, Lack of equitable sharing of money/resources generated by the PA among the nearby community and Lack of awareness by local community about the uses of conserving biodiversity. Almost all of the five protectedareas are susceptible to most of the identified threat factors. However, managing the major threats mentioned above would ensure protection of the eastern Ethiopia protectedareas.
In 2006 (updated in 2010), the International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) made an international com- mitment to conserve “at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland waters, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, (…) through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protectedareas (…) by 2020,” which is known as Aichi Target 11 . Following this declaration, the number of PAs increased in the subsequent years to the present, resulting in more than 10 million km 2 of MPAs worldwide and a 360% growth in only 10 years [1, 18, 19, 22, 33]. For example, the 1.1 million-km 2 Marae Moana: Cook Islands Marine Park, which was created in 2012, as well as the 1.3 million-km 2 Parc naturel de la mer de Corail in 2014 and the more recent (2015) 500,000-km 2 Palau National Marine Sanctuary. This trend is also observable in Chile, where the largest MPAs in South America, the Motu Motiro Hiva Marine Park (150,000 km 2 ) and the Nazca- Desventuradas Marine Park (300,035 km 2 ), were created in 2010 and 2016, respectively. This rapid increasing in large-scale MPAs in recent years has allowed nations to join international conservation agreements, whether geo-political or ecological, to meet self-imposed protection targets.
size range, our sample included a wide spectrum of management types (run by government agencies, nongovernmental organiza- tions, and local communities; zoned and not zoned), objectives (e.g., biodiversity protection, recreation, conflict reduction, and fishery enhancement), and resources protected (e.g., coral reefs, whales, and coastal scenery). Of the 76 MPAs that reported their purpose, 75 (98.7%) listed habitat and species protection (the remaining MPA was solely for research), and protection was the primary purpose for 58 (76.5%). Therefore, our sample is broadly representative of the range of MPAs in use worldwide (16), and should produce a meaningful approximation of the costs of running a global MPA system, with one important caveat: because questionnaires were only distributed to MPAs for which we could obtain contact details, and only 16% re- sponded, our figures are probably biased toward relatively well managed and funded MPAs.
months in which attendance is usually high and in which it is reduced. In that case, the maximum number of allowed visits per day and per month for protectedareas is calculated only for months with a higher number of visits because during the off-season months, the number of visitors is reduced and poses no threat to the site or to the environment. Visitors ‘guidelines for the accommodation capacities in the environment are an integral part of preventive measures for the preservation of the entire nature of protectedareas, which enhances their significance. In a greater or lesser extent, almost all countries of the world have established their national parks and other types of protectedareas to ensure long-term protection of natural resources. In many countries, national parks have played a significant role as tourist attractions. In some other countries, they are the foundation of a small, but an often important tourism industry 10 .
T he Channel Islands—sometimes called the Galapagos of North America—are known for their great beauty, rich biodiversity, cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities. In 1980, in recognition of the islands’ importance, the United States Congress established a national park encompassing 5 of California’s Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands) and waters within 1 nautical mile of the islands. In the same year, Congress declared a national marine sanctuary around each of these islands, including waters up to 6 nautical miles offshore. Approximately 60,000 people visit the Channel Islands each year for aquatic recreation such as fishing, sailing, kayaking, wildlife watching, surfing, and diving. Another 30,000 people visit the islands for hiking, camping, and sightseeing. Dozens of commercial fishing boats based in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Oxnard, and other ports go to the Channel Islands to catch squid, spiny lobster, sea urchin, rockfish, crab, sheephead, flatfish, and sea cucumber, among other species. In the past few decades, advances in fishing technology and the rising number of fishermen, in conjunction with changing ocean conditions and diseases, have contributed to declines in some marine fishes and invertebrates at the Channel Islands. In 1998, citizens from Santa Barbara and Ventura proposed establishment of no-take marine reserves at the Channel Islands, beginning a 4-year process of public meetings, discussions, and scientific analyses. In 2003, the California Fish and Game Commission designated a network of marine protectedareas (MPAs) in state waters around the northern Channel Islands. In 2006 and 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) extended the MPAs into the national marine sanctuary’s deeper, federal waters.
In 2008, two additional management cat- egories, entirely marine, were established: Marine Reserves and Marine Management Areas (Executive Decrees 34433, 35369). Marine Reserves are defined as coastal-marine and/or oceanic areas that ensure the mainte- nance, integrity and viability of natural ecosys- tems as a priority, benefiting the communities through a sustainable use of the resources, characterized by its low impact according to technical criteria. Marine Management Areas are defined as marine, coastal and/or oce- anic areas where several activities take place in order to guarantee the protection and main- tenance of the marine biodiversity on the long term. These two categories shall pursue to benefit the communities (dependant on the use of resources), and for education, scientific research and monitoring.
Lambi, C.M., Kimengsi, J.N., Kometa, C.G. and Tata, E.S. (2012). The management and challenges of protectedareas and the sustenance of local livelihoods in Cameroon. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 2, 10. Lanjouw, A. (2014). Mining/oil extraction and ape populations and habitats. In State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–62. Available at: http://www.stateoftheapes.com/themes/industrial-mining-oil-and-gas/.
Section 2. Fish Reserve. This Act shall create a fish reserve, to be located in the Sasanhaya Bay of Rota, between and including Puña Point and the Coral Gardens. The boundaries of said reserve will be delineated by buoys to help the public identify the area and comply with the regulations, and also greatly assist law enforcement. Killing or removing, or attempting to remove, any marine animal, including but not limited to any fishes, coral (live or dead), lobster, shellfish, clams or octopus shall be prohibited within this reserve. Shell removal shall also be prohibited. Any other activities which are exploitive or destructive to the marine life and/or the World War II wrecks (specifically the sub chaser and the Japanese freighter Shoun Maru), shall be strictly prohibited within this fish reserve.
conservation authorities, is presented graphically in Figure 12 and in tabular form in Table 1. In short, in a more fully developed co-management model, not only would local people contribute to conservation authorities' need for field-based monitoring of wildlife populations, for anti-poaching support, etc., there would also be, in the opposite direction, support for local communities' socio-economic development endeavours, as long as these remain clearly within the parameters of the environmental goals of the re- gion (whether inside or outside of protectedareas). Thus, when a social-ecological system such as the Tibetan grassland environment is overlaid with a ‘ co-management model ’ (Figure 12), this model should include three main levels, each with complementary halves (see Table 1). First, for all direct services rendered by community members, ap- propriate payments should be made. Second, for indirect services such as the main- tenance of proper ecosystem functions (whether this be based on continuation of traditional practices, or the adoption of new sustainable land management practices), adequate payments for these ecosystem services should be made, or for opportunities lost (cf. eco-compensation). Third, the government should provide supporting and enabling environments for environmentally sound socio-economic development to take place in areas of ecological interest. Such support may include enhanced clarity regarding strategic opportunities and legislation affecting local development, e.g. commu- nity ecotourism in nature reserves, and the creation of more space for community-based financial mechanisms and structures, e.g. community cooperatives and trust funds.
national ecosystem assessment—carried out from 2000 to 2010—quantified and mapped changes in food production, car- bon sequestration, soil retention, sand- storm prevention, water retention, flood mitigation and the provision of habitat for biodiversity. It showed significant improve- ments in most services, with the worrying exception of habitat for biodiversity con- servation (Ouyang et al., 2016). Incorporating natural values into project planning also has much potential to con- tribute to conservation in the ape range states of Africa and Asia, even where data and capacity are limited (Bhagabati et al., 2014; Mandle et al., 2016b; Univer- sity of Cambridge, 2012; Watkins et al., 2016). In the Greater Virungas land- scape, a key region for the conservation of gorillas and chimpanzees in Africa’s Albertine Rift, a natural-capital assess- ment helped decision-makers in Rwanda and the DRC to identify the location and importance of areas for water yield, sed- iment retention, carbon storage and non-timber forest products (University of Cambridge, 2012). In Myanmar, a national assessment showed where and how natural capital contributes to clean and reliable drinking water, reduces risks from inland flooding and coastal storms, and maintains reservoir and dam function- ing by greatly reducing erosion (Mandle et al., 2016b). In Indonesia, natural-capital tools were used to inform spatial plan- ning in Sumatra and Borneo, and at the national level. The informed land use planning will be incorporated into efforts to build governance and financing that improve outcomes for people and biodi- versity (Bhagabati et al., 2014; GEF, 2013; Sulistyawan et al., 2017).
This chapter outlined the socio-econom ic and ecological characteristics which provide a background to the thesis. The systems o f management w ere outlined in their historical and legal contexts. Centralised management covers the role o f the state in wildlife management. C ongolese law vests most o f the rights over wildlife managem ent to the G overnm ent institution, ICCN. H owever, a legacy o f conflict and econom ic collapse in C ongo has limited the ability o f state institutions to assume effective authority over wildlife management. At G aramba National Park, long term financial and technical support has enabled the centralised authority to operate, but its activities do not cover all parts o f the protected area. The centralised wildlife authorities have only limited influence on wildlife management in the hunting reserves. Local adm inistrations exist in the hunting reserves, but these have also been deeply influenced by historical legacies. These include efforts by colonial and com mercial interests to coerce traditional authorities into imposing cotton production on the agricultural communities. P ost colonial history saw the re-establishment o f local systems o f authority, largely from the vacuum left by a declining state administration. The local systems o f adm inistration are now closely tied to a rapidly grow ing informal economy, which largely revolves around the supply o f food to urban markets. Bushm eat is an im portant part o f these systems o f trade.
Research shows that MPAs can increase biodiversity and allow a marine ecosystem to return to its "natural" state (e.g., Boersma and Parrish 1999). Non-extractive users may value these changes to the marine ecosystem. For example, designating a special marine area, like a park or sanctuary, to protect biodiversity may increase its usefulness; such an area could be used for diving and photography. Improving the health of the ocean may also appeal to individuals who might never intend to use the area, but who value its existence nonetheless. If a MPA does attract new visitors, this can lead to additional jobs, income, and tax revenues for the local community. It is even possible that potential increases in revenue from tourism could offset potential losses due to lower commercial or recreational catches because of the closure. Obviously, the location and setting of a particular MPA would play a critical role in the magnitude of these benefits and costs. For example, a protected area offshore that is mainly occupied by bottom-dwelling species will most likely not have a significant tourism potential, while a coral-reef closure might. In general, a MPA can offer protection and provide the possibility for economic returns to sectors of the economy not directly tied to commercial fishing. In fact, studies of marine parks in the Caribbean found that proper management could yield both (Dixon et al. 1993).
The most common and increasing prevalent concern of owners of contract management applications is the growing size of the database. Many systems are approaching the threshold of requiring increased attention because of several years of use. At the same time, industry needs are dramatically increasing the rate of growth moving forward.
Given the differing objectives and constraints of various interest groups, and that the costs and benefits of MPAs are not shared evenly, the avoidance of conflict is also one of the criteria to be considered for the configuration of marine reserves (Agardy, 2000). Sumaila and Armstrong (2006) make the point that if, when a reserve is established, there is a cooperative interaction, it should benefit all parties involved with the fishery, while a non- cooperative interaction creates winners and losers. Evidence of a non-cooperative situation can be found for the Hout Bay lobster sanctuary, Karbonkelberg Sanctuary and Olifants River Estuary in Cape Town, South Africa (Sowman et al., 2017). Accordingly intense conflict took place between the state having ecological objectives and the local fishing community over. The main cause was that the human dimension, referring mainly to small-scale fishers, were not integrated in the policy design of the marine reserves. The conflict was also well demonstrated by Weigul et al (2008) who showed how a reserve at site which protected the leopard groupers at Carmen Island was at the expense of local commercial fishers whilst SCUBA divers and tour operators benefitted from rising abundance and fish size. As a solution, Fraschetti et al. (2009) suggest selecting MPA sites which minimise conflict, and maximize the likelihood of local support. If the interest of stakeholders is to be taken into account, then some form of multi-criteria decision analysis, with due recognition of human factors may be necessary for the site selection and size of an MPA.