ArticlePDF Available

Using the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas to promote conservation impact through marine protected areas: Marine Protected Areas and the IUCN Green List of Protected Areas

Authors:
  • Berks Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust

Abstract

With the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) growing rapidly and progress being made towards protecting 10% of the ocean, as called for by the Convention on Biological Diversity, there is equally a need to increase efforts and provide incentives for effective management of these sites. The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA), a voluntary global standard that protected areas and their agencies may decide to commit to working towards, has been set up to contribute to this. Protected areas can achieve Green List status by demonstrating a certain performance level and by meeting outcomes measured against a set of defined criteria. An assured verification process is followed before sites are recognized. The GLPCA will thus encourage and identify those protected areas (both terrestrial and marine) that are effectively managed, have equitable governance and achieve significant conservation impacts. The GLPCA pilot phase announced the first 25 protected areas to meet the criteria at the IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney in November 2014. These included four MPAs: Iroise Natural Marine Park, Cerbère-Banyuls Natural Nature Reserve, and Guadeloupe National Park in France, and Gorgona National Park in Colombia. Italy and China also participated in the pilot phase and each has an MPA that is continuing to work towards GLPCA status. The experiences of these sites are described, as well as three other programmes (two regional and one global) that are being developed to promote improved management of MPAs. This information will be useful for other MPAs considering participation in the GLPCA initiative. Copyright
Using the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas to
promote conservation impact through marine protected areas
SUE WELLS
a,
*, PRUE F.E. ADDISON
b
, PAULA A. BUENO
c
, MARCO COSTANTINI
d
, ANNE FONTAINE
e
,
LAURENT GERMAIN
f
, THIERRY LEFEBVRE
g
, LANCE MORGAN
h
, FRANCIS STAUB
i
, BIN WANG
j
,
ALAN WHITE
k
and MARÍA X. ZORRILLA
c
a
WCPA-Marine, Cambridge, UK
b
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK and Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia
c
Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, Colombia
d
Marine Programme, WWF Italy, Italy
e
Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife, Guadeloupe, France
f
Agence des aires marines protégées, France
g
Comité français de lUICN, France
h
Marine Conservation Institute, USA
i
Biodiversité Conseil, UK
j
General Ofce of State Oceanic Administration, China
k
Asia-Pacic Program, The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii, USA
ABSTRACT
1. With the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) growing rapidly and progress being made towards
protecting 10% of the ocean, as called for by the Convention on Biological Diversity, there is equally a need to
increase efforts and provide incentives for effective management of these sites.
2. The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA), a voluntary global standard that
protected areas and their agencies may decide to commit to working towards, has been set up to contribute to this.
3. Protected areas can achieve Green List status by demonstrating a certain performance level and by meeting
outcomes measured against a set of dened criteria. An assured verication process is followed before sites are
recognized. The GLPCA will thus encourage and identify those protected areas (both terrestrial and marine)
that are effectively managed, have equitable governance and achieve signicant conservation impacts.
4. The GLPCA pilot phase announced the rst 25 protected areas to meet the criteria at the IUCN World Parks
Congress in Sydney in November 2014. These included four MPAs: Iroise Natural Marine Park, Cerbère-Banyuls
Natural Nature Reserve, and Guadeloupe National Park in France, and Gorgona National Park in Colombia.
Italy and China also participated in the pilot phase and each has an MPA that is continuing to work towards
GLPCA status.
5. The experiences of these sites are described, as well as three other programmes (two regional and one global)
that are being developed to promote improved management of MPAs. This information will be useful for other
MPAs considering participation in the GLPCA initiative.
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 20 September 2015; Revised 18 April 2016; Accepted 23 April 2016
*Correspondence to: Sue Wells, WCPA-Marine, 95 Burnside, Cambridge CB1 3PA, UK. Email: suewells1212@gmail.com
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2679
KEY WORDS: ocean; subtidal; reef; marine protected area; conservation evaluation
INTRODUCTION
The rush to create new and larger MPAs in order to
meet the 10% coverage of the oceans as laid out in
Aichi Target 11 (CBD, 2011; Juffe-Bignoli et al.,
2014) has raised concern among practitioners and
scientists about the push for quantity over
quality, with the risk of increasing numbers of
paper parksthat are neither effectively nor
equitably managed (De Santo, 2013; Coad et al.,
2015). There is an urgent need to build capacity
and provide incentives to ensure that sites are
managed to achieve their objectives.
The IUCN Green List of Protected and
Conserved Areas (GLPCA)
1
is designed with this
in mind and has been set up to identify terrestrial
and marine protected areas that are considered to
be effective according to a global standard.
Protected areas wishing to be included on the
GLPCA have to satisfy a threshold of agreed
criteria and minimum standards, appropriate for
the local and national context. This includes
meeting their conservation goals, achieving
effective management and facilitating equitable
governance. The aim is to create a tool that uses a
Global Standard to demonstrate conservation
outcomes of protected areas in a measurable
fashion, based on performance and quality of
governance and management. The Global
Standard will provide the benchmark for
recognition of successful Green Listprotected
and conserved areas, and encourage and support
commitment from protected areas agencies to
improve performance.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) have both
demonstrated how voluntary standards can
strengthen the management of forests and marine
resources, and there is good reason to believe that
a similar approach could be used for protected
areas. The idea of a global GLPCA was rst
formally discussed in 2008 by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
and the World Commission on Protected Areas
(WCPA). At the World Conservation Congress in
Jeju, South Korea, in September 2012, an IUCN
Resolution WCC5.041 on Green Listingwas
passed (IUCN, 2012). Subsequently, a specic
request (CBD COP 11 Decision XI/24) was made
by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
to the IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme
(GPAP) for assistance to help the Parties to the
Convention achieve the qualitative aspects of Aichi
Target 11 (CBD, 2012). Good progress is being
made on the quantitativeaspects of the target (i.e.
in the case of MPAs that 10% of coastal and
marine areas should be protected), but less
progress is being made on the requirement that
protected areas should be effectively and
equitably managed. In response, the IUCN Green
List Initiative was established in early 2013.
The 2008 Plan of Action for WCPA-Marine
(Laffoley, 2008) had already noted the role that
certication schemes could play in promoting
effective management of MPAs. This was
discussed further in 2012 at a meeting convened by
the French MPA Agency, which concluded that a
single approach, crossing the land/sea divide,
would be important and that an MPA-specic
process is not necessary (Laffoley, 2012). The
GLPCA is thus designed for all protected areas,
whether terrestrial or marine, regardless of the size
or location of the site.
The GLPCA is designed to recognize those sites
that have a clear understanding and articulation of
their natural and social values, and can
demonstrate that the conservation objectives for
these values are being achieved. Participation is
voluntary. Sites do not necessarily need to protect
globally important biodiversity, such as key
biodiversity areas (KBAs)
2
(a primarily terrestrial
conceived and focused initiative).
The pilot phase (20132014) of the GLPCA
process involved IUCN, national and other
1
During the pilot phase, the term Green List of Protected Areas
(GLPA) was used.
2
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/
gpap_biodiversity/gpap_wcpabiodiv/gpap_pabiodiv/
key_biodiversity_areas
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 25
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
partners (Korea (National Park Service), Colombia
(Parques Nacionales Naturales), France, Italy,
Spain (Andalucia), Australia (NSW), China,
Kenya), and a wide variety of experts and
conservation NGOs. A total of 28 protected areas
were nominated and of these, 25 sites were
successful and achieved GLPCA status, as
announced at the World Parks Congress in Sydney
in November 2014. Four of these were MPAs.
This paper describes the pilot phase of the
GLPCA programme and looks at the experiences
and challenges faced by the six MPAs that took
part in the pilot phase in order to share these with
other MPAs interested in participating. The paper
also reviews related initiatives concerned with the
assessment of MPA management effectiveness and
discusses how these can be used to help MPAs
work towards GLPCA recognition.
GLPCA PROCESS DURING THE PILOT
PHASE
The GLPCA Global Standard is structured around
four pillarsof conservation success: (1) sound
planning; (2) equitable governance; and (3) effective
management, that together will (4) achieve
successful outcomes in terms of both social equity
and conservation of natural values. Under these
four pillars, there are criteria (20 in the pilot phase,
Table 1) which apply globally. Each criterion is
linked to indicators which can be adapted locally
and that detail the specic requirements that must
be met within a particular thematic or geographical
jurisdiction to demonstrate conformity with that
criterion. The criteria ensure global consistency, and
the indicators provide the exibility to account for
the specic context of the jurisdiction in which the
protected area is located. The rst version of the
GLPCA Global Standard (IUCN GPAP and
WCPA, 2014) was approved by the GLPCA
Management Committee in May 2014 and used for
the pilot phase.
The assurance system for the GLPCA (IUCN
GPAP, 2014), which makes the standard credible,
and ensures consistency, impartiality and rigour in
its global application, is being developed by
Accreditation Services International (ASI), the
company that also assures the integrity of
sustainability standards for the FSC and the MSC.
As part of this system, the ten International Social
and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling
(ISEAL) Credibility Principles (ISEAL Alliance,
2013) have been incorporated into the GLPCA
Standard and its related procedures as follows
(IUCN GPAP, 2014):
Sustainability, relevance and truthfulness: covered
by the GLPCA standard.
Accessibility and efciency: addressed in local
adaptations of the GLPCA standard.
Improvement: covered in the GLPCA standard and
the GLPCA standard development procedure.
Rigour, engagement, impartiality and transparency:
covered in the GLPCA assurance procedure.
IUCN is a subscriber to the ISEAL Alliance, and
the use of the principles provides assurance at all
stages in the process, that the protected areas are
being listed on merit and gives global credibility to
and recognition of the efforts of protected area
agencies.
It is worth noting that although there is a link
between the GLPCA and the FSCs certication
criteria which allow for the presence of
conservation zonesor protection areasto add
credit to the scoring of a forest area seeking
certication by the FSC, this is not the case with
the MSC. There is no requirement under the MSC
Standard for a shery management regime to
include MPAs if it is to be certied. However, if
MPAs exist in a shery seeking certication, any
benets that could affect the scoring of
Performance Indicators should be considered.
For the pilot phase, the GLPCA was managed by
IUCNs GPAP and WCPA, together with IUCNs
regional ofces. The IUCN GLPCA Committee
was appointed by the IUCN Director General and
was responsible at the global level for the GLPCA
Standard and Assurance Procedures, strategy and
operation, and the nal decisions. In order to meet
the assurance requirements, members of the
Committee had to declare interests and abstain
from voting where necessary.
The general approach was that a country or
region worked with IUCN and WCPA through a
S. WELLS ET AL.26
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
3-step programme (now revised to a 4-step process
see DISCUSSION):
1. Registration: basic data on the protected area(s)
submitted; protected areas commit to the Global
Standard; candidacy applications prepared.
2. Nomination: sites prepare documents to
demonstrate potential for success.
3. Achieving GLPCA status: sites demonstrate
conservation impact; the IUCN GLPCA
Committee awards GLPCA status to successful
protected areas.
Table 1. GLPCA Criteria used for pilot phase (IUCN GPAP and WCPA, 2014)
GLPCA Criteria Description
Pillar 1. Sound planning Clear,long-term conservation goals,based on a sound understanding of their natural and social
context
1.1. Highlighting core conservation values Core nature conservation, ecosystem services and cultural values are clearly articulated and listed.
1.2. Designed to protect core values for the long
term
Designated area contains suitable core areas, and is large enough and/or well enough connected to
other suitable areas to protect the nominated values in the long term.
1.3. Understanding the threats and challenges to
core values
Threats/challenges which could damage the nominated values, or which are incompatible with the
sites IUCN management category, identied and analysed.
1.4. Understanding the social and economic
impacts of protection
Potential social and economic impacts (positive and negative) of designation and management
identied and analysed in consultation with potentially affected rights holders and other
stakeholders.
1.5. Equitable establishment Site is legally established in compliance with relevant international agreements and national and
applicable regional legislation; legal status and boundaries clearly dened and not subject to major
ongoing legal or social dispute.
Pillar 2. Equitable governance Equitable governance demonstrated
2.1. Legal,equitable and effective governance A clearly dened, legally mandated, functional and locally recognized governance structure in
place, with all stakeholder groups fairly represented.
2.2. Participation in planning Key stakeholders are effectively involved in the assessment, review and updating of the
management goals, planning and practices over time.
2.3. Transparency and accountability Governance and decision-making open to scrutiny by all stakeholders, with information presented
in appropriate format and reasoning behind decisions evident.
2.4. Complaints,disputes or grievances Appropriate, accessible process in place to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes or
grievances related to governance or management.
Pillar 3. Effective management Effective management demonstrated
3.1. Long-term management plan or equivalent Up-to-date management plan providing a clear explanation of the objectives, key management
strategies and associated activities to be implemented to achieve the objectives.
3.2. Management of natural resources Able to demonstrate that natural resources are being managed appropriately to achieve both
conservation and social objectives.
3.3. Management of social aspects Able to demonstrate that stakeholders and rights holders are effectively engaged by management
and their interests are proactively identied and responded to; cultural aspects recognized and being
maintained.
3.4. Management of threats Able to demonstrate that threats to the achievement of conservation and social objectives are being
actively and effectively responded to; restrictions on access or use effectively enforced; impacts of
climate change and other issues that threaten nominated values in the long term identied and
being responded to proactively.
3.5. Management for visitors and other approved
activities within the PA
Able to demonstrate that management of visitors and/or other activities is compatible with and
supports the achievement of the conservation and social objectives, and meets the needs of visitors
and other users.
3.6. Objective measures of success Objectively veriable and technically justiable performance thresholds dened, documented, and
made publicly available.
3.7. Monitoring and evaluation An effective programme in place to monitor and evaluate the achievement of the conservation and
social performance thresholds (as identied in 3.6).
3.8. Resources Adequate nancial or human resources, access to equipment, and infrastructure available for
management effectiveness monitoring and evaluation.
Pillar 4. Successful outcomes Successful conservation of nature and contribution to a just world are demonstrated
4.1. Conservation performance thresholds are
achieved
Site meets or exceeds the performance thresholds which determine whether its nominated valuesare
being successfully managed and/or management has demonstrated exceptional responses to special
conservation challenges as dened in Criterion 4.3.
4.2. Social performance thresholds are achieved Site meets or exceeds the performance thresholds which determine whether its impacts on the local
community are positive, or at least neutral and stable or improving, and/or management has
demonstrated exceptional responses to special conservation challenges as dened in Criterion 4.3.
4.3. Exceptional responses to conservation
challenges
Where the external context is recognized by the GLPCA Steering Committee as being especially
challenging, management demonstrates protection of the critical elements of the protected area and
exceptional dedication or innovation directed towards achievement of the objectives.
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 27
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Reference Groups (RGs) (in future phases to be
called Expert Assessment Groups Green List or
EAGLs) were set up at jurisdictional level (site,
country or region) to manage the process, adapt
the standards to local needs, assist with the
documentation, and ensure that the sites met the
GLPCA Global Standard before they were
nominated. These voluntary, expert advisory
groups were composed of 812 members with
diverse skills and backgrounds, who were
approved by IUCN-WCPA. For the pilot phase,
the assurance process required that members of
these groups provided signed declarations of
interest, submitted appropriate CVs, demonstrated
commitment to the process and agreed to the
WCPA code of conduct.
Specic tasks of the groups included: adapting
the GLPCA global standard to the local situation,
promoting the GLPCA process within the
jurisdiction, helping to identify the sites that took
part, engaging mentors and evaluating each
nomination. Engagement with local stakeholders is
an important aspect of the process, but, since this
varies with local and cultural circumstances, the
methodology for this was not overly prescriptive
in the pilot phase, and the requirement was for
suitable means of stakeholder engagement, which
were evaluated by the RG and Independent
Reviewer.
A further key element in the process was the
independent reviewers, trained and accredited by
ASI and appointed by IUCN to the RGs to help
verify evidence and ensure that the work
undertaken was compliant with the Assurance
Procedures. These individuals were auditing
experts with an out of country perspective, but
culturally and linguistically familiar with the
protected area jurisdiction they supported. They
provided feedback, shared best practices and
captured and shared their view of the process and
informed the nal decision-making.
As a result of the experience gathered during the
pilot phase, the Global Standard is being revised.
An online public consultation was held in 2015
and the feedback is being used to develop a
revised version that will be nalized in 2016. The
GLPCA development phase, over the subsequent
two years, will include the incorporation of more
countries and sites into the programme, the
reassessment of the 2014 GL listed sites, the
promotion of experiences and lessons learned from
sites involved in the GLPCA, and the
identication of synergies with other protected
area conservation programmes, tools and
initiatives.
MPA EXPERIENCES DURING THE PILOT
PHASE
The following MPAs participated in the pilot phase
of the GLPCA:
Parc Naturel Marin dIroise and Réserve Naturelle
Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls, mainland France
Parc National de Guadeloupe, Guadeloupe,
Caribbean French overseas territory
Gorgona National Park, Colombia
Torre Guaceto Riserva Marine, Italy
Guangdong Nanpeng Islands National Nature
Reserve (NNR), China
The three French MPAs and the Colombian
MPA achieved GLPCA status in November 2014.
The other sites are continuing to work towards
listing. The experiences of these six MPAs are
described below; key information on the sites is
provided in Table 2. Three coastal protected areas
(Montague Island National Park (NP), Arakwal
NP and Cape Byron State Conservation Area) in
Australia also achieved GLPCA status but do not
qualify as MPAs as they do not include intertidal
or subtidal habitat; they are not discussed further
in this paper.
For the successful pilot sites, the GLPCA award
will be valid for three years and a number of
conditions were added recognizing the pilot nature
of the programme. To maintain GLPCA status,
these sites will be reviewed to ensure that
compliance with the Global Standard and GLPCA
process is being maintained, and that any changes
made to the process following evaluation of the
pilot phase have been incorporated. Sites that did
not meet the Standard were given detailed
feedback and encouraged to improve their
performance for renomination.
S. WELLS ET AL.28
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Table 2. Comparison of MPAs participating in the pilot phase of the GLPCA
Protected area Year estab.
IUCN
cat
Total
km
2
Marine
km
2
No-take km
2
Key biodiversity
Main activities within the MPA including use
and visitation
GLPCA accredited
Parc Naturel Marin
dIroise - France
(Atlantic)
2007 IV 3428.0 3428.0 30 Large populations of marine mammals,
mainly dolphins and seals; seabirds; 120
species of sh, including basking sharks; kelp
forests; important spawning grounds and
nurseries. The MPA includes 16 coastal and
marine habitats of EU interest; 19 bird
species listed in Annex I and eight bird
species listed in Annexes II and III of the
Birds Directive: six species listed in Annexes
II, IV and V of the Habitats/Wild Fauna
and Flora Directive
Commercial shing (2008 gures): 195
commercial boats; 37 400 tonnes of kelp and
10 000 tonnes of other species generating
over 18 million euros; almost 9000 tonnes
sh; and 1200 tonnes shellsh and bivalves.
Recreational shing (2009 gures): 13% of
people in Finistère made recreational shing
trips.Tourism, yachting: almost one million
tourists from outside the département each
year; approximately 100 000 beds in the
immediate vicinity of the MPA; 57 water
sports providers within the MPA (sailing,
canoeing, surng and diving).Shipping:
naval, passenger ferries and cargo transport.
Réserve Naturelle
Marine de Cerbère-
Banyuls - France
(Mediterranean)
1974 IV/Ia 6.5 6.5 0.65 Rocky submarine cliffs and boulders,
Posidonia beds, sand banks, important
grouper populations
Fishing: 15 commercial boats and some 1000
recreational boats use the MPA.Tourism:
some 25 000 dives and snorkel visits each
year).
Parc National de
la Guadeloupe -
France (Caribbean)
1989; extended
2009
V 2350.0 1340.0 33.0 Coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves, turtle
nesting beaches and a range of forest-related
habitats and species
Tourism: about 50 tourism operators
provide services within the MPA including
diving (over 55 000 dives in the core zone in
2014), snorkelling, glass-bottom boat and
guided boat tours, kayaking. Fishing.
Gorgona Natural
National Park -
Colombia
1984 II 617.0 603.0 603.0 Coral reefs, high pelagic sh diversity (e.g.
snapper, grouper, hake), four species of
marine turtle, humpback whales, breeding
seabirds
Tourism: trekking, birdwatching, natural
heritage interpretation, snorkelling, diving
(dive centres, plus 2 dive tour companies).
Working towards GLPCA status
Guangdong Nanpeng
Islands National
Nature Reserve -
China
2003 V 36.57 35.68 0 Islands, up-wellings, coral reefs, seaweeds,
migratory birds, seabirds, marine turtles (ve
species), marine mammals, whale sharks,
basking shark, great seahorse (Hippocampus
kelloggi)
Fishing. Tourism.
Torre Guaceto
Riserva Marine -
Italy
1991 IV 22.2 22.2 1.8 Rocky habitats and boulders, Posidonia
beds, sand banks, important coastal sh
populations
Fishing: 10 commercial boats.Tourism:
several thousands of tourists use the visitors
centre and beaches.
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 29
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
SITES THAT ACHIEVED GLPCA STATUS
France
Characteristics of the French sites
Five protected areas (three marine and two
terrestrial) were chosen by France for participation
in the pilot phase, their selection based on
including sites with different governance types,
IUCN management categories, and management
approaches, and reecting a diversity of
biogeographical regions (the three MPAs thus
represent three regions: Caribbean, Mediterranean
and Atlantic). An additional consideration was
that the managers should already be involved in
the national protected area evaluation process and
thus have a good understanding of the work
required. The French participants strongly
supported the GLPCA policy that any protected
area should be able to apply to the programme,
independent of its size, management objectives or
protection status.
Parc Naturel Marin dIroise, off the coast of
Finistère in Brittany, is entirely marine apart from
emergent rocks and uninhabited islets. It was the
largest MPA in the pilot phase, extending from the
territorial sea limit to high water mark. The rich
habitats of the MPA provide a refuge for a huge
diversity of species, one of the largest kelp forests
in Europe and important spawning grounds and
nurseries in the deeper rocky areas and shallow
bays. In line with the requirements for designation
as a Parc Naturel Marin, the MPA is designed to
ensure full community participation and has three
generic objectives: (1) promotion of knowledge
and understanding of the marine environment; (2)
protection of designated marine sites of
importance; and (3) sustainable development of
economic activities dependent on the sea. The
carte des vocations,orobjectives maplays out the
zonation which includes a number of no-take
areas (Parc Naturel Marin dIroise, undated). The
MPA is also recognized as a maritime protected
zone under the OSPAR Convention, and is part of
the EU Natura 2000 network of protected areas.
The main issues that this MPA has to address are
recreational and commercial sheries, kelp
harvesting, maritime activities (both commercial
and maritime), land-based sources of pollution
(notably intensive pig farming), water-based
recreation and tourism, and maintenance of the
areas cultural heritage. The 10 goals that have
been dened for the MPA reect these, and are
laid out in the management plan (Parc Naturel
Marin dIroise, 2011).
In contrast, the Réserve Naturelle Marine de
Cerbère-Banyuls, off the coast of France south of
Perpignan, extends just 2 km offshore and is the
smallest MPA in the pilot phase. As with all
Réserves Naturelles, it is aimed at protecting sites
of high value for their biodiversity, geology or
other natural features and for fragile, rare and
threatened ecosystems; there is no sustainable
development objective. The reserve is entirely
subtidal and is also designated as a Special
Protected Area of Mediterranean Interest (SPAMI)
under the Barcelona Convention. It is zoned and
includes a highly protected area in which shing,
anchoring and other damaging activities are
prohibited. The main issues are the seasonal but
intensive tourist visitation which is difcult to
regulate effectively, local and commercial shing,
and land-based sources of pollution from
viticulture which affects the tourist areas.
Unlike the two MPAs described above, about
50% of the third French MPA, Parc National de
Guadeloupe in the French overseas territory of
Guadeloupe, is terrestrial. As a National Park, its
primary objective is biodiversity protection and it
is run by the State, with several strictly protected
core zones and a wide adjacent zone within which
the objectives are related to sustainable
development. As with the parcs naturels marin,a
carte des vocationsis adopted by the consultative
body for a period of 15 years which lays out the
zonation (Parc National de la Guadeloupe, 2014).
This MPA is also listed under the Protocol
Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife
(SPAW Protocol), is very active in regional
cooperation processes set up for Caribbean MPAs,
and hosts the SPAW Regional Activity Centre.
The main threats are tourism and leisure activities
(including disturbance from whale watching),
shing, dredging and waste disposal associated
with nearby ports, and pollution from adjacent
banana and sugar plantations.
S. WELLS ET AL.30
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Application of the Green List standard and results
The French GLPCA expert group (equivalent to an
RG) was established in September 2013 with 10
permanent members and 36 associate experts,
representing key aspects of protected area
expertise, and including a non-voting
representative from the French MPA agency. As
required by the GLPCA process, the group helped
to interpret and adapt the GLPCA standard and
indicators to the local context and secure approval
for their use in France. The MPA managers were
involved from the beginning, in order to share
their experiences in self-assessment and to ensure
the practicability of the GLPCA process at site
level and its integration with existing national
management effectiveness systems.
An important contribution to the success of the
French MPAs is the scorecard (referred to as a
tableau de bord or dash board) developed by the
French MPA agency for assessing the
management effectiveness of its MPAs (Laffon
and Payrot, 2012; Barnay, 2014). This has 60
generic indicators that cover ecology, socio-
economics, communication, education, governance
and administration. These are adapted by a site to
its particular context and objectives; for example,
the Parc Naturel Marin dIroise has 89 indicators
for its scorecard. Each year, an action plan is
produced that is based on the results of the
assessment and prioritizes key measures needed to
reach good environmental status. Other key
factors helping the French MPAs meet the Green
List standards and criteria included:
a comprehensive process for stakeholder
participation; for example, at the Parc National de
Guadeloupe a collaborative programme is
underway with the shers who use the park and
surrounding areas to reduce illegal shing;
a legal requirement to produce a management plan,
and the inclusion within this of a set of clear
objectives;
dedicated scientic and eld research teams
undertaking a range of monitoring, surveys and
other studies that have demonstrated a
conservation impact. For example, The Réserve
Naturelle Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls has had
demonstrated measurable success in protecting sh
populations such as grouper (Hackradt et al.,
2014). In the Parc National de Guadeloupe, a
higher biomass of sh and greater size of
individuals are found in the no-take zones than
outside (Kopp, 2007); vegetation clearance and
visitor management has improved the nesting
success of seabirds; and a successful mongoose
eradication programme has led to more successful
turtle nesting on the beaches.
Colombia
Characteristics of the site
Gorgona Natural National Park consists of a
forested island (about 3% of the total area) and its
surrounding waters, lying about 35 km off the
Pacic coast of Colombia. It includes the largest
and best developed coral reefs in the Eastern
Tropical Pacic. Pelagic sh diversity is high, the
rocky sea bed providing shelter and feeding sites
for many species of commercial importance. The
Park is one of the main turtle foraging sites in the
Colombian Pacic and is an important breeding
and nursery area for migrating humpback whales,
the population of which has been recovering since
1986. Gorgonilla Island is a highly protected zone
for breeding seabirds such as pelicans and boobies,
and has a colony of a subspecies of Sula
leucogaster that is endemic to the Eastern Tropical
Pacic (Gutiérrez, 2012).
The MPA is entirely no-take (although shers
operating outside the boundaries may come into
the park to rest).
Application of the Green List standard and results
The Colombian Reference Group was set up with
members from key NGOs, research institutes, and
academia with relevant research expertise in social
sciences, economics, and biology. In consultation
with staff from many Colombian protected areas,
the group adapted the GLPCA indicators to suit
the national context. A management effectiveness
assessment was undertaken in 2010, using a
nationally developed management effectiveness
tool: La Metodología de Efectividad de Manejo
con Participación Social (AEMAPPS) or
Management Effectiveness Assessment with Social
Participation. This led to recommendations that
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 31
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
the Park is progressively putting into place, and
provided a solid foundation for participation in
the GLPCA process.
Preliminary results were presented at the World
Conservation Congress in Jeju Island, 2012, which
led to further support from the international
community and reinforced links with IUCN and
the other countries taking part. A Support Group
was also established composed of park
stakeholders and WWF. The two groups
(Reference and Support) then devised the GLPCA
assessment methodology, which was based on
AEMAPPS. All the national parks in Colombia
were assessed using the GLPCA method, and
three sites, including Gorgona National Park, were
selected to go through the full GLPCA process.
The MPA has a management plan (UAESPNN,
2005) and well established suite of management
activities including capacity building of the park
staff, long-term monitoring to ensure that the
conservation objectives are achieved, research, and
enforcement (regular patrols are undertaken
especially in the marine zone, to ensure that there
is no shing). Coral reefs, sandy shores, sea turtles,
seabirds and pelagic ecosystems are particularly
well studied and there are good data on physical
variables as a result of a weather station on the
island and an oceanographic monitoring
programme. Research has been undertaken in
partnership with academics for several decades
and a Scientic Committee was established in 2009
that provides advice and participates in the
updating and implementation of the management
plan. A data information centre, using particular
software, ensures that reports on patrols, maps
and data on the most vulnerable areas are brought
together. This has been a useful tool for park
planning and nancial resources optimization, and
allows for better relations with artisanal shermen
and their community organizations.
During the GLPCA process an agreement with
shing communities, local government, and
environmental organizations was developed,
covering a wider area and including a second
protected area, Sanquianga National Park on the
Pacic mainland coast, that is important for
mangroves and productive estuaries. This
agreement will help to ensure, not only that the
MPAs meet their ecological objectives, but also
that the sheries resources are managed
sustainably and the local communities who use the
surrounding marine resources, many of whom are
very poor (Moreno-Sánchez and Maldonado,
2013), benet and their traditional livelihoods and
culture are maintained.
The pilot experience provided an opportunity to
scientically assess management effectiveness more
thoroughly, to improve monitoring systems, to look
at the requirements for ecological representation
within the country, and to improve stakeholder
engagement. The importance of effective
enforcement of no-take areas in Eastern Tropical
Pacic MPAs (including Gorgona National Park)
in terms of ensuring successful biodiversity has been
shown by Edgar et al. (2011); the GLPCA process
is providing a means of promoting this.
MPASWORKING TOWARDS GLPCA
STATUS
China
Characteristics of the site
The number of MPAs in China has increased
rapidly over the last 10 years, with 260 designated
by the end of 2014, in three categories: marine
nature reserves, marine special protected areas and
marine parks. Guandong Nanpeng Islands
National Nature Reserve (NNR) lies off the coast
of Nanao County, Guangdong Province in the
South China Sea and covers a chain of four
islands, located at the interface of shallow coastal
and deeper oceanic waters and at the conuence of
two upwellings. It was established in 2003 to
protect a diversity of marine living resources and
ecosystems including islands, upwellings, coral
reefs, seaweeds, marine mammals, whale sharks
and other rare species (Chunhou et al., 2009). The
1300 marine species recorded in the MPA include
17 rst and second class national protected
animals. The MPA also protects spawning
grounds for important artisanal sheries species,
and was designated a Ramsar site on account of
its important populations of about 60 species of
migratory birds.
S. WELLS ET AL.32
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Application of the Green List standard and results
The IUCN China Country Programme Ofce and
Conservation International China Program
organized and coordinated the GLPCA pilot
process including introducing the GLPCA Global
Standard, establishing the Chinese Reference
Group and communicating with the IUCN
GLPCA Committee. Guandong Nanpeng Islands
NNR was selected, along with nine terrestrial
protected areas, to take part in the pilot phase as,
within China, it was considered one of the best
managed MPAs and most ready to participate in
the process. A member of the China Reference
Group acted as advisory expert and mentorand
assisted with the production of the documentation
describing how the MPA meets the GLPCA
standards. The independent GLPCA Reviewers
reviewed the assurance procedures in October,
2014.
MPA management in China has recently
improved signicantly. Management goals,
methods, institutional arrangements and nancial
issues are clearly laid out, and regulations and
standards for use of the marine area and
enforcement have been determined for each site.
The MPA Authority undertakes enforcement
activities with the national Coastguard.
Monitoring, ecological surveys, management
impact evaluation and scientic research are
carried out in major MPAs, and some restoration
has been carried out to improve ecological
functions. Most national level MPAs have set up
independent management bodies and have
sufcient capacity; others have combined their
management bodies with related marine resources
and environment management agencies. The
public awareness of MPAs is improving as MPAs
increasingly become the basis for ecotourism or
educational activities. A national level assessment
of management performance based on
standardized criteria is organized by the MPA
authority every two years.
The Chinese MPA authority requires
conservation of core values and that an
appropriate legal framework and long-term
management plan are put in place. The authority
also tries to identify and address threats through
application of marine ecosystem-based
management, visitor management, effective
monitoring and evaluation, and by improving
management capacity by supporting
infrastructure, facilities, funding and professional
staff.
The GLPCA assessment concluded that the site
met the criteria in relation to planning, equitable
governance, effective management and successful
outcomes. However, it was felt that the MPA did
not entirely meet the criteria relating to social and
community involvement, and the need to address
threats from global climate change and other long-
term changes. While local people are beginning to
engage in management decisions and there is a
growing awareness of the value of the MPA for
local sheries and livelihoods which has increased
support for the MPA among the local
stakeholders, the criteria were still not fully met in
this area. The GLPCA standards require clear
indicators for community participation,
transparency and accountability, and a complaints
and dispute resolution mechanism, which are still
lacking for MPAs in China. The MPA is therefore
currently working towards nal GLPCA
certication and the experience here will benet
other MPAs in China that wish to join the
programme, particularly as many may have these
same shortcomings.
Italy
Characteristics of the site
Torre Guaceto Riserva Marine lies in the Adriatic
Sea off the coast of south-eastern Italy and was
initially designated in 1991 as a no-take area.
Following the initiation of effective enforcement in
2001, monitoring showed that by 2003, the MPA
had 210 times as many sea bream (a key
commercial species) compared with shed areas
outside the MPA. The increase in this species, a
predator of sea urchins, was considered to be the
cause of the 10-fold decline in sea urchin
abundance within the MPA, which in turn resulted
in increased cover of large seaweeds; seaweed
cover reached 47% of the sea bed inside the
reserve, compared with 15% in surrounding areas.
In 2005, given the increase in sea bream
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 33
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
abundance, a plan was developed jointly between
scientists and the local shing community to allow
shing in a large part of the MPA, leaving two no-
take zones totalling 1.8 km
2
in area. Fishing gear
and time (one day a week only) were restricted to
minimize damage. On opening this shery, catch
rates of commercially shed species, including
striped red mullet, octopus, and peacock wrasse,
were on average four times higher than those
outside the MPA; catch rates have now stabilized
but are, nevertheless, about double those outside
the MPA. Local support for the MPA, including
the closed area is, not surprisingly, much higher
than when the entire MPA was no-take (Guidetti
et al., 2010).
Application of the Green List standard and results
Torre Guaceto was included as one of two
protected areas for the pilot GLPCA phase in
Italy, and the only MPA. The initial stages of the
process were completed and the MPA embarked
on compiling evidence for the criteria and Italian-
adapted indicators. The match to available
documentation and means of verication for an
MPA was not seen as too difcult, especially as
the site had conducted management effectiveness
assessments, and has a robust stakeholder
engagement programme with negotiated
agreements with local artisanal shers and tourism
enterprises. The monitoring programme has
demonstrated increased sh abundance, and there
has been a clear demonstration of adaptive
management as a result of this, in the form of a
reduced area of no-take, and improved
stakeholder support.
However, Torre Guaceto was not listed because
of what is essentially a legal technicality. The staff
are not employed on long-term contracts, which is
one of the current requirements of the GLPCA
Global Standard. Instead, their contracts are
renewed each year through an agency, because
under Italian legislation (394/91), protected areas
cannot have permanent personnel. In practice,
however, the Torre Guaceto management body
can count on the same specialized staff being in
place each year. This demonstrates the sort of
problems that can be encountered in adapting a
rigorous and standardized global process to
different local and national situations. Given the
success of Torre Guaceto as an MPA, it is hoped
that a solution can be found to this issue.
OTHER MPA MANAGEMENT
EFFECTIVENESS INCENTIVE INITIATIVES
The GLPCA is the only global scheme for
recognizing protected areas through an accredited
verication process. There are, however, many
national and regional initiatives to assess MPA
management effectiveness and provide incentives
for good management and effective conservation
impact. Two of these, the Coral Triangle MPA
System (CTMPAS) and the SPAW Protocol for
marine and coastal areas in the Caribbean, are
described below since sites participating in these
initiatives are likely to have a good foundation for
registering in the GLPCA programme but this
may not be immediately apparent. A proposed
global incentive programme, GLORES, is also
described as, once in place it will be important
that the distinctions between this and the GLPCA
are clear.
Coral Triangle MPA System (CTMPAS)
The CTMPAS Framework and Action Plan (CTI-
CFF, 2013), endorsed by the six Asia-Pacic Coral
Triangle countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua
New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands
and Timor-Leste), contains a framework for MPA
management effectiveness evaluation which the
countries have agreed to follow (White et al.,
2014). This was adapted from the MPA
management effectiveness assessment tool (MPA
Support Network, 2010) which was developed for
the Philippines. The evaluation framework is
based on the methodologies developed by
Pomeroy et al. (2004) and for the World
Bank/GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking
Tool (METT) and this is then adapted to the
national legal, social and cultural contexts of each
Coral Triangle country.
In order to be included in the CTMPAS, an
MPA must meet a set of criteria that are broadly
similar to those for the GLPCA process (Table 3).
S. WELLS ET AL.34
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
There are four Categories of MPAs in the
CTMPAS:
1. Recognized CTMPAS Sites: These MPAs meet the
minimum data requirements required by the Coral
Triangle Atlas (legal status and name, geo-
referenced coordinates, knowledge of main
habitats protected) and are listed in this database
(www.ctatlas.reefbase.org). All Philippine,
Malaysian and Indonesian MPAs are recognized
CTMPASsites as well as most sites in Solomon
Islands, Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste.
2. Effectively Managed Regional Sites: These MPAs
are reviewed by the relevant National Advisory
Committee to determine whether they meet the
requirements of that countrys national
management effectiveness system and the regional
criteria set out in the CTMPAS. The national
decision-making process may vary between
countries, but Category 2 MPAs must meet all
regional criteria relating to design and
management effectiveness (unlike Category 1
sites).
3. Priority Development Sites: These are either MPAs
of regional ecological, governance or socio-
economic importance that are not yet effectively
managed and thus need additional assistance to
achieve their full potential, or new MPAs
recommended by a regional gap analysis (Beger
et al., 2015) because they make a specic
contribution to the regional system as a whole.
Nominations for this category are reviewed and
Table 3. Comparison of GLPCA and Coral Triangle criteria
GLPCA Criteria CTMPAS criteria
GLPCA/ CTMPAS
equivalence
1.1. Highlighting core conservation values Sites must describe and protect marine ecological services within accepted
cultural norms.
yes
1.2. Designed to protect core values for the
long term
Sites must contain no-take core areas and be part of an ecological network
within or external to the MPA.
yes
1.3. Understanding the threats and challenges
to core values
Sites should describe and address threats to the site in its management plan. yes
1.4. Understanding the social and economic
impacts of protection
Socio-economic component of the CTMPAS stipulates that social and
economic consideration must be given to local communities.
partial
1.5. Equitable establishment Sites must be legally established under national and/or local legislation
and in compliance with existing laws and agreements.
yes
2.1. Legal,equitable and effective governance Governance structures must be in accordance with local and/or national
government protocols with local stakeholder involvement.
yes
2.2. Participation in planning Participation in planning among all relevant stakeholders is emphasized. yes
2.3. Transparency and accountability Open decision making is emphasized but mechanisms for scrutiny not fully
claried.
partial
2.4. Complaints,disputes or grievances Conict resolution is part of the management process but not fully
documented or tracked.
partial
3.1. Long-term management plan or
equivalent
Long-term management plan mandatory. yes
3.2. Management of natural resources Protected area must show some evidence of trends in natural resource and
social status.
Yes
3.3. Management of social aspects. Participation in planning, so that all interests are considered, is
emphasized.
partial
3.4. Management of threats Threats must be addressed within the objectives set out for management
and be part of the management plan which is monitored through a
management effectiveness system.
Yes
3.5. Management for visitors and other
approved activities within the PA
Not explicit although the management plan should cover this.
3.6. Objective measures of success Each site has locally appropriate indicators that feed into the regional
indicators (e.g. area of habitat, area in no-take, etc.) in the framework.
Yes
3.7. Monitoring and evaluation Each site should show evidence of monitoring and evaluation; and the
regional system is tracked through a monitoring and evaluation system.
Yes
3.8. Resources The need for nancial and human resources is emphasized but is not a
requirement.
Partial
4.1. Conservation performance thresholds are
achieved
The need to determine and track indicators at each site is emphasized but
not required.
Partial
4.2. Social performance thresholds are
achieved
The need to determine and track indicators at each site is emphasized but
not required.
Partial
4.3. Exceptional responses to conservation
challenges
Some management plans take full account of the external environment in
planning and activities, but this is not a requirement.
Partial
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 35
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
approved by the regional CTMPAS Advisory
Committee.
4. Flagship Sites: Large, effectively managed MPAs
of regional importance. Nominations for Flagship
Sites are reviewed and approved by the regional
CTMPAS Advisory Committee. The rst agship
sites are Turtle Island Transboundary Park
(Malaysia and Philippines); Tubbataha Reefs
Natural Park (Philippines); and Wakatobi
National Park (Indonesia).
Categories 1 and 2 MPAs are thus selected
nationally on the basis of national management
effectiveness monitoring systems and the criteria
set out in the CTMPAS Framework. Categories 3
and 4 MPAs are nominated by their respective
national governments and then reviewed for
approval by the Regional CTMPAS Advisory
Committee working with the Regional MPA
Technical Working Group. Ultimately the
CTMPAS will include all recognized MPAs and
MPA networks within the Coral Triangle region
that meet the criteria. Given the rigorous nature of
this process, it is likely that many of these MPAs
could successfully achieve GLPCA status.
PROTOCOL CONCERNING SPECIALLY
PROTECTED AREAS AND WILDLIFE (SPAW
PROTOCOL)
Two of the UNEP Regional Seas Programmes and
Conventions (the Barcelona Convention for the
Mediterranean, and the Cartagena Convention for
the Caribbean) promote MPA management
effectiveness through specic Protocols. The
example of the SPAW Protocol, one of three
protocols developed to implement the Convention
for the Protection and Development of the Marine
Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region
(Cartagena Convention), is given here. This
requires the 16 signatory States to establish marine
and coastal protected areas and species criteria
for establishment and management. To qualify for
listing under the Protocol, a site must demonstrate
that it meets these criteria. Listed sites then
become part of a programme that assists them in
complying with the operational/management
requirements and are considered priorities for
scientic and technical research and mutual
assistance.
The guidelines and criteria were adopted in
September 2008, and a pilot project was launched
in September 2009. Nine MPAs from ve
countries took part: Belize (Hol Chan Marine
Reserve, Glovers Reef Marine Reserve);
Colombia (Sanctuary Cienaga Grande de Santa
Marta, Regional Seaower Marine Protected
Area); France (Grand Connétable Island Nature
Reserve in French Guyana and Guadeloupe
National Park); USA (Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary); and the Netherlands Antilles
(Bonaire National Marine Park; National Park the
Quill and Boven on St. Eustatius). A Protected
Area Criteria working group was established and
the MPA managers completed a set of
documentation for their sites and provided
comments on the process. The working group used
this material to revise the guidance on how the
criteria should be met and the documentation
prepared and presented; the guidance was
approved in 2010.
To be eligible for listing, a protected area must be
established under a legal framework that guarantees
long-term protection in conformity with the Partys
national legislation and international law,
consistent with the SPAW Protocol. The
management framework must include evaluation
(with indicators that measure both effective
management and achievement of biophysical and
socio-economic objectives) and stakeholder
participation in both the planning and
management of the site. The site must meet at
least one of the Ecological Criteria
(representativeness, conservation value, rarity,
naturalness (level of disturbance), critical habitats,
diversity, connectivity/coherence, resilience) and,
where applicable, at least one of the Cultural and
Socio-Economic Criteria (productivity, cultural
and traditional use, and socio-economic benets).
If a site meets several criteria, the case for its
inclusion is strengthened.
The SPAW Focal Points review the
nominations and request modications if
required, before validating the report and sending
it to the SPAW-Regional Activity Centre (RAC).
The SPAW Secretariat with the support of the
S. WELLS ET AL.36
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
SPAW-RAC uses a standardized process, which
includes external review, to determine whether
the protected area is consistent with the
guidelines and criteria. The results are presented
to the SPAW Scientic and Technical Advisory
Committee for discussion and recommendation;
the nal decisions are made at the SPAW
Conference of the Parties.
To date, 31 marine and coastal protected areas in
nine countries (Belize, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, France, The Kingdom of the
Netherlands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
USA, and Grenada) have been listed. A matrix of
issues and strengths for each site has been drawn
up, linkages with the Caribbean Marine Protected
Areas Managers Network and Forum (CaMPAM)
mentorship programme developed and a small
grants programme founded to support site needs
and to assist with further nominations. Listed sites
will be reviewed every ve years and, if the status
has changed, either measures will be taken to
improve management and restore ecosystems, or
the site will be de-listed, if there is evidence that it
no longer has those characteristics which
determined its listing.
Sites that qualify for SPAW listing are in a good
position to register for the GLPCA programme,
given that many of the criteria are similar; for
example, the evidence gathered during the SPAW
process, which was readily available and already
recognized as credible, contributed to the inclusion
of the Parc National de la Guadeloupe on the
GLPCA.
GLOBAL OCEAN REFUGE SYSTEM (GLORES)
The Marine Conservation Institutes proposed
Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES) is an
award and incentive scheme that is being designed
to help catalyse MPA establishment and
encourage more effective management. The
scheme is geared towards a target of protecting at
least 30% of the ecosystems in each marine
biogeographic region by 2030, a target gure
based on recent work by OLeary et al. (2016).
GLORES will also provide a geographic
framework to promote the establishment of MPAs
in all marine regions, thus improving
representation (Devillers et al., 2015).
The criteria that will be used for assessing sites
for GLORES status are based on the ve major
features found by Edgar et al. (2014) to be critical,
in combination, for successful MPAs: no-take
protection, strong enforcement, time since
protection began, size and isolation (by deep water
or sand). Having only one, two or three of these
features was found to be insufcient to achieve
maximum conservation benets; MPAs had to
have at least four and preferably all ve features
to be successful. Using these features, two types of
criteria for Global Ocean Refuges have been
identied: those in the form of thresholds that
MPAs must meet; and those that will be subject to
a scoring system. The draft criteria (Table 4) are
being developed and once agreed will be tested
and optimized using pilot MPAs.
Three levels of award are anticipated. Gold
MPAs must be no-take reserves (i.e. no extraction
of marine life or minerals) as these are considered
by Edgar et al. (2014) to be the most effective and
robust type of MPA. Silver and Bronze MPAs will
be sites that allow for more activities, provided
that these are consistent with sustaining a healthy
marine environment and that the MPAs are shown
to be effectively managed by GLPCA or similar
standards.
Any type of MPA may apply for GLORES
status, recognizing that sites without a no-take
area will be excluded from Gold status. The
process for nomination and evaluation is still
being developed, which provides an opportunity
for developing a collaborative approach with the
GLPCA whereby MPAs that have achieved
GLPCA status might be eligible for a GLORES
award, provided other GLORES criteria are met.
DISCUSSION
Benets and costs of the GLPCA
The use of incentive mechanisms to encourage
effective management is a concept well understood
in the business world. The GLPCA invokes the
same approach and was set up specically to
encourage improved management of all protected
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 37
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
areas, with intended incentives and benets as
follows
3
):
international recognition as a well-managed site;
increased political and nancial support, as a result
of demonstrating effective use of resources and
successful outcomes;
motivation to meet and maintain high management
standards, through the generation of local and
national pride;
acknowledgement of benet sharing for local
communities;
recognition of a quality experience, providing
justication for further marketing of the site to
visitors.
The GLPCA also emphasizes the importance of
protected areas working towards demonstration of
ecological impact and achievement of their
conservation outcomes (i.e. the environmental
benets of conservation efforts). Some
management effectiveness assessment
methodologies currently put little emphasis on
determining whether biodiversity is being
maintained or restored in a protected area. The
GLPCA pilot phase clearly demonstrated the
importance of having rigorous systems for
assessing management effectiveness in place, that
include measurement of outcomes. The French
MPA Agency required that MPAs developed their
scorecards as a rst step for registering with the
GLPCA initiative and this ensured that they had
assembled and collated much of the key
documentation required for the process. The
Agency is developing an assessment process that
addresses the other pillars of the GLPCA (sound
planning, governance and effective management)
that will help large multiple use MPAs to
participate.
Assessments of management effectiveness are
recognized by the CBD as a key mechanism for
improving management. At the CBD COP 10,
Parties agreed to a target of undertaking
management effective assessments in more than
60% of the total area of all protected areas by
2015 (CBD, 2011). Only 17.5% of countries met
this target (Coad et al., 2015) and, although
statistics are not available, there is broad
consensus that MPAs lag behind terrestrial
protected areas. MPA management effectiveness
assessments are nevertheless being undertaken in a
number of countries and methods are being tested.
Most are based on the IUCN-WCPA Protected
Area Management Effectiveness (PAME)
framework (Hockings et al., 2006), including: the
Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected
Area Management (RAPPAM) (Ervin, 2003); a
method for management assessment of Western
3
Adapted from http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/
gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_greenlist/gpap_greenlistwhy/
Table 4. Proposed criteria for GLORES
Threshold criteria that would need to be met
1 Biodiversity importance MPAs must conserve a range of populations i.e. demonstrated historical or predicted
refugia; high endemism; high species richness representing the region; endangered, large-
bodied or key structure-forming species. They may also be intermittently important as
breeding grounds, nursery sites, haul-outs, feeding areas, stopovers, migratory pathways
and chokepoints.
2 Viability in a rapidly changing climate The GLORES project is using climate modelling to evaluate areas that are at greatest risk
from acidication, ocean warming and hypoxia; and the results will be used as part of the
assessment.
3 Effective management MPAs must be durable and have: legal authority; implemented or implementable plans to
manage activities incompatible with biodiversity; and adequate resources and
enforcement capacity. The GLPCA process may be suitable for meeting this criterion.
4 Social equity MPAs must avoid harming human communities, including those who make their living
from the sea, while ensuring that biodiversity conservation objectives are met.
Criteria that would be scored
5 Allowed activities Involves a risk assessment.
6 Size Larger sites (over 100 km
2
) would score higher.
7 Isolated by deep water or sand More isolated sites would score higher (sensu Edgar et al., 2014).
8 Rarity Species or habitats.
9 Spatial distribution For sites within a network.
S. WELLS ET AL.38
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Indian Ocean MPAs, used for a period in East
Africa (Wells, 2006); and the system developed by
the Enhancing our Heritage project for UNESCO
natural World Heritage Sites (Hockings et al.,
2008). An MPA-specic approach developed by
Pomeroy et al. (2004) has been used mainly in the
USA and Latin America. One increasingly
widespread method is the Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), a scorecard
based on PAME and used in all protected areas
that receive funding from the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) (Stolton et al.,
2007; Geldmann et al., 2015). The assessment
methods used in France and in the Coral Triangle
have been described above.
Although the GLPCA is still a work in
progress, the MPAs that participated in the pilot
phase felt that it has considerable value even
where further work is required before successful
listing can be achieved. MPA site managers and
government agencies involved saw the GLPCA
process as an opportunity to improve the
management effectiveness in their sites and to
make them more credible both nationally and
internationally. There was also consensus,
reiterated in the public consultation on the
Standards, that this single unied approach is
appropriate for all types of protected area,
whether terrestrial or marine.
However, achieving recognition as a well-
managed protected area has a cost and is not
without difculty. At the end of the GLPCA pilot
phase, the IUCN France Committee undertook a
lessons learnedsurvey with the managers
involved to assess the benets and challenges of
the GLPCA process and identify areas for
improvement (Lefebvre and Coste, unpublished
working document.). The information from this,
combined with information from the other three
MPAs involved, indicate that the main difculties
were:
1. The amount of data and material that has to be
assembled, collated, analysed and written up in
order to assess the criteria. This work often falls
to the MPA managers, in addition to their
normal duties. In the case of the long-established
MPAs in France, the managers found it difcult
and time-consuming to gather all the information
required, especially for assessing conservation
outcomes, as it is held in many different sources.
2. The protected area personnel may not understand
what is required (the criteria can be difcult to
understand for those not familiar with evaluation
techniques), and training and external support
may be necessary. The managers need to
understand that the process is not a direct
evaluation of their performance; if they perceive
that this is the case, they may not provide
objective information. Participants must recognize
that GLPCA status primarily reects national
policies, and that the process can help both
authorities and managers to implement these.
3. The data and materials required to support the
verication process are often not readily available
in the protected areas agencies or at the sites
themselves, and language differences can be an
obstacle.
4. The GLPCA was in its pilot phase; protected area
personnel needed to understand the experimental
nature of the process and that they were required
to participate actively in the development of the
programme. For example, the French pilot sites
found the application process straightforward but
felt the registration form was unclear and
complicated.
There is a risk that an incentive mechanism such
as this could be biased towards protected areas
that are well resourced and have the capacity and
experience to prepare the documentation and
undertake assessments, however, this is
recognized and will be addressed during the
forthcoming GLPCA development phase. One
change as a result of the pilot phase is the
introduction of an additional stage in the overall
process. Following registration, sites will go
through a Candidacy stage, during which they
will be able to demonstrate that they have the
potential to achieve full GLPCA status
4
. This
will allow more protected areas to participate and
emphasizes the capacity building aspect of the
programme. For all protected areas, staff
capacity, skills and qualications are an
4
Primer on the IUCN GLPCA Standard for Review - September 2015
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/
primer_on_the_iucn_glpca_standard_for_review_sep_2015.pdf
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 39
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
important factor in how well a site is managed and
whether it can achieve GLPCA status. Further
training and mentoring is needed particularly for
MPAs, with expansion of programmes such as
MPA-PRO (Certication of Marine Protected
Area Professionals) in the Western Indian Ocean
(Ricci and Francis, 2014).
Recommendations and further work
There are a number of issues associated with the
GLPCA and assessing management effectiveness
in MPAs that need further work and consideration
that were raised through the pilot phase and in the
recent work undertaken to revise the Standards.
Improved communications and guidance
Improved guidance is needed on many aspects of
the GLPCA if the process is to be widely adopted.
The standards and overall approach and
requirements must be fully understood and
supported by national protected area authorities
and incorporated in the overall framework so that
managers use them automatically. Improved
communications materials and stronger branding
are essential to help inform sites and stakeholders
about the GLPCA.
Language and terminology are a particular issue
as the concepts involved are not always easily
understood across different cultures. This is
particularly important for MPAs: the guidance
will need to be clear about how the Criteria and
Global Standard should be used in a marine
context, must make sure that the characteristics
and context of MPAs are recognized and
understood and, where appropriate, ensure that
the guidance is interpreted in the terminology used
by the MPA community. This applies equally to
the more general methodologies for assessing
management effectiveness. For example, the
language used in the METT is biased towards
terrestrial protected areas, with questions that are
ambiguous when used in relation to MPAs,
resulting in different interpretations. Although a
version of the METT was produced specically for
MPAs (Staub and Hatziolos, 2004), this is rarely
used.
Assessing equitable management and social aspects
of protected areas
Governance criteria have proved difcult to
measure both for the GLPCA and in more general
assessments of management effectiveness,
requiring a site visit and extended interviews with
stakeholders for objective assessment. The
GLPCA Standards also put greatest focus on
natural heritage values and, since MPAs often
have other objectives (e.g. protection of cultural
values, maritime history, archaeology), some feel
that the process should be expanded to cover other
objectives.
A review of the results of assessments of 24
MPAs that used the biophysical, social, and
governance indicators in Pomeroy et al. (2004)
revealed that the ve MPA goals and 20 MPA
objectives most commonly monitored and
evaluated were biophysical, as these can be
measured with a small number of indicators,
compared with governance and socio-economic
goals and objectives which are much more
complex to measure (Fox et al., 2014). This
reects the ndings from some of the MPAs
involved in the GLPCA pilot phase that there is a
need for greater social science capacity to plan and
undertake monitoring and research in order to
assess the social consequences of an MPA.
This issue is not unique to MPAs and general
guidance on assessing governance of protected
areas is available (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,
2013). However further work is required and the
extensive experience of marine practitioners in
addressing a wide range of social and economic
challenges when developing protected areas will be
of great value in the identication of solutions.
Development of indicators
Once the GLPCA Standard has been revised,
attention will turn to producing guidance on how
indicators are to be developed for the sites that
participate. The uidity and dynamic nature of
marine ecosystems, which make MPAs
particularly sensitive (probably more so than
terrestrial protected areas) to events taking place
outside their boundaries or globally (such as
climate change) must be considered at this point.
S. WELLS ET AL.40
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
For example, specic indicators will be needed to
assess how well an MPA is integrated with a wider
management framework that will sustain and
restore the functioning of adjacent ecosystems and
address upstream and downstream effects. These
are largely lacking in current assessment systems.
The question of whether presence of one or more
no-take zones should be an indicator of success for
an MPA will also need to be considered. A lively
debate continues on this issue in the scientic
literature and many studies show that fully no-
take MPAs have a highly positive impact on
biodiversity (Babcock et al., 2010; Edgar et al.,
2014; Fox et al., 2014; Costello and Ballantine,
2015). There is also good evidence that zoned
MPAs that include well enforced no-take zones
have positive conservation impacts: for example,
the four MPAs that have achieved GLPCA status
have no-take areas and, in the Coral Triangle,
MPAs in the higher categories must have such a
zone. In tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean
MPAs the effective implementation of no-take
zones clearly helps to maintain and/or restore the
biodiversity of ecosystems such as coral and rocky
reefs and other hard bottom types with sedentary
species, and leads to benets for local
stakeholders, as demonstrated at Torre Guaceto
and Cerbere-Banyuls. The impact of no-take zones
in temperate and boreal regions is less well
documented but may be important; and there
continues to be some doubt about their value for
ecosystems dominated by seasonal species or
pelagic species with large dispersal ranges. A more
complex array of indicators may be needed to
evaluate the sustainable management of marine
populations that provide essential livelihoods for
local communities in and around an MPA, and
the maintenance of critical trophic functions as is
the case with the kelp forest in the Parc Naturel
Marin dIroise (Bajjouk et al., 2015). Attention
will therefore be needed in the guidance as to how
no-take zones can be used as indicators.
Climate change is a particular concern, as
demonstrated by Guangdong Nanpeng Islands
NNR, which is nding this issue challenging to
address. Indicators may be needed to assess
whether appropriately selected refugia(e.g. corals
resistant to bleaching) have been included within
the boundaries, and whether these are
appropriately located and managed or networked
with other adjacent MPAs. For the same reason, it
may well be more important for MPAs than for
terrestrial protected areas, to be part of a network
that maximizes recruitment and takes account of
the location of sourceand sinkcommunities
(IUCN-WCPA, 2008). Further work is urgently
needed on this, given the rapidly escalating
impacts of coral bleaching and storms on marine
ecosystems.
Use of quantitative data
Although the PAME methodologies provide clear
guidance on using quantitative as well as
qualitative information (Hockings et al., 2009), in
practice, evaluations tend to provide a qualitative
assessment of objectives only, often based on
expert judgement (Coad et al., 2015). The GLPCA
programme takes account of this, but it is
important to recognize that the subjective nature
of expert judgement often lacks accuracy (Cook
et al., 2014) when compared with more
transparent and repeatable evaluation of
biodiversity outcomes using monitoring data
(Legge, 2015).
Even when long-term quantitative data are
available, they are often not used if the data are
not readily available to the agency, are in the
wrong form for use in the assessment, or there is a
lack of in-house skills or capacity for the analysis
required (Addison et al., 2015; Legge, 2015).
Monitoring data collected in MPAs must therefore
be analysed according to correct scientic
protocols and the results presented in a form that
makes them readily available for use in
management effectiveness assessments (Edgar
et al., 2014; Fox et al., 2014) and ultimately for
GLPCA documentation. Clearer specication of
the types of data sets needed and the analysis
methods to be used would facilitate this.
CONCLUSION
The GLPCA is a valuable boost to efforts to
improve management effectiveness of protected
areas, whether terrestrial or marine. As the Red
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 41
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
List is a rallying point for species conservation, so
the Green List has the potential to signal a new
era of investment and effort, ensuring that area-
based conservation is effective and meaningful.
Inevitably, though, it will take many years for all
MPAs to reach this standard and indeed the
programme itself will not have the capacity in the
immediate future to accept all those that might
want to take part.
However, by providing a global standard against
which sites can measure their performance, all
protected areas can start to put in place the
necessary measures to improve their management
effectiveness. Initiating a regular programme of
assessments of management effectiveness is clearly
an important rst step. The regional initiatives
that are already undertaking such assessments, and
other global incentive programmes that are in the
pipeline, can help further by aligning their
approaches and methodologies to the GLPCA
standard. Guidance on how to adapt
methodologies and develop indicators for MPA
assessments is needed, and MPA training and
capacity building initiatives should include the
topic of management effectiveness assessment.
Ultimately, regular assessments and registration
with the GLPCA programme should be seen as a
part and parcel of the development programme for
any MPA, and government agencies and
management bodies should be promoting this. In
many countries, this will require support from
donor agencies initially and indeed, some agencies
already see the vital importance of this such as the
GEF, with its METT. Nevertheless, we still have
no real sense of whether the Parties to the CBD
will meet the target of effective and equitable
management of protected areas by 2020. There is
thus an urgent need for as much investment in this
qualitative aspect of Aichi Target 11 as has gone
into the quantitative aspects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are very grateful to James Hardcastle, Marc
Hockings, members of the IUCN GLPCA
programme, Dan Laffoley, Marnie Bammert,
Frederic Cadene, Jean-Francois Sys and the
personnel of the GLPCA pilot protected areas for
their support in compiling this paper, and for the
two reviewers for their very helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Addison PFE, Flander LB, Cook CN. 2015. Are we missing the
boat? Current uses of long-term biological monitoring data in
the evaluation and management of marine protected areas.
Journal of Environmental Management 149: 148156.
Babcock RC, Shears NT, Alcala AC, Barret NS, Edgar GJ,
Lafferty KD, McClanahan TR, Russ GR. 2010. Decadal
trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change
in direct and indirect effects. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:
1825618261.
Bajjouk T, Rochette S, Laurans M, Ehrhold A, Hamdi A, Le
Niliot P. 2015. Multi-approach mapping to help spatial
planning and management of the kelp species L. digitata
and L. hyperborea: case study of the Molène Archipelago,
Brittany. Journal of Sea Research 100:221.
Barnay AS. 2014. Le Tableau de Bord des Aires Marines
Protegees. Agence des aires marines protégées. http://www.
aires-marines.fr/Documentation/Plaquette-Le-tableau-de-bord-
des-aires-marines-protegees.
Beger B, McGowan J, Treml EA, Green AL, White AT, Wolff
NH, Klein CJ, Mumby PJ, Possingham HP. 2015.
Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple
objectives in national policy. Nature Communications 6: 8208.
Borrini-Feyerabend G, Dudley N, Jaeger T, Lassen B, Pathak
Broome N, Phillips A, Sandwith T. 2013. Governance of
Protected Areas:From Understanding to Action, Best
Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, IUCN:
Gland, Switzerland.
CBD. 2011. Strategic plan for biodiversity 20112020,
including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on
Biological Diversity.
CBD. 2012. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its 11th
Meeting. X1/24. Protected areas.
Chunhou L, Xiaoping J, Dianrong S. 2009. The Marine
Ecosystem and Biodiversity in Nanpeng Islands, China
Ocean Press: Beijing .ISBN:9787502776282. (In Chinese).
Coad L, Leverington F, Knights K, Geldmann J, Eassom A,
Kapos V, Kingston N, de Lima M, Zamora C, Cuardros I,
et al. 2015. Measuring impact of protected area
management interventions: current and future use of the
Global Database of Protected Area Management
Effectiveness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B 370: 20140281.
Cook CN, Carter RW, Hockings M. 2014. Measuring the
accuracy of management effectiveness evaluations of
protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management 139:
164171.
Costello MJ, Ballantine WJ. 2015. Biodiversity conservation
should focus on no-take Marine Reserves. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 30: 507509.
CTI-CFF. 2013. Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area
System Framework and Action Plan. Coral Triangle
Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security
S. WELLS ET AL.42
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
(CTI-CFF), United States Agency for International
Development Coral Triangle Support Partnership and US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cebu
City, Philippines.
De Santo EM. 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA)
targets: how the push for quantity over quality undermines
sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental
Management 124: 137146.
Devillers R, Pressey RL, Grech A, Kittinger JN, Edgar GJ,
Ware T, Watson R. 2015. Reinventing residual reserves in
the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need
for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 25: 480504.
Edgar GJ, Banks SA, Bessudo S, Cortés J, Guzmán HM,
Henderson S, Martinez C, Rivera F, Soler G, Ruiz D,
Zapata F. 2011. Variation in reef sh and invertebrate
communities with level of protection from shing across the
Eastern Tropical Pacic seascape. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 20: 730740.
Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Willis TJ, Kininmonth S, Baker
SC, Barrett NS, Becerro MA, Bernard ATF, Banks S,
Berkhout J, et al. 2014. Global conservation outcomes
depend on marine protected areas with ve key features.
Nature 506: 216220.
Ervin J. 2003. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected
Area management (RAPPAM), WWF for Nature: Gland
(Switzerland).
Fox HE, Holtzman JL, Haiseld KM, McNally CG, Cid GA,
Mascia MB, Parks JE, Pomeroy RS. 2014. How are our
MPAs doing? Challenges in assessing global patterns in
marine protected area performance. Coastal Management
42: 207226.
Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes M, Craigie ID, Hockings M,
Knights K, Leverington F, Cuadros IC, Zamora C,
Woodley S, et al. 2015. Changes in protected area
management effectiveness over time: a global analysis.
Biological Conservation 191: 692699.
Guidetti P, Bussotti S, Pizzolante F, Ciccolella A. 2010.
Assessing the potential of an artisanal shing co-
management in the Marine Protected Area of Torre
Guaceto (southern Adriatic Sea, SE Italy). Fisheries
Research 101: 180187.
Gutiérrez CF. 2012. Análisis de integridad ecológica del PNN
Gorgona. Informe Técnico. Parques Nacionales WWF.
Hackradt CW, Garcıa-Charton JA, Harmelin-Vivien M, Perez-
Ruzafa A, Le Direach L, Bayle-Sempere J, Charbonnel E,
Ody D, Renones O, Sanchez-Jerez P, et al. 2014. Response
of Rocky Reef Top Predators (Serranidae:Epinephelinae)in
and around Marine Protected Areas in the Western
Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 9(6) e98206. DOI:10.1371/
journal.pone.0098206.
Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J.
2006. Evaluating effectiveness:A Framework for Assessing
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, IUCN:
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Hockings M, James R, Stolton S, Dudley N, Mathur V,
Makombo J, Corrau J, Parrish J. 2008. Enhancing our
Heritage Toolkit:Assessing Management Effectiveness of
Natural World Heritage Sites. UNESCO World Heritage
Centre: Paris. http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/23/
Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N, James R. 2009. Data
credibility: What are the rightdata for evaluating
management effectiveness of protected areas? New
Directions for Evaluation 2009:5363.
ISEAL Alliance. 2013. Principles for Credible and Effective
Sustainability Standards Systems. ISEAL Credibility
Principles. http://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/les/
Credibility%20Principles%20v1.0%20low%20res.pdf
IUCN. 2012. World Conservation Congress Resolution 41.
Development of objective criteria for a Green List of
species, ecosystems and protected areas. http://
2012congress.iucn.org/member_s_assembly/resolutions/
IUCN-WCPA. 2008. Establishing Marine Protected Area
NetworksMaking It Happen, IUCN World Commission
on Protected Areas, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and The Nature Conservancy: Washington,
DC. 118
IUCN GPAP. 2014. IUCN Green List for Protected Areas
(GLPA) Assurance procedure. Pilot Version 0.4. 46. http://
cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_glpa_assurance_procedure
_version_1_4_september_17th_2014.pdf
IUCN GPAP and WCPA. 2014. The Green List for Protected
Areas Global Standard. Version 1.3. 15 pp. http://cmsdata.iucn.
org/downloads/pilot_phase_iucnglpastandard20140515_.pdf
Juffe-Bignoli D, Burgess ND, Bingham H, Belle EMS, de Lima
MG, Deguignet M, Bertzky B, Milam AN, Martinez-Lopez
J, Lewis E, et al. 2014. Protected Planet Report 2014,
UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.
Kopp D. 2007. Les poissons herbivores dans lécosystème
récifal des Antilles. Thèse de doctorat en Océanologie,
Université des Antilles et de la Guyane, 198 pp.
Laffoley D dA (ed.). 2008. Towards Networks of Marine
Protected Areas. The MPA Plan of Action for IUCNs
World Commission on Protected Areas. IUCN WCPA,
Gland, Switzerland. http://danlaffoley.com/wp-content/
uploads/PlanofAction2_updated.pdf
Laffoley D dA. 2012. Report on the workshop on MPA
certication. IUCN, Switzerland. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/
downloads/mpa_cert_denmark_recommedations_dl_040512_
nal.pdf
Laffon J-F, Payrot J. 2012. Evaluation du plan de gestion 2007-
2011 de la Réserve Naturelle Marine de Cerbère-Banyuls
Livret I:Analyse des résultats de la gestion et présentation du
tableau de bord. Conseil Général des Pyrénées-Orientales/
Réserve Naturelle marine de Cerbère-Banyuls.
Legge S. 2015. A plea for inserting evidence-based management
into conservation practice. Animal Conservation 18: 113116.
Moreno-Sánchez R, Maldonado JH. 2013. Adaptive capacity
of shing communities at marine protected areas: a case
study from the Colombian pacic. Ambio 42: 985996.
MPA Support Network. 2010. Marine Protected Area
Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MPA-MEAT).
Coral Triangle Support Partnership of USAID, Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, and the MPA
Support Network Philippines, Quezon City.
OLeary BC, Winther-Janson M, Bainbridge JM, Aitken J,
Hawkins JP, Roberts CM. 2016. Effective coverage targets
for ocean protection. Conservation Letters. http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12247/epdf.
Parc National de la Guadeloupe. 2014. Carte des Vocations.
Annexe a la Charte de Territoire du parc national de la
Guadeloupe. http://www.guadeloupe-parcnational.fr/IMG/
pdf/vocations_21.01.2014_approb_decret.pdf Accessed: 16
September 2015.
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 43
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
Parc Naturel Marin dIroise. 2011. 20102025 Management
Plan. English Summary.
Parc Naturel Marin dIroise (undated). Parc naturel marin
dIroise: la carte des vocations. http://wwz.ifremer.fr/
biarritz_2011/content/download/61308/835287/le/02-
parcmarinIroise.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2015.
Pomeroy R, Parks J, Watson L. 2004. How is your MPA doing?
A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating
Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness, IUCN,
WWF: Gland and the US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: Gland and Cambridge.
Ricci G, Francis J. 2014. WIO COMPAS Policy Brief:
Achieving MPA Management Effectiveness Through
Competence-based Professional Development. http://www.
crc.uri.edu/download/SUC09_MPAPRO_PolicyBrief_508.
pdf. Accessed: 16 September 2015.
Staub F, Hatziolos ME. 2004. Score Card to Assess Progress in
Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine
Protected Areas. World Bank. http://www.biodiv-conseil.
fr/MPA_SC.html
Stolton S, Hockings M, Dudley N, MacKinnon K, Whitten T,
Leverington F. 2007. Management Effectiveness Tracking
Tool:Reporting progress at protected area sites, 2nd edn.
WWF.
UAESPNN. 2005. Plan Básico de Manejo 2005-2009, Parque
Nacional Natural Gorgona. Unidad Administrativa
Especial del Sistema de Parques Nacionales: Cali, Colombia.
Wells S. 2006. Case Study I: evaluation of marine protected
areas in the Western Indian Ocean. In Evaluating
effectiveness:a Framework for Assessing the Management of
Protected Areas, Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N,
Leverington F, Courrau J (eds). 2nd edn.IUCN Best
Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series: Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
White AT, Aliño PM, Cros A, Ahmad Fatan N, Green AL,
Shwu Jiau T, Laroya L, Peterson N, Tan S, Tighe S, et al.
2014. Marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle:
progress, issues, and options. Coastal Management 42:
87106.
S. WELLS ET AL.44
Copyright #2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 2444 (2016)
... Efektivitas KKP dan efektivitas pengelolaan KKP bukanlah hal yang sama (Mascia et al. 2014). Efektivitas KKP didasarkan pada sasaran awal KKP dan tujuannya -dimana suatu KKP yang mencapai tujuan targetnya dapat dianggap efektif (Wells et al. 2016;Pendleton et al. 2018). Efektivitas KKP dapat juga disebut sebagai pengukuran kinerja (Mascia et al. 2014). ...
... Terakhir, untuk terus mendorongkan kualitas pengelolaan KKP di atas kuantitas KKP, IUCN membangun IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA) pada tahun 2013. Perangkat ini menyediakan proses verifikasi terakreditasi untuk mengidentifikasi area yang memenuhi standar pengelolaan global termasuk yang memenuhi tujuan konservasinya, mencapai pengelolaan efektif, dan memfasilitasi tata kelola yang adil(Wells et al. 2016). Kerangka kerja dan Rencana Aksi Coral Triangle MPA System (CTMPAS) (CTI-CFF 2013) adalah inisiatif efektivitas pengelolaan KKP lainnya yang mengklasifikasikan KKP ke dalam empat kategori tergantung tingkat efektivitasnya. ...
... Inisiasi KKP, yaitu pengusulan dan penetapan KKP secara hukum, hanyalah langkah awal. Untuk mencapai potensi penuh, yaitu pengelolaan yang optimal, KKP harus diimplementasikan dengan peraturan yang berlaku dan ditegakkan di dalam kawasan, diatur secara adil, dan dikelola secara aktif (Wells et al. 2016). Pengelolaan yang aktif mencakup pemantauan, evaluasi dan pembelajaran yang berkelanjutan, dan penegakan hukum sebagai dasar untuk pengelolaan adaptif dalam memastikan hasil konservasi bisa tercapai. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Tata kelola yang baik merupakan salah satu indikator yang perlu dicapai dalam pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan (KKP) yang efektif. Keterlibatan masyarakat merupakan bagian yang tak terpisahkan dalam tata kelola tersebut. Keterlibatan masyarakat penting untuk memastikan hak-hak inklusif masyarakat dalam pemanfaatan sumber daya laut secara berkelanjutan bisa terpenuhi, pengetahuan dan praktik pengelolaan berbasis masyarakat (masyarakat adat dan modern) diakui dan terakomodir dalam rencana pengelolaan KKP. Bab ini memberikan pengantar tentang prinsip tata kelola dan regulasi-regulasi yang terkait. Bagaimana masyarakat dapat dilibatkan dalam tata kelola, rasa kepemilikan, kepengurusan, dan kesesuaian dengan konteks lokal disajikan melalui kajian literatur dan studi kasus. Bagian terakhir dari bab ini menyoroti peluang yang muncul untuk peningkatan peran yang dapat dimainkan masyarakat dalam tata kelola KKP di Indonesia. Dengan sejarah yang kaya dan beragam terkait kearifan lokal maupun adat untuk mengelola sumber daya laut, ada peluang untuk merevitalisasi dan mentransformasi lembaga adat menjadi KKP yang efektif dan inklusif untuk mencapai hasil positif konservasi dan sosial ekonomi.
... Efektivitas KKP dan efektivitas pengelolaan KKP bukanlah hal yang sama (Mascia et al. 2014). Efektivitas KKP didasarkan pada sasaran awal KKP dan tujuannya -dimana suatu KKP yang mencapai tujuan targetnya dapat dianggap efektif (Wells et al. 2016;Pendleton et al. 2018). Efektivitas KKP dapat juga disebut sebagai pengukuran kinerja (Mascia et al. 2014). ...
... Terakhir, untuk terus mendorongkan kualitas pengelolaan KKP di atas kuantitas KKP, IUCN membangun IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA) pada tahun 2013. Perangkat ini menyediakan proses verifikasi terakreditasi untuk mengidentifikasi area yang memenuhi standar pengelolaan global termasuk yang memenuhi tujuan konservasinya, mencapai pengelolaan efektif, dan memfasilitasi tata kelola yang adil(Wells et al. 2016). Kerangka kerja dan Rencana Aksi Coral Triangle MPA System (CTMPAS) (CTI-CFF 2013) adalah inisiatif efektivitas pengelolaan KKP lainnya yang mengklasifikasikan KKP ke dalam empat kategori tergantung tingkat efektivitasnya. ...
... Inisiasi KKP, yaitu pengusulan dan penetapan KKP secara hukum, hanyalah langkah awal. Untuk mencapai potensi penuh, yaitu pengelolaan yang optimal, KKP harus diimplementasikan dengan peraturan yang berlaku dan ditegakkan di dalam kawasan, diatur secara adil, dan dikelola secara aktif (Wells et al. 2016). Pengelolaan yang aktif mencakup pemantauan, evaluasi dan pembelajaran yang berkelanjutan, dan penegakan hukum sebagai dasar untuk pengelolaan adaptif dalam memastikan hasil konservasi bisa tercapai. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Tata kelola yang baik merupakan salah satu pilar yang harus tersedia untuk memastikan efektivitas pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan (KKP). Tata kelola mengacu pada struktur kelembagaan baik formal maupun informal, keahlian teknis, dan proses kerja yang membentuk sebuah pengelolaan. Hal ini bisa mengacu pada kerangka kerja legislasi dan peraturan baik nasional maupun lokal, serta peran dan tanggung jawab lembaga maupun individu dan interaksinya. Pengelolaan di sisi lain terdiri dari berbagai perangkat pengelolaan yang tersedia bagi lembaga pengelola. Bab ini akan membahas tata kelola KKP dilihat dari kelembagaan formal — tipe pengelolaan oleh pemerintah — kerangka kelembagaan dan tantangannya saat ini. Informasi mengenai tata kelola KKP di tingkat global disajikan sebagai sebuah pembelajaran.
... Efektivitas KKP dan efektivitas pengelolaan KKP bukanlah hal yang sama (Mascia et al. 2014). Efektivitas KKP didasarkan pada sasaran awal KKP dan tujuannya -dimana suatu KKP yang mencapai tujuan targetnya dapat dianggap efektif (Wells et al. 2016;Pendleton et al. 2018). Efektivitas KKP dapat juga disebut sebagai pengukuran kinerja (Mascia et al. 2014). ...
... Terakhir, untuk terus mendorongkan kualitas pengelolaan KKP di atas kuantitas KKP, IUCN membangun IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA) pada tahun 2013. Perangkat ini menyediakan proses verifikasi terakreditasi untuk mengidentifikasi area yang memenuhi standar pengelolaan global termasuk yang memenuhi tujuan konservasinya, mencapai pengelolaan efektif, dan memfasilitasi tata kelola yang adil(Wells et al. 2016). Kerangka kerja dan Rencana Aksi Coral Triangle MPA System (CTMPAS) (CTI-CFF 2013) adalah inisiatif efektivitas pengelolaan KKP lainnya yang mengklasifikasikan KKP ke dalam empat kategori tergantung tingkat efektivitasnya. ...
... Inisiasi KKP, yaitu pengusulan dan penetapan KKP secara hukum, hanyalah langkah awal. Untuk mencapai potensi penuh, yaitu pengelolaan yang optimal, KKP harus diimplementasikan dengan peraturan yang berlaku dan ditegakkan di dalam kawasan, diatur secara adil, dan dikelola secara aktif (Wells et al. 2016). Pengelolaan yang aktif mencakup pemantauan, evaluasi dan pembelajaran yang berkelanjutan, dan penegakan hukum sebagai dasar untuk pengelolaan adaptif dalam memastikan hasil konservasi bisa tercapai. ...
Book
Full-text available
Laporan Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia: Status dan Tantangan merupakan bagian dari Dokumen MPA Vision 2030, yang diinisiasi oleh Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan bersama dengan konsorsium Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (WWF, CTC, WCS-IP, YKAN, CII, RARE), dalam rangka mengkaji status dan tren kawasan konservasi perairan di Indonesia. Laporan ini dibuat berdasarkan data dan informasi ilmiah dalam menguraikan status dan tren kondisi kawasan konservasi perairan di Indonesia dengan empat (4) bagian utama, yaitu: (1) Tata Kelola Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia; (2) Implementasi Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia – Kemajuan Terhadap Target Nasional dan Global; (3) Menyeimbangkan Konservasi Keanekaragaman Hayati dan Pemanfaatan Berkelanjutan di Kawasan Konservasi Perairan; dan (4) Membangun Jejaring Kawasan Konservasi Perairan – Ancaman dan Pendekatan Baru untuk Meningkatkan Capaian Kawasan Konservasi Perairan.
... Adaptive management will lead to adjustments in plans and activities as needed to ensure good compliance, stakeholder and rights-holder collaboration, and achievement of MPA goals. Comprehensive systems exist to evaluate actively managed MPAs, such as the IUCN Green List (34) and the Marine Conservation Institute's Blue Parks Program (35). Periodic reviews of actively managed areas are based on evaluations of MPA management function such as sustainable financing, staffing, and outreach as well as data collected frequently inside and outside the MPA. ...
... These are the conditions by which an MPA is effectively planned, designed, implemented, governed, and managed to achieve desired ecological outcomes and the direct and indirect human well-being outcomes that result. These CONDITIONS may vary in their importance during the process of achieving each of the four STAGES [for example, (57-59)] (Table 1), but aspects of each apply when moving from proposed/committed to designated [for example, (60-62)], to implemented [for example, (34,63)], and to actively managed [for example, (34,63,64)]. They will also vary according to local challenges, opportunities, and resources, requiring engagement in a prioritization process that is specific to each context. ...
... These are the conditions by which an MPA is effectively planned, designed, implemented, governed, and managed to achieve desired ecological outcomes and the direct and indirect human well-being outcomes that result. These CONDITIONS may vary in their importance during the process of achieving each of the four STAGES [for example, (57-59)] (Table 1), but aspects of each apply when moving from proposed/committed to designated [for example, (60-62)], to implemented [for example, (34,63)], and to actively managed [for example, (34,63,64)]. They will also vary according to local challenges, opportunities, and resources, requiring engagement in a prioritization process that is specific to each context. ...
... Adaptive management will lead to adjustments in plans and activities as needed to ensure good compliance, stakeholder and rights-holder collaboration, and achievement of MPA goals. Comprehensive systems exist to evaluate actively managed MPAs, such as the IUCN Green List (34) and the Marine Conservation Institute's Blue Parks Program (35). Periodic reviews of actively managed areas are based on evaluations of MPA management function such as sustainable financing, staffing, and outreach as well as data collected frequently inside and outside the MPA. ...
... These are the conditions by which an MPA is effectively planned, designed, implemented, governed, and managed to achieve desired ecological outcomes and the direct and indirect human well-being outcomes that result. These CONDITIONS may vary in their importance during the process of achieving each of the four STAGES [for example, (57-59)] (Table 1), but aspects of each apply when moving from proposed/committed to designated [for example, (60-62)], to implemented [for example, (34,63)], and to actively managed [for example, (34,63,64)]. They will also vary according to local challenges, opportunities, and resources, requiring engagement in a prioritization process that is specific to each context. ...
... These are the conditions by which an MPA is effectively planned, designed, implemented, governed, and managed to achieve desired ecological outcomes and the direct and indirect human well-being outcomes that result. These CONDITIONS may vary in their importance during the process of achieving each of the four STAGES [for example, (57-59)] (Table 1), but aspects of each apply when moving from proposed/committed to designated [for example, (60-62)], to implemented [for example, (34,63)], and to actively managed [for example, (34,63,64)]. They will also vary according to local challenges, opportunities, and resources, requiring engagement in a prioritization process that is specific to each context. ...
Article
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are conservation tools intended to protect biodiversity, promote healthy and resilient marine ecosystems, and provide societal benefits. Despite codification of MPAs in international agreements, MPA effectiveness is currently undermined by confusion about the many MPA types and consequent wildly differing outcomes. We present a clarifying science-driven framework—The MPA Guide—to aid design and evaluation. The guide categorizes MPAs by stage of establishment and level of protection, specifies the resulting direct and indirect outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being, and describes the key conditions necessary for positive outcomes. Use of this MPA Guide by scientists, managers, policy-makers, and communities can improve effective design, implementation, assessment, and tracking of existing and future MPAs to achieve conservation goals by using scientifically grounded practices.
... While close to half of the MPAs globally are not implemented but only proposed or designated [16], we identified only 1% of France's coastal marine waters within MPAs without legal or management texts (but this figure can ba as high as 32% in some Ocean basins). While this does not reflect the effectiveness of management, nor the compliance levels, France's determination to achieve effective management can be observed through the increasing number of French MPAs on the IUCN Green List or receiving a Blue Parks award (formally Global Ocean refuge System) [46,47]. ...
Article
A healthy Ocean is critical for achieving sustainable development goals but the Ocean is threatened by multiple stressors. There is a global call to increase the coverage of marine protected areas (MPAs) from 10% to at least 30% by 2030. France, a major actor for marine conservation with the second largest exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the world, with territories in all Ocean basins but the Arctic, aims at reaching the 30% by 2022, for which one third shall include a strong protection status. However, the strategy to reach this twofold target faces two challenges. First, while some standards exist to classify the levels of protection, France is currently using a case specific, loose approach to define strong protection. Second, there is no criteria that addresses the representativeness of the protection across French Ocean basins. Here, we assess the protection levels of the 524 French MPAs and their distribution across territories and habitats. While 33.7% of France’s waters are covered by an MPA, 12.5% of these areas do not impose regulations stronger inside than outside. Full and high levels of protection, the most effective for biodiversity conservation, represent only 1.6% of French waters and are unevenly distributed across Ocean basins and habitats, with 80.5% concentrated in a single territory. To fill this gap in protection for the second largest exclusive economic zone in the world, it is critical that France’s high ambition is both qualitatively and quantitatively deployed in each Ocean basin to protect our Ocean, its biodiversity and to sustain the livelihood of millions of people. Summary Current efforts at protecting the second largest exclusive economic zone in the world are unevenly distributed and are missing entire parts of ecosystems and Ocean basins
... pointing to the risk of "paper parks" that fail to meet their goals (Agardy et al., 2003;Rife et al., 2013). The unprecedented number of recent and sometimes large MPAs has raised the issue of their effectiveness at achieving high standards in environmental and social performance; a concern reflected in the creation of guidelines for performance assessments (Parks et al., 2004) and quality labels for effective MPAs 2,3 (Wells et al., 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
For almost two decades, marine protected areas (MPAs) have been a central instrument of coastal conservation and management policies, but concerns about their abilities to meet conservation goals have grown as the number and sizes of MPAs have dramatically increased. This paper describes how a large (15 years) program of transdisciplinary research was used to successfully measure MPA management effectiveness (ME)—how well an MPA is managed, how well it is protecting values, and how well it is achieving the various goals and objectives for which it was created. This paper addresses the co-production and uptake of monitoring-based evidence for assessing ME in coastal MPAs by synthesizing the experiences of this program conducted with MPA managers. I present the main outcomes of the program, many were novel, and discuss four ingredients (learned lessons) that underpinned the successful uptake of science during and after the research program: (i) early and inclusive co-design of the project with MPA partners and scientists from all disciplines, (ii) co-construction of common references transcending the boundaries of disciplines, and standardized methodologies and tools, (iii) focus on outcomes that are management-oriented and understandable by end-users, and (iv) ensuring that capacity building and dissemination activities occurred during and persisted beyond the program. Standardized monitoring protocols and data management procedures, a user-friendly interface for indicator analysis, and dashboards of indicators related to biodiversity, uses, and governance, were the most valued practical outcomes. Seventy-five students were trained during the projects and most of the monitoring work was conducted with MPA rangers. Such outcomes were made possible by the extended timeline offered by the three successive projects. MPA managers’ and scientists a posteriori perceptions strongly supported the relevance of such collaboration. Local monitoring and assessment meets the needs of MPA managers, and forms the basis for large-scale assessments through upscaling. A long-term synergistic transdisciplinary collaboration between coastal MPA managers and research into social-ecological systems (SESs) would simultaneously (i) address the lack of long-term resources for coastal monitoring and SES-oriented research; (ii) increase science uptake by coastal managers, and (iii) benefit assessments at higher levels or at broader geographic scales.
... However, as posited by Jones and Newsome (2015), emphasising the importance of natural areas in urban environments, in regard to city liveability and tourism potential, still requires further attention and recognition. We believe that the next phase in exploring the context of nature in the city is in regard to acknowledging and extending the views forwarded by recent research (Dallimer et al., 2012;Keniger et al., 2013;Taylor and Hochuli, 2015) and setting this in the context of internationally recognised standards and criteria for the conservation of important natural and cultural values, such as the IUCN Green List (IUCN, 2018;Wells et al., 2016). ...
Article
Establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) and MPA networks has increased globally following the passage of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity in 2010. Known as the Aichi Target 11, this plan calls for the protection of 10% of coastal and marine environments by 2020. Despite an increase of global efforts to implement MPAs, and more recently MPA networks, to achieve the Aichi Target 11, there is limited peer-reviewed literature about lessons learned and insights for effective implementation and management. With California home to one of the largest, scientifically guided, stakeholder-driven, ecologically connected networks of MPAs in the world, this paper offers guidance to MPA managers and policy makers on points of consideration prior to, during, and following, MPA implementation. Topics and recommendations are based on lessons learned from the design and implementation of California’s MPA Management Program. Recommendations range from the importance of using relevant designations during MPA planning and implementation, flexibility in enforcement measures and scientific monitoring, as well as addressing overlapping governance and authorities, and early and continued public outreach and engagement. Broadly, establishing an adaptive management process to provide a responsive framework for potential management changes including a mechanism for evaluating the efficacy of a network of MPAs following establishment is critical. While management of California’s MPA Network continues to evolve, these insights can inform other MPA network planning and management efforts.
Article
Full-text available
The UN's globally adopted Convention on Biological Diversity coverage target for marine protected areas (MPAs) is ≥10% by 2020. In 2014 the World Parks Congress recommended increasing this to ≥30%. We reviewed 144 studies to assess whether the UN target is adequate to achieve, maximise or optimise six environmental and/or socio-economic objectives. Results consistently indicate that protecting several tens-of-percent of the sea is required to meet goals (average 37%, median 35%, modal group 21–30%), greatly exceeding the 2.18% currently protected and the 10% target. The objectives we examined were met in 3% of studies with ≤10% MPA coverage, 44% with ≤30% coverage and 81% with more than half the sea protected. The UN's 10% target appears insufficient to protect biodiversity, preserve ecosystem services and achieve socio-economic priorities. As MPA coverages generated from theoretical studies inherently depend on scenario(s) considered, our findings do not represent explicit recommendations but rather provide perspective on policy goals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Article
Full-text available
Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.
Article
Full-text available
Multinational conservation initiatives that prioritize investment across a region invariably navigate trade-offs among multiple objectives. It seems logical to focus where several objectives can be achieved efficiently, but such multi-objective hotspots may be ecologically inappropriate, or politically inequitable. Here we devise a framework to facilitate a regionally cohesive set of marine-protected areas driven by national preferences and supported by quantitative conservation prioritization analyses, and illustrate it using the Coral Triangle Initiative. We identify areas important for achieving six objectives to address ecosystem representation, threatened fauna, connectivity and climate change. We expose trade-offs between areas that contribute substantially to several objectives and those meeting one or two objectives extremely well. Hence there are two strategies to guide countries choosing to implement regional goals nationally: multi-objective hotspots and complementary sets of single-objective priorities. This novel framework is applicable to any multilateral or global initiative seeking to apply quantitative information in decision making. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9208
Article
Full-text available
Multinational conservation initiatives that prioritize investment across a region invariably navigate trade-offs among multiple objectives. It seems logical to focus where several objectives can be achieved efficiently, but such multi-objective hotspots may be ecologically inappropriate, or politically inequitable. Here we devise a framework to facilitate a regionally cohesive set of marine-protected areas driven by national preferences and supported by quantitative conservation prioritization analyses, and illustrate it using the Coral Triangle Initiative. We identify areas important for achieving six objectives to address ecosystem representation, threatened fauna, connectivity and climate change. We expose trade-offs between areas that contribute substantially to several objectives and those meeting one or two objectives extremely well. Hence there are two strategies to guide countries choosing to implement regional goals nationally: multi-objective hotspots and complementary sets of single-objective priorities. This novel framework is applicable to any multilateral or global initiative seeking to apply quantitative information in decision making.
Article
Full-text available
Protected area coverage has reached over 15% of the global land area. However, the quality of management of the vast majority of reserves remains unknown, and many are suspected to be “paper parks”.Moreover, the degree to which management can be enhanced through targeted conservation projects remains broadly speculative. Proven links between improved reserve management and the delivery of conservation outcomes are even more elusive. In this paper we present results on how management effectiveness scores change in protected areas receiving conservation investment, using a globally expanded database of protected area management effectiveness, focusing on the “management effectiveness tracking tool” (METT). Of 1934 protected areas with METT data, 722 sites have at least two assessments. MeanMETT scores increased in 69.5% of siteswhile 25.1% experienced decreases and 5.4% experienced no change over project periods (median 4 years). Low initial METT scores and longer implementation time were both found to positively correlate with larger increases in management effectiveness. Performance metrics related to planning and context aswell as monitoring and enforcement systems increased the most while protected area outcomes showed least improvement. Using a general linear mixed model we tested the correlation between change in METT scores and matrices of 1) landscape and protected area properties (i.e. topography and size), 2) human threats (i.e. road and human population density), and 3) socio-economics (i.e. infant mortality rate). Protected areas under greater threat and larger protected areas showed greatest improvements in METT. Our results suggest that when funding and resources are targeted at protected areas under greater threat they have a greater impact, potentially including slowing the loss of biodiversity.
Article
Full-text available
The Molène Archipelago in Brittany (France) hosts one of the largest kelp forests in Europe. Beyond their recognized ecological importance as an essential habitat and food for a variety of marine species, kelp also contributes towards regional economies by means of the alginate industry. Thousands of tons of kelp are collected each year for the needs of the chemical and food industries. Kelp harvesting in Brittany mainly concerns two species, Laminaria digitata (59,000 t) and Laminaria hyperborea (24,000 t), that, together, represent approximately 95% of the national landings. Estimating the available standing stock and its distribution is a clear need for providing appropriate and sustainable management measures.
Article
Management effectiveness assessment of protected area has become a major environmental concern, being an effective way to guarantee the management quality and to achieve the management targets of protected areas. Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management ( RAPPAM) methodology is one of the most popular methodologies. Based on the researches on the assessment indices and assessment characteristics of RAPPAM, and on the results of 8 executions of national level, this paper analyzed the evaluation scope, targets, results, and related suggestions. The RAPPAM methodology could rapidly confirm the threats and functions of protected area system, make next steps and recommendations, and provide foundations for policy makers. To understand and apply this methodology would be very necessary for realizing and improving the management status of nature reserves in China.
Article
Conservation needs places where nature is left wild; but only a quarter of coastal countries have no-take Marine Reserves. 'Marine Protected Areas' (MPAs) have been used to indicate conservation progress but we found that 94% allow fishing and thus cannot protect all aspects of biodiversity. Biodiversity conservation should focus on Marine Reserves, not MPAs. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.