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

September 2016
Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26(S2):24-44

DOI:10.1002/aqc.2679

Authors:

Sue Wells

Sue Wells consultancy

Prue Addison

Berks Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust

Show all 12 authorsHide

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

Content uploaded by Alan T. White

Content may be subject to copyright.

Using the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas to

promote conservation impact through marine protected areas

SUE WELLS

*, PRUE F.E. ADDISON

, PAULA A. BUENO

, MARCO COSTANTINI

, ANNE FONTAINE

LAURENT GERMAIN

, THIERRY LEFEBVRE

, LANCE MORGAN

, FRANCIS STAUB

, BIN WANG

ALAN WHITE

and MARÍA X. ZORRILLA

WCPA-Marine, Cambridge, UK

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK and Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia

Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, Colombia

Marine Programme, WWF Italy, Italy

Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife, Guadeloupe, France

Agence des aires marines protégées, France

Comité français de l’UICN, France

Marine Conservation Institute, USA

Biodiversité Conseil, UK

General Ofﬁce of State Oceanic Administration, China

Asia-Paciﬁc 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 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.

4. 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.

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.

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

AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 (Suppl. 2): 24–44 (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 parks’that 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)

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 List’protected

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 ﬁrst

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 Listing’was

passed (IUCN, 2012). Subsequently, a speciﬁc

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

certiﬁcation 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-speciﬁc

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)

(a primarily terrestrial

conceived and focused initiative).

The pilot phase (2013–2014) of the GLPCA

process involved IUCN, national and other

During the pilot phase, the term ‘Green List of Protected Areas’

(GLPA) was used.

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

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 ‘pillars’of 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 speciﬁc 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 ﬂexibility to account for

the speciﬁc context of the jurisdiction in which the

protected area is located. The ﬁrst 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 efﬁciency: 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 FSC’s certiﬁcation

criteria which allow for the presence of

‘conservation zones’or ‘protection areas’to add

credit to the scoring of a forest area seeking

certiﬁcation by the FSC, this is not the case with

the MSC. There is no requirement under the MSC

Standard for a ﬁshery management regime to

include MPAs if it is to be certiﬁed. However, if

MPAs exist in a ﬁshery seeking certiﬁcation, any

beneﬁts that could affect the scoring of

Performance Indicators should be considered.

For the pilot phase, the GLPCA was managed by

IUCN’s GPAP and WCPA, together with IUCN’s

regional ofﬁces. 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 ﬁnal 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

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

site’s IUCN management category, identiﬁed and analysed.

1.4. Understanding the social and economic

impacts of protection

Potential social and economic impacts (positive and negative) of designation and management

identiﬁed 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 deﬁned 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 deﬁned, 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 identiﬁed 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 identiﬁed 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 veriﬁable and technically justiﬁable performance thresholds deﬁned, 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 identiﬁed in 3.6).

3.8. Resources Adequate ﬁnancial 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 deﬁned 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 deﬁned 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

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 8–12 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.

Speciﬁc 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 ﬁnal 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 ﬁnalized 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

identiﬁcation 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 d’Iroise 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

Table 2. Comparison of MPAs participating in the pilot phase of the GLPCA

Protected area Year estab.

IUCN

cat

Total

Marine

No-take km

Key biodiversity

Main activities within the MPA including use

and visitation

GLPCA accredited

Parc Naturel Marin

d’Iroise - France

(Atlantic)

2007 IV 3428.0 3428.0 30 Large populations of marine mammals,

mainly dolphins and seals; seabirds; 120

species of ﬁsh, 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 ﬁshing (2008 ﬁgures): 195

commercial boats; 37 400 tonnes of kelp and

10 000 tonnes of other species generating

over 18 million euros; almost 9000 tonnes

ﬁsh; and 1200 tonnes shellﬁsh and bivalves.

Recreational ﬁshing (2009 ﬁgures): 13% of

people in Finistère made recreational ﬁshing

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, surﬁng 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 ﬁsh 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 (ﬁve

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 ﬁsh

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

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 reﬂecting 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 d’Iroise, 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,or‘objectives map’lays out the

zonation which includes a number of no-take

areas (Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise, 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 ﬁsheries, 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

area’s cultural heritage. The 10 goals that have

been deﬁned for the MPA reﬂect these, and are

laid out in the management plan (Parc Naturel

Marin d’Iroise, 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 ﬁshing,

anchoring and other damaging activities are

prohibited. The main issues are the seasonal but

intensive tourist visitation which is difﬁcult to

regulate effectively, local and commercial ﬁshing,

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 vocations’is 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),

ﬁshing, dredging and waste disposal associated

with nearby ports, and pollution from adjacent

banana and sugar plantations.

S. WELLS ET AL.30

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 d’Iroise 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 ﬁshers who use the park and

surrounding areas to reduce illegal ﬁshing;

•a legal requirement to produce a management plan,

and the inclusion within this of a set of clear

objectives;

•dedicated scientiﬁc and ﬁeld 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 ﬁsh

populations such as grouper (Hackradt et al.,

2014). In the Parc National de Guadeloupe, a

higher biomass of ﬁsh 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

Paciﬁc coast of Colombia. It includes the largest

and best developed coral reefs in the Eastern

Tropical Paciﬁc. Pelagic ﬁsh 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 Paciﬁc 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

Paciﬁc (Gutiérrez, 2012).

The MPA is entirely no-take (although ﬁshers

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

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 ﬁshing). 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 Scientiﬁc 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 ﬁnancial resources optimization, and

allows for better relations with artisanal ﬁshermen

and their community organizations.

During the GLPCA process an agreement with

ﬁshing communities, local government, and

environmental organizations was developed,

covering a wider area and including a second

protected area, Sanquianga National Park on the

Paciﬁc 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 ﬁsheries 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), beneﬁt and their traditional livelihoods and

culture are maintained.

The pilot experience provided an opportunity to

scientiﬁcally 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

Paciﬁc 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 Nan’ao 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 conﬂuence 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 ‘ﬁrst and second class national protected’

animals. The MPA also protects spawning

grounds for important artisanal ﬁsheries 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

Application of the Green List standard and results

The IUCN China Country Programme Ofﬁce 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 ‘mentor’and

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 signiﬁcantly. Management goals,

methods, institutional arrangements and ﬁnancial

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 scientiﬁc 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

sufﬁcient 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 ﬁsheries 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 ﬁnal GLPCA

certiﬁcation and the experience here will beneﬁt

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 2–10 times as many sea bream (a key

commercial species) compared with ﬁshed 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

abundance, a plan was developed jointly between

scientists and the local ﬁshing community to allow

ﬁshing in a large part of the MPA, leaving two no-

take zones totalling 1.8 km

in area. Fishing gear

and time (one day a week only) were restricted to

minimize damage. On opening this ﬁshery, catch

rates of commercially ﬁshed 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 veriﬁcation for an

MPA was not seen as too difﬁcult, especially as

the site had conducted management effectiveness

assessments, and has a robust stakeholder

engagement programme with negotiated

agreements with local artisanal ﬁshers and tourism

enterprises. The monitoring programme has

demonstrated increased ﬁsh 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

veriﬁcation 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-Paciﬁc 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

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

CTMPAS’sites 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 country’s 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 speciﬁc

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

clariﬁed.

partial

2.4. Complaints,disputes or grievances Conﬂict 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 ﬁnancial 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

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 ﬁrst ﬂagship

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 speciﬁc 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 speciﬁes 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

scientiﬁc 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 ﬁve

countries took part: Belize (Hol Chan Marine

Reserve, Glover’s Reef Marine Reserve);

Colombia (Sanctuary Cienaga Grande de Santa

Marta, Regional Seaﬂower 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 Party’s

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 beneﬁts).

If a site meets several criteria, the case for its

inclusion is strengthened.

The SPAW Focal Points review the

nominations and request modiﬁcations 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

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 Scientiﬁc and Technical Advisory

Committee for discussion and recommendation;

the ﬁnal 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 ﬁve 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 Institute’s 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 ﬁgure

based on recent work by O’Leary 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 ﬁve 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 insufﬁcient to achieve

maximum conservation beneﬁts; MPAs had to

have at least four and preferably all ﬁve features

to be successful. Using these features, two types of

criteria for Global Ocean Refuges have been

identiﬁed: 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

Beneﬁts 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 speciﬁcally to

encourage improved management of all protected

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS 37

areas, with intended incentives and beneﬁts as

follows

•international recognition as a well-managed site;

•increased political and ﬁnancial 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 beneﬁt sharing for local

communities;

•recognition of a quality experience, providing

justiﬁcation 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

beneﬁts 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 ﬁrst 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

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 acidiﬁcation, 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

) 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

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-speciﬁc 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 uniﬁed 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 difﬁculty. At the end of the GLPCA pilot

phase, the IUCN France Committee undertook a

‘lessons learned’survey with the managers

involved to assess the beneﬁts 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 difﬁculties

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 difﬁcult

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 difﬁcult 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 reﬂects national

policies, and that the process can help both

authorities and managers to implement these.

3. The data and materials required to support the

veriﬁcation 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

. 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 qualiﬁcations are an

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

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 (Certiﬁcation 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 speciﬁcally for

MPAs (Staub and Hatziolos, 2004), this is rarely

used.

Assessing equitable management and social aspects

of protected areas

Governance criteria have proved difﬁcult 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 ﬁve 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

reﬂects the ﬁndings 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 identiﬁcation 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 ﬂuidity 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

For example, speciﬁc 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 scientiﬁc

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 beneﬁts 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 d’Iroise (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 ﬁnding 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 ‘source’and ‘sink’communities

(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 scientiﬁc

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 speciﬁcation 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

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 ﬁrst 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: 148–156.

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:

18256–18261.

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 100:2–21.

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 2011–2020,

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:

164–171.

Costello MJ, Ballantine WJ. 2015. Biodiversity conservation

should focus on no-take Marine Reserves. Trends in

Ecology & Evolution 30: 507–509.

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

(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: 137–146.

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: 480–504.

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 ﬁsh and invertebrate

communities with level of protection from ﬁshing across the

Eastern Tropical Paciﬁc seascape. Global Ecology and

Biogeography 20: 730–740.

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 ﬁve key features.

Nature 506: 216–220.

Ervin J. 2003. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected

Area management (RAPPAM), WWF for Nature: Gland

(Switzerland).

Fox HE, Holtzman JL, Haisﬁeld 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: 207–226.

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: 692–699.

Guidetti P, Bussotti S, Pizzolante F, Ciccolella A. 2010.

Assessing the potential of an artisanal ﬁshing co-

management in the Marine Protected Area of Torre

Guaceto (southern Adriatic Sea, SE Italy). Fisheries

Research 101: 180–187.

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 ‘right’data for evaluating

management effectiveness of protected areas? New

Directions for Evaluation 2009:53–63.

ISEAL Alliance. 2013. Principles for Credible and Effective

Sustainability Standards Systems. ISEAL Credibility

Principles. http://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/ﬁles/

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

Networks—Making 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 l’écosystème

récifal des Antilles. Thèse de doctorat en Océanologie,

Université des Antilles et de la Guyane, 198 pp.

Laffoley D d’A (ed.). 2008. Towards Networks of Marine

Protected Areas. The MPA Plan of Action for IUCN’s

World Commission on Protected Areas. IUCN WCPA,

Gland, Switzerland. http://danlaffoley.com/wp-content/

uploads/PlanofAction2_updated.pdf

Laffoley D d’A. 2012. Report on the workshop on MPA

certiﬁcation. IUCN, Switzerland. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/

downloads/mpa_cert_denmark_recommedations_dl_040512_

ﬁnal.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: 113–116.

Moreno-Sánchez R, Maldonado JH. 2013. Adaptive capacity

of ﬁshing communities at marine protected areas: a case

study from the Colombian paciﬁc. Ambio 42: 985–996.

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.

O’Leary 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

Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise. 2011. 2010–2025 Management

Plan. English Summary.

Parc Naturel Marin d’Iroise (undated). Parc naturel marin

d’Iroise: la carte des vocations. http://wwz.ifremer.fr/

biarritz_2011/content/download/61308/835287/ﬁle/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:

87–106.

S. WELLS ET AL.44

Keterlibatan Masyarakat dalam Tata Kelola Kawasan Konservasi Perairan

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2020

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.

Struktur Kelembagaan Formal untuk Tata Kelola Kawasan Konservasi Perairan

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2020

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.

KKP 2020 - Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi Perairan di Indonesia Status dan Tantangan - ID version

Book

Full-text available

Dec 2020

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.

The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean

Article

Sep 2021

The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean

Article

Sep 2021

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.

Critical gaps in the protection of the second largest exclusive economic zone in the world

Article

Feb 2021
MAR POLICY

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

Assessing the Effectiveness of Coastal Marine Protected Area Management: Four Learned Lessons for Science Uptake and Upscaling

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2020

Pelletier Dominique

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.

Future agendas in urban tourism research: special editorial

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2019

California’s lessons learned and recommendations for effective marine protected area network management

Article

Mar 2022
MAR POLICY

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.

Design and Application of Digital Platform for Big Data Eco-system

Conference Paper

Sep 2020

Gouvernance des Aires Protégées: De la compréhension à l’action

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2013

Effective coverage targets for ocean protection Running Title: Effective targets for ocean protection

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2016

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

Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2015
PHILOS T R SOC B

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.

Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple objectives into national policy

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2015

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

Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple objectives in national policy

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2015

Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2015
BIOL CONSERV

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.

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

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2015
J SEA RES

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.

Methodology for rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management and its application

Article

Jun 2009

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.

Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take Marine Reserves: 94% of Marine Protected Areas allow fishing

Article

Sep 2015

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.

A plea for inserting evidence-based management into conservation practice: Inserting evidence-based management into conservation practice

Article

Mar 2015
ANIM CONSERV

Sarah Legge

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

Abstract

Recommendations

Knowledge Exchange and Research Fellow, Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford

Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy

Innovative Institutional Design to Protect Amazon Landscapes

Towards future-oriented conservation: Managing protected areas in an era of climate change

Abundance of collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) in two protected areas of the Colombian Guayana

Dos décadas de estudio de la diversidad de hormigas en Colombia