by Sue Wells
Fishers' workshop during the assessment of Kisite Marine Park, Kenya © Sue Wells
Over the last decade, countries of the Western Indian Ocean (the mainland states of eastern Africa and the island states of the Indian Ocean) have greatly increased their investment in marine protected areas (MPAs), of which there are now over 50. There are however serious concerns about the effectiveness of their management. As a result, a workbook has been prepared by IUCN's Eastern African Regional Office (IUCN-EARO) to help sites carry out assessments of management effectiveness, in order to increase understanding of where management improvements and capacity strengthening are required.58
The workbook follows the IUCN-WCPA Framework closely; the methodology has been adapted from that developed through the UN Foundation/UNESCO/IUCN-WCPA project Enhancing our Heritage.59 It uses worksheets for each of the six elements (context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes) and recommends that they are adapted to individual MPAs. A small ‘implementation team’, comprising MPA personnel, key stakeholders and sometimes consultants, leads the assessment and ensures that data are collected and worksheets compiled. Staff and stakeholders review the worksheets in consultative workshops, and a report and recommendations are produced. The assessments can be carried out over a relatively short period of time (e.g. 3–4 months) and should therefore complement (rather than be an alternative to) the more detailed method developed by WCPA-Marine which focuses on identifying and using indicators to assess outputs and outcomes.60
As part of the process of preparing the workbook, an early draft was tested in eight MPAs in Eastern Africa in 2003.61 The MPAs were selected to represent a range of management types and situations:
Five in Kenya: Malindi Marine Park and Reserve, Watamu Marine Park and Reserve, Kiunga Reserve, Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve and Kisite Marine Park/Mpunguti Marine Reserve; these are all relatively well established government-managed sites but vary in size, resources and the management issues to be addressed.
Two in Tanzania: Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park and Mafia Island Marine Park; these are both government-managed, but with strong community involvement. Mafia Island Marine Park has been established for 10 years, but at the time of the assessment, Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park had been gazetted for only two years.
One in Seychelles: Cousin Island Special Reserve; this small protected area is managed by an NGO, Nature Seychelles.
Each site was provided with a small sum (US$2000–3000) to cover some of the costs, such as meetings or hiring additional assistance. The MPAs themselves were expected to provide in-kind support (e.g. staff time, use of vehicles), and financial input where possible, particularly since the aim was to make assessments a regular part of the management cycle. The assessment started with an introductory workshop for the eight sites, organized and facilitated by IUCN-EARO, at which the methodology was explained.
An implementation team was formed for each site. Teams varied in composition, although all teams comprised predominantly MPA staff. At Watamu Marine Park and Reserve, however, the team included representatives from non-governmental and community-based organizations, as well as a Japanese volunteer; at Kisite the team included one of the key village elders. In Kenya, a national co-ordinating team was also established because of the large number of sites, comprising staff from the Kenya Wildlife Service Coast office in Mombasa, to provide technical and logistical assistance.
Introductory training workshop on assessing management effectiveness for all the pilot sites in the project. © Sue Wells
The implementation teams drew up a work plan for the assessment and compiled the worksheets with assistance from the national co-ordinators and technical support from IUCN-EARO. All sites followed the same general approach, but made minor modifications according to their needs. Some of the MPAs developed a questionnaire that was used to collect information and opinions in a workshop setting, as the worksheets were found to be too complex for some of the community stakeholders (e.g. fishermen and boat operators). The completed sheets were reviewed by stakeholders at workshops, informal meetings or through correspondence.
The assessments showed the following:
At the longer-established MPAs, the basic capacity for management has been developed but all lacked adequate staff and assured funding.
Stakeholders were often very ignorant of the MPA aims, the legislation relating to it and how it operates, indicating that awareness raising may need to be more carefully targeted.
Enforcement arrangements had been set up in all cases, with boundaries and zones demarcated, although the design often had flaws and enforcement was rarely adequate; few MPA staff could explain the basis for the location of boundaries or zoning schemes.
Although the assessments should have included an analysis of the financial status of the MPAs, most sites lacked the skills or capacity for this. At Mafia Island Marine Park, a simple analysis revealed the very large size of donor contributions compared to government or other financial support. The situation was probably similar at the other sites, demonstrating the effort that will be required if MPAs in this region are to become financially sustainable.
Most of the MPAs have objectives that relate both to biodiversity conservation and improved livelihoods, but in many cases these are insufficiently defined for measuring progress. The assessments helped staff and stakeholders to identify the most important elements of ‘biodiversity’ (i.e. the management targets) and their management needs. For example, coral reefs were key features of all the MPAs but often little thought had been given to how these should be managed.
All the MPAs had management plans but these were often issue-driven (i.e. based on an analysis of the threats to the area at the time the plan was prepared) rather than objective-oriented, and thus did not lay out a strategy for achieving the overall goal of the MPA.
The lack of any best practice standards in the MPAs (apart from Cousin Island) made assessment of management ‘process’ or performance difficult. The final version of the workbook therefore incorporates the draft protected area standards prepared by IUCN62 and these could be adapted by each MPA.
In most cases data were not available to show the progress made towards achieving the objectives as few sites had good baseline surveys from before protection started.
All MPAs undertook some monitoring, but this was often inappropriately designed, or inadequately maintained to provide datasets showing long-term trends, even though some of the Kenyan MPAs had been protected for over 30 years. The main monitoring programmes were for coral reef health (mainly fish and corals), and in some cases mangroves and turtle nesting. There are indications that the Kenyan Marine Parks (no-fishing areas), which have the longest-running monitoring programmes for coral reefs, are effective in enhancing fish populations. Impacts that MPA management might have had on corals themselves, however, may have been largely obscured by the El Niño-associated coral bleaching event of 1998, which caused widespread coral mortality reaching 50–90 per cent in some areas. Cousin Island was exceptional in having a model sea bird monitoring programme, the results of which were used in the management of the reserve. Socio-economic monitoring is limited at all sites, although there had been investment in staff training; data on fish catch and tourism are available at some sites, but often not in a form that could readily be used for the assessment.
The results of monitoring and research activities were often not easily available to MPA managers and staff, particularly when carried out by external research organizations.
Most sites have acted on at least some of the recommendations from the assessments. The following are some examples.
Revision or preparation of management plans: In Kenya, the management plans should be reviewed every five years, and the plans for all sites were thus due for revision. The assessments of Malindi and Watamu MPAs had led to the recommendation that these sites, which currently have a joint plan, should have separate management plans as there are sufficient differences between the two areas. The annual work plan and budget for these sites now includes a review of the management plan. It was also proposed that some form of co-ordinating mechanism to ensure joint management of common issues, such as the Marine Reserve (which encompasses the two Marine Parks) should be established. Mnazi Bay Marine Park in Tanzania used the assessment as a capacity-building exercise to help identify the issues to be taken into consideration in the preparation of their management plan, which has now been completed. At Cousin Island Special Reserve, the results of the assessment were used in the revision of the management plan.
Improvements in monitoring and research programmes: At Cousin Island, the assessment highlighted the lack of monitoring in the marine environment and so the wardens are now monitoring two coral reef sites. The assessment also triggered a study to look at impacts of bleaching on reef fish, the purchase of new diving equipment and a dive boat, and a concerted effort to attract more researchers to Cousin Island, which has already had very positive results. Similarly, considerable effort has gone into improving the monitoring programme and developing research activities at Mafia Island Marine Park. A permanent staff member has been engaged for this purpose. Monitoring of reef benthos and fishing effort has been improved, a research protocol developed and a research advisory committee formed.
Strengthening the legislative framework: The assessment of Mafia Island Marine Park identified weaknesses in the legislative framework which are now being addressed: regulations have been drafted, and the main Act has been reviewed and the draft submitted to Parliament.
Capacity building for MPA personnel: The assessments identified the need for further training at many of the sites. In Kenya, a refresher course for MPA managers is being held and new MPA managers are being trained. An international visiting warden system (Experience Exchange Programme) has now been started for Cousin Island to help build staff skills.
Strengthening stakeholder involvement: The assessment at Cousin Island found that the Management Authority had difficulty in identifying “stakeholders”. A study is therefore being initiated to examine perceptions of people on neighbouring Praslin Island, and extension work will be carried out with fishers, school children and other groups. Proposals to increase the time that the island is open to tourists are also being considered. At Mafia Island Marine Park, environmental education is being strengthened through the formation of school and village environmental clubs and production of materials such as brochures, T-shirts, and calendars.
All the MPAs involved found a benefit in the process, even though the concept of self-assessment is not yet well accepted in the three countries surveyed. This is particularly the case where government institutions are involved. Some MPA staff found it difficult to acknowledge areas where improvement was needed, for fear that this might result in some form of retribution. It is therefore very important to provide adequate introduction to the assessment process, and to obtain the support of senior management levels from the beginning.
The assessments helped MPA staff to think about the reasons behind the establishment of the site, how their management activities can have an impact on both biodiversity and stakeholders, and how even small, insignificant, management issues can affect the overall success of an MPA.
All the assessments showed that better communications are needed with stakeholders and, in some cases, the assessment was the first time that the MPA staff had approached a stakeholder group for information and opinions. In all cases, the stakeholders expressed great appreciation of the exercise, and assessments can therefore be used to increase participation. Where some stakeholder groups use a local language, it is essential that the materials are clearly explained in this language, and that questionnaires or key worksheets are translated.
It is also essential that the worksheets are adapted to the skills and level of understanding of the implementation team; where this is not possible (e.g. if MPA staff lack the necessary computer skills) outside assistance should be brought in.
The assessments demonstrated the urgent need for more structured and sustainable monitoring programmes, using methods that permit participation of MPA personnel and ensuring that the results are reported back to managers with advice on how to adapt management actions. Mechanisms are required to ensure that copies of data and results are kept at each MPA site, and that the results are understood and available to all MPA staff.
Thanks are due to IUCN-Eastern African Regional Office for managing this project, to Kenya Wildlife Service, the Marine Parks and Reserves Unit in Tanzania, and Nature Seychelles, for donating time, staff and enthusiasm for this project, and to the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) for funding.