Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes
Natalie C Ban,Emily S Darling,Georgina G Gurney,Whitney Friedman,Stacy D Jupiter,W Peni Lestari,Irfan Yulianto,Sinta Pardede,Sukma A R Tarigan,Puji Prihatiningsih,Sangeeta Mangubhai,Waisea Naisilisili,Sirilo Dulunaqio,Josheena Naggea,Ravaka Ranaivoson,Vera N Agostini,Gabby Ahmadia,Jessica Blythe,Stuart J Campbell,Joachim Claudet,Courtney Cox,Graham Epstein,Estradivari,Margaret Fox,David Gill,Amber Himes-Cornell,Harry Jonas,Elizabeth Mcleod,Nyawira A Muthiga,Tim McClanahan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14156
Abstract:Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area-based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area-based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social-ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo-Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear-specific, species-specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area-based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area-based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area-based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass-a key measure for coral reef functioning-compared with reference sites with no area-based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area-based management rather than counting areas because of their designation.