Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract: Quantifying the extent to which existing reserves meet conservation objectives and identifying gaps in coverage are vital to developing systematic protected‐area networks. Despite widespread recognition of the Philippines as a global priority for marine conservation, limited work has been undertaken to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of existing marine protected areas (MPAs). Targets for MPA coverage in the Philippines have been specified in the 1998 Fisheries Code legislation, which calls for 15% of coastal municipal waters (within 15 km of the coastline) to be protected within no‐take MPAs, and the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy (2004), which aims to protect 10% of coral reef area in no‐take MPAs by 2020. We used a newly compiled database of nearly 1000 MPAs to measure progress toward these targets. We evaluated conservation effectiveness of MPAs in two ways. First, we determined the degree to which marine bioregions and conservation priority areas are represented within existing MPAs. Second, we assessed the size and spacing patterns of reserves in terms of best‐practice recommendations. We found that the current extent and distribution of MPAs does not adequately represent biodiversity. At present just 0.5% of municipal waters and 2.7–3.4% of coral reef area in the Philippines are protected in no‐take MPAs. Moreover, 85% of no‐take area is in just two sites; 90% of MPAs are <1 km². Nevertheless, distances between existing MPAs should ensure larval connectivity between them, providing opportunities to develop regional‐scale MPA networks. Despite the considerable success of community‐based approaches to MPA implementation in the Philippines, this strategy will not be sufficient to meet conservation targets, even under a best‐case scenario for future MPA establishment. We recommend that implementation of community‐based MPAs be supplemented by designation of additional large no‐take areas specifically located to address conservation targets.     

Social capital as a key determinant of perceived benefits of community‐based marine protected areas

Globally, marine protected areas (MPAs) have been relatively unsuccessful in meeting biodiversity objectives. To be effective, they require some alteration of people's use and access to marine resources, which they will resist if they do not perceive associated benefits. Stakeholders’ support is crucial to ecological success of MPAs, and their support is likely to depend on their capacity to adapt to and benefit from MPAs. We examined the influence of social adaptive capacity (SAC) on perceived benefits of MPAs in Siquijor, Philippines, in the Coral Triangle. This region has substantial biodiversity and a population of over 120 million people, many of them dependent on marine resources for food and income. The region has many MPAs, most of which are managed under decentralized governance systems. We collected survey data from 540 households in 19 villages with associated MPAs. We evaluated the influence of multiple SAC variables (e.g., occupational multiplicity and social capital) on perceived benefits with decision trees (CHAID) and qualitatively analyzed this relationship with respect to types and recipients of benefits. Our models revealed the key role of social capital, particularly trust in leadership, in influencing perceptions of benefits (χ² = 14.762, p = 0.000). A path analysis revealed that perceptions of distributional equity were a key mechanism through which social capital affected perceived MPA benefits (root mean‐square error of approximation = 0.050). Building social capital and equity within communities could lead to more effective management of MPAs and thus to expenditure of fewer resources relative to, for example, regulation enforcement.     

Evaluating approaches for scaling-up community-based marine-protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks

Marine-protected areas (MPAs) are vital to marine conservation, but their coverage and distribution is insufficient to address declines in global biodiversity and fisheries. In response, many countries have committed through the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10% of the marine environment through ecologically representative and equitably managed MPAs by 2020. The rush to fulfill this commitment has raised concerns on how increasing MPA coverage will affect other elements of Target 11, including representation and equity. We examined a Philippines case study to assess and compare 3 MPA planning approaches for biodiversity representation and equitable distribution of costs to small-scale fishers. In the opportunistic approach, MPAs were identified and supported by coastal communities. The donor-assisted approach used local knowledge to select MPAs through a national-scale and donor-assisted conservation project. The systematic conservation planning approach identified MPA locations with the spatial prioritization software Marxan with Zones to achieve biodiversity objectives with minimal costs to fishers. We collected spatial data on biodiversity and fisheries features and performed a gap analysis to evaluate MPAs derived from different approaches. We assessed representation based on the proportion of biodiversity features conserved in MPAs and distribution equity by the distribution of opportunity costs (fishing areas lost in MPAs) among fisher stakeholder groups. The opportunistic approach did not ineffectively represent biodiversity and resulted in inequitable costs to fishers. The donor-assisted approach affected fishers disproportionately but provided near-optimal regional representation. Only the systematic approach achieved all representation targets with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. Our results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning to address key elements of Target 11 and highlight opportunities (e.g., integration of local and scientific knowledge can address representation and equity concerns) and pitfalls (e.g., insufficient stakeholder considerations can exacerbate social inequalities) for planning MPAs in similar contexts.