fishing governance in mpas: potentialities for blue economy · 3 main author(s): maria del mar...
Post on 24-Apr-2019
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Fishing Governance in MPAs: Potentialities for
Blue Economy
Review of existing Mediterranean models of governance of MPAs
with artisanal fisheries
WITH THE FINACIAL SUPPORT OF:
2
FISHING GOVERNANCE IN MPAS: POTENTIALITIES
FOR BLUE ECONOMY
Review of existing Mediterranean models of governance of MPAs
with artisanal fisheries.
3
Main Author(s):
Maria del Mar Otero, IUCN Center for Mediterranean Cooperation
Alain Jeudy de Grissac, IUCN Center for Mediterranean Cooperation
Antonio Di Franco, ECOMERS laboratory, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University
Patrice Francour, ECOMERS laboratory, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University
Paolo Guidetti, ECOMERS laboratory, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University
Luca Santarosa, Fedeparchi
Susana Sainz Trapaga, WWF Mediterranean Programme
Advisory members: MedPAN secretary, GFCM, MedWet, RAC/SPA, ISPRA, Marine
Stewardship Council, MedArtNet Association.
This work was part of the “Fishing governance in MPAs: potentialities for Blue Economy
(FishMPABlue) project”. 1M-MED14-06. Financial assistance: European Territorial
Cooperation Programme “MED” 2007-2013 and MAVA
Citation: Otero, Jeudy de Grissac et al. 2015. Reviewing existing Mediterranean models of governance of MPAs with artisanal fisheries. FISHING GOVERNANCE IN MPAs: POTENTIALITIES FOR BLUE ECONOMY (FISHMPABLUE). 54pp.
4
Contents Background ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Marine protected areas and fisheries ............................................................................................... 8
Part 1 Governance considerations and approaches for the marine environment .............................. 14
Governance and governance principles ........................................................................................ 14
International governance instruments ........................................................................................... 14
Regional governance instruments ................................................................................................. 17
IUCN policy guidance on good governance for Protected Areas and Mediterranean artisanal
fisheries ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Part 2. Governance of Protected Areas ............................................................................................. 26
Types of Governance for Terrestrial or Marine Protected Areas .................................................. 26
Part 3. The Mediterranean governance approaches for Marine Protected Areas and artisanal
fisheries ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Type A. Government Managed Marine Protected Areas .............................................................. 31
Type B. Shared Governance of Protected Areas ........................................................................... 42
Type C. Private Protected Areas ................................................................................................... 50
Type D. Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities ....................................... 50
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 52
References ......................................................................................................................................... 54
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 57
Annex 1 Areas to be considered for the governance of the marine environment ......................... 57
Annex 2: EC decision on Advisory Councils ............................................................................... 59
Annex 3: Matrix of marine activities that may be appropriate for each IUCN management
category ......................................................................................................................................... 61
5
List of Acronyms
Aarhus Convention: Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998)
ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean
Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (1996)
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
EC European Commission
EEZ exclusive economic zone
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FishMPABlue Mediterranean Regional Development Fund project “Fisheries governance in the
Marine Protected Areas: Potential for Blue Economy”
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme
MPA marine protected area
NGO non-governmental organization
PPA private protected area
SAC special area of conservation
SPA and Biodiversity Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the
Mediterranean (1995)
SPAMI specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance
UN United Nations
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WHC World Heritage Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (1972)
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
6
Glossary of terms
Actors (often called stakeholders): Rightholders and people from wider society, non-governmental
organisations, user groups, regulatory agencies, corporate interests, etc. potentially interacting with each other in
governance processes.
Artisanal fisheries (also known as small scale fisheries): Following FAO definition, typically traditional
fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of
capital, relatively small fishing vessels, making short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption.
In practice, definition varies between countries, e.g. from hand-collection on the beach or a one-person canoe in
poor developing countries, to more than 20 m. trawlers, seiners, or long-liners over 20m in developed countries.
Artisanal fisheries can be subsistence or commercial fisheries, providing for local consumption or export. In
general, though by no means always, using relatively low level technology.
Collaborative management (Co-management): There is no single globally accepted definition of co-
management. Here, it is refer to a suite of arrangements with different degrees of power sharing allowing joint
decision-making by the state and user groups about a set of resources or an area (Gutiérrez, 2014).
Collaborative governance is one form of shared governance in which decision-making authority and
responsibility rest with one agency but the agency is required, by law or policy, to inform or consult other
rightsholders and stakeholders, at the time of planning or implementing initiatives (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,
2013).
Co-managed Protected Area: Government-designated protected area where decision making power,
responsibility and account ability are shared between governmental agencies and other stakeholders, which
includes indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities that depend on that area culturally and/or for
their livelihoods.
Community Conserved Area: Natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological
services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities
through customary laws or other effective means (IUCN World Park Congress, Durban 2003).
Decentralisation: the transfer of power and authority from the central government to lower-level governments,
quasi-independent government organisations or the private sector.
According to Rondinelli (2000) and Oxhorn (2004), there are different types and levels of decentralisation that
allocate varying degrees and forms of autonomy to subnational governments, quasi-independent government
organisations or the private sector:
• Deconcentration - the transfer of power for implementing decisions, but not for making decisions;
• Delegation - transfer of some decision-making authority with a degree of control from the central government
over key aspects of policy; and
• Devolution - the transfer of maximum feasible but not necessarily total decision-making powers.
Effectiveness: the degree to which the management objectives of a MPA are being fulfilled, particularly with
regard to biodiversity and sustainable resource use.
Fisheries Restricted Area (FRA) as endorsed by the GFCM on the basis of a SAC formulation which
stipulates that a FRA is a geographically defined area in which all or certain fishing activities are temporarily or
permanently banned or restricted in order to improve the exploitation and conservation of harvested living
aquatic resources or the protection of marine ecosystems
Fisheries management: The integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, consultation,
decision-making, allocation of resources and formulation and implementation, with enforcement as necessary,
of regulations or rules which govern fisheries activities in order to ensure the continued productivity of the
resources and the accomplishment of other fisheries objectives (FAO,1997).
Grenelle of the sea (Grenelle de la Mer)
A maritime policy from France developed through a National public debate on marine issues ‘Le Grenelle de la
Mer’. It contributes the definition of strategies for the coast and sea by identifying objectives and action on the
7
short, medium and long term. This policy, which concerns all fields of government action, puts down formally
the objectives of France for the sea and maritime activities. Experts, trade unions, employers, the State,
Associations and NGOs working in the area of environmental protection drafted proposals and submitted their
report.
Incentive: a particular institution that is instrumentally designed to encourage actors to choose to behave in a
manner that provides for certain strategic policy outcomes, particularly biodiversity conservation objectives, to
be fulfilled.
Institution: very broad term covering a wide range of agreements, interactions, etc., which remain relatively
stable over a certain period of time, including:
• mutually agreed modes of cooperative behaviour (norms);
• interactions through markets: local – distant;
• government policies and programmes; and
• legal instruments and related obligations.
Marine governance: Marine governance is the sharing of policy making competencies in a system of
negotiation between nested governmental institutions at several levels (international, (supra)national, regional
and local) on the one hand and governmental actors, market parties and civil society organizations on the other
in order to govern activities at sea and their consequences (Van Tatenhove, 2011).
Marine Protected Area (MPA) or Protected Area (PA): a clearly defined geographical space, recognised,
dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature
with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008).
Marine spatial planning: is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of
human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been
specified through a political process. Characteristics of marine spatial planning include ecosystem-based, area-
based, integrated, adaptive, strategic and participatory. Marine spatial planning is not an end in itself, but a
practical way to create and establish a more rational use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to
balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economic
objectives in an open and planned way (Ehler and Douvere, 2009).
Recreational or sport fishery: all non-commercial fishing that is carried out mainly for pleasure or sport,
where the catch - the selling of which is illegal - is used for one’s own consumption (or for one’s family and
friends) (Font et al., 2012). The FAO definition clarify that recreational fishing is fishing of aquatic animals
(mainly fish) that do not constitute the individual's primary resource to meet basic nutritional needs and are not
generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or black markets.
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2708e/i2708e00.pdf)
Subsistence fishery: Subsistence fishing refers to fishing, other than sport fishing, that is carried out primarily
to feed the family and relatives of the person doing the fishing. Generally it also implies the use of low tech
“artisanal” fishing techniques and is carried out by people who are very poor. Quite often this fishing is part of a
life that also relies on small-scale agriculture and other sources of income, and may include some sale of fish.
Territorial use rights in fisheries (TURF): A spatial user right that may be assigned to individuals and/or
groups to fish in certain locations, often historically based on long-standing tradition.
8
Background
At global scale, fishing is commonly considered among the greatest threats to marine populations, and
more generally to marine biodiversity and ecosystems’ health.
From the ‘simple’ perspective of fishing, fishing stocks (as any other exploited living resource) cannot
be exploited beyond their capacity of renewal, this latter being guaranteed by the periodic arrival of
juveniles. If fishing is too intense, fishing stocks may decline due to excessive removal of both,
reproducers and juveniles, driving to a decrease in catches per unit of fishing effort (CPUE). The
decline of CPUE negatively affects fishing revenues and potentially induces economically
underperforming fisheries.
From an ecosystem-wide perspective, most of high-priced fishes (often high level predators) on the
markets are functionally important species within food webs and their dramatic decline due to intense
fishing effort has been found in some cases to cascade down food webs and alter whole communities
and ecosystems. Moreover, some fishing methods, can seriously impact, if not completely destroy, the
marine habitats where the gears operate (Tudela, 2004).
Small-scale fisheries or artisanal fisheries, conventionally use passive gears with less environmental
impact than more industrial fisheries. For the coastal areas, they have in other hand, the potential to
contribute significantly to food security, economic growth and rural and peri-urban development of
coastal communities as well as to provide valuable employment opportunities (García et al., 2008).
However, their vulnerability in the present day context, with the modernization and increasing
pressure on resources make it difficult to achieve its objectives and to resolve any ecological and
socio-economic conflicts that might arise.
Proper management of this activity is an essential requirement of success to maintain healthy habitats
and fish assemblages (including most of the stocks targeted by fishing) within the ecosystems.
Basic principles forming the foundation of practical action for the sustainability of artisanal fisheries
are based on effectively integrating the biological, social and economic factors, and the development
of adapted strategies and mechanisms such as rights-based approaches, co-management regimes,
fishing capacity reduction strategies and the support for diversified livelihoods (García et al., 2008).
Despite a wide recognition of this, real assessment frameworks required to operationalize these
alternative management approaches are still scarcely used, at least for artisanal fisheries.
Marine protected areas and fisheries
Marine conservation planning involves among other existing tools the designation of Marine
Protected Areas (hereafter MPAs). The concept of MPAs, as traditionally considered, was of a
management tool to address adverse impacts of anthropogenic activities by controlling the types of
recreational and commercial activities allowed in specific marine areas.
However, in the recent years, the concept of MPAs has broaden to define areas whose objectives can
vary and include conservation of marine biodiversity, restoration of marine habitats, protection of
threatened species, fisheries management, and opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment.
Following IUCN definition, an MPA is considered to be any coastal or marine area in which there is a
clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other
effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services
and cultural values (Dudley, 2008).
Depending on their main management objectives, MPAs can be broadly categorised into six
management types (Dudley, 2008; Day et al, 2012; see Table 1). All or some of these management
categories could be included in a marine protected area declared by a country although with different
designation following the particular national legislation.
10
Table 1: Definition and Primary Objectives of IUCN Protected Area Categories (Dudley, 2008).
IUCN Category
of management Definition Primary Objective
Ia Strict nature
reserve
Category Ia are strictly protected areas set aside
to protect biodiversity and also possibly
geological/geomorphological features, where human
visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited
to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such
protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas
for scientific research and monitoring.
To conserve regionally, nationally or
globally outstanding ecosystems,
species (occurrences or
aggregations) and/ or geodiversity
features: these attributes will have
been formed mostly or entirely by
non-human forces and will be
degraded or destroyed when
subjected to all but very light human
impact.
Ib Wilderness area
Category Ib protected areas are usually large unmodified or
slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and
influence, without permanent or significant human
habitation, which are protected and managed so as to
preserve their natural condition.
To protect the long-term ecological
integrity of natural areas that are
undisturbed by significant human
activity, free of modern
infrastructure and where natural
forces and processes predominate,
so that current and future
generations have the opportunity to
experience such areas.
II National park
Category II protected areas are large natural or near natural
areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes,
along with the complement of species and ecosystems
characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation
for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual,
scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.
To protect natural biodiversity along
with its underlying ecological
structure and supporting
environmental processes, and to
promote education and recreation.
III Natural
monument or
feature
Category III protected areas are set aside to protect a
specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea
mount, submarine caverns, geological feature such as a
caves or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They
are generally quite small protected areas and often have high
visitor value.
To protect specific outstanding
natural features and their associated
biodiversity and habitats.
IV Habitat/species
management area
Category IV protected areas aim to protect particular species
or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many
category IV protected areas will need regular, active
interventions to address the requirements of particular
species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement
of the category.
To maintain, conserve and restore
species and habitats.
V Protected
landscape or
seascape
Category V protected areas are where the interaction of
people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct
character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and
scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this
interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and
its associated nature conservation and other values.
To protect and sustain important
landscapes/ seascapes and the
associated nature conservation and
other values created by interactions
with humans through traditional
management practices.
VI Protected areas
with sustainable
use of natural
resources
Category VI protected areas conserve ecosystems and
habitats together with associated cultural values and
traditional natural resource management systems. They are
generally large, with most of the area in natural condition,
where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource
management and where low-level non industrial use of
natural resources compatible with nature conservation is
seen as one of the main aims of the area.
To protect natural ecosystems and
use natural resources sustainably,
when conservation and sustainable
use can be mutually beneficial.
11
As an area-based management tool, Marine Protected Areas, particularly coastal MPAs, have a direct
connection to the survival and cultural value of artisanal fishing of coastal communities. Worldwide
and in line with the global targets agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the number of
MPAs has been increasing rapidly over the last decades.
The objectives of these sites are:
protecting natural populations of marine species and their habitats, together with related
biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services;
enhancing fishing and especially supporting more sustainable practices;
promoting local socio-economies and sustainable development (e.g. tourism, recreational
activities);
preserving historical and cultural values;
promoting awareness, education and research.
In the guidelines of IUCN, it is stated that for being considered as a MPA, a site has to have nature
conservation objectives and deliver results accordingly. This definition for starting, should exclude
fishery management areas with no wider stated conservation aims or community areas managed
primarily for sustainable extraction of marine products (e.g. fish, shells, seagrass, etc.). Thus is, a site
could be classified as an MPA if they had a primary stated aim and are managed to deliver nature
conservation, besides other management objectives such as fishery enhancement.
For further clarification this issue, Annex 2 provides examples and guidelines on the possible
acceptance of human activities inside the different categories of PA (Protected Area) management
(Day et al, 2012).
Today, the Mediterranean Sea hosts over 677 MPAs: 161 of national status, nine of international status
and 507 Natura 2000 marine sites (Gabrié et al., 2012). Since most MPAs are located in coastal areas
of great biodiversity, their development has direct relevance and concern to the livelihoods, culture
and survival of small-scale and traditional fishing and coastal communities.
Many MPAs have multiple objectives (under Management Categories III-VI), having been set up to
promote sustainable development (with tourism or fisheries benefits for example), as well as
biodiversity protection. Fishing activities have crucial implications not only for the local preservation
of natural resources, but also for the stakeholders in the area who depend on fisheries resources for a
livelihood that maintain cultural identities and diversity, social structures, and socio-economy of these
coastal communities. Artisanal fisheries, which usually operate close to the coast, are particularly
influenced by the establishment of MPAs. On the long-term a MPA (properly enforced and managed)
may produce a number of benefits to local fisheries (i.e. increase in fishing captures in and around
MPAs and fishermen incomes). In the short-term, nevertheless, its creation usually engenders a strong
opposition by local fishermen, who usually perceive MPAs as top-down imposed tools that
significantly limit their activities (e.g. by reducing fishing grounds and imposing restriction on gears)
and incomes (Cazalet, 2013).
Artisanal Mediterranean fishing in a number of coastal contexts is relevant in terms of people
employed directly (fishermen and crews; fishing shops where the catches are sold, etc.) and indirectly
e.g. via tourism (pesca-turismo, sells in restaurants, etc.). The activity nevertheless often compete, and
conflict, with larger commercial fishing operations and recreational fishing activities, the latter being
on the rise (Cazalet, 2013; Font et al., 2012).
A relevant feature of the Mediterranean artisanal fishing is the high diversity of gears and fishing
techniques (called métiers) used, with a huge array of variations and/or peculiarities in fishing gears,
methods, and timing among others (Steward, 2001). These types of small scale coastal fisheries have
12
a great social and cultural significance, even with relevant oral traditional knowledge passing from
generation to generation.
In spite of the lower volume of its catches compared to the large scale industrial fishing, it represents
more than 80% of the total Mediterranean fishing fleet and therefore is a socially important and an
integral part of the Mediterranean cultural diversity (Cazalet, 2013; Maynou et al., 2013).
Recreational fishing was often assumed to have very little impact on local stocks. More recent studies,
on the contrary, demonstrated that recreational fishing may as well have a serious impact on local fish
populations and also negatively affect local artisanal fisheries (Font et al., 2012). It is considered,
nowadays, that a significant proportion of recreational fishermen in the Mediterranean region illegally
sells the fish catch (i.e. directly to a hotel restaurant or charter fishing), so the term ‘pseudo-
recreational fishing’ has been proposed to identify fishermen who use methods typical of the
recreational fishing but who regularly sell the fish they get (SAP/BIO Protocol, UNEP/MAP RAC-
SPA). This category operates an illegal activity in direct and disloyal/unfair competition with legal
professional fishermen, especially artisanal fishermen operating on a local scale.
Although consider smaller, subsistence fishing (so-called ‘take-home catch’) is also a common
practice in numerous Mediterranean countries. Coastal dwellers, individually or in group, practice
some fishing for ensuring the normal diet of their family and relatives or for family businesses (i.e.,
commercial ventures). The catches are not sold on the market nor registered in the statistics.
As a result, the overall impact of fishing on coastal resources should be attributable to the total effects
of all types of fisheries catches (industrial and artisanal, recreational and subsistence, legal and
illegal). The cumulative impact of these activities with those produced by pollution, waste generation,
coastal development, urbanization and excessive human concentrations sometimes in short periods of
time are especially severe in coastal Mediterranean areas.
With regard to fishing and MPAs, as a general rule, medium-scale and industrial fleets are not
allowed within Mediterranean MPAs (although there are few exceptions). Depending on individual
MPA governance system (see section 1) and management processes, local stakeholders like fishermen
(especially artisanal fishermen) may be more or less prone to accept an MPA and its rules. Social
acceptance (sometimes implying engagement of stakeholders into some type of co-management) thus
become a crucial step for getting an effective MPA, so rules are complied with and well enforced, and
ecological, socio-cultural and economic benefits may actually be generated also for the coastal
communities (Di Franco et al. 2014).
The potential for fishermen engagement to improve management and governance in these settings is
large. There are few but significant examples demonstrating that when artisanal fishermen are
engaged in fisheries management, inside or close by a MPA, they contribute to the protection of the
area and their traditional knowledge is very relevant for management (i.e. López-Ornat et al., 2014; Di
Franco et al., 2014; Chuenpagdee et al., 2013). Artisanal fishermen can be true sentinels when illegal
action in a MPA is ongoing, and they could report the changes that are observing in the marine
ecosystem such as the arrival of invasive alien species. Unfortunately, in the Mediterranean, these
types of integrated approaches towards some type of shared governance are underdeveloped and an
effort should be done to increase the level of stakeholders’ engagement to enhance MPAs’
effectiveness.
Many studies, projects, guidelines etc. have been already developed around the world on the specific
topic of “fishing management within/around MPAs”, but few experiences have been done so far to
develop conservation goals within the context of the Blue Economy, especially in the Mediterranean
region.
13
Blue economy and more in general, sustainability principles applied to the context of MPAs and
artisanal fisheries, may represent a great opportunity to preserve marine ecosystems and, on the other
hand, to support artisanal fishing in the Mediterranean region. MPAs, from this perspective, may
represent the proper scenarios where to test innovative management options that could be potentially
exported outside their borders and to be applied to a wider scale. The detection of best-practices
within MPAs is thus an initial but crucial step towards sustainability and better conservation of the
marine environment.
Based on the above-reported issues, there is urgent need:
1) to make a comprehensive “state-of-the-art” and identify the gaps about the governance of artisanal
fishing in the Mediterranean region (particularly within MPAs);
2) to elaborate a proper methodological integrated approach to monitor, gather data and provide
syntheses and analyses at the Mediterranean scale about the possible advantages of developing new
fishing shared governance approaches devoted to sustainability (especially in the perspective of a
Blue Economy).
The first one is the primary objective of this review document, presenting a synthesis of the different
governance models for artisanal fisheries at the Mediterranean levels and a specific analysis of the
governance structure in 5 European countries (Croatia, Italy, Spain, Greece and Spain).
©IUCN-Med, Artisanal fishermen in Albania
14
Part 1 Governance considerations and approaches for the marine environment
Following a general description and when possible assessment of the existing governance systems at
the global, regional, national, local levels, with a specific attention to MPAs and artisanal fisheries,
specific recommendations and orientations for the future of artisanal fisheries in and around MPAs in
the Mediterranean will be drawn up from this assessment and considered for further analysis and
implementation.
Governance and governance principles
The terms ‘governance’ and ‘good governance’ have been steadily entering policy and social
discourse, particularly in relation to development. The concept of governance refers to the process of
decision making and the processes by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It is the
means by which society defines goals and priorities, and advances cooperation. And within this broad
meaning, ‘government’ represents only one of the many actors that play a role in the management as
governance embraces both the formal and informal actors involved in decision making and
implementation, and both the formal and informal structures that have been set in place to arrive at
and implement decisions. Thus, it includes policies, laws, decrees, norms, instruments, institutions
and processes—all the means by which society defines and achieves its goals and priorities (Lausche,
2011).
It can be understood that governance itself has two dimensions: quality of governance (how one
governs) and type of governance (who governs). Within the first, we can further define “good
governance” as the terms that relates to the degree to which it delivers on the promise of human
rights—civil, cultural, economic, political, social and environmental aspects (see OHCHR, 2007).
Good governance in government decision making has been recognized as essential for sustainable
development by such international policy instruments as the UN Millennium Declaration (2000) and
the World Submit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation of UN (2002). More
specifically, in recent years this recognition has been extended to protected areas management and
policy at multilateral environmental agreements.
Governance is an important concept for modern protected areas legislation because it relates to
processes of developing decision making. It also includes the formal and informal institutions that
make and implement decisions. The processes of decision making and the institutions that make
decisions have a major influence on the goals and objectives of a designated protected area and on the
long-term effectiveness of protected area sites and networks.
Different international organizations (such as IUCN particularly in the context of protected areas)
characterize governance as the interactions among political and social structures, processes and
traditions that determine how power and responsibility are exercised, how decisions are taken, and
how citizens or other stakeholders have their say regarding these sites (Worboys et al., 2015; Wyborn,
2013; Schliep and Stoll-Kleemann 2010; Margerum 2008; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2006; Graham et
al., 2003).
International governance instruments
15
Convention on Biological Diversity
Within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Programme of Work on Protected
Areas (9th and 10th Conferences of the Parties (COP 9 and COP 10) of the CBD held in 2008 and
2010), it is a clear emphasis on ‘Governance, participation, equity, and benefit sharing’ to achieve
Protected Areas objectives. Moreover, from earlier decisions of this treaty, it suggested that Parties
should consider “governance principles, such as the rule of law, decentralization, participatory
decision-making mechanisms for accountability and equitable dispute resolution institutions and
procedures” for good protected areas management (CBD COP 2004 VII/28, para. 3.1.4).
Regarding the marine environment, the CBD Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal
Biodiversity stated that the use of marine and coastal protected areas is the best feasible methods
today to maintain marine ecosystems in a truly natural state in response to CBD requirements to
protect or restore ecosystems, natural habitats and species populations (SCBD, 2004). In response to
this, the latest decisions adopted during the Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
CBD in 2008, reflects the elements that any legal drafter of a country should consider to incorporate
provisions of MPA legislation in relation to selecting individual sites and establishing MPA networks,
and states that such sites and networks may also play a role in allocation of fisheries and can have a
significant effect on community support for existing and future PA.
From the CBD agreements, several governance principles, such as accountability, transparency,
participation, rule of law and effectiveness, have been recognized by a number of international
organizations for the implementation of work in protected areas.
The ‘ecosystem approach’ (EcAp), as defined by the CBD, is also an important policy instrument to
consider for governance of protected areas. It is a strategy for the integrated management of land,
water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way (CBD
COP 2000 V/6; CBD COP 2004 VII/11). Promotion of this principle is based on the recognition that
protected area systems and the units that comprise them should be integrated with surrounding
landscapes and seascapes, and that land use plans and marine spatial plans for areas outside the
protected areas system should also be ecosystem-based and be compatible with the conservation
objectives of the protected areas system. The backbone of EcAp is the execution of an Integrated
Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMAP) concerning coastal and marine ecosystems that also
includes data on marine protected areas, fisheries and biodiversity, all relevant elements for a proper
governance of the sea.
Ramsar Convention
In parallel, the Ramsar Convention has set out the obligation for countries to promote the
conservation of wetlands, including marine and coastal sites represented by coastal lagoons, rocky
shores, and coral reefs, through pursuing compatible land use planning and other measures such as
establishing nature reserves. In 2002, Parties to the Ramsar Convention adopted the ‘New Guidelines
for the management planning of Ramsar sites and other wetlands’. These guidelines focus on the site-
based scale of management planning, recognizing that site planning should be one element of a multi-
scale approach to wise use planning and management of any wetland. The emphasis is on the need for
wetland site management to be integrated with broad-scale landscape and ecosystem planning,
including at the integrated river basin and coastal zone scale, because policy and planning decisions at
these scales will affect the conservation and wise use of wetland sites (Ramsar COP 2002 VIII.14,
Annex, para. 5, 14–27). The ‘Principles and guidelines for incorporating wetland issues into
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)’, also adopted in 2002, identify governance as an
important element for advancing an ICZM approach.
Hence, the Ramsar Convention can be used as a policy driver at the national level and as a leverage to
encourage citizen engagement, economic benefit, and wetland conservation at the local level and can
16
be taken towards delivering integrated approaches to coastal governance, including on issues that are
the responsibility of a particular stakeholder or several stakeholders (i.e. local fishing communities).
World Heritage Convention
The World Heritage Convention as another international policy instrument focuses on natural and
cultural properties, including marine sites, of outstanding universal value for recognition as world
heritage sites. Within this Convention, there is an increased attention on the need for the promotion of
transboundary nominations within the World Heritage Marine Programme. The Convention highlights
the need for stakeholder participation and community involvement as well as capacity building to
achieve effective management for the network of the world’s most important natural heritage areas.
Participatory appraisals within UNESCO World Heritage sites (Wallner and Wiesmann, 2009) and
biosphere reserves (Schliep and Stoll-Kleeman, 2010) further acknowledge the prominent role that
social actors, especially those in the local community, should play in the governance of natural
resources.
UNCLOS and the zoning of the marine environment
Under the international treaty of UNCLOS, the governance of the marine environment is divided into
zones with different denomination, and subsequently different legislation and regulations for the
different activities. From land to shore then offshore, the following areas are commonly distinguished:
- internal marine waters, including inland the wetlands connected to the sea and at sea the area
generally from cape to cape.
- territorial waters, from the baseline with an extension of 12 nautical miles (unless another
extension has been agreed upon by one country or between countries)
- the exclusive economic zone, from 12 to 200 nautical miles maximum or the middle line
between country when the full extension is not possible
- the continental shelf extension to a distance of 360 nautical miles of the baselines.
In addition, countries can declare exclusive fishing zones that are recognized by other countries or
regional instruments (see Annex 1 for further definitions the related country rights). These spatial
limits no necessary agreed with the different fisheries activities carried out in the countries.
The treaty itself establishes an unqualified obligation on all states to protect and preserve the marine
environment by defining five offshore zones within which coastal states exercise varying degrees of
sovereignty and jurisdiction (Art. 192). It further specifies that states have a sovereign right to exploit
their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to
protect and preserve the marine environment (Art. 193). The obligation to protect and preserve the
marine environment is further given legal and operational context through a number of specific
provisions.
As such, UNCLOS spells out the rights and duties of coastal states in the EEZ to include:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the
natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the
seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and
exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment (Art. 56(1); emphasis added).
17
As a result, a coastal state may establish an MPA in the EEZ but this right is limited by certain
freedoms that all states have in the EEZ including the freedom of navigation.
The Mediterranean, with a special status of semi-closed sea under this treaty has a large surface that
corresponds to territorial waters and the exclusive economic zones of several countries with
jurisdictional waters within 12 miles from the coastline (with the exception of Greece and Turkey in
the Aegean Sea that have 6 nm of territorial waters). In terms of marine delimitation, there are still
some disputes among the maritime frontiers between neighboring countries and the open sea making
the regulation of fishery activities difficult and management beyond national jurisdiction highly
complicated.
Artisanal fishing grounds are however limited for most cases to an area within few miles of the coast
(about 10-12) where limits are well established (territorial waters).
Regional governance instruments
The Regional Seas Programme and the Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP)
The Regional Seas Programme was launched by the UNEP in 1974. The Programme has grown
significantly over the years and has gained recognition for its efforts to guide and promote MPAs at
the national and transboundary levels. Since its origin, the Regional Seas Programme has resulted in
the development of several regional action plans, legally binding agreements and protocols, as well as
policy guidance on specific areas of environmental concern.
The Mediterranean became then the first region to adopt an action plan in 1975, replaced by a revised
plan in 1995. The region was also the first to adopt a convention to implement the action plan, entitled
Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona Convention)
(1976), which entered into force in 1978. This Convention was revised in 1995 as the Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, which came
into force in 2004. This was followed by a series of protocols (legally binding agreements directly
related to the main convention) in specific areas of environmental concern, and the creation of
Regional Activity Centres responsible for implementation.
The Mediterranean Regional Seas programme adopted the Protocol Concerning Mediterranean
Specially Protected Areas (1982), which came into force in 1986. That instrument was subsequently
replaced by a new protocol, the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological
Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA and Biodiversity Protocol) (1995), which came into force in
1999. Continuing the pattern set by earlier protocols, the SPA and Biodiversity Protocol provides for
the establishment of a list of specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance (SPAMI) and the
detailed procedures for their designation. It specifies that areas to be listed as specially protected must
be areas of “importance for conserving the components of biological diversity in the Mediterranean
[or areas that] contain ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean area or the habitats of endangered
species” (Art. 8(2)). At present, several national designated MPA are recognised also as SPAMI sites
(Annex I of the SPA/BD Protocol).
Of special significance, the SPA and Biodiversity Protocol with its governance regime, also provides
for the possibility of protected areas in the high seas to be recognized. The legal mechanisms
countries have available for biodiversity protection in the Mediterranean however extends in most
cases only to the limits of their national territorial seas, a maximum of 12 nm seaward, leaving much
of the Mediterranean Sea without the legal tools for biodiversity conservation that are available to
states which have declared EEZs. Recognising this problem, the SPA and Biodiversity Protocol
18
provides that areas listed as SPAMIs may include areas under the national jurisdiction of one Party, as
well as areas established by two or more neighbouring Parties and situated “partly or wholly on the
high sea” (Art. 9(2)) providing on this manner a framework for the governance of these sites and the
possibilities to enforce certain fisheries measures if necessary. Following other international
agreements, the process for supporting the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (EcAp),
endorsed by all Contracting Parties with the intention to measure the Good Environmental Status
(GES) of the Mediterranean marine environment is also underway.
Other regional instruments that promote the establishment of other type of Protected Areas in the
Mediterranean such as the International Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black
Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) or the European Union (EU)
Birds Directive (1979, as amended in 2009) and Habitats Directive (1992), which generated the
Natura 2000 legal framework, have developed guidelines to assist the countries assessing the legal
aspects for implementing environmental legislation in the marine environment and the inclusion of
participatory approaches for the management of these sites.
The Natura 2000 network involves various European institutions at multiple levels, from local to
international, with a broad array of social actors. The network is comprised of Special Protection
Areas for Birds (SPA), Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation
(SACs). The latter is considered after the adoption of the management and action plan in order to
maintain or restore into the favourable conservation status of natural habitat types and habitats of
species of Community interest (9/409/ECC and 92/43/EEC, respectively).
Even through article 6 of the Habitats Directive emphasizes the need to ensure that future
management is both ecologically and economically sustainable (European Commission, 2000), from a
governance perspective, the Habitats Directive relies on a top-down vision and has had in most cases
a very limited involvement of civil society.
With respect to environmental matters, the Aarhus Convention negotiated within the framework of the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, also acknowledges the public‘s right to access
information, to participate in decision-making, and to access justice. It is presently the leading
international law instrument for defining and elaborating a good governance framework of principles
for governments, giving considerable attention to implementation guidance. This has implications for
protected areas supported by bilateral and multilateral aid from countries which have ratified the
Convention.
Fisheries governance approaches
As mentioned previously, the intense use of coastal resources in the Mediterranean, driven by high
human population densities and over-exploitation of fish stocks at many sites, is causing widespread
habitat degradation.
Part of the widely accepted solution to this generalized problem has been to integrate fisheries
management into an ‘ecosystem approach’, which aims to balance conservation, sustainable use and
the fair allocation of benefits. An ecosystem approach for responsible fisheries requires self-
governance by the scientific community, the fishing industry, and the public (including politicians), as
well as responsible fisheries management (Sissenwine and Mace, 2001). At the international level, the
principles of EcAp to fisheries had been endorsed through the voluntary instrument of FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 2003).
19
Under an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), the usual concern of fisheries managers – the
sustainability of targeted species – is extended to address the sustainability of ecosystems upon which
the fisheries depend, which include people and fish stocks.
EAF addresses both human and ecological well-being and merges two paradigms: protecting and
conserving ecosystem structure and functioning; and fisheries management that focuses on providing
food, income and livelihoods for humans (García et al, 2013). Thus, the objective of EAF is to cover
the broader marine environment including natural components and human activities, such as fishers,
fishing communities, coastal development and tourism; even though these activities may be outside of
the responsibilities of fisheries authorities.
Because of the broad issues involved, the full implementation of EAF requires collaboration and
cooperation between communities and a range of government agencies responsible for managing
activities that impact on marine ecosystems.
For example, FAO notes that to achieve effective fisheries management is necessary to identify and
understand:
1. social, economic and institutional objectives and factors may be driving forces behind the need
for fisheries management;
2. the fisheries’ costs and benefits, whether to individuals or to society, have social, economic
and institutional impacts and implications;
3. social, economic and institutional processes are all crucial for successful implementation of
fisheries management; and
4. social, economic and institutional factors can play either supporting or constraining roles in
whether management is effective or not.
Therefore, the application of the EAF requires more and varied types of information, financing
options, jurisdictional and institutional cooperation and societal consensus on the future of the fishery
in question (i.e. tenure and use-rights systems, enforcement and compliance and human capacity).
As part of FAO, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), launched in 2013
its first Framework Programme (FWP) aimed at constructing a regional and holistic vision of the
management of marine capture fisheries and aquaculture, whilst providing adequate support to the
activities launched under the GFCM Task Force aimed at modernizing the legal and institutional
framework of the Commission.
Besides the designation of protected areas and the regulations established by the countries regarding
fisheries, GFCM has developed another governance approached through the creation of Fisheries
Restricted Areas (FRAs), applicable to offshore and near-shore, industrial or artisanal fisheries.
FRAs are spatial protection tool developed and implemented by the GFCM Parties in order to
preserve and manage the fisheries resources and sensitive habitats of importance for the
sustainability of these resources, protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, including but not limited to
nursery and spawning areas, in addition to or to complement similar measures that may already be
included in other management plans (Resolution GFCM/37/2013/1).
Few FRAs have been established so far. In 2006, the GFCM adopted the establishment of three FRAs
(beyond territorial waters) in order to protect the deep sea sensitive habitats through Recommendation
GFCM/2006/3: a) Deep Sea FRA “Lophelia reef off Capo Santa Maria di Leuca”; b) Deep Sea FRA
“The Nile delta area cold hydrocarbon seeps”; and c) Deep Sea FRA “The Eratosthemes Seamount”.
Later on, in 2009 another FRA to protect spawning aggregations and deep sea sensitive habitats in the
Gulf of Lions slopes was adopted through the Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/1. New proposals on
FRAs such as one for the northern sector of the Strait of Sicily and in the vicinity of the Balearic
Islands could be adopted next May 2016.
20
As a tool, the establishment of these offshore FRAs, although no directly related to small scale
fisheries, implies therefore fisheries restrictions (limiting or prohibiting certain fisheries/gears) within
certain delineated areas. Future work as recommended by GFCM might involve the declaration of
FRAs in near-shore areas in relation with artisanal fisheries activities. Recently, it has also being
adopted a resolution on the management of protected areas, including SPAMI sites in the GFCM
competence areas designated as FRAs for the conservation and management of fisheries resources
within an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (GFCM/37/2013/1).
In addition, the GFCM Framework Programme for 2013-2018 and its Work Package 4 on artisanal
fisheries would be focused to steer strategic and programmatic interventions to improve the
livelihoods and sustainability of artisanal coastal fishing communities, in support of fishermen’
organizations including the setting up of co-management regimes and better institutional cooperation,
while pursuing sustainability of the sector and conservation of biodiversity. Within this context, and
since the adoption of GFCM Resolution 15/1980/1 “on the definition of a regional strategy for the
management of artisanal fisheries”, the GFCM has been implementing the following key principles
related to artisanal fisheries:
i) the definition of a strategy indicating in particular the role of artisanal fisheries management
schemes;
ii) the establishment of coastal land use plans by type of use;
iii) the formulation of practical management schemes; and
iv) the strengthening of links between fishermen, research scientists and administrators by
establishing a multidisciplinary platform for discussion and decision1.
Strengthening this effort, a platform through the organization of a regional symposium has been set up
to share the main recurring issues related to small-scale fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Sea
and discuss with all interested stakeholders their opinions and ideas. The conclusions of the first event
celebrated in 2013 (Malta), highlighted the idea to launch a regional program in the GFCM area
fostering knowledge of all the components linked to small-scale fisheries and involving all interested
stakeholders; the establishing of a task force for the implementation of the small-scale fisheries
guidelines; as well as to foster a strategy underpinning the valorization of opportunities and products
of small-scale fisheries for the benefit of local communities and stakeholders. Moreover, the meeting
underlined that new transversal governance and management approaches must be developed and
translated to actions underpinning the consolidation of the knowledge base, data collection and
analysis, management and co-management mechanisms and integration with environmental
objectives, including marine protected areas (MPAs)2.
The endorsement of the Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries by the Thirty-first Session of
Committee on Fisheries (COFI), a subsidiary body of the FAO Council, in June 2014 represents a
major achievement towards ensuring secure and sustainable small-scale fisheries. This guideline
represent the first ever international instrument dedicated to small-scale fisheries intends to empower
small-scale fishing communities to participate in decision making process and to assume
responsibilities for sustainable use of fishery resources.
Following this general framework of the International Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-
scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines, FAO 2014a) complementary to the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries of 1995, GFCM resolutions and framework reiterates the importance of
associating small-scale fishing communities with MPA design, planning, delimitation and
1 http://151.1.154.86/GfcmWebSite/SAC/SubCommittees-2013/GFCM-Framework-Programme-(FWP)-2013-2018.pdf
http://www.gfcmonline.org/activities/tac/fwp/
http://www.gfcmonline.org/activities/tac/fwp/04-smallscalelfisheries/ 2 http://www.ssfsymposium.org/Documents/Conclusions/FinalConclusionsSymposium.pdf
21
management processes. Programmatic actions regarding this relation between SSF and MPA as well
as assessing the status and management interventions on recreational fishing will also be promoted
within this GFCM framework. As part of this work, FAO-GFCM has also recently created the
‘Working Group on Marine Protected Areas’ that convened for the first time in February 2014.
Finally, GFCM adopted in 2014 a new agreement that has included also specific considerations of
small scale fisheries such as the use of the best available science, and the implementation of the
precautionary approach in Article 5 (General Principles of the GFCM). Article 8 (Functions of the
GFCM) includes important provisions such as formulate and recommend measures to adopt
multiannual management plans based on an ecosystem approach to fisheries to guarantee the
maintenance of stocks above levels which can produce maximum sustainable yield; to establish open
and closed fishing seasons and fisheries restricted areas for the protection of vulnerable marine
ecosystems, including but not limited to nursery and spawning areas, in addition to or to complement
similar measures that may already be included in management plans3.
Under the European Union, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has also set a series of rules for
managing European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stock. Designed to manage a common
resource, it gives all European fishing fleets equal access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows
fishermen to compete fairly.
Nevertheless, due to evident difference between the European Seas, specific activities are being
developed regionally with slightly different approaches, responding to the regional conditions. This
latest approach has been recently reinforced by Article 18 of the CFP Basic Regulation (Regulation
EU No 1380/2013) specifically on Regionalization and Regional cooperation on conservation
measures.
The Mediterranean Regulation (Council Regulation EC 1967/2006), which is the EU legal text for
fisheries management in the Mediterranean for EU countries, provides for the establishment of
Fishing Protected Areas (FPAs) both, within territorial waters and beyond (National and
Community FPAs respectively), “where the protection of nursery areas, of spawning grounds or of
the marine ecosystem from harmful effects of fishing requires special measures”. According with the
Regulation, a Fishing Protected Area is “a geographically-defined sea area in which all or certain
fishing activities are temporarily or permanently banned or restricted in order to improve the
exploitation and conservation of living aquatic resources or the protection of marine ecosystems”.
It is possible to consider that this regulation as transposition, in part, of the recommendations of the
GFCM could include protecting sensitive habitats from the damaging effects of fishing activities and
ensure the restauration of the ecosystem. Indeed, the EU regulation contains the procedures for the
conservation of biological resources as part of the CFP that are not the same as those of the GFCM
recommendations (eg. regulations on minimum sizes marine organisms) and other rules on the matter
that are part of the GFCM recommendations. The management of some of these vulnerable areas in
international waters needs still further clarification as not all countries are signatories of the GFCM.
For EU countries, a number of sites have been proposed as future FPAs and assessment for each site
will need to be conducted to ascertain if they qualify as FPA in the sense of the Mediterranean
Regulation. Spain has reported to the EC seven marine reserves of fishing interest (Isla de Tabarca,
Islas Columbretes, Cabo de Palos e Islas Hormigas, Cabo de Gata-Níjar, Isla de Alborán, Masía
Blanca and Llevant de Mallorca-Cala Rajada) and two areas were fisheries restrictions applied
(Maritime Zone “Vol de Tossa” and an anchovy nursery area in Catalonia). Similarly, France has
reported some protected areas where fisheries restrictions are applied including the National Park Port
Cros, the natural reserve in the Bouches de Bonifacio region (together with Italy) and other areas
where spatial management for fisheries are implemented. Also, around 40 areas established under the
3 See the adopted agreement in the Appendix E of the GFCP Report of the thirty-eighth session:
https://gfcmsitestorage.blob.core.windows.net/documents/Reports/Statutory/GFCM-Report-Commission-38-en-web.pdf
22
Natura 2000 network have been considered even if they do not always have fisheries restrictions. Italy
on the other hand, has reported the existence of some MPAs as potential FPAs, including Bergeggi
and Regno di Nettuno and several national parks. Nonetheless fisheries management and/or
restrictions don’t seem to be considered or reported in all the cases. Greece has reported established
FPAs or in process of establishing in areas including Kalymnos/Kos, Ierisos, Preveza, Gulf of
Lakonia, Gulf of Thessaloniki, Gulf of Thermaikos and Rodopi. The scientific and technical reasons
underpinning the establishment of these sites are unclear.
23
The numbers of Fishing Protected Areas per Member State established by November 2013 (presently
under revision based on new declaration by Member States) are the following:
Croatia Cyprus France Greece Italy Malta Slovenia Spain
In
progress
1 (+2 in
progress)
13 (4 within
a MPA) 3
29 (23 within
a MPA)
9 (5 within
a MPA) 2
19 (17
within a
MPA)
Besides FPAs, the new regulation (Regulation EU No 1380/2013) from the CFP also provides for the
establishment of Fish Stock Recovery Areas due to their biological sensitivity, including areas where
there is clear evidence of heavy concentrations of fish below minimum conservation reference
size and of spawning grounds where restrictions or prohibition of fisheries may be implemented in
order to contribute to the conservation of living aquatic resources and marine ecosystems. Thus, these
areas could be part of the EU framework or network of fish conservation areas.
To enable the Common Fisheries Policy to benefit from the knowledge and experience of the
fishermen concerned and of other stakeholders, Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 followed by
Council Decision 2004/585/EC on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy has provided for new forms of participation by stakeholders
(particularly encouraging the participation by the fisheries sector) through the establishment of
Regional Advisory Councils. For the Mediterranean, following this regulation, a Regional Advisory
Council is aimed to be established with representatives from the fisheries sector (potentially including
ship-owners, artisanal fishermen, other fishermen representatives, producer organisations as well as,
amongst others, processors, traders and other market organisations and women's networks) and other
interest groups such as scientists, Commission and national and regional administrations affected by
the policy. Within that context, the parties concerned may make recommendations and suggestions to
the Commission and the competent national authorities, regarding conservation and sustainable
exploitation of fisheries, in particular any advice on matters of fisheries management in respect of
certain sea areas or fishing zones.
IUCN policy guidance on good governance for Protected Areas and Mediterranean artisanal fisheries
In parallel with all these international policies and treaties, IUCN and its membership have developed
a wide array of policy guidance on good governance through various documents and guides,
particularly for PA (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; Dudley, 2008; Langholz and Wolf Krug, 2004).
Acknowledging that the situation in each country is different, the recommendation urges governments
and civil society to:
RECOGNIZE that governance of protected areas should reflect and address relevant social,
ecological, cultural, historical and economic factors, and what constitutes ‘good governance’ in any
area needs to be considered in light of local circumstances, traditions and knowledge systems.
The same recommendation also directs guidance specifically to “all those involved in the
establishment and management of protected areas,” calling on practitioners to give attention to five
key elements of decision making that promote good governance:
(a) recognition of diverse knowledge systems;
(b) openness, transparency and accountability in decision making;
(c) inclusive leadership;
(d) mobilizing support from diverse interests, with special emphasis on partners and local and
indigenous communities; and
24
(e) sharing authority and resources, and devolving or decentralizing decision-making authority
and resources where appropriate
The 2008 IUCN-WCPA guidelines on protected area management categories identify nine broad
principles for good governance in the context of protected areas (Dudley, 2008):
• Legitimacy and voice: social dialogue and collective agreement on protected area management
objectives and strategies, on the basis of freedom of association and speech, with no
discrimination related to gender, ethnicity, lifestyles, cultural values or other characteristics.
• Subsidiarity: attributing management authority and responsibility to the institutions closest to
the resources at stake.
• Fairness: sharing equitably the costs and benefits of establishing and managing protected areas,
and providing a recourse to impartial judgment in case of related conflict.
• Do no harm: making sure that the costs of establishing and managing protected areas do not
create or aggravate poverty and vulnerability.
• Direction: fostering and maintaining an inspiring and consistent long-term vision for the
protected area and its conservation objectives.
• Performance: effectively conserving biodiversity whilst responding to the concerns of
stakeholders and making wise use of resources.
• Accountability: having clearly demarcated lines of responsibility, and ensuring adequate
reporting and answerability from all stakeholders about the fulfilment of their responsibilities.
• Transparency: ensuring that all relevant information is available to all stakeholders.
• Human rights: respecting human rights in the context of protected area governance, including
the rights of future generations.
These principles and concepts become grounded in legislation when they are translated into an
appropriate legal form as part of decision-making requirements and processes for protected area
design and management in a given country. Three main applications are through provisions on access
to information, public participation, and social equity and justice.
Regarding artisanal fisheries, the World Conservation Congress at its 4th Session (Barcelona, 2008)
also urged Mediterranean countries to encourage Mediterranean artisanal fishing organizations to play
an active role in making decisions on the design and implementation of Marine Protected Areas, on
the sustainable management of marine resources and, in short, to lead the movement for the
conservation of marine biodiversity; as well as to increase the tools for training artisanal fishing
organizations to carry out this management, and to facilitate the technical support and advice on
various issues provided by strategic partnerships of scientific institutions and NGOs.
26
Part 2. Governance of Protected Areas
Types of Governance for Terrestrial or Marine Protected Areas
Looking at the present PAs in the world, IUCN (Dudley, 2008, Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013)
identifies four main types of governance, each with differences according to the regions, the national
legislation or cultural and traditional practices. Like all approaches to conservation, each of these
governance types offer advantages and disadvantages to achieve PA objectives and few examples of
those are provided.
Governance by government: Federal or national ministry/agency in charge; sub-national
ministry/agency in charge; government-delegated management (e.g. to NGO)
Shared governance: Collaborative management (various degrees of influence); joint management
(pluralist management board; transboundary management (various levels across international borders)
Private governance: By individual owner; by non-profit organisations (NGOs, universities,
cooperatives); by for-profit organisations (individuals or corporate)
Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities: Indigenous peoples’ conserved areas and
territories; community conserved areas – declared and run by local communities.
Type A: Government Managed Protected Areas
In this type of governance, one or more government bodies hold the authority, responsibility and
accountability for managing the protected area, determines its conservation objectives (such as the
ones that distinguish the IUCN management categories of Protected Areas), subjects it to a
management regime, and often also owns the protected area’s coastal land, water and related
resources. Here, legislative and budgetary responsibilities might also rest at sub-national
administrative levels.
In many countries, sub-national (regional) and municipal/local government bodies have recently also
become prominent in declaring and managing protected areas. For some of these sites, the state retains
full ownership and/or control or oversight of protected areas but delegates their management to a
parastatal organization, NGO or even a private operator or community. The government may or may
not have a legal obligation to inform or consult other identified stakeholders prior to setting up
protected areas and making or enforcing management decisions.
Potential weakness
In some countries, for land and sea, and areas at the interface, there is a need for cooperation and
coordination between the different government bodies to achieve an effective management. The
management of the activities in the marine environment is in many cases unclear or included in the
mandate of the administration in charge of terrestrial PAs and therefore, a cooperation/coordination is
needed between different ministries or administrations that have responsibilities within the different
resources of the environment.
The government may or may not have obligation of inform and consult stakeholders prior setting up a
PA or making management decision. For this reason, this type of management can also lead to partial
exclusion of fisheries actors (for the benefits of other interests for example) and conflicts over the
long run.
28
Potential strengths
Most government managed areas are governed by decision making bodies created within some type of
governmental institution following the national law and/or regional legislation and policy. Issues
relating to protected area legal establishment, boundary demarcation and further protected area
regulations are directly linked with the administration/institution in charge that report directly within
their directives and programmes. In some cases they also provide the financial resources for the daily
management of these areas.
Type B: Shared governance
This type of governance is also becoming increasingly common around the world. Complex processes
and institutional mechanisms are generally employed to share management authority and
responsibility among a plurality of actors – national to sub-national (including local) government
authorities, representatives of local communities (indigenous), resources-user associations, private
entrepreneurs and land-owners. The representatives of various interests or constituencies sit on a
governance body with decision-making authority and responsibility, and take decisions together. By
doing this all the actors recognise the legitimacy of their respective entitlements to manage the
protected area and agree on subjecting it to a specific conservation.
Potential weakness
Distinct sub-types of shared governance may be identified. In collaborative management, for instance,
formal decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability may rest with one agency (often a
national governmental agency), but the agency is required – by law or policy – to collaborate with
other stakeholders. In its weak form, “collaboration” means informing and consulting stakeholders.
In its strong form, “collaboration” goes further and represents a multi-stakeholder body that develops
and approves by consensus a number of technical proposals for protected area regulation and
management, to be later submitted to the decision-making authority that in the last instance has to take
a final decision on the technical proposals.
In joint management as another form of shared governance, various actors sit on a management body
with decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability. Again, the requirements for joint
management are made stronger if decision-making is carried out by consensus and transparency.
When this is not the case, the balance of power reflected in the composition of the joint management
body may de facto transform it into a different governance type (e.g. when government actors or
private land owners hold an absolute majority of votes). The challenge is also to ensure that each
stakeholder benefits from this management and comply with its obligations (Cazalet, 2013).
Because of the many actors which are often involved, some different forms of multi-stakeholder
management may be particularly suited according to the needs of different protected areas.
Potential strengths
From this type of management approach, each partner can learn and develop over time, understands
their respective roles, responsibilities and rights in management. Different alternative options can be
further explored to reduce conflict and achieve agreements such as develop small groups, gathering
the pros and cons from the parties and having those summarised for public scrutiny by a neutral
facilitator.
Co-management involves self-organisation capacity and as ecosystems can react unpredictable,
solutions can be sought and agreed among the stakeholders.
29
Type C: Private Protected Areas
Today, this type of governance with private ownership has an enormously important force in
conservation in some countries although there are fewer examples within the marine environment.
Private reserves include areas under individual (when ownership is held by a single person, family, or
trust), cooperative, corporate for-profit (i.e., companies or groups of people authorised to act as a
single entity, usually controlled by an executive, an oversight board, and ultimately individual
shareholders), and corporate not-for-profit ownership (i.e. NGOs). Conservation NGOs buy areas of
coastal land for example, which in some cases are large, and dedicate them to conservation. Many
individual land owners pursue conservation objectives out of respect for the land or a desire to
maintain its beauty and ecological value. Revenues from ecotourism or reducing levies and taxes, are
additional incentives. In all these cases, authority for managing the protected land and resources rests
with the owners, who determine a conservation objective, impose a conservation regime and are
responsible for decision-making, subject to applicable legislation and usually under terms agreed with
the respective governments (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013).
Potential weakness
The application of this type of governance model for the marine environment need some specific
regulations allowing the transfer of property rights or licensing for marine areas generally surrounding
a terrestrial private territory. This means usually that a co-management could be necessary and
therefore might be considered as the previous category. Generally a private part of the coast or an
island is afforded a buffer zone at sea and is managed by the owner, a foundation or a NGO.
Providing long-term security to these sites is one of the challenges facing private protected areas.
Private protected areas can also represent an extreme form of participation in protected area
management, where the local residents who own reserves control decision-making and there is no real
or broader local participation in it. Therefore, the accountability of this type of governance with
private ownership to the larger society could be quite limited. Nonetheless some forms of
accountability may be negotiated with the government in exchange for specific incentives (as in the
case of Easements or Land Trusts).
Potential strengths
In the majority of cases, the creation of a private protected area – and management of the same for
conservation objectives – is a voluntary act on the part of the owners. A growing recognition of the
opportunities for achieving conservation objectives on private space – and especially the proliferation
of mechanisms and incentives for doing so – has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number and
extent of private protected areas, particularly in the terrestrial environment.
Type D: Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities
IUCN defines this governance type as: “protected areas where the management authority and
responsibility rest with indigenous peoples and/or local communities through various forms of
customary or legal, formal or informal, institutions and rules”. This may be the oldest form of
protected area governance and it is still widespread around the world (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,
2013).
Indigenous peoples or local communities have authority and responsibility by a variety of forms of
ethnic governance or locally agreed organizations and rules on the land, water and natural resources.
These forms and rules are very diverse and can be extremely complex. For instance, some resources
may be collectively owned and managed, but others may be individually owned and managed or
managed on a temporary-basis.
For the area, nearly every community has developed management regulations and organizations,
which may or may not be legally binding at the national level. In some cases, negotiations with
30
national government and others partners need to be carried out for example, the recognition of
collective land rights, the respect for customary practices and the provision of economic incentives
(thus changing the governance type from D to B).
Internationally, this governance model has been more precisely defined by FAO, in relation with
artisanal fisheries activities. As a tool for rights-based fisheries management, Territorial Use Rights in
Fisheries (TURF) involve a certain territory and certain rights of use relating to fishing within that
territory, with a minimum degree of exclusivity (that is, the right to exclude others) held by a
community or a collective with socially integrating forces (Christy, 1992). TURFs may be defined as
community held rights of use (or tenure) and exclusion over the fishery resources within a specific
area and for a period of time. Accompanying these rights might be certain responsibilities for
maintenance and proper management of the resource base, as well as restrictions on the exercise of
the rights of use and exclusion.
TURFs have existed for centuries in some small-scale fishing communities, often in the form of
customary marine tenure, as is common in some traditional fishing communities through the
Mediterranean.
The advantage of TURFs most commonly highlighted is the economically more efficient use of the
resources and consequent opportunities to improve the welfare of small-scale fishing communities. It
allows controlling the use of labour and capital within the territory, excluding outsiders, dealing with
spatial use overlapping and other externalities, investing to enhance future returns and providing
flexibility to adjust to changes in technology, markets, resource characteristics and the socio-
economic structure of the fishing community.
Potential weakness
Complex situation and management might arise from this type of governance. Local communities (i.e.
artisanal fisheries communities) may initially need the lowest administrative level to validate their
governance and management plans in order to function effectively. As other stakeholders (i.e.
recreational fishermen, tourist operators or diving clubs) show their interest in using the area, the
preservation of this type of governance if local communities don’t have a clear identity and a long
term relation with the territory (land or sea) might be difficult to preserve. If reporting and
accountability move up to higher levels of government, the situation is more affiliated to Type A.
Potential strengths
The long-term ownership rights may incentivize fishers to conserve the resource and the local marine
ecosystem and has the potential to promote social responsibility by giving fishermen more effective
voice in planning and decision making. The ability to control access to resources might also assist
implementing management measures such as MPAs within or adjacent to for example TURF sites.
Besides the revenues that can produce for local fishers, it can represent a good approach to saving on
management and enforcement cost by being able to involve also fishermen in control activities as well
as increasing profits which could be translated in an increase of government collection through taxes.
Community led PA could be more resilient to changes drive by political agenda that any other
governance type.
31
Part 3. The Mediterranean governance approaches for Marine Protected Areas and artisanal fisheries
The survey of Mediterranean MPAs, particularly for Croatia, France, Greece, Italy and Spain,
provides insight into the diverse modes of governance to fisheries management and marine
conservation that have being implemented (see detailed Country project reports 4.1). The situation
from some South Mediterranean countries with different case studies is also shown to reflect different
characteristics of the types of governance.
The heterogeneity of the MPAs surveyed and other experiences from other Mediterranean countries
suggests the potential applicability of different approaches to multiple socioeconomic and ecological
environments, as long as they are established according to national legislation and customary norms.
By examining the governance and management structures of these case studies, it is possible to start
understanding the unique characteristics that play MPAs in artisanal fisheries management and vice
versa.
Type A. Government Managed Marine Protected Areas
In most Mediterranean countries, MPAs responsibility is of a State national ministry or of an agency
following a Governance by government model, where the management could be delegated totally to a
regional/local/ municipal administration or an agency. Any decision regarding an MPA therefore
remains the full responsibility of the State. Government Managed Protected Areas are most of the
time governed by a specific legislation with the management mandate afforded generally to the
Ministry in charge of the Environment and in some cases specifically to the main administration in
charge of the marine environment or fisheries. In other situations, there is a specialised agency for
protected areas that includes within their mandate the management of coastal and marine protected
areas.
The involvement of some expert bodies (associated to various governance structures and/or created
during the development of PA projects) has been recently introduced in some countries.
Depending if a given MPA or marine reserve for fisheries is placed in near-shore or offshore waters,
the national approach might also differ.
As in other regions (Worboys et al., 2015; Stanciu and Ioniță, 2014), the following sub-types of state
governance have been identified in the Mediterranean:
• (a) centralized governance
• (b) state management by a national agency
• (c) state management by a regional / local agency or authority
• (d) state management delegated to other actors
Croatia (centralized system for national MPA and decentralized for local MPA)
In Croatia, Protected Areas (PAs) in general, including MPAs, follow a centralized governance
subtype of governance by government (a) for decision-making and management systems. Protected
areas fall primarily under the competency of the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
(MENP); and the basic legal instrument ruling their designation and functioning is the Nature
Protection Act (NPA) (OG 80/2013).
Besides the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, other ministries can play in important
role in MPAs governance. Particularly relevant is the Ministry of Agriculture, which, by
32
implementing the Marine Fisheries Act is responsible for fisheries management of local MPAs as well
as for approval of the ordinance on protection and conservation of the MPAs of national importance,
which should be adopted based on the NPA. The Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and
Infrastructure, in charge of implementing the Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, is also to be
considered mainly regarding concessions for buoys in MPAs, its work on maritime traffic and
protection of the Adriatic. The Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning is the central state
administrative body responsible for the implementation of the Physical Planning Act, the
Construction Act dealing with physical planning, location and building permits, which is relevant the
adoption of PA spatial plans.
MPA considered of national importance are declared by the MENP in coordination with the relevant
other ministries according to the category afforded.
For Marine Protected Areas of local importance, they are declared by the county assembly after
approval by the MENP and other relevant ministries. The regional/local administrative or
environmental agency has full responsibility or report to the Ministry of Environment and the role of
both coordinating / supervising the local PA level management as well as ensuring the connection
with the central authorities from different fields of activity. This corresponds to a subtype of state
management by a regional / local agency or authority within a Government Managed Marine
Protected Area.
The Marine Fisheries Act (MFA) regulates commercial fishing, small-scale coastal fishing, small-
scale fishing, sports fishing, recreational fishing, fishing for scientific research and tourist fishing,
which may be carried out after obtaining valid fishing licenses issued by the Ministry of Agriculture,
the central state administrative body responsible for marine fisheries, or by other competent entities
authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture for some of the categories of fishing. The Marine Fisheries
Act (MFA) also prescribes Fishing Protected Areas (FPA) designated through an Ordinance. This
ordinance will remain in effect until an Ordinance on Fishing Protected Areas, based on the new
MFA, enters into force.
The new Marine Fisheries Act entered into force in July 2013. According to Article 4 of the Marine
Fisheries Act, all MPAs are now formally included in the marine fishing area. Restrictions for
fisheries and aquaculture within the parts of the marine fishing area which are protected as a national
park, nature park, special reserve and strict reserve, are to be regulated by secondary legislation,
which is to be passed on the basis of the NPA and is required to be pre-approved by the Ministry of
Agriculture. In this respect the NPA provides for the enactment of the Ordinance on protection and
conservation of a PA as an instrument that is also intended for the application of a specific internal
regime for fisheries management in each particular MPA.
France (centralized and decentralized systems)
In contrast to many other countries, France has never adopted a specific law governing protected
areas. The protected area categories with different legal status include national parks, marine nature
parks, national and regional nature reserves, classified and registered sites, Coastline and Lakeshore
Protection Agency sites, and areas covered by biotope protection orders, as well as regional nature
parks which combine environmental law and land use planning. These may be created as a result of
initiatives by the national government, local or regional authorities.
Within the central government, the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Land
Use Planning, MPAs (marine nature parks) come under the General Directorate for Infrastructure,
Transport and the Sea. At the regional level, the ministry in charge of nature protection is represented
33
by Regional Directorates for Environment, Land Use Planning and Housing (Direction Régionale de
l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement, or DREAL).
This governance system includes three specialized agencies: 1) the Marine Protected Areas Agency
(Agence des Aires Marines Protégées) which is subordinated to the central authority for the
environment (subtype of Government governance by a national agency) and has the double role of
coordinating / supervising the work at the MPAs and internationally contributing to the involvement
of France in the establishment and management of other marine protected areas. Directly, it also
manages marine nature parks. 2) The National Parks of France that manage all the terrestrial and
marine National Parks; and 3) the Coastline and Lakeshore Protection Agency (Conservatoire du
litoral) that aims to implement an active land purchasing policy for the protection of coastal sites and
the conservation of Nature.
Fisheries governance in the other hand is a Government management by a regional or authority
subtype. At the national level, sea fisheries, aquaculture and the processing of the products of the sea
are under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial
Planning and administered by the Directorate for Sea Fisheries and Aquaculture (DPMA - Direction
des pêches maritimes et de l’aquaculture - DPMA) which provides economic and regulatory
monitoring, thus helping sustainable management of marine resources.
At local level, the DPMA relies on interregional maritime directorates (DIRM - Direction inter-
régional de la Mer) and departmental directorates (DDTM - directions départementales des territoires
et de la mer) for the regions and the sea in coastal sub-regions entities (called departments).
Professional fishermen have the obligation to be members of the National Committee of the sea
fisheries and aquaculture (CNPMEM - Comité national des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins).
Governance of fisheries resources seems to be strongly co-driven by fishermen, making a share
governance type (Type B). It is a unique model because of the existence of a specific institution
representing the fishing communities (‘‘prud’homies’’) to oversee the fisheries sector in their
respective and recognized territories. The functions of these prud’homies are threefold: (i) regulate
fishing activities within their space (production of norms under control and validation of the
administration); (ii) control the exercise of fishing activities and penalize offenders (community
discipline); and (iii) resolve conflicts between professional fishers and make judgments (dispute
settlement). The members of the prud’homies are all professional fishermen, and therefore highly
dependent on the status of the coastal and marine resources. Some prud’homies have already been
involved in setting up fishery reserves (cantonnement de pêche) (e.g., Seytre and Francour, 2008).
35
France Strategy for MPAs and fisheries
Defined by the law of 14 April 2006, France established six categories of marine
protected area each meet specific objectives whilst complementing each other: the
marine sections of national parks, natural reserves, prefectoral orders for the protection
of biotopes, Natura 2000 sites, the sections of the maritime public domains entrusted to
Coastline Conservation and natural marine parks.
The order of 3 June 2011 completes the list of MPAs created in 2006, with 9 new
categories. These new MPAs come both from international recognition and a new
protection process: RAMSAR sites, UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Biosphere
Reserves, sites arising from the Barcelona agreements (Mediterranean), OSPAR (north-
east Atlantic), Nairobi (East Africa), Cartagena (West Indies) and CAMLR (Antarctica),
and the national wild fauna and hunting reserve with a marine section.
The MPA designation procedure, management or participation mechanism is different
for each category and is detailed in the main regulations.
Considering the broad range of marine protected categories, 6 according to the
14/04/2006 law, completed with 9 new categories by the 03/06/2011 decree, in France,
without the oversea territories, 239 MPAs are listed of which 57 in the Mediterranean.
However, if only the MPAs sensu lato (including the Cantonnements de pêche) which
ban at least one type of fishing are considered, this list is reduced to 20 MPAs only, and
among these 20 MPAs, only 6 have a permanent status: Port-Cros and Les Calanques
national parks, Côte Bleue marine park, and Scandola, Bonifacio and Cerbere nature
reserves.
The national strategy for the creation and management of MPAs in France was
developed by a working group, following the Grenelle of the sea. The text of the strategy
was presented to the Minister for sustainable Development in October 2011. It was
submitted to consultations (referent national bodies, inter-ministerial consultations and
communities overseas). At the end of this process and of amendments, it was adopted by
the government at the Council of Ministers of 18 April 2012.
This strategy is available at:
www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/12016_strategie_SCGAMP_def_web_montee.pdf
According to this strategy, several objectives are fixed. One of them is directly linked to
the management of the fishing activities. 20% of the national waters have to be protected
by 2020, and among them, one half will be Fishery Reserves (réserve halieuthique).
36
Greece- Centralized governance by government
Today, governance and administration of MPAs in Greece is under the competency of the new
Ministry for Productive Restructuring, Environment and Energy (replacing the Ministry of
Environment, Energy and Climate Change in early 2015). Until recently then two offices, the General
Directorate of the Environment and the Directorate of Environmental Planning coordinate and support
the management of those sites (see country Report 4.1). Depending on the context, the Ministry of
Rural Development and Food (that implement the fisheries policy) as well as the Ministry of Shipping
and the Aegean (surveillance and implementation of fisheries policy) are also engaged in the
governance of MPAs in close collaboration with the Ministry for Productive Restructuring,
Environment and Energy.
Furthermore, the National System of Protected Areas of Greece (Law 3937/2011) is comprised of
both areas that are managed by a management agency (for the case of MPAs: 2 National Marine Parks
and 2 National Parks that include marine areas) as well as areas without an assigned Management
Agency (e.g. the vast majority of marine areas belonging to NATURA 2000 network). In the first
case, governance (by Ministries) is directly applied to the MPAs through their Management Agencies.
In the second case, Protected Areas are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Productive
Restructuring, Environment and Energy.
Italy - Centralized governance, decentralized management
In Italy, the institutional architecture and the juridical framework of MPAs and of artisanal fishery
mainly refer to two different Ministries. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are under the competency of
the Ministry of Environment (Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare,
MATTM) and specifically fall within the activity of the General Directorate for the Protection of
Nature and Sea (GDPNS), which – among other duties (e.g. hydrogeological hazards and pollution,
among others) – deals with terrestrial national parks and protected areas at national level. Specifically
within the GDPNS, three main divisions (4th, 5th and 6th) are mainly in charge of supervising and
funding MPAs functioning and management activity, and of providing the legal and technical
instruments dealing with planning and designation of new MPAs (see Country project report 4.1.).
Artisanal fishery is regulated by a multi-level governance that involves the Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Forestry (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, MIPAAF), the fishery
departments of the Regional governments and the local offices of the National Coast Guard. In few
regions (e.g. Sicily), there are also Consortia for Management of Artisanal Fishery (CoGePA,
Consorzi di gestione della pesca artigianale) that work with central and regional governments and are
in charge of supervision and management of Fishery management plans at local scale.
To be designated as a MPA, a stretch of coast or an off-shore bank must first be identified by law as
"marine area of retrieval" (Area Marina di Reperimento, AMR). Among the 50 AMR identified so far
27 have already been established as MPA and another 17 are of next institution, as the process that
will lead to the Establishing Decree has already initiated.
Italian MPAs are established under the laws no. 979 of 1982 and no. 394 of 1991 with a Decree of the
Minister for the Environment that contains the name and the delimitation of the area, the objectives
and the discipline of protection. Using the list of AMR, for the effective establishment of a MPA,
knowledge on the natural environment of interest must be collected, in addition to the necessary data
on the socio-economic activities taking place in the area. The General Directorate for the Protection of
Nature and Sea (GDPNS) of the Ministry of Environment can make use of academic and scientific
institutions for the acquisition of such data. Subsequently, the experts of the Ministry of Environment
can start a formal inquiry for the MPA designation. The Regional government and the local public
37
authorities concerned the designating MPA are consulted to raise potential conflicts and observations
on the draft decree. This is considered a must-step to obtaining an actual local consensus. Finally, as
established by the Decree no. 112/98 art.77, a Joint Conference to formally examine the draft
Ministerial Decree must take place to get the final local policy and stakeholder opinion. At this point,
the Minister for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister for Economic Affairs, proceeds to
the actual establishment of the MPA, authorizing the funding to ensure the initial expenses related to
the MPA establishment.
Generally, the management of the MPAs is led by Public institutions (local municipalities, coast
guard, and provincial/regional governments), Scientific institutions (academic or research institutions)
or environmental NGOs recognized at national level. These are often pooled in management
consortia. The nomination of the management body is made by decree of the Minister of the
Environment, after consultation with the regional government and the local corporate body parties.
The greatest part of the Italian MPAs is managed by the local municipalities.
Thus, it can be distinguished at least three sub-type of governance, centralized governance as
protected area management units are directly subordinated to the central responsible authority,
MATTM; State management by a regional/local authority which is usually local municipalities, coast
guard, and provincial/regional governments and government management delegated to other actors as
MPA management responsibility is delegated to both public and private entities (i.e. NGOs and
scientific institutions).
Concerning the coordination with other government agencies, at least once a year, the Commission of
the each PA meets up with the MPA management body, formulates proposals and suggestions for all
matters related to the MPA functioning. In particular, the Committee gives its opinion to the
implementation of regulations and to estimates management expenses, formulated by the management
body.
MPAs in Italy
To date, along the Italian coast and its offshore waters there are 27 created MPAs and
two ‘underwater parks’, aimed at protection of underwater archaeological sites. The
Pelagos Sanctuary, formally included by the Italian legislation as an international MPA
specifically devoted to protection of cetaceans in the Northern Tyrrhenian and in the
Ligurian Sea, should be also considered. Besides there are three no-trawl areas (in
Sicily) and 6 no-take zones (in Sardinia).
Most MPAs in Italy are established for multiple uses of which biodiversity conservation
is the principal objective. They are usually composed of three zones characterised by
different levels of protection. Activities and restrictions within these zones are also
defined by law, but through specific decrees or local ordinances, some exceptions can
apply in order to combine the preservation of environmental values with the sustainable
use of the marine environment. In this context, MPAs are used also as a fisheries
management tool and as a way to assign user rights to local fishers. Such a spatial
zoning scheme allows for the possibility of practising both artisanal fishing, i.e., small-
scale fishing operations conducted with small boats using fixed or drifting gear and
recreational fishing in the buffer and peripheral zones (with the exclusion of
spearfishing).
39
The main policy document dealing with Italian fishery is the National Plan for Fisheries, now
replaced by the Three-year National Program for Fishery. This represents the instrument of
intervention programming artisanal fishery activity (along with all other fisheries). It is issued by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in order to promote the rational exploitation and
valorisation of marine resources through a sustainable development of fisheries. One of the paths that
are being explored to reach such a target is the self-regulation system of artisanal fishermen. In Italy,
the system of self-regulation within the coastal zone by the fishermen themselves is present for many
years, having been introduced from the third National Plan for Fisheries (1991-1993) with reference
to small-scale coastal fishing and bivalve harvesting.
In particular, the Ministry decree no. 44/1995 has defined the designation rules of Consortia between
fishing companies for bivalve harvesting, the so-called COGEVO (Consortia for Management of
Clams). One particularly innovative and effective management tool consists of the Consortia of
Management for Artisanal Fisheries (Co.Ge.Pa.), whose main aim is to ensure artisanal fishermen
active participation to management activities (ministry decree 14 September 1997). These Consortia
are made by small-scale fishing companies and cooperatives and are being created to address,
coordinate and manage fishing activities along a well-defined stretch of coast. To date, the creation of
Consortia of Management for Artisanal Fisheries (Co.Ge.Pa.), are still in an infancy state at national
level. Sicily is the only Italian region where they effectively started three years ago. The designation
of these consortia is encouraged by the possibility of accessing to targeted State funding measures.
This is leading to the adoption of codes of self-conduct through the formulation of a management plan
which includes: initiatives for restocking, harvest control, marine resource conservation, the
establishment of areas of biological recovery, the shifts of fishing boats activity, the collaboration
with marine research institutes, the promotion of training and of professional qualifications for the
fishermen; the quality enhancement of fishery products.
Spain (centralized and decentralized)
Spain is characterized by a multi-level governance structure that includes decentralization of the state
to regional governments (called “Comunidades Autónomas” or “Autonomous regions”). Competences
on maritime and coastal affairs are shared between central and regional governments from each of
these regions. While central government has exclusive authority over the Territorial Sea and the
Exclusive Economic Zone, the regional governments are responsible for coastal areas waters, referred
to as ‘internal waters’.
We can distinguish the application of three different governance by government approaches within the
MPAs in Spain:
(I) Led and managed primarily by the central government.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA) is the competent
authority for the application of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive that has been
transposed into Spanish legislation by Law 41/2010, on the Protection of the Marine
Environment. It carries out the demarcation plan, processing and approving the records
that define the boundaries of the shoreline and the territorial waters. In addition, this
Minister is the responsible to issue basic legislation on environmental protection issues,
develop a protected areas register and prescribe norms and standards for the general
management and development of protected areas. From the Directorate-General for
Coastal and Marine Sustainability depends the Department for the protection of the sea
(División para la Protección del Mar) whose duties includes the proposed declaration and
management of MPAs of Natura 2000, MPAs under international protection figure and
other natural marine protected areas. The Subdivision General for the Protection of
40
Fisheries Resources below the General Secretary for Fisheries of the MAGRAMA has the
function of maintenance and monitoring of Fishery Protection zones within the network
of Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest in Spain.
(II) State management by a regional with significant decentralisation. There is a sharing of
authority and responsibilities between central and autonomous governments and different
government agencies. MPAs are managed in accordance with formal regulations and/or
through partnerships and negotiations between different parties.
(III) Managed primarily by the autonomous regional government. This involves the
decentralisation of legislative and administrative functions to the autonomous regional
government.
For National Parks, Spain also has a “State governance by an agency subtype” represented by the
National Parks Autonomous Agency (OAPN). This Agency is the central body for coordinating the
Spanish Network of National Parks and the management of each site corresponds to the Autonomous
Regional government in whose territory they are. OAPN is responsible also for the follow up and the
application of UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB Programme) and coordinates the
Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves.
The different regional Autonomous regions have likewise established a legal framework for the
establishment of regional protected areas and fisheries that add to the existing national protected sites.
Rules and technical and administrative guidelines and procedures for the designation and management
of protected areas are descripted in the corresponding regional laws.
Specific cases in the Mediterranean non-European countries
The first subtype (a) of subtype of centralized governance by government for decision-making and
management is also common in other Mediterranean non-European countries. Governance capacity to
Mediterranean coastal and marine PAs due to socio-political conditions is one major barrier for any
MPA as it needs to address conflicts in the coastal zone with the absence of participatory planning
process and accompany them with conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms. In general,
fisheries and other coastal communities have low awareness regarding the management and protection
of coastal and marine resources (Tabet and Fanning, 2012). For these countries, experiences on
advocating policies and programs in environmental and coastal governance that promote
decentralization and integration are very limited with little coastal community participation in MPAs.
For example, in Morocco, the High Commissioner for Water, Forestry and Fight against
Desertification (Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification) is the
administration responsible for protected areas. Its recently adopted law on protected areas (2010)
proposes different options for co-management although presently good governance, such as
‘participation’ and ‘integration’ are seldom used.
Algeria has also a highly centralized governance system and the mandate for terrestrial and marine
protected areas lies in the Ministry of Territorial Management and Environment (Ministère de
l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, MATE). Creation and management of Protected
Areas are under the responsibility of the Direction Générale des Forêts (DGF) for coastal National
Parks, while the newly formed Commissariat National du Littoral (CNL), under the Ministry of the
Environment supervises the management of marine and coastal areas.
In few other countries, State governance with a national level body (e.g. Agency) specialized in the
field of nature/biodiversity conservation and which has the role of coordinating the local level PA
41
exist. In Egypt, for example, the Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs and the Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), as the executive arm of the Ministry of Environment, are the
main regulatory bodies for the conservation, protection and management of the environment. Inside
them, the Nature Conservation Sector (NCS) is in charge of the terrestrial and marine environment
and of the terrestrial and marine Protected Areas. The mandate of NCS includes the strategic approach
for identification, selection, creation, management and capacity building of Marine Protected Areas,
including fishing activities inside these territories. This is clear State management governance by a
national agency subtype.
Similarly, the main actor involved in the protection and management of the coastal zone and the
maritime public domain in Tunisia is the Coastal Protection and Management Agency (Agence de
Protection et d'Aménagement du Littoral – APAL) under the Tunisian Ministry of Environment and
Sustainable Development (see law 95-72 of 24 July 1995 and 95-73 of 24 July 1994). For the
protection and control of the marine environment and combating pollution, the Tunisian key player is
the National Agency for the Protection of the Environment (Agence Nationale de Protection de
l’Environnement - ANPE), which is also subordinated to the Tunisian Ministry of Environment (see
law 88-91 of the 02 August 1988). The INSTM (Institut National des Sciences et Technologies de la
Mer), under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries is directly
responsible of sea and its resources, studies and programs (fishing, aquaculture, marine environment,
sea technologies, oceanography,...). The General Direction of Fisheries and Aquaculture, under the
Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries is the National Authority responsible
regulating fishing and aquaculture activities.
Initiatives to establish MPA with stakeholder consultations
Under the MedPAN South project (2008-2012) and the current Sea-Med project, WWF
works with the National Park of Taza to ensure the full participation of local stakeholders
and fishing communities in the development of the new MPA management plans, a
Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) under the Barcelona
Convention. Here, the local population depends largely on the direct exploitation of marine
resources and fishing is a key source of their income.
A multi-stakeholder steering committee, endorsed by the national government and chaired
by the provincial government, has being created to establish a common vision and clear
objectives for the development of a MPA. The steering committee was already key to
catalyse the political will needed to mobilize resources, create a credible governance
system, and establish an effective dialogue among scientists, fishermen, other local
stakeholders, and decision-makers. A multi-stakeholder steering committee, endorsed by
the national government and chaired by the provincial government, has being created to
establish a common vision and clear objectives for the development of a MPA. The
steering committee was already key to catalyse the political will needed to mobilize
resources, create a credible governance system, and establish an effective dialogue among
scientists, fishermen, other local stakeholders, and decision-makers.
42
Type B. Shared Governance of Protected Areas
In this case, the governance of MPAs could be shared between the central level and the regional or
local administrations, but also with NGOs, associations or cooperatives of fishermen, public or private
institutions. Different subtypes of shared governance may be identified (Borrini Feyerabend et al.
2004). In ‘collaborative governance’, advisory boards with multiple actors for the public and private
sectors could be set up to build a consensus although the final decision is only responsibility of the
state. In a weak connotation, such collaboration may mean just informing and consulting other parties.
‘Joint governance’, on which decision making authority, responsibility and accountability are shared
in a formal way, with various actors, is less common in the Mediterranean.
Few examples of shared governance types are provided below. Most often, is up to site MPA
managers to maintain inclusive relationships with scientists and other stakeholders through their
efforts directed into regular or occasional meetings, consultations, campaigns, workshops and
seminars.
In the case of transboundary marine protected areas, this type of governance is developed between
countries
Transboundary governance systems, Pelagos Santuary
The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals is a special marine
protected area extending about 90.000 km2 in the north-western Mediterranean Sea
between Italy, France and the Island of Sardinia, encompassing Corsica and the
Archipelago Toscano. Under the Pelagos Agreement, cooperation and a permanent
dialogue between the 3 Parties (France, Monaco and Italy) for the evaluation of the
marine mammals’ population and regulation of high speed boats among other
measures, is foreseen. For the high sea, coordination among the parties about the
maritime activities that can have an impact in the Santuary is developed as part of the
management plan. The stakeholders of the Pelagos Sanctuary are composed by the
Meeting of the Contracting Parties, in which the trilateral decisions are taken, the
Permanent Secretary, the Permanent Committee (which collaborates with the
Permanent Secretary and give advices about the different issues link to the
implementation of the Agreement) and a Management Structure, which centralizes the
activities realized in cooperation.
43
Stakeholder engagement in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Spain
Spain as France, distinguishes itself from most other countries by having strong local fishers’
organizations to represent their constituents, with historical roots and formal roles in the overall
fisheries governance of the country (see Country report 4.1). These local fishers’ organizations called
“cofradías” (as prud´homies in France), are corporations with legal jurisdiction and decision-making
capacity that are defined with territorial limits of action and represent different fishing communities.
Through the cofradıas, local fishers are a key formal
stakeholder, recognized by state law and are therefore
entitled to be involved in the implementation of MPAs.
Their involvement is particularly present in marine
reserves with fisheries interests.
All marine reserves for fisheries (declared and managed by
General Secretariat of Fisheries of MAGRAMA if the area
falls within territorial waters or the Autonomous Regional
Government if it falls in coastal waters) have an advisory
body, the Monitoring Committee, chaired by the fisheries
public administration and with the participation of other
stakeholders -usually fishermen's associations – with
sometimes the presence of researchers. Since marine
reserves are established under the fisheries authority, they
don’t have competency to include other stakeholders
although their Monitoring Committee can, occasionally,
have the informal participation of other interested
stakeholders.
Steering Committees composed of representatives of
different organizations and groups such as government,
fishermen associations (i.e. cofradias), recreational
fishermen associations, yacht clubs, conservation
organizations (NGOs), scientific institutions, and others
are also implemented in each of the regionally declared
marine reserve of Balearic Islands. These committees are
advisory bodies with public participation that offer their
opinion about the management and make proposals and
suggestions to the managers, while informing the different
social sectors on the condition and operation of the
reserves. A similar approach is taken in Cabrera National
Park where the Steering Committee is composed of
stakeholders from the central and regional government,
NGOs, cofradías, universities and research institutes (see
Box).
However, the inclusion of a wide range of users and
stakeholders into decision making about the management
of MPA through a type of consultative body or Committee
is no always the case. Some scientists or scientific
institutions working in partnership with other stakeholders have been involved in the initial stages of
the design of new sites but their participation and consultation to provide knowledge for the
management of declared sites is no regularly done.
Initiative to establish
Marine Reserves in Spain
The marine reserve of the
Hormigas Islands in Costa
Brava (Catalonia, Spain) is
one of the sites where the
local fishers (small-scale
fishers and trawlers) through
their cofradía proposed the
original establishment of a
MPA, mainly to protect
fishers’ interests. As a
stakeholder, it was original
involved on the decisions
regarding the boundaries of
the marine reserve as well as
some fisheries regulations.
However, the actual conflicts
with other stakeholders,
particularly recreational
fishers who were not engaged
in the early discussions, the
political disputes among
different administrations and
the financial crisis that Spain
is experiencing has led to user
conflicts in the governance
and management of the site
and the decrease wiliness of
the local cofradías to be
involved further
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2013).
44
Italy
Management of the Italian MPAs is generally led by Public institutions (local municipalities, coast
guard, and provincial/regional governments) although in some instances scientific institutions
(academic or research institutions) or environmental NGOs recognized at national level can form
management consortiums with the authorities to manage the sites (see Country report 4.1). The
majority of the Italian MPAs are nevertheless managed by the local municipalities.
A technical-scientific committee (TSC) is sometimes present as an advisory board for supporting the
MPA manager decisions. Stakeholders’ participation to MPA management is however not defined by
law. Some representatives of the local stakeholder communities can take part to the Commission of
the Reserve, whose aims are setting up MPA conservation objectives, reviewing the management plan
and other secondary legislation acts (e.g. restrictions). The manager, in collaboration with the local
coast guard and police, can enforce the restrictions and surveillance of the different zones of the
MPA.
Artisanal fisheries in Cabrera National Park One of the objectives of the management of the national park of Cabrera Archipelago in the Balearic Islands is to maintain the cultural and good market value of artisanal fisheries in a sustainable manner. For this, a fisheries management plan was approved by a Royal Decree 941/2001 (BOE 21406/09/2001) stipulating the type of arts that could be used, the fishing effort, the number of artisanal fishing vessels and the closed seasons that should be applied in the Park. Moreover, recreational fishing and trawling were prohibited. Continuous monitoring of fishing activities and resources was established to ensure sustainability of resources though the data that is collected on board of artisanal fisheries boats, fisheries captures collected by fishers and visual underwater census. The law determines the maximum number of vessels that can operate weekly by gear type through a licensing system that is done in agreement with the fishers through their cofradías. The reserve integral and the core zone are excluded from any fishing activity. Future activities will include the development of “pesca-tourism” and “labelization” of fisheries products from Cabrera origin
©IUCN-Med, Sinis Italy
45
Few examples of co-management and engagement of fishermen towards future co-management exist
in some MPAs (see Box).
France
In France, different types of management committees that include representatives of Agencies, NGOs,
local communities, public entities and/or military authorities take part in the management of the
MPAs. Some, such as the Nature Reserves, has only an advisory Committee role while others have a
stronger role in decision making. During the establishing of new sites, stakeholder participation is
often limited only to consultations.
Some prud’homies have been involved in establishing fishery reserves (cantonnement de pêche)
within their territorial areas and generally participate in the management of a MPA if there is one
established within its territorial area even if the goal of the MPA is not mainly for fisheries. As such,
in some areas, MPA management bodies collaborate and co-manage the sites with local prud’homies.
Management delegated to an NGO Miramare MPA, Italy
Despite being one of the smallest MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea, Miramare has always
been a model for effective and up-to-date management, where socio-economic and
conservation issues are tackled with an integrated and comprehensive approach. The
reserve is managed by the Italian World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on behalf of Italy's
Ministry of the Environment and Protection of the Territory (MEPT). The governance of
the area is done in a public-private partnership by the authority and the NGO, however
the management is really delegated to the NGO. The WWF has promoted the Reserve
development and has invested in its management, often supporting innovative
environmental policy programmes.
Torre Guaceto MPA, engagement of fishermen towards a co-management approach
Torre Guaceto is a 22 km2 coastal MPA established in 1991 along the eastern coast of
Apulia (southern Adriatic Sea). Here, a co-management approach has been agreed
between the MPA manager, artisanal fishermen and scientists. Fishermen have accepted
limitations to their gear, technique and fishing power with the aim of attaining
sustainable fishing and better economic performance under strict patrolling and yield
monitoring.
After a 5-year total fishing ban inside the whole MPA, a new fisheries approach was set
based on key predators removal and of fishing effort and on the use of selective gear. The
buffer zone was reopened to controlled fishing activity and commercial catches per unit
effort (CPUEs) were collected inside the buffer zone and outside the MPA from January
2005 to April 2008. Data analysis showed that the CPUEs of total catch and of the most
abundant target species were always higher inside the buffer zone than outside, and that
inside the MPA buffer zone, after an initial decrease, catches stabilised at about twice the
value than outside (Di Franco et al. 2014).
46
This is the case of Bonifacio Strait Nature Reserve in Corsica. Since 1999, the Corsican
Environmental Office (OEC), the structure managing the reserve, actively collaborates with the
Bonifacio prud’homies in the framework of fish stock management in the Strait. Today the scientific
studies conducted in partnership with fishermen have identified an average biomass index that is 6
times more important inside the protected zones, leading to improved revenue for fisheries as benefit
from the “spill-over effect” (Colléter et al., 2014).
The marine Park Côte Bleue in France is also a very interesting example of a model of governance
that is completely decentralized. The creation of the marine Park is the result of local initiatives
(coastal towns and prud’homie) based on the awarding of territorial concessions (mainly for artificial
reefs and no-take reserves “cantonnement de pêche”) by the state and delegation of management to
these decentralized entities. The purpose of this site is explicitly oriented towards support for small-
scale fisheries and improved coexistence with other users of the sea (recreational fishers and tourists,
for example) besides protection of the natural environment although the legal status of this MPA
(called ‘‘Marine Park’’) is not recognized as a category of MPAs under the 2006 National Act.
Fishermen participate in the monitoring of the area and its habitats as well as work with scientists the
reserve effect. Today, local governments and professional organisations of fishermen (Comités locaux
des Pêches Maritimes and Prud´hommies) manage the area.
Greece
In Greece, an institutional shift towards more collaborative governance approaches by establishing
management agencies, management plans and public participation processes have been adopted over
the last decade.
The exact scheme for the management of MPA is, at the moment, in preparation and consultation
phase involving decentralized administration, regional administration and municipalities. At local
The Cantonnement de Pêche du Cap Roux (Cap Roux Fishery Reserve)
The Cantonnement de Pêche du Cap Roux in Saint-Raphaël, along the French Mediterranean
coast was established in December 2003 through the initiatives of the professional fishers from
the Prud’homie de Pêche of Saint Raphaël. The reserve, located in the heart of the marine
extension of the Natura 2000 Esterel, is a no-take fisheries zone, and covers an area of
approximately 450 hectares extending from the coastline up to the 80-meter isobath. This site,
like others « Cantonnement de pêche » (Fisheries Reserves) are no considered by law as “true”
MPAs.
The management body is by the Prud’homie de Pêche of Saint Raphaël following a true joint-
management style between the regional, local administration and the fishermen cooperative that
regulates other activities like poaching, recreational fishing, sports or professional fishermen
activities from elsewhere.
The major advantage of this system is related to its very low cost as there is no allocated budget
associated to the creation of a management institution. Spill-over reserve effect (export of fish
biomass outside the Reserve; Seytre et al 2008; 2013) has also been confirmed by professional
fishermen.
47
scale, the implementation of the fisheries policy and fisheries regulations in MPAs is mainly
performed by the local directorates for fisheries and the local port offices in collaboration with the
management agencies of the MPAs.
Rarely, fishermen are appointed by the Minister of Environment, Energy and Climatic Change as
members of the management boards of the MPAs (with exception like the National Marine Park of
Zakynthos, and the Amvrakikos Wetlands National Park).
Overall, there is still a major gap in the adoption of effective, fair and meaningful participation
structures and processes, particularly within the Natura 2000 sites (Apostolopolou et al., 2012). Local
communities rarely participate or receive information for the design and management of Natura 2000
sites. The complicated and overlapping institutional frameworks without clear and specific delegation
of responsibilities and limited representation of stakeholders (including local fishermen) create
significant barriers to promote shared governance mechanisms. More initiatives are needed to
promote also the
equal participation
of different
stakeholders
as well as local
communities and promote the participation with effective procedures and protocols.
The National Marine Park of Zakynthos
This park, also part of the Natura 2000 ecological network, pro-
actively involves stakeholders on the planning and in the
management of potentially conflicting activities, in order to
protect sea turtles more efficiently. The Management Authority
of the National Park has a participatory body, where all the
relevant stakeholders participate (prefectures, NGOs,
local businesses, farmers, and fishermen) towards
developing sustainable measures within ICZM plan and
conservation activities.
Special Fisheries Committees (with participation of MPAs staff,
Local Fisheries Dept., Universities, Hellenic Coast Guard, and
local fishermen associations) have been established in an effort
to enhance the involvement of artisanal fishermen in decision-
making and governance of the MPAs. The meetings of this
committee are aiming to the development of suitable
management actions with respect to sustainable fisheries in the
MPA as well as to enhance capacity building, and strengthen the
social dialogue and activities jointly undertaken by the involved
parties of the committee (participatory process). From all the continuous efforts, overtime conflicts with the local
population and stakeholders have decreased and the Park is
increasingly integrated in the local socio economic context.
49
Croatia
Stakeholders’ participation for PAs in terms of legally prescribed obligations exists only in relation to
MPAs designation procedure, its abolishment and in the form of public consultations concerning
proposals of management plans and secondary legislation acts and documents affecting their interests
(see Country Report 4.1). Nevertheless, effective scheme is not developed in terms of stakeholders’
participation in the day-to-day management of MPAs. Effective stakeholders’ influence on the
management of MPAs in reality takes place through informal and direct contacts and negotiations of
stakeholders with representatives of the public institutions that manage those sites. Management and
Advisory boards are not actually regulated in the National Protected areas.
Specific cases in the Mediterranean non-European countries
In addition the option for co-management defined in the new legislation for protected areas4 of
Morocco, the country has started a process involving the artisanal fishermen in order to define
possible marine protected areas for artisanal fisheries. A Small-scale Fisheries project, coordinated by
the Agency of Partnership for Progress and financed by the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(USA), was conducted during 2011-2013 and three sites were proposed by artisanal fishermen (two
on the Atlantic coast, one on the Mediterranean) to develop stricter regulations for fisheries (including
fisheries protected areas). The fishermen are the founders of the three proposed sites: one in Alboran
and two in the Atlantic coast (Magador and Massa). As it established, fisherman association and
cooperative takes decisions when biding regulations apply within each site such as the fishing gears
that will be prohibited and the marine species for which fishing will be regulated.
4 Protected Area Law of Morocco, 2010. Article 25 : Sans préjudice des droits reconnus aux tiers,
l'administration compétente peut concéder la gestion de l'aire protégée, totalement ou partiellement, à toute
personne morale de droit public ou privé, qui s'engage à respecter les conditions générales de gestion prévues
par la présente loi et les clauses d'une convention et d'un cahier des charges établis par l'administration.
Telašćica Nature Park, Croatia
The Park has recently the approval of standardized management and zoning plans at
country level (2012) leading to the finalisation of its management plan. With the
assistance of several national and international funded projects and organisations
(MedPAN, WWF, Sunce) as well as the capacity building to the management body,
dialogue with stakeholders has assisted to resolve the conflicts that emerged particularly
for the regulation of fisheries and tourism activities during the development of these
plans and the designation of user zones (Walton et al., 2013). At the national level, the
engagement of government authorities and management agencies led to jointly address
policy and legislative issues, and to agree on and enable the development of
standardized management plans. Future cooperation and co-management activities
might emerge during the implementation of the management plan, assisting to develop a
shared governance more robust.
Historically viewed as a threat by the local population, the Park is now slowly gaining
supporters and the principles of environmental protection are getting accepted.
50
The central administration by the Department of Maritime Fisheries, recognizing the importance of
this process officially declared those sites with co-responsibility in their management with the local
fishermen communities.
Type C. Private Protected Areas
This type of governance where PA marine and resources are owned by individuals, associative
structures, NGOs, corporations, either for-profit or not-for-profit, is very rare in the in the marine
environment.
No real examples of Private Protected Areas (PPA) have been identified in the Mediterranean,
although initiatives exist for MPAs around the world. In France, nonetheless, a unique example close
to this definition is provided by Conservatoire du Littoral, a French semi-public organisation that aims
to ensure the protection of outstanding natural areas by acquiring areas by private agreement, by pre-
emption, by expropriation or donation. After carrying out restoration work in the areas, the
Conservatoire entrusts their management to local authorities or other local groups or organisations.
In 2011, Conservatoire du Littoral acquired for 30 years the management over Mediterranean Sea,
273 ha of the marine area, located to the right of the island of Grand Rouveau (property of the
Conservatoire du Littoral since 2000) in the small Des Embiez Archipielago. The site is also part of
Site Natura 2000 Lagune du Brusc. Similarly, the institution has the marine management of Port
d´Alon (101 ha), Domaine du Rayol (14ha), Cap Taillat (64 ha) and Agriate in Corsica with 358ha.
Other examples could be further developed with similar organisations such as the Conservatoria delle
Coste (Coastal conservation agency) in Sardinia (Italy), a public agency that also acquire land and
coastal areas to ensure the protection of outstanding natural areas on the Sardinian coast.
In a similar manner, Sekania beach at the core zone of the national marine park of Zakynthos in
Greece was bought by WWF-Greece in 1997 to conserve the Loggerhead sea turtle nesting beaches in
the marine area of Laganas bay.
Type D. Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities
The use of bottom-up approach in MPA establishment and management within the context of local
community-based management is uncommon in the Mediterranean. Some examples of community-
based MPA experiences exist for marine fisheries reserves under fisheries enhancement (and
sometimes also with a general environmental conservation aim). These are lined to traditional
property rights to fishermen communities. However, the initial success of a bottom-up management
scheme seems difficult to sustain and shift in governance mode occurred as these sites developed.
The tendency is to have the local communities’ conserved areas recognised by the regional or the
central administration and therefore to become official or to be considered as joint-management
governance types. When officialised by the government, such a sites could move to Type A or B.
“Natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural
values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities through
customary laws or other effective means” (IUCN World Parks Congress, 2003)
51
In Spain, besides Government Managed Marine Protected Areas, there have been few fisheries
reserves managed primarily by fishing local communities under collective management arrangements
and later with the participation of the regional/local government (e.g. Os Miñarzos in the Atlantic
site). Hence, communities were initially empowered to develop and enforce rules for managing
common pool resources, subject to certain conditions related to biodiversity and resource conservation
that were agreed by some type of committee and in some cases, regulated a posteriori by the
administration. The central, regional or local government is represented in these committees.
In other non-European countries such as Morocco, government regulations can allow fishermen
groups, associations or cooperatives to define voluntarily specific fishing rules stricter than the
national fisheries regulations in specific areas where they use to fish (i.e. fisheries reserves), even
without the agreement of the central administration. Traditional property rights given to local
communities such as those given for artisanal fisheries (tcherfia) in Kerkennah islands (Tunisia), if
respected by outside fishers, allows the parcelling of shallow waters around the islands and self-
management by the local communities. This type of TURF is closed to community based management
areas. The importance and objectives of these types of fisheries management sites for conservation
will need to clarify further it these sites can be understood as MPAs.
©IUCN-Med, Fisherman in Morocco
52
Conclusions
For most Mediterranean countries, fisheries and MPA management is largely centralized and top-
down, with policies coming from the EU (binding for the Member States) and/or national
governments and international agreements. Some they don’t have a specific governance mechanism
for their management and the establishment of special agencies is seldom used.
In general, even though the main role in decision-making belongs to state actors and to the central
authorities, the systems in place in some countries (e.g. Spain, France) are often complex, including a
diversity of governance subtypes. The management of fisheries resources in the north Mediterranean
region as the five case study countries is highly centralized and state-controlled, being implemented
within the framework of the EU—Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and regional agreements. Fisheries
management responsibilities might be within a different Ministry than the one on implementing
coastal and marine issues, o PAs. The responsibilities concerning coastal and marine protected area
management are very much divided amongst different state bodies and are not always clearly assigned
for the MPAs with limited coordination.
The table below provides an overview on the diverse systems of government orientated governance
which are currently in place.
There is little stakeholder involvement, including fishermen, in the management of MPAs. These are
often perceived as existing only to restrict and control activities. Recently, new efforts have been
conducted to increase capacity and involve different stakeholders including fishermen from the initial
process of identifying potential PA to build consensus on their management. Education and awareness
programs are instrumental to engage the community to endorse further development of the MPAs and
to become active in designing its rules and regulations.
Table 1. Synthesis of state governance in MPA of the 5 countries case-study.
Country Centralized
governance
Governance by a
state agency
Governance by a
regional/local
authority
Delegated
management
Croatia √ √
Italy √ √ √
France √ √ √
Greece √ √ √
Spain √ √ √
Fishermen associations and cooperatives have already shown some interest and dynamism to assist in
the identification and implementation of MPAs in different countries. Shared governance approaches
through joint-management or collaborative management can be a good opportunity for artisanal
fishers participate and take self-regulating decisions on the management of stocks as well as benefit
from the outcomes. On this context, the recently set up Mediterranean Platform of Artisanal Fishers
(MedArtNet), with a regional membership and scope, now provides a united and stronger voice for
artisanal fisheries to reach regional and national policies.
Private MPA management, while potentially effective, has, to our present knowledge, not really been
in place in the Mediterranean. Traditional fisheries management systems govern solely by local
communities or community-based initiatives can be very supportive, but in the other hand, seem to be
difficult to preserve.
There is still considerable room for improving the understanding of MPA governance based on
comparative investigation from elsewhere in the Mediterranean and outside. Given the complexity
and dynamic nature (in its social-ecological perspective) of artisanal fisheries and MPAs, the present
53
country case studies offer us a first time view to understand these relations in order to delineate the
ground for a new integrated framework on MPA and artisanal fisheries and build collaboration
opportunities to achieve successful outcomes.
54
References
Apostolopoulou E., Drakou E.G., Pediaditi K. 2012. Participation in the management of Greek Natura
2000 sites: Evidence from a cross-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 113, 308-
318.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T.
Sandwith, 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice
Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.
Cazalet, B. 2013. Integration of small-scale fishing in MPAs. Basic document–Thematic Session III.
MedPAN & GFCM. 81pp.
Available at http://www.ssfsymposium.org/Documents/FullVersion/BPIII.pdf
Christy, F.T. Jr., 1992. Territorial use rights in marine 1982 fisheries: definitions and conditions. FAO
Fish.Tech.Pap., (227): 10 p.
Chuenpagdee R, Pascual-Fernández JJ, Szeliánszky E, Alegret Luis J, Fraga J, Jentoft S. 2013.
Marine protected areas: re-thinking their inception. Marine Policy 39:234–240.
Colléter, M., D. Gascuel, C. Albouy, P. Francour, L. Tito de Morais, A. Valls, and F. Le Loc'h. 2014.
Fishing inside or outside? A case studies analysis of potential spillover effect from marine protected
areas, using food web models. Journal of Marine Systems. 139:383-395.
Day J., Dudley N., Hockings M., Holmes G., Laffoley D., Stolton S. & S. Wells, 2012. Guidelines for
applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. 36pp.
Di Franco A., Bodilis P., Piante C., Di Carlo G., Thiriet P., Francour P., Guidetti P. 2014. Fishermen
engagement, a key element to the success of artisanal fisheries management in Mediterranean marine
protected areas. MedPAN North Project. WWF France. 135 pages.
Dudley, N., 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, Gland
(Switzerland).
Ehler, C. N., and F. Douvere, 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach toward
Ecosystem-based Management. IOC Manual & Guides No. 53, IOCAM Dossier No. 6.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO: Paris, France. 99 p. http://www.unesco-
ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/d87c0c421da4593fd93bbee1898e1d51.pdf
García, S.M.; Zerbi, A.; Aliaume, C.; et al. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues,
terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 443. FAO. Rome. 71 pp.
Available online from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4773e/y4773e00.pdf
García, S.M.; Allison, E.H.; Andrew, N.J.; Béné, C.; Bianchi, G.; de Graaf, G.J.; Kalikoski, D.;
Mahon. R.; Orensanz, J.M., 2008. Towards integrated assessment and advice in small-scale fisheries:
principles and processes. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 515. Rome, FAO.
2008. 84p.
Gabrié, C.; Lagabrielle, E.; Bissery C. et al. 2012. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in the
Mediterranean Sea. MedPAN & RAC/ SPA. MedPAN. Marseille.
55
GFCM/37/2013/1. Resolution on area based management of fisheries, including through the
establishment of Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs) in the GFCM convention area and coordination
with the UNEP-MAP initiatives on the establishment of SPAMIs.
Graham J, Amos B, Plumtree T. 2003. Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century.
Page 50. Institute on Governance, Parks Canada, and CIDA, Ottawa, ON.
Gutierréz, N., 2014. Management and co-management options for small-scale fisheries in the
Mediterranean and Black Sea. Small Scale Fisheries Symposium, Thematic session II. GFCM, 37pp.
FAO. 1997. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4.
Rome, FAO. 82p.
FAO, 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology, principles, institutional
foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 443. Rome; 2003. 71
p. FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries—fisheries management 2: the ecosystem
approach to fisheries. Rome. ⟨http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/ Y4470E/y4470e00.htm⟩; 2003.
FAO, 2014a. Voluntary Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries [SSF Guidelines].
FI Institutional Websites. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 15
April 2014
Font T., Lloret J., Piante C. 2012. Recreational fishing within Marine Protected Areas in the
Mediterranean. MedPAN North Project. WWF France. 168 pages.
Langholz J. and Wolf Krug, 2004. New Forms of Biodiversity Governance: Non-State Actors and the
Private Protected Area Action Plan. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 7:9-29.
Lausche, B., 2011. Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xxvi + 370
pp.
López-Ornat, A. Atauri J. A., Ruiz C., Múgica M., 2014. Beneficios sociales y ambientales de las
reservas marinas de interés pesquero. Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez. Diciembre 2014.
Proyecto “Beneficios ambientales y sociales de las reservas marinas de interés pesquero”.
Margerum, R., 2008. A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management,
Environmental Management 41: 487–500.
Maynou, F.; Morales-Nin, B.; Cabanellas-Reboredo, M.; et al. 2013. Small-scale fishery in the
Balearic Islands (W Mediterranean): A socio-economic approach. Fisheries research, 139: 11-17.
OHCHR 2007 Report. Activities and results. United Nations Human rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/OHCHR_Report_07_Full.pdf
Oxhorn, P. 2004. "Introduction: Unraveling the Puzzle of Decentralization." In Decentralization, Civil
Society, and Democratic Governance: Comparative Perspectives from Latin America, Africa, and
Asia, ed. P. Oxhorn, J. S. Tulchin and A. D. Selee. Washington, DC: The Johns Hopkins University
Press/Woodrow Wilson Center.
Rondinelli, D., 2000. What is Decentralization?, pp 2-5 in J. Litvack and J. Seddon (ed).
Decentralization briefing notes, World Bank Institute in collaboration with PREM network,
Washington D.C. Rudd, M.A. Tupper, M. H.
56
SCBD, 2004. Akwé: Kon Guidelines. CBD Secretariat, Montreal. [Online report accessed 27 June
2012] www.cbd. int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure-en.pdf
Schliep, R. and Stoll-Kleemann, S. , 2010. ‘Assessing governance of biosphere reserves in Central
Europe’, Land Use Policy 27(3): 917–27.
Seytre C., Francour P. 2008. Is the Cape Roux marine protected area (Saint-Raphaël, Mediterranean
Sea) an efficient tool to sustain artisanal fisheries? First indications from visual censuses and trammel
net sampling. Aquat. Living Resour., 21(3): 297-305.
Seytre C., Vanderklift M., Bodilis P., Cottalorda J.M., Gratiot J., Francour P. 2013. Assessment of
commercial and recreational fishing effects on trophic interactions in the Cap Roux area (north
western Mediterranean). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23: 189-201.
Sissenwine M. P and P M. Mace, 2001. Governance for Responsible Fisheries: an Ecosystem
Approach. Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem 3
Reykjavik, Iceland, 1-4 October 2001. ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/reykjavik/pdf/21sissenwine.PDF
Stanciu, E., Ioniță, Al., 2014. Governance of Protected Areas in Eastern Europe Overview on different
governance types, case studies and lessons learned Results of a research study commissioned by BfN
to ProPark, Romania. 174pp.
Steward, P., 2001. Review of studies of fishing gear selectivity in the Mediterranean. Project FAO-
COPEMED. 75pp. http://www.faocopemed.org/old_copemed/vldocs/0000317/rev_sel.pdf
Tabet, L. and L.M. Fanning, 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian rule: An
evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean & Coastal Management61: 1-9.
Tudela, S., 2004. Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats
of fishing gear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats.Studies and Reviews. General
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No. 74. Rome, FAO. 2004. 44p.
Van Tatenhove, Jan, 2011. Integrated Marine Governance: Questions of legitimacy. MAST 10 (1), pp
87-113.
Wallner A. and U. Wiesmann, 2009. Critical Issues in Managing Protected Areas by Multi-
Stakeholder Participation - Analysis of a Process in the Swiss Alps. eco.mont Journal on Protected
Mountain Areas Research 1/1: 45-50.
Walton A. Gomei M. and Di Carlo G. 2013. Stakeholder engagement. Participatory Approaches for
the Planning and Development of Marine Protected Areas. World Wide Fund for Nature and
NOAA— National Marine Sanctuary Program. 36 pages
Worboys G. L., M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) 2015. Protected Area
Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra.
Wyborn, C. 2013. ‘Collaboration across scales: the governance challenges of linking landscapes’, in J.
Fitzsimons, I. Pulsford and G. Wescott (eds) Linking Australia’s Landscapes: Lessons and
opportunities from large-scale conservation networks, pp. 267–76, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
57
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Areas to be considered for the governance of the marine environment
Internal waters and Territorial Sea Baseline
The term Territorial Sea Baseline (TSB) refers to the line from which the seaward limits of Maritime
Zones are measured. These include the breadth of the territorial sea; the seaward limits of the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and, in some cases, the continental shelf.
The territorial sea baseline may be of various types depending upon the shape of the coastline in any
given locality:
The Normal baseline corresponds with the low water line along the coast, including the coasts of
islands. Under the Convention, normal baseline can be drawn around low tide elevations which are
defined as naturally formed areas of land surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at
high tide, provided they are wholly or partly within 12 nautical miles of the coast.
Straight baselines are a system of straight lines joining specified or discrete points on the low-water
line, usually known as straight baseline end points. These may be used in localities where the
coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or where there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its
immediate vicinity.
Bay or river closing lines are straight lines drawn between the respective low-water marks of the
natural entrance points of bays or rivers.
Waters on the landward side of the baseline are internal waters for the purposes of international law.
Territorial Sea (12 nautical mile limit)
The Territorial Sea is a belt of water not exceeding 12M in width measured from the territorial sea
baseline. In the Mediterranean, this is applicable to all the countries with the exception of of Greece
and Turkey in the Aegean sea that have 6nm of territorial waters.
Sovereignty extends to the territorial sea, its seabed and subsoil, and to the air space above it. This
sovereignty is exercised in accordance with international law as reflected in the UNCLOS. The major
limitation of national sovereignty in the territorial sea is the right of innocent passage for foreign
ships.
Contiguous Zone (24 nautical mile limit)
The Contiguous Zone can be declared by any country. It is a belt of water contiguous to the territorial
sea, the outer limit of which does not exceed 24M from the territorial sea baseline. In this zone, a
country may exercise control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical mile limit)
The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea. The outer
limit of the exclusive economic zone cannot exceed 200M from the baseline from which the breadth
of the territorial sea is measured. In the EEZ, a country has sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing all natural resources of the waters superjacent to
the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil together with other activities such as the production of
energy from water, currents and wind. Jurisdiction also extends to the establishment and use of
58
artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research, the protection and
preservation of the marine environment, and other rights and duties.
Continental Shelf
The Continental Shelf is the area of the seabed and subsoil which extends beyond the territorial sea to
a distance of 200M from the territorial sea baseline and beyond that distance to the outer edge of the
continental margin as defined in Article 76 of the UNCLOS, but not more than 360M. A country has
sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the mineral
and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil, together with sedentary organisms. Also
each country has jurisdiction with regard to marine scientific research as well as other rights and
responsibilities.
Fishing Zone
Countries have the possibility to declare within these previous areas a fishing zone.
59
Annex 2: EC decision on Advisory Councils
Reformed Common Fisheries Policy on Advisory Councils
Article 43 to 45 of the new Basic Regulation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy establishes and
provides for the EU Advisory Councils (ACs). Annex III of the Regulation has the name and area of
competency of each AC and rules for their functioning. The main role is to provide advice to the
Commission and to Member States concerned on matters relating to the management of fisheries and
the socio-economic and conservation aspects of fisheries and aquaculture in their respective area or
field of competence.
Details rules for the functioning of the ACs are contained in the Commission Delegated Act on
Advisory Councils:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2014/EN/3-2014-7012-EN-F1-1.Pdf
and
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) of 9.10.2014 laying down detailed rules on
the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy
SUMMARY
By this Regulation, the Council lays down detailed rules on the functioning of Advisory Councils as
referred to in Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.
Establishment procedure
Sector organizations and other interest groups with an interest in one the Advisory Councils referred
to in Article 43(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall submit to the Commission a joint
application concerning the start of the functioning of the respective Advisory Council.
The joint application shall be compatible with the objectives and principles EN 5 EN of the Common
Fisheries Policy as set out in the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and in particular Article 43(1) and
Annex III and shall include different information.
After verifying that the joint application is compatible with the rules laid down in the Regulation (EU)
No 1380/2013, in particular Annex III and with the rules laid down in this Regulation, the
Commission shall transmit it to the Member States concerned, within two months after its receipt. The
Commission may propose amendments to the joint application to ensure compliance with all
requirements as referred to in this article.
3. The Member States concerned shall determine whether the application is signed by representative
sector organisations and other interest groups and inform the Commission of their agreement within
one month of receipt of the joint application. Based on the remarks of those Member States, the
Commission may request further amendments or clarifications.
4. The Commission shall publish in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union a
communication regarding the start of functioning of each new Advisory Council. It shall not publish
that information until all requirements referred to in paragraph 1 above are satisfied. The Advisory
Council starts functioning on the date indicated in the communication, which may not be earlier than
the date on which the communication is published.
Structure and composition
In addition to the provisions of Article 43(1), Article 45 (1) to (3) and Annex III of Regulations (EU)
No 1380/2013, the Advisory Councils' structure and organisation shall comply with paragraphs 2 to 6
of this Article.
2. The general assembly of an Advisory Council shall:
(a) adopt the rules of procedure of the Advisory Council;
60
(b) meet at least once a year to approve the annual report, the annual strategic plan and the annual
budget of the Advisory Council.
3.The general assembly shall appoint an executive committee of up to 25 members. After consultation
of the Commission, the general assembly may decide to appoint an executive committee of up to 30
members to ensure appropriate representation of small-scale fleets.
4. The general assembly shall ensure equitable membership fees, which enable balanced and wide
representation of all stakeholders taking into account their financial capacity.
5. The executive committee shall: (a) steer and manage the tasks of the Advisory Council in
accordance with Article 44 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (b) prepare the annual
report, the annual strategic plan and the annual budget; (c) adopt recommendations and suggestions as
referred to in Article 44(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. EN 6 EN
6. The general assembly and the executive committee shall ensure a balanced and wide representation
of all stakeholders, with emphasis on small-scale fleets, where appropriate. The number of
representatives of small-scale fleets should reflect the share of small scale fleets within the fishing
sector of the Member States concerned.
Financing
1. Each Advisory Council shall offer additional compensation to fishermen representing small-scale
fleet organizations for their efficient participation to its work on top of the reimbursement of their
travel and accommodation expenses. Such compensation shall be duly justified for each case.
2. When inviting observers from third countries as referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2 of Annex III
of Regulation No 1380/2013, Advisory Councils may contribute to the travel and accommodation
expenses of those observers under the same conditions that they apply for their members.
61
Annex 3: Matrix of marine activities that may be appropriate for each IUCN management category
Matrix of human activities in different categories of Protected Areas and explanatory note on fishing
activities inside MPAs
Activities Ia Ib II III IV V VI
Research: non-extractive Y* Y Y Y Y Y Y
Non-extractive traditional use Y* Y Y Y Y Y Y
Restoration/enhancement for conservation (e.g. invasive species control, coral
reintroduction) Y* * Y Y Y Y Y
Traditional fishing/collection in accordance with cultural tradition and use N Y* Y Y Y Y Y
Non-extractive recreation (e.g. diving) N * Y Y Y Y Y
Large scale low intensity tourism N N Y Y Y Y Y
Shipping (except as may be unavoidable under international maritime law) N N Y* Y* Y Y Y
Problem wildlife management (e.g. shark control programmes) N N Y* Y* Y* Y Y
Research: extractive N* N* N* N* Y Y Y
Renewable energy generation N N N N Y Y Y
Restoration/enhancement for other reasons (e.g. beach replenishment, fish
aggregation, artificial reefs) N N N* N* Y Y Y
Fishing/collection: recreational N N N N * Y Y
Fishing/collection: long term and sustainable local fishing practices N N N N * Y Y
Aquaculture N N N N * Y Y
Works (e.g. harbours, ports, dredging) N N N N * Y Y
Untreated waste discharge N N N N N Y Y
Mining (seafloor as well as sub-seafloor) N N N N N Y* Y*
Habitation N N* N* N* N* Y N*
Key:
No N Generally no, unless special circumstances apply N* Yes Y
Yes because no alternative exists, but special approval is essential Y*
* Variable; depends on whether this activity can be managed in such a way that it is compatible with the MPA’s objectives *
Commercial and recreational fishing and collection of living resources
Recreational and commercial fishing practices may be unsustainable and incompatible with the objectives of an
MPA. Fisheries that are adequately managed to provide long-term exploitation do not necessarily comply with
ecological standards for nature conservation, in that, for example, they may have indirect trophic impacts. For a
fishery management area to meet the definition of an MPA, it would need to demonstrate that it contributes to
the maintenance of ecologically appropriate metrics, such as population structures (for example, it would be
necessary to show that the population is not distorted by harvesting a certain size class or large proportions of old
or young fish). Many research studies have shown the significance of no-take reserves both for biodiversity
conservation and fisheries management (McCook et al., 2010).
Since commercial and recreational fishing always has some level of ecological impact, these activities are
considered inconsistent with the objectives of MPAs in categories Ia, Ib and II, and frequently III. However, use
of MPAs in categories Ib and II by indigenous people for traditional spiritual and cultural values and for
sustainable resource use, if carried out in accordance with cultural traditions may be acceptable if subject to a
formal agreement guiding these activities.
62
Recreational fishing is usually considered inappropriate in categories Ia and Ib and II MPAs. Many recreational
fishers use “catch and release” which is considered by some to be non- extractive. However there are ecological
impacts from catch and release (e.g. post-catch mortality) and so this is also not considered to be an appropriate
activity in category I to III MPAs. In general, recreational fishing in MPAs should be regarded in the same way
as recreational hunting in terrestrial protected areas.
Category II protected areas are however established to ‘protect natural biodiversity... and supporting
environmental processes’ and so some people maintain that all types of recreational activities including
recreational fishing should be allowed. In terrestrial parks, taking freshwater fish from rivers and streams on a
subsistence and low-level sporting basis in category II parks may be allowed provided this is not done
throughout the entire protected area (the 75% rule is applied), as it has less overall impact. In MPAs, as
explained above, extractive forms of recreation (e.g. fishing, souvenir collection etc.) can have damaging
consequences. Closure to recreational and commercial fishing should therefore be seen as critical to category II
MPAs in the same way as closure to hunting of mammals and birds and harvesting of vegetation is for terrestrial
category II protected areas, since fish, invertebrates, and algae are all inter-related components of the marine
ecosystem
Category III MPAs should also be closed to commercial and recreational fishing. Whether or not sustainable
fishing is allowed in a Category IV MPA or zone will depend on its objectives. In some circumstances,
fishing/collecting may be permissible where the resource use does not compromise the ecological/species
management objectives of the site.
MPAs or zones that allow sustainable commercial or recreational fishing/collecting should be categorised as V
or VI (note: as stated throughout this document MPAs must first meet the definition of a protected area and thus
be primarily managed for nature conservation). Thus, in MPAs where it may be necessary to allow extractive
activities, consideration should be given to whether the objectives of the MPA (or zone) mean that Category V or
VI is more applicable than categories I-IV. Table 6 summarises the general guidance on the relationship between
fishing/collection of living resources and the categories.
Table Compatibility of fishing/collecting activities in different management categories – a preliminary
assessment.
IUCN
category
Long term and
sustainable local
fishing/ collecting
practices
Recreational
fishing/
collecting
Traditional
fishing/
collecting
Collection for research
Ia No No No No
Ib No No Yes Yes
II No No Yes Yes
III No No Yes Yes
IV Variable# Variable# Yes Yes
V Yes Yes Yes Yes
VI Yes Yes Yes Yes
Key:
* any extractive use of Category Ia MPAs should be prohibited with possible exceptions for scientific research which
cannotbe done anywhere else.
** in Categories Ib, II and III MPAs traditional fishing/collecting should be limited to an agreed sustainable quota for
traditional, ceremonial or subsistence purposes, but not for purposes of commercial sale or trade.
#
whether fishing or collecting is or is not permitted will depend on the specific objectives of the MPA.
top related