Well-managed MPAs – using the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas for guidance

Sue Wells

Chair, IUCN WCPA Marine Management Effectiveness and Green List Task Force

Contact: suewells1212@gmail.com

18 January 2019      Sue at suewells1212@gmail.com

As part of our obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UK has committed to putting an effectively managed and equitably governed ecologically representative network of protected areas in place, covering 10% of our seas, by 2020.  For MPAs, progress has been made towards the area target but are we anywhere near having effective management and equitable governance of our MPAs?  And what does this mean in practice?

The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA) now provides the “gold” standard for good management and is worth looking at as we discuss management of the UK’s MPAs.  To qualify for the GLPCA, a protected area (whether terrestrial or marine), must meet the GLPCA Global Sustainability Standard which has four components: equitable governance; sound planning; effective management; and successful outcomes. There are 17 criteria under these components, with 50 generic indicators that can be adapted to the national or regional context.  Adaptation of the indicators allows protected areas set up under very different conditions to participate. The GLPCA is managed by IUCN and over 30 countries are now signed up to take part.

The GLPCA framework is of necessity complex, as sites have to be assessed against the indicators for each component in order to determine whether they meet the Standard overall.  A GLPCA assessment requires compilation of extensive documentation on all aspects of a protected area, which is then reviewed by a team of independent auditors (much like the processes involved in FSC and MSC certification, both of which were models for the GLPCA initiative).  The following is brief summary of the framework – more details can be found on the GLPCA website.

  1. Equitable governance: this concerns the processes involved in decision-making and implementation e.g. who decides on the management objectives; how these are pursued and with what means; who holds power, authority and responsibility;, and who should be held accountable. There are three criteria:
  • Guaranteed legitimacy and voice: the protected area has clearly defined, legitimate, equitable, and functional governance arrangements, in which the interests of civil society and stakeholders are fairly represented.
  • Transparency and accountability: Governance arrangements and decision-making processes are transparent and appropriately communicated, and responsibilities for implementation are clear with a dispute resolution process in place.
  • Capacity to respond adaptively: planning and management draws on best available evidence and uses an adaptive management framework.
  1. Sounding planning and design: the four criteria are:
  • The major values of the protected area for nature conservation, associated ecosystem services and culture are identified and understood.
  • The site is designed to support the long-term maintenance of these values.
  • Threats and challenges are understood in sufficient detail to enable effective planning and management.
  • The social and economic context of the site, both positive and negative, is understood and reflected in management goals and objectives.
  1. Effective management – in contrast to governance, this refers to the activities being carried out. The seven criteria are:
  • The protected area has a long-term strategy with well-defined goals and objectives, and an up-to-date management plan or its functional equivalent,
  • Management can clearly demonstrate that ecological attributes and processes are being managed to maintain the area’s major natural and cultural values and associated ecosystem services.
  • Management can clearly demonstrate that stakeholders are engaged effectively and their interests are fairly and fully considered; and that the social and economic benefits of the area are being maintained.
  • Threats are actively and effectively responded to.
  • Laws, regulations and restrictions are fairly and effectively applied.
  • Permitted activities within the area are compatible with and support the achievement of the site’s conservation goals and objectives, meet the needs of users, and are properly regulated.
  • Monitoring and evaluation programmes provide an objective basis for measuring success.
  1. Conservation Outcomes in terms of both social equity and conservation of natural values – i.e. whether the ecological and social objectives of the site are being met:
  • The site is meeting or exceeding the performance thresholds for nature conservation, consistent with its IUCN protected area management category.
  • The site is maintaining and providing the major ecosystem service values.
  • The area is maintaining and providing for the persistence of major cultural values.

Four MPAs took part in the GLPCA pilot phase and made it on to the list in 2015, and a further two were added this year: Ras Mohammed Marine Park in Egypt and Parque Nacional Zona Marina del Archipiélago de Espíritu Santo, Baja California, Mexico.  Others are registering as potential candidates, including the entire California MPA network.

In the UK, many people and organisations are working hard to improve MPA management.  Some sites have formal management plans, Natural England’s designated sites platform provides management-related information, the IFCAs are introducing the “revised approach” for fisheries management across the network, and the MMO is addressing other licenced, as well as unlicenced activities.  The Government’s promise to introduce a “whole site approach” should provide further opportunities for improving management.

But if we look at the GLPCA requirements, it is clear that there is still a long way to go.  One way to accelerate progress is to introduce performance assessments that will help to identify where management is working, where there are gaps, and that help to get protected area practitioners thinking along GLPCA lines even if a site is a long way from being able to register as a candidate.  Assessments of protected area management effectiveness are becoming standard practice in many countries, as shown by UNEP-WCMC’s database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) and a wide range of methods are being used.  International best practice guidance, reflected in the process used for GLPCA listing, requires that assessments are participatory, involving all stakeholders, and that they are evidence-based.

The various recent reviews of MPA management in the UK –  at network level (e.g.  2018 Defra report), of individual sites (e.g. Lyme Bay), or by individual authors (e.g. Solandt, 2018) – have tended to focus on particular issues.  The WWF UK Seas project is testing the broader approach, using what is known as the Compass Card method which looks at the internationally agreed fundamental principles of good management.  A Life project is assessing how the GLPCA could be used for Natura 2000 sites, and is due to report in 2019. We need to build rapidly on steps like this, learning from work underway in other regions, if we are to ensure that our MPAs are effectively managed and equitably governed.

The IUCN WCPA Marine Management Effectiveness and Green List Task Force was set up to support IUCN’s work on the Green List and effective protected area management.  It is a voluntary group of MPA experts who are willing to help ensure that the concerns, perspectives and interests of the MPA community are reflected in global discussions and developments.  In addition to providing a forum for networking and information exchange, the Task Force will be promoting work on effective MPA management in the context of the 2020 review of Aichi Target 11, and discussions around post2020 target-setting.  For further information, contact Sue at suewells1212@gmail.com

No Comment

Comments are closed.