Building Small-Scale Fisheries into Marine Park Zoning Plans: A Case Study of KO Chang Marine National Park, Thailand
Kristin Evans Lunn B.Sc., McGill University, 1998
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Department of Geography
O
Kristin Evans Lunn, 2003 University of VictoriaAll rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
Supervisor: Dr. Philip Dearden
ABSTRACT
Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been established around the world to meet a variety of environmental and socioeconomic needs. Conserving marine ecosystem components and processes, while still ensuring that local residents can meet their own livelihood needs, has been a challenge for many protected area managers. Multiple-use zoning has been used in several MPAs to balance the needs of different user groups, such as fishers and tour operators, and meet conservation goals within the same area.
Developing such zoning plans requires that, among other aspects, the usage patterns, expectations, attitudes, and knowledge of local people be considered. Combining semi- structured interviews and participant observation, this study investigated the reliance of local residents on nearshore fisheries within the boundaries of KO Chang Marine National Park (MNP), a designated no-take area located off the eastern coast of Thailand.
Approximately 25% of the households in KO Chang MNP were found to depend on fishing as their main source of year-round income, with small-scale fishers being involved primarily in the shrimp trammel net, squid trap, crab trap, fish gill net, hook- and-line, and reef fish trap fisheries. Fully unaware of restrictions limiting their access to fishing grounds, small-scale fishers made approximately 35,000 fishing trips during 2002-2003, based on extrapolations fi-om individual fishers' responses during interviews. Small-scale fishers living within the park landed an estimated 324,000 kg/year of target fish and invertebrate species and a minimum of 52,000 kg/year of bycatch. Determining local communities' dependence on coastal fisheries, and identifying areas of low fishing pressure within the MNP, are needed to develop a zoning plan for the park that considers
the current needs of local communities. Overlaying these fisheries data with
oceanographic and ecological information will, over the long-term, allow managers to establish practical and functional no-take zones within the MNP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
...
I1 TABLE OF CONTENTS...
IV
LIST OF TABLES...
VII LIST OF FIGURES...
IX
ACRONYMS...
XI1ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
...
XI111
.
INTRODUCTION...
11 .I Marine Ecosystems: Their Value and Status
...
11.2 Marine Resource Management
...
31.3 Marine Protected Areas
...
51.4 Research Goal and Objectives
...
81.5 Thesis Outline
...
9...
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW 10...
2.1 Philosophy of Protected Area Management 10 2.1.1 Incompatibility of People and Marine Protected Areas...
1 1...
2.1.2 Management of Human Uses in Marine Protected Areas 14...
2.2 History of Protected Area Management 16 2.3 Current Planning and Management of Protected Areas...
19...
2.3.1 Regulations in Marine Protected Areas 19 2.3.2 Multiple-Use Zoning Plans...
202.3.2.1 Developing Zoning Plans
...
222.3.2.2 Process of Implementing Zoning Plans
...
24...
2.3.3 Management and Zoning of Marine Protected Areas in Thailand 27 3.
METHODS...
3 3...
3.1 Description of Study Site 3 3 3.1.1 Biophysical Environment...
33...
3.1.2 Socioeconomic Environment 3 6...
3.1.3 Protected Area Management 37...
3.1.4 Tourism Development 3 8...
3.2 Data Collection 4 0...
3.2.1 Interviews in KO Chang Fishing Communities 40...
3.2.2 Direct Observations of Fishing Effort and Catches 44...
3.2.3 Mapping the Locations of Fishing Grounds 45...
3.3 Data Analysis 4 6...
3.3.1 Analysis of Interview Data 46 3.3.2 Analysis of Observed Catch and Effort Data...
47...
3.3 -3 Spatial Data Visualization and Analysis 4 9...
4.
RESULTS 51...
4.1 Sample Groups. 5 1...
4.1.1 Interviews in Fishing Communities 5 1 4.1.2 Observations of Fishing Effort and Catches...
514.1.3 Mapping Fishing Grounds
...
524.2 Characterization of Fishing Villages in KO Chang MNP
...
524.3 Description of Small-Scale Fisheries in KO Chang M N P
...
544.3.1 Characterization of Small-Scale Fishers
...
544.3.2 Shrimp Trammel Net Fishery
...
5 6 4.3.2.1 Equipment...
5 6 4.3.2.2 Fishing Effort...
5 8...
4.3.2.3 Seasonal Variability 5 9 4.3.2.4 Target Species...
59 4.3.2.5 Target Catches...
6 0 4.3.2.6 Non-Target Catches...
6 1 4.3.2.7 Fishers'IncomeandCosts...
65...
4.3.3 Squid Trap Fishery 68 4.3.3.1 Equipment...
6 8 4.3.3.2 Fishing Effort...
7 1 4.3.3.3 Seasonal Variability...
7 1 4.3.3.4 Target Species...
7 2 4.3.3.5 Target Catches... 7 2
4.3.3.6 Non-Target Catches... 7 3
4.3.3.7 Fishers' Income and Costs...
7 4 4.3.4 Crab Trap Fishery...
764.3.4.1 Equipment
...
7 6 4.3 A.2 Fishing Effort...
7 7...
4.3.4.3 Seasonal Variability 7 8 4.3.4.4 Target Species...
794.3.4.5 Target Catches
...
8 0 4.3.4.6 Non-Target Catches...
824.3.4.7 Fishers' Income and Costs
... 82
4.3.5 Coastal Finfish Gill Net Fishery
...
864.3.5.1 Equipment
...
8 6 4.3.5.2 Fishing Effort...
87...
4.3.5.3 Seasonal Variability 87 4.3.5.4 Target Species...
8 8 4.3.5.5 Target Catches...
8 8 4.3.5.6 Non-Target Catches...
9 0...
4.3.5.7 Fishers' Income and Costs 91
4.3.6 Hook-and-Line Fishery
...
9 2...
4.3.6.1 Equipment 9 2...
4.3.6.2 Fishing Effort 9 3...
4.3.6.3 Seasonal Variability 9 3...
4.3.6.4 Target Species 9 4...
4.3.6.5 Target Catches 9 4...
4.3.6.6 Non-Target Catches 9 5...
4.3.6.7 Fishers' Income and Costs 96
...
4.3.7 Reef Fish Trap Fishery 97
...
4.3.7.2 Fishing Effort 9 8...
4.3.7.3 Seasonal Variability 9 9 4.3.7.4 Target Species...
9 9...
4.3.7.5 Target Catches 100...
4.3.7.6 Non-Target Catches 1 0 04.3.7.7 Fishers' Income and Costs
...
101...
4.3.8 Additional Fisheries 102
4.3.9 Inter-Fishery and Inter-Sectoral Relationships
...
104...
4.4 Mapping Fishing Grounds Within KO Chang ,MNP 105
...
4.5 Key Findings 122
.
5 DISCUSSION
...
1285 .I Locations of Residents' Fishing Grounds Inside KO Chang M N P ... 129
...
5.2 Catch and Efort of Resident Small-Scale Fishers 132 5.3 Importance of Small-Scale Fisheries to Park Residents...
135...
5.4 Reconciling Analytical and Interpretive Issues 1385.4.1 Discrepancies Between Reported and Observed Data Sets
...
1395.4.2 Sample Size and Representation of Population
...
1445.4.3 Utility and Meaning of Selected Measurements
...
145...
5.5 Implications for Management 147
5.5.1 Sustainability of Small-Scale Fisheries Around KO Chang
...
1475.5.2 Ineffectiveness of Management at KO Chang MNP
...
1505.5.3 Opportunities for Improved Fisheries Management at KO Chang
...
153...
5.5.4 Additional Pressures on Vulnerable Ecosystem 156
...
.
6 CONCLUSIONS 158...
6.1 Main Findings 158...
6.2 Future Research 160...
6.2.1 Usage Patterns of Resource Users 1 6 1
...
6.2.2 Distribution of Marine Resources and Habitats 162
...
6.2.3 Connectedness Amongst Habitats 163
...
6.3 Management Recommendations 164
...
vii Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 ~e prin
LIST OF TABLES
ciples of integrated marine and coastal are :a management
...
5 The World Conservation Union's six-part classification system for protected areas...
20 Description of activities permitted and controlled under differentzones mandated under the National Coral Reef Strategy
...
32 The number of single-day fishing trips observed during the rainy and dry seasons of 2002-2003...
52 Summary of information provided by village headmen and residents...
about the livelihood activities of community members 53
Summary of catch data for five single-day shrimp fishing trips in KO Chang MNP between May and July 2002 (recorded under the
heading of wet season) and a further six trips between February and March 2003 (under dry season)
...
62 Summary of variables used to calculate total net income to thecommunity as a result of fishers' earnings in the small-scale shrimp fishery
...
68 Summary of catch data for eight single-day squid fishing trips inside KO Chang MNP during February and March 2003...
73 Summary of variables used to calculate total net income to thecommunity as a result of fishers' earnings in the small-scale shrimp fishery
...
75 Summary of catch data for eight single-day crab fishing trips inside KO Chang MNP during February and March 2003...
81 Summary of variables used to calculate total net income to thecommunity as a result of the crab trap fishery
...
85 Summary of catch data for four single-day gill net fishing trips inside KO Chang MNP during February and March 2003...
89 Summary of variables used to calculate total net income to thecommunity as a result of fishers' earnings in the coastal gill net
. - .
Vlll
Table 4.11 Descriptions of small-scale fishers' fishing grounds, based on
interviews with resident fishers fkom KO Chang MNP
...
108 Table 4.12 Summary of catch, effort, and socio-economic data collected aboutthe six main small-scale fisheries in KO Chang MNP. These variables include only the data for resident fisheries of the park, as
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Map showing the location of Thailand's twenty-six marine protected
...
areas 29
Figure 3.1 A map showing the location of the KO Chang Marine National Park
in Trat province, with park boundaries being represented as dotted lines
...
34Figure 4.1 Drawing of a typical shrimp trammel net used in the KO Chang area
...
of Thailand 57 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11Drawing of a typical squid trap being used in the KO Chang area of Thailand
...
69 Illustration of KO Chang fishers' method of deploying squid traps...
70 Drawing of a typical collapsible crab trap being used in the KOChang region of Thailand
...
77 Drawing of a typical reef fish trap being used in the KO Chang area of Thailand...
98 Map of KO Chang MNP, showing the locations of key fishing...
grounds as drawn by 27 small-scale fishers fi-om the park 106 Map of KO Chang MNP displaying the GPS data points recorded
during 52 fishing trips with resident fishers
...
107 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishinggrounds for fishers &om Aow Sapparod and Khlong Son villages as drawn by four resident fishers, and (b) displaying the GPS data
points recorded during 8 resident fishers' trips
...
109 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishinggrounds for fishers fi-om Bangbao village as drawn by five resident fishers, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 4
resident fishers' trips
...
110 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishinggrounds for fishers fi-om Chek Bae village as drawn by four resident fishers, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 3
...
resident fishers' trips 1 1 1
Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishing grounds for fishers from Dan Kao and Dan Mai villages as drawn by
three resident fishers, and (b) displaying the GPS data points
...
recorded during 6 resident fishers' trips 1 12
Figure 4.12 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishing
grounds for fishers fiom Salak Khok village as drawn by four resident fishers, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded
during 1 1 resident fishers' trips
...
1 13Figure 4.13 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishing
grounds for fishers from Salak Phet village as drawn by five resident fishers, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 18
...
resident fishers' trips 114
Figure 4.14 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of fishing
grounds for fishers fiom Than Mayom village as drawn by one resident fisher, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded
during two resident fishers' trips
...
1 15Figure 4.15 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of key
shrimp netting grounds as drawn by 21 shrimp fishers fiom the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 12 fishing
...
trips with resident shrimp trammel net fishers .I16
Figure 4.16 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of squid
trapping grounds as drawn by 13 squid fishers fiom the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 12 fishing trips with
...
resident squid trap fishers 1 17
Figure 4.17 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of important
crab trapping grounds as drawn by seven crab fishers fiom the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 17 fishing
trips with resident crab trappers
...
1 18Figure 4.18 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of coastal
finfish gill netting grounds as drawn by six gill net fishers fiom the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 6
fishing trips with resident gill netters
...
119Figure 4.19 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of hook-and-
line fishing grounds as drawn by four hook-and-line fishers fiom the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during 4
fishing trips with resident hook-and-line fishers
...
120Figure 4.20 Map of KO Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of reef fish
(b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during a single fishing
...
trip with a resident fish trapper 121
Figure 4.21 The number of boats participating in each of the six main small-scale fisheries in KO Chang MNP during the wet season of 2002 and the
dry season of 2003
...
125 Figure 4.22 Resident fishers' total annual catch of target species in KO ChangMNP during the year 2002-2003, separated by gear type
...
126 Figure 4.23 The number of taxonomic families that fishers reported duringxii
ACRONYMS
ASEAN B CN$ CPUE DoF DWPC EBM FA0 GIs GPS ICZM IUCN MNP MPA MSY NCRS NGO OEPP PA RFD RTG SD SW USA US$ UTM WCPA WGSAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations Baht
Canadian Dollar Catch-Per-Unit-Effort Department of Fisheries
Department of Wildlife and Plant Conservation Ecosystem-Based Management
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Geographic Information System
Global Positioning System
Integrated Coastal Zone Management World Conservation Union
Marine National Park Marine Protected Area Maximum Sustainable Yield National Coral Reef Strategy Non-Governmental Organization
Office of Environmental Protection and Policy Protected Area
Royal Forest Department Royal Thai Government Standard Deviation Southwest
United States of America American Dollars
Universal Transverse Mercator
World Commission on Protected Areas World Geodetic System
...
Xlll
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would, first and foremost, like to thank the fishers of the KO Chang archipelago for their overwhelming help, kindness, and patience. I am gratefbl for the kind support, thoughtful advice, and rare idealism of my supervisor, Phil Dearden. I can not thank you enough for all of your help. I have very much appreciated my committee's insightful comments and constructive criticisms throughout the process; thank you to Tom
Reimchen and Cliff Robinson for your guidance. I sincerely thank Surachet Chettamart at Kasetsart University for helping to organize the logistics of my project and providing much-needed advice along the way.
The Royal Forest Department of Thailand assisted with this work in countless ways. I am especially grateful to Pongboon Pongthon, Apiwat Setharaksa, Sitthichai Seereesongsaeng, and Nantachai Pongpattananurak for their assistance with logistical issues and their understanding of the importance of such a project. I am very appreciative of the financial support provided by the Canadian International Development Agency's Awards Program for Canadians, the University of Victoria's Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and PADI's Project AWARE.
I certainly could not have carried out this work without the fisheries knowledge and interpretation skills of my excellent research assistants: Weerasak Yingyuad, Kullatida Muangkhum, Anurak Loogon, Ekkawit Wongsrisung, and Anukorn Boutson. Special thanks to Weerasak for working through countless rainstorms without ever complaining, to Kullatida for reminding me to take some time to enjoy the beauty of the island, to Anurak for his ability to put fishers and their families at ease, to Ekkawit for filling in where my artistic abilities fell short, and to Anukorn for being the best motorcycle driver I have yet encountered. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre, and especially Bundit Chokesanguan, Yuttana Theparoonrat, and Somboon Siriraksophon.
With only a vague understanding of GIs at the start of this project, I relied tremendously on the help of my fiiends Jason Miller and Ian O'Connell. Your advice, assistance, fiiendship, and support at every stage of the work were immeasurably helpful. Thank you for trusting that even a biologist was capable of making useful maps. If I could thank you in 64-sized boldface font, I would.
I received a great deal of helpful advice along the way, particularly fkom Tim McClanahan, Melita Samoilys, Sylvie Guknette, and Iain Watson. I would also very much like to thank Amanda Vincent, for originally sparking my interest in the study of marine protected areas and for giving me suggestions in the early stages of the project. Thanks to Ole Heggen for lending his technical skills and putting together many of the graphics used in this thesis.
Finally, I would like to thank my fiiends Ali and Nina Fancy, Michele-Lee
Moore, Aunnporn Noorod and her family, Michelle Bennett, John Fowler, Marie-Annick Moreau, Julia Baum, Allison Perry, and Jon Corbett for helping with everyhng fiom hosting me in Bangkok to reading early drafts of my thesis. Last, yet certainly not least, I would like to thank my family - Jim, Jackie, and Kelsey Lunn - for their love, support, open-mindedness, and encouragement at every step of the way. I thank you for opening my eyes to the world. I feel so lucky to have fiiends and family like you.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Marine Ecosystems: Their Value and Status
Sea of stretch 'd ground-swells! Sea breathing broad and convulsive breaths!
Sea of the brine of Life!
...
I am integral with you - I too am of one phase,
and of all phases.
-
Walt WhitmanAs the lifeblood of humanity, the seas have served as a source of inspiration to writers and poets around the world. Covering 71 % of the world's surface area, and making up 99% of its available living space, the oceans have boundless social, economic, and ecological importance (Costanza 1999). Quite apart fiom their intrinsic worth, marine ecosystems are valued for the goods and services they provide to human
communities (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily et al. 2000). The oceans have been estimated to provide nearly 13 trillion US$ of ecosystem services, such as food production,
disturbance regulation, and nutrient cycling, each year, thus serving as direct and indirect contributors to human welfare (Costanza et al. 1997). While protecting these valuable marine ecosystems will no doubt serve human interests as well, communities and species should, according to Ehrenfeld (1 972: 4), "be preserved, not just for the sensible
humanistic reasons of maintaining ecological integrity and for [people's] enjoyment, but also because of the vague but growing feeling that the wholly anthropocentric perspective is not always wisest and best".
Despite their intrinsic and monetary value, the world's oceans and their
inhabitants have come under increasing threat. Researchers have identified over-fishing, ocean disposal and spills, the destruction of coastal habitats, land-based contamination,
2
and climate change as the five major problems facing the oceans (Costanza et al. 1998). With the total annual catch of marine fishes and invertebrates now placed at 86 million tomes, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 47% of major marine fisheries stocks are hlly exploited, 18% are over-exploited, and 10% are depleted or recovering (FA0 2002). Among marine ecosystems, coastal zones are considered most at risk (Lindeboom 2002). Roughly 60% of the world's 6.1 billion people live in the coastal zone, placing heavy pressure on nearshore resources and habitats (Lindeboom 2002). Coastal zones supply 90% of the global fish catch, with nearshore fisheries being supported by high levels of primary productivity in coastal areas (Lindeboom 2002).
Southeast Asian seas house the greatest diversity of coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses, together supporting the centre of global marine biodiversity (Norse 1993; Talaue-McManus 2000). Despite its ecological importance, the region has been subjected to many of the same threats as other coastal zones worldwide, namely rapid population growth, deteriorating water quality, over-fishing, destructive fishing practices, and habitat degradation (Pauly and Chua 1988; McManus 1997; Nickerson-Tietze 2000; Talaue-McManus 2000; UP-MSI et al. 2002). Southeast Asia's most productive and highly valued habitats - coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses - are amongst the most threatened; Bryant et al. (1998) found, for example, that 80% of Southeast Asia's coral reefs were at medium or high risk fiom such threats. Highly commercial fish and invertebrate stocks have also shown marked declines in size
and
number throughout the developing world (Russ 1991). Declines in marine fisheries are particularly worrisome for developing countries, where people are most reliant on marine resources for their foodand cash income (McManus 1997; Gilman 2002). The threatened state of marine ecosystems, coupled with the dependence of human communities on marine resources, has drawn attention to the need for improved management of marine systems.
1.2
Marine Resource Management
Resource management approaches have shifted, in recent years, from species- specific towards more ecosystem-based management options. Global collapses of fisheries stocks have highlighted the failure of species-based management systems, and prompted further interest in the development of ecosystem-based alternatives (Larkin
1996; Botsford et al. 1997; FA0 2002; Stergiou 2002). Ecosystem-based management (EBM) considers the interactions among species and the dynamic physical and chemical environments in which they live, serving essentially as "shorthand for more holistic approaches to resource management" (Larkin 1996: 139). In broader terms, ecosystem- based management includes the social, economic, and political context in which
resources are to be managed (Larkin 1996; Grumbine 1 997; Lackey 1 998).
Prior to the inclusion of EBM principles in fisheries management, Western fisheries managers relied almost exclusively on mathematical models to manage single- species stocks. Such models, still widely used in the developed and developing world, are used to predict the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) of individual stocks, a theoretical value that managers had hoped would allow them to optimize fisheries yields (Pitcher and Hart 1982). These models are, however, often based on insufficient fisheries data and fail to adequately differentiate among environmental stochasticity, population dynamics, and actual trends in fisheries (Guknette et al. 1998). Repeated fisheries
collapses have led many scientists to question the overall usefulness of these models, particularly when coupled with the political nature and competing interests involved in fisheries decision-making (Guhette et al. 1998). Modern fisheries models are even more difficult to apply (and consequently less useful) in tropical, developing countries, where fishers generally exploit multiple species using multiple gear types in a variety of locations (Saila 1988; Bohnsack 1998).
Serial failures of conventional fisheries management tools have, over the past three decades, led managers and researchers to investigate holistic approaches to resource management. Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) - an inter-disciplinary, cross- jurisdictional, and multi-faceted approach
-
is now a well-established fkamework formanaging the use of marine resources and the development of coastlines for economic activities. ICZM is defined by Sorensen (1 997: 9) as "the integrated planning and management of coastal resources and environments in a manner that is based on the physical, socioeconomic, and political interconnections both within and among the dynamic coastal systems, which when aggregated together, define a coastal zone". Stemming from the Second Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, researchers and managers have identified seven principles of integrated marine and coastal area management (Table 1 .I). Marine protected areas (MPAs) embody the holistic nature of the ICZM concept, highlighting the inherent links between land and sea and requiring multi-stakeholder co-operation.
Table 1.1 The principles of integrated marine and coastal area management (taken f i o k IUau; et al. 2003).
-
Principle Integrate methods and approaches
Integrate across scales
I
-I
species within theecosystem in needof protection andI
Activity
Integrate a top-down and bottom-up approach; integrate science, social, political, and economical factors; integrate sectors and disciplines.
Ecosystems approach; considers the importance of the region Strategic focus
to the individual species and vice versa.
Provide an action plan for identifying the critical habitats1
Participation
prioritizing threats.
Broad stakeholder participation, fiom local resource users to government with ongoing consultations throughout the Long-term perspective
I
recognition that threats and user needs may change withtime.
I
process.
Review and evaluate long-term project strategy; recognition Adaptive1 Flexible
that all problems cannot be tackled at the same time. Sensitive to resource user needs and historical rights;
1.3
Marine Protected Areas
Marine protected areas are defined by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as "any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment" (Kelleher 1999: xi). Marine protected areas have been established all over the world to meet a variety of coastal management objectives, including the generation of tourism opportunities, the holistic management of marine resources, the conservation of ecological processes, the protection of biological diversity, and the promotion of public awareness about the threats facing marine ecosystems (Bohnsack 1998). While the failures of species-based management approaches have prompted fisheries managers' interest in MPAs, fisheries
Capacity building and training
.---- -
Build capacity at local, national, and regional levels through training to ensure long-term viability.
have more often benefited incidentally from MPA designation than been the primary objective of such parks (Agardy 2000b).
More than 4000 marine and coastal protected areas have now been established worldwide (Chape et al. 2003). The most recent global assessment of MPAs showed, however, that only 10% of the world's MPAs had met their management objectives (Kelleher et al. 1995). In a similar study, Alder (1 996) found that local managers, non- governmental workers, and researchers perceived the success of the marine parks in which they worked to be low, with only 35% of questionnaire respondents indicating that their park was "successful" in reaching management goals. Together, the nine member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have more than 3 10
marine protected areas of various sizes, structures, and governance strategies (UP-MSI et al. 2002). Yet, 90% of the marine parks in the East Asian Seas region have, as in other areas, reportedly failed to meet their management goals (Kelleher et al. 1995). Marine protected areas in Thailand have been no exception. Thailand's MPAs have, despite being among the largest average size in the ASEAN region, frequently failed to meet their objectives (UP-MSI et al. 2002).
The failures of MPAs to meet their management objectives have often been attributed to the inadequate consultation and involvement of local communities (Laffoley 1995; Wells and White 1995). Fully protecting large areas of the intertidal and subtidal zones without the consideration of local people has no doubt been a source of conflict between user groups and managers. The compatibility of humans and parks has been a contentious issue throughout the history of protected areas, particularly in terrestrial systems (see Wood 1995; Vandergeest 1996). Within the protected areas literature, there
7
has been a gradual shift away from the fully protectionist, or "man-out", approach to conservation towards more integrated, "man-in" management measures, mirroring the global trend towards holistic resource management initiatives. Taking the needs of user groups and local communities into account is now considered vital for ensuring the success of MPAs, especially those that are large in size, because planning decisions are acknowledged to have direct consequences for local people's livelihoods and therefore their commitment to abide by restrictions (Laffoley 1995; White et al. 2002).
Around the world, human communities depend heavily on marine areas for their subsistence and economic needs. Nearly 23 million people worldwide make their living &om marine capture fisheries, and this number is growing by roughly 2.2% annually (FA0 2002). In developing countries, where the majority of the world's population is concentrated, this dependence is even more critical (Pauly and Chua 1988; McManus
1996). In fact, Asia accounts for 85% of the world's fisheries and aquaculture labour
force (FA0 2002). Marine fisheries provide, furthermore, an important source of animal protein to many people in less-developed countries (King 1991 ; Nickerson-Tietze 2000). The needs and usage patterns of fishing communities must, therefore, be considered if marine protected areas are to be successful management tools.
Respecting the needs of human communities, while still attempting to meet conservation objectives, has been a common challenge for many protected area managers (Dixon et al. 1993). Since the simple establishment of marine protected areas has clearly not guaranteed their success, many protected area planners have turned towards multiple- use zoning as a way of balancing environmental and socioeconomic goals in the same area and resolving conflicts among competing user groups. Zoning plans are used to
delineate zones where particular human activities are and are not allowed within a given marine protected area, resulting in a spatial separation of different resource uses that buffers fully "no-take" andlor "no-access" areas (Kelleher 1999). Developing successful zoning schemes requires that, among other aspects, the usage patterns, expectations, attitudes, and knowledge of local people be considered (Laffoley 1995).
1.4
Research Goal and Objectives
Like many other nations worldwide, Thailand has failed to develop an effective system of marine protected areas. With the exception of a few reportedly well-managed parks, most of Thailand's national park managers have failed to monitor and manage human uses within the protected areas, all of which are officially designated as "no-take" (UP-MSI et al. 2002). Using the example of KO Chang Marine National Park (MNP), a
large MPA located off the eastern coast of Thailand, this thesis evaluates resident fishers' reliance on fishing grounds inside the park. These data are essential for understanding the difficulties in governing human uses inside the park's boundaries. Armed with the knowledge that fishers were indeed working at fishing grounds inside the park, I set out to:
(a) Determine residents' dependence on fishing as a primary source of income; (b) Calculate total catch and effort of local residents; and
(c) Map the locations of fishers' key fishing grounds within the park.
Such information is vital for developing marine park management and zoning plans that balance local people's social, cultural, and economic needs to fish with additional ecological criteria.
1.5
Thesis Outline
The motivations for and outcomes of this research are presented in the following six chapters. In Chapter Two, I outline the two dominant schools of thought regarding the role of humans in protected areas, review the history of MPAs as marine resource management tools, discuss the prospect of using multiple-use zoning strategies to manage human activities within MPAs, and describe the process of planning and managing MPAs. In Chapter Three, I describe the location chosen for the study and present the data collection and analysis methods I used to carry out the research, namely interview techniques and questions, a community mapping exercise, spatial tracking and
visualization technologies, content analysis, and descriptive statistics. In Chapter Four, I present the results of this work, first characterizing the fishers and fishing communities in the area, then describing the dominant fishing activities in the region, and finally
presenting the spatial patterns of fishers' use of the protected area. In Chapter Five, I discuss the main findings of this research and its conservation and management
implications, with particular emphasis on the utility of this work for the development of a multiple-use zoning plan for the park. In Chapter Six, I highlight future research needs and make specific recommendations for managers.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Philosophy of Protected Area Management
Natural environments, both land and sea, have been put under serious strain fiom human uses. Deemed to be among the few effective tools for protecting natural areas, parks have been called "the final bulwark of nature in the Tropics and elsewhere" (Terborgh 1999). Whether or not to consider people part of nature, and thus allow their continued use of protected areas, has been a hotly debated topic during the last century (see Stankey 1989; Wood 1995; Wilshusen et al. 2002). Centered largely on terrestrial parks, two opposing arguments have emerged in this ongoing debate:
(1) Humans' lifestyles and use patterns are generally incompatible with
environmental conservation and thus people should be excluded fiom areas labeled as "protected" (see Redford 1990; Robinson 1993; Redford and Richter 1999; Terborgh 1999; Redford and Sanderson 2000; Terborgh and Peres 2002); (2) Carefully managed uses should be allowed within certain protected area
boundaries because not all people impact their environment in an equally negative way andlor excluding human use is simply not practical where people rely on natural areas and resources for subsistence and economic purposes (see Kenchington and Agardy 1990; McNeely 1990; Alcorn 1 993; Wood 1 995; Dearden et al. 1996; Colchester 2000; Schwartzman et al. 2000).
Each of these arguments, and the continuum of ideas that lie between them, will be discussed, in the context of marine systems, below.
2.1.1
Incompatibility of People and Marine Protected Areas
Humans depend on the marine environment for many different purposes, fi-om fishing for food to enjoying the aesthetic value of pristine marine ecosystems. Human activities can, to differing degrees, damage vulnerable marine habitats and lead to declines in resident species. Even the most seemingly benign forms of human use, such as recreational scuba diving and underwater photography, have caused serious damage to coral reefs around the world (see Hawkins and Roberts 1993; Rouphael and Inglis 1997; Rouphael and Inglis 2001). The effects of fisheries have been especially pervasive, leading to the decline and, in some cases, near extinction of fish and invertebrate species (see Roberts and Hawkins 1999).
The idea that humans were capable of exhausting marine fish stocks has only recently been realized. British zoologist Thomas Huxley stated in 1883 that "any tendency to over-fishing will meet with its natural check in the diminution of the
supply.. .this check will always come into operation long before anything like permanent
exhaustion has occurred," a point vehemently disproven during the past century of
accumulating population losses and drastic species declines (Roberts and Hawkins 1999). While large-scale commercial fishing operations have traditionally been blamed for the destruction of marine substrates and the loss of marketable species (Safina 1 998), increasing evidence has been collected to suggest that even small-scale fisheries have depleted fish and invertebrate stocks, led to reductions in species richness, and adversely impacted marine habitats (see reviews in Russ 199 1 ; Hall 1999; Roberts and Hawkins 2000).
Typically employing relatively simple gear at nearshore fishing grounds, small- scale fisheries have been defined as "those which operate without the assistance of unified or integrated distribution and marketing organizations, and in which the
fisherman most often retains a portion of his catch for his own use and sells the remainder directly to the consumer or to an individual vendor" (Munro 1979: 35). Although often viewed as harmless, small-scale fishers have, much like their industrial counterparts, participated in over-fishing and destructive fishing practices when faced with dwindling stocks and limited options for sustaining their livelihoods.
The detrimental effects of small-scale fisheries have been documented at the species level by comparing fished and unfished sites, either temporally or spatially. Spatial comparisons of fished and unfished sites have provided the majority of evidence suggesting that small-scale fishing has led to notable reductions in the biomass,
abundance, and individual sizes of target fish and invertebrate species (e.g. Alcala 1988; Polunin and Roberts 1993; Jennings et al. 1995; McClanahan et al. 1999; B b 6 and Tewfik 2003). Large predatory fishes such as groupers are the most susceptible to heavy exploitation, both because of their life history characteristics and highly commercial status (Russ and Alcala 1998), and, as a result, are often depleted first (e.g. Watson et al. 1997). Compared to studies focused on spatial differences, fewer studies have
investigated the effects of fishing at the same site through time; exceptions have included Alcala and Russ (1990), Koslow et al. (1988), and de Boer et al. (2001) in which the authors reported dramatic declines in catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for many target fish families censused over two, fifteen, and thirty year time scales, respectively.
Community-level responses to fishing, and to protection from fishing, are often complex and difficult for researchers to predict because of interactions among members of aquatic communities (OSB 2001). Several studies have shown, for example, that non-
target fishes such as butterflyfishes respond positively to protection fi-om fishing (e.g. Watson et al. 1997), while others have found either the opposite effect (e.g. Watson and
Ormond 1994) or no detectable difference (e.g. Jennings et al. 1995; Russ and Alcala 1998). Although community-level fishing effects have been difficult to document and
interpret, the effects of small-scale fisheries on marine habitats have become evident around the world.
The impacts of small-scale fisheries on coral reefs have gained global attention in the scientific literature and popular media. Faced with declining marine resources, many coral reef fishers have turned to using destructive techniques to increase their short-term fisheries yields (Roberts and Polunin 1993; Erdmann and Pet-Soede 1997; McManus 1997). Dynamite, poisons, and drive-nets have all been used to increase fishers'
efficiency in collecting fish and invertebrate species fi-om coral reef habitats (Roberts and Polunin 1993) and to improve their average wages over the short-term (Erdmann and Pet-
Soede 1997; Erdmann 2000). Homemade bombs used to fish the reefs have,
unsurprisingly, had drastic effects on coral habitats, often reducing branching, tabulate, and foliose corals to large fields of rubble (Erdmann and Pet-Soede 1997). Although
likely significant, the effects of small-scale fisheries on other habitat types such as seagrass beds have been largely ignored in the literature (OSB 2001).
Given the well-documented effects of fishing on marine ecosystems, it is not surprising that many protected area proponents have advocated for a systematically
designed network of fully-protected, "no-take" marine reserves (e.g. Bohnsack 1993; Ballantine 1995; Allison et al. 1998; Roberts and Hawkins 2000; White et al. 2002; Roberts et al. 2003). Fully protected marine reserves serve a number of functions in the conservation of marine ecosystems, including the protection of critical habitats,
biodiversity, vulnerable species, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functioning at various spatial scales (Roberts et al. 2003). 'Wo-take" areas have, furthermore, been shown to
provide socioeconomic benefits to local people, acting as sources of new recruits and emigrating adults to surrounding fisheries and, at the same time, supporting lucrative tourism industries (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). In light of these benefits, scientists and conservationists have proposed that 20% of the world's oceans be designated as "no- take7' marine protected areas by 2020, as a way of insuring against catastrophes, minimizing the risk of over-fishing, and ensuring the connectivity of habitats for the maintenance of biodiversity (Roberts and Hawkins 2000; OSB 2001). Questions remain whether such a target is realistic given the overall ineffectiveness of MPAs in reaching their management objectives and the reliance of human communities on marine
ecosystem goods and services. Designating 20% of the world's oceans as "no-take" could simply lead to an increase in the number of "paper parks", if the root causes of protected areas' poor success rates (including the needs of former user groups) are not first taken into account.
2.1.2
Management of Human Uses in Marine Protected Areas
Supporters of the "man-in" approach to protected area management have claimed that not all people affect their environment in equally negative ways. Certainly not all
fishing communities have played an equal role in the world's declines and losses of commercial fish and invertebrate stocks. Roberts and Hawkins (2000) acknowledge that the amount of marine space requiring full protection depends on the degree of human impact; in areas facing lower exploitation levels, for example, protecting as little as 5% of the area could be enough, while in regions of high impact, protecting 30% could be insufficient for reaching conservation goals. Without paying credence to idealistic notions of the "noble savage", researchers have collected substantial evidence to suggest that, in many parts of the world, people have applied community-based management principles and sustained productive fisheries for centuries (Berkes and Kislalioglu 1989), suggesting that the full protection of 20% of marine territories might not be required in some areas. Even traditional management approaches have, however, eroded over time, as a consequence of the introduction of market-based economies, the influx of Western culture, and the increasing sizes of human populations, among others (Johannes 1978; McManus 1 996).
Recognizing humans' reliance on marine resources for food and income, the documented impacts of such use, and the repeated failures of most management approaches, Agardy (2000a: 764) suggests that the "ideal situation seems to be the establishment of closed areas within the context of a larger multiple-use protected area such as a coastal biosphere reserve, marine sanctuary, or other large-scale MPA". Accepting the concept of multiple-use protected areas, and thereby assuming that some human uses should be permitted, acknowledges local people's needs and, at the same time, promotes the full protection of marine resources and habitats within certain "no- take" zones. In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - the world's largest multiple-use
MPA - activities such as shipping, oil drilling, and mining are entirely excluded, for example, while dive tourism and small-scale fisheries are permitted within designated areas (Day 2002).
Although excluding people entirely would solve the problems associated with humans' negative impacts on protected areas, such a strategy would inevitably lead to conflicts between managers and local communities and likely do little more than shift the impacts of their use to areas just outside the park boundaries. Managers of fully
restricted MPAs have, in fact, oRen faced intense hostility and non-compliance from local communities and user groups (Bohnsack 1998). Local fishers have, for example, frequently clashed with marine park managers over the designation of protected areas because the establishment of such areas affects their access to traditional marine resources (Wells and White 1995). Although such conflicts should not govern
management decisions, nor take priority over conservation goals, the implementation of "no-take" zones within larger multiple-use protected areas could be more acceptable to local people and thus aid managers in reaching management objectives.
2.2
History of Protected Area Management
Management strategies for marine protected areas have materialized out of two opposing models for the conservation of global biodiversity: (1) "top-down", nationally- or internationally-imposed regulation and (2) "bottom-up" community-based
management. Community-based MPAs are not a new idea in the conservation of fisheries resources. Restricting community members' access to fishing grounds has, in fact, been used for centuries in many parts of the developing world as a way of ensuring
the long-term sustainability of fisheries stocks (e.g. Johannes 1978; Nietschmann 1984). "Top-down" regulation on access to marine areas has, however, emerged more recently. With the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, the world instituted its first national park using a "top-down", and hlly protectionist, approach to
conservation (Colchester 1996). Lagging well behind the institution of terrestrial parks, the first "official" marine park was established at Glacier Bay (Alaska, USA) in 1925 (Jones 2002). Before the 1960s, only a few protected areas permitted former residents to continue their traditional ways of life within park boundaries (Nepal 2002), one way in
which government agencies were able to exert "top-down" control over marginalized, resource-dependent communities (Colchester 1996). Throughout the history of protected areas, many communities have been effectively ignored during the planning and
implementation stages, creating inevitable tensions, and in some cases outright violence, between government officials and local people (e.g. Yellowstone National Park,
Colchester 1996; Amboseli National Park, Western 1984; Manas National Park, McNeely 1990). In light of local stakeholders' general dissatisfaction with b'top-down"
management, many protected area advocates have suggested the need for "middle ground" (e.g. Jones 2002).
Serving as an intermediate between ''top-down" and '%bottom-up" management approaches, the concept of participatory management has emerged as an increasingly comrnoli format for planning and governing protected areas (Octeau 1999). Participatory management involves the sharing of decision-making responsibility between the public and their overseeing governments. Parenteau (1988: 4) describes public participation in environmental management as a "strategy by which the have-nots can take part in
determining the dissemination of information, the establishment of goals and policies, the allocation of resources, the implementation of programs, and the distribution of benefits and advantages." Citizens' involvement in resource management decisions ranges from the public being informed of decisions to assuming direct control over such choices (Arnstein 1969). While Arnstein (1 969) warns against any level of participation other than full citizen control, the more recent literature has emphasized the potential of "co-
management" strategies, by which communities share managerial responsibility over marine resources with government agencies (e.g. Pinkerton 1989). Co-management arrangements have been proposed and implemented in marine protected areas throughout the Southeast Asian region, to varying degrees of success (see Pomeroy 1995; Christie and White 1997; Russ and Alcala 1999; Baticados and Agbayani 2000; Pomeroy et al. 2001 ; White et al. 2002; Clifton 2003). Berkes and Kislalioglu (1 989) highlight the importance of context in designing effective management schemes, suggesting that no one management system will be best in every set of conditions and instead should be tailored to suit the types of resource users, the history of local management, the goals of local communities and managers, and the system of property rights.
As part of a global move towards the implementation of ecosystem-based
management principles, various levels of participatory management have been adopted in the development and management of protected areas worldwide. Today, millions of people make their homes inside or along the borders of protected areas (PAS). Local people have been involved in the planning and management of protected areas in a variety of ways, fiom providing the motivation to set-up MPAs (e.g. San Felipe marine reserve, Mexico, Chuenpagdee et al. 2002) to being directly involved in the decision-
making process (e.g. Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park, Philippines, White et al. 2002). Even today, however, many MPAs are planned and governed under the "top- down" approach and have been designed without the consideration or full consultation of local communities and user groups (e.g. Sandy Bay - West End Marine Reserve,
Honduras, Salm et al. 2000; Florida Keys National Marine Park, USA, Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia, Elliot et al. 2001). Having direct implications for local people's livelihoods, such oversights in protected area planning are, not surprisingly, still met with hostility and non-compliance from local communities, frequently to the long-term detriment of conservation goals. Experience has suggested that creating effective networks of marine protected areas will require that fully "no-take" areas be built into larger, multiple-use protected area management plans, developed in conjunction with all stakeholder groups.
2.3
Current Planning and Management of Protected Areas
2.3.1 Regulations in Marine Protected Areas
Today, the term "marine protected area" is used as an over-arching label for the more than 4000 marine and coastal areas under a range of protective regimes (Chape et al. 2003), instituted by international interest groups, state agencies, local communities, andlor private enterprises (Kelleher 1995). The World Conservation Union's (IIJCN) purposefully broad definition of marine protected areas (as given in Chapter 1) accounts for the variable levels of protection given to areas designated as MPAs, thus allowing MPAs to meet a wide range of objectives (Kelleher and Recchia 1998).
Marine protected areas are designed to meet a combination of socioeconomic and environmental goals, including the protection of commercial and non-commercial marine species, the generation of tourism revenue, the conservation of critical habitats and ecosystem processes, and the creation of educational and research opportunities (Salm et al. 2000). To account for the different goals and objectives of protected areas, the IUCN has developed a six-part classification system for terrestrial and marine protected areas (as summarized in Table 2.1). Protection for different types of protected areas ranges fi-om the careful monitoring of resource extraction fi-om inside their boundaries (Category
VI) to the strict enforcement of regulations prohibiting entry (Category I).
Table 2.1 The World Conservation Union's six-part classification system for protected areas (adopted fiom Kelleher 1999).
A x
I
IbI
Wilderness AreaI
Managed mainly for wildernessCategory Ia
I
I
protection and recreationCategory Label Strict Nature Reserve
I1
(
I11I
Natural MonumentObjective Managed mainly for scientific
Managed mainly for conservation of s~ecific natural features
National Park
protection
Managed mainly for ecosystem
I
VI
Protected Landscape1 SeascapeI
Managed mainly for landscape1IV
I
I
I use of natural ecosvstemsHabitat/ Species Management Area
VI
2.3.2 Multiple-Use Zoning Plans
Balancing conservation and socioeconomic objectives within marine protected areas designated as single zones has been a challenge for parks around the world (Dixon et al. 1993). Many user groups rely on the marine environment for their livelihoods and
Managed mainly for conservation through management intervention
Managed Resource Protected Area
seascape conservation and recreation Managed mainly for the sustainable
sustenance, yet their needs often come into direct conflict with each other and with the conservation of marine habitats, biodiversity, and ecological processes (Dixon et al. 1993). Usage patterns of different stakeholder groups fi-equently overlap within protected areas, sometimes leading to animosity between groups such as dive operators and fishers (e.g. Bunce et al. 1999; Suman et al. 1999; Gladstone 2000). Multiple-use zoning has been proposed as one way of balancing the needs of different user groups, while still meeting the goal of conserving marine ecosystem components and processes (Kelleher
1999; Agardy 2000b). Already commonplace in terrestrial parks, the use of zoning plans is slowly becoming more common in marine protected areas. Many marine protected areas are, however, still managed as single zones, where various human activities are or are not permitted. Introducing zoning plans could help to reduce some of the conflicts between stakeholders' use of marine areas and the conservation of these regions (Laffoley 1995).
Protected areas are each unique, having widely different goals, designs, institutional capabilities, stakeholder groups, cultural values, and socioeconomic fi-ameworks. To account for the variability of park designs, management and zoning plans must be context specific (Gilman 1997; Kelleher 1999; Gladstone 2000). Although there is no formula for developing a successful zoning plan, a series of objectives have been outlined to assist managers in the process (taken fiom Kelleher 1999):
To protect critical and/or representative habitats, ecosystems, and processes, To separate conflicting human activities,
To protect the natural and/or cultural qualities of the protected area, while still permitting a range of sustainable human uses,
To allow particular human uses within suitable areas, but minimize the effects of these activities on the protected area, and
To preserve part of the protected area in its undisturbed, natural state for scientific research and educational purposes.
2.3.2.1 Developing Zoning Plans
Sites for marine protected areas have traditionally been chosen based on a variety of ecological, social, economic, regional, and pragmatic considerations (Salm and Price 1995). When choosing sites for future marine protected areas, managers have frequently
turned to mapping human uses and resource distributions within different areas (Salm and Price 1995). Mapping the spatial distribution of these factors can help to identify areas of low conflict for the designation of future MPAs and the zoning of current W A S .
Zoning plans are typically used to separate incompatible human uses in large marine protected areas and to restrict human activities in areas of unsuitable habitat (Kelleher 1999). Developing a useful zoning scheme requires collecting information on a variety of different factors, including the physical and biological characteristics of the region, the use of resources, the perceptions and needs of resource users, the conflicts among interest groups, and the conflicts between users and the resources on which they depend (Laffoley 1995). Zoning plans should consider, for example, such factors as the suitability of habitats for sustaining human uses (e.g. resilience to diving activity, Riegl and Riegl 1996), the metapopulation dynamics of resident species (Craik 1992), and the locations of critical habitats (e.g. nursery areas for fish populations, Villa et al. 2002). Without minimizing the importance of biophysical characteristics in MPA planning,
Laffoley (1 995) highlights human uses and local needs as the single most important part of marine management and emphasizes their importance to zoning plans.
Although documenting users' needs and interests can be a challenging task, taking these factors into account during MPA planning will likely help to reduce future clashes between managers and local people. Public participation and consultation in the zoning of marine protected areas is considered vitally important for designing a successful plan (Kelleher 1999). In the case of the Dry Tortugas Ecological Reserve in Florida, political action by commercial and recreational fishers led to drastic changes in the initially proposed boundaries of the reserve (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). Fishers generally felt left out of the consultation and negotiation process and voiced serious concerns about their potential losses of income, questioning scientists' theory that no-take zones would actually help to improve fisheries yields in surrounding areas (Suman et al. 1999). Dive operators and environmental groups, on the other hand, felt sufficiently involved in the planning process and generally supported the establishment of no-take zones (Suman et al. 1999). Collecting information about traditional uses of the area proposed as a reserve, and better communication among stakeholders, would have undoubtedly helped to reduce such hostile reactions fiom resource users about the draft management plan.
Mapping approaches could allow managers to make informed trade-offs between the protection of marine biodiversity and users' continued access to traditional resources. In the past, base maps with transparent overlays of different criteria were used to show the interactions of different MPA user groups (e.g. tourism, fishing) and the locations of particular ecological features (e.g. coral reefs, spawning grounds) (Salm and Price 1995).
managers compared the location of natural resources to the location of marine uses and activities, as a way of identifying the most suitable areas for MPAs (Salm and Price 1995). Results fiom these studies were, however, limited by researchers' subjective interpretations of overlaid data sets. Recent advances in mapping techniques, from traditional cartography to the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIs), have increased the objectivity of overlaying biophysical, social, cultural, and economic data sets.
Geographic Information Systems - a computer-based technology that allows users to store, visualize, and analyze spatial and associated aspatial data - have been used in land-use planning and decision-making virtually since the technology's inception 30 years ago (Burrough and McDonnell 1998). Taking the lead from terrestrial planning exercises, GIs is now recognized as a useful medium for visualizing and evaluating multiple spatial criteria in the planning of marine protected areas (Villa et al. 2002) and other integrated coastal zone management initiatives (Mumby et al. 1995). GIs databases have been developed for the planning and zoning of many marine protected areas
worldwide, including the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve in Italy (Villa et al. 2002), the Socotra Archipelago Special Protected Area in Yemen (Klaus et al. 2003), and the South Water Cay Marine Reserve in Belize (Mumby et al. 1995).
2.3.2.2 Process of Implementing Zoning Plans
Zoning plans should form the basis of management in protected areas, indicating to users where they are permitted to carry out their desired activities (Kelleher 1999).
The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) outlines a series of five steps for developing an effective zoning plan (taken fiom Kelleher 1999):
1. Initial Information Gathering and Preparation. During this first phase of zoning
development, planners are required to collect information on the current uses and distribution of natural resources within the proposed protected area. Ecological, social, pragmatic, regional, and economic information should be used to
determine the optimal locations of marine reserves (Norse 1993) and the
placement of zones within them. Using these data, planners and consultants can develop explanatory materials to distribute to the public for review and
consultation.
2. Public Participation or Consultation - Prior to the Preparation of a Plan. Local
people and users groups should then be consulted and asked for suggestions about the proposed zoning plan and information package.
3. Preparation of Draft Plan. Based on information collected during the public
consultations, planners are able to prepare a draft zoning plan with specific details on the objectives of each zone and accompanying informational materials for the public.
4. Public Participation or Consultation - Review ofDra3 Plan. Planners should
then introduce the draft zoning plan and informational materials in a public forum, for consultation with locals and user groups.
5 . Finalization of Plan. Comments received during the Public Participation or
Consultation phase should be taken into consideration and used to revise the draft
Laffoley (1 995) describes two additional phases that he suggests should be incorporated into the development of zoning plans:
1. Dissemination ofInformation. Information about the final zoning plan should be publicized using a variety of media, in order to ensure that the public and local users are informed of the final decisions made by managers and planners.
Coloured zoning maps, leaflets, community meetings, television advertisements, and video clips have all been used to explain zoning plans to potential user groups. This process increases the zoning plan's likelihood of success since it encourages communication among stakeholders and teaches users about new restrictions within the protected area's boundaries.
2. Marking Zones On-site. Boundaries of different zones, ideally chosen to coincide with landscape features that sirnpliQ compliance, should be clearly marked using signs and buoys. Although intending to comply, users are often confused about the boundaries of particular zones when these areas are not clearly delineated on- site.
Preparing and implementing useful zoning plans require a great deal of time and effort (Craik 1992). If, however, these zoning plans increase the success of marine protected areas and prevent the disenfranchisement of local communities and user groups, then their purpose has been fulfilled. Experience worldwide has suggested that zoning and marine protected area management schemes that consider the needs of communities, together with the underlying scientific basis for management, will be most likely to succeed over the long-term (Laffoley 1995).
2.3.3
Management and Zoning of Marine Protected Areas in Thailand
Thailand saw rapid economic development fiom the late- 1980s to late- 1 990s (ADB 2000), stemming mainly fkom the unsustainable extraction of natural resources (Hale and Olsen 1993). Economic growth in the industrial sector led to higher
consumption rates among the richest 10% of the population and a widened economic gap between the rich and the poor (Kaosa-ard 2000). Economic prosperity for a small portion of the population came at a high environmental cost, leading to serious and largely irreversible environmental damage including large-scale deforestation, declining commercial fish stocks, and polluted aquatic habitats (ADB 2000).
Fisheries have traditionally provided a vital source of food and income to many communities in Thailand (Talaue-McManus 2000). Traditional near-shore fisheries are now widely depleted and coastal communities have been left with few livelihood alternatives (Chettamart and Emphandhu 2002). Decades of over-fishing have, furthermore, resulted in highly degraded coastal habitats, including coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds (Kaosa-ard 2000). Regulations on fishing effort and catches have been poorly enforced and, consequently, done little to improve this situation (Kaosa-ard 2000).
To mitigate past environmental damage and maintain the ecological integrity of less disturbed natural areas, Thailand has developed an extensive system of 261 protected areas, together making up an area greater than 78,000 km2 (Chettamart and Emphandhu 2002). The country's protected areas fall into five categories: national parks, national marine parks, wildlife sanctuaries, forest parks, and non-hunting areas (UP-MSI et al. 2002). Twenty-six of Thailand's 102 national parks include a marine component (RFD
