Stakeholder engagement and conservation outcomes in marine protected areas: Lessons from the Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) in Tanzania

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105502Get rights and content

Highlights

  • MPAs are being promoted to manage the world's marine ecosystems more sustainably.

  • In recent years, MPAs have started to facilitate inclusive and collaborative practices.

  • In the MBREMP, there has been lack of meaningful influence from local stakeholders.

  • The conservation and livelihood outcomes of MBREMP have been problematic.

  • MPAs need to improve stakeholder communication and secure adequate resources.

Abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are promoted as a tool to manage the world's ocean and coastal resources more sustainably. In recent years, the protected areas management paradigm —including MPA management—has started to promote inclusive and collaborative practices. At least on paper, this shift, and the multi-stakeholder engagement and partnerships that came along with it, should have led to better conservation outcomes—at the same time as ensuring that people affected by conservation measures have access to alternative or supplementary livelihood opportunities. In reality, the record of MPAs has been quite mixed. The aim of this study is to examine stakeholder engagement and collaboration in MPA management actions that have occurred in the Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) in southern Tanzania—in view of exploring whether existing collaborations have influenced conservation outcomes. Fieldwork results, arising from key informant interviews, participant observation, focus group discussions and a survey, show that contacts and interactions between stakeholders followed a bureaucratic process without clear and shared goals that could make conservation and livelihood objectives compatible. Unclear and poorly coordinated processes—both in relation to conservation activities, such as enforcement of the park's regulations, and in relation to livelihood projects—hampered the proper functioning of MBREMP and its actual and potential stakeholders. As a result, both conservation and socio-economic outcomes have been problematic. Future research needs to further investigate how dysfunctional stakeholder engagements and lack of collaborative arrangements affect environmental and socio-economic objectives in MPAs and how these can be addressed.

Introduction

The loss of biodiversity in marine and coastal environment has increased significantly in the last few decades. Reports indicate that a decline of marine populations, increasing levels of habitat destruction, and an increasing human population are posing threats to marine ecosystems in different regions of the world (Costello et al., 2016; Mazaris et al., 2019; Worm, 2016). In many regions of the world, marine protected areas (MPAs) have been adopted as one of the approaches to reduce marine biodiversity loss. In certain regions, the design and establishment of MPAs have resulted into a lack of public support—especially when there are perceptions that the benefits of an MPA are not shared fairly among stakeholders (Christie et al., 2003). Given the widespread instances of non-compliance (Saarman et al., 2013) and vigorous opposition (Voyer et al, 2014, 2015)), the potential for positive biological impacts has often been affected. It is also clear that the success of an MPA often depends on the ongoing support of relevant stakeholders, especially fishers and local communities.

In recent years, there has been a major transformation in the way in which protected areas are being managed, which has led to a move away from state-dominated protected and towards community-based and co-management forms of management in view of promoting inclusive practices (Cinner et al., 2012; Mahajan and Daw, 2016). In coastal and oceanic areas, particular emphasis has been placed on new governance mechanisms (Evans, 2009). The management of MPAs in various countries has been carried out by a variety of different agencies, that sometimes compete with each other (Cinner et al., 2012; Laffoley et al., 2019). Often, there is little or ineffective communication and coordination between the agencies involved, even in the same region or country where the MPA is located. This results in disorderly management and duplication of activities. In other cases, government agencies take greater responsibility for MPA activities than their capacity allows.

Ensuring better effectiveness of MPAs calls for incorporating all relevant stakeholders in the actual planning of the MPA and in ongoing management activities. Stakeholder support for MPAs activities is crucial for creating an enabling environment for the MPA to gain local support (Himes, 2007). Research has shown that meaningful engagement of stakeholders can lead to decisions that are better supported, rules that are more likely to be accepted and outcomes that align with management goals (Dalton et al., 2012). Effective stakeholder engagement can also increase trust, satisfaction and capacity (Dietz and Stern, 2008). Incorporating public values and knowledge can also lead to beneficial outcomes (Newig and Fritsch, 2009).

The existing literature has shown the importance of meaningful participation for various stakeholders (Di Franco et al., 2016; Yates et al., 2019), and that the mode of operation of these stakeholders is usually not clear. In Africa, stakeholder participation has often been embedded in decentralized efforts for management of natural resources that is based on participation and collective action of user communities as well as collaboration between state and non-state actors (Nelson and Agrawal, 2008). The emergence of participatory approaches in natural resource governance has mainly resulted from pressure by international conservation organisations, which has often led to superficial or performative implementation of local community participatory mechanisms (Brockington, 2003, 2005). While different scholars (e.g. (Huxaman, 2000; Lasker et al., 2001; Newig and Fritsch, 2009) argue that involving multiple stakeholders increases the governability of natural resources, there is paucity of information on whether and how participation has worked in MPAs and with what effects. Many MPAs, especially in developing countries, are still controlled by the state under a monocentric organizational structure (Laffoley et al., 2019). On the one hand, this provides clear authority and jurisdictional clarity. On the other hand, it limits the building of synergies with other relevant actors, particularly non-state actors, which could contribute with resources, capacities and knowledge.

Despite a myriad of scholarly contributions on MPAs, and especially on governance and management, there is clear gap on how effective stakeholder engagement and willingness to partner look like. To partly fill this gap our study examines stakeholder engagement and collaboration in MPA management actions that have occurred in the Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) in southern Tanzania.

Tanzania's government has increasingly deployed more participatory methods of natural resource management in the past few decades (Koch, 2017). The existing MPAs in mainland Tanzania are known to formally operate through participatory approaches, where different stakeholders have a stake on their activities and outcomes (Katikiro et al., 2015). All designated MPAs in mainland Tanzania—marine parks and marine reserves—are primarily led by the state under the Marine Parks and Reserves Act No 29 of 1994. The government organ responsible for management of MPAs in mainland Tanzania is the Marine Parks and Reserves Unit (MPRU), which is a semi-autonomous organization within the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development. Zanzibar, a semi-autonomous territory, has its own legislation and organs responsible for protection and management of its marine and coastal areas (Tobey and Torell, 2006; Hugé et al., 2018). Unlike mainland Tanzania, there is a private MPA in Zanzibar known as Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP), which was established in 1991 and is funded through ecotourism fees (Nordlund et al., 2013; Reidmiller, 2000).

The first MPA in mainland Tanzania consisted of several sites legislated as marine reserves in the mid-1970s. At that time, however, there was no specific institutional mechanism in place to effectively manage the reserves apart from allocating the authority to the Department of Fisheries (Akwilapo, 2007). Beginning in the 1990s, the government took concerted efforts to actually establish MPAs in the country (URT, 2014). An important milestone was in 1994, when legislation to specifically deal with the management and administration of MPAs was enacted by parliament (URT, 2014). There are now 15 marine reserves in mainland Tanzania and three marine parks: Mafia Island Marine Park (MIMP), Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) and the Tanga Coelacanth Marine Park (TACMP). Marine reserves are no-take areas, while marine parks are designated as multiple use and allow regulated extraction of resources in specific areas. A co-management approach with local communities is increasingly sought in MPAs in mainland Tanzania, where different actors are encouraged to be stakeholders in the management plan—at least in theory. Understanding what actors are involved, to what extent and through which mechanisms is therefore important for understanding whether stakeholder participation is leading to enhanced socio-economic and environmental outcomes or not.

Section snippets

Study area

The present study is a part of the research project New Partnership for Sustainability (NEPSUS), which focuses on conservation partnerships in wildlife, forest and coastal resources (Ponte et al., 2017). The work package on coastal resources aims at understanding the role of different stakeholders in shaping the effectiveness of different kinds of partnerships in improving the sustainability of fisheries, mangrove and coral reefs in areas that have at least some degree of legal protection. The

Perceptions on potential areas for stakeholder engagement with MBREMP

Overall, a vast majority of survey respondents perceived that stakeholders should engage with the park in view of conserving marine resources (Fig. 2). In both sea-based and inland villages, a considerable proportion of respondents maintained that there was no other objective besides conservation, while others also thought that it could also create a culture of marine stewardship and encourage alternative livelihoods. Key informant interviews and focus groups revealed that local community

Discussion

In marine conservation, and particularly in MPAs, engagement of diverse actors is critical and is often perceived to be an important attribute for enhancing participation and legitimacy (Scholz et al., 2004). Depending on the type of MPA, stakeholders can include local communities, local government, civil society, business or a combination of these. Building effective stakeholder engagement includes designing an entity legally responsible for implementing the management plan of an MPA, and

Conclusion

In this article, we examined stakeholder engagement and collaboration in a marine park of Tanzania. Our findings, together with those of other studies of MPAs, demonstrate that participation of different stakeholders alone is not sufficient for generating the kind of support and engagement needed for an MPA to meet its conservation and livelihood outcomes. We have also shown that clear roles for different stakeholders, a sense that they can influence decisions and make a difference, and

Declaration of competing interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work is a part of the NEPSUS project which is funded by the Consultative Committee for Development Research, Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Grant 01-15-CBS). Authors are grateful to villagers, community leaders, district officials and other key informants for sharing their insights and allowing their valuable time for discussion. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which greatly improved the manuscript. All errors and omissions

References (53)

  • J. Hugé et al.

    Exploring coastal development scenarios for Zanzibar: a local microcosm-inspired Delphi survey

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2018)
  • A.E. Johnson et al.

    Marine spatial planning in Barbuda: a social, ecological, geographic, and legal case study

    Mar. Pol.

    (2020)
  • R.E. Katikiro

    Improving alternative livelihood interventions in marine protected areas: a case study in Tanzania

    Mar. Pol.

    (2016)
  • R.E. Katikiro et al.

    Challenges facing local communities in Tanzania in realising locally-managed marine areas

    Mar. Pol.

    (2015)
  • S. Koch

    International influence on forest governance in Tanzania: analysing the role of aid experts in the REDD+ process

    Spec. Feature Trends Eur. For. Policy Res. - Sel. 1st Int. For. Policy Meet.

    (2017)
  • D. Laffoley et al.

    Chapter 29 - marine protected areas

  • S.L. Mahajan et al.

    Perceptions of ecosystem services and benefits to human well-being from community-based marine protected areas in Kenya

    Mar. Pol.

    (2016)
  • A.D. Mazaris et al.

    Threats to marine biodiversity in European protected areas

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2019)
  • M. Nenadovic et al.

    The relationship of social capital and Fishers' participation in multi-level governance arrangements

    Environ. Sci. Pol.

    (2016)
  • L.M. Nordlund et al.

    Chumbe Island coral park—governance analysis

    Gov. Mar. Prot. Areas Soc.-Ecol. Resil. Institutional Divers.

    (2013)
  • J. Raycraft

    Circumscribing communities: marine conservation and territorialization in southeastern Tanzania

    Geoforum

    (2019)
  • E. Saarman et al.

    The role of science in supporting marine protected area network planning and design in California

    Spec. Issue Calif. Mar. Prot. Area Netw. Plan. Process

    (2013)
  • A. Scholz et al.

    Participatory socioeconomic analysis: drawing on fishermen's knowledge for marine protected area planning in California

    Mar. Pol.

    (2004)
  • E.J. Sterling et al.

    Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2017)
  • W.D. Sunderlin et al.

    Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an Overview

    Livelihoods For. Conserv

    (2005)
  • J. Tobey et al.

    Coastal poverty and MPA management in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar

    Environ. Issues West. Indian Ocean

    (2006)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text