Search

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly advocated for the conservation and management of sharks and rays. However, substantial uncertainty remains regarding which species can benefit from MPAs. Meanwhile, area-focused protection targets have spurred recent and rapid gains in the creation of large MPAs, many of which carry vague objectives set by a diverse group of stakeholders with potentially different notions of "success." Here, we capture and critically evaluate current views on the use of MPAs for shark and ray conservation. Through interviews with scientists, MPA managers, fisheries experts, conservation practitioners, advocates and policy experts (n = 53), we demonstrate a variety of perspectives regarding: (a) the effectiveness of MPAs as a tool for shark and ray conservation; (b) which factors influence the success of MPAs for sharks and rays; and (c) the desired outcomes of these MPAs. While MPAs created specifically for sharks and rays were viewed to be slightly more effective than regular MPAs as a tool for shark and ray conservation, both were generally considered insufficient in isolation. Despite greater emphasis on social success factors (e.g., local support) over biophysical success factors (e.g., size), biological outcomes (e.g., increased abundance) were prioritized over social outcomes (e.g., livelihood benefits). We argue that a stronger focus on achieving social outcomes can enhance the potential for MPAs to benefit sharks and rays. In revealing current thinking regarding the drivers and indicators of MPA success for sharks and rays, the results of this study can inform efforts to conserve and manage these species.

Trust is an important element of social capital that is increasingly recognized as integral to effective natural resource management, yet the concept remains relatively unexplored in the environmental social sciences. In large, complex resource systems where numerous and diverse stakeholders receive information from a variety of sources, managers must make efficient use of limited financial and human resources by communicating effectively with the public and targeting engagement efforts to build trust where needed. Using Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) as a case study, we investigated to what degree stakeholders trust reef-related information from five sources: research institutions, non-government organizations (NGOs), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), industry groups, and friends, family and coworkers. Additionally, we explored whether trust is demographically differentiated among resource users (n = 2985), considering four demographic variables: age, gender, residential location (north, central, and south), and stakeholder group (tourism operators, commercial fishers, indigenous residents, and non-indigenous residents). Overall, research institutions were the most trusted source of information, followed by friends, family, and coworkers, NGOs, the GBRMPA, and industry groups. Trust did not differ with gender, and was negatively related to age for all sources of information except friends, family and coworkers. Stakeholders living in the northern GBR region were less trusting of research institutions compared to those living in the central and southern regions. Finally, for most information sources, trust was differentiated across stakeholder groups, with commercial fishers reporting the lowest levels of trust in the GBRMPA, research institutions, and non-government organizations. In demonstrating the heterogeneous nature of trust in the GBR, this study presents a necessary first step towards developing targeted strategies to build trust, improve communication, and promote stewardship in a large, complex natural resource system.

Achieving fisheries compliance is challenging in contexts where enforcement capacity is limited and the incentives for rule-breaking are strong. This challenge is exemplified in Myanmar, where an active shark fishery exists despite a nationwide ban on targeted shark fishing. We used the Kipling method (5W1H) to gather a complete story of non-compliance in five small-scale fishing communities in the Myeik Archipelago. Among 144 fishers surveyed, 49% were aware of the nationwide ban. Shark fishers (24%) tended to be younger individuals who did not own a boat and perceived shark fishing to be prevalent. Compliant fishers were motivated by a fear of sharks and lack of capacity (equipment, knowledge), whereas food and income were cited as key motivations for non-compliance. The results of our study emphasize that in resource-dependent communities, improving compliance for effective shark conservation may require addressing broader issues of poverty, food security and the lack of alternatives. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-020-01400-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have the potential to support small-scale fishers in managing their resources. However, a general failure to consider the varying levels of vulnerability of fishers has resulted in MPAs that, often unintentionally, adversely impact small-scale fishers. Furthermore, when fishers lack the capacity to adapt to MPA-related changes, MPAs may fail to meet conservation objectives because fishers do not comply with MPA regulations. In this study, we developed a systematic method to identify individuals who are most vulnerable to being negatively impacted by no-take MPAs through an index that represents individual-level vulnerability. We designed a method for identifying these individuals based on four socioeconomic factors pertaining to vulnerability to MPA changes: livelihood diversity, education, age and wealth, then applied this method in two socially and economically heterogeneous communities in Myanmar's Myeik Archipelago. We used empirical data collected from 80 small-scale fishers in this area to represent each factor, then generated a local-level ‘Livelihood Impact Potential Index’ (LIPI) that reflects the degree to which a no-take MPA would impact an individual fisher's ability to support his or her livelihood. When attributed to each fisher's most frequented fishing ground, the LIPI can identify locations where no-take MPAs would be most detrimental to small-scale fishers' livelihoods based on their levels of vulnerability. The LIPI can thus be used alongside ecological and commercial fishing data to support planners in designing local-scale MPAs that maximise positive impact on biodiversity and minimise adverse impacts on the most vulnerable fishers in a community.