|Marine Protected Areas||Previous Next Page 7(9)|
Revenues for MPAs
Case 2.1: Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania
Source: Spurgeon (2000)
This is a government marine park in Tanzania, with an area of 820 km2. It was gazetted in 1995 with considerable financial support (approximately US$2.25 million) from NORAD and WWF, some of which is ongoing. The Tanzanian Government also currently contributes annual funds (US$10,000-20,000) and personnel. According to the WWF technical advisor Jason Rubens (pers. comm..2000), the main beneficiaries are tourists, local tourism businesses, international tour agents, fishers, fish traders and fish exporters. Coast protection and indirect offshore fishery benefits are thought to be minor.
A revenue system established in January 2000 comprises a visitor entry fee (US$10 for foreigners) and fees for visiting fishers and traders. Revenues for January through June 2000 were US$2740. Self-sustaining finance through user fees seems a long way off, given the relatively few visitors to the park and the general unwillingness and inability of the fisheries sector to pay. Hence the park is reliant on donor and government funding. This case illustrates the challenges facing many developing countries MPAs that are not attractive venues for tourism (either because of the resources they offer or the travel costs).
Case 2.2: Gilutunyun Marine Reserve, Philippines
Reprinted in part from Spurgeon (2000) per kind permission of James Spurgeon
This marine reserve is a 15-ha reef complex off Olanyo Island, Cebu, Philippines. Annual operating funds of US$7000 come from the Municipal Government (US$3000), USAID (US$3000) and the Department of Environment (US$1000). Revenue generating mechanisms include recently established user fees of US$1 per person per day and permits of US$25 per year for boats. Other support includes voluntary assistance from the local community and from the dive industry, for example, the provision of mooring buoys. Obstacles to raising revenues have included resistance from dive operators and local government bureaucracy, and an inadequate fee collection system. Local communities have benefited through receipt of some of the user fees, improved long-term fishery prospects, receiving environmental education, and through new vending opportunities to visitors.
Case 2.3: Revenue Generation from Sales, Royalties and User Fees in the Seychelles MPAs
Source: Mathieu (1998)
The sale of tickets to tourists for entry into the Marine National Parks as well as boat-mooring fees, filming fees, sales of coco-de-mer and tortoises, and hiring of picnic facilities form the basic revenue of the Seychelles marine parks. In 1997, the total revenue of the parks was Rp 1,990,058 (US$400,00). Of this, 70% was derived from the user fees and less than 1% from the other forms of revenue generation mentioned above. 68% of this revenue was derived from two of the five parks, which thus subsidized the running of the other three parks. The central management of the parks by the Seychelles Marine Parks Authority has cut costs through sharing of administration expenses. Note that the wildlife products for sale have to be sustainably harvested and managed.
Case 2.4: A Portfolio of Financing Mechanisms in Saba Marine Park, Netherlands Antilles
Source: Nature Conservancy (2001)
The Saba Marine Park was established in 1987 by the government of Saba in the Netherlands Antilles. Management of the park is delegated to an NGO, the Saba Conservation Foundation, which has authority to carry out all management activities. The NGO was created to manage the park.
The park was established with grants from the island government, Dutch Development Corporation, and private foundations, totaling US$270,000. The Saba Conservation Foundation then embarked on a three-pronged revenue-generation strategy emphasizing user fees, souvenir sales and voluntary donations. The strategy also focused on keeping operating expenses low by using volunteer services wherever possible, soliciting in kind goods and services, and requesting grants for special projects, such as research and monitoring. The Island government continued to subsidize operating expenses for three years beyond the start-up period as the revenue streams were coming online.
User fees were first charged only to divers (US$1 per dive) and snorkelers (US$1 per visit to the island). Commercial operators of dive and snorkel excursions collected the fees and turned them and diver/snorkeler statistics over to the Foundation each month. Later, the fee was doubled and a yacht mooring/anchorage fee was introduced. These fees bring in about half the park's revenue. Souvenir sales bring in another 32 percent, and voluntary donations and other income provide 17 percent. Donations are generated through a "Friends of the Saba Marine Park" promotion that encourages park visitors to register, give donations, and receive information via a newsletter. The "Friends" organization is registered in the USA so that USA visitors can give tax-deductible contributions on site or by mail after their return.
Case 2.5: Entrance Fees Charged by the Galpagos National Park
Galpagos National Park (GNP) earns over US$5 million per year through user fees of various sorts. This is of high value to the government of Ecuador, and previously 30% of this revenue was reverted to the mainland. However, since 1998, the Special Law for the Galpagos has required 90% of this revenue to remain in the islands. Currently, 40% of the revenues are reinvested into the management of GNP, 5% goes directly to the management of the Galpagos Marine Reserve, 5% to the quarantine and control system, 5% to the Galpagos National Trust, 20% to the Galpagos municipalities, 20% to provincial local governments, 5% to the Department of Environment and 5% to the National Navy.
In order to achieve this high level of revenue, Galpagos National Park charges a high fee, particularly for foreign tourists. This fee reflects the high willingness to pay for entry to the park.
Galpagos National Park's Fee System (US$)
Foreign Tourist 100
Foreign Tourist under 12 50
Foreign Tourist from the Andean Community or Mercosur 50
Foreign Tourist from the Andean Community or Mercosur under 12 25
Citizen/resident of Ecuador 6
Citizen/resident of Ecuador under 12 3
Foreign tourist non resident attending national academic institute 5
Tourist under 2 years 0
Case 3.1: Komodo National Park Collaborative Management Initiative (KCMI), Indonesia
Sources: Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative Project document, submitted to the GEF in September 2001, Randy Kramer, pers. comm.
Komodo National Park (KNP) is embarking on a collaborative management approach, involving all key stakeholder groups in the management of the protected area. These include the park authority (PHKA), local government, a Joint Venture between an international NGO (The Nature Conservancy-TNC) and a local tourism company (JPU), as well as local communities, government agencies, and private-sector organizations. A tri-partite collaborative management agreement between the Joint Venture, PHKA and the local government is being developed to set out divisions of responsibility between the three bodies in conservation management, monitoring and enforcement and sustainable livelihood activities. PHKA will maintain a role in park management, but through separate collaborative management agreements. The involvement of local communities will be assured through their representation in the Community Coordination Forum.
The Joint Venture (JV) has been established as a for-profit company whose charter directs that any profits earned will be invested back into conservation. This will give the JV due respect among other commercial bodies involved in the area, while maintaining its credibility as an institution with conservation as its bottom line. A business plan for the Joint Venture has been completed. The JV has applied for a 30-year tourism concession by the Ministry of Forestry, which authorizes the JV to collect gate fees, establish and implement carrying capacity limits, and develop a tourism licensing system. The JV has applied for long-term funding from GEF/IFC to set up this tourism concession.
This represents a groundbreaking policy experiment for the government of Indonesia and for management of protected areas in general. The rationale behind the agreement was based on a proven track record of each partner in investing in KNP, as well as complementarities between the conservation NGO and the tourism-oriented private sector company. Over time, as the concession becomes more established, the JV plans to move toward co-management arrangements with local communities and local government.
In the long term, the KCMI plans to bolster the limited capacity of PHKA to protect the resources of KNP and to make KNP a self-financing park, with its management costs being covered by tourism revenue. A 25-year management plan has been developed for KNP by the government, TNC, and other partners. In addition, an analysis of economic issues, community enterprise assessments and a comprehensive tourism study have taken place, all feeding into establishment of the concession.
Positive and negative incentive mechanisms will be used to ensure the sustainable use and protection of the resources. These include: a micro-enterprise fund for local family-based businesses, a research and development of sustainable methods of marine resource use, and a community development grants to finance urgent welfare needs. Regulation and fines systems will also be put in place and/or strengthened.
Case 3.2: The Ucunivanua Project, Fiji: Benefits from Involving Communities in Co-management Regimes
Source: Tawake et al. (2001)
In the early 1990s, residents of Ucunivanua village in Fiji recognized that the marine resources they depended on were becoming scarce. In the past, village elders recalled collecting several bags of large kaikoso (a clam found in the shallow mudflats and seagrass beds) in a few hours. However, by early 1990s, a woman could collect only half a bag of small clams after a full day on the mudflats. One solution identified by the community was to return to their traditional management practice of setting up tabu areas - regions that were temporarily closed to fishing to replenish stocks. They experimented by setting up a 24-hectare tabu area on the mudflat and seagrass bed in front of the village. A management team was assigned to stake out the area and, with assistance from a team from the University of the South Pacific and the Biodiversity Conservation Network, developed and implemented simple monitoring methods. The management team monitored the site twice in the first year and annually thereafter. The results showed an increase in numbers and size of clams, in some cases, the biggest clams found in three generations. Because of the work involved and the results, the entire Ucinivanua community became interested in the tabu area, and once they saw the effects of the tabu area, they decided to set up other tabu areas in mangroves and coral reefs to protect one species of mud lobster, several species of sea cucumbers and several coral reef fishes and invertebrates, all of which were of some economic or cultural value to the village members. The Ucunivanua community is considering converting some of these temporary tabu areas into permanent no-take sites. Soon other communities across Fiji became interested in setting up their own tabu areas and customary marine reserves are now being set up in four other sites across Fiji, covering a total of over 15 km2 of protected coastal habitat. The Ucunivanua project also influenced government policy. The government policy makers are now planning to adopt traditional Fijian customs to manage marine resources and have a full-time program focusing on locally managed marine reserves within Fiji's coastal waters. This effort is also being extended to other island states in the Pacific, and lessons are being shared internationally amongst local communities.
Case 3.3: Bunaken National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia: Co-management with the Private Sector
In Bunaken National Park, the park authority has been facilitating a participatory management approach, developing strategic partnerships with government agencies, the private sector and local communities in order to access necessary technical and financial support.
Strong management support has come from the Sulawesi Water Sport Association, an association of diver operators located primarily outside the park. SWSA is now actively involved in monitoring and enforcement activities, using funds collected from the different dive operators. For example, they financed the mooring buoy program and got active participation from the local communities in the management of the buoys in order to prevent the mooring buoys from being stolen. Furthermore, the SWSA has set up a scholarship program to send local high school graduates (from within the park's boundaries) to university to study marine biology and tourism management. It has purchased fuel for patrol boats, facilitated community participation in enforcement and collect entrance fees from visitors. Furthermore, they have developed incentive programs within their own industry to encourage best practices by developing a code of conduct. For a more comprehensive case study on Bunaken MPA see the annex to this chapter.
Case 3.4: Products and Livelihood Alternatives that Support Marine Conservation, St. Lucia
Source: Callum Roberts, pers. comm.
Local coastal communities whose livelihoods have been displaced or whose productive opportunities have been reduced as a result of a marine protected area may benefit from the development of new products and markets that support marine conservation. Such new markets can provide good incentives for supporting conservation. For example, in St. Lucia, many of the fishers who livelihoods were being affected by decreased catch (due to the degrading fishery), and subsequently the enforcement of no-take areas, were able to switch to becoming boat taxis or guides for tourists, providing them with more stable and in many cases, higher income.
Case 3.5: Economic Instruments in the Seychelles
Source: Salm, 2000
Economic instruments have also provided incentives to support protection of marine resources. In the Seychelles, a broad range of economic instruments have been recommended to encourage commercial and industrial producers to avoid marine biodiversity degradation in the course of their economic activities, including: (a) refundable beach waste deposits levied on hoteliers, refundable against cleanup, (b) a mooring ban be set for tour operators apart from designated anchors and buoys to guard against reef degradation, (c) a variable scale of fishing license fees according to target species and fishing methods to promote sustainable fishing practices, and (d) a series of tax concessions and waived import duties on waste disposal equipment and clean technologies for industries operating in the coastal strip.
Case 3.6: Fishery License to Preserve Healthy Fish Stocks in St. Brandon, Mauritius
Cesar et al. (2000c)
St. Brandon is located almost 400 km north of Mauritius. It consists of a shallow area some 60 km long and 25km wide with 55 sand cays and vegetated islands, lagoons and coral reefs. Only two islands are inhabited, both by fishers working for one company. The area has been identified to be of regional importance for marine biodiversity conservation. St. Brandon has an intact marine fauna due to prudent exploitation by the licensed fishing company that sets conservative quota and only fishes part of the reef, thereby de facto establishing fully protected areas that act as "sources" for adjacent areas. As the company holds a permanent fishing license and lease on 13 islands and a renewable lease on 15 more, it has a long-term interest in exploiting the resources sustainably.
The key to its success in maintaining healthy fish stocks lies in an area based management system and a long-term interest in maintaining the resources. This is possible because of the absence of competition. A recently prepared management plan for the area by the World Bank recommends the fishing company as the guardian of the archipelago, to protect not only the marine but also the terrestrial resources (mainly birds and sea turtle beaches) as the remoteness of St. Brandon makes it impossible for the Mauritian government to protect it. Periodic monitoring would be carried out and prolongation of the renewable lease by the government would be dependent upon the effectiveness of protection. To expand the basis for revenue generation, boat-based ecotourism (living aboard) has been recommended.
Case 3.7: Sport Fishing Licenses Provide Large Incentives for Conservation in Cuba
Source: Benchley (2002)
About 50 miles off the southeast coast of Cuba, roughly a thousand square miles (about 260,00 km2) of reefs, mangrove swamps, and islands, are known collectively as Jardines de la Reina (the Garden of the Queen). This area is closely guarded and accessed by only a few Cuban lobster boats, foreign divers and light-tackle fishers. Strictly enforced government laws against poaching protect the area, but this is not likely to be enough to ensure the pristine state of the area is maintained. Some essential protection comes from a public-private joint venture between the Cuban government and an Italian company named Avalon. The government has granted Avalon a license to operate a substantial catch-and-release fishing camp. This area boasts the finest fly-fishing in the world for bonefish, tarpon and permit, which makes it in the company's best interest to ensure that nobody affects the area.
|Marine Protected Areas||Previous Next Page 7(9)|