Page 31 - DAnna_Badalamenti_alii_2013

sector were given in the shape of a subsidy for technical or biological fishing stop (the so called
“fishing rest”) that was a form of temporary fishing effort reduction, but it did not have any positive
effect on fishery resources. Currently only E1 and E3 economic incentives are applied in the Egadi.
However while E1 compensates the Egadi residents for the restrictions related to the MPA, E3
involves several sectors of the local economy and stimulates them to create job opportunities and
alternative livelihoods based on the valorisation and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources.
This approach could be the base on which building an alternative scenario of more effective
governance in the Egadi MPA. The idea that nature conservation can give an added value to the local
economy might pave the road to a more active participation of stakeholders to the MPA governance.
However, in this new scenario several typologies of incentives need to be integrated. Scientific
knowledge and regular monitoring/evaluation activities are needed to support decision-making in
relation to the priority objective (point 5.3, K5); legal incentives (point 5.4, L1, L2, L3, L5 and L9) are
already contained in the “Isole Egadi” management plan and in the Trapani LFMP but are not yet fully
implemented. Results from the interviews highlighted the lack of interpretative incentives (5.4, I1, I2,
I3) essential to divulgate the potential benefits deriving from the conservation of nature and its
biodiversity. This gap can be bridged thanks to Decree n. 83 of February 2012 of the Sicilian
Department of the Environment (Tab. 2, point 7). This decree, using European funds (P.O. FESR
Sicilia 2007/2013, operational objective, 3.2.2 - intervention line 3.2.2.4), provides economic support
to the stakeholders involved in tourist services that carry out joint actions aimed at promoting
biodiversity and at improving the protection, sustainable development and entrepreneurial promotion
of the Sicilian Ecological Network (Natura 2000). But perhaps, the biggest gap in the Egadi MPA is
still the absence of participative governance structures and processes that support collaborative
planning and decision-making. Several municipal and provincial committees exist in the area and
there is also an MPA committee, but they are often sectoral and with a scarce ability of influencing
decision making. Indeed, the development of participative incentives along with other incentives is
essential to support awareness of the MPA and implementation of management measures related to the
priority objective. To ensure that incentives exert their maximum efficiency a clear management
structure and a new governance approach are needed, which join and coordinate all the activities
aimed at nature conservation that are contained in the regulations and management plans existing in
the Egadi archipelago (see also cross-cutting themes section below).

• You are encouraged to explore alternative scenarios of more effective governance in case
studies, which can be more realistic or visionary, and discuss which incentives could be used
under each alternative scenario
You may include in this section discussion of different scenarios for improving governance in the
existing initiative. The scenarios may include, for example, a key change or break-through in the
planning or legislative process, more space for stakeholders to influence the policy process, or more
input from scientists. Please note that such scenarios should not be purely hypothetical, and a reality
base for the scenarios will be needed, for example, through grounding your scenarios on real examples
in a similar context, where positive changes in the governance have been observed. You can then
describe the incentives that will be needed to support these scenarios drawing on the list of incentives
set out in Appendix III.

6 Cross-cutting themes
GA PA however, when discussing cross-cutting theme, the discussion can ‘go broader’ to look at
wider institutional issues. The achievement of the objective(s) often cannot be isolated from the
broader institutional set-up.

This section is the ‘discussion section’ in your case study report, which draws on results and findings
in previous sections. The purpose of this section is to discuss and highlight broad thematic themes that
cannot be captured under previous sections. The main difference between sections 5 (Incentives) and 6
(Cross-cutting themes) is that section 5 looks particularly at specific and individual incentives, while
section 6 looks particularly at wider-scale institutional/structural issues that may underpin or affect the
effectiveness of individual incentives and/or the overall governance approach as described in section 4.

29