Page 7 - HimesAH(2007)

encounters in a short period of time, but also destroying the set nets of the small­scale
artisanal fishing fleet. The comment that there are too many fishing boats overall, which,
combined, are overexploiting the fishery, was also relatively common. Other explanations
given were that there is less space to set nets because of the no­fishing zones of the reserve
and too many fishers, that there is no enforcement of the reserve and fishing regulations, and
that technological improvements in gear allow fishers to catch too much (figure 2).
Additionally, almost 20% of fishers did not have an explanation of why their catch was
decreasing.

Understanding stakeholder perceptions of the overall success of an MPA is an
important step in evaluating what must done to improve management. It is clear that the EIMR
has been an apparent failure to at least one user group that is affected by it. To understand
this reaction, respondents were also asked to qualify their response by identifying their
preferences for management performance indicators and what can be done to improve their
vision of the MPA.

Management preferences

Respondents were asked to complete the sentence: ‘In my opinion, the EIMR will be a success
in the future when or if…’ The aim of the question was to determine what aspect of
management and what kind of management issues were most important to each respondent in
determining overall success of the MPA. Asking about each respondent’s personal vision
attempted to evoke an initial and emotive response that would indicate where the
respondent’s priorities were. Most respondents were able to list one to four brief indicators of
good performance of the EIMR. Very few were able to list more than four distinct responses.

Each response was examined and coded according to the terms that the respondent
used in describing their vision of a successful MPA. Occasionally a respondent’s description
referred to the same category more than once. In these cases the related co mponents of their
responses were combined and tallied only once in the associated performance indicator
category. Responses were coded into one of six pre­determined categories, reflecting
different aspects of management that frame the WCPA Framework (Hockings et al 2000): 1)
contextual issues, 2) planning activities, 3) inputs (including financial, technical and human
resources), 4) management processes and the way in which decisions are made, 5) outputs
(including products and services) from management, and 6) outcomes (that is, achievements
and changes) derived from those management activities. The category ‘outcomes’ was further
divided into four specific areas that reflect the range of answers provided: increased
awareness; economic changes; changes in social behaviours and/or attitudes; and biological
and ecological improvements. Responses in each category were then divided into indicators
of MPA performance.

A description of the management categories and most frequently identified
performance indicators are listed in table 3 to give an indication of how respondents’
priorities and criteria for success are distributed across various aspects of management.
Figure 3 provides an indication of how respondents’ priorities and criteria for ‘success’ are
distributed across various aspects of management.

From figure 2 it is immediately noticeable that fishers clearly value the planning,
output and outcome aspects of management. A clear majority of respondents nominated at
least one performance indicator in these three categories. A noticeable result is that no one
no minated a management input. This is an interesting finding as it goes against the idea that
in order to successfully obtain many of the other indicators, there must be staff associated
with the management body that can undertake necessary work and there must be adequate