Page 8 - HimesAH(2007)

funding available to carry out any projects relevant to making the MPA successful. In this
case, however, it appears that fishers do not consider a lack of staff or funding an important
issue or they take the presence of staff and funding for granted.

The results from the interviews were helpful in establishing several points to consider
about fisher preferences for performance indicators in evaluating the EIMR. The distribution
of coded responses for 14 all­inclusive categories is shown in figure 4 and summarised in
table 4. The indicators are discussed in terms of how they were ranked. The ranks were based
on the frequency of citation. By far, the most cited indicator is that of improvement in the
organisation of MPA management. This includes performance indicators such as qualified
staff, the consideration o f locals and fishers by management authorit ies and when the MPA is
managed seriously.

Increasing enforcement and compliance is the second most ranked performance
indicator. Fishers ranked increasing the strictness of regulations regarding activity in the MPA
third. Closely behind increasing the strictness of regulations, fishers identified de facto
protection and repopulation of the marine environment and involving the community in
management. Surprisingly, increasing fisher’s catch was only nominated as an important
performance indicator by 16% of fishers. Instead more importance was placed on changing
the regulations and zone boundaries and involving fishers (and the community) in
management. Other less frequently nominated performance indicators include increasing
available educational materials, increases in local tourism, less pollution, increasing
community value for the MPA and better services and port facilities. Interestingly, eight
percent of fishers indicated that nothing would ever make the MPA successful and thus
refused to provide answers to the question.

To follow up on stakeholder cited performance indicators, respondents were asked,
“What initiatives would need to be done to achieve your vision of success?” The goal of this
question was to give respondents the opportunity to suggest management initiatives that
could provide the mechanism for achieving the successful MPA they described in the previous
question. This question probed for a more detailed explanation of stakeholder preferences for
performance indicators in the EIMR. It also provides a more natural indication of criteria
respondents use to judge how successful the EIMR is; for a given respondent, a minimum of
success will be reached with the implementation of the management interventions that they
suggest. While many respondents proposed relatively general or vague management
initiatives, many used very specific language in their suggestions. A description of
management categories and most frequently identified management interventions are listed in
table 5.

Fishers tended to concentrate specifically on interventions that directly affect MPA
planning and processes as well as outputs that specifically benefit them. The frequency of
responses can be seen in figure 5. Their answers were more varied and specific than
expected. In the top five indicators, they ranked increasing enforcement, organising
management better, involving the community (specifically fishers) in management,
appointment of a new management body and director, and compensating fishers, respectively.
It is reasonable then to suggest that fishers would prefer to work side by side with MPA
managers that value and support the community and the opinions of local fishers, and will not
support the MPA without enforcement of the regulations. Additionally, fishers suggested a
number of management interventions that illustrate their intense desire to be involved in all
aspects of management and have more strict fishing regulations. The following includes some
of their suggestions:

• Fishing regulations: regulate mesh size, prohibit fishing for juveniles, limit soak time,
prohibit spearfishing, allow occasional permits to fish in no­take zone;

• Zonation: improve the zonation to protect sensitive areas, make the MPA bigger;