3. MA RINE TOURISM: MANA GEMENT AND CONSERVATION
3.6. Marine Protected Areas
to local extinct ion of vulne rable spec ies. In these specific cases the challenge is to investig ate why the over-ex ploitatio n is happ ening and to relate the appro priate appro aches to solve the probl em. Marine prot ected areas can be a tool for add ress ing issu es such as marin e ecosyste m degrad ati on and threaten ed spec ies (Robinson,1995).
There is a gen er al lack of scientific evide nce evalua ting the dec reases in marine fish populations,but in several areas commercial fish eri es are noticing declines in catches to the point wher e the industry almos tsto ps being econo mically viabl e.Over-fi shing ofone species might affec t a who le ecosyste m, but little is known as to actually how.There are man y uncert ainti es conce rn ing glob al , regi on al and loc al fish stoc ks, but one aspect is fairl y clear; the biggest threat to marine biodiver sity is human s, our activities and populati on growth (Moyle & Leidy, 1992). There is an increasing conce rn about both recre ati on al and comme rc ia lshar k fishin g and its potential effects on marine food webs (Mauire and Gruber , 1990 in Moyle &Leid y, 199 2).
Until recently less than 5% of the Great Barri er ReefMarin e Park (G BRM P) were actual no-take areas, but this was expande d to 33.3% in July 2004 (Sa leet aL.,2005).Over 1.6 million touri sts visit the area every year, and there are around 730 permitted tourism ope rators of which 60% are active ly operating (Skea t, 2003). The tou rists pay an Env iro nmenta l Man agement Charg e (EM C) of AU$ 4 per person per day (David &
Gart sid e, 200 1). The main activities are SCUBAdivin g, snor ke lling, recreationa l fishing, glass -botto m boat trip s, sailing and learn ing about the mar ine env iro nment. The tou rism industry has a great respo nsibility for ed uca ting the tourists abo ut sustaina bility and minimisin gthe vis itors ' enviro nme ntal impacts (Skea t,2003).
The GBR is mainl y man aged by the Great Barrier Ree f Marin e Park Autho rity (GBRPA), in collabora tio n with Queen sland Park s and Wildlife Service and othe r authorities and sta keho lde rs under the nation al and region al govern ment. The collaborative managemen t aims to facilitate forpro vidin g positi ve anded uca tiona lvisitor exper iences of the GBR throu gh wise use and protecti ve man agement. One of the objectives is to redu ce confl icts bet ween the differ ent user gro ups and enco urage the use of best practi ses and sustaina ble code of cond ucts. One of the most importan t env iro nmental man agem ent tools used in the GBR is zoning . The Great Barrier Ree f Marin e Park is divide d into zones based on the activities cond ucted and allowed in the different zones. The major ity of commerc ial and also some non- commercial activi ties require perm its from the GBRMPA. Coll ab orat ion between the authorities and the touri sm opera tors is seen as very importan t for the GBR' s marine touri sm lon g term sustaina bility. Addition ally, marine touri sm is cons ide red as a valua ble oppo rtunity to inform the mar ine touri st s abo ut the marine enviro nment and its conse rva tio n need s.
Marine tourism in the GBR contributes to raising gene ra l public awareness abo ut marin e ecosystems and the need for its prot ection and itsintrin sic value (Ske at, 2003).
Many ofthe areas within the GBR have site spec ific management plans for each area's spec ific needs. Adive site well-know nfor its populati on of bigpot ato cods received over 30,000 diver s annua lly. Fishing in this area was restri cted inorde r to protect the resid ent fish .Other site speci fic man agement measures were suggested and later introdu ced bythe
dive operators themselves.They formed a reef operator association and in collaborati on with the GBRMPA the operators are now partly self-regulated. Regulations include boat size, the amount of time spent per operator per reefand fish feeding (Orams, 1999).Dive touri sm operators can apply for permits for feeding certain marine speci es such as the Potato Cod at the famous dive site Cod hole. Shark baiting (no t feeding) occur in the Coral Sea, outside the GBR. Shark baiting (chumming) is conducted in one spec ific area. Fish bait in a small cage box is lowered down a mooring line to a fixed mooring on one of the reefs (Os prey Reef). The dive tourists gather around this area to experience the huge number of different sharks being attracted to the bait box (re f. person al obse rvation, 2003).
Marine protected areas are often lobbi ed or spo ken for by con serv ationi sts repr esenting non-government al organisations (NGGs). The NGGs are in many cases a link between scientific or academic communities, the authorities and the public. While the authoriti es focu s on fisheries is to harvest the highest amount of fishing yield s, the con ser vationists ha ve a mor e ecosyste m-base d approac h. NGOs also tend to focu s on the precauti on ary approa ch, often menti oned under sustainability strateg ies, meaning in situa tions of uncert aint y as to whether an actio n is ecologica llysustainableor not , rather not conduct theconsidered action asa preventative measure (Agardy, 2000).
The use of marin e protect ed areasas a man agement strategy aims beyond the species- to- species point of view, and aspires to conse rve ecosyste ms as a whole including all their inhabit ants and services . Howe ver , it is not possibl e to fenc e in marin e spec ies, as it is with terrestrial areas and animals, and a combina tion of internation al conser vation management is necessary inorder tobe effective (Aga rdy , 2000).
Sale etal.(2005) identify severa l gaps in the scientific ecologica l knowledge conce rning no-tak e marin e areas. First of all there need s to be an acknow ledge ment of the need for further fact s and data, followe d by close collaborati on between specialised marin e scientists and the authorities. Detailed scientific back ground data is needed in order to establis h MPAs in the most crucial geographical sites, in addition to understanding the
size need ed for each area dep ending on the movem ent of the different spec ies with protecti on needs.Forlon gdistance migr atory spec ies MPA prot ection alone would not be suffic ient as a conservatio n stra tegy. Studies of marin e ecosyste ms need to per sist on a lon g- term basis in order to be useful and pro vide reliable and use ful data. The differen t govern ments need to pro vide funds for marin eresearch.
According to David & Gart sid e (200 1), manne natur al resources are exceptiona lly valuable, and ren ewable if man aged in a sustaina ble mann er. However , sustai na ble marin e man agem ent is rather rare, and there are man y examples of overex ploita tion by both the fishing ind ustry, polluter s and touri sm ope rators. The econo mic aspec ts of marin e resource man agem ent are traditi on ally regul ator y; "demand-and-control" (David
& Gartsid e, 2001,pp.224),meaning the autho rities legislati on or setstandar ds relatin gto, for examp le, user beh aviour and use of fishing eq uipment. Econ omi sts arg ue that a mark et-based incentive approach would be a more appro priate marin e man agem ent strategy. This approac h includes assimilatio n of different mon et ary values on marine resour cesthrough , for example, tax, prices or right s of use or access. But, how to set the correc t price on a marin e resource , and what is the intrinsic value of a mar ine area?
Marine resources are often under-valu ed as a result of thedifficulty of setting a mon etary value on a natur al resource , and conse q ue ntly overuse d. The maj or ity of marin e areas ha ve openaccess to allas they are the prop ert y of the state and peopl e , man aged by the authorities or govern mentalagencies . The main pro ble m of this regulato ry man agem ent approac h is that the financi al and social cost of the enforce ment of the legislat ion and regul ati on is too high and ther e fore not efficiently cond ucted, le adin g to degrad ation . Marin e man agem ent often lead to trad e-offs between econo mic effec tive ness and ecologicalor socialoutco mes. The issue of equity and equa l right to use and access to a marin e area are highl y affected by env iro nme nta l man agement and econo mics. Those with the least oppor tunity to pay for the use of a marin e resour ce are the firstto lose out when regul at ion s are put in place (Dav id & Gartsid e, 200 1). The issue of fairness and env ironme nta l justice in South Africa is a difficult and comp lex probl em resulting from the lon g histor y of apartheid and unfair distri butio n of resources hum, an ribzhts and ed uca tio n to menti on some (Scott & Oelofse, 2005). The issue of marin e conservation
therefor e bec omes even more sens itive and compo und in a socia l aspec t, as politi cal fairn ess at present time must compen sate for the extre me number of politi cal crimes conducted in the past.
Marin e protected areas can be import ant for protecting certain species feeding and breeding habitats, promoting awareness through increasing public awareness and providing for marine eco to urism experiences , thus providing financial income.
Additionally, marin e protected areas are crucial for scientific research . Management of the marine enviro nment needs continuo us studies as it is a constant process of chang e, impro vem ent and ada ptation (Agardy, 2000) . The establishme nts and managem ent of marin e protected areas must include all the releva nt stakeho lde rs with a close collabora tion bet ween scientists, local fishin g community, authori ties and other marin e user gro ups in the area. Addition ally, itis import ant to keep allthe invol ved and affected stakeho lde rs inform ed in a tran sparen t mann er conce rn ing the MPA and for the authorities to provide for monitorin g andenfo rce ment. In areas where local communities and their livelih ood is directl y affec ted, the autho rities sho uld be responsible for providing altern ati ve incom e options to maintain or impro ve the citizens' qualit y of life (Sa leet al., 2005) .
3.6.1. Marine Protected Areas ill South Africa
There used to be three main areas of marin e protecti on in South Africa:De Hoop Marin e Reser ve in the southern Cape, the Tsit sik amm a Nati on al Park fur ther east and the St.
Lucia and Maputuland Marin e Reserves on the north-east coast(T urpie et al.,2000). Five ne wMPAs were established in 2005and South Africanow has a totalof 19 MPAs.The ne w areas include Bird Island Marin e and Namaqua land Reserves which are abso lute
"no-ta ke" zones . Pond oland Marine Protec ted Area is now the largest MPA in South Africa covering 90 km of coastline and 15 km seaward . Togeth er with newly decl ared AliwalShoal MPAand Cape Peninsula Mar ine Reser ve,Pond oland has a combinatio nof
"no-take" and"contro lled" areas (W W F,2005; MCM, 2005a).
SouthAfrica has at present protect ed around 18-20% ofits marin e areas. The main aim is to protect biodi versit yand to protect from over-fishing (MCM, 2005a). Additionally, the MPAs are con sidered as sig nifica nt in protecting import ant areas and habit ats for import ant steps in differ ent fish life cycles, thus boostin g the overall fishin g in South African waters (DE AT, 2005c).The nation al goa l is a minimum of 20% as stated in the World ParksCon gressheld in Durban in2004.The responsibility ofman aging the MPAs is a joint collaboration between Marin e and Coastal Management under the nation al govern ment, South African Nati onal Park s and Ezem velo KwaZulu-Nat al Wildlife (MCM, 2005a).The protecti on ofbiod iversi ty is considered as imperative in association with the establishme nt of MPAs. Howe ver , MPAs are also an import ant tool for the de velopmen t and contro lling of econo mic benefits from commerc ia l activities, mainl y SCUB A diving.Such areas incl ude Aliwal Shoal,Cape Peninsul a and Pond oland MPAs (DEAT,2005c).
Ezem velo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) is the respon sibl e orga nisation, thus authority of the managem ent of natur e conse rva tion and development of ecoto uris m in KwaZulu-N atal (KZN). They are responsi ble for the over 400 km long coastline of the region , including both protected and non-protected areas. A study by World Wildlife Found ation (WWF) (Lemm & Attwood, 2003) on the state of MPAs in South Africa sugges t that EKZNW sho uld "attempt to secure additiona l field staff' and "enco urage their staff to particip ate in MPA train ing courses, and other marin e skills such as skippering and diving" (Lemm &Attwood , 2003.pp.l7) .Further suggestionsconce rn the need for more enforcement and poli cin g with more frequ ent contro ls and access point chec ks. Other comments on marin e protected area man agemen t in South Africa included need for bett er communicatio n bet ween the nation al and regiona l authorities, lack of knowled ge abo ut the legislati on , need for further public invol vem en t in mann e managem ent and better monitoring systems . The study also suggests that Ragged Tooth sharks sho uld be fully protected ,not on ly from commerc ial fishin g, the reasoning bein g the popularit y ofthe sha rks bydivetourists(Lemm& Attwood,2003).
3.6.2. Userconflicts and marineareas
Man y MPAs attract tourists suc h as SCU BA divers and fishermen , which auto matica lly create user conflic ts due todifferen t interests. Differ en t management tools suchas zoning have in man y cases solved or at least redu ced these disputes (Sa lm et al., 2000). The right s of a user group in a marin e area often becom e a case of prop erty righ ts and access privile ges to the marine resources. Regul ati on s can be establishe d for the different user groups and can include open access to a spec ific gro up (for example non-con sumptive divers) while restricting others (suc h as recre ation al fishe rmen). Limited entry approaches can also app ly to different operato rs withinthe same segment. Anexample is differentdive operators with differen t allocated reefs or time restrictions ateach dive site (Davi d &Gart sid e , 2001).
Confli ct betw een different user groups or stake ho lde rs is a commo n phen omen on in marin e areas, but maybe spec ifica lly in connec tion with MPAs which usuall y include spec ificregulations and rearr an gingthe pre vioususe of the area. One of the main reason s for the developm ent of conflictis by lack ofinvol vemen t by allthe relevan t stake ho lde rs and peopl e who use or care for the marin e area. The issue of having a transp arent decision-makin g process invol ving all the rele vant stake ho lde rs in an MPA is cons idere d as the basic necessit y for its success. The various user gro ups will have differ ent needs, and communic at ion is seen as the key for understanding, dialog, joint problem solving and resoluti on . Conflict is not necessarily just negati ve , but can be the beginn ing of recogni sin g probl e ms in the marin e area and initiat ing a process of solving the diffic ulties. Howe ver , con flic ts can also become destructi ve leading to hostil ity amo ngs t the diffe re nt direct stakeho lde rs(Lewis, 1996).
Lewi s(1996) lists three main principles for solving conflic ts in pro tected areas. The first is tofocus on the underlying interest of the stake ho lders. The interest of a stake ho lde r means his or her need s and conce rns. This ter m is oftenconfuse d with the word position . Positi on relates to the sta keho lders' suggestions on ho w to satisfy thei r interest. The interest of, for examp le, protecting a spec ies of fish can be represented by a ran ge of different stake ho lders with different positions. Ifthe focus is direc tlyon the sta ke ho lder's
interest,thedesired outco me ofa decision -makin g process might be easier to reachand it might be easier to both understand and satisfy more user gro ups . How e ver, it is not common to end up with a outco me that all the stakeho lde rs are fully satisfied with.
Usu ally some sort of compromi ses has to be made in orde r to reach some sort of parti al andfair win-winsituation.
The second principle of conflict managem en t is to involve all significa ntly affected stakeholde rs inafairand resp ectful process. People want to be invol ved in the decision- makingconc erning areas they use or care about. The lack of invol vin g stakeho lders in the process of establishing prot ected areas has result ed in frus tration amongst the stakeho lders and vario us conflicts have arise n. If the stakeho lde rs are invol ved from the beginning of a proj ect of, for examp le, establishing a MPA, they are more likel y to support the project and contribute with thei r own knowledge ofthe area. Inclusion also provides people with a sense of ownership and guides toward s stewa rds hip. The third principl e is to understand the power that various stakeholde rs have. and take that into accountwhentrying to resolve a conflict. Power is critica l in solving a conflict. Different stakeho lde rs will relate differentl y to a decision -makin g process or conflict solving procedure relatin gto thei r back ground and per cei ved le vel of power. There exist arang e of differen t powers; power of autho rity, knowled ge, person ality, econo mic and political to men tion some(Lewis, 1996).
Confli cts over natural areas will necessarily differ grea tly depending on the spec ific site in which the conflict playsout. A conflict solving process or theprocess of establishing a natur e protected area is similar to the process of Enviro nmenta l Impact Assessment (EIA) .The first step ina conflict solving process is to establish the differen t roles ofthe particip ant s.Secondl y,there would have to be anassessment the conflict,establishwho it incl udes, in add ition to gathe ring other rele vant inform ati on . Thirdly, the releva nt stakeho lde rs would need to be involved in the process of negoti ati on and solutions. It is imper ati veto involve all the sta keho lders,not only the ones whospea k loud est, andsome stakeho lde rs might need some assistance or repr esent ati ves to embody their poin t of view. It is of significa nce to meet some of the need s of all the sta keho lde rs in orde r to