Case Studies UNDP: NGUNA-PELE MARINE AND LAND PROTECTED AREA NETWORK

7/27/2019 Case Studies UNDP: NGUNA-PELE MARINE AND LAND PROTECTED AREA NETWORK

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-studies-undp-nguna-pele-marine-and-land-protected-area-network 1/13

Equator Initiative Case StudiesLocal sustainable development solutions for people, nature, and resilient communities

Vanuatu

NGUNA-PELE MARINE ANDLAND PROTECTED AREANETWORK

Empowered live

Resilient nation

Empowered live

Resilient nation



UNDP EQUATOR INITIATIVE CASE STUDY SERIES

Local and indigenous communities across the world are advancing innovative sustainable development solutions that wo

or people and or nature. Few publications or case studies tell the ull story o how such initiatives evolve, the breadth

their impacts, or how they change over time. Fewer still have undertaken to tell these stories with community practition

themselves guiding the narrative.

To mark its 10-year anniversary, the Equator Initiative aims to ll this gap. The ollowing case study is one in a growing ser

that details the work o Equator Prize winners – vetted and peer-reviewed best practices in community-based environmenconservation and sustainable livelihoods. These cases are intended to inspire the policy dialogue needed to take local succ

to scale, to improve the global knowledge base on local environment and development solutions, and to serve as models

replication. Case studies are best viewed and understood with reerence to ‘The Power o Local Action: Lessons rom 10 Years

the Equator Prize’, a compendium o lessons learned and policy guidance that draws rom the case material.

Click on the map to visit the Equator Initiative’s searchable case study database.

EditorsEditor-in-Chie: Joseph Corcoran

Managing Editor: Oliver HughesContributing Editors: Dearbhla Keegan, Matthew Konsa, Erin Lewis, Whitney Wilding

Contributing WritersEdayatu Abieodun Lamptey, Erin Atwell, Toni Blackman, Jonathan Clay, Joseph Corcoran, Larissa Currado, Sarah Gordon, Oliver Hughe

Wen-Juan Jiang, Sonal Kanabar, Dearbhla Keegan, Matthew Konsa, Rachael Lader, Patrick Lee, Erin Lewis, Jona Liebl, Mengning Ma,

Mary McGraw, Gabriele Orlandi, Juliana Quaresma, Peter Schecter, Martin Sommerschuh, Whitney Wilding, Luna Wu

DesignOliver Hughes, Dearbhla Keegan, Matthew Konsa, Amy Korngiebel, Kimberly Koserowski, Erin Lewis, John Mulqueen, Lorena de la Pa

Brandon Payne, Mariajosé Satizábal G.

AcknowledgementsThe Equator Initiative acknowledges with gratitude the Nguna-Pele Marine and Land Protected Area Network. All photo credits court

o Nguna-Pele Marine and Land Protected Area Network. Maps courtesy o CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia.

Suggested CitationUnited Nations Development Programme. 2012. Nguna-Pele Marine and Land Protected Area Network, Vanuatu. Equator Initiative C

Study Series. New York, NY.

http://equatorinitiative.org/images/stories/events/2012events/Book_Launch/power%2520of%2520local%2520action%2520final%25202013%25208mb.pdf




http://equatorinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_winners&view=casestudysearch&Itemid=858



PROJECT SUMMARY This network o marine and terrestrial protected areas span-

ning the Vanuatu islands o Nguna and Pele has brought

together local, national and international actors in a diverse

partnership or the conservation o the area’s unique bio-

diversity. The network comprises sixteen indigenous com-

munities engaged in the conservation o more than 3,000

hectares o marine and terrestrial resources.

The project has become a case study or best practice in

community marine conservation within Vanuatu and the

Pacic islands or its strategies o proactive conservation,resilient management, and locally-appropriate awareness-

raising. Among more than 60 dierent partner organiza-

tions are local and regional NGOs, government ministries,

international volunteer organizations, research institutes,

and tour operators who promote the islands as an ecotour-

ism destination.

KEY FACTS

EQUATOR PRIZE WINNER: 2008

FOUNDED: 2002

LOCATION: Islands of nguna and Pele

BENEFICIARIES: 16 Nguna-Pele villages

BIODIVERSITY: Nguna-Pele Marine and Land Protected Ar

3

NGUNA-PELE MARINE AND LANDPROTECTED AREA NETWORKVanuatu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background and Context 4

Key Activities and Innovations 6

Biodiversity Impacts 8

Socioeconomic Impacts 9

Policy Impacts 10

Sustainability 11

Replication 11

Partners 12



4

he Nguna-Pele Marine and Land Protected Area Network is aon-governmental organization which brings together sixteen

ndigenous communities on the islands o Nguna and Pele in the

entral Shea province o the Republic o Vanuatu. The initiative

romotes the sustainable use o marine and terrestrial resources in

ver 3,000 hectares o community-managed rees, sea grass beds,

mangrove orests and intertidal lagoons, coordinating a network

shing communities in conducting biological monitoring,

nvironmental education, waste management, and alternative

velihood projects. The project has become a case study or best

ractice in community marine conservation within Vanuatu and the

acic islands or its strategies o proactive conservation, resilient

management, and locally-appropriate awareness-raising.

he Republic o Vanuatu, an archipelago o 84 islands in the South-

West Pacic, has a population o over 220,000 people, 80% o whom

ngage in artisanal agriculture and 77% in small-scale fisheries. The

slands o Nguna and Pele lie just north o the larger island o Eate,

nd were home to approximately 1,100 people at the time o the

ational census in 2000. The population is spread unevenly among

ixteen communities, ten o which are located directly on the coast;

hese villages are no more than a three-hour walk rom one another.

A hereditary paramount chie presides over each village, assisted in

overnance duties by one or more lower chies. These chies largely

eal with the preservation and promotion o local custom. Day-to-

ay aairs and administration o the community alls, however, to

emocratically elected village councils, as is common in other parts

Vanuatu. The councils are oten themselves made up o several

pecialized committees. The advent o this system can be traced

ack to the inuence o Christian missionaries in the 1870s, which

esulted in a reorganization o local social structures; a shit rom a

lan-line elected system o governance to a hereditary royal-amily

hiey system.

An unclear land tenure context

In Vanuatu all land belongs to customary owners by decre

the national constitution. However, the denition o custo

ownership remains vague; customary land owners are not us

individuals, a trait that existing statutory land policy does

appropriately capture. Communal right o access to natural reso

is typical o many Pacic island societies, and is especially releva

the marine context. While there has been a legal trend away

group and toward private land ownership in Vanuatu, encour

by regional policies and investor-driven land acquisition, ew

deeds have been granted over parts o Nguna and Pele; s

land areas and garden plots have relatively clear boundaries

ownership tends to lie with amilies rather than individuals. Viboundaries are perceived dierently to amily land areas, how

A strong sense o communal identity typies village membersh

Nguna and Pele – belonging to a community or village provid

critical saety net by ensuring access to resources or those wit

hereditary entitlements. Geographical boundaries o a comm

are thereore treated with importance on the islands; due to dyn

settlement trends and the uncodied nature o communities, vi

boundaries are typically unclear and oten disputed. These disp

have occasionally led to hostilities when benets o tourism

inrastructural development were at stake.

A history o cooperation in Nguna and PeleDespite these inrequent tensions, the Nguna-Pele area is lo

renowned or a history o inter-community collaboration. Villag

the two islands share a unique dialect as well as similar cultura

customary practices. Intermarriage between island villages ens

social connections remain strong. Another legacy o the presen

missionaries is the existence o robust networks that span the

islands, such as the Nguna-Pele Presbyterian Session uniting e

rom each community, the Nguna-Pele Council o Chies (NAPE)

the Nguna-Pele Shea Provincial Councilor Technical Advisory G

Background and Context



55

his history o cooperation on the issue o resource access and territory

emarcation was the context or marine resource management

orts in Nguna-Pele. Each island is surrounded by ringing rees,

ypically extending 10 to 200 metres rom the shoreline. While ew

ndividuals or households on Nguna and Pele make an exclusive

ving rom the sea, most are involved in opportunistic shing and

ee gleaning. The importance o sea resources or household diets

aries across the islands. In contrast to land ownership, areas o ree

re not demarcated or use by amilies or groups, but are ratherpen or use by all members o a particular community. Access to

marine resources is typically allowed or subsistence or small-scale

ommercial needs. Large-scale commercial harvests, however,

equire permission o the chie and the village council. Village

members may make a monetary contribution to the council when

ndertaking a larger-than-usual harvest rom village marine tenure

rea. Boundaries are dened in many dierent ways – one common

enition is the outer edge o the ree – but the use o these

oundaries to exclude non-community members rom using village

esources is a de acto practice on Nguna and Pele. Permission must

lways be sought beore rees can be used by an outsider. One role

village chies is to grant or revoke permission or outsiders to use

community’s ree resources, in their customary roles as community

tewards. In practice, the village council holds the responsibility

dening the uses, developments and restrictions within the

ommunity’s sea tenure area.

Resource conservation rooted in local tradition

he design and implementation o marine closures to meet social,

ultural, or conservation needs is a common eature o many Pacic

sland communities. Traditionaltabu declarations prohibit harvesting

within dened community marine access areas, and may last or

weeks, years, or indenitely. Some o these tabu periods incorporate

hort-term harvests dictated by economic, social, or cultural

rocesses. Rotational or periodic harvests within marine closures

ave been shown to allow or increased biomass or abundance o

arget species. In Vanuatu, communities have traditionally declared

marine closures more oten or resource conservation than or

ustainable harvesting purposes; in the past, closures employed

y communities on Nguna and Pele were enacted to stockpile

esources in preparation or a celebration or community event

uch as a wedding or chiey ordination. Closure duration was pre-

ecided, and was oten independent o the quality or quantity o

esources available on the ree. Reserve implementation, regulation

norcement, size, type, and location are typically governed by the

ocal community with advisory support rom national government

epartments.

More recently, however, marine closures in the Nguna-Pele and

urrounding areas have been established with the clear objective

resource maintenance or conservation. This has been driven

y the perception o declining marine resources on communities’

ees, as well as awareness o the global state o marine resources.

ocal communities have witnessed changes in their marine and

and resources resulting rom human and environmental pressures:

mprovements in shing methods and technologies, population

rowth, and increased urbanization in the capital o Vanuatu have

riven increases in the demand or seaood resources, while cyclones,

earthquakes, coral bleaching, and the impacts o invasive spe

have posed environmental challenges to resource sustainability

Origins o the Nguna-Pele Network

In the 1990s, the Vanuatu Fisheries Department began wor

with communities on the north coast o Eate Island to encou

marine area closures or trochus stock recovery. Ater some i

success, the Vanuatu-based Wan Smolbag Theatre group crethe “Turtle Monitor” network as a tool or engaging Vanuatu’s

communities in conserving endangered turtle species. The Ng

Pele chies subsequently enacted an area-wide ten-year ba

turtle harvesting across the two islands. In 1998, the commu

o Mere-Sauwia created a terrestrial permanent protected

the ollowing year, the community o Utanlangi established

rst marine tabu area on Nguna. In 2002, the Pele communi

Piliura began work on creating a permanent marine closure

The momentum created by these cumulative eorts led the c

o the Piliura, Worearu, Unakap and Taloa communities to esta

an inormal network called the Nguna-Pele Marine Protected

in 2003. In 2011, this designation was changed to the Nguna-

Marine and Land Protected Area (MLPA) to incorporate its marine and terrestrial conservation ocus.

Since its creation, the Nguna-Pele MLPA has reerred to a netw

o both marine and terrestrial community-managed areas, ra

than a single protected area. This network now includes six

communities across the two islands: the chies and people o

member communities have each set aside an area o village-ow

ree or orest as a tabu resource reserve. These community rese

are small, typically measuring less than 0.05km2, and cover betw

15-45% o the available marine tenured area. Although the goals

objectives o individual marine closures are similar, their orm

expression is highly diverse across the islands. Three closure de

are common in the Nguna and Pele area: permanent, rotatand periodically harvested reserves. Permanent reserves are t

in which the community indenitely closes all harvest. Rotat

reserves do not permit harvest during their closure period,

are designed to be permanently opened in the uture. Period

harvested reserves may allow inrequent and controlled harv

at any time, but generally not more than on one or two occas

per year. Reserves o all kinds commonly restrict harvesting o a

species within them, although reserve openings and harvests

selectively target specic organisms.

Member communities have elected volunteer MLPA representa

to conduct ree surveys, biological monitoring, and ong

environmental awareness. A representative o each community t

part in monthly meetings o the network’s Management Comm

to make decisions guiding the current and uture manageme

the MLPA network. The committee is headed by a Chairman

Project Coordinator. Each member community takes decision

how to conserve and protect their resources, with the broader M

network supporting and guiding these individual projects.

network has engaged international and local researchers, volunt

and educators in collaboration with their members, and has prov

opportunities or peer-to-peer learning and knowledge sharing



6

Key Activities and Innovations

Decisions over tabu implementation, regulations, and enorcementre taken by individual communities, with guidance rom Vanuatu’s

Department o Fisheries and Department o Environment. The

Nguna-Pele MLPA network gives technical support where needed to

ssist communities in their decision-making processes, enorcement

nd tabu demarcation.

Marine Protected Area governance

he decision to implement a marine reserve is taken democratically

n the majority o cases. Each community’s village council has

stablished a conservation committee; this body commonly proposes

esource prohibitions in a village meeting, which is then ollowed by

public debate among residents. I a closure is approved, residentsiscuss potential locations and the type o tabu to be implemented.

inal approval by residents to declare a reserve can take up to a year

o detailed planning by the conservation committee.

Marine reserve declarations are attended by customary ceremonies.

he village chie, as the symbolic resource steward, proclaims the

rea o-limits under the terms set by the community. The paramount

hie will generally evoke ancestral protection over the area.

oundaries o the closed area are demarcated with recognizable

objects; on Nguna and Pele, a namele palm lea tied to a stake is

he most commonly-employed marker, though large white stones,

pig jaws and painted signs are also used. Each village conservation

ommittee is responsible or the maintenance and regulation o

errestrial and marine resources. Conservation committees propose

nd adapt the specic rules or use o the ree. These committees

eport to and ollow the mandates o the village council, which

n turn works under the guidance o the paramount chie. It is

onsidered the responsibility o all community members, including

esidents, the conservation committee, village council and chies, to

omply with village marine regulations and to report trespassers.

Enorcement and surveillance is not difcult in most cases asareas are visible rom the village. In cases where the ree is loc

urther away rom the settlement area, however, trespassing is o

more requent. Rule inringements generally invoke a ne pay

to the chie, which is then divided among the village council

conservation committee. Inractions that involve non-commu

members are dealt with directly by the chie or village counc

each respective community. Fines or non-community member

generally higher as these oenses are viewed as more severe.

Land conservation areas have been more difcult to establish

to maintain due to conicts over land ownership, although s

cases have succeeded. In Mere village on Nguna Island, or insta

despite disputes over the tabu land area, the communitymanaged to maintain a conservation area in which ying oxes

small birds are protected.



7

A supportive network

he role o the Nguna-Pele MLPA network has been to coordinate

nd acilitate action between a large number o community sites;

he network has brought together communities that would not

therwise work together to discuss conservation issues and work

ogether on management solutions or their individual communities.

n addition to this, the initiative is engaged in ongoing negotiationswith the national government or greater local rights to manage

nd access natural resources that will better support community-

evel action. The network also oversees comprehensive campaigns

n raising environmental awareness, waste management,

eveloping mariculture livelihoods, and conducting environmental

ssessments. To date, the Nguna-Pele initiative has undertaken a

umber o noteworthy projects, including an attempt to breed

rochus and giant clams – both endangered species – and a

urtle-tagging project that has enabled monitoring o hundreds o

urtles. Supported projects include school education programs and

working with international universities in biological monitoring.

he MLPA network uses local custom and modern management

tyles, by maintaining and respecting traditional practices alongside

a scientic approach to marine management. Finally, the M

network has ocused on developing ecotourism projects on the

islands to promote create alternative sustainable sources o inc

or the member villages.

The Nguna-Pele MLPA has a constitution and a democ

organizational structure. Each community has elected one or

volunteer representatives to conduct regular ree surveys, tagturtles, plant coral and run continuous environmental aware

sessions. A Management Committee, comprised o representa

rom every community, meets monthly to make decisions gui

the current and uture management o the overall MLPA netw

this Management Committee is led by a seven-person execu

committee, which is elected by village representatives to serv

a two-year term and chairs monthly meetings. All representa

on the management and executive committees are volunt

The Network Manager and our part-time sta assist vi

representatives to carry out day-to-day administration. The M

network has inrastructure on the two islands, including an o

and survey equipment, which is collectively owned by all commu

members.



8

Impacts

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

The Nguna-Pele MLPA network incorporates eleven marine and

wo orest conservation areas on the two islands, collaboratively

managed by sixteen communities. Each area employs locally-

dapted strategies or conservation and management, although

ome approaches are common to multiple sites. In Unakap

village on Nguna Island, or instance, the chies have set aside

hree dierent marine conservation areas: a permanent reserve, a

periodic reserve, and a general use zone. The permanent reserve

does not allow any type o shing activities, but is open to tourism

ctivities and clean-up campaigns or crown-o-thorns starsh. The

periodic reserve is closed to harvesting until the area is needed

or community events such as celebrations or undraising or

ommunity development projects, when high-value species areollected or sale or consumption. Lastly, the general use zone is

open or public access subject to prohibitions on destructive shing

practices and over-harvesting. One indication o the efcacy o tabu

rea implementation is that none o the terrestrial and marine areas

originally set aside or conservation has been reversed; the MLPA

pproach is seen as an appropriate solution to the twin challenges

o conserving threatened species and preserving local culture.

Conservation o agship species

One example o this is that o the sea turtle, undoubtedly Vanuatu’s

most iconic species. Throughout the south-west Pacic, where sea

urtles have traditionally been hunted or millennia, these speciesre now at precipitously low levels, with many biologists predicting

heir imminent extinction unless harvesting is reduced dramatically.

Green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate) sea

urtles are common to the Vanuatu archipelago, while leatherback

urtle nesting sites have also been reported. Green sea turtles are

sted as endangered species on the IUCN Red List; hawksbills and

eatherbacks are critically endangered. There have been many

ttempts to reduce harvesting o these species on Nguna and Pele,

ncluding attempts to raise conservation awareness and engage local

shers in monitoring species population numbers. In 1995, the Wan

molbag Theatre group distributed turtle-tagging equipment to

many communities to promote tagging o nesting turtles in resp

to the South Pacic Regional Environment Program’s (SPREP’s) o the Turtle’. A network o villagers, initially called Turtle Mon

was established to directly link community representatives to

Smolbag. Members were required to tag at least three turtle

month. Now known as the Vanua-Tai network, this organiza

serves as a major conduit o conservation inormation and disco

between remote communities.

In Nguna and Pele, these eorts have been supplemented b

approach to turtle monitoring that integrates ecotourism

local communities. Sea turtle hunting is not undertaken p

or consumption; the act o catching sea turtles and the c

association between islanders and sea turtles has strong cu

roots. The species is also an important attraction or ecotouvisitors. The MLPA network has thereore developed a progra

that encourages traditional hunters to continue practicing

custom, but or conservation rather than consumption purp

or a ee, tourists are able to tag and release these wild-ca

turtle specimens. Turtle Sponsors are presented with a certi

recognizing their nancial contribution and detailing the biolo

particulars o their individual turtle. The name o the sponsor

the turtle are placed on the Nguna-Pele MLPA’s website, and

inormation contributes to an international conservation data

Sponsorship ees are divided among the individual hunter

village conservation committee, and the Nguna-Pele M

providing a regular and sustainable source o income or vil

and the network.

The annual number o sea turtles tagged has quadrupled

the introduction o this initiative, with sea turtle sponsors

contributing to increases in household incomes. The initi

has maintained the cultural identity surrounding turtle hun

and encouraged younger generations to ollow these custo

practices. As an indicator o progress o this programme

associated awareness-raising activities, the number o sea tu

consumed among all villages on the two islands has decline

under ve each year.



Quantiying the evidence base or conservation

Partnerships with universities and research institutes have provided

a broad evidence base or the positive benets o community

approaches to conservation. A study in 2009 o reserves on Nguna,

Pele and Emao islands ound that permanent and periodic reserves

were o benet to local marine ecosystems. The study showed that

pecies o sh that are commonly shed by local communities had

higher abundances in periodic reserves in comparison to open areas.Vulnerable species such as Trochus and Giant Clams were identied

as species that were not suited to periodic harvesting, however. The

positive impacts o marine protected areas in Nguna and Pele was also

demonstrated by the act that sh biomass and marine invertebrate

abundance in community reserves was signicantly larger than in

unmanaged areas. In addition, live coral cover is signicantly greater

within marine reserves due to protection rom destructive shing

activities such as small-mesh gill netting and ree trampling. The

MLPA network has worked with Ree Check International’s regional

nitiative to coordinate monitoring o the islands’ coral rees. Ree

check monitoring occurs between one and our times per year, with

esults entered into the Ree Check Vanuatu database.

Community perceptions o the benets o marine conservation

have largely reected empirical ecological studies o marine health.

A study in 2009 used surveys to assess local resident’s perceptions o

conservation eorts: the report ound that responses corroborated

he hypothesis that permanent reserves were more eective

han periodic closures in enhancing target sh biomass, trochus

abundance, and live coral cover. In particular, higher perceived

coral cover inside permanent reserves was validated by underwater

urveys, while perceptions o the abundance o giant clams inside

eserves also matched ree check results. The study concluded that

as management decisions in the Pacic are commonly made in the

absence o empirical ecological or sheries data, the accuracy and

validity o local perceptions can play an important role in inuencing

management approaches.

Combating an invasive species

The network has also provided evidence or the efcacy o

community-based approaches to invasive species eradication. A

tudy rom December 2009 to March 2010 (Albers 2010) ound that

he Nguna-Pele area was under threat rom the invasive species

crown-o-thorns starsh ( Acanthaster planci ); the study showed

hat an outbreak was likely to occur in the village o Unakap, with

he number o juvenile A. planci increasing and levels o hard coral

cover simultaneously decreasing. The MLPA network subsequentlycoordinated a ‘land and sea clean-up campaign’. This was organized

as a competition between communities: in total, over 10,000 starsh,

ncluding 3,000 rom within the Unakap village land boundary, were

collected, along with more than 53,000 Arican snails.

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

Since the initiative began in 2002, there have been ma

improvements in both the household income and comm

wellbeing o Nguna-Pele’s villages. This is largely attributab

increased ecotourism, improvements in the involvement o wo

and youth in governance and decision-making, and a resurg

o local cultural and linguistic traditions through inter-vi

partnerships.

Combating income poverty

A measurable quantitative outcome o the work o the Nguna

MLPA has been the doubling o average incomes as the villages

shited rom shing to ecotourism as an alternative livelihood act

The marine conservation areas have acted as spurs or tourism t

islands, as Nguna and Pele have gained a reputation within Van

or the ecological diversity o their marine sanctuaries, whil

indicator o the growth in ecotourism is the quadrupling o tu

tagging by tourists since the inception o the programme in 20

Catalyzing collective action

In qualitative terms, the wellbeing o local residents has bene

rom the empowering nature o sel-initiated comm

conservation. Communal management o natural resources

had a catalytic eect in stimulating other attempts to imp

local standards o living. Involvement in community developm

projects has nearly tripled since the MLPA network be

encouraging communities to engage in community mobili

Additionally, sustainable resource management eorts have

local organizational and administrative capacities, providing

oundation or urther community-level development.

Improving local governance and democracy

Prior to the establishment o the MLPA network, comm

governance systems on Nguna and Pele were weak, with

accountability or democratic transparency, and while i

community cooperation was conducted on a sporadic basis

was not ormalized within an institutional arrangement. Now

order to be accepted as a member o the network, each villa

required to have a democratically elected conservation comm

and the ull endorsement o the chie and village council.

creation o a multi-community executive committee has acilit

a orum or exchange, collaboration and capacity-building. Thro

regular attendance at MLPA events and meetings, village cand councilors can learn rom and support one another in die

aspects o local development.

Empowering community voices in development dialog

Social justice has also been a critical element in the establishm

o the Nguna-Pele MLPA, both in correcting the imbalanc

prevailing conservation and development discourses at the nat

level, and in empowering marginalized groups within commun

Previously, communities elt they had little voice in the sustain

9



evelopment discourse dominated by government and international

NGO approaches; community-centred approaches to resource

management – while supported by government departments and

nternational partners – have helped to empower communities as

utonomous actors and root development in local capacities.

Growing social equity

mpowerment o marginalized groups has ollowed rom thenitiation o communal action, beginning in village councils and

onservation committees, and then spilling over to village men’s,

women’s and youth associations. The region is well known or its

male-dominated culture, with most, i not all community decisions

ypically taken by men. The Nguna-Pele MLPA network recognized

hat women in Vanuatu play a critical role in the use and management

biodiversity, deciding what marine and terrestrial resources are

arvested and in what quantities or sale in markets. Empowering

women through participation in conservation committees and

eadership roles, the network has been able to eect change at the

ndividual and household level. Many more village women are also

aking leadership positions within community organizations due to

heir success within the MLPA committee structures.

As well as environmental education in local schools, ensuring that

tudents have a greater awareness o conservation and waste

management issues, the Nguna-Pele MLPA has also acilitated

ctivities or those island youth no longer in school, such as biological

monitoring and clean-up competitions. Due to the initiative’s

mphasis on inclusive participation o marginalized groups, broad

mprovements to social equity have been witnessed.

POLICY IMPACTS

he Nguna-Pele MLPA network has had a dynamic eect on

ational level policies concerning environmental conservation. The

etwork is the rst nationally recognized example o a community-

managed network o marine reserves and conservation activities

n Vanuatu, and has acted as a model or other community-led

evelopment initiatives in the island nation. The network was also

n important inuence in the drating o government policy and

egislation recognizing community conservation areas, through

he Environmental Management and Conservation Act (2002).

Underpinning this is the recognition o communal right

resources enshrined in Vanuatu’s national constitution, which g

all land to Vanuatu customary owners and their descendants a

with the duty to “protect and saeguard” national resources and

environment.

Tension and ambiguity characterize the relationship betw

village, provincial and national-level marine policies, however. W

higher levels o government recognize local governance institusuch as Island Courts and Land Tribunals, village councils thems

are not ormally endorsed by national legislation. And while

Environmental Management and Conservation Act recog

marine regulations set by village councils, it does not provid

enorcement to support community-level conservation. In prac

resource management occurs in a local context where the

neither supports nor signicantly impedes community-b

approaches. Employing innovative and adaptive managem

techniques, village-level conservation approaches have ouri

in this space, leading to their rapid replication and extension.

The hybridization o marine management discourse

The success o the Nguna-Pele example has led to calls or a m

nuanced government policy approach to devolving reso

management to the local level. The islands’ diversity o approa

to marine conservation in particular has lent support to the

that the “protected area categories” discourse does not sufci

capture the varieties o local innovation and adaptation

underpin real community-based resilience. Bartlett et al (2009) a

convincingly that the multiplicity o experiences and blurrin

distinctions between customary approaches and modern prote

area terminology in Nguna, Pele, and other Vanuatu islands pro

evidence or the view that conservation area strategies shoul

tailored to t local needs. The study cites the use o terms suctabu, conservation area (adapted to konsevesen eria in Bislama)

marine protected area in the cases o Nguna-Pele’s commun

emphasizing that their local uses have diverged rom their stan

denitions during the process o expansion and replication a

the islands. The result is a wide range o endemic, novel,

hybridized community conservation approaches that have achi

a high degree o success in conserving biodiversity and impro

local social and economic wellbeing.

Given that externally imposed management approaches

be socially disruptive and/or locally inappropriate, alienate

stakeholders rom active management, ail to recognize

complexity o local knowledge, or derive rom an incompaworldview, the study argues that interventions should ocu

‘hotspots o protected area hybridization where managem

institutions embrace the overlapping concepts o past, pre

local, oreign, colloquial and scientic.’ In supporting active

experimentation with closure practices, Vanuatu has demonstr

its exibility and adaptive capacity in the ace o environme

and social change. The Nguna-Pele cases support the conclu

that ‘hybridization o protected area operational rules and rhe

combining Western scientic and traditional ecological knowle

likely presents a valuable policy option or the Pacic region.’

10



11

Sustainability and Replication

SUSTAINABILITYhe tailoring o conservation solutions to local need helps to explain

he sustained success o community conservation on Nguna and Pele

ince the mid-1990s. The management o individual sites depends

argely on volunteers whose commitment to conservation activities

s evidence o the social and environmental benets they obtain

n return. The sustained impact o local resource management on

ousehold incomes, livelihoods, and on general local wellbeing is

hereore critical to the continued sustainability o these initiatives.

his is also enhanced by existing social structures and traditional

nstitutions. Nguna and Pele island communities’ shared language,istory, and strong cultural and amilial links increase motivation

or collective action. A tradition o cooperation between the islands

ncludes networks such as the Nguna-Pele Presbyterian Session that

nites the elders rom each community, the Nguna-Pele Council

Chies (NAPE), and the Nguna-Pele Shea Provincial Councilor

echnical Advisory Group.

nto the uture, the network plans to build more partnerships

with local youth and women’s groups as a means o ensuring

rganizational sustainability and renewed leadership. The network

s also exploring additional ecotourism project ideas as a method

maintaining nancial sustainability. A strong partnership o

takeholders in the project has also been an important actor in aidingustainability, bringing together government, NGOs, communities,

nternational donors, and research institutes. The re-naming o the

nitial MPA network as the Nguna-Pele Marine and Land Protected

Area is an acknowledgement o the substantial scaling-up o initial

onservation activities during the 1990s to meet a large set o

hallenges to marine and terrestrial resource management across

he two islands. In recent years this has also included a widespread

ree-planting campaign, as Vanuatu communities have been

ncouraged to help meet the challenges o climate change though

argeted awareness-raising.

REPLICATION The pattern o rapid replication o community conserv

approaches across Nguna and Pele since 1995 is testament

process that has been documented in conservation literature a

‘prodigious multiplier eect’, in which villages or individuals

the actions o their neighbours ater observing the positive ben

that can result. A similar concept known throughout the Pa

islands is that o “copycat entrepreneurship”; this copycat appr

to conservation strategies has been an extremely valuable pro

or acilitating rapid and widespread replication o closure strat

that are locally perceived to be eective.

Since 2002, this replication process has been enabled by

development o the Nguna-Pele MLPA network, which

brought together representatives rom each community to dis

coordinate and collaborate on marine and terrestrial na

resource issues o wide relevance. Networking also enhances

political bargaining power communities have with the nat

and provincial government, and will continue to benet advo

attempts or greater enorcement and nancial support.

The benets o collaboration are locally recognized within

network, with villages oten willing to adopt managem

strategies that may be most valuable to neighboring, “downstr

communities. For instance, the crown-o-thorns starsh outbwas successully contained because area representatives plan

and implemented a cross-tenure clean-up strategy. Meeting

the network’s representatives have also inuenced the positio

o new reserves, particularly when they share boundaries

other communities, in order to create larger cross-tenure rese

The network has also aided in some cases o conict over disp

tenure boundaries. The islands’ widespread collaboration repres

Vanuatu’s rst attempt at ecosystem-level conservation plannin



1212

he total area now managed by the Nguna-Pele Marine and

and Protected Area is over 3,000 hectares, including sea grass,

ntertidal lagoons, coral rees, and land protected areas. Due to the

verwhelming success o the initiative in Vanuatu, the Foundation

or the Peoples o the South Pacic Vanuatu (FSP) has begun a series

pilot conservation projects on a nearby island. The MLPA network

as also joined the Pacic’s Locally Managed Marine Area Network,

within which it hopes to exchange lessons learned with other

ommunity-conservation sites in Fiji, Indonesia, the Philippines, andther Pacic island states.

PARTNERS

he Nguna-Pele MLPA has benetted rom a ar-reaching range o

artnerships it has ormed with provincial, national and international

ctors. In particular, the Nguna-Pele MLPA has received critical

upport rom the Vanuatu Environment Unit, Vanuatu Fisheries

Division, Wan Smolbag Theater, Vanuatu Cultural Center, Foundation

the Peoples o the South Pacic, Wan Tok Environment Center,

eace Corps Vanuatu, Live and Learn, the NAPE Council o Chies,

nd Shea Provincial Ofce.

ocal and regional non-governmental organisations

Wan Smolbag Theatre Group works with remote communities in

anuatu to produce educational theatre productions on sustainable

evelopment themes. This partner played a critical role in the initial

rocess o raising awareness on conservation in Nguna-Pele, leading

o the rst prohibition on marine resource harvesting in 1995, and

stablished the Vanua Tai turtle monitoring network. Many o Nguna-

ele’s leaders and conservation champions emerged rom this turtle

monitor network. Another example o a local NGO working closely

with the Nguna-Pele network is the Foundation or the Peoples o

he South Pacic (FSP-Vanuatu), a not-or-prot working with theacic’s indigenous communities on sustainable development

hrough eective project management, training and local capacity

uilding.

Governmental

he Environment and Fisheries Departments have been consistent

upporters o the Nguna-Pele initiative since its initiation, while the

anuatu Environment Unit has provided technical assistance. The

overnment o Vanuatu has recognized the Nguna-Pele area as the

rst example o a community-managed network o marine reserves

nd conservation activities in Vanuatu.

nternational

.S. Peace Corps Vanuatu has provided volunteers or project sites.

he BBC has shot a number o documentaries ocusing on the area

nd its conservation activities.

Academic

esearchers rom James Cook University have ocused on adaptive

ommunity conservation in Nguna-Pele, while the university

has supported local technical capacity or social and ecolo

monitoring. University o the South Pacic is another rese

institute that has conducted studies within MLPA conserva

areas. Ree Check International has collaborated with the Ng

Pele network to conduct ree assessments.

Private sector

To acilitate ecotourism, the Nguna-Pele management tpartnered with Sailaway Cruises, a tourism agent located in Vanu

capital, to bring visitors to the islands.

Additional partners

• Australian Centre or International Agricultural Research (AC

• Australian Institute o Marine Science

• Center or Tropical Aquaculture

• Changemakers Net

• Coral Ree Alliance

• Coral Ree Initiative or the South Pacic

• Coral Triangle Initiative

• Digicel Vanuatu

• Eate Land Management Area

• Global Coral Ree Monitoring Network

• Global Environment Facility - Vanuatu

• Google Earth & Oceans

• Great Barrier Ree Marine Park - Australia

• Indiana University Workshop in Political Theory and P

Analysis

• International Coral Ree Action Network (ICRAN)

• International Waters Project (IWP)

• IUCN Climate Change Group

• Live and Learn

• Melanesia Interest Group• MPA.gov

• NOAA coral bleaching satellites

• Ocean Revolution

• Pacic Asia Tourism Pty Ltd

• Pacic Institute o Public Policy

• Pacic Island NGOs - PIANGO

• Project Aware

• Protected Areas learning network

• Ree and Rainorest Research Center

• Ree Research Center

• Seacology

• South Pacic Commission

• South Pacic Regional Environment Program (SPREP)• UNESCO World Heritage - Vanuatu

• Vanuatu Aelan Walkabaot

• Vanuatu Cultural Center

• Vanuatu Daily Post

• Vanuatu Meteorology Ofce

• Vanuatu National Statistics Ofce

• Vanuatu News

• Vanuatu Tourism Ofce

• Wan Tok Environment Center

• World database on protected areas



Click the thumbnails below to read more case studies like this:

Equator Initiative

Environment and Energy GroupUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

304 East 45th Street, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10017

Tel: +1 646 781 4023

www.equatorinitiative.org

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UN’s global development network, advocating or change and

necting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better lie.

The Equator Initiative brings together the United Nations, governments, civil society, businesses and grassroots organizati

o recognize and advance local sustainable development solutions or people, nature and resilient communities.

©2012 by Equator Initiative

All rights reserved

FURTHER REFERENCE

Bartlett, C.Y., Manua, C., Cinner, J., Sutton, S., Jimmy, R., South, R., Nilsson, J. and Raina, J. 2009. Comparison o Outcomes o Perman

Closed and Periodically Harvested Coral Ree Reserves. Conservation Biology 23.6 1475-484.

Bartlett, C.Y., Maltali, T., Petro, G. and Valentine, P. 2010. Policy implications o protected area discourse in the Pacifc islands.

Albers, P. K. 2010. Outbreaks o the crown-o-thorns starfsh (Acanthaster planci) in community based marine protected areas o Nguna-

Vanuatu. BSc Thesis, Eberhard-Karls Universität Tübingen.

Nguna-Pele MLPA website http://www.marineprotectedarea.com.vu/

Nguna-Pele Photo Story (Vimeo) http://vimeo.com/24480714

http://www.marineprotectedarea.com.vu/

http://vimeo.com/24480714

http://vimeo.com/24480714

http://www.marineprotectedarea.com.vu/

http://www.equatorinitiative.org/images/stories/com_winners/casestudy/case_1348152233.pdf




Case Studies UNDP: NGUNA-PELE MARINE AND LAND PROTECTED AREA NETWORK

Documents

Transcript of Case Studies UNDP: NGUNA-PELE MARINE AND LAND PROTECTED AREA NETWORK