Fishing Governance in MPAs: Potentialities for

Blue Economy

Review of existing Mediterranean models of governance of MPAs

with artisanal fisheries

WITH THE FINACIAL SUPPORT OF:

2

FISHING GOVERNANCE IN MPAS: POTENTIALITIES

FOR BLUE ECONOMY

Review of existing Mediterranean models of governance of MPAs

with artisanal fisheries.

3

Main Author(s):

Maria del Mar Otero, IUCN Center for Mediterranean Cooperation

Alain Jeudy de Grissac, IUCN Center for Mediterranean Cooperation

Antonio Di Franco, ECOMERS laboratory, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University

Patrice Francour, ECOMERS laboratory, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University

Paolo Guidetti, ECOMERS laboratory, Nice-Sophia Antipolis University

Luca Santarosa, Fedeparchi

Susana Sainz Trapaga, WWF Mediterranean Programme

Advisory members: MedPAN secretary, GFCM, MedWet, RAC/SPA, ISPRA, Marine

Stewardship Council, MedArtNet Association.

This work was part of the “Fishing governance in MPAs: potentialities for Blue Economy

(FishMPABlue) project”. 1M-MED14-06. Financial assistance: European Territorial

Cooperation Programme “MED” 2007-2013 and MAVA

Citation: Otero, Jeudy de Grissac et al. 2015. Reviewing existing Mediterranean models of governance of MPAs with artisanal fisheries. FISHING GOVERNANCE IN MPAs: POTENTIALITIES FOR BLUE ECONOMY (FISHMPABLUE). 54pp.

4

Contents Background ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Marine protected areas and fisheries ............................................................................................... 8

Part 1 Governance considerations and approaches for the marine environment .............................. 14

Governance and governance principles ........................................................................................ 14

International governance instruments ........................................................................................... 14

Regional governance instruments ................................................................................................. 17

IUCN policy guidance on good governance for Protected Areas and Mediterranean artisanal

fisheries ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Part 2. Governance of Protected Areas ............................................................................................. 26

Types of Governance for Terrestrial or Marine Protected Areas .................................................. 26

Part 3. The Mediterranean governance approaches for Marine Protected Areas and artisanal

fisheries ............................................................................................................................................. 31

Type A. Government Managed Marine Protected Areas .............................................................. 31

Type B. Shared Governance of Protected Areas ........................................................................... 42

Type C. Private Protected Areas ................................................................................................... 50

Type D. Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities ....................................... 50

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 52

References ......................................................................................................................................... 54

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 57

Annex 1 Areas to be considered for the governance of the marine environment ......................... 57

Annex 2: EC decision on Advisory Councils ............................................................................... 59

Annex 3: Matrix of marine activities that may be appropriate for each IUCN management

category ......................................................................................................................................... 61

5

List of Acronyms

Aarhus Convention: Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making

and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998)

ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean

Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (1996)

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

EC European Commission

EEZ exclusive economic zone

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FishMPABlue Mediterranean Regional Development Fund project “Fisheries governance in the

Marine Protected Areas: Potential for Blue Economy”

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme

MPA marine protected area

NGO non-governmental organization

PPA private protected area

SAC special area of conservation

SPA and Biodiversity Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the

Mediterranean (1995)

SPAMI specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance

UN United Nations

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

WHC World Heritage Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural

Heritage (1972)

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

6

Glossary of terms

Actors (often called stakeholders): Rightholders and people from wider society, non-governmental

organisations, user groups, regulatory agencies, corporate interests, etc. potentially interacting with each other in

governance processes.

Artisanal fisheries (also known as small scale fisheries): Following FAO definition, typically traditional

fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of

capital, relatively small fishing vessels, making short fishing trips, close to shore, mainly for local consumption.

In practice, definition varies between countries, e.g. from hand-collection on the beach or a one-person canoe in

poor developing countries, to more than 20 m. trawlers, seiners, or long-liners over 20m in developed countries.

Artisanal fisheries can be subsistence or commercial fisheries, providing for local consumption or export. In

general, though by no means always, using relatively low level technology.

Collaborative management (Co-management): There is no single globally accepted definition of co-

management. Here, it is refer to a suite of arrangements with different degrees of power sharing allowing joint

decision-making by the state and user groups about a set of resources or an area (Gutiérrez, 2014).

Collaborative governance is one form of shared governance in which decision-making authority and

responsibility rest with one agency but the agency is required, by law or policy, to inform or consult other

rightsholders and stakeholders, at the time of planning or implementing initiatives (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,

2013).

Co-managed Protected Area: Government-designated protected area where decision making power,

responsibility and account ability are shared between governmental agencies and other stakeholders, which

includes indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities that depend on that area culturally and/or for

their livelihoods.

Community Conserved Area: Natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological

services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities

through customary laws or other effective means (IUCN World Park Congress, Durban 2003).

Decentralisation: the transfer of power and authority from the central government to lower-level governments,

quasi-independent government organisations or the private sector.

According to Rondinelli (2000) and Oxhorn (2004), there are different types and levels of decentralisation that

allocate varying degrees and forms of autonomy to subnational governments, quasi-independent government

organisations or the private sector:

• Deconcentration - the transfer of power for implementing decisions, but not for making decisions;

• Delegation - transfer of some decision-making authority with a degree of control from the central government

over key aspects of policy; and

• Devolution - the transfer of maximum feasible but not necessarily total decision-making powers.

Effectiveness: the degree to which the management objectives of a MPA are being fulfilled, particularly with

regard to biodiversity and sustainable resource use.

Fisheries Restricted Area (FRA) as endorsed by the GFCM on the basis of a SAC formulation which

stipulates that a FRA is a geographically defined area in which all or certain fishing activities are temporarily or

permanently banned or restricted in order to improve the exploitation and conservation of harvested living

aquatic resources or the protection of marine ecosystems

Fisheries management: The integrated process of information gathering, analysis, planning, consultation,

decision-making, allocation of resources and formulation and implementation, with enforcement as necessary,

of regulations or rules which govern fisheries activities in order to ensure the continued productivity of the

resources and the accomplishment of other fisheries objectives (FAO,1997).

Grenelle of the sea (Grenelle de la Mer)

A maritime policy from France developed through a National public debate on marine issues ‘Le Grenelle de la

Mer’. It contributes the definition of strategies for the coast and sea by identifying objectives and action on the

7

short, medium and long term. This policy, which concerns all fields of government action, puts down formally

the objectives of France for the sea and maritime activities. Experts, trade unions, employers, the State,

Associations and NGOs working in the area of environmental protection drafted proposals and submitted their

report.

Incentive: a particular institution that is instrumentally designed to encourage actors to choose to behave in a

manner that provides for certain strategic policy outcomes, particularly biodiversity conservation objectives, to

be fulfilled.

Institution: very broad term covering a wide range of agreements, interactions, etc., which remain relatively

stable over a certain period of time, including:

• mutually agreed modes of cooperative behaviour (norms);

• interactions through markets: local – distant;

• government policies and programmes; and

• legal instruments and related obligations.

Marine governance: Marine governance is the sharing of policy making competencies in a system of

negotiation between nested governmental institutions at several levels (international, (supra)national, regional

and local) on the one hand and governmental actors, market parties and civil society organizations on the other

in order to govern activities at sea and their consequences (Van Tatenhove, 2011).

Marine Protected Area (MPA) or Protected Area (PA): a clearly defined geographical space, recognised,

dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature

with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008).

Marine spatial planning: is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of

human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been

specified through a political process. Characteristics of marine spatial planning include ecosystem-based, area-

based, integrated, adaptive, strategic and participatory. Marine spatial planning is not an end in itself, but a

practical way to create and establish a more rational use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to

balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economic

objectives in an open and planned way (Ehler and Douvere, 2009).

Recreational or sport fishery: all non-commercial fishing that is carried out mainly for pleasure or sport,

where the catch - the selling of which is illegal - is used for one’s own consumption (or for one’s family and

friends) (Font et al., 2012). The FAO definition clarify that recreational fishing is fishing of aquatic animals

(mainly fish) that do not constitute the individual's primary resource to meet basic nutritional needs and are not

generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or black markets.

(http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2708e/i2708e00.pdf)

Subsistence fishery: Subsistence fishing refers to fishing, other than sport fishing, that is carried out primarily

to feed the family and relatives of the person doing the fishing. Generally it also implies the use of low tech

“artisanal” fishing techniques and is carried out by people who are very poor. Quite often this fishing is part of a

life that also relies on small-scale agriculture and other sources of income, and may include some sale of fish.

Territorial use rights in fisheries (TURF): A spatial user right that may be assigned to individuals and/or

groups to fish in certain locations, often historically based on long-standing tradition.

8

Background

At global scale, fishing is commonly considered among the greatest threats to marine populations, and

more generally to marine biodiversity and ecosystems’ health.

From the ‘simple’ perspective of fishing, fishing stocks (as any other exploited living resource) cannot

be exploited beyond their capacity of renewal, this latter being guaranteed by the periodic arrival of

juveniles. If fishing is too intense, fishing stocks may decline due to excessive removal of both,

reproducers and juveniles, driving to a decrease in catches per unit of fishing effort (CPUE). The

decline of CPUE negatively affects fishing revenues and potentially induces economically

underperforming fisheries.

From an ecosystem-wide perspective, most of high-priced fishes (often high level predators) on the

markets are functionally important species within food webs and their dramatic decline due to intense

fishing effort has been found in some cases to cascade down food webs and alter whole communities

and ecosystems. Moreover, some fishing methods, can seriously impact, if not completely destroy, the

marine habitats where the gears operate (Tudela, 2004).

Small-scale fisheries or artisanal fisheries, conventionally use passive gears with less environmental

impact than more industrial fisheries. For the coastal areas, they have in other hand, the potential to

contribute significantly to food security, economic growth and rural and peri-urban development of

coastal communities as well as to provide valuable employment opportunities (García et al., 2008).

However, their vulnerability in the present day context, with the modernization and increasing

pressure on resources make it difficult to achieve its objectives and to resolve any ecological and

socio-economic conflicts that might arise.

Proper management of this activity is an essential requirement of success to maintain healthy habitats

and fish assemblages (including most of the stocks targeted by fishing) within the ecosystems.

Basic principles forming the foundation of practical action for the sustainability of artisanal fisheries

are based on effectively integrating the biological, social and economic factors, and the development

of adapted strategies and mechanisms such as rights-based approaches, co-management regimes,

fishing capacity reduction strategies and the support for diversified livelihoods (García et al., 2008).

Despite a wide recognition of this, real assessment frameworks required to operationalize these

alternative management approaches are still scarcely used, at least for artisanal fisheries.

Marine protected areas and fisheries

Marine conservation planning involves among other existing tools the designation of Marine

Protected Areas (hereafter MPAs). The concept of MPAs, as traditionally considered, was of a

management tool to address adverse impacts of anthropogenic activities by controlling the types of

recreational and commercial activities allowed in specific marine areas.

However, in the recent years, the concept of MPAs has broaden to define areas whose objectives can

vary and include conservation of marine biodiversity, restoration of marine habitats, protection of

threatened species, fisheries management, and opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment.

Following IUCN definition, an MPA is considered to be any coastal or marine area in which there is a

clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other

effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services

and cultural values (Dudley, 2008).

Depending on their main management objectives, MPAs can be broadly categorised into six

management types (Dudley, 2008; Day et al, 2012; see Table 1). All or some of these management

categories could be included in a marine protected area declared by a country although with different

designation following the particular national legislation.

9

10

Table 1: Definition and Primary Objectives of IUCN Protected Area Categories (Dudley, 2008).

IUCN Category

of management Definition Primary Objective

Ia Strict nature

reserve

Category Ia are strictly protected areas set aside

to protect biodiversity and also possibly

geological/geomorphological features, where human

visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited

to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such

protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas

for scientific research and monitoring.

To conserve regionally, nationally or

globally outstanding ecosystems,

species (occurrences or

aggregations) and/ or geodiversity

features: these attributes will have

been formed mostly or entirely by

non-human forces and will be

degraded or destroyed when

subjected to all but very light human

impact.

Ib Wilderness area

Category Ib protected areas are usually large unmodified or

slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and

influence, without permanent or significant human

habitation, which are protected and managed so as to

preserve their natural condition.

To protect the long-term ecological

integrity of natural areas that are

undisturbed by significant human

activity, free of modern

infrastructure and where natural

forces and processes predominate,

so that current and future

generations have the opportunity to

experience such areas.

II National park

Category II protected areas are large natural or near natural

areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes,

along with the complement of species and ecosystems

characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation

for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual,

scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.

To protect natural biodiversity along

with its underlying ecological

structure and supporting

environmental processes, and to

promote education and recreation.

III Natural

monument or

feature

Category III protected areas are set aside to protect a

specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea

mount, submarine caverns, geological feature such as a

caves or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They

are generally quite small protected areas and often have high

visitor value.

To protect specific outstanding

natural features and their associated

biodiversity and habitats.

IV Habitat/species

management area

Category IV protected areas aim to protect particular species

or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many

category IV protected areas will need regular, active

interventions to address the requirements of particular

species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement

of the category.

To maintain, conserve and restore

species and habitats.

V Protected

landscape or

seascape

Category V protected areas are where the interaction of

people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct

character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and

scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this

interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and

its associated nature conservation and other values.

To protect and sustain important

landscapes/ seascapes and the

associated nature conservation and

other values created by interactions

with humans through traditional

management practices.

VI Protected areas

with sustainable

use of natural

resources

Category VI protected areas conserve ecosystems and

habitats together with associated cultural values and

traditional natural resource management systems. They are

generally large, with most of the area in natural condition,

where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource

management and where low-level non industrial use of

natural resources compatible with nature conservation is

seen as one of the main aims of the area.

To protect natural ecosystems and

use natural resources sustainably,

when conservation and sustainable

use can be mutually beneficial.

11

As an area-based management tool, Marine Protected Areas, particularly coastal MPAs, have a direct

connection to the survival and cultural value of artisanal fishing of coastal communities. Worldwide

and in line with the global targets agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the number of

MPAs has been increasing rapidly over the last decades.

The objectives of these sites are:

protecting natural populations of marine species and their habitats, together with related

biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services;

enhancing fishing and especially supporting more sustainable practices;

promoting local socio-economies and sustainable development (e.g. tourism, recreational

activities);

preserving historical and cultural values;

promoting awareness, education and research.

In the guidelines of IUCN, it is stated that for being considered as a MPA, a site has to have nature

conservation objectives and deliver results accordingly. This definition for starting, should exclude

fishery management areas with no wider stated conservation aims or community areas managed

primarily for sustainable extraction of marine products (e.g. fish, shells, seagrass, etc.). Thus is, a site

could be classified as an MPA if they had a primary stated aim and are managed to deliver nature

conservation, besides other management objectives such as fishery enhancement.

For further clarification this issue, Annex 2 provides examples and guidelines on the possible

acceptance of human activities inside the different categories of PA (Protected Area) management

(Day et al, 2012).

Today, the Mediterranean Sea hosts over 677 MPAs: 161 of national status, nine of international status

and 507 Natura 2000 marine sites (Gabrié et al., 2012). Since most MPAs are located in coastal areas

of great biodiversity, their development has direct relevance and concern to the livelihoods, culture

and survival of small-scale and traditional fishing and coastal communities.

Many MPAs have multiple objectives (under Management Categories III-VI), having been set up to

promote sustainable development (with tourism or fisheries benefits for example), as well as

biodiversity protection. Fishing activities have crucial implications not only for the local preservation

of natural resources, but also for the stakeholders in the area who depend on fisheries resources for a

livelihood that maintain cultural identities and diversity, social structures, and socio-economy of these

coastal communities. Artisanal fisheries, which usually operate close to the coast, are particularly

influenced by the establishment of MPAs. On the long-term a MPA (properly enforced and managed)

may produce a number of benefits to local fisheries (i.e. increase in fishing captures in and around

MPAs and fishermen incomes). In the short-term, nevertheless, its creation usually engenders a strong

opposition by local fishermen, who usually perceive MPAs as top-down imposed tools that

significantly limit their activities (e.g. by reducing fishing grounds and imposing restriction on gears)

and incomes (Cazalet, 2013).

Artisanal Mediterranean fishing in a number of coastal contexts is relevant in terms of people

employed directly (fishermen and crews; fishing shops where the catches are sold, etc.) and indirectly

e.g. via tourism (pesca-turismo, sells in restaurants, etc.). The activity nevertheless often compete, and

conflict, with larger commercial fishing operations and recreational fishing activities, the latter being

on the rise (Cazalet, 2013; Font et al., 2012).

A relevant feature of the Mediterranean artisanal fishing is the high diversity of gears and fishing

techniques (called métiers) used, with a huge array of variations and/or peculiarities in fishing gears,

methods, and timing among others (Steward, 2001). These types of small scale coastal fisheries have

12

a great social and cultural significance, even with relevant oral traditional knowledge passing from

generation to generation.

In spite of the lower volume of its catches compared to the large scale industrial fishing, it represents

more than 80% of the total Mediterranean fishing fleet and therefore is a socially important and an

integral part of the Mediterranean cultural diversity (Cazalet, 2013; Maynou et al., 2013).

Recreational fishing was often assumed to have very little impact on local stocks. More recent studies,

on the contrary, demonstrated that recreational fishing may as well have a serious impact on local fish

populations and also negatively affect local artisanal fisheries (Font et al., 2012). It is considered,

nowadays, that a significant proportion of recreational fishermen in the Mediterranean region illegally

sells the fish catch (i.e. directly to a hotel restaurant or charter fishing), so the term ‘pseudo-

recreational fishing’ has been proposed to identify fishermen who use methods typical of the

recreational fishing but who regularly sell the fish they get (SAP/BIO Protocol, UNEP/MAP RAC-

SPA). This category operates an illegal activity in direct and disloyal/unfair competition with legal

professional fishermen, especially artisanal fishermen operating on a local scale.

Although consider smaller, subsistence fishing (so-called ‘take-home catch’) is also a common

practice in numerous Mediterranean countries. Coastal dwellers, individually or in group, practice

some fishing for ensuring the normal diet of their family and relatives or for family businesses (i.e.,

commercial ventures). The catches are not sold on the market nor registered in the statistics.

As a result, the overall impact of fishing on coastal resources should be attributable to the total effects

of all types of fisheries catches (industrial and artisanal, recreational and subsistence, legal and

illegal). The cumulative impact of these activities with those produced by pollution, waste generation,

coastal development, urbanization and excessive human concentrations sometimes in short periods of

time are especially severe in coastal Mediterranean areas.

With regard to fishing and MPAs, as a general rule, medium-scale and industrial fleets are not

allowed within Mediterranean MPAs (although there are few exceptions). Depending on individual

MPA governance system (see section 1) and management processes, local stakeholders like fishermen

(especially artisanal fishermen) may be more or less prone to accept an MPA and its rules. Social

acceptance (sometimes implying engagement of stakeholders into some type of co-management) thus

become a crucial step for getting an effective MPA, so rules are complied with and well enforced, and

ecological, socio-cultural and economic benefits may actually be generated also for the coastal

communities (Di Franco et al. 2014).

The potential for fishermen engagement to improve management and governance in these settings is

large. There are few but significant examples demonstrating that when artisanal fishermen are

engaged in fisheries management, inside or close by a MPA, they contribute to the protection of the

area and their traditional knowledge is very relevant for management (i.e. López-Ornat et al., 2014; Di

Franco et al., 2014; Chuenpagdee et al., 2013). Artisanal fishermen can be true sentinels when illegal

action in a MPA is ongoing, and they could report the changes that are observing in the marine

ecosystem such as the arrival of invasive alien species. Unfortunately, in the Mediterranean, these

types of integrated approaches towards some type of shared governance are underdeveloped and an

effort should be done to increase the level of stakeholders’ engagement to enhance MPAs’

effectiveness.

Many studies, projects, guidelines etc. have been already developed around the world on the specific

topic of “fishing management within/around MPAs”, but few experiences have been done so far to

develop conservation goals within the context of the Blue Economy, especially in the Mediterranean

region.

13

Blue economy and more in general, sustainability principles applied to the context of MPAs and

artisanal fisheries, may represent a great opportunity to preserve marine ecosystems and, on the other

hand, to support artisanal fishing in the Mediterranean region. MPAs, from this perspective, may

represent the proper scenarios where to test innovative management options that could be potentially

exported outside their borders and to be applied to a wider scale. The detection of best-practices

within MPAs is thus an initial but crucial step towards sustainability and better conservation of the

marine environment.

Based on the above-reported issues, there is urgent need:

1) to make a comprehensive “state-of-the-art” and identify the gaps about the governance of artisanal

fishing in the Mediterranean region (particularly within MPAs);

2) to elaborate a proper methodological integrated approach to monitor, gather data and provide

syntheses and analyses at the Mediterranean scale about the possible advantages of developing new

fishing shared governance approaches devoted to sustainability (especially in the perspective of a

Blue Economy).

The first one is the primary objective of this review document, presenting a synthesis of the different

governance models for artisanal fisheries at the Mediterranean levels and a specific analysis of the

governance structure in 5 European countries (Croatia, Italy, Spain, Greece and Spain).

©IUCN-Med, Artisanal fishermen in Albania

14

Part 1 Governance considerations and approaches for the marine environment

Following a general description and when possible assessment of the existing governance systems at

the global, regional, national, local levels, with a specific attention to MPAs and artisanal fisheries,

specific recommendations and orientations for the future of artisanal fisheries in and around MPAs in

the Mediterranean will be drawn up from this assessment and considered for further analysis and

implementation.

Governance and governance principles

The terms ‘governance’ and ‘good governance’ have been steadily entering policy and social

discourse, particularly in relation to development. The concept of governance refers to the process of

decision making and the processes by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It is the

means by which society defines goals and priorities, and advances cooperation. And within this broad

meaning, ‘government’ represents only one of the many actors that play a role in the management as

governance embraces both the formal and informal actors involved in decision making and

implementation, and both the formal and informal structures that have been set in place to arrive at

and implement decisions. Thus, it includes policies, laws, decrees, norms, instruments, institutions

and processes—all the means by which society defines and achieves its goals and priorities (Lausche,

2011).

It can be understood that governance itself has two dimensions: quality of governance (how one

governs) and type of governance (who governs). Within the first, we can further define “good

governance” as the terms that relates to the degree to which it delivers on the promise of human

rights—civil, cultural, economic, political, social and environmental aspects (see OHCHR, 2007).

Good governance in government decision making has been recognized as essential for sustainable

development by such international policy instruments as the UN Millennium Declaration (2000) and

the World Submit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation of UN (2002). More

specifically, in recent years this recognition has been extended to protected areas management and

policy at multilateral environmental agreements.

Governance is an important concept for modern protected areas legislation because it relates to

processes of developing decision making. It also includes the formal and informal institutions that

make and implement decisions. The processes of decision making and the institutions that make

decisions have a major influence on the goals and objectives of a designated protected area and on the

long-term effectiveness of protected area sites and networks.

Different international organizations (such as IUCN particularly in the context of protected areas)

characterize governance as the interactions among political and social structures, processes and

traditions that determine how power and responsibility are exercised, how decisions are taken, and

how citizens or other stakeholders have their say regarding these sites (Worboys et al., 2015; Wyborn,

2013; Schliep and Stoll-Kleemann 2010; Margerum 2008; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2006; Graham et

al., 2003).

International governance instruments

15

Convention on Biological Diversity

Within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Programme of Work on Protected

Areas (9th and 10th Conferences of the Parties (COP 9 and COP 10) of the CBD held in 2008 and

2010), it is a clear emphasis on ‘Governance, participation, equity, and benefit sharing’ to achieve

Protected Areas objectives. Moreover, from earlier decisions of this treaty, it suggested that Parties

should consider “governance principles, such as the rule of law, decentralization, participatory

decision-making mechanisms for accountability and equitable dispute resolution institutions and

procedures” for good protected areas management (CBD COP 2004 VII/28, para. 3.1.4).

Regarding the marine environment, the CBD Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal

Biodiversity stated that the use of marine and coastal protected areas is the best feasible methods

today to maintain marine ecosystems in a truly natural state in response to CBD requirements to

protect or restore ecosystems, natural habitats and species populations (SCBD, 2004). In response to

this, the latest decisions adopted during the Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the

CBD in 2008, reflects the elements that any legal drafter of a country should consider to incorporate

provisions of MPA legislation in relation to selecting individual sites and establishing MPA networks,

and states that such sites and networks may also play a role in allocation of fisheries and can have a

significant effect on community support for existing and future PA.

From the CBD agreements, several governance principles, such as accountability, transparency,

participation, rule of law and effectiveness, have been recognized by a number of international

organizations for the implementation of work in protected areas.

The ‘ecosystem approach’ (EcAp), as defined by the CBD, is also an important policy instrument to

consider for governance of protected areas. It is a strategy for the integrated management of land,

water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way (CBD

COP 2000 V/6; CBD COP 2004 VII/11). Promotion of this principle is based on the recognition that

protected area systems and the units that comprise them should be integrated with surrounding

landscapes and seascapes, and that land use plans and marine spatial plans for areas outside the

protected areas system should also be ecosystem-based and be compatible with the conservation

objectives of the protected areas system. The backbone of EcAp is the execution of an Integrated

Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMAP) concerning coastal and marine ecosystems that also

includes data on marine protected areas, fisheries and biodiversity, all relevant elements for a proper

governance of the sea.

Ramsar Convention

In parallel, the Ramsar Convention has set out the obligation for countries to promote the

conservation of wetlands, including marine and coastal sites represented by coastal lagoons, rocky

shores, and coral reefs, through pursuing compatible land use planning and other measures such as

establishing nature reserves. In 2002, Parties to the Ramsar Convention adopted the ‘New Guidelines

for the management planning of Ramsar sites and other wetlands’. These guidelines focus on the site-

based scale of management planning, recognizing that site planning should be one element of a multi-

scale approach to wise use planning and management of any wetland. The emphasis is on the need for

wetland site management to be integrated with broad-scale landscape and ecosystem planning,

including at the integrated river basin and coastal zone scale, because policy and planning decisions at

these scales will affect the conservation and wise use of wetland sites (Ramsar COP 2002 VIII.14,

Annex, para. 5, 14–27). The ‘Principles and guidelines for incorporating wetland issues into

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)’, also adopted in 2002, identify governance as an

important element for advancing an ICZM approach.

Hence, the Ramsar Convention can be used as a policy driver at the national level and as a leverage to

encourage citizen engagement, economic benefit, and wetland conservation at the local level and can

16

be taken towards delivering integrated approaches to coastal governance, including on issues that are

the responsibility of a particular stakeholder or several stakeholders (i.e. local fishing communities).

World Heritage Convention

The World Heritage Convention as another international policy instrument focuses on natural and

cultural properties, including marine sites, of outstanding universal value for recognition as world

heritage sites. Within this Convention, there is an increased attention on the need for the promotion of

transboundary nominations within the World Heritage Marine Programme. The Convention highlights

the need for stakeholder participation and community involvement as well as capacity building to

achieve effective management for the network of the world’s most important natural heritage areas.

Participatory appraisals within UNESCO World Heritage sites (Wallner and Wiesmann, 2009) and

biosphere reserves (Schliep and Stoll-Kleeman, 2010) further acknowledge the prominent role that

social actors, especially those in the local community, should play in the governance of natural

resources.

UNCLOS and the zoning of the marine environment

Under the international treaty of UNCLOS, the governance of the marine environment is divided into

zones with different denomination, and subsequently different legislation and regulations for the

different activities. From land to shore then offshore, the following areas are commonly distinguished:

- internal marine waters, including inland the wetlands connected to the sea and at sea the area

generally from cape to cape.

- territorial waters, from the baseline with an extension of 12 nautical miles (unless another

extension has been agreed upon by one country or between countries)

- the exclusive economic zone, from 12 to 200 nautical miles maximum or the middle line

between country when the full extension is not possible

- the continental shelf extension to a distance of 360 nautical miles of the baselines.

In addition, countries can declare exclusive fishing zones that are recognized by other countries or

regional instruments (see Annex 1 for further definitions the related country rights). These spatial

limits no necessary agreed with the different fisheries activities carried out in the countries.

The treaty itself establishes an unqualified obligation on all states to protect and preserve the marine

environment by defining five offshore zones within which coastal states exercise varying degrees of

sovereignty and jurisdiction (Art. 192). It further specifies that states have a sovereign right to exploit

their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty to

protect and preserve the marine environment (Art. 193). The obligation to protect and preserve the

marine environment is further given legal and operational context through a number of specific

provisions.

As such, UNCLOS spells out the rights and duties of coastal states in the EEZ to include:

(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the

natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the

seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and

exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:

(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;

(ii) marine scientific research;

(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment (Art. 56(1); emphasis added).

17

As a result, a coastal state may establish an MPA in the EEZ but this right is limited by certain

freedoms that all states have in the EEZ including the freedom of navigation.

The Mediterranean, with a special status of semi-closed sea under this treaty has a large surface that

corresponds to territorial waters and the exclusive economic zones of several countries with

jurisdictional waters within 12 miles from the coastline (with the exception of Greece and Turkey in

the Aegean Sea that have 6 nm of territorial waters). In terms of marine delimitation, there are still

some disputes among the maritime frontiers between neighboring countries and the open sea making

the regulation of fishery activities difficult and management beyond national jurisdiction highly

complicated.

Artisanal fishing grounds are however limited for most cases to an area within few miles of the coast

(about 10-12) where limits are well established (territorial waters).

Regional governance instruments

The Regional Seas Programme and the Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP)

The Regional Seas Programme was launched by the UNEP in 1974. The Programme has grown

significantly over the years and has gained recognition for its efforts to guide and promote MPAs at

the national and transboundary levels. Since its origin, the Regional Seas Programme has resulted in

the development of several regional action plans, legally binding agreements and protocols, as well as

policy guidance on specific areas of environmental concern.

The Mediterranean became then the first region to adopt an action plan in 1975, replaced by a revised

plan in 1995. The region was also the first to adopt a convention to implement the action plan, entitled

Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona Convention)

(1976), which entered into force in 1978. This Convention was revised in 1995 as the Convention for

the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, which came

into force in 2004. This was followed by a series of protocols (legally binding agreements directly

related to the main convention) in specific areas of environmental concern, and the creation of

Regional Activity Centres responsible for implementation.

The Mediterranean Regional Seas programme adopted the Protocol Concerning Mediterranean

Specially Protected Areas (1982), which came into force in 1986. That instrument was subsequently

replaced by a new protocol, the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological

Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA and Biodiversity Protocol) (1995), which came into force in

1999. Continuing the pattern set by earlier protocols, the SPA and Biodiversity Protocol provides for

the establishment of a list of specially protected areas of Mediterranean importance (SPAMI) and the

detailed procedures for their designation. It specifies that areas to be listed as specially protected must

be areas of “importance for conserving the components of biological diversity in the Mediterranean

[or areas that] contain ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean area or the habitats of endangered

species” (Art. 8(2)). At present, several national designated MPA are recognised also as SPAMI sites

(Annex I of the SPA/BD Protocol).

Of special significance, the SPA and Biodiversity Protocol with its governance regime, also provides

for the possibility of protected areas in the high seas to be recognized. The legal mechanisms

countries have available for biodiversity protection in the Mediterranean however extends in most

cases only to the limits of their national territorial seas, a maximum of 12 nm seaward, leaving much

of the Mediterranean Sea without the legal tools for biodiversity conservation that are available to

states which have declared EEZs. Recognising this problem, the SPA and Biodiversity Protocol

18

provides that areas listed as SPAMIs may include areas under the national jurisdiction of one Party, as

well as areas established by two or more neighbouring Parties and situated “partly or wholly on the

high sea” (Art. 9(2)) providing on this manner a framework for the governance of these sites and the

possibilities to enforce certain fisheries measures if necessary. Following other international

agreements, the process for supporting the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (EcAp),

endorsed by all Contracting Parties with the intention to measure the Good Environmental Status

(GES) of the Mediterranean marine environment is also underway.

Other regional instruments that promote the establishment of other type of Protected Areas in the

Mediterranean such as the International Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black

Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) or the European Union (EU)

Birds Directive (1979, as amended in 2009) and Habitats Directive (1992), which generated the

Natura 2000 legal framework, have developed guidelines to assist the countries assessing the legal

aspects for implementing environmental legislation in the marine environment and the inclusion of

participatory approaches for the management of these sites.

The Natura 2000 network involves various European institutions at multiple levels, from local to

international, with a broad array of social actors. The network is comprised of Special Protection

Areas for Birds (SPA), Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation

(SACs). The latter is considered after the adoption of the management and action plan in order to

maintain or restore into the favourable conservation status of natural habitat types and habitats of

species of Community interest (9/409/ECC and 92/43/EEC, respectively).

Even through article 6 of the Habitats Directive emphasizes the need to ensure that future

management is both ecologically and economically sustainable (European Commission, 2000), from a

governance perspective, the Habitats Directive relies on a top-down vision and has had in most cases

a very limited involvement of civil society.

With respect to environmental matters, the Aarhus Convention negotiated within the framework of the

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, also acknowledges the public‘s right to access

information, to participate in decision-making, and to access justice. It is presently the leading

international law instrument for defining and elaborating a good governance framework of principles

for governments, giving considerable attention to implementation guidance. This has implications for

protected areas supported by bilateral and multilateral aid from countries which have ratified the

Convention.

Fisheries governance approaches

As mentioned previously, the intense use of coastal resources in the Mediterranean, driven by high

human population densities and over-exploitation of fish stocks at many sites, is causing widespread

habitat degradation.

Part of the widely accepted solution to this generalized problem has been to integrate fisheries

management into an ‘ecosystem approach’, which aims to balance conservation, sustainable use and

the fair allocation of benefits. An ecosystem approach for responsible fisheries requires self-

governance by the scientific community, the fishing industry, and the public (including politicians), as

well as responsible fisheries management (Sissenwine and Mace, 2001). At the international level, the

principles of EcAp to fisheries had been endorsed through the voluntary instrument of FAO Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 2003).

19

Under an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), the usual concern of fisheries managers – the

sustainability of targeted species – is extended to address the sustainability of ecosystems upon which

the fisheries depend, which include people and fish stocks.

EAF addresses both human and ecological well-being and merges two paradigms: protecting and

conserving ecosystem structure and functioning; and fisheries management that focuses on providing

food, income and livelihoods for humans (García et al, 2013). Thus, the objective of EAF is to cover

the broader marine environment including natural components and human activities, such as fishers,

fishing communities, coastal development and tourism; even though these activities may be outside of

the responsibilities of fisheries authorities.

Because of the broad issues involved, the full implementation of EAF requires collaboration and

cooperation between communities and a range of government agencies responsible for managing

activities that impact on marine ecosystems.

For example, FAO notes that to achieve effective fisheries management is necessary to identify and

understand:

1. social, economic and institutional objectives and factors may be driving forces behind the need

for fisheries management;

2. the fisheries’ costs and benefits, whether to individuals or to society, have social, economic

and institutional impacts and implications;

3. social, economic and institutional processes are all crucial for successful implementation of

fisheries management; and

4. social, economic and institutional factors can play either supporting or constraining roles in

whether management is effective or not.

Therefore, the application of the EAF requires more and varied types of information, financing

options, jurisdictional and institutional cooperation and societal consensus on the future of the fishery

in question (i.e. tenure and use-rights systems, enforcement and compliance and human capacity).

As part of FAO, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), launched in 2013

its first Framework Programme (FWP) aimed at constructing a regional and holistic vision of the

management of marine capture fisheries and aquaculture, whilst providing adequate support to the

activities launched under the GFCM Task Force aimed at modernizing the legal and institutional

framework of the Commission.

Besides the designation of protected areas and the regulations established by the countries regarding

fisheries, GFCM has developed another governance approached through the creation of Fisheries

Restricted Areas (FRAs), applicable to offshore and near-shore, industrial or artisanal fisheries.

FRAs are spatial protection tool developed and implemented by the GFCM Parties in order to

preserve and manage the fisheries resources and sensitive habitats of importance for the

sustainability of these resources, protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, including but not limited to

nursery and spawning areas, in addition to or to complement similar measures that may already be

included in other management plans (Resolution GFCM/37/2013/1).

Few FRAs have been established so far. In 2006, the GFCM adopted the establishment of three FRAs

(beyond territorial waters) in order to protect the deep sea sensitive habitats through Recommendation

GFCM/2006/3: a) Deep Sea FRA “Lophelia reef off Capo Santa Maria di Leuca”; b) Deep Sea FRA

“The Nile delta area cold hydrocarbon seeps”; and c) Deep Sea FRA “The Eratosthemes Seamount”.

Later on, in 2009 another FRA to protect spawning aggregations and deep sea sensitive habitats in the

Gulf of Lions slopes was adopted through the Recommendation GFCM/33/2009/1. New proposals on

FRAs such as one for the northern sector of the Strait of Sicily and in the vicinity of the Balearic

Islands could be adopted next May 2016.

20

As a tool, the establishment of these offshore FRAs, although no directly related to small scale

fisheries, implies therefore fisheries restrictions (limiting or prohibiting certain fisheries/gears) within

certain delineated areas. Future work as recommended by GFCM might involve the declaration of

FRAs in near-shore areas in relation with artisanal fisheries activities. Recently, it has also being

adopted a resolution on the management of protected areas, including SPAMI sites in the GFCM

competence areas designated as FRAs for the conservation and management of fisheries resources

within an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (GFCM/37/2013/1).

In addition, the GFCM Framework Programme for 2013-2018 and its Work Package 4 on artisanal

fisheries would be focused to steer strategic and programmatic interventions to improve the

livelihoods and sustainability of artisanal coastal fishing communities, in support of fishermen’

organizations including the setting up of co-management regimes and better institutional cooperation,

while pursuing sustainability of the sector and conservation of biodiversity. Within this context, and

since the adoption of GFCM Resolution 15/1980/1 “on the definition of a regional strategy for the

management of artisanal fisheries”, the GFCM has been implementing the following key principles

related to artisanal fisheries:

i) the definition of a strategy indicating in particular the role of artisanal fisheries management

schemes;

ii) the establishment of coastal land use plans by type of use;

iii) the formulation of practical management schemes; and

iv) the strengthening of links between fishermen, research scientists and administrators by

establishing a multidisciplinary platform for discussion and decision1.

Strengthening this effort, a platform through the organization of a regional symposium has been set up

to share the main recurring issues related to small-scale fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Sea

and discuss with all interested stakeholders their opinions and ideas. The conclusions of the first event

celebrated in 2013 (Malta), highlighted the idea to launch a regional program in the GFCM area

fostering knowledge of all the components linked to small-scale fisheries and involving all interested

stakeholders; the establishing of a task force for the implementation of the small-scale fisheries

guidelines; as well as to foster a strategy underpinning the valorization of opportunities and products

of small-scale fisheries for the benefit of local communities and stakeholders. Moreover, the meeting

underlined that new transversal governance and management approaches must be developed and

translated to actions underpinning the consolidation of the knowledge base, data collection and

analysis, management and co-management mechanisms and integration with environmental

objectives, including marine protected areas (MPAs)2.

The endorsement of the Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries by the Thirty-first Session of

Committee on Fisheries (COFI), a subsidiary body of the FAO Council, in June 2014 represents a

major achievement towards ensuring secure and sustainable small-scale fisheries. This guideline

represent the first ever international instrument dedicated to small-scale fisheries intends to empower

small-scale fishing communities to participate in decision making process and to assume

responsibilities for sustainable use of fishery resources.

Following this general framework of the International Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-

scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines, FAO 2014a) complementary to the Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries of 1995, GFCM resolutions and framework reiterates the importance of

associating small-scale fishing communities with MPA design, planning, delimitation and

1 http://151.1.154.86/GfcmWebSite/SAC/SubCommittees-2013/GFCM-Framework-Programme-(FWP)-2013-2018.pdf

http://www.gfcmonline.org/activities/tac/fwp/

http://www.gfcmonline.org/activities/tac/fwp/04-smallscalelfisheries/ 2 http://www.ssfsymposium.org/Documents/Conclusions/FinalConclusionsSymposium.pdf

21

management processes. Programmatic actions regarding this relation between SSF and MPA as well

as assessing the status and management interventions on recreational fishing will also be promoted

within this GFCM framework. As part of this work, FAO-GFCM has also recently created the

‘Working Group on Marine Protected Areas’ that convened for the first time in February 2014.

Finally, GFCM adopted in 2014 a new agreement that has included also specific considerations of

small scale fisheries such as the use of the best available science, and the implementation of the

precautionary approach in Article 5 (General Principles of the GFCM). Article 8 (Functions of the

GFCM) includes important provisions such as formulate and recommend measures to adopt

multiannual management plans based on an ecosystem approach to fisheries to guarantee the

maintenance of stocks above levels which can produce maximum sustainable yield; to establish open

and closed fishing seasons and fisheries restricted areas for the protection of vulnerable marine

ecosystems, including but not limited to nursery and spawning areas, in addition to or to complement

similar measures that may already be included in management plans3.

Under the European Union, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has also set a series of rules for

managing European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stock. Designed to manage a common

resource, it gives all European fishing fleets equal access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows

fishermen to compete fairly.

Nevertheless, due to evident difference between the European Seas, specific activities are being

developed regionally with slightly different approaches, responding to the regional conditions. This

latest approach has been recently reinforced by Article 18 of the CFP Basic Regulation (Regulation

EU No 1380/2013) specifically on Regionalization and Regional cooperation on conservation

measures.

The Mediterranean Regulation (Council Regulation EC 1967/2006), which is the EU legal text for

fisheries management in the Mediterranean for EU countries, provides for the establishment of

Fishing Protected Areas (FPAs) both, within territorial waters and beyond (National and

Community FPAs respectively), “where the protection of nursery areas, of spawning grounds or of

the marine ecosystem from harmful effects of fishing requires special measures”. According with the

Regulation, a Fishing Protected Area is “a geographically-defined sea area in which all or certain

fishing activities are temporarily or permanently banned or restricted in order to improve the

exploitation and conservation of living aquatic resources or the protection of marine ecosystems”.

It is possible to consider that this regulation as transposition, in part, of the recommendations of the

GFCM could include protecting sensitive habitats from the damaging effects of fishing activities and

ensure the restauration of the ecosystem. Indeed, the EU regulation contains the procedures for the

conservation of biological resources as part of the CFP that are not the same as those of the GFCM

recommendations (eg. regulations on minimum sizes marine organisms) and other rules on the matter

that are part of the GFCM recommendations. The management of some of these vulnerable areas in

international waters needs still further clarification as not all countries are signatories of the GFCM.

For EU countries, a number of sites have been proposed as future FPAs and assessment for each site

will need to be conducted to ascertain if they qualify as FPA in the sense of the Mediterranean

Regulation. Spain has reported to the EC seven marine reserves of fishing interest (Isla de Tabarca,

Islas Columbretes, Cabo de Palos e Islas Hormigas, Cabo de Gata-Níjar, Isla de Alborán, Masía

Blanca and Llevant de Mallorca-Cala Rajada) and two areas were fisheries restrictions applied

(Maritime Zone “Vol de Tossa” and an anchovy nursery area in Catalonia). Similarly, France has

reported some protected areas where fisheries restrictions are applied including the National Park Port

Cros, the natural reserve in the Bouches de Bonifacio region (together with Italy) and other areas

where spatial management for fisheries are implemented. Also, around 40 areas established under the

3 See the adopted agreement in the Appendix E of the GFCP Report of the thirty-eighth session:

https://gfcmsitestorage.blob.core.windows.net/documents/Reports/Statutory/GFCM-Report-Commission-38-en-web.pdf

22

Natura 2000 network have been considered even if they do not always have fisheries restrictions. Italy

on the other hand, has reported the existence of some MPAs as potential FPAs, including Bergeggi

and Regno di Nettuno and several national parks. Nonetheless fisheries management and/or

restrictions don’t seem to be considered or reported in all the cases. Greece has reported established

FPAs or in process of establishing in areas including Kalymnos/Kos, Ierisos, Preveza, Gulf of

Lakonia, Gulf of Thessaloniki, Gulf of Thermaikos and Rodopi. The scientific and technical reasons

underpinning the establishment of these sites are unclear.

23

The numbers of Fishing Protected Areas per Member State established by November 2013 (presently

under revision based on new declaration by Member States) are the following:

Croatia Cyprus France Greece Italy Malta Slovenia Spain

In

progress

1 (+2 in

progress)

13 (4 within

a MPA) 3

29 (23 within

a MPA)

9 (5 within

a MPA) 2

19 (17

within a

MPA)

Besides FPAs, the new regulation (Regulation EU No 1380/2013) from the CFP also provides for the

establishment of Fish Stock Recovery Areas due to their biological sensitivity, including areas where

there is clear evidence of heavy concentrations of fish below minimum conservation reference

size and of spawning grounds where restrictions or prohibition of fisheries may be implemented in

order to contribute to the conservation of living aquatic resources and marine ecosystems. Thus, these

areas could be part of the EU framework or network of fish conservation areas.

To enable the Common Fisheries Policy to benefit from the knowledge and experience of the

fishermen concerned and of other stakeholders, Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 followed by

Council Decision 2004/585/EC on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources

under the Common Fisheries Policy has provided for new forms of participation by stakeholders

(particularly encouraging the participation by the fisheries sector) through the establishment of

Regional Advisory Councils. For the Mediterranean, following this regulation, a Regional Advisory

Council is aimed to be established with representatives from the fisheries sector (potentially including

ship-owners, artisanal fishermen, other fishermen representatives, producer organisations as well as,

amongst others, processors, traders and other market organisations and women's networks) and other

interest groups such as scientists, Commission and national and regional administrations affected by

the policy. Within that context, the parties concerned may make recommendations and suggestions to

the Commission and the competent national authorities, regarding conservation and sustainable

exploitation of fisheries, in particular any advice on matters of fisheries management in respect of

certain sea areas or fishing zones.

IUCN policy guidance on good governance for Protected Areas and Mediterranean artisanal fisheries

In parallel with all these international policies and treaties, IUCN and its membership have developed

a wide array of policy guidance on good governance through various documents and guides,

particularly for PA (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; Dudley, 2008; Langholz and Wolf Krug, 2004).

Acknowledging that the situation in each country is different, the recommendation urges governments

and civil society to:

RECOGNIZE that governance of protected areas should reflect and address relevant social,

ecological, cultural, historical and economic factors, and what constitutes ‘good governance’ in any

area needs to be considered in light of local circumstances, traditions and knowledge systems.

The same recommendation also directs guidance specifically to “all those involved in the

establishment and management of protected areas,” calling on practitioners to give attention to five

key elements of decision making that promote good governance:

(a) recognition of diverse knowledge systems;

(b) openness, transparency and accountability in decision making;

(c) inclusive leadership;

(d) mobilizing support from diverse interests, with special emphasis on partners and local and

indigenous communities; and

24

(e) sharing authority and resources, and devolving or decentralizing decision-making authority

and resources where appropriate

The 2008 IUCN-WCPA guidelines on protected area management categories identify nine broad

principles for good governance in the context of protected areas (Dudley, 2008):

• Legitimacy and voice: social dialogue and collective agreement on protected area management

objectives and strategies, on the basis of freedom of association and speech, with no

discrimination related to gender, ethnicity, lifestyles, cultural values or other characteristics.

• Subsidiarity: attributing management authority and responsibility to the institutions closest to

the resources at stake.

• Fairness: sharing equitably the costs and benefits of establishing and managing protected areas,

and providing a recourse to impartial judgment in case of related conflict.

• Do no harm: making sure that the costs of establishing and managing protected areas do not

create or aggravate poverty and vulnerability.

• Direction: fostering and maintaining an inspiring and consistent long-term vision for the

protected area and its conservation objectives.

• Performance: effectively conserving biodiversity whilst responding to the concerns of

stakeholders and making wise use of resources.

• Accountability: having clearly demarcated lines of responsibility, and ensuring adequate

reporting and answerability from all stakeholders about the fulfilment of their responsibilities.

• Transparency: ensuring that all relevant information is available to all stakeholders.

• Human rights: respecting human rights in the context of protected area governance, including

the rights of future generations.

These principles and concepts become grounded in legislation when they are translated into an

appropriate legal form as part of decision-making requirements and processes for protected area

design and management in a given country. Three main applications are through provisions on access

to information, public participation, and social equity and justice.

Regarding artisanal fisheries, the World Conservation Congress at its 4th Session (Barcelona, 2008)

also urged Mediterranean countries to encourage Mediterranean artisanal fishing organizations to play

an active role in making decisions on the design and implementation of Marine Protected Areas, on

the sustainable management of marine resources and, in short, to lead the movement for the

conservation of marine biodiversity; as well as to increase the tools for training artisanal fishing

organizations to carry out this management, and to facilitate the technical support and advice on

various issues provided by strategic partnerships of scientific institutions and NGOs.

25

©IUCN-Med, Sinis MPA

26

Part 2. Governance of Protected Areas

Types of Governance for Terrestrial or Marine Protected Areas

Looking at the present PAs in the world, IUCN (Dudley, 2008, Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013)

identifies four main types of governance, each with differences according to the regions, the national

legislation or cultural and traditional practices. Like all approaches to conservation, each of these

governance types offer advantages and disadvantages to achieve PA objectives and few examples of

those are provided.

Governance by government: Federal or national ministry/agency in charge; sub-national

ministry/agency in charge; government-delegated management (e.g. to NGO)

Shared governance: Collaborative management (various degrees of influence); joint management

(pluralist management board; transboundary management (various levels across international borders)

Private governance: By individual owner; by non-profit organisations (NGOs, universities,

cooperatives); by for-profit organisations (individuals or corporate)

Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities: Indigenous peoples’ conserved areas and

territories; community conserved areas – declared and run by local communities.

Type A: Government Managed Protected Areas

In this type of governance, one or more government bodies hold the authority, responsibility and

accountability for managing the protected area, determines its conservation objectives (such as the

ones that distinguish the IUCN management categories of Protected Areas), subjects it to a

management regime, and often also owns the protected area’s coastal land, water and related

resources. Here, legislative and budgetary responsibilities might also rest at sub-national

administrative levels.

In many countries, sub-national (regional) and municipal/local government bodies have recently also

become prominent in declaring and managing protected areas. For some of these sites, the state retains

full ownership and/or control or oversight of protected areas but delegates their management to a

parastatal organization, NGO or even a private operator or community. The government may or may

not have a legal obligation to inform or consult other identified stakeholders prior to setting up

protected areas and making or enforcing management decisions.

Potential weakness

In some countries, for land and sea, and areas at the interface, there is a need for cooperation and

coordination between the different government bodies to achieve an effective management. The

management of the activities in the marine environment is in many cases unclear or included in the

mandate of the administration in charge of terrestrial PAs and therefore, a cooperation/coordination is

needed between different ministries or administrations that have responsibilities within the different

resources of the environment.

The government may or may not have obligation of inform and consult stakeholders prior setting up a

PA or making management decision. For this reason, this type of management can also lead to partial

exclusion of fisheries actors (for the benefits of other interests for example) and conflicts over the

long run.

27

28

Potential strengths

Most government managed areas are governed by decision making bodies created within some type of

governmental institution following the national law and/or regional legislation and policy. Issues

relating to protected area legal establishment, boundary demarcation and further protected area

regulations are directly linked with the administration/institution in charge that report directly within

their directives and programmes. In some cases they also provide the financial resources for the daily

management of these areas.

Type B: Shared governance

This type of governance is also becoming increasingly common around the world. Complex processes

and institutional mechanisms are generally employed to share management authority and

responsibility among a plurality of actors – national to sub-national (including local) government

authorities, representatives of local communities (indigenous), resources-user associations, private

entrepreneurs and land-owners. The representatives of various interests or constituencies sit on a

governance body with decision-making authority and responsibility, and take decisions together. By

doing this all the actors recognise the legitimacy of their respective entitlements to manage the

protected area and agree on subjecting it to a specific conservation.

Potential weakness

Distinct sub-types of shared governance may be identified. In collaborative management, for instance,

formal decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability may rest with one agency (often a

national governmental agency), but the agency is required – by law or policy – to collaborate with

other stakeholders. In its weak form, “collaboration” means informing and consulting stakeholders.

In its strong form, “collaboration” goes further and represents a multi-stakeholder body that develops

and approves by consensus a number of technical proposals for protected area regulation and

management, to be later submitted to the decision-making authority that in the last instance has to take

a final decision on the technical proposals.

In joint management as another form of shared governance, various actors sit on a management body

with decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability. Again, the requirements for joint

management are made stronger if decision-making is carried out by consensus and transparency.

When this is not the case, the balance of power reflected in the composition of the joint management

body may de facto transform it into a different governance type (e.g. when government actors or

private land owners hold an absolute majority of votes). The challenge is also to ensure that each

stakeholder benefits from this management and comply with its obligations (Cazalet, 2013).

Because of the many actors which are often involved, some different forms of multi-stakeholder

management may be particularly suited according to the needs of different protected areas.

Potential strengths

From this type of management approach, each partner can learn and develop over time, understands

their respective roles, responsibilities and rights in management. Different alternative options can be

further explored to reduce conflict and achieve agreements such as develop small groups, gathering

the pros and cons from the parties and having those summarised for public scrutiny by a neutral

facilitator.

Co-management involves self-organisation capacity and as ecosystems can react unpredictable,

solutions can be sought and agreed among the stakeholders.

29

Type C: Private Protected Areas

Today, this type of governance with private ownership has an enormously important force in

conservation in some countries although there are fewer examples within the marine environment.

Private reserves include areas under individual (when ownership is held by a single person, family, or

trust), cooperative, corporate for-profit (i.e., companies or groups of people authorised to act as a

single entity, usually controlled by an executive, an oversight board, and ultimately individual

shareholders), and corporate not-for-profit ownership (i.e. NGOs). Conservation NGOs buy areas of

coastal land for example, which in some cases are large, and dedicate them to conservation. Many

individual land owners pursue conservation objectives out of respect for the land or a desire to

maintain its beauty and ecological value. Revenues from ecotourism or reducing levies and taxes, are

additional incentives. In all these cases, authority for managing the protected land and resources rests

with the owners, who determine a conservation objective, impose a conservation regime and are

responsible for decision-making, subject to applicable legislation and usually under terms agreed with

the respective governments (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013).

Potential weakness

The application of this type of governance model for the marine environment need some specific

regulations allowing the transfer of property rights or licensing for marine areas generally surrounding

a terrestrial private territory. This means usually that a co-management could be necessary and

therefore might be considered as the previous category. Generally a private part of the coast or an

island is afforded a buffer zone at sea and is managed by the owner, a foundation or a NGO.

Providing long-term security to these sites is one of the challenges facing private protected areas.

Private protected areas can also represent an extreme form of participation in protected area

management, where the local residents who own reserves control decision-making and there is no real

or broader local participation in it. Therefore, the accountability of this type of governance with

private ownership to the larger society could be quite limited. Nonetheless some forms of

accountability may be negotiated with the government in exchange for specific incentives (as in the

case of Easements or Land Trusts).

Potential strengths

In the majority of cases, the creation of a private protected area – and management of the same for

conservation objectives – is a voluntary act on the part of the owners. A growing recognition of the

opportunities for achieving conservation objectives on private space – and especially the proliferation

of mechanisms and incentives for doing so – has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number and

extent of private protected areas, particularly in the terrestrial environment.

Type D: Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities

IUCN defines this governance type as: “protected areas where the management authority and

responsibility rest with indigenous peoples and/or local communities through various forms of

customary or legal, formal or informal, institutions and rules”. This may be the oldest form of

protected area governance and it is still widespread around the world (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.,

2013).

Indigenous peoples or local communities have authority and responsibility by a variety of forms of

ethnic governance or locally agreed organizations and rules on the land, water and natural resources.

These forms and rules are very diverse and can be extremely complex. For instance, some resources

may be collectively owned and managed, but others may be individually owned and managed or

managed on a temporary-basis.

For the area, nearly every community has developed management regulations and organizations,

which may or may not be legally binding at the national level. In some cases, negotiations with

30

national government and others partners need to be carried out for example, the recognition of

collective land rights, the respect for customary practices and the provision of economic incentives

(thus changing the governance type from D to B).

Internationally, this governance model has been more precisely defined by FAO, in relation with

artisanal fisheries activities. As a tool for rights-based fisheries management, Territorial Use Rights in

Fisheries (TURF) involve a certain territory and certain rights of use relating to fishing within that

territory, with a minimum degree of exclusivity (that is, the right to exclude others) held by a

community or a collective with socially integrating forces (Christy, 1992). TURFs may be defined as

community held rights of use (or tenure) and exclusion over the fishery resources within a specific

area and for a period of time. Accompanying these rights might be certain responsibilities for

maintenance and proper management of the resource base, as well as restrictions on the exercise of

the rights of use and exclusion.

TURFs have existed for centuries in some small-scale fishing communities, often in the form of

customary marine tenure, as is common in some traditional fishing communities through the

Mediterranean.

The advantage of TURFs most commonly highlighted is the economically more efficient use of the

resources and consequent opportunities to improve the welfare of small-scale fishing communities. It

allows controlling the use of labour and capital within the territory, excluding outsiders, dealing with

spatial use overlapping and other externalities, investing to enhance future returns and providing

flexibility to adjust to changes in technology, markets, resource characteristics and the socio-

economic structure of the fishing community.

Potential weakness

Complex situation and management might arise from this type of governance. Local communities (i.e.

artisanal fisheries communities) may initially need the lowest administrative level to validate their

governance and management plans in order to function effectively. As other stakeholders (i.e.

recreational fishermen, tourist operators or diving clubs) show their interest in using the area, the

preservation of this type of governance if local communities don’t have a clear identity and a long

term relation with the territory (land or sea) might be difficult to preserve. If reporting and

accountability move up to higher levels of government, the situation is more affiliated to Type A.

Potential strengths

The long-term ownership rights may incentivize fishers to conserve the resource and the local marine

ecosystem and has the potential to promote social responsibility by giving fishermen more effective

voice in planning and decision making. The ability to control access to resources might also assist

implementing management measures such as MPAs within or adjacent to for example TURF sites.

Besides the revenues that can produce for local fishers, it can represent a good approach to saving on

management and enforcement cost by being able to involve also fishermen in control activities as well

as increasing profits which could be translated in an increase of government collection through taxes.

Community led PA could be more resilient to changes drive by political agenda that any other

governance type.

31

Part 3. The Mediterranean governance approaches for Marine Protected Areas and artisanal fisheries

The survey of Mediterranean MPAs, particularly for Croatia, France, Greece, Italy and Spain,

provides insight into the diverse modes of governance to fisheries management and marine

conservation that have being implemented (see detailed Country project reports 4.1). The situation

from some South Mediterranean countries with different case studies is also shown to reflect different

characteristics of the types of governance.

The heterogeneity of the MPAs surveyed and other experiences from other Mediterranean countries

suggests the potential applicability of different approaches to multiple socioeconomic and ecological

environments, as long as they are established according to national legislation and customary norms.

By examining the governance and management structures of these case studies, it is possible to start

understanding the unique characteristics that play MPAs in artisanal fisheries management and vice

versa.

Type A. Government Managed Marine Protected Areas

In most Mediterranean countries, MPAs responsibility is of a State national ministry or of an agency

following a Governance by government model, where the management could be delegated totally to a

regional/local/ municipal administration or an agency. Any decision regarding an MPA therefore

remains the full responsibility of the State. Government Managed Protected Areas are most of the

time governed by a specific legislation with the management mandate afforded generally to the

Ministry in charge of the Environment and in some cases specifically to the main administration in

charge of the marine environment or fisheries. In other situations, there is a specialised agency for

protected areas that includes within their mandate the management of coastal and marine protected

areas.

The involvement of some expert bodies (associated to various governance structures and/or created

during the development of PA projects) has been recently introduced in some countries.

Depending if a given MPA or marine reserve for fisheries is placed in near-shore or offshore waters,

the national approach might also differ.

As in other regions (Worboys et al., 2015; Stanciu and Ioniță, 2014), the following sub-types of state

governance have been identified in the Mediterranean:

• (a) centralized governance

• (b) state management by a national agency

• (c) state management by a regional / local agency or authority

• (d) state management delegated to other actors

Croatia (centralized system for national MPA and decentralized for local MPA)

In Croatia, Protected Areas (PAs) in general, including MPAs, follow a centralized governance

subtype of governance by government (a) for decision-making and management systems. Protected

areas fall primarily under the competency of the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection

(MENP); and the basic legal instrument ruling their designation and functioning is the Nature

Protection Act (NPA) (OG 80/2013).

Besides the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, other ministries can play in important

role in MPAs governance. Particularly relevant is the Ministry of Agriculture, which, by

32

implementing the Marine Fisheries Act is responsible for fisheries management of local MPAs as well

as for approval of the ordinance on protection and conservation of the MPAs of national importance,

which should be adopted based on the NPA. The Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and

Infrastructure, in charge of implementing the Maritime Domain and Seaports Act, is also to be

considered mainly regarding concessions for buoys in MPAs, its work on maritime traffic and

protection of the Adriatic. The Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning is the central state

administrative body responsible for the implementation of the Physical Planning Act, the

Construction Act dealing with physical planning, location and building permits, which is relevant the

adoption of PA spatial plans.

MPA considered of national importance are declared by the MENP in coordination with the relevant

other ministries according to the category afforded.

For Marine Protected Areas of local importance, they are declared by the county assembly after

approval by the MENP and other relevant ministries. The regional/local administrative or

environmental agency has full responsibility or report to the Ministry of Environment and the role of

both coordinating / supervising the local PA level management as well as ensuring the connection

with the central authorities from different fields of activity. This corresponds to a subtype of state

management by a regional / local agency or authority within a Government Managed Marine

Protected Area.

The Marine Fisheries Act (MFA) regulates commercial fishing, small-scale coastal fishing, small-

scale fishing, sports fishing, recreational fishing, fishing for scientific research and tourist fishing,

which may be carried out after obtaining valid fishing licenses issued by the Ministry of Agriculture,

the central state administrative body responsible for marine fisheries, or by other competent entities

authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture for some of the categories of fishing. The Marine Fisheries

Act (MFA) also prescribes Fishing Protected Areas (FPA) designated through an Ordinance. This

ordinance will remain in effect until an Ordinance on Fishing Protected Areas, based on the new

MFA, enters into force.

The new Marine Fisheries Act entered into force in July 2013. According to Article 4 of the Marine

Fisheries Act, all MPAs are now formally included in the marine fishing area. Restrictions for

fisheries and aquaculture within the parts of the marine fishing area which are protected as a national

park, nature park, special reserve and strict reserve, are to be regulated by secondary legislation,

which is to be passed on the basis of the NPA and is required to be pre-approved by the Ministry of

Agriculture. In this respect the NPA provides for the enactment of the Ordinance on protection and

conservation of a PA as an instrument that is also intended for the application of a specific internal

regime for fisheries management in each particular MPA.

France (centralized and decentralized systems)

In contrast to many other countries, France has never adopted a specific law governing protected

areas. The protected area categories with different legal status include national parks, marine nature

parks, national and regional nature reserves, classified and registered sites, Coastline and Lakeshore

Protection Agency sites, and areas covered by biotope protection orders, as well as regional nature

parks which combine environmental law and land use planning. These may be created as a result of

initiatives by the national government, local or regional authorities.

Within the central government, the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Land

Use Planning, MPAs (marine nature parks) come under the General Directorate for Infrastructure,

Transport and the Sea. At the regional level, the ministry in charge of nature protection is represented

33

by Regional Directorates for Environment, Land Use Planning and Housing (Direction Régionale de

l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement, or DREAL).

This governance system includes three specialized agencies: 1) the Marine Protected Areas Agency

(Agence des Aires Marines Protégées) which is subordinated to the central authority for the

environment (subtype of Government governance by a national agency) and has the double role of

coordinating / supervising the work at the MPAs and internationally contributing to the involvement

of France in the establishment and management of other marine protected areas. Directly, it also

manages marine nature parks. 2) The National Parks of France that manage all the terrestrial and

marine National Parks; and 3) the Coastline and Lakeshore Protection Agency (Conservatoire du

litoral) that aims to implement an active land purchasing policy for the protection of coastal sites and

the conservation of Nature.

Fisheries governance in the other hand is a Government management by a regional or authority

subtype. At the national level, sea fisheries, aquaculture and the processing of the products of the sea

are under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Spatial

Planning and administered by the Directorate for Sea Fisheries and Aquaculture (DPMA - Direction

des pêches maritimes et de l’aquaculture - DPMA) which provides economic and regulatory

monitoring, thus helping sustainable management of marine resources.

At local level, the DPMA relies on interregional maritime directorates (DIRM - Direction inter-

régional de la Mer) and departmental directorates (DDTM - directions départementales des territoires

et de la mer) for the regions and the sea in coastal sub-regions entities (called departments).

Professional fishermen have the obligation to be members of the National Committee of the sea

fisheries and aquaculture (CNPMEM - Comité national des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins).

Governance of fisheries resources seems to be strongly co-driven by fishermen, making a share

governance type (Type B). It is a unique model because of the existence of a specific institution

representing the fishing communities (‘‘prud’homies’’) to oversee the fisheries sector in their

respective and recognized territories. The functions of these prud’homies are threefold: (i) regulate

fishing activities within their space (production of norms under control and validation of the

administration); (ii) control the exercise of fishing activities and penalize offenders (community

discipline); and (iii) resolve conflicts between professional fishers and make judgments (dispute

settlement). The members of the prud’homies are all professional fishermen, and therefore highly

dependent on the status of the coastal and marine resources. Some prud’homies have already been

involved in setting up fishery reserves (cantonnement de pêche) (e.g., Seytre and Francour, 2008).

34

©IUCN-Med, Cadaques Spain

35

France Strategy for MPAs and fisheries

Defined by the law of 14 April 2006, France established six categories of marine

protected area each meet specific objectives whilst complementing each other: the

marine sections of national parks, natural reserves, prefectoral orders for the protection

of biotopes, Natura 2000 sites, the sections of the maritime public domains entrusted to

Coastline Conservation and natural marine parks.

The order of 3 June 2011 completes the list of MPAs created in 2006, with 9 new

categories. These new MPAs come both from international recognition and a new

protection process: RAMSAR sites, UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Biosphere

Reserves, sites arising from the Barcelona agreements (Mediterranean), OSPAR (north-

east Atlantic), Nairobi (East Africa), Cartagena (West Indies) and CAMLR (Antarctica),

and the national wild fauna and hunting reserve with a marine section.

The MPA designation procedure, management or participation mechanism is different

for each category and is detailed in the main regulations.

Considering the broad range of marine protected categories, 6 according to the

14/04/2006 law, completed with 9 new categories by the 03/06/2011 decree, in France,

without the oversea territories, 239 MPAs are listed of which 57 in the Mediterranean.

However, if only the MPAs sensu lato (including the Cantonnements de pêche) which

ban at least one type of fishing are considered, this list is reduced to 20 MPAs only, and

among these 20 MPAs, only 6 have a permanent status: Port-Cros and Les Calanques

national parks, Côte Bleue marine park, and Scandola, Bonifacio and Cerbere nature

reserves.

The national strategy for the creation and management of MPAs in France was

developed by a working group, following the Grenelle of the sea. The text of the strategy

was presented to the Minister for sustainable Development in October 2011. It was

submitted to consultations (referent national bodies, inter-ministerial consultations and

communities overseas). At the end of this process and of amendments, it was adopted by

the government at the Council of Ministers of 18 April 2012.

This strategy is available at:

www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/12016_strategie_SCGAMP_def_web_montee.pdf

According to this strategy, several objectives are fixed. One of them is directly linked to

the management of the fishing activities. 20% of the national waters have to be protected

by 2020, and among them, one half will be Fishery Reserves (réserve halieuthique).

36

Greece- Centralized governance by government

Today, governance and administration of MPAs in Greece is under the competency of the new

Ministry for Productive Restructuring, Environment and Energy (replacing the Ministry of

Environment, Energy and Climate Change in early 2015). Until recently then two offices, the General

Directorate of the Environment and the Directorate of Environmental Planning coordinate and support

the management of those sites (see country Report 4.1). Depending on the context, the Ministry of

Rural Development and Food (that implement the fisheries policy) as well as the Ministry of Shipping

and the Aegean (surveillance and implementation of fisheries policy) are also engaged in the

governance of MPAs in close collaboration with the Ministry for Productive Restructuring,

Environment and Energy.

Furthermore, the National System of Protected Areas of Greece (Law 3937/2011) is comprised of

both areas that are managed by a management agency (for the case of MPAs: 2 National Marine Parks

and 2 National Parks that include marine areas) as well as areas without an assigned Management

Agency (e.g. the vast majority of marine areas belonging to NATURA 2000 network). In the first

case, governance (by Ministries) is directly applied to the MPAs through their Management Agencies.

In the second case, Protected Areas are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Productive

Restructuring, Environment and Energy.

Italy - Centralized governance, decentralized management

In Italy, the institutional architecture and the juridical framework of MPAs and of artisanal fishery

mainly refer to two different Ministries. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are under the competency of

the Ministry of Environment (Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare,

MATTM) and specifically fall within the activity of the General Directorate for the Protection of

Nature and Sea (GDPNS), which – among other duties (e.g. hydrogeological hazards and pollution,

among others) – deals with terrestrial national parks and protected areas at national level. Specifically

within the GDPNS, three main divisions (4th, 5th and 6th) are mainly in charge of supervising and

funding MPAs functioning and management activity, and of providing the legal and technical

instruments dealing with planning and designation of new MPAs (see Country project report 4.1.).

Artisanal fishery is regulated by a multi-level governance that involves the Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Forestry (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, MIPAAF), the fishery

departments of the Regional governments and the local offices of the National Coast Guard. In few

regions (e.g. Sicily), there are also Consortia for Management of Artisanal Fishery (CoGePA,

Consorzi di gestione della pesca artigianale) that work with central and regional governments and are

in charge of supervision and management of Fishery management plans at local scale.

To be designated as a MPA, a stretch of coast or an off-shore bank must first be identified by law as

"marine area of retrieval" (Area Marina di Reperimento, AMR). Among the 50 AMR identified so far

27 have already been established as MPA and another 17 are of next institution, as the process that

will lead to the Establishing Decree has already initiated.

Italian MPAs are established under the laws no. 979 of 1982 and no. 394 of 1991 with a Decree of the

Minister for the Environment that contains the name and the delimitation of the area, the objectives

and the discipline of protection. Using the list of AMR, for the effective establishment of a MPA,

knowledge on the natural environment of interest must be collected, in addition to the necessary data

on the socio-economic activities taking place in the area. The General Directorate for the Protection of

Nature and Sea (GDPNS) of the Ministry of Environment can make use of academic and scientific

institutions for the acquisition of such data. Subsequently, the experts of the Ministry of Environment

can start a formal inquiry for the MPA designation. The Regional government and the local public

37

authorities concerned the designating MPA are consulted to raise potential conflicts and observations

on the draft decree. This is considered a must-step to obtaining an actual local consensus. Finally, as

established by the Decree no. 112/98 art.77, a Joint Conference to formally examine the draft

Ministerial Decree must take place to get the final local policy and stakeholder opinion. At this point,

the Minister for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister for Economic Affairs, proceeds to

the actual establishment of the MPA, authorizing the funding to ensure the initial expenses related to

the MPA establishment.

Generally, the management of the MPAs is led by Public institutions (local municipalities, coast

guard, and provincial/regional governments), Scientific institutions (academic or research institutions)

or environmental NGOs recognized at national level. These are often pooled in management

consortia. The nomination of the management body is made by decree of the Minister of the

Environment, after consultation with the regional government and the local corporate body parties.

The greatest part of the Italian MPAs is managed by the local municipalities.

Thus, it can be distinguished at least three sub-type of governance, centralized governance as

protected area management units are directly subordinated to the central responsible authority,

MATTM; State management by a regional/local authority which is usually local municipalities, coast

guard, and provincial/regional governments and government management delegated to other actors as

MPA management responsibility is delegated to both public and private entities (i.e. NGOs and

scientific institutions).

Concerning the coordination with other government agencies, at least once a year, the Commission of

the each PA meets up with the MPA management body, formulates proposals and suggestions for all

matters related to the MPA functioning. In particular, the Committee gives its opinion to the

implementation of regulations and to estimates management expenses, formulated by the management

body.

MPAs in Italy

To date, along the Italian coast and its offshore waters there are 27 created MPAs and

two ‘underwater parks’, aimed at protection of underwater archaeological sites. The

Pelagos Sanctuary, formally included by the Italian legislation as an international MPA

specifically devoted to protection of cetaceans in the Northern Tyrrhenian and in the

Ligurian Sea, should be also considered. Besides there are three no-trawl areas (in

Sicily) and 6 no-take zones (in Sardinia).

Most MPAs in Italy are established for multiple uses of which biodiversity conservation

is the principal objective. They are usually composed of three zones characterised by

different levels of protection. Activities and restrictions within these zones are also

defined by law, but through specific decrees or local ordinances, some exceptions can

apply in order to combine the preservation of environmental values with the sustainable

use of the marine environment. In this context, MPAs are used also as a fisheries

management tool and as a way to assign user rights to local fishers. Such a spatial

zoning scheme allows for the possibility of practising both artisanal fishing, i.e., small-

scale fishing operations conducted with small boats using fixed or drifting gear and

recreational fishing in the buffer and peripheral zones (with the exclusion of

spearfishing).

38

39

The main policy document dealing with Italian fishery is the National Plan for Fisheries, now

replaced by the Three-year National Program for Fishery. This represents the instrument of

intervention programming artisanal fishery activity (along with all other fisheries). It is issued by the

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in order to promote the rational exploitation and

valorisation of marine resources through a sustainable development of fisheries. One of the paths that

are being explored to reach such a target is the self-regulation system of artisanal fishermen. In Italy,

the system of self-regulation within the coastal zone by the fishermen themselves is present for many

years, having been introduced from the third National Plan for Fisheries (1991-1993) with reference

to small-scale coastal fishing and bivalve harvesting.

In particular, the Ministry decree no. 44/1995 has defined the designation rules of Consortia between

fishing companies for bivalve harvesting, the so-called COGEVO (Consortia for Management of

Clams). One particularly innovative and effective management tool consists of the Consortia of

Management for Artisanal Fisheries (Co.Ge.Pa.), whose main aim is to ensure artisanal fishermen

active participation to management activities (ministry decree 14 September 1997). These Consortia

are made by small-scale fishing companies and cooperatives and are being created to address,

coordinate and manage fishing activities along a well-defined stretch of coast. To date, the creation of

Consortia of Management for Artisanal Fisheries (Co.Ge.Pa.), are still in an infancy state at national

level. Sicily is the only Italian region where they effectively started three years ago. The designation

of these consortia is encouraged by the possibility of accessing to targeted State funding measures.

This is leading to the adoption of codes of self-conduct through the formulation of a management plan

which includes: initiatives for restocking, harvest control, marine resource conservation, the

establishment of areas of biological recovery, the shifts of fishing boats activity, the collaboration

with marine research institutes, the promotion of training and of professional qualifications for the

fishermen; the quality enhancement of fishery products.

Spain (centralized and decentralized)

Spain is characterized by a multi-level governance structure that includes decentralization of the state

to regional governments (called “Comunidades Autónomas” or “Autonomous regions”). Competences

on maritime and coastal affairs are shared between central and regional governments from each of

these regions. While central government has exclusive authority over the Territorial Sea and the

Exclusive Economic Zone, the regional governments are responsible for coastal areas waters, referred

to as ‘internal waters’.

We can distinguish the application of three different governance by government approaches within the

MPAs in Spain:

(I) Led and managed primarily by the central government.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA) is the competent

authority for the application of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive that has been

transposed into Spanish legislation by Law 41/2010, on the Protection of the Marine

Environment. It carries out the demarcation plan, processing and approving the records

that define the boundaries of the shoreline and the territorial waters. In addition, this

Minister is the responsible to issue basic legislation on environmental protection issues,

develop a protected areas register and prescribe norms and standards for the general

management and development of protected areas. From the Directorate-General for

Coastal and Marine Sustainability depends the Department for the protection of the sea

(División para la Protección del Mar) whose duties includes the proposed declaration and

management of MPAs of Natura 2000, MPAs under international protection figure and

other natural marine protected areas. The Subdivision General for the Protection of

40

Fisheries Resources below the General Secretary for Fisheries of the MAGRAMA has the

function of maintenance and monitoring of Fishery Protection zones within the network

of Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest in Spain.

(II) State management by a regional with significant decentralisation. There is a sharing of

authority and responsibilities between central and autonomous governments and different

government agencies. MPAs are managed in accordance with formal regulations and/or

through partnerships and negotiations between different parties.

(III) Managed primarily by the autonomous regional government. This involves the

decentralisation of legislative and administrative functions to the autonomous regional

government.

For National Parks, Spain also has a “State governance by an agency subtype” represented by the

National Parks Autonomous Agency (OAPN). This Agency is the central body for coordinating the

Spanish Network of National Parks and the management of each site corresponds to the Autonomous

Regional government in whose territory they are. OAPN is responsible also for the follow up and the

application of UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB Programme) and coordinates the

Spanish Network of Biosphere Reserves.

The different regional Autonomous regions have likewise established a legal framework for the

establishment of regional protected areas and fisheries that add to the existing national protected sites.

Rules and technical and administrative guidelines and procedures for the designation and management

of protected areas are descripted in the corresponding regional laws.

Specific cases in the Mediterranean non-European countries

The first subtype (a) of subtype of centralized governance by government for decision-making and

management is also common in other Mediterranean non-European countries. Governance capacity to

Mediterranean coastal and marine PAs due to socio-political conditions is one major barrier for any

MPA as it needs to address conflicts in the coastal zone with the absence of participatory planning

process and accompany them with conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms. In general,

fisheries and other coastal communities have low awareness regarding the management and protection

of coastal and marine resources (Tabet and Fanning, 2012). For these countries, experiences on

advocating policies and programs in environmental and coastal governance that promote

decentralization and integration are very limited with little coastal community participation in MPAs.

For example, in Morocco, the High Commissioner for Water, Forestry and Fight against

Desertification (Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification) is the

administration responsible for protected areas. Its recently adopted law on protected areas (2010)

proposes different options for co-management although presently good governance, such as

‘participation’ and ‘integration’ are seldom used.

Algeria has also a highly centralized governance system and the mandate for terrestrial and marine

protected areas lies in the Ministry of Territorial Management and Environment (Ministère de

l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, MATE). Creation and management of Protected

Areas are under the responsibility of the Direction Générale des Forêts (DGF) for coastal National

Parks, while the newly formed Commissariat National du Littoral (CNL), under the Ministry of the

Environment supervises the management of marine and coastal areas.

In few other countries, State governance with a national level body (e.g. Agency) specialized in the

field of nature/biodiversity conservation and which has the role of coordinating the local level PA

41

exist. In Egypt, for example, the Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs and the Egyptian

Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), as the executive arm of the Ministry of Environment, are the

main regulatory bodies for the conservation, protection and management of the environment. Inside

them, the Nature Conservation Sector (NCS) is in charge of the terrestrial and marine environment

and of the terrestrial and marine Protected Areas. The mandate of NCS includes the strategic approach

for identification, selection, creation, management and capacity building of Marine Protected Areas,

including fishing activities inside these territories. This is clear State management governance by a

national agency subtype.

Similarly, the main actor involved in the protection and management of the coastal zone and the

maritime public domain in Tunisia is the Coastal Protection and Management Agency (Agence de

Protection et d'Aménagement du Littoral – APAL) under the Tunisian Ministry of Environment and

Sustainable Development (see law 95-72 of 24 July 1995 and 95-73 of 24 July 1994). For the

protection and control of the marine environment and combating pollution, the Tunisian key player is

the National Agency for the Protection of the Environment (Agence Nationale de Protection de

l’Environnement - ANPE), which is also subordinated to the Tunisian Ministry of Environment (see

law 88-91 of the 02 August 1988). The INSTM (Institut National des Sciences et Technologies de la

Mer), under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries is directly

responsible of sea and its resources, studies and programs (fishing, aquaculture, marine environment,

sea technologies, oceanography,...). The General Direction of Fisheries and Aquaculture, under the

Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fisheries is the National Authority responsible

regulating fishing and aquaculture activities.

Initiatives to establish MPA with stakeholder consultations

Under the MedPAN South project (2008-2012) and the current Sea-Med project, WWF

works with the National Park of Taza to ensure the full participation of local stakeholders

and fishing communities in the development of the new MPA management plans, a

Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) under the Barcelona

Convention. Here, the local population depends largely on the direct exploitation of marine

resources and fishing is a key source of their income.

A multi-stakeholder steering committee, endorsed by the national government and chaired

by the provincial government, has being created to establish a common vision and clear

objectives for the development of a MPA. The steering committee was already key to

catalyse the political will needed to mobilize resources, create a credible governance

system, and establish an effective dialogue among scientists, fishermen, other local

stakeholders, and decision-makers. A multi-stakeholder steering committee, endorsed by

the national government and chaired by the provincial government, has being created to

establish a common vision and clear objectives for the development of a MPA. The

steering committee was already key to catalyse the political will needed to mobilize

resources, create a credible governance system, and establish an effective dialogue among

scientists, fishermen, other local stakeholders, and decision-makers.

42

Type B. Shared Governance of Protected Areas

In this case, the governance of MPAs could be shared between the central level and the regional or

local administrations, but also with NGOs, associations or cooperatives of fishermen, public or private

institutions. Different subtypes of shared governance may be identified (Borrini Feyerabend et al.

2004). In ‘collaborative governance’, advisory boards with multiple actors for the public and private

sectors could be set up to build a consensus although the final decision is only responsibility of the

state. In a weak connotation, such collaboration may mean just informing and consulting other parties.

‘Joint governance’, on which decision making authority, responsibility and accountability are shared

in a formal way, with various actors, is less common in the Mediterranean.

Few examples of shared governance types are provided below. Most often, is up to site MPA

managers to maintain inclusive relationships with scientists and other stakeholders through their

efforts directed into regular or occasional meetings, consultations, campaigns, workshops and

seminars.

In the case of transboundary marine protected areas, this type of governance is developed between

countries

Transboundary governance systems, Pelagos Santuary

The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals is a special marine

protected area extending about 90.000 km2 in the north-western Mediterranean Sea

between Italy, France and the Island of Sardinia, encompassing Corsica and the

Archipelago Toscano. Under the Pelagos Agreement, cooperation and a permanent

dialogue between the 3 Parties (France, Monaco and Italy) for the evaluation of the

marine mammals’ population and regulation of high speed boats among other

measures, is foreseen. For the high sea, coordination among the parties about the

maritime activities that can have an impact in the Santuary is developed as part of the

management plan. The stakeholders of the Pelagos Sanctuary are composed by the

Meeting of the Contracting Parties, in which the trilateral decisions are taken, the

Permanent Secretary, the Permanent Committee (which collaborates with the

Permanent Secretary and give advices about the different issues link to the

implementation of the Agreement) and a Management Structure, which centralizes the

activities realized in cooperation.

43

Stakeholder engagement in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Spain

Spain as France, distinguishes itself from most other countries by having strong local fishers’

organizations to represent their constituents, with historical roots and formal roles in the overall

fisheries governance of the country (see Country report 4.1). These local fishers’ organizations called

“cofradías” (as prud´homies in France), are corporations with legal jurisdiction and decision-making

capacity that are defined with territorial limits of action and represent different fishing communities.

Through the cofradıas, local fishers are a key formal

stakeholder, recognized by state law and are therefore

entitled to be involved in the implementation of MPAs.

Their involvement is particularly present in marine

reserves with fisheries interests.

All marine reserves for fisheries (declared and managed by

General Secretariat of Fisheries of MAGRAMA if the area

falls within territorial waters or the Autonomous Regional

Government if it falls in coastal waters) have an advisory

body, the Monitoring Committee, chaired by the fisheries

public administration and with the participation of other

stakeholders -usually fishermen's associations – with

sometimes the presence of researchers. Since marine

reserves are established under the fisheries authority, they

don’t have competency to include other stakeholders

although their Monitoring Committee can, occasionally,

have the informal participation of other interested

stakeholders.

Steering Committees composed of representatives of

different organizations and groups such as government,

fishermen associations (i.e. cofradias), recreational

fishermen associations, yacht clubs, conservation

organizations (NGOs), scientific institutions, and others

are also implemented in each of the regionally declared

marine reserve of Balearic Islands. These committees are

advisory bodies with public participation that offer their

opinion about the management and make proposals and

suggestions to the managers, while informing the different

social sectors on the condition and operation of the

reserves. A similar approach is taken in Cabrera National

Park where the Steering Committee is composed of

stakeholders from the central and regional government,

NGOs, cofradías, universities and research institutes (see

Box).

However, the inclusion of a wide range of users and

stakeholders into decision making about the management

of MPA through a type of consultative body or Committee

is no always the case. Some scientists or scientific

institutions working in partnership with other stakeholders have been involved in the initial stages of

the design of new sites but their participation and consultation to provide knowledge for the

management of declared sites is no regularly done.

Initiative to establish

Marine Reserves in Spain

The marine reserve of the

Hormigas Islands in Costa

Brava (Catalonia, Spain) is

one of the sites where the

local fishers (small-scale

fishers and trawlers) through

their cofradía proposed the

original establishment of a

MPA, mainly to protect

fishers’ interests. As a

stakeholder, it was original

involved on the decisions

regarding the boundaries of

the marine reserve as well as

some fisheries regulations.

However, the actual conflicts

with other stakeholders,

particularly recreational

fishers who were not engaged

in the early discussions, the

political disputes among

different administrations and

the financial crisis that Spain

is experiencing has led to user

conflicts in the governance

and management of the site

and the decrease wiliness of

the local cofradías to be

involved further

(Chuenpagdee et al. 2013).

44

Italy

Management of the Italian MPAs is generally led by Public institutions (local municipalities, coast

guard, and provincial/regional governments) although in some instances scientific institutions

(academic or research institutions) or environmental NGOs recognized at national level can form

management consortiums with the authorities to manage the sites (see Country report 4.1). The

majority of the Italian MPAs are nevertheless managed by the local municipalities.

A technical-scientific committee (TSC) is sometimes present as an advisory board for supporting the

MPA manager decisions. Stakeholders’ participation to MPA management is however not defined by

law. Some representatives of the local stakeholder communities can take part to the Commission of

the Reserve, whose aims are setting up MPA conservation objectives, reviewing the management plan

and other secondary legislation acts (e.g. restrictions). The manager, in collaboration with the local

coast guard and police, can enforce the restrictions and surveillance of the different zones of the

MPA.

Artisanal fisheries in Cabrera National Park One of the objectives of the management of the national park of Cabrera Archipelago in the Balearic Islands is to maintain the cultural and good market value of artisanal fisheries in a sustainable manner. For this, a fisheries management plan was approved by a Royal Decree 941/2001 (BOE 21406/09/2001) stipulating the type of arts that could be used, the fishing effort, the number of artisanal fishing vessels and the closed seasons that should be applied in the Park. Moreover, recreational fishing and trawling were prohibited. Continuous monitoring of fishing activities and resources was established to ensure sustainability of resources though the data that is collected on board of artisanal fisheries boats, fisheries captures collected by fishers and visual underwater census. The law determines the maximum number of vessels that can operate weekly by gear type through a licensing system that is done in agreement with the fishers through their cofradías. The reserve integral and the core zone are excluded from any fishing activity. Future activities will include the development of “pesca-tourism” and “labelization” of fisheries products from Cabrera origin

©IUCN-Med, Sinis Italy

45

Few examples of co-management and engagement of fishermen towards future co-management exist

in some MPAs (see Box).

France

In France, different types of management committees that include representatives of Agencies, NGOs,

local communities, public entities and/or military authorities take part in the management of the

MPAs. Some, such as the Nature Reserves, has only an advisory Committee role while others have a

stronger role in decision making. During the establishing of new sites, stakeholder participation is

often limited only to consultations.

Some prud’homies have been involved in establishing fishery reserves (cantonnement de pêche)

within their territorial areas and generally participate in the management of a MPA if there is one

established within its territorial area even if the goal of the MPA is not mainly for fisheries. As such,

in some areas, MPA management bodies collaborate and co-manage the sites with local prud’homies.

Management delegated to an NGO Miramare MPA, Italy

Despite being one of the smallest MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea, Miramare has always

been a model for effective and up-to-date management, where socio-economic and

conservation issues are tackled with an integrated and comprehensive approach. The

reserve is managed by the Italian World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on behalf of Italy's

Ministry of the Environment and Protection of the Territory (MEPT). The governance of

the area is done in a public-private partnership by the authority and the NGO, however

the management is really delegated to the NGO. The WWF has promoted the Reserve

development and has invested in its management, often supporting innovative

environmental policy programmes.

Torre Guaceto MPA, engagement of fishermen towards a co-management approach

Torre Guaceto is a 22 km2 coastal MPA established in 1991 along the eastern coast of

Apulia (southern Adriatic Sea). Here, a co-management approach has been agreed

between the MPA manager, artisanal fishermen and scientists. Fishermen have accepted

limitations to their gear, technique and fishing power with the aim of attaining

sustainable fishing and better economic performance under strict patrolling and yield

monitoring.

After a 5-year total fishing ban inside the whole MPA, a new fisheries approach was set

based on key predators removal and of fishing effort and on the use of selective gear. The

buffer zone was reopened to controlled fishing activity and commercial catches per unit

effort (CPUEs) were collected inside the buffer zone and outside the MPA from January

2005 to April 2008. Data analysis showed that the CPUEs of total catch and of the most

abundant target species were always higher inside the buffer zone than outside, and that

inside the MPA buffer zone, after an initial decrease, catches stabilised at about twice the

value than outside (Di Franco et al. 2014).

46

This is the case of Bonifacio Strait Nature Reserve in Corsica. Since 1999, the Corsican

Environmental Office (OEC), the structure managing the reserve, actively collaborates with the

Bonifacio prud’homies in the framework of fish stock management in the Strait. Today the scientific

studies conducted in partnership with fishermen have identified an average biomass index that is 6

times more important inside the protected zones, leading to improved revenue for fisheries as benefit

from the “spill-over effect” (Colléter et al., 2014).

The marine Park Côte Bleue in France is also a very interesting example of a model of governance

that is completely decentralized. The creation of the marine Park is the result of local initiatives

(coastal towns and prud’homie) based on the awarding of territorial concessions (mainly for artificial

reefs and no-take reserves “cantonnement de pêche”) by the state and delegation of management to

these decentralized entities. The purpose of this site is explicitly oriented towards support for small-

scale fisheries and improved coexistence with other users of the sea (recreational fishers and tourists,

for example) besides protection of the natural environment although the legal status of this MPA

(called ‘‘Marine Park’’) is not recognized as a category of MPAs under the 2006 National Act.

Fishermen participate in the monitoring of the area and its habitats as well as work with scientists the

reserve effect. Today, local governments and professional organisations of fishermen (Comités locaux

des Pêches Maritimes and Prud´hommies) manage the area.

Greece

In Greece, an institutional shift towards more collaborative governance approaches by establishing

management agencies, management plans and public participation processes have been adopted over

the last decade.

The exact scheme for the management of MPA is, at the moment, in preparation and consultation

phase involving decentralized administration, regional administration and municipalities. At local

The Cantonnement de Pêche du Cap Roux (Cap Roux Fishery Reserve)

The Cantonnement de Pêche du Cap Roux in Saint-Raphaël, along the French Mediterranean

coast was established in December 2003 through the initiatives of the professional fishers from

the Prud’homie de Pêche of Saint Raphaël. The reserve, located in the heart of the marine

extension of the Natura 2000 Esterel, is a no-take fisheries zone, and covers an area of

approximately 450 hectares extending from the coastline up to the 80-meter isobath. This site,

like others « Cantonnement de pêche » (Fisheries Reserves) are no considered by law as “true”

MPAs.

The management body is by the Prud’homie de Pêche of Saint Raphaël following a true joint-

management style between the regional, local administration and the fishermen cooperative that

regulates other activities like poaching, recreational fishing, sports or professional fishermen

activities from elsewhere.

The major advantage of this system is related to its very low cost as there is no allocated budget

associated to the creation of a management institution. Spill-over reserve effect (export of fish

biomass outside the Reserve; Seytre et al 2008; 2013) has also been confirmed by professional

fishermen.

47

scale, the implementation of the fisheries policy and fisheries regulations in MPAs is mainly

performed by the local directorates for fisheries and the local port offices in collaboration with the

management agencies of the MPAs.

Rarely, fishermen are appointed by the Minister of Environment, Energy and Climatic Change as

members of the management boards of the MPAs (with exception like the National Marine Park of

Zakynthos, and the Amvrakikos Wetlands National Park).

Overall, there is still a major gap in the adoption of effective, fair and meaningful participation

structures and processes, particularly within the Natura 2000 sites (Apostolopolou et al., 2012). Local

communities rarely participate or receive information for the design and management of Natura 2000

sites. The complicated and overlapping institutional frameworks without clear and specific delegation

of responsibilities and limited representation of stakeholders (including local fishermen) create

significant barriers to promote shared governance mechanisms. More initiatives are needed to

promote also the

equal participation

of different

stakeholders

as well as local

communities and promote the participation with effective procedures and protocols.

The National Marine Park of Zakynthos

This park, also part of the Natura 2000 ecological network, pro-

actively involves stakeholders on the planning and in the

management of potentially conflicting activities, in order to

protect sea turtles more efficiently. The Management Authority

of the National Park has a participatory body, where all the

relevant stakeholders participate (prefectures, NGOs,

local businesses, farmers, and fishermen) towards

developing sustainable measures within ICZM plan and

conservation activities.

Special Fisheries Committees (with participation of MPAs staff,

Local Fisheries Dept., Universities, Hellenic Coast Guard, and

local fishermen associations) have been established in an effort

to enhance the involvement of artisanal fishermen in decision-

making and governance of the MPAs. The meetings of this

committee are aiming to the development of suitable

management actions with respect to sustainable fisheries in the

MPA as well as to enhance capacity building, and strengthen the

social dialogue and activities jointly undertaken by the involved

parties of the committee (participatory process). From all the continuous efforts, overtime conflicts with the local

population and stakeholders have decreased and the Park is

increasingly integrated in the local socio economic context.

48

49

Croatia

Stakeholders’ participation for PAs in terms of legally prescribed obligations exists only in relation to

MPAs designation procedure, its abolishment and in the form of public consultations concerning

proposals of management plans and secondary legislation acts and documents affecting their interests

(see Country Report 4.1). Nevertheless, effective scheme is not developed in terms of stakeholders’

participation in the day-to-day management of MPAs. Effective stakeholders’ influence on the

management of MPAs in reality takes place through informal and direct contacts and negotiations of

stakeholders with representatives of the public institutions that manage those sites. Management and

Advisory boards are not actually regulated in the National Protected areas.

Specific cases in the Mediterranean non-European countries

In addition the option for co-management defined in the new legislation for protected areas4 of

Morocco, the country has started a process involving the artisanal fishermen in order to define

possible marine protected areas for artisanal fisheries. A Small-scale Fisheries project, coordinated by

the Agency of Partnership for Progress and financed by the Millennium Challenge Corporation

(USA), was conducted during 2011-2013 and three sites were proposed by artisanal fishermen (two

on the Atlantic coast, one on the Mediterranean) to develop stricter regulations for fisheries (including

fisheries protected areas). The fishermen are the founders of the three proposed sites: one in Alboran

and two in the Atlantic coast (Magador and Massa). As it established, fisherman association and

cooperative takes decisions when biding regulations apply within each site such as the fishing gears

that will be prohibited and the marine species for which fishing will be regulated.

4 Protected Area Law of Morocco, 2010. Article 25 : Sans préjudice des droits reconnus aux tiers,

l'administration compétente peut concéder la gestion de l'aire protégée, totalement ou partiellement, à toute

personne morale de droit public ou privé, qui s'engage à respecter les conditions générales de gestion prévues

par la présente loi et les clauses d'une convention et d'un cahier des charges établis par l'administration.

Telašćica Nature Park, Croatia

The Park has recently the approval of standardized management and zoning plans at

country level (2012) leading to the finalisation of its management plan. With the

assistance of several national and international funded projects and organisations

(MedPAN, WWF, Sunce) as well as the capacity building to the management body,

dialogue with stakeholders has assisted to resolve the conflicts that emerged particularly

for the regulation of fisheries and tourism activities during the development of these

plans and the designation of user zones (Walton et al., 2013). At the national level, the

engagement of government authorities and management agencies led to jointly address

policy and legislative issues, and to agree on and enable the development of

standardized management plans. Future cooperation and co-management activities

might emerge during the implementation of the management plan, assisting to develop a

shared governance more robust.

Historically viewed as a threat by the local population, the Park is now slowly gaining

supporters and the principles of environmental protection are getting accepted.

50

The central administration by the Department of Maritime Fisheries, recognizing the importance of

this process officially declared those sites with co-responsibility in their management with the local

fishermen communities.

Type C. Private Protected Areas

This type of governance where PA marine and resources are owned by individuals, associative

structures, NGOs, corporations, either for-profit or not-for-profit, is very rare in the in the marine

environment.

No real examples of Private Protected Areas (PPA) have been identified in the Mediterranean,

although initiatives exist for MPAs around the world. In France, nonetheless, a unique example close

to this definition is provided by Conservatoire du Littoral, a French semi-public organisation that aims

to ensure the protection of outstanding natural areas by acquiring areas by private agreement, by pre-

emption, by expropriation or donation. After carrying out restoration work in the areas, the

Conservatoire entrusts their management to local authorities or other local groups or organisations.

In 2011, Conservatoire du Littoral acquired for 30 years the management over Mediterranean Sea,

273 ha of the marine area, located to the right of the island of Grand Rouveau (property of the

Conservatoire du Littoral since 2000) in the small Des Embiez Archipielago. The site is also part of

Site Natura 2000 Lagune du Brusc. Similarly, the institution has the marine management of Port

d´Alon (101 ha), Domaine du Rayol (14ha), Cap Taillat (64 ha) and Agriate in Corsica with 358ha.

Other examples could be further developed with similar organisations such as the Conservatoria delle

Coste (Coastal conservation agency) in Sardinia (Italy), a public agency that also acquire land and

coastal areas to ensure the protection of outstanding natural areas on the Sardinian coast.

In a similar manner, Sekania beach at the core zone of the national marine park of Zakynthos in

Greece was bought by WWF-Greece in 1997 to conserve the Loggerhead sea turtle nesting beaches in

the marine area of Laganas bay.

Type D. Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities

The use of bottom-up approach in MPA establishment and management within the context of local

community-based management is uncommon in the Mediterranean. Some examples of community-

based MPA experiences exist for marine fisheries reserves under fisheries enhancement (and

sometimes also with a general environmental conservation aim). These are lined to traditional

property rights to fishermen communities. However, the initial success of a bottom-up management

scheme seems difficult to sustain and shift in governance mode occurred as these sites developed.

The tendency is to have the local communities’ conserved areas recognised by the regional or the

central administration and therefore to become official or to be considered as joint-management

governance types. When officialised by the government, such a sites could move to Type A or B.

“Natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural

values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities through

customary laws or other effective means” (IUCN World Parks Congress, 2003)

51

In Spain, besides Government Managed Marine Protected Areas, there have been few fisheries

reserves managed primarily by fishing local communities under collective management arrangements

and later with the participation of the regional/local government (e.g. Os Miñarzos in the Atlantic

site). Hence, communities were initially empowered to develop and enforce rules for managing

common pool resources, subject to certain conditions related to biodiversity and resource conservation

that were agreed by some type of committee and in some cases, regulated a posteriori by the

administration. The central, regional or local government is represented in these committees.

In other non-European countries such as Morocco, government regulations can allow fishermen

groups, associations or cooperatives to define voluntarily specific fishing rules stricter than the

national fisheries regulations in specific areas where they use to fish (i.e. fisheries reserves), even

without the agreement of the central administration. Traditional property rights given to local

communities such as those given for artisanal fisheries (tcherfia) in Kerkennah islands (Tunisia), if

respected by outside fishers, allows the parcelling of shallow waters around the islands and self-

management by the local communities. This type of TURF is closed to community based management

areas. The importance and objectives of these types of fisheries management sites for conservation

will need to clarify further it these sites can be understood as MPAs.

©IUCN-Med, Fisherman in Morocco

52

Conclusions

For most Mediterranean countries, fisheries and MPA management is largely centralized and top-

down, with policies coming from the EU (binding for the Member States) and/or national

governments and international agreements. Some they don’t have a specific governance mechanism

for their management and the establishment of special agencies is seldom used.

In general, even though the main role in decision-making belongs to state actors and to the central

authorities, the systems in place in some countries (e.g. Spain, France) are often complex, including a

diversity of governance subtypes. The management of fisheries resources in the north Mediterranean

region as the five case study countries is highly centralized and state-controlled, being implemented

within the framework of the EU—Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and regional agreements. Fisheries

management responsibilities might be within a different Ministry than the one on implementing

coastal and marine issues, o PAs. The responsibilities concerning coastal and marine protected area

management are very much divided amongst different state bodies and are not always clearly assigned

for the MPAs with limited coordination.

The table below provides an overview on the diverse systems of government orientated governance

which are currently in place.

There is little stakeholder involvement, including fishermen, in the management of MPAs. These are

often perceived as existing only to restrict and control activities. Recently, new efforts have been

conducted to increase capacity and involve different stakeholders including fishermen from the initial

process of identifying potential PA to build consensus on their management. Education and awareness

programs are instrumental to engage the community to endorse further development of the MPAs and

to become active in designing its rules and regulations.

Table 1. Synthesis of state governance in MPA of the 5 countries case-study.

Country Centralized

governance

Governance by a

state agency

Governance by a

regional/local

authority

Delegated

management

Croatia √ √

Italy √ √ √

France √ √ √

Greece √ √ √

Spain √ √ √

Fishermen associations and cooperatives have already shown some interest and dynamism to assist in

the identification and implementation of MPAs in different countries. Shared governance approaches

through joint-management or collaborative management can be a good opportunity for artisanal

fishers participate and take self-regulating decisions on the management of stocks as well as benefit

from the outcomes. On this context, the recently set up Mediterranean Platform of Artisanal Fishers

(MedArtNet), with a regional membership and scope, now provides a united and stronger voice for

artisanal fisheries to reach regional and national policies.

Private MPA management, while potentially effective, has, to our present knowledge, not really been

in place in the Mediterranean. Traditional fisheries management systems govern solely by local

communities or community-based initiatives can be very supportive, but in the other hand, seem to be

difficult to preserve.

There is still considerable room for improving the understanding of MPA governance based on

comparative investigation from elsewhere in the Mediterranean and outside. Given the complexity

and dynamic nature (in its social-ecological perspective) of artisanal fisheries and MPAs, the present

53

country case studies offer us a first time view to understand these relations in order to delineate the

ground for a new integrated framework on MPA and artisanal fisheries and build collaboration

opportunities to achieve successful outcomes.

54

References

Apostolopoulou E., Drakou E.G., Pediaditi K. 2012. Participation in the management of Greek Natura

2000 sites: Evidence from a cross-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 113, 308-

318.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T.

Sandwith, 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice

Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.

Cazalet, B. 2013. Integration of small-scale fishing in MPAs. Basic document–Thematic Session III.

MedPAN & GFCM. 81pp.

Available at http://www.ssfsymposium.org/Documents/FullVersion/BPIII.pdf

Christy, F.T. Jr., 1992. Territorial use rights in marine 1982 fisheries: definitions and conditions. FAO

Fish.Tech.Pap., (227): 10 p.

Chuenpagdee R, Pascual-Fernández JJ, Szeliánszky E, Alegret Luis J, Fraga J, Jentoft S. 2013.

Marine protected areas: re-thinking their inception. Marine Policy 39:234–240.

Colléter, M., D. Gascuel, C. Albouy, P. Francour, L. Tito de Morais, A. Valls, and F. Le Loc'h. 2014.

Fishing inside or outside? A case studies analysis of potential spillover effect from marine protected

areas, using food web models. Journal of Marine Systems. 139:383-395.

Day J., Dudley N., Hockings M., Holmes G., Laffoley D., Stolton S. & S. Wells, 2012. Guidelines for

applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN. 36pp.

Di Franco A., Bodilis P., Piante C., Di Carlo G., Thiriet P., Francour P., Guidetti P. 2014. Fishermen

engagement, a key element to the success of artisanal fisheries management in Mediterranean marine

protected areas. MedPAN North Project. WWF France. 135 pages.

Dudley, N., 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, Gland

(Switzerland).

Ehler, C. N., and F. Douvere, 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach toward

Ecosystem-based Management. IOC Manual & Guides No. 53, IOCAM Dossier No. 6.

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO: Paris, France. 99 p. http://www.unesco-

ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/d87c0c421da4593fd93bbee1898e1d51.pdf

García, S.M.; Zerbi, A.; Aliaume, C.; et al. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues,

terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries

Technical Paper. No. 443. FAO. Rome. 71 pp.

Available online from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4773e/y4773e00.pdf

García, S.M.; Allison, E.H.; Andrew, N.J.; Béné, C.; Bianchi, G.; de Graaf, G.J.; Kalikoski, D.;

Mahon. R.; Orensanz, J.M., 2008. Towards integrated assessment and advice in small-scale fisheries:

principles and processes. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 515. Rome, FAO.

2008. 84p.

Gabrié, C.; Lagabrielle, E.; Bissery C. et al. 2012. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in the

Mediterranean Sea. MedPAN & RAC/ SPA. MedPAN. Marseille.

55

GFCM/37/2013/1. Resolution on area based management of fisheries, including through the

establishment of Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs) in the GFCM convention area and coordination

with the UNEP-MAP initiatives on the establishment of SPAMIs.

Graham J, Amos B, Plumtree T. 2003. Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century.

Page 50. Institute on Governance, Parks Canada, and CIDA, Ottawa, ON.

Gutierréz, N., 2014. Management and co-management options for small-scale fisheries in the

Mediterranean and Black Sea. Small Scale Fisheries Symposium, Thematic session II. GFCM, 37pp.

FAO. 1997. Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4.

Rome, FAO. 82p.

FAO, 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology, principles, institutional

foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 443. Rome; 2003. 71

p. FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries—fisheries management 2: the ecosystem

approach to fisheries. Rome. ⟨http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/ Y4470E/y4470e00.htm⟩; 2003.

FAO, 2014a. Voluntary Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries [SSF Guidelines].

FI Institutional Websites. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 15

April 2014

Font T., Lloret J., Piante C. 2012. Recreational fishing within Marine Protected Areas in the

Mediterranean. MedPAN North Project. WWF France. 168 pages.

Langholz J. and Wolf Krug, 2004. New Forms of Biodiversity Governance: Non-State Actors and the

Private Protected Area Action Plan. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 7:9-29.

Lausche, B., 2011. Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xxvi + 370

pp.

López-Ornat, A. Atauri J. A., Ruiz C., Múgica M., 2014. Beneficios sociales y ambientales de las

reservas marinas de interés pesquero. Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez. Diciembre 2014.

Proyecto “Beneficios ambientales y sociales de las reservas marinas de interés pesquero”.

Margerum, R., 2008. A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management,

Environmental Management 41: 487–500.

Maynou, F.; Morales-Nin, B.; Cabanellas-Reboredo, M.; et al. 2013. Small-scale fishery in the

Balearic Islands (W Mediterranean): A socio-economic approach. Fisheries research, 139: 11-17.

OHCHR 2007 Report. Activities and results. United Nations Human rights.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Press/OHCHR_Report_07_Full.pdf

Oxhorn, P. 2004. "Introduction: Unraveling the Puzzle of Decentralization." In Decentralization, Civil

Society, and Democratic Governance: Comparative Perspectives from Latin America, Africa, and

Asia, ed. P. Oxhorn, J. S. Tulchin and A. D. Selee. Washington, DC: The Johns Hopkins University

Press/Woodrow Wilson Center.

Rondinelli, D., 2000. What is Decentralization?, pp 2-5 in J. Litvack and J. Seddon (ed).

Decentralization briefing notes, World Bank Institute in collaboration with PREM network,

Washington D.C. Rudd, M.A. Tupper, M. H.

56

SCBD, 2004. Akwé: Kon Guidelines. CBD Secretariat, Montreal. [Online report accessed 27 June

2012] www.cbd. int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure-en.pdf

Schliep, R. and Stoll-Kleemann, S. , 2010. ‘Assessing governance of biosphere reserves in Central

Europe’, Land Use Policy 27(3): 917–27.

Seytre C., Francour P. 2008. Is the Cape Roux marine protected area (Saint-Raphaël, Mediterranean

Sea) an efficient tool to sustain artisanal fisheries? First indications from visual censuses and trammel

net sampling. Aquat. Living Resour., 21(3): 297-305.

Seytre C., Vanderklift M., Bodilis P., Cottalorda J.M., Gratiot J., Francour P. 2013. Assessment of

commercial and recreational fishing effects on trophic interactions in the Cap Roux area (north

western Mediterranean). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23: 189-201.

Sissenwine M. P and P M. Mace, 2001. Governance for Responsible Fisheries: an Ecosystem

Approach. Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem 3

Reykjavik, Iceland, 1-4 October 2001. ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/reykjavik/pdf/21sissenwine.PDF

Stanciu, E., Ioniță, Al., 2014. Governance of Protected Areas in Eastern Europe Overview on different

governance types, case studies and lessons learned Results of a research study commissioned by BfN

to ProPark, Romania. 174pp.

Steward, P., 2001. Review of studies of fishing gear selectivity in the Mediterranean. Project FAO-

COPEMED. 75pp. http://www.faocopemed.org/old_copemed/vldocs/0000317/rev_sel.pdf

Tabet, L. and L.M. Fanning, 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian rule: An

evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean & Coastal Management61: 1-9.

Tudela, S., 2004. Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats

of fishing gear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats.Studies and Reviews. General

Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No. 74. Rome, FAO. 2004. 44p.

Van Tatenhove, Jan, 2011. Integrated Marine Governance: Questions of legitimacy. MAST 10 (1), pp

87-113.

Wallner A. and U. Wiesmann, 2009. Critical Issues in Managing Protected Areas by Multi-

Stakeholder Participation - Analysis of a Process in the Swiss Alps. eco.mont Journal on Protected

Mountain Areas Research 1/1: 45-50.

Walton A. Gomei M. and Di Carlo G. 2013. Stakeholder engagement. Participatory Approaches for

the Planning and Development of Marine Protected Areas. World Wide Fund for Nature and

NOAA— National Marine Sanctuary Program. 36 pages

Worboys G. L., M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) 2015. Protected Area

Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra.

Wyborn, C. 2013. ‘Collaboration across scales: the governance challenges of linking landscapes’, in J.

Fitzsimons, I. Pulsford and G. Wescott (eds) Linking Australia’s Landscapes: Lessons and

opportunities from large-scale conservation networks, pp. 267–76, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

57

ANNEXES

Annex 1 Areas to be considered for the governance of the marine environment

Internal waters and Territorial Sea Baseline

The term Territorial Sea Baseline (TSB) refers to the line from which the seaward limits of Maritime

Zones are measured. These include the breadth of the territorial sea; the seaward limits of the

contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and, in some cases, the continental shelf.

The territorial sea baseline may be of various types depending upon the shape of the coastline in any

given locality:

The Normal baseline corresponds with the low water line along the coast, including the coasts of

islands. Under the Convention, normal baseline can be drawn around low tide elevations which are

defined as naturally formed areas of land surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at

high tide, provided they are wholly or partly within 12 nautical miles of the coast.

Straight baselines are a system of straight lines joining specified or discrete points on the low-water

line, usually known as straight baseline end points. These may be used in localities where the

coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or where there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its

immediate vicinity.

Bay or river closing lines are straight lines drawn between the respective low-water marks of the

natural entrance points of bays or rivers.

Waters on the landward side of the baseline are internal waters for the purposes of international law.

Territorial Sea (12 nautical mile limit)

The Territorial Sea is a belt of water not exceeding 12M in width measured from the territorial sea

baseline. In the Mediterranean, this is applicable to all the countries with the exception of of Greece

and Turkey in the Aegean sea that have 6nm of territorial waters.

Sovereignty extends to the territorial sea, its seabed and subsoil, and to the air space above it. This

sovereignty is exercised in accordance with international law as reflected in the UNCLOS. The major

limitation of national sovereignty in the territorial sea is the right of innocent passage for foreign

ships.

Contiguous Zone (24 nautical mile limit)

The Contiguous Zone can be declared by any country. It is a belt of water contiguous to the territorial

sea, the outer limit of which does not exceed 24M from the territorial sea baseline. In this zone, a

country may exercise control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its customs, fiscal,

immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.

Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical mile limit)

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea. The outer

limit of the exclusive economic zone cannot exceed 200M from the baseline from which the breadth

of the territorial sea is measured. In the EEZ, a country has sovereign rights for the purpose of

exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing all natural resources of the waters superjacent to

the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil together with other activities such as the production of

energy from water, currents and wind. Jurisdiction also extends to the establishment and use of

58

artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research, the protection and

preservation of the marine environment, and other rights and duties.

Continental Shelf

The Continental Shelf is the area of the seabed and subsoil which extends beyond the territorial sea to

a distance of 200M from the territorial sea baseline and beyond that distance to the outer edge of the

continental margin as defined in Article 76 of the UNCLOS, but not more than 360M. A country has

sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the mineral

and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil, together with sedentary organisms. Also

each country has jurisdiction with regard to marine scientific research as well as other rights and

responsibilities.

Fishing Zone

Countries have the possibility to declare within these previous areas a fishing zone.

59

Annex 2: EC decision on Advisory Councils

Reformed Common Fisheries Policy on Advisory Councils

Article 43 to 45 of the new Basic Regulation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy establishes and

provides for the EU Advisory Councils (ACs). Annex III of the Regulation has the name and area of

competency of each AC and rules for their functioning. The main role is to provide advice to the

Commission and to Member States concerned on matters relating to the management of fisheries and

the socio-economic and conservation aspects of fisheries and aquaculture in their respective area or

field of competence.

Details rules for the functioning of the ACs are contained in the Commission Delegated Act on

Advisory Councils:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2014/EN/3-2014-7012-EN-F1-1.Pdf

and

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) of 9.10.2014 laying down detailed rules on

the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy

SUMMARY

By this Regulation, the Council lays down detailed rules on the functioning of Advisory Councils as

referred to in Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Establishment procedure

Sector organizations and other interest groups with an interest in one the Advisory Councils referred

to in Article 43(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall submit to the Commission a joint

application concerning the start of the functioning of the respective Advisory Council.

The joint application shall be compatible with the objectives and principles EN 5 EN of the Common

Fisheries Policy as set out in the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and in particular Article 43(1) and

Annex III and shall include different information.

After verifying that the joint application is compatible with the rules laid down in the Regulation (EU)

No 1380/2013, in particular Annex III and with the rules laid down in this Regulation, the

Commission shall transmit it to the Member States concerned, within two months after its receipt. The

Commission may propose amendments to the joint application to ensure compliance with all

requirements as referred to in this article.

3. The Member States concerned shall determine whether the application is signed by representative

sector organisations and other interest groups and inform the Commission of their agreement within

one month of receipt of the joint application. Based on the remarks of those Member States, the

Commission may request further amendments or clarifications.

4. The Commission shall publish in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union a

communication regarding the start of functioning of each new Advisory Council. It shall not publish

that information until all requirements referred to in paragraph 1 above are satisfied. The Advisory

Council starts functioning on the date indicated in the communication, which may not be earlier than

the date on which the communication is published.

Structure and composition

In addition to the provisions of Article 43(1), Article 45 (1) to (3) and Annex III of Regulations (EU)

No 1380/2013, the Advisory Councils' structure and organisation shall comply with paragraphs 2 to 6

of this Article.

2. The general assembly of an Advisory Council shall:

(a) adopt the rules of procedure of the Advisory Council;

60

(b) meet at least once a year to approve the annual report, the annual strategic plan and the annual

budget of the Advisory Council.

3.The general assembly shall appoint an executive committee of up to 25 members. After consultation

of the Commission, the general assembly may decide to appoint an executive committee of up to 30

members to ensure appropriate representation of small-scale fleets.

4. The general assembly shall ensure equitable membership fees, which enable balanced and wide

representation of all stakeholders taking into account their financial capacity.

5. The executive committee shall: (a) steer and manage the tasks of the Advisory Council in

accordance with Article 44 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (b) prepare the annual

report, the annual strategic plan and the annual budget; (c) adopt recommendations and suggestions as

referred to in Article 44(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. EN 6 EN

6. The general assembly and the executive committee shall ensure a balanced and wide representation

of all stakeholders, with emphasis on small-scale fleets, where appropriate. The number of

representatives of small-scale fleets should reflect the share of small scale fleets within the fishing

sector of the Member States concerned.

Financing

1. Each Advisory Council shall offer additional compensation to fishermen representing small-scale

fleet organizations for their efficient participation to its work on top of the reimbursement of their

travel and accommodation expenses. Such compensation shall be duly justified for each case.

2. When inviting observers from third countries as referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2 of Annex III

of Regulation No 1380/2013, Advisory Councils may contribute to the travel and accommodation

expenses of those observers under the same conditions that they apply for their members.

61

Annex 3: Matrix of marine activities that may be appropriate for each IUCN management category

Matrix of human activities in different categories of Protected Areas and explanatory note on fishing

activities inside MPAs

Activities Ia Ib II III IV V VI

Research: non-extractive Y* Y Y Y Y Y Y

Non-extractive traditional use Y* Y Y Y Y Y Y

Restoration/enhancement for conservation (e.g. invasive species control, coral

reintroduction) Y* * Y Y Y Y Y

Traditional fishing/collection in accordance with cultural tradition and use N Y* Y Y Y Y Y

Non-extractive recreation (e.g. diving) N * Y Y Y Y Y

Large scale low intensity tourism N N Y Y Y Y Y

Shipping (except as may be unavoidable under international maritime law) N N Y* Y* Y Y Y

Problem wildlife management (e.g. shark control programmes) N N Y* Y* Y* Y Y

Research: extractive N* N* N* N* Y Y Y

Renewable energy generation N N N N Y Y Y

Restoration/enhancement for other reasons (e.g. beach replenishment, fish

aggregation, artificial reefs) N N N* N* Y Y Y

Fishing/collection: recreational N N N N * Y Y

Fishing/collection: long term and sustainable local fishing practices N N N N * Y Y

Aquaculture N N N N * Y Y

Works (e.g. harbours, ports, dredging) N N N N * Y Y

Untreated waste discharge N N N N N Y Y

Mining (seafloor as well as sub-seafloor) N N N N N Y* Y*

Habitation N N* N* N* N* Y N*

Key:

No N Generally no, unless special circumstances apply N* Yes Y

Yes because no alternative exists, but special approval is essential Y*

* Variable; depends on whether this activity can be managed in such a way that it is compatible with the MPA’s objectives *

Commercial and recreational fishing and collection of living resources

Recreational and commercial fishing practices may be unsustainable and incompatible with the objectives of an

MPA. Fisheries that are adequately managed to provide long-term exploitation do not necessarily comply with

ecological standards for nature conservation, in that, for example, they may have indirect trophic impacts. For a

fishery management area to meet the definition of an MPA, it would need to demonstrate that it contributes to

the maintenance of ecologically appropriate metrics, such as population structures (for example, it would be

necessary to show that the population is not distorted by harvesting a certain size class or large proportions of old

or young fish). Many research studies have shown the significance of no-take reserves both for biodiversity

conservation and fisheries management (McCook et al., 2010).

Since commercial and recreational fishing always has some level of ecological impact, these activities are

considered inconsistent with the objectives of MPAs in categories Ia, Ib and II, and frequently III. However, use

of MPAs in categories Ib and II by indigenous people for traditional spiritual and cultural values and for

sustainable resource use, if carried out in accordance with cultural traditions may be acceptable if subject to a

formal agreement guiding these activities.

62

Recreational fishing is usually considered inappropriate in categories Ia and Ib and II MPAs. Many recreational

fishers use “catch and release” which is considered by some to be non- extractive. However there are ecological

impacts from catch and release (e.g. post-catch mortality) and so this is also not considered to be an appropriate

activity in category I to III MPAs. In general, recreational fishing in MPAs should be regarded in the same way

as recreational hunting in terrestrial protected areas.

Category II protected areas are however established to ‘protect natural biodiversity... and supporting

environmental processes’ and so some people maintain that all types of recreational activities including

recreational fishing should be allowed. In terrestrial parks, taking freshwater fish from rivers and streams on a

subsistence and low-level sporting basis in category II parks may be allowed provided this is not done

throughout the entire protected area (the 75% rule is applied), as it has less overall impact. In MPAs, as

explained above, extractive forms of recreation (e.g. fishing, souvenir collection etc.) can have damaging

consequences. Closure to recreational and commercial fishing should therefore be seen as critical to category II

MPAs in the same way as closure to hunting of mammals and birds and harvesting of vegetation is for terrestrial

category II protected areas, since fish, invertebrates, and algae are all inter-related components of the marine

ecosystem

Category III MPAs should also be closed to commercial and recreational fishing. Whether or not sustainable

fishing is allowed in a Category IV MPA or zone will depend on its objectives. In some circumstances,

fishing/collecting may be permissible where the resource use does not compromise the ecological/species

management objectives of the site.

MPAs or zones that allow sustainable commercial or recreational fishing/collecting should be categorised as V

or VI (note: as stated throughout this document MPAs must first meet the definition of a protected area and thus

be primarily managed for nature conservation). Thus, in MPAs where it may be necessary to allow extractive

activities, consideration should be given to whether the objectives of the MPA (or zone) mean that Category V or

VI is more applicable than categories I-IV. Table 6 summarises the general guidance on the relationship between

fishing/collection of living resources and the categories.

Table Compatibility of fishing/collecting activities in different management categories – a preliminary

assessment.

IUCN

category

Long term and

sustainable local

fishing/ collecting

practices

Recreational

fishing/

collecting

Traditional

fishing/

collecting

Collection for research

Ia No No No No

Ib No No Yes Yes

II No No Yes Yes

III No No Yes Yes

IV Variable# Variable# Yes Yes

V Yes Yes Yes Yes

VI Yes Yes Yes Yes

Key:

* any extractive use of Category Ia MPAs should be prohibited with possible exceptions for scientific research which

cannotbe done anywhere else.

** in Categories Ib, II and III MPAs traditional fishing/collecting should be limited to an agreed sustainable quota for

traditional, ceremonial or subsistence purposes, but not for purposes of commercial sale or trade.

#

whether fishing or collecting is or is not permitted will depend on the specific objectives of the MPA.