SEVENSEAS Partner Publications 1

Marine Policy 74 (2016) 195–204 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol crossmark Vulnerability of different types of fishers to potential implementation of a management plan in a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Maldives ⁎ A. Rifaee Rasheeda, ,1, Ameer Abdullaa,b,2, Nabeeh I. Zakariyyac,3 a b c International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Global Marine Programme, Maldives International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Marine Biodiversity and Conservation Science Group, IUCN Global Marine Programme, Spain Research School of Economics, The Australian National University (ANU), Australia A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T Keywords: Vulnerability Indian Ocean Fisher types, fisher community Marine Protected Area Coral reefs Understanding vulnerability of different types of fishers to the implications of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) is crucial to its long-term sustainability. It helps direct management decisions of the MPA in a way that negative impacts on specific fishers can be mitigated. This study explored the vulnerability within specific groups of fishers, namely, commercial, subsistence and recreational fishers in the context of the largest MPA in the Maldives – the South Ari Atoll Marine Protected Area (SAMPA). SAMPA is subject to a future management plan that is likely to bring changes in how resources can be accessed in the area. In order to explore the vulnerability of the fisher groups, their sensitivity to this change was measured through an exploratory factor analysis and a sensitivity index. It was found that commercial fishers were likely to be the most vulnerable group as the management plan could potentially threaten their livelihood. Subsistence fishers were found to be next, as changes in access to SAMPA will potentially influence how they obtain their dietary protein. Recreational fishers were also found to vulnerable due to the nature of their fishing operation. However, relative to other groups, their vulnerability was likely to be much lower. To ensure strategic measures are designed to alleviate these potential vulnerabilities, this study proposed collaborative stakeholder participation throughout the development process of SAMPA's management plan, and also as a platform to build much needed confidence in MPAs among fishers in the Maldives. 1. Introduction For many coastal communities, their socio-economic well-being is closely associated with the ecosystem services derived from their surrounding marine environments. For some, these ecosystems may be the only source of livelihood; while for others, it may be the only means to their daily sustenance [3,4,11]. Recognising the need to sustain such ecosystem services, one strategy that is widely adopted is the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The goal of an MPA in this regard is to safeguard and maintain the health of critical biodiversity and ecological functions to support and improve societal well-being [18]. In practice, however, many MPAs around the globe have failed to deliver these intended benefits and fulfill their full potential [14,22]. One reason for this failure can be attributed to inadequate understanding of the implications of an MPA on local resource users. MPAs ⁎ typically involve management interventions that regulate (or restrict) who can access or use the resource, and regulations that define when, where and under which circumstances the resource can be accessed [26]. In such instances, to some communities the establishment of an MPA may be seen as obstructing the only means of their daily food supply, or disrupting long standing traditional use of resources [7]. A key goal of establishing MPAs should therefore be to minimise the potential negative impacts on resource users, while maximising the conservation benefits from the MPA. Hence, a critical first step is to understand the vulnerability of resource users to such changes in order to ensure that MPAs continue to deliver their intended benefits in the long run. According to Gallopin [16], vulnerability can be explained as a concept that describes the susceptibility (i.e. sensitivity) of a system to any potential change with which it is confronted, rather than the outcome of the confrontation. In this line of thought, a confronted Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.R. Rasheed), [email protected] (A. Abdulla), [email protected] (N.I. Zakariyya). Address: IUCN Marine Programme Maldives, H. Merry Rose, Filigas Hingun 20006, Male’, Maldives. 2 Address: IUCN Marine Biodiversity and Conservation Science Group, Malaga, Spain. 3 Address: The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.029 Received 6 April 2016; Received in revised form 17 September 2016; Accepted 17 September 2016 0308-597X/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.