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.