Marine Policy 74 (2016) 195–204
A.R. Rasheed et al.
cates protected areas as “untouchable areas”. Whereas in the legislation, the intent of the word “protected” is in the rationale of emulating
marine conservation. There has been no effort made by the government
to actively clarify this misunderstanding. This leads to the second
reason. When MPAs were declared, there was no public consultation
prior to and after its declaration to help locals understand the intent
and motivations for MPAs. (Understanding if this would have an
implication on the regulations once they are implemented is although
beyond the scope of this study, will be crucial in assessing the expected
level of compliance that can be gained from the fisher groups).
These events had driven fishers to believe that they are more
disadvantaged than others in the context of MPAs in the country.
Therefore, in order to ensure that a management plan for an MPA will
not further fuel their resentment, prior knowledge on how different
fisher groups will be affected can help MPA managers design effective
management strategies to ensure that they will not be the disadvantaged segment of the community.
change could include an institutional change [39] such as establishment of an MPA [32], or activity-specific regulations that might change
the way resources can be accessed. In such contexts, understanding the
vulnerability within one particular segment of resource users can be
especially beneficial. Fishers are seen as one of the most resource
dependent segments in a community [8,10,30,38]. Understanding the
vulnerabilities among individual types of fishers (for example, commercial fishers versus recreational fishers) can be particularly important, because depending on the type of fishery activity, some may be
more sensitive and less able to adjust to others when confronted with a
change such as those aforementioned.
While previous studies have examined the implications of MPAs on
fishers by studying their adaptive capacity [32], resource dependence
[26,27], and vulnerability [7], studies that explicitly focus on examining the vulnerability within individual fisher categories to the implications of an MPA are extremely over looked in literature. Understanding
the vulnerabilities of individual fisher groups can be particularly useful
in the context of an MPA, as prior knowledge on such specifics can help
MPA managers devise strategies that can reduce the potential adverse
consequences on the different types of fishers during the design and
planning processes of the MPA.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the vulnerability of
specific fisher groups in the context of the largest MPA in the Maldives
– the South Ari Atoll Marine Protected Area (SAMPA). The area is
known for its unique aggregation of whale sharks in the world. SAMPA
currently exists as a ‘paper park’ (i.e. only in legislation with no
regulation or enforcement) and is subject to (i.e. ‘confronted’ with) a
potential management plan. While the specific details of this management plan are unclear at this stage, it is clear that the main purpose will
be to regulate and enforce the number of visitors operating in the MPA,
particularly for whale shark based-tourism. To do so, the plan would
possibly impose restrictions on access and use of different parts of the
MPA. If so, it is also likely to impose restraints on the different types of
fisher groups using this area.
It is hoped that findings of this study will form an important basis
for MPA managers in designing and planning strategic management
decisions for fisher groups not only for similar island nations, but in
regional and global contexts. To the knowledge of the authors in this
study, this is the first study undertaken in the Maldives, and in the
Central Indian Ocean (Laccadive-Chagos archipelago) that specifically
assesses vulnerability of individual fisher groups in the context of an
MPA. With the Maldives being globally recognised for its unique
biogeography [2], in addition to the limited literature on the topics of
marine conservation and management of the country, it is hoped that
this study will be a vital contribution.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area and context
South Ari Atoll Marine Protected Area (SAMPA) is a 42 km2 area
located on the southern fringing reef of the South Ari Atoll (Alif Dhaalu
Atoll), extending 1 km seaward from the reef crest stretching between
3°38′10N and 3°32′15N, and 72°42′18E and 72°55′58E (see Fig. 1).
SAMPA is one of the 33 MPAs in the Maldives, bordering four local
community islands (Dhigurah, Maamigili, Dhiddhoo and Fenfushi) and
four resort islands [12]. Declared in June 2009, like most other MPAs
in the Maldives to date, SAMPA too remains as a ‘paper park’ (i.e. exists
only in legislation and lacks enforcement)..
SAMPA is the largest in the country and was declared as a measure
to preserve and protect one of the world's unique and important whale
shark aggregation sites and to maintain the ecosystem for both
economic and social benefits. SAMPA is used by over 65,000 tourists
annually for whale shark excursions and is estimated to generate US
$9.4 million per year [5]. With the number of visitors using the MPA
predicted to increase due to the increasing popularity of whale shark
tourism in the Maldives [5], the Government of Maldives had
requested the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
to assist in developing a management plan for the MPA that would not
only regulate the use of resources in the area, but also ensure that the
economic benefits derived from the MPA can be directed to the local
communities in and around the MPA.
2.2. Design of the study
1.1. Relevance of fishers and MPAs in the context of Maldives
The study was conducted on four of the local community islands
bordering SAMPA. A pilot study was initially conducted in one of the
four islands (Dhigurah). The main study was then conducted in two
phases, where two islands were first studied in February 2013, and the
remaining two islands in August 2013. It must be noted that there were
no significant changes in the MPA between the two study periods.
The study was conducted through a semi-structured survey that was
designed to illicit responses from the community members to contextualise their vulnerability to a potential management plan that could
restrict access to their fishery resources in SAMPA. The survey included
multiple choice, closed ended, open-ended and statement questions.
Questions involved, simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions and open-ended
questions that focused on expressing a certain position and reflections
on the statements/questions asked. For all statement questions, a 5point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=I don’t know/
Undecided, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree) was used, where mean values
closer to 1 indicate strong disagreement, and mean values close to 5
were used to indicate strong agreement [15]. As such, mean values
equal to or greater than 4.5 were used to indicate a strong agreement
To understand why fisher groups are a relevant segment of the
community that should be examined more closely in the context of
MPAs in the Maldives, one needs to first appreciate the contexts in
which MPAs were first established in the Maldives, and the subsequent
observations that were made. In Maldives, MPAs are the highest form
of protection prescribed by law by the Government [13]. When they
were first declared, however, it was done so as a measure to protect
local dive sites and as a means to resolve resource conflicts between the
tourism industry and local fishermen. This meant that following the
declaration of a large number of dive spots as MPAs, the only activities
allowed (by law) in these areas are recreational diving, and traditional
bait fishing (on the reefs) (Zuhair 2003 cited in [31]). As a result, there
has been a long standing perception among locals, particularly among
fishers that MPAs are an inequitable form of policy that only aims to
benefit local tourism stakeholders (personal observation).
These perceptions also stem from two other reasons. Firstly, in the
local language of Maldives (Dhivehi), the word “protected” in its literal
meaning loosely translates to “untouchable”, which therefore impli196