Evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas at seven selected sites in the Philippines

Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas at seven selected sites in the Philippines Mark Tupper a,n, Furqan Asif a, Len R. Garces a, Michael D. Pido b a b WorldFish-Philippine Country Office, Los Banos 4031, Laguna, Philippines Center for Strategic Policy and Governance, Palawan State University, Philippines art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 30 July 2014 Received in revised form 5 February 2015 Accepted 18 February 2015 Fisheries is a vital sector in the Philippine economy, providing a significant source of both domestic and export earnings while meeting essential food security and nutritional requirements. However, marine resources in the Philippines are facing increasing pressure from overfishing, destructive fishing practices, habitat destruction, declining water quality and limited management capacity. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are part of the management strategy to address these issues but the majority of MPAs around the world do not meet their management objectives. This paper discusses the identification and testing of management effectiveness indicators to evaluate MPA management for seven sites in the Philippines. The selection of 14 indicators was a participatory process that involved representatives from the academe, civil society groups, fishing associations, local government units (LGUs), national government agencies and research institutions. Overall, the majority of the indicators are rated positive but there is significant room for improvement, particularly in areas of resource use conflict, availability and allocation of resources and interaction between MPA managers and stakeholders. It is imperative that MPAs across the Philippines be managed and implemented as a network to maximize conservation and fisheries management. Moreover, given that the Philippines lies in the Coral Triangle area of the highest marine biodiversity in the world, increased political will and support for MPAs is urgently needed to meet global marine biodiversity targets and allow the Philippines to be an example of effective marine biodiversity conservation. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Philippines Management effectiveness indicators Stakeholder participation fisheries management 1. Introduction Increasing pressures on marine resources around the world in general, and particularly in the Philippines, have resulted in most near shore marine fisheries being overfished along with the concomitant destruction of coral reef, mangrove, seagrass and estuarine habitats [1]. The fisheries sector is vital to the Philippine economy, providing substantial employment and income, contributing export earnings, and meeting local food security and nutrition requirements. Capture fisheries have experienced stagnation in production in recent years, especially in coastal or municipal fishing areas, where resources have been fished down to 5–30% of their unexploited level [2], causing an alarming shortfall in supplies of aquatic products as demand increases. Production from capture fisheries has levelled off since the mid-1970s due to stock depletion in coastal waters that affected municipal fisheries; commercial fishing has suffered a n Corresponding author. Present address: Coastal Resources Association, 1309-13618 100 Ave., Surrey, BC, Canada V3T 0A8. Tel.: þ 1 778 903 6420. E-mail address: mtupper@coastal-resources.org (M. Tupper). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.008 0308-597X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. similar fate, as overfishing has affected offshore areas [3]. In 2008, aquaculture had the largest share of the country's total fish production at 48% while commercial and municipal fisheries had lower contributions of approximately 25% and 27%, respectively [3]. With 10–15% of marine fish production being supplied by coral reefs and for smaller islands, more than 70% of the total fish catch and most of the protein consumed by residents, MPAs and networks of MPAs can be especially effective at promoting long-term productivity of shallow-water and small-scale fisheries [4]. An essential management strategy to address habitat destruction, over exploitation, and other threats affecting marine and coastal ecosystems and the communities that depend on these resources is the establishment and implementation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines an MPA as “any area of intertidal or sub tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” [5]. Included within the broad context of MPAs are marine reserves, sanctuaries and parks. These marine areas can serve to fulfill the goals of protecting critical habitat and improving the ability of reef fishes to mature and 34 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 reproduce with possible spill over of larvae and adult fishes to adjacent areas outside of MPAs, sustaining or enhancing fisheries by preventing spawning stock collapse and providing recruitment to fished areas [6–8]. Despite the many potential benefits of MPAs to coastal management programs [7], MPAs have had mixed success in meeting their management objectives in terms of ecological [9,10], socio-economic [11], and fisheries [12] benefits. The first municipal marine park/sanctuary in the Philippines was established on Sumilon Island, Cebu in 1974. Since then, there have been approximately 1100 MPAs established in the Philippines [13], but less than a quarter (25%) are achieving their management objectives [14]. Moreover, it is important to recognize that merely establishing MPAs is not enough and effectively managing and evaluating MPAs is critical to their success [15,16]. In order for the benefits of MPAs to be realized, there must be effective management within and outside of MPAs [17,18]. Management effectiveness is defined as “the degree to which management actions are achieving the goals and objectives of the protected area” and objective evaluation of management effectiveness is critical to assess future needs, adapt practices and optimize resource allocation of MPAs [17]. An international collaborative project (the MPA Management Effectiveness Initiative) between the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) was conducted in 2000 which identified and described a set of 42 indicators: 10 biophysical, 16 socioeconomic and 16 governance indicators that could be used and adapted to fulfill evaluation needs while taking into consideration different resources available to MPAs [17]. This tool was used in the evaluation of some MPAs in Palawan [19]. There are also other tools being used to evaluate the performance of MPAs in the Philippines. An example of this is the Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) [14,20]. Out of the 42 indicators, 23 were used as a platform for a collaborative project on three MPA sites in the Philippines with funding from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [21]. Titled “Enhancing MPA Management Effectiveness for the Calamianes Islands MPA Network, Palawan Province, Philippines”, this project was implemented with the aim of: (1) developing specific indicators and guidelines for MPA managers to use in the effectiveness of their sites; (2) using pilot projects to field test and refine the MPA management effectiveness indicators; (3) implementing lessons learned and best practices from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) project on “Lessons Learned and Good Practices in the Management of Coral Reefs”; and (d) increasing awareness and use of monitoring and evaluation in the management of MPAs. The NOAA project was subsequently used as the basis for conducting the project titled “Capacity Building to Enhance MPA Management Effectiveness for the MPA Networks in the Philippines” for six MPA sites covering regions IVA (Quezon/Batangas), VII (Bohol), and XIII (Surigao del Sur) led by the Philippines' Department of Science and Technology (DOST). The objectives of this project were to: (1) develop specific indicators and guidelines for MPA managers to use in the effectiveness of their sites; (2) use pilot projects to field test and refine the MPA management effectiveness indicators; and (3) increase awareness and use of monitoring and evaluation in managing MPAs. This study reduced the number of indicators from 23 to 14. This article discusses the identification and testing of 14 indicators to evaluate MPA management effectiveness for seven sites in three provinces in the Philippines, namely: Palawan, Bohol and Surigao del Sur (Fig. 1). The evaluation process used was a refinement and adoption of the methodology used in Pomeroy et al. [17], albeit modified in terms of the number of indicators used. Moreover, key findings are presented, focusing on comparing MPA management effectiveness across all sites and offering recommendations and lessons learned on the sustainability and effectiveness of MPA management in the Philippines. 2. Methodology 2.1. Study sites A total of seven MPA study sites were selected in three provinces. Their descriptions are provided below, grouped according to province. Each site is unique in terms of its ecosystem, the year it was established and its relative size (Table 1). All MPA sites have designated no-take areas but some include buffer zones or multiple-use zones. One or two officers per site, either stationed in a guardhouse or patrolling in a small vessel, provide enforcement for the MPAs. 2.1.1. Palawan province All three islands/MPA sites are part of the Calamianes Islands MPA Network which is made up of about 160 islands under four municipalities (Busuanga, Coron, Culion and Linapacan). Altogether, they cover a total land area of some 1600 km2. The Island Network exhibits some of the highest biodiversity among the groups of islands in the Philippines, comprising of extensive fringing reef, mangrove forests, seagrass beds, estuaries, shoreline cliffs, protected bays, coves and inlets [22]. All of these natural assets make the Calamianes Islands very popular for tourism-related development. However, as a result of tourism, rapid population growth, resource degradation, and consequently, declining fisheries, the very natural capital that is depended upon by local residents and so alluring to visitors is at peril for the future of the islands and the coastal communities that depend on them. The most widespread issues throughout the Calamianes are illegal and destructive fishing, such as the use of sodium cyanide as part of the live fish trade, dynamite fishing, and intrusion of commercial fishing in municipal waters. Nearshore fisheries are mainly reef-dependent and mangrovedependent, and produce valuable catch for subsistence fishers and the live fish trade. Offshore fisheries target small pelagic species, including squid that seasonally migrate with the ocean currents of the South China Sea [23]. 2.1.1.1. Sagrada-Bogtong Marine Reserve. The Sagrada-Bogtong Marine Reserve is composed predominantly of mangrove areas with patches of coral reef and seagrass beds. This MPA is located in Busuanga municipality in barangay1 Sagrada and Bogtong. The reserve, which was established in 2006, covers an area of 392 ha (ha) with a total of 441 households (2007). The majority of these households are engaged in the fisheries sector. 2.1.1.2. Decalve Strict Protection Zone. The Decalve Strict Protection Zone is composed largely of coral reefs with patches of mangroves and seagrass beds. This MPA is located in the municipality of Coron in barangay Bintuan. The Protection Zone was established in 2004 and covers an area of approximately 62 ha with a total of 296 households (2007). Most of these households are engaged in the fisheries sector. Despite all sites having tourism-related activities, only Decalve has a functioning user fee system. 2.1.1.3. Bugor-Sand Island Marine protected area. The Bugor-Sand Island MPA is composed of coral reefs with patches of mangroves and seagrass beds. This is situated in Culion municipality, which is composed of several barangays (Libis, Culango, Jardin, Tiza, Balala, Baldat, and Osmena). The MPA was established in 2005 and covers 1 A barangay is the smallest administrative division in the Philippines and the native Filipino term for a village. M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 35 Fig. 1. Map of Palawan, Bohol and Surigao del Sur provinces showing the seven MPA sites. an area of 125 ha. The majority of its 197 households (2007) are engaged in the small-scale fisheries sector. that include government agencies, non-government organization and people's organization. 2.1.2. Bohol province 2.1.2.1. Pinamgo marine sanctuary. Barangay Pinamgo is an island barangay (3.7 km across), located in the northern portion of Jao Island and belongs to the municipality of Bien Unido. Fishing is the major livelihood of the people in the barangay. Seaweed farming is also becoming an important source of income for the residents, aside from farming and culture of milkfish. As a result of declining fish catch and coastal resource degradation, the residents decided to establish a portion of the municipal waters as a marine sanctuary. This was formalized when the Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council) of Bien Unido enacted Municipal Ordinance Number 2002–02 declaring a portion (37.8 ha) of the municipal waters as a marine sanctuary on 11 February 2002. The residents organized the Marine Protected Area Management Council (MMC) that will be responsible for the management of the marine sanctuary together with a people's organization known as Naghiusay Gagmay ng Mananagat sa Pinango (NAGAMAPI). Membership of the MMC consists of various sectors 2.1.2.2. Bilangbilangan east marine sanctuary. Bilangbilangan East has a land area of approximately 7.5 ha and is located in the northeastern part of Bien Unido municipality. The primary source of income is fishing while cash remittances from immediate relatives working in other places are another source of income. Other economic activities prevalent in the barangay are hog raising and fattening, seaweed farming and consumer stores trading. After witnessing the continued destruction of coral reefs and overfishing, the coastal residents requested the local government officials to declare a portion of its municipal waters as a marine sanctuary. As an offshoot, on 26 September 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bien Unido declared a 44.8 ha portion of its municipal waters as the Bilangbilangan East Marine Sanctuary under Municipal Ordinance Number 2005–08. Residents and local government officials in the barangay organized its MMC, which is responsible for the overall management of the marine sanctuary including planning, implementation, and monitoring with the coordination of Bilangbilangan East Fishers Association (BEFA). 36 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 Table 1 Profiles of seven marine protected areas in the Philippines. Province Municipality Barangay (village) Name of MPA Year established Ecosystem/Habitat Date survey conducted Partners involved Surigao Cortes del Sur Cantilan 2003 Coral reefs with patches of seagrass/algal beds Coral reefs with patches of seagrass/algal beds August 2009 General Island 1. Capandan Marine Sanctuary 2. General Island Marine Sanctuary DOST XIII; SSPSU; BFAR; USAID-FISH Project; WorldFish Center Bohol Bien Unido Bilangbilangan 3. Bilagbilangan East Marine Sanctuary 2006 Pinamgo 4. Pinamgo Marine Sanctuary 2004 August– October 2009 August– October 2009 DOST VII; BISU; PSU; USAID-FISH Project; WorldFish Center Bien Unido Coral reefs with patches of mangroves and seagrass beds Coral reefs with patches of mangroves and seagrass beds Busuanga Sagrada & Bogtong 5. Sagrada-Bogtong Marine 2006 Reserve April – June 2008 PSU; USAID-FISH Project; WorldFish Center Coron 6. Decalve Strict Protection 2004 Zone (Bintuan-Sangat Marine Park) 2005 Libis; Culango; Jardin; 7. Bugor-Sand Island MPA Tiza; Balala; Baldat; Osmena Mangrove with patches of coral reefs and seagrass beds Coral reefs with patches of mangroves and seagrass beds Coral reefs with patches of mangroves and seagrass beds Palawan Culion Capandan 2005 Bintuan Both sites are located in the Danajon Bank Double Barrier Reef System, the only double barrier reef in the Philippines housing highly diverse marine flora and fauna. However, the bank area has been subjected to extremely high fishing pressure with the use of cyanide and compressors being very widespread as these fishing methods yield the highest average catch per person-hour [24]. As a result, fish catch has declined over time and the standing stock biomass has become very low with a 2004 FISH Project trawl survey indicating an average biomass density of 0.45 t/km2. In addition to anthropogenic pressures, the Danajon Bank is enclosed between the islands of Cebu, Bohol and Leyte and is sheltered from strong monsoon winds and heavy swells. As a result, sediments tend to accumulate inside the reef lagoons that contribute to the overall degradation of the reef due to physical smothering and reduced photosynthetic activities. 2.1.3. Surigao del Sur Province 2.1.3.1. Capandan marine sanctuary. The marine sanctuary is located in Lanuza Bay, Cortes municipality. The Lanuza Bay ecosystem is considered among the most biologically diverse and productive marine habitats in the northern part of Surigao del Sur averaging 42 species per 250 m2 and is home to some of the richest fishing grounds of the Caraga region [22]. The Bay supports a large variety of commercial activities and livelihood opportunities with tuna being the central fishery product; annual harvest has been up to 4000 metric tons [22]. Cortes has 35 km of coastline with a reportedly extensive seagrass area, with an average cover of 68% across the entire coastline. Coral reefs are most abundant along the eastern coast of Cortes, where the Capandan Marine Sanctuary is located; the total reef area in Cortes is 2000 ha while the total reef area in Lanuza is 3785 ha. Mangrove forests are abundant on the coast and support wetland and nearshore fisheries such as crustaceans and finfishes. However, conversion of mangroves to fishponds is common in Lanuza Bay and is one of the threats to the coastal ecosystem. The Capandan Marine Sanctuary was established in 2003 with an area of 21.5 ha and is composed of coral reefs with patches of seagrass beds. 2.1.3.2. General Island marine sanctuary. General Island is also located in Lanuza Bay, but is situated in the Cantilan municipality. Cantilan has 19 km of coastline with a substantial part of the 1945 ha Total Area (ha) 21.5 28 44.8 37.8 392 62.61 125 of mangroves cover which it shares with the Carrascal municipality [22]. The most common mangrove species in Cantilan include: nipa (Nypa fruticans), pedada (Sonneratia caseolaris), piapi (Avicennia lanatu), Bakawan lalaki (Rhizophora apiculata), miambago (Hibiscus tilaceus), saging-saging (Aegiceras corniculatum), and gapas-gapas (Camptostemon philippinense). A coastal resource assessment conducted in 2001 showed live hard coral cover at less than 46.5% in the municipality; 19.9% of the area surveyed consisted of coral rubble, an indication of dynamite fishing [22]. Other threats in the region include sedimentation from upland erosion caused by logging activities and pollution from tailings from mining operations. What became the General Island Marine Sanctuary used to be part of a 320-hectare contiguous area that was informally declared as a fish sanctuary by the Cantilan LGU in 2003. Formally, the sanctuary was established in 2005 with an area of 28 ha and is composed of coral reefs with patches of seagrass beds. 2.2. Site evaluation process The evaluation process in the selection and measurement of indicators of MPA management effectiveness was based on, and adapted from, the IUCN's Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness [25]. The guidebook outlines a four-part process for evaluation: (1) selection of appropriate indicators, (2) planning and preparing for the evaluation, (3) collecting and analyzing data for the selected indicators, and (4) communicating and using evaluation results to adapt the MPA's management. In addition to the monitoring tool chosen [25], there are a several other MPA monitoring and evaluation systems, including the World Commission on Protected Areas' Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) [26], the National Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) Coordinating Committee MPA Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT), and the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation's MPA Report Guide (CCEF; [27]). Each tool has its strengths and advantages appropriate to different MPA management regimes; however, the IUCN tool was chosen because of its flexibility in being integrated into different MPA management schemes, its high degree of adaptability in addition to being geared towards MPA managers and conservation practitioners 37 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 Table 2 Number and sector of stakeholders attending the stakeholder consultation workshops. Stakeholder group Pinamgo, Bohol Bilangbilangan, Bohol Academe Seaweed farmers Religious organization Women's organization National government agencies (BFAR, DENR) LGU (municipal/village official, MPA managers) Fishers/fishing association Private sector (tourism, aquaculture) Youth sector TOTAL 1 3 1 1 – 6 9 5 – 26 3 1 1 1 – 6 13 2 1 29 a General Is., Surigao Capandan, Surigao 1 1 2 4 25 1 6 15 1 29 1 24 Palawana 2 20 3 3 28 Palawan was complemented by a household survey of stakeholders in Calamianes Islands MPA network, Palawan Province, Philippines (see below). Municipality/MPA name Coron (Decalve Strict Protection Zone/Bintuan-Sangat Marine Park) Culion (Bugor- Sand Island Marine Protected Area) Busuanga (Sagrada- Bogtong Marine Reserve) with an emphasis on communicating results with stakeholders constituting coastal communities. A series of stakeholder consultation workshops were held in the provinces of Palawan, Bohol and Surigao del Sur. The objective of the stakeholder consultation workshops was to: (1) make the final selection of indicators to be tested; (2) train local managers in the ‘MPA Guidebook’ methodology [25]; (3) finalize the work plan for the MPA Network; and (4) increase the use of monitoring and evaluation in the management of MPAs. The number of stakeholders and their respective sectors are shown in Table 2. During the first workshop, three sites in the Calamianes Island network were selected for the MPA study. From the original 42 in the guidebook, the indicators were narrowed down to a total of 23 (for the NOAA project) and eventually 14 (for the DOST study) by assessing difficulty ratings and ease of understanding by the stakeholders for each indicator (Table 2). In addition to a participatory process involving the MPAs' local resident communities, selected stakeholders at the municipal and national levels, WorldFish, a local academic institution and the USAID-funded Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest [FISH] Project. Stakeholders were primarily fisherfolk, tourist operators and local government (barangay) officials involved in MPA management. A major factor for indicator selection was the difficulty rating in terms of measurement (as outlined in the MPA guidebook); the ranking takes into account the time, technical skills, finances and other resources necessary to measure the indicator. The ranking ranges from 1 (easy to measure) to 5 (hard to measure) in terms of difficulty. For the DOST sites in Bohol and Surigao del Sur, the selection of indicators also underwent a participatory process, while considering difficulty rankings, with a final suite of 14 indicators being chosen (Table 3). As the third part of the evaluation process, testing of the selected indicators was conducted by primary data gathering through household survey and key informant interviews (KIIs). Primary data gathering for sites was conducted by a team from the local academic institutions, the FISH Project, WorldFish, and MPA managers. Lastly, the second series of workshops were undertaken for each of the sites to solicit stakeholder feedback. During the workshops, the research team presented the highlights of their findings from the household survey and KII results with the participation by MPA managers to give an opportunity for community members to clarify or correct certain information. Household population 441 296 197 Actual sample 160 157 107 Confidence interval 93.98% 94.76% 93.86% 2.3. Analysis The results of the biophysical, socioeconomic and governance indicators were transformed into ‘common metrics’ to simplify measurement of the MPA management effectiveness indicators, as follows: ‘þ’ for positive rating, ‘ ’ for a negative rating, ‘0’ for no change rating, and ‘?’ for indeterminate rating due to insufficient data or conflicting information. These ratings were qualified based on data collected by the FISH Project in previous years and, in some cases, the perceptions of key informants. A positive (green) rating indicates that the MPA is effectively managed for that particular indicator or measure while negative and no change (i.e., red and yellow, respectively) ratings are the specific concerns that need to be addressed or enhanced to improve the effectiveness of the MPA. 3. Results 3.1. Indicator ratings The results of the indicator ratings (Table 4) summarize the evaluation ratings for the 14 indicators encompassing all seven MPA sites. Overall, the majority of indicators rated positive but there were a few categories with similar ratings (negative, uncertain or unchanged) across a number of sites. 3.1.1. Biophysical Across the biophysical category there was a negative rating for six of the seven sites (Bilangbilangan East Marine Sanctuary, Pinamgo Marine Sanctuary, Decalve Strict Protection Zone, Bugor-Sand Island Marine Protected Area, and Sagrada-Bogtong Marine Reserve). 3.1.2. Socioeconomic Most of the socioeconomic indicators showed a positive rating, particularly the level of understanding of human impacts on reefs, mangroves, and seagrass/algal beds in addition to the perceptions of non-market and non-use value. However, for Bugor-Sand and Sagrada-Bogtong sites, there was a negative rating under local marine use patterns for seagrass/algal beds. For a majority of the sites (Bilangbilangan, Pinamgo, Decalve, Bugor-Sand and Sagrada-Bogtong), there was a negative rating for the “perceptions of local resource harvest” because the majority of 38 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 Table 3 The progression of the indicator selection process with a list of the selected biophysical, socioeconomic and governance indicators used in the evaluation of management effectiveness of nine MPA sites in the Philippines. Type of indicator Name of indicator Difficulty ratinga MPA guidebook Palawan sites Biophysical Focal species abundance Focal species population structure Habitat distribution and complexity Composition and structure of the community Recruitment success within the community Food web integrity Type, level and return on fishing effort Water quality Area showing signs of recovery Area under no or reduced human impact 3 4 5 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Local marine resource use patterns Local values and beliefs about marine resources Level of understanding of human impacts on resources Perceptions of seafood availability Perceptions of local resource harvest Perceptions of non-market and non-use value Material style of life Quality of human health Household income distribution by source Household occupational structure Community infrastructure and business Number and nature of markets Stakeholder knowledge of natural history Distribution of formal knowledge to community Percentage of stakeholder group in leadership positions Changes in conditions of ancestral and historical sites, features, and/or monuments 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Level of resource conflict Existence of a decision-making & management body Existence and adoption of a management plan Local understanding of MPA rules and regulations Existence and adequacy of enabling legislation Availability and allocation of MPA administrative resources Existence and application of scientific research and input Existence and activity level of community organization(s) Degree of interaction between managers and stakeholders Proportion of stakeholders trained in sustainable use Level of training provided to stakeholders in participation Level of stakeholder participation and satisfaction in management process and activities Level of stakeholder involvement in surveillance, monitoring and enforcement Clearly defined enforcement procedures Enforcement coverage Degree of information dissemination to encourage stakeholders compliance Total¼ 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2 2 2 3 √ √ √ √ 42 Socioeconomic Governance DOST sites √ √ √ √ 23 14 a As outlined in MPA Guidebook (Pomeroy et al., 2004), each indicator has an associated difficulty rating in terms of measurement which allows MPA managers and LGUs to understand the east with which each indicator can be measured using methods outlined in the guidebook; the ranking takes into account the time, technical skills, finances and other resources necessary to measure the indicator. The indicators are ranked from 1 (easy to measure) to 5 (hard to measure) in terms of difficulty. fishers felt that target species were less available post-MPA establishment compared to before the MPAs were implemented. This is in congruence with the biophysical ratings for those sites. Moreover, a commonality across all seven sites was observed when considering the “household income distribution by source” category in that all sites had an indeterminate rating. One other category, “number and nature of markets” had for the majority of the sites report an indeterminate rating. 3.1.3. Governance Most of the governance indicators were rated positive with a few notable exceptions. There were negative ratings for five of the seven sites (Bilangbilangan, Pinamgo, Decalve, Bugor-Sand, and Sagrada-Bogtong) under the “availability and allocation of MPA administrative resources”. Across most of the sites, the stakeholders are aware of the existence and adoption of a management plan; however, there is a low degree of interaction between managers and stakeholders. Likewise, across all sites, stakeholders acknowledged that they were aware of the existence of enabling legislation and thought it was adequate. Nonetheless, they noted that there was a lack of MPA administrative resources to put the legislation into practice. 3.2. Opportunities to improve or enhance management Respondents were asked to identify key opportunities that would either improve or enhance the management of their MPA (Table 5). The top three opportunities identified across all sites were the: (1) establishment of a MPA network; (2) establishment of user fees; and (3) provisions to provide livelihood opportunities. For Bilangbilangan East Marine Sanctuary, establishment of a user fee system was identified as the dominant (90% of respondents) opportunity, along with the establishment of a MPA network (48% of respondents). 39 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 Table 4 Indicator rating results for biophysical, socioeconomic and governance categories for seven MPA sites in the Philippines. Indicator category/name Indicator rating ( þ, 0, ,?) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Biophysical Socio-economic 1. Type, level, and return on fishing effort 2.1 Local marine resource use patterns: Reefs 2.2. Local marine resource use patterns: Mangroves 2.3. Local marine resource use patterns: Sea grass/algal beds 3.1. Level of understanding of human impacts: Reefs 3.2. Level of understanding of human impacts: Mangroves 3.3. Level of understanding of human impacts: Sea grass/Algal beds 4. Perceptions of local resource harvest 5. Perceptions of non-market and non-use value 6. Household income distribution by source 7. Number and nature of markets ? þ þ þ þ þ þ 0 þ ? ? ? þ þ þ þ þ þ 0 þ ? ? – þ þ þ þ þ þ – þ ? ? – – 0 – þ þ þ – þ ? þ – – 0 – þ þ þ – þ ? þ – þ þ 0 þ þ þ – þ ? þ – – 0 – þ þ þ – þ ? þ Governance 8. Level of resource conflict 9. Existence of a decision making & management body 10. Local understanding of MPA rules & regulations 11. Existence and adequacy of enabling legislation 12. Availability & allocation of MPA admin resources 13. Degree of interaction between managers & stakeholders 14. Existence and adoption a management plan þ þ þ þ – 0 þ þ þ þ þ – 0 – ? þ þ þ – 0 þ ? þ þ þ – – þ ? þ þ þ – – þ ? þ þ þ – þ þ ? þ þ þ – þ þ Note-indicator ratings are qualified as follows: ‘þ ’ for overall positive rating, ‘ insufficient or conflicting information. ’ for overall negative rating, ‘0’ for no change, and ‘?’ for indeterminate rating due to Table 5 Top opportunities identified by respondents to improve or enhance the management of the marine protected area for nine sites in the Philippines. Opportunities Site 1(n ¼24) Site 2 (n¼29) Site 3 (n¼ 29) Site 4 (n ¼26) Site 5a count % Establishment of MPA network 20 Establishment of fees (e.g. user fee system) 18 Provide livelihood opportunities (piggery, upland and offshore, weaving) 6 Capacity Building/IEC 3 Attendance to training and seminar 2 Strengthen existing policies 2 Cooperation among stakeholders 2 Financing/funding support 1 a n 83 75 25 13 8 8 8 0.04 Site 6a Site 7a count % count % count % count % count % count % 29 28 1 – 2 1 4 1 100 97 0.03 – 0.07 0.03 14 0.03 14 26 7 3 – – – 3n 48 90 24 10 – – – 10 23 22 – – – – – 1 88 85 – – – – – 0.04 – √ – √ – – – √ – – – – – – – – – √ – √ – – – √ – – – – – – – – – √ – √ – – – √ – – – – – – – – For the Calamianes sites, the opportunities were identified through stakeholder workshops and are identified here by a ‘checkmark’. Financing includes: financial assistance and sustainable financing categories. 4. Discussion Overall, the rating could be considered as positive for 10 of the 13 indicators. Notwithstanding, there is significant room for improvement, especially in terms of governance in the areas of resource use conflict, availability and allocation of MPA admin resources, and the degree of interaction between managers and stakeholders. Details are discussed below. 4.1. Biophysical The majority of respondents across all sites perceived a reduction in target species after the establishment of the MPAs (indicated by a negative biophysical rating), which is in accordance with the empirical evidence that overall fish biomass has declined in the past years. However, empirical evidence shows that the abundance and biomass of target species has increased, relatively, inside the MPAs [22,23]. In the process of establishing a MPA, it is normal to expect some level of decrease in CPUE as fishers must relocate their fishing efforts to less familiar areas outside of the MPA. Moreover, having their fishing activities crowded into a smaller area can have a negative impact on catch volume and return on fishing effort [28]. Notwithstanding, if the MPA is managed effectively, spillover effects, which can take several years or even decades depending on the life-history characteristics of the species [29–31], should increase biomass outside the protected area which would be reflected as an increase in CPUE [32–34]. 4.2. Socioeconomic The perception among stakeholders across the socioeconomic indicators dealing with ‘local marine resource use patterns’ and ‘level of understanding’ was positive. This suggests that despite the findings indicating a declining return on CPUE, respondents perceived a positive benefit of the MPA and understood the ecological effects of overfishing, illegal fishing methods and other anthropogenic impacts on marine resources. Moreover, the negative rating across the ‘perceptions of local resource harvest’ parallels the negative biophysical rating, confirming and validating the perception by fishers that there has been a decrease in volume of catch of the target species. The perception of low fish catch can result in communities casting doubts on the ability of the MPA to sustain the fishing activities and livelihood of fishers. This could impair the commitment by the community to continue supporting the implementation and management of the MPA. Recognizing and articulating the delays in the ensuing benefits of maintaining the protected area by the LGUs and other groups to the community is paramount to ensuring the sustainability of the MPA. When considering the ‘household income distribution by source’ socioeconomic indicator, there was an indeterminate rating across all 40 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 sites. Income is among the more difficult data to obtain from rural households, which may contribute to the indeterminate rating. However, the results of the survey highlight the need for providing realistic, long-term options for alternative livelihoods (e.g. ecotourism, catch-and-release sport fishing, seaweed farming) to coastal communities. Since the establishment of the MPA, for the majority of the sites, there is a lack of diversification of income source as fishing remains the primary occupation. Such a situation indicates a high level of dependence on the coastal and marine resources. This is a very precarious situation because such dependence can and, is likely to, exacerbate the effects of poverty and negatively affect health and human well-being [4]. There is a complex relationship between overall MPA success, as reflected in coral reef health, and poverty. Costly activities such as providing and installing boundary markers and providing patrol boats may compete for funding with development projects in health, education and infrastructure [4]. Therefore, there is a short-term trade-off between providing health and other services and conservation initiatives. However, in the long-term, conservation in the form of establishing MPAs should stimulate increases in fish abundance. Hence, the short term trade-off as a result of restricted access and government fiscal resource allocation affords an overall benefit from a forward-looking perspective [4]. In terms of alternative occupations that are not dependent on natural resource extraction, there are many productive niches that can be filled provided that there is adequate support and training through MPA management boards and the LGU. For instance, private and/or recreational diving as an occupation can be especially lucrative as well as a photography business or a number of activities related to tourism. Likewise, paying patrollers also provides an additional livelihood source and potentially higher household income [4]. One of the challenges across all seven sites for the future will be ensuring, through future surveys and assessments, a comprehensive understanding of the household income distribution of coastal communities to determine how effective income diversification initiatives have been since the establishment of the MPAs. 4.3. Governance There has been improvement in the level of resource conflict among municipal fisher folks and with commercial fishers for a few sites, but the majority show either an uncertain or negative rating for this indicator. This implies that resource conflicts are largely still persistent. Therefore, the persistence of the resource conflicts identified by the stakeholders is also a result of inadequate enforcement and patrolling within and around the MPA site. It is important not only to ensure that penalties (e.g. fines) are severe enough that they act as a deterrent to potential violators but also that the probability of being caught and legally sanctioned is significant. This task cannot be accomplished without comprehensive enforcement and patrolling. Measures such as higher penalties or better enforcement (e.g. marked boundaries, paying patrollers, and size of fine) should decrease fishing inside the MPA and improve reef health [35]. A lack of effective coordination between local enforcement groups, combined with a lack of full community support, could also affect the success of the MPA. In general, the effectiveness of local community enforcement groups is positively correlated with improved coral reef conditions [36]. Incentives for MPA enforcement have a positive effect on reef health; initiatives such as providing fishermen with alternative livelihood options and paying higher wages to patrollers does relieve pressure on the marine ecosystem and is associated with improved ecosystem health [4]. Therefore, a key feature of effective MPA management that needs to be implemented across the seven MPA sites is supporting the governance authorities with incentives to improve their ability to enforce the law and to engage coastal communities [35]. There is a negative rating for the ‘availability and allocation of MPA admin resources’ indicator for virtually all sites, indicating a severe lack of financial and technical assistance (e.g. personnel, boats, and monitoring equipment) to support MPA operations. Critically, for the continued sustainability of the MPA sites, technical support should be provided in the training of local partners in the biophysical monitoring of their respective MPAs. Fortunately, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has initiated this local biophysical monitoring in some MPA sites under the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS). Moreover, increased financial inputs by the municipality to the MPA can support and improve MPA enforcement efforts by marking boundaries, constructing guardhouses, and providing patrol boats. Ultimately, however, MPA success relies on whether the community is in a position that affords it access to municipality funds and assistance. For instance, having a low turnover of local chief executives can contribute to effective MPA management since stable leadership is likely to be associated with a steady flow of support and funds for MPAs [4]. There is a lack of adequate interaction between managers and stakeholders for the majority of the sites as indicated by the no change ratings. Despite awareness of the meetings, there is a low level of participation and attendance to meetings. This could imply that the stakeholders do not feel a sense of ownership and/or inclusivity with the MPA management process. Alternatively, they may perceive no incentive or benefit to attend meetings and interact with MPA managers. It is critical to engage the stakeholders and to make inroads into the issues they are facing and conducting further surveys to determine the factors contributing to the lack of interaction across all sites is crucial. Furthermore, there needs to be increased coordination at multiple governance levels since the level of coordination is directly related to improved MPA success [35]. For instance, people's organizations managing the MPA should form an alliance with neighboring MPAs to coordinate their efforts and share lessons and best practices with one another. Moreover, formalizing this alliance will allow the organization to become eligible to apply for financial and technical support from other organizations and institutions with funds appropriated towards improving MPA management. As evidenced by opportunities identified as measures to enhance or improve the management of the MPAs (Table 5), the respondents have identified the establishment of an MPA network in addition to the establishment of a user fee system as two key components in enhancing the management of the MPAs. There is a need, therefore, to begin the institutionalization of MPA networks for compatible sites across the seven sites and an immediate need to implement a user fee system to improve MPA management. 5. Conclusions and recommendations It is becoming increasingly apparent that management of MPAs, not only of the sites profiled in this paper, but also of the other protected areas covering 15,000 km2 across the Philippines must be planned and implemented as a network to maximize conservation and fisheries management objectives [37]. This becomes even more pressing when one considers that in order to meet global targets for MPAs, the Philippines must allocate resources, leadership, and technical assistance to the development and management of MPAs so that 20–30% of critical habitat is within the confines of a MPA [38]. Moreover, when one considers that the Philippines lies in the area of highest marine biodiversity in the world [39], an even greater impetus is apparent for increased political will and support for MPAs and their effective management, in financial and technical capacities, in order for the Philippines to be an example to the global community in marine biodiversity conservation. In the light of the findings, we recommend the following for improving MPA management effectiveness. First, based on the negative M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 perception of return on fishing effort and local resource harvest, there is a need for scaling up and/or formation of MPA networks that include essential spawning and nursery habitats that cover the home ranges of target species [40]. It is important to remember that despite the increase in fish abundance and biomass following MPA implementation, as evidenced by the empirical results of this study, increased fishery yields as a result of spillover to fished areas will take a longer period [8,34]. This may lead to negative perceptions of resource status and availability on the part of stakeholders, as occurred in this study. The formation of agreements among municipal governments to protect their shared coastal waters and coordinate interventions, share information and expertise and harmonize municipal fishery ordinances is crucial. For those areas where MPA poaching and destructive fishing practice remains commonplace, there is an impetus to intensify educational campaigns on the importance of maintaining sustainability of marine resources and the effects of using destructive fishing gears, illegal practices and overfishing. Secondly, based on the negative perceptions of resource allocations to MPA management, there is an immediate need to increase municipal and provincial budget allocations for coastal and fisheries management. Such may cover expenditures related to personnel, operating expenses and infrastructure facilities. Thirdly, based on the limited degree of interaction between managers and stakeholders, there is a need to improve engagement of fisher folks in the management processes of the MPA. They could be given financial remunerations or financial incentives to enhance their participation. Methodologically, there is a challenge to make the evaluation of MPA management effectiveness both science-based and at the same time practical in terms of on-the-ground concerns. An MPA could be broadly evaluated using just a limited set of indicators using a multi-disciplinary team. This study shows that using just 14 indicators, the status of management could be gauged. Moreover, the management body could be provided with the rating about the effectiveness of management using these four simple codes as follows: ‘þ ’ for positive rating, ‘ ’ for a negative rating, ‘0’ for no change rating, and ‘?’ for indeterminate rating due to insufficient data or conflicting information. Perhaps one of the most useful outcomes of this project was the training of MPA managers in the use of the MPA Guidebook and the rating system used in this paper. With an initial input of funds by a donor organization (in our case NOAA and DOST), these systems of assessing MPA effectiveness can be transferred to local MPA management bodies and stakeholders via capacity-building workshops that aim to provide “training of trainers”. Once a corps of local managers is trained in the assessment methodology, they can transfer this knowledge to other managers and stakeholders, allowing them to continue monitoring the management effectiveness of their MPAs without further external funding. Another possibility is that a more comprehensive assessment of MPA management could be conducted at a less frequent interval, for example, every five years. This five-year comprehensive assessment could be project-based, involving funds from government or non-government organizations. In the interim years, the MPA management body could implement a scaled-down assessment by measuring a smaller set of indicators that require limited funds and equipment. Acknowledgments Funding for this study was provided by grants from the Philippines Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program (Grant no. NA07NOS4630030). The authors would like to extend deep gratitude for the support given to them by those at the Philippine Country Office 41 at WorldFish, the Center for Strategic Policy and Governance at Palawan State University and to the many partner agencies involved in the studies on the various MPA sites. Specifically, those from the Department of Science and Technology – Region 4A: Dr. Alexander Madrigal, Ms. Lyn Aggangan and Ms. Virgilia Ragotero; from DOST Region 7: Dir. Rene Burt Llanto and Mr. Marcial Tanggaan; from DOST Region 13: Dir. Lyndo G. Villacorta; from Bohol State University: Dr. Samuel Gulayan, Asst. Prof. Tertuliano C. Tuyogon and Ms. Marichu Libres; from Palawan State University: Ms. Eva Marie Ponce de Leon, Ms. Nelly Mendoza, Prof. Marissa S Pontillas, Mr. Jose Buenconsejo and Ms. Aileen De las Alas; from Surigao del Sur Polytechnic State University: Dr. Remegita C. Olivida, Prof. Cynthia P. Sajot, Mr. Victor L. Pantaleon; from the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project (in Bohol, Palawan and Surigao del Sur): Mr. Geronimo T. Silvestre, Mr. Benjamin Francisco, Dr. Romeo Cabungcal and Mr. John F Pontillas from the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Giselle Samonte-Tan for generously dedicating her time towards editing and reviewing the manuscript, to Dr. Maripaz L. Perez for her invaluable guidance and technical support. References [1] Weeks R, Russ GR, Alcala AC, White AT. Effectiveness of marine protected areas in the philippines for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 2010;24:531–40. [2] Stobutzki IC, Silvestre GT, Abu Talib A, Krongprom A, Supongpan M, Khemakorn P, et al. Decline of demersal coastal fisheries resources in three developing Asian countries. Fish Res 2006;78:130–42. [3] BFAR. Philippines fisheries profile, Department of Agriculture–Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources; 2008. [4] Gjertsen H. Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human wellbeing? Evidence from marine protected areas in the Philippines World Dev 2005;33:199–217. [5] Guidelines for marine protected areas. In: Kelleher G, editor. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1999. [6] Halpern B. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does size matter? Ecol Appl 2003;13:S117–37. [7] Fraschetti S, Claudet J, Grorud-Colvert K. Transitioning from single-sector management to ecosystem-based management: what can marine protected areas offer? In: Claudet J, editor. Marine Protected area: a multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 11–34. [8] Goñi R, Badalamenti F, Tupper MH. Effects of marine protected areas on local fisheries: evidence from empirical studies. In: Claudet J, editor. Marine protected area: a multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 72–98. [9] Mora C, Andréfouët S, Costello MJ, Kranenburg C, Rollo A, Veron J, et al. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 2006;312:1750–1. [10] Claudet J, Guidetti P, Mouillot D, Shears NT, Micheli F. Ecological effects of marine protected areas: conservation, restoration, and functioning. In: Claudet J, editor. Marine protected areas: a multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 37–71. [11] Roncin N, Alban F, Charbonnel E, Chrec'hriou R, de la Cruz Modino R, Culioli JM, et al. Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: how much do they impact the local economy? A Southern Europe perspective J Nat Conserv 2008;16(4):256–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.09.006. [12] Vandeperre F, Higgins RM, Sánchez-Meca J, Maynou F, Goñi R, Martín-Sosa P, et al. Effects of no-take area size and age of marine protected areas on fisheries yields: a meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish 2011;12(4):412–26. [13] PhilReefs (Coral Reef Information Network of the Philippines). Reefs through time 2008: initiating the state of the coasts reports. Coral Reef Information Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs), MPA Support Network, Marine Environment & Resources Foundation, Inc. and the Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City; 2008 152 p. [14] White AT, Aliño PM, Meneses AT. Creating and managing marine protected areas in the Philippines. Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project. Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. and University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute, Cebu City, Philippines; 2006. p. 83. [15] White AT, Courtney CA, Salamanca A. Experience with marine protected area planning and management in the Philippines. Coast Manag 2002;30(1):1–26. [16] Ban NC, Adams VM, Almany GR, Ban S, Cinner JE, McCook LJ, et al. Designing, implementing and managing marine protected areas: Emerging trends and opportunities for coral reef nations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2011;408:21–31. [17] Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA. How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas Ocean Coast Manag 2005;48:485–502. 42 M. Tupper et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 33–42 [18] Cicin-Sain B, Belfiore S. Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and practice. Ocean Coast Manag 2005;48(11):847–68. [19] Samonte-Tan, GPB, Pido, MD, Abesamis, NP, Naguit, S, Pontillas, MCA, Trono, RB. Monitoring and evaluation: lessons from Tubbataha Reef National Park and Coron Island Ancestral Domain, Philippines. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; 2009. p. 1186–90. [20] White, A, Meneses, ABT, Ovenden, M, Tesch, S., Sustaining marine protected areas through continued monitoring and evaluation: the MPA report guide and management rating system. In: Proceedings of the international coral reef symposium 10; 2006b. p. 1466–70. [21] Garces L, Pido M, Tupper M, Silvestre G. Evaluating the management effectiveness of three marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines: process, selected results and their implications for planning and management. Ocean Coast Manag 2013;81:49–57. [22] Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project. 7 Years & 4 Seas: Our Quest for Sustainable Fisheries. A special end-of-project report to partners on the implementation of the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project in Coron Bay, Danajon Bank, Lanuza Bay and Tawi-Tawi Bay, Philippines, 2003–2010. Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project, Cebu City, Philippines; 2010. 252p. [23] Fisheries for Improved Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project. Consolidated Report: Baseline Assessment of the Capture Fisheries and Marine Protected Areas (Reef Habitats) in the FISH Project's Focal Areas: Coron Bay, Danajon Bank, Lanuza Bay, and Tawi-Tawi Bay; 2005. [24] Asian Development Bank (ADB). Global Environment Facility, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Tetra Tech EM Inc. and the Pacific Rim Innovation and Management Exponents Inc. (PRIMEX). 2003. Integrated Coastal Resource Management Project, Philippines, Final Report, Volume 3: Appendix 2: Global Environment Facility Eligibility Requirements. Tetra Tech EM Inc. and PRIMEX, 100p. [25] Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Watson LM. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness xviþ 216 pp.. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN; 2004. [26] Stolton S, Hockings M, Dudley N, MacKinnon K, Whitten T, Leverington F. Management effectiveness tracking tool: reporting progress in protected area sites. Second Edition. Switzerland: WWF International, Gland; 2007. 〈http:// assets.panda.org/downloads/mett2_final_version_july_2007.pdf〉. [27] White AT, Meneses AT, Tesch SC. The marine protected area project improving coral reef marine protected area management in the Philippines. In: Arceo HO, Campos WL, Fuentes F, Aliño PM, editors. Proceedings of the Workshops [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] towards the formulation of the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy (PhilMarSast). Quezon City: UP-MSI. Diliman; 2004. p. 148. Abesamis RA, Alcala AC, Russ GR. How much does the fishery at Apo Island benefit from spillover of adult fish from the adjacent marine reserve? Fish Bull 2006;104:360–5. Alcala AC, Russ GR, Maypa AP, Calumpong HP. A long-term, spatially replicated, experimental test of the effect of marine reserves on local fish yields. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2005;62:98–108. Stobart B, Warwick R, Gonzalez C, Mollol S, Diaz D, Reñones O, et al. Longterm and spillover effects of a marine protected area on an exploited fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2009;384:47–60. Goñi R, Hilborn R, Diaz D, Mallol S, Alderstein S. Net contribution of spillover from a marine reserve to fishery catches. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2010;400:233–43. Francini-Filho RB, Moura RL. Evidence for spillover of reef fishes from a notake marine reserve: an evaluation using the before-after control-impact (BACI) approach. Fish Res 2008;93:346–56. Goñi R, Quetglas A, Reñones O. Spillover of lobster Palinurus elephas (Fabricius 1787) from a Western Mediterranean marine reserve. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2006;308:207–19. Goñi R, Adlerstein S, Alvarez-Berastegui D, Forcada A, Reñones O, Criquet G, et al. Evidence of biomass export from six Western Mediterranean marine protected areas as measured from artisanal fisheries. Mar Ecol Progs Ser 2008;366:159–74. Armada N, White AT, Christie P. Managing fisheries resources in Danajon Bank, Bohol, Philippines: an ecosystem-based approach. Coast Manag 2009;37:308–30. Christie P, Pollnac RB, Oracion EG, Sabonsolin A, Diaz R, Pietri D. Back to basics: an empirical study demonstrating the importance of local-level dynamics for the success of tropical marine ecosystem-based management. Coast Manag 2009;37:349–73. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA). Establishing resilient marine protected area networks: making it happen. Washington, DC: IUCN-WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Nature Conservancy; 2008. p. 118. WCPA/IUCN. Establishing networks of marine protected areas: a guide for developing national and regional capacity for building MPA networks. Full Technical Report, IUCN; 2007. Carpenter KE, Springer VG. The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: the Philippine Islands. Environ Biol Fish 2005;72:467–80. Lowry GK, White AT, Christie P. Scaling up to networks of marine protected areas in the Philippines: biophysical, legal, institutional and social considerations. Coast Manag 2009;37:274–90.