Overview of Marine Protected Areas. Tanzania Experience.

Transcription

1 Overview of Marine Protected Areas. Tanzania Experience. Razack Lokina Department of Economics University of Dar es Salaam Fisheries Forum 24 th -25 th 2006.

2 Case study Mnazi Bay MBREMP is located to the south of Mtwara town in southern Tanzania Is bordering Mozambique The park covers 650Sqkm (162,500 acres) It includes the northern portion of the Ruvuma Estuary, Mnazi Bay to the headland of Ras Msangamkuu. Within the boundaries of the Park there are three Islands These are: Namponda, Membelwa and Kisiwa Kidogo plus numerous small rocky islets.

3 Location of the MBREMP

4 MBREMP were identified as a priority areas for conservation of global marine biodiversity in 1995 (GBRMPA/World Bank/IUCN) The preliminary social and environmental assessments carried out prior to gazettement showed that the area supports a complex and diverse system of coral reefs, mangroves and sea grass beds (Muhando et al, 1999). The assessments also showed that the communities living in the area, numbering almost 30,000, are economically poor and rely primarily on marine resources and subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods (Mwaipopo and Ngazy 1998). From then the govt. followed the recommendations of the report In 2000, MBREMP was gazetted as a marine park, the second in Tanzania after MIMP, under the marine park and reserve Act No.29 of 1994

5 In the process of establishing the park, a series of consultations with the local communities were organized This aimed at getting a support from the local communities And also the communities to feel the sense of ownership of the park and the process. This consultation led to the adoption of the Mtwara Resolution on Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park in April Local communities from 10 villages and 7 sub-villages, representative from district and regional and national level, the private sector and NGOs agreed to the designation of the area as an MPA.

6 Why Mnazi Bay. The area contains good representative examples of all the marine habitats found along the shores of Eastern Africa. Its land to marine ratio is the highest in EA This constitute a buffer zone and control human activities that impact the protected marine environment. Also this aimed at ensuring that local marine resource users would be included in the management and planning process It has highly productive and diverse fisheries It holds promise for coastal tourism and has reserves of gas. The park area and neighboring northern Mozambique form site of Global Importance in terms of marine biodiversity.

7 Area is suitable habitat for endangered, such as sea turtles and marine mammals species because of it extensive sea grass beds and coral reefs It is important feeding, breeding and nesting area for endangered green and critically endangered hawksbill turtles The area is also characterised by high fishing pressure and because of the dwindling stock fishermen are forced to use destructive techniques to produce higher catches in short time. E.g. the use of destructive and unsustainable gears Dynamiting Another important feature in the park is the impressive sand dunes of Msimbati channel which are over 15m high, extending about 3 km along the coast this is rare in coastal Tanzania.

8 Sand dunes and Beaches

9 Mangroves

10 Coral reefs

11 Productivity and Resilience Because of its deep water patch reefs, deep strong current Msimbati channel with high water exchange makes the area to have high high biodiversity These qualities likely contribute high ecological resilience (e.g. from 1998 El nino related bleaching). The presence of high cover and diversity of corals at depths beyond the impacts of bleaching and dynamite fishing are likely to act as a refuge or reserve for supply of larval recruits to damaged areas. Species richness of fish (400 species have been reported) is high comparable with species list from the MIMP, but not higher than other parts of EA where detailed investigation have taken place e.g. Watamu in Kenya where it was found to have 1300 species from only 3 sq km. The presence of large schools and predatory fish such as sharks suggests high levels of productivity of the ecosystem

12 Besides all these positive aspects of the biodiversity within the park, the fish community appears highly degraded. The overall size of fish was generally too small suggesting high capture of immature and adults Of notable is the absence of top carnivorous species such as groupers, emperors, snapper and barracula Fish that form schools too were absent These are all indication of heavy fishing. Of reefs protected from fishing because of rough sea conditions, the abundance of fish was higher In comparison, in the sheltered areas with easy access to fishers such as in the lagoon and Msimbati channel. This will suggest that with good management, fish number can increase and yields maintained.

13 What has been achieved so far? Thorough socio-economic assessment done Good awareness in most communities of marine and coastal environmental issues Appreciation by the communities of the educational programmes carried out Interest expressed by communities outside the park (three have requested to join) Good involvement of villages in village environmental management planning Village Liaison Committees functional and supportive of the park in all villages except Nalingu Villagers participating in turtle conservation, fisheries monitoring, mangrove assessments, socioeconomic assessments General Management plan have been prepared and adopted.

14 Problems Among the problem affecting the Mnazi Bay is the clearance of coastal forests for different reasons. In some areas clearance is for the purpose of getting land for cultivation. Farming yields were low in the marine park area due to the low soil productivity, poor farming techniques, poor quality seeds, losses due to pests and wildlife. Nalingu, a village of key resource users in the park, is hostile to the park and refuses to collaborate. Discontent is spreading to other villages. The knowledge base lacks information from Nalingu, and the GMP lacks input from Nalingu. Helping people to move towards improved and sustainable livelihoods which should have been a centre piece of the project has not yet begun because the feasibility study has not been carried out.

15 Results of the assessments have not yet been shared with the villagers, nor disseminated to other interested stakeholders. Early efforts by the park to enforce regulations without providing alternatives have created ill will. At the same time, it is difficult for the park to maintain credibility while destructive fishing gear is still in use. The project does not have an M&E plan, which makes it difficult to practice adaptive management. Insufficient effort has been devoted to capacity building, both for the park staff, and for resource users

16 Zoning scheme Zoning is the primarily management tool of multiple-use marine protected areas. Its aim is to harmonize otherwise conflicting conservation and livelihood objectives by spatially separating extractive resource-use areas from sensitive habitats. Beyond this, the regulations in zones permitting resources-use ensure that resources-use activities are productive and sustainable.

17 The aim of this zoning scheme To protect critical and species-rich habitats including sub-tidal areas, mangroves, forest, bird nesting, fish spawning, turtle-breeding grounds. To safeguard beliefs and customs of local residents by protecting the sacred sites To protects the biodiversity and ensure aesthetical values of MBREMP are maintained To safeguard traditional/local community fishing grounds and provides a means for continued but controlled use; To provides a geographic basis against which to evaluate resource use and to monitor and review the effectiveness of the management plan; To provides a framework for surveillance and patrolling activities by focusing enforcement in zones with higher levels of protection

18 Designation of Zones Zones types were designated and mapped through a participatory zoning workshop and recommendations contained in the VEMPs as well as inputs from scientific assessments carried out in MBREMP. The zones have been designated on an experimental basis and will be adjusted in the course of the two-year implementation phase, with participation from the local communities Some core zones are designated, where the impact on the local communities is limited but where the most critical habitats exist. Close monitoring will assess and document the impacts of the closure, including impacts on adjacent areas through the spillover effect. Based on the results of this monitoring the boundaries and location of these zones will be modified, as appropriate. Core zones have been designated to cover significant areas of coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves Two proposed core zones require further study before they can be designated

19 There are three designated types of zones within MBREMP Core zones These provide the highest level of protection within the park. It is intended to include all areas of the marine park that both warrant primary conservation status and that local resources-users can afford wholly to relinquish. Within MBREMP, both marine and coastal forest habitats are represented within Core Zones. Specified-use zones, status provides intermediate level protection within the park. It is intended to include areas of the marine park that warrant primary conservation status but which are also important to local resource-users. In this zone some activities are specifically permitted and only for the designated beneficiaries including area set aside for gas extraction.

20 General-use zones, is equally important like other zones, it is intended to provide for sustainable resource-use for MBREMP residents, thereby relieving resource-use pressure from zones with higher level protection. In a General-use Zone only activities that are legal are allowed, in addition outsiders are allowed but require a permit issued at village level MBREMP residents will have priority access to resources in General-Use Zones. Nonetheless, other resource-users from outside Marine Park may undertake certain resource-use activities under permission from the marine park and where relevant from local village councils.

21 Socio-Economic issues The park is home to some 30,000 inhabitants this is almost twice that of MIMP Level of income of the local communities is relatively small (less than USD 100 per day). Large proportional of households depend on marine related resources The importance of marine related activities in the household s livelihood system is an indicator of potential threats to marine resources. The more households are dependent on marine resources for their livelihoods, the more they are likely to be defensive about their activity.

22 Villages could be grouped according to their geographical location, on the basis of their proximity to the sea Sea bordering villages (Makubiru, Nalingu, Mngoji and Msambiti) Mangrove villages (Madimba, Mitambo, Litembe, Tangazo and Kilambo) River villages (Kitunguli and Mahurunga) Kihimika (Located furthest from the sea, river or mangrove)

23 As should be expected, more than 60% of the sea bordering villages hhs are involved in marine related activities 74% in Msambiti However, in these villages farming is still one of the most important activities Msambiti and Mkuburu are the villages with the least farming household (less than 40%) see Fig.1

24 Percentage of hhs involved in fishing Fishing (Occ.Stru.) Fishing (HHS) 60 % Mkubiru Mngoji Msimbati Madimba Mitambo Litembe Tangazo Kilambo Mahurunga

25 It is important to note that the high dependence on resource provided by the marine environment and the lack of alternative source of livelihood is not good news to the Park For example, when the zoning process starts as part of the marine resource management, the high dependence of some of the village on marine resources such as Msimbati, Mngoji will have to be taken into consideration to avoid depriving these areas of their main livelihood activities More effort needs to be made in developing additional livelihood opportunities in these areas (mainly the seafront villages).

26 Conclusions: This is fundamentally a very worthwhile project. A solid framework for the marine park is being established. There is tremendous good will among most community members. However, this is fragile, and risks being lost if concrete benefits are not realised quickly. A number of corrective measures need to be taken in the second phase if the project is to succeed. The MBREMP team shows great promise of making a success of the park, if given the support that is needed. In order to attract community participation in the management of the marine protected areas, the communities members should be educated on the need and benefits for having a marine protected areas

27 The main source of threat are the number of people involved in marine resources extraction; The dependence of the communities in general and specific households in particular on marine resources for their livelihood; poverty/lack of access to funds; the demand for marine products and the volume of trade for specific marine products; destructive fishing methods and so on. The possible solution for reducing fishing pressure in MBREMP could be establishment of alternative activities especially those related to fisheries or even those which are different from fisheries but could be a source of income.

28 MBREMP is located in the border with Mozambique, Is important therefore that full advantage of this location is utilized. Given that some of the resource do not observe the political boundaries, then corporation with Mozambique could make the benefits of MPAs to be realized and also easy management. lesson could be drawn from regions like the Caribbean and North Sea, where the boundaries of marine ecosystems often cross boundaries of state jurisdiction, so that applying ecosystem management methods will involve more than one country.

29 Thank you for Listening