“Human values need to
be considered in decision-making to improve long-term coral reef management”
says Dr. Christina Hicks, research fellow from Stanford. Researchers from the
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) at James Cook
University and Stanford University are linking social science to ecology in
order to improve the environmental problems in these sensitive ecosystems. Currently
little thought is given to the human community’s needs including food and wellbeing
for the more powerful economic interests, such as tourism, which drives coral
reef management.
ADVERTISEMENT
Yet the fishers in
the local community play an essential role in coral reef ecology management. Dr. Nick Graham, senior research fellow at the ARC CoECRS says a lack of ‘ownership’
of reef resources for fishers, who depend on fish for their food and
livelihoods, underlies a main area of conflict and their priorities need to be
considered when managing these natural environments.
Resultantly Hicks and
Graham led a study to focus on measuring and comparing the priorities of
various coral reef ecosystem stakeholders including managers, scientists and
fishers. Fundamentally all groups agreed that fishery, education, and habitat
were high priorities but each group prioritized a little differently reflecting
the conflict. Managers prioritized culture over the scientists’ priority for
coastal protection and fishers’ prioritized fishery and fish education. Managers’
priorities were ultimately more aligned with scientists’ than with fishers but the
extent of their agreement differed significantly.
The group
believes that measuring ecosystem service priorities would highlight key areas
of agreement and conflict, both within and across stakeholder groups. In this
way each concern would be reflected when communicating and determining
management approach for the coral reef’s ecosystem.
Using network analysis to map
interactions between stakeholders’ priorities, distinct synergies and
trade-offs were identified in how ecosystem services were administered. For
fishers, trade-offs emerged between two services, both of a higher priority:
fishery and habitat. Conversely, for scientists, trade-offs emerged between
services of a higher and lower priority: habitat and culture. The trade-offs
and synergies that emerged for the managers overlap with both fishers and
scientists suggesting a potential brokering role for managers in balancing
priorities and conflicts for all groups.
“Communities that are
engaged and recognized are more likely to trust and support their management
agencies,” adds Dr. Hicks. Governments who consult local communities to develop
co-management plans generally reduce conflict; see increased livelihood and
ecological benefits (such as a rise in fish stocks) in their area. Presently
countries like Papua New Guinea and Kenya have successful arrangements.
Read more at ARC
Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies.
Coral
Reef image via Shutterstock.