132
The shaping of the global protected area estate
communities in the Philippines and Indonesia, where
the model fi ts well with recently decentralized governance (Patlis et al ., 2005 ).
Unfortunately, many of these initiatives, after initial
successes, have struggled due to social confl ict, lack of
long - term institutional and other support, and negative external infl uences (Christie, 2004 ; Crawford et al .,
2006 ). It may also be that, in some cases, the initial
planning was insuffi ciently inclusive and goals
were too long - term for interim success to be duly
recognized.
Biogeographical tools such as habitat and resource
mapping at more or less sophisticated levels can be
used to help visualize and aid conservation planning
involving local communities (Fernandes et al ., 2005 ).
Such an inclusive approach generally leads to greater
success as more people have invested in the conservation agenda. Frameworks for assessing progress in CZM
have now been developed (Olsen, 2003 ), and these are
being taken up by major NGOs (e.g. Conservation
International) as a means to direct their planning as
they increase their collaborations with local organizations and communities.
Conservation International explicitly incorporates
socio - politics into its Seascapes Program, which
appears to have taken over from the earlier hotspots
focus (see critique above). Seascapes, including two in
Southeast Asia, are defi ned as ‘ large, multiple - use
marine areas, defi ned scientifi cally and strategically, in
which government authorities, private organizations,
and other stakeholders cooperate to conserve the diversity and abundance of marine life and to promote
human well - being ’ ( http://marine.conservation.org ).
WWF and TNC are also working in these areas using
similar collaborative approaches.
The present convergence between global NGOs, who
have undertaken large - scale priority - setting exercises,
and community - based CZM, may help inject additional
enthusiasm, enable the regional exchange of lessons
learned and offer an appropriate framework for longer -
term institutional support, provided that indigenous
social dynamics are respected (Christie, 2004 ).
5.4.8 High s eas p rotected a reas
Most marine conservation planning to date has focused
on nearshore systems, and all currently designated
MPAs are within territorial waters (i.e. within the 200
mile EEZ of individual nations) (Wood et al ., 2008 ).
biological ones (cf. Section 5.3.4 ). That said, the WWF
Global 200 ecoregions have created suffi cient positive
momentum to bring about real change in marine
conservation.
With this large - scale framework now in place, more
detailed planning to determine priorities within ecoregions has begun in earnest, drawing on regional - scale
biogeographical information. For example, within
Southeast Asia there are two priority marine ecoregions situated between the Philippines, Indonesia and
Papua New Guinea (and these overlap with two of
Conservation International ’ s marine hotspots).
The Sulu - Sulawesi Sea Marine Ecoregion (Dumaup
et al ., 2004 ) is one of these priority ecoregions. To
determine priorities within it, attention has been
focused on information regarding species ’ distributions, controlling factors (such as ocean currents) and
the location of important areas such as corridors for
migratory species, spawning sites for groupers and
turtle nesting sites.
The implicit assumption of the approach is that local
site - based conservation within high global - priority
ecoregions is an appropriate allocation of resources.
Funding and resources for local site - based conservation
are thus fi ltered by the global framework of priorities
and may not necessarily take into account the social
realities that govern the success of gazetted MPAs.
5.4.7 Coastal Zone Management and
c ritical s eascapes
Although many conservation planning strategies (e.g.
representative areas, hotspots) focus exclusively, or
almost exclusively, on biological criteria, it is becoming
clear that successful conservation initiatives need to
balance socio - economic factors (costs, opportunities,
and confl ict resolution) as well. It is only relatively
recently that such factors have been incorporated
explicitly in terrestrial (Naidoo & Ricketts, 2006 ) and
marine conservation planning (Klein et al ., 2008b ), and
determining appropriate methods to incorporate such
factors is still an active area of research (Chapter 6 ).
One approach to conservation that involves
integrated resource management and human
development is the primarily ‘ bottom - up ’ Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) approach (Salm et al ., 2000 ). CZM
(also known as community - based coastal resources
management) came into force in the early 1980s and
has been taken up with particular alacrity by coastal
The shaping of the global protected area estate
communities in the Philippines and Indonesia, where
the model fi ts well with recently decentralized governance (Patlis et al ., 2005 ).
Unfortunately, many of these initiatives, after initial
successes, have struggled due to social confl ict, lack of
long - term institutional and other support, and negative external infl uences (Christie, 2004 ; Crawford et al .,
2006 ). It may also be that, in some cases, the initial
planning was insuffi ciently inclusive and goals
were too long - term for interim success to be duly
recognized.
Biogeographical tools such as habitat and resource
mapping at more or less sophisticated levels can be
used to help visualize and aid conservation planning
involving local communities (Fernandes et al ., 2005 ).
Such an inclusive approach generally leads to greater
success as more people have invested in the conservation agenda. Frameworks for assessing progress in CZM
have now been developed (Olsen, 2003 ), and these are
being taken up by major NGOs (e.g. Conservation
International) as a means to direct their planning as
they increase their collaborations with local organizations and communities.
Conservation International explicitly incorporates
socio - politics into its Seascapes Program, which
appears to have taken over from the earlier hotspots
focus (see critique above). Seascapes, including two in
Southeast Asia, are defi ned as ‘ large, multiple - use
marine areas, defi ned scientifi cally and strategically, in
which government authorities, private organizations,
and other stakeholders cooperate to conserve the diversity and abundance of marine life and to promote
human well - being ’ ( http://marine.conservation.org ).
WWF and TNC are also working in these areas using
similar collaborative approaches.
The present convergence between global NGOs, who
have undertaken large - scale priority - setting exercises,
and community - based CZM, may help inject additional
enthusiasm, enable the regional exchange of lessons
learned and offer an appropriate framework for longer -
term institutional support, provided that indigenous
social dynamics are respected (Christie, 2004 ).
5.4.8 High s eas p rotected a reas
Most marine conservation planning to date has focused
on nearshore systems, and all currently designated
MPAs are within territorial waters (i.e. within the 200
mile EEZ of individual nations) (Wood et al ., 2008 ).
biological ones (cf. Section 5.3.4 ). That said, the WWF
Global 200 ecoregions have created suffi cient positive
momentum to bring about real change in marine
conservation.
With this large - scale framework now in place, more
detailed planning to determine priorities within ecoregions has begun in earnest, drawing on regional - scale
biogeographical information. For example, within
Southeast Asia there are two priority marine ecoregions situated between the Philippines, Indonesia and
Papua New Guinea (and these overlap with two of
Conservation International ’ s marine hotspots).
The Sulu - Sulawesi Sea Marine Ecoregion (Dumaup
et al ., 2004 ) is one of these priority ecoregions. To
determine priorities within it, attention has been
focused on information regarding species ’ distributions, controlling factors (such as ocean currents) and
the location of important areas such as corridors for
migratory species, spawning sites for groupers and
turtle nesting sites.
The implicit assumption of the approach is that local
site - based conservation within high global - priority
ecoregions is an appropriate allocation of resources.
Funding and resources for local site - based conservation
are thus fi ltered by the global framework of priorities
and may not necessarily take into account the social
realities that govern the success of gazetted MPAs.
5.4.7 Coastal Zone Management and
c ritical s eascapes
Although many conservation planning strategies (e.g.
representative areas, hotspots) focus exclusively, or
almost exclusively, on biological criteria, it is becoming
clear that successful conservation initiatives need to
balance socio - economic factors (costs, opportunities,
and confl ict resolution) as well. It is only relatively
recently that such factors have been incorporated
explicitly in terrestrial (Naidoo & Ricketts, 2006 ) and
marine conservation planning (Klein et al ., 2008b ), and
determining appropriate methods to incorporate such
factors is still an active area of research (Chapter 6 ).
One approach to conservation that involves
integrated resource management and human
development is the primarily ‘ bottom - up ’ Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) approach (Salm et al ., 2000 ). CZM
(also known as community - based coastal resources
management) came into force in the early 1980s and
has been taken up with particular alacrity by coastal