Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes.

Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area-based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area-based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social-ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo-Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear-specific, species-specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area-based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area-based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area-based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass-a key measure for coral reef functioning-compared with reference sites with no area-based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area-based management rather than counting areas because of their designation.

Efectos de las reglas y objetivos de manejo sobre los resultados de conservación marina Resumen Es esencial entender la efectividad relativa y las condiciones habilitantes de las diferentes herramientas de manejo basadas en el área para respaldar los esfuerzos que brindan resultados positivos para la biodiversidad conforme aumenta la cobertura de la conservación basada en el área para alcanzar los objetivos internacionales recién establecidos. Usamos los datos de un programa de monitoreo socioeconómico costero en seis países del Indo-Pacífico para analizar si los objetivos sociales, ecológicos y económicos y las reglas específicas de manejo (cierres temporales, restricciones de equipo de pesca, vedas de especies) se asociaban con la biomasa de los peces de arrecife de coral por encima de los niveles de producción sustentable en diferentes tipos de herramientas de manejo basadas en el área (es decir, comparar aquellas designadas como áreas marinas protegidas[AMP] con otros tipos de manejo basado en el área). Todas las categorías de objetivos, las múltiples combinaciones de reglas y todos los tipos de manejo basado en el área tuvieron algunos sitios capaces de mantener los niveles altos de biomasa de peces de arrecife-una medida importante para el funcionamiento de los arrecifes-en comparación con los sitios de referencia sin manejo basado en el área. Sin embargo, los mismos tipos de manejo también tuvieron sitios con baja biomasa. Conforme los gobiernos avanzan en sus compromisos con el Marco Global de Biodiversidad de Kunming-Montreal y hacia el objetivo de conservar el 30% del suelo y los océanos del planeta para el 2030, descubrimos que, aunque diferentes tipos de manejo pueden ser efectivos, la mayoría de las áreas manejadas en nuestras regiones de estudio no cumplieron con los criterios de efectividad. Este descubrimiento enfatiza la importancia de una gestión y un gobierno sólidos de las áreas manejadas y la necesidad de medir el impacto ecológico del manejo basado en el área en lugar de contar las áreas por su designación.

An analysis of the potential positive and negative livelihood impacts of coastal carbon offset projects.

Carbon offset credits, and associated projects, are acclaimed to address economic, environmental and social issues simultaneously. However, critics argue that carbon offset mechanisms are ill equipped to assist developing countries in achieving sustainable development. Social standards now exist to provide robust methods for assessing the social and biodiversity performance of carbon offset projects and credible impact assessments to help ensure positive outcomes for local people and biodiversity. Following such a standard, and simultaneously applying the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, we develop the Coastal Carbon Impacts Framework (CCIF) as a conceptual framework to document the potential positive and negative impacts of coastal carbon offset projects on local livelihoods. We apply the CCIF to four case studies and derive its main livelihood outcomes as well as describe potential long-term impacts. By using the capitals approach, the CCIF is able to dismantle the different impact areas into smaller entities. This allows a more detailed analysis on the positive and negative impacts a project has on communities - across the natural, financial, social, human, physical, cultural and political capital. While the case studies analysed show mainly positive outcomes, certainly no project is without risk of negatively impacting the community. The CCIF is however able to demonstrate potential social risk areas. If applied to additional coastal carbon offset projects, best practice documents, community engagement and the monitoring and evaluation process of such projects can be improved.

Shifting focus: The impacts of sustainable seafood certification.

Alongside government driven management initiatives to achieve sustainable fisheries management, there remains a role for market-based mechanisms to improve fisheries outcomes. Market-based mechanisms are intended to create positive economic incentives that improve the status and management of fisheries. Research to understand consumer demand for certified fish is central but needs to be mirrored by supply side understanding including why fisheries decide to gain or retain certification and the impact of certification on them and other stakeholders involved. We apply semi-structured interviews in seven different Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified fisheries that operate in (or from) Western Australia with the aim of better understanding fisheries sector participation in certification schemes (the supply side) and the impacts and unintended benefits and costs of certification. We find that any positive economic impacts of certification were only realised in a limited number of MSC fisheries in Western Australia, which may be explained by the fact that only a small proportion of Western Australian state-managed fisheries are sold with the MSC label and ex-vessel or consumer market price premiums are therefore mostly not obtained. Positive impacts of certification in these Western Australian fisheries are more of a social and institutional nature, for example, greater social acceptability and increased efficiency in the governance process respectively. However, opinion is divided on whether the combined non-monetary and monetary benefits outweigh the costs.

Correction: Shifting focus: The impacts of sustainable seafood certification.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233237.].

Local fishermen's perceptions of the usefulness of artificial reef ecosystem services in Portugal.

Proponents of artificial reef (AR) deployment are often motivated by the usefulness of such structures. The usefulness of ARs is related to their capability of providing ecosystem services/additional functions. We present two distinct Portuguese AR case studies: (1) The Nazaré reef off the central coast of Portugal and (2) the Oura reef off the Algarve coast. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with local fishermen in the fishing towns of Nazaré and Quarteira pre-and post-AR deployment. The main focus of the interviews was to understand fishermen's perception of AR usefulness (or lack thereof) in terms of nine ecosystem services/additional functions potentially provided by the ARs. We tested the null hypothesis that ARs do not provide additional ecosystem services/additional functions. When queried pre-AR deployment, fishermen indicated that ARs are most likely to provide three ecosystem services: "habitat and refuge," "biodiversity preservation" and "food production." Fishermen had similar perceptions post-deployment. For the Nazaré reef, fishermen tended to have a positive or neutral perception of ecosystem services/additional functions being provided by ARs. For the Oura reef, fishermen tended to have a mostly neutral perception of AR ecosystem services; however, there were also some positive and other negative perceptions. It was difficult for stakeholders to conceptualize some of the ecosystem services/additional functions provided by ARs prior to actively using them. As a result, some stakeholders changed their perception of the ecosystem services/additional functions after using the structures. These results indicate that stakeholders likely need to perceive ARs as useful in order for them to provide their support for AR installation. Likewise, their support is often needed to justify the use of public funds to install ARs, therefore making it imperative for resource managers to undertake similar interviews with fishermen when considering the use of ARs in other areas.