This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 13 October 2014, At: 06:55Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South African Journal of Marine SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tams19

Criteria, objectives and methodology forevaluating marine protected areas in SouthAfricaP. A. R. Hockey & G. M. BranchPublished online: 08 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: P. A. R. Hockey & G. M. Branch (1997) Criteria, objectives and methodology forevaluating marine protected areas in South Africa, South African Journal of Marine Science, 18:1, 369-383,DOI: 10.2989/025776197784160884

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/025776197784160884

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

S.Afl: J. mar. Sci. 18: 369-3831997

CRITERIA, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATINGMARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA

P. A. R. HOCKEY* and G. M. BRANCHt

[n the face of ever-increasing requests for the proclamation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in SouthAfrica, there is a need to develop an objective protocol for their evaluation. To achieve this, a methodologyis described for which the acronym "COMPARE" (Criteria and Objectives for Marine Protected AReaEvaluation) is coined. COMPARE also allows existing MPAs to be evaluated in terms of their efficacy, andcan assess the effects of changes to either legislation or management of existing MPAs. As a first step, ]4objectives are defined that may be met by MPAs. These fall into three categories: biodiversity protection,fisheries management and human utilization. A series of criteria were then proposed which can be usedselectively to quantify the degree to which MPAs meet these objeetives. Each of the objectives is scoredagainst the appropriate criteria in a semi-quantitative manner that allows areas to be compared, either overallor in terms of specific objectives. Simply by comparing the degree to which different types of MPAs mightmeet these objectives, it is clear that fishery reserves, proclaimed for the protection of individual commercialspecies, meet an extremely limited suite of objectives compared with marine sanctuaries that protect all species,or marine reserves, which protect all but a few species. Prominent among the advantages of COMPARE arethat it eompels an examination of all possible objectives, pinpoints the reasons for decisions, identifies issuesthat need resolution and requires development of management plans. Its primary strategic advantage is thatits implementation should lead to a rationally planned and defensible network of MPAs that will contributeto the conservation of marine biodiversity in South Africa.

369

"Coastal zones are some of the most complex"multiple-use" areas in the world, and may hold thedubious distinction of being the most challengingand problematic areas for which to find solutionsthat sustain healthy ecosystems and healthy econo-mies" (Griffis and Kimball 1996, p. 709).

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely recog-nized as one method of ensuring the maintenance offunctional coastal ecosystems, and the IDCN (WorldConservation Union) has proposed a goal of conserving20% of the world's coastline within MPAs by theyear 2000 (meN 1992). South Africa has ratifiedthe Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio deJaneiro, 1992) and is thus bound by the Articles andassociated Obligations of the Convention. Of parti-cular relevance to the marine environment is Article8 (a, b and e), which requires the establishment ofMPAs for the conservation and sustainable use ofthreatened species, habitats, living marine resourcesand ecological processes. A consequent obligation isthat Parties must develop guidelines for MFA selection,establishment and management (de Fontaubert et at.1996).

Importantly, MPAs should not be seen only as ameans of preserving natural systems, but also of

meeting a wide range of human needs, includingeducation, recreation, research and generation ofwealth (e.g. Kelleher and Kenchington 1990). Theyalso contribute significantly to the management ofcommercial and angling fish stocks (Bennett andAttwood 1991), and Clark (1996) and Agardy(1994a) have emphasized that they will become in-creasingly important as greater proportions of theworld's fish stocks are exploited. Griffis and Kimball(1996) note that most fisheries are now exploited tothe limit and that 11 of the 15 major fisheries in theworld are in decline. Boehlert (1996) has documentedthe substantial impacts that marine fisheries are havingon biodiversity and points out that protected areasallow management of both biodiversity and fisheriessimultaneously.

Increases in human population density have placedever-growing demands on marine resources inSouth Africa (e.g. Hockey et af. 1988), and politicalchanges have led to heightened expectations ofgreater access to these resources (Branch et at. 1996,Van der Elst et al. in press). There is, therefore, avital need to protect marine biodiversity andmaintain the food-producing and recreationalpotential of the marine environment: creating MPAs

* Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa. E-mai]: phockey@botzoo.uet.ac.za

t Marine Biology Research Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 770], South Africa. E-mailgmbranch@pop.uct.ac.za

Manuscript received: April 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

370 South African Journal of Marine Science 18 1997

as a means of achieving this should not be viewed as adenial of rights, but as a means of meeting the needsof all South Africans in perpetuity.

Robinson and de Graaff (1994) provide a detailedcatalogue of the MPAs in South Africa. Relative toother African countries, South Africa appears to bewell-endowed with marine reserves (Hockey andBranch 1994). Of the 2 600 km of coastline, 248 km(9.5%) fall within MPAs where the intertidal biota isfully protected, although, in many cases, angling isstill permitted (Hockey and Buxton 1989). This fallsfar short of the mCN goal of 20%. Moreover, only0.09% of the area falling within South Africa'sExclusive Economic Zone is protected within MPAs(Hockey and Branch 1994).

In the past, selection of MPAs in South Africa hasnot been based on predetermined criteria, nor has theoverall distribution of MPAs been planned as a rationalnetwork. Many MPAs were created on an opportunisticbasis or in response to public pressure rather thanthrough an integrated and objective evaluation of theneed for these MPAs. This situation is not unique toSouth Africa: worldwide, there is an increasingawareness that MPA networks need to be rationalizedand defensible (Pressey et al. 1993), i.e. representativeand complementary as well as effective and efficient.This requires a rigorous and objective procedure thatwill allow an evaluation of the relative merits of dif-ferent areas that have already been proclaimed or arebeing considered for MPA status. In particular, thereis a need to plan a system of MPAs that will protect thestructural and functional components of biodiversity,contribute towards fisheries management, and promotehuman use of the coast that is compatible with theseobjectives.

The choice of criteria for the selection of MPAshas changed over the past 20 years. Early attempts atdeveloping criteria arose almost entirely from a desireto preserve areas, and focused on biological attributessuch as diversity, rarity and naturalness, as reviewedby Margules and Usher (1981) and discussed in moredetail by Usher (1986). More recently, there has been ashift towards incorporating political and socio-eco-nomic criteria such as the value of MPAs for recrea-tion, education and tourism (Kelleher and Kenchington1990). One of the reasons for this change is theincreasing recognition that MPAs should fulfil multipleobjecti ves, including catering for a diversity ofhuman needs (Jones 1994). Early approaches tomarine conservation were driven by first world senti-ment, largely because they developed in the NorthernHemisphere. As these ideas came to be applied toless-developed countries, the awareness grew thatthe luxuries of protectionism alone are not politicallytenable (Dixon et al. 1993, Agardy 1994b, Morton

1996). Nevertheless, the maintenance of biodiversityand functional ecosystems remains a cornerstone of theConvention on Biological Diversity (de Fontaubertet ai. 1996) and MPAs are widely recognized asplaying a vital role in meeting these objectives(Norse 1993, Eichbaum et al. 1996).

Several authors have listed biological and socio-economic criteria germane to MPA site selection, andthis study has drawn particularly from those providedby Margules and Usher (1981), Ivanovici (1984),Kelleher and Kenchington (1991), NOAA (1995) andSalm and Price (1995). Those publications providevaluable guidance, although there is general recognitionthat the selection of criteria will, to some extent, bepolitically driven. The difficulty in applying thesecriteria is that there have been few attempts to developa practical methodology which will allow them to bematched against defined objectives and derive aquantitative method that will allow direct compari-sons between sites. Examples where this has beenaccomplished include Rabe and Savage (1979), whodeveloped a scoring system for comparing the physi-cal and biological characteristics of proposed pro-tected areas, and Odendaal et al. (1995), who used10 criteria to rank six potential MPAs in easternMadagascar.

The first aim of this study is to define the objec-tives that MPAs should fulfil in South Africa.Secondly, relevant criteria that can be used in assess-ing the degree to which different objectives arebeing, or could be, met are identified. The overallgoal is to develop a practical methodology that willallow:

(i) a quantitative comparison between existingMPAs to assess their relative success in meetingidentified objectives;

(ii) rigorous, repeatable and defensible evaluationof the relative merits of proposed MPAs; and

(iii) an assessment of how legislative or managerialchanges might improve or reduce the efficacyof an MPA.

For ease of reference the methodology has beentermed COMPARE (Criteria and Objectives forMarine Protected ARea Evaluation).

TERMINOLOGY

In South Africa, two main legislative acts are usedin the promulgation of MPAs, namely the Sea Fish-eries Act (No. 58 of 1973) and the National ParksAct (No. 57 of 1976). One of the current problems is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA's MPAs 37]

that inconsistent terminology is used to describeMPAs, which vary in their designated function from theequivalent of "nature sanctuaries", where no exploit-ation is allowed, to areas where protection is accordedto only one, or a small suite, of species. The regulationswhich pertain to conserved marine areas are complexand the definition of the terms "park", "reserve" and"sanctuary" vary according to these regulations(Hockey and Buxton 1989).

It is proposed that in South Africa the followingterms should be employed to describe four categoriesof MPAs, with different functions:

Marine sanctuary - a site or area in which noextractive exploitation of any marine resources isallowed.

Marine reserve - an area in which some consumptiveutilization is allowed, but protection is afforded tomost species (e.g. all except rock-and-surf anglingfish).

Fishery reserve - an area set aside for the protectionof individual, exploited species, which should bequalified with the name of the protected species, e.g."rock lobster reserve".

Marine park - a protected area that includes anycombination of sanctuaries, marine reserves or fisheryreserves, i.e. an area zoned for multiple use.

Marine protected areas have three main functions,the first of which deals primarily with ecological issues,the second with managerial considerations for fish-eries and the third with human rights and expectations:

Protection - the maintenance of ecosystems undis-turbed by human activities, and their component bio-diversity.

Fisheries management - the provision of refugesfor exploited species with the aim of improving stockstatus outside protected areas.

Utilization - the promotion of human activities thatare compatible with the objectives of conservation.

In the sections that follow, general considerationsthat must be addressed at the outset of any evaluationare first identified. Second, the objectives of MarineProtected Areas under each of the three categoriesmentioned above are outlined. The criteria that can beused to assess the extent to which MPAs meet theseobjectives are then developed. Using these criteria,the efficacy of sanctuaries, marine reserves and fishery

reserves are assessed. Finally, by way of an example,the application of COMPARE is illustrated and itsbenefits discussed.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Initially, a set of 22 criteria which should be con-sidered in determining whether an MPA will achieve,or is achieving, its objectives were identified. How-ever, when attempts were made to apply these criteriato particular objectives, five of them were applicableonly to proposed (not existing) MPAs, and were in-appropriate for the evaluation of individual objectives.Rather, they identify issues that have to be addressedbefore an MPA can be evaluated. Some of them are ofsuch overriding importance that they have the potential .to eliminate an area from further consideration.These five general considerations should therefore beaddressed as a first step:

A. Are there any external threats that would renderthe proclamation of the MPA futile?

"Future safety" is an important consideration inMPA selection and is one of the criteria used by theRamsar Convention. For example, proclamation ofan MPA on a site already gazetted for heavy industryis unlikely to be as effective as selecting an equiva-lent site where such impacts are avoidable.

B. Will the proclamation of the MPA create con-flicts with existing activities within the MPAor on adjacent land?

In most cases, the areas of sea required for marineprotected areas will be state-owned, but the adjacentterrestrial areas will not. It is therefore important toestablish whether management objectives for MPAswill be compatible with the activities of adjacentlandowners and with any established or perceivedrights, including the historical activities of commer-cial industries, recreational anglers, divers and sub-sistence users.

C. If conflicts exist, are they reconcilable?

There are several ways of resolving conflicts, in-cluding compromise, arbitration, payment of com-pensation or purchase of rights. Increasingly, negoti-ation is seen as the way forward, rather than edict,and has enormous potential for winning supporters tothe cause of MPAs. Indeed, several authors argue thatlocal support is imperative if an MPA is to succeed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

372 South African Journal of Marine Science 18 1997

(e.g. Tisdell and Broadus 1989, Ballantine 1991).

D. Are there impending threats that would bemitigated by proclamation of the MPA?

A site which is important for conservation, fisheriesmanagement or public utilization, but is threatenedby impending developments, must be a prime candidatefor protection if this will avoid or reduce the threat.The proclamation of the West Coast National Park,an area once threatened with development of com-mercial salt pans and dense holiday housing, couldbe viewed as particularly successful in this regard. Ifthe proclamation of an MPA cannot avoid suchthreat, the area should be disqualified on the groundsof consideration (A) above.

E. Are the monetary costs of establishment andmaintenance affordable?

The cost and ease of proclaiming an MPA will bestrongly influenced by who owns or has rights to thearea. State land can be transferred or proclaimed atlittle cost, whereas privately owned land may involvecostly purchase. A more critical issue is the need forsufficient funding to ensure subsequent management,the costs of which will be determined largely by theobjectives of the MPA. Proclamation may be inex-pensive, but ongoing management is what makes thedifference between reserves on paper and those thatfulfil their objectives.

OBJECTIVES OF MARINE PROTECTEDAREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Protection

A major goal of MPAs has always been the protec-tion of biota from human activities. The preservationof biodiversity and associated genetic resources isnow viewed as one of the major aims of conservation(Jones 1994), and its importance in the marine envi-ronment has been highlighted in the Global MarineBiological Diversity Strategy (Norse 1993). Thisphilosophy underpins Objectives 1-4 below.

OBJECTIVE 1. TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF RE-PRESENTATIVE SECTIONS OF THE MARINE EN-VIRONMENT IN ALL MAJOR BIOGEOGRAPHICREGIONS

On the southern African coast, there are four bio-geographic regions: one is restricted to Namibia, two

fall entirely within South Africa and a fourth extendsfrom South Africa into Mo.;ambique (Emanuel et at.1992). Representative MPAs must be established inthe core of each of the three South African biogeo-graphic regions, otherwise a substantial proportion ofthe country's marine bioversity will not be conserved.There is also a strong case for establishing MPAs atthe boundaries of biogeographic regions, becausethese tend to be areas of high species diversity andbecause they provide important sites for monitoringrange shifts in response to environmental changes(Hockey and Branch 1994).

OBJECTIVE 2. TO MAXIMIZE HABITAT DIVERSITY(AND THEREBY SPECIES AND COMMUNITYDIVERSITY) WITHIN PROTECTED AREAS

Different types of coastal habitats (e.g. estuaries,dunes, sandy beaches and rocky shores) support dif-ferent species, and these species assemblages can befurther modified by the degree of exposure of theshore to wave action (Emanuel et at. 1992, Dye et at.1994) and by the nature of the substratum (Davidson andChadderton 1994). Choosing an area that includes awide spectrum of habitats should maximize the numberof species and communities conserved while minimi-zing the area required to achieve this.

OBJECTIVE 3. TO ENSURE PROTECTION OFRARE, LOCALIZED OR ENDEMIC SPECIESTHROUGH ENSURING PROTECTION OF THEIRHABITATS

Species which are globally rare or have a verylimited range, or are found only in South Africa,need special consideration. High proportions ofsouthern Africa's marine flora and fauna are endemic,in spite of the fact that marine species are characterizedby large ranges (Hockey and Branch 1994). Forexample, 36% of polychaetes, 46% of amphipodsand 87% of isopods are endemic to southern Africa(Hockey and Buxton 1989). The level of endemismin shelf-inhabiting fish ranges from 45% on the WestCoast to 9% on the East Coast (Turpie et at. in prep.).If MPAs are well-sited on the basis of biogeography andhabitat diversity, conservation of rare and endemic

. species will often follow automatically.

OBJECTIVE 4. TO PROTECT AREAS ESSENTIALFOR THE COMPLETION OF VULNERABLE LTFE-HISTORY STAGES OF COASTAL SPECIES

Some species aggregate when breeding (e.g. turtlesand seabirds - Hughes 1974, Cooper et al. 1984), whenmigrating (e.g. waders - Hockey et at. 1992) or at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA :\'MPAs 373

"nursery" sites (e.g. juvenile fish in estuaries - Wallaceet at. 1984). Most of these aggregations are predict-able in time and space. This predictability makes thesespecies particularly vulnerable at a specific stage oftheir life, not only to exploitation, but also to humandisturbance and the effects of habitat alteration.

Fisheries management

In terms of fisheries management, the primaryfunction of MPAs is to provide refuges for exploitedspecies, with the aim of improving stocks outsideMPAs (Bennett and Attwood 1991, Quinn et al.1993). This might function through, inter alia, directreduction of fishing pressure, protection of spawningstocks or improving yields in adjacent areas throughactive or passive emigration. Objectives 5-8 belowrelate directly to fisheries management.

OBJECTIVE 5. TO PREVENT OVEREXPLOITATIONBY PROVIDING REFUGE AREAS FOR EXPLOITEDSEDENTARY SPECIES

Marine protected areas can reduce fishing effortand hence overall mortality, and they can guardagainst the loss of intraspecific genetic diversity.They are, however, only effective for species that arenot highly mobile (Hockey and Bosman 1986,Lasiak and Field 1995).

OBJECTIVE 6. TO PROTECT EXPLOITED SPECIESAT SITES WHERE THEY BECOME VULNERABLE

Some exploited species become predictably concen-trated at life-history stages and can then become"easy targets" (e.g. squid on their breeding grounds-Sauer et at. 1992). It is important to provide protec-tion in such areas.

OBJECTIVE 7. TO IMPROVE OR SUSTAIN YIELDSIN ADJACENT AREAS

There is extremely good evidence to show thatstocks recover in areas in which they are protected(Polunin and Roberts 1993). This is well documentedin the case of recreational angling fish (Buxton andSmale 1989). Emigration by active or passive meansmay then take place from protected areas to enhancecatches in adjacent areas (Bennett and Attwood1991).

OBJECTIVE 8. TO MAINTAIN SPAWNER BIOMASS

It is important that breeding stocks are maintained

at sufficiently high levels to supply recruits to fishinggrounds. Marine protected areas may serve this purpose.Furthermore, for species that reproduce by externalfertilization, adult density is probably the key factordetermining the success of fertilization (as in the caseof sea urchins and abalone - Quinn et al. 1993,Tegner et al. 1996). Even when such species are rela-tively common, they may be unable to reproduce iftheir densities are low. Dense populations in protectedareas have been shown to be vital sources of recruit-ment (Hockey and Branch 1994).

Utilization

Different forms of resource use may take place insideprotected areas, as long as they do not conflict withother objectives set for these areas. Such use may in-clude sustainable harvesting of particular species,provided this does not detrimentally affect either thetarget species or other components of the ecosystem.However, there are many non-consumptive forms ofuse, including education, research, nature watching,hiking, photography and diving, that can be fullycompatible with conservation objectives. Objectives9-14 below are all related to human use of MPAs.

OBJECTIVE 9. TO PROVIDE UNDISTURBEDLOCALITIES, POPULATIONS AND COMMUNITIESFOR RESEARCH

Vital information required for the management ofexploited species, such as natural mortality rates, canoften only be obtained from the study of populationsin undisturbed situations (Branch and Moreno 1994).Marine protected areas have also proved invaluablein demonstrating the magnitude and effects of humanactivities by providing controls against which impactselsewhere can be measured (e.g. Castilla and Duran1985).

OBJECTIVE 10. TO PROVIDE SITES IN WHICHMONITORING CAN BE CONDUCTED

One of the major problems in assessing the impactsof human actions is the inability to separate them fromnatural variations in populations and communities.Studies in undisturbed areas allow quantification ofnatural variations (Dye 1988). This is becoming ofincreasing importance because of large-scale humaneffects such as global warming, and because of moreshort-term natural phenomena, such as El Nino, whichcan cause major population fluctuations of great signi-ficance to fisheries management (Arntz et at. 1987).Detection of fluctuations in populations is most likely

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

374 South African Journal of Marine Science 18 1997

to be effective in marine protected areas that are placedat biogeographic boundaries (Hockey and Branch1994).

OBJECTIVE I I. TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATETHE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM IN SOUTHAFRICA

Tourism is the most rapidly growing sector ofSouth Africa's economy and ecotourism is one of thefastest-growing industries in the world. MarineProtected Areas draw large numbers of tourists, andwell managed areas, such as Tsitsikamma CoastalNational Park, Sodwana Bay National Park and CapeVidal more than pay for tourist-related and recrea-tional activities, and generate funds that subsidizeconservation actions. Tourism based largely on recrea-tional diving in Bonaire Marine Park in the Caribbeanyields considerable returns, and modelling economicreturns for this MPA shows that it is possible to gainprofits from MPAs while retaining their protectivefunction (Dixon et at. 1993). Specific designation ofparts of the coastline as MPAs heightens their attrac-tiveness to tourists, as has been documented follow-ing the establishment of MPAs in New Zealand andAustralia (Ballantine 1991).

OBJECTIVE 12. TO PROVIDE SITES FOR LOWIMPACT, NON-CONSUMPTIVE RECREATION

South Africa's coastline is coming under increasingpressure from recreation, much of which (e.g. the useof off-road vehicles) is not compatible with environ-mental conservation principles (Schulz and Stock1993, Ricard et at. 1994). At the same time there isincreasing demand for facilities to allow people tomake use of protected, natural havens for low-impactrecreation such as hiking and diving.

OBJECTIVE 13. TO PROVIDE SITES WHERE FIELD-BASED EDUCATION CAN BE UNDERTAKEN

Given South Africa's burgeoning human population,environmental education is becoming increasinglyimportant: this is best achieved by example in the fieldin undisturbed environments with a high diversity ofhabitats. The popularity of education centres, such asthose in De Hoop Nature Reserve and at TreasureBeach in KwaZulu-Natal, exemplifies this need.

OBJECTIVE 14. TO ALLOW EXPLOITATION OFSELECTED TAXA AT A SUSTAINABLE LEVEL

At least within marine reserves, it is possible to

allow people to harvest particular species, providedthis is monitored and controlled at a sustainable leveland does not have any indirect adverse effects onother species. Such exploitation could be recreation-al, subsistence or commercial. In the context of re-search, MPAs can also be used to allow experimentalharvesting to determine acceptable exploitation lev-els (as has been done for the mussel Perna perna onthe KwaZulu-Natal north coast adjacent to MapelaneNature Reserve - J. Harris, KwaZulu-Natal NatureConservation Services, pers. comm.).

CRITERIA USED TO MEASUREPERFORMANCE

Various criteria <ranbe used to evaluate the degreeto which different MPAs fulfil particular objectivesand, thereby, can be used to develop a rankingsystem for comparing MPAs. These have beengrouped below according to whether they are: (1)scientific and relating to protecti.on or fisheriesmanagement of an area or the species therein;(2) practical considerations that address how effec-tive an MPA may be or how easily it may be man-aged; or (3) criteria that relate to socio-economic orlegal considerations. It may be surprising to note thata measure of biological diversity has not beenincluded among the criteria for choosing betweentwo or more candidate MPAs. There are two reasonsfor this: first, species richness differs greatly betweenecosystems and biogeographic regions and cannotper se be used to afford a high ranking to a parti-cular system; second, the preservation of biodiversityis better served by ensuring protection of areas thatrepresent biogeographic regions and have a highhabitat diversity.

Scientific performance measures

I. IS THE SITE REGIONALLY REPRESENT-ATIVE?

It is important that all of the biogeographic regionsof the South African coast are represented in an MPAnetwork, preferably with at least one MPA sitedclose to the core of each biogeographic region. Theprimary purpose of such MPAs is to preserve repre-sentative biotas and therefore national marine bio-diversity. In addition to core MPAs, those sited at theedges of biogeographic regions can fulfil importantroles for monitoring and research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA's MPAs 375

2. IS THE BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGION CURRENTLYINADEQUATELY CONSERVED?

The purpose of an MPA network is to ensure thatMPAs complement, rather than duplicate, one anoth-er. Therefore, the question needs to be asked whethera proposed area fills a gap in the existing network ofprotected areas. Higher priority should be given toestablishing MPAs in biogeographic regions thathave few or no protected areas rather than increasingthe number of MPAs in already well-protected re-gions.

3. IS HABITAT DIVERSITY HIGH?

Within a given biogeographic region, the diversityof biological communities is related to the range ofhabitats present. Sandy beaches, rocky shores, estuaries,lagoons and dunes all support completely differentbiotic communities. Even within these habitat cate-gories, community composition varies with geologyand exposure to wave action. Therefore, an area in-corporating a range of habitats will support a higherdiversity of species than will a physically uniformlandscape.

4. DOES THE AREA INCLUDE VULNERABLEIFRAGILE HABITATS?

Some habitats are more vulnerable or fragile thanothers, because they are easily disturbed or do notrecover quickly after disturbance. Habitats that arestructured by their biota are particularly at risk, andexamples include saltmarshes, mangrove swamps,coral reefs and vegetated dunes. Inclusion of fragile/vulnerable habitats will obviously strengthen the casefor an MPA's proclamation.

5. ARE VULNERABLE SPECIES WELL REPRE-SENTED?

Species are particularly vulnerable if they are rareor range-restricted, and countries have an obligation toconserve species that do not occur elsewhere (endemicspecies). Whereas the creation of MPAs for the purposeof conserving single species is not advocated, if aproposed MPA houses species that fall into the abovecategories, this would strengthen the case for its pro-clamation.

6. WILL THE AREA PROTECT VULNERABLELIFE-HISTORY STAGES?

Many species become vulnerable to the effects of

exploitation or habitat loss if they aggregate to breedor feed. Examples include migrating birds that feedin wetlands, turtles returning to beaches to lay eggs,squid that aggregate to reproduce, whales that calvein sheltered bays and juvenile fish that use estuariesas nursery grounds. In many cases, these points ofaggregation are well known and protected areas thatinclude them should be given priority.

7. IS THE AREA NEAR-PRISTINE OR RESTOR-ABLE TO AN ACCEPTABLE NATURAL CON-DITION?

It is difficult to advocate the preservation of anarea unless it is in a pristine or near-pristine state orcan be restored to such a condition. In the past it hasbeen argued that an area should be near-pristine if itis to be considered for conservation. In reality, this isa poor justification, because it is equally easy toargue that disturbed but restorable areas have a high-er priority. The crux of this criterion is that, if an areahas been damaged to the point where it serves nouseful purpose for conservation and there is no hopeof restoring the area, it is futile attempting to con-serve it.

8. DOES IT HAVE NATURAL FEATURES OF INTER-NATIONAL INTEREST OR IMPORTANCE?

The justification for an MPA cannot be based solelyon the perception of it having one or more uniquefeatures. Too often in the past MPAs have been moti-vated on the grounds of "uniqueness". The opposingview is taken here, that representativeness is moreimportant than uniqueness, because it is always pos-sible to find some unique feature in any stretch ofcoastline (Dye et al. 1994). Nevertheless, it is recog-nized that there are some natural features that are ofexceptional international interest and deserve specialtreatment. However, it is believed that there are veryfew such features in South Africa that alone justifythe creation of an MPA.

9. DOES THE AREA SUPPORT EXPLOITEDSPECIES?

In terms of fisheries management, it is importantthat a proposed MPA house exploited species toprovide a buffer against overexploitation else-where. Some species can never be protected byan MPA because of their mobility, but for speciesthat are relatively sedentary, MPAs often providethe only effective means of controlling their exploita-tion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

376 South African Journal of Marine Science 18 1997

10. WILL THE AREA SUPPLY STOCKS TO ADJ-ACENT AREAS?

One reason for proclaiming an MPA is that popu-lation sizes of exploitable species may increase with-in the MPA to the point where emigration suppliesstocks to adjacent areas where they can be harvested.

Practical performance measures

11. IS THE AREA LARGE ENOUGH TO FULFILITS DESIGNATED OBJECTIVES?

The smaller an MPA, the more likely it is to beimpacted by events in adjacent areas. In general, thelarger an MPA, the more objectives it is likely to fulfil.More of the resources required by the biota will becontained within a large MPA and there will be lessmovement of biota across its boundaries. Ultimately,however, the minimum effective size of an MPA willbe determined by its objectives. For example, if stockrecruitment and export are primary objectives, anMPA which does not support an adequate spawnerbiomass will fail.

12. DOES THE AREA LIE ADJACENT TO A TERR-ESTRIAL CONSERVED AREA?

Current marine legislation does not extend inland ofthe high-water mark. The benefits of an MPA coveredby such legislation might therefore be nullified byactivities taking place on adjacent land. In purelypractical terms, management of a marine protectedarea will always be easier if the adjacent land is alsoprotected, particularly if both terrestrial and marinecomponents are administered by the same authority.

13. CAN THE AREA BE EFFECTIVELY MANAGEDAND ADEQUATELY POLICED?

If it is impossible to enforce the managementmeasures necessary to fulfil the objectives of anMPA, there is little point in establishing that MPA.The invasion in 1997 of Dwesa Nature Reserve inthe Eastern Cape by local people and .their illegalremoval of large quantities of intertidal shellfishprovide an unhappy testimonial to the importance ofthis criterion.

Socio-economic and legal performance measures

]4. IS THE AREA AESTHETICALLY APPEALING?

Aesthetics are an important tourist attraction in

addition to an area's biological richness. Indeed, land-scape aesthetics are probably the primary magnetand, therefore, whenever possible, should be an im-portant consideration in siting MPAs. This is particu-larly true if the promotion of tourism is an importantobjective of an MPA.

15. IS THE AREA ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE?

If human use is a primary objective of MPA estab-lishment, accessibility of the MPA to the target marketis vitally important. For example, an MPA that canbe accessed using existing infrastructure may bepreferable to one requiring the development of newinfrastructure.

16. WILL THE AREA SATISFY NEEDS FOR EDU-CATION, RECREATION, RESEARCH AND/ORTOURISM?

These criteria are largely self-explanatory and requireevaluation in terms of the diversity of functions thatan MPA is intended to fulfil. It should be bome inmind, however, that "education" does not alwaysmean the public at large or decisi6n-makers. If anMPA serves to educate just one user group, but doesso in a convincing way, the MPA has demonstrablevalue.

17. WILL THE AREA PRESERVE HISTORICAL,ARCHAEOLOGICAL, OR GEOLOGICAL FEA-TURES OR CULTURAL ACTIVITIES?

The greater the number of geological features orarchaeological or historical sites present in an area,the greater will be the value of protecting that area.In addition, protected areas may also preserve culturaland traditional activities, such as the fishing activitiesin Kosi Bay.

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OFCOMPARE

How effective are different types of MPA?

Drawing up a list of objectives is the first step indefining the roles of a Marine Protected Area. Thisstep has, surprisingly, been taken for very few of theMPAs in South Africa. The three functions of protec-tion, fisheries management and human utilization arefulfilled to varying degrees by different types of MPA.There is no reason why these functions need bemutually exclusive: indeed, the strongest case for anMPA is if it can satisfy the objectives of protection,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA's MPAs 377

Table I: ~ss~ssm~nt of the extent !o which marine sanctuarie~, ~arine reserves and fishery reserves are likely to satisfy theobjectives Identified for manne protected areas. A "++" Indicates that a particular type of marine protected area is veryeffective in satisfying a particular objective. A "+" indicates moderate success, and a "-" indicates little or no success.

The "score" is the sum of all plus and minus values in a column

Objective Marine Marine Fisheriessanctuaries reserves reserves

I. Biogeography ++ ++ -2. Habitat diversity ++ ++ -3. Rare/endemic spp. ++ ++ -4. Vulncrable stages (all spp.) ++ + -5. Reduced fishing mortality ++ + - +6. Vulnerable stages (exploited spp.) ++ ++7. Adjacent yield ++ ++ +8. Spawner biomass ++ ++ -9. Research - a) pristine communities ++ + +

b) pristine populations ++ + +10 Monitoring ++ + -II. Ecotourism ++ + -12. Low impact recreation ++ ++ +13. Education ++ + -14. Exploitation - ++ ++

Score 27 22 1

fisheries management and utilization simultaneously.However, any integration of objectives will result intradeoffs, and the outcome of any analysis of suchwill depend on the weight accorded to any particularcriterion.

Marine sanctuaries (affording total protection),marine reserves (protecting the majority of species,but allowing harvesting of selected species) and fish-ery reserves (protecting only one or a few species ofcommercial value) fulfil different objectives to dif-ferent extents. Table I roughly assesses the degree towhich each has the potential to fulfil the objectivesoutlined above. It shows that fishery reserves meetvery few of the objectives (because they target asmall suite of species). Furthermore, if money andmanpower are to be invested in protecting only oneor a few commercially important species in a givenarea, this cannot be a cost-effective way of achievingconservation in the broader sense. As marine sanctu-aries and reserves can also serve to protect commer-cially exploited species, they are far more cost-effec-tive. To maximize the efficiency of a nationalnetwork of MPAs, the roles of fishery reservesshould, wherever possible, be met within marinesanctuaries or marine reserves. The only advantageof marine reserves or fishery reserves over sanctuar-ies arises if one of the objectives is to permit ex-ploitation of non-protected species within the area.With this single exception, the overall conclusion isthat marine sanctuaries satisfy the greatest number ofobjectives and to the greatest degree, and that bothsanctuaries and marine reserves are much more ef-fective than fishery reserves.

This assessment is very rough and does not attemptto evaluate the fulfilment of objectives in terms ofpredetermined criteria. This is the central goal of thepresent study, i.e. to develop a methodology that willallow an objective evaluation of MPAs in terms ofspecified objectives and criteria, as outlined below.

What should COMPARE achieve?

There are three roles that an objective system ofevaluation should be able to accomplish:

(i) a comparative evaluation of the degree to whichexisting MPAs are fulfilling their objectives;

(ii) an objective comparison of the relative meritsof alternative areas being proposed as MPAs;and

(iii) an assessment of the effects of changing legisla-tion, or the management or size of an MPA.

How does COMPARE achieve this?

The basis of COMPARE is a table that matches the14 objectives identified above against the specificcriteria 1-17, to generate a series of scores assessingthe degree to which the objectives are being met byan existing MPA, or would be met by a new one.Before these .criteria are considered there are, however,the five general considerations (A-E above) thatneed to be addressed, especially when MPAs arebeing considered for proclamation. Having addressed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

378 South African Journal of Marine Science 18 1997

UTILIZATION FISHERIESMANAGEMENT PROTECTION

~ci.Q.

!:!:!..CI)"0 ~

~ ~ 2 ci.'0 ~ Q.en II: Ci CI) ww C III CI) >w !::: 0 >< t:: :§. <ll i=<!J ~ ~ 0 '0~

II: CI) CI) E CI) <ll 0<ll W0 •.... CI) <ll <ll Q.Z .E u ctl Ol Ol Ol CI) C JW <ll E :!2 ctl .£ ctl u 'w >- (l)•....

iii .c iii 'E Q; .c 00 en c U E 0 'm CI) Q.II: ...J 0 C IIIOl :c >- <ll :;:: <ll <ll > ctlW ~ .2 CI) c .c :0 :0 "0 '6 •....

~ Q. 'C 'c u Q; C "0 Ola. ~ .§ ::l .9 (ij ~ <ll ctl c I9 0~

'0 0 c: <ll U •.... <llU 'c <ll ~ U <ll ::l <ll •.•.... <llCi ::l ~ (5 ctl .£ "0 c: <ll :c Ol0 CI) ctl •..>< "0 0 u ::2 <ll Q. 'C ::l <ll~

ctl III 0W W -l W II: CI) « > II: II: J: iii«i ("j 6 CRITERION.-

a.Special natural features?9.Supports exploited spp.?

1a.Supplies adjacent areas?11.Large enough?12.Adjacent terrestrial reserve?13.Effective management?14.Aesthetically appealing?15.Accessible to people?16.Satisfies social needs?

17.Preserves historical sites?TOTALS for OBJECTIVES (A)PERCENTAGES (B)

136 88 21 27 OVERALL TOTALS (C)69 76 55 161 OVERALL PERCENTAGES (D)

Fig. 1: Matching objectives for MPAs against criteria (performance measures) relevant to their evaluation. In this example,the evaluation has been applied to the existing MPA within the Cape Point Nature Reserve, Western Cape, and the

scoring uses a scale of 0-2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA's MPAs 379

these, the next step is to focus on the objectives interms of the criteria.

Figure 1 cross-references objectives to appropriatecriteria: not all criteria are relevant to all objectives.Those which are irrelevant have been blanked out inthe table. The easiest way to illustrate the applicationof the technique is by way of example, and the exist-ing MPA within the Cape Point Nature Reserve hasbeen used as a test case. The degree to which eachobjective is being fulfilled is scored for each relevantcriterion using a ranking of 0 (ineffective), I (moder-ately effective), or 2 (highly effective). So, for example,in terms of Objective 1 (ensuring protection of repre-sentative sections of biogeographic regions), CapePoint scored 1 because the MPA lies at the edge ofone biogeographic region (the Namaqua Province) anddoes not extend to cover the adjacent warm temperateAgulhas Province. If the MPA was to be extended tocover the coast of the entire Nature Reserve, a scoreof 2 would be allocated.

Any scoring system is fraught with difficulties. Inthe example used here (Fig. I), equal weight wasassigned to all objectives to avoid attaching particularsignificance to some of them. The scoring system is,however, flexible and can be modified to be moresensitive or emphasize particular objectives if thereare biological or political reasons for doing so. Forexample, Odendaal et at. (1995), in evaluating potentialMPA sites in north-eastern Madagascar, gave a parti-cularly high weighting to ecotourism potential.

Once the COMPARE matrix has been completed andscores are assigned to all objectives for all relevantcriteria, it is possible to obtain a total score on theleft-hand side of the table for each criterion or at thebottom for each objective. Obviously, the maximumscore that can be reached for a given objective willdepend on the number of criteria used to assess it.For example, Figure I shows that Objective I isevaluated on five criteria for a maximum score of 10,whereas Objective 9 has 13 criteria for a maximumof 26. For this reason, the totals obtained in Row "A"need to be expressed as percentages of the maximumpossible score (Row "B"). For similar reasons, thetotals for each criterion (Column "E") need to beconverted to percentages (Column "F"). For a quickoverview of the degree to which the three overarch-ing objectives of protection, fisheries managementand utilization are being met, totals and percentagescan be obtained for these groups of objectives (Rows"c" and "D"). Therefore, in the present example ofCape Point, the MPA scores an overall 61 % for pro-tection of marine biota, 55% for its role in fisheriesmanagement and 76% for its provision for humanutilization, with an overall aggregate of 69% (Figs.1,2a).

All areas fulfil different objectives to differentdegrees. Nevertheless, the application of the system ofscoring in COMPARE not only forces one to considerall the possible objectives that an area might fulfil, butalso identifies which are fulfilled to the greatest extent;and it may highlight benefits not even contemplatedin the original motivation for an area. The processthereby reduces the bias so often present in motiva-tions by proponents of a particular area, who, oftenunconsciously, concentrate only on a limited suite ofpositive features of the area they are championing.

To test drive the ability of COMPARE, it was firstemployed to ask the question how the rating of CapePoint would change if the MPA was extended tocover both West and East coasts and offshore for onenautical mile. For the expanded MPA, percentagevalues for protection, fisheries management and uti-lization increased to 91, 76 and 89% respectively(Fig. 2b). COMPARE was then used to assess RocherPan, an existing MPA considered to be of little valuefor the protection of marine life because it contains avery low habitat diversity and, hence, a low diversityof community types (Emanuel et at. 1992). This areayielded respective scores of 25,8 and 31% (Fig. 2c).Finally, the technique was applied to Somchem, anarea in False Bay that has been proposed as an MPAand which has been protected until now: people havebeen excluded from the area because it lies in thevicinity of an explosives factory. Somchem had re-spective values of 45, 66 and 41 % (Fig. 2d). Theseresults implied that the technique yields realistic rela-tive ratings: "expanding" the Cape Point MPA didimprove its ratings and Rocher Pan was accordedlow ratings. There was no prior knowledge of howSomchem should score, but the initial guess was thatit should produce intermediate scores - which it did.

To test whether COMPARE yields consistent resultswhen used by different people, 10 independent peoplewere asked to apply it to Cape Point (existing and"expanded" MPAs) and to Rocher Pan. The resultsare summarized in Figures 2(a-c) and demonstratethat there was considerable uniformity in rating.

Who should use COMPARE?

Two different groups of people should be involvedin the process of assessing MPAs, and for differentpurposes. The first group comprises members of thepublic who wish to recommend that an area be con-sidered for proclamation as an MPA. At present, noguidelines exist to inform people of how a potentialMPA will be assessed. COMPARE can be used toinform the public of both the system and the criteriaused in taking decisions about proposed MPAs. It will

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

South African Journal of Marine Science 18380

Utilization

Fisheries

Protection

Utilization

Fisheries

Protection

Utilization

Fisheries

Protection

Utilization

Fisheries

Protection

a) CAPE POINT (existing MPA)

I

b) CAPE POINT (expanded MPA)

c) ROCHER PAN (existing MPA)

d) SOMCHEM (proposed MPA)

I

I

1997

CV

5.0

6.0

3.4

2.7

6.5

3.1

7.1

30.9

12.0

20 40 60SCORE (%)

80

D Mean + SO and CV for10 independent evaluations

~ Authors' mean evaluations

Fig. 2: (a) Evaluations obtained for the existing MPA at Cape Point when COMPARE was applied in consultation with twofisheries scientists (our mean evaluations) and an analysis of the variance in scores obtained for the same MPA by10 independent evaluators using the same technique. Results are shown as mean + SO. and the coefficient of vari-ation (CV, expressed as a percentage). (b,c) As 2a, for an expanded MPA at Cape Point and the existing MPA at

Rocher Pan. (d) Mean evaluation of the proposed Somchem MPA in False Bay

also stipulate the information that will be requiredbefore an application can be considered. This processwill assist enormously in gathering the necessarydata on which decisions have to be made. It will alsoserve as a means of education and consultation.

Once applications have been received, a secondgroup of people will become involved, namely theauthorities who have to take decisions about the

proclamation or deproclamation of MPAs. To providethese people with objective assessments, a standingtask group of experts should employ COMPARE toderive comparative rankings for the MPAs in question.This same group could use COMPARE to evaluatethe success of existing MPAs or to determine thegains or losses arising from changes to existing MPAs.It should be stressed that such evaluations should not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA's MPAs 381

be undertaken by a single person, because a certaindegree of subjectivity is inevitable in assigning rankings.The concordance between different users of the systemin this study was, however, promising.

What are the benefits of COMPARE?

In the past, many MPAs in South Africa have beencreated because of ad hoc local pressure. Even thoseMPAs such as Tsitsikamma Coastal National Park,which have been motivated on rational grounds,were never compared with alternatives in a systematicmanner. Recently, there have been attempts to usecomplementarity analyses for MPA selection. Mostof these have targeted terrestrial systems, and arebased on presence/absence data. The analysis ofestuarine waterbirds in South Africa by Turpie(1995) is one of the few studies that has incorporatedabundance data into a complementarity analysis ofrelevance to marine conservation. Although objectiveand quantitative, complementarity analysis focusesonly on a select suite of biological attributes. In com-plex decision-making, and especially where choicesmay lead to conflict or controversy, the underlyingreasoning is important, not only in defending currentdecisions, but also in ensuring that future decisionscan be made in a consistent way. COMPARE incor-porates biological, management and social objectivesand has several other advantages which improve therigour of MPA assessment:

(i) Evaluators are compelled to consider all possibleobjectives, therefore eliminating bias.

(ii) Sufficient data must be available to allow a de-fensible evaluation.

(iii) The method generates a semi-quantitative sum-mary of the pros and cons of a particular areaand thereby pinpoints the reasons for a decision.

(iv) Analysis of the objectives will identify key issuesthat need resolution if an MPA is to be created,e.g. land disputes or fishing rights.

(v) The development of Management Plans (of whichvery few exist for current MPAs - Robinsonand de Graaff 1994) will be guided by the list ofobjectives. COMPARE highlights those objec-tives which a particular MPA is most suited tosatisfying.

CONCLUSIONS

In an African context, South Africa is well endowedwith MPAs. Despite this, many lack management

plans or clear objectives and there is no system inplace for· the objective evaluation of either existingor proposed MPAs. The methodology proposed here(COMPARE) allows an objective and semi-quanti-tative means of MPA evaluation and comparison, basedon the matching of objectives against relevant criteria.It also results in defensible decisions because itforces evaluators to define clearly the reasons forthose decisions. It also compels and guides the for-mulation of management plans. COMPARE repre-sents a considerable advance over the status quo andits products could be used in a decision-making expertsystem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by funding to both au-thors from the Foundation for Research Develop-ment, SANCOR and the University of Cape TownResearch Committee. The study emerged from aSANCOR task group charged with an examination ofMPAs and their efficacy in South Africa. We gratefullyacknowledge considerable input from Dr L. Hutch-ings as Chairman and Mr C. G. Attwood (both of theSea Fisheries Research Institute) as the driving forceof the task group. Drs M. T. Agardy (World WildlifeFund, U.S.A.) and T. Sandwith (KwaZulu-NatalNature Conservation Services) made helpful com-ments on an earlier draft.

LITERATURE CITED

AGARDY. M. T. 1994a - Closed areas: a Lool La complementother forms of fisheries management. In Limiting Access ofMarine Fisheries: Keeping the Focus on Conservation.Gimbel, K. (Ed). Washington D.C.; Centre for MarineConservation and World Wildlife Fund: 197-204.

AGARDY, M. 1. J994b - Advances in marine conservation: therole of marine protected areas. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:267-270.

ARNTZ, W. E., BREY, 1., TARAZONA, J. and A. ROBLES 1987- Changes in the structure of a shallow sandy-beach com-munity in Peru during an EI Nino event. In The Benguelaand Comparable Ecosystems. Payne, A. 1. L., Gulland, J.A. and K. H. Brink (Eds). S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 5: 645-658.

BALLANTINE, W. J. 1991- Marine reserves for New Zealand.Bull. Leigh Lab. Univ. Auckland. 25: 1-196.

BENNETT, B. A. and C. G. ATTWOOD 1991 - Evidence forrecovery of a surf-zone fish assemblage following the es-tablishment of a marine reserve on the southern coast ofSouth Africa. Mar. Eco/. Prog. Ser. 75(2&3): 173-181.

BOEHLERT, G. W. 1996 - Biodiversity and the sustainability ofmarine fisheries. Oceanography 9(1): 28-35.

BRANCH, G. M., BAIRD, D., COCHRANE, K., MOOLA, Z.,ZULU, P., BUTTERWORTH, D., SOWMAN, M. and P.WICKENS 1996 - Review of access rights options for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

382 South African Journal of Marine Science 18 1997

South Africa. Final Report of the Access Rights technicalCommittee to the Fisheries Policy Development WorkingCommittee, Cape Town; FPDC: 70 pp.

BRANCH, G. M. and C. A. MORENO 1994 - Intertidal and sub-tidal grazers. In Rocky Shores: Exploitation in Chile andSouth Africa. Siegfried, W. R. (Ed.). Berlin; Springer:75-100.

BUXTON, C. D. and M. J. SMALE 1989 - Abundance and distri-bution patterns of three temperate marine reef fish (Teleo-stei: Sparidae) in exploited and unexploited areas off theSouthern Cape coast. J. appl. £Col. 26: 441-451.

CASTILLA, J. C. and L. R. DURAN 1985 - Human exclusionfrom the rocky intertidal zone of central Chile: the effect~on Concholepas concholepas (Gastropoda). Oikos 45:39]-399.

CLARK, C. w. 1996 - Marine reserves and the precautionarymanagement of fisheries. Eco/. Applic. 6(2): 369-370.

COOPER, J., WILLIAMS, A. J. and P. L. BRITTON 1984 -Distribution, population sizes and conservation of breedingseabirds in the Afrolropical region. In Status and Conser-vation of the Worlds Seabirds, Croxall. J. P., Evans, P. G.H. and R. W. Schreiber (Eds). Tech. Publ. I.CB.? 2:403-419.

DAVIDSON, R. J. and W. L. CHADDERTON 1994 - Marine re-serve site selection along the Abel Tasman National Parkcoast, New Zealand: consideration of subtidal rocky com-munities. Aquat. Conserv. 4: 153-167.

DE FONTAUBERT, A. C., DOWNES, D. R. and T. S. AGARDY1996 - Biodiversity in the Seas: Implementing the Con-vention on Biological Diversity in Marine and CoastalHabitats. Gland, Switzerland; World Conservation Union(IUCN): vii + 82 pp.

DIXON, J. A., SCURA, L. F., and T. VAN'T HOF 1993 -Meeting ecological and economic goals: marine parks inthe Caribbean. Ambio 22(2&3): 117-125.

DYE, A. H. 1988 - Rocky shore surveillance on the Transkeicoast, southern Africa: temporal and spatial variability inthe balanoid zone at Dwesa. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci.7: 87-99.

DYE, A. H., BRANCH, G. M., CASTILLA, J. C. and B. A. BEN-NETT 1994 - Biological options for the management ofthe exploitation of intertidal and subtidal resources. InRocky Shores: Exploitation in Chile and South Africa.Siegfried, W. R. (Ed). Berlin; Springer: 131-154.

EICHBAUM, W. M., CROSBY, M. P., AGARDY, M. T. and S. A.LASKIN 1996 - The role of marine and coastal protectedareas in the conservation and sustainable use of biologica]diversity. Oceanography 9(1): 60-70.

EMANUEL, B. P., BUSTAMANTE, R. H., BRANCH, G. M.,EEKHOUT, S. and F. 1. ODENDAAL 1992 - A zoogeo-graphic and functional approach to the selection of marinereserves on the west coast of South Africa. In BengLlelaTrophic Functioning. Payne, A. 1. L., Brink, K. H., Mann,K. H. and R. Hilborn (Eds). S. Afr. 1. mar. Sci. 12: 341-354.

GRIFFIS, R. B. and K. W. KIMBALL 1996 - Ecosystem ap-proaches to coastal and ocean stewardship. Eco/. Applic.6(3): 708-7 I2.

HOCKEY, P. A. R. and A. L. BOSMAN 1986 - Man as an inter-tidal predator in Transkei: disturbance, community conver-gence and management of a natural food resource. Oikos46(1): 3-14.

HOCKEY, P. A. R. and G. M. BRANCH 1994 - Conservingmarine biodiversity on the African coast: implications of aterrestrial perspective. Aquat. Conserv. 4: 345-362.

HOCKEY, P. A. R. and C. D. BUXTON 1989 - Conserving bioticdiversity on southern Africa's coastline. In Biotic Diversityin Southern Africa: Concepts and Conservation. Huntley,B. J. (Ed.). Cape Town; Oxford University Press: 289-309.

HOCKEY, P. A. R., BOSMAN, A. L. and W. R. SIEGFRIED 1988- Patterns and correlates of shellfish exploitation by coastal

people in Transkei: an enigma of protein production. J.app/. Eco/. 25: 353-363.

HOCKEY, P. A. R., NAVARRO, R. A., KALEJTA, B., and C. R.VELASQUEZ 1992 - The riddle of the sands: why areshorebird densities so high in southern estuaries? Am.Naturalist 140: 961-979.

HUGHES, G. R. 1974 - The sea turtles of south-east Africa. I.Status, morphology and distributions. Investl Rep.oceanogr. Res. Inst. S. Afr. 35: 144 pp.

IUCN 1992 - Caracas action plan. In Plenary Session and Sym-posium Papers of the IVth World Congress on NationalParks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela. Gland,Switzerland; World Conservation Union (IUCN): 301-310.

IVANOVICI, A. H. (Ed) 1984 - Inventory of Declared Marineand Estuarine Protected Areas in Australian Waters 2.Spec. Publ. Aust. natl Parks Wild/. Servo 12: 424 pp.

JONES, P. J. S. 1994 - A review and analysis of the objectives ofmarine nature reserves. Ocean cstl Mgmt 24: 149-178.

KELLEHER, G. and R. KENCHINGTON 1990 - Political andsocial dynamics for establishing marine protected areas.Nat. Resour. 26(2): 31-38.

KELLEHER, G. and R. KENCHINGTON 1991 - GuidelinesforEstablishing Marine Protected Areas: a Marine Conserva-tion and Development Report. Gland, Switzerland; WorldConservation Union (IVCN): 79 pp.

LAS]AK, T. A. and J. G. FIELD 1995 - Community-level at-tributes of exploited and non-exploited rocky infratidalmacrofauna] assemblages in Transkei. J. expl mar. Bioi.Eco/. 185: 33-53.

MARGULES, C. [R.] and M. B. USHER 1981 - Criteria used inassessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Bioi.Conserv. 21: 79-109.

MORTON, B. 1996 - Protecting Hong Kong's marine biodiversi-ty: present proposals, future challenges. Environ. Conserv.23(1): 55-65.

NOAA 1995 - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary DraftManagement Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 1.Management Plan. Washington, D.C.; National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration/U.S. Department ofCommerce: ii + 323 pp.

NORSE, E. A. (Ed) 1993 - Global Marine Biological Diversity:a Strategy for Building Conservation into Decision Making.Washington, D.C; Island Press: 383 pp.

ODENDAAL, F. J., KROESE, M. and JAOMANANA 1995 -The Strategic Plan for the Management of the CoastalZone of the Masoala Peninsula, Madagascar. MadagascarWorking Paper No.4. Cape Town; Eco-Africa Consultants:214 pp.

POLUNIN, N. V. C. and C. M. ROBERTS 1993 - Greaterbiomass and value of target coral-reef fishes in two smallCaribbean marine reserves. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 100:167-176.

PRESSEY, R. L., HUMPHRIES, C. J., MARGULES, C. R.,VANE-WRIGHT, R. 1. and P. H. WILLIAMS 1993 -Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserveselection. Trends Eco/. Eva/. 8(4): 124-128.

QUINN, J. F., WING, S. R. and L. W. BOTSFORD 1993 -Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate fisheries: models andapplications to the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus fran-siscanus. Am. Zool. 33: 537 -550.

RABE, F. W. and N. L. SAVAGE 1979 - A methodology for theselection of aquatic natural areas. Bio/. Conserv. 15:291-300.

RICARD, C. A., McLACHLAN, A. and G. 1. H. KERLEY 1994- The effect of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on dunevegetation in South Africa. Ocean cstl Mgmt. 23: 225-247.

ROBINSON, G. A. and G. DE GRAAFF 1994 - MarineProtected Areas of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria;National Parks Board: xxx + 202 pp.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

1997 Hockey & Branch: Criteria, Objectives and Methodology to Evaluate SA s MPAs 383

SALM, R. and A. PRICE 1995 - Selection of marine protectedareas. In Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techni-quesfor Management. Gubbay, S. (Ed.). London; Chapman& Hall: 15-31.

SAUER, W. H. H., SMALE, M. J. and M. R. LIPIN SKI 1992-The location of spawning grounds, spawning and schoolingbehaviour of the squid Loligo vulgaris reynaudii (Cephalo-poda: Myopsida) off the Eastern Cape coast, South Africa.Mar. Bioi. 114(1): 97-107.

SCHULZ, R. and M. STOCK 1993 - Kentish plovers andtourists: competitors on sandy coasts? In Disturbance toWaterfowl on Estuaries. Davidson, N. and P. Rothwell(Eds). Bull. Wader Study Gp 68. Spec. Iss.: 83-91.

TEGNER, M. J., BASCH, L. V. and P. K. DAYTON 1996 - Nearextinction of an exploited marine invertebrate. Trends Ecol.Evol. 11(7): 278-280.

TISDELL, C. and 1. M. BROADUS 1989 - Policy issues relatedto the establishment and management of marine reserves.Coast. Mgmt17: 37-53.

TURPIE, J. K. 1995 - Prioritizing South African estuaries for

conservation: a practical example using waterbirds. BioI.Consem 74: 175-185.

TURPIE, J. K., BECKLEY, L. E. and S. M. KATUA (in prepara-tion) - Biogeography of South African coastal ichthyofau-na and the selection of priority areas for conservation.

USHER, M. B. 1986 - Wildlife conservation evaluation: attribu-tes, criteria and values. In Wildlife Com'ervation Evaluation.Usher, M. B. (Ed.). London; Chapman & Hall: 3-44.

VAN DER ELST, R., BRANCH, [G.] M., BUTTERWORTH, D.,WICKENS, P. and K. COCHRANE (1997) - How canfisheries resources be allocated ... who owns the fish? InDeveloping and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources: TheState of Science and Management. Proceedings of theSecond World fisheries Congress, Brisbane,J996.Hancock, D. A., Smith, D. c., Grant, A. and J. P. Beumer(Eds). Collingwood, Australia; CSIRO: 307-314.

WALLACE, J. H., KOK, H. M., BECKLEY, L. E., BENNETT, B.[A.], BLABER, S. J. M. and A. K. WHITFIELD 1984-South African estuaries and their importance to fishes. S.Afr. J. Sci. 80(5): 203-207.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

06:

55 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014