Co-management and entrepreneurship

Transcription

1 Co-management and entrepreneurship An analysis of the relation between co-management and the opportunities for commercial entities to invest in biodiversity conservation in Belize s marine protected areas Jan Joris Midavaine MSc Thesis May 2014 Wageningen University, Wageningen 1

2 Wageningen University Department of Social Sciences Master Thesis Rural Development Sociology Co-management and entrepreneurship An analysis of the relation between co-management and the opportunities for commercial entities to invest in biodiversity conservation in Belize s marine protected areas May, 2014 Master Development and Rural Innovation Jan Joris Midavaine RDS Dr. Dik Roth Rural Development Sociology Group (RDS) Dr. Simon Bush Environmental Policy Group (ENP) 2

3 It was something that just came and happened, not knowing we set an example and were creating a model. People from all over the Caribbean came to visit us and see how we did it. I come from the background of a fisherman and with my knowledge on conservation as a fisherman I could get other fishermen to understand the concept. The approach I took was educational, questioning what and why we wanted to achieve conservation. We were the first declaring reserves from the perspective of fishermen and by consultation of communities (personal communication). 3

4 Summary Marine environments are threatened and in need of attention to safeguard biodiversity, tourism, fish stocks and the livelihoods of approximately 500 million people worldwide. While complementary to each other, government as well as private sector initiatives to conserve marine environments encounter challenges. Commercial entities set up entrepreneurial marine protected areas (EMPAs) to support biodiversity conservation, but appear not to be able to institutionalise their efforts without state intervention. Co-management might expand the potential benefits of the EMPA approach, but examples are lacking. This study aims to build on EMPA literature, by responding to the lack of knowledge using the concepts co-management and entrepreneurship to analyse the correlation between co-management and the EMPA approach. The historical development of an EMPA that developed into a small MPA network comprising three co-managed MPAs in Southern Belize is used to provide the structure to discuss a collection of specific cases related to the variation in commercial entity opportunities within MPAs co-managed by Southern Environmental Association (SEA) and other MPAs throughout Belize. Co-management responsibility and the authority to enforce government regulations helped the EMPA to institutionalize its management. However, commercial entities appear to be restricted to become comanagers, due to high costs, the demand to incorporate all stakeholders interests requiring many meetings, issues of legitimacy towards competitors and the risk of evoking changes in the relationship with the local community. In case EMPAs are offered co-management responsibility a third actor, namely a NGO, is therefore likely to be establishment. Though, co-management of MPAs creates an environment conducive to the development of EMPAs. It can offer the opportunity for commercial entities to create an EMPA via the authority of the co-managing agency to enforce regulations. Besides, enforcement of no-take-zones within MPAs by rangers of a co-managing agency can provide a suitable investment environment. And, having an EMPA within a co-managed MPA can strengthen enforcement capacity. It appears delegated co-management offers the most ideal environment for establishing partnerships between NGOs and the private sector. However, since delegated co-managers reinvest fees illegally MPAs appear not to create a revenue stream for the government, seemingly leading to the belief MPAs are locked away from national development and for conservation only. Collaborative comanagement agencies are refrained from enforcement authority and responsibility over collection of fees, but create a much less attractive environment for investments in biodiversity conservation by commercial entities. Besides, they appear to remain small, struggle to keep communities involved and are demanded to renegotiate their position constantly. Concluding, the existence of a co-managing agency enables to build and improve partnerships between commercial entities, NGOs and the state, ensuring benefits for all stakeholders. It allows the private sector to support management in any creative way, however does not create an environment enabling individual resource users to have exclusive rights, which in turn appears to ensure a well maintained balance between realizing conservation goals and providing an environmental friendly tourism attraction, thus benefitting the local community. Last but not least co-management offers a platform for communities to negotiate and decide on resource use, increasing local stewardship and supporting eco-tourism principles. 4

5 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Problem statement Objective Belize Country information The variety of MPA management arrangements Historical development of co-management The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project Overview of MPA management in Belize Research methods Research approach Case selection Placencia Data collection Outline of the thesis Theoretical framework Entrepreneurial marine protected areas Definitions of (entrepreneurial) marine protected areas Characteristics and claims of entrepreneurial marine protected areas Co-management Definitions of co-management Co-management as a web of relationships Entrepreneurship Definitions of entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship and institutional change Framework of analysis Co-management with the Forest Department Laughing Bird Caye National Park Profitable partnerships SEA and Fragments of Hope BAS and Island Expeditions Conclusion Delegated co-management with the FiD

6 4.1 Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve Configuration of rules Whale shark working group Exclusion of bareboat charters Seaweed Project Conclusion Collaborative co-management with the FiD Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve The Southern Environmental Alliance Kickback from the community The organization of a group: Caye Caulker Marine reserve Conclusion Discussion Entrepreneurial Marine Protected Areas The EMPA approach and co-management Co-management and the creation of EMPAs The entrepreneur behind the EMPA Co-management The variety in co-management New co-management agreement Participation by consultation Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial opportunities Eco-tourism Conclusions From EMPA to co-managed MPA network EMPA co-management and EMPAs within co-managed MPAs Co-management type in relation to commercial entity opportunities Further research Acknowledgements References Annex I List of interviewees Annex II SSI checklist Annex III Thesis concept note

7 List of tables, figures and boxes Table 1: Overview of the MPAs of Belize, developed by Midavaine, 2014 Figure (cover): South Silk Caye. Figure 1: Map of Central America. Figure 2: Map of Belize. Figure 3: MPAs of Belize 2014 (modified from: spatial data solutions, 2011). Figure 4: A typology of co-management (Sen and Nielson, 1996). Figure 5: Three degrees and labels of co-management (Pomeroy et al., 2004). Figure 6: Co-management as an on-going iterative process (Carlson and Berkes, 2004). Figure 7 and 8: Photo impression Laughing Bird Caye. Figure 9 and 10: One of the coral nurseries of Whipray Caye. The first picture shows Staghorn fragments that are inserted into the coils of a rope, the second fragments of Elkhorn tied on cement cookies that are attached to the table. Figure 11: Photo impression GSSCMR (Silk Cayes). Figure 12: Whale shark. Figure 13: Placencia beach cleanup. Figure 14: Tour operator providing logistic support workshop. Figure 15 and 16: Bareboat charter in Placencia and crossing a marine reserve. Figure 17: Punta Gorda town. Figure 18: Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve. Figures 19-22: Photo impression Caye Caulker. Box 1: You betta Belize it! Box 2: History of tourism. Box 3: Tourism versus fishing. Box 4: The essence of having co-management Box 5: Starting a business as a foreigner. Box 6: A successful multi-sector partnership. Box 7: The Belizean flex worker. 7

8 List of acronyms APAMO Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations BAS Belize Audubon Society BTB Belize Tourism Board BTIA Belize Tourism Industry Association CBO Community-Based Organisation CEO Chief Executive Officer CORAL The Coral Reef Alliance ED Executive Director EMPA Entrepreneurial Marine Protected Area FAMRACC Forest and Marine reserve Association of Caye Caulker FiD Fisheries Department FoN Friends of Nature FoD Forest Department GoB Government of Belize GRMR Glover s Reef Marine Reserve GSSC Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes GSSCMR Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine reserve ITCF International Tropical Conservation Foundation LBC Laughing Bird Caye LBCNP Laughing Bird Caye National Park MPAACs Marine Protected Areas Advisory Committees MPA Marine Protected Area MPAS Marine Protected Areas System MR Marine Reserve NGO Non-Governmental Organization NP National Park NPASP National Protected Areas System Plan NPSA National Parks System Act, 1981 (revised 2000) PA Protected Area PACT Protected Areas Conservation Trust PfB Programme for Belize PTBO Placencia Tourism Business Organisation PTGA Placencia Tour Guide Association SEA Southern Environmental Association SCMR Sapodilla Cayes Marine reserve SSB Sea Sports Belize SSI Semi Structured Interview TASTE Toledo Association for Sustainable Tourism and Empowerment TIDE Toledo Institute for Development and Environment TNC The Nature Conservancy UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature 8

9 1 Introduction In the first chapter of this thesis the problem statement is formulated followed by the research objective and research questions. Section 1.3 introduces Belize as the case study country, and its marine protected areas. Via this way an overview of the variety of MPAs and the existence of different co-management arrangements is created. Thereafter, in section 1.4, the research methods are explained and a description is provided of the main characteristics of the main case study site Placencia. Lastly, section 1.6 provides an outline of the thesis and short description of the proceeding chapters. 1.1 Problem statement Marine biodiversity is apart from transport and fishing an important service of the sea. Yet, marine environments, in particular highly valued coral reefs, are threatened, as a result of, but not limited to climate change and natural disasters, overfishing, coastal developments resulting in increased sedimentation and eutrophication, agricultural run-off from pesticides and fertilizers and negative effects of tourism (Bell et al., 2006; Cho, 2005). Although coral reefs make up about one-tenth of one percent of the earth s surface and cover only 1.2 percent of the world s continental shelves, they provide habitat for roughly a quarter of the known marine species and support an estimated 500 million people worldwide in terms of food, coastal protection and livelihoods. Deterioration of coral reefs is on-going and will, if no measures are taken lead to a loss of a vital component of the global economy in the coming decades (Watson and Howell, 2013). An important policy tool to maintain and protect marine biodiversity is conservation through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Based on terrestrial experience governments initiated the designation of MPAs as a public response to address the environmental problems. Like their terrestrial counterparts they are perceived and recommended as a correct management tool for conserving biodiversity in the world s oceans and seas. MPAs are seen as the vehicles for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine resources and biodiversity (Ban et al., 2011; Agardy, et al., 2003). The number of MPAs underwent an exponential growth from 118 in 1970 to an estimated 4600 in 2005 and nearly 6000 in 2010, covering 1.17% of the ocean and 2.86% of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (Fox et al., 2012). MPAs are rapidly transforming the international seascape, changing both ideas and practices regarding management of the marine commons. Its applications vary from fishery management, biodiversity conservation, habitat restoration and tourism development, resulting in a wide range of different MPAs, from small closed areas designated to protect a specific resource or habitat type, to extensive multiple-use areas that integrate the management of many species, habitats and uses in a single, comprehensive plan (Christie and White, 2007). Besides, MPAs serve important roles in public education and outreach on the social, economic and ecological benefits of marine resource protection and in the actual safeguarding of certain economic, social and cultural aspects of human societies (Agardy, et al., 2003). However, despite the good intentions, many of these MPAs do not appear to meet the desired outcomes, due to problems ranging from a lack of long-term vision for funding and management to difficulties with enforcement of new established rules and regulation (Bottema and Bush, 2012; Cabral and Aliño, 2011; Thur, 2010; Groot and Bush, 2010; Teh, Teh and Chung, 2008; Clifton, 2003; Riedmiller, 2000; Colwell, 1999). As a consequence around 70% of the government initiated MPAs 9

10 resulted in so called paper parks, with very little or no on-the-ground impact (Thur, 2010; Groot and Bush, 2010; Teh, Teh and Chung, 2008; Riedmiller, 2000; Colwell, 1999). Besides government intervention there is a growing interest from and increasing number of private actors exploring opportunities to invest in marine biodiversity conservation to help protect coral reefs from degradation (Bottema and Bush, 2012; Adams and Hutton, 2007; Riedmiller, 2000; Colwell, 1999). These initiatives, mostly referred to as Entrepreneurial Marine Protected Areas (EMPAs), show that the private sector is able to increase awareness of conservation and provide new income alternatives and financial capacity to support marine conservation activities. In addition, EMPAs develop fast and due to the on-going degradation of coral reefs might be more beneficial than implementing, or perhaps failing to implement, more optimal, but time consuming MPA management schemes in the future. Furthermore, they can act as a test case for MPA management techniques, and function as a foundation to build larger, slower developing (state-led) MPAs (Ban et al., 2011; de Groot and Bush, 2010; Colwell, 1999). According to Colwell, who provided the definition of Entrepreneurial Marine Protected Areas, the ultimate goal of creating EMPAs as an approach to marine biodiversity conservation, is an expanded network of small, locally run MPAs that use tourism or other commercial support to achieve long-term economic and environmental sustainability (Colwell, 1998a). Colwell developed the concept of EMPAs in order to differentiate small-scale, commercially supported MPAs from those established by the government, community or NGOs. He defines an EMPA by being a small-scale MPA where commercial entities facilitate self-financing conservation planning and management (Colwell, 1999). His message is that the owners and staff of dive resorts or similar commercial entities can under certain circumstances act as the primary stewards of coral reef resources and with being managers of small-scale EMPAs might provide better protection compared to larger and slower developing MPAs (Colwell, 1998a). Other benefits include: attracting tourism with the ability to provide a source of income and foreign exchange, increased local stewardship over the MPA and using existing commercial infrastructure allowing for fast development, and making it relatively easy to institute management regimes (Colwell, 1998b). Examples of EMPAs being perceived as success stories are, among others: Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd., Wakatobi Dive Resort and Resort El Nido. These cases proved to be promising in relation to solving issues like insufficient finances and resource capacity. However, what an EMPA often lacks is the legal authority to enforce regulations which makes it a kind of antithesis of a failing state-led MPA. This is problematic since authority and legitimacy is needed to be able to institutionalise conservation necessary for long-term functioning of MPAs (Horigue et al., 2012; Colwell, 1999). For EMPAs to be sustainable and to overcome issues ranging from changes in entrepreneurs and political figures to termination of donor assisted projects, state intervention therefore seems to be a requisite (Bottema and Bush, 2012; Horigue et al., 2012). State-led as well as entrepreneurial MPAs thus demonstrate challenges which makes the majority of EMPA and MPA scholars opt for flexible and creative approaches in which MPAs as well as EMPAs can play a role and evolve into some form of hybrid MPA with roles and responsibilities for private actors, non-governmental-organisations (NGOs) and governments (Colwell, 1999; Horigue et al., 2012). One possible model that allows such arrangements and might expand the potential benefits of the EMPA approach is co-management (Colwell, 1998a). Co-management theoretically supports the balancing of the wide range of interests in management of MPAs, including the legal responsibilities of government departments and agencies for planning and protection of sites, the interests of local communities and the private sector, and of NGOs concerned with conservation. Clifton (2003) claims 10

11 that greater co-management in state-led MPAs can prevent and solve issues related to finance and enforcement by making active participation possible for local stakeholder groups that depend upon marine resources. De Groot and Bush (2010) opt for meta-governance arrangements that could provide the necessary control and oversight to steer the development and management of EMPAs, and Bottema and Bush (2012) state that co-management arrangements can help the private sector to gain authority to enforce MPA regulations. Bringing the urgency to protect marine environments and the recent developments in the field of MPA management together: with failing state led MPAs, private actors having a growing interest in taking an active role in conservation, and science suggesting co-management, it becomes especially interesting to study the arrangements between commercial entities, NGOs and the government within co-managed MPAs. Co-management, when practised in a MPA setting, often entails some form of partnership between the state and NGOs. Colwell (1998a) states co-management expands the potential benefits of the EMPA approach, but data supporting this expectation is in fact lacking and it is unclear if co-management creates an enabling environment for partnerships with or investments by commercial entities in conservation efforts. Yet, dive resorts and other commercial entities are often just seen as potential sources of revenue to support MPAs instead of being full partners. Whereas, balancing efforts and authority with commercial partners might have advantageous management potential for coral reef protection. An analysis of entrepreneurial opportunities and the consequent arrangements within co-managed MPAs compared with those in MPAs that are not allows to evaluate to what extent co-management supports or even expands the potential benefits of the EMPA approach. One of the countries where MPAs are co-managed is Belize in Central America. The government of Belize (GoB) has since independence (1981) and the start of its nature conservation endeavour actively cooperated with private entities, NGOs and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) to manage protected areas (Salas, 2008). By the end of 2012 six co-management organisations, comanaging ten of the country s total fourteen MPAs were operational. Taking the MPAs of Belize as a starting point provides a diversity of case studies, all with a context specific origin and historical development, resulting in various institutional arrangements for marine biodiversity conservation. Analysis of a selection of these will help to identify the promises, challenges and shortcomings of using co-management as an approach for marine biodiversity conservation, and particularly allows for better understanding the roles of partnerships with and investments by commercial entities. Additionally there exists a political urgency to study the effects of co-management on resource use in Belize. Belize s co-management is in a transition in which co-managers are demanded by the GoB to sign a new co-management agreement. It appears, there is a governmental need or wish towards private actor investment in protected areas in order to increase its financial benefits. The believe of the GoB is namely that protected areas are locked away from national development and for conservation only, restricting private investments. The new agreement should enable and encourage private investments, however at the same time increases state control and limits NGOs autonomy. Many co-managers refuse to sign the new agreement, which makes their claim on the right to manage the protected areas illegal. While the intentions of the GoB are not directly to work against comanagers it appears the knowledge on the exact activities of co-management organizations and the effects on resource use is lacking. It is not clear if and how private commercial initiatives emerge within the current co-management arrangements, how they relate to co-management and if the upcoming transition enables or constraints commercialisation of protected areas along working towards conserving biodiversity. 11

12 1.2 Objective This thesis aims to explore the relation between co-management and the EMPA approach, by analyzing variation in co-management and entrepreneurial opportunities to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation between MPAs throughout Belize. With this aim the study helps in better understanding how co-management of MPAs and partnerships between the private sector, NGOs and the state can work. Especially interesting is how actors work together, what relationships exists among the actors as well as between the actors and the natural resources, and if these relationships result in arrangements in favour of biodiversity conservation. On the basis of the selected case and the research objective two research questions are formulated: Research question 1: What correlations exist between co-management and the EMPA approach? Research question 2: To what extent does variation in co-management determine entrepreneurial opportunities to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation? The answers to the research questions ideally provide insights in order to determine to what extent having or not having co-management, and additionally what type of co-management, relates to arrangements between commercial entities, NGOs and the government of Belize. In Belize there is one case that allows to study the development of an EMPA towards three co-managed MPAs by a NGO. Studying this case in historical perspective provides an example if entrepreneurial opportunities to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation change with co-management by a NGO and in case there are changes if these are supportive or not to the EMPA approach as proposed by Colwell. The first research question aims on the one hand to explore the possibilities for and effects of EMPA co-management. Thus an EMPA establishing or having a co-management agreement. On the other hand the questions explores the effects of co-management by a NGO on entrepreneurial opportunities to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation. It analyses the room for manoeuvre of commercial entrepreneurs to start investing in biodiversity conservation and if co-management supports or even increases the potential benefits of the EMPA approach. The second research question explores the concept co-management further by studying variation in co-management arrangements in relation to the EMPA approach. Since the selected case consists of co-managed MPAs different in type, the case supports an exploration of the relation between these types and commercial entity opportunities. Studying the differences can help determine the specific aspects of co-management that relate to the variation of entrepreneurial opportunities to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation. 1.3 Belize This section introduces Belize, and how it relates to this thesis. At first general country characteristics are described, followed by a section on the variety of marine protected area management arrangements present. Next, the historical development of co-management in Belize is discussed in detail, followed by a section on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project which resulted in a series of MPAs that are not co-managed. The result of this introductory section is an overview of the variety of MPA management and co-management types in Belize. This overview is shown in table 1 and supported with a map of Belize indicating the locations and sizes of the MPAs. It forms the basis for the study of differences between MPA management and commercial entities opportunities to facilitate selffinancing conservation planning and management of local coral reef resources. 12

13 1.3.1 Country information Belize is located in Central America and is bordered by Mexico in the north and by Honduras and Guatemala on the western and Caribbean coasts. The country is square kilometres, including 689 km 2 on 450 offshore cays. Its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is approximately km 2, which is over seven times its land area. It has a wide array of fairly well-preserved natural environments and is perhaps best known for its barrier reef, largest in the Caribbean and the second longest in the world, extending for over 200 km along the coast. Compared to its immediate neighbours, Belize is culturally, and in terms of its political traditions and demographics more of a Caribbean country. The Spanish were not that interested and left Belize for the British for harvesting logwood and mahogany. In the years that followed a diversity of ethnic groups settled in Belize. Predominant are the Mestizo (50%) a mix of Amerindian and European, Creole (20%) of African and European descent, Garifuna (10%) a mix of African and Carib ancestry, and Ketchi and Mopan Maya (10%) (Pomeroy and Goetze, 2003). Besides these there are eight Mennonite settlements, together counting just over people. Though, a small percentage of the total population the Mennonite community is responsible for almost all poultry and dairy production (for national consumption) and hard to compete with. The population of Belize was just over in Approximately 30% of the population reside in eight villages, four towns and one city along the coast. The structure of the population is young; around 41% is below the age of 14 and 20% between 15 and 24. The child mortality rate for children under 5 years old was around 1.69% for Until recently, the Belizean economy has been dominated by its exports sector, which hinges on three agricultural products: sugar, bananas and citrus. Nowadays fisheries also contribute significantly to the overall GDP, as well as (cruise) tourism, contributing 14.6 percent in Since its independence in September 1981, the former British colony developed itself into a mecca for tourism, mainly thanks to its spectacular almost 400 km long coastline (Haughton and Siar, 2006). Figure 1: Map of Central America. Figure 2: Map of Belize. 13

14 Box 1: You betta Belize it! Where does the name Belize originate from? The historian of the streets of Belize City that goes under the name Mr Prince Charles Paris knows the answer as no other. In 1615 the British obtained a permission from Spain to extract logwood and rosewood out of this country for the purpose of colouring of clothing, the uniform army colours. Back than in 1615 the country was not called Belize, neither British Honduras, but Belkini after the Mayan Goddess of beauty. Short after independence in 1981 Belize preceded the name British Honduras Honduras. However, Belize is not even an English word. With the passing of time with merging interaction between peoples intermarrying among races words and languages evolve, adapting or taking on various accents and dialects. Belkini means a pathway to the East, or a lovely land facing the East, or the sun that rises in the East, should be translated actually as a beautiful land facing the sun in the East. In the books you will come across Belkini translated as muddy watered. They expected us to be born naïve stupid or simple. Seventy-one percent of Belize is vegetation of which forty-one is under protected status, the country is home to an interesting mix of over ten different cultures including Garifuna, Maya, Creole, Mestizo, East Indian and German Mennonites. It lays claims to hundreds of ancient Maya temples, large tracts of intact tropical rainforest and Western hemisphere s longest barrier reef. The proper translation of Belkini was and is never muddy waters, but beautiful country (personal communication). The fishing industry is characterized by small-scale commercial interests involving about 800 boats, generally fibreglass skiffs or sailing/motorized dories, both between 3.5 and 9 meters in length. The sector employs between 2000 and 3000 fishermen, of which most are members of the four active fishermen cooperatives, purchasing, processing and exporting fishery products and employing another 500 people. Artisanal fishers fish a range of species according to the seasonality and geography of the stocks, an approach that is reflected in the wide variety of gears used. Gill nets, beach seine and cast nets, hook and line, rod and reel, lobster and fish traps and shrimp trawlers are all used. Belize s fishery is essentially open access, although there appear to be some traditionally allocated areas and grounds. With about 80 percent of the catch being exported, it is the country s third largest foreign exchange earner. Even though the wide variety of gears the principal fisheries are conch and lobster, constituting 90 percent of all fisheries exports (Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004). Exports of lobster, conch, finfish, wild-caught marine shrimp and shark were worth over USD 12 million in The marine shrimp did not last long and shrimp trawling was prohibited by the government of Belize just after Apart from shrimp trawling there is also farmed shrimp in aquaculture, which expanded rapidly and generated USD 23 million in The sector employs more than 900 permanent and 700 part-time workers, has grown by approximately 160 percent in the last ten years and increasingly demand for more land. 14

15 1.3.2 The variety of MPA management arrangements Forty-one percent of Belize s territory is under some form of protection. For the purpose of the study it is useful to understand the different types of protected areas (PAs) in place, and how these relate to MPAs. This section therefore introduces the characteristics of different types of protected area management in Belize. The forms of protection vary from land-based, to marine-based, to protected areas for the conservation of a certain habitat needed to maintain populations of certain key species. In total there are almost one hundred different reserves in Belize. This study only looks at the PAs in the marine environment. There are a total of fourteen MPAs that include two Wildlife Sanctuaries (WS), two Natural Monuments (NM), one National Park (NP), and nine Marine reserves (MR) (Cho, 2005). To be able to analyse these reserves it is useful to make a difference between MPAs administered under the Forest Department (FoD) and the Fisheries Department (FiD). Most of the MPAs are marine reserves under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Department. They are established as a fishery management tool, but are also acknowledged as being of high importance for ensuring the conservation of the marine environment. There are nine marine reserves with four managed directly by the FiD and the remaining five managed with co management partners. Marine reserves established under the Fisheries Department are multiple use management areas with clearly defined zones allowing for extractive and non-extractive use and conservation protection, permitting different activities depending on their use criteria. Generally all reserves have a general use zone that has restrictions in terms of fishing gear, a conservation zone that does not allow extraction but does allow non-extractive use such as tourism, research and education, and a preservation zone which is strictly non extractive and only accessible with a research permit. Besides, the FiD established eleven protected spawning aggregation sites with seasonal protection but provision for continued fishing by traditional fishermen under special license in some of these waters. Apart from marine reserves there exist five other MPAs that have been established under the National Parks System Act (NPSA). Contradictory to the MRs they fall under the mandate of the Forest Department, more precise: one National Park, two Natural Monuments and two Wildlife Sanctuaries. These PAs are legislated as non-extractive areas, established for protection of physical or biological features of national significance, key species (manatees), and tourism resources. A National Park is designated for the protection and preservation of natural and scenic values of national significance for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public. Laughing Bird Caye National Park is considered as a MPA and co-managed with Southern Environmental Association (SEA). Blue Hole and Halve Moon Caye, co-managed by the Belize Audubon Society (BAS) are Natural Monuments for the protection and preservation of national features of national significance. Because the PAs are in a marine environment both are also considered as MPAs and part of the Marine Protected Areas System (MPAS). Wildlife Sanctuaries are for the protection of nationally significant species, biotic communities or physical features. Corozal Bay and Swallow Caye are Wildlife Sanctuaries, both comanaged and considered to be components of the Marine Protected Areas System Historical development of co-management Due to the lack of resources the challenge for the government of Belize was and still is adequate management of its terrestrial as well as marine parks. Therefor arrangements are made between public and private organisations leading to co-management. Together with entrepreneurship, co-management is put central in this thesis. Because context matters, this section provides a concise history, exploring the reasons for and the developments of Belize s co-management of protected areas. 15

16 Belize is worldwide considered as a country with unique and highly valuable nature, worth conserving. During and after the transition from being British Crown Colony with the name British Honduras to the independent state Belize, international conservation organisations were therefor eager to help the young state with (financial and organisational) support for the protection of biodiversity and designation of nature reserves. In 1964, two years after self-governance, a commission was assembled to identify areas worth protecting. Furthermore, the government, with the assistance of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), retained the services of national parks consultant William O. Deshler to devise a national park system for Belize resulting in the Deshler Report. The commission and report did not lead to direct action taken by the government of Belize. However, those who were in the commission and a steadfast group of Belizeans who recognised the value of Belize s nature, organized into the Belize Audubon Society (BAS). The lobbying of this group, can be seen as crucial to, and resulted in, the designation of many protected areas. Before independence in 1981, the BAS managed to make the government declare a terrestrial park (Guanacaste Park, 1973) under the Forest Ordinance and a marine park (Crown Reserve Bird Sanctuaries, 1977) under the Fisheries Ordinance. With the declarations, the BAS was given management authority of the parks by the government. Shortly after independence the government passed two landmark pieces of legislation, the National Park Systems Act and the Wildlife Protection Act under enforcement responsibility of the Forest Department in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Both acts were recommended by the commission and Deshler Report that set the stage for protected areas development in Belize. Because the Forest Department lacked the capacity, personnel and financial resources to adequately administer protected areas, the government approached the BAS in 1982 and asked the society to use its expertise and experience in protected area management to manage and protect the six major national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. A second reason to partner with the BAS and assigning the BAS the authority to manage these was to tap resources of international conservation agencies that preferred to work with NGOs rather than national governments. In 1984, a first ad-hoc co-management agreement was signed, in which the GoB mandated the BAS to take care of installing and maintaining rudimentary visitor use facilities. In 1987 another agreement followed, in which the organisation was given more responsibilities, which changed its responsibilities from caretaking to managing. At the same time Belizeans realised the positive relationship between tourism and conservation, and thus the relationship between conservation and attracting foreign money, which further increased the support for park designation by Belizeans and the GoB (Young and Horwich, 2007; Cho, 2005). In 1988, the first co-management agreement between GoB and a private landowner called Programme for Belize (PfB) was signed, establishing the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area. The land was formerly owned by Coca-Cola Foods Corporation with the purpose of developing a citrus plantation, but in reaction of national and international pressure from environmental activists the company decided to donate and sell the land to three international NGOs, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, World Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), these decided to team up together and form the Programme for Belize (Salas and Santos, 2009). One year later, the International Tropical Conservation Foundation (ITCF) of Switzerland followed, creating the Shipstern Nature Reserve linked with Papiliorama, a Swiss tropical butterfly garden and financial link with Burgers Zoo in the Netherlands (Young and Horwich, 2007). Currently eight privately owned reserves, which are comanaged by NGO s and/or the owners themselves and the government of Belize exist (Salas and Santos, 2009). 16

17 Alongside government initiated and private reserves, community participation in conservation was introduced. By 1985 the first community conserved protected area, Community Baboon Sanctuary was declared and became widely publicized nationally and internationally, which led, in combination with researchers and the BAS functioning as knowledge resource how to make it happen, to replication and designation of even more protected areas. In 2000, Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE) was the first NGO to sign a comanagement agreement for a marine reserve, namely Port Honduras (Leikam, 2004). TIDE was formed as an independent group in 1997 to co-manage different terrestrial reserves. Other marine reserves are co-managed by Friends of Nature (FoN), Toledo Association for Sustainable Tourism and Empowerment (TASTE), which later merged to Southern Environmental Association (SEA) managing three marine reserves, and the Forest and Marine Reserves Association of Caye Caulker (FAMRACC) managing Caye Caulker Marine reserve and Caye Caulker Forest Reserve (Young and Horwich, 2007). Since the nineties many co-management agreements were negotiated between the GoB, private, nongovernmental, non-profit and community based organisations. By 2009, of the in total ninety-four protected areas, twenty-eight areas were under co-management agreements and eight protected areas were owned and managed by NGOs, CBOs and private entities (Salas and Santos, 2009). It is important to mention the difference between a CBO and a NGO. NGOs are generally bigger and have paid staff, CBOs are rather small and have limited capacity. Since many different NGOs, CBOs and private actors were fighting for the same cause co-managers got the feeling they were replicating the same approach while faced with huge differences in qualifications and resources. It was hard for small organizations to get access to grants; Protected Area Conservation Trust (PACT) was giving out grants, but CBOs did not have the capacity to prepare proposals to report back like well-funded and resource full NGOs. There was a need to build capacity, leading to the question how the NGOs could support the smaller CBOs. Together, the management of CBOs and NGOs realised that uniting their knowledge, skills and power would improve management capacities and long-term biodiversity conservation. In 2007 the group decided to become official and launched the Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations (APAMO) as separate NGO. The purpose of APAMO is to address issues jointly and share benefits, by exchanging skills and knowledge, increasing the capacity of CBOs and building policies together. APAMO now represents eleven well-established co-managers aiming to solve inadequate and ineffective coordination among protected areas management organisations. Along the line of development of more and more co-management bodies and PAs some uncertainties and un-clarities concerning legislation, mandates, roles and responsibilities also started to emerge. As a response the GoB appointed a special taskforce to develop a document in which national comanagement policies are revised and (re-)formulated. This document, launched in 2005 with the title National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP), provides strategic guidance and direction for the main purposes of protected areas establishment, management and administration, and includes guidelines and criteria for financial sustainability, co-management and creation and de-reservation of protected areas (terrestrial and marine). It is in this document that the GoB also for the first time recognises that not only the NGOs, CBOs or private entities can be considered as co-managers but also the government itself (Meerman, 2005). 17

18 1.3.4 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project In a country predominantly characterised by MPAs that are co-managed, the MPAs that are not comanaged grab the attention. Apart from Hol Chan Marine Reserve designated in 1987 and managed by a trust fund, there are three other marine reserves that are not co-managed; Glover s Reef, South Water Caye and Bacalar Chico. These reserves are all created in 1996 and part of UNESCO Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System World Heritage Site, which also includes Laughing Bird Caye National Park. The origin of designation of these reserves and Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve appears to have a strong link with the international NGO Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). This section briefly explores the link and explains the variation between above mentioned MPAs and other MPAs in Belize. The Wildlife Conservation Society manages about 500 conservation projects in more than 60 countries. Through science, global conservation, education and management of world s largest system of urban wildlife parks it aims to save wildlife and wild places worldwide. WCS began its involvement in Belize during the early 1980s when it assisted in the planning of designation of the Hol Chan Marine Reserve which had already been on the government s recommended list of protected areas since the early 1960s. With help of, among others, the New York Zoological Society and Peace Corps a series of consultations were held in order to resolve an on-going conflict between fishermen and tour guides about the use of the marine resources at the particular site. In July 1987, after a management plan was prepared, communicated with the stakeholders of San Pedro and revised, the Hol Chan Marine Reserve (HCMR) was legally established by order of the Minister responsible for fisheries. It was the first marine reserve of Belize and ran by an informal advisory committee substantially supported with funding from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and USAID. In 1994 the committee was replaced by the Hol Chan Marine Reserve Trust Fund Committee. Not being a NGO it generates an income from the fees charged to visitors for access to particular zones in the park. With these fees, collected via a yearly licensing scheme which applies to the boats of tour guides, the operation and maintenance costs are covered. Today the park is the most frequently visited park of Belize, with over visitors annually. The success of HCMR made stakeholders all around Belize aware MPAs did not only serve as a tool for conservation and protection but also improved habitats for fisheries and enhanced tourism development. In the meanwhile the GoB and international NGOs recognized that an integrated approach to ensure incorporation of land-based activities outside MPAs was needed to realise the envisioned Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, following the example of the Australia s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. A workshop followed which led to the formation of a Coastal Zone Management Unit within the Fisheries Department in From 1993 to 1998 the Coastal Zone Management Unit (which formed the seed for the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI) which was formed in 1998) was supported through technical and financial assistance from the UNDP-GEF. This project in particular led to the designation of Glover s Reef, Bacalar Chico, South Water Caye and Sapodilla Cayes as marine reserves where the WCS had the role of facilitator (Cho, 2005). WCS did all the planning and consultations, and prepared the management plans needed and demanded by the Fisheries Department to get reserves designated. These plans were developed with local communities but especially in partnership with fishermen cooperation s and the Belize Tourism Industry Association (BTIA). The new reserves were left without a co-manager, but with Marine Protected Areas Advisory Committees (MPAACs) that have been established at all five of the World Heritage sites (including LBCNP). The membership of these committees consisting of government agencies, elected community representatives, local non-governmental and community-based organizations, local institutions and fishermen cooperative members where formed aimed at providing 18

19 support to the management of the sites. The primary functions of these committees are to facilitate a more bottom-up and integrated approach to resource management and, more importantly, to enable a better balance in the management of the sites (i.e. an ideal mix of ecological and social considerations) (Fairweather-Morrison, 2004: 13). The Fisheries Department embraced the concept of MPAs as a tool to enhance the management of fisheries, thus gained access to pristine environments with help of international NGOs. By designating reserves they secured areas from (over-)fishing, tourism development and other uses through conservation. Though, beneficial to biodiversity, the project has its weaknesses, in particular the lack of community organization in support of biodiversity conservation. Since there was no incentive at all for local capacity building, the newly created reserves were left without a co-manager, only managed by the FiD and with insufficient income needed for enforcement and maintenance. The absence of a co-management body made WCS decide to continue supporting the FiD. Particularly on Glover s Reef. At this particular site there was very little fishing and tourism due to the isolated character. For the WCS the atoll turned out to be the perfect spot for marine research and to assess and promote the conservation of the marine environment of Belize. In support of the management of GRMR, WCS purchased Middle Caye, one of six cayes on the Atoll, and opened Glover s Reef Research Station in Currently, the conservation NGO has been working with the management team of the FiD for over 15 years. A ranger station containing an office and residence for the reserve manager, reserve biologist and two reserve rangers provides the base of operations for the FiD to manage GRMR in the interests of the atoll as a whole and all its stakeholders. The research station of WCS located on the same caye is apart from generating scientific data, meant as a platform to provide training in various research and monitoring techniques, marine ecology and marine protected area management to government officials and local or foreign students. However, having an international conservation NGO co-manage a marine reserve appears to be inappropriate and without co-manager and insufficient community support the risk is prominent, MPAs designated under the project will eventually end up as paper parks. Besides, also a legal framework was missing, leading to the failure of developing CZMAI into a separate government agency. This leaves CZMAI only marginally effective and incapable of coordinating interagency and stakeholder activity (Fairweather-Morrison, 2004). This is seen as the reason why Belize s MPAs rely on the benefits of co-management, both as a historical construct and for the sake of saving costs (Forst, 2009). Currently, only one of the reserves designated under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project, Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve is under co-management. Besides, the co-management agreement is of a collaborative, rather than delegated character, restricting co-managers responsibilities and authority. Also the co-managers of Caye Caulker Marine Reserve designated following the example of Hol Chan Marine Reserve have signed a collaborative co-management agreement with the Fisheries Department Overview of MPA management in Belize So far section 1.3 provided a description of ways in which MPA management in Belize is organized and gave a concise history of MPA designation, including the development of co-management and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project. The individual MPA s characteristics are summarized in Table 1. It is clear four types of management can be distinguished: some MPAs do not have comanagement, others are co-management with either the Forest or Fisheries Department, in which those co-managed with the FiD can be distinguished in collaborative and delegated co-management. 19

20 Some of the MPAs do however not fall under any of these categories. Hol Chan Marine Reserve can be considered as an exemption. The MPA management is run by a committee of a trust fund instead of a NGO and the park has developed a fee system legally not possible to replicate to any of the other reserves. Turneffe Atoll Sustainability Association is a non-profit organization and rather new. It is financially supported by the Turneffe Atoll Trust and collaborates with the Fisheries Department as well as the Coast Guard to enforce fisheries regulations in the new created reserve. It differs from the other MPAs in the sense that it appears attempts are made to replicate the construction used for Hol Chan Marine Reserve. Table 1: Overview of the MPAs of Belize developed by Midavaine, 2014 Marine Protected Areas in Belize Name Designation Co-management agency Co-management type Year of designation MPAs under jurisdiction of the Forest Department Halve Moon Caye NM BAS 1982 Laughing Bird Caye NP SEA 1991 Blue Hole NM BAS 1996 Corozal Bay WS SACD 1998 Swallow Caye WS FSCWS 2002 MPAs under jurisdiction of the Fisheries Department Hol Chan MR HCTF delegated 1987 Sapodilla Cayes MR SEA collaborative 1996 Bacalar Chico MR 1996 Glover s Reef MR 1996 South Water Caye MR 1996 Caye Caulker MR FAMRACC collaborative 1998 Port Honduras MR TIDE delegated 2000 Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes MR SEA delegated 2003 Turneffe Atoll MR TASA collaborative 2012 SACD: Sarteneja Alliance for Conservation and Development (CBO) FAMRACC: Forest and Marine Reserve Association of Caye Caulker (CBO) FSCWS: Friends of Swallow Caye Wildlife Sanctuary (CBO) SEA: Southern Environmental Association (NGO) TIDE: Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (NGO) HCTF: Hol Chan Trust Fund TASA: Turneffe Atoll Sustainability Association (NGO) WS: Wildlife Sanctuary MR: Marine Reserve NP: National Park NM: Natural Monument 20

21 Figure 3: MPAs of Belize 2014 (modified from: spatial data solutions, 2011). 1.4 Research methods The research method of this thesis is the case study approach. The data collected is of a qualitative character and consists of in depth interviews held throughout Belize. The focus of the study are the interactions in which meanings and practices of actors are negotiated and determined, reflecting comanagement arrangements of MPAs and in particular the role of entrepreneurs and profit oriented businesses in conserving biodiversity. In the following section the research methodology is explained in further detail. 21

22 1.4.1 Research approach The thesis research is conducted in cooperation with World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-NL) being a partner with the World Wide Fund for Nature in the Meso American Reef program (MAR). The reason for this decision was among other things the fit between the WWF s global MPA Action Agenda and the initial research proposal. The WWF s global MPA Action Agenda emphasizes two key approaches: the creation of MPAs and effective management of MPAs. When WWF identifies and embarks on the process towards establishing new MPAs it assures its commitment towards adequate management capacities (WWF, 2012). This thesis aims to add to the knowledge base of the WWF and provide an example of institutional arrangements and the role of commercial entrepreneurs in MPA co-management to prevent newly created MPAs from becoming paper parks. The research conducted in Belize used the case study approach. Case studies can provide valuable lessons and help to understand the links between the characteristics of a resource, governance systems and/or resource users, and to help identify trends in interactions between social and ecological dimensions. Comparison of different case studies can in turn provide decision makers with a greater understanding of how complex social ecological systems can be managed (Ban et al., 2011). Within case studies the aim is to understand the unit of analysis as a whole informed by the context in which the case exists. Types of cases are many, it can for example be an individual, a place, an organization, decision or time period, all consisting out of a wide range of elements which taken together and analysed provide a complex understanding of the whole. Because case studies seek to achieve idiographic as well as nomothetic explanations they can become very extensive. To make case studies in social sciences valuable for wider generalization and prevent the need to describe everything about the case they must have a theoretical dimension (de Vaus, 2001). Theory helps to increase the validity of the research and to relate research findings with previous or future research in the same domain. Within this thesis the concepts co-management and entrepreneurship were leading throughout the fieldwork and analysis. These concepts are further discussed in chapter Case selection The preparatory work in terms of developing contacts and conducting desk research on MPAs and EMPAs formed guidelines for the selection of a case study. Based on works of Horigue et al. (2012), Bottema and Bush (2012), Cabral and Aliño (2011), Ban et al. (2011), Rojas-Laserna (2011), De Groot and Bush (2010), The, The and Chung (2008), Christie (2004), Agardy et al. (2003), Clifton (2003), Riedmiller (2000), Colwell (1999; 1998; 1997), and others it became clear the focus had to be on co-management in relation to arrangements between resource users. Out of the many examples of MPAs and EMPAs around the world the characteristics of biodiversity conservation in Belize allow to research this relationship. Particularly because Belize s protected area management is characterised by co-management from the very first start of nature conservation. Although the political environment along the coast of Belize seems to be generalizable there exist many different examples of marine conservation and development of MPA management. One case, the case of Placencia, is particularly interesting in relation to EMPA literature. It evolved from being an EMPA into a network of three co-managed MPAs by SEA and the state. The case is special since arrangements are developed between entrepreneurs and the government of Belize, which is seen as a challenging aspect in the process of institutionalizing EMPAs. Besides the current management body, which is a NGO has, thanks to co-management, the authority to enforce restrictions on resource use and thereby appears to fulfil one of the most important requirements for successful EMPA management described by De Groot and Bush (2010). 22

23 Studying the historical development of designation and management of the MPAs co-managed by SEA allows for questioning if co-management can be a promising arrangement for institutionalization of and private sector support in biodiversity conservation. Additionally and valuable for the study is the fact the cases reflect the variety of co-management arrangements possible in Belize. The three MPAs co-managed by SEA cover three of these management arrangements. Furthermore it provides the opportunity to answer whether or not commercial entrepreneurs who initiated the designation of the reserves maintain a role in the management and future development of the MPAs. Two of the MPAs are created with help of an organized group of fishermen, tour guides and other concerned community members of Placencia. A third is designated as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project. In order to better understand the processes that led to creation of and getting comanagement over the reserves the following section provides an introduction to Placencia and its socio-economic characteristics, SEA and its MPAs Placencia The small town Placencia, also known as the southern tourism capital of Belize has an approximate population of 1200 inhabitants (2008) and is one of the fastest growing towns in the country. It is the most southern town on the largest peninsula of the Gulf of Mexico. It has sandy beaches and mangrove on the eastern side and mangrove and lagoon on the western side. Traditionally a fishing village accommodating a Creole community, Placencia is besides Sarteneja and San Pedro one of three villages that formed fishermen cooperatives in the late sixties and early seventies to commercialize and export the production of lobster, conch, shrimp and scale fish. With 69 registered fishing vessels in 1999 Placencia has the third largest concentration of fishing vessels in the country. The fishermen cooperative brought development to the village of which one of the most important was electricity in order to prepare ice. In 2008 the cooperative had 53 active members, of which only two fishers were solely involved in fishing while the rest was in fishing and tourism. The transition to tourism emerged in the late 1980 s when tourists began to arrive and fisher folk started to deploy their vision and resources for tourism services. These two sources of income are balanced off well: as the lobster season wanes, the tourist season of November to April picks up. Fishermen transform themselves into tour guides and their wives into providers of tourist services (Pomeroy and Goetze, 2003). The number of hotels on the Placencia Peninsula almost doubled between 2000 (47 hotels) and 2006 (81 hotels), which is approximately 15% of country s total. An event of proportional influence on the tourism sector was the devastating effect of hurricane Iris in With winds over 140mph, it destroyed around 95% of all infrastructure, vegetation and buildings in and around the village, making the way free for tourism development with adequate support from the government (electricity was for example restored within three days after the hurricane). Besides the fishermen cooperative other important organizations in Placencia are the Placencia Water Board, the Placencia Village Council and the Belize Tourism Industry Association (BTIA). Placencia, Seine Bight and Maya Beach get their potable water from Mango Creek/Independence Village through an underwater pipe system. No measurements are made public and nobody knows how sustainable the actual water source is, but currently all villagers have access, individual meters and are charged one cent per gallon of water used. The Placencia Village Council developed a garbage collection service, made it one of their main sources of income and by doing so keeps Placencia clean. The branch of the BTIA in Placencia is with approximately 160 members the largest and most active in the country. It is 23

24 a community-based organization and the main active force in making tourism a buoyant and thriving sector on the peninsula. Next to the village council, the fishermen cooperative, the water board and the BTIA there are many other organizations active in the relatively small community. Among others: the Placencia Tour Guide Association (PTGA), the Placencia Tourism Business Organisation (PTBO) and the Rotary Club. The main tourism attractions are the beach, which is one of the most beautiful of Belize, the marine reserves, excellent for diving and snorkelling tours, the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary, the Lobster fest in June and the Easter festival. Whale shark sightings in Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine reserve also attract thousands of tourists during the whale shark season (April-May). Next to the positive effects of tourism there exist some growing negative concerns including disposal of solid and sewage waste, the cutting of mangroves resulting in a loss of breeding grounds and lack of protection from storms, beach erosion, possible destruction of snorkelling grounds and the fact that senior management jobs at resorts are reserved for outsiders while the local people are employed for menial jobs only (GoB, 2008). The organisation through which the MPAs are co-managed is the Southern Environmental Association (SEA), formerly known as Friends of Nature (FoN). The conservation NGO was founded in 1991 and co-manages three MPAs: Laughing Bird Caye National Park (LBCNP), Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine reserve (GSSCMR) and Sapodilla Cayes Marine reserve (SCMR). Laughing Bird Caye National Park is co-managed by SEA and the Forest Department and completely no-take zone. The other two reserves are marine reserves and co-managed by SEA and the Fisheries Department. Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve can be considered to be of a delegated type of comanagement where management authority is delegated to SEA and the Fisheries Department is informed of decisions to be taken and reviews and endorses those decisions. Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve is also co-managed with the Fisheries Department but of a collaborative character. The MPAs co-managed by SEA are part of the southern reef complex, which extends at its greatest width for about 25 miles and, taking the Barrier Reef as the eastern limit, covers an estimated total of 140 square miles of sea and cayes. It consists of approximately 75 cayes, mostly no larger than one or two acres that can be subdivided into: the barrier reef cayes (such as Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes), the inner reef cayes (including LBC) and the shoreline cayes (which includes Placencia). Out of these cayes 16% are identified as private property and 84% as National Lands of which 41% with leases and 43% with no identifiable leases, including LBC part of LBCNP and North and South Silk Cayes that are part of GSSCMR. 1 SEA s mission is to continuously work towards improving stewardship and the environmental integrity of key marine areas in southern Belize through effective, collaborative protected areas management, community involvement, and strategic partnerships for the benefit of all stakeholders 2. The local stakeholders that can be identified as resource users are tour operators, Placencia hotel owners, the Placencia Fishermen Cooperative, the Placencia Belize Tourism Industry Association, fishers of Monkey River, Hopkins, Placencia, Seine Bight and Sarteneja, tourists, the general population of the Placencia peninsula area and citrus and banana plantation owners/farmers around Mango Creek and Independence. SEA maintains deep roots within the community. Their constituency includes eight coastal villages in the central southern region of Belize, that is Hopkins, Sittee River, Seine Bight, Placencia, Independence, Monkey River, Punta Negra and Punta Gorda. A representative 1 The data on the percentages of leases are from 2003 and might be much higher at the moment of writing (personal communication). 2 Citation of the Southern Environmental Association website. Available at: (accessed ). 24

25 of each village council (mostly the chairperson) sits on the board of directors which also includes representatives from other key stakeholder groups Data collection The research was carried out over a period of fourteen months with a three months period in Belize to conduct field research. The collected data is of a qualitative character. The methods used to collect data consisted primarily out of conducting in-depth interviews (1). Besides and more complementary (policy) documents, agreements and organizations strategic plans were studied (2) and observations were made (3). 1. In total forty-nine interviews were held throughout Belize. Of these interviews, sixteen in Placencia, eleven in Punta Gorda, nine in Belize City, five in Seine Bite, three on Caye Caulker, three in Belmopan and two in Sarteneja. As a start it was necessary to indicate all active stakeholders within the geographical area of the marine protected area. Besides this, attention was paid to effects from actors outside the geographical area. Important stakeholders within the study were representatives of government departments, boards and staff of comanagement organizations and entrepreneurs of private businesses in the tourism sector. The interviews were recorded to make sure valuable information did not get lost. Purposive sampling was initially used to find key stakeholders which were identified mainly through reports, studies and projects found on the Internet and contact. The rest was found using snowball sampling. The face to face interviews took approximately one hour and a SSI checklist was prepared before each interview and used to encourage respondents when needed. To make sure the checklist entailed all important aspects of the study feedback was asked from the WWF and supervisors of Wageningen University. 2. Additionally the decision was made to study (policy) documents, agreements and organizations strategic plans, to get insights in the historical development of a variety of MPAs, the actors involved, and to find out decisions made between which actors, when and if there were any struggles. The official documents especially provided a good overview of the written rules and regulations which could be mirrored with participant observations and outcomes of in-depth interviews. The method used to gain access to various documents was by using Internet sources and through representatives of co-management organizations, the fisheries and Forest Department and APAMO. 3. Next to the in-depth interviews and study of documents there were some occasions to engage in participant observation. Participant observation is important at places were decisions are made and different stakeholders interact. It was possible to join a variety of meetings and workshops to learn more about social interactions between stakeholders and how decisions related to MPA management were taken. Important occasions were a consultation for the designation of the Placencia Lagoon Marine reserve, a whale shark meeting, the attendance of a lecture for future tour guides and a three days climate change workshop. Observations were documented in observation reports. During the study the researcher worked closely together with the WWF and the Association of Protected Areas Management Organisations (APAMO) in Belize City, Southern Environmental Association (SEA) in Placencia and Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE) in Punta Gorda. The choise was made to conduct the study in cooperation with co-management organizations to get easy access to the field and integrate among stakeholders that depend on marine protected areas for their livelihood. During the research period the researcher was based in and worked 25

26 from the offices of the WWF in Belize City for the first three weeks, of SEA in Placencia for six weeks, of TIDE in Punta Gorda for two weeks and the last week of research again in Belize City. Working in the offices of the NGOs and together with staff had major advantages in getting to know what was happening in the field of marine conservation and getting into contact with stakeholders. All participants, gate keepers, informants and respondents were provided with full information about the research as much as possible. This included why and how they have been chosen to participate. Informed consent was important to let people know about cooperation between the researcher and the local organization managing the MPA, but that gathered data was primarily used for an academic exercise and was not necessarily leading to any implementations or changes. This might have led to a space in which people could speak more freely about their opinions and at the same time did not leave the feeling nothing will be done with the results of the research. To the reader it might appear the view of fishermen does not get much attention. Many studies on MPAs or MPA co-management focus on fishing or the role of fishermen. In this study attention is paid to the private sector as a whole in which commercial fishermen are one of the actors. Among others, representatives of Fishermen Cooperatives and Fishermen Associations and the Fisheries Department are interviewed. And, since most interviewees representing tour guides or tourism businesses also are involved in fishing, the view of fishermen is heard. Besides, many fishermen did undergo a transition from being a fisherman to either tour guide, dive operator or employee of a tourism resort. The fact is MPAs in Belize primarily function as fisheries tool, to manage fishing, limited illegal fishing, and ensure a sustainable fish stock, but also as a tool to conserve biodiversity and create and sustain a tourism product. The research topic is not of such a character that it does intrude into people s privacy too much. Nevertheless, confidentiality and anonymity have been points of attention. With just over inhabitants Belize is not a big country and the network of conservationists is small. Interview transcripts may therefore contain confidential and privileged information and were intended for personal use only. If quotation was necessary permission was asked if needed and only general statements were used. Before the fieldwork was carried out appointments have been made between the researcher and host organizations. Agreements concerning the use of facilities, ownership of data, use and misuse of results have been written down in contracts. 1.5 Outline of the thesis This study focusses on the variation and relation between co-management of MPAs and entrepreneurial opportunities for commercial entities to invest in conservation. It has the aim to explain co-management as an arrangement in relation to opportunities for commercial entities; to find out how actors organize themselves around problems, by describing a set of social arrangements worked out between the actors concerned. Doing so helps creating understanding of the variations of the structural conditions entrepreneurs operate in and its relation with the space of manoeuvre this provides to entrepreneurs to exploit opportunities. In order to answer the research question this study is subdivided in three empirical chapters. Each chapter analyzes the role of commercial entities in the creation and the management of (E)MPAs. The empirical chapters are organized around several cases of entrepreneurial opportunities within the three MPAs of Placencia. The historical development of NGO SEA is taken as a starting point. Since the types of co-management vary, the study offers not only the opportunity to analyze the historical 26

27 development of MPAs in Placencia but also to explain variation between different types of comanagement arrangements and entrepreneurial opportunities for commercial entities to invest in biodiversity conservation. The conceptual framework is followed by three empirical chapters describing the three MPAs managed by SEA in more detail and creating an understanding of the consequences of not having comanagement. To get a clear picture of the development of the MPAs with co-management this thesis puts the creation of MPAs in a historical perspective and unfolds the interactions taken place that made designation possible. It i.e. aims to describe the exact reasons for designation and management of the reserves, who were involved and the possible change and causes of interactions over time. Each chapter starts with a section on the historical development in which apart from designation and management the role of the private sector is described. These sections are followed by examples of how private sector initiatives to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation took form within the MPAs. Additionally these findings are compared or put into perspective with examples of initiatives in other MPAs with the same co-management type. Please notice! Each time the co-management agency took on the co-management of another reserve the name changed. In the first years, when managing Laughing Bird Caye National Park only, the name was Friends of Laughing Bird Caye. When the organization took on the comanagement of Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve the name changed from Friends of Laughing Bird Caye to Friends of Nature (FoN). And when also Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve became part of the co-managed MPAs the name changed again in Southern Environmental Association (SEA), which is the current name. These names are used interchangeably since within each chapter the history as well as present cases are described. 27

28 2 Theoretical framework The aim of this chapter is to provide an analytical framework that enables to study entrepreneurial opportunities to invest in Belize s MPAs and to analyse the relation between co-management and the EMPA approach. The framework discusses the concepts entrepreneurial marine protected area, comanagement and entrepreneurship in order to develop a full theoretical understanding of the ideas that lay the foundation for this research. Next, the concepts are linked to one another in the framework of analysis, allowing the formulation of research questions to accomplish the objective of this thesis. 2.1 Entrepreneurial marine protected areas The concepts marine protected area and entrepreneurial marine protected area have already been slightly introduced in section 1.1. This section provides the definitions of, and is meant to elaborate a little more on the concept of entrepreneurial marine protected areas in particular. This in order to clarify its theoretical relation with the concept entrepreneurship (section 2.3) and to discuss its main characteristics Definitions of (entrepreneurial) marine protected areas The most commonly used definition of MPAs is the one provided by the IUCN. Kelleher (1999) in Cesar and Beukering (2004) and Agardy et al. (2003) define a MPA as: Any area of inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment (Kelleher, 1999: 18). However, the definition was revised by the IUCN at the 2008 World Conservation Congress. Reason being to make it harder for actions that involve exploitation, such as fisheries, to be claimed as MPAs that protect the ocean. Since then on a MPA can only be called a MPA when it does not involve extraction and has long-term goals of conservation and ocean recovery, defined by: A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008: 8). Studies of White et al. (1994) and Kelleher et al. (1996) show approximately only 30% of worlds MPAs achieve their conservation management objectives. After finding only few MPAs were being managed with the support of local people who depend on the resources White et al. (1994) introduced the term paper parks, parks that exist in legislation, but lack effective enforcement or management. Kelleher et al. (1996) studied 1306 marine protected areas worldwide and concluded only 29% (383) were managed effectively and of these 383, almost 70% had only moderate to low management effectiveness. Overall reasons for the existence of paper parks were among other reasons the lack of a long-term vision for funding and management, failing enforcement and inability to incorporate local communities. Aspects that might be related. 28

29 Around that same time the private sector started to develop an interest in marine environments as well with a growing number of private led conservation initiatives as a result. Many of these are based on (eco-)tourism, but also aquaculture (Centre for Sustainability in the Philippines) and coastal management (Blue Ventures in Madagascar and Belize). The dive industry in particular started to maintain, protect and where possible restore coral reefs. These initiatives are for the first time described by Stephen Colwell (1998a), the founder and at that time Executive Director (ED) of The Coral Reef Alliance (CORAL). In a paper titled: Entrepreneurial Marine Protected Areas: smallscale, commercially supported coral reef protected areas he introduces the scholar to the phenomenon and the concept EMPA. Colwell s notion of EMPAs involves a network of small-scale protected areas, managed from the perspective of local communities and private operators. He developed the concept of EMPAs in order to differentiate small-scale, commercially supported MPAs from those established by the government, community or NGOs (Rojas-Laserna, 2011; Colwell, 1999). Based on the papers by Colwell (1998a, 1998b and 1999) the following definition can be formulated: Entrepreneurial marine protected areas are small scale MPAs, where commercial entities provide the primary stewardship and facilitate self-financing conservation planning and management of local coral reef resources. Another scholar who pioneered the concept and described private conservation initiatives, is Sibylle Riedmiller. She described the case of Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd. in Zanzibar in particular where she was and is very much involved in. In contrast to Colwell, Riedmiller does not include the term commercial which makes her definition broader. She uses the concept introduced by Colwell but defines EMPAs as those MPAs where the government has handed over the day-to-day management to a private entity, be it an enterprise or NGO (Riedmiller, 2000). The difference with Colwell s definition is that it does not introduce anything new. Possibly she defined the concept differently to make it fit better with Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd. Though, without the use of the term commercial he might have changed the definition too much. This thesis embraces Colwell s definition because it specifically enables to distinguish commercially supported MPAs. This is relevant since private actors investing in a seemingly public good is innovative and knowledge about this recent phenomenon is far from complete. Exploring this particular phenomenon helps to identify effective management of biodiversity conservation in which independent private actors collaboratively and based on a shared vision initiate, manage and to a great extent self-finance projects with public as well as commercial aspects. Helping, not only to invent new forms of income generation, but also providing an solution to the world wide governmental budget cuts on nature conservation Characteristics and claims of entrepreneurial marine protected areas Colwell (1998a) claims co-management of MPAs expands the potential benefits of the EMPA approach. However, it remains unclear what these benefits are. When exploring the relation between co-management and the EMPA approach it is helpful to describe the main characteristics. The foundation lays in the notion that commercial entities can provide economic benefits, as well as environmental benefits, be it dive resorts or other commercial entities, and are acknowledged as full partners in the planning and management of MPAs and not just as potential sources of revenue to support the MPA. According to Colwell (1998b) the main benefits include: attracting tourism with the ability to provide a source of income and foreign exchange, increased local stewardship over the MPA, 29

30 and the use of existing commercial infrastructure which allows for fast development and relatively easy to institute management regimes. It is seen as the antithesis of MPAs: EMPAs have staff and other resources for management, which is often lacking in officially designated MPAs, but do not have the legal authority to enforce regulations. EMPAs seem to be appropriate where government or local community participation in marine resource management is limited and in relatively isolated but accessible areas. They achieve their potential and mature more quickly compared to state-let MPAs, help develop local capacity and provide lessons in MPA management (Colwell, 1998b). However, there is a need to ensure others (mainly tourists) to benefit from the services of the marine environment facilitated by the EMPA. This is important since the income of many EMPAs depends on tourism, which makes investments in promotion and visibility of good environmental practices to consumers an entrepreneurial opportunity. National and international governance arrangements, such as awards and certification, are considered to be one of the major factors to attract more tourists and thereby more income (Bottema and Bush, 2012). Next, research by Bottema and Bush (2012) describes one of the shortcomings of the EMPA approach, namely entrepreneurs are not able to institutionalise conservation and therefor EMPAs lack the resilience needed to overcome major issues. Examples of such issues are: when the entrepreneurs that set up the EMPA decide to stop, when political figures change and/or when donor assisted projects terminate (Horigue et al., 2012). EMPAs can thus be seen as a perfect basis for the realisation of newly formed institutional arrangements that can be built on traditional resource management, as well as mechanisms to overcome management failures and the provision of a safety net for communities affected by the development of a state led MPA, but depends on either state intervention, or establishment of meta-governance arrangements for its durability. (Teh, Teh and Chung, 2008; Cabral and Aliño, 2011; De Groot and Bush, 2010). Horigue et al. (2012) mention institutionalisation as a necessity for long-term functioning of MPAs and suggest the development of MPA networks. Also Colwell (1998a) claims EMPAs must be part of an integrated management approach tied into a network that includes traditional, national, and international coastal and marine managers to be truly successful. This thesis picks up these conclusions and aims to analyse commercial entities opportunities and the consequent arrangements to invest in marine conservation within co-managed MPAs. In doing so it allows to evaluate to what extent co-management supports or even expands the potential benefits of the EMPA approach. 2.2 Co-management In many cases, management of MPAs involves balancing of a wide range of interests, including the legal responsibilities of government departments and agencies for planning and protection of sites, the interests of local communities and the private sector, and of NGOs concerned with conservation. The complexity of the system, the ever changing biological knowledge and the difficulty to define resource boundaries have led many scholars to opt for co-management (Gray, 2008; Horigue et al., 2012; Clifton, 2003; Bottema and Bush, 2012). Moreover a MPA might be too complex to be governed effectively by a single agency only, which further emphasises the benefits of engaging in publicprivate-civil society partnerships. Co-management can for example allow those with a hands-on experience of how management schemes work in practice to be in a position to change them (Jentoft et al., 1998). It supports flexible social arrangements to develop the rules, institutions, and incentives that influence ecosystem management outcomes, brings additional expertise and capacity into the 30

31 management, establishes channels to raise funds and builds improved links with local communities and businesses. Non-profit foundations and NGOs are for example experts in fundraising activities, while private actors can cooperatively pool their resources to market the tourism they offer (Font et al., 2004). Following above described characteristics, co-management can thus be seen as an ideal way of managing complex systems. This section of the theoretical framework introduces the concept comanagement, its definition and use as a governance system in which a variety of actors negotiate roles and responsibilities in resource management Definitions of co-management Co-management is receiving more and more support as a system for conservation. Co-management is of all times, but the recent attention and origin dates back just several decades ago. With the end of the cold war, a new neoliberal consensus emerged that focused on reducing the role of the state and promoting market liberalisation (Levine, 2007). At the same time international development assistance recognised the disappointing results of community based conservation and used it as an argument to give rise to a shift of funding for conservation initiatives away from directly supporting developing states towards privatisation and decentralisation, creating an enabling environment for the private sector, and increasing the involvement of local organisations. In some cases this led to the demand for structures that support partnering and cooperation between a variety of actors, leading to comanagement arrangements. It is proposed as a gain for both sides, for the private sector to generate profits through investments in conservation and for the state an improvement in conservation effectiveness (Levine, 2007; Igoe and Brockington, 2007). There exists a vast diversity of definitions of co-management. The definition of co-management adopted by the World Conservation Congress is: a partnership in which government agencies, local communities and resource users, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders negotiate, as appropriate to each context, the authority and responsibility for the management of a specific area or set of resources (IUCN, 1996). Singleton (1998) defines co-management as: the term given to governance systems that combine state control with local, decentralized decision making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each Singleton (1998: 7). The working definition of co-management provided by Young and Horwich (2007) who described the history of protected area designation, co-management and community participation in Belize, is: the equal sharing of power and responsibility between government and a local community unit, with advisory involvement of an NGO where possible and desired, in the management of a protected area by members living on, near or adjacent to it (Young and Horwich, 2007: 13). The large variety of definitions, existing because of the many different arrangements, views and approaches possible, makes it useful to provide some common underpinnings. In general comanagement is explicitly associated with the distribution of rights and responsibilities pertaining a particular natural resource, is regarded as some kind of partnership between public and private actors 31

32 and as a system that is characterised by evolving rather than fixed arrangements (Carlson and Berkes, 2004; Plummer and Fitzgibbon, 2004). This thesis is particularly focussed on the last underpinning, the arrangements made in co-management and the role and responsibilities of actors with special attention to commercial entities. Much of the work of Jentoft focusses on these arrangements too. Jentoft et al. (1998) perceive co-management not as a simple incentive structure or special set of rules imposed on the individual, but much more as a product of as well as a project in social integration and community vitalization. The authors define co-management by an on-going collaborative and communicative process where resource users, together with government representatives and other actors are in an entrepreneurial and creative process through which rules are negotiated, formed and rejected. The existence of a wide range of definitions and ideas about co-management has also led to different models in which especially the terms partnership and arrangements are put central. The most common used model is one developed by Sen and Nielson (1996) adapted from McCay (1993) and Berkes (1994). They depict the partnership between public and private actors as a scale, illustrating the relative sharing of responsibility and authority between the government and stakeholders. Subsequently they include several possible arrangements on a spectrum ranging from arrangements with minimal exchange of information between government and user, to self-governance arrangements whereby users are delegated all decision-making power (figure 4). Figure 4: A typology of co-management (Sen and Nielson, 1996). Based on research by Pomeroy et al. (2006) conducted in Asia, Pomeroy et al. (2004) came up with a comparable, but simplified typology which they used for an analysis of co-management in the Caribbean. On a scale with on one end the government having most control to the other end with people having most control. The most common arrangement is described as consultative comanagement. Next is joint action and decision-making for which Pomeroy et al. (2004) use the term collaborative co-management connoting stronger partnerships. Third is delegated co-management that includes, but is not limited to, community-based management. Although few cases in the Caribbean appear to be at this level, it is not uncommon in other areas of the world. This typology can be depicted as shown in figure 5 and is adapted in the overview of MPAs in Belize in table 1. 32

33 Figure 5: Three degrees and labels of co-management (Pomeroy et al., 2004) Co-management as a web of relationships In contrast to Pomeroy, Carlson and Berkes (2004) do not simplify the model but make it more complex by including the constantly evolving character of arrangements of co-management. The authors emphasise co-management is much more than the sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resource users. According to them it involves many actors in very different layers who corroboratively try to find ways to learn from their actions and adapt the behaviour to the consequences of their own, and other s actions. They therefore also step away from the idea that comanagement can be depicted upon a scale and additionally propose another model: co-management as a rich web of continuous re-adjusting relations and agreements linking different parts of the public sector to a similarly heterogeneous set of private actors within one and the same area or resource system (figure 6). Figure 6: Co-management as an on-going iterative process (Carlson and Berkes, 2004). Carlson and Berkes (2004) perceive co-management as a result of, not a hierarchical, but on-going iterative processes involving many actors, including the state, who engage in problem solving activities in relation to a natural resource and thereby combine the dynamic learning characteristic of adaptive management with the linkage characteristic of cooperative management. This idea finds support in three case studies conducted by Jentoft et al. (2009) that show co-management evolves over time, with the important characteristic of being a continuous interactive negotiation process that requires a proactive state and participation of stakeholder groups and organisations. Also Armitage et al. (2009: 96) express the idea of co-management as a web of relations, by merging the concepts comanagement and adaptive management into a flexible system of resource management, tailored to specific places and situations, supported by, and working in conjunction with, various organisations at 33

34 different scales. Among others Armitage et al. (2009) have used the concept adaptive co-management as an approach that explicitly links learning and collaboration to facilitate effective governance, which Kooiman and Bavinck (2005: 17) define as the public and private interactions undertaken to resolve societal challenges, and the institutions and principles which mediate those interactions. Jentoft et al. (1998) stress that co-management is as much about opportunities as about rules and can be seen as a process of social creation through which knowledge is gained, values articulated, culture re-expressed and community created. This thesis proposes to combine the concepts adaptive comanagement of Armitage et al. (2009) and co-management of Jentoft et al. (1998) in combination of the model proposed by Carlsson and Berkes (2004). This allows to perceive co-management as a constantly evolving web of relations between people and between people and resources: i.e. who participates, how debates are structured, how knowledge is employed, how conflicts of interest are addressed and how agreements are reached. Co-management can thus be seen as an evolving process guided by a set of institutional principles allowing adaptation and flexibility and providing a space for resource users to be involved in the governance and management of natural resources and ideally challenges real dilemmas that require hard choices (Jentoft et al., 1998). This thesis sticks to this view, but since it does not cover all aspects of co-management it cannot be used as definition. The definition of co-management used in this report adopts that provided by the IUCN (1996). Young and Horwich (2007) specifically aim to define co-management how it is used in Belize. However, it might be too specific. They use equal sharing of power and responsibility not allowing for different types of co-management, and perceive the role of NGOs to be of an advisory character, while in Belize NGOs also carry out day-to-day management of MPAs. The definition provided by the IUCN is broader and covers many common underpinnings of co-management. This study therefore adopts the definition proposing the following: co-management is a collection of arrangements in which government agencies, local communities and resource users, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders continuously negotiate, as appropriate to each context, the authority and responsibility for the management of a specific area or set of resources As stated above, co-management ideally is of an ever changing character rather than a fixed state, since having strict agreements does not allow for any changes in sharing power and responsibility. In the definition provided by the IUCN this is nicely covered using the term negotiate. To emphasis the evolving character continuously is added. Besides, the term partnership in the original definition is somewhat restricting. This study indicates co-management does not have to be a partnership between two stakeholders only, but can in fact be a collection of arrangements between a variety of resource users. In order to broaden up the definition and also following the discussion on co-management as a web of relations, partnership is replaced by a collection of arrangements. 2.3 Entrepreneurship Co-management is in section 2.2 described as a process in which a variety of stakeholders engage in an entrepreneurial role. According to North (1993; 1995) entrepreneurship is a concept that can be used to explain institutional change and the space in which opportunities are discovered and explored to alter organizational relationships. It requires differences between people or decisions by a person to act, some form of innovation, organizing resources in a way that had not been done before and most importantly the existence of opportunities (Shane, 2003). To explore the evolving character of co- 34

35 management and the associated institutional arrangements it is useful to focus on the existence of opportunities for entrepreneurs to invest in marine conservation within co-management systems. By doing so it explores the institutional conditions under which these opportunities are created, emerge and sustain. In this section definitions are given of entrepreneurship and the main characteristics of social and environmental entrepreneurship. Alongside this, attention is given to the entrepreneurial process to help understand how opportunities are discovered and exploited and what kind of risks are associated with investing in marine conservation Definitions of entrepreneurship Shane (2003: 4) defines entrepreneurship by: an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, processes, and raw materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed. In earlier work Shane and Venkataraman (2000: 218) propose that the field of entrepreneurship can be seen as the scholarly examination of how, by whom and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited. The study involves the processes of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities as well as the individuals who do so. Social entrepreneurship is about the process of creating value by combining resources in new ways, intended to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating social change or meeting social needs. Environmental entrepreneurship, yet another concept, is of a similar character but focusses on the integration of economic and environmental value creation (Bottema, 2010). It is a specific class of entrepreneurship which addresses, among other areas, the capturing of opportunities present in environmentally relevant market failures wherein the exploitation of the opportunity alleviates the market failure and reduces environmental degradation (Dean and McMullen, 2007: 73). The perception of the conventional entrepreneur is someone who views resources as a means of profiting from their exploitation with the main goal of generating maximum financial returns as fast as possible. For the environmental entrepreneur, the enterprise is not only about making money, instead it is seen as a means of protecting natural resources from undesired behaviours with the aim of enhancing and maintaining the quality of their functioning over the long term. Studying environmental entrepreneurship from an economic perspective, by analysing how market failures causing environmental degradation as opportunities for entrepreneurs to obtain profits only, may thus oversee other factors beyond the economic that can generate opportunities for the environmental and/or social entrepreneur (Rojas-Laserna, 2011). Venkataraman (1997) describes this research field, in which entrepreneurs besides exploiting opportunities to overcome institutional challenges, also generate environmental and social benefits as not very well developed. Consequentially York and Venkataraman (2010) wonder what the political and institutional conditions are which enable entrepreneurs to tackle environmental degradation. This thesis aims to set more light on these conditions within co-management systems. The basis for entrepreneurship as a research field dates back to 1934 and explains more about the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities. Many entrepreneurship scholars follow either Schumpeter (1934) or Kirzner (1973) perspectives, or discuss differences and similarities between these perspectives. A combination of the two perspectives is also proven to be possible (Shane and Vankataraan, 2000). These perspectives are mainly focussed on explaining the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Kirzner argued that the existence of opportunities requires only differential access to existing information, whether Schumpeter supports a theory completely new 35

36 information, like changes in technology, political forces, regulation, macro-economic factors and social trends, explains the existence of entrepreneurial opportunities. Shane (2003) depicts the entrepreneurial process as a linear process in which he differentiates seven stages: (1) existence of opportunity, (2) discovery of opportunity, (3) decision to exploit opportunity, (4) resource acquisition, (5) entrepreneurial strategy, (6) organizing process and (7) performance. However, this might be a little too simple and is unable to explain why many businesses fail to survive. Something what in the beginning seemed like an entrepreneurial opportunity might not be an opportunity at all. The process can fail and requires rethinking or evaluating previous actions at any of the seven stages. It is therefore arguable to perceive the entrepreneurial process not as a linear process but instead as a process of a continuous character that allows for adaptation and innovation. The existence of opportunities is based on the idea of a disequilibrium state of economies, causing a continuous supply of new information about different ways to use resources and the possibility for entrepreneurs to transform these resources into a more valuable form (Shane and Vankataraman, 2000). Any change in either the co-management structure or internal knowledge of the entrepreneur affecting arrangements results in activities by the entrepreneur to attempt to reach an equilibrium again. Seen as a process of an on-going character, entrepreneurship is linking information to the perceived institutional arrangements of co-management thereby developing entrepreneurial opportunities. This process is circular, the entrepreneur recognizes an opportunity in the existing arrangements, be it profit related or social and environmental opportunities. After deriving these opportunities from information out of the co-management system or beyond, the entrepreneur develops and initially wants to exploit the opportunity. However, change has to be negotiated constantly and outcomes of activities have to be reflected upon. The entrepreneur aims or is demanded to maintain or change his position within the existing arrangements by interaction with other actors. Only then, in interaction with others, the space can be created to exploit opportunities Entrepreneurship and institutional change The institutional environment influences the willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities and opportunity exploitation (Shane, 2003). Institutions are seen as enabling and/or restricting mechanisms towards human action. They provide the needed stability within a group of people that interacts with each other and try to give significance to the daily chaos. The set of rules, culture, norms and values following these interactions determine what opportunities are (Midavaine, 2010). Opportunities then emerge through the individual s social relations to a broader network of actors, which makes that entrepreneurship is a process resulting from the continuous interaction between entrepreneurs and the context in which their activities are embedded (Bottema and Bush, 2012: 40). Subsequently the opportunities for entrepreneurs to invest in the protection of natural resources can be understood by perceiving the entrepreneur as part of and being surrounded by constantly evolving institutions. Used analytically, entrepreneurialism can provide insights in how agents of change emerge, what persists a given setting and, how entrepreneurs are able to shape change. One of the scholars that frequently highlights the role of entrepreneurs as agents of change is North who defines the agent of change as the individual entrepreneur responding to the incentives embodied in the institutional framework. He describes the entrepreneur as someone who is part of an organisation and makes decisions based on a mixture of external change and internal learning in the context of the perceived costs and gains of changing institutions (North, 1993; 1995). Or how Vankataraman (1997) in Rojas-Laserna (2011: 34) formulates it: the decision to exploit 36

37 (entrepreneurial opportunities) involves weighing the value of the opportunity against the costs to generate that value, and the costs to generate value in other ways. According to North (1995) organisations are the result of institutions and further delimited institutional change since this would require the organisations to change. Consequently institutions tend to change only marginally and appear more likely to diffuse and develop along a process of re-creation rather than creation. As a result, entrepreneurs make choices between institutional alternatives and mostly look for new solutions in the proximity of old ones instead of inventing completely new institutions (Jentoft, 2004). Change can thus be seen as being path dependent since it will be directed by the existing institutional matrix governed by the kinds of knowledge invested in it, which makes existing organizations oppose largescale changes (Storr, 2009). Although, change seems gradually, entrepreneurs might be in the ability to demand for and find mechanisms that are in favour of and address the need to change institutions. Biggs et al. (2010) build further on this by describing three steps that are critical to a transformation process: (1) reframing perspectives, especially by providing or facilitating the development of an alternative vision, (2) engaging key stakeholders by fostering a group identity, building networks and function as a vehicle for diffusion of ideas and (3) managing conflict. Key strategies can be summed by (1) building and amplifying networks of individuals and organizations relevant to the problem, (2) dispersing power, and (3) avoiding centralized control and structuring. Additionally, transformations could potentially be leveraged by providing key individuals, already performing leadership functions in support of environmental-management transformations, with financial and institutional support. Entrepreneurs manage to link rationalities and thereby proactively affect the underlying institutions that steer economic incentives (Bottema and Bush, 2012). Changing or influencing institutions to create the space needed to exploit certain opportunities however comes with risks and is a time and effort consuming activity (Vankataraman, 1997). Because a decision to exploit a certain opportunity is made with uncertainty and limited information one of the characteristics of an entrepreneur is often overconfidence (Shane, 2003). Besides psychological factors also non-psychological factors, like opportunity costs, education and career experience play a role in the decision making. What is particularly interesting of entrepreneurs being agents of change is the description of the institutional environment in transition, the environment in which entrepreneurs become aware and receive the essential amount of incentives to decide to take the initiative to invest in conservation, oppose certain changes or try to influence new policies concerning co-management. It is exactly at that point were co-management and the EMPA approach meet. Analysing this particular situation, decision moments and places does yield the knowledge to describe the role of commercial entrepreneurs within co-managed MPAs, its effects and consequences. 2.4 Framework of analysis The concepts discussed in this chapter are EMPAs, co-management and entrepreneurship. The core of the EMPA approach are commercial entities facilitating self-financing conservation planning and management. Co-management in this thesis puts emphasises on the character of being an evolving web of relations providing a space for resource users to be involved in the governance and management of natural resources, but merely keeps with the definition provided by the IUCN (1996). Entrepreneurs in this theses are perceived as those who translate the constantly evolving web of relations into entrepreneurial opportunities by linking rationalities and thereby proactively affecting the underlying institutions. 37

38 Within this study the correlation between co-management and the EMPA approach is explored with help of an analysis focused on the variation in entrepreneurial opportunities to commercially invest in biodiversity conservation between MPAs throughout Belize. Of importance in this study are thus entrepreneurial opportunities and the existing differences of MPAs in Belize. Entrepreneurs engage in a process to constantly realign economic incentives in order to create the space needed to transform resources in more valuable forms for the entrepreneur and possibly others. The entrepreneur organizes and plans this transformation. However also needs to tests and reflect the opportunity which requires change, meaning the entrepreneur needs to interact, influence and negotiate actors level of control, authority and capacity for action. These interactions then create space for manoeuvre and the possibility to actually exploit the entrepreneurial opportunity. In this thesis the entrepreneurial opportunities are analyzed in relation to the three types of MPA management that can be differentiated in Belize. Namely: MPAs that are co-management with either the Forest or Fisheries Department, in which those co-managed with the FiD can be distinguished in collaborative and delegated comanagement. The data collected and the concepts explored provide the opportunities to study a variety of aspects of MPA management in Belize. In the first place it allows to provide an example of a case in which an EMPA developed into a network of three co-managed MPAs by a NGO. Secondly it enables to study the relation between co-managed MPAs and the EMPA approach, or commercial entities opportunities to facilitate self-financing conservation planning and management of local coral reef resources. Third the data provides the opportunity to explore variation in commercial entity opportunities in relation to a variety of co-management types. The following three chapters consist of empirical data and describe the historical development of the creation of three MPAs currently co-managed by Southern Environmental Association and describes the development and issues of other MPAs across Belize as supportive material. The historical development allows to find out how an EMPA can develop into a MPA co-managed by a NGO and the effects of this development on private sector investments in biodiversity conservation. Besides each MPA reflects a certain co-management type which makes it possible to compare to what extent each of these allows for the development of EMPAs or comparable initiatives. The results of the chapters are used as the basis for a concluding discussion on co-management in relation to the EMPA approach. 38

39 3 Co-management with the Forest Department This chapter focusses on Laughing Bird Caye National Park. It is a MPA established under the National Parks System Act and has the objective of habitat and species protection, preservation of natural and scenic features of national significance, research and education, tourism, and recreation. The first section of the chapter describes the historical development of Laughing Bird Caye National Park, explores the role of the private sector and highlights the interactions that led to the process of designation. The subsequent section (section 3.2.1) explores coral nurseries as an investment incentive provided by co-management of Laughing Bird Caye National Park. It provides an example of a private sector investment in biodiversity conservation within or thanks to co-managed MPAs. In section the example is supported by a case describing the profitable partnership between Belize Audubon Society and Island Expeditions on Halve Moon Caye Natural Monument. 3.1 Laughing Bird Caye National Park Laughing Bird Caye National Park was designated a National Park in It is located 18 km eastsoutheast off the coast of Placencia with a total size of 4,095 ha of which the island is 0,57 ha. The caye is named after the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) which once nested on the north end of the island and is the most southern island of the Belize Barrier Reef lagoon system. It is a long and narrow island that stands on an elongated ridge of reef known as a faro. The rim is an almost continuous ring of narrow reef has steep sides rising out of deep water and encloses a central lagoon. The floor of the central lagoon has a maximum depth of 30 m and is composed of a fine sandy-mud substrate with patch reefs scattered throughout. The park is under formal responsibility exercised by the Forest Department. It is completely no-take-zone and only non-extractive recreational activities such as swimming, snorkelling, SCUBA diving, kayaking and sailing can be undertaken within the park boundaries. There are a ranger station, restroom and pick-nick facilities situated on the island, and with 24 hours presence and patrols twice a day by two full-time rangers the park regulations are well enforced (Hagan, 2011). Figure 7 and 8: Photo impression Laughing Bird Caye. In the past the island was frequently used by fishermen from Placencia, Monkey River, Independence, Hopkins and Riversdale. They fished on finfish, conch and lobster and camped on the island taking advantage of the available fruits of the abundant coconut trees. The years just before and after independence of Belize the country was discovered as tourist destination and at the same time the first 39

40 resorts of Placencia being Sea Spray and Rum Point Inn were build. The owners of these resorts got requests from tourists to visit the cayes repeatedly. And seen as a business opportunity to show tourists the abundant marine life of the reef and to educate students from North America on traditional fishing methods the first tours were being organized. Since fishermen traditionally used the island as a camping ground, knew the reef well and could easily locate coral patches and other marine life, the first tourists were brought to the island by fishermen. Slowly but steadily this led to a situation the function of the island became twofold, as camping ground for fishermen and as a base for tourism activities. However, it was not only the function of the island that had changed: continued interaction between fishermen, being boat captains and tour guides and visitors of LBC can be seen as a learning process of both the visitors and the fishermen in traditional fishing and conservation. Since Belize was not as developed as yet as a tourism destination the foreign visitors can be characterised by being adventurous with an interest in the nature and culture of Belize. It was a group of people that was predominantly conservation minded with knowledge on biodiversity. For the development of the island into a national park these particular interactions were of significant importance. The fishermen who knew all about fishing and the development of fish stocks were introduced to different ideas about fishing and different ways of using fishing grounds for other purposes. The builders of Rum Point Inn were taking out tourists to the reef and showing how local fishermen fish. Some biologists were explaining to us some practices were unsustainable and there where opportunities to use the area for less extractive purposes being snorkelling and diving (personal communication Glen Eiley). In the meanwhile tourism development increased in importance and the GoB decided to sell and lease out many of the country cayes to private developers. One day fishermen and pioneering tour guides found out the land of LBC was demarcated for dredging and a businessman was interested in leasing the island which made the status of LBC was threatened and economic interests at risk. The main destination we used for the snorkelling tours was Laughing Bird Caye. One day we went there we saw survey markers which meant the caye had been surveyed to be sold and developed. We couldn t allow that because it was the main and only destination at that time (personal communication Sea Horse). Something had to be done to prevent the development, but valid arguments were needed to lobby with the government and fishermen did not have the knowledge. At that point the owners of Rum Point Inn George and Carol Bevier, step in to help. The originally North American couple were one of the first expats in Placencia, conservation minded and pioneers in tourism. (Box 2). The people who used to work with Rum Point Inn and other concerned citizens of Placencia decided to form a committee called Friends of Laughing Bird Caye to prevent privatisation, limit human impacts on the caye and lobby for its protection. Members of the committee were representatives of Rum Point Inn, the village council, the principal from the school and someone of the Placencia Tour Guide Association (PTGA) that was being formed at that same time. They started to run a petition in the village and found out almost nobody was against creating a park. Shortly after the petition the committee organized a very effective voluntary ban on fishing around and camping on the caye. It were mostly the tour operators and tour guides who lobbied for designation. It was for the business. The only island that was being used by tour operators and guides including fishermen was LBC since all other islands were private property (personal communication SEA). 40

41 Box 2: History of tourism. Prior to its independence in 1981, Belize was not regarded as a place to travel due to lack of infrastructure. Rapid expansion of the tourist industry over the last decades has changed this and made tourism the nation's second largest industry after agriculture. Development of ecotourism and commitment to sustainable development practices became number one priorities of the government of Belize and over the last 30 years more land for conservation is set aside than any other country in the world. Of high importance for tourism development were entrepreneurs. Three are seen as the pioneers of tourism in Belize. Bert Foreman, a lobster trap fisherman around Seargants Caye, who ran Britisch Civil service types coming to the colony out of the Fort George Hotel. Ray Auxillou, teacher at the Primary School on Caye Caulker, who used a small 24 foot homebuilt cabin cruiser boat on weekends out of the Bellevue Hotel and build the two story wooden Hideway Lodge in And John Grief, who brought guests to San Pedro, Ambergris Caye with a 3 passenger Cessna 172. Important in the development of tours to the cayes was the recurrent visitation of marine biology student groups from the North America. For the fishing village Placencia tourism started around 1974 with the opening of George and Carol Bevier s Rum Point Inn. The owners and their children were North American expats pioneering without the benefit of roads or electricity and building their resort one cabaña at a time. The Stanford graduates attracted over the ensuing years all manner of cultural events and movers and shakers from around the world. With being pioneers and shaping destiny instead of waiting for destiny to shape their lives George and Carol have been very active in preserving the unique environment of Belize and were very instrumental in organizing community efforts and concerns to get areas declared as MPAs. Until recently the Bevier Family has been serving the public at Rum Point Inn. George passed away at the age of 74 in 2003 and the resort is currently managed by Sheila Knox. Several websites have been used for this illustrative box about the history of tourism in Belize. Accessed , available at: Around the same time the committee chairman of Friends of Laughing Bird Caye who used to work for Rum Point Inn decided to start his own dive shop. And since having commonly defined rules for a certain area requires some kind of management the chairman s new business Sea Horse became next to a dive centre also an office and administrative building of the committee. Being organized and recognized as a group of concerned citizens Friends of Laughing Bird Caye was invited to several national meetings dealing with marine protected areas. These meetings allowed committee members to learn more about MPAs, the opportunities for creating a protected area and getting funds for their efforts. Besides, contacts at the Belize Audubon Society helped to understand the construction of comanagement and since someone of the Belize Audubon Society shifted job, starting to work for the UNDP money became available for other organizations willing to become co-manager of protected areas in Belize. Since we were operating without finance, it in fact was my business that was operating the committee. One day I was invited to a meeting in Belize City by Coastal Zone 41

42 Management, that was just forming. In one of their meetings marine reserves were part of the discussion. Out of that discussion I found out where I could find finance. Immediately after the meeting I got in contact with one of these guys and he was willing to help. They gave me a start-up fund. To pay a consultant to do the groundwork for a management plan. We had to go to all the communities to do the consultation. In one consultation the idea came up we needed to realize a co-management agreement allowing to manage the area ourselves but get it protected by the government (personal communication Sea Horse). Within these consultations the Friends of Laughing Bird Caye promoted the idea of a marine reserve being protection of the caye and a one mile no take zone around it. At that time the Forest Department had much more experience with declaring reserves compared to the Fisheries Department. This is reflected by the period marine reserves are created: with exemption of Hol Chan Marine reserve they are all designated in 1996 or later. The Forest Department in contrary was very constructive in enlarging protected areas (Cockcomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary) and creating new parks (Bladen Nature Reserve and Monkey Bay Wildlife Sanctuary). Though LBC was in the marine environment the committee invited the Forest Department to join a community consultation in Monkey River. The Forest Department got involved in the idea of creating a protected area and this eventually led to the designation of Laughing Bird Caye as a National Park under jurisdiction of the Forest Department. Surprisingly in that meeting the forestry people declared that the area, although out at sea, was not a marine reserve but a national park. Reason being we wanted a one mile strict no take zone which is only possible through legislation of the Forest Department (personal communication Sea Horse). The designation of national park did not entirely fit with the demand of the community, and instead of the proposed one mile no take zone around the island the complete atoll was shut down making it impossible to fish around LBC legally. This resulted in some kick back from the fishermen, but at the end of the day it turned out to be a blessing LBC became a national park instead of a marine reserve. At that time it was much easier to work under the Forest Department compared to the Fisheries Department because the first did have way less capacity to be involved in protected area management and delegated all day-to-day management tasks to the co-manager which made the working relationship a lot easier. The Minister of Natural Resources declared Laughing Bird Caye a National Park in Later, in 1996, Laughing Bird Caye National Park was one of seven marine protected areas along the Belize Barrier Reef to be declared a collective World Heritage Site by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Funding for the management plans of LBCNP made it possible to restructure the committee with a board of directors representing all stakeholder communities. This same fund enabled the committee to take meetings around so everyone knew what was happening with the reserve. At the time of research, management of the park seems well organized. However, reviewing papers, work documents and management plans it becomes clear LBCNP even though protected still faces many challenges. According to Pomeroy and Goetze (2003) the effects of uncontrolled tourism activities and overfishing have led to considerable degradation of the reef, and stocks of fish even continued to decline after designation. Besides, development of tourist facilities on the mainland resulting in increased disposal of sewage and solid waste and dredging within Placencia Lagoon and nearby cayes has considerable negative effects on the coral reef populations of the faro. 42

43 On top of that Laughing Bird Caye was hit by hurricane Iris in October The caye lost significant vegetation on the island, infrastructure was destroyed, and changes occurred in the physical structure of the island. The damage to the reef was with an increase in recent mortality from 2.8% to 19.6% and an increase in mechanical damage from <1% to 70.7% considerable. Coupled with the worldwide bleaching event in 1998 almost half of the area was negatively affected (Hagan, 2011). Box 3: Tourism versus fishing. Originally Placencia is a fishing village. The tourism season was exactly at a time fishing was limited and fishermen soon realized organizing snorkel tours as an alternative source of income. With this innovation they became one of first Belizean pioneers in tour guiding. It was around I used to work as a regular fisherman and then decided to make a transition to tourism. The tourism season was December, January February and a little bit of March. I used to work those months. Then in April, May and June there is the snapper run, so you fish for snapper. Then the lobster season is in July, August and September, in October the conch season is opening. That is how I used to work (personal communication Sea Horse). The designation of LBC as a national park further motivated fishermen to focus more on tourism business instead of fishing. Although the fishermen seemed to be affected negatively through the creation of the reserve: they were indeed being excluded from their camping ground and prime fishing spot, it was in fact only the profession losing ground. Soon after designation of the park, more tourist were coming and apart from those who pioneered there was sufficient work for other fishermen to make a transition to tourism. To become a tour guide, but also to invest in other tourism related infrastructure, like hotels and restaurants. Since it were fishermen who knew the area best and were very helpful in designation we came up with the idea fishermen would be the best guides, and started to look for courses relevant to the use of the reserve without extracting (personal communication Glen Eiley). Although economic prosperity seems significant in Placencia, the tourism industry is not without any risks. In 2002 hurricane Iris has shown, one event can destroy a complete industry in a day or less. But apart from extreme weather events, tourism is seasonal and even within the seasons there is fluctuation. Alternatives are necessary to keep guides occupied when the tourism season is slow. A lot of tour guides are licensed fishermen as well, and if tourism is slow they go back to fishing. The guides are fortunate they can do fishing but it is not good for the reefs and will have negative effects. Besides, with tourism there is development which increases the costs of living. And although it is possible to survive from tourism many tour guides do not manage their money well. After a good season there is quite a bit of party going on and most money is spend in bars and the nightclub (personal communication PTGA). 43

44 3.2 Profitable partnerships The characteristics of Laughing Bird Caye National Park invited actors to build partnerships. Section explores the partnership between the private sector and the NGO Southern Environmental Association with help of a case on coral nurseries. Section adds to the findings of these cases by studying the partnership between Belize Audubon Society and Island Expeditions. The two cases together make it possible to understand why co-managers and the private sector work together in efforts to conserve biodiversity and enables to adds knowledge on studying the relation between comanagement and the EMPA approach SEA and Fragments of Hope After the world wide devastating bleaching event of 1998 and hurricane Iris in 2001 many corals on LBC were damaged. Examples around the world showed it is possible to grow corals in a nursery and out plant them on the reef. In 2007 this idea was taken over by Lisa Carne, a marine biologist working as an expat in Placencia. She came up with the initiative Fragments of Hope, wrote a research proposal and got financial support from the World Bank. From then nurseries were built on various locations and full grown corals out planted on the reef. The marine biologist who runs the initiative by herself mainly focusses on the research aspect with the aim to restore the natural reef within LBCNP. She started with Elkhorn, but with funding in 2010 it became possible to experiment with Staghorn as well. Corals are grown on domes made of iron and recent funding of the WWF made it possible to expand and also construct tables. Figure 9 and 10: One of the coral nurseries of Whipray Caye. The first picture shows Staghorn fragments that are inserted into the coils of a rope, the second fragments of Elkhorn tied on cement cookies that are attached to the table. In the first few years it was possible to set apart a portion of the funding of the World Bank and the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre to pay for labor. However, from the third year funding was less and the initiative started to depend on volunteers. In March 2013 Lisa approached Avadon Divers to communicate about the initiative and the tour operator turned out to be more than willing to assist. On Earth Day 2013 they supported with labor, equipment, a boat and lunch for a full day building a table for a new coral nursery at Whipray Caye with volunteers consisting of staff of Avadon Divers, SEA and expats living in Placencia. Expats, of which most are retirees. These people in particular are very much involved in these kind of activities since one of their reasons to move to Belize is the uniqueness and vastness of Belize s nature which they would love to help maintain and conserve. For Avadon Divers and SEA it was creating awareness among the staff and teambuilding, but especially also a nice day out. 44

45 It is important for the business, you have to give back to the community. But doing it with the crew also creates a good team spirit. It allows us to hang out together, doing something productive while not having to be with our guests all the time (personal communication Avadon Divers). The willingness of the tour operator to assist in a full day working on the construction of a new table for the coral nursery and the donation in kind are an interesting way of how the private sector assists with biodiversity conservation efforts. Apart from providing support to Fragments of Hope the tour operator also helps out on the reef with hunting lionfish. Lionfish is invasive in Belize and eats on small reef fish that provide a cleaning service to corals with feeding on algae, causing fish populations to decline and threating coral by the exponential growth of algae. By law it is the only fish which is allowed to be hunt using a spear while scuba diving within marine reserves. Remark the use of the term hunting, it is not permitted to fish for lionfish, but chasing the fish and killing it without the risk of killing other species is allowed. One of the owners of Avadon Divers sees potential in conservation efforts as a product and expects inviting student groups and tourists to get involved in this type of activities might be a successful addition to the courses and dive excursions they offer. We could have lionfish hunting dives. It can be marketed. We could do coral research and we could also do coral restoration. We can sell that. A lot of people would like to do that, including lectures and education. Offering those kind of activities can help my business (personal communication Avadon Divers). Looking at coral restoration from a business perspective it is interesting to know how this opportunity emerged and what the specifics are that make coral restoration possible. To be able to grow corals it is at first needed to get a research permit of the Fisheries Department. In order to get one you have to send a research proposal, pay $100,00 for a renewal yearly and submit research reports. The Fisheries Department has followed these requirements particularly in the first years. Now, after doing research for over five years the permit is renewed when asked for. Within marine reserves the Fisheries Department can give out research permits charging $250,00. Fragments of Hope however has its nurseries not within a marine reserve, but just outside which makes the permit cheaper. Some are situated close to the ranger station of GSSCMR others at Whipray Caye which is privately owned but has shallow waters well sheltered from waves and currents. Lisa has chosen for these locations because of human presence: rangers can monitor the nurseries from the shore and also on Whipray Caye owner and staff of the resort on the caye know about and support the initiative. The second requirement for coral restoration to be successful is a reef suitable for young corals that are susceptible to predation and have to develop resilience. Once fully grown the fragments are out planted on the reef of LBCNP which is co-managed with the Forest Department. The Forest Department basically delegated all management to SEA which makes Fragments of Hope is with consultation of SEA free to out plant coral fragments grown in the nurseries on the reef of LBC. The fragments are not out planted anywhere but there were skeletons can be found indicating decreased natural populations due to bleaching and hurricane Iris. The restoration project is particularly successful because of this opportunity and the nature of the reserve. With reduced populations of lobster it turned out corals have a predator which is a little snail that eats the coral but is eaten by lobsters. So in all areas that are overfished there is an overabundance of snails making coral restoration efforts worthless, since once out planted the corals are attacked by the little predators immediately. Because LBCNP has a no-take status there is no fishing allowed providing a balanced ecosystem supporting 45

46 coral health and giving the just out planted coral an additional jump start (personal communication Fragments of Hope). A last important aspect of the initiative is the protection of corals by Belizean law. Nobody in Belize has the right to either touch or harm coral. Lisa has a research permit that allows her to do so in order to restore the reef, but no one else is. It is this law that protects the fragments out planted on the reef. Besides, since the restoration takes place within LBCNP there is permanent presence by rangers who monitor the reef and enforce the no-take zone. The corals are mine, I have the research permit. Well, the corals are of the country of Belize, it is everybody s, but I have the research permit and everyone else is subject to a fine for touching or harming coral. In fact it is Belize law that protects all coral so also my coral (personal communication Fragments of Hope). In Belize it seems it is the combination of getting permission from the Fisheries Department to conduct research and the specifics of the co-management agreement between the Forest Department and SEA that support the initiative of having a coral nursery and restoring the natural reef within a national park. A business mostly demands exclusive rights, however having a research permit allows to work with corals and the regulations within marine reserves seem to create an environment in which investments in coral restoration efforts are protected without the need to have exclusive rights over the reef where the young corals are out planted. Coral restoration thus seems to have potential to become a business. However, it demands the correct persons on the correct positions. Someone in Jamaica has turned a coral nursery into a business by getting local support from resorts. The project got a grant and two local fishermen were hired to do coral gardening. However, in Jamaica the corals are just in front of the resorts while in Belize the corals are out on the reef and thus much further which might make it more difficult to find sponsors. Next, although the concept of coral restoration seems easy to replicate the Fisheries Department does not grant others then Lisa with the permission to start a coral nursery. First a country wide assessment is needed on the state of the reef and where possible restoration efforts are desired. Lisa wants to start her own NGO in order to offer the science needed BAS and Island Expeditions Natural monuments are comparable with national parks under jurisdiction of the Forest Department. Next to LBCNP there are two natural monuments in a marine environment, these are Halve Moon Caye Natural Monument and Blue Hole Natural Monument. The last is completely marine, but as the name already indicates Halve Moon Caye Natural Monument also has land within its protected area borders. On the caye Island Expeditions, a Canadian tour company engaged in a partnership with the Belize Audubon Society that is co-manager of the MPA. As a result of this partnership the operations of the co-manager and therefore biodiversity conservation did become financially sustainable and now depends less on grants and donations. This case shows the case illustrated in does not stand alone and also other co-managers and private sector engage in partnerships. The case of BAS and Island Expeditions in particular questions the origin, development, common interests and results of the partnership. Halve Moon Caye is the oldest MPA of Belize. It was established in 1928 to protect the population of Red-footed Boobies nesting on the caye. After independence, in 1982 it was the first reserve to be established by the Natural Parks System Act, this time as a Natural Monument under the Forest Department in co-management with the Belize Audubon Society. Being declared as a NM not only the caye but the whole Light House Reef Atoll comprising 9,771 acres became no-take-zone. The atoll is 46

47 an asymmetric rimmed platform, entirely surrounded by a fringing reef rising virtually to the surface, of which there are only four in the Western Hemisphere. It is the furthest of Belize s atolls from the mainland and part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The BAS who is day to day manager of Half Moon Caye is by far the biggest co-manager with the highest number of staff. The group of people who set up the organisation are perceived as pioneers, they started pre-government and like other NGOs depended heavily on grants and volunteers. Though, the organisation managed to grow with some support of the GoB in the beginning of 2000 and comanaging iconic reserves like Blue Hole, Half Moon Caye and Cockscomb Basin that helped to raise revenues. Today the BAS is co-managing nine different reserves with the Forest Department, but since Half Moon Caye and Blue Hole are located within a marine environment and are part of the MPA network there is also cooperation with the Fisheries Department. The FoD does not have presence on site which makes visitors and tour guides deal with co-managers. The BAS has a mandate to manage the site however struggles with various issues, primarily the budget due to the high costs of maintaining presence and facilities on the caye. One idea to generate the needed income to support operations was to attract tourism to the island. However, the island is far from the coast which makes visitation by tourists costly and therefore limited. The wish to have tourism but eco-friendly with a small footprint fitted very well with the ideas of Island Expeditions a company specialized in group adventure experiences that was regularly visiting the caye with groups of kayakers. Kayaking does not require a lot of infrastructure and one day Island Expeditions approached the BAS with the question if there were opportunities to work together and develop a basecamp with some rudimentary facilities like a restroom, outdoor kitchen and camping ground. After some constructive meetings including involvement of the GoB an agreement was made and Island Expeditions was given permission to invest in the construction of the facilities mentioned above and an additional ranger and field research station. Island Expeditions wanted to construct a restroom on the site, but because it is government land you cannot have exclusive usage and everything you develop on the island is a donation. The developed facilities are for the betterment of the site of which Island Expeditions is the main user. We do say it is not exclusive, but very few go camping or visit the site because it is very remote and expensive. However, if others come and want to camp they are welcome to do so too (BAS). The BAS does benefit from Island Expeditions in several ways. At first, direct financially by charging visitor fees and rent for the use of facilities. There is a fee of BZ $20,00 that has to be paid by everyone visiting the park, besides Island Expeditions makes use of the camping ground, the restrooms, outdoor kitchen and research station which is charged separately with camping fees and rentals. Interesting is the fact facilities used by Island Expeditions are also build by Island Expeditions. Besides, the BAS benefits in kinds. Staff and guests of Island Expeditions regularly boat from the NM to Belize City and offer rangers rides and the possibility to transport supplies. The BAS can provide this same service to staff of Island Expeditions, but with limitations, it is i.e. not possible to fill up the tanks of a vessel of Island Expeditions with fuel from the BAS. A third kind of benefit is that Island Expeditions actively promotes the BAS among their guests with the aim to create awareness in the differences between protected and un-protected habitats. Additionally, local tour guides teach guests who are on vacation during lectures on corals, marine live and birds along snorkeling and diving tours. 47

48 Our business depends on natural environments. If I bring people to a certain area they come there to experience the richness of that natural environment. The quality of the experience determines the success of our business (Island Expeditions). To a certain extent the income derived from rent and fees, but especially donations in kind have helped the BAS to maintain the location and make the park break-even. Complementary the cooperation also benefits Island Expeditions. Island Expeditions is provided the environment they need to be able to offer eco-tourism packages and run their business. They started off with a small group and small investments unable to buy a caye to develop sustainable tourism and promote conservation. The BAS provided the opportunity that enabled Island Expeditions to gain access to and operate in a unique habitat. Furthermore Island Expeditions banks on the services provided by the BAS, like maintenance of facilities and cleaning of the natural environment and enforcement of regulations, generally ensuring the park is not only protected on paper but on site as well. With the work done by the BAS, Island Expeditions maintains what they need, which is a pristine eco-friendly environment. You cannot fence it off, because then you would not have tourism and when you do not have tourism how are you going to develop your society? (Island Expeditions). The cooperation is a blend of conservation and tourism. It can be seen as tourism with the overarching mandate of conservation and habitat protection as the guiding principles. Both, the BAS and Island Expedition suggest one does not go without the other. Island Expeditions limits the footprint and at the same time maximizes economic benefit, where there is no or insufficient conservation control due to insufficient revenues one will destroy the attraction that brought the business there in the first place. Meanwhile both partners are working towards further expansion. The BAS, for example, plans to set up Internet, so they can charge users for that as well. The concept of the partnership is replicable to other protected areas. However, one has to be very careful and know who you are going into business with. It is not accumulation of money where comanagers should strive for, but meeting the primary mandate of conservation and sustainable economic development. Cooperation with the private sector creates new opportunities, but at the end of the day protected areas are not for co-managers, neither for commercial entrepreneurs, it is for the enjoyment of all. Besides it is the GoB that has the final say. The BAS has a concession with Island Expeditions that expires every three years, which can be revised, improved and changed every renewal. However, it is in the same contract the GoB is stipulated as the silent partner and if the Ministry disagrees with a certain development everything can be changed. For us as co-managers it is important to ensure the longevity of these sites remain but also that we are able to financially sustain these islands. Cooperation with an investor creates opportunities and enables to derive another type of income rather than just the entrance fees, but you need to ensure that proper guidelines are set in place. Whatever investment that is made on the site needs to be in the best interest of that particular site and not the investor, reason being conservation is the primary goal and MPAs are for all to enjoy. As co-manager you are responsible to maintain this function and provide this service. So, partnership can work but it depends on the approach you will take. If worked out properly it is the ideal tool for conservation that can be used for other protected areas as well (BAS). Entrepreneurship of Island Expeditions and the BAS led to a partnership that enables profits for both. With taking risks the partnership ensures a sustainable source of income for operations needed to maintain biodiversity of Halve Moon Caye Natural Monument. Both actors are aware of the fact it is 48

49 government land and the GoB has the last word in any decision concerning the future of the caye, still they were able to make agreements. Besides, both remark the partnership would not have been beneficial if there was no co-management of the reserve. There is more trust between NGOs and commercial entrepreneurs compared to a cooperation with the state, among other reasons because financial flows are more transparent; money invested in the BAS flows back into nature conservation, and NGOs seem to have more dedication towards the mandate of conservation. 3.4 Conclusion The conclusion of this chapter link the findings of the cases described in the sections 3.1 and 3.2 with the research questions and concepts discussed in the conceptual framework. In section 3.1 it becomes clear continued interaction between the first tourists visiting Placencia and fishermen, being boat captains and tour guides was important in the process towards designation of LBCNP. It formed the basis for alternative views on Laughing Bird Caye that became an economic interest at risk when it was threatened by privatization. Fishermen, tour guides, resort owners and concerned community members organized themselves in a committee called Friends of Laughing Bird Caye to prevent privatization, limit human impacts on the caye and lobby for its protection. At the same time the committee chairman of Friends of Laughing Bird Caye decided to start its own dive shop from where activities of the committee were organized. From the historical development it becomes clear the role of entrepreneurs in the process towards designation appears to be significant. Remarkable is that the opportunity to organize tours and to protect Laughing Bird Caye is not necessarily one that is created but more an opportunity that arose because of changing demands caused by interaction with people with other preferences and ideas about the environment. Being an initiative from local fishermen and resort owners the MPA shows similarities with being an EMPA. The committee facilitated self-financing conservation planning and management of local coral reef resources. The administration and organization was supported from a dive shop which is a commercial entity. And LBC with a one mile radius no-take zone around the island initially was a small scale MPA. However, being recognized as a group, Friends of Laughing Bird Caye were invited to meetings and fast learned about the availability of funds and the possibility in Belize to co-manage protected areas. This was soon followed up by lobbying of the committee to get LBC declared as marine reserve. Consultations were taken to all involved communities and also the Forest Department was invited to join. Since the Forest Department had compared to the Fisheries Department more experience with protected area designation, Laughing Bird Caye was designated not as a marine reserve but as a national park. However, the Forest Department did not have the capacity to be involved in protected area management which made all day-to-day management were delegated to the co-management agency Friends of Laughing Bird Caye. Coral nurseries are one of the private sector initiatives to conserve biodiversity within Laughing Bird Caye National Park. The case provides an example of how the private sector cooperates and partners with co-management organization SEA and the Fisheries Department. The initiative Fragments of Hope is run by a marine biologist and received financial support from the World Bank and the WWF, though is not an official registered NGO as yet. Its primarily aims are to study coral reef restoration and to restore the natural reef within LBCNP. The case illustrates tour operators are more than willing to assist with the activities of Fragments of Hope and even want to explore the opportunities to make conservation into a tourism product as an addition to the courses and dive excursions they offer. 49

50 Coral restoration demands to work with corals and therefore a research permit of the Fisheries Department. The out-planting of fragments of corals is done in LBCNP for which Fragments of Hope got permission from co-management agency SEA. Co-management in combination with a research permit of the FiD facilitates the initiative for coral restoration. Supportive to the initiative is the protected status of the national park. National parks are no-take zones which means no fishing activities which can harm the corals takes place. Besides, there is permanent presence by rangers of SEA who monitor the reef. Interesting of the initiative is that it actually can be perceived as being an EMPA. The coral nurseries are self-financed and conservation planning and management is carried out by Fragments of Hope. This implies it is possible to develop EMPAs within co-managed MPAs. Another example of a private sector partnership with a co-managing agency in a MPA co-managed with the Forest Department is the case of Belize Audubon Society and Island Expeditions. The partnership in particular provides an example of how MPA management can become financial sustainable. Like SEA, BAS has full responsibility of day-to-day management of the parks they comanage with the Forest Department. This causes most visitors and tour guides deal with staff of BAS instead of the Forest Department. In the case of Halve Moon Caye Natural Monument this led to arrangements between Island Expeditions and BAS. BAS struggles to cover the high costs of maintaining presence and facilities on the caye, the natural monument is far from the coast which makes visitation by tourists costly and therefore limited. The wish to have tourism but eco-friendly fitted very well with the ideas of Island Expeditions, a company that did not require a lot of infrastructure for their guests, but rudimentary facilities which they proposed to build themselves. This led to a partnership in which BAS as well as Island Expeditions benefit from each other in several ways. One the one side, BAS benefits financially by charging visitor fees, camping fees and rent for the use of facilities. On the other side, Island Expeditions benefits from BAS since they are given access to a well maintained and protected pristine environment. Remarkable about the arrangement is that the facilities used by Island Expeditions are also build by Island Expeditions, so in fact they are paying for the use of facilities they already paid for. This arrangement finds its origin in that private companies are officially not allowed to have any property within a protected area. So the facilities build by Island Expeditions are for anyone to use, and everyone using the facilities needs to pay a fee to BAS, including Island Expeditions. Though, Island Expeditions benefits, since having no or insufficient conservation control due to insufficient revenues the attraction bringing tourism will eventually lose quality. Co-managers are in comparison with the state a partner in which the private sector has more trust since the co-manager is not striving for accumulation of money but demanded to meet the primary mandate of conservation. Financial flows are transparent; money invested in BAS flows back into nature conservation which makes NGOs a better and legitimate partner for the private sector to invest in biodiversity conservation. So, although it is government land, co-management in this case enables the private sector to invest in tourism facilities within a protected area. 50

51 4 Delegated co-management with the FiD This second chapter focusses on Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve. It is a MPA comanaged by the Fisheries Department and Southern Environmental Association. The first section of the chapter describes the historical development of Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve, explores the role of the private sector and highlights the interactions that led to the process of designation. The subsequent section (section 4.2) explores two cases of the configuration of rules. It provides an example of private sector involvement in establishing regulation for the whale shark zone (section 4.2.1) and the exclusion of bareboat charters (section 4.2.2). In section 4.3 a case is described called the seaweed project. It is a project aimed at developing alternative livelihood strategies initiated and coordinated by fishermen and provides an example of a partnership between co-management agency SEA the Fisheries Department and the private sector. 4.1 Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve The Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine reserve (GSSCMR) lies within the central region of the Barrier Reef about 36 km off the coast of Placencia. This area of the reef contains a well-developed and continuous reef due to its elevation, good water quality and modified wave regime. At the southernmost tip there are three small cayes, North Silk, Middle Silk and South Silk. The marine reserve is designated in 2003, for the protection of the Gladden Spit spawning aggregation site, the congregating whale sharks, and the tourism value of the Silk Cayes. The overlapping spawning aggregation site is designated in the same year, following concern at the declining populations of spawning fish at the congregations throughout Belize. It has seasonal protection under separate legislation. The reserve was declared on 18 May In 2001, the feeding site of the whale sharks was declared a special protected zone. Tourism regulations were drafted to regulate the increasing number of whale shark tours and in 2002, Friends of Nature, now SEA, began to co-manage the reserve along with the Fisheries Department. Since 2003, the reserve has been divided into a general use zone, a no-take zone around the Silk Cayes, a conch restoration zone and a whale shark and reeffish spawning aggregation conservation zone. Figure 11: Photo impression GSSCMR (Silk Cayes). Figure 12: Whale shark. 51

52 After designation of LBC, researchers and community members were also learning about an area on the reef called Gladden Spit where thousands of fishes were aggregating around full moon in the months March to June. Since the 1920s, fishermen have congregated at Gladden Spit to harvest mutton snapper and grouper during this aggregation, landing huge catches and often noticing whale sharks swimming nearby surrounded by milky water. In 1997, researchers found out the fish, Mutton snappers, Cubera snappers and Dog snappers, were coming there to spawn, filling the water with eggs and sperm on which the whale sharks feed. In line with the designation of LBC as a national park and the changing focus from fishing to businesses facilitating tourism some local tour operators soon discovered the tourism potential of the predictable presence of whale sharks and a new industry quickly grew up (Box 3). Now LBC was a protected area another major concern were the whale sharks. And at the same time the three Silk Cays where surveyed for development like LBC in the past. So we lanced another petition. A little differently because we had learned from our mistakes. Additionally there was foreign interest in this one. We got TNC involved who gave us funding for a boat to do patrolling. More funding was coming from the Protected Area Conservation Trust (PACT), and Rachel Graham 3 started research in our parks (personal communication Sea Horse). Funding by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) enabled the FiD and Friends of Laughing Bird Caye to conduct a series of consultations to find support for the designation of Gladden Spit and the Silk Cayes. At that time it was understood by both parties that Friends of Laughing Bird Caye would be given co-management of the reserve. In 2003 the committee signed a memorandum of understanding with the GoB to co-manage the reserve. With managing two reserves the name of the committee did not cover the activities anymore and changed from Friends of Laughing Bird Caye to Friends of Nature (FoN), a NGO concerned with the state of all ecosystems around Placencia and with responsibility for co-managing both Laughing Bird Cay National Park and Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine reserve. By the time of the designation of Gladden Spit there was much consultation and people were more welcoming the concept of conservation. With having LBC as a national park, the designation of Gladden Spit became easier, it was buy in and people knew the benefits. The same group that led the designation of LBC came together to form Friends of Nature and lobbied for co-management (personal communication SEA). In the meanwhile the new NGO grew from being a committee with voluntary members to a professional NGO with a board of stakeholder representatives of all communities, an executive director and paid staff. Meetings were taken around which kept everything together. When GSSCMR was declared also the communities Cittay River and Hopkins became part of the board and meetings were taken to these communities so they felt part of the management. Staff included well trained and equipped rangers of which most received a training from the FiD to become fisheries officers. Some others got a training provided by the FoD to become special constables giving staff the needed authority to enforce governmental law and park regulations. Additionally most of the rangers got PADI-certified. 3 Dr Rachel T. Graham is director of WCS s Gulf and Caribbean sharks and rays program and a member of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group. She initiated many efforts to reverse the rapid decline of sharks in Belizean waters. 52

53 Three staff members are besides fisheries officers also special constables with the police department. So as a NGO we do not only have the authority to enforce fisheries regulations, but as police officers we have authority to enforce all laws of Belize. You have to go through the same training as official fisheries officers and special constables. The only difference is that they get paid by the government and have to stick to government schedules, while we get paid through a grant and are flexible in our working hours (personal communication SEA). These arrangements between the co-managing NGO and the Fisheries Department, to become fisheries officers, and the Forest Department, to become special constables with the police are unique. Thanks to co-management and the limited capacity of the governmental departments Southern Environmental Association is delegated with the authority to enforce restrictions on resource use. Being legitimate to carry out enforcement within a governmental reserve is one of the most important requirements for successful EMPA management described by De Groot and Bush (2010). Although the MPAs comanaged by SEA do not meet the definition of EMPA and cannot be categorized as such, also comanaged MPAs lacking presence of those legitimate to enforce governmental regulations face the same challenges. This arrangement in Belize overcomes this challenge which makes their MPAs less vulnerable to conflicting interests of resource users and incidents of those breaking the law. Apart from enforcing governmental law, rangers of SEA collect park fees on behalf of the government of Belize. Officially the collected fees are government revenues and should thus go to government. However, from the moment fees were collected the organizations co-managing protected areas were allowed to keep the moneys to re-invest in tourism facilities. Till present the FoD allows SEA to keep the fees of LBCNP in order to pay for rangers and maintenance, which are aspects of MPA management that are often not paid for by grants. Due to more strict follow up of the regulations the fees collected on behalf of the FiD, more specifically for Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine reserve, are frozen since the first of January 2013, leaving SEA with limited budgets to invest in maintenance of facilities like mooring buoys, peers, barbeques and pick-nick tables. Examples in the field have however shown commercial businesses highly value good maintained facilities. Because there is a direct interest and benefit in it for their business they ready to help out. Firstly because they want their guests to have a great experience and send a good message to their guests and secondly to maintain a good relationship with the community. An often mentioned effort of private actors in terms of biodiversity conservation are clean-ups of the cayes and Placencia beach (figure 13). Other examples are the donation of pick-nick tables, the restoration of a barbeque facility and donation of a boat which SEA uses as a ticket booth in the whale shark zone. Besides, tour operators often help SEA with logistical support; i.e. to help out during a workshop on mangroves (figure 14). Facilities were falling apart so we asked if we could help out. We got into contact with the co-managers and it was agreed we would renovate the barbeque facility, bring new pick-nick tables and pay for it. It was easy because we go there all the time, but at the same time a little bit of a selfish act because we want to make sure the park stays up to the requirements of our guests (personal communication Turtle Inn). The opportunity to invest in facilities on cayes exists thanks to having cayes that are not privately owned within the park borders. Laughing Bird Caye is part of LBCNP, so includes the caye as well as the waters surrounding the caye. GSSCMR encloses the three Silk Cayes which are all publicly owned. Although jurisdictional not part of the marine reserve the Silk Cayes are perceived as part of 53

54 the reserve and included in its management plans. Therefore, on Laughing Bird Caye there are a restroom, ranger station, pick-nick tables and a palapa. South Silk Caye is completely cleared and is the main destination for snorkelers and divers of GSSCMR to have lunch or a break in between dives. It has a restroom, several pick-nick tables and a barbeque facility. Middle Caye is partly cleared and has a pick-nick table. North Silk Caye houses a colony of nesting birds and is set aside for conservation purposes only. Figure 13: Placencia beach cleanup. Figure 14: Tour operator providing logistic support workshop. Although the investment to renew facilities can be done by one resort the facilities are free to use by all visitors of all tour operators and resorts. It is not possible to exclude certain users or to give privileges to those investing in facilities on the cayes, since the MPAs are public and for all to enjoy. The investment in facilities is therefore rather seen as a donation to and collaboration with the comanaging NGO. 54

55 Box 4: The essence of having co-management Studying the relationship between the private sector and co-managing agency SEA indicates the comanagement structure helps in strengthening the relationship between protected area management and private sector investments in biodiversity conservation. Responses of the private sector on the question if there would be any difference between a MPA co-managed by a NGO and a MPA solely managed by a private entity or the government confirm this statement. If the reserves were solely managed by the government or a private entity we would still visit, but won t have the opportunity to collaborate and do something back as appreciation for providing and maintaining a tourism product. I am not in the business to support other businesses neither to sponsor the government; resorts can be creative and are able to assist because it is a NGO that co-manages the reserves (personal communication Turtle Inn). Interviewees mentioned many reasons why co-management helps in getting the private sector involved with biodiversity conservation, these include: accountability, trust, sense of ownership and having community outreach. A NGO is according to many much more dedicated towards the mandate of conservation and additionally is not restricted to an election cycle of four years. Not having the constraint of elections results in longer term outlet which reduces opposing interests guided by the aim to maximize revenues. Also many tour operators and resort managers know staff and rangers of the co-managing NGO personally, the office is right in the middle of the village and staff is always open for a chat which makes communication easy. The FiD is far away in Belize City, has more things to cover in and outside parks and lacks time and finances to organize activities like outreach, clean-ups and seeking for funds to provide tour guide trainings. The private sector claims co-managers are more dedicated to the mandate of conservation and therefore has more trust in a comanaging NGO compared to the FiD. 4.2 Configuration of rules It were again fishermen and tour guides, more precisely the same group of people who lobbied for designation of LBC who started to lobby for the protection of Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes. Though, taking on the co-management of another reserve and the development of tourism in Placencia had changed the setting somewhat. With GSSCMR Friends of Laughing Bird Caye changed its name into Friends of Nature and started to develop into an official NGO. With being a NGO they increased the opportunities for international conservation organizations to get access to the pristine environments protected by the local community. Funds were made available for nature conservation programs and to pay for office staff and rangers. Despite of these changes the community and the growing number of tour operators in particular were organized as well and maintained their influence in the reserves. This section explores the influence or power of the tour operators and the Placencia Tour Guide Association (PTGA) in the configuration of rules for the reserve. With the analysis of two cases: the whale shark working group (section 4.2.1) and the exclusion of bareboat charters (section 4.2.2) this section helps to explore the relation between private sector initiatives to conserve biodiversity and co-management of MPAs. 55

56 4.2.1 Whale shark working group Interesting and innovative compared to LBCNP is the whale shark zone within GSSCMR. Whale sharks are the largest fish in the world who move relatively slow, are curious but docile. Gladden Spit is one of the most seasonally and geographically predictable aggregations of whale sharks in the world. From 1994 the sightings started to attract many tourist, however the whale sharks are only present in April and May and the best times for whale shark tours are a few days before and after the full moons which makes the industry very intensive. To ensure that whale sharks are not harmed by tourism or boating activities in their main aggregation zone SEA manages whale shark tourism with direct input from a whale shark working group. The working group consists of tour operators who were concerned about whale shark tourism and together with at the time FoN set guidelines to ensure a safe and ecologically-sound experience for everyone, including the whale sharks. We developed the regulations in the whale shark zone together with local tour operators, the tour guide association and biologists. We have been working with the tour operators almost as a partner. The rules are no laws and there are no penalties attached to breaking the rules. However, the tour operators monitor each other very well and start to complain when someone else does not respect the regulations (personal communication SEA). Meetings are at least four times a year, before and after the season and when needed also during the season. It is a group of people that has the ability to directly influence decision making and is separate from the board of directors who are the representatives of the different villages. An example of a rule is that at any times there is a maximum of six boats, with a maximum of twelve people each in the whale shark zone. An example of an concern is that some tour operators grew big, which makes the smaller concerned about dumping too many people on the site. Another concern is the absence of whale sharks during the season. Are it the fish stocks that depleted? Do the fishes feel harass because of all the divers? There are no answers. When we dive, we do see the snapper but they swim deeper. They know, they are not stupid. Whale shark is getting less. We are worried about the activity. Depleting the snapper is a problem. The behaviour of the fish will determine the amount of whale sharks. If you remove the fish the whale shark will not return (personal communication Avadon Divers). The whale shark meetings are a place where these issues can be discussed and followed up with regulations. SEA brings it on paper to a next level and checks it with existing laws. Thanks to the good working relation between SEA and the Fisheries Department, SEA and the working group are free to set the regulations independently. This leaves much responsibility with the tour operators and SEA as co-management agency. Although there are no penalties attached to breaking the rules and the system is based on trust, it has proven to work. The whale shark tourism is a very specific activity on which a lot of tour operators depend for their income. They thus have a direct interest in the management of the whale shark zone. Remarkably this makes the tour operators also environmental conscious and aware of natural events. The following statement was made in a whale shark meeting in June 2013: When we do not see any sharks it might be a good idea to close the whale shark zone. Not forever but maybe for a couple of years. Because it brings in tourism you will lose a lot of revenue, but if we continue that impact we do not have them anyway and it may become worse (personal observation whale shark meeting). 56

57 Although some tour operators were blaming Guatemalan and Honduran fishermen for depleted fish stocks with the result whale sharks were not present, most also reflected their own activities. Questions were posed if it really was fishing or if it could also be divers diving over 80 feet or boats making too much noise that kept away the whale sharks. Tour operators in Placencia take their responsibility in conserving biodiversity since it is at the same time maintaining a tourism product. At the end of the day the whale shark working group is created and regulation put in place in the time FoN was to a great extend still run by tour operators and fishermen. In the current management of SEA most staff is not fishermen neither tour operator but the meetings are still held and are a way tour operators directly interact with each other and the co-management agency. The whale shark zone and whale shark meetings provide an example of how agreements are reached concerning biodiversity conservation leading to arrangements between the co-management agency and the private sector within MPAs. Its principle is to maintain a dialogue between resource users and ensure everyone gets their equal share Exclusion of bareboat charters In contrast to the case described in the configuration of rules in relation to the case of exclusion of bareboat charters appears to restrict the behavior and the freedom of certain private actors. From January first 2013 no bareboat charters are allowed in the MPAs co-managed by SEA unless they have a tour guide on their boat. It is seen as a recent change in the regulations, but gets attention in this chapter because the newly established rule affects regulation within GSSCMR in particular. The origin of the exclusion appears to have a relation with the ideologies and interests of the local community. Bareboat charter companies are not happy with the enforcement of the rule while the Placencia Tour Guide Association sees the change as a major accomplishment. This section explores the aspects of the conflict and its effects. It started with the discussion of complains of individual tour guides within meetings of the PTGA. The board of the association brought it in their turn up in meetings with the board of SEA, resulting in a discussion with the Belize Tourism Board (BTB), bareboat charter companies and SEA. These discussions eventually led to the configuration and/or enforcement of the new rule. At first they were allowed to enter the park without a guide and do just whatever activity. We lobbied with the BTB and also with them and SEA. Now they can no longer go into the parks without a licensed tour guide which restricts them from doing activities like snorkelling and diving within the reserves (personal communication PTGA). The first and main reason for the rule change was that tour guides were of the opinion it was not fair to allow bareboat charters in the reserves whether they themselves are not allowed to bring tourists to the reserves without being a licensed tour guide. An existing law of which all tour guides are aware is that it is not allowed to undertake underwater activities in any of the reserves without a guide with a valid tour guide license. Though, many times tour guides who were at work in the reserves saw things happening that should not happen: i.e. tourists of bareboat charters entering the water to snorkel or dive or damaging the reef by walking on it. It seemed private yachts owners and those who rented a bareboat charter were free to enter reserves and do whatever they liked. Secondly, the guides perceived the requirement of having tour guides on these type of boats as an opportunity in order to protect the environment and make more money. Guides could help captains in finding demarcation buoys the entrances and exits of marine parks and thereby reduce the risk of 57

58 damage to the reef. And since bareboat charters are many, demanding to have a tour guide on board of each ship provides a considerable number of jobs to guides. Third is the relation between the charter companies and the community. As a foreign company it is hard to take root in the community because of fear for unfair competition and as a consequence loss of opportunities and jobs for local businesses (Box 4). Box 5: Starting a business as a foreigner. Many foreign business owners describe Belize as a challenging country to start a company. At first because the government highly promotes initiatives to bring more employment to Belize, but at the same time wants to protect its citizens and make sure all jobs within the country that can be carried out by Belizeans is done by Belizeans. This makes companies are only welcome if they employ Belizeans, not only for cleaning and minimum wage, but for the jobs that pay as well. I have one Belizean and he is a tour guide, the rest of my staff will never become a tour guide because you have to be Belizean to get a tour guide license. My crew is marine biologist. Their knowledge is much more than some of the tour guides, but they are not allowed to be one. I strongly believe if a Belizean can do a job he or she should do the job in the country first, but if they are not qualified someone else should have the opportunity to step in (personal communication bareboat charter company). Secondly the communities in Belize are strong and seem to oppose new business development from foreigners till they have integrated within the community and proven the business brings benefits to the village. The bareboat charter company was seen as an enemy. If there was oil in the harbour it was the company, while it actually was the gas station. It took us years to show we are as concerned about the environment as the local community is. And thirdly the government of Belize puts incredible taxes on importing products from abroad to protect its own market. Many products can however not be found on the Belizean market, like cheap mobile phones, but also engine parts and materials to construct mooring buoys. Besides it is hard to get a work permit from the Belizean government and in example impossible to become a tour guide when you are not a citizen of Belize. These inconsistencies made the PTGA ring the alarm bell and taking the complains whole the way up to government level. They worked closely together with the Belize Tourism Board (BTB) which is under the ministry of tourism. Together with SEA, the BTB and the charter companies a new rule was put in place. If it really is a change in regulations or just the decision to start enforce an already existing rule is however questionable and varies depending on who you are asking to. It is not enacted and thus not a government law. SEA brought it in and the BTB sees both sides of the arguments (personal communication bareboat charter company). The requirement of having a tour guide on board within marine reserves is not a law. You can legally cross through the reserve, however if you want to do an activity within the reserve you need a guide (personal communication FiD). 58

59 Figure 15 and 16: bareboat charter in Placencia and crossing a marine reserve. It is no surprise the private boat owners and both charter companies based in Placencia are not happy with the decision. An argument of the bareboat charter companies is that although they want to take into account the new rule having a tour guide on board is not practical neither desired by the guests. It is logistically impossible for us. A yacht is not a skiff. No one is willing to come to Placencia, pick up a tour guide, take three hours to go to the reef have two hours of snorkelling and then bring the guide back to shore. If SEA wants to have tour guides on the boats, they need to provide tour guides in the reserves. Neither them, nor us are prepared to pay the guides to stay in the reserves (personal communication bareboat charter company). One of the effects of banning bare boaters from the parks is an increase of the risk coral reefs outside the park are being damaged. One of the essential issues was that there was no control of what the guests were doing. However, as a result of the rule bare boaters go somewhere else and while within the reserves there is some kind of monitoring, outside the parks no one knows what is happening and bare boaters can still do whatever they would like. Now they are going somewhere else, without supervision doing anything they want. It would have been better to have an understanding, to tell them well you cannot do a tour on your own but you can call the dive shops and an operator will than facilitate that (personal communication Glen). A positive effect is that bare boaters and private yacht owners start to use the local operators more, but at the same time the government is losing revenue because boats are no longer anchoring within the reserves. The early results of the rule change made some think the decision might have been a little too strict. Now, tour guides do admit it is a valid argument private yachts nor bare boat charters are designed for having a guide on board. And the PTGA who started the discussion expresses it never had the intention to prevent the bare boaters from going to the parks. Remarkable of the case of exclusion of bareboat charters is the role of the Placencia Tour Guide Association. The concerns about bare boaters originated from tour guides and since the PTGA is together with community representatives part of the board of SEA the concerns could be brought to meetings with the co-manager. 59

60 The tour guides are along with the tour operators the biggest stakeholders and can influence decisions. We lobby with SEA as well as with the BTB who create policies. We work closely with them to address concerns (personal communication PTGA). However, demanding to have a tour guide on a private yacht or bareboat charter when in a marine reserve is not legitimate. It is not an official regulation or law. It is a law to have a guide when you desire to carry out activities apart from crossing through a reserve. However, resources users distrusted private yachts owners and bare boaters from not following these regulations and as a consequence organized themselves. Backed-up by staff of SEA the PTGA achieved its goal and banned the particular user group from the MPAs co-managed by SEA. 4.3 Seaweed Project Apart from tour guides and tour operators a third prominent group in Placencia are the members of the Placencia Fishermen Cooperative. Looking at the variety of organizations existing in Placencia it appears the community is very well organized and many community members are at least part of one or two groups. The Placencia Fishermen Cooperative (Coop) is the oldest official registered organization in the village. Bringing electricity to the village in order to make ice to conserve and export products is one of the major achievements of the Coop. With the growth of tourism many fishermen made a transition to tour guide or tourism service and fishing became less. Though when tourism is low, many tour guides start fishing again, which means many tour guides also are a member of the Coop and are licensed fishermen. Comparable with the coral nursery project Fragments of Hope the Coop started an initiative to provide an alternative to fishing, the Seaweed Project. This section discusses the case and aims to analyze the relation between the project, co-management of Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve and the Fisheries Department in order to assess to what extend co-management relates to the EMPA approach. The Seaweed Project is run and initiated by fishermen. In 2009 they approached the marine biologist of Fragments of Hope to write a research proposal for the project in order to get funds. From then fishermen invested a lot of time and effort on the methodology how to produce seaweed. The aim is to produce seaweed in an environmental sustainable way, provide an alternative to fishing and make the production profitable. So far hundreds of pounds of seaweed are harvested and in a shop, but the fishermen lack a marketing strategy. The project is thus not profitable yet and the Coop is working on a second phase. Like the coral nursery it was needed to get a research permit in order to build the seaweed farms. After years of consultancies and meetings fishermen were given this opportunity. The first project money was spend on a consultant who had to find out how seaweed farming could be possible. What came out of the consultancy was that fishermen had to try to lease the sea beds, but no one had ever heard of that. Many times fishermen travelled to Belmopan and Belize City to get it arranged and finally the project was sent a letter from government it was possible to lease the desired seabed for $ This extraordinary amount made the project coordinator willing to step to the press, but then the Fisheries Department came in and proposed to grant the fishermen with a research permit. We found a way around the high charges of the land department by treating the Seaweed Project as a research and assisted them to avoid the bureaucratic process. After the first year we gave them another permit for the second year. Their idea is to come up 60

61 with an alternative livelihood they however lack the moneys. We can help them out, but in an environmental conscious manner (personal communication Fisheries Department). After getting permission the farms were built at the borders of GSSCMR close to Little Water Caye on which the ranger station is situated. There are approximately 10 farms of 50 foot and 4 of 100 foot. Seaweed is being collected from a natural seed stock at Gloovers Reef of which pieces from the big seaweed are broken off and inserted in the coils of a rope. Nets acquired from shrimp trawlers once owned by Oceana are used to put over the ropes which protect the seaweed from rough weather. The production of seaweed appeared to be successful and the product was brought to the market. Because of these successes the Coop is willing to take the project a step further and proposes expansion. The expansion will double the production and create new jobs in the areas of processing and packaging, making the product ready for export to for example the Asian market. With a wish for expansion the idea came up to write a proposal asking Oceana on the possibility to use one of the trawlers, which they bought in 2011 to help ban trawl fishing in Belize, to serve the Coop members at their seaweed farm sites. The proposal was supported by Oceana because of the project s innovative approach of not taking from the environment, but doing something that is both sustainable and community based. In May 2013 the Coop officially sealed a $1,00 sales agreement with Oceana for the Northern II fishing trawler. In the proposal the use of the trawler is described as an onsite platform for the project and as an educational facility where the Coop hopes to train local and regional fishers on the production of seaweed. Both project coordinator and the Coop are looking for additional grants to provide the current seaweed farmers with the opportunity to become trainers for other communities giving them the know-how without wasting years of finding out how seaweed can be grown. The World Bank is channelling a lot of money right now through a company in Belize City and they have several positions that they try to fill for a consultancy to find alternative livelihoods in several communities. So hopefully with that, our fishermen can become trainers for other communities. It has to be a national idea, but I hope that the Coop keeps in control and everything will go through the Placencia Fishermen Cooperative and create some jobs (personal communication Fragments of Hope). Interesting about the expansion is that the cheapest way of doing it is to stay within marine reserves. The Fisheries Department from which the fishermen get their research permits has jurisdiction within marine reserves and coral reefs so recommend the Coop to expand within a marine reserve and get a special management permit. It is not that the Land Department or Department of Environment does not have any authority at all, but all have to consult the Fisheries Department when they want to change anything in a marine reserve. Once outside or more specifically sand and sea grass beds the Lands Department has full authority. A research permit makes activities within as well as outside marine reserves, but in the marine environment legal. The Coop therefore wants to extend the project within GSSCMR. However, GSSCMR is a marine reserve and co-managed by Southern Environmental Association. The co-manager supports the initiative, but is currently excluded from the planning and feels it is needed to negotiate with the Coop about the project. Another challenge is the research permit: by making seaweed farming profitable a research permit of the Fisheries Department might not be possible anymore. Exceeding the pilot phase they went public and undergo a transition becoming a commercial venture. Giving out research permits with a commercial goal is not possible 61

62 which makes it plausible the land department will pop in again and the Placencia Coop will need to meet some people (personal communication Fisheries Department). Although the Coop did not yet involve the co-managing NGO in the planning of the extension their ambitions to cooperate with the NGO are plenty. With having the seaweed farms and the Shrimp trawler as a permanent base the Coop expects to be of help for the co-manager and biodiversity conservation. In the first place since the initiative helps fishermen to look for alternatives to make a living in an environmental conscious way. If the incomes from tourism are disappointing, tour guides need alternatives and most go out fishing which is in conflict with their interests of being a tour guide and not sustainable. Becoming a seaweed farmer makes sure more fish is left to show the tourists and it is still possible to work at sea. A second argument of the Coop is the assistance in the enforcement of regulations. Because there will be permanent presence the seaweed farm offers an additional lookout for those who are breaking the law. Although seaweed farmers will not have the authority to enforce they can report the offences and contact rangers of SEA. In this light the expansion of the Seaweed Project might be considered as an EMPA. The aim of the project is to become profitable, it helps biodiversity conservation efforts and can be beneficial to the management of the co-managed marine reserve. 4.4 Conclusion The conclusion of this chapter links the findings of the cases described in the sections 4.1 to 4.3 with the research questions and concepts discussed in the conceptual framework. Section 4.1 corresponds with the first sub-research question on the historical development of Placencia s MPAs. From this section it becomes clear LBCNP attracted tourists, and tour operators soon discovered the tourism potential of predictable whale shark sightings in an area on the reef called Gladden Spit. Also researchers were attracted to the sightings and together with community members started to develop knowledge on the remarkable natural event. With the growing number of tourists attracted by the sightings, researchers, fishermen and tour guides started to worry about the effects and a plan was developed to protect the site. Having learned from LBC one knew it was important to find funding, to lobby with influential individuals in the field of marine protection and arrange co-management. Also community members new more about the concept of conservation and were welcoming the designation of the reserve without much resistance. Section 4.2 and 4.3 are very much related to the second sub-research question on the relation between co-management type and private sector initiatives in marine reserves. In section 4.2 a special arrangement related to GSSCMR is described. In the new reserve a partnership was formed between the co-managing NGO and tour operators in defining regulations for a special designed whale shark zone. Whale shark tourism is a very specific activity on which a lot of tour operators depend for their income. They thus have a direct interest in the management of the whale shark zone. With the designation of the reserve tour guides were still the ones on the positions of staff member in the comanagement agency. So in fact the initiative to negotiate and formulate regulations with each other in order to prevent conflicts and to offer a high end tourism product, was led by tour guides. Another example of a case in which tour guides express their concerns is the development or change in a rule related to bare boat charters and private yacht owners. It is not allowed to conduct any activity in a marine reserve without a licenced tour guide apart from crossing a reserve. However, there existed ambiguity over the law. Tour guides distrusted one resources user group in particular and lobbied with the co-manager and the BTB to demand private yacht owners and bare boaters to have a tour guide on 62

63 board. Reasons being to prevent damage to the reef, make more money and make sure the community instead of foreign companies kept profiting from tourism. These reasoning appears to have a relation with the essential elements of eco-tourism. With help of the authority of government agencies and the co-managing NGO local resource users appear to be able to protect the economic and environmental interest of their resources. Lastly the case described and analysed in section 4.3 provides an example of the relation between a project run by the private sector, co-management of Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve and the Fisheries Department. The Seaweed Project is an initiative by fishermen to provide an income alternative. Cooperating with the Fisheries Department the Placencia Fishermen Cooperative was provided the opportunity to pilot the farming of seaweed. Since the Fisheries Department has the privilege to give out research permits within marine reserves the project can expand within GSSCMR with the result of having a business within the limits of a co-managed reserve. Though, the project has a challenge since it is not legally possible to hand out research permits and special management licenses when seaweed is grown commercially. But, if the Coop pursues the project it shows similarities with being an EMPA. It is a commercial activity, supports biodiversity conservation and is managed by a local profit oriented organization. 63

64 5 Collaborative co-management with the FiD This third chapter focusses on Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve (SCMR). It is a MPA established as a part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Project and after some years of being a paper park became co-managed by Toledo Association for Sustainable Tourism and Empowerment (TASTE). However, the process towards co-management did not go very smooth and in combination with the fact the Sapodilla Cayes are also a border with Guatemala the Fisheries Department decided to only sign a collaborative co-management agreement retaining the day-to-day management. This chapter explores collaborative co-management with describing the historical development of Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve in section 5.1. In this section also the formation of Southern Environmental Alliance gets attention in section and the kick back from the community Placencia when Friends of Nature became Southern Environmental Association at the moment they took on co-management over Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve. The case of SCMR is thereafter reflected in section 5.2 with the case of Caye Caulker Marine Reserve which is in the north of Belize, but also characterised by collaborative co-management with the Fisheries Department. 5.1 Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve The Sapodilla Cayes Marine reserve, the third co-managed MPA by SEA is located at the southern extremity of the Belize Barrier Reef system, 75 km east off the coast of Punta Gorda, within the Gulf of Honduras. Its total size is 15,618 ha of which the majority, 13,145 ha is general use zone. There are two conservation zones of respectively 263 ha and 1,988 ha for recreational use including catch and release fishing, and a preservation zone of 222 ha. Furthermore there are three spawning aggregation sites situated within the reserve, at Nicholas Caye, Rise and Fall Bank and Seal Caye. The reserve is declared in 1996, as part of the Belize Barrier Reef UNESCO World Heritage Site, but remained a paper park until There is permanent ranger presence within the park by the FiD and Belize Coast Guard who have a station situated on Hunting Caye. However, their work is primarily to patrol the boarder. Rangers of the special enforcement team of SEA help the GoB to ensure also park regulations are enforced. Apart from Hunting Caye thirteen other cayes are located within the park boundaries which are all privately owned. Due to the lack of trans-boundary agreements and frequent visitation by Guatemalans and Hondurans it is one of the most challenging marine reserves to manage in Belize (Hagan, 2011). In the first years after designation SCMR was a paper park. Unexpectedly Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE) already active as a co-manager for other (terrestrial) parks in Punta Gorda, did not step forward to manage the marine reserve and instead focussed on the creation of yet another: Port Honduras Marine reserve (PHMR). Left without a co-manager members of the Belize Tourism Industry Association (BTIA) stepped forward to request management in However, key figures associated with TIDE including their most important donor The Nature Conservancy (TNC) expressed the concern members of the BTIA would not be prepared for the responsibilities of co-managing a marine reserve. Un unprecedented increase in membership of the BTIA followed. It was considered as an attempt to change the balance of power within the organization which made the board of the BTIA decide not to sign the co-management agreement. In a reaction they formed a new organization, the Toledo Association for Sustainable Tourism and 64

65 Empowerment (TASTE) and were granted co-management of the reserve in Though, the FiD was reluctant to transfer complete management responsibility and chose for a collaborative comanagement agreement retaining the day-to-day management. This led to a situation in which TASTE, despite several successes in community outreach, constantly had to renegotiate its position and struggled to secure funding (De Vries, 2003; Finch, 2006). Figure 17: Punta Gorda town. Figure 18: Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve The Southern Environmental Alliance Not many years after the designation of GSSCMR the executive director of FoN, who has also been active in getting Port Honduras designated as a marine reserve, was looking into opportunities to link or merge the southern reef reserves and start an alliance. Different groups were managing different reserves and everybody was holding their information. The FiD was working on a MPA network and cooperation would support marine conservation. OAK Foundation supported the idea and FoN started meetings (personal communication Glen Eiley). Although the merging of four very successful marine parks co-managed by TASTE, TIDE and Friends of Nature seemed like a good idea the alliance did not work out properly. Despite the funding from OAK foundation the management of FoN did not get all organizations to join. Especially the board of TIDE did not appear to support the idea, main reason being this strong NGO in Punta Gorda does not only focus on MPAs but terrestrial parks as well. Our board did not support the idea because we did not see the need at the time to have an alliance. Our work focusses on Ridge to Reef not only on PHMR. We were not prepared for such a merger. And in Belize merging organizations is a difficult task. Organizations have different cultures and I haven t seen it work yet (personal communication TIDE). At the opposite of TIDE, TASTE was struggling and looking at FoN and TIDE as good examples. After getting co-management TASTE developed some good outreach programs and established sound cooperation between private and governmental actors, however maintained to have difficulties with securing funding and especially the enforcement of the park (Box 5). This made the management of TASTE support the proposal of FoN to merge and have one NGO managing all four MPAs in southern Belize. TIDE step out and FoN eventually took on the co-management of the SCMR ending up with managing three MPAs. 65

66 Box 6: A successful multi-sector partnership. The organization TASTE never became full co-manager of the Sapodilla Cayes, but with having signed a collaborative co-management agreement the organization achieved major results in community outreach and established a successful cooperation between a cruise ship operator, the FiD and the organization itself. Seabourn Cruise Lines approached TASTE with the proposal to visit the caye six times a year. Such proposals are handled carefully in southern Belize since cruise tourism in northern Belize has had positive effects but affected the reef negatively. Seabourn was however more sensitised to the environment than expected and the capacity of 200 passengers is relatively small for cruise tourism. At one point we brought everything together, Seabourn helped, they put money in too, likewise did the FiD. It did include the whole balance of private sector, government and NGO. I can evidence that short period and say that is something that worked (personal communication TASTE). TASTE did not have full co-management at that time, but they were seeing the cooperation with the cruise line as a profitable opportunity in the long run. We helped both Seabourn and TASTE by agreeing all investments done on the island became property of the Fisheries Department and in return Seabourn did not have to pay the fees (personal communication FiD). After a series of meetings and securing a fund TASTE was allowed to develop a sewage system on Hunting Caye. In cooperation with Seabourn they constructed four toilets with two tanks and a field of bananas. The bananas were used as bio-digesters, evaporating five gallons a day and taking up enormous amount of nutrients. The system worked that well that bananas in the back were weak, while those in front were enormous, allowing for the construction of showers. The cooperation did however not limit to the construction of the restrooms. TASTE brought musicians to the caye, paid staff for tours and made sure left-overs from the food were brought to shore to distribute among the elderly. Overall it was a superb campaign and the tourists adored it. For three years TASTE ran a program with Seabourn Cruise Lines. Until SEA took it over. From then it went downhill. They wanted to do it cheap, lower the wages, contracted it out to someone else and did not collect food to bring to shore (personal communication TASTE/FiD). With moving from Friends of Laughing Bird Caye to Friends of Nature more communities got involved, likewise with co-managing SCMR, representatives of Punta Gorda and Punta Negra were invited to join the board. With the additional reserve there was a name change again, from Friends of Nature to Southern Environmental Association. Unfortunately funding dropped and the organization had to deal with a lot of changes and people coming and going. Besides, the process of getting comanagement over SCMR varied with those of LBCNP and GSSCMR leading to unforeseen changes in relationships and challenges in management. SEA is co-manager on paper, but unfortunate we do not have the same relationship with the government as we have with LBCNP or GSSCMR which are reserves put in our hands with the question to run it. We are technically co-managers: we do monitoring and 66

67 outreach but no day-to-day management. That is done by the Fisheries Department. Nevertheless, the MPA is very important, especially in relation to the conflict with Guatemala since it is one of the entry points of Belize. Additionally there are whale sharks and resilient corals. The more South the more resilient the corals seem to climate change (personal communication SEA). With the co-management of SCMR the area to patrol became vast and one of the major challenges from then were the huge distances. Though SEA managed to secure funding to enforce the zones in SCMR by To achieve this SEA launched a project to establish a special enforcement team, who s focus is on combating illegal fishing activities day and night in the MPAs and the buffer zones between the reserves. The opportunity to patrol outside the reserves emerged after getting comanagement over SCMR and enabled to improve the effectiveness of MPA management. With securing the funding the Fisheries Department backed SEA up and gave the organization the legal authority to do patrols outside the reserves Kickback from the community Although taking on the co-management of SCMR brought opportunities like the expansion of enforcement activities, it was not the initial merge that was proposed. This caused major confusion and also the feeling of ownership and relation between the organization and the community were subject to undesirable changes. Community members of Placencia and in particular the founders of Friends of Laughing Bird Caye and FoN did not all agree with the merging, leading to rumour, ambiguities and changing relationships. In Placencia the fishermen and tour guides have a direct concern with LBCNP and GSSCMR. They were happy with what they had. The merge with SCMR was legitimate because in public and government opinion TASTE did not do a good job. However, with this reserve the co-management agency became too big and many are of the opinion it is too much. Especially the remoteness of the Sapodilla Cayes and its costs for fuel to operate, but also the relation with the compassion of people to get involved in MPA management. Besides some feel the community including SEA is becoming more and more cash oriented while the original idea for protection was to conserve biodiversity for future generations. MPAs are in the first place designated for biodiversity. But, over the years you can see a change from environmental protection to making money. The more tourists, the more decisions are made around finance instead of protection. An example is the whale shark zone, in the past it was allowed to take 12 people per boat, now it is 16. However, it is the aspect of biodiversity that attracts tourism. When waters are overfished there is nothing to see. In MPAs we should therefore continue protection which results in fact that there is something to see (personal communication SEA/Seahorse). Maintaining the reserves is seen as a collective effort. Fishermen as well as tour guides have a seat in the board. However, many are of the opinion fishermen are heard less compared to a decade ago and more is needed to ensure community participation. Taking on the co-management of SCMR and the associated changes, from name change to appointing a new executive director, to changes in the board even led to distrust among the fishing community in Placencia. 67

68 Right now the relationship between SEA and the community or fishermen can be improved. The reason for that is that they lack community participation. There is no participation, trust and support as it was (personal communication Seahorse). We have always worked well with Friends of Nature. We worked together, it were small operations with limited funding. When FoN became SEA there were more interests and hidden agendas. Unfortunately we are in a struggle now and they will not receive support from us at the moment (personal communication The Moorings). Fishermen and tour guides have been involved from the very beginning. The parks were the prime fishing spots and set aside for conservation purposes. They were in the organization itself, as board members as well as managers, but with having SEA the influence of fishermen became limited. This appears to be a challenging situation for both co-managers and the community. Nevertheless, those who were involved from the early beginning still share compassion for marine protection and ideas about following steps to undertake. Some fishermen opt for the idea to come on the boat that patrols the MPAs since they know about illegal fishing in general and illegal fishing by Guatemalan and Honduran fishermen at night in particular. They want to help mainly to protect their own fishing ground from any foreign or Sartenejan fisherman taking advantage of the regulations by not following them up. Sartenejan fishermen are seen as those who come with 8-12 fishermen on one boat, taking everything on their path with canoes and eating everything that does not pass the requirements of the cooperative since they bring very little food to feed themselves. Fishermen from across the boarders are simply not allowed to fish in Belizean water because they lack the permits. One of the other ideas is to set up a technical board next to the existing board that consist of representatives of the stakeholder communities. The current board namely lacks the knowledge and network to find the moneys and knowing what to do with whom and how. A technical board with people who know how to get grants, including expats with an international network could help the organization to develop its strengths. 5.2 The organization of a group: Caye Caulker Marine reserve Apart from Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve there is at least one other marine reserve that shares the same characteristics, which is Caye Caulker Marine Reserve (CCMR). In order to reflect on the development of collaborative co-management of SCMR and the role of the private sector this section analyzes the creation of CCMR, how the co-management agency ended up with collaborative comanagement and its relation with private sector initiatives to conserve biodiversity. Caye Caulker Marine Reserve is officially designated in 1998, but efforts to get the area recognized as a protected area ran from It got major public support which finds its origin in the positive effects of designation of Hol Chan Marine reserve (HCMR) in The existence of HCMR led to visible widespread economic progress and new opportunities for the community of San Pedro located on the Ambergris Caye adjacent Caye Caulker. Simply said it is hard to make a living on Caye Caulker and inhabitants on the island started proposing to replicate the concept in the hope new opportunities would emerge. The designation took nine years ( ). According to Few (2000) the delay of designation besides originates from disputes over the land portion and rivalries between groups within the community. It was not only the planning agencies that tried to co-opt and control: local actors in turn actively tried to co-opt and control the planners. The issues were not effectively contained; the planning process did not proceed smoothly; and the declaration of the protected area was delayed (Few, 2000: 407). Changes in legislation and inconsistencies between Fisheries Department and Forest 68

69 Department concerning the management plan are other reason for the delay and unlikelihood the concept of HCMR could be replicated. After designation, CCMR was a paper park. A co-management body was in place but the community did not really know what they were doing and how to get funding. Besides, some families wanted to keep the reserve for their own personal gain. The absence of a strong co-management organization and the inability of the co-managers to channel sufficient funding eventually led to a situation in which Fisheries Department took over day to day management. The FiD filled in the gap and started to collect $10 entrance fees for the marine reserve. In 1999 the Forest and Marine Reserve Association Caye Caulker (FAMRACC) was designed as a community based organization that represents everybody on the island and a PACT grant from OAK foundation made it possible to purchase a boat and assist FiD with patrols. Figures 19-22: Photo impression Caye Caulker. The collection of fees is determinative to become a strong partner with the FiD and to keep a comanagement agency running. There exists a huge difference in income between collaborative comanaged reserves in which fees are collected by the FiD and delegated co-managed reserves in which the fees are collected by the co-management agency. By law a portion of the fees should go to government, however until 2013 TIDE and SEA kept the fees and re-invested the revenues back in management. In contrary FAMRAC that is collaborative co-manager does not get access to even an overview of the finances of the day to day management carried out by the FiD. The reality is that a marine reserve does not make any money. Co-managers cannot give a percentage of the income to the government since the total does not cover the expenses. In Placencia this argument lasted for many years. We were not allowed to keep the 69

70 money but we purposely did and they could not really take money from us because it directly went back, paying for fuel, rangers and infrastructure (personal communication Seahorse). As a consequence FAMRACC is cut off the opportunity to become a full partner. According to active members of FAMRACC the major reason of not having the mandate over the day to day management like NGOs in the South of Belize is the absence of a big brother organization that provides structural funding. NGOs like the BAS, TIDE and SEA do get structural funding from international NGOs like OAK foundation, WWF and Summit which makes them more sustainable and a stronger partner with the GoB. Next, because FAMRACC activities are on voluntary basis, the organization happens to depend heavily on individuals with dedication for the reserves. Most members do have their own business and cannot put much time and effort to work as a volunteer. Though, because many are besides fishermen also tour guide, or work for a resort or restaurant they do understand the concept of conservation and the balancing of interests (Box 6). Taken together the situation on Caye Caulker is one in which the FiD is the main management body and FAMRACC an organization that supports activities but does not have and struggles to get access to the financial resources needed to become a stronger partner. On the other hand, some community members work with a lot of dedication towards a stronger organization and do gain support and trust from other community members, which is lacking towards fisheries officers who are suspected to be involved in corruption. When people see things in the reserve that are in conflict with regulations they call FAMRACC instead of Fisheries because we know each other and there is more trust. When there is a report you have to move fast. I am a tour guide and I am a fisherman. Every time we go on patrol for FAMRACC we get 60 dollars. Sometimes we go in the night, other times early in the morning. We never tell anyone when we go, so they do not expect us (FAMRACC). A possible explanation for the inability to upgrade to being a NGO might be found in the origin of support for the MPA; entrepreneurs do not perceive the MR as part of their business, but as a resource necessary to sell their own business and services like restaurants, hotels and guided tours. Once the reserves were designated there was a product to sell. Entrepreneurs do use the reserve to accumulate moneys, but there still is a lot to gain if they are willing to invest and participate in FAMRACC activities and its development to become a stronger partner with the Fisheries Department. Becoming a stronger partner not only leads to more control over the reef and its resources by the local community, but will eventually also lead to more information related to finances of the park needed for co-financing of projects, paying rangers and maintaining support from the local community towards the collection of park entrance fees. 70

71 Box 7: The Belizean flex worker. It is very uncommon to only have one job in Belize. Most are employed by several companies or do run their own business besides their job. An example is Captain Charly from Caye Caulker; one day employed as a tour guide to bring tourists out to the reef, the other day a traditional fisherman (depicted above). Some are very flexible and end up with over four different kinds of jobs. Especially those who are part of a Creole community organize their livelihood and earn a living this way. Interesting in terms of marine biodiversity protection is the fact that one individual can represent two or more stakeholders at the same time. Restrictions on fishing gear to protect the reef will affect the freedom of fishermen negatively, while at the same time an attractive environment for tourists is being created. This can lead to conflicting situations in which the individual has to choose what is best. Described by Diedrich (2007) who suggests tourism development has a positive influence on reef conservation awareness and support, tour guides who support conservation of coral reefs similarly admit illegal fishing practices out of economic necessity in the slow season for tourism. How decisions take form exactly is not known, but the fact community members depend on jobs with seemingly conflicting interests at least creates awareness of various stakeholder groups perceptions. This awareness subsequently makes the majority of coastal communities understand the reasons for and against marine protection which enables a deliberate decision of the community as a whole rather than just one particular group. 5.4 Conclusion The conclusion of this chapter links the findings of the cases described in the sections 5.1 and 5.2 with the research questions and concepts discussed in the conceptual framework. Section 5.1 corresponds with the first sub-research question on the historical development of Placencia s MPAs. From this section it becomes clear creating a MPA network comes with challenges. Funding from OAK foundation made it possible to promote the idea of creating a network or alliance of the co-managing NGOs of the south. However, community members of Placencia including the founders of Friends of Laughing Bird Caye and FoN did not all agree with the proposed change, leading to rumour, ambiguities and changing relationships. The alliance did not work out properly and FoN ended up with 71