Study

Comparing the management effectiveness of a marine park and a multiple-use collaborative fisheries management area in East Africa

  • Published source details McClanahan T.R., Verheij E. & Maina J. (2006) Comparing the management effectiveness of a marine park and a multiple-use collaborative fisheries management area in East Africa. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16, 147-165.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Involve fishers and stakeholders in co-management

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation

Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Involve fishers and stakeholders in co-management

    A before-and-after study in 1996–2004 at four coral reef sites in the Indian Ocean off Tanzania (McClanahan et al. 2006) found that involving fishers and stakeholders in co-management resulted in an increase in overall fish abundance, but abundance varied between species groups, nine years after implementation compared to before. Total fish biomass was higher after nine years (2004) compared to the year of implementation (1996) of collaboratively managed reef fisheries (after: 457 kg/ha, before: 260 kg/ha). Between individual species groups, fish biomass was higher for eight, similar for two and lower for two groups (see original paper for data by species group). Data were collected from four small reefs (0.25–3.0 km2) in the Mtang’ata Collaborative Management Area in Tanzania (established in 1996) managed by gear restrictions and small voluntarily and temporary closed areas (some illegal fishing was reported). At each reef site, fish communities were surveyed twice (in 1996 and 2003–2004) by underwater visual census along two 5 × 100 m belt transects at each site.

    (Summarised by: Natasha Taylor)

  2. Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1996–2004 at seven coral reef sites in the Indian Ocean off Kenya and Tanzania (McClanahan et al. 2006) found that in a large permanent no-take zone of a marine protected area where fishing was prohibited for over 20 years, there was higher total fish biomass and species richness, but biomass varied between fish family groups, compared to reefs managed collaboratively for less than 10 years by gear restrictions and temporary fishing closures. Total weight of fish was greater in the area with a permanent no-take zone compared to without in two of two years sampled (weight: 682–1,354 vs 260–457 kg/ha) but the responses differed by individual fish family group (see paper for data), and total number of fish species was higher (with: 47–51, without: 38–41 species/500 m3). Data were collected from sites in two locations: three reefs in a 10 km2 area of the Kisite-Mpunguti Marine National Park in Kenya (established 1973) permanently closed to all extractive activities and adjacent to a gear-managed reserve; and four small reefs (0.25–3.0 km2) in the Mtang’ata Collaborative Management Area in Tanzania (established in 1996) managed by gear restrictions and small voluntarily and temporary closed areas (some illegal fishing reported). At each reef site, fish communities were surveyed twice (in 1996 and 2003–2004) by underwater visual census along two 5 × 100 m belt transects at each site.

    (Summarised by: Khatija Alliji)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust