Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
Wildlife Conservation Society, Suva, Fiji Islands, email
Conserv Biol. 2011 Dec;25(6):1155-1164. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01749.x. Epub 2011 Oct 6.
Every action in a conservation plan has a different level of effect and consequently contributes differentially to conservation. We examined how several community-based, marine, management actions differed in their contribution to national-level conservation goals in Fiji. We held a workshop with experts on local fauna and flora and local marine management actions to translate conservation goals developed by the national government into ecosystem-specific quantitative objectives and to estimate the relative effectiveness of Fiji's community-based management actions in achieving these objectives. The national conservation objectives were to effectively manage 30% of the nation's fringing reefs, nonfringing reefs, mangroves, and intertidal ecosystems (30% objective) and 10% of other benthic ecosystems (10% objective). The experts evaluated the contribution of the various management actions toward national objectives. Scores ranged from 0 (ineffective) to 1 (maximum effectiveness) and included the following management actions: permanent closures (i.e., all extractive use of resources prohibited indefinitely) (score of 1); conditional closures harvested once per year or less as dictated by a management plan (0.50-0.95); conditional closures harvested without predetermined frequency or duration (0.10-0.85); other management actions, such as regulations on gear and species harvested (0.15-0.50). Through 3 gap analyses, we assessed whether the conservation objectives in Fiji had been achieved. Each analysis was based on a different assumption: (1) all parts of locally managed marine areas (including closures and other management) conserve species and ecosystems effectively; (2) closures conserve species and ecosystems, whereas areas outside closures, open to varying levels of resource extraction, do not; and (3) actions that allow different levels of resource extraction vary in their ability to conserve species and ecosystems. Under assumption 1, Fiji's national conservation objectives were exceeded in all marine ecosystems; under assumption 2, none of Fiji's conservation objectives were met; and under assumption 3, on the basis of the scores assigned by experts, Fiji achieved the 10% but not the 30% objectives for ecosystems. Understanding the relative contribution of management actions to achieving conservation objectives is critical in the assessment of conservation achievements at the national level, where multiple management actions will be needed to achieve national conservation objectives.
保护计划中的每一项行动都具有不同的效果水平，因此对保护的贡献也不同。我们研究了斐济的几种基于社区的海洋管理行动在实现国家一级保护目标方面的差异。我们与当地动植物专家以及当地海洋管理行动专家举行了一次研讨会，将国家政府制定的保护目标转化为特定于生态系统的定量目标，并估算斐济基于社区的管理行动在实现这些目标方面的相对有效性。国家保护目标是有效管理全国 30%的边缘珊瑚礁、非边缘珊瑚礁、红树林和潮间带生态系统（30%目标）和 10%的其他海底生态系统（10%目标）。专家们评估了各种管理行动对国家目标的贡献。分数范围从 0（无效）到 1（最大效果），包括以下管理行动：永久关闭（即无限期禁止所有资源开采）（得分为 1）；有条件关闭，每年或根据管理计划规定的更短时间收获一次（0.50-0.95）；无预定频率或持续时间的有条件关闭（0.10-0.85）；其他管理行动，如渔具和收获物种的规定（0.15-0.50）。通过 3 项差距分析，我们评估了斐济的保护目标是否已经实现。每次分析都基于不同的假设：（1）当地管理的海洋区域的所有部分（包括关闭区和其他管理区）都有效地保护物种和生态系统；（2）关闭区保护物种和生态系统，而开放给不同程度资源开采的关闭区以外的区域则不保护；（3）允许不同程度资源开采的行动在保护物种和生态系统方面的能力各不相同。在假设 1 下，斐济所有海洋生态系统的国家保护目标都超过了；在假设 2 下，斐济的保护目标都没有实现；在假设 3 下，根据专家的评分，斐济实现了 10%的生态系统目标，但没有实现 30%的目标。了解管理行动对实现保护目标的相对贡献对于评估国家一级的保护成就至关重要，因为要实现国家保护目标，需要采取多种管理行动。
