WWF Cover photo - Soufriere Marine Management Association ...

community. Many fishers felt that either fishing priority areas or reserves should also be closed to divers, or thatthe activities of divers should be more closely monitored to prevent damage to fishing gear. Despite some ofthese continuing problems, the zoning of the SMMA has been successful in separating conflicting activities andmaking it clearer to all users who has precedence in which areas.There have been a number of set backs in the development and success of the SMMA. In 1999 waves fromHurricane Lenny hit the area. Soufrière Bay was severely affected, destroying waterfront buildings, includingmany fishers’ homes, and also destroying fishing boats and gear. Hurricane waves also seriously damaged someareas of reef, and Roberts et al. (2001) reported a slight downturn in fish stocks after the storm (Figure 1). Therewas an increase in illegal fishing after the Hurricane, as a result of hardship amongst the fishing community, butat the same time some regular fishers were unable to fish because their boats were lost or damaged.The SMMA has provided a focus for community education about environmental and marine issues, andinterviews with fishers from Soufrière revealed familiarity with many key fisheries management andconservation concepts. The SMMA provides a number of school and community education programmes, andhaving rangers and office staff recruited directly from the fishing community means that much of theconservation and management messages are reinforced informally too. Many fishers mentioned the importanceof taking care of coral reef habitats, not catching juvenile fish and leaving enough fish to produce the nextgeneration. One of the most interesting tactics that was used on the enforcement and education side was torecruit as a ranger one of the fishers who was most vocally and actively opposed to the marine reserves. He hasnow become one of the most effective rangers, and is now as vocal and active in his support of the reserves as hewas previously in his opposition.In interviews in 2000/1, many fishers felt that the SMMA authority could give them more information and theredid seem to be a need for more every day interaction between fishers and the SMMA, for example with acommunity liaison or education officer. It was also evident that awareness and understanding of the role of themarine reserves in managing the reef fishery was much lower in fishers from outside Soufrière town, where mostof the education programme had been focussed. There was a particular problem with illegal fishing by seine netfishers from a village further north targeting halfbeaks in the no-take areas, and also with fishers from small ruralcommunities fishing with lines on the shore in the reserves. This generated resentment amongst the local fishersand some suggested that it encouraged Soufrière fishers to fish illegally as well.The reopening of one area of reserve in 1997, initially only to a particular group of fishers, had repercussionsthat were still evident in 2000/1. The opening caused confusion, with some fishers believing that all reserveswould be opened at some point, in a rotation scheme, which was never the intention. Other fishers believed thatthe opening of one area meant that another nearby reserve area was also open to fishing. One fisher claimed thathe had never realised that the area had been formally opened and that he thought people were fishing thereillegally. The fishers who were permitted to fish in the reopened area claimed that it was not a particularly goodarea anyway as strong currents limited access. This kind of confusion emphasises the need for continuouscontact and reinforcement of the rules of marine reserves and the reasoning behind them.The SMMA has succeeded on two levels – firstly it has sustained and enhanced the local reef fishery which waspreviously declining, increasing the catches of local fishers. Secondly it has promoted conservation of coral reefsand sustainable development of tourism in the area. There have been some problems with the fisheriesobjectives, in that full representation of the fishing community was not achieved in the initial consultationprocess, but this has improved over the years. Most reef fishers now support the SMMA. The wider conservationand development aspects have been achieved because the SMMA was a community driven initiative thatinvolved a wide cross-section of stakeholders and interest groups in consultations. Compensation played animportant role in ensuring the welfare of displaced fishers for one year at a critical time when catches initiallyfell. It also improved future support of the SMMA, increasing compliance with regulations.Key points• The SMMA is an example of a failed “paper park” transformed into active and successful management.• Biomass of commercially important reef fish increased by 3 times in fishing grounds and 4 times in no-takemarine reserve zones.• The network of small marine reserves has increased catch and CPUE in the reef fishery. This design – smallreserves interspersed between fishing grounds – probably played an important role in its success.• Compensation for one year played an important role in sustaining the marine reserves when catches werepoor and morale was low.• The zoning plan has been successful in reducing conflict between fishers, divers and yachts.79