MPA governance types

MPAs have been established globally under a range of governance frameworks that have evolved in response to varied political, legal, historical and cultural circumstances (Jones et al., 2011). IUCN broadly defines four categories of protected area governance (Dudley, 2008), which have been further developed specifically for MPAs by the UN Environment Programme (Jones et al., 2019)

• Government-led (by state entities)

• Community-led (by Indigenous peoples and local communities)

• Private governance (by private sector entities)

• Shared governance (through a combination of the above and/or wider entities, such as NGOs).

Your ability to access sustainable financing opportunities varies greatly depending on the MPA governance framework in place in your context.

Each framework comes with different opportunities – and limitations – with regards to capitalizing on potential financing sources and mechanisms. It’s important to understand this link in order to overcome obstacles and optimize practicable funding.

Government-led

Perhaps the dominant governance framework for MPAs globally, state-managed sites may be regarded as politically and legally robust, and are well positioned to access and leverage all forms finance (IUCN, 2020).

This ranges from financing from the national treasury, to accessing bilateral and multilateral financing through instruments such as blue carbon or debt-for-nature swaps. The mechanisms and layers of governance vary widely between nations (OECD, 2017), though most countries have some form of centralized authority (ministry, department, dedicated authority) overseeing state management of MPAs (IUCN, 2020; MPAAP, 2015). These can access or leverage financing at a national level that can then be distributed across multiple sites.

Limitations and opportunities

The distribution and optimal use of funds through government-led entities can be limited when multiple layers of agencies are involved. Funds can often end up being absorbed in the higher echelons of management, reducing the financing available for on-the-ground activities. This is particularly the case where MPAs lack on-site management agencies, staffing or infrastructure for effective management (Claudet et al., 2020; Gill et al., 2017; Perry et al., 2020; Slezak, 2014). In Indonesia for example, responsibility for MPA management lies with provincial governments, with management units and personnel often located some distance from the MPA itself (MMAF & USAID, 2018).

Where individual on-site MPA management teams or personnel do exist within state-led entities, they often have limited decision-making power or legal authority to broaden their financing opportunities. Many state agencies are not legally able to accept financing from outside sources. To charge and access tourism user fees, for example, generally requires MPAs in Indonesia to establish complex public service agencies (Purwanto et al., 2021); in Tanzania MPA wardens may propose financing options, but approvals are required at the highest level of the Marine Parks and Reserves Unit (Machumu and Yakupitiyage, 2013).

Where state-managed sites do manage to capitalize on these alternative revenue mechanisms, the funds may have to go through the state treasury, with no assurance that they will be returned or utilized for that specific MPA (Brenes, 2004; McFarland, 2020).

Efforts to enhance sustainable financing for state-managed MPAs need to take these realities into account. Donors and other entities supporting financing strategies for state-managed MPAs should work to ensure they lead to site-oriented activities (outreach, education, patrolling, monitoring etc.), instead of being largely absorbed several layers away from the site itself.

Governmental financial management mechanisms need to be established to ensure that MPA sites can keep and use the revenue they generate themselves for active and effective management. Where a site is particularly lucrative, a redistribution mechanism could enable surplus funds to go directly to associated MPAs in need of financing.

Community-led

Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in marine conservation areas recognized as being governed by Indigenous peoples and local communities (Gilchrist et al., 2020; Kriegl et al., 2021).[1] Not all of these sites are designated as formal MPAs or counted as contributing to national MPA targets (Maxwell et al., 2020). However, with increasing recognition of groups such as the Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) Network, and emerging discussions on “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs), more nations are starting to recognize community-managed areas in their MPA portfolios (IUCN-WCPA, 2019).

Limitations and opportunities

From a financing perspective, such sites may at first appear to have considerable flexibility. Generally uninhibited by regulatory restrictions on financing, these civilian management groups may have the freedom to develop partnerships and access a range of financing opportunities. However, they often have limited access to information, contacts and networks, and have limited capacity to develop the financing structures and accounting procedures necessary to manage funds (Gill et al., 2017; Paredes et al., 2019).

In the international MPA community, discourse focused towards “MPA managers and practitioners” is rarely made available in multiple languages (including this publication). With the exception of some Pacific island areas, communications are generally not targeted towards (or made available to) community-based sites (Riddell et al., 2020).

For example, in Timor-Leste, a growing move towards establishing tara bandu traditionally managed coastal protection zones has the potential to complement and accelerate MPA development and management nationally. But while some sites are benefiting from small-scale tourism user fees, no systematic financial support is as yet accessible for these communities (Bhattacharya, 2018; USAID, 2020).

In Kenya, where locally managed areas have received financial support, financial stewardship and community engagement in financial management has been lacking, with the skills of support organizations not being conferred on the community managers. While a plethora of financial instruments exist, less attention has been paid to their application in community-based management (Riddell et al., 2020).

Further work is needed to ensure information and resources are made available to community-led sites to support their sustainable financing needs. Communities also need targeted capacity building to improve financial management, budgeting, accountability and reporting skills to secure and administer these finances for effective MPA management.

Private governance 

The private sector has traditionally played a role in financing MPAs, whether through leveraging funds such as tourism industry taxes to contribute to MPA management, or through providing corporate social responsibility or philanthropic funds to support conservation (UNEP, 2021). In recent decades the private sector has become increasingly recognized for its role in MPA governance, beyond only providing financial contributions.

Limitations and opportunities

Examples such as Misool EcoResort in Indonesia and Chumbe Island in Zanzibar (see Chumbe Island Coral Park case study) have shown that MPAs governed by appropriate private sector entities can be highly effective, meeting internationally recognized standards for supporting biodiversity conservation, local livelihoods and food security (Atmodjo et al., 2020; Baseftin, 2020; MCI, 2019; Nordlund et al., 2013; WIOMSA, 2013). The crucial role of the private sector in biodiversity conservation is recognized under IUCN resolution #36/2016, which calls on member states to promote privately protected areas and integrate them into national and local protected area systems.

The idea that private sector entities may require and benefit from access to sustainable financing appears to many to be a contradiction. Indeed, sites such as Chumbe – the first privately managed and financially self-sustaining MPA in the world – have been successfully self-financed for nearly two decades (Medwenitsch, 2020). However, relying on revenue streams generated through business models – particularly tourism-related – is not without challenges, as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have shown (Spenceley et al., 2021).

Generally, business entities that assign all, or part, of their profits to MPA management (as in the case of Chumbe and Misool respectively) are not always eligible for most forms of wider financing. Many donors lack the mechanisms to provide funds to entities without charitable or NGO status. Businesses may also suffer from the assumption that they are backed by wealthy investors, when in fact many businesses operating in and for MPAs have been built on limited financing by entrepreneurial individuals who are passionate about protecting the environment.

Recognizing the private sector’s governance role, financial contributions and needs is important to better enable partnerships for appropriate private sector entities to access both technical and blended financing support (Deutz et al., 2020; UNEP, 2021). Of course, the commitments and achievements/track record of any private sector partner need to be carefully assessed. But with the right support, private sector partners can provide long-term, vested commitment to the effective management of a site. They may also have more capacity to coordinate and manage finances under the evolving frameworks of investment financing, when compared to state, NGO or community actors (UNEP, 2021).

Shared governance

When a site has a mixture of governance types, this is often referred to as co-management or collaborative management. Most commonly, shared governance involves some form of partnership between communities and state, NGOs, or public–private partnerships, and can include sites that are co-managed by a foundation or other support entity (Matteis et al., 2021; Voorberg & Veer, 2020).

Limitations and opportunities

Co-managed MPAs often engage stakeholders more equitably. They can also benefit from having wider access to potential financing opportunities due to their partnership arrangements. At the same time, they can face challenges capitalizing on these opportunities where collaborative arrangements make authority and decision-making unclear.

This is particularly the case where power dynamics between partners are imbalanced. For example, in cases where NGOs are supporting community-managed sites, NGOs may source and manage the finances, without transferring the necessary skills to community members to source and manage their own finances beyond the NGO’s project term. Many examples exist of this globally, including Kapatan MPA in Mindanao, Philippines, where an NGO’s withdrawal was one of the factors in the site becoming unprotected for some time in the 2000s (Cabigas et al., 2012).

Where state and communities co-manage an area, the state often has greater power over decision-making (particularly over legal issues and financing), while the day-to-day management often relies more on the communities who live nearby. However, these communities may not be (or feel) empowered or sufficiently resourced to undertake effective management. An example of this is the Hā‘ena Community‐Based Subsistence Fishing Area in Hawai‘i, which faltered for several years under a state–community partnership until the communities established an organization (Hui Maka‘āinana o Makana) dedicated to working with government to get the resources and technical support required for effective management of the area (Collier, 2020).

Shared governance can also be seen across networks of MPAs that encompass multiple sites under different governance types. These “multi-governance networks” are less well understood, and are only beginning to be recognized in international MPA discourse (IUCN-WCPA, 2019).

An example can be found in the Birds Head Seascape in West Papua, Indonesia. Here, a network of MPAs established through community custodianship are now under the umbrella management of a quasi-governmental public service agency. The same area contains at least one fully government-managed park, more than 40 community managed areas (under territorial user rights for fisheries – TURFs) and community-declared reserves (no-take zones), and one privately managed protected area, many with overlapping boundaries (MMAF & USAID, 2018).

Multi-governance networks can benefit greatly from multi-faceted opportunities for accessing financing. Conversely, however, they can highlight disparities in resources, particularly where financing is made available for a region but not all governance frameworks are eligible to access it. Similarly, where one site is highly successful at galvanizing financing, it may raise the issue of redistribution (UNDP, 2012).