Socioeconomic Impacts of Designating a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Korea

Won Keun Chang & Jung Ho Nam

Korea Maritime Institute

Agenda

Definition of MPA ? Current Status of MPAs in Korea Policy Change in MPA Management Issues on MPA Management Conflict Resolution as a Key Process

Definitions

Ariticle 2. Law on Conservation and Management of Marine Ecosystem A area for special protection which contains high marine biodiversity, im

portant ecological entities, and valuable resources such as pristine coastal landscape.

IUCN WCU any area of the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying w

ater 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 (world Conservation Union)

Wikipedia.org a wide range of marine areas with some level of restriction to protect livin

g, non-living, cultural, and/or historic resources

20.9 25.0 1.7 0.1

256.0

4.9

837.1

21.7

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Mea

n si

ze o

f eac

h C

oast

al &

Mar

ine

PA

s(km

2)

Ecosy

stem

Wetla

nds

Birds

Uninh

abita

ted

Fisher

ies

Natur

al

Natio

nal P

arks

Avera

ge

Major Statistics and Features of MPAs

(Nam et al., 2004)

(MOMAF, 2006)

Year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Area of MPAs ( )㎢

Number of MPAs

(Nam et al., 2004)

No. of designated areas : 425 Marine Protected Area: 10,667.9 km2

• equivalent to 10.7% of national land area (99,514 km2)

2.4% of national sea waters (447,000 km2) 13.1% of national territorial sea area Mean size : 25.1 km2 (0.065 to 256 km2)

• 10,000 km2, minimum size for protection of ecosystem and species

Current Status of MPAs in Korea (1/3)

Geographical Classification of MPAs (Nam & Chang, 2006)

Current Status of MPAs in Korea (2/3)

200 nm12 nm

Territorial Sea EEZ

Ecosystem Reserves (5)Birds Habitats (86)

Wetlands (7)

National Parks (4)Natural Heritages (153)

Marine Resources (4), Fisheries (10)

Uninhabited Islands (153)

Underwater

Coastal Lands Coastal Waters

Coastline

Legal and institutional mechanism : 4 ministries and 10 laws (Nam et al., 2004)

MOMAF(Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)

- NFRDI (Res. Inst.)

MOE (Environment)

- NIER (Res. Inst.)

MOCT(Construction & Transportation)

MCT(Culture & Heritage Protection)

Marine Pollution Prev. ActLaw on Cons & Mgt ofMarine Ecosystem *Framework Act on Mar. Fish. Dev.

Prot of Cultural Properties. Act Nat’l Develop. Planning Law

Wetlands Cons. ActNatural Env. Cons. Act

Wildlife Protection Act

Natural Parks Act

Special Act on Islands

Law on Conservation and Management of Marine Ecosystem : newly enacted in Oct. 2006

Current Status of MPAs in Korea (3/3)

1968 1996 2000Establishment of institutionalmechanism

’68~’88 Coastal & Marine National Parks

’75~’82 Fisheries Resources Protected Areas

’02~’03 Marine EcosystemReserves

’96~’98 Bird Habitats’00~’04 Uninhabited

Protected islands

’01~’03 Wetlands Protected Areas

Broadening ofpolicy scope

Ecosystem-basedApproach Introduced

Introduction of a comprehensive ocean management system Revision of legal & institutional mechanism for C/MPAs National Plans & Policies

Expansion of MPAs’ areas Episodic Implementation Surveys to support decision-making Public awareness on coastal wetland protection

Lack of follow-up actions afterward desig. Land-based approach (extension of land NP)

Policy Changes in MPA Management of Korea

Strength and Opportunity

Enactment and amendment of new laws• Improvement of national management system• Expansion of numbers and areas of MPAs

Application of advanced institutional mechanisms and management tools• ICM plans at the local and national levels, Comprehensive Marine Env. Mg

t. Plan• Adoption of Zoning System• Stricter approval procedures for coastal area reclamation

Enhanced management capacity• Establishment of a new division in MOMAF (Marine Ecosystem Division)• Enactment of new “Law on Conservation and Management of Marine Ecosystems”

(Oct. 2006)

Issues on MPA Management (1/4) - Based on the SWOT analysis

Strength and Opportunity (cont’d)

Increased surveys and researches• Wetlands, coastal areas• Marine environmental monitoring

Increase of management budget for MPAs

Enhancement of public awareness and interest

Partnerships at the regional and global levels, bilateral cooperation

Incorporation of Ecosystem-based Approach into national policies and plans(3rd National Comprehensive Plan for Marine Environment Conservation)

Issues on MPA Management (2/4) - Based on the SWOT analysis

Threat and Weakness

Designation procedures need more scientific and systematic criteria• Ambiguous and abstract designation criteria - little difference in designation criteria among MPAs• lack of detailed and well-defined procedures Conflicts between ministries and stakeholders in the designation proce

ss Increase of claims against the designation of MPAs

Insufficient information for the rational decision-making• Limited information, despite increase in survey activities• Lack of researches on ecological functions of coastal and marine ecosyste

ms• Very few “issue-oriented” or “problem solving-oriented” surveys or research

es Lack of conflict resolution mechanism•Lack of institutional mechanism to effectively deal with conflicts among stakeholders

Lack of conflict resolution mechanism•Lack of institutional mechanism to effectively deal with conflicts among stakeholders

Issues on MPA Management (3/4) - Based on the SWOT analysis

Threat and Weakness (cont’d)

Lack of effective management system to achieve designation objectives

• Rigid top-down approach based on command and control, and lack of plans or

in-situ implementation projects for effective protection• Lack of effective countermeasures against development pressures “Paper parks”, “Plans on the Shelf”

Limited public participation in the planning process, and lack of systematic support system for local residents

• Lack of institutional mechanisms to enhance public participation

↔ genuine participation based on sharing powers• Lack of site-specific supporting systems

Lack of integrated management system at the national, ministerial & local levels

• Strengthening sectoral approach, rather than integration

Issues on MPA Management (4/4) - Based on the SWOT analysis

Implem

entation

Hum

an & physical resources

Planning

Financing

Designation

Survey

1 2 3

Evaluation &

Revision

Monitoring &

new issue identification

4

ConflictConflict ConflictZoning, support

ConflictZoning, support

ConflictEnforcement

ConflictEnforcement

ConflictCancellation

or minimization

ConflictCancellation

or minimization

Regulation of socio-economic activities, present and potential

Encroaches of free exercise of private property rights Public interests Vs. Private interests

Conflict Resolution as a Key Process for Success of MPAS

(Nam, 2006)

Criteria, plausible or implausible Information & data, sufficient or deficient Building consensus or not

Plausible &Plausible &ScientificScientificCriteriaCriteria

Sharing dataSharing dataJoint-fact findingJoint-fact finding

ParticipatoryParticipatoryDeliberation &Deliberation &

ConsensusConsensus

CriteriaAssessment

of areas Boundary

demarcation

Conflict Resolution as a Key Process for Success of MPAS

Case study (Chang et al., 2006)

Valuation Range

CVM Emergy* Market

< 300 m - < 18.6

< 1 km 32 3.2~4.5 < 33.6

Unit: 100K $(USD)/yr

Conflict Resolution as a Key Process for Success of MPAS

Sport Fishing(1.34 M$)Gill Net(0.43 M$)

Pot Fishing(0.09 M$)

Total Income(1.86 M$)

Conflict Resolution as a Key Process for Success of MPAS Case study (con’t) (Chang et al., 2006)

Thank you