Co-management and adaptive co-management: Two modes of governance in a Honduran marine protected area |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Policy Officer, Cheshire East Council, Sandbach, Cheshire, CW11 1HZ, UK;2. School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, NE1 7RU, UK;3. School of Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University, NE1 7RU, UK;1. Instituto de Ciências do Mar (LABOMAR), Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, Brazil;2. Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain;1. School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, B243-3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5C2;2. Dovetail Consulting, 2208 Cypress Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6J 3M5;3. Marine Policy Division, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation Directorate, Parks Canada Agency, 30 Victoria Street, Gatineau, QC, Canada J8X 0B3;1. LETG-Brest Geomer, UMR 6554 CNRS, Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer (IUEM), Université de Brest-Université Européenne de Bretagne (UBO-UEB), Technopôle Brest-Iroise – rue Dumont d''Urville, 29280, Plouzané, France;2. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur, Carretera al Sur km 5.5, C.P. 23080, La Paz, BCS, Mexico;1. Department of Environmental Science and Management, Humboldt State University, USA;2. University of Hawaii Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Selecting the best mode of governance for marine protected areas (MPAs) especially in developing countries has generated considerable controversy in the academic and policy literature during the last 20 years. In this article, two modes – co-management (CM) and adaptive co-management (ACM) – are analysed in detail, and an examination is made of an attempt to put these modes sequentially into practice in the first (2003–2009) and second (2008–2013) management plans, respectively, of the Cayos Cochinos MPA (CCMPA) in Honduras. Extensive fieldwork was carried out during 2006–2010 in three communities dependent on the CCMPA (Rio Esteban, Nueva Armenia, and Chachahuate) including key informant interviews, focus group meetings, household surveys, and participant observation. The paper’s findings are (1) that while the first plan implemented some CM principles (such as sharing responsibility between government, stakeholders and NGOs) it failed to deliver other CM principles (such as transparency and accountability); and (2) that while the second plan increased participation and transparency, and used a more adaptive approach, it still left many stakeholders out of the decision-making process, and its processes of experimentation, monitoring and social learning were very limited. The fact is that CM and ACM are laudable objectives, but very difficult to implement in full. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
