Territorial User Rights for Fisheries as Ancillary Instruments for Marine Coastal Conservation in Chile

Abstract

Territorial user rights for fisheries have been advocated as a way to achieve sustainable resource management. However, few researchers have empirically assessed their potential as ancillary marine conservation instruments by comparing them to no-take marine protected areas. In kelp (Lessonia trabeculata) forests of central Chile, we compared species richness, density, and biomass of macroinvertebrates and reef fishes among territorial-user-right areas with low-level and high-level enforcement, no-take marine protected areas, and open-access areas in 42 100-m subtidal transects. We also assessed structural complexity of the kelp forest and substratum composition. Multivariate randomized permutation tests indicated macroinvertebrate and reef fish communities associated with the different access regimes differed significantly. Substratum composition and structural complexity of kelp forest did not differ among access regimes. Univariate analyses showed species richness, biomass, and density of macroinvertebrates and reef fishes were greater in highly enforced territorial-user-right areas and no-take marine protected areas than in open-access areas. Densities of macroinvertebrates and reef fishes of economic importance were not significantly different between highly enforced territorial-user-right and no-take marine protected areas. Densities of economically important macroinvertebrates in areas with low-level enforcement were significantly lower than those in areas with high-level enforcement and no-take marine protected areas but were significantly higher than in areas with open access. Territorial-user-right areas could be important ancillary conservation instruments if they are well enforced.

Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes

“…Although the most suitable institutional reforms to achieve recovery will depend on social, economic, and ecological objectives and conditions, various approaches such as cooperatives (16,17), territorial rights (18,19), or individual transferable quotas (8,20) could be used to improve economic results under a range of harvest policies. Although these all fall under the umbrella of RBFM, each will bring different benefits in different settings that must be weighed against the costs of reform.…”

Reproductive output of two benthic resources (Fissurella latimarginata and Loxechinus albus) under different management regimes along the coast of central Chile

“…Most of the evidence focused on the benefits of protection inside the boundaries of protected areas, measured on a set of biological variables such as species richness as well as abundance, biomass, and/or adult size of exploited species (Jennings et al, 1996;Roberts et al, 2001;Halpern, 2003;Shears et al, 2006;Lester et al, 2009). It is clear that fully protected areas confer more benefits than partially protected areas on most of these biological variables (Lester & Halpern, 2008;Gelcich et al, 2012). However, it is also evident that establishing fully protected areas generates social __________________ Corresponding editor: Patricio Arana resistance (West et al, 2006).…”

“…Empirical evidence shows increases in reproductive potential (egg or gonad production) ranging between 2 and 18 fold in protected areas with respect to fished areas (Roger-Bennett et al, 2002;Willis et al, 2003;Pelc et al, 2009). The benefits of partially protected areas could be lower than fully protected areas, as the increase in size and density, two critical variables affecting egg production, is higher in no-take areas than in partially protected areas (Lester et al, 2009;Gelcich et al, 2012). All the analyses, however, have focused on the indirect consequences of enhanced size and density, while the direct influence of protection on reproductive investment has rarely been assessed (Kaiser et al, 2009).…”

“…First, this section of the coast is heavily impacted by artisanal fisheries (Fernández & Castilla, 2005). Second, there is a mosaic of human impact that includes fully and partially (TURFs; Gelcich et al, 2012) protected areas interspaced with open access fishing zones (Fernández & Castilla, 2005). Thus, levels of protection of the coastal ecosystem can be associated to fisheries management regimes.…”

“…Thus, there is a compromise between reaching higher benefits fully protecting smaller fractions of the ocean and achieving lower enhancement but partially protecting larger proportions of the world ocean. Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURF), implemented for management purposes, can also provide ancillary benefits for marine conservation as partially protected areas, over large fractions of the ocean (Gelcich et al, 2012).…”