Peru Case Study

Abstract

The management of coastal marine ecosystems requires a multi-sectorial, multidisciplinary approach, where both public and private sectors work together towards the conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystems. In an ideal scenario, the values and interests of all stakeholders should be considered in management strategies aligned with national and international norms and regulations. To this end, the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) could provide a platform for stakeholders to collaborate and achieve common management and conservation goals. In Peru, the “Guano Islands, Isles and Capes National Reserve System” was established in 2009 to conserve the biodiversity of the Northern Humboldt Current System. This MPA consists of 22 islands and isles, 11 capes, and their adjacent sea, divided into 25 polygons that cover 140,000 ha, representing a big challenge in terms of management. In this chapter, we draw upon the case study of the octopus fishery in the polygon named Lobos de Afuera Islands (ILA) at the northern part of the MPA, to analyse the advances and setbacks, as well as the challenges associated with stakeholders participation, in relation to the accomplishment of the sustainability goals defined for this polygon. We assess institutional and knowledge challenges for ILA and describe how the deficient acknowledgment of users, the ecological knowledge gaps and a complex administrative system, which involves many institutions, have hindered the understanding of the social-ecological system and the islands management and governance desired outcomes. The neglect to acknowledge the octopus fishers as longtime users of ILA, due to the current illegal status of their fishery in northern Peru, and therefore as formal stakeholders in the polygon’s management, decreases the possibility of applying appropriate co-management strategies. However, a group of octopus divers has recently been formalised into a fishers association and aim at being accepted as formal stakeholders of ILA, through ongoing capacity building related to data collection and organisational skills. The problems of the rigid, inefficient, and limited institutional setup at ILA are also opportunities for identifying bottlenecks and blackboxes, from where research priorities towards an integrated management strategy can be outlined. The increased knowledge of this social-ecological system can also be extended to the whole Guano Islands MPA, where additional flexibility and operational capacities will be needed due to the connectivity among many polygons. Potential pathways towards useful ecosystem-based management may include the emergence of transversal government bodies that can respond faster to the MPA’s inner dynamic and to external pressures, allowing for a less bureaucratic and more integrated approach to management. Moreover, MPA authorities could promote signing general and specific agreements with public and private institutions, prioritising lines of research beyond sporadic projects, towards long-term sustainable management in ILA. The lessons and challenges here presented could also serve to improve the design and implementation of future MPAs in Peru to meet its international commitments.

1 Introduction

The rapid growth of human populations inhabiting coastal areas, along with advances in technology and the soaring worldwide demand for seafood products, are impacting marine ecosystems and the goods and services they provide. Global, regional, and local social-ecological dynamics, including high-impact anthropogenic stressors, such as resource overexploitation and pollution, are becoming particularly complex issues to address, evermore in the face of climate change. Maintaining the health and fostering resilience of marine ecosystems is not only important for their own sake and beauty, but crucial for the livelihoods of coastal communities directly benefiting from them (i.e. through fisheries, tourism, or other ecosystem services), as well as for sustaining seafood production industries worldwide. Thus, governments and other institutions dealing with resource management have the responsibility to present strategies that secure ecosystems services, while guaranteeing sustainable livelihoods.

Addressing this complex situation can often lead to conflicting ideas regarding the conservation, exploitation, management, and sustainability of marine ecosystems. Even with the advances made over the past few decades on implementing ecosystem-based management (Pikitch et al. 2004), efforts towards adequate governance and management measures remain one of the key environmental and development challenges of the present century. Evidently, not all social-ecological systems behave alike, thus not one single approach is sufficient to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources and to safeguard the oceans for human wellbeing and intergenerational equity. To this end, there is much debate among scientific, stakeholder, and political circles on effective regulatory instruments and social innovations that would facilitate an integrated sustainable development of coastal social-ecological systems.

Among regulatory instruments, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been designed and implemented with varying results for many decades (Edgar et al. 2014). MPAs allow managers and stakeholders to protect certain fragile or functionally important ecosystems, while controlling the impacts of economic activities such as fisheries. Ideally, an MPA will allow for more public awareness, improved academic work, and adequate enforcement of relevant regulations through collaboratively established plans and goals; backed up by both public and private stakeholders. However, not all MPAs are based on the best scientific evidence and are sometimes used as legitimised exclusion zones. Wolff (2015) argues that MPAs should not be created simply to prevent specific activities (e.g. fishing), but rather should lead the way to share the ocean via the appropriate assessment and management tools. Nevertheless, evidence has highlighted the conservation benefits of MPAs, which include positive effects on species and functional diversity, the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, and the preservation of ecosystems and their services (Halpern 2003; Lester et al. 2009; Martins et al. 2012; Worm et al. 2006).

In the Peruvian Upwelling System, one of the most productive systems in the world in terms of fisheries (Carr 2001; Chavez et al. 2008), there are currently only four out of eleven protected coastal areas that include marine ecosystems. This corresponds to approximately 0.6% of Peru’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In contrast, terrestrial protected areas cover ~21% of the total land area of Peru. The current MPA coverage in Peru lags behind the international commitments of protecting at least 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020 and 30% by 2030,¹ though this last commitment is not binding and it is even disputed if participants agreed on such an arbitrary number (Charles et al. 2016). The aim should be to achieve MPAs that are managed effectively, not just established in paper.

The Peruvian coastline contains several capes, tips and bays, as well as a series of islands and islets that run parallel to the coast along the continental shelf. They span almost twelve degrees of latitude (~6–18° S) and are located within the first 32 nm (60 km) offshore (Fig. 17.1). These islands and capes, in conjunction with the nutrient-filled upwelling waters, provide the conditions for highly diverse and abundant ecosystems with a very rich trophic structure. They serve as habitat for many species of fish and shellfish, birds, reptiles, and mammals, which use them as reproduction sites, nurseries, and feeding grounds, or as a temporal resting place or refuge. Seabirds have historically taken possession of the islands and high capes to use them as nesting or resting grounds. They feed mostly on small pelagic fish such as sardines (Sardinops sagax) or the Peruvian anchovy (Engraulis ringens) (Jordan 1967; Vogt and Duffy 2018; Zavalaga and Paredes 1999) and tend to migrate long distances (Weimerskirch et al. 2012; Zavalaga et al. 2011). Due to the large amount of excreta produced by these seabirds—mainly cormorants, pelicans, and boobies, which not only form huge piles on land but also fertilise the surface of the ocean—this system is commonly known as the guano islands, isles, and capes. The fact that they are categorised as continental islands suggests a strong geological and ecological connectivity between them and mainland, which is key for understanding the functionality of the system. In 2009, the guano islands, isles, and capes system was given the status of National Marine Reserve named as “The Guano Islands, Isles and Capes National Reserve System” (hereafter, Guano Islands MPA).

Fig. 17.1

Location of the twenty-five polygons comprising the Guano Islands MPA, and a close-up of our study site, in Peru, western coast of South America. Numbers along the coast represent the polygons; in italics, the islands and isles, and in bold, the capes. From north to south: (1) Lobos de Tierra, (2) Lobos de Afuera, (3) Macabi, (4) Guanyape, (5) Chao, (6) Corcovado, (7) Santa, (8) Culebras, (9) Colorado, (10) La Litera, (11) Don Martín, (12) Mazorca, Huampanu & Salinas, (13) Grupo de Pescadores, (14) Cavinzas & Palomino, (15) Pachacamac, (16) Asia, (17) Chincha, (18) Ballesta, (19) Lomitas, (20) San Juan, (21) Lomas, (22) Atico, (23) La Chira, (24) Hornillos, (25) Coles

In the present chapter, we develop a case study within this MPA, at “Lobos de Afuera” Islands (hereafter, ILA) in northern Peru and its artisanal octopus fishery (Octopus mimus). We describe the ecosystem, characterise its octopus fishery and assess the progress made in relation to ILA’s MPA objectives, aiming at identifying institutional limitations, knowledge gaps and challenges to its management and governance. The bulk of this chapter was written in 2019. However, we have updated some information on the main status of the MPA, to the best of our knowledge.

2 Resource Use Within the Guano Islands MPA: Octopus Fishery in Lobos de Afuera Islands

2.1 Guano Islands MPA

The management of Natural Protected Areas in Peru is led by the National Parks Service (SERNANP, Ministry of Environment), through the National System of Natural Protected Areas (SINANPE). The Guano Islands MPA is a National Reserve and, as such, SERNANP can establish different conservation levels for each area, following the framework used for terrestrial protected areas: (1) Strict protection, (2) Wild zone, (3) Tourism and recreation, (4) Direct use, (5) Special use, (6) Recovery, and (7) Historical-Cultural. Each polygon in the Guano Islands MPA is classified based on scientific information and the approval of the main stakeholders. Furthermore, because this MPA includes marine areas with fisheries as the main economic activities, part of the responsibility in the MCS activities has to be shared with the Ministry of Production and the Navy (Ministry of Defence). The Ministry of Agriculture is also involved through AGRO RURAL, which safeguards the island guano and by extension the guano birds.

The Guano Islands MPA consists of 22 islands and 11 capes divided into 25 geographical areas named “polygons” for management purposes adding up to a total area of 140,833.47 ha (Fig. 17.1, Valverde et al. 2016). Each polygon comprises an area of at least one insular or continental landmass surrounded by water extending roughly two nautical miles offshore. The MPA was established to “conserve a representative sample of the marine biodiversity from the Northern Humboldt Current Upwelling System, ensuring the continuation of natural processes as well as the sustainable and fair use of its resources”.² It currently has a so-called management committee that groups all stakeholders along the MPA (users, government, civil society, others). Considering the extent of the Guano Islands MPA, this committee was divided into 25 sub-committees, one per polygon. These committees are not decision-making bodies but provide a space for discussion and knowledge exchange among actors, which can serve as guidelines for managers.

In 2016, the Guano Islands MPA master plan for the period 2016–2020 was published. This master plan is the roadmap to implementing any project in the MPA and assigns general and specific objectives under three main categories: (1) environmental: to conserve terrestrial and marine ecosystems, (2) economical: to develop sustainable activities, and (3) sociocultural: to promote the participation of local stakeholders in management (Valverde et al. 2016). Since the establishment of this MPA, the Ministry of Environment’s National Parks Service (SERNANP) has received external international financial and technical support to help implement its master plan and strengthen the capabilities of stakeholders, with emphasis on ecosystem-based management and appropriate monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) tools and policies. This was the case of the project “Strengthening Sustainable Management of the Guano Islands MPA”, through which SERNANP called for proposals to carry out subprojects and address the objectives posed in the master plan for the different polygons within the MPA. One of these subprojects was developed for the polygon ILA, which spanned from October 2017 to February 2019 and was implemented by a multidisciplinary team led by the Peruvian NGO Pro Delphinus (under SERNANP’s supervision). A summary of some of the results and challenges of this project (hereafter, ILA-subproject) is included in this chapter.

Lobos de Afuera Islands (ILA) are located at the northern part of the Guano Islands MPA, close to the ecotone between the NHCUS and the warmer Tropical East Pacific (TEP) waters (De La Cruz et al. 2017). Of the 22 islands in the MPA, these are the farthest offshore, close to the edge of the continental shelf, 45 nm (~84 km) from the nearest mainland port. ILA consists of two main islands that are separated by a narrow 30-m long channel surrounded by a handful of smaller islets (Fig. 17.2). ILA has a total area of 8265 ha, 97% of which is water, representing about a 2–3 nm radius around the islands.

Fig. 17.2

Views of Lobos de Afuera Islands. Source: ILA-subproject. Lobos de Afuera Islands MPA (top: Lyanne Ampuero, bottom: ProDelphinus)

Because ILA’s rocky shores are exposed to high wave impact, the intertidal community has only a few species of crustaceans and mollusks. Among them, the barnacle Pollicipes elegans was a highly demanded crustacean used in local gastronomy but no longer abundant around these islands. In the sub-tidal region, biodiversity and abundance are larger. A survey reported by De La Cruz et al. (2017) found 47 species of fish within two miles around the islands and down to thirty metres depth.

Commercially important molluscs are mostly found on the protected east side of the islands. Towards deeper waters, several demersal and pelagic resources either pass through or approach the islands for feeding and/or mating (De La Cruz et al. 2017). Besides marine mammals identified by Figueroa et al. (2017) (i.e. Otaria byronia, Megaptera novaeangliae, Tursiops truncatus, and Delphinus capensis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) have been recently observed in the surroundings (Alfaro-Cordova pers. comm.). On land, ILA provides reproductive and resting grounds for several species feeding on fish close-by or using these areas as a stop on their long migration routes. Figueroa et al. (2017) identified the South American sea lion and 43 species of seabirds, all of which fit into some category or status of conservation under Peruvian legislation. The introduction of the common rat, one of the permanent residents on the islands, represents a particular threat to eggs and youngsters of nesting birds and reptiles (Ampuero et al. 2018).

2.2 Small-Scale Fisheries in ILA

Fisheries at ILA have been restricted since 2001 through two main National Decrees³: a Presidential ban on motorised fishing vessels within 2 nm of any guano island, and a prohibition enacted by the Defence Ministry on all fishing activities up to 200 m from the shore. Nevertheless, different small-scale and industrial fishing fleets have since been reported within the first 5 nm (9.3 km) surrounding the islands, targeting demersal and pelagic species of fish and shellfish and using mainly drift, bottom, purse-seine nets and air-assisted diving (De La Cruz et al. 2017; Table 17.1). A recent characterisation of the small-scale fisheries operating around ILA estimated 118 small vessels (6–9 m length) organised in 18 fishing organisations, from which 3 were identified as “not formally established” (Grillo et al. 2018). It is worth noting that members of 4 further organisations were identified fishing in both the first 2 nm and within 2–5 nm, adding up to 22 organisations in Table 17.1.

Table 17.1 Summary of the artisanal fisheries characteristics identified during the ILA-subproject

To arrive at ILA, small-scale fishers usually travel between 8 and 17 h from different nearby ports. Some of the boats set sail together and the length of the duration of a fishing trip depends mainly on the season, environmental conditions, and the size of the boat’s hold. Fishing trips during the winter last approximately 15 days in total, compared to an average of 10 during the summer, when environmental conditions are favourable for the availability of most of the targeted resources. This means that fishers not only get higher yields during the summer but engage in more trips to ILA, thus increasing their effort considerably.

Outside the limits of the ILA MPA, fishers catch mainly bonito, mackerel, rock seabass, sharks, rays, and giant squid. The fishery inside the reserve is usually multi-specific but targets principally octopus (Octopus mimus) and Peruvian rock seabass (Paralabrax humeralis) (Table 17.1). Seabass are usually caught with hand-lines but fishers have been observed setting small purse-seine nets to target this fish and other small fish when catches are low. Both octopus and seabass are present all year round, though it is during the summer that catches per vessel increase considerably. Furthermore, vessels that target elasmobranchs with drift nets and giant squid with mechanical hand-line have also been reported fishing illegally inside the reserve (within ~2 nm), on the outer limits of the polygon area (De La Cruz et al. 2017). Although juveniles of giant squid and elasmobranchs are also caught by smaller hand-line boats fishing close to ILA, most catches are reported outside the polygon boundaries by larger vessels.

Nearly 30 nm north of ILA is the island “Lobos de Tierra” (ILT), which belongs to the northernmost polygon of the Guano Islands MPA and is a very productive area as well. Halfway between ILA and ILT runs a deep marine canyon that is well known among fishers for its good quality as a fishing ground. ILT is also conspicuous for its large stocks of the Peruvian scallop Argopecten purpuratus, which is a highly economic profitable resource. It has been reported that fishers who tend to fish at ILA also fish at ILT, and vice-versa, motivated by environmental and economic conditions.

2.3 Octopus Fishery in ILA

The octopus fishery takes place all year round and is one of the most important fisheries at ILA in terms of catches and value. During summer, the number of vessels can rise up to almost 30, but there are usually 8 boats that are permanently and exclusively fishing octopus. These are small wooden boats equipped with off-board engines and with crews of about 3–6. Divers use a hose attached to a petrol fuelled on-board air compressor (Fig. 17.3). They usually dive for a total of 8 h each day (Eliana Alfaro-Cordova, personal observation). Octopus landings from ILA takes place at several ports along the northern coast of Peru and are estimated between 800 and 2000 kg/year in winter and summer, respectively (Grillo et al. 2018). Even though this fishery has been operating at ILA since decades, it is an illegal fishery and was not included in the 2016 MPA’s master plan.

Fig. 17.3

Typical octopus divers boat at ILA. Source: ILA-subproject (Eduardo Valverde)

In 2001, the Ministry of Fisheries set a minimum-weight limit of 1 kg for octopuses catches, which corresponds to ~13 cm of mantle length, above the average length of maturity reported for the species in northern Peru (Ramírez et al. 2016). Furthermore, since 2002, the extraction and commercialisation of octopus in the adjacent regions of Piura and Lambayeque (including ILA and ILT) have been prohibited via three ministerial resolutions.⁴ These regulations were based on studies from the Peruvian Marine Institute (IMARPE), indicating that the majority of octopuses at ILA did not reach the minimum extraction weight of 1 kg (Carbajal et al. 2001, 2003; Ramírez et al. 2008, 2016). The octopus population in ILA during 2017 was estimated at 32,943 individuals with a biomass of 31,963 kg (surveyed area: 15,861.25 m², up to the 20 m isobath) (De La Cruz et al. 2017).

3 Towards the Sustainable Management of ILA

3.1 Challenges and Successes in Achieving the ILA MPA Objectives

Using the example of the octopus artisanal fishery we evaluated some of the challenges and successes in achieving the ILA MPA objectives posed for the ILA-subproject, i.e. to formalise fishers associations, to achieve increased economic revenue for fishers, to increase stakeholder participation, and to maintain the presence and distribution of several conservation target species. We divided our analysis into four categories: (1) environmental, (2) economic and (3) sociocultural (based on the main goals established in the master plan), and (4) institutional (transversal component). A summary of these is shown in Table 17.2.

Table 17.2 Successes and challenges identified with regards to the ILA MPA objectives according to the three main goals established in the master plan (environmental, economic and sociocultural), and an institutional category added as a transversal component

3.1.1 Environmental

The remoteness of ILA and associated low operational capacity of the regional offices for monitoring the area are important factors constraining the achievement of the environmental goals. SERNANP can obtain information on marine biota through interinstitutional agreements with IMARPE, AGRORURAL, and private institutions. Within the marine realm of the polygon, IMARPE has conducted a baseline study of the intertidal and subaquatic marine biota (De La Cruz et al. 2017) and is also responsible for the annual assessment of important resources, such as O. mimus. Currently, IMARPE carries out a yearly assessment of the octopus population, being the main source of information supporting the octopus fishery ban in Piura and Lambayeque regions. Two main issues with the ban are: it assumes one single octopus stock for ILA, ILT, and other localities along the Piura and Lambayeque shoreline, and it does not incorporate data from catches. These limitations add uncertainty to the analysis and hinder the decision-making process.

Through the ILA-subproject, biological and fisheries information on octopus was obtained by working directly with a group of artisanal divers. This collaboration represented a first step forward towards filling knowledge gaps, improving the monitoring of ILA’s octopus fishery and designing strategies for its management. This data collection also supported an ongoing genetic connectivity study of different stocks of O. mimus along the Peruvian coast, providing an interesting contribution to the study of their population structures; something important to consider for further management regulations (Ortiz-Alvarez, pers. comm.).

To be able to design and set up adequate management strategies, it is essential that the ecosystem dynamics are understood, incorporating novel methods of analysis and allowing long-term budget for research and monitoring. Through the ILA-subproject, SERNANP has contributed with important information about octopus in ILA, while the biology, population and social-ecological dynamics of many other species are still poorly understood. Without this basic knowledge, there would be issues with the identification of conservation goals and the implementation of management strategies.

3.1.2 Economic

The development of sustainable economic activities in ILA is mainly focused on small-scale fisheries. Guano extraction and tourism are not feasible economic activities in ILA, because guano is typically scarce and tourism activities are limited by the long distances from shore. Considering the formalisation of fisheries as the first step towards sustainability, SERNANP promoted it through the signing of so-called “conservation agreements” with the users (i.e. fishers). These agreements were proposed as a way to engage formal parties in the co-management of ILA. Additionally, the agreements allowed fishers gain access to funds (from the ILA-subproject) to make their activities more sustainable (e.g. by investing in improving gear and equipment to achieve best practices of extraction and conservation of their target resources).

The identification of the octopus diving fishery as one of the main activities was very important for addressing ILA’s economic objective. This group of fishers has been operating in a semi-organised manner at ILA since 1998, mainly diving for benthic and demersal species and particularly targeting O. mimus. Through the ILA-subproject, SERNANP initiated a dialogue with the divers and prompted the formal establishment of the fishers’ association “Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales y Extractores de Productos Hidrobiológicos “Lobos de Afuera” (APAEPHLA)”. This organisation originally consisted of eleven artisanal wooden outboard motorboats, all equipped with air compressors for hookah diving.

Once formalised, the association could potentially sign the conservation agreement with SERNANP and access to specific funds. Furthermore, it was perceived that the increased monitoring of the octopus population by IMARPE, the divers’ involvement in data collection, and their commitment to co-developing management strategies with SERNANP would allow them to continue fishing under controlled conditions towards a formal reopening of the fishery. Unfortunately, despite their successful formalisation, these divers could not sign the conservation agreement and access the funds because their activity remained illegal (since the ban on O. mimus continues). This put a stop to the collaboration between the divers and SERNANP, particularly because their activities were still perceived and recognised as illegal and they were not formally included in ILA’s management sub-committee (which will be discussed in the next section). Nevertheless, conservation agreements were successfully signed with gill-net (drift) and hook-and-line fishers from Lambayeque and Piura, who occasionally target the islands.

3.1.3 Sociocultural

To promote the participation of local actors in MPA management, SERNANP had mapped the main users and stakeholders of each polygon in the Guano Islands MPA. The involvement of stakeholders was monitored through a tool labelled Participatory Management Radar (Valverde et al. 2016). These stakeholders’ maps are basically a list of people and institutions that use the islands and capes system for an economic activity. It is an important tool to develop adequate baseline parameters of the social-ecological system under study.

A stakeholders committee was created to facilitate formal dialog and decision-making. Considering the extent of the Guano Islands MPA, this committee was divided into 25 sub-committees, one per polygon. For example one stakeholder (management) sub-committee for ILA and one for ILT. However, as pointed out by (Laínez del Pozo 2017), SERNANP used ILT’s map of actors with minor modifications for ILA because they shared some actors and it was cost-effective given their limited budget. For example ILA does not have a stock of the scallop A. pupuratus, but the master plan included it as a conservation target, evidencing the use of ILT’s information as a template for ILA. The assumption that ILT and ILA have the same actors was unfounded and hindered the participation of key stakeholders in this governance process from the very beginning (Laínez del Pozo and Jones 2020). Since the stakeholder maps listed the same actors for both polygons, the two sub-committees were later merged and split into two new ones, based on the location of their members. Presently each polygon has two sub-committees, corresponding to the regions of Lambayeque and Piura. Laínez del Pozo and Jones (2020) assessed the representativeness of these committees and showed that only ~10% of the 146 actors identified (mainly local governments, universities, corporations, NGOs and fisher associations) had a direct or indirect relationship with ILA, indicating that the current stakeholder map is flawed.

The current Guano Islands MPA master plan acknowledges 85 organisations of small-scale fishers who directly benefit from ILA. It does however not define or describe these organisations further, nor provide details about their activities and relations. Concerning the approach used in building the stakeholders map, Laínez del Pozo (2017) addresses this in detail, stating that SERNANP “prioritised bureaucratic procedures over the effectiveness of the participatory processes”. Most actors were included because “they were formally registered and showed interest by attending the first meetings organised by SERNANP, but they do not have any activity there and many have never visited the islands” (Laínez del Pozo 2017). During the ILA-subproject, SERNANP updated and validated the map of actors to include new stakeholders in both of ILA’s management sub-committees. However, due to conflicts of interest between the former mammbers of the management sub-committee and octopus fishers, the diver’s association was not accepted to be included in the participatory management body of ILA.

Unfortunately, SERNANP rushed the establishment of ILA’s zoning in late 2019, seeking quick approval from all the ILA fishers. This led to a misunderstanding that created tension and jeopardised the conservation agreement between octopus fishers and SERNANP. The fact that octopus fishing is banned in ILA complicates matters even more for the divers. In 2019, a joint law enforcement operation between SERNANP and the Navy took place in ILA and was inflicted upon octopus fishers, something that had never happened before. This action generated further mistrust and consequently, even though they are now a formal organisation, the octopus divers are still not included as formal actors in ILA’s management sub-committee.

3.1.4 Institutional

The main decision-maker in all matters related to the Guano Islands MPA is SERNANP. However, the islands and capes are located in a marine environment, slightly different from those continental, landlocked ecosystems that SERNANP is used to deal with. This MPA has a special mix of economic activities and social-ecological values that demanded the inclusion of other sectors of society and government in its management. One of the main limitations in the current MPA management (through institutional silos, i.e. Ministries of Environment, Production and Defence) is a historic lack of collaboration between government institutions, resulting in an inability to communicate and collaborate effectively. Moreover, often the prospects of collaboration come from an external source; such as international pressure and the need to create marine protected areas for the achievement of global conservation goals. This was combined with a limited expertise and capacity on management of MPAs by the local institutions.

To illustrate this point, if, for example someone wants to sail to ILA for tourism or research, go fishing and stay overnight, this person should in theory ask the Navy for permission to sail, the Ministry of Production to extract fish and SERNANP to disembark, each through their own communication channels. The permit emitted by SERNANP would have to be validated upon arrival at ILA. However, SERNANP does not have permanent Park Rangers on any island and their regional monitoring offices do not have the capacity or the budget to take care of everyday (or even sporadic) activities related to MCS.⁵ In remote islands such as ILA, only one or two patrolling rounds are done per year. Although the Navy has a camp at ILA, it is administrated exclusively by the hydrography direction, which is responsible for the maintenance of the lighthouse and data collection on marine abiotic factors, so they do not have a mandate in island-related permits. The Ministry of Production is responsible for fisheries policies, guiding their implementation and ensuring compliance and has a directorate of Control and Surveillance. However, their capabilities are really limited, in particular when dealing with protected areas. The only other institution with permanent presence in ILA is AGRO RURAL (Ministry of Agriculture), which must present an annual plan of guano extraction to SERNANP and cannot proceed without its consent.

SERNANP has made efforts to improve collaboration among institutions and signed agreements with AGRO RURAL and IMARPE to improve biological monitoring at the Guano Islands MPA and support biological monitoring of insular and marine zones, respectively. These agreements work to some extent but have failed when information needs to be readily available for analysis and discussion mainly due to bureaucratic delays in data sharing. The limited presence of SERNANP in ILA has resulted in a limited efficacy to achieve the objectives presented in the master plan. The problems of this rigid, inefficient and limited institutional setup at ILA can also be extended to the whole Guano Islands MPA, where additional flexibility and operational capacities will be needed due to the interconnection among many polygons.

3.2 Pathways Towards a Sustainable Management of ILA

We present the lessons and challenges taken from the octopus fishery in ILA that could serve as indicators of the management and governance of the Guano Islands MPA as a whole, though we try to avoid overgeneralisations. This MPA’s current master plan expired in 2020, but we expect that the present work will provide some input for the next participatory process. We identify four main pathways towards a sustainable management of ILA, described in no particular order below.

3.2.1 Resume Relation and Dialogue with Octopus Divers Association

This dialogue (ideally led by SERNANP with the involvement of the civil society) should take into account interest of fishers in developing a formal and sustainable activity as well as adequate levels of organisation and management capacities. The development of management actions together with fishers is necessary to establish feasible options that can be implemented and increase ownership of the management process with the hope that will ultimately increase compliance. The group of “octopus divers” presents a great opportunity for accomplishing this perspective and keep developing a management strategy that includes them and their everyday data on the process. This will provide a very good opportunity to not only formalise and manage the octopus fishery in ILA, but to actually collect first-hand data from this organised group of divers, in favour of this fishery’s management. In July 2021, the Ministry of Production published the Fisheries Management Regulation of Benthic Invertebrates,⁶ which aims to regulate these resources through properly established extraction and monitoring plans designed and built through a bottom-up framework. This regulation is yet to be fully implemented but provides a great opportunity to involve the octopus divers of ILA in the design of their own management plans, though they need to be properly acknowledged as users first.

3.2.2 Updating the Master Plan

An important next step for the MPA is the elaboration of the updated master plan—led by SERNANP—focusing on all the difficulties and gaps identified during the first phase (2016–2020). For ILA, this would mean not only revising the map of stakeholders but also acknowledging that the illegal octopus fishery takes place and is in urgent need of adequate management, with all the caveats that fishing inside an MPA should have. This should be developed in a participatory manner. We also suggest that the ILA-ILT conundrum should be explicitly addressed in the discussions regarding the soon-to-be updated master plan, highlighting the need to improve coordination and cooperation among the different management sub-committees.

3.2.3 The Creation of a Transversal Committee

As mentioned above, the Guano Islands MPA has a management committee (divided into sub-committees for each polygon) that groups all stakeholders (i.e. users, government institutions, and civil society) to discuss all issues concerning the MPA. These committees are however not making any management decisions, but only recommendations, so the institutions involved in the management (i.e. SERNANP, PRODUCE and DICAPI) are not necessarily making decisions in an integrated manner.

We propose the creation of an autonomous executive body that is led by these institutions and integrates all information and aspects relevant to the management of the MPA, reducing bureaucracy and facilitating participatory and decision-making processes. In broad terms, this body or committee would define the roles and responsibilities within and across institutions with views to reduce the overlap in activities, facilitate and coordinate communication and cooperation among institutions and stakeholders, facilitate capacity building of managers and users, among others. This committee would require a well-established transversal framework to allow for an adequate integrated (National) management strategy; at least for legislation and enforcement in their jurisdiction. As mentioned above, one of the main problems in this regard is the limitation in constant and sufficient funding, so there needs to be a strong political decision in this regard.

The control and surveillance activities could be boosted if the Navy, AGRO RURAL and SERNANP, all have clear functions and share conservation and management goals regarding this MPA. For this purpose further agreements could be signed between SERNANP and various institutions from the private sector and the civil society to facilitate the achievement of specific objectives, all within the proposed framework of the autonomous body for the management of ILA (or all MPAs for that matter).

3.2.4 Develop a Long-Term (10–20 Years) Interdisciplinary Research Plan

This plan should highlight basic research needs and gaps, for example in biology, ecology and associated socio-economic activities such as fisheries. In the specific case of the octopus fishery, as mentioned above, relevant studies were started based on the data collected during the ILA-subproject, such as the characterisation of the fisheries or the genetic variablity between stocks nationwide. However, there is an urgent need for updating the studies that sustain the octopus fishing ban in the north region of Peru. To this end, studies could focus on octopus physiology, stock assessment, population genetics, trophic ecology and fisheries, being useful for addressing management issues such as establishing an appropriate ban resolution.

The construction of ecological models, coupled with socio-economic inputs and drivers, could aid in the pursuit of an ecosystem-based management strategy, not only for ILA but also for the whole Guano Islands MPA. For example the connectivity between ILA and ILT could also be addressed in these terms. The most important aspect here is the ability to collect the appropriate data to understand these systems, including accurate fisheries information. This will allow for a better understanding of how the MPA will react to future environmental and anthropogenic stressors such as climate change, El Niño events, fisheries and policy implementation and enforcement. The ability of the MPA to meet its conservation goals could also be tested with ecological forecast simulation models. To this end, the transparency of the data generated must be guaranteed.

We want to reinforce the idea that a lack of basic knowledge leads to deficiencies in management and control measures further along the process, so basic science should not be understated. In the case of ILA, more biological-ecological information is needed and should be collected before attempting a co-management strategy. De La Cruz et al. (2017) provide a snapshot of the most important marine resources but fails to describe their ecological interactions (and associated socio-economic activities) any further.

Finally, in order to comply with international standards and goals, Peru is seeking to create more MPAs in the near future. Currently, the country is focusing on increasing the national coverage closer to the established MPA mark of 10%, and different social-ecological systems are relevant candidates for this purpose. In this sense, the “Dorsal de Nasca National Reserve” was established in June 2021,⁷ being the first of its kind to include a fully submerged protected area. This brings the country closer to its MPA goals, which is very positive. However, it is imperative that the MPAs being developed have proper conservation goals and sound scientific research, and are not created only to fulfil international requirements. Most importantly, the capacities of the institutions involved have to be radically improved for the successful management of existing and future MPAs.