evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Soufrière Marine Management Area — User-Financed Co-Managed Reserve Network

Saint Lucia · Soufrière · See the Saint Lucia profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

St Lucia's Soufrière Marine Management Area (est. 1994/95) is a self-financing, multi-zoned reserve network. Studies found fish biomass quadrupled in its no-take reserves and adjacent catches rose 46-90% in five years, though a 2020 review found the model increasingly challenged.

46-90 %
Increase in adjacent artisanal catches within five years (within 5 years)
more than quadrupled relative increase
Increase in biomass of commercially important species inside no-take reserves
tripled relative increase
Increase in biomass of commercially important species in surrounding fishing grounds
~150 fishers
Registered fishers using the SMMA
400 EC$/month
Monthly stipend for displaced pot- and gillnet fishers (1 year)
Soufrière Marine Management Area — User-Financed Co-Managed Reserve Network

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Soufrière Marine Management Association (SMMA) / Government of Saint Lucia Department of Fisheries
Period
1994-present
Keywords
marine protected area, co-management, user fees, coral reef fisheries, self-financed conservation

Context

The Soufrière Marine Management Area (SMMA) emerged from 1992 consultations among fishers, dive operators and hoteliers to resolve conflicts over reef use on the west coast of Saint Lucia. It was established in 1994 under the 1984 Fisheries Act and formally proclaimed in June 1995.

Objectives

The SMMA created a multi-zoned network combining no-take marine reserves (diving permitted), fishing priority areas, yacht mooring zones, and multiple-use areas, financed to be self-sustaining through user fees rather than dependent on continuous government funding.

Activities

Approximately 150 fishers registered as users, roughly two-thirds working full-time. Fishers displaced from pot- and gillnet fishing by the new no-take zones received EC$400 monthly stipends for one year. The area is financed through diving fees, yacht mooring fees, souvenir sales and donations, run as a government-authorised NGO, with supplemental grants from GIZ, GEF, NOAA, UNEP and USAID.

Results

Roberts et al. (2001, Science) found that adjacent artisanal catches increased 46-90% within five years of the reserve's establishment. Hawkins et al. (2006, Biological Conservation) found that total biomass of commercially important species more than quadrupled inside the no-take reserves and tripled in the surrounding fishing grounds.

Conclusions

A 2020 peer-reviewed governance analysis found the co-management model 'increasingly challenged by external driving forces such as shifting tourism pressure and funding constraints.'

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Self-financing through user fees, souvenir sales and donations, supplemented by international grants (GIZ, GEF, NOAA, UNEP, USAID); time-limited stipends (EC$400/month for one year) for displaced fishers -- overall a low-cost model relative to the conservation outcomes achieved.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Established in 1994/95 and still operating as of the 2020 governance study -- over 25 years -- rated long timeline.
Staffing & skills
SMMA management NGO (government-authorised), Registered local fishers (~150, roughly two-thirds full-time), Dive operators and hoteliers as founding stakeholders, Supplemental technical/financial support from GIZ, GEF, NOAA, UNEP and USAID

Conditions for success

  • Co-management structure built from 1992 multi-stakeholder consultations among fishers, dive operators and hoteliers
  • Self-financing revenue model (diving fees, yacht moorings, souvenir sales, donations) reduces dependency on external funding
  • Transitional support (EC$400/month for one year) for fishers displaced by no-take zones eased adoption
  • Multi-zone design balancing no-take reserves, fishing priority areas and multiple-use areas

Common failure modes

  • A 2020 peer-reviewed analysis found the co-management model increasingly challenged by shifting tourism pressure and funding constraints

Where it fits

Governance type
co-managed, government-authorised NGO with local stakeholder governance
Scale
local/community marine reserve network (single coastal area)
Income level
middle-income (small island developing state)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful