Abstract

This report presents the findings of an assessment of capacity building needs for the management of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Caribbean region. A total of 27 MPA sites in 10 countries and territories were included in the assessment, which is an initiative of NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) in partnership with the Caribbean Marine Protected Area Manage-ment Network and Forum (CaMPAM). A gap analysis of existing MPA capacity documents revealed a great deal of variation in the purpose, geographic scope, methodology, and nature of capacity information that has been collected to date. As such, a broad-based comparison of existing information was challenging and would likely not provide an accurate analysis. Accordingly, for this assessment a new survey tool was developed based on a modified version of an existing NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program MPA Management Assessment checklist (http://coralreef.noaa.gov/resources/publicationsdata/). This tool, intended to be a guided self-assessment, was used by the consultants in an interview process whereby they read through questions with site managers and then allowed the managers to self-select the answers that they deemed most appropriate for their site’s situation. Each question was followed by a more thorough discussion about why that answer was selected. The regional results demonstrate that the current perceived capacity of sites is greatest in relation to zoning/boundaries, governance, management planning, stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution mechanisms, and outreach and education. Current perceived capacity of sites is lowest in relation to alternative livelihoods, socioeconomic monitoring, and fisheries management. Priority MPA management capacity needs as identified by managers are: 1) enforcement (10 sites) 2) financing (9 sites) 3) management planning, bio-physical monitoring, socio-economic monitoring (7 sites), and 4) MPA effectiveness evaluation, and outreach and education (6 sites). Preferred approaches to capacity building at a regional scale are: 1) technical support, 2) training, 3) more staff, 4) learning exchanges, and 5) higher education course. Individual site results provide more detailed information under the “rationale” narrative sections and can inform users of more specific details of the local situation and capacity strengths, and challenges.