Building Resilience in Practice to Support Coral Communities in the Western Indian Ocean

Abstract Global environmental change and other site specific pressures (e.g. over fishing and pollution) are threating coral reefs and the livelihoods of dependent coastal communities. Multiple strategies are used to build the resilience of both coral reefs and reef dependent communities but the effectiveness of these strategies is largely unknown. Using the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) as a case study, this paper combines published literature and expert opinion elicited through a multi-stakeholder workshop to assess the intended and realised social and ecological implications of strategies commonly applied in the region. Findings suggest that all strategies can contribute to building social and ecological resilience, but this varies with context and the overall strategy objectives. The ability of strategies to be successful in the future is questioned. To support effective resilience policy development more nuanced lesson learning requires effective monitoring and evaluation as well as a disaggregated understanding of resilience in terms of gender, agency and the interaction between ecological and social resilience. Opportunities for further lesson sharing between experts in the region are needed.


Introduction 45 46
Building the resilience of coral reef ecosystems to global environmental and climate change, and the 47 global crises" and recognises that the ocean has a role in resilience at a national level (particularly 90 through economic development) (MESD, 2013). Policy documents tend to propose high level 91 strategies and intentions rather than offering detail on specific approaches. Implementation is left to 92 actors working at more local levels with many strategies being widely applied by government 93 institutions, NGOs and communities throughout the WIO to manage coral reefs, their associated 94 resources and the users that depend upon these resources (Cinner 2014). All of these strategies, 95 intentionally or unintentionally, have implications for the resilience of both coral reefs and their 96 dependent communities. 97 98 Through a combination of literature review and expert knowledge elicitation, this paper explores the 99 available evidence on strategies that can build reef and community resilience across the WIO. Many 100 of the strategies identified have been developed independent of resilience frameworks, but their 101 outcomes can be anticipated to contribute to both social and ecological resilience. Evidence is 102 presented for the social and ecological impacts of the different strategies, who benefits from them 103 and whether the strategies are future proof. Cross-cutting themes are identified and discussed, as 104 are lessons learnt and barriers to future success. 105 106

Methods 107
Based on discussions with stakeholders from the WIO and evidence from the literature review (e.g. 108 Folke et al. 2010), resilience was presented as the ability to resist, recover, adapt and bounce back 109 from any kind of pressure, but not necessarily to the same state. Ecological resilience was explored 110 in terms of changes to ecosystem services, while any evidence of social and economic change at the 111 individual, household and community level was considered to impact social resilience. 112

Literature review 113
Drawing upon the knowledge of the project team (involving academics and practitioners), resilience 114 building, coral reef management and coastal development strategies implemented with 115 government, donor, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) or Community-based Organisation 116 (CBO) support were identified for inclusion in the literature review. We reviewed fourteen strategies 117 with the potential to build resilience even if this was not an explicit or primary objective: coral reef 118 restoration; mangrove restoration; certification schemes such as eco-labelling of fish and fish 119 products; fisheries management including fishing gear change and effort restriction, fish aggregating 120 devices and post-harvest improvements in fisheries; marine protected areas (MPAs) and locally 121 managed marine areas (LMMAs); financing mechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services 122 (PES); ethics, faith-based and customary practices; alternative livelihoods; and community 123 development initiatives including environmental education, micro-finance and population, 124 reproductive health and environment (PHE) approaches. This list, whilst not exhaustive, illustrates 125 commonly used strategies across the social-ecological spectrum (i.e. some strategies directly target 126 coral reef management, while others focus on social issues within reef-dependent communities) 127 (Fig. 1) performed. Between five to fifteen papers were reviewed for each strategy to gain a sufficiently 136 comprehensive understanding of the strategy, including existing review papers and publications or 137 reports detailing the implementation and outcomes of the strategy. 138 Each strategy was analysed using a review matrix developed by the project team to ensure 145 consistency among authors conducting the review (Table 1). The analysis sought to document both  146  the assumed or intended impacts of a particular strategy and record any available empirical  147 evidence of its outcomes. Where possible, evidence of impacts specific to the WIO were highlighted. 148 An overview of each strategy was then presented to WIO regional experts in a multi-stakeholder 149 workshop as a series of report cards for further discussion and analysis (see Results). A further round 150 of review was then conducted to fill any noted gaps and identify any literature supporting the 151 opinions and experiences expressed by regional experts in the multi-stakeholder workshop. In total, 152 over 110 papers were reviewed across all fourteen strategies. 153

Review criteria
Description of strategy and purpose, including assumptions on route to and/or implications for resilience. Impacts on ecosystem services* Implications of impacts for ecological resilience Impacts on coastal communities* Implications of impacts for social resilience Spatial scale of impacts (local, national, regional) Temporal scale of impacts (short term <5yrs, medium term 5-10yrs, long term >10yrs) * Distinguish if evidence (E) is provided or whether impacts are based upon supposition (S) 156

Expert elicitation in a multi-stakeholder workshop 157
Findings from the literature review (Tables 2 and A1) were presented to regional experts on coral 158 reef management, coastal development, and resilience building at a two-day multi-stakeholder 159 workshop in Mauritius (10-11 May 2017). Workshop participants (20 in total) included 160 representatives from NGOs, government and academics from Mauritius, Rodrigues, Zanzibar, Kenya, 161 the Comoros, Madagascar and the Seychelles (Table A2). The participants invited were secondary 162 stakeholders, those whose well-being is not directly affected by the ecosystems, but who represent 163 institutions and social groups that have some type of influence in coastal decision-making and policy. 164 The workshop aimed to i) understand how resilience practices are applied in the region; ii) prioritise 165 resilience strategies of interest to WIO stakeholders and collate evidence of success and best-166 practice in, as well as barriers to, their implementation; and iii) identify opportunities to improve 167 resilience-building strategies in the future. The workshop combined plenary sessions with facilitated 168 small group discussions to elicit expert opinion. Priority strategies were identified for detailed 169 discussion on day two. This method has been used elsewhere to garner expert insight into the on-170 the-ground or in-practice outcomes of governance and adaptation interventions (

Impacts of strategies on resilience 178
The detailed findings from the literature review are presented as report cards (available at  179 https://pml.ac.uk/Research/Projects/Coral_Communities) that summarise information for marine 180 managers and development practitioners (Fig 2). Here we report overall and illustrative findings 181 from the review (Tables 2 and A1)

Strategies
Assumptions for resilience Link to coral reefs

Reef recovery: Coral gardening and reef restoration
Coral reef restoration is assumed to increase the health of reefs and support resistance to pressures such as climate change and human activity allowing continued provision of ecosystem services (Rinkevich 2014).
Coral heads or nursery-reared corals are transplanted to restore coral reefs (Mbije et al. 2013).

Mangrove restoration
Restored mangroves are assumed to trap run-off and provide habitat, increasing the health of coral reef ecosystems, and supporting resistance to climate change and human activity (Gorman and Turra 2016).
Mangroves are important nursery areas for coral reef species, they also bind sediment and contaminants preventing them reaching coral reefs ( Certification schemes: Ecolabelling of fish and fish products Consumers reduce the demand for, and consequently, the pressure on overfished stocks; sustainably managed fish stocks support improved catch and income for fishers (Sampson et al. 2015).
Schemes leading to MSC certification (e.g. fisheries improvement projects, fair trade schemes) are being applied to small-scale coral reef fisheries (Long 2017).

Post-harvest improvements in fisheries
Increases the availability, quality and price of post-harvest catch, which in turn improves livelihoods, and has health benefits (Adeyeye and Oyewole 2016).
Used together with other fisheries management aimed at reducing pressure on coral reefs resources (Allison and Horemans 2006).

MPAs and LMMAs
Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) Strengthening fisheries governance through increased local participation in decision-making, clarification of property rights and collaborative management between relevant stakeholders encourages more sustainable behaviour and innovative conservation actions (Kawaka et al. 2017).
Increasingly applied in coral reef dependent fisheries in WIO region (Rocliffe et al. 2014).

MPAs
The provision of protection will increase reef health and support resilience to pressures such as climate change and human activity (Mellin et al. 2016 Evidence also indicates that the capacity of many reefs in the Indian Ocean region to keep pace with 306 rising sea levels is diminished (Perry et al. 2018), which will increase coastal wave exposure. While 307 strategies may demonstrate success in building resilience to present conditions, it is highly uncertain 308 how effective these strategies may be in the near-future. 309 310 Participants raised particular concern about reef restoration through coral gardening. Participants 311 were positive about selecting corals resilient to previous El Niño events for transplantation, but 312 highlighted how the causes of reef decline (e.g. climate change, fishing and pollution) remain 313 unmanaged. It was considered a mitigation measure. Similarly, micro-finance, when unlinked to 314 sustainable resource use, was considered a significant barrier to resilience building. Donor support 315 for micro-finance schemes was also recognised as a key weakness, with anecdotal evidence of 316 schemes collapsing once donors have departed. Workshop participants recommended a move 317 towards competitive grant schemes for specific community conservation related projects as an 318 alternative source of finance. 319 320 Strategies reliant on international markets (e.g. sea cucumber and seaweed production, carbon 321 trading and other potential PES schemes) also raised concerns. Participants blamed falling prices for 322 sea cucumber and seaweed farming on over promotion, supplier saturation and excess production. 323 The literature, however, suggests that this is more a consequence of low quality production and 324 processing and customary practices, and improved monitoring and evaluation. Education was identified as 345 necessary in any resilience building strategy because it can lead to informed decision-making, 346 acceptance of resilience building measures, but also skills development. Participants recognised a 347 need for training in business, product or service development, but also for decision-making and 348 conflict resolution and avoidance. 349 Awareness of and influencing communities through faith-based and customary practices was 350 discussed at length between workshop participants. Although not relevant in all societies, faith and 351 customary leaders can be influential actors within communities (Cox et al. 2014;Steenbergen, 2016). 352 They can provide important entry points into communities and act as agents of change. Compliance 353 was considered greater with resilience building strategies that aligned with local values and priorities. 354 The general absence of monitoring and evaluation data hampered both the literature review and 355 workshop participants to articulate the successfulness of strategies at building social and ecological 356 resilience in the WIO. While recognising that monitoring can be resource intensive and may require 357 skilled personnel (e.g. reef monitoring), all participants considered that better monitoring and 358 evaluation data were urgently needed. They also highlighted how this must be accompanied by 359 sustainable sources of finance, skills training, and the sharing of experiences across the region. Our understanding about which strategies are successful in building resilience is challenged by the 363 relative absence of evidence for each strategy. The multi-stakeholder workshop helped fill gaps and 364 identify lessons, such as the need to link strategies to sustainable behaviours, adapting strategies to 365 context and the importance of decision-making at community levels. If resilience related policy 366 objectives are to be met, however, long-term monitoring and evaluation is needed to support more 367 effective decision-making (Ferraro and Hanauer, 2014;Stem et al. 2005). Existing monitoring and 368 evaluation efforts are often too short and undertaken within specific project lifetimes that rarely 369 reflect the scales of stress accumulation (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006). 370 From a process perspective, programme success is often hard to assess because programmes are 372 rarely implemented with evaluation in mind. Evaluation must be planned from the outset, with both 373 social and ecological data collected before and after implementation (Stem et al. 2005). 374 Communities could contribute to monitoring and evaluation, enabling it to last beyond the lifetime 375 of a project and which may itself encourage engagement in the resilience building strategy 376 (Uychiaoco et al. 2005 Strategies must take into account the myriad ways that people and nature co-exist, incorporating 413 both social and ecological resilience. For example, while evidence indicates that no-take marine 414 reserves may provide the best opportunity for increasing reef ecological resilience, they may lead to 415 growing inequality, loss of income and ultimately an erosion of social resilience (Bennett and  416 Dearden 2014). Similarly, strategies for increasing income (e.g. through improved access to micro-417 finance or the development of alternative livelihoods) may provide a good opportunity for building 418 social resilience, but unless accompanied by strategies that encourage sustainable fishing practices, 419 they may lead to increased fishing pressure and a decrease in reef resilience (Crona et al. 2010). 420 Cinner et al. (2016) suggest that the most successful strategies may not generate the greatest social 421 or ecological gains but make a contribution across the social-ecological spectrum. 422 423 Consideration of the role of agency, the choices individuals make in determining which strategies 424 they undertake, is also needed. People and communities are not passive in the face of change; they 425 have their own priorities that may be distinct from those of the external organisations supporting 426 the implementation of resilience building strategies (McLaughlin and Dietz 2008). People's own 427 individual framings therefore affect the choices they make and the way they perceive and 428 experience vulnerability. Understanding individual and social values, as drivers of behaviour, is 429 central to building resilience in terms of identifying what might be acceptable strategies for an 430 individual and a community, and hence the policies needed to promote them. 431 432

Conclusions 433
This paper identified multiple strategies currently applied to improve ecological and social outcomes 434 for coral reefs and dependent communities. It documented how these strategies are assumed to 435 influence social and ecological resilience and evaluated the existing evidence, using the WIO as its 436 focus. It found that while numerous strategies are being implemented across the region, often in 437 combination, the mechanisms to document and share results and develop best practice to support 438 resilience building and effective policy design is currently missing. Practitioners in the region are a 439 wealth of expert knowledge but are not sufficiently connected to each other to share and compare 440 experiences. Systematic processes of monitoring, evaluation and data-sharing are also lacking. 441 Important insights into trade-offs between social and ecological resilience or the different 442 beneficiaries of key strategies remain ad hoc reducing the ability of decision-makers to design 443 policies targeted at resilience building. If the Sustainable Development Goals and regional resilience 444 objectives are to be achieved, there is a clear opportunity to strengthen knowledge networks, 445 processes and systems in this region with this paper providing a baseline of current understanding of 446 resilience in practice.