There needs to be more There must be a real Artificial do not fulfil all research to make relevant for commercial market for the ecological roles (e.g. not CO2 the marine environment. good/service. sink) Need to fit within existing tax Communities need to feel Improving future success regulatory frameworks. their effort is real and careful site and species Need to understand from observe tangible success. selection, and more perspective of the payer Government must support ALS information on other projects – how will they benefit from (hard and soft resources e.g. success and failure. things we cannot control? financial resources and policy, Price uncertainty associated promotion and knowledge with market fluctuations exchange). – increase in credits offered leads to falling price for credits does not make – sense from environmental perspective. Who benefits and With REDD+ schemes, at least In principle, accessible to Potential to benefit many, but Artificial reefs provide how? 50% of benefits should go to everyone in a village. ALS need to be targeted to a benefits for tourism (and the communities. women are more particular need. hence its supply chain). Benefits should be shared involved due to their Fishers may also benefit but between/among experiences with this has not been studied. communities. If it is transparent, everyone Schemes are failing to should benefit. appropriately target fishers destructive gears. Does it work Future strategies need to be To alter unsustainable Believed to work well with other This strategy has particular multipronged, targeting behaviours need both conservation strategies, but also synergies with: alongside other strategies? global/high level policy as positive (e.g., VICOBA) and Fish aggregating devices MPAs well as on the ground action. negative (e.g., Regulation) Micro-credit Alternative livelihoods Communication, education incentives. And potentially PES (Tourism) and training essential. Education
There needs to be more research to make relevant for the marine environment. Need to fit within existing tax regulatory frameworks. Need to understand from perspective of the payer – how will they benefit from things we cannot control? Price uncertainty associated with market fluctuations – increase in credits offered leads to falling price for credits – does not make sense from environmental perspective. There must be a real commercial market for the good/service. Communities need to feel their effort is real and observe tangible success. Government must support ALS (hard and soft resources e.g. financial resources and policy, promotion and knowledge exchange). Artificial do not fulfil all ecological roles (e.g. not CO2 sink) Improving future success careful site and species selection, and more information on other projects success and failure. Who benefits and how? With REDD+ schemes, at least 50% of benefits should go to the communities. Benefits should be shared between/among communities. If it is transparent, everyone should benefit. In principle, accessible to everyone in a village. women are more involved due to their experiences with Schemes are failing to appropriately target fishers destructive gears. Potential to benefit many, but ALS need to be targeted to a particular need. Artificial reefs provide benefits for tourism (and hence its supply chain). Fishers may also benefit but this has not been studied. Does it work alongside other strategies? Future strategies need to be multipronged, targeting global/high level policy as well as on the ground action. Communication, education and training essential. To alter unsustainable behaviours need both positive (e.g., VICOBA) and negative (e.g., Regulation) incentives. Believed to work well with other conservation strategies, but also Fish aggregating devices Micro-credit And potentially PES This strategy has particular synergies with: MPAs Alternative livelihoods (Tourism) Education