Marine protected areas: Re-thinking their inception Ratana Chuenpagdee a,n , Jose J. Pascual-Ferna ´ ndez b , Emese Szelia ´ nszky b , Juan Luis Alegret c , Julia Fraga d , Svein Jentoft e a Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada A1B 3X9 b Institute of Social and Political Sciences, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain c Department of History and History of Art, University of Girona, Girona, Spain d Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV), Me´rida, Me ´xico e Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway article info Article history: Received 22 June 2012 Received in revised form 24 September 2012 Accepted 14 October 2012 Keywords: Marine protected areas Pre-implementation Power and politics Interactive governance Spain Me ´ xico abstract When marine protected areas (MPAs) do not succeed, which is often the case, their failure is mostly attributed to factors related to their design and operation. In this paper, it is argued that reasons for lack of success must be sought in the process that leads up to their establishment, i.e., the initial stage when the idea was conceived, communicated, and discussed among stakeholders. To illustrate the signifi- cance of the ‘step zero’, the creation of four MPAs in Spain and Me ´ xico is analyzed. These case studies show how MPA proposals can easily be drawn not only into power struggles between stakeholders but also into political issues that extend far beyond the MPA itself. For this reason, the governance of MPAs requires broad considerations of the potential political risks and pitfalls. MPAs are, after all, not just a technical management measure, but a socio-political enterprise. Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Despite the recognized complexity surrounding marine eco- systems, management practices are based mostly on readily available tools, some of which end up being treated as simple technical and institutional fixes [1,2]. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are among them. Although similar measures have been used for centuries in different parts of the world, e.g., Oceania and Micronesia [3–5], their development in western societies is relatively recent, starting with the First World Conference on National Parks in 1962, where the need to protect marine and coastal areas was emphasized [6]. Since then, MPAs have attained a status as one of the most widely promoted tools for conserva- tion and resource management. There are many reasons why MPAs have broad appeal. Conceptually, they correspond with the precautionary principle when faced with unknown consequences, which is largely the case with complex marine ecosystems [7]. In addition to their conservation outcome, socio-economic benefits can also be derived from many different human uses, from fishing to tourism [8]. The need for protection of ecosystems globally provides justifica- tion for all levels of governments to create MPAs. However, despite the progress made in previous decades, the spread and coverage of MPAs fall far short of the targets set by international organizations, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which proposed the protection of 10% of all eco-regions in the world (including marine and coastal areas) before 2010 [9]. At the end of 2010, only 1.17% of the world’s oceans were designated as MPAs, and probably for this reason the countries that signed the CBD extended the deadline until 2020 [10]. The slow rate of MPA establishment [11,12] and their relative lack of success or effectiveness raise doubts about what MPAs can offer [13–15]. When they do not succeed, it can be mostly attributed to the design of the MPAs, relative to the specificity of the marine systems within which they are meant to operate. Efforts have been concentrated therefore on adjusting their functions and associated rules and regulations in order to improve their performance [16,17]. However, not all failures can be remedied by reorganization and enhancing capacity in mon- itoring and enforcement. When MPAs do not deliver what they intend to do, the damage may already be beyond repair. For instance, stakeholders may then have lost faith in the MPA and stopped supporting it. Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Marine Policy 0308-597X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.016 n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 709 864 3157; fax: þ1 709 864 3119. E-mail addresses: ratanac@mun.ca (R. Chuenpagdee), jpascual@ull.es (J.J. Pascual-Ferna ´ ndez), eszelian@ull.es (E. Szelia ´ nszky), juan.alegret@udg.edu (J. Luis Alegret), jfraga@mda.cinvestav.mx (J. Fraga), Svein.Jentoft@uit.no (S. Jentoft). Marine Policy 39 (2013) 234–240