Marine protected areas (MPAs) are created to manage people’s behavior in
their use of coastal and marine resources. Although MPAs have strived to deliver the
objects of resource protection, they often face challenges in translating the accrued
benefits into enhanced livelihoods of local communities in and around their areas of
jurisdiction. We used Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) in
Tanzania to appraise the scenario of pro-poor conservation. The purpose of comparison
between park and non-park villages was done to verify the hypothesis that
establishment and operations of MPAs impairs local socio-economic practices without
robust provision of alternative livelihood safety nets. Agriculture remains a
persistent livelihood occupation both in park and non-park villages. Artisanal fishing
is a substantial livelihood occupation in seafront villages but a secondary activity in
overall. Income and expenditure patterns indicated that non-park villages are betteroff
with significantly high income to expenditure ratios. Fishing make the most
contribution to income in sea front villages as agriculture is doing in non-fishing
villages. Impacts on livelihoods emanate from disrupted resource use patterns which
significantly influence the communities’ perception on need, role and overall acceptance
of the marine park. Traditional access and user rights are marred by MPA
operations putting at stake livelihood security of the communities therein. Alternative
strategies have not yet been given due thrust and local communities remain insecure in
accessing political assets such as cooperatives, community credit schemes and financial
assets such as government and/or commercial banking sponsored schemes and
loans. Local communities are already carrying the costs of denied access to livelihood
sources, but the marine park is not quick enough to translate the accrued value and
benefit of the improved resource base in enhancing local communities’ livelihood and
welfare. Reducing pressure on marine resources through sound management interventions
will have to be accompanied by mitigating measures to safeguard householdfood security, such as compensation, and developing alternative sources of income.
There is still considerable polarization between conservation and socio-economic
welfare of the people. MPAs should focus on combining resource management with
livelihood opportunities that provide economic benefits in the short-run to address
economic disruptions emanating from disrupted access to the once common resources.