Recognising Community Fisheries Governance as OECMs: Policy Opportunities From Tanzania’s Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas

Introduction

Efforts to halt global biodiversity loss have historically relied on the expansion of protected areas as the central instrument of conservation policy. Over the past decades, protected areas have become the cornerstone of international biodiversity strategies and remain a key mechanism for safeguarding ecosystems and species (Dudley et al., 2018; Maxwell et al., 2020). However, growing evidence shows that many ecosystems sustaining biodiversity are governed outside formally designated protected areas through diverse institutional arrangements embedded within local resource-use systems (Jonas et al., 2024). Recognising this reality, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) introduced the concept of Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) to acknowledge geographically defined areas that achieve sustained biodiversity conservation regardless of their primary management objective (CBD, 2022; Claudet et al., 2022). This framing builds on Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, which first placed OECMs alongside protected areas as part of wider landscape and seascape conservation approaches (CBD, 2010; 2020).

The emergence of OECMs reflects a broader shift in conservation thinking toward recognising the role of multiple governance systems including indigenous territories, community-managed landscapes and fisheries management areas in delivering conservation outcomes (Alves-Pinto et al., 2021). Such approaches are particularly relevant in tropical coastal regions where local communities play a central role in resource governance and ecosystem stewardship. In these contexts, conservation outcomes often emerge from fisheries management practices designed primarily to sustain livelihoods rather than explicitly to protect biodiversity. However, emerging debates also caution against the uncritical incorporation of locally governed systems into OECM frameworks without adequate evidence of biodiversity outcomes, equitable participation, and governance effectiveness (IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs, 2019).

Despite growing international attention, translating the OECM concept into national conservation policy remains a daunting task. Many countries continue to rely predominantly on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as the primary approach for marine conservation (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021). While MPAs play a crucial role in protecting biodiversity, their expansion can face financial, institutional and social constraints, particularly where conservation initiatives are perceived as limiting access to resources on which local livelihoods depend. On the other hand, numerous locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) that regulate resource use and contribute to ecosystem protection remain absent from national conservation accounting systems.

Tanzania provides an important context for examining how community-based governance systems may contribute to emerging area-based conservation approaches. Since the 1990s, fisheries governance reforms have promoted participatory management through the establishment of Beach Management Units (BMUs) under the Fisheries Act of 2003. Over time, neighbouring BMUs began coordinating management activities across shared ecological spaces, leading to the emergence of Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas (CFMAs). These multi-village governance arrangements regulate fishing practices across coral reefs, seagrass habitats and nearshore fisheries through locally negotiated management plans and enforcement mechanisms (Katikiro et al., 2024; MLF, 2024).

Although primarily designed to sustain fisheries productivity and coastal livelihoods, CFMAs may contribute to ecological stewardship by regulating fishing effort and reducing destructive practices across ecologically connected habitats (MLF, 2009, 2025). Yet these community-governed areas remain largely absent from national conservation planning and reporting systems. In this paper, we argue that CFMAs represent an overlooked pathway through which Tanzania could operationalise OECMs while strengthening inclusive conservation policy. By examining the CFMA experience within the broader debate on area-based conservation, we highlight both the opportunities and governance challenges associated with recognising community fisheries governance within national biodiversity strategies. However, evidence on measurable biodiversity outcomes remains uneven and requires systematic assessment across different CFMAs.

Community Fisheries Governance in Tanzania

Over the past three decades, marine fisheries governance in Tanzania has gradually shifted toward participatory and community-based management. Earlier regulatory approaches relied largely on centralised state control, which proved difficult to enforce across the extensive coastline and diverse fishing communities in the country. Declining fish stocks and destructive fishing practices in the 1990s prompted policy reforms that sought to involve local communities more directly in fisheries governance (Katikiro et al., 2024).

A key outcome of these reforms was the establishment of Beach Management Units (BMUs) under the Fisheries Act of 2003. BMUs are community-based organisations responsible for coordinating fisheries management at landing sites, including monitoring fishing activities, promoting compliance with regulations, resolving conflicts among resource users and supporting fisheries data collection. Through these functions, BMUs provide an institutional link between coastal communities and district or national fisheries authorities (Katikiro et al., 2021).

While BMUs strengthened fisheries governance at individual landing sites, the ecological connectivity of coastal and marine ecosystems necessitated management beyond village boundaries. Because coral reefs, seagrass beds and nearshore fisheries extend across multiple communities, adjacent BMUs began coordinating management over broader seascapes, leading to the establishment of CFMAs (MLF, 2009, 2025).

Today, more than thirty CFMAs operate along mainland Tanzania’s coastline (MLF, 2025). Although primarily established to sustain fisheries and coastal livelihoods, these governance systems increasingly shape ecological conditions across coastal habitats. For example, seasonal octopus closures implemented within CFMAs in southern Tanzania have been reported to be associated with stock recovery and improved fisheries performance (Mponda, 2024; Muyonga, 2026). Experiences from Songosongo island in Kilwa indicate that temporary reef closures implemented through BMU-led co-management arrangements were accompanied by increases in octopus size, catch volumes, and fisher incomes, while local observations also suggested improvements in reef condition and marine life abundance (Blue Ventures, 2026; Silas et al., 2022). Although such outcomes require further ecological verification, they illustrate how community-based fisheries governance can generate livelihood benefits while contributing to broader ecosystem stewardship objectives. These experiences therefore raise an important question: under what conditions might CFMAs warrant assessment as potential area-based conservation systems within the emerging OECM framework?

CFMAs as Potential OECMs

Several governance and management characteristics of CFMAs correspond closely with internationally recognised OECM criteria, suggesting that some CFMAs may warrant further assessment as potential de facto area-based conservation systems. A defining feature of the OECM concept is that conservation effectiveness is evaluated through demonstrable biodiversity outcomes rather than formal legal designation (Dudley et al., 2018; Maxwell et al., 2020). In many CFMAs, locally negotiated management measures regulate fishing effort across ecologically connected habitats. Restrictions on destructive fishing gears, seasonal closures and community monitoring influence ecological conditions across coral reefs, seagrass beds and nearshore fisheries ecosystems. Although implemented within fisheries governance frameworks, these measures can contribute to maintaining habitat integrity and supporting biodiversity. Experiences from community-managed fisheries closures in coastal Tanzania suggest that locally enforced resource management measures can support resource recovery and strengthen stewardship of marine ecosystems, outcomes that are consistent with the broader objectives of area-based conservation (MLF, 2025).

OECMs also recognise diverse governance arrangements beyond centralised protected area systems (Jonas et al., 2024). CFMA governance reflects this pluralistic principle. Decision-making authority is shared among BMUs, district authorities and supporting organisations, creating hybrid governance arrangements that combine local stewardship with formal regulatory oversight. In addition, most CFMAs operate within spatially defined management areas governed through locally endorsed management plans and by-laws that regulate resource use and enforcement.

The characteristics discussed above suggest that CFMAs may represent an under-recognised form of area-based conservation within coastal governance systems in mainland Tanzania. However, co-management arrangements are not inherently effective or equitable. Their performance depends on factors including leadership, institutional capacity, compliance incentives, social legitimacy, and the ability to manage local power relations (Cinner et al., 2012). In some contexts, community governance arrangements may reproduce existing inequalities, including the exclusion of women or marginalised resource users from decision-making processes. Recognising such systems would therefore require governance-sensitive assessment rather than automatic inclusion within OECM frameworks.

Policy Opportunities and Governance Risks

Recognising CFMAs as potential OECMs could significantly reshape how marine conservation is conceptualised in mainland Tanzania. While MPAs remain central to national conservation strategies, they currently cover less than 10% of marine and coastal waters in Tanzania, leaving many ecologically significant coastal ecosystems outside formally designated conservation areas. Community-governed fisheries therefore represent an important but largely overlooked component of marine stewardship. Integrating CFMAs within national conservation accounting could expand the spatial scope of area-based conservation while acknowledging the role of local institutions in sustaining coastal ecosystems.

At the same time, formal recognition of CFMAs as OECMs raises several governance challenges. One concern is the risk of symbolic conservation designation, whereby areas are labelled as OECMs primarily to demonstrate progress toward global biodiversity targets without ensuring effective ecological outcomes (Maxwell et al., 2020). Such “green labelling” could undermine both conservation credibility and community trust if recognition does not translate into tangible governance support. Additional governance risks include elite capture, uneven participation, dependence on external facilitation, and variable enforcement capacity across BMUs and CFMAs.

Institutional coordination also presents an important challenge. In Tanzania, fisheries governance and biodiversity conservation fall under different policy domains, requiring collaboration among agencies responsible for fisheries management, marine conservation and national biodiversity reporting. Without clear institutional alignment, efforts to recognise OECMs may create administrative complexity rather than strengthening conservation practice. Furthermore, OECM policy development in Tanzania remains at an early stage. Consequently, the role of community-based fisheries governance arrangements such as CFMAs within future OECM assessments and reporting frameworks has yet to be clearly defined.

Resolving these governance questions is therefore central to determining whether OECM recognition can genuinely strengthen both biodiversity conservation and community-based stewardship. Without careful institutional design, recognition risks remaining a symbolic policy exercise rather than a mechanism that supports effective local governance. Conversely, a well-designed process could provide an opportunity to align fisheries co-management systems with emerging area-based conservation frameworks.

Pathways for Recognising Community-Governed Marine OECMs

Recognising CFMAs as potential OECMs does not require the creation of entirely new conservation institutions. Rather, it presents an opportunity to build upon existing fisheries co-management systems that already regulate resource use across ecologically significant coastal habitats. The institutional task is therefore not to redesign CFMAs as protected areas, but to establish transparent assessment, documentation and reporting procedures capable of determining whether selected sites meet OECM criteria. The key challenge lies in translating these locally embedded governance arrangements into frameworks that can be recognised within national biodiversity accounting.

A pragmatic starting point would be pilot OECM assessments within selected CFMAs. Such assessments could evaluate whether existing governance arrangements meet internationally recognised criteria, including clearly defined geographic boundaries, effective governance structures and demonstrable biodiversity outcomes (CBD, 2022; Dudley et al., 2018). Importantly, these evaluations should be conducted through participatory processes involving BMUs, district authorities and national agencies to ensure that local stewardship remains central to the recognition process. Such pilot assessments could initially focus on a limited number of illustrative CFMAs where governance arrangements, fisheries restrictions, and ecological relevance are comparatively well documented. Initial pilot assessments could focus on CFMAs and associated BMU-managed closure systems where evidence already exists of sustained management interventions and documented socio-economic or ecological improvements, such as octopus closure initiatives along the southern Tanzanian coast.

Equally important is the development of monitoring approaches capable of linking fisheries management practices with ecological indicators. Integrating fisheries data with habitat and biodiversity monitoring would provide stronger evidence base necessary for evaluating conservation outcomes within community-governed marine systems.

Embedding potential OECMs within existing policy frameworks such as marine spatial planning processes and national biodiversity strategies would allow community-managed areas to contribute to conservation targets without creating parallel governance structures. In this sense, recognising CFMAs as OECMs should be understood not as a technical reporting exercise, but as a governance opportunity to strengthen community stewardship while expanding the scope of area-based conservation in tropical coastal regions.

Implications for Conservation

This paper challenges the conventional conservation logic that equates biodiversity protection with formal designation. In Tanzania, where national strategies already emphasise participatory management, ecosystem restoration, and integration of biodiversity into sectoral planning, limited policy visibility of community-governed marine systems reflects a policy blind spot rather than an ecological limitation. CFMAs suggest that conservation-relevant outcomes may emerge from livelihood-oriented governance systems, yet these outcomes remain largely uncounted in national and global conservation reporting frameworks. Nevertheless, the paper does not claim that all CFMAs currently deliver demonstrable biodiversity outcomes or automatically satisfy OECM criteria. Rather, it argues that these systems warrant closer governance and ecological assessment within Tanzania’s evolving area-based conservation agenda.

Recognising selected CFMAs as potential OECMs, where assessment criteria are met, would therefore not simply expand conservation coverage; it would redefine what counts as conservation. This shift is particularly relevant as Tanzania operationalises the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2025–2030) and aligns with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, where OECMs are explicitly framed as complementary to protected areas and critical for achieving Target 3. However, current national dialogues also point to practical risks including fragmented institutional mandates, weak monitoring systems, and the potential for symbolic designation without demonstrated ecological outcomes.

For conservation practice, three priorities emerge. First, conservation assessments must move beyond legal categories toward outcome-based evaluation, requiring investment in integrated ecological and fisheries monitoring systems. Second, institutional coordination between fisheries, environment, and local government authorities must be strengthened to avoid fragmented implementation. Third, recognition processes must remain participatory, ensuring that community governance is not diluted through recentralisation or bureaucratic standardisation. For conservation, this implies that achieving global biodiversity targets will require formally recognising and supporting locally governed socio-ecological systems, while scaling them as a key component of area-based conservation beyond protected areas. The critical question is not whether such systems qualify as conservation, but whether policy frameworks are prepared to acknowledge and sustain them.