+248 432 5806 info@seyccat.org

The Seychelles Marine Spatial Planning (SMSP) process is in full flow and preparing to complete its final milestone which will complete the 30% marine protection goal. As attention in 2020 moves from planning to implementation, SeyCCAT and SMSP have partnered with the GOS-UNDP-GEF Protected Area Finance project to begin to investigate three options for implementing the new marine protection areas (30%) and a sustainable financing strategy that ensures the effective management, monitoring and enforcement of the 400,000km2 of marine protection areas over the next 10 years.

What was the consultation process?

  • 28 individual interviews were conducted with relevant and available national stakeholders identified through the MSP steering and technical working committee.
  • Two workshops were conducted on 19th February 2019 with 41 participants and on 28th May with 29 participants.

What could managing 400,000km2 of MPAs look like?

Three large-scale management scenarios were developed, through a consultative process, in order to determine the costs dependent on the following levels of management:

Scenario Brief summary of differences between scenarios
Basic management in both zones 1 and 2. [1] A high number of enabling activities were allocated under this scenario (planning, agreements, regulations, controls).

Surveillance and monitoring systems would need to be established irrespective of scenario.

Optimal management in zones 2 and basic management in zones 1. Increased effort in sustainable-use zones requiring increased patrols and permanent presence on outer islands.
Optimal management in both zones 1 and 2. Structural changes in the level of effort in conservation efforts and volume of patrols, especially in outer islands, growth in support programmes to fishers, increased levels of surveillance and monitoring (ie. drones, spread of radar stations).

A full explanation of the scenarios and activities are provided in the full report. The scenarios take into account the costs for planning and zoning, compliance and monitoring, surveillance and enforcement, education and outreach, as well as biophysical, economic and social research and monitoring.

What would these three scenarios cost to implement?

The analysis identified that the annual cost of management for the 400,000km2 of MPAs is between USD 75 and USD 106 per km2, depending on the scenario implemented. These figures are comparable to other large-scale MPAs identified in other countries, once accounting for inflation. Furthermore, the annual cost of management equates to approximately between 1.8% and 3.6% of the total contribution of fisheries and tourism to GDP[2]. It is envisaged that with the implementation of the activities outlined above, GDP will increase further, reducing the proportional costs of management. In addition, accounting for the ecosystem service generated by the ocean, the cost of management at its most expensive option equates to 0.06% per annum[3].

Existing and potential future finance options

A number of existing financing options already available and programmed for activities related to marine management. These include government budgetary expenditure to departments with marine-related responsibilities, financing to the existing MPA network, grants for marine conservation, as well as licensing and permits. However, a financing gap still exists if stakeholders wish to pursue more active management outlined in Scenarios 2 and 3. To satisfy these scenarios, an additional six options were identified through stakeholder interviews and vetted against a criteria system. These identified a mixture of public and private flows, involving both grant and loan finance for marine management. Each future option is being subjected to feasibility studies (ie, an environmental levy) to determine their viability and impact.


[1] Zone 1 relate to high biodiversity with either no/subsistence fishing permitted. Zone 2 are medium biodiversity / sustainable use areas.

[2] WTTC (2017) Seychelles country report / World Bank (2017) SWIOFISH3 PAD.

[3] Source: ASCLME 2012. Cost and Benefit Analysis Island States, report 28, cited in World Bank (2017) SWIOFISH3 PAD, Table 8.3, pg. 99-100.