Mangrove Conservation Policies in the Gulf of Guayaquil

  • Daniel Ortega-Pacheco
  • Maria J. Mendoza-JimenezEmail author
  • Paul Herrera
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)


In the last decade, the Ecuadorian government has designed and implemented a variety of policies to enhance the conditions of mangrove forests and their ability to provide ecosystem services. The present work aims to identify the different policies related to mangrove conservation and evaluate the extent to which they produce different outcomes to the population in the Gulf of Guayaquil, a coastal region hosting more than 70% of mangroves in Ecuador. The main assumption underlying this effort is the notion that mangrove conservation might be critically linked to subjective measures of welfare improvement for populations that live in and depend on this ecosystem, in addition to their original conservation purposes. Based on evidence of recent studies, an institutional economic analysis using the Situation, Structure and Performance framework is conducted. Results report evidence supporting the original assumption, as well as identified challenges to the continuity of current policies and new but urgent avenues for future research.


Mangroves Conservation Governance schemes 


  1. Aburto-Oropeza O, Ezcurra E, Danemann G, Valdez V, Murray J, Sala E (2008) Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pp 10456–10459Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2008) Decentralization and community-based forestry: learning from experience. In: Decentralization, forests and rural communities: policy outcomes in South and Southeast Asia. SAGE, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  3. Alava J, Haase B (2011) Waterbird biodiversity and conservation threats in Coastal Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands. In: Grillo O, Venora G (eds) Ecosystems biodiversity. RijekaGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez-Mieles G, Irvine K, Griensven AV, Arias-Hidalgo M, Torres A, Mynett AE (2013) Relationships between aquatic biotic communities and water quality in a tropical river–wetland system (Ecuador). Environ Sci Policy 34:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson K, Gibson CC (2007) Decentralized governance and environmental change: local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia. J Policy Anal Manage. Scholar
  6. Arias-Hidalgo M, Bhattacharya B, Mynett AE, van Griensven A (2013) Experiences in using the TMPA-3B42R satellite data to complement rain gauge measurements in the Ecuadorian coastal foothills. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(7):2905–2915. Scholar
  7. Barbier EB (2003) The role of natural resources in economic development. Aust Econ Pap 42(2):253–272. Scholar
  8. Beitl CM (2014a) Adding environment to the collective action problem: individuals, civil society, and the mangrove-fishery commons in Ecuador. World Dev 56:93–107. Scholar
  9. Beitl CM (2014b) Navigating over space and time: fishing effort allocation and the development of customary norms in an open-access mangrove estuary in Ecuador. Hum Ecol 42(3):395–411. Scholar
  10. Beitl CM (2016) The changing legal and institutional context for recognizing nature’s rights in Ecuador: mangroves, fisheries, farmed shrimp, and coastal management since 1980. J Int Wildl Law and Policy 19(4).
  11. Beitl CM (2017) Decentralized mangrove conservation and territorial use rights in Ecuador’s mangrove-associated fisheries. Bull Mar Sci 93(1).
  12. Bravo M (2013) Alianza público-privada para la gestión de los manglares del Ecuador: los acuerdos para el uso sustenible y custodia. Contrato No. EPP-I-00-06-00013-00. USAID Costas y Bosques SosteniblesGoogle Scholar
  13. Bravo Cedeño M (2010) Interpretación del estudio multitemporal (CLIRSEN 1969–2006) de las coberturas de manglar, camaroneras y áreas salinas en la franja costera de Ecuador continental. Universidad de Guayaquil, GuayaquilGoogle Scholar
  14. Brockington D, Wilkie D (2015) Protected areas and poverty. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 370(1681).
  15. Busch J, Lubowski RN, Godoy F, Steininger M, Yusuf AA, Austin K et al (2012) Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol 109, pp 1062–7.
  16. Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol 106, pp 17667–17670.
  17. CI (2016a) GEF-6 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM: implementation of the strategic plan of Ecuador’s Mainland Marine and coastal protected areas networkGoogle Scholar
  18. CI (2016b) Improving mangrove conservation across the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (ETPS) through coordinated regional and national strategy development and implementationGoogle Scholar
  19. Clements T, Suon S, Wilkie DS, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Dev 64:S125–S134. Scholar
  20. Coello S, Vinueza D, Alemán R (2008) Evaluación del desempeño de los acuerdos de uso sustentable y custodia de manglar de la zona costera del Ecuador. MAE, pp 1–55Google Scholar
  21. Cruz M, Gabor N, Mora E, Jiménez R, Mair J (2003) The known and unknown about marine biodiversity in Ecuador (Continental e Insular). Revista Gayana 67(2):232–260Google Scholar
  22. Cuesta F, Peralvo M, Merino-Viteri A, Bustamante M, Baquero F, Freile JF et al (2017). Priority areas for biodiversity conservation in mainland Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity 3(1), 93–106Google Scholar
  23. Curzon HF, Kontoleon A (2016) From ignorance to evidence? The use of programme evaluation in conservation: evidence from a Delphi survey of conservation experts. J Environ Manag.
  24. Egelyng H (2014) Informed markets as policy instrument for environmental governance of buffer zones around protected areas: a global context and European cases (ECPR Joint Sessions). Salamanca, SpainGoogle Scholar
  25. Fisher B, Edwards DP, Giam X, Wilcove DS (2011) The high costs of conserving Southeast Asia’s lowland rainforests. Front Ecol Environ 8(9):329–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frappart F, Bourrel L, Brodu N, Riofrío Salazar X, Baup F, Darrozes J, Pombosa R (2017) Monitoring of the spatio-temporal dynamics of the floods in the Guayas Watershed (Ecuadorian Pacific Coast) using global monitoring ENVISAT ASAR images and rainfall data. Water 9(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hallegatte S, Green C, Nicholls RJ, Corfee-Morlot J (2013) Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat Clim Change 3:802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamilton SE, Lovette J (2015) Ecuador’s Mangrove forest carbon stocks: a spatiotemporal analysis of living carbon holdings and their depletion since the advent of commercial aquaculture. PLoS ONE 10(3)Google Scholar
  29. Herrera P, Calles A, Pozo M, Villa-Cox G, Ortega-Pacheco D, Coronel J (2017) Políticas públicas de conservación de los manglares y bienestar de pescadores y recolectores en el Golfo de Guayaquil. GuayaquilGoogle Scholar
  30. IICA (1990) Modernización de la agricultura en América Latina y el Caribe. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, San JoséGoogle Scholar
  31. Larson AM, Soto F (2008) Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33(1):213–239. Scholar
  32. MAE (2013) Objetivos Estratégicos de Sociobosque. Retrieved from
  33. Miteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ (2012) Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxford Rev Econ Policy 28(1):69–92. Scholar
  34. Montaño M, Robadue D (1995) Monitoreo y manejo de la calidad del agua costera. In: Ochoa M (ed) Manejo Costero integrado en Ecuador. Guayaquil, Programa de Manejo de Recursos CosterosGoogle Scholar
  35. Moreno-Sánchez R, Maldonado J, Campoverde D, Solís C, Gutiérrez, C, Bruner A (2015) Insumos técnicos para fortalecer las concesiones de manglar en Ecuador a través de Socio Bosque: combinando técnicas de valoración económica y juegos experimentales (Serie Técnica No. 40)Google Scholar
  36. Phelps JW, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010) Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 328(5976):312–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raes L, D’Haese M, Aguirre N, Knoke T (2016) A portfolio analysis of incentive programmes for conservation, restoration and timber plantations in Southern Ecuador. Land Use Policy 51:244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reguero BG, Losada I, Díaz-Simal P, Méndez F, Beck M (2015) Effects of climate change on exposure to coastal flooding in Latin America and the Caribbean. PLoS ONE 10(7)Google Scholar
  39. Rode J, Wittmer H, Emerton L, Schröter-Schlaack C (2016) “Ecosystem service opportunities”: a practice-oriented framework for identifying economic instruments to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods. J Nat Conserv 33:35–47. Scholar
  40. Schmid A (2004) Conflict and cooperation: institutional and behavioral economics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Twilley R, Cárdenas W, Rivera-Monroy V, Espinoza J, Suescum R, Armijos M, Solórzano L (2001) The Gulf of Guayaquil and the Guayas River Estuary, Ecuador. In: Seeliger U, Kjerfve B (eds) Coastal marine ecosystems of Latin America, vol 144. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Twilley R, Rivera-Monroy VH, Chen R, Botero L (1998) Adapting an ecological mangrove model to simulate trajectories in restoration ecology. Mar Pollut Bull 37:404–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ulloa R, Aguirre M, Camacho J, Cracco M, Dahik A, Factos M, Von Horstman E. et al. (2007) Situación Actual del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas. Informe Nacional - Ecuador . II Congreso Latinoamericano de Áreas Protegidas. Quito.Google Scholar
  44. Wells MP (1998) Institutions and incentives for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv 7(6):815–835. Scholar
  45. Wever L, Glaser M, Gorris P, Ferrol-Schulte D (2012) Decentralization and participation in integrated coastal management: policy lessons from Brazil and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 66:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wright GD, Andersson KP, Gibson CC, Evans TP (2016) Decentralization can help reduce deforestation when user groups engage with local government. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(52):14958–14963. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Ortega-Pacheco
    • 1
  • Maria J. Mendoza-Jimenez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Herrera
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Public Policy DevelopmentESPOL Polytechnic UniversityGuayaquilEcuador
  2. 2.Faculty of Life ScienceESPOL Polytechnic UniversityGuayaquilEcuador

Personalised recommendations