Supporting women from fishing communities to create, market and sell jewelry made from previously discarded lionfish parts adds value to fishers’ lionfish catch. It also meets several needs simultaneously: poverty alleviation in fishing communities, gender equality as women learn skills and are supported to earn independently, and further awareness raising about invasive lionfish, thus contributing to the conservation of Belize’s marine ecosystem.

Other potential lionfish value-added product markets include lionfish burgers, frozen fillets for sale through supermarkets and animal feed. Further benefit to fishing communities could be achieved through establishing lionfish processing plants within the communities themselves, increasing the availability of skilled employment opportunities and providing new skills for local community members.

Although eradication is no longer considered possible, lionfish population suppression allows native fish population recovery. With enormous variability in lionfish population density between reef locations, type and depth, a combination of commercial harvest, culling by SCUBA and deep-water traps is necessary to achieve the desired ecological outcomes.

In order to develop, implement and evaluate management interventions, it is essential to first determine the current status of lionfish populations. Due to their cryptic nature, the density of lionfish is often underestimated by traditional underwater visual census techniques; the Lionfish Focused Search method produces more accurate lionfish density estimates.

Coupled with prey fish population surveys, and following the method developed by Green et al. (2014: DOI 10.1890/13-0979.1), it is then possible to determine lionfish threshold densities – the site-specific density at which native fish populations can recover. This provides managers with a or management target, and the ability to calculate associated necessary catch target for each area to support long-term suppression.

In areas that are accessible to fishers, commercial lionfish fishing presents the most feasible means to achieve lionfish removal at the frequency and high volume required to suppress populations.

Initially, fishers face a large opportunity cost in targeting lionfish over traditionally caught species due to the risk of a lionfish sting, which may cost a fisherman up to 24 hours of fishing time. This is exacerbated by an uncoordinated market and inconsistent demand, and in some cases a low willingness-to-pay for lionfish by consumers. Therefore, willingness-to-pay for lionfish must be higher than traditionally caught species. Restaurants also require access to a consistent supply of lionfish (and regular demand from customers) before including it on their menus.

Key actions:

• Safe-handling demonstrations for fishers provide practical training in
  • adapting fishing techniques to target lionfish
  • simple first aid for lionfish stings, overcoming concerns of envenomation
• Support to restaurants and seafood distributors seeking to purchase lionfish by linking fishers to buyers and offering marketing assistance through menu inserts and posters.
• A social marketing campaign targeted at consumers to increase demand and willingness-to-pay for lionfish

Synthesis ensures that the outputs of your ecosystem services analysis directly inform on-the-ground planning and policies. Here we illustrate how different scenarios of human uses in the coastal zone affect livelihoods and the benefit that people derive from nature. This includes identifying where particular ecosystem service incentives and government policies could be implemented to support a sustainable plan for the future. The goal is to maximize economic opportunities and minimize environmental degradation. The Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority & Institute used a variety of mediums to communicate results, including reports, executive summaries, peer-reviewed papers, presentations and interactive maps all tailored to intended audiences.

Three future scenarios are developed with input from stakeholders providing local information on human uses and preferences for future location and intensity. Stakeholders also suggest specific changes to the scenarios, based on known alternative development plans or future natural resource uses. Simple tools (e.g. NatCap’s online mapping tool InSEAM) and exercises help stakeholders understand what scenarios are and how alternative spatial development decisions can affect natural capital and benefits delivered to people.

Coastal Advisory Committees represent a range of sector and interest stakeholders convening regular meetings to offer recommendations to the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI). Broad engagement is reached through a public review of the draft plan. CZMAI gathers information on stakeholder values, and together with NatCap combines it with data and maps on current and plausible future distribution of uses, economic forecasts and existing government plans. The result is a set of future scenarios reflecting stakeholder input.

The Reserve’s Conceptual Ecological Model (CEM) was created through a participatory approach aiming to understand the interactions between the Reserve and its surroundings, specifically the processes that link ecosystems, species and conservation values inside the Reserve, and to recognize the conditions under which those processes could change and affect conservation values inside the Reserve.

Realizing the importance of involving all main stakeholders, a permanent stakeholder engagement process was established aiming to engage stakeholders who are currently not involved in the Reserve’s management and should be included to meet the new scale of actions suggested by the Reserve's CEM. Those stakeholders include amongst others, sugarcane mills, the General Secretariat for Planning, and local governments inside the watersheds.

Establish a framework that is ensured through an environmental and conservation committee made up by representatives of the LLTC, government, partners (TNC) and the communities involved, and that meets twice a year. The committee is charged with overseeing the implementation of the network in accordance with the conservation master plan and by synthesizing progress made at each protected area thereof.