Features

The Conclusion

Marine Protected Areas

Lisa Boonzaier

Words by Lisa Boonzaier

Cover image

Big eye Trevally Jack, (Caranx sexfasciatus) Forming a polarized school, bait ball or tornado. Cabo Pulmo National Park, Cousteau once named it The world's aquarium. Baja California Sur, Mexico.
Photo by Leonardo Gonzalez | ShutterStock

Marine protected areas are a provocative topic. Throw out the term at a dinner table of ocean-lovers, fishermen, biologists, conservationists and divers and everyone is bound to have an opinion. Yet common threads have emerged in the science: marine protected areas are good for conserving marine biodiversity. More and bigger fish live inside marine protected areas. There is a greater variety of life inside marine protected areas. And social benefits can accrue – even to fishermen (as we saw on pages 20–21). Marine protected areas provide refuges from fishing that are otherwise growing scarcer each year as vessels encroach on more and more of the ocean.

Another thread to emerge is that not all marine protected areas are equal. Marine protected areas are diverse. And this is not a drawback – it is an asset. There are many types of areas in the ocean that are protected and it is reasonable that we need all kinds of them: those managed by communities, those managed by government, those managed privately, and jointly; the very large, remote marine protected areas and the small, local ones; those that are entirely closed to fishing and those that allow certain kinds of fishing. The options and combinations are all but endless. Marine protected areas are varied, multifaceted tools that can (and should) be moulded to suit particular circumstances and solve specific problems. Each situation is different. And this diversity of marine protected areas will help to create a more resilient protected area system in a changing world.

We also know that marine protected areas are not a miracle panacea; alone they cannot cure all our oceans’ troubles. Oases of protection in oceans that are otherwise uncared for will not lead to seeing our planet and people thrive. For that to happen we need to manage entire oceans with care. Doing that requires more tools: control of the amount of fish taken from the oceans; limits on the number of boats plying the seas; restrictions governing what and how much can and can’t be dumped into marine waters; restrictions on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions; and bans on destructive fishing methods. Marine protected areas are among these options – they are one of the ways we can look after our oceans.

And although the future is uncertain, we have ways and opportunities to make marine protected areas work in a changing world. As obstacles arise, so do solutions. Yes, the climate is warming, but our ability to understand global systems is improving. Yes, small communities are disproportionately affected by the declines in fish numbers, but their knowledge is helping the world to find solutions. As Emily Darling points out, we have ways to manage this uncertain future, and we are thinking ahead about tackling it.

These common threads are at the foundation of the marine protected area field, yet there are areas of contention at a higher level. What about the giant, remote marine protected areas? When are marine protected areas good for fisheries management? How do we improve enforcement? These are important areas of debate, ones that need to be thoroughly explored through science and discussion. But the basics remain: marine protected areas are a tool and one to be taken seriously. And the debate among specialists should not drown out the main message for the public and decision-makers: we need more of them.

Cover image

Lisa Boonzaier Science Editor

Blacktip reef sharks Carcharhinus melanopterus have found refuge in the giant marine protected area designated by the island nation of Palau in the Western Pacific Ocean.
Photo by Doug Sloss | SeaPics.com

Only about 4% of the ocean is represented in some sort of protected area at present. Even with the creation of a handful of very large marine protected areas in recent years – which tend to dominate statistics of protection – the oceans are dismally under-protected. And even if one assumes that all of the very large marine protected areas on the cards were to be successfully declared in coming years (I’ve done the research), we’re looking at 5.1% rather than 4% of the ocean being protected in some way. So we’d still be some distance away from the 30% that scientists think is necessary to curb the loss of species, or even the 10% goal of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It is not enough to declare only small protected areas on a scale that makes no difference to the large, global battle of halting the loss of biodiversity. We can see this from past trends in protected area establishment. Yet by the same token, declaring only very large protected areas in remote parts of the ocean that face no threat is not going to address this sufficiently either. Unfortunately, the question of whether to prioritise the protection of remote, uncontested, intact or non-remote, exploited, imminently threatened locations has no immediate, science-based resolution. Nevertheless, a key principle remains and can be agreed upon: we need more marine protection than we have now.

It is the job of scientists to test and contest the effects of interventions (like marine protected areas) and while their voices may seem conflicting and confusing from the outside, the underlying value of marine protected areas for conservation is less and less frequently the topic of debate. Voices and evidence in support of marine protected areas are gathering and rising to the top.

More fish. Bigger fish. More types of fish. More fish available for catching. More sharks. Greater genetic diversity. Research sites. Beautiful places for people to visit and be inspired by. Space for recreation. Ecotourism ventures. Educational opportunities. A source of pride. Not every marine protected area offers all these benefits, but collectively they offer a solution in a sea of dwindling resources and tragedies.

For me this is the simple and clear message: marine protected areas are a good tool and we need more of them. We need marine protected areas for the oceans and, considering that more than half of the earth is ocean, we need them for the planet. We need them for the sake of human life, but not only for ourselves – for all life.

Previous chapter