Ocean v Land

Compared to terrestrial protected areas (“TPAs”), marine protected areas (“MPAs”) are harder to establish and manage effectively firstly because, practically speaking, it is more complicated to define the outer limits of an MPA than of a TPA.

TPAs tend to have static boundaries and are easier to demarcate and isolate, while MPAs are generally highly inter-connected between themselves as well as with adjacent coastal areas (Kelleher 1999). Generally, MPAs are deeply affected by activities occurring outside the MPA and particularly along the coastlines. Pollution and erosion from land-based industry, agriculture, logging, and urbanisation render MPAs vulnerable to reduced conservation outcomes (Kelleher 1999). At sea, processes within one MPA often spill over into surrounding MPAs. The density and transportational capacity of sea currents contribute to the interrelation between MPAs (Kelleher 1999). Given MPAs’ susceptibility to external pollutants introduced by wind and tide and therefore incidents occurring beyond MPA limits, an MPA will need to be much larger than a TPA in order to be feasible in conserving biodiversity (Kelleher 1999).

On land, areas requiring protection are usually ascertained on the basis of specific immovable habitat areas; at sea, the persistence of a species – especially free-swimming organisms but excepting mammals and larger taxa – is generally not dependent on a particular location but instead on the availability of suitable water temperatures and food sources (Kelleher 1999).

There is also a need to examine the protection of marine ecological areas on the high seas. To date, MPAs have for the most part been initiated by national governments and are situated in areas within state sovereignty; areas beyond national jurisdiction (“ABNJ”) are primarily omitted from protection even though they account for more than 60% of the surface of the global ocean (Maestro et al 2019). The impediments with setting up and administering MPAs in ABNJ demand not only regional and international cooperation, but also in-depth research and comprehension of those areas and the navigation of the oft-conflicting values of conservation and development (Maestro et al 2019).

When mapping out and managing MPAs, given the interconnectivity between MPAs inter se and MPAs and their surrounding coastal areas, it would be prudent to ensure that MPAs are incorporated into other strategies concerning anthropogenic use of land, especially in adjoining coasts (Kelleher 1999).

Conservation investment is integral in building and maintaining the capacity of local and national governments in the effective design, implementation, and monitoring of MPAs. Given the immense influence of international non-governmental organisations in the allocation of conservation investment (Fox et al 2012), it may be useful for such organizations to cast wider nets in the prioritisation of and advocacy for under-served marine ecological regions.

MPA plans should reflect not only conservation goals but also serve to enhance the development, welfare, and livelihood objectives of relevant local and Indigenous communities and stakeholders, and as much as possible, allow the natural resources within the MPAs to be utilised in a sustainable manner (Oldekop and Holmes 2015). Political support, strong enforcement and dispute resolution processes, as well as local co-leadership and co-management, could contribute to the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in MPAs (Maxwell et al 2020). To secure beneficial and harmonious results in terms of conservation and socio-economy, local and Indigenous representatives must be centred in decision-making, adding to institutional capacity and accountability at the levels of regional and national government (Oldekop and Holmes 2015).

References:

• Fox, H.E., Soltanoff, C.S., Mascia, M.B., Haisfield, K.M., Lombana, A.V., Pyke, C.R., and Wood, L. (2012). ‘Explaining global patterns and trends in marine protected area (MPA) development’. Marine Policy 36 (2012) 1131–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.007

• Kelleher, G. (1999). ‘Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas’. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv +107pp.

• Maestro, M., Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L., Chica-Ruiz, J.A., and Reyes, H. (2019). ‘Marine protected areas in the 21st century: Current situation and trends’. Ocean and Coastal Management 171 (2019) 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.01.008

• Maxwell, S.L., V. Cazalis, N. Dudley, M. Hoffman, A.S.L. Rodrigues, S. Stolton, P. Visconti, S. Woodley, N. Kingston, E. Lewis, M. Maron, B.B.N. Strassburg, A. Wenger, H.D. Jonas, O. Venter and J.E.M. Watson. (2020). ‘Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century’. Nature 586 (7828) 2020, pp.217–227.

• Oldekop, J.A. and G. Holmes (2015). ‘A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas’. The Society for Conservation Biology.