The rising tide of marine protected areas
Ask a marine scientist about how to conserve biodiversity and restore habitats in the world’s oceans and they will likely find the idea of “sanctuary areas”, where all human activity is barred, appealing. Yet, the urgency of safeguarding marine ecosystems requires navigating a wider set of currents. For generations, the livelihoods of local communities and indigenous peoples have depended on parts of the ocean that now face ecological decline. Preserving fishing activities and maintaining certain forms of tourism are vital considerations that add to the challenge of sustainably managing aquatic life.
At the helm of this challenge are marine protected areas (MPAs): designated parts of the ocean where human activity is restricted to a certain extent. Indeed, a key ambition in the world of marine conservation is 30x30: to turn 30% of the world's oceans into MPAs and other conservation areas by the year 2030.[1] Today, only 8.2% of marine waters are designated as such and only a modest share of those prove effective.[2] As we chart our course towards 2030, therefore, it is essential to identify and communicate what actions are required to make the protection of marine areas effective.
As part of this effort, Economist Impact, supported by Blancpain, has developed an assessment framework that identifies the factors contributing to the effectiveness of MPAs and other marine conservation areas. We explore best practices across ten diverse areas, offering examples of designs and operational practices that combine environmental protection for the oceans with economic viability for local communities and businesses.
A sea of reasons
The establishment of MPAs is supported by various motivations. As a guiding principle, parts of the ocean are protected in order to achieve long-term environmental goals. Marine ecosystems around the globe, however, have different needs and MPAs adopt different operational approaches accordingly, imposing various restrictions on human activity.
Casting the widest net are MPAs whose goal is to provide a variety of species, from the smallest microorganisms to the largest marine mammals, with the right conditions to flourish as they naturally would. The logic of establishing MPAs to conserve biodiversity is straightforward: restrict all or some human activities known to pose threats to aquatic life and its diversity will be maintained. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a sprawling MPA off the coast of Queensland, Australia, epitomises this approach to biodiversity conservation. With its 400 species of coral, the Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral system on Earth, supporting over 1,500 fish species, various marine mammals and sea turtles, and roughly 4,000 types of mollusc.[3] The Park permits only human activity that contributes to the Reef’s health and biodiversity, including controlled tourism, research and, where it is sustainable, fishing.[4]
Other marine areas are designated as protected with the aim of maintaining—often after restoring—specific species and habitats. In this case, the goal is to safeguard unique marine life by dialling down certain human incursions before they pose a threat to one-of-a-kind forms of marine life and habitats. The Galápagos Marine Reserve, off the coast of Ecuador, for example, shields a particular corner of the globe that many endemic species call home. With strict regulations on fishing and tourism, the Reserve provides a nurturing habitat for many iconic creatures: from the Galápagos penguins (the only such birds found north of the equator) to marine iguanas and giant tortoises (found nowhere else in the world).[5] A general principle of “leave no trace” is applied: tourists must maintain a safe distance from wildlife, refrain from flash photography, responsibly manage waste and not introduce any foreign food, animals or plants.[6]
In other cases, more drastic restrictions are necessary. To conserve fragile ecosystems and species, some MPAs fully proscribe human interference. Such comprehensive constraints are often applied to especially fragile parts of MPAs. In sections of the Prince Edward Islands MPA (under South Africa’s jurisdiction), for example, “sanctuary areas” impose stringent access regulations—even the research vessel, the SA Agulhas II, is restricted to one visit per year.[7] The purpose of this visit is to monitor birds like the wandering albatross (44% of the entire population of this species is in the MPA) and mammals such as the subantarctic fur seal (representing 33% of its global breeders).[8]
The reasons for protecting parts of the ocean, however, go beyond environmental goals alone: MPAs are also powerful tools of the “blue economy”. When skilfully designed and managed, MPAs enable the sustainable use of the ocean’s resources to benefit economies and improve people’s lives while maintaining oceanic health.[9]
On the face of it, the idea that banning fishing in certain areas will lead to happier fishers is surprising. Yet, MPAs commit to exactly that: to secure reproductive fish stocks in adjacent zones and, by extension, to support the jobs of those who rely on fishing. This is made possible through both “larval export”, where baby fish born in the MPA drift into neighbouring regions, and the “spillover effect”, where adult fish migrate and thereby enhance the catch in adjacent fishing areas.[10],[11] A 2023 study of Revillagigedo National Park, an MPA encompassing a group of volcanic islands in the Pacific Ocean, assesses how the MPA’s establishment impacted Mexico’s industrial fishing sector over the course of five years. It finds that fishers navigated the Park’s full fishing ban at no economic cost, while the MPA’s 300 fish species, of which 36 are not found elsewhere, are thriving.[12]Mario Gomez, founder and director of Beta Diversidad, a Mexican NGO focused on marine and terrestrial biodiversity conservation, is unequivocal: “The fishing industry should consider supporting the creation of new large-scale, highly-protected MPAs for its own convenience. That is the way to guarantee its long-term existence.”
MPAs also blend environmental protection with economic activity by facilitating eco-tourism—for example, when visitors scuba dive, encounter marine mammals, or have traditional fishing experiences using environmentally respectful equipment. In Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site (located off the northwestern coast of Canada), kayakers and recreational boaters explore Indigenous Haida village sites. They hear about the history of carved monumental poles from Haida Gwaii Watchmen and view whales and dolphins from a respectful, regulated distance. Visitors connect with the protected area’s unique marine life and Indigenous culture, all the while contributing to the local economy.[13],[14],[15]
MPAs gain the support of locals not only through offering a sustainable lifeline to their economies, but also by enabling participatory management. Indeed, communities that live alongside MPAs, and that are deeply involved with the marine environments needing protection, can become custodians of their own heritage and ecosystems. Design MPAs well, and they offer an alignment of livelihood, conservation and cultural preservation. In Gwaii Haanas, any operational or managerial activities are referred to the Archipelago Management Board (AMB)—a specially designed body which is co-chaired by representatives of the Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada.[16] Cindy Boyko, the Haida Nation co-chair on the AMB for the past 24 years, emphasises the foundational role of collaborative partnerships in marine conservation: “Our success is deeply rooted in our commitment to collaboration and overcoming our differences.” To her, it is “the shared goals and values” which make all the management activities and conservation efforts in Gwaii Haanas profoundly impactful and, ultimately, meaningful.
A good catch?
While MPAs seem like a net benefit in the balance between marine conservation and human activity, their effectiveness is not guaranteed. The successful management and implementation of MPAs faces three familiar challenges: monitoring, funding and enforcement.
The vastness of some MPAs often makes their monitoring and surveillance difficult. Yet, without such efforts, the effectiveness of restrictions on human maritime enterprise remains more theoretical than actual, and makes it impossible to assess MPAs’ environmental, economic and social outcomes. Some MPAs take monitoring very seriously. Take Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the North Pacific (under the jurisdiction of the United States); spanning over 1.5 million square kilometres, making it the third-largest MPA in the world, it has a dedicated monitoring body with clear objectives and a robust methodology.[17] Annual checks include human impact, acoustic monitoring and a maritime heritage survey; data on species like the monk seal and green sea turtle are also gathered annually.[18] Eric Roberts, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Superintendent of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, explains that “the success of the MPAs’ monitoring and compliance programs is predicated on strong relationships with law enforcement partners from NOAA, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Coast Guard, and the State of Hawaii.” He adds, “We work closely with our enforcement liaisons to share relevant information effectively and in a timely manner and ensure the amazing natural, historic, and cultural resources of Papahānaumokuākea remain protected.”
Underpinning such large-scale monitoring efforts is sufficient funding, which is often a challenge and hinges on how different MPAs are administered. If an MPA is established through national or local law, its funding is also likely to come from national or local bodies, with revenues derived from environmental taxes, eco-tourism, or fishing licences—or from the MPA itself in the form of entry / visitor fees.[19] However, if an MPA is administered through territorial regulations or voluntary agreements, its funding likely stems from global aid agencies or conservation organisations. This approach is often contingent on international policies and donor priorities, making it less stable than funding through national strategies. According to Mr Gomez from Beta Diversidad, “support from global ocean conservation foundations, such as Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project and Blue Nature Alliance, is extremely valuable for areas in developing countries.” International funding, he adds, “enables much-needed research that supports science-based conservation measures”. Abéné MPA in Senegal is an instructive example. Its ambitious Development and Management Plan 2023-2027 (2023) estimated that the execution of its projects would cost US$2.9 million; such funding, however, is not at the disposal of Senegal’s government, leaving the MPA reliant on the ebbs and flows of international aid.
Another critical challenge that often arises due to the vast and remote nature of MPAs is the enforcement of their rules. Non-compliant activities undermine the effectiveness of areas placed under protection, leading to continued degradation of marine ecosystems. This is why designing and operating MPAs in a participatory way is crucial: if the interests of legitimate stakeholders are met, adherence to rules is more likely. Even so, some MPAs enforce penalties such as fines, licence revocation or even imprisonment. In St Kilda Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area, for example, Marine Scotland (which oversees aspects of the MPA’s management) can impose fines of up to £50,000 ($60,700), or even pursue indictment for those violating the protective measures in the area.[20]
Charting a new course: a framework to assess MPA effectiveness
The world needs to establish MPAs at a faster rate than ever to reach 30x30. While there is no universal compass to guide the design of MPAs, there are various measures underpinning their success.
Economist Impact’s new framework aims to highlight these measures. We investigate ten MPAs and marine conservation areas with varying characteristics in terms of geography, size and level of protection.
At the heart of effective MPA management lies the question of leadership—who is steering the ship? The role of national and local governments, alongside specific management bodies, is crucial in designing and then managing MPAs. Equally important is the continued engagement of local communities, from the MPA’s inception to its management and implementation, to ensure that their views and interests are adequately represented.
The effectiveness of MPAs also depends on the comprehensiveness and successful implementation of their management plans, which serve as blueprints for the achievement of an area's short- and long-term objectives. Such plans often have better outcomes if they directly address critical environmental goals—such as habitat protection or species conservation—as well as regulate harmful activities like dumping, dredging and unsustainable fishing with enforceable penalties.
Collaboration is also key: MPAs benefit from participating in interconnected efforts to safeguard marine ecosystems, known as MPA networks. Coordination through such networks, either regionally or nationally, can help fulfil aims beyond the reach of individual MPAs. The success of collaborative efforts hinges on the implementation of cross-cutting management strategies for the entire network, as well as the effectiveness of constituent MPAs. International partnerships also matter. Lauren Wenzel, director of NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas Center, notes that “international partnerships—including staff capacity sharing and information and technology exchange—are key to establishing MPA networks to protect marine life that span national boundaries”.
Establishing MPA designation and management on a foundation of robust scientific evidence is also key to success. Our framework accounts for the gathering of information to adjust and improve MPA strategies over time—namely monitoring and data collection of ecological, economic and social metrics, from species records to carbon sequestration potential, to employment in tourism.
Dive beneath the surface of ten diverse marine conservation areas by exploring the findings of our assessment.
[1] Marine Conservation Institute, 30 x 30 — Protecting at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, accessed March 11, 2024.
[2] Protected Planet, Marine Protected Areas, accessed March 11, 2024.
[3] Reef Biosearch, Marine Life of the Great Barrier Reef, accessed March 11, 2024.
[4] Australian Government, Great Barrier Reef Marine Marine Park Authority, Managing Activities and Use, accessed March 11, 2024.
[5] WWF, The Galápagos, accessed March 11, 2024.
[6] Galápagos Conservancy, Galápagos National Park Rules, accessed March 11, 2024.
[7] South African Government, Prince Edward Islands declared a Marine Protected Area, 2013
[8] Ibid.
[9] World Bank. What is the Blue Economy?, 2017
[11] Cinner, J. E., et al., Winners and losers in marine conservation: fishers’ displacement and livelihood benefits from marine reserves. 2014, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.918229
[12] UC San Diego, Protecting Large Ocean Areas Doesn’t Curb Fishing Catches, 2023
[13] Parks Canada, Explore ancient Haida village sites, accessed March 11, 2024.
[14] Parks Canada, Kayak up-close to nature and Haida culture, accessed March 11, 2024.
[15] Parks Canada, Things to do in Gwaii Haanas, accessed March 11, 2024.
[16] Parks Canada, The Archipelago Management Board, accessed March 11, 2024.
[17] Marine Conservation Institute, The Marine Protection Atlas, Papahānaumokuākea, accessed March 11, 2024.
[18] National Marine Sanctuaries, Papahānaumokuākea Monitoring Inventory, accessed March 11, 2024.
[19] National Marine Sanctuaries, Papahānaumokuākea Monitoring Inventory, accessed March 11, 2024.
[20] Marine Scotland, Fixed Penalty Notices - Guidance for Industry, 2015