Comparing the Performance of Four Very Large Marine Protected Areas with Different Levels of Protection

Abstract

In the last decades, several targets for marine conservation were set to counter the effects of increasing fishing pressure, e.g., protecting 10% of the sea by 2020, and establishing large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs). Using the ‘reconstructed’ catch data for 1950 to 2018 made available by the Sea Around Us initiative, we show that the declaration of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in 1983 by the U.S.A. and its protection by the U.S. Coast Guard had a much bigger impact on catches around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands than the subsequent creation of a LSMPA. This is similar to Pitcairn Islands, a UK territory. Trends differed sharply in the Galapagos and New Caledonia, where neither their EEZ declaration nor the LSMPA (by Ecuador in 1988 and by France in 2014) stopped local fisheries from continuous expansion. Our results also demonstrate that in the studied multizone LSMPAs continued local fishing induces a ‘fishing down’ effect wherein the mean trophic level (TL) declined, especially in the Galapagos, by 0.1 TL per decade. Stakeholders’ responses to a short questionnaire and satellite imagery lent support to these results in that they documented substantial fishing operations and ‘fishing the line’ within and around multizone LSMPAs. In the case of EEZs around less populated or unpopulated islands, banning foreign fishing may reduce catch much more than a subsequent LSMPA declaration. This confirms that EEZs are a tool for coastal countries to protect their marine biodiversity and that allowing fishing in an MPA, while politically convenient, may result in ‘paper parks’ within which fishing can cause the same deleterious effects as in wholly unprotected areas.

Assessing the quantity and quality of marine protected areas in the Mariana Islands

“…Recent work evaluating the impact of large MPAs on fishing pressure shows that many of these areas had little fishing (White et al, 2020), perhaps indicating a benefit of EEZ declaration. EEZs impose limitations on who can legally fish within the area, potentially acting as de facto MPAs if no domestic fishing is present (Relano et al, 2021). Fisheries in the tropical Pacific were significantly transformed by establishing EEZs in the region.…”

Elucidating the Paradox of Regulating Environmental Sustainability (Mis)management and Motivations: The Case of Thai Fisheries

“…This is referred simply as IUU fishing from hereon (for definitions and further technical details, see Panjarat 2008;Schmidt 2004;Doulman 2004). IUU fishing is seen as a key barrier to fisheries sustainability (Coppa et al 2021), but placing blanket protections on specific areas of fishing decline may not be effective due to localized constraints (Relano et al 2021). Specifically, Thailand had been controlled by numerous legislative and regulatory mechanisms in recent years (see Suebpala et al 2015;FAO 2001FAO , 2002, in particularly the European Union's Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, under the Common Fisheries Policy known as the EU IUU Fishing Regulations (Regulation 2013).…”

Fishing effort dynamics around the Galápagos Marine Reserve as depicted by AIS data

“…obesus , K . pelamis ), as well as Humboldt squid ( Dosidicus gigas ) and blue shark ( Prionace glauca ) [ 28 ]. Compared to the GMR, the planning and management of the IEEZ is inter-institutional and includes different governmental levels [ 29 ].…”

“…Important activities such as industrial fishing and tourism, key components of the Ecuadorian economy, are actively developed in this area and constitute 0.7% of the Ecuadorian Gross Domestic Product [26,27]. Industrial fishery catches in the IEEZ are comprised of 89% tunas (T. albacares, T. obesus, K. pelamis), as well as Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas) and blue shark (Prionace glauca) [28]. Compared to the GMR, the planning and management of the IEEZ is inter-institutional and includes different governmental levels [29].…”