Diversity in marine protected area regulations: Protection approaches for locally appropriate marine management

Abstract

Globally, marine protected area (MPA) objectives have increasingly shifted from a primary focus on maintaining ecosystems through prohibiting extractive activities, to more equitable approaches that address the needs of both people and nature. This has led to MPAs with a diverse array of fisheries restrictions and recent debate on the type of restrictions that contribute to achieving biodiversity goals. Here we use a global dataset of 172 MPAs (representing 31 nations) alongside nine detailed case study MPAs (from Australia, Belize, Cambodia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Indonesia, Madagascar, Solomon Islands, and United States of America), including partially protected areas that allow regulated fishing, to illustrate the many diverse pathways that some MPAs have adopted to protect biodiversity and safeguard the rights and well-being of resource-dependent coastal communities. We group MPAs based on their restrictions and explore four key insights emerging from these groupings using our nine case studies: (i) MPAs use highly diverse approaches to regulate fisheries; (ii) partially protected areas can address gaps in regional fisheries management; (iii) devolving resource management rights to communities influences the chosen fisheries restrictions; and (iv) state-governed MPAs can use highly tailored fisheries restrictions to increase equity in access. We find that partially protected MPAs can offer effective and equitable pathways for biodiversity conservation if tailored to local context. Rather than focusing primarily on fully protected areas for achieving new global MPA targets, we recommend countries use a blend of locally-appropriate protection levels – from fully protected areas to partially protected MPAs to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes.

Evidence for managing herbivores for reef resilience

“…Herbivorous fishes are important components of subsistence and culture in island communities like Hawai'i. Given this, opportunities for management should be sought that consider equitable pathways recognizing the diverse needs of local communities given the potential for successful outcomes with partial protections that can complement or replace total closures [38]. Our results support potential compromises for fisheries management that can focus on specific functional groups of reef fishes (e.g., parrotfishes), specific locations (e.g., Kahekili), or specific gears (e.g., limits to SCUBA spearfishing).…”

“…However, the relative effectiveness of area-based and gear-based actions was not clear in our analyses given that biomass increased both inside and outside of marine reserves in West Hawai’i after a ban on SCUBA spearfishing (Fig 4c). The success of herbivore-based management can be bolstered by careful consideration of the appropriate sizing and spacing of marine reserves [39], adequate information on species-specific life history and population assessments for species-specific actions, support and capacity for enforcement within and across locations, and needs and rights of indigenous and local communities [38,40].…”

Finding harmony inMarine Protected Areadesign guidelines

“…Less than half of implemented MPAs are fully or highly protected (Marine Conservation Institute, 2020) and it is likely that partially protected MPAs will continue to play an important role in meeting ocean protection commitments. While partially protected areas often have reduced conservation benefits compared with fully protected areas (Campbell et al, 2018; Turnbull et al, 2021), they can provide a more equitable approach while still achieving positive biodiversity outcomes (Andradi‐Brown et al, 2023). All of the MPA design guidelines presented here can be applied across protection levels, but additional guidelines (e.g., which specific activities to prohibit or restrict) are required for the development of partially protected MPAs.…”

Assessing the multiple benefits of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: A systematic review protocol

“…Impacts on commercial fish species are also mixed–sometimes species benefit from PPAs, even as much as fully protected MPAs [ 16 ], whereas other studies have found no benefit to commercial species compared to open areas [ 17 ]. A recent global review of the use of PPAs suggests that these broad management tools can help balance biodiversity conservation, economic returns and social benefits, particularly where fully protected MPAs are practically infeasible and effective fisheries management is difficult to implement everywhere [ 18 ]). Current knowledge of the measurable effects of PPAs appears to be conflicting, often due to diverse methodologies and a lack of coherence in what should be measured, and when, to identify whether a MPA or PPA is effective.…”