UnEarth Magazine.

Words by Anokhi Saha, Art by Zoe Henderson

For those of you who haven’t seen the David Attenborough series ‘Our Planet’ episode 4, let me set the scene. Sir Attenborough has just spent the last 45 mins showcasing the immense beauty of our coastal seas and the diversity they support, and then swiftly ruining the image of an ocean untouched, by describing the catastrophic impact we as humans are having on every aspect of our marine ecosystems. Thankfully, David presents us with the solution: Marine Protected Areas (henceforth, MPAs)! Turning one third of our coastal seas into fully protected areas may provide long-term sustainability for our continued use of the planet’s natural resources. 

By creating no-take zones and preventing fishing, previously depleted stocks can recover. Renewed species diversity and increased biomass, benefiting both the health of the ecosystem and the people on which it depends. But this is only possible when the regulation and enforcement of these zones is upheld, and for that, they must be supported by the local people, despite the initial loss of their fishing grounds. While long term benefits can be realised through an increase in food security through spillover, and improved revenue through tourism, it can take many years for marked changes to be seen.  

As such, conflict over protecting our seas to the immediate detriment of the people who reside beside them is bound to arise. But what should take precedent and how do our perspectives on these matters differ depending on how we study them? To answer this, I conducted a short survey of students from the Schools of Biology and Sustainable Development to see whether there were any apparent differences in how MPAs were perceived and prioritised.  

When compared, the responses of students from both schools showed agreement across a number of topics. Among the biologists, the most important goal of a marine protected area was to improve the biodiversity of the area and ensure the protection of endangered species. While this view was also shared by a number of SD students, there was more variation in their responses, also emphasising the importance of improved food security and mitigation of climate change. While these goals are intrinsically interlinked (with an increase in biodiversity improving ecosystem function which in turn improves carbon sequestration, as well as improved food security) in general the responses from SD students reflected both a broader and more anthropocentric approach.  

There was also little disagreement that the main challenge associated with MPAs was limited regulation and enforcement. Without sufficient regulations in place to prevent illegal activities taking place, such as unregulated fishing, poaching, or unsustainable tourism practices, the basic foundation on which MPAs are built is undermined. This is to the detriment of both the environment, that suffers as a result of ongoing exploitation, as well as the local people for whom the benefits of the MPAs are delayed or negated all together. Other issues highlighted by students from both schools was the loss of immediate income for locals, as well as the need for continued ecological monitoring.  

Furthermore, constructing the boundaries of an MPA also poses a challenge, and one that elicited a clear difference in responses between the two schools. Here, 80% of SD students said that the MPA should aim to create minimal disruption to the livelihood of the local community. On the other hand, 88% of Biology students were in favour of ensuring the MPA encompass a large proportion of the home ranges of target species as well as covering key habitats. Whilst both arguments hold water (forgive the pun), the contrast between priorities is clear, mirroring the reality of the conflicts and compromises faced by decision-makers and stakeholder groups with respect to the construction and zonation of MPAs.  

The processes occurring within the ocean and the life it supports cannot be contained by our constructed boundaries and attempts to partition the natural world. Consequently, such conflicts are often an unavoidable byproduct of trying to balance the needs of the people with the preservation of the planet, especially at such large spatio-temporal scales. That said, marine protected areas are highly variable, and their management and goals should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Importantly, the survey showed distinct agreement that MPAs are important to support the long-term sustainability of our use of the natural world. Approaching this issue from a multidisciplinary standpoint is the most effective way to ensure harmony and mutual success, a conclusion made clear from the responses across both schools.