If you had asked me a month ago what activities were allowed to occur in marine protected areas I would have answered none, except maybe swimming or diving. I have since read numerous articles about marine protected areas; and it turns out most people believe the same things as I did a month ago- at least in Australia. Interviews conducted in Australia have shown that most people were unaware that fishing, bottom trawling, and mining are still allowed in some marine protected areas there[1]. But how does this impact the effectiveness of marine protected areas in achieving their true goal of improving ocean health and fish abundance?
Marine protected areas can differ from one another in terms of their degree of protection and their location. It is important to note that in cases when used effectively, marine protected areas have been shown to increase the abundance of fish, as well as fish body size[2],[3]. The difference in the productivity of marine protected areas appears to be highly dependent on their level of protection, and fully protected areas are shown to have 30% more species of fish present and higher abundances of these species in Australia, while partially protected areas have show no notable impacts[1]. However, partially protected zones are specifically useful for using to surround fully protected areas or to be spaces where traditional management can take place[1].The locations of marine protected areas are also important to their success, however most fully protected marine protected areas are currently located in parts of the oceans that are not commonly used for fishing, and therefore provide little overall benefit[3]. So why aren’t many marine protected areas properly placed or fully protected? We know they are effective, but unfortunately there is still a lack of support from fisheries. A current case to follow is the opposition of tuna fisheries in the Galapagos to expanding the marine reserve[4]. Designing marine protected areas therefore becomes a complicated socio-economic problem that would require a much longer post to dive into. I will conclude by saying that in the long term I believe that creating fully protected marine protected areas in popular fishing grounds will not only benefit fish stocks, but humans as well. Works Cited: [1] Turnbull, J., Cook, C., Johnston, E., Clark, G., and Roberts, K. “75% of Australia’s marine protected areas are given only ‘partial’ protection. Here’s why that’s a problem”. The Conversation. January 14 2021. Available at: https://theconversation.com/75-of-australias-marine-protected-areas-are-given-only-partial-protection-heres-why-thats-a-problem-149452. [2] University of California - Santa Barbara. "how marine reserves can benefit fisheries across the globe." ScienceDaily. October 28 2020. Available at: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201028124539.htm. [3] Jones, P.J.S. and Stafford, R. “Expanding marine protected areas by 5% could boost fish yields by 20% - but there’s a catch”. The Conservation. October 27 2020. Available at: https://theconversation.com/expanding-marine-protected-areas-by-5-could-boost-fish-yields-by-20-but-theres-a-catch-148678. [4] Alberts, E.C. “Activists make the case that bigger is better to protect Galápagos reserve”. Mongabay. January 29 2021. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2021/01/activists-make-the-case-that-bigger-is-better-to-protect-galapagos-reserve/. Comments are closed.
|
Jennifer Fisher |