Strength in numbers 76 Members and growing: Join today!

MPA's

Marine Protected Areas

The effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) has been a topic of considerable debate, particularly in light of the recent Decadal Review published in 2023. While MPAs are designed to conserve marine biodiversity, support fish populations, and promote healthier ecosystems, their real-world outcomes can be mixed.

Critics, including the VCCFA, argue that many MPAs are not meeting their intended goals. They point out several issues:

Restricted Fishing Opportunities: By limiting access to certain areas, MPAs can disproportionately affect local fishing communities, leading to economic hardships without delivering significant ecological benefits.
Pressure on Open Areas: When fishing is restricted in protected zones, it can lead to increased pressure on adjacent, unprotected areas. This can exacerbate overfishing and environmental degradation elsewhere.
Imported Seafood Concerns: The shift towards importing seafood to compensate for lost local catch raises concerns about sustainability and traceability. Without stringent oversight, these imports can undermine conservation efforts and contribute to higher carbon footprints due to transportation.
Ecosystem Health: If MPAs are poorly designed or enforced, they may fail to protect critical habitats or species, leading to limited improvements in biodiversity.

In conclusion, while MPAs have the potential to serve their purpose, the current implementation and management strategies often fall short. For MPAs to be effective, a more integrated approach is needed—one that balances conservation with the socio-economic needs of local communities, ensures effective enforcement, and considers the broader ecological impacts of fishing pressure and seafood imports.

Marine Protected Area [FGC 2852(c)]

"Marine protected area" (MPA) means a named, discrete geographic marine or estuarine area seaward of the high tide line or the mouth of a coastal river, including any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora and fauna that has been designated by law, administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. MPA classifications include marine life reserves (the equivalent of the state marine reserve classification), state marine parks, which allow recreational fishing and prohibit commercial extraction, and state marine conservation areas, which allow for specified commercial and recreational activities, including fishing for certain species but not others, fishing with certain practices but not others, and kelp harvesting, provided that these activities are consistent with the objectives of the area and the goals and guidelines of this chapter.

Final_ReviewReport_Web_Signed_Bookmarked_7.17.23.pdf

Decadal Review: Pub. 2023

Are MPA's working?

You are encouraged to read this document, and become familiar with the findings. There are differing opinions on the interpretation of this publications findings.

VCCFA takes the position MPA's are not achieving their intended purposes.

VCCFA opposes the increasing of MPA's based on emotions and ignoring data gathered.

Show Me the Benefits

10 Years in, What Have Marine Protected Areas Accomplished?

Published Oct 1st, 2024 Santa Barbara Independant

More fish, more sustainable fisheries, and an ecosystem better protected from threats was the promise of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) and the 124 MPAs now in place in California. Ten years on, what have they accomplished? The recently completed 10-year review by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as numerous scientific papers, suggest that our hopes were misplaced. The review concludes “statewide and regional trends across habitats showed no difference in biodiversity inside compared to outside MPAs.” As to the very real threats to California’s coastal ecosystems, climate change and recent marine heat waves, the review is decidedly not sanguine “analysis across habitats in the central coast revealed that MPAs did not provide strong resilience against the marine heatwave.” Ouch! Finally, there is not even evidence that there are any more fish in California state waters now, except for some of the areas that are closed to fishing. The only study to look at whether there were more fish overall suggests that the answer is no. Where fishing is intense, there are definitely more fish inside the closed area, but the fishing boats simply moved outside the boundary and caught them there.

The structure of the 10-year review alone squashes any expectations that the MPAs might be protecting our ocean from any threats. The review devotes 9 pages to governance and partnerships, 22 pages to research, 15 pages to outreach and education, and 14 pages to enforcement. A paltry 4 pages deal with how marine species have changed, and another 4 pages deal with climate resilience. The blatant absence of “good news” is spun into research, public engagement and enforcement as if those had been the goals the MPAs were meant to achieve.

Unsurprisingly, the only threat the MPAs do address is overfishing, and that is not a problem in state waters. The Marine Life Protection Act was conceived and implemented at a time of serious concerns about declines in many rockfish species in federal waters, but are not the focus of fisheries in state waters and are rarely found there. One should not expect major benefits from no-fishing zones when there is no overfishing to begin with.

Make no mistake, California coastal ecosystems face many threats. These include climate change related warming, ocean acidification, storm severity and sea level rise. Moreover, the coasts face a wide range of terrestrial impacts from coastal development, sedimentation, land based runoff of sediments and pollutants, and water diversions. New exotic species and diseases have arrived, and ship traffic is increasing. California’s MPA network provides no protection from any of these threats, and yet the MPA advocates are still claiming to have protected the ocean.

The Marine Life Protection Act was born in a research network of academics who formed a group call PISCO that published a report called “The Science of Marine Reserves” in 2007. The opening paragraph states “fish, shellfish, and other species are declining in many places. The changes are impairing the ocean’s capacity to provide food, protect livelihoods, maintain water quality, and recover from environmental stress.” Whatever happened to food and livelihoods? There is not a whisper or mention of those in the 10-year review.

Does California need even more marine reserves? The public should demand to know what the objectives are, how success is measured, what perceived threats are being addressed, and would the funds be better spent to address the real threats to California’s coastal ecosystems. In a pinch, we could say that MPAs to some extent restrict fishing. But wait, we already have an agency that does that, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Perhaps funding to implement more MPAs should be redirected to CDFW to do its job even better? Perhaps more importantly, the funds could be used to better regulate terrestrial impacts on the coastal ecosystem.

Ray Hilborn is a professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington and served on the Science Advisory Team during MLPA planning for Santa Barbara reserves. He has been awarded the World Fisheries Science Prize and the Volvo Environmental Prize.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse