November 18, 2020 (Saving Seafood) โ WASHINGTON โ Yesterday, at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, respected fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn criticized the marine protected area (MPA) provision of the bill, which he called โthe wrong tool for adapting to climate change.โ
The provision, known as the โ30 by 30โ plan, would require the establishment of MPAs in at least 30 percent of American waters by 2030. In his testimony, Dr. Hilborn, professor of sustainable fisheries at the University of Washington, cited numerous threats facing U.S. oceans, including climate change, ocean acidification, exotic species, land-based runoff, plastics and illegal fishing.
โThere are solutions to each of these problems,โ Dr. Hilborn said. โBut it is not no-take MPAs โ they do nothing to mitigate these problems.โ
Dr. Hilborn praised current fisheries management under the regional council process, which he called science-based and credible with industry and other stakeholders. He also pointed out that MPAs would simply push fishing pressure outside of the protected area into other parts of the ocean, with no net gain.
โMPA advocates ignore the fact that โ30 by 30โ would cause 70 percent of U.S. oceans to see increased fishing pressure from the vessels that moved out of the 30 percent closed, and thus potentially be less resilient to climate change. Do we really want to make 70 percent of our oceans less resilient to climate change?โ Dr. Hilborn said.
The hearing kicked off with Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT) introducing a letter organized in part by Saving Seafood and signed by over 800 seafood industry members opposing the โ30 by 30โ plan. Rep. Bishop added that โ30 by 30โ is โwoefully misguided, does not improve fisheries, it undermines the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and even worse, itโs detrimental to Americans, especially American fishermen.โ