MPA Archives - Saving Seafood

Retraction of Flawed Study Implies Larger Problems with Science Used to Support Creation of MPAs

December 14, 2021 — A scientific paper (Cabral et al. 2020, A global network of marine protected areas for food) that claimed that closing an additional 5% of the ocean to fishing would increase fish catches by 20% has been retracted by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), the journal in which it was published.

At the time of publication, the paper’s findings were immediately covered by The Economist (Stopping some fishing would increase overall catches) and Forbes (Protecting 5% More Of The Ocean Can Increase Fisheries Yield By 20% According To New Research) and other mainstream outlets, including the New York Times, Axios, National Geographic, and The Hill.

Representative Deb Haaland, now the Secretary of the Interior, who recently restored Obama-era prohibitions on fishing in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument without scientific or economic review — and without meeting with affected fishermen — submitted the now-retracted paper as supporting evidence for the “30×30” provisions of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act. The provision calls on the federal government to conserve at least 30% of Federal waters by the year 2030. (For a longer critique of the 30×30 initiative see this piece by Dr. Roger Mann of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary).

It has since been determined that the paper had both conflict of interest as well as data and model assumption problems.

PNAS determined that the person responsible for assigning Cabral et al.’s peer reviewers, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, currently White House Deputy Director for Climate and Environment, had a conflict of interest. According to the editor-in-chief of PNAS, the frequent collaboration relationship Lubchenco had with the paper’s authors constituted a conflict of interest, as did her personal relationship with one of the authors, Dr. Steve Gaines—her brother-in-law.

Several close collaborators of the Cabral et al. group wrote scientific critiques that pointed out errors and impossible assumptions that suggested the paper was inadequately peer reviewed.

According to an analysis of the paper from Sustainable Fisheries at the University of Washington:

Cabral et al. 2020 assembled a computer model out of several kinds of fishery data to predict where marine protected areas (MPAs) should be placed to maximize global sustainable seafood production. MPAs meant to increase food production do so by reducing fishing pressure in places where it is too high (overfishing). Asia and Southeast Asia have some of the highest overfishingrates in the world—reducing fishing pressure there is a no-brainer, but the model determined many of those areas to be low priority for protection. The results should have been red flag for the peer reviewers of Cabral et al. 2020. Why were MPAs prioritized all around the U.S., where overfishing has been practically eliminated, but not prioritized around India, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and China?

Clearly, something was wrong with the model.

For more about the problems with this paper, as well as a look at concerns with another headline-grabbing study that suggested carbon emissions from bottom trawl fishing are similar to emissions from global aviation, see the Sustainable Fisheries analysis here.

NOAA considers marine sanctuary off Hawaiian Islands

November 19, 2021 — The following was released by NOAA:

NOAA announced today it is initiating the process to consider designating the marine portions of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as a national marine sanctuary. This designation would build on existing management in the marine portions of the monument by adding the conservation benefits and enhanced long-term protection of a national marine sanctuary.

The United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Report for Fiscal Year 2021 directed NOAA to initiate the process to designate the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as a national marine sanctuary to supplement and complement, rather than supplant, existing authorities. Stakeholders and partners, including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council and the State of Hawai’i, support the current sanctuary designation process.

Since the designation of the site as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve by President Clinton in 2000, the designation as a marine national monument by President Bush in 2006, and the expansion of the monument by President Obama in 2016, NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries has been a key partner and co-managing agency in the management of Papahānaumokuākea. NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Hawaiʻi and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs co-manage the monument, and that hallmark co-management structure will continue. This initiative is being conducted in cooperation with the co-trustees.

“Papahānaumokuākea’s ecosystems are increasingly under pressure from threats such as marine debris, invasive species, and climate change,” said Rick Spinrad, Ph.D., NOAA Administrator. “Designation of the monument’s waters as a national marine sanctuary would complement the efforts of the four co-trustees to safeguard the monument’s natural, cultural, and historic values.”

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument is the largest contiguous fully-protected conservation area under the U.S. flag, encompassing an area of 582,578 square miles of the Pacific Ocean—an area larger than all the country’s national parks combined. Home to the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal, threatened green turtles, extensive coral reef habitat, and many species found nowhere else on earth, the complex and highly productive marine ecosystems of the monument are significant contributors to the biological diversity of the ocean.

Papahānaumokuākea is of great importance to Native Hawaiians. Throughout the expanse of the monument, there are many wahi pana (places of great cultural significance and practice) where Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners of today reconnect with their ancestors and gods. The monument is also home to a variety of post-Western-contact historic resources, such as those associated with the Battle of Midway and 19th century commercial whaling.

Many of the monument’s extensive education, outreach, and research accomplishments have been executed under the authority of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Sanctuary designation would enhance the benefits and expertise offered by the National Marine Sanctuary System and NOAA staff.

Designation would also allow NOAA to apply additional regulatory and non-regulatory tools to augment and strengthen existing protections for Papahānaumokuākea ecosystems, wildlife, and cultural and maritime heritage resources. The sanctuary designation would not include any terrestrial areas or change the monument designation.

NOAA is accepting public comment on the proposal through Jan. 31, 2022. For more information on the proposed sanctuary designation and how to comment, see the Federal Register notice. Learn more at here.

Please view our media resources page for images, video, and maps.

One of world’s largest protected areas now being opened to commercial fishing

November 17, 2021 — One of the world’s largest protected marine areas will open again to commercial fishing, the Kiribati government said Monday.

The Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA), located in the south Pacific, was designated as a “no-take” zone in 2015, which prohibited commercial fishing in the area encompassing more than 157,000 square miles, The Guardian reported.

“Similar to any Government, our decisions, as we make them, put the livelihoods of our people at the fore and have been carefully considered and agreed to as a Government,” a government press statement read, referring to the economic benefits the nation could receive by lifting the commercial fishing ban, according to The Guardian.

Read the full story at The Hill

Conference Tackles Overfishing In The World’s Oceans

October 12, 2021 — Protecting the world’s oceans and its resources could be coming closer to reality as countries gather this week in China for the United Nations Conference on Biological Diversity.

Nations are expected to start keeping promises to protect 30% of the world’s oceans, including implementing or pledging support for the implementation of more Marine Protected Areas around the world.

The conference, to be held in Kunming, China starting Monday, follows a collective pledge from more than 100 countries to protect at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. Climate change was a major theme during the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in September, and the goal remains lofty though conservationists remain hopeful.

The global Marine Protected Area Atlas that covers some 18,000 MPAs shows just 2.7% of the ocean is fully or highly protected from fishing impacts. A previous goal of protecting 10% by 2020 was missed.

And though it was expected that some nations would up their MPA coverage, management was still an issue, according to University of Hawaii marine researcher Alan Friedlander.

Friedlander was among a group of marine experts who called for more effective management strategies — a blueprint for future MPA management — as there was a broad range of interpretations and “not all MPAs are created equal.”

Management was of equal importance to designation, he said.

“It’s a big difference between what’s strongly protected and what’s declared protected,” said Friedlander. “We really need to have strong protection if the goal is biodiversity.”

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

New guide to help evaluate marine protected areas

September 29, 2021 — A new “MPA Guide,” resulting from a collaboration of 42 authors led by Kirsten Grorud-Colvert of Oregon State University, aims to facilitate communication and common understanding about marine protected areas.

The guide was introduced in a paper in the 10 September issue of Science magazine, “The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean.” In it, the authors review the consistency, of MPAs and propose a framework by which levels of protection can be evaluated and improved.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

MPAs will suffer, along with the rest of the ocean, as the planet warms

May 15, 2018 — A paper (Bruno et al. 2018) released last week in Nature Climate Change mapped the effects of future emissions on marine protected areas (MPAs) around the world. The results were unsurprising—climate change threatens every MPA (and indeed every part of the ocean), with a range of impacts. This study focused mainly on warming temperatures and changing oxygen levels, but anthropogenic stressors on the ocean also include ocean acidification, rising sea levels, more intense storms, distorted currents, and altered nutrient distribution.

To understand the paper, its conclusions, and any kind of positive takeaway (we get there at the end), an understanding of representative concentration pathways (RCP) is needed. An RCP is a scientifically backed estimate of radiative forcing (you can think of this as the amount of global warming) based on different emissions scenarios. Basically, an RCP estimates the amount of warming Earth will experience based on the amount of future emissions. It is important to note that RCPs are not climate models—they are scientifically standardized scenarios that can be used to set up models. The 4 recognized RCPs are: RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6, and 8.5.

In the paper, the authors model RCP 8.5, the worst-case scenario where politicians, governments and people don’t make meaningful change in the future. Predictably, the results are not good. In this scenario, temperatures inside (and outside) MPAs are expected to rise by an average of 0.035° C per year leading to “protected areas” that are at least 2° C (4.6° F) warmer by the end of the century.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Large, Open Ocean MPAs Distract from More Pressing Ocean Issues

May 15, 2018 — Effective conservation requires thoughtful decision-making to successfully navigate complex issues involving food, livelihood, and preservation. Fishery management is conservation in practice as it tries to ensure that fish for food and enjoyment persist indefinitely. However, the tools chosen for the job have implications for the environment and the people using it. There are limited resources to devote to a myriad of issues, and most decisions have winners and losers. With any conservation objective, each potential management tool should be critically evaluated to consider externalities and alternatives. No-take MPAs that restrict all fishing can be the right tool for conservation and management, but not always.

Recently, many global conservation leaders have called for a dramatic increase in the amount of no-take MPA coverage worldwide, mainly through large, open-ocean marine protected areas (LOOMPAs). Touting these immense MPAs as the pinnacle of ocean protection is popular right now, but fails to acknowledge the social and biological shortcomings of LOOMPAs and, crucially, is a poor use of political capital. Understanding and accounting for the critiques of LOOMPAs will make fisheries and ocean conservation better.

Prudent, coastal MPAs are good

MPAs function by restricting fishing in an area of the ocean. If well enforced, they are an effective management tool for specific coastal habitats, like coral reefs, which need healthy fish populations to function properly. Coral reefs are also extremely delicate; preventing harmful fishing practices can greatly benefit the ecosystem. Fortunately, commercial fishing is less reliant on coral reefs than other ocean habitats.

MPAs that protect seagrass meadows and kelp forests along the coast can also work to mitigate climate change and ocean acidification as seagrasses and kelp are the oceans’ greatest carbon sinks, sequestering more carbon per acre than terrestrial forests. Proper protection would restrict damaging fishing gear to keep the underwater forests and meadows intact.

Large, Open Ocean MPAs are contentious, biologically.

Large, open ocean MPAs (LOOMPAs) are designed to protect huge swaths of open ocean, but are a poor choice for efficiently and effectively managing fisheries. The idea is that by restricting fishing in such a large area, highly migratory fish that travel across the open ocean (like tuna) will have better opportunities to grow and reproduce. However, highly migratory fish are just that—highly migratory. Tuna populations move thousands of miles; in and out of LOOMPAs, EEZs, and the high seas.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Western Pacific Council Director Says MPAs Must Be Targeted and Scientifically Supported

January 31, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Targeted and scientifically established Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in Pacific waters would have a better chance of attaining specific environmental goals according to Kitty Simonds, the Executive Director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Simonds comments explaining this position were published last week on Professor Ray Hilborn’s Cfood blog.

They were in response to three specific questions CFOOD posed to fishery scientists about the US government’s use of MPAs.

The questions were:

What is the utility of setting MPA targets?
Do MPAs need to be No Take Zones (NTZs)?
What is the utility and wisdom of creating large ocean MPAs?

Following are Simond’s complete responses to each question.

1: The utility of targets — specifically 30%, but also the creation of appropriate targets for MPAs:

In the Western Pacific, 53% of the collective EEZ or 26% of the total US EEZ has been made through Presidential authority intono take MPAs, as blue legacies for Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. The issue of targets for us in the Western Pacific has thus become moot. These areas were established with little scientific evidence, and with promises of jobs and tourist dollars, all of which have failed to materialize.

Further, most of the vulnerable habitats in the Western Pacific have been protected for a long time by smaller MPAs that were part of the management of coral reef and associated ecosystems by State, Federal and Territorial Governments. Thus the target percentage becomesmeaningless, unless expressed as percent of a given habitat type, and the objectives of the closure.

2: The need for MPAs to be “No Take Zones” (NTZs):

Current MPA theory indicates that NTZs will typically accumulate biomass but from a fisheries management standpoint there should be a payoff from spillover and recruitment enhancement. Unfortunately, recent research using a number of different techniques shows that the Main Hawaiian Islands are isolated in terms of resource management and will not receivesubstantial subsidy from the large MPA in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The MHI must stand alone in management of marine resources.

This nicely illustrates the need for a much more intensive process to implement MPAs, with clearly defined goals, realistic expectations of benefits, review schedules and mechanisms to modify the MPA. Most of the large MPAs in the Western Pacific are isolated by distance and remote from most of the population. Only foreign fishing vessels, government vessels, or expensive well-equipped ocean going private vessels have the ability to reach these areas, so increased tourist traffic is highly unlikely.

3: The utility and overall wisdom of large ocean MPAs:

Largeopen ocean MPAs have been tried in the Western Pacific, when two large high seas pockets were closed, by the Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Commission but fishing mortality for tunas did not fall as the effort did not decline but moved into neighboring EEZs. Further, highly migratory species by virtue of their life history will move through large ocean MPAs and thus become vulnerable to fishing.

Moreover, with climate change, the static nature of MPAs, large and small, may be called into question if they have no mechanism to be modified or relocated if species distributions change. Establishing an MPA is often seen as the target gain, with no real consideration apart from vaguely defined benefits, nor with the dynamic aspects of ecosystems in mind.

This story originally appear on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Skepticism About Marine Protected Areas

October 24th, 2016 — When looking at proposals for marine protected areas (MPAs) – such as the Biscayne National Park marine reserve and Our Florida Reefs proposals – it’s important to analyze all of the threats to our fisheries. MPAs can be an important tool in fisheries management, but they do nothing to address temperature rise, ocean acidification, pollution or invasive species. In a recent video by University of Washington Professor Ray Hilborn, he discusses why he is an MPA skeptic:

“The only threat that marine protected areas protect the ocean from is legal, regulated fishing, and we have a whole range of ways of regulating fisheries that are much more effective than marine protected areas.”

Unfortunately, the plans for the Biscayne marine reserve and Our Florida Reefs are based on an over-generalized assumption that MPAs will work in every situation – but that’s simply not the case. That’s why we must continue to stand up for sound, science-based fisheries management and voice our opposition to fishing closures that lack scientific evidence.

Read the full story at The Fishing Wire

RAY HILBORN: Obama’s new ocean preserves are bad for the environment and for people

October 6th, 2016 — Who wants to save the oceans? Short answer: everyone, especially politicians. A less frequently asked question is whether their high-profile efforts always work.

Right now, world leaders seem to want to see who can declare the biggest marine protected areas, or MPAs, in their territory. MPAs are kinds of national parks for sea life that extends from ocean surface to ocean floor. Commercial fishing and other undersea ventures are banned in them.

They are popping up everywhere. In August, President Obama announced one in the western Pacific Ocean that is 50 per cent bigger than Texas. In September he created another, more modest one off the coast of New England.

Britain announced yet another MPA in September around St. Helena Island in the south Pacific. It is half the size of the Lone Star State.

In fact, the MPA movement has become a religion with accepted articles of faith that more and bigger are better. This current obsession is bad for the oceans, bad for the global environment, and bad for people.

Consider what the imposition of an MPA can do to the economy and livelihood of local fishers, who are unable to easily pick up and move elsewhere. Some fishermen in New England are warning that they could go out of business as a result of the new Atlantic marine preserve.

Large MPAs are also bad for people because reducing ocean fish production by itself will mean less high quality, nutritious food available for the poorest people in the world and less employment for fishing-dependent communities

Political leaders argue they are protecting the oceans with MPAs, but mostly they aren’t. The major threats to ocean health and biodiversity, including global warming, ocean acidification, oil spills, floating masses of plastics, pollutant run-off from land, and illegal fishing–all are not addressed by this conservation measure.

Read the full opinion piece at Fox News