According to the UN, as of 2010 some 5,000 MPAs cover 0.8% of the world oceans. Dr Ben Halpern of the University of California, wrote in Ecological Applications in February 2003 that average fish biomass and diversity are higher in MPAs of any size than they had been in the same sites, or in the neighbourhood, before the reserves were set up. As to whether there’s a significant “spilling effect” that enriches areas adjacent to MPAs, the jury is still out.

MPAs designed to protect

MPAs are designed to protect living, non-living, cultural, and/or historic resources within defined boundaries. The term MPA may indicate, depending on different legal definitions and MPAs-promoters, a great variety of types of marine areas under various degrees of conservation. For example, in the USA less than 1% of marine waters are no-take MPAs, while the others are conservation areas that may permit limited extraction activities. The MPA’s protection may range from just selected limits on marine traffic, drilling, mining, fishing gear types, fishing seasons, fishing capacity and catch limits, etc., up to total ban on extraction of marine life and of liquid and solid minerals of any kind, and on any longshore development. Observation and research, however, may be allowed.

In practice MPAs are rarely designed or implemented in dialogue between fisheries and conservation groups. Hence, the potential for reconciliation is rarely realised. Consequently, misunderstandings and even conflicts about the MPA’s goals and consequences among fishermen, the executing authorities, and conservationists, affect the choice of scope and nature, as well as implementation and enforcement of MPAs.

While MPAs are usually portrayed as a component in ecosystem management, they only too often are designed or implemented without involvement of the human participants in the ecosystem. This impairs their effective management and attainment of the intended objectives. Consequently, in some cases fishermen complained of being unfairly displaced from their traditional fishing areas, where the oil industry was allowed to perform seismic testing for oil and gas and even extraction. Another example was establishment of marine sanctuaries in Indian coastal waters to protect olive Ridley turtles, which led to desperate protests on the part of local artisanal fishermen, who were deprived of their only possibility to earn a living. Many committed suicide.

Putting culture at risk

But fishermen don’t have to commit suicide to die because of MPAs. In 1997, five MPAs were established in Guam, an US-administered Pacific island, that displaced the indigenous Chamorro fishermen from traditional fishing grounds, prevented them from teaching fishing techniques in a safe environment to the younger generation, thus putting at risk the future of their culture. Before the MPAs were established, artisanal fishermen had fished primarily in the protected areas of the Western (leeward side) and Southern Coasts. Once the preserves were established in 1997, they had to move into unfamiliar, dangerous waters. A study by D. Lucas and J. M. Lincoln, published by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) provides concrete evidence that risk of drowning of the indigenous Guam inshore fishermen (forced to fish more heavily on the East Coast (windward side) of the island) more than doubled after the enforcement of MPAs in 2001. The NIOSH report The Impact of Marine Preserve Areas on the Safety of Fishermen on Guam also found that the proportion of drowning deaths to Chamorro fishermen that occurred in more hazardous waters off the East Coast increased from 20 % during 1986-2000 to 63% during 2001-2009.

According to Dr Craig J. Severance, professor of anthropology at the University of Hawaii (sevc@hawaii.edu), Guam fisherman have argued strenuously for some time against any further MPA development, but when it came to official "Hearings", not all learned of them or were willing or able to speak up. In October 2008 Pacific News Center reported that the Guam Fishermen's Cooperative registered its opposition to the proposed Marine National Monument asserted tocover only the waters surrounding three of the northern most islands and the deepest spot of the Marianas trench. The Co-op President, Manny Duenas, simply said that he does not trust that Guam's waters will not be affected. He sent a letter to President George Bush opposing the national monument plan, and delivered over 1,000 letters from people against the plan to the office of Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, who represents Guam in the US Congress. Ms Bordallo failed to respond to WF’s request for comments.

Another case is that of American Samoa’s no take MPA - the Rose Atoll - where the people of Manu’a, were cut off from what they identify as traditional fishing grounds.

A. Charles and L. Wilson, wrote in the ICES Journal of Marine Science (66: 6–15, 2009) that planning, implementing, and managing MPAs requires that attention be paid not only to the biological and oceanographic issues, but equally to the human dimensions: social, economic, and institutional considerations that can dramatically affect the outcome of MPA implementation (tony.charles@smu.ca).

Human sensitivity

The case of Guam emphasises the need for social and simple human sensitivity when establishing MPAs and the absolute necessity for genuine consultation with fishing people in the area. MPAs should be set up in participatory processes in all stages - consultation, design, implementation, and monitoring, with special attention to the human values as expressed in historical and current human uses of their area, such as the “customary exchange” practiced on Pacific islands*), which is neither commercial nor recreational fishery, and to social and economic consequences. Also displacement of artisanal/subsistence fishermen whose ecological impact is relatively small, can be avoided by allowing them to keep fishing in the MPA.

* See www.wpcouncil.org/outreach/newsletters/PIFN_summer2010.pdf