Opinion. On the Assertion that MPAs are Indispensable for the Sustainable Management of SA’s Living Marine Resources

By Mike Bergh, Scientific Consultant to SAPFIA, the South African Pelagic Fishing Industry Association

The MPA debate

I read with interest the 20 November FINSA article by Professor Doug Butterworth “How Indispensable Are Marine Protected Areas for Protecting the South African Marine Environment?” which responds in part to a 20 June 2024 Daily Maverick article by Radia Razack of the DFFE.  These were followed by the remarks “How Valid are MPAs to the South African Marine Environment?” in FINSA, 21 November 2024 by Peter Mbelengwa, Craig Smith and Kate Handley.  Also relevant is the FINSA contribution by Jack Walsh (3 December 2024). 

Razack (2024) claims that:

(i) “Marine Protected Areas are indispensable tools as we navigate the complexities of marine conservation and protection. By protecting vital marine ecosystems and species, we conserve biodiversity and ensure the long-term health of our oceans” and

(ii) “By protecting vital marine ecosystems and species through designated areas, we not only conserve biodiversity but also ensure the long-term health of our oceans, which is crucial for sustainable resource management, ecosystem services, and ultimately, human well-being and prosperity”. 

Doug Butterworth challenges the notion that MPAs are indispensable tools and that they are crucial for sustainable resource management.  He argues that the objectives of many of South Africa’s MPAs have not been specified (citing Kirkman et al (2023) who says that in certain cases  “the objectives for establishing the MPAs were unspecific and both poorly articulated and publicised”) and points out that South Africa is committed to the management of living marine resources on a scientific basis. Read his article How Indispensable Are Marine Protected Areas for Protecting the South African Marine Environment?

Without clear and specific objectives, it is not possible to manage on a scientific basis. He questions whether MPAs will improve the sustainability of fisheries and asserts that they just increase fishing costs. He also questions the Razack (DM, 2024) claim that South Africa’s commitment to the Kumming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework of protecting 30% of marine areas is necessary, since by the definition of a conservation area in the framework, 100% of the EEZ is already protected. 

These inputs raise important questions about the scientific basis for South African Marine Protected Areas and the interpretation of relevant international agreements that South Africa has joined. They highlight that the scientific support for MPAs and their effectiveness has not been concluded.  It appears that there is an urgent need for a national debate about MPAs and their scientific underpinnings. 

Inputs by Peter Mbelengwa, Craig Smith and Kate Handley

Do the inputs in FINSA (21 November 2024) “How Valid are MPAs to the South African Marine Environment?” by Peter Mbelengwa, Craig Smith and Kate Handley settle the international debate about the need for MPAs?  Do they affirm the soundness of the scientific basis for MPAs? And although they respond to Doug Butterworth’s contribution only indirectly, we can still ask whether they answer the claims in Doug Butterworth’s article that MPAs in South Africa do not have a scientific basis because their objectives have not been specified sufficiently? Additionally, that because fish are able to move outside MPAs this makes MPAs an unhelpful management tool for fisheries management, furthermore that MPAs can be counter-productive because they increase fishing costs?

Well, what do Mbelengwa, Smith and Handley say? Here I have focussed on only some of their statements:

• First, they say that MPAs do not limit fishing altogether. This is somewhat misleading because while some MPAs do include some areas where fishing is allowed, there are nevertheless areas where fishing is excluded entirely and the majority of MPAs in South Africa are such no-take zones.
• They state that fishing cannot thrive in an unhealthy ecosystem. This is another side of Razack’s argument that MPAs are indispensable for sustainable fisheries management. But does simply stating this as a fact, leaving the reader to lean in the direction of Razack (2024), answer the complexities of the scientific debate on this issue. I think not. Mbelengwa, Smith and Handley fail to mention that the purported contribution of MPAs to sustainable fisheries management is an intensely debated topic in the scientific literature – just some of the references in this regard are listed below.
• They state that MPAs are designed to accommodate the fact that fish can move outside MPAs. “Given that fish are highly mobile, and species vary in their movement ranges, MPAs are designed with diverse structures to accommodate these differences”.  Does this statement negate Doug Butterworth’s argument that “MPAs do not “protect” fish because fish will generally move outside the MPA’s boundaries and become available to catch. It’s unclear from the statement how MPAs are designed to ensure that they are effective for mobile fish species.
• They state, “The generalised statement about fish not remaining within an MPA is also not true for all marine species”. Yes, oysters cannot move outside an MPA, but this does not negate Doug Butterworth’s claim about the ineffectiveness of MPAs for fish that can move. 
• “Clearly, the current EEZ management measures are not adequate to allow for the holistic protection of our marine ecosystems”. In making this statement, Mbelengwa, Smith and Handley are silent on the extensive toolbox of fisheries management measures that are already used in South Africa, and they do not engage in any discussion of areas where there have been failures (abalone, rock lobsters), and how MPAs might have averted these.
• They say “MPAs, if done properly, should result in long-term benefits for the fishing industry”. This concluding remark has barely been interrogated, and no clear case has been made in their article. Why do they conclude so, in the face of a raging scientific debate? By what mechanism are these long-term benefits achieved? 
• “Benefits of MPAs to marine resources and marine ecosystems have been demonstrated globally for many species, including in South Africa”. Where? It’s important to show evidence that this is the case for offshore fish resources where new MPAs are being proposed. I have seen nothing that addresses this – note also that “Most of these benefits may also be already expected from conventional fishery closures and non-spatial fishery measures implemented within a non-delimited fishery management area” (Garcia et al, 2024).

In my view the Mbelengwa, Smith and Handley articles provides little scientific backup for their claims about the benefits of MPAs for fisheries management. There are clearly situations where a case can be made that MPAs can be beneficial, including, as two examples: habitat restoration projects and the promotion of biodiversity. But even so, these projects need clearly defined objectives, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation to verify effectiveness. MPAs whose objectives are not clearly specified, and where there is no ongoing monitoring and evaluation, do not have a scientific basis to justify their existence.

Targets for targets sake

In all consultation meetings known to SAPFIA the question of the target percentage of the EEZ that should be declared as MPAs has been defined by DFFE and its advisers. This raises the question, ‘What is the scientific basis for these percentage targets’? And also, ‘Why have key stakeholders not been invited to discuss what targets would be appropriate for South Africa?’.

Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which Razack (2024) says South Africa is committed to reads:

“Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, …”.

Razack (2024) states that “Before 2019, South Africa only had 25 formally declared MPAs, including Prince Edward Island in the Southern Ocean, and only 0.4% of the EEZ was under protection. In 2019, 20 new or expanded MPAs were declared, increasing the conservation estate of the EEZ to 5.4%, totaling 42 MPAs.”

But how is this possible? The Prince Edwards Island MPA, which is 181229.46 km² in extent was declared in June 2013, and on its own already comprises 11.8% of the total South African EEZ of 1535538 km². The World Bank development index cites a value of 15.5% [1] which is very much larger than the 5.4% cited by Razack (2024). 

On closer examination it appears that the National Biodiversity Assessment document of 2018 introduced a new interpretation of CBD Aichi Targets 11 and 15[2] and SDG Target 14.5[3] that the percentage mentioned refers to a percent of the continental EEZ. How did this interpretation arise? and is this now also the interpretation associated with Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as appears the case from Razack (2024)? This highlights the need, as recommended in the FAO guidelines on MPAs (2011), that there is “Early involvement of stakeholders in the MPA planning process is important.”

Another question of course is why MPAs as defined in South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act are the only mechanism considered by DFFE to contribute to South Africa’s “percentage of the EEZ”. It is significant that the wording of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is very broad: “are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures“. One expects that since this biodiversity framework is a product of the CBD, then it is the framework’s definition of a protected areas that should be applied by DFFE, and in terms of that definition all the SA EEZ open to fishing is already a protected area by the application of an extensive panoply of fisheries management measures.  

Climate change and MPAs

Mbelengwa, Smith and Handley make the following statements about climate change:

• “A connected network of MPAs is vitally important for building resilience to counter the as-yet unknown impacts of climate change.
• Due to the nature of MPAs, they have become powerful environmental monitoring areas to investigate and track potential impacts from climate change.”

There is considerable uncertainty about the impacts of climate change, particularly about whether and how it may cause fish stocks to move to new preferred habitats. What if circumstances change? Are MPAs the appropriate management tool?  Is it appropriate to use the MPA legislation to impose closed areas with fixed boundaries, boundaries which are legally extremely difficult to change in response to climate change?

Conclusions

• There is a need to revisit the role of MPAs in resource management. It seems that the claim that MPAs are indispensable for the sustainability of fisheries is questionable. 
• The deliberative process needs to take cognisance of the FAO guidelines on MPAs which emphasise the need for consultation at a very early stage – this includes whether South Africa should make binding commitments to MPA targets without proper scientific justification. 
• It is necessary for the objectives of MPAs to be specified in some detail and for monitoring and evaluation to assess whether progress is being achieved towards the intended objective. Without this the basis for an MPA cannot be scientific. 
• The claims that the need for MPAs is only increased given climate change seem to be dubious. MPAs are inflexible and hence unsuited to the flexibility that is required for adaptation to climate change.    
• The Prince Edwards Island MPA is part of South Africa’s efforts at conservation and should be included in the percentage of the EEZ under protection. 
• Fisheries management and conservation measures other than MPAs are extensively applied throughout the South African EEZ. Their contribution should be included in performance measures against targets set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and related initiatives.

References

• Butterworth, D.S.  2024.  How Indispensable Are Marine Protected Areas for Protecting the South African Marine Environment?  Fishing Industry News & Aquaculture.  20 November 2024.
• Garcia, S. M., Rice, J., Link, J., Sowman, M., Charles, A., Augustyn, C. J., Penas Lado, E., Morishita, J., Campbell, D., Kirkegaard, E., & Govan, H. 2024. Area-Based Management Tools and Marine Fisheries: A Comprehensive Review. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• SP Kirkman, P Kowalski, BQ Mann, GM Branch, MG van der Bank, KJ Sink, P Fielding, JB Mann-Lang, MC Pfaff, D Kotsedi, R Adams, S Dlulisa & SL Petersen (2023) The road towards effective governance and management of marine protected areas in South Africa evolving policies, paradigms and processes, African Journal of Marine Science, 45:2, 63-86, DOI:10.2989/1814232X.2023.2203186.
• Peter Mbelengwa, Craig Smith and Kate Handley. 2024. How Valid are MPAs to the South African Marine Environment? Fishing Industry News & Aquaculture.  21 November 2024.
• R. Razack (2024) Unlocking the economic potential of SA’s oceans — growth must be balanced with sustainability. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2024-06-23-unlocking-the-economic-potential-of-sas-oceans-growth-must-be-balanced-with-sustainability/
• Jack Walsh.  2024.  MPAs. In the Right Circumstances of Course They Are Necessary. Indispensable, of Course Not!   Fishing Industry News & Aquaculture.  3 December 2024.

A list of papers that comment on the potential for MPAs to benefit fisheries management, and related issues, that should be reviewed in any back-to-basics deliberations about the need for yet more MPAs. 

Effectiveness of conventional fisheries management

1. Hilborn, R. et al. 2020.  Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117,  2218–2224.
2. Hilborn, R. & C. Costello.  2018. The potential for blue growth in marine fish yield, profit and abundance of fish in the ocean. Mar. Policy 87,  350–355.

Do MPAs benefit fisheries and fisheries management

1. Abbot, J.K. & A.C. Haynie.  2012.  What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and the unintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool.  Ecological Applications, 22(3), pp. 762–777. Ecological Society of America
2. Bruno, J.F., Cote, I.M. & L.T. Toth.  2019.  Climate Change, Coral Loss, and the Curious Case of the Parrotfish Paradigm: Why Don’t Marine Protected Areas Improve Reef Resilience? Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2019. 11:307–34
3. Cabral, R.B. et al. 2020.  A global network of marine protected areas for food. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 28134–28139.
4. Costello, C. et al. 2016.  Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 5125–5129.
5. Goni, R., Hilborn, R., Díaz, D., Mallol, S., and S. Adlerstein.  2010.  Net contribution of spillover from a marine reserve to fishery catches.  Mar Ecol Prog Ser.  Vol. 400: 233–243.  doi: 10.3354/meps08419
6. Hilborn, R., Stokes, K., Maguire, J-J.& T. Smith.  2004.  When Can Marine Reserves Improve Fisheries Management?  Ocean & Coastal Management 47(3-4):197-205
7. Hilborn, R., Micheli, F. & G.A. De Leo. 2006. Integrating marine protected areas with catch regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63, 642-649
8. Hilborn, R.  2018.  Are MPAs effective?  ICES Journal of Marine Science 75(3):1160-1162.  
9. Hilborn, R.  2021.  LETTER:  Increasing fisheries harvest with MPAs: Leaving South and Southeast Asia behind.  PNAS 2021 Vol. 118 No. 17 e2026410118. 
10. Kerwath, S.E., Winker, H., Gotz A. & C. G. Attwood. 2013. Marine protected area improves yield without disadvantaging fishers.  Article: Nature Communications. 4:2347 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3347
11. Nickols, K.J., White, J.W., Malone, D., et al. 2019.  Setting ecological expectations for adaptive management of marine protected areas. Journal of Applied Ecology 56, 2376-2385.
12. Ovando, D., Caselle, J.E., Costello, C., et al.  2021.  Assessing the population‐level conservation effects of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology.
13. Pons, M., Watson, J.T., Ovando, D., et al. 2022.  Trade-offs between bycatch and target catches in static versus dynamic fishery closures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2114508119.
14. Sala, E. & S. Giakoumi.  2018.  Contribution to the Themed Section: ‘Marine Protected Areas’ Comment Counterpoint to Hilborn.  ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(3), 1163–1164.  
15. Wauchope, H.S., Jones, J.P., Geldmann, J., et al. 2022.  Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature, 1-5
16. Jake Rice, Erlend Moksness, Colin Attwood, Stephen K. Brown, Geir Dahle, Kristina M. Gjerde, Ellen Sofie Grefsrud, Richard Kenchington, Alf Ring Kleiven, Patrick McConney, Magnus A.K. Ngoile, Tor F. Næsje, Erik Olsen, Esben Moland Olsen, Jessica Sanders, Chandrika Sharma, Ole Vestergaard, Lena Westlund.  2013.  The role of MPAs in reconciling fisheries management with conservation of biological diversity.  Ocean & Coastal Management 69 (2012) 217 – 230.

Climate change and MPAs

1. Freedman, R.M., Brown, J.A., Caldow,C. & J. E. Caselle.  2020. Marine protected areas do not prevent marine heatwave‑induced fish community structure changes in a temperate transition zone.  Scientific reports, OPEN.  www.nature.com/scientific reports.

Ranking of different human impacts on ocean ecosystems

• Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Afflerbach, J., Micheli, F., O’Hara, C., Scarborough, C. & K. A. Selkoe.  2019.  Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean.  www.nature.com/scientific reports. Scientific Reports 9, 1-8

---

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/marine-protected-areas-percent-of-total-surface-area-wb-data.html.

[2] see https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets

[3] see https://indicators.report/targets/14-5/