Q&A with Beth Pike, Director of Marine Protection Atlas, Marine Conservation Institute

In May 2024, a comprehensive study on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was published in the journal Conservation Letters, shedding light on the gap between reported MPA coverage and actual conservation effectiveness. The study evaluates the world’s largest 100 MPAs, which account for nearly 90% of reported global MPA coverage and 7.3% of the global ocean area. The findings reveal that, while these MPAs are crucial for achieving the “30 by 30” target set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), many lack the necessary regulations and management to provide meaningful protection. In this Q&A, we hear from lead author Elizabeth P. Pike about the key insights from the study and the critical steps needed to enhance the quality of marine conservation efforts. 

Beth Pike, the main author of the study, is the Director of Marine Protection Atlas at. Marine Conservation Institute

Why did you decide to conduct this story? 

I wanted to highlight the ongoing disparity between what is being reported to the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) with the reality on the water. I am concerned that we are not mobilizing quickly enough in the face of the current biodiversity crisis. 

Your study highlights that only one-third of the largest MPAs are fully protected. What specific criteria did you use to assess the quality of these MPAs, and how do you suggest policymakers implement this framework globally?  

We followed the framework published by Grorud-Covert et al., 2021.  

The study mentions that a quarter of the assessed MPA coverage still needs to be implemented. What are the most significant barriers to implementing these MPAs, and what strategies could help overcome these obstacles? 

The most significant barrier is sustained political will. The need for biodiversity protection is a longer-term process than most political cycles worldwide. The political pressures that create these MPAs sometimes last only as long as a presidential term. The changeover in priorities can lag, causing disruption in the funding, management plan creation, zonation, and public consulting needed to implement an MPA.    

Pike's study shedded light on the gap between reported MPA coverage and actual conservation effectiveness

One-third of the assessed MPAs allow high-impact activities such as industrial fishing. Can you elaborate on the high-impact activities most detrimental to MPAs and potential regulatory measures to mitigate these impacts? 

Industrial fishing is the most common activity currently – using indiscriminate gears that capture large amounts of target species and bycatch such as purse seines, longlines, and bottom trawling. Oil and gas exploration and extraction are also found in some MPAs. But deep-sea mining is close behind this on the horizon, which also risks long-term ecosystem harm. 

The study notes that many large MPAs are in remote areas, often overseas. How do these remote MPAs compare effectiveness to those near urban coastal areas, and what balance should be struck in MPA placement to achieve global conservation goals?  

 Some remote areas receive help from low levels of pre-existing impacts, and the lack of implementation hasn’t changed too much. At the same time, others suffer from a lack of implementation if they have a higher level of pre-existing impact that hasn’t been mitigated. Without a formal management plan and monitoring, it’s hard to know if the MPA is working and whether changes need to be made. 

 Based on your findings, what are your top recommendations for future MPA policies to ensure that the quantity and quality of ocean protection meet the 30 by 30 target? How can the international community better track and report the effectiveness of MPAs?  

 Our paper offers a tool for tracking and reporting MPA effectiveness. As outlined in the Policy Recommendations in our paper, we recommend: 

  “Global action is critically needed to improve the quality of MPAs alongside coverage as we aim for the GBF 30 × 30 target:  

• MPAs classified as unimplemented or incompatible with conservation should not be counted toward MPA targets. More attention and resources are needed to implement and manage these MPAs, and they need to exclude the most harmful human activities, such as industrial fishing (IUCN, 2020) and mining, to enable them to deliver their intended conservation benefits. 
  

• Global MPA reporting for the GBF should include the Level of Protection as a component indicator. GBF Target 3 specifies that MPAs should be effectively conserved but does not yet have an indicator for biodiversity outcomes (Lefebvre, 2023). The MPA Guide’s Level of Protection provides a science-based estimation of the conservation benefits MPAs are likely to produce. Fully and highly protected areas, those likely to provide the most significant benefits, should be the focus of efforts to achieve GBF Target 3. 
  

• MPA planning should include ecosystem and biogeographic representativity considerations and ensure procedural and distributional equity. Particular emphasis should be placed on coastal areas and ecoregions near mainland waters that endure significant impacts as opposed to distant and remote EEZ areas where most fully and highly protected MPA coverage is currently concentrated. Coherent national and international plans for well-designed and sited, effective MPA networks are crucial for achieving equitable conservation at the scale needed to meet conservation goals and address biodiversity loss. 
  

• The High Seas Treaty needs to be ratified and implemented as soon as possible to catalyze strong protection for Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). High seas MPAs are critical to meeting GBF Target 3 and should prohibit industrial-scale activities.” 
  

Read the study's one-page summary here. For more information on this study, visit the Marine Conservation Institute website.