In 2010, South Africa signed a treaty to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets created at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity held in Japan. One particular target – Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 – calls for at least 10% of coastal and marine areas to be conserved through effective and equitable management by 2020. This is done through the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs). We have reached our deadline, but South Africa is sitting at a percentage of five. These targets are great to inspire action. These deadlines allow for a time of reflecting on what we have achieved, how we have achieved it and what we will do going forward.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines a marine protected area (MPA) as an area that falls within a national jurisdiction that is “recognised, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” An MPA is a dedicated area with the goal of managing the relationship between human activities and the marine environment. Within an MPA are various zones that range from allowing marine harvesting or fishing to take place to preventing any fishing from taking place at all (no-take zones). Doug Butterworth, a scientist at the Marine Research Institute at the University of Cape Town, describes MPAs as a precautionary approach explaining that we can’t wait until we are absolutely certain before taking conservation action. In using MPAs to protect our coastline, we can question how effective our precautionary actions have been.
Where we are now:
South Africa only recently bumped up its MPA percentage. In August last year we moved from 0.4% to the current 5%. George Branch, author of Living Shores and a marine scientist heavily involved with the creation of the country’s MPAs, says this was no mean feat, “It was a monumental effort to get that 5%.” Although South Africa should celebrate this milestone, we still failed to reach our target. There are, however, different opinions on the value of targets. In an article, referring to target 11, Kong Lingyu wrote that targets can be limiting. “The Aichi target was more concerned with the quantity of MPAs than the quality,” he pointed out. It is when we get hung up on targets that differing opinions arise on the value of MPAs and how to implement them. Butterworth believes we should look to where our problems are and look to solving those. He says, “Targets are nonsense.” He explains how our inshore fisheries are in shambles, mainly due to poaching, and that our fishing industry would have more economic support if it was managed correctly. His view points to better management of fisheries over the creation of more MPAs.
Image by: Jannes Landschoff
The reasons and benefits of MPAs:
MPAs are a site for sustainability and protection for fisheries in four ways. They protect sessile or near-sessile species that fall within these zones of protection. MPAs prevent habitat damage and act as benchmarks to monitor the extent of certain human activities on the environment i.e. the exact effect of diamond mining up SA’s west coast. They provide exploitation control measures against poaching of abalone and West Coast Rock Lobsters. MPAs can also be economically beneficial to the region. “They boost tourism,” says Branch, “as they have a strong spill-over effect on the surrounding areas.”
What we learnt:
From the past decade we have learnt three things. Firstly, we have learnt the importance of correct implementation. Ella-Kari Muhl, a member of the Community Conservation Research Network, says, “I am always concerned about the process of implementation because, for me, if the process is not done well than it’s really not worth it.” If MPAs are not implemented properly they become what is known as ‘paper parks’. Branch says, “Worldwide, there is a trend to rush in and proclaim protected areas that effectively become ‘paper parks’ because they’re named but they’re not implemented.” Paper parks can be areas that have been claimed for conservation but in essence don’t need such protection from human activity because they’re too isolated from humans anyway (like South Africa’s Prince Edward Islands). A paper park can also be formed to add to a country’s percentage of MPA status. Muhl says, “Paper parks are easy though because you don’t have to work with all those various stakeholders and experience pushback.” In order to prevent ‘paper parks’, Muhl suggests that indicators be added to the guidelines/targets suggested by international agreements to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs.
The second lesson we learnt is to question who has or who does not have access to MPAs and the surrounding areas. Branch says, “We have to balance a national view of needing to protect areas versus a local view of honouring people’s rights to access resources and places.” This lack of access can be seen in the case of the Tsitsikamma MPA, which has been a site of contestation for decades. It is South Africa’s oldest MPA, created during apartheid, and its ‘no-take’ status across the 80km coastline has been challenged since 1998 by local anglers who demand access to the coast. In 2016, the then Department of Environmental Affairs rezoned 20% of the Tsitsikamma MPA for fishing to address the rights of formerly marginalized community fishers while balancing conservation goals. They did this without consulting scientists or local communities. Branch is disappointed in the management of this MPA and the department’s hastily reactions. “I fully believe that if there had been a proper consultation of all parties involved that one could have come to a perfectly sensible system that would have allowed for what people desired, but also would have effectively maintained the integrity of the area as a conservation area.”
Muhl says, “With any human relations there needs to be this basis of trust. And with a lot of communities this trust has been eroded.” This brings us to the third lesson learnt: participation of affected parties in the proclamation, implementation and management of MPAs. Perhaps much of today’s resistance to MPAs is due to people being excluded in the past. We now must include the concept of co-management when we create any new MPAs. Muhl believes that when it comes to conservation, we achieve our best results when we include the authorities who are responsible, the scientists and the local communities who are affected. “So much of this is people and relationships. Everyone has different justifications for why they are doing something – even a poacher,” says Muhl. It is about involving all parties in the decision process and having the grace to endure a long process.
What does the future hold?
Image by: Daniela Daines
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is currently underway creating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework which will establish the goals and guidelines for the next thirty years. Until that is released, the aim for South Africa is modest. “There is no question that the goal is to strive for that 10%,” says Branch, “I’m a pragmatist when it comes to these things. I think 10% is highly desirable. I think it’s achievable, and I think it can be done in a manner that’s not going to slice into and offend other major players like mining and fisheries.”
Within South Africa, there’s a move from creating parks that work ecologically to creating parks that work socio-economically. More coastal areas will need to be proclaimed, predominantly more offshore than coastal MPAs. But with these processes, we must be patient. It will take time and instead of rushing in and achieving a percentage, South Africa should create MPAs around areas that actually need protection. We should ensure that there is participation of all affected parties in the decision-making of new MPAs. In looking at the management of our MPAs, Branch questions, “How can we better involve local communities in the management of our MPAs? And are we in a position to adjust the regulations within existing MPAs that will meet the concerns and angst of local people in a manner that does not undo the ecological goals of those MPAs?”
For Branch, Muhl and Butterworth, the desire is not to reach a target by a deadline, but to create MPAs that don’t become simple paper parks.