The Ongoing Debate Surrounding Marine Protected Areas in South Africa

By Kevern Cochrane
Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda

In 2007, I published an article titled “Marine Protected Areas as Management Measures: Tools or Toys?”, which critically examined the fervent advocacy by various agencies and interest groups for the expansion of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This discourse has only intensified over the years, as illustrated by the recent exchanges between Doug Butterworth and Radia Razack from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). Nearly two decades later, despite the wealth of research and experience accrued, the primary evolution in this debate is the escalating targets for marine protection—from an initial goal of 10% set by the Aichi Target 11 in 2010 to an ambitious 30% by 2030, as stipulated in the Kumming-Montreal Framework of 2022. Some advocacy groups view this “30 by 30” target merely as a precursor to an even more ambitious objective of 50% or greater protection (Dinerstein et al., 2019; IUCN, 2021).

The foundation of this debate was reignited by Razack’s assertion in her Daily Maverick article, where she posited that MPAs are “indispensable tools” for conserving marine ecosystems and species, thereby safeguarding biodiversity and ensuring the oceans’ health (Razack, 2024; Butterworth, 2024). The controversy lies in the implication that MPAs alone suffice for achieving these conservation goals. However, Razack later acknowledged that while MPAs are vital, they are not the sole instruments for marine management. She referenced “Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures” (OECMs) and the significance of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), which recognizes the need for a balanced management approach to ocean use.

Critics of Razack’s article highlight a common ground amid the discord. While contributors to Fishing Industry News (FIN) express concerns regarding the financial implications of MPAs for the fishing industry, Butterworth concedes that MPAs can play a valuable role in biodiversity conservation and fisheries management under specific conditions. Nevertheless, he emphasizes that they are not a cure-all and that other management strategies are often necessary and more effective. Similar sentiments were echoed by Bergh (2024), who raised concerns regarding the processes employed in establishing MPAs in South Africa, advocating for a reevaluation that includes rigorous scientific justification and stakeholder consultation.

The discontent within the local fishing community is palpable, extending beyond mere opposition to MPAs. Sowman and Sunde (2018) documented widespread apprehension regarding MPAs’ adverse effects on coastal communities, both locally and internationally. Furthermore, Mann-Lang et al. (2021) highlighted both positive and negative consequences of MPAs, noting issues such as loss of tenure rights, diminished livelihoods, and weakened local governance.

Despite these well-recognized concerns, the global momentum for expanding MPAs remains unabated, leading to what Walsh (2024) described as South Africa’s propensity for continuously creating new MPAs. This ongoing tension underscores a fundamental conflict: while there is consensus that well-designed and properly implemented MPAs are beneficial for biodiversity conservation and, in some cases, fisheries management, the exaggerated promotion of MPAs as a panacea for biodiversity loss and unsustainable marine resource use complicates the dialogue.

Overzealous claims about the benefits of MPAs have significant implications for policy-making at both national and international levels, as evidenced by the recent endorsement of the “30 by 30” target by members of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022 (Cochrane et al., 2024). It is noteworthy that South Africa did not accept this target without reservations; initially opposing it, the government shifted its stance under pressure from international entities and advocacy campaigns. Nonetheless, South Africa, along with other nations, insisted on a more moderate interpretation that emphasizes effective conservation and management.

This nuanced perspective is also reflected in Razack’s broader argument. In her discussion of Operation Phakisa, she acknowledged South Africa’s untapped oceanic resources and the need for a sustainable and coordinated approach to harnessing them. Notably, she referenced MSP as a framework to facilitate orderly economic activities in marine spaces, indicating that MPAs should be viewed within this larger context.

While I may not concur with all of Peter Mbelengwa’s statements on behalf of DFFE, his insights suggest a commitment to leveraging MPAs and their networks to conserve marine species and habitats while ensuring sustainable resource access. Evidence shows that MPAs in South Africa have successfully met specific ecological objectives (Kirkman et al., 2021). However, the design and implementation processes have often lacked balance. Mann-Lang et al. (2021) found that most MPAs established before 2019 did not adequately address social needs or objectives, leading to discrepancies between the goals of managers and community stakeholders.

In conclusion, Section 24 of the South African Constitution mandates the protection of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations through conservation and sustainable resource use. There is widespread recognition that MPAs serve as a crucial tool for biodiversity conservation, a sentiment that underpinned the establishment of 20 new MPAs in South Africa in 2019, resulting in 5% of the ocean area being designated as protected (SANBI, 2019). However, further expansion must be approached judiciously, incorporating social and economic impacts into decision-making processes. The recommendations from Mann-Lang et al. (2021) and Kirkman et al. (2023) emphasize the urgent need for clear, measurable objectives that encompass ecological, socio-economic, and governance considerations, developed collaboratively with stakeholders.

As we navigate the complexities of ocean management in South Africa, it is imperative to balance conservation efforts with the needs and rights of local communities. Emphasizing rigorous scientific evidence and stakeholder involvement will be vital for the successful implementation of MPAs and for achieving the overarching objectives of sustainable development and environmental stewardship.

References

[Full list of references as provided in the original content]