Marine ecosystems face relentless pressure under the strains of our rapidly changing world. Water temperatures rising due to climate change, unsustainable fishing practices, pollution from trade and coastal development, and disturbances from extractive energy industries are just a few of the harsh realities threatening these delicate environments.
To protect valuable ocean habitats and the life they support, countries are increasingly adopting the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for specific stretches of ocean. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) — the organization responsible for establishing protection level categories in conservation areas — defines an MPA as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long- term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” MPAs make up 8% of our oceans and play an important role in preserving and rehabilitating sensitive tidal and subtidal ecosystems.
Considering some words of wisdom that apply to all fields of experimentation, Thomas Edison once said, “A good intention, with a bad approach, often leads to a poor result” — a principle especially relevant to conservation strategies. Though there’s little doubt that MPAs are created with the best intentions, it’s not the title that counts but rather their effectiveness in achieving conservation benefits.
When an MPA’s efforts fall short of their goals, failing to protect marine habitats and fisheries, they’re often labeled a ‘Paper Park.’
As countries around the world begin to recognize the need for official protection measures, and with the European Union aiming to protect 30% of their seas by 2030 as outlined in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, effective MPA management becomes even more critical. Identifying Paper Parks in need of more effective management approaches will play an important role in encouraging biodiversity and improving the ecological health of these underperforming conservation areas. It will also help guide future MPA management strategies as insights learned from efforts to improve Paper Parks inform new initiatives.
Recognizing the need to enhance monitoring strategies, a 2023 study set out to develop a framework to better identify MPAs failing to meet conservation goals while also highlighting existing Paper Parks around the world.
The study, entitled ‘The ‘Paper Park Index’: Evaluating Marine Protected Area Effectiveness Through a Global Study of Stakeholder Perceptions,’ introduces a new method for identifying Paper Parks. Researchers emailed a one-question questionnaire to local stakeholders, including academics, civil servants, NGOs, fishers, and journalists, from 184 MPAs. The question asked participants to rank the perceived level of fishing activity within the MPA, with options ranging from ‘no fishing’ to ‘very intense fishing.’
By making the questionnaire as simple as possible, the researchers hoped to achieve higher response rates and provide monitoring organizations with an easier, more replicable method of identifying Paper Parks.
Their simplicity strategy was successful, with the email questionnaire achieving a 66% response rate. Among the stakeholders surveyed, academics were the most responsive at 37%, followed closely by civil servants at 29% and NGOs at 23%. In line with one of the study’s hypotheses, fishers, or their representing organizations, had a lower response rate of 6%, while journalists were unexpectedly the least responsive at 4%.
To establish the planned level of protection for an MPA, the study used the IUCN category system. This system classifies MPAs into one of six categories, each category outlining specific conservation goals, protection levels, and management standards. The categories range from ‘Strict Nature Reserve,’ where no fishing is allowed, to ‘Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources,’ where fishing is permitted under specific guidelines.
To gauge whether a protected area is, in reality, a Paper Park, the researchers calculated the difference between an MPA’s average perceived fishing level and its official IUCN classification. This calculation produces a value of MPA effectiveness on a scale termed the ‘Paper Park Index’ (PPI). The PPI for an area can range from 0 to 1 or greater, with a score of 0 indicating that fishing levels are consistent with the IUCN protection level, while a score of 1 or higher suggests the area is ‘likely’ a Paper Park.
After calculating the PPI for each area, the study identified 49 (27%) of the 184 MPAs as ‘potential’ Paper Parks, with 11 of these scoring a PPI of 1 or greater–classifying them as ‘likely’ Paper Parks.
To validate the accuracy of these PPI level findings and ultimately establish the effectiveness of their new research method, the researchers cross-referenced their findings with existing literature, which confirmed the underperforming status of 10 of the 11 ‘likely’ Paper Parks.
Expanding the scope of their analysis, the study also uncovered regional disparities, revealing that Latin America and the Caribbean have the highest percentage of Paper Parks at 35%, followed by the Indian Ocean at 22% and Southeast Asia at 16%.
When assessing the accuracy of these findings and the usability of PPI as a measure of an MPA’s effectiveness, it’s important to consider the differences in response rates among stakeholders. The representation between groups is far from equal, and personal and professional agendas could likely influence individuals’ perceptions of fishing levels.
The tendency for perceived fishing levels to correspond with the official IUCN category level is also noteworthy. It’s difficult to determine whether this correlation reflects either the category label’s psychological impact or the effectiveness of conservation efforts. However, this trend potentially makes cases where the PPI highlights a difference between perceived fishing activities and the protection level all the more revealing.
While the researchers speculate on factors contributing to the success of MPAs, such as ongoing conservation programs, and on factors leading to the emergence of Paper Parks, like potentially poor regulation, their primary focus was not on assessing these factors.
Instead, the study brings critical attention to the value of local knowledge in assessing an MPA’s effectiveness. It advocates for “policy-makers, spatial planners, managers, and the scientific community” to more actively include local input in every aspect of MPA planning and management. Taking an approach that prioritizes stakeholder engagement from the outset of an MPA could potentially lead to higher fishing compliance and cooperation with attempts to monitor the effectiveness of conservation efforts.
Perhaps most importantly, the simple, single-question survey method offers a more efficient means of pinpointing MPAs in dire need of further attention and resources. Along with continued research into effective establishment and management strategies, the Paper Parks Index may very well become a critical tool in revitalizing marine ecosystems at both the local and global scale.