Feature image: School at dusk by Umeed Mistry (Image from Ocean Image Bank)
The idea of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) seems simple: set aside sections of the ocean where human activities are restricted to allow marine ecosystems to recover and flourish. Over the past few decades, MPAs have become a cornerstone of conservation policy, with scientific studies demonstrating their role in rebuilding fish populations, preserving biodiversity, and improving ecosystem resilience against climate change. Global biodiversity targets reflect this confidence. Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, over 190 countries have pledged to protect 30 percent of the ocean by 2030, a commitment known as the 30×30 initiative.
Yet, for all the lofty ambition, a critical reality is often overlooked. Many of these protected areas exist in name only. They are what experts call “paper parks”—officially designated but lacking real enforcement, governance, or ecological benefits. The rush to meet conservation targets has, in some cases, incentivised the creation of large MPAs without the necessary resources to ensure they function as intended. The numbers are revealing. Although around 8.3 percent of the ocean is now under some form of protection, only 2.8 percent is effectively managed. That means, the vast majority of protected areas still allow fishing, shipping, and other extractive activities, often with little oversight.
This gap between conservation commitments and ground realities raises a fundamental question: is the focus on MPAs and percentage-based targets enough, or does marine conservation require a broader, more integrated approach?
Unintended consequences
Global conservation goals have been instrumental in rallying support and investment for marine protection. They create clear, measurable objectives that governments and institutions can commit to, driving funding and policy change. However, the pressure to meet targets can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.
Many governments, keen to demonstrate progress, have designated large MPAs in areas that are already low in commercial activity rather than prioritising regions under immediate ecological threat. In some cases, MPAs exist primarily on official registries, with little in the way of monitoring or enforcement. This is not a localised problem—studies suggest that nearly 80 percent of European MPAs fail to meet their conservation goals due to ongoing destructive activities such as bottom trawling.
Meanwhile, focusing conservation efforts primarily on designated MPAs means that other critical areas—the 70 percent of the ocean that falls outside protection—receive far less attention. Climate change, overfishing, and pollution do not stop at the borders of protected areas. The ocean is a vast and interconnected system, and its health depends on what happens beyond the boundaries of MPAs just as much as within them.
How do we tackle the matter?
First, we must move beyond the idea that conservation is only about setting aside protected areas. Marine conservation is much more than percentages. To ensure that the entire ocean is managed sustainably, stronger regulations, better enforcement, and integrating conservation into everyday ocean governance are vital.
A critical part of this shift involves Ocean-based Conservation and Environmental Management Strategies (OCEMS), a broader framework that embeds conservation principles across marine industries and governance. This approach acknowledges that protection should not be limited to specific zones but rather integrated into all human activities affecting the ocean.
Second, we must reform harmful subsidies and unsustainable industrial practices. Global governments still invest $22 billion annually subsidising fishing fleets and destructive marine activities, all paid through tax payers’ hard earned money. We all indirectly end up being a part of the great evil. Without tackling these harmful subsidies, MPAs risk becoming isolated refuges in an otherwise degraded ocean. Similarly, deep-sea mining is emerging as a serious threat to marine ecosystems with companies pushing for extraction rights in largely unexplored regions. Rather than waiting for irreversible damage, regulations must apply the precautionary principle and halt these activities before they escalate.
Finally, we must align economic incentives with conservation and shift from a shallow focus on percentages to deeper, outcome-based assessments. Too often, environmental protection is treated as a cost rather than an investment. We continue to undermine the economic value of ecosystem services. Accounting for these services can help us transition to a just and more reliable future.
Mechanisms such as Blue Bonds, which provide debt relief in exchange for conservation commitments, have already shown promise in countries like the Seychelles and Belize. Payments for Ecosystem Services could reward nations, businesses, and communities for maintaining healthy marine environments. If protecting biodiversity is more financially attractive than exploiting it, conservation will no longer be an uphill battle.
Declaring a stretch of ocean “protected” without enforcement or an impact assessment is equivalent to putting a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign on an open hotel room door and hoping no one barges in. Real conservation requires an examination and reexamination of critical questions, including are marine species actually recovering? Is illegal fishing kept in check? Are people who depend on these waters seeing benefits? Without accountability, we risk expanding conservation in name only while ocean health continues to decline right under our noses.
Part of the problem is how we frame conservation. Environmental protection is too often treated as a grudging expense rather than an investment—akin to paying for a gym membership but never using it. Yet, marine ecosystems provide invaluable services, right from carbon sequestration to fisheries and coastal protection. If we started valuing these contributions within economic systems, conservation wouldn’t be seen as an act of charity, it would be accepted as common sense.
At the heart of it, conservation shouldn’t be about drawing imaginary lines around nature and hoping for the best. It should be about making sure that our interactions with the ocean, whether fishing, shipping, or even just admiring a sunset over the waves, are sustainable. Because the goal isn’t just to protect 30 percent of the ocean. It’s to ensure 100 percent of it can thrive for generations to come.
