30×30 for Biodiversity: Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries

24 knots, 44 km/h, the boat crashes onto the shallow water. The wood creaks. The compass needle swings from side to side. A sip from the coffee cup – and the whole mug seesaws upwards. Mike Kelly navigates the boat past small islands through the waters of the Pacific. He sits in a waist-high chair behind the wheel, sheltered by the covered area of ​​the boat, his face almost obscured by his peaked cap and raincoat. Only the blue eyes and the beginnings of the full beard can be seen when he looks left and right for black bears, whales or dolphins.

Kelly has been sailing the Pacific like this for two decades. In the summer he leaves at dawn with twenty other boats. Children, grandparents, employees of companies are on board. They throw out their fishing rods and enjoy the silence. “A magical moment with nature” – says Kelly, who has been offering fishing trips off Vancouver Island in Canada since 2003.

The 49-year-old wants to show everyone the treasure he lives on. But also which treasure will be decided on next.

Because Kelly’s treasure, the magical moments with nature, is threatened by something that is actually supposed to help nature: Canada wants to build a huge network of protection zones on its west coast. This is not an unusual project in the North American country: While only 7 percent of all marine waters worldwide are protected, they are in Canada, according to the government, 15 percent. In 2030, this number is to be increased to 30 percent – trawling, underwater mining or activities for oil and gas extraction are to be banned in the new zones.

Canada is one of more than 100 countries that have committed to the so-called 30×30 target: 30 percent of land and sea are to be protected by 2030. Regulating this goal not only nationally, but worldwide is a major negotiation point at the UN Biodiversity Conference, which will be held in Montreal until December 19th.

For Katrin Böhning-Gaese, director of the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Center, the protection of 30 percent of the earth’s surface is even the “minimum goal” of the conference – as long as it is in well-cared for and networked areas.

But the planned areas around Vancouver Island show how difficult it is already to protect national waters. It is a dispute about planned rules, outdated knowledge and the question of co-determination.

The rules

Eleven rockfish sanctuaries are spread around northern Vancouver Island. The term “rockfish” covers a whole group of species, many of which are popular as food fish. Kelly points out the areas on a map as the boat cruises the waters of the Pacific, past sea otters floating in the water, eagles soaring over islands and sea lions rolling over rocks. A flock of seagulls circle the predators as they roar over the ocean with deep bass.

“I love showing other people nature,” says Kelly, who is a trained biologist. “It’s about sharing information – about geology, biology, the weather, the tides.”

He wanted the areas to be protected. But even the concept of the previous protection zones made no sense to him. For example, he is not allowed to fish in rockfish sanctuaries. Trawling, on the other hand, is allowed because it takes place at greater depths where rock fish are not supposed to be present. In this way, many more animals are caught overall. The angler Kelly, on the other hand, argues that he doesn’t kill the fish at all, but carefully lets them back into the water.

Rockfish sanctuaries don’t even officially count towards the country’s 30 percent target. But they already show how difficult it is to find rules for the protected areas.

It’s a question of what “protection” even means, not just in Canada but around the world. According to a study By 2020, around 6 percent of the Mediterranean Sea was officially protected. But in 95 percent of these areas there are no stricter rules than outside. They are “paper parks”, protected areas only on paper.

Research

Kelly casts his rod five to ten times that often that day. To do this, he stops the boat swaying between the ocean waves. The fishing gear whirrs as the line slides across the ocean. She bends when a fish bites. Cranked quickly, fish over the starboard, unhooked the rod. The palm-sized perch only wriggles again when it is released back into the water.

Kelly could catch trout, salmon or mackerel off the west coast of Canada, fish that sometimes swim thousands of kilometers across the ocean. How do you protect a territory that knows no borders? Do we actually know enough about the seas whose depths were once thought to be more unexplored than the moon?

For Kilian Stehfest of Canada’s David Suzuki Foundation, the question doesn’t arise: Of course, species like the rockfish would benefit the most because they tend to stay in one place. But even among the migratory animals, the places where they would give birth, seek food, or mate are known. These would have to be protected.

And ideally not just until 2030, because by then the knowledge about the biological diversity of a place could already be out of date. “If we find out that a sponge reef is particularly important,” says the biologist: “Will it still be there in eight years?” Above all, trawling at the bottom of the sea is destroying the ancient creatures.

The control

One hand on the wheel, the other on the gas. Kelly goes back to the port of his hometown. Just before the ship reaches the jetty, he throws so-called fenders onto one side of the boat, thick plastic cylinders that cushion the impact. He ties the rope tight before answering a few questions.

There is the question of the responsibility of the local population. Rules can only be enforced if the affected residents and users are involved. Because only those who have an interest in an area protect it and control it, for example – many researchers agree on that.

Does Kelly feel involved in planning the new protected areas? “No one was involved here,” he says. The government never showed plans, never explained what would be banned in which area: “It’s as if they only have to fulfill promises to the United Nations – you have to protect so and so much of your seas.”

Marine scientists Anna Schuhbauer from the University of British Columbia and Natalie Ban from the University of Victoria defend the process. The government organized meetings between the groups concerned, informed about the current situation and conducted a survey for people from the area.

However, the government, fisheries and tourism industries, for example, would have much more money than small business owners, local fishermen or indigenous communities. They could do more research, lobby for their interests, or get more organized.

But in order to protect the seas worldwide, two other points are crucial. On the one hand, who finances the new areas. The German researcher Böhning-Gaese, for example, sees the Global North as responsible for creating new funding for protected areas in poorer countries. On the other hand, oceans and seas must also be considered. True, the main zones are located according to a study near the coast. But 60 percent of the oceans are international waters. There is also an area to protect that belongs to practically everyone, but not really to anyone.

All this is currently being negotiated at the nature conservation conference. Once completed, it will be decided whether the protected areas will remain just numbers to be reached. And for people like Mike Kelly, how things will continue with his and many other treasures in the world.

The research for This article was made possible by a grant from the Heinrich Böll Foundation Washington.