Political will in short supply

Collective and responsible management of ocean ecosystems and resources must be the new normal or risk failing our next generation.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Kathryn Sullivana

This colour image of the Earth was obtained by NASA’s Galileo spacecraft on Dec. 11, 1990 when the spacecraft was about 1.5 million miles from the Earth. Credit: NASA

As we celebrated Earth Day amid the Covid-19 pandemic, one wonders, why are we still having difficulties putting an end to the same problems that go back at least three generations?

Persistent water, land, and air pollution, the blatant destruction of countless species and their habitats, unsustainable resource extraction – all have been scientifically proven to cause environmental disasters due to climate change; widen the poverty and social equity gap; intensify health-related crises; and impede economic growth. Sadly, this is what we have inherited and continue, unapologetically.

International reaction

Learning from painful mistakes, in 1972 the international community established the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide leadership, deliver science and develop solutions on a wide range of environmental issues. Now it is the leading global environmental authority, setting the global environmental agenda and playing a role as an authoritative advocate for the global environment.

UNEP hosts many multilateral environmental agreements and research bodies in areas such as climate change, disasters and conflicts, ecosystem management, environmental governance, chemicals and waste, and resource efficiency. Some of them include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Vienna Convention for the Protection of Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

As one of the 36 consortium members of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG), UNEP contributes to global, regional, and country-level efforts in overseeing operations of all UNSDG entities to meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Reef Check Malaysia (RCM) feels that now is the right time to participate in conversations and actions beyond its core conservation area, which is marine protected areas (MPAs). This is simply because MPAs are impacted by problems and challenges outside their boundary.

Over the last three months, Reef Check Malaysia has published several articles on issues, initiatives and recommendations ranging from efforts by:

• international communities stepping up commitments to ocean protection - through the protection of at least 30% of Earth as protected areas

• our current state of fisheries in light of the increasing rate of consumption

• justification for moving towards a co-management approach in managing marine protected areas

• why we require a concerted effort in managing oceans responsibly through an adaptive National Ocean Policy

The elusive political will: A leap forward in governance

Political will is the core to the success of any policy. Our mistake lies in taking political will for granted.

The 2010 paper “Defining Political Will” suggests that :

“Political will exist when a sufficient set of decision-makers with a common understanding of a particular problem on the formal agenda is committed to supporting a commonly perceived, potentially effective policy solution.”

Based on this definition, sufficient decision-makers refers to a sufficient number of people who are in positions of power who support the desired changes, agree that a particular issue has reached problem status, and that it requires government action.

These decision-makers must then be committed to the particular issue and reach a consensus on the type of policy response required.

Political will is complicated by the governance and institutional arrangements of the country. In our previous articles, we touched on some institutional and legal challenges that complicate managing our ocean resources. Ocean industries and coastal-based resource management (including conservation) are typically managed sectorally by multiple government authorities guided by exclusive policies, institutional arrangements, and legal instruments. This creates overlaps in jurisdiction and authorities; inconsistencies and gaps in legislative frameworks; amplifies multiple-use conflicts; increases duplication of efforts; creates unclear paths for stakeholders in pursuing interests and raises concerns on many uncoordinated approaches by different parties in similar issues.

A quick illustration is in the form of the National Policy on Biodiversity (NPBD). The policy is the responsibility of the Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources. However, the management of fisheries and marine protected areas are under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industries, while maritime industries are managed by the Ministry of Transport.

This is further complicated by the inherently delicate relationship between the Federal and State governments. There are at least 32 key legislations (both Federal and State) concerning biodiversity conservation in Peninsular Malaysia; seven (7) in Sabah and eight (8) in Sarawak. These legislations are enforced by several authorities; each with its own objectives and coordination mechanisms.

A whole-of-government and society approach towards an adaptive National Ocean Policy

The Covid-19 pandemic has shown that large-scale urgent change is possible. The unprecedented level and speed of policy and legislative actions demonstrated our political will and capacity to adapt in the face of profound suffering and loss to our health, livelihoods, economies, and behaviours.

Reef Check Malaysia hopes that with the same determination, we can put in place a much-needed transformative change in the form of an adaptive National Ocean Policy supported by a dynamic form of governance to assist decision-makers and policy actors to address the gaps, harmonise initiatives and coordinate the actions of many government agencies that are typically involved in ocean affairs towards an agreed social and economic vision and common goals.

The development and implementation of such a policy hinges on all parties’ participation – from the adoption of a participatory approach with all concerned agencies and stakeholders to the determination and implementation of policy actions based on informed process, science and local knowledge.

As of 2015, 15 developed and developing nations had articulated and implemented an integrated, ecosystem-based ocean policy governing the ocean areas under their jurisdiction. This includes developing goals and procedures to harmonize existing uses and laws to foster sustainable development of ocean areas, protect biodiversity and vulnerable resources and ecosystems, and coordinate the actions of the many government agencies that are typically involved in oceans affairs.

Since then, countries such as Fiji (2020), Solomon Islands (2018), Indonesia (2017), and Vanuatu (2016) have developed their version of a National Ocean Policy.

In 2010, the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation commissioned the National Oceanographic Directorate to work on a draft Malaysia Ocean Policy.

The draft policy recommended guidance on national goals and principles that should govern our ocean and coastal activities. It also sets out recommendations to address the challenges of maintaining consistency in law and financial allocations in pursuit of the proposed defined goals. To achieve these goals, the draft NOP recommended that relevant existing laws and institutional arrangements will have to be harmonised in consideration of their cumulative impact on Malaysian ocean management. In essence, national laws will have to achieve integration to ensure their combined effectiveness in making certain that both current and future generations of Malaysians derive maximum benefit from the oceans.

Over the years, many individual experts and organisations have called for a revisit of the draft National Ocean Policy for Malaysia.

The revision should consider strengthening the existing recommendations that range from widening the reach of ocean-earth education, increase capacity building for all stakeholders, developing strategies for science and research & development, to remodel robust enforcement and monitoring measures that involve all parties including local communities.

Additional elements to the draft must embrace the development for sustainable financing; implementation of a blue and circular economy; mandatory reporting procedures; adequate enforcement of digital and technological advances in big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and robotics as tools for problem-solving.

More importantly, improvements in the implementation of laws affecting ocean use and resources and related institutional strengthening must require a national ocean policy that is adaptive and has precise aims and objectives and is led by the highest office.

Retaining political will in Malaysia

Reef Check Malaysia is hopeful that, despite many political changes, Malaysia as a nation will steadfastly prioritise global common goals. In this case, prioritising our right to survive.

2021-2030 is the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. This initiative gives member nations opportunities to seek solutions to reverse the cycle of decline in ocean health, and work with ocean stakeholders worldwide to move towards a common framework that will ensure ocean science can fully support countries in creating improved conditions for sustainable development of the Ocean. In this case, a framework for a National Ocean Policy.

This common framework shall be heavily influenced by the outcome of the upcoming 15th UN Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP15) this October in Kunming, China; and the 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow from November 1-12, 2021.

However, all these efforts will come to nought if we fail to secure political leadership and commitment from respective parties.

Political differences and self-interest ought to be set aside as we face our biggest challenge yet, the survival and well-being of humanity.

#ecosystemrestoration #oceandecade #EarthDay2021 #oceanliteracy #oceanscience #malaysiaoceanpolicy #oceanpolicy

---

As a matter of urgency, Reef Check Malaysia calls for an adaptive, science-informed National Ocean Policy, responsible and collective management of the ocean ecosystem and resources supported by strong political will and leadership, fortified with legal and institutional reforms that could withstand political changes, for the benefit of the country and future generations.

Malaysia Marine Policy

In 2020, following a review of its activities over the last five years, RCM prepared a new five-year strategic plan for the period 2021-2025. The review confirmed that our vision is still very relevant today: “Sustainably managed coral reefs in Malaysia”. However, as a result of the review, we developed some new goals, which are much more specific than previously: it focuses on local stakeholder participation in management and building resilience of ecosystems and communities. A third goal looks at strengthening policy and legal frameworks to support improving marine resource management. To pursue this goal, we added a couple of new programme areas, one of which focuses on policy.

A quick google search on “Malaysian marine policy” quickly brings up a number of results…mainly lamenting the lack of any such policy! Back in 2019, Tun Mahathir spoke at the National Maritime Conference 2019 in Pulau Langkawi. He said that there is a need for an overarching maritime policy in Malaysia encompassing all aspects — including security, safety, economy and environment. Apparently, at the time Malaysia had no less than 15 federal laws and orders to manage its maritime space, while the enforcement of these laws is entrusted on 31 maritime-related agencies from more than 10 ministries. Numerous articles – both in the scientific press and the mainstream media – support the need to improve policies relating to marine conservation.

RCM is increasingly engaged in working with local communities to encourage participatory management of marine resources – through co-management systems, for example. There are plenty of examples from around the region that demonstrate that co-management creates better conservation outcomes. However, one of the greatest challenges we face is poor regulatory and policy support for the very concept of stakeholder participation. The strongest policy support comes in the form of the National Policy on Biological Diversity. Target 2 states that: By 2025, the contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society and the private sector to the conservation and sustainable utilisation of biodiversity have increased significantly. The first indicator calls for policy and legal provisions to be developed – by 2021. Still on such provisions.

As we emerge from the restrictions imposed by the covid pandemic and start to travel again – often to places with fragile ecosystems, let’s make sure that our recovery doesn’t damage the very places we want to visit. Let’s push for better policies to control visitor numbers, and reduce damaging activities. But most of all – let’s allow local stakeholders a say in how the resources they rely for their livelihoods are managed. Allowing them a say creates more buy-in and ownership – creating the better conservation outcomes mentioned previously.

Managing our ocean resources responsibly through a National Ocean Policy

This article is the fifth of a six-part bi-weekly series culminating in an editorial piece advocating for an integrated ocean policy for Malaysia.

PART FIVE: NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

Just as we have worked together in combatting the Covid-19 pandemic, we must now support a much-needed transformative change in the form of an adaptive ocean policy supported by a dynamic form of governance to address many decades-old ocean problems that have turned into a crisis.

Tioman Waters, Photo Credit: Alvin Chelliah

The ocean is one huge inter-connected water body that covers more than 70% of the Earth’s surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all living things on Earth, including us.

The ocean is key to addressing many of the global challenges facing the planet from world food security and climate change to the provision of energy, natural resources, and improved medical care. In 2010, the OECD very conservatively estimated the value of the ocean economy at USD1.5 trillion. It is forecasted that by 2030, the ocean economy would double in size to USD3 trillion, providing full-time employment for around 40 million people.

Unfortunately, as the ocean economy expands, so will the growing pressures on marine resources and ocean space.

As we prosper from these finite resources, we neglected the health of the ocean, treating it as our dumping ground and plundering its resources, causing unpredictable, uneven, and uncertain effects for society, including varied risks for human health.

Ocean crises such as plastics, trash, pollution, and overexploitation of fishing resources are not new, and inadequately addressed. Governments around the world recognise that these are serious issues. Nevertheless, progress is painfully slow.

While the commitment of the United Nations member countries, including Malaysia, towards achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets are commendable, the world has failed to meet any of the targets (refer to the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 report).

“Earth’s living systems as a whole are being compromised. And the more humanity exploits nature in unsustainable ways and undermines its contributions to people, the more we undermine our own wellbeing, security and prosperity.”

___________________________

Elizabeth Maruma Mrema,
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Executive Secretary 

Institutional and Legal Challenges

One factor attributable to the slow progress of the Aichi Targets is that ocean issues and challenges are nestled within conflicting political, social, economic, and environmental systems across multiple scales of time, space, location, involving a diversity of stakeholders.

In most countries, ocean industries and coastal-based resource management (including conservation) are typically managed sectorally by multiple government authorities guided by exclusive policies, institutional arrangements, and legal instruments. This creates overlaps in jurisdiction and authorities; inconsistencies and gaps in legislative frameworks; amplifies multiple-use conflicts; increases duplication of efforts; creates unclear paths for stakeholders in pursuing interests and raises concerns on many uncoordinated approaches by different parties in similar issues. The same can be said for Malaysia with the inherently delicate relationship between the Federal and State governments. There are at least 32 key legislations (both Federal and State) concerning biodiversity conservation in Peninsular Malaysia; seven (7) in Sabah and eight (8) in Sarawak. These legislations are enforced by several authorities; each with its own objectives and coordination mechanisms.

National Ocean Policy around the world

Learning from the Covid-19 crisis management experience, cross-cutting policies must be adaptive, and implementation will require a dynamic form of governance that allows managers to respond rapidly to changes in space and time(1). In other words, an adaptive ocean policy must institutionalise participatory processes across systems and sectors and be able to support integrative and dynamic management.

By 2015, fifteen developed and developing nations[1] had articulated and implemented an integrated, ecosystem-based ocean policy governing the ocean areas under their jurisdiction. This includes developing goals and procedures to harmonize existing uses and laws to foster sustainable development of ocean areas, protect biodiversity and vulnerable resources and ecosystems, and coordinate the actions of the many government agencies that are typically involved in oceans affairs.

Since then, countries such as Fiji (2020 – working draft), Solomon Islands (2018), Indonesia (2017), and Vanuatu (2016) have developed their version of a National Ocean Policy.

Malaysia

In 2011, Malaysia drafted a version of a “National Ocean Policy” through the office of the National Oceanographic Directorate (NOD), Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI). It serves as a basis for developing future strategies, framework and action plans concerning the management of ocean and coastal environment and resources.

The draft policy covers a range of recommendations that include a sustainable ocean economy that encourages public-private partnerships; transforming ocean and coastal-based industries; and strengthening knowledge in marine science and technology to drive innovation-led growth. It also proposes a National Ocean Data Management Strategy to address issues such as data standardisation.

Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP)

Furthermore, the draft policy dedicated a whole chapter on building awareness, developing and retaining a marine talent base by increasing the competency of tertiary graduates, nurturing marine science and innovation entrepreneurs, increasing opportunities in upskilling for the existing workforce, and growing our capacity to train and certify seafarers.

The draft policy also emphasised building a coastal and marine environment that enhances the quality of life of the people. It encourages the development of a climate-resilient ocean sector, undertakes measures for climate adaptation and mitigation, exploration of ocean renewable energy by applying ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning approaches.

Several recommendations were made to affect changes to the current national ocean governance system that includes updating and harmonising ocean-related legislation and rationalising existing governmental institutions and structures.

Since then, individual experts and organisations have called for the development of (or revisit) the (draft) National Ocean Policy for Malaysia. The draft requires updating and considers current initiatives, which include moving towards a blue economy; and embrace digital and technological advances in big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IOT) and robotics as tools for problem-solving. Another critical element to the NOP would be the allocation for a robust ocean literacy program to improve knowledge in sciences to drive science-policy interface and decision-making; and building awareness amongst people.

As a responsible nation, Malaysia is expected to meet its international obligations such as those committed in the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals by translating those commitments into national actions.

Lessons from Covid-19 and building back better

This article is the fourth of a six-part bi-weekly series culminating in an editorial piece advocating for an integrated ocean policy for Malaysia.

PART 4: SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

In May 2021, the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) is set to negotiate, and hopefully agree on, a new target to place at least 30% of the Earth’s surface under conservation status by 2030. This means funding needs for management will be increased further, a challenging feat in light of devastating effect of the global Covid-19 pandemic. The Waldron Report finds that the financial and economic benefits of 30% protection exceed the costs by a factor of at least 5:1. Less straightforward to quantify, but no less important, are the cultural and spiritual values provided by protected areas. However, the annual cost of achieving this is estimated to be between USD103 to 178billion (incl. the USD68billion required to manage the existing system effectively).

Protected areas are generally reliant on a very narrow financing base.

International development assistance accounts for almost a third of protected area funding in Africa and up to 90% in some cases. Nearly 80% of the annual budget for conservation authorities in the Eastern and Southern African countries comes from tourism revenue. This type of funding – which is reliant on international and governmental funding support and revenue from tourism is echoed throughout the world. Malaysia is no exception – but it registered a decrease of 68.2% of tourist arrivals in the first half of 2020. It is safe to assume that a similar percentage decrease affected the tourism industry in marine protected areas as well.

Before the pandemic, protected areas around the world received roughly 8 billion visits per year and generated approximately USD600 billion per year in direct in-country expenditures and USD250 billion per year in consumer surplus.

For many marine protected areas, the negative impacts of the pandemic are particularly severe for the local communities. Most of their livelihoods are dependent on the tourism industry and as the industry came to a near standstill, they have had to rely on the government for their livelihoods and well-being.

In some cases, communities are forced to fish illegally for subsistence or undertake other forms of illegal activities to get by.

At a time when the public is understandably preoccupied and unable to participate in decision-making processes, some governments may (and in some cases already) undermine, weaken, or re-interpret environmental regulations and their implementation, and reduce conservation funding to realise short-term economic gains.

Reduced budgets and revenue translate to weakened management capacity including monitoring and enforcement activities. This leads to increased illegal activities, as seen recently when more than 200 Chinese fishing vessels with suspected records of IUU fishing were spotted just outside of Galapagos Islands territorial waters.

In light of the pandemic, the need for equitable governance for marine protected areas (MPAs) and fair benefit-sharing are critical more than ever, yet many MPAs lack inclusive governance processes. Formal governing agencies and institutions often operate independently from those responsible for social development, leading to a silo approach. Equitable forms of governance require that power be decentralised to local levels, which can be met with resistance from those in authority. However, studies found that in the face of the reduced capacity of management authorities caused by the pandemic, some sites had to decentralise their authority. This involved the transfer of some monitoring and enforcement power to local communities through increased community surveillance and collaboration, and information-sharing with state-led enforcement agencies.

“Building back better”.

In a recent paper published by PARKS, case studies show at least four main areas where marine protected areas illustrate either vulnerability or resilience to the pandemic:

(i)               sustainable financing

(ii)              devolved and equitable management

(iii)             adaptive monitoring and enforcement

(iv)             communications capacity.

All of which are addressed and built into the IUCN’s Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas Standard (the IUCN Green List Standard) and have been practised (though in limited scope) by NGOs such as Reef Check Malaysia in its Tioman Island and Mantanani project sites.

Mantanani Island. Photo credit: Adzmin

Sustainable Financing for management and livelihood

Experience taught us to diversity our products. Virtual tourism can be further expanded beyond videos and photographs, to virtual dives – bringing the ocean experience to museums, community centres, schools, live feed applications etc. Other options that have the potential for expansion includes blue finance programmes and crowdfunding. “Blue carbon credits” are gaining interest to fund the protection and restoration of mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass.

Substantial costs incurred through government funding can be reduced by giving communities responsibility for management in exchange for secure access to resources. Microfinance, such as community-led savings and loan schemes, which allow people to save money and access credit in exchange for playing an active role in the management of the area, have proven useful during the pandemic.

Other alternative sources of funds include community-based commercial activities such as those started by Reef Check Malaysia in Mantanani Island to improve the socio-economic status and social well-being of the community.

Kebun Komuniti / Community Garden - One of the economic recovery projects set up for the local community of Mantanani Island to support their livelihoods. Photo Credit: Adzmin

Devolved (Decentralised) and equitable management

In many places, communities and community-based or co-managed governance system have shown some resilience and capacity to adapt to unexpected circumstances, in this case, the pandemic. For example, the loss of international tourism in the Galapagos led to the emergence of new commerce enabled by local production and trade. Studies have shown that areas with strong local community governance structures are often able to weather crisis events and secure support from partner organisations and governmental services. It is critical to mainstream equity and benefit-sharing through empowerment and reinforcement of local institutions.

In Malaysia, the Department of Fisheries Malaysia established a program called “Reef Care” – a programme that would give local communities some responsibility in managing marine resources within the MPAs of Peninsular Malaysia. Two of the 11 Reef Care partners are Reef Check Malaysia and the Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) managing an area off Kg Tekek on Tioman Island. Though small in scale, the Reef Care program has the potential for expansion in light of the many challenges facing the government during the pandemic.

RCM & TMCG members conducting reef surveys around the reefs of Tioman Island. Photo credit: Alvin Chelliah

Adaptive Monitoring and Enforcement

Understandably, the pandemic has slowed, and in some placed stopped, activities in protected areas especially research, monitoring, and enforcement. Programmes that rely heavily on data collection by individuals or groups living outside of MPAs and their adjacent communities have been badly impacted. Some areas adapted using emerging technologies such as mobile software, drones, and remote sensing technologies. Post-Covid-19 sees a continued need to build capacity for locally based monitoring that also provides employment and opportunities to engage local communities in park management.

Communications, coordination, and collaboration capacity

The pandemic situation led to the extensive use of mobile and virtual communication technology. The reliance on technology for virtual meetings and remote education has demonstrated the potential for a wider adoption for public engagement in remote or large-scale MPAs - though many countries would need to invest in network infrastructure, especially for areas inaccessible to normal communication platforms. Encouragingly, Community Cellular Networks – low-cost cellular radios managed locally - have been deployed in countries such as Mexico, the Philippines and Indonesia with much success. This has enabled communities to share experiences and learning with communities beyond their MPAs and is proving very useful for income generation activities; e.g., online commerce selling local products.

In a nutshell, the pandemic proves that management, especially in protected areas, must be adaptive to change through the building of social-ecological resilience. Extended exposure requires that more attention must be given to resilience, and meaningful integration with the social, cultural, political, and economic context of each site.

The pandemic opened a window of opportunity for us to rethink and rebuild human and natural relationships and create MPAs that are locally and collaboratively driven, supported by innovative technologies, tools, and ethical financing mechanisms. An adaptable and integrated island and MPA management plan are critical for all sites if we are to meet all of the international goals and targets that we set ourselves.  

Why should we care and where do marine protected areas fit in?

This article is the third of a six-part bi-weekly series culminating in an editorial piece advocating for an integrated ocean policy for Malaysia.

PART 3: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

The hunt for fish escalates as global consumption climbs risking the collapse of fisheries

The UN SOFIA 2020 Report published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) revealed that the yearly growth rate (between the period of 1961-2017) of global fish consumption is 3.1%, far outpacing both the world population expansion rate of 1.6%  and the 1.1% for meat consumption.

In per capita terms, global food fish consumption rose from 9.0kg in 1961 to 20.3kg in 2017; and has risen to an estimated 20.5kg in 2018.

However, people in developing countries have a larger share of fish protein in their diets, with the highest per capita fish consumption found in small island developing states (SIDs), particularly in Oceania. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia’s per capita consumption is double in comparison to the global average at 40.9 kg, the second-highest after Cambodia at 63.2kg per year.

As the world surpassed the 7 billion people mark and heading towards 8.5 billion in 10 years, a sustainable supply of seafood is critical to global food security.

Already, due to overfishing and rampant illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, over a third of global fisheries (34.2%) are operating at biologically unsustainable levels. Without proper management, it is courting potential collapse of fisheries that will expose those working throughout the fisheries supply chain to serious socio-economic risk.

The collapse of the Atlantic Northwest cod fishery

We hope to learn from the collapse of the Atlantic Northwest cod fishery when in 1992, the cod biomass fell to 1% of the 1980s level. It forced the Canadian Government to declare a total shut-down (moratorium) on the fishery, until now. The collapse was due to simply poor fishery management. The technological advances allowed vessels to trawl in bigger areas, more in-depth and for a longer time. Electronic tracking systems enabled crews to locate fish with unparalleled success. The Canadian catches peaked in the late-1970s and early-1980s.

Predictably, rampant overfishing means cod stocks were depleted at a much faster rate than they could be replenished. The government had overestimated how many cod there were and did not act when it first became clear the fish were disappearing. Overnight, 38,000 people found themselves out of work. It was the single largest layoff in Canada’s history.

Closer to home, in the Eastern Indian Ocean, Indian mackerels and anchovies stocks are either fully exploited or overexploited.

If we are to learn from past mistakes and meet future demands, we must accelerate sustainable fisheries management and consistently explore effective conservation approaches on a global scale without sidelining the local communities.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and sustainable fisheries management

Coupled with fisheries management, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is a proven approach towards sustainable use of the oceans, increasing long-term production of fisheries.

In a published article by Nature, researchers observed that to provide benefits to fisheries, successful MPAs across the globe must share all or most of the following five key conditions: whether or not the zones were fully protected, enforced, old (more than 10 years), large (more than 100 km2) and isolated (for example, a remote island or a patch of reef surrounded by large sandy areas). They further observed that conservation value was nearly absent in MPAs with fewer than three of these factors, and then increased exponentially when it meets three to five factors.

The correlation of these factors with the proposed increase of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) current 10% coastal and ocean protection target (by 2020), to 30% of the planet by 2030 shows that the international commitments made by governments are now based on good science.

With the current rate of ocean protection hovering at 7% of the total ocean, the call to meet the 30% protection target is a tall order, nonetheless, vital to ensure significant transformation.

Implementation must secure serious commitments from all parties, akin to the level of commitment shown to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.

When the world came to a standstill due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it highlighted the fragility of the MPA funding model. The majority of the MPAs are almost fully dependent on tourism-related fees and taxes as a primary source of funding. With the loss of this income, management capacity has taken a huge hit with many conservation programs, infrastructure and personnel expenses kept at a minimum. Critically, the collapse of tourism severely affected the livelihoods and food security of the local communities.

In several countries, government funds are diverted to funding pandemic emergency-related expenses. This translates to a declining capacity for monitoring, enforcement and other management activities and has left MPAs vulnerable to illegal fishing, poaching and other prohibited activities.

Moving Forward

On a positive note, the pandemic has created opportunities to revisit and improve current approaches through good and proven practices, that will also meet local needs. It is creating a space for needed local leadership in marine conservation and scientific efforts. Innovations in conservation, good models, and a shift in global economic investments are emerging.

From a fisheries resource management perspective, the current Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) approach must improve and embrace the full extent of integration for co-management and other forms of shared governance approach with all stakeholders, especially the local and indigenous communities.

Co-management and participatory approach are also at the heart of any successful MPA management. The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas is a standard of best practice for area-based conservation.  It is a certification program aimed to increase the number of protected and conserved areas around the world that deliver successful conservation outcomes, including the sustainability of fisheries resources. One of the requirements of the Standard that reflects the importance of a participatory approach is that management plans must take into account information on natural values and associated ecosystems services and cultural values provided by the local and indigenous communities when developing spatial restriction areas.

As the main economic driver in MPAs, tourism industry players must evaluate their business development models factoring in the impact of the industry on the surrounding environment. We strongly recommend the tourism industry players, particularly the public policy-managers and destination managers; and hotels (and tour operators) to explore the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) Criteria. It provides for minimum requirements that any tourism business or destination should aim for while maintaining the sustainability of the world’s natural and cultural resources and supporting tourism to meet its potential as a tool for conservation and poverty alleviation.

Coral reefs at Tioman Island, Malaysia. Photo by Alvin Chelliah.

Ocean resources have long been taken for granted. They are natural assets from which humans derive a wide range of goods and services. However, this value has not been factored in through the traditional economic indicators. Fortunately, there is a growing case for why investing in nature should be a viable proposition for the private sector. In November 2020, the IUCN launched the Nature+ Accelerator Fund, a private sector-focused nature conservation fund offering investment capital for nature-based solutions (NbS) projects.

In essence, all of these solutions can be implemented now.

What is missing, at least for Malaysia, is the acceptance of the fact that decisive action in the form of a cohesive national ocean resources policy is required to resolve many cross-cutting issues and challenges. This will require cooperation from multiple authorities and stakeholders. We also must meet the international commitments that have been made. Leaders must demonstrate strong political will for change and the tenacity to see it through despite any political changes for the sake of the future generation.