by A new study published in the journal One Earth explores how marine biodiversity conservation, human health and well-being are linked. The results suggest that marine protected areas can be good for both the planet and people.
These parts of the ocean are legally recognized by governments as important for marine conservation. They are protected by imposing restrictions on human activities in and around them.
Once a government declares a marine protected area, you usually can’t live in it, fish, build a beach resort, start a fish farm or drill for oil. The rules vary from place to place, but the idea is to allow nature to flourish by limiting human activity as much as possible.
With plans to expand ocean protection under the ’30×30′ target of the UN-endorsed biodiversity plan (which aims to cover 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030 protect), it is important to know what consequences this will have for both people and nature.
The research was conducted by the conservation organization World Wide Fund for Nature, the Harvard Institute of Public Health and Duke University’s marine laboratory. The team, led by marine naturalist Daniel Viana, reviewed all scientific articles written since 1973 about marine protected areas and their impact on people.
They found that of the 234 marine protected areas around the world that were closely monitored, more than 60% showed improvements in both conservation and human well-being.
The study included marine protected areas that allow “sustainable use” through managed and selective fishing activities. These are fishing methods, such as using a hook and line or a fish trap, that do not cause physical damage to sensitive habitats such as coral reefs.
The article suggests that in most cases, investing in marine protected areas directly benefits the health and livelihoods of people living nearby. Larger harvests of fish and other aquatic foods, such as shellfish and seaweed, are usually the source of the benefits. Fishermen’s incomes increase and community access to nutrient-rich aquatic foods improves.
The benefits of marine protection for fisheries-based livelihoods are greatest in small island states with large marine protected areas, such as Bonnaire, Palau and the Cook Islands, where more than 95% of fish catches are linked to area-based conservation measures.
Despite ample evidence that marine protection improved access to aquatic foods, the authors found surprisingly few studies that directly measured the impact on human nutrition.
Only three of the 237 studies reviewed had examined how creating marine protected areas affected the diets of the people around them. Only one study, in the Philippines, made the link between diet and health outcomes, because when access to fish in the diet improved due to marine conservation, there were fewer stunted children from surrounding communities.
Many more nutrients in the sea?
Our continents and islands are surrounded by seas, lakes, rivers and floodplains populated by edible plants and animals rich in vitamins, minerals and fatty acids.
These micronutrients from aquatic foods are highly bioavailable (easily absorbed by the body). If sustainably harvested and made available to nutritionally vulnerable people, they could prevent malnutrition among millions of coastal residents.
The new report has quantified the contribution of micronutrients to human nutrition from the aquatic foods that flourish when marine protected areas are established. It combines data on the nutrient composition of all aquatic foods harvested in and around marine protected areas with data on fish catches from surrounding areas.
The existing network of marine protected areas supports 14% of the global supply of six key micronutrients from marine fisheries. This is achieved by protecting just 8% of the world’s oceans. Allowing marine life to grow abundantly in protected areas replenishes nearby fish populations. By conserving marine life, protected areas therefore help maintain fish and shellfish stocks.
That means bigger catches, more income from fishing or tourism, and more food. More nutrients means better health. This applies both to marine protected areas with a strict no-take zone, where any form of fishing is prohibited, and to areas where regulated fishing is permitted.
As the population increases, the demand for aquatic food increases. Wild harvests are supplemented by aquaculture and mariculture – these are freshwater and marine equivalents of growing crops and livestock on land. More than half of the aquatic food consumed directly by humans is now produced from aquaculture, much of it in inland waters rather than in the sea.
But in many countries, especially island and coastal developing countries, harvesting wild foods from marine ecosystems remains crucial to feeding the more than 3 billion people who get more than 15% of their animal protein from aquatic foods.
Despite their potential to address global micronutrient nutrition, aquatic foods have until recently been underrepresented in policies and programs to end hunger and malnutrition.
But now that data is available on the nutritional composition of the world’s fish species, studies like this could advance an approach called “nutrition-sensitive fishing and aquaculture”: instead of fishing to maximize catch or profit, fishing could are managed to optimize their contribution to fisheries. human food.
Linking ocean conservation to human health is an exciting idea, but there are gaps in the research. It is not clear who benefits from increased tourism and fishing income, and whether increased catches reach those who need them most. In the Maldives, for example, more than 80% of reef fish are consumed by tourists, not locals.
Solving malnutrition with marine protected areas will be a challenge. Many marine protected areas are not managed effectively. In contrast, 77% of global fisheries catches come from sustainably managed stocks, although there is little room for expansion to meet rising demand. Aquaculture can do that, but the sector is still on its way to sustainability.
Many major threats to marine ecosystems and wild fisheries, such as climate change and pollution, cannot be effectively addressed by protecting local marine habitats alone. Despite these challenges, this research highlights that relationships between nature and humans can be regenerative, rather than exploitative.
Edward H. Allison, Honorary Visiting Professor, Reef Environments (REEFS Group), Lancaster University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
