Can Pakistan reverse its dismal record on ocean protection? – Eco-Business

Assessment of Marine Protected Areas in Pakistan and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Policy vs. Implementation in Marine Conservation

This report assesses the status and effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Pakistan, with a specific focus on their contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water). While formal MPA notifications have been issued for several key sites, establishing protection measures and restrictions, significant challenges in implementation and enforcement hinder progress towards national and international conservation targets. The case studies of Astola Island, Churna Island, and Miani Hor illustrate a critical disconnect between policy designation and on-the-ground action, impacting marine biodiversity, local livelihoods, and institutional efficacy.

• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): The establishment of MPAs is a direct measure to conserve and sustainably use marine resources, addressing targets 14.2 (protect marine and coastal ecosystems) and 14.5 (conserve coastal and marine areas).
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The core challenge identified is the failure of governance and enforcement, highlighting weaknesses in institutional capacity to implement environmental law.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The degradation of marine ecosystems directly threatens the livelihoods of local fishing communities, undermining efforts to reduce poverty and ensure sustainable economic activities.

Case Study 1: Astola Island MPA

Designated in 2017, the Astola Island MPA was intended to protect significant biodiversity, including coral species, turtles, and whales, in alignment with SDG 14. The local fishing community initially supported the designation, hoping it would secure their livelihoods (SDG 1, SDG 8) by halting destructive practices.

Implementation Gaps and SDG Implications

1. Lack of Enforcement: Despite the MPA notification, no tangible action has been observed to protect the island. This failure to enforce regulations directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 14.2.
2. Persistent Environmental Threats: Destructive elements such as discarded “ghost nets,” plastics, unregulated tourism, and trawling continue to damage the ecosystem, leaving diminished catches for local fishers.
3. Institutional Failure (SDG 16): A management plan was endorsed, but the absence of enforcement officers and concrete actions points to a significant governance failure, rendering the MPA ineffective.

Case Study 2: Churna Island MPA

The Churna Island MPA was established in 2023 to safeguard local corals and fish from mounting pressures, including over-tourism and industrial development from a nearby oil refinery. Its creation, despite opposition from powerful commercial interests, represents a step towards fulfilling SDG 14 commitments.

Challenges to Effective Protection

• Lack of Community Awareness: A year after its designation, local communities and even elected representatives remain largely unaware of the MPA’s regulations and purpose. This gap prevents community participation, a key element for successful conservation.
• Unabated Destructive Practices: Trawling, electric fishing, and coral damage by tourists continue without intervention from officials, demonstrating a complete lack of enforcement and undermining the very purpose of the MPA.
• Conflict with Economic Interests: The difficulty in establishing the MPA highlights the conflict between conservation goals (SDG 14) and powerful industrial and political interests, a common barrier to sustainable development.

Case Study 3: Miani Hor MPA

Miani Hor, the country’s largest lagoon, was selected as an MPA for its rich marine life. However, it suffers from the same implementation paralysis seen in other designated areas.

Barriers to Progress

1. Information Deficit: Local populations have little to no information about the site’s protected status or what it entails, precluding any form of local stewardship or co-management.
2. Systemic Institutional Weaknesses (SDG 16): Officials cite a lack of resources as a primary cause for inaction. This points to a systemic issue where environmental departments are underfunded and deprioritized.
   • Inadequate budget allocation for environmental protection.
   • A shortage of personnel and essential equipment (e.g., monitoring boats) required for enforcement.
   • Conflicting views within the administration on whether the problem is a lack of resources or a lack of effective leadership.

National Progress and Commitment to Global Goals

Pakistan has made commendable progress in protecting terrestrial areas (19.21%) but lags significantly in marine protection, jeopardizing its ability to meet the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework “30×30” target, a crucial component of achieving SDG 14.5. While the federal government is exploring the establishment of more MPAs and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs), the current record demonstrates that designation without enforcement yields no conservation benefits.

Conclusion: The Urgent Need for Enforcement

The designation of MPAs in Pakistan marks a positive policy commitment towards SDG 14. However, the case studies of Astola, Churna, and Miani Hor reveal a critical implementation crisis rooted in weak institutional capacity, lack of funding, and poor community engagement. Without immediate and sustained enforcement, these protected areas exist only on paper, failing to protect biodiversity, secure local livelihoods, or contribute meaningfully to Pakistan’s sustainable development agenda. Strengthening governance and allocating sufficient resources for on-the-ground management are imperative to transform these “paper parks” into effective instruments of marine conservation.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • The entire article is centered on the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in Pakistan. It discusses the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) like Astola Island, Churna Island, and Miani Hor, which is a core strategy for achieving SDG 14. The article details efforts to “protect and restore habitats, biodiversity and ecological processes” and safeguard species like “corals, marine mammals and whale sharks.”

2. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • This goal is relevant as it focuses on protecting biodiversity and halting its loss. The article’s discussion on protecting endangered species and habitats within the MPAs directly aligns with this goal. It mentions the protection of “turtles” and “hundreds of species of fish, birds, mammals and invertebrates.” It also draws a comparison between marine protection and terrestrial protection, stating Pakistan has protected “19.21 per cent of its terrestrial areas and inland waters.”

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • The article connects conservation efforts to the livelihoods of local communities. It highlights how the degradation of the marine ecosystem affects local fishers, whose “catch” has “diminished” over the years due to illegal trawling and habitat destruction. The failure to implement MPA protections directly impacts their economic well-being, linking environmental health to sustainable livelihoods.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article mentions the involvement of multiple stakeholders in the conservation efforts. It notes the “relentless efforts” of government officials, the “assistance of other activists and NGOs,” and the role of “positive media coverage” in establishing the Churna MPA. It also states that the “federal government is collaborating with provincial governments and international NGOs to establish more MPAs,” highlighting the importance of partnerships.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 14.5: Conserve coastal and marine areas

   • This target aims to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas. The article is fundamentally about Pakistan’s efforts to achieve this, specifically through the designation of MPAs at Astola Island, Churna Island, and Miani Hor. The mention of the “30×30 goal” (a global target to protect 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030) shows a direct link to this conservation ambition.

2. Target 14.2: Protect and restore ecosystems

   • This target focuses on sustainably managing and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems. The MPA notifications for Churna and Miani explicitly “state the intention to protect and restore habitats, biodiversity and ecological processes impacted by human activities.” The article’s main critique is the failure to implement these plans and take action for restoration.

3. Target 14.4: End illegal fishing and destructive practices

   • The article details several destructive practices that the MPAs are meant to stop. It mentions that MPA notifications “ban explosives, chemicals, scuba guns and spear guns.” However, it also reports that “trawling, electric fishing” are “still regular occurrences,” and fishers complain that “trawlers come and destroy the habitat,” indicating a failure to meet this target.

4. Target 14.1: Reduce marine pollution

   • The article identifies specific sources of marine pollution. A fisher on Astola Island notes that “ghost nets and plastics are still there.” The Churna Island MPA was established partly to safeguard corals from the “development of an enormous oil refinery nearby,” which represents a threat of pollution from land-based activities.

5. Target 15.5: Protect biodiversity and natural habitats

   • This target calls for action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats and protect threatened species. The establishment of MPAs is a direct action towards this. The article states the MPAs aim to protect “endangered species including corals, marine mammals and whale sharks,” as well as turtles and birds, directly addressing the core of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas

   • The article provides a direct, albeit contrasting, data point for this indicator by stating that Pakistan has protected “19.21 per cent of its terrestrial areas and inland waters,” while noting that “a tiny fraction of its marine territory [is] currently protected.” This percentage of marine area coverage is the primary indicator for Target 14.5.

2. Implied Indicator: Effectiveness of MPA Management and Enforcement

   • The article heavily implies that simply designating an MPA is not enough. Progress must be measured by the effectiveness of its management. The lack of progress is shown through statements like “protections are often not implemented,” “no enforcement officers been hired,” and officials citing a “lack of funding” and “personnel.” This suggests an indicator related to management plans being implemented and resourced.

3. Implied Indicator: Prevalence of Illegal and Destructive Fishing Practices

   • The continued presence of “trawling” and “electric fishing” within the MPAs, as reported by local representative Sarfaraz Ali, serves as a clear negative indicator. A reduction in the frequency of these activities would be a measure of progress towards Target 14.4.

4. Implied Indicator: Amount of Marine Debris

   • The fisher’s observation that “ghost nets and plastics are still there” on Astola Island implies that the quantity of marine debris within protected areas is a key indicator of environmental health and the success of conservation efforts under Target 14.1.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: eco-business.com