Sharks are thriving in some marine parks—but not others. Why? – National Geographic

Report on Marine Protected Area Efficacy and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 14

Introduction and Collaborative Framework

A collaborative study was conducted to assess the abundance of shark populations within seven Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) across Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Mexico. This research directly addresses the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Below Water) by evaluating the effectiveness of marine conservation strategies. The initiative represents a significant partnership, aligning with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), and involved the following key organizations:

• Galápagos National Park Directorate
• National Geographic’s Pristine Seas initiative
• Various regional scientific institutions

Methodology

Researchers employed Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVs) to survey marine predator populations. This non-invasive technique involves using bait to attract sharks and other species to a camera system, allowing for the observation and quantification of local marine life. The data collected provides a direct measure of biodiversity and ecosystem health within the surveyed MPAs, offering critical insights for achieving SDG 14 targets.

Key Findings on MPA Effectiveness

The study revealed a stark contrast in shark abundance, directly correlated with an MPA’s remoteness and the level of enforcement against human activities. These findings are crucial for policies aimed at fulfilling SDG Target 14.5, which calls for the conservation of at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas.

1. High Shark Abundance in Remote MPAs: In remote and strictly regulated MPAs, such as the Galápagos, Malpelo, Clipperton, and Revillagigedo islands, researchers consistently observed a large number of sharks. This demonstrates that well-enforced, no-take zones are highly effective in protecting marine biodiversity and contributing to a healthy ocean, a core objective of SDG 14.
2. Low Shark Abundance in Coastal MPAs: In coastal MPAs located near significant human activity—specifically Machalilla, Galera-San Francisco, and Caño Island—shark populations were critically low. Across more than 30 deployments in these areas, only four individual sharks were recorded.
3. Impact of Illegal Fishing: The report highlights that illegal fishing persists even within designated protected areas, such as Caño Island in Costa Rica. This activity directly undermines conservation efforts and impedes progress on SDG Target 14.4, which aims to end illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
4. Threats from Coastal Human Activities: The study underscores that coastal shark populations face heightened risks from multiple anthropogenic pressures. These threats directly challenge the sustainable management of marine ecosystems as outlined in SDG Target 14.2. Key threats include:
   • Habitat destruction
   • Pollution
   • Nearshore fisheries, which are often more economically accessible than offshore operations

Conclusion and SDG Implications

The research confirms that properly enforced, remote no-take marine reserves are successful in preserving shark populations and, by extension, marine ecosystem health. Conversely, coastal MPAs are failing to provide adequate protection due to proximity to human pressures and insufficient enforcement. The study’s conclusions have significant implications for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water). The disparity in outcomes between remote and coastal MPAs provides a clear directive for policymakers: effective marine conservation requires not only designation but also robust enforcement and management of human activities to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of our oceans.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  This is the primary SDG addressed. The entire article focuses on marine life, specifically shark populations, within marine ecosystems. It discusses the protection of these ecosystems through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the threats they face from human activities like fishing and pollution, and the importance of conservation efforts for maintaining healthy oceans. The study’s focus on observing sharks in marine parks in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Mexico directly relates to the goal of conserving and sustainably using marine resources.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This SDG is connected through the article’s emphasis on governance and enforcement. The text contrasts the success of “hard-to-reach MPAs, which ban or strictly police fishing” with coastal areas where illegal activities occur. The mention of “illegal fishing” being “recorded inside [Caño’s] boundaries” and the finding that “properly enforced no-take areas… resulted in more shark and fish populations” highlights the critical role of strong, effective institutions and law enforcement in achieving conservation goals.

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

• Targets under SDG 14: Life Below Water

  • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts. The article directly addresses this by evaluating the effectiveness of MPAs (e.g., Galápagos, Malpelo) in protecting marine ecosystems. It shows that well-managed areas have a “large number of sharks,” while coastal areas near human activity suffer from “habitat destruction, pollution, and nearshore fisheries.”
  • Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. This target is explicitly relevant due to the mention of “illegal fishing” in the Caño Island MPA in Costa Rica. The study’s finding that shark populations are lower in areas with fishing pressure underscores the need to regulate harvesting to protect marine predators.
  • Target 14.5: By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas. The article is centered on the study of “seven marine parks” (MPAs), which are the primary tool for achieving this conservation target. The research evaluates the success of these designated areas in protecting biodiversity.

• Targets under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article implies this target by demonstrating the difference in outcomes between well-managed and poorly-managed protected areas. The success of remote MPAs is attributed to their being “properly enforced,” which points to the effectiveness of the institutions managing them. Conversely, the presence of illegal fishing in Caño suggests institutional weakness in enforcement.

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

• Indicators for SDG 14 Targets

  • Shark Abundance and Diversity: The primary indicator used in the study is the number of sharks observed. The researchers “counted how many animals arrived” at the baited cameras. The stark contrast between seeing a “large number of sharks” in protected zones and “only four individuals across over 30 deployments on the coastline” serves as a direct measure of ecosystem health and the effectiveness of MPAs (relevant to Targets 14.2 and 14.5).
  • Prevalence of Illegal Fishing: The article explicitly mentions that “illegal fishing has been recorded inside [Caño’s] boundaries.” The frequency and volume of such recorded incidents can serve as a direct indicator for measuring progress (or lack thereof) towards Target 14.4.

• Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

  • Effectiveness of MPA Enforcement: The article implies this indicator by linking positive outcomes to enforcement. The phrase “properly enforced no-take areas” suggests that the level of enforcement (e.g., number of patrols, fines issued, successful prosecutions for illegal fishing) can be used as an indicator to measure the institutional effectiveness described in Target 16.6.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nationalgeographic.com