Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have emerged as a key tool in global efforts to conserve marine biodiversity, restore degraded ecosystems, and ensure the sustainable use of marine resources. These designated zones, where human activities such as fishing are regulated or restricted, have gained prominence in international conservation frameworks like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Global trend for MPA

Over the past decades, the global coverage of MPAs has expanded significantly, driven by international policy frameworks, scientific advocacy, advocacy by the powerful environmentalists and the recognition of oceans as critical to addressing climate change and sustaining human livelihoods.
1. Biodiversity Conservation : Declining marine species and habitats, such as coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, have underscored the need for conservation. MPAs are seen as critical tools to halt and reverse biodiversity loss ad are often established to safeguard species like sea turtles, sharks, and marine mammals that are threatened by human activities.
2. International Commitments and Policy Frameworks such as
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) : that aims for ecological representativeness and equity in marine conservation.
• Aichi Biodiversity Targets : Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Target 11 aimed to protect 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020, spurring rapid MPA designation.
• 30x30 Initiative : The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) : SDG 14 (Life Below Water) emphasizes sustainable management and protection of marine ecosystems.
• High Seas Treaty/ agreements : The legally binding agreement under the UN to protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ
• are significant driver for creating MPAs in the high seas.
3. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Recognition of MPAs’ role in climate mitigation, particularly in blue carbon ecosystems (mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes), to help preserve ecosystems that act as natural buffers against climate impacts, such as coral reefs reducing storm surges, protection for critical species migration and adaptation under shifting environmental conditions are all drivers of expansion of MPA
4. Advocacy from conservation organizations and scientists : showing the positive impacts of MPAs on biodiversity, fisheries, global campaigns like the “30x30” initiative have mobilized public and political support for MPAs.
5. Collaborative Governance Models, increasing recognition of the role of co-management and community-led conservation has encouraged the establishment of MPAs that align with local needs while financial incentives from organizations like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), World Bank, and private foundations have enabled countries to expand MPAs.
6. Recognition of the overexploitation of marine resources, marine pollution has prompted urgent action to establish MPAs.
7 . and for Political and Economic Factors countries establish MPAs to demonstrate leadership in global conservation efforts.

While these drivers highlight a growing consensus on the importance of marine conservation, a significant gap remains : the absence of fishers and fish workers from global and national decision-making platforms where policies are shaped, and in the establishment and management of MPAs often with detrimental impacts on their livelihoods.

The Silence of the Nets : Absence of fishers and fish workers in decision-making on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Fisheries are critical to coastal communities, providing livelihoods, food security, and cultural heritage. Yet, their voices are conspicuously absent in decision-making fora on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

Fisheries have long been an integral part of coastal livelihoods, providing food, income, and cultural identity to millions worldwide. These practices, often rooted in traditional ecological knowledge, are inherently linked to the health and sustainability of marine ecosystems.
As global conservation efforts intensify, recognizing and harnessing the role of fishers in marine conservation has become critical particularly small-scale fishers and indigenous communities

Despite being key stakeholders and custodians of aquatic ecosystems, fishers, particularly small-scale and artisanal groups, indigenous peoples, are often marginalized in policy and governance frameworks. This exclusion not only undermines their rights but also jeopardizes sustainable fisheries management by disregarding valuable local knowledge and lived experiences.

Systemic barriers to the inclusion of fishers and fish workers in decision-making processes are deeply rooted in structural and institutional frameworks. These challenges are further compounded by the gendered dimensions of exclusion, with women fishers and processors facing unique obstacles that render them largely invisible in the discourse, perpetuating their marginalization.

Decision-making processes often favor powerful stakeholders, such as commercial fishers, tourism operators, and government agencies, side-lining fisher,SSF communities and indigenous peoples.

these fishers often lack financial resources to participate in formal decision-making forums, leading to underrepresentation, and limiting their ability to influence conservation policies. During the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon, fishers were largely absent, and a similar pattern is likely to occur at the upcoming UN Ocean Conference in Nice next year.

Moreover, while there has been a subtle yet significant shift towards a multi-stakeholder approach in global decision-making, this framework presents considerable challenges for indigenous peoples, local communities, and small-scale producers. Engaging in these international processes demands substantial time, funding, efficient organization, and a deep understanding of the mechanisms involved, resources that many fishers, indigenous people and small-scale fishers lack. Consequently, they remain fragmented and weak, struggling to compete with the well-organized and resourced corporate or environmentalist.

MPAs are often planned and governed from urban or regional centers, far from the fishing communities they affect which limits access to consultations while women and other marginalized groups face additional barriers due to entrenched gender roles and social norms.

Many fisher particularly SSF lack awareness or understanding of MPA policies and their implications due to inadequate outreach or education efforts by decision-makers.

MPA policies are often designed and enforced without meaningful consultation, reflecting a "command-and-control" approach that excludes local knowledge and priorities.

Fishers, SSF and indigenous peoples are frequently treated as passive beneficiaries rather than active contributors in consultations, with meetings scheduled at inaccessible times or locations.

Many legal systems fail to formally recognize fisher, SSF and indigenous people’s rights, making it easy to overlook their role in governance while the overlapping jurisdictions among environmental, fisheries, and tourism departments create bureaucratic confusion, side-lining SSF voices.

We are all aware of the growing bias towards fishing versus conservation. Conservation objectives are increasingly prioritizing biodiversity over the socio-economic needs of fisher and SSF communities, framing their practices as threats rather than sustainable contributions.
In France the conservation of the dolphin has taken priority over fishing, although livelihoods are not at stake, fisheries as a mode of food production is threatened
The establishment and management of MPAs often accompanied by the exclusion of fishers and indigenous peoples from decision-making processes has had profound socio-economic and ecological implications, on fishers particularly for the livelihoods of SSF communities, indigenous peoples whose traditional practices and access to marine resources are frequently disrupted. These communities are among the primary stakeholders of marine ecosystems, relying on them for food security, income, and cultural identity particularly small-scale fisher and indigenous communities.
MPAs that commonly impose limitations on where and when fishing can occur, including outright bans in no-take zones have reduced catch and income, increased fishing pressure in non-protected areas, potentially leading to overfishing elsewhere and longer travel distances to alternative fishing grounds, raising costs and safety risks.
In one of the fishing villages in Uganda, Kiziru a Lacustrine protected areas were created and fisher have to travel long distance navigating past a very big MPA to access other fishing grounds.

When traditional fishing grounds are incorporated into MPAs, fishers may be displaced, losing access to critical resources. This displacement has caused :
• Economic hardship and food insecurity.
• Cultural and social disconnection, as fishing is often central to community identity.
• Struggles to transition to alternative livelihoods, particularly in regions with limited economic opportunities.

MPAs have often exacerbated tenure insecurity of fishers, SSF and indigenous peoples, who often lack formal recognition of their customary fishing rights. This has led to
• Conflicts over resource use and uncertainty about long-term access to resources, reduces incentives for sustainable practice
• In Mukono, the fishing community is conflicting with the establishment of the Lacustrine protected areas, that is not only too large to navigate but its boundaries are not marked. Fisher are often arrested for fishing in the grounds resulting in bribing, bribes to fish in the protected area which undermines the overall aim why it was created.
• Without inclusion of fisher effective enforcement of MPA regulations has been challenging, particularly in developing countries and inland fisheries where the communities are isolated.
• The unfair targeting of small-scale fishers while larger violators go unchecked has caused frustration and mistrust among fishers, undermining the legitimacy of conservation efforts.
MPAs have gendered impacts, particularly on women, who play crucial roles in SSFs, such as processing and trading fish. And limited consideration of women’s roles and needs in MPA planning has reduced access to resources critical for women’s economic activities and increased labor burdens as women seek alternative livelihoods or manage household food security.

MPAs often fail to address broader threats from other sectors, such as industrial fishing, coastal development, or pollution. Fisher may bear the brunt of conservation restrictions while more significant threats remain unaddressed, leading to a perception that conservation efforts unfairly target fishers while ignoring larger, causes.
The impacts of climate change, such as shifting fish stocks and habitat loss, can interact with MPAs, making them less effective or more burdensome for SSFs. As Fishers may need to adapt their practices or migrate, further complicating compliance with MPA rules.

However, there are Opportunities : Towards Inclusive MPA Governance

As MPAs have the potential to yield ecological and socio-economic benefits if properly designed and managed. The success of MPAs in delivering these benefits, however, hinges on inclusive governance, equitable benefit-sharing, and the meaningful participation of fishers, SSF and indigenous peoples in planning and management.

Fisheries, particularly Small-scale fishing practices offer a pathway to integrate conservation and development goals. By valuing traditional knowledge, supporting tenure rights, and fostering collaborative governance, conservation initiatives can align more closely with the needs and aspirations of fishing communities.
Policymakers and conservationists must acknowledge the dual role of fisheries as both stewards of marine ecosystems and essential drivers of sustainable coastal economies. Efforts should focus on bridging the gap between conservation and social justice by advocating for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that harmonize biodiversity protection with the rights and livelihoods of fishers.
Conservation approaches must prioritize the preservation of marine resources as a vital source of food and focus on placing fishers and their communities that are dependent on marine resources for their nutrition and livelihood at the centre of decision-making. Fishers, particularly Small-scale fishers, indigenous peoples who rely on healthy fish stocks for their livelihoods and food security, are key stewards of marine ecosystems and must be empowered to lead conservation efforts.

This means a shift to focus on protecting marine resources as a critical food source for humanity. By adopting inclusive policies, promoting sustainable fishing practices, and respecting the rights of fishing communities, we can ensure the balance between ecological health and human well-being. Fishers, not just resources, must be the focus of conservation to build resilient, food-secure futures.

Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines)

The development of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations highlights the critical intersection of marine conservation and small-scale fisheries. These guidelines adopt a rights-based approach, underscoring the importance of tenure rights, social justice, and active community engagement
5.5 States should recognize the role of small- scale fishing communities and indigenous peoples to restore, conserve, protect and co- manage local aquatic and coastal ecosystems.
5.15 States should facilitate, train and support small-scale fishing communities to participate in and take responsibility for, taking into consideration their legitimate tenure rights and systems, the management of the resources on which they depend for their well-being and that are traditionally used for their livelihoods.
…Accordingly, States should involve small-scale fishing communities – with special attention to equitable participation of women, vulnerable and marginalized groups – in the design, planning and, as appropriate, implementation of management measures, including protected areas, affecting their livelihood options.

Equity
The inclusion of fisher communities in the management of MPA’s is fundamentally an equity issue, as it addresses historical power imbalances and ensures fair participation in decision-making processes that directly impact their lives. fishers often rely on marine resources for their livelihoods, cultural practices, and food security, yet they are frequently excluded from governance structures that determine access and use of these resources. This exclusion perpetuates socio-economic inequities, as conservation policies disproportionately affect marginalized groups who have limited alternative livelihoods.
Recognizing fisher communities as critical stakeholders in MPA management is essential for procedural equity, ensuring their voices are heard, and for distributive equity, ensuring they benefit from conservation efforts. Moreover, incorporating their traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) enhances the effectiveness of MPAs, creating a more just and sustainable approach to marine resource management that balances ecological health with the well-being of dependent communities.

Human rights
Exclusion of fisher in the establishment and management of MPA is a human rights issue because it involves their fundamental rights to participation, livelihood, and cultural identity. These communities have the right to be consulted and actively participate in decisions that affect their lives and environments, as enshrined in international human rights frameworks such as :-
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),
3. Universal declaration of the Rights of Peasants and those working in rural areas UNIDROP)
4. the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
That affirm the right of communities to actively participate in decisions that affect their lives and resources.
For fisher communities, MPAs that often impose restrictions that limit access to traditional fishing grounds, undermining their right to food and work violates their rights.

Furthermore, their cultural and spiritual connections to marine ecosystems are integral to their identity and must be protected as part of their rights.
Ensuring their meaningful participation in MPA management is not only a matter of conservation effectiveness but also a necessary step toward upholding their dignity, autonomy, and safeguarding their human rights,
These challenges are manifested in many fisher communities both inland and marine threatening both the sustainability of marine ecosystems and the socio-economic stability of those who rely on them. It is such circumstances that drives our collaboration with the fisher in France under the WFF as we are experiencing similar threats.