New Oceanic Roadmap for Getting to 30x30

On June 10, the Ocean Protection Council adopted a new roadmap for achieving progress in the oceans sector of 30x30. For folks that read our blogs obsessively and may remember, last year, the California Natural Resources Agency (CRNA) reported no progress towards 30x30 on the oceans side. Although the percentage of new ocean water protected didn’t increase, the state did have increased investment and grants given towards programs and projects that increase the scientific monitoring of biodiversity of Marine Protected Areas that count towards the 30x30 goal. The Ocean Protection Council invested $9.5 million to support the long-term monitoring of California’s Marine Protected Area network, which includes the Tribal Marine Stewards Network—an alliance of five coastal Tribes that conducts monitoring and community engagement to return stewardship and management of ocean and coastal territories to California Tribes. This shows that although no numerical progress had been made, the quality of the existing Marine Protected Areas that count towards 30x30 was high and well looked after.

The new roadmap comes as the state is perhaps frustrated with the lack of numerical progress towards our shared goal of protecting 30% of land and coastal waters by the year 2030. The new definition of conservation under 30x30 brings the progress on the oceans side to 21.9% from a modest 16.2%. Previously, only MPAs with long-term protection and management in place counted towards the 30x30 goal. With the new definition of conservation that has been adopted, nearly the entire MPA network will count, regardless of its vague and weak levels of protection that it has. Additionally, the Marine Sanctuaries in the state will also count, even though some allow commercial fishing. This new definition will count the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary towards the progress for 30x30, which some have taken issue with because halibut bottom trawling is allowed in parts of the Chumash. Additionally, there is currently an active offshore oil drilling pipeline that is transporting oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to shore through the Sanctuary. With parts of the sanctuary allowing for the transportation of offshore oil production and bottom trawling, many environmentalists wonder if that kind of activity aligns with the goals of 30x30, the priority for the area supposedly being for biodiversity habitat.

By Murray Foubister CC BY-SA 2.0,

Due to these concerns with the new roadmap, the Power in Nature coalition, of which EPIC is a part, submitted comments to the Ocean Protection Council to push back on the adoption of the new roadmap. See details of the issues that environmentalists have with the new Roadmap to 30x30 for the ocean below in blue from the coalition’s comment letter:

“While our organizations strongly support the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary and its focus on tribal co-management, the entirety of the sanctuary is not managed for “a high degree of ecological protection.” Indeed, a portion of the sanctuary is open to the halibut bottom trawl industry – a practice that does not comport with “a high degree of ecological protection.” Further, there is currently an active offshore oil drilling pipeline that is transporting oil from the Santa Ynez Unit to shore through the Sanctuary. 

Another example of what could count as a 30x30 Conservation Area is a “lightly protected Marine Protected Area” (MPA). However, the Roadmap states that lightly protected MPAs “allow some extractive or destructive activities, with moderate total impact on biodiversity.” This description does not seem consistent with “areas that must have a high degree of ecological protection.”  How is “moderate total impact on biodiversity” equal to “a high degree of ecological protection?”

—

The Roadmap needs to include more detailed standards for what meets the biodiversity management criterion.

The Roadmap states that National Marine Sanctuaries, Indigenous Marine Stewardship Areas, Lightly Protected Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and Areas that are not MPAs but may still contribute to biodiversity conservation may be counted as 30x30 Conservation Areas. However, there are no details or standards to provide additional guidance as to how these areas may be counted. Instead, the Roadmap points to the need to conduct “case-by-case” evaluations without providing any further criteria of what would be used in such an evaluation. The Decision Tree on page 11 – which is assumed to have been created to provide more detail for evaluation -- uses phrases such as “ways that achieve significant biodiversity benefits,” “conservation benefits,” and “opportunities to strengthen protections” without any definitions, examples or details to guide what is considered “significant” or how one could measure a conservation or biodiversity “benefit” or what is a “strong protection.”  

We recommend that the Roadmap is revised to provide more detailed and/or measurable criteria to define what would – or would not -- satisfy the biodiversity management criterion. 

—

The Roadmap prematurely “counts” certain areas as meeting the 30x30 criteria.

The Roadmap states the entire State MPA network and the entire Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary qualify as “30x30 Conservation Areas,” based on the definition set forth in the Roadmap. However, we do not believe that either the entire state MPA network or the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary meet the 30x30 standard at this time.  First, as discussed above, the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary has incompatible uses occurring within some of the sanctuary. Unless and until biodiversity protections are strengthened within this sanctuary or there is a more refined analysis of what parts of the sanctuary are managed to provide a “high degree of ecological protection,” we believe that it is premature to count the entirety of this sanctuary.

—

Second, as the Decision Tree notes for “lightly protected” MPAs, there needs to be additional assessment to evaluate threats to biodiversity, conservation benefits, and potential opportunities to strengthen protections. No such evaluation appears to have been conducted for the “lightly protected” MPAs within the state network. Instead, there is a brief statement that “[i]n this decision tree, California’s network of state marine protected areas (MPAs) is considered as one cohesive highly protected site.”  There is no explanation of WHY this network is considered “one cohesive highly protected site” when 7% of the network is lightly protected with “moderate total impacts on biodiversity.”  Before the lightly protected MPAs within the state network can be counted, the Roadmap must be updated to include an explanation as to why the network is considered “one cohesive protected site” and why the Commission does not have to conduct a more detailed evaluation as required on page 9 of the Roadmap.

The weakening of the definition of conservation on the oceans side is a problem alone;

however, it also brings up another concern: Will the state try to change the definition of conservation on the land side next? You can read the rest of Power in Nature’s comments regarding the oceans framework here. The Ocean Protection Council will revisit this decision in another 6 months.