On Track or Off Course

On track or

off course?
ASSESSING PROGRESS
TOWARD THE 30X30
TARGET FOR THE OCEAN

Consulting
Acknowledgments

About this publication

This report was produced by Metabolic Consulting. Authors: Alexandra Fox, Anne de
Valença, Doug Tenison-Collins, Elise Eijs, Laurie Lewis, Leonardo Marchetti, Maëla
Porcheron, Marta Sierra García, Pauline Peek, Willow Sommer.
It was commissioned by the Bloomberg Ocean Fund, and produced in partnership with
Campaign for Nature, the Marine Conservation Institute, and SkyTruth.
Thank you to the many experts who provided ideas and feedback: Jonathan Kelsey
and Scott Edwards at the Bloomberg Ocean Fund; Beth Pike, Sarah Hameed, and
Malik Sikander at the Marine Conservation Institute; Brian O’Donnell, Adrian Gahan,
and Katy Roxburgh at Campaign for Nature; Mitchelle De Leon and Jason Schatz at
SkyTruth; Nathalie Rey at the High Seas Alliance; Jenna Sullivan-Stack and Kirsten Ann
Grorud-Colvert at Oregon State University; Nichola Clark at Pew Charitable Trusts;
Lucas Gastaldi and Duko Hopman at McKinsey; and António de Sacramento Cabral at
Ocean Revolution Moçambique; Marjo Vierros at the Nippon Foundation-University of
Edinburgh Ocean Voices programme.
Metabolic (2024). On track or off course? – Assessing progress toward the 30x30
target for the ocean.
2 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

Consulting
Foreword
There’s no bigger challenge than the work to preserve • Are we delivering on the 30x30 commitment at the
and protect a world covered more than 70% by water pace required?
— where our collective action is urgently needed to
• Are the majority of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
protect the ocean which is essential to life on our planet.
and other effective area-based conservation
measures (OECMs) delivering conservation benefits
It’s fitting then that this is a report about ambition,
for wildlife and coastal communities?
action, and accountability. The global ambition to
protect and conserve at least 30% of the world’s land
and ocean by 2030, colloquially known as ‘30x30’, is Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding ‘no’ on
the most urgent conservation commitment ever made. both counts.
It serves as the cornerstone of the Kunming-Montreal
Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), agreed to at There is still time to protect 30% of the world’s ocean
the COP15 UN Biodiversity Summit, and its adoption by 2030 if we act together with urgency.
inspired a sense of hope in the face of spiralling
biodiversity loss. It has already galvanized global action As outlined in these pages, success requires
and historic commitments to marine protected areas, governments to:
even as we push on to meet its promise.
• significantly increase the designation of MPAs and
Because the stakes are so high, accountability must OECMs in their national waters
be equally historic: in a race against time itself, when • move swiftly to ratify the High Seas Treaty and
the scale and scope of the challenge has grown, so establish protected areas in international waters
too must our commitment keep growing just to meet
the moment and keep faith with our own ambition. • all coastal nations must take action to designate
and submit their national marine protection and
There’s no time to rest when more than 60% of the coral conservation targets in support of the global 30x30
reefs that host over 25% of marine life are threatened target.
— 90% will be in danger by 2030. No time to rest when
less than 3% of the world’s ocean is highly protected. But if there is one thread that runs through this
And no time to rest when scientists tell us our actions powerful report, it is this: protected needs to mean
this decade are what will forever shape our ability to protected. Paper promises are merely Potemkin
stop the collapse of the ocean and prevent the worst Protected Areas when we have no time for blue
of the global climate crisis. washing or self-delusion.
Every country needs to do more faster – diplomatically, Only by putting in place protections that prevent
through regulation, and with support of communities harmful activities — such as industrial and destructive
and NGOs and countries who need it – to stem the tide. fishing and fossil fuels extraction — can these areas
deliver the intended conservation benefits.
The successful implementation of 30x30 is imperative
if we are to halt the rising tide of species loss globally. Governments must also do more to recognize and
In particular, protecting and conserving at least 30% enable the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples
of the world’s ocean is vital to safeguard marine and local communities, key stewards of our planet’s
biodiversity and the billions of people who depend remaining biodiversity, and prioritize supporting their
on it for their livelihoods and food security. It is also ongoing efforts. The report highlights the Kitasoo
essential to preserving the ocean’s ability to act as our Xai’xais First Nation’s MPA, Gitdisdzu Lugyeks, and
greatest climate ally by absorbing billions of tonnes of Inhambane Bay Community Conservation Network
carbon emissions every year. in Mozambique as models of what success looks like
when Indigenous Peoples and local communities lead
This report is appropriately launched ahead of the on marine conservation. While no one template fits
COP16 UN Biodiversity Conference, in Cali, Colombia, all, these serve as examples for others and inspire
where governments will assess their progress on the greater action.
implementation of the GBF. It is a jeremiad in its own
right, but more than that we hope it is a practical
stocktake that helps answer two key questions:

Consulting
Crucially, we must recognize that richer countries have Significantly ramping up ambition and action on
a responsibility to better support the conservation effective ocean protection has never been just a nice
efforts of developing nations. They have promised to thing to do, but an imperative for ocean’s survival;
provide at least $20 billion a year to the Global South today that emergency light is blinking red, making an
by 2025 and $30 billion a year by 2030, but little in imperative truly existential.
the way of plans to deliver this has emerged. With
the deadline now fast approaching, it is critical that For too long we have run down the clock debating how
developed countries make their plans clearer at COP16, we address the ongoing nature crisis, but the science is
and that the majority of this finance is delivered in clear about one thing we can and must do: delivering
public grants, and not loans. on 30x30 will provide the necessary protections
required to safeguard our marine ecosystems and the
This report is a gut-check, a reality check, and a call lives that depend on them, not to mention help tackle
to action. the ongoing climate crisis.
The goal is to motivate all of us to do better – because Ambition, action, and accountability — for all of us:
we can. Our hope is that it will open the world’s eyes it is our sincere hope that this report will jumpstart
to just how far off the pace we have travelled when it transformative action that delivers for people and the
comes to meaningfully protecting 30% of the ocean planet.
by 2030. But it should also be seen as a roadmap for
how governments can still achieve this target in the
six years remaining, if they act with purpose.
COP16 is a moment for governments to demonstrate

serious intent to make good on their commitments.
The Our Ocean Conference in South Korea in April
2025 and the UN Ocean Conference in France in
June 2025 will also provide additional opportunities John Kerry, José María Figueres,

for them to accelerate progress on marine 30x30 by Former Secretary of Former President of
announcing new ocean protections and new finance State of the United States Costa Rica
to support conservation efforts. of America

Consulting
Outline
FOREWORD 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
01. HOW ARE WE DOING? 12
02. HOW CAN WE DO BETTER? 24

1. Increase the quantity (coverage) of areas under conservation, both in national and
international (high seas) waters and establish national marine conservation targets 26
2. Improve the quality of marine conservation (implement effective protection) 29
3. Support Indigenous Peoples and local communities 31
4. Unlock sufficient and durable (international) finance 32
5. Improve reporting and data collection 34
03. CASE STUDIES 35

United Kingdom 36
Indigenous and local approaches to conservation in Mozambique and Canada 38
Panama 39
References 40
Annex 1: Data and methodology 42
Annex 2: Full country table 44

Consulting
Executive summary
In 2022, the world’s nations committed to effectively This report provides insights into the current status
conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s land and ocean by of global ocean conservation (see Annex 1 for
2030 under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity information about data and methodologies) and five key
Framework (GBF). This 30x30 global target is the most recommendations for governments to improve and speed
ambitious conservation commitment ever made and a up action for ocean conservation. The recommendations
critical step toward addressing the dual challenges of are designed to inform discussion at the COP16 UN
climate change and biodiversity loss. Biodiversity Conference in October 2024.
In short, we are failing to meet the 30x30 target. Putting these five key recommendations high on
Countries must conserve more of their national the agenda will make reaching the 30x30 target
waters and work together to increase the protection with effective protection in place achievable. And it
of the vast area of international waters beyond their is in the interests of governments to do so. Research
borders (high seas). Moreover, the conservation of shows that effectively protected marine areas are more
the ocean must be more ‘effective’, meaning with likely to deliver the ecological, social, and economic
higher quality standards and regulation, to achieve benefits attributed to conservation. Delivering on the
the intended biodiversity outcomes outlined in the 30x30 target is essential to protect the ocean’s rich
GBF. Importantly, the work must not stop when the biodiversity, which has intrinsic value beyond human
30x30 target is met. Once reached, we will be in a benefit. By preserving marine ecosystems, we sustain
stronger position to work toward the GBF’s broader the critical provisions we depend on — such as food
ambition of humanity living in harmony with nature supply, climate regulation, and carbon capture —
by 2050. ensuring the health and balance of our planet.
GLOBAL OCEAN AREA
30%
Global goal
Conserved marine areas Implemented & Fully/

(MPA + OECM) Highly protected
8.3% 2.8%
Figure Current state of global ocean protection.

1 Source: SkyTruth & MPAtlas, August 2024.

Consulting
1 2 3 4 5
e the qua prov
e the qua digenous ock suffic rove repor
reas n Im rine conser lity rt In P Unl urable ient Impdata colle ting
Inc s under conse tity a vat po
S u p d loca
l commu eo ple
s d d fina d ctio
ea rva m nit an nc e an
of a
r tio n of io n an ie s n
1 The creation of new MPAs requires careful planning

1. Increase the quantity and consideration of ecological conditions. MPAs
(coverage) of areas under should for instance be large enough to reduce
conservation, both in national edge effects, and networks of MPAs should ensure
and international (high seas) adequate representation of ecosystems, species,
and genetic diversity, and promote ecological
waters and establish national connectivity. Moreover, efforts should be made to
marine conservation targets regenerate degraded marine ecosystems in busy and
industrialized regions, rather than just focusing on
biodiversity hotspots in remote places. Establishing
Only 8.3% of global marine areas are reported as
MPAs in high-extraction zones is particularly relevant
protected (either as MPAs or OECMs). At the current
for recovering sustainable fish stocks and for climate
rate of progress — an increase of 0.5% since the
change mitigation and resilience.
adoption of the GBF in 2022 — this figure is projected
to rise to just 9.7% by 2030. It is clear we need to
We cannot reach the 30x30 target without significant
accelerate efforts to protect marine areas if we are to
area-based protections in the high seas. These are the
achieve the 30x30 target and halt and reverse nature
parts of the open ocean that lie beyond the boundaries
loss in the long term. Countries must protect more of
of any one country, and cover two thirds of the ocean
their national waters and work together to expand
and nearly half of the planet. Yet, so far only about
protection in the vast international waters beyond
1.4% of the high seas is under some form of protection
their borders (high seas).
— and considering effective protection, this drops to
less than 1%. The High Seas Treaty, formally known as
Countries need to protect more of the marine areas
the Agreement under the United Nations Convention
within their national waters, which extend up to 200
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation
nautical miles from the coastline. In these zones,
and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas
coastal countries hold special rights to explore and
beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), once entered
manage marine resources. Only 14 countries have
into force, will establish a legal framework for creating
reported more than 30% of their waters as protected
protected areas in international waters, closing a major
areas: Monaco, Palau, United Kingdom, Kazakhstan,
gap in global ocean governance. Securing the 60
New Zealand,1 Australia, Argentina, Germany, Chile,
ratifications for the Treaty to become international
Colombia, Belgium, France, Seychelles and the
law is a necessary first step in building the institutions
Netherlands. With just six years left to achieve the
needed to conserve the high seas, including an
30% global target, countries must significantly increase
equitable financial mechanism for governance of these
their commitments and actions within their national
waters. Next, governments will need to work together
waters. While 30x30 is a global target, countries
to identify, develop, and resource protected areas.
need to set their own national targets outlining their
contribution to the global effort. Currently, the targets
set by countries are lacking in ambition, both in their
National Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plans (NBSAPs)
and other national policies. To accelerate action on
Only 8.3% of global marine
a global scale, countries must set more ambitious areas are protected
targets on the national level.
1
New Zealand protects over 30% of its waters when including Niue and the Cook Islands—an independent country and a self-
governing territory, respectively, in free association with New Zealand. Without them, the protection coverage of New Zealand’s
domestic waters stands at just 28%.

Consulting
2 in its overseas territories, highlighting a clear gap
2. Improve the quality between coverage and effectiveness in its domestic
of marine conservation waters. Although 47% of the UK’s domestic waters
(implement effective are designated as MPAs, almost none (<0.1%) of the
assessed areas are effectively protected. This is largely
protection) a result of a ‘features-based’ approach, whereby only
specific features or species are protected within an
Simply designating areas for protection is not enough. MPA rather than the whole ecosystem. Consequently,
Actual success in achieving the GBF’s biodiversity more than half of these MPAs still allow destructive
conservation targets depends on the quality of fishing methods such as bottom trawling.
the protection in these areas, otherwise termed as
effective protection. This means there is regulation Effective protection, not just coverage, should
and active management in place that ensures minimal be a priority for expanding protection of marine
or no damaging practices — such as industrial fishing, biodiversity under the 30x30 target, including
mining, and oil and gas development — allowing desired ensuring sites are at least implemented or actively
conservation outcomes to be achieved. This report managed and are highly or fully protected. This applies
reveals that, two years on from the adoption of the to both existing and future MPAs, many of which lack
GBF, just 2.8% of the world’s marine areas have been high quality standards and strong enforcement.
assessed as likely to deliver effective protection,2
underscoring the urgent need for more meaningful 3
conservation efforts (SkyTruth & MPAtlas, 2024). 3. Support Indigenous
Peoples and local
This gap between coverage and effectiveness is a communities
recurring issue, even in regions making the most
progress toward the 30% target. For instance, while
Latin America and the Caribbean appear to lead in Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities (LCs)
marine conservation, with 26.6% of ocean designated have fundamental roles to play and should be at the
as MPAs, only 2.5% has been assessed as likely forefront of marine conservation. Marine protection
effectively protected. The remaining 24% has either efforts should support, not displace, IPs and LCs, who
a very low protection level or was unassessed against have often developed sustainable practices and are key
The MPA Guide.3 North America has protected 22.3% stewards of biodiversity. Governments must recognize
of marine areas, but only 17% has been assessed as and restore the rights of IPs and ensure they have free,
likely to be effective. Europe has protected 23.3%, but prior and informed consent regarding decisions made
only 7.4% has been assessed as likely to be effectively about their waters and land. These groups should be
protected. On a country level, only two nations have enabled to create and manage marine conservation
effectively protected more than 30% of their waters: areas respective of their distinct rights. Decision-
the UK (38.9%) and Palau (77.9%). makers should incorporate traditional management
practices to ensure that conservation is culturally
However, in examining the UK case study (see page appropriate and aligned with local values. By grounding
36), we see that effective protection occurs only management strategies in traditional knowledge,
either independently or alongside modern science,
conservation can be more effective and respectful of
the communities it aims to benefit.
Effective protection, not
National governments should direct resources to
just coverage, should be include and support IPs and LCs, recognizing their
a high priority knowledge of the biodiversity they sustain.
2
See figure 3 for details on effectiveness assessment
3
See Annex 1 for details on methodology

Consulting
4 5
4. Unlock sufficient and 5. Improve reporting and
durable (international) data collection
finance
Effective protection of biodiversity relies on capacity To effectively monitor progress toward the 30x30
building, stakeholder engagement, management, target, standardized data collection is essential.
scientific research, and monitoring, all of which Current self-reported data often includes areas that
depend on adequate, continuous funding. Currently, are not implemented or lack effective protection.
governments allocate about $68 billion yearly toward To address this, decision-makers should refer to
biodiversity, but to reach the CBD’s target of $200 The MPA Guide to determine appropriate protection
billion annually from all sources by 2030, they levels tailored to specific local contexts. Moreover,
must mobilize more resources. While each country comprehensive reporting should go further. For the
is responsible for allocating adequate resources to 30x30 target to truly achieve biodiversity conservation,
manage protected areas, some degree of redistribution MPA coverage must be effective, representative,
is necessary to meet global conservation goals. well-connected, and equitable. Therefore, combining
Wealthier nations must contribute their fair share critical, reliable datasets that provide metrics for
to support countries with fewer resources, fulfilling each of these components is central to holistically
their commitments and enabling better governance of understand progress and to create a path forward.
protected areas. Under the GBF, developed countries
have committed to deliver at least $20 billion per
year to developing countries by 2025 and $30
billion by 2030. Currently, this commitment is not Finance should be affordable
being met. Furthermore, the quality of financing is and accessible, and prioritize
essential; finance should be affordable and accessible, biodiversity as
prioritize biodiversity as the primary goal, and be fairly
distributed to and focused on those local institutions the primary goal.
and communities that manage protected areas.

Consulting
DEFINITIONS
CBD: short for “United Nations Convention on MPA: acronym for “Marine Protected Area”;
Biological Diversity”; is a multilateral treaty that describing a well-defined area of the sea or ocean
came into force in 1993 after being introduced at that is recognized, designated, and managed—
the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. This treaty initiated a through legal or other effective measures—to ensure
series of international discussions and summits on the long term conservation of nature along with its
biodiversity, eventually leading to the signing of the ecosystem services and cultural values (IUCN, 2008).
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
(GBF). The CBD remains in effect today, serving as a National waters: defined as an area of the ocean
foundational framework for all biodiversity-related extending 200 nautical miles beyond a nation’s coast,
matters (CBD, n.d.). to which a country claims exclusive rights for any
economic activities. Within these national waters,
GBF: short for the “The Kunming-Montreal Global a distinction is made between inshore and offshore
Biodiversity Framework”; was adopted during the areas, though this can vary by country. Generally,
15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP inshore areas are shallower and located much closer
15) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to land, typically within 12 nautical miles off the coast
(CBD) in December 2022. The GBF outlines an while offshore waters are typically those between 12
ambitious plan to achieve a global vision of living in and 200 nautical miles. Furthermore, some countries
harmony with nature by 2050. It includes four key may have, in addition to national waters along their
goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030. (CBD, n.d.). domestic coastline, also national waters in overseas
territories (Pike et al., 2024).
30x30 target: GBF target 3, Conserve 30% of Land,
Waters and Seas: “Ensure and enable that by 2030 Overseas territories: areas that are politically
at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, controlled by a country that is located far away
and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of from it.
particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem
functions and services, are effectively conserved Effective protection: according to the GBF, effective
and managed through ecologically representative, protection requires the adoption of appropriate
well-connected and equitably governed systems management objectives and processes, governance
of protected areas and other effective area-based systems, adequate and appropriate resourcing and
conservation measures, recognizing indigenous consistent monitoring (CBD, n.d.). Defined in this
and traditional territories, where applicable, and report as MPAs that have been assessed against
integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and The MPA Guide and found to be implemented or
the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, actively managed and fully or highly protected.
where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent MPAs that are proposed or designated, and yet
with conservation outcomes, recognizing and unimplemented, are assigned an Unknown Level of
respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Protection since the actual protection level is not
local communities, including over their traditional usually known until an MPA is implemented on the
territories” (CBD, n.d.). water following extensive consultation, feedback
and dialog with communities.

Consulting
OECM: short for “Other effective area-based BBNJ: short for “Biodiversity Beyond National
conservation measures”; describes a geographic Jurisdiction” and also known as the High Seas
site that is not a protected area, that delivers long- Treaty. This Agreement, adopted in June 2023, is the
term biodiversity conservation under equitable first comprehensive, cross-sectoral ocean treaty
governance and management regardless of in decades, focusing on advancing international
whether that is the primary objective of the area cooperation to ensure the conservation and
(CBD, 2018). The recognition of OECMs recognizes sustainable use of marine biodiversity in high
de facto effective long-term conservation seas. It enables establishment of MPAs where
that is taking place outside of Protected Areas, previously there was no mechanism to do this
implemented by a diverse set of actors including (United Nations, 2024).
by Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities
(LCs) (IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs, 2019). NBSAP: short for “National Biodiversity Strategy &
Action Plan”; is a key policy document that defines
High Seas: otherwise known as international a country’s approach to national biodiversity
waters, the high seas refer to those parts of planning, focusing on the conservation and
open ocean that lie beyond the boundaries of sustainable use of biological diversity. As the
any one country. Thus, no one country has sole primary tool for implementing the Convention on
responsibility for their management. The high Biological Diversity (CBD) at the national level,
seas make up two-thirds of the ocean’s surface the NBSAP plays a crucial role in guiding national
and 95% of its volume (Pew, 2018). The high seas biodiversity efforts (CBD, 2024).
along with the international seafloor collectively
form ”Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.”

Consulting
01 How are
we doing?

Consulting
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework It is important to note that protecting 30% of the
(GBF) was adopted during the 15th meeting of land and ocean by 2030 is not a one-size-fits-all
the Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the UN goal. It is a global goal. While there is an expectation
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in December for all countries to contribute to global targets, there
2022. The GBF outlines an ambitious plan to reverse is no agreement requiring each country to protect
biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve a global vision 30% of their land and ocean. Each country needs to
of living in harmony with nature by 2050. It includes contribute in different ways based on the unique mix
four key goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030. of geography and biological wealth.
The cornerstone commitment of the GBF is the third The complexity lying beneath the catchy 30x30 tagline
target. This target commits governments to protect and is hard to overstate. For starters, the target covers
conserve at least 30% of the world’s land and ocean both terrestrial (land and freshwater) and marine
by 2030 (30x30) through a rights-based approach (national and high seas) areas; two categories which
that recognizes and respects the rights and roles of demand significantly different governance structures
Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities (LCs).4 and challenges. With the support of the Bloomberg
Ocean Fund, SkyTruth, Marine Conservation Institute,
In the face of the climate crisis and increasing pressure and Campaign for Nature, Metabolic has taken a dive
from human activities such as overfishing and habitat into existing data on the marine aspect of the target
destruction, 30x30 presents an important step toward to assess progress toward the goal of at least 30%
a sustainable future. Delivering on the 30x30 target global marine protected area coverage. This report
is essential to protect our planet’s rich biodiversity, offers an overview, combining the latest quantitative
which has intrinsic value beyond human benefit. By data with qualitative in-country insights, to address
preserving marine ecosystems, we also sustain the a key question ahead of the next CBD COP: How are
critical provisions we depend on — such as food supply, we doing?5
climate regulation, and carbon capture — ensuring the
health and balance of our planet.
GLOBAL OCEAN AREA GLOBAL INSIGHTS
Simply put, progress to date has been far below

the scale and pace required to achieve the 30x30
target and its biodiversity goals. As of August
2024, only 8.3% of total marine areas globally
are reported as protected.
Worryingly, only 2.8% of global marine areas are

effectively protected (implemented and fully or
highly protected).6
30% Since the adoption of the GBF in 2022, the total global
Global goal
marine area under some form of protection has only
increased by 0.5%. At this rate of progress, only
9.7% of the Earth’s marine areas will be protected
by 2030. To reach our global target of at least 30%
Conserved marine areas Implemented & Fully/
(MPA + OECM) Highly protected of marine area under conservation, countries need to
8.3% 2.8% significantly increase their commitments and actions.
Figure
Current state of global ocean conservation. Source: SkyTruth & MPAtlas, August 2024.
1
4
The target percentage for GBF Target 3 was left flexible as a result of the complexity in distributing coverage across the global
marine area. It was not explicitly agreed that the overall global target of protected area coverage for both marine and terrestrial
areas should be 30% each. Distribution of coverage across marine and terrestrial will be variable across countries, depending on
their specific geographies. The UN process does not involve setting exact numerical targets at a global level, so for simplicity we
assume here that the 30% target applies to marine areas.
In addition, the ocean area that is protected needs to be ecologically representative. To reach the long-term goals of the GBF,
such as preserving, enhancing, and restoring all ecosystems and preventing human-induced extinction by 2050, more than 30%
of the ocean will likely need to be covered by an ecologically representative, well-connected, and equitably governed system of
protected areas.
5
See Annex 1 for more information about data and methodologies.
6
See figure 3 for details on effectiveness assessment.

Consulting
The percentage for reported Marine Protected Areas The COP16 UN Biodiversity Conference in Cali,
(MPAs) is based on self-reported MPA coverage by Colombia, starting on October 21, 2024, is a key
governments around the world. These official figures moment to take stock of the progress made by
are commonly cited as a measure of progress toward countries since the GBF was adopted in 2022. Figure
the 30% target while ignoring the fact that legally 2 shows global progress made toward 30% up to 2024
designating an MPA is only one step toward effective and a projection to 2030 based on progress made
protection. Protecting marine and terrestrial areas is since 2022. The numbers are sobering: at the current
essential to achieving the intended benefits for humans rate of progress, only 9.7% of global marine areas will
and ecosystems, as outlined in the goals of the GBF. be conserved by 2030. Especially in the last few years,
progress has slowed, despite the perceived enthusiasm
for the 30x30 target. If the 30% target is to remain
in reach, countries need to significantly increase the
quantity and quality of marine conservation.
50
Marine conserved area (MPA + OCEM)
40
share of global marine area (%)
Global target
30
20
Projection
Global progress
10
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Figure Global ocean conservation progress between 2010 (2.8%) and 2024 (8.3%), with a projection toward 2030
2 based on progress made since the GBF adoption in 2022. Source: SkyTruth & MPAtlas, August 2024.

Consulting
WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MPAS?
The effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for effective protection. It is based on four key
is crucial for achieving biodiversity conservation components:
and ecosystem restoration. It means that there
is regulation and active management in place 1. Stage of Establishment: proposed, designated,
that ensures minimal or no damaging practices, implemented, or actively managed.
such as industrial fishing, mining, and oil and 2. Level of Protection: minimally, lightly, highly, or
gas development, allowing desired conservation fully protected.
outcomes to be achieved. While effectively protected 3. Enabling Conditions: effective planning,
MPAs are more likely to support species recovery, implementation, governance, and management.
ecosystem functioning, and resilience, simply 4. Outcomes: expected ecological and social
having a high level of protection is not enough to outcomes based on protection levels.
guarantee that biodiversity benefits will accrue over
time. Active enforcement and management of these The effectiveness of an MPA largely depends on
areas are also essential. the first three core components. However, for
biodiversity benefits to increase, areas must be
The MPA Guide serves as a tool for stakeholders either implemented or actively managed.
and decision-makers to design and adapt MPAs
Conditions for likely effective protection

STAGE OF ESTABLISHMENT
Proposed/committed Designated Implemented Actively managed
PROTECTION LEVEL
+
Maximum allowed
Mining Dredging & Anchoring astructur acultur Fishing n-extract
No ctivitie ive
impact or activity Dumping Infr e Aqu e A s
None
Minimal/Low
Moderate/High
Fully protected
Highly protected
Lightly protected
Minimally protected
=
Likely effective protection
Figure
Conditions for an MPA to be considered as likely to protect biodiversity. The stage of establishment must be
3 classified as implemented or actively managed, and the level of protection as highly or fully protected,
based on maximum allowable impacts from the activities listed. Both conditions must be met for an MPA to be
considered likely effectively protected. Source: MPAtlas.

Consulting
WHERE DO OTHER EFFECTIVE AREA-BASED CONSERVATION MEASURES
(OECMS) COME IN?
What is an OECM? of formally including Indigenous Peoples and

An OECM is a geographic site that is not a local communities. However, results from recent
protected area that delivers long-term biodiversity academic analyzes shed light on a high instance
conservation under equitable governance and of blue washing, saying that, especially in marine
management regardless of whether that is the spaces, OECMs have allowed for industry to
primary objective of the area (CBD, 2018). negotiate concessions to protected areas (Claudet
et al., 2022).
OECMs and the 30x30 target
The GBF leaves it up to country discretion OECMs and effective conservation
whether to include OECMs in their reported Ultimately, labeling an area as an MPA or OECM is
target percentage. Only eight countries have any not an indicator of how effective the area will be
reported OECM coverage in marine areas. Many for biodiversity conservation. Varied conservation
community-led OECMs, such as Locally-Managed tools and mechanisms can serve an important role
Marine Areas (LMMAs) in Fiji and across the Pacific, in inclusion and can allow for economically active
are often not registered in global databases such areas to strive toward better resource management.
as the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), Nevertheless, it should be reiterated that the
despite providing considerable benefits to people purpose of the 30x30 target is to increase the
and biodiversity. Many of these initiatives are amount of marine and terrestrial areas globally to
gradually scaling up, but their global impact is support biodiversity and ecosystem thriving. These
likely undervalued due to underreporting. This goals can only be achieved by MPAs or OECMs with
underreporting could have many explanations. active management that serves the conservation
The OECM distinction was created to allow for of biodiversity, at a sufficiently high quality that
diverse forms of conservation, with the intention biodiversity conservation can accrue.

Consulting
LEGEND
MPAs reported to the WDPA
OECMs reported to the WD-OECM
Figure
Map of all WDPA reported Marine Protected Areas (MPAs, red) and Other Effective area-based Conservation
4 Measures (OECMs) in marine areas reported to the WD-OECM (yellow). Source: Marine Conservation Institute
(2024) | National waters data: marineregions.org; MPA data: MPAtlas, WDPA, WD-OECM/ProtectedPlanet | ©
Mapbox © OpenStreetMap.

Consulting
Regional insights found in Latin America and the Caribbean (26.6%).
When looking at the regional level, we see a similar However, combining all of the regional efforts accounts
gap between coverage and effectiveness. Regional for only 8.3% of the total marine area, highlighting
distribution of MPAs is important for both ecological the substantial work still required to reach the 30x30
and socio-political reasons. Biodiversity conservation target. A clear jump in the reporting of marine protected
works better when there is ecological connectivity areas occurred just before 2020, likely driven by the
and representativeness. Nature-informed networks of conclusion of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets7 period,
MPAs allow for migration corridors crucial to species’ specifically Target 11, which aimed to conserve 10%
survival and regeneration. The socio-political sphere of coastal and marine areas by 2020, through well-
also influences where protected areas can and should managed and ecologically representative protected
be established, as well as allowing for their benefits to areas. Countries were motivated to establish these
be accessed fairly across populations. areas before the deadline. Notably, West Asia has
seen sudden progress since 2022, largely due to a
Figure 5 below illustrates the regional distribution significant expansion of Oman’s MPA coverage. This
of marine conservation areas as a percentage of the kind of progress is needed on a global level in order
global marine area, with the highest concentration to move towards the 30x30 target.
30
Latin America &

Caribbean
Marine conserved area (MPA + OCEM)
Europe
share of global marine area (%)
North America
20
Asia & Pacific
10 Global progress
West Asia
Africa
Areas Beyond
National Jurisdiction
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Figure Progress on ocean conservation, by region between 2010 and 2024.8

7
Established by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 2011, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets consisted of 20 specific targets
aimed at addressing and reducing biodiversity loss worldwide and set to be reached in the period between 2011 and 2020.
8
Note: the United States of America (USA) is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and therefore has
not adopted the GBF but its MPAs are included in the quantitative regional assessment, because it uses SkyTruth data which is
independent from the UN accounting processes. The USA has committed to the 30x30 target via the High Ambition Coalition for
Nature and People.

Consulting
But how effective are these areas for biodiversity conservation? As it turns out, even in regions with a higher
percentage of marine conservation or showing progress in establishing these areas, only a small portion is likely
to be effectively protected.
Table
Regional share of marine protected areas (MPA and OECM) in 2022 and 2024, compared to the total regional
1 marine area (%); the share of likely effective protection in 2024 (Protection level: fully or highly protected and
implemented/actively managed) of the total regional marine area (%). Refer to Figure 3 and Annex 1 for a
detailed assessment of effectiveness, including an explanation of why the assessed area for protection exceeds
the area under conservation in certain regions. Source: SkytTruth & MPAtlas, August 2024.
Region 2022 2024

Ocean area under Likely effective Marine area assessed
conservation (%) protection (%) for protection level (%)
High seas 1.4 1.4 0.8 3.0
Africa 5.3 6.1 N/A* 4.9
Asia & Pacific 16.8 17.6 4.2 16.1
Europe 20.2 23.3 7.4 22.7
Latin America & 26.5 26.6 2.5 31.2

Caribbean
North America 22.3 22.3 17.0 25
West Asia 1.3 7.4 N/A* 0.8
Global 7.8 8.0 2.8 9.3
Note: overseas territories are assigned to their legal authority, not their actual geographical area; The Antarctic/Southern Ocean
is included in the High Seas region.
* Due to limited data availability
The data displayed in this table reinforces the same America and the Caribbean is the region with the
story. Even in regions where more progress has been greatest percentage of marine areas under protected
made in establishing marine protected areas, only a designation, suggesting that political will and robust
small portion of these are likely to be effective. civil society capacity can play an even more crucial role.
Looking at the spread of effectively protected areas
When looking at the regional breakdown of data in once again yields a more concerning picture: Latin
Table 1, we can see that currently, the high seas (1.4%), America and the Caribbean have 26.6% marine areas
Africa (5.3%) and West Asia (7.4%) have the lowest protected, but less than a tenth are under effective
protected areas coverage. High seas protection is a protection. North America is next with 22.3% but
particular case and will be discussed in the following only 17% assessed as effectively protected, followed
section (Focus Area #1). For Africa and West Asia, by Europe, with 23.3%, but just 7.4% assessed as
one explanation for the low protection coverage effectively protected.
may be that they have not received enough financial
support to establish more MPAs. One might assume The following map (Figure 6) provides a global overview
that the wealthier parts of the globe — Europe, North on the distribution of MPAs and OECMs, highlighting
America, Asia have more established MPAs. But Latin the currently understood effectiveness of protection.

Consulting
LEGEND
MPA Guide Protection Level
Fully Protected
Highly Protected
Lightly Protected
Minimally Protected/Incompatible
Unknown/To Be Determined
Designated
Proposed/Committed
Figure
Map showing establishment stage and protection level of MPAs, using The MPA Guide methodology. For
6 effective marine protection, active management and fully/highly protection levels are desired. Note that
designated and proposed/committed areas are already assessed for potential effectiveness, but not yet
put into practice. Also note that not (yet) all MPAs reported to WDPA have been assessed for Stage of
Establishment and Level of Protection. Source: Marine Conservation Institute (2024) | National waters data:
marineregions.org; MPA data: MPAtlas, WDPA/ProtectedPlanet | © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap.

Consulting
National insights
The GBF is agreed at the global level, but responsibility countries will protect more than 30% of marine areas,
for implementation of its targets typically begins at while others will protect less.
national levels of government. Caution should be
taken when looking at country-level data. Accounting The following tables offer insights on the countries
processes are not standardized and it is not easy that currently have the highest level of reported
to compare across countries as the 30% target is protected areas and on those that made the most
meant for global coverage. In the best case scenario significant progress since 2022. A full country table
for biodiversity and environmental justice, some can be found in Annex 2.
Table
Countries with >30% area under conservation. Note that most of these countries have a low share of likely
2 effective protection. Data specifics: National share of marine protected areas (MPA and OECM) in 2024,
compared to the total national marine area (%); the share of likely effective protection in 2024 (Protection
level: fully or highly protected) of the total national marine area (%); and the area assessed for protection level
using The MPA Guide in 2024 of the total national marine area (%). Source: SkyTruth & MPAtlas, August 2024.
Country Ocean area under Likely effective Marine area assessed

Monaco 99.7 0.0 100.0
Palau 98.7 77.9 96.6
United Kingdom 68.3 38.9* 66.1
Kazakhstan 52.2 0.0 48.5
New Zealand 49.5 2.0 48.0
Australia 48.3 18.5 44.7
Argentina 46.7 11* 45.2
Germany 45.3 0.0 3.0
Chile 41.2 0.0 39.9
Colombia 40.3 1.5 48.2
Belgium 37.7 Not assessed Not assessed
France 33.3 2.6 36.6
Seychelles 32.7 0.2 32.6
Netherlands 31.9 0.0 17.0
* Includes MPAs located in disputed territories (Malvinas/Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands).

Consulting
Table
Countries that have made progress in marine conservation coverage between 2022 and 2024.
Country Additional % covered by marine conservation from 2022 to 2024

Comoros 28.5
Oman 15.9
France 10.8
Australia 5.2
Madagascar 2.9
Estonia 0.6
Mexico 0.4
Antigua and Barbuda 0.3
Mozambique 0.2
Denmark 0.2
Chile 0.2
Peru 0.2

Consulting
30x30 is a global target and countries need to adapt — two-thirds — of these non-landlocked countries
this guiding star to their national contexts. Variations have still not adopted the 30% national target, with
in percentage of protected areas can have many many opting for less ambitious targets of 10 - 20%,
reasons. Some countries are landlocked while others or providing no target at all.
have huge coastlines of high biodiversity importance.
Some countries have significant financial resources One country - Niue - has set itself an ambitious
but have also exploited and damaged more of their target of protecting 100% of its EEZ by 2030, and
marine areas historically. The process of negotiating has already made progress in designating 40% of
these specificities to determine how a country can the EEZ in highly or fully protected MPAs, which may
contribute to the global 30% target is unique to each inspire others to do so too. The EU member states
country. This national coordination is reported back have a 30% target in place, due to the EU biodiversity
through the CBD’s National Biodiversity Strategies and strategy (European Commission, 2020). This strategy
Action Plan (NBSAP) process. also sets a separate target of 10% of each member
states’ national waters being “strictly protected”. This
Countries represented by their national governments at target risks lowering the ambition of member states
COP16 are requested to submit an NBSAP to document or counting ineffectively protected areas toward the
their plan for implementing the GBF. This document remaining 20% that, according to the EU, do not need
compiles implementation plans for all GBF targets in to be strictly protected. As of now, commitments and
one place. NBSAPs are not binding policies, but are clear national targets for marine conservation are
meaningful strategic documents that, in the best cases, lacking for most countries, both in NBSAPs and other
indicate a multi-stakeholder process of deliberation national policies. The upcoming COP16 will hopefully
and national contextualization of the targets set inspire countries to increase their ambitions for
out in the GBF. These processes can include critical effective marine conservation.
implementation questions such as establishing and
resourcing more local institutions to be tasked with on Implementation of marine conservation takes place
the ground implementation, management and ongoing across multiple levels of governance, from the national
enforcement of protected areas, but this will be done to the local including governance of the protected area
differently in each country. itself. To illustrate both the recommended steps for
improving coverage and effectiveness, as well as the
All countries should submit an NBSAP that specifies complexity involved in achieving these goals, the report
a national target for ocean conservation. Currently, includes three case studies. These cases are drawn
only about a third of the 156 coastal and maritime from various global regions, and will provide additional
countries have agreed to conserve and protect at insights into how the recommendations offered by this
least 30% of their respective national waters by report apply to unique national contexts.
2030, either reporting this in their NBSAPs, through
endorsement of the Ocean Conservation Pledge or The following section will detail the recommended
other means. Of these countries, 40% have gone priority topics for governments as they move forward
further by setting additional targets for designating in the task of protecting our ocean and marine areas.
waters as fully or highly protected. Yet, the majority

Consulting
02 How can
we do better?

Consulting
As illustrated by the data, the global community is generally lagging in meeting the 30x30 target across two
key dimensions: quantity (coverage) and quality (effectiveness) of marine protection. Based on additional desk
research and expert interviews, we recommend the following focus areas to ramp up action from the international
community to achieve 30% effective marine conservation by 2030. These recommendations should be at the
top of the agenda for the COP16 UN Biodiversity Conference in October 2024:
1. Increase the quantity (coverage) of areas under conservation, both in national and international (high
seas) waters and establish national marine conservation targets
2. Improve the quality of marine conservation (implement effective protection)
3. Support Indigenous Peoples and local communities
4. Unlock sufficient and durable (international) finance
5. Improve reporting and data collection
Ocean conservation is crucial for meeting nature and climate goals, as well as ensuring food and livelihood
security. We call for action from governments to increase marine protection efforts and restore the required
balance between nature and people.
High seas National waters
30% Global target

7.5% of global marine
area conserved in
national waters
0.8% of global marine area
conserved in high seas
Figure
Overview of current marine conservation in national waters and high seas, as a percentage of total marine
7 area. Highlighting that while more conservation is taking place in national waters, action is needed in both
areas to reach the 30x30 target.

Consulting
1 of populations, individuals, genetic material, and
1. Increase the quantity non-living resources between ecosystems (Hilty et
(coverage) of areas under al., 2020). Networks of connected inshore national
conservation, both in national waters (<12 nautical miles), offshore national waters
(12-200 nautical miles) and high seas MPAs can
and international (high seas) provide migration corridors, for example, allowing
waters and establish national salmon to migrate between freshwater rivers and
marine conservation targets the ocean. Enhancing connectivity also bolsters the
resilience of species and ecosystems, increasing the
capacity to adapt to both natural and human-induced
As of August 2024, only 8.3% of global marine
environmental changes (Cannizzo et al., 2021). In
areas are reported as protected. At the current rate
this context, coordination and collaboration between
of progress — an increase of just 0.5% since the
countries are vital for expanding and connecting
adoption of the GBF in 2022 — this figure is projected
marine conservation efforts. Cross-boundary MPAs,
to reach only 9.7% by 2030. It is clear that we need to
such as the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor
accelerate efforts to protect marine areas if we want
(CMAR) established by Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama,
to achieve the 30x30 target. Countries must protect
and Colombia, exemplify successful international
more of their national waters and work together to
cooperation and could be replicated elsewhere.
expand protection in the vast international waters
Creating more robust legal frameworks and effective
beyond their borders (high seas).
regulation could strengthen these cross-country
initiatives (Enright et al., 2021).
PROTECTING NATIONAL WATERS
Protection should also focus around those areas that
Countries need to protect more of the marine areas are considered ecologically important, regardless of
within their national waters, which extend up to 200 their location. Currently, many of the world’s large
nautical miles from the coastline. In these zones, coastal protected areas are located in the distant national
countries hold special rights to explore and manage waters (in the form of overseas territories) of countries
marine resources, making them crucial for sustainable such as France, the USA, and the UK (see case study).
resource use and conservation efforts. Only 14 coastal These areas often consist of sparsely populated
countries have reported more than 30% of their waters island waters, relatively undisturbed by industrial
as protected areas: Monaco, Palau, United Kingdom, activities like fishing, leading to higher biodiversity.
Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Prioritizing the protection of these biodiversity
Germany, Chile, Colombia, Belgium, France, Seychelles hotspots is crucial — recent research found that only
and the Netherlands. Looking at recent progress, only two realms of the Marine Ecoregions of the World
three countries have significantly increased protection biogeographic classification include more than 10%
since the adoption of the GBF in 2022: Comoros has fully or highly protected coverage — the Eastern Indo-
protected an extra 28.5%; Oman an additional 15.9%; Pacific and the Southern Ocean (Pike et al. 2024).
and France an extra 10.8%. With just six years left Neglecting protection of biodiverse and depleted
to achieve the 30% global target, countries must areas closer to population centers because they are
significantly increase their commitments and actions more challenging to manage, leaves these important
within their national waters. These commitments ecosystems vulnerable to extractive and destructive
and actions should be laid out as national targets in activities. It also means that the local populations miss
NBSAPs, which currently lack ambition specifically out on the social, economic and health benefits of
around marine conservation. Setting national targets marine conservation. Establishing protected areas in
and sharing them internationally has the potential to these regions can rehabilitate ecosystems, leading
create global momentum, and allows countries to be to enhanced fish stocks (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021;
held accountable to their commitments. Lester et al., 2009; Sala & Giakoumi, 2018; Zupan
et al., 2018) and offering numerous co-benefits to
The designation of new MPAs should involve careful nearby communities (Ban et al., 2019; Nowakowski
spatial planning. Both new and existing MPAs must et al., 2023; Turnbull et al., 2021). Recovery of
be of sufficient size to minimize the edge effect, depleted areas can also help increase the resilience
which can reduce conservation benefits (Ohayon, of ecosystems to climate change and human pressures.
Granot & Belmaker, 2021). In addition, they should Therefore, countries should focus more on protecting
be ecologically representative, ensuring adequate and regenerating high-extraction zones that are
representation of ecosystems, species, and genetic ecologically important rather than just the “low-
diversity (Fischer et al., 2019). MPAs should also provide hanging fruit” of distant MPAs.
ecological connectivity to allow for the movement

Consulting
PROTECTING THE HIGH SEAS
RECOMMENDATIONS The high seas are critical to reach the 30x30 target.
The high seas, also known as Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction (ABNJ) or international waters, refers to
Increase the amount of MPAs in the parts of open ocean that lie beyond the boundaries
of any one country, specifically beyond the first 200
countries’ national waters
nautical miles, known as national waters. The high
Countries need to significantly increase the
seas are incredibly vast, making up two-thirds of the
amount of protected marine areas in their
ocean’s surface and over 95% of the Earth’s space for
national waters to reach the global target. The
life on the planet (Pew, 2018). Research shows they
addition of meaningful MPAs should speed up,
host some of the planet’s most diverse ecosystems.
to ensure sufficient coverage by 2030.
Rich in biodiversity, the high seas serve as migration
routes for species like whales and sharks and are home
Ensure good spatial planning of MPAs to unique environments like deep sea coral reefs. Their
to optimize biodiversity benefits interconnectivity with national waters and coastal
MPAs should be of sufficient size to reduce waters also supports important fisheries (Pew, 2024).
edge effects, placed in areas with ecological The Southern Ocean around Antarctica, part of the
representativeness, and should be connected high seas, covers 10% of the global ocean and plays
with each other to allow for migration of species. an especially important role for the planet. Through
its powerful currents, Antarctica’s ocean regulates
Commit to national marine our oxygen production and climate, and drives key
conservation targets in National nutrients that feed the whole ocean, which in turn
Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans provides food and livelihoods.
(NBSAPs)
Clear national marine conservation targets signal Currently, the high seas remain largely unprotected with
a country’s commitment to the 30x30 target. In only 1.4% under some form of conservation (MPAtlas,
addition, defining a national target allows for 2024). This low number is mostly due to the lack of
countries to be held accountable by civil society a comprehensive global legal framework to establish
and the international community. MPAs in these international waters. Few organizations
have the legal authority to manage these MPAs and the
Also protect and regenerate high- economic activities within them. Additionally, there is
a risk that protected areas may be designated in name
extraction zones rather than just
only, with decisions taken to attribute existing or future
remote biodiversity hotspots fisheries management areas as area-based biodiversity
Greater action for marine biodiversity is urgently protections, rather than ensuring the creation of large,
needed in ecologically important zones near fully protected zones. The lack of protection of the vast
densely populated areas, where ecosystems are majority of high seas is concerning, given that activities
particularly vulnerable or heavily degraded by like fishing and, increasingly, deep sea mining and
large-scale economic activities, and in a more potential geo-engineering activities pose significant
diverse portfolio of ecosystem regions. threats to biodiversity.

Consulting
There are a couple of rare exceptions where international
bodies already allow for the establishment of MPAs
on the high seas. The best examples of high seas
RECOMMENDATIONS
MPAs are in Antarctica, with the South Orkney Islands
and the world’s largest marine reserve in the Ross
Sea, covering over 2.1 million km². These areas were Ratify the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ) so it
established by the Commission for the Conservation can enter into force swiftly
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Countries should ratify the BBNJ Agreement
which falls under the Antarctic Treaty System. without delay for the 3rd UN Ocean Conference
CCAMLR manages both protected areas and fisheries in June 2025. Therefore it is essential to raise
in the area and is supported by Treaty-set mining and awareness, provide capacity-building resources
shipping restrictions (CCAMLR, 2021). At the same for developing countries, and offer technical
time, designation of additional MPAs in Antarctica’s assistance for implementation. Countries
Southern Ocean has been challenging, mired by must also establish strong treaty institutions,
geopolitics. In 2023, G20 leaders recommitted to including Science and Technical Committees and
supporting the designation of a representative system Implementation and Compliance bodies (Gjerde
of MPAs in the Southern Ocean. Now we need to see et al., 2022). Additionally, they should ensure
this commitment being delivered. Similarly, in the the provisional application of the Treaty, which
Northeast Atlantic, the regional marine conservation creates legally binding obligations to apply the
body OSPAR has designated a number of high seas agreement as if it were already in force.
MPAs, though generally lacks the legal authority to
regulate the biggest threats to biodiversity. Both of Take action of protection of High Seas
these high seas regions need protection, but political MPAs in Antarctica’s water now
and economic interests have made implementing Efforts should be focused on using existing
meaningful measures difficult. tools and bodies, particularly in the waters
governed by CCAMLR. Currently, four major
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) MPA proposals are awaiting approval (CCAMLR,
Agreement, sometimes referred to as the High Seas 2023), all of which are ready for designation.
Treaty, has the potential to provide the required Together with existing MPAs in CCAMLR waters,
international legal framework for creating high seas the additional protection of these new MPAs
MPAs and could be an important contribution to would increase protection of the global ocean to
delivering the 30x30 target. In 2023, following more 2.6% from 0.8%. This will represent a substantial
than a decade of discussions and negotiations, the contribution to the 30x30 target.
BBNJ was finally agreed at UN level. At least 60
ratifications are needed by countries for the Treaty to
Establish international collaborations to
enter into force. As of the publication of this report, 13
countries have ratified the Treaty. However, since the accelerate high seas protection
Treaty opened for signing in September 2023, over 100 Global efforts are needed to ensure the long-term
countries have signed, signaling their commitment to success of protected areas in international waters.
ratify. Many countries are rallying around the political All countries must be equipped to contribute to
deadline of depositing their ratification by the 3rd UN and benefit from high seas conservation. Stronger
Ocean Conference happening in June 2025. Once governance and political leadership are needed to
this treaty has entered into force, this will be a major advance these initiatives, requiring partnerships
milestone toward protecting the high seas. among governments, civil society, IPs and LCs,
scientists, and MPA managers. Additionally,
With the new international BBNJ Agreement on the innovative financial mechanisms, including
horizon, it is crucial to begin establishing the groundwork international funds from wealthier nations, should
for rapid, effective, and equitable implementation now. be developed to support these efforts.
Three priority areas are addressed here.

Consulting
2 toward global conservation targets and enabling “blue-
2. Improve the quality washing” practices. For instance, countries unable or
of marine conservation unwilling to establish effective MPAs may designate
OECMs in areas used for oil extraction or industrial
(implement effective
fishing. This could lead to no real benefit or even harm
protection) to biodiversity conservation, fulfilling international
conservation targets without ensuring long-term
To achieve the 30x30 target, more must be done protection of ecosystems (Claudet et al., 2022).
than simply increasing the quantity (coverage) of
MPAs and OECMs. To ensure long-term, meaningful The lack of enforcement in established MPAs constitutes
biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration, another significant challenge. MPAs that are designated
the quality, or effective protection, of MPAs must be but not implemented and actively enforced are often
enhanced. Effectively protected MPAs are more likely referred to as ‘paper parks’ — highlighting a lack of
to restore species and habitats, support ecosystem capacity and support that enables harmful activities
functioning and resilience (i.e. the ability to recover to persist unrestrained. This situation undermines the
from disturbances), contribute to the sustainability ecological benefits that protected areas are intended
of fisheries through larval supply and spillover, to provide (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021).
and promote human well-being and livelihoods by
maintaining healthy ocean ecosystems. To address these challenges regarding definitions
and management standards, The MPA Guide offers
MPAs are likely effective for biodiversity conservation a comprehensive framework to assess the protection
and ecosystem recovery when clear ambitious level per MPA and its expected social and ecological
guidelines are established and consistently enforced. impact. It provides governments and relevant parties
It is not sufficient to only look at area coverage with the necessary tools to design and adapt MPAs,
conservation targets (e.g. 30%) based solely on the ensuring effective protection that leads to biodiversity
legal status of a marine area, i.e. whether an MPA is enhancement and ecosystem restoration. The MPA
‘implemented’. It is also relevant whether that area has Guide framework is based on four components:
practical enforcement of protective measures such as
fishing bans. Unfortunately, many ‘implemented MPAs’ 1. Stage of Establishment: proposed, designated,
have little to no ambitious restrictions on harmful implemented or actively managed.
activities nor enforcement; consequently they have 2. Level of Protection: minimally, lightly, highly or
little to no positive effect on nature. fully protected.
The lack of ambitious regulations for many MPAs is 3. Enabling Conditions: ensuring effective planning,
partly a result of a loose definition. The current IUCN implementation, governance and management.
definition of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is broad 4. Outcomes: expected ecological and social
and inconsistently applied by various countries. This outcomes, based on protection level.
inconsistency has resulted in many MPAs permitting
highly damaging industrial fishing methods, such as
The likely effective protection of a Marine Protected
bottom trawling, or oil and gas extraction.
Area (MPA) depends on the first three core components.
However, for biodiversity benefits to increase,
The regulatory ambiguity surrounding the application
regulations must be established and enforced on the
of the term “MPAs” also extends to Other Effective
ground. According to The MPA Guide, this translates
Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) and
to areas that are categorized as either “implemented”
their inclusion in target percentages. According to
or “actively managed” (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021).
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the key
distinction between MPAs and OECMs is that OECMs
Only about a third of all MPAs, or 2.8% of total marine
are not required to have biodiversity conservation as
areas, are likely effectively protected, based on a global
their primary objective, yet they must still achieve
assessment of MPAs using The MPA Guide (Pike et
effective conservation outcomes (MacKinnon, 2019).
al. 2024). A key focus for policymakers leading up
As a result, OECMs can support conservation efforts in
to 2030 needs to be increasing effective protection
sectors not traditionally linked to biodiversity protection
of existing and newly formed MPAs, rather than just
— such as fisheries, mining, tourism, and energy —
looking at the area coverage on paper.
although this creates a risk of misrepresenting progress

Consulting
RECOMMENDATIONS
Enhancing MPA standards

Governments are encouraged to use The MPA
Guide to support national planning, assessment
and accounting processes around the 30x30
target. This will help ensure that MPA standards
are applied consistently across countries. Efforts
should focus on increasing ‘implemented or
actively managed’ and ‘fully or highly protected’
MPAs to ensure that biodiversity benefits in these
protected areas accrue over time. It is essential
for governments to report the protection levels
of each MPA in national and international
databases, such as the WDPA, to reflect likely
effective ocean protection.
Supporting diverse protection strategy

Areas with lower levels of protection can also play
a role in achieving the 30x30 target. Continued
support should be provided for such MPAs and
OECMs, particularly when these approaches
are driven by locally-informed and/or multi-
stakeholder processes that balance multiple
conservation objectives.

Consulting
3
3. Support Indigenous RECOMMENDATIONS
Peoples and local
communities
Support Indigenous People and local
Indigenous Peoples (IPs) manage almost 40% of the world’s communities to establish and govern
intact ecosystems (Garnett et al., 2018). Their participation conservation areas
in marine conservation efforts is therefore fundamental to Indigenous-led conservation often has highly
achieving the 30x30 target. In areas where IPs hold traditional successful conservation outcomes, especially
tenure rights, they can establish Indigenous Protected Areas when IPs have a clear mandate over a certain
(IPAs), which can contribute to national conservation efforts. area (see case study about indigenous-led
The 30x30 target recognizes the rights and roles of IPs, conservation). Rather than being considered
especially in regard to their traditional territories which are simply as rights-holders groups, IPs and LCs
often the basis of their livelihoods. Governments must also should be at the forefront of every stage of
recognize the rights of IPs, and ensure that they have free, establishing and managing MPAs and OECMs.
prior and informed consent regarding decisions made about As their livelihoods are often dependent on local
their waters and land. Furthermore, decision-makers should biodiversity, they have the most to gain from
incorporate traditional management practices to ensure effective biodiversity protection. Governments
that conservation is culturally appropriate and grounded can encourage the establishment of MPAs and
in local values. Rather than replacing traditional systems, OECMs by IP and LC groups by recognizing and
conservation efforts must build on the thousands of years restoring IPs’ rights to do so and devolving the
of Indigenous knowledge that have successfully supported power for LCs to do so (Fidler et al., 2022) and
biodiversity and sustained Indigenous livelihoods. In many reducing administrative barriers for the process.
cases, global conservation efforts have led to the imposition
of external management frameworks, which not only Encourage knowledge co-production
disrupt traditional systems but also undermine the ability from local and scientific sources
of communities to adapt management practices to rapidly IPs and LCs generally hold local ecological
changing environmental conditions. By doing so, they knowledge specific to their area that has been
lose control over the management of their ecosystems passed on over many generations. These
and can no longer benefit from the critical resources knowledge systems have maintained biodiversity
these ecosystems provide, ultimately weakening both for generations, and should continue to inform
conservation outcomes and local livelihoods. the establishment and management of MPAs.
Both case studies on p.38 highlight the integration
The establishment of MPAs and OECMs should also of traditional knowledge with Western scientific
recognize and support the leadership role of local methods to manage MPAs. This kind of knowledge
communities (LCs), who, like IPs, are primary stewards co-production enhances effective implementation
of marine environments and species in many regions. and helps develop solutions that are tailored to
Engaging LCs and other local rights-holders is critical the local context (Di Franco et al., 2020).
for MPA establishment processes. For instance,
collaborative conservation efforts involving LCs and
Provide financial resources to enable
small-scale fisheries, coupled with sustained good
governance, has shown to be crucial for the effective creation and management of locally
management of MPAs and for ensuring the long-term governed conservation areas
success of conservation initiatives (Di Franco et al., IPs and LCs who maintain a deep relationship with
2020). Supporting LCs to create and manage their MPAs their territories and have developed sustainable
and OECMs while combining their traditional knowledge practices and lifestyles for their management, are
with scientific research as complementary sources of often under-resourced and in need of financial
information for effective ecosystem management can redistribution (Dawson et al., 2021). As with any
have wide-ranging positive impacts on biodiversity and conservation effort, money is needed to fund the
local livelihoods, as the case study on community-led management and monitoring of Indigenous- or
conservation in Mozambique illustrates. locally-led conservation, alongside activities such
as awareness raising and educational programs.
Creating MPAs in areas for which IPs and LCs do not Furthermore, resources must be invested in
hold tenure rights but depend on for resources or have promoting and supporting sustainable livelihood
other interests in, can put their livelihoods at risk and diversification among Indigenous groups and
create conflict. In these cases these groups should local communities to enhance their resilience and
be consulted early on in the process and their rights provide alternative income sources. Appropriate
and needs should be considered at every step in the funds should be allocated by national and local
establishment process and management plan. governments, and directly provided to IPs and LCs.

Consulting
4 maintains trust in multilateral governance frameworks
4. Unlock sufficient and (Pettinotti et al., 2024). A recent study by ODI (2024)
durable (international) analyzed each developed country’s progress in 2021
toward their share of the $20 billion, finding that only
finance two countries (Norway and Sweden) achieved this and
the overwhelming majority of developed countries fell
Finance plays a critical role in enabling effective significantly short, contributing less than half of their
biodiversity conservation. Capacity building, fair share. Fortunately, overall biodiversity-specific
management, monitoring, and enforcement all require development finance is trending upward, growing from
adequate and predictable funding. It is estimated $11.1 billion in 2021 to $15.4 billion in 2022 (OECD,
that $700 billion per year between now and 2030 is 2024). However, there is much work to be done to
needed from both public and private sources to meet meet the $20 billion target by 2025.
the GBF goal of halting and reversing nature loss by
2030 (CBD, 2022). Domestic and international finance used to address
the biodiversity crisis should not only be sufficient
Globally, governments currently allocate an estimated in quantity, but also effective in quality. While
$68 billion annually toward domestic biodiversity efforts, development funding for biodiversity grew significantly
accounting for about two-thirds of total biodiversity in 2022, money came mostly in the form of loans
finance (OECD, n.d.). Meanwhile, Parties to the CBD rather than grants. Multilateral institutions such as
have committed to increase biodiversity finance from all development banks even increased their funding from
sources to $200 billion per year by 2030 (CBD, 2022). $2.7 billion in 2021 to $5.7 billion in 2022 (OECD,
To meet this goal, governments must mobilize more 2024). We need to ensure that the form finance
domestic resources for biodiversity, alongside working takes does not further burden developing countries
to align financial flows. This includes taking action to that are debt-laden. In addition, we should make sure
eliminate or redirect incentives that are harmful to that biodiversity is not a tangential approach to other
biodiversity. Currently, governments are still spending funding endeavors and that it has, more often than not,
five to eight times as much on harming biodiversity the principal goal of tackling biodiversity loss. Bilateral
than on helping it (OECD, n.d.). Strategic public policy Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members’
interventions — encompassing environmental and fiscal Official Development Finance, for example, saw flows
policy, public governance, and international trade — toward biodiversity as a principal objective decrease
can also help unlock much needed private funding for by 17% from 2021 to 2022.
biodiversity efforts.
To ensure fair and effective distribution, it is crucial
While the responsibility to establish and manage that once necessary funding and financing are
MPAs lies primarily with national governments, not all secured, national governance structures allocate these
countries have the necessary resources to fully fund resources to the appropriate levels of management.
effective marine conservation efforts. It is crucial As many protected areas are located in remote
that developed countries deliver on their promise to regions, it is essential that the institutions, offices
increase international finance to developing countries and communities responsible for management
to at least $20 billion per year by 2025 and $30 billion and enforcement in these areas are equipped with
by 2030 (CBD, 2022). Providing critical resources to sufficient resources. Specifically, funding should be
countries facing severe fiscal and financial challenges directed toward scientific research to support the
enables them to achieve the GBF goals. Next to that, spatial planning and the establishment of MPAs, as well
international financial support flowing from developed as to stakeholder engagement, monitoring, progress
to developing countries also holds ethical, symbolic tracking, and capacity building for robust protected
and relational importance. It shows a recognition that area governance. These processes are time-intensive
there are differing responsibilities for both historic and require trust, continuity, and stable financing to
and ongoing biodiversity loss, shows solidarity, and be successful (Bohorquez et al., 2022).

Consulting
RECOMMENDATIONS
Aim for higher financial support

To bridge the gap in international financing for
biodiversity conservation, it is essential that more
countries step up and commit to funding. The
resource mobilization outlined in the Kunming-
Montreal GBF aims to increase international
public resources for biodiversity to at least $20
billion per year by 2025 and at least $30 billion
per year by 2030. Currently, with only five donor
countries responsible for nearly three-quarters
of international biodiversity funding between
2015 and 2022 (OECD, 2024), it is crucial for
wealthier nations to increase their financial
support and actively participate in preserving
global biodiversity.
Prioritize quality in funding

To ensure fair and effective distribution
of funding, global efforts should prioritize
affordable and accessible financing. Firstly, it
is essential to provide affordable funding for
developing countries through grants, which
have seen minimal growth over the past decade
(OECD, 2024), or through more favorable loan
terms. This is particularly important as loans
can worsen the economy of debt-strapped
developing countries. Secondly, clear channels
of access to funding must be established. For
developing countries to effectively draw from
international funding sources, it is crucial to
address issues such as limited transparency,
bureaucratic hurdles, and rigid funding terms
(Kallhauge, 2024).
Strengthen biodiversity-specific funding

To successfully address biodiversity conservation
and meet the 30x30 target, increased funding for
biodiversity-specific projects is crucial. Although
overall biodiversity-specific financing from all
sources has grown, funding specifically from
Bilateral Development Assistance Committee
(DAC) members’ Official Development Finance
has declined (OECD, 2024). “Biodiversity-
specific” projects focus directly on reversing
biodiversity loss, while “biodiversity-related”
primarily target other issues with some indirect
benefits for biodiversity. Relying on funding that
is not primarily directed at safeguarding nature
may slow ecosystem restoration efforts and
impede progress toward achieving the GBF goals.

Consulting
5
5. Improve reporting and RECOMMENDATIONS
data collection
Standardize reporting of MPA

To keep track of global progress toward the 30x30 effectiveness
target and continue to hold countries accountable to When planning the expansion of MPAs, decision-
their commitments, data collection is critical. Many makers should use The MPA Guide to design
sources of data rely on self-reported numbers, but as guidelines to ensure a likely effective level of
this assessment has shown, these often include areas protection. For comprehensive reporting, it is
that are not yet implemented or effectively protected in recommended to not only share the national
practice. To track meaningful progress, data collection percentage of marine protected areas, but also
should therefore be improved and there should be to report on the MPA’s stage of establishment and
expanded consultations with Indigenous Peoples groups level of protection. The MPA Guide assessment
to better understand the appropriate inclusion and methodology may not be suitable for OECMs
contribution of Indigenous Protected Areas. due to the varied and diverse nature of these
conservation areas. However, their effectiveness
should still be evaluated and reported for the
30x30 target.
Facilitate reporting on new MPAs and

develop integrated progress tracking
Efforts should be made to facilitate data
collection on new and proposed MPAs. This could
be achieved by creating a centralized system that
allows stakeholders to track which MPAs are
expected to be operational within the next few
years. Furthermore, it is recommended to support
the development of integrated tracking and data
collection between marine protected areas and
their terrestrial and freshwater counterparts, to
effectively monitor progress toward achieving
the 30x30 target.
Collaborate with Indigenous Peoples to

work towards closing the Indigenous
Protected Areas data gap
A specific gap to be addressed by data collection
is that of Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs). As
these areas often do not fit the Western concept
of MPAs, they can be challenging to capture in
data collection. It is critical to work together with
the Indigenous community to determine if and
how to accurately and respectfully include IPAs
in national and global accounting.

Consulting
03 Case studies

Consulting
UNITED KINGDOM
Equity within national contributions to the 30x30 target
The United Kingdom (UK) has committed to protect are reported “no-take zones” have been assessed,
30% of its land and sea by 2030 and is making with two likely to be fully or highly protected.
gradual progress toward meeting this target (UK However, these zones account for less than 0.1%
Parliament, 2023). 68.3% of the UK’s waters are of the country’s total domestic waters. (MPAtlas,
designated as MPAs (SkyTruth). A closer look 2024). This is largely due to a legislative loophole
at this data reveals some of the complexity and that allows bottom trawling — one of the most
nuance involved in each country determining its destructive fishing practices — within over half
contribution to this global conservation target. of these ‘protected’ areas, undermining the UK’s
claims of progress toward the 30x30 target. The
For the UK, only around 8% of the reported MPA government is already taking steps to address this
coverage lies in its domestic waters. Over 90% issue, such as introducing new bylaws in 2023 to
of the MPAs are situated in distant waters of protect four of England’s offshore MPAs, including
its overseas territories (OTs) (Pike et al., 2024). the Doggerbank, from damaging fishing activity
These include areas such as the Pitcairn Islands, (Patrick, 2023). There is a need to continue apace
Tristan da Cunha, and the South Georgia and with this improvement if the UK wants to claim that
South Sandwich Islands (SkyTruth). This MPA it has contributed its fair share of home waters to
distribution is unsurprising, as these regions marine conservation.
are Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and represent
“low hanging fruit” in conservation terms: they The UK case also reveals a broader nuance around
are remote, sparsely populated and relatively fair share contribution to the 30x30 target and one
untouched still by large-scale economic activity that is evident among other Western countries with
such as fishing and shipping. large OTs such as the United States of America
(USA) and France. While it is commendable that
Supported by an active coalition of NGOs, the UK these biodiversity hotspots are being conserved,
Government initiated the The Blue Belt Programme their status as hotspots is largely because they
to support the UK Overseas Territories with the remained relatively undisturbed from exploitative
protection and sustainable management of their economic activities. Besides conserving these
marine environments. This includes providing biodiversity hotspots, countries also have a
financial support for developing sustainable responsibility to regenerate depleted marine areas
business models, as well as monitoring and in more industrialized regions — usually close to
enforcement of MPAs. Currently, 10 out of 16 the mainland. This not only protects and restores
OTs are participating in this initiative. The UK ecosystems but also combats climate change,
Government is looking to expand the program to supporting the resilience of small-scale fishers and
include partnerships with a number of Caribbean bringing health benefits to the larger number of
territories. people living on continental areas. The burden and
benefits of conservation should not be experienced
While nearly 40% of the marine protection in OTs only by remote, less affluent regions, while richer
is fully or highly protected, the situation within the regions maintain the status quo. Nations with OTs
UK’s domestic waters is much less effective in terms should take responsibility for restoring ecosystems
of biodiversity conservation outcomes. Of the 47% in depleted marine areas in domestic waters, and
of UK domestic waters designated as MPAs, most contribute to conservation efforts in OTs with
have not been assessed. Only three MPAs which financial support and capacity building.

Consulting
UNITED KINGDOM
LEGEND
MPA Guide Protection Level
Fully Protected United Kingdom (all waters)
Highly Protected boundary and marine area
Lightly Protected Area with multiple claims

or joint control
Minimally Protected/Incompatible
Unknown/To Be Determined
Designated
Proposed/Committed
Figure
Map of marine protected areas in the UK’s domestic waters and overseas territories in the South
8 Atlantic and South Pacific Oceans. Note that there are also MPAs in the UK’s overseas territories in the
Caribbean / Sargasso sea which are not shown on this map, and also not (yet) assessed for protection
level. Red areas are MPAs reported to the WDPA which are not (yet) assessed for protection level (likely
effective protection). However, it is known by experts that most unassessed areas in the UK’s domestic
waters have a minimal/incompatible protection level because destructive fishing practices such as
bottom trawling are allowed.

Consulting
INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL
APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION
IN MOZAMBIQUE AND CANADA
Indigenous-led protection can lead to more effective conservation outcomes
Learning from and supporting Indigenous Peoples local school curricula and partnering with initiatives
(IPs) and local communities (LCs) is as important in focused on women’s empowerment. Through these
achieving ecological goals as it is in achieving the efforts, local communities of the IBCCN and the
environmental justice goals clearly set forth in the GBF. involved stakeholders are enhancing environmental
stewardship, conserving their ecosystem, and
A successful example of community-led conservation diversifying as well as improving livelihoods across
is the Inhambane Bay Community Conservation the bay.
Network (IBCCN) in Mozambique. Established in
2017, the network, locally referred to as Sidika, Similar to Sidika in Mozambique, the Gitdisdzu
encompasses 12 no-take MPAs covering 6.7km², Lugyeks MPA in Canada exemplifies successful
with proposals for further expansion currently under Indigenous-led conservation and has recently been
consideration. This initiative is co-managed by awarded the Blue Park Award for its exceptional
traditional leaders from nine coastal communities protection of marine biodiversity. Established in
in collaboration with the local Community Fishing 2022 by the Kitasoo Xai’xais Nation and managed
Councils, and with support from Ocean Revolution entirely by their Stewardship Authority, this 33.5
Moçambique, a non-profit organization, other NGOs, km² MPA, also known as Kitasu Bay, plays a crucial
and local academic institutions. The protection role in supporting diverse marine life, including
standards of these MPAs align with the Blue Park important herring spawning grounds, and is integral
Standard for conservation effectiveness established to the Nation’s culture, livelihoods, and traditions.
by the Marine Conservation Institute and an
international Science Council composed of leading Gitdisdzu Lugyeks MPA is highly protected. The
marine conservation scientists, positioning Sidika Kitasoo Xai’xais Stewardship Authority integrates
as a Blue Spark collaboration with the potential to traditional ecological knowledge with contemporary
achieve Blue Park status in the future. marine science to establish a sustainable
framework for marine stewardship, guided by the
The local communities of Inhambane Bay combine Nation’s principles of respect, interconnectedness,
traditional ecological knowledge — locally referred reciprocity, and intergenerational knowledge. With
to as “ocean rules,” established by village elders extensive experience in the region, the Kitasoo
— with conventional MPA management practices. Xai’xais Guardian Watchmen actively monitor and
Community engagement in conservation efforts care for the MPA, ensuring the protection of vital
is facilitated by Ocean Revolution Moçambique marine resources and the preservation of their
in partnership with various NGOs and academic cultural practices for future generations.
researchers. Despite the involvement of numerous
stakeholders, coordination has been effective, with Effectively facilitating IPs’ and LCs’ self-determination
high levels of engagement. As a result, community and stewardship of land and water — despite the
members use their “ocean rules” to identify key ongoing impacts of colonial legacies — promotes
fishing areas and prioritize their conservation, while successful conservation strategies (Tran et al., 2020).
receiving training in catch monitoring and data These examples demonstrate that collaborative,
collection, which enhances decision-making and cross-cultural approaches can integrate Indigenous
improves fishing yields. Furthermore, scuba diving and Western knowledge systems, thereby enhancing
job training, educational programs, and alternative conservation efforts while respecting Indigenous
employment opportunities are being promoted and local rights and perspectives. Ultimately,
within the communities to reduce pressure on the involvement of IPs and LCs in the design and
marine resources and improve the livelihoods of local implementation of conservation measures is often a
youth and community members. The organizations key solution for addressing the performance of MPAs,
involved also promote gender equity and accessibility, leading to more effective management and improved
incorporating marine environmental education into conservation outcomes (Ferse et al., 2010).

Consulting
PANAMA
Finance and capacity-building as a prerequisite
for effective protection
Panama is home to some of the world’s most result, initiatives such as the declaration of MPAs,
diverse ecosystems, including rich biodiversity Project Finance for Permanence agreements
in both terrestrial and marine environments. To (PFPs) to secure long-term protection for natural
safeguard this rich natural heritage, the Panamanian areas, and management plans continue to
government is prioritizing the protection of areas advance regardless of changes in administration.
with high biodiversity value. While 20% of Panama’s These measures enable the country to maintain
national waters is already fully or highly protected, momentum in the long term.
the government recently announced the expansion
of the Banco Volcán MPA from 14,000km² to over However, Panama also has opportunities to improve
90,000km² (Mission Blue, 2023). This expansion the management and governance of its MPAs to
is crucial due to the area’s high biodiversity and increase the quality of marine conservation. In this
the presence of various migratory and endangered context, strengthening on the ground support and
species. When the designated expansion is government capacity is key to improving the scale
implemented/actively managed, Panama will be and depth of MPAs initiatives. Establishing legally
protecting almost 50% of its total seascape, making binding collaborations between implementation
it one of the few countries globally, and the only one partners could enhance their influence, and
in Latin America, to reach this level. The protection ability to engage with stakeholders, particularly
level (likely effective impact on biodiversity) of IPs through the co-design and management of
Banco Volcán is still unknown/to be determined MPAs. Additionally, prioritizing collaborative
(MPAtlas, 2024). partnerships with Indigenous Peoples at all stages
could significantly improve outcomes and foster
This has been a major factor supporting long-term sustainability. This is particularly
the realization of the country’s frontrunner important as Indigenous Peoples represent 12%
implementation plan for the GBF commitments, of the national population and collectively own
including the 30x30 target, focusing on improving over 20% of Panama’s territories (IWGIA, n.d.).
the management of existing MPAs and expanding Prioritizing inclusiveness of IPs by enabling them
conservation and restoration initiatives beyond to become conservation owners can enhance
these areas (Hopman, 2023). In collaboration with equity and local capabilities, contributing to the
international partners, the Panamanian government effective safeguarding of these areas.
has established the Center for Conservation and
Sustainability (CONSOS), a dedicated institution Developing a more robust management system
that brings together the Ministry of Environment, that engages local stakeholders can also lead to
NGOs, and other key stakeholders to oversee and more effective distribution of financial resources
support the execution of the 30x30 program. across governance levels and regions where
Serving as a project coordination office, CONSOS management takes place. This is crucial given
is a focal point for NGOs and private actors to that the national government has committed
provide implementation and financial support. to fund projects that align with the GBF goals
Involvement of key NGOs as implementation and the 2030 Agenda, with the Ministry of
partners has been particularly effective in Environment projecting an investment of
strengthening stakeholder engagement. approximately $265 million over the next eight
years (Hopman, 2023). To raise such funds,
Another key factor contributing to the effectiveness Panama will require international biodiversity
of implementation is the presence of dedicated finance support to strengthen its capabilities. This
owners for initiatives and the establishment of a support is essential for Panama to move from
monitoring system to track progress through KPIs. making significant commitments to effectively
Additionally, Panama has enshrined its 30x30 implementing established protected areas at the
commitments into law, ensuring stability and local level.
consistency even during political transitions. As a

Consulting
References
Ban, N. C., Gurney, G. G., Marshall, N. A., Whitney, C. Di Franco, A., Hogg, K. E., Calò, A., Bennett, N. J., Sévin-
K., Mills, M., Gelcich, S., Bennet, N.J., Meehan, M.C., Allouet, M. A., Alaminos, O. E., Lang, M., Koutsoubas,
Butler, C., Ban, S., Train, T.C., Cox, M.E., & Breslow, S. D., Prvan, M., Santarossa, L., Niccolini, F., Milazzo, M.,
J. (2019). Well-being outcomes of marine protected & Guidetti, P. (2020). Improving marine protected area
areas. Nature sustainability, 2(6), 524-532. governance through collaboration and co-production.
Journal of environmental management, 269, 110757.
Bohorquez, J. J., Dvarskas, A., Jacquet, J., Sumaila,
U. R., Nye, J., & Pikitch, E. K. (2022). A new tool to Enright, S. R., Meneses-Orellana, R., & Keith, I. (2021).
evaluate, improve, and sustain marine protected area The Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR):
financing built on a comprehensive review of finance The emergence of a voluntary regional cooperation
sources and instruments. Frontiers in Marine Science, mechanism for the conservation and sustainable use of
8, 742846. marine biodiversity within a fragmented regional ocean
governance landscape. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8,
Cannizzo, Z. J., Lausche, B., & Wenzel, L. (2021).
674825.
Advancing marine conservation through ecological
connectivity: Building better connections for better European Commission (2020). EU Biodiversity
protection. In Parks Stewardship Forum (Vol. 37, No. 3). Strategy for 2030.
Claudet, J., Ban, N. C., Blythe, J., Briggs, J., Darling, E., Ferse, S., Costa, M., Mânez, K., Adhuri, D., & Glaser, M.
Gurney, G. G., Palarfy, J.E., Pike, E.P., Agostini, V.N., (2010). Allies, not aliens: increasing the role of local
Ahmadia, G.N., Campbell, S.J., Epstein, G., Estradivari., communities in marine protected area implementation.
Gill, David., Himes-Cornell, A., Jonas, H.D., Jupiter, Environmental Conservation, 37, 23 - 34.
S.D., Mangubhai, S., & Morgan, L. (2022). Avoiding
Fidler, R. Y., Ahmadia, G. N., Amkieltiela, A.,
the misuse of other effective area-based conservation
Awaludinnoer, A., Cox, C., Estradivari, E., Glew, L.,
measures in the wake of the blue economy. One Earth,
Handayani, C., Mahajan, S. L., Mascia, M. B., Pakiding,
5(9), 969-974.
F., Andradi-Brown, D. A., Campbell, S. J., Claborn, K.,
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine De Nardo, M., Fox, H. E., Gill, D., Hidayat, N. I., Jakub,
Living Resources. (2021). Marine protected areas. R., Le, D. T., Purwanto, Valdivia, A., & Harborne, A.
CCAMLR MPA Information Repository. R. (2022). Participation, not penalties: Community
involvement and equitable governance contribute
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
to more effective multiuse protected areas. Science
Living Resources. (2023). Great expectations: Moving
Advances, 8(18), eabl8929.
toward consensus on CCAMLR MPAs in 2023. CCAMLR.
Fischer, A., Bhakta, D., Macmillan-Lawler, M., &
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2022).
Harris, P. (2019). Existing global marine protected
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,
area network is not representative or comprehensive
15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
measured against seafloor geomorphic features and
Biological Diversity, CBD/COP/DEC/15/4.
benthic habitats. Ocean & Coastal Management, 167,
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (n.d.). 176-187.
2030 targets (with guidance notes). Secretariat of
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J.
Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E. J., Loveridge, E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier,
R., Gross-Camp, N. D., Wongbusarakum, S., Sangha, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M. V.,
K. K., Scherl, L. M., Phan, H. P., Zafra-Calvo, N., Lavey, Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A.,
W. G., Byakagaba, P., Idrobo, C. J., Chenet, A., Bennett, & Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global
N. J., Mansourian, S., & Rosado-May, F. J. (2021). The importance of Indigenous lands for conservation.
role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369-374.
effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and
Gjerde, K. M., Clark, N. A., Chazot, C., Cremers, K.,
Society, 26(3), Article 19.
Harden-Davies, H., Kachelriess, D., Payne, C. R.,
Rodriguez-Chaves, M., Spadone, A., Thiele, T., Vierros,
M., Goettsche-Wanli, G., & Wright, G. (2022). Getting
beyond yes: fast-tracking implementation of the United
Nations agreement for marine biodiversity beyond
national jurisdiction. npj Ocean sustainability, 1(1), 6.

Consulting
Grorud-Colvert, K., Sullivan-Stack, J., Roberts, C., OECD. (n.d.). Finance and investment for biodiversity.
Constant, V., Horta e Costa, B., Pike, E. P., Kingston,
Ohayon, S., Granot, I. & Belmaker, J. (2021). A meta-
N., Laffoley, D., Sala, E., Claudet, J., Friedlander, A.
analysis reveals edge effects within marine protected
M., Gill, D. A., Lester, S. E., Day, J. C., Gonçalves, E.
areas. Nat Ecol Evol 5, 1301–1308.
J., Ahmadia, G. N., Rand, M., Villagomez, A., Ban,
N. C., Gurney, G. G., Spalding, A. K., Bennett, N. J., Patrick, D. (2023, June 13). One year into fisheries
Briggs, J., Morgan, L. E., Moffitt, R., Deguignet, M., management measures for English offshore MPAs.
Pikitch, E. K., Darling, E. S., Jessen, S., Hameed, S. Marine Developments Blog. Marine Management
O., Di Carlo, G., Guidetti, P., Harris, J. M., Torre, J., Organisation.
Kizilkaya, Z., Agardy, T., Cury, P., Shah, N. J., Sack, K.,
Pettinotti, L., Cao, Y., Kamninga, T. and Colenbrander,
Cao, L., Fernandez, M., & Lubchenco, J. (2021). The
S. (2024). A fair share of biodiversity finance?
MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for
Apportioning responsibility for the $20 billion target
the ocean. Science, 373(6560), eabf0861.
by 2025. ODI Working Paper. London: ODI
High Seas Alliance. (2024). High Seas Treaty
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2018, September 4). What do
ratification tracker. High Seas Alliance.
you know about the high seas? Pew Charitable Trusts.
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S.,
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2024, August). Inside the new
Lausche, B., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock,
high seas treaty. Pew Charitable Trusts.
J., White, J. W., Theobald, D. M., Levine, J., Reuling,
M., Watson, J. E. M., Ament, R., & Tabor, G. M. (2020). Pike, E. P., MacCarthy, J. M. C., Hameed, S. O., Harasta,
Guidelines for conserving connectivity through N., Grorud-Colvert, K., Sullivan-Stack, J., Claudet, J.,
ecological networks and corridors. IUCN-WCPA. Horta e Costa, B., Gonçalves, E. J., Villagomez, A., &
Morgan, L. (2024). Ocean protection quality is lagging
Hopman, D. (2023, August 11). Panama’s ambitious
behind quantity: Applying a scientific framework to
30x30 plan: Protecting its rich biodiversity. McKinsey
assess real marine protected area progress against
& Company.
the 30 by 30 target. Conservation Letters, e13020.
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
Sala, E., & Giakoumi, S. (2018). No-take marine
(n.d.). Panama. IWGIA.
reserves are the most effective protected areas in the
Kallhauge, A. C. (2024, June 5). Quality – not just ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(3), 1166-
quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal. 1168.
Climate Home News.
Sullivan-Stack, J., Ahmadia, G. N., Andradi-Brown,
Lester, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Grorud-Colvert, K., D. A., Barron, A., Brooks, C. M., Claudet, J., Costa,
Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B. I., Gaines, S. D., Airamé, B.H., Estradivari., Field, L.C., Giakoumi, S., Gonçalves,
S., & Warner, R. R. (2009). Biological effects within E., Groulx, N., Harris, J., Jessen, S., Johnson, S.,
no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine MacCarthy, J.M.C., Maricato, G., Morgan, L., Nalven,
Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46. K.B., Nocito, E.S., & Grorud-Colvert, K. (2024).
Assessments of expected MPA outcomes can inform
Marine Conservation Institute. (n.d.). MPAtlas with the
and improve biodiversity conservation: Case studies
MPA Guide. Marine Conservation Institute.
using The MPA Guide. Marine Policy, 170, 106364.
MacKinnon, K. (2019). Effective area-based
Tran, T., Ban, N., & Bhattacharyya, J. (2020). A
conservation: Protected areas and OECMs [PowerPoint
review of successes, challenges, and lessons from
presentation]. Convention on Biological Diversity.
Indigenous protected and conserved areas. Biological
Mission Blue. (2023, March 2). Panama achieves 50% Conservation.
ocean protection with newly expanded Banco Volcán
Turnbull, J. W., Johnston, E. L., & Clark, G. F. (2021).
Marine Protected Area.
Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of
Nowakowski, A. J., Canty, S. W., Bennett, N. J., Cox, partially protected marine areas. Conservation Biology,
C. E., Valdivia, A., Deichmann, J. L., ... & McField, M. 35(3), 921-932.
(2023). Co-benefits of marine protected areas for
Zupan, M., Fragkopoulou, E., Claudet, J., Erzini, K., Horta
nature and people. Nature Sustainability, 6(10), 1210-
e Costa, B., & Gonçalves, E. J. (2018). Marine partially
1218.
protected areas: drivers of ecological effectiveness.
OECD. (2024). Biodiversity and Development Finance Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(7), 381-
2015-2022: Contributing to Target 19 of the Kunming- 387.
Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, OECD
Publishing, Paris.

Consulting
ANNEX 1:
Data and methodology
DATA ANALYSIS MARINE PROTECTION ATLAS
Metabolic’s analysis draws on the latest data from the (MPAtlas)
Marine Conservation Institute’s (MCI) Marine Protection The MPAtlas was established by the Marine Conservation
Atlas (MPAtlas) (which draws on national waters data Institute (MCI) in 2012 and offers a detailed assessment
from www.marineregions.org and MPA data from of global MPAs. It uses a science-based framework
MPAtlas and World Database on Protected Areas called the The MPA Guide to categorize MPAs based
(WDPA)/ProtectedPlanet) and from the SkyTruth 30x30 on their level of protection and stage of establishment.
Progress Tracker (which draws on data from MPAtlas, The goal is to clarify which MPAs offer likely effective
WDPA, and other sources), combined with case study biodiversity conservation, ensuring accurate tracking
research and expert interviews to provide nuance to the toward global ocean protection targets like the 30x30
numbers. Data cut-off point is August 2024 and might initiative. MPAtlas provides tools for users to explore
differ from numbers on MPAtlas’ and SkyTruth’s websites, MPA data, promoting transparency and informed
which had their latest updates before August. MPAtlas decision-making in marine conservation.
data about the likely effective protection of MPAs was
assessed using methodologies from the The MPA Guide. Firstly, it is important to note that not all countries’
This report refers to ‘likely effective protection’ when MPAs have been assessed, and not all MPAs reported
marine areas are categorized as implemented and fully to the WDPA have yet been assessed for effectiveness.
or highly protected. It’s important to note that not all So far, the MPAtlas database includes The MPA Guide
MPAs reported to the WDPA have been assessed (yet) assessments for 783 MPA zones out of the more than
for effectiveness. In addition, the MPAtlas assessment 18,000 MPAs reported to the WDPA. However, the
includes some areas which are proposed or committed assessed MPAs include the 100 largest MPAs, which
but not yet implemented, explaining why in some cases together cover 89% of the total global marine protected
the area assessed is larger than the area reported to be area and 7.3% of the global ocean area. Thus, the
protected (for example in table 1). analysis provides useful insight into the global trend.
WORLD DATABASE ON Furthermore, 8.3% of the total global marine area

is under some form of conservation, of which 69%
PROTECTED AREAS (WDPA) of this MPA coverage is implemented or actively
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) is a managed, 10% has not yet been assessed (these are
comprehensive global database that tracks terrestrial primarily small areas), and 21% is designated but not
and marine protected areas. It is managed by the actually enforced or regulated. Given that the MPAtlas
United Nations Environment Programme’s World database includes some areas that have not yet been
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and implemented, this explains why, in some cases, the
the International Union for Conservation of Nature area assessed is larger than the area reported to be
(IUCN), and is published by Protected Planet. The WDPA protected (for effective protection, the area needs
provides exhaustive, data-driven insights into global to be implemented or actively managed, not just
biodiversity conservation efforts, serving as a source designated or proposed/committed).
to inform governments and stakeholders. The WDPA
compiles government-reported figures and provides The level of protection of an MPA is based on activities
data for analysis, decision-making, and reporting on and maximum allowed impacts in the given MPA. The
global conservation targets, such as the 30x30 target of assessed activities are mining, dredging and dumping,
protecting 30% of the world’s land and ocean by 2030. anchoring, infrastructure, aquaculture, fishing, and

Consulting
non-extractive activities. In order to be classified SKYTRUTH 30X30 PROGRESS
as fully protected, minimal impacts from anchoring,
infrastructure, aquaculture and non-extractive TRACKER
activities are permitted, while all other activities are Built by SkyTruth, a nonprofit conservation technology
prohibited. This activity-based method helps assess organization, with support from the Bloomberg Ocean
expected impacts on biodiversity and illustrates how Initiative, the 30x30 Progress Tracker is a free, interactive
important management plans are to effectively protect platform designed for the general public to see — at a
an area. Management plans and goals are used to glance — how well the world is doing on enhancing ocean
determine the level of protection. If no management protection globally in line with the goal of protecting
plan exists, the MPA is not considered implemented, 30% of the ocean by 2030. It’s based on August 2024
and can therefore not be fully or highly protected. data from WDPA, MPAtlas and geospatial mapping.
The platform can be used by civil society campaigns to
ProtectedSeas also assesses the protection level of marine track country-by-country progress, and by government
protected areas globally. However, this assessment is agencies and policymakers to gain insights on 30x30
based on fishing protection alone. For this reason, this and compare countries’ progress. The goal is to make
paper uses the MPAtlas protection level data, which information about 30x30 more accessible and transparent
captures the impacts of a range of different activities to everyone, including those in local communities who are
and likely provides a more comprehensive picture. directly impacted by this ambitious conservation effort.

Consulting
ANNEX 2:
Country-level data on
marine conservation and
effectiveness
Table
National share of marine protected areas (MPA and OECM) in 2022 and 2024, compared to the total national
4 marine area (%); the share of likely effective protection in 2024 (Protection level: fully or highly protected) of
the total national marine area (%); and the area assessed for protection level by 2024 of the total national
marine area (%). Source: SkyTruth & MPAtlas, August 2024.
Country ISO 3 2022 2024

Albania ALB 1.1 1.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Algeria DZA 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Angola AGO 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
Antigua and ATG 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3

Barbuda
Argentina ARG 46.7 46.7 11.0a 45.2
Australia AUS 43.1 48.3 18.5 44.7
Azerbaijan AZE 1.0 1.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Bahrain BHR 17.8 17.8 Not assessed Not assessed
Bangladesh BGD 7.5 7.5 Not assessed Not assessed
Barbados BRB 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Belgium BEL 37.7 37.7 Not assessed Not assessed
Belize BLZ 11.8 11.8 Not assessed Not assessed
Brazil BRA 26.6 26.6 3.2 24.6
Brunei BRN 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Bulgaria BGR 8.0 8.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Cambodia KHM 1.4 1.4 Not assessed Not assessed
Cameroon CMR 11.1 11.1 0.0 12.5
Canada CAN 14.4 14.4 0.2 10.6
Cape Verde CPV 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Chile CHL 41.1 41.2 0.0 39.9
China CHN 0.6 0.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Colombia COL 40.3 40.3 1.5 48.2

Consulting
Comoros COM 0.3 0.3 0.0 28.4
Costa Rica CRI 28.7 28.7 0.3 93.6
Croatia HRV 9.1 9.1 0.0 0.0
Cuba CUB 4.0 4.0 0.5 2.1
Cyprus CYP 8.6 8.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Democratic COD 0.2 0.2 Not assessed Not assessed

Republic of
the Congo
Denmark DNK 0.9 0.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Dominica DMA 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Dominican DOM 12.1 12.1 0.0 32.1

Republic
Ecuador ECU 19.5 19.5 15.0 78.1
Egypt EGY 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.1
El Salvador SLV 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.1
Equatorial GNQ 0.2 0.2 Not assessed Not assessed

Guinea
Estonia EST 18.5 19.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Fiji FJI 0.9 0.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Finland FIN 11.9 11.9 Not assessed Not assessed
France FRA 22.5 22.5 2.6 36.6
Gabon GAB 26.8 26.8 Not assessed Not assessed
Gambia GMB 0.6 0.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Georgia GEO 0.8 0.8 Not assessed Not assessed
Germany DEU 45.3 45.3 0.0 3.0
Greece GRC 4.6 4.6 0.1 0.7
Grenada GRD 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8
Guatemala GTM 0.9 0.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Guinea GIN 0.6 0.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Guinea- GNB 1.4 1.4 Not assessed Not assessed

Bissau
Haiti HTI 2.8 2.8 0.0 1.3
Honduras HND 4.6 4.6 0.0 4.4
Iceland ISL 0.4 0.4 Not assessed Not assessed

Consulting
Indonesia IDN 3.0 3.0 0.1 0.3
Iran IRN 0.7 0.7 Not assessed Not assessed
Ireland IRL 2.3 2.3 0.0 6.7
Israel ISR 0.6 0.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Italy ITA 10.7 10.7 0.0 7.8
Jamaica JAM 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.5
Japan JPN 7.3 7.3 0.0 5.9
Jordan JOR 2.9 2.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Kazakhstan KAZ 52.2 52.2 0.0 48.5
Kenya KEN 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.02
Kiribati KIR 11.8 11.8 0.0 11.9
Kuwait KWT 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.4
Latvia LVA 16.0 16.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Lebanon LBN 0.2 0.2 Not assessed Not assessed
Liberia LBR 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Lithuania LTU 22.9 22.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Madagascar MDG 0.7 0.7 0.0 3.1
Malaysia MYS 4.8 4.8 Not assessed Not assessed
Maldives MDV 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Malta MLT 7.8 7.8 Not assessed Not assessed
Marshall MHL 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1

Islands
Mauritania MRT 3.7 3.7 Not assessed Not assessed
Mauritius MUS 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Mexico MEX 22.1 22.1 4.7 20.1
Monaco MCO 99.7 99.7 0.0 100.0
Montenegro MNE 1.2 1.2 Not assessed Not assessed
Morocco MAR 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
Mozambique MOZ 1.4 1.4 Not assessed Not assessed
Myanmar MMR 0.5 0.5 Not assessed Not assessed
Namibia NAM 1.7 1.7 Not assessed Not assessed
Netherlands NLD 31.9 31.9 0.0 17.0

Consulting
New Zealand NZL 49.5 49.5 2.0 48.0
Nicaragua NIC 3.7 3.7 Not assessed Not assessed
Nigeria NGA 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Norway NOR 4.4 4.4 0.0 2.7
Oman OMN 0.3 16.2 Not assessed Not assessed
Pakistan PAK 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Palau PLW 98.7 98.7 77.9 96.6
Panama PAN 26.3 26.3 20.6 85.1
Papua New PNG 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed

Guinea
Peru PER 7.6 7.8 0.0 7.3
Philippines PHL 3.4 3.4 0.1 0.1
Poland POL 24.1 24.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Portugal PRT 4.5 4.5 0.2 2.3
Qatar QAT 2.3 2.3 Not assessed Not assessed
Republic of COG 3.6 3.6 Not assessed Not assessed

the Congo
Romania ROU 21.0 21.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Russia RUS 1.9 1.9 0.8 1.4
Saint Kitts KNA 4.4 4.4 Not assessed Not assessed

and Nevis
Saint Lucia LCA 0.2 0.2 0.0 2.3
Saint Vincent VCT 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

and the
Grenadines
Samoa WSM 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
São Tomé STP 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed

and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia SAU 2.7 2.7 0.0 4.9
Senegal SEN 1.4 1.4 Not assessed Not assessed
Seychelles SYC 32.7 32.7 0.2 32.6
Sierra Leone SLE 1.7 1.7 Not assessed Not assessed
Slovenia SVN 3.7 3.7 Not assessed Not assessed

Consulting
Solomon SLB 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Islands
South Africa ZAF 14.7 14.7 1.8 11.0
South Korea KOR 1.9 1.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Spain ESP 12.7 12.7 0.0 5.3
Sri Lanka LKA 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Sudan SDN 6.9 6.9 Not assessed Not assessed
Suriname SUR 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.0
Sweden SWE 16.0 16.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Tanzania TZA 2.3 2.3 Not assessed Not assessed
Thailand THA 5.0 5.0 Not assessed Not assessed
The Bahamas BHS 7.6 7.6 0.1 4.0
Timor-Leste TLS 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.5
Tonga TON 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Trinidad and TTO 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed

Tobago
Tunisia TUN 1.0 1.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Turkey TUR 0.1 0.1 Not assessed Not assessed
Turkmenistan TKM 3.6 3.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Tuvalu TUV 0.0 0.0 Not assessed Not assessed
Ukraine UKR 19.6 19.6 Not assessed Not assessed
United Arab ARE 11.0 11.0 Not assessed Not assessed

Emirates
United GBR 68.3 68.3 38.9a 66.1
Kingdom
United USA 26.1 26.1 24.9 31.8
States
Uruguay URY 0.6 0.6 Not assessed Not assessed
Vanuatu VUT 22.6 22.6 0.0 23.1
Venezuela VEN 4.2 4.2 Not assessed Not assessed
Vietnam VNM 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
Yemen YEM 0.4 0.4 Not assessed Not assessed

a
Includes MPAs located in disputed territories (Malvinas/Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands).

Consulting
+31 (0) 203690977 Gedempt Hamerkanaal 29
[email protected]
Consulting 1021 KL Amsterdam
www.metabolic.nl The Netherlands

On Track or Off Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Track or Off Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Track or Off Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On track or

About this publication

2 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

3 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

COP16 is a moment for governments to demonstrate

4 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

01. HOW ARE WE DOING? 12

02. HOW CAN WE DO BETTER? 24

03. CASE STUDIES 35

5 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

GLOBAL OCEAN AREA

Conserved marine areas Implemented & Fully/

Figure Current state of global ocean protection.

6 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

1 The creation of new MPAs requires careful planning

7 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

8 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

9 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

10 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

11 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

12 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

GLOBAL OCEAN AREA GLOBAL INSIGHTS

Simply put, progress to date has been far below

Worryingly, only 2.8% of global marine areas are

13 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

14 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

Conditions for likely effective protection

Proposed/committed Designated Implemented Actively managed

15 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

What is an OECM? of formally including Indigenous Peoples and

16 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

17 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

Latin America &

Asia & Paciﬁc

Figure Progress on ocean conservation, by region between 2010 and 2024.8

18 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

Region 2022 2024

Africa 5.3 6.1 N/A* 4.9

Asia & Pacific 16.8 17.6 4.2 16.1

Europe 20.2 23.3 7.4 22.7

Latin America & 26.5 26.6 2.5 31.2

West Asia 1.3 7.4 N/A* 0.8

Global 7.8 8.0 2.8 9.3

19 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

MPAs reported to the WDPA

20 ON TRACK OR OFF COURSE?

Country Ocean area under Likely effective Marine area assessed

Palau 98.7 77.9 96.6

United Kingdom 68.3 38.9* 66.1

Kazakhstan 52.2 0.0 48.5

New Zealand 49.5 2.0 48.0

Australia 48.3 18.5 44.7

Argentina 46.7 11* 45.2

Germany 45.3 0.0 3.0

Chile 41.2 0.0 39.9

Colombia 40.3 1.5 48.2

Belgium 37.7 Not assessed Not assessed

France 33.3 2.6 36.6

Seychelles 32.7 0.2 32.6

Netherlands 31.9 0.0 17.0