MCS&E Strategies for MPAs
Monitoring, Control, Surveillance, & Enforcement (MCS&E) strategies for Marine protected areas (MPAs) vary significantly depending on their context, including location, type, and variety of threats being faced, spatial extent, and distance from shore. Additionally, MCS&E strategies should be tailored to the stage of an MPA (e.g. Is the MPA still being planned, or has it been enacted? Or is it operational but facing new or unexpected threats?). For example, during the planning and design stage of an MPA, an MCS&E strategy will likely focus on establishing legal frameworks and engaging stakeholders. In contrast, operational MPAs usually prioritize surveillance, compliance, and adaptive management systems to ensure their effectiveness. ref
Threats
Threats to MPAs significantly influence MCS&E strategies. For example, in regions with high illegal fishing activity, enforcement mechanisms such as vessel monitoring systems or patrols may be essential. Meanwhile, areas prone to pollution or habitat destruction might benefit from education campaigns and stricter zoning regulations. Incorporating community-based approaches, like training local stakeholders in surveillance and compliance protocols, can improve effectiveness by fostering engagement and participation. ref
Case Study
Read The Bahamas MPA Enforcement Case Study to learn about the use of tools like vessel monitoring systems, patrol vessels, and drone technology to deter illegal fishing, one of The Bahamas’s top marine threats. This case study also highlights the importance of community involvement and interagency collaboration, as well as the integration of traditional practices and modern technologies to address illegal activities and preserve the marine ecosystems.
Watch this webinar to learn more about MCS&E and the application of these strategies in The Bahamas.
Distance to Shore
Within MCS&E strategies, it is important to recognize that nearshore and offshore MPAs, as well as small-scale and large-scale MPAs, are not distinct categories. Many MPAs overlap these classifications, such as being both nearshore and small-scale, or offshore and large-scale. At the same time, it can be useful to identify the context of an MPA when designing its MCS&E system.
Nearshore MPAs
Nearshore MPAs are often smaller and closer to human activity, making MCS&E development more likely to include community involvement, due to easier access and strong community connections to the area. Nearshore MPAs often address threats such as overfishing, habitat destruction, and pollution from coastal activities. However, small-scale fishers, who rely on nearshore areas for their livelihoods, can be disproportionately affected by MPA restrictions, as their access to fishing grounds may actually be more limited than the access of larger, industrial vessels operating in similarly-controlled offshore MPAs. Patrolling or low-cost technologies like drones can often effectively support local surveillance efforts, but the proximity to communities may require more emphasis on inclusive stakeholder engagement. ref
Example: The Coral Triangle
Reef top packed with life, Rinca Island, Indonesia. Photo © Jeff Yonover
The Coral Triangle spans Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste, and hosts more than 1,900 nearshore MPAs. These MPAs collectively focus on safeguarding critical marine habitats like coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, all of which are essential for biodiversity and fisheries. The key to their success is the integration of traditional governance systems with modern legal frameworks, creating a solid foundation for enforcement.
Many MPAs in this area are monitored through community-driven efforts complemented by governmental resources. Technologies like patrol boats and surveillance systems, as well as community participation in violation reporting, strengthen enforcement measures. This approach has been particularly effective in protecting coral reef habitats, with approximately 18% of the region’s coral reefs now actively managed as MPAs. These efforts are evidence of the value of combining local knowledge with structured MCS&E frameworks to address illegal fishing and habitat degradation. ref
Offshore MPAs
Offshore MPAs, by contrast, are remote and often larger, posing significant logistical challenges to enforcement efforts. Their primary focus is often on conserving pelagic ecosystems or migratory species and addressing threats such as illegal fishing and deep-sea mining. Monitoring technologies like satellite tracking are critical in MCS&E frameworks for offshore MPAs. ref
Example: Ascension Island
Green turtles nesting on a beach, Ascension Island. Photo © Drew Avery CC BY 2.0
The Ascension Island MPA, spanning over 440,000 km2 in the South Atlantic Ocean, represents a successful example of offshore MCS&E implementation. The island's government employs satellite-based vessel monitoring systems and automatic identification systems to track and regulate fishing activity. Collaborative efforts with NGOs (such as the Blue Belt Program and OceanMind) bolster enforcement by integrating advanced surveillance with local capacity building. This approach has effectively prevented illegal fishing while supporting marine biodiversity conservation in this remote ecosystem.
Scale
Large-Scale MPAs
In this toolkit, we consider large-scale MPAs to be areas greater than 150,000 km2 in size that that are currently established by national governments, but may also involve state, provincial, or local authorities working collaboratively with NGOs, research institutions, communities, and other relevant organizations. These MPAs, which are often located offshore, are more resilient to climate-related disturbances and provide habitats for wide-ranging species. However, enforcement, which usually requires remote sensing or other technological surveillance and enforcement solutions, is expensive and requires sophisticated tools like satellite-based vessel monitoring systems. Extensive collaboration among governments, stakeholders, and NGOs is often necessary for effective management. The ecological benefits of large-scale MPAs are significant, though evaluating their outcomes can be complex. ref
Example: Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument
A juvenile Hawaiian monk seal rests on a remote beach in Papahānaumokuākea, its flipper gently laid on a piece of derelict fishing gear. Photo © Andrew Sullivan-Haskins/TNC Photo Contest 2022
At over 1.5 million km2, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM) in the United States is one of the world’s largest MPAs. PMNM’s MCS&E efforts integrate technologies such as satellite monitoring, acoustic sensors, and aerial patrols to protect its extensive coral reef ecosystems and cultural heritage sites. The monument leverages inter-agency collaboration between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure compliance with regulations. These strategies have significantly reduced illegal fishing and safeguarded critical habitats for endangered species like sea turtles and Hawaiian monk seals.
Smaller-Scale MPAs
Smaller-scale MPAs (< 150,000 km2), often located near shore, focus on specific habitats or species, allowing for targeted conservation efforts and direct stakeholder engagement. These MPAs can incorporate local knowledge and practice into management plans, potentially making them cost-effective and suitable for addressing localized threats. Their conservation impacts are often visible over shorter timeframes, making them appealing for urgent ecological needs.
Example: Apo Island
A green sea turtle glides along the seabed around Apo Island, Philippines. Photo © Emily May/TNC Photo Contest 2019
The Apo Island Marine Sanctuary in the Phillipines is a 62-hectare MPA renowned for its community-led approach to MCS&E. Local fishers actively patrol the area and enforce no-take policies, supported by partnerships with NGOs and government agencies. This hands-on involvement has led to the recovery of fish populations and improved coral reef health, benefiting both biodiversity and the livelihoods of local communities. Apo Island is often cited as a model for small-scale, community-driven MPA management.
Site-Specific Context
The effectiveness of an MCS&E system will also depend on site-specific characteristics, including habitat types, human activities, and governance structures. Habitat types, such as coral reefs or seagrass meadows, may require tailored surveillance techniques due to their unique ecosystems and vulnerability to specific threats. Human activities, from local artisanal fishing to large-scale industrial operations, also influence MCS&E strategies, as different activities pose varying levels of risk to biodiversity and require different kinds of enforcement actions. Governance structures, including local community involvement, governmental policies, and regional collaborations, further shape the enforcement mechanisms and their success.
Regardless of context, stakeholder engagement is essential for the success of MCS&E systems. At the same time, engagement approaches should be tailored to the type and number of stakeholders utilizing a given site. For example, in the smaller-scale Velondriake Community-Managed MPA in Madagascar, engaging local fishers directly in patrols and monitoring has fostered higher self-compliance (i.e. voluntary adherence to local regulations). In the much larger Cobia Ridge MPA in Panama, stakeholder engagement was equally critical, in the form of twenty-six public meetings and twenty-one government agency consultations that were held to build support for the MPA. Whether through grassroots efforts or extensive collaboration across sectors, stakeholder participation strengthens MCS&E strategies and compliance outcomes. ref
MPA vs. Fisheries MCS&E
MPA and fishery MCS&E strategies share the goal of conserving marine resources but differ in scope and execution. MPAs can be seen as a tool for fisheries management, as they regulate fishing activities within designated zones to protect biodiversity, but most MPAs also focus on broader conservation objectives.
Both systems require monitoring technology, like vessel monitoring systems, and they may also rely heavily on community-based enforcement due to cost and logistical challenges.
MPA management often integrates various international conventions and frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, which establishes definitions for protected areas with varying levels of restrictions. Fisheries, however, are managed under frameworks such as the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which includes measures tailored for the protection of fish life cycles and vulnerable marine ecosystems.
Regional cooperation is vital in both contexts, but it takes different forms; MPAs may align with ecological goals, while fisheries may focus on managing shared stocks across jurisdictions.
Despite these differences, there are areas of overlap. Both MPA and fishery MCS&E strategies benefit from advancements in technology and require stakeholder involvement to succeed. Ultimately, many strategies and techniques used in fisheries MCS&E are readily adaptable to MPA contexts, and the integration of MPA and fishery MCS&E strategies can optimize the use of marine resources while ensuring ecosystem sustainability.
The MPA Enforcement Toolkit was developed in partnership with the Blue Nature Alliance, a global partnership to catalyze effective large-scale ocean conservation, and WildAid, a US-based non-governmental organization with over 20 years of on-the-water experience in marine enforcement. Additional insights and resources were provided by our friends at Conservation International, MPAConnect, MedPAN, and One Reef.
