Commentary: Is 30/30 Sweeping the Globe?

Commentary

by John DePersenaire, RFA Fisheries Specialist

Is 30/30 Sweeping the Globe?A New United Nations Initiative with Possible Negative Impacts on Recreational Fishing

A new initiative was spawned earlier this year at the United Nations which is rarely good news for recreational fishing. It adopted the catchy and somewhat descriptive name of 30/30, an acronym based on the objective’s goal to protect 30 percent of all lands and waters of the Earth by the year 2030.

The initiative will charge member nations with proactively addressing the loss of biodiversity and its effects on climate change, among other things. The think tank at the UN suggested that one of the primary tools to achieve this lofty goal as it relates to the world’s oceans will be an extensive implementation of No-Take Marine Protected Areas.

Leading up to the September 2020 Convention on Biological Diversity, 64 countries signed a pledge to embrace the initiative and commit to its ten-point pledge. In its current form, the initiative, as discussed during the Summit, is largely conceptual and merely puts forward broad goals, but the pledge includes acknowledgement by the signing nations to promote sustainable land and forest management, stop unsustainable fishing practices, significantly reduce pollution, stop harmful government subsidies, end environmental crimes, and transition to sustainable food production methods. Much of this is aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

While the concepts are reasonable, and I would suspect most fishermen would support sustainable fishing or protecting lands important for fish habitat or hunting, sportsmen should be wary of such a broad, all encompassing proposal without having clear details on how it would be implemented and what it would mean for fish and fishermen. RFA has long advocated that restricting recreational fishermen from areas of the ocean with the use of widespread marine protected areas and marine reserves is simply not a science based management approach. It does little to achieve management goals that otherwise could be achieved through traditional management techniques such as seasons, size limits and bag limits, and does a lot to hurt the socioeconomic benefits achieved from well-managed recreational fishing with open access. This position was and continues to be supported by a large body of scholarly research found in numerous peer reviewed publications.

The United States was not one of the 64 countries that signed the pledge, however, that does not mean that this initiative will not find its way into U.S. policy and legislation. Bills have already popped up with the goal of implementing the agenda under State and Federal law and regulation. AB3030 was introduced in the California Assembly in May and was written using nearly identical language to the 30/30 initiative and if enacted, 30% of California lands and oceans would be “protected.” Significant opposition ensued based on the vague language and how it would negatively impact sportsmen and recreational fishermen and the bill died when the legislative session ended in August. The South Carolina legislature introduced a bill with its take on the 30/30 initiative but with a slightly more pragmatic approach by establishing a task force which would measure existing progress toward these goals. This bill would also compile an inventory of existing protections to determine where the state was in terms of the 30-percent goal. In Congress, retiring Senator Tom Udall(D-NM) introduced a 30/30 bill in the Senate which is not expected to gain much traction before the session ends in January.

While the intent of the 30/30 may have merits and might be in line with the general feeling of the average sportsman, the application of this policy is what is most concerning. The goals could be appropriate in seeking much needed protection for lands and waters in countries that do not have the same conservation ideology or management measures in place in the United States which is widely regarded as having the best natural resource management in the world. This approach may also benefit US fisheries such as yellowfin, bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, and marlin which are highly migratory species and fall under significant fishing pressure while outside of US waters. But, to force the additional 30% closure of US waters and lands is clearly not a management approach that RFA would support.

RFA acknowledges that global warming is occurring, and our climate is changing—it has never been in a static state throughout the history of the planet—and this clearly has major implications

for our fisheries. We believe the most appropriate and effective way of dealing with these changes in the US is through more conventional management techniques. During a recent Congressional hearing that discussed the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, a bill that adopted much of the 30/30 ideology and called for the establishment of marine protected areas in three percent of US waters, Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at University of Washington and a highly respected fisheries scientist, stated in his testimony that, “Such marine protected areas are simply the wrong tool for adapting to climate change,” and said further that “No-take areas are an inflexible, static tool whereas the agency management we already have can respond to climate change in real time.”

It was widely understood that the Trump administration did not embrace many international climate and environmental policies as evidenced by the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. It is unlikely that this sentiment will continue under the incoming Biden Administration. We expect significant policy changes both on the international stage and within Federal agencies in the coming months. Senator Tom Udall, who introduced the 30/30 bill in the US Senate, is on the President-elects shortlist for Secretary of Interior and there are rumors circulating about possible 30/30 type Executive Orders being enacted within Biden’s first 100 days in office.

RFA believes that it will be important for the industry to remain vigilant for emerging 30/30 initiatives at the State and Federal level in the coming months. While it may not be possible to stop this ideological push, it will be necessary for the recreational fishing and boating industry to demonstrate that recreational fishing is consistent with long standing conservation values. The new Administration should be forcefully reminded that the effects of climate change on marine fisheries and fish habitat can be addressed most effectively addressed for our user group through traditional management approaches and not through the extensive use of No-Take MPAs.