- Just over a year ago, the Azores created the largest network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the North Atlantic, becoming a beacon of hope and a global leader in ocean conservation.
- Then, in early 2025, a proposal to allow tuna fishing in “no-take” areas there was submitted to the Regional Assembly; this is currently under discussion and could come to a vote this week or next week.
- “Such a retreat from ocean protection would not only be a local tragedy but also a disheartening contribution to the global backpedaling on environmental political will,” a new op-ed argues.
- This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily of Mongabay.
At the end of 2024, the Azores stood as a beacon of hope and a global leader in ocean conservation, having created the largest network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the North Atlantic. The Azores safeguarded 30% of its waters — an expanse more than three times larger than Portugal’s landmass — years ahead of the global commitment to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030 (30×30). This decisive action was praised both at home and internationally, with other countries and regions seeking advice from the Azores on how to follow suit.
But in a world where major powers are retreating from crucial environmental commitments, the Azores now faces a pivotal test of its own. Early in 2025, a proposal to allow pole-and-line tuna fishing within areas designated as no-take was submitted to the Regional Assembly and is currently under discussion. This maneuver, if successful, risks undoing a monumental achievement.
Crucially, half of this network is fully protected, banning all extractive and damaging activities, meaning it far exceeds the European Union’s mandate to fully protect at least 10% of its waters. Allowing industrial tuna fishing within the Azores’ fully protected areas would turn these areas into “paper parks” and defy their very purpose.
In other words, these areas would fail to meet the definition of “fully protected” set out in the strict standards established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and would not deliver their expected conservation benefits.
The sudden call to undermine these ocean gems stems from a series of dangerous misconceptions, if not for purely political purposes.
First, there’s the enduring myth that increasing ocean protection harms the fishing industry. However, strong evidence from around the world shows the opposite to be true: fully protected areas have been shown to improve the abundance of fish and invertebrates both within their borders and beyond them, as the increased abundance of marine life “spills over” into adjacent areas. This phenomenon quickly translates to increased catch sizes and profits for local fishers.
The decision to protect such a significant portion of Azorean waters was not made unilaterally. The Blue Azores program adopted a participatory process that saw 17 representatives from maritime industries — including fishing — involved in the design of the MPA network. The goal of the process was to design the MPA network through collaboration, therefore arriving at an outcome favorable to all parties.
Conservationists and fishers share a common vision: more fish and greater abundance in our ocean, ensuring a vibrant marine future for everyone. Far from being restrictive, conservation achieved through collaboration can actively support local businesses and other stakeholders.
A second misconception claims that MPAs should only exist if they directly benefit fisheries. While the advantages for fishers are undeniable, we must remember that marine protected areas safeguard entire ocean ecosystems, not merely a select handful of commercially valuable species. The benefits of MPAs far exceed the benefits of just extracting marine life from the ocean.
Robust conservation efforts often unlock wider economic opportunities, with the Azorean experience serving as a prime example. In 1987, the archipelago ended its centuries-old whaling industry. While the transition initially sparked concerns for livelihoods, today a thriving whale-watching sector supports many more jobs and generates significantly more revenue than whaling ever did, with marine tourism in the Azores now valued at 80 million euros (more than $94 million) per year. This shift illustrates that the ocean is far more than just the fish it contains and can be more valuable economically when well protected.
If the proposal to declassify these fully protected areas and open them to tuna fishing were to be accepted, it would represent a significant setback for the Azores and compromise the long-term well-being of all Azoreans, including the very fishing communities that this proposal is supposed to benefit. An unprotected Azorean sea would be like a checking account where many withdraw but nobody makes a deposit. One doesn’t need to be a banker to know what will happen to that account.
Instead, the 15% of Azores waters that are fully protected can act as an investment account that grows with compound interest and produces returns that all can enjoy.
Such a retreat from ocean protection would not only be a local tragedy but also a disheartening contribution to the global backpedaling on environmental political will. Shouldn’t the Azores Regional Assembly reject this ill-informed and counterproductive proposal?
Let the Azores stand firm in its commitment to a thriving ocean for all, today and for generations to come, and to be the steadfast leader and example that the ocean needs.
Enric Sala is a National Geographic Explorer in Residence and author of The Nature of Nature: Why We Need the Wild.
Banner image: Sperm whales inside the Azores MPA Network. Image courtesy of Andy Mann/National Geographic.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Senior editor Philip Jacobson discusses a recent investigation of how state governments in Brazil have been procuring shark meat — which is high in mercury and arsenic — and serving it to potentially millions of children and citizens via thousands of schools and public institutions, here’s how his Pulitzer-supported team got the story:
See related coverage:
Antarctic conservation summit closes with stalemate on MPAs & krill fishing rules
Octopus farming is a dangerous detour for marine conservation (commentary)
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
