Unveiling the Administration’s Conservation Efforts
The Biden administration’s recent environmental announcements have shed new light on their signature conservation effort. However, this undertaking has drawn criticism from some scientists who study marine protected areas. The plan, they argue, is flawed as it would classify certain commercial fishing zones as conserved.
Implications of the Conservation Plan
The administration’s decision could have far-reaching effects around the globe. Numerous nations are striving to meet a wider global commitment to safeguard 30 percent of the planet’s land, inland waters, and seas. This effort has received much acclaim for its historical significance, but the crucial question of what exactly can be considered as conserved is yet to be determined.
Raising Concerns Over Commercial Fishing
Early responses from the Biden administration have raised concerns among researchers who argue that high-impact commercial fishing is not in alignment with the conservation efforts. They argue that areas designated for biodiversity conservation should not concurrently serve as fishing zones, especially those using high-impact gears for large-scale commercial take.
Global Biodiversity Crisis and Overfishing
The debate comes at a time when the world is grappling with a biodiversity crisis that is accelerating extinctions and eroding ecosystems. Overfishing has been identified as the primary driver of biodiversity declines in the ocean, with climate change exacerbating the problem.
International Attention on U.S. Conservation Efforts
The United States’ approach to conservation is under close scrutiny, given its unique position in the global scene. Despite not ratifying the United Nations biodiversity treaty, the U.S. exerts significant influence in the U.N. discussions due to its status as a major donor country. The domestic and international efforts are collectively referred to as 30×30.
Questioning the Administration’s Conservation Criteria
Scientists have raised concerns about the methods employed by the Biden administration to classify areas as conserved. They argue that certain areas included in the list should not be counted unless protections there are tightened, specifically in relation to commercial fishing quotas and techniques.
Defending the Inclusion of Commercial Fishing Areas
The Biden administration has defended its decision to include areas that permit commercial fishing. They argue that despite the high-impact gear, national marine sanctuaries have long been recognized as protected areas by the United Nations. They also stressed that their definition of conservation is based on the extensive regulation of fisheries in the U.S.
Reactions from the Fishery Management Councils
Representatives of the Fishery Management Councils have commended the inclusion of commercial fishing areas in the conservation plan, citing the stringent sustainability and conservation standards under which they operate. However, others argue that sustainably managed commercial fishing should be the norm across the ocean, not just in designated conservation areas.
As the world watches the U.S.’ conservation efforts, it is clear that the inclusion of commercial fishing in conserved areas is a contentious issue. This decision could set a precedent for other countries, making it all the more important for the U.S. to strike the right balance between conservation and commercial interests.
