California MPA Review: 15 Proposals and Who Got a Say?

California has a network of 124 marine protected areas. In October, the state's Fish and Game Commission takes up 15 proposals that could change it. The review behind those proposals was meant to be a chance to make the network stronger, fairer, and ready for climate change. Anupa Asokan, founder of Fish On, joined the How to Protect the Ocean podcast to explain how it went, and where she thinks the process fell short.

A Network Built to Change

California designed its network through a long stakeholder process that put environmental groups and fishing groups in the same committees. The law also wrote in adaptive management, a way to revisit the network as fish populations, climate conditions, and public values change. Ten years in, the state reached its decadal management review.

Anupa saw a real opportunity. The network was designed before climate change was part of the conversation, and the past decade taught a lot about how public processes can shut people out. She also pointed to gaps on the map, including current modeling along the coast and the Los Angeles area, where reaching an MPA is hard. She says one is near her home but cannot be reached from shore because of land subsidence, and that a neighboring area closed recently because of erosion.

Petitions Instead of a Network-Wide Assessment

Anupa hoped the state would use its decade of science and monitoring to name the gaps and propose changes. She says the state instead asked the public and public interest groups to submit petitions.

The petitions covered a wide range. Some environmental groups built a package around persistent kelp forests, proposing new MPAs and stronger or larger existing ones. Fishing industry groups asked to open reserves to commercial activity, from diving to sea urchin harvest to pelagic fishing in some of the state's largest and longest-lived reserves. Tribes sponsored or co-sponsored petitions too, including proposals for tribal-take-only areas and for areas that allow limited shore-based fishing, which she says would also support more marginalized fishing communities and tribes that are not federally recognized.

In Anupa's account, the Department of Fish and Wildlife's first evaluation did not address climate change and did not assess petitions for environmental justice and equitable access. She says she and others pushed until it did, and she describes the department's use of its own research as selective. She credits the Ocean Protection Council, another state agency, for issuing its own recommendations with a climate lens, conversations with tribal leaders, and support for some tribally led petitions. NRDC reports that the Council recommended approving several proposals while the Department recommended the Commission take no action.

The Tribal Petition Meeting

Anupa says the department delayed releasing its evaluation of the tribal petitions and sent them to a tribal committee for discussion. She says other fishing interest groups rallied people to that public meeting, and that some participants made offensive comments, including remarks she described as invoking genocidal policies from the 1800s. She says she and a young woman from NRDC stood up and apologized, and that no one from the state condemned the comments.

She also says a few state staff told her that no tribal member in the room seemed bothered, so she had no right to make it a big deal. Her response is that people who have lived with those comments all their lives may not see speaking up in the moment as worthwhile, and that silence in the room does not signal consent. She says some commissioners understand how problematic the meeting was, and that a cultural shift is needed so the state hears the full diversity of Californians who love the ocean.

Andrew's reaction was direct: a public process only works if people feel safe to speak, and ground rules from the people running the meeting are part of that.

Should the Data Come First?

Andrew raised an example from graduate school. In 2004, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park raised its no-take zones from about 4.5 percent of the park to 33.3 percent, according to the Marine Park Authority. He recalls a lecture where an official from the Authority explained that fishing vessel tracking data showed many of the added no-take areas were places boats rarely went, and that showing everyone the data early avoided a lot of conflict.

He asked whether California would have seen less conflict if the state had presented an assessment of the network first and then invited petitions. Anupa's answer focused on trust. Because public interest organizations submitted the science-based petitions, she says, the science looked political. Had the state presented it, people might still have opposed the changes, but there would have been a level of trust in the science and in how it was used. Andrew added that traditional knowledge from tribal communities and local knowledge from fishing communities are valuable data too, and Anupa agreed.

What You Can Do Before October 15

The Commission meets in Sacramento October 13 to 16, with marine protected area petitions on the agenda October 15 and 16. Anupa's suggestions:

Fish On's website, fishon.us, has a pre-filled letter on the latest blog post on its News and Resources page. You can edit it, and it goes to the Fish and Game Commission ahead of the decision. If you can get to Sacramento, DM Fish On on social media, since there may be group rides. Other groups with resources include NRDC, and Environment California and Azul, which she says sponsored many of the kelp forest petitions. She also recommends Fish On Air, the Fish On podcast.

Andrew's addition: who shows up to these meetings matters. A group can fill a room and make it uncomfortable. Supporters can also fill a room, respectfully, and make sure everyone gets to speak.

What Comes Next

Anupa hopes the review ends with lessons learned and something like a working group on how to do adaptive management more effectively and bring in the voices that have been left out. Andrew frames the review as a way to identify how to do better, so that people have the right to speak, feel safe to speak, and help protect resources that belong to everyone along California's coast.

Takeaways:

• California's 124-MPA network faces its first major adaptive management decision, with 15 proposals before the Fish and Game Commission on October 15 and 16.
• Anupa says the state relied on public petitions instead of assessing the network itself, which put the burden on communities and advocacy groups.
• The petitions range from a kelp forest package to fishing industry requests to open reserves to tribally sponsored new areas.
• She says early agency evaluations skipped climate change and equitable access until people pushed, and she credits the Ocean Protection Council for adding both.
• A safe and respectful public process is part of good management, because people who fear speaking up do not speak.
• Fish On has an editable letter to the Commission at fishon.us, and Anupa says there may be group rides to Sacramento.
• Fish On describes its members as fishers fighting for their fish.