A Review of Marine Protected Area Outcomes: Evidence for Development Cooperation

The report, “A Review of Marine Protected Area Outcomes: Evidence for Development Cooperation,” synthesizes knowledge on the development impacts of marine protected areas (MPAs). The report highlights both ecological and socioeconomic effects of MPAs. Since the ecological effects are already relatively well documented in the research literature, the study was largely oriented toward socioeconomic impacts.

One interesting finding is that the observed positive ecological effects are to a great extent dependent on factors related to socioeconomic conditions.

Another key finding in the evidence synthesis is that ecological gains are substantial under the right conditions. Where MPAs have a high level of protection (especially no-take zones), active management and enforcement, and sufficient resources, they consistently deliver significant ecological gains: fish biomass often doubles or more, threatened species can recover, and ecological integrity is maintained compared with unprotected areas. These gains are well documented across different geographic contexts.

The report further shows that socioeconomic outcomes, by contrast, are highly variable and context-dependent. Positive effects—such as increased income through more robust fisheries, tourism, women’s economic empowerment, and poverty reduction—are documented, but they depend on targeted and well-designed measures. Negative effects—such as fishers being displaced without compensation, marginalized groups being excluded from decision-making processes, tourism benefits accruing to external actors, and “paper parks” that do not deliver real benefits—can often be traced back to insufficient resources, fragmented design, top-down governance, or a lack of emphasis on rights, equity, and inclusion.

The most discouraging observation in the report is the widespread gap between the formal establishment of MPAs and effective implementation in practice. Many MPAs globally lack the resources, enforcement, or management capacity needed to achieve their objectives—resulting in “paper parks” that deliver neither conservation value nor development impacts. This shortfall is particularly evident in low- and middle-income countries.

The report presents five recommendations for development assistance to MPAs:

1. Prioritize operations over expansion: fund effectiveness.
2. Adopt integrated social–ecological systems approaches: conservation and development are inseparable.
3. Understand the context: livelihoods, transition options, and the need for compensation.
4. Ensure gender perspectives in the approach, and ensure Indigenous peoples’ and local groups’ rights to access and use.
5. Integrate MPAs into broader governance approaches to ocean and fisheries management to address regional and external pressures.