There is nothing wrong with an international vision for the establishment of marine reserves. If some international organization takes MPAs up as a key issue, this can provide globally unifying ideals, principles, and moral support for the endeavor. Indeed, for waters outside the jurisdiction of coastal states, some form of binding international would provide for the most effective management (Molenaar 2004) (Provide Hyperlink to external INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION) However, given that the majority of activity happens within the jurisdictional control of states, and given the sovereign rights of states, we contend that most details of implementation and enforcement can best be handled on a national or regional basis. For instnace, most states have strongly established legislative and financial machinery that can be used to mandate and fund the creation of MPAs, something lacked by virtually all current international bodies.
Also consider that most nations have preexisting infrastructure related to land-based conservation areas that can be expanded and adapted to meet the needs of operating MPAs. Indeed, many nations have currently operational systems of Marine Sanctuaries that could be expanded to meet a 10% goal. For instance, the scope of existing enforcement agencies, such as the National Park Service can be expanded to cover MPAs. Often, it may be effective to extend land-based protected areas offshore, unifying the operation of several diverse protected areas (Consider, for example, the pairing of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts and the Cape Cod National Seashore). Continuing to using the United States as an example, comprehensive legislation such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act already exists (16 United States Code § 1431). Although this is a very good beginning, such legislation does have significant room for improvement. In particular, the process for creating new Marine Sanctuaries needs to be streamlined, and less emphasis should be placed on the proving the benefits of reserves as compared with other management strategies (Ibid). In particular, the legislation also needs to be expanded to explicitly mandate the creation of more reserves towards a 10% goal.
A major challenge in developing Marine Protected areas is the enforcement of the regulations of the reserves. Once established, the borders should be relatively constant and the restrictions well-publicized, to avoid confusion among those wanting to fish near the areas. Most violations of Marine Protected Areas are committed close to the borders, so the boats have a chance to leave quickly and dispute that they were ever in the area. Technology can serve as a great help in monitoring Marine Protected Areas. One possibility is to require GPS-based transponders on all boats to ensure they do not cross protected borders. Other technological possibility is satellite-based remote sensing. Relevant management authorities can then use data from such sources to pinpoint violators and the locations in which infringement occurs. One interesting extension would international sharing of enforcement data, which would allow in principle for broader and more effective enforcement.
There are also simple, non-technological ways to limit the number of violations of Marine Protected Areas. One method is to properly size Marine Protected Areas, preventing scales that exceed the capabilities of the work force monitoring it. Also, and perhaps most critically, it is important to promote a local sense of support for the Marine Protected Areas. This creates a form of peer surveillance in which fishers outside of the protected areas will mutually enforce the statutes as well (Jones 2004). In practice, an effective system of peer surveillance has been shown to be the most effective enforcement method for any management practice (Russ, Alcala, & Maypa 2003). This fact again highlights the fact general acceptance of these reserves is a key factor in their success.