**1. Introduction**

Biodiversity's alarming decline across the planet affects marine species as much as it affects species on land. According to the WWF Living Planet Report [1], marine species declined by 39% between 1970 and 2010,1 especially in tropical zones and the Southern Ocean where sea turtles, large migrating birds and sharks. In light of this, in 2010, the 168 member states of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity pledged to attain a ratio of 10% of marine and coastal zones designated as protected areas by 2020.<sup>2</sup> And indeed, while 0.7% of oceans were officially protected in 2000, this had risen to 7,6% by January

<sup>1</sup> These figures are based on measurements covering 3,132 populations of 910 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish since 1970.

<sup>2</sup> According to the "Aichi Targets" that are among the 17 Sustainable Development Objectives of the United Nations Agenda by 2030.

2020 [2]: the surface area covered by Marine Protected Areas (MPA) is constantly increasing. By creating MPAs in its territorial and deep-sea waters, France is leading the way, announcing in 2017 that more than 22% of French waters are covered by at least one MPA. Then, in May 2019, it announced that it wished to increase the proportion of its territory classified as marine and terrestrial protected areas to 30% by 2022 (compared with 20% today), a third of which are to be protected as "fully natural". But what is this "surface area one-upmanship" worth, when Féral [3] observes that the increase in MPA surface areas comes at the expense of their normativity? And is an area that has been granted protection actually protected?

The effectiveness of MPAs is considered highly variable [1, 4]. In Ecuador [5], Colombia [6], Italy [7], Brazil [8], the Philippines [9] and elsewhere in the world, based on a review of research conducted on this subject [10], many studies question the effectiveness of the implementation of MPAs and the reality of their effects on conservation.3 Aichi Target 11 refers to "*effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures":* in addition to quantitative targets are often-overlooked qualitative criteria. The pursued targets are themselves called into question: are the efforts to achieve these internationally set targets being made to tackle the loss of biodiversity or for economic reasons [11–13], security issues, or to assert territorial control [3, 14, 15], etc.? Case studies offer more nuanced responses, and generally, protected areas do indeed protect biodiversity *"but not exclusively, and not everywhere, insofar as countries' strategies, management approaches and local practices may sometimes limit the scope of this objective"* [16].

Examining the effectiveness of MPAs – and above all, the conditions of their effectiveness – is crucial now that they are proliferating. While ecologists' studies make the connection between MPAs' effectiveness and regulatory [17], the social sciences are focusing on the question of MPAs' legitimacy, understood as *"the ability of a political action, in this case an MPA, to be perceived as right and just by the various people who are involved, interested and/or affected by it"* [18]. Many studies show the determining nature of this legitimacy, in Mayotte [13], Malaysia [19] and Canada [18]. While some studies point out the existence of specific regulations [17], others insist on the conditions of respecting these regulations: in particular, they highlight the inclusion of local and fishing communities as elements that allow for both a better acceptance of MPAs and forms of social control of its uses [10, 20, 21]. This brings us back to challenging the way in which the ocean conservation effort via MPAs is assessed because effective protection only exists under certain conditions, and because classified marine areas are not necessarily protected.

More generally, discrepancies can be observed between the way in which MPAs are considered on the basis of a triptych (perimeter, status and regulations), and the way in which these three elements are experienced. What is an MPA? And in addition to its indications, how are the status, perimeter and regulations that constitute an MPA used in reality? To answer these questions, an international comparative analysis was conducted based on 13 case studies, in 11 countries. It brings us back successively to three founding illusions of MPAs described thus: (a). A status offers protection, the areas under this status being the key indicator used by decision-makers to highlight their conservation efforts: we will return to the long processes of institutionalisation and construction of the social acceptance of MPAs, which are often classified as such but which offer few protection guarantees

<sup>3</sup> Questions relayed in articles with evocative titles in the professional press ("Are MPAs really protected", Le Marin, 2019), general press ("Classified but not sufficiently protected marine areas", Le Monde, 22nd October 2019) and satirical press ("Only the percentage was sufficiently protected", Le Canard Enchaîné, 23rd October 2019).

*Measuring Marine Protected Areas' Conservation Effort: A Different Look at Three… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98933*

until these processes have been consolidated; (b). MPAs offer perimeter-wide protection: returning to this idea, we will suggest a different way of assessing what is effectively under protection; (c) Protection relies on regulations established with the aim of being respected: understanding the mechanisms of the use of regulations in MPAs reveals a more complex reality in which the regulation is primarily a medium for dialogue with actors whose contribution is crucial for the conservation effort, and this leads us back to the idea both that the non-respect of the regulation is a flaw and to the idea according to which the conservation effort is proportional to the degree of MPAs' regulatory. We will therefore examine both the basis of MPAs and the way to assess how they contribute to the conservation effort. Having described our topic, the analytical approach and the selection criteria for the MPAs studied, we will then address in turn each of the three illusions that mask nuanced realities for which this analysis offers avenues to explore regarding the qualification and improved effectiveness of MPAs.
