Since 2017, Argentina has not added new **Marine Protected Areas** (MPAs) to its oceanic heritage, which raises a question: why has this conservation effort come to a halt?
While the world moves forward in creating more MPAs, Argentina lags behind, despite studies and recommendations from experts that acknowledge the [high **ecological** and **biological** value](https://noticiasambientales.com/medio-ambiente/la-onu-adopta-un-acuerdo-para-conservar-la-biodiversidad-marina-en-aguas-internacionales/) of our coasts and seas.
In this article, we seek to shed light on this story full of twists and turns, scientific reports, campaign promises, and conflicting interests. Where does the main problem lie? Let’s find out. Perhaps the intentions of [**protecting the sea**](https://noticiasambientales.com/medio-ambiente/que-es-el-agujero-azul-y-cual-es-su-importancia-para-la-argentina/) do not merely involve pointing out an area on the map and saying “fishing is not allowed here.” We will delve deeper into this issue and, in the end, maybe find some answers.
## A heritage of extremely high biological value
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are like life insurance for the ocean. It’s not just about creating reserves for the sake of it but providing a **refuge for ecosystems** and species facing significant threats. Think about this: these waters are home to a vast number of **species** that cannot simply find another place when their habitat deteriorates. Technical reports from the Undersecretariat of Fisheries of the Nation and the Ministry of Environment clearly state, “the value of these areas lies in their integrity, almost as ecosystemic units in themselves.”
## What does that mean?
That, without these **marine protected areas**, we are putting at risk an entire natural balance on which we also depend.
But that’s not all. MPAs help fish populations recover, reduce water **pollution**, and enhance the ecosystem’s defense against **climate change**, all factors influencing the resilience of marine ecosystems and their species. However, in Argentina, the last significant protected areas – Yaganes and Namuncurá II – were created seven years ago, and since then, nothing. What happened?
## The internal dynamics in the creation of Marine Protected Areas
It’s tempting to think that creating an MPA is as simple as putting up a “do not touch” sign in a specific area. But in Argentina, this clashes head-on with fishing, oil, and industrial interests. In some of the proposed areas for new MPAs, such as the **Blue Hole** or the Chubut Front Corridor, fishing is intense, and establishing a protected area would change the rules of the game. What does this mean? It means confronting influential sectors that view these zones as their source of work and are not willing to yield easily.
Official reports emphasize it unequivocally: “fishing activity is one of the most sensitive socioeconomic factors concerning future marine **conservation** measures.” In other words, there is tension between conservation and exploitation. This conflict means that each MPA proposal must navigate a balancing act and often ends up stuck in endless debates. Like a fair game of chess.
It’s not just about **fishing**. In Argentina, hydrocarbon exploration is also on the list of sectors interested in the **sea**. The result: each area that could be protected turns into a battleground where **conservation** and economic development clash.
## Lack of political commitment
MPAs require **resources** and constant monitoring to be effective. What happens if they are not fulfilled? In some cases, [existing MPAs in Argentina barely have the necessary infrastructure](https://noticiasambientales.com/compromiso-ambiental/inicia-una-nueva-campana-en-el-area-marina-protegida-namuncura-banco-burdwood/). Reports reveal problems with long-term financing and the lack of a robust management system that truly allows these spaces to be effectively protected.
As the technical report from the Ministry of Environment of the Nation states: “the temporal processes and oceanographic dynamics mark the ecological and biological functionality of the **Argentine Sea** and must be considered in resource management and conservation actions.” In other words, it’s not just about defining the area on a map; a plan is needed to ensure compliance.
The lack of financial and political commitment turns many of our MPAs into “paper parks,” not reality. Without investment, MPAs remain mere good intentions, and the **conservation** effects are almost null.
## Argentina: A coastal country without marine protection?
Each year without new MPAs is a missed opportunity for Argentina. Without these spaces, marine ecosystems lose the ability to regenerate and sustain themselves, harming in turn fishing companies and the economies of **coastal communities**. The lack of **protected areas** is not just a problem for **whales**, **penguins**, or orcas; it is a threat to our own **food security** and that of future generations. Because without a healthy ocean, there is no **sustainable fishing**.
So, what are we missing? Science is clear, the data is there, and experts have done their job. What remains is to embrace change, a change where **nature** and development can coexist, where **conservation** is not an obstacle but an ally. MPAs cannot continue to be a “pending” issue on the Argentine agenda. Reports say it, urgency is present.
Ensuring that the country recommits to **marine protection** is not just a goal for the seas but for everything the **ocean** represents for humans. Creating more MPAs is not an environmentalist whim; it is an investment in the future of our **seas**, our **coasts**, and our communities.
Source: Sin Azul No Hay Verde
**[¿Ya conoces nuestro canal de YouTube? ¡Suscríbete!](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrYLIWysAyv4m833zGAQ02g)**
