Point-of-View: Arguments for conventional fisheries management and against no-take marine protected areas: only half of the story?

Recent arguments for conventional fisheries management approaches (CFMAs) and against no-take marine protected areas (NTM-PAs) are reviewed, i.e. CFMAs are more effective, density-dependent factors will lead to reduced fish stock production in and around NTMPAs, rights-based approaches in combination with CFMAs will be more effective, and natural refuges from fishing already exist. It is concluded that these are largely valid but only from a fisheries management perspective. The arguments of proponents of NTMPAs and those of proponents of CFMAs are considered as contrasting storylines, the divergences between which are based on two key factors: different objectives and different science. In relation to different objectives, it is concluded that the arguments against NTMPAs based on their lack of fisheries management benefits must be considered as only applying to the secondary resource conservation objectives of such designations and not to the primary marine biodiversity conservation objectives. On this basis it is argued that it is counter-productive for NTMPAs to be 'sold' on a win-win basis, including their potential to deliver fisheries management benefits, as this detracts from their marine biodiversity conservation objectives and leaves such calls open to arguments that CFMAs are better able to deliver fisheries management objectives. In relation to different science, it is concluded that criticisms of NTMPAs and support for CFMAs implicitly resist the shift from Mode 1 (reductive, intradisciplinary) to Mode 2 (holistic, trans-disciplinary) science that is inherent in calls for NTMPAs as part of an ecosystem approach. Mode 2 science attempts to accommodate both uncertainty and wider societal values and preferences, and it is argued that arguments for NTMPAs should be more explicitly focussed on this potential. It is difficult, if not impossible and inappropriate, to extend the reductive approach inherent in CFMA analyses to encompass the broader ethical and scientific concerns for the health of marine ecosystems and their component populations and habitats that arguments for NTMPAs reflect. NTMPA proponents might focus on stressing that arguments against such designations and in favour of CFMAs do not encompass such valid concerns, therefore they tell only half of the story

Fishing industry and related perspectives on the issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals

In the face of growing calls for no-take marine protected areas (NTMPAs), the views of fishing industry representatives in south-west (SW) England on related issues are analysed. Only 23% thought NTMPAs were the way forward and a range of concerns were expressed, e.g. that the 'terrestrial' protected areas approach and related biodiversity conservation objectives will be extended to the seas, and that fish yield reductions from the loss of access to NTMPAs are very unlikely to be compensated for through spillover/export. Some interesting approaches to ameliorating these concerns emerged, such as being open and honest that NTMPAs are primarily intended to achieve biodiversity conservation benefits, reducing uncertainty concerning the potential for any secondary fisheries spillover/export benefits, justifying NTMPAs on an objective, rational basis rather than on a subjective, precautionary basis, and the quid pro quo streamlining of wider fisheries management approaches. This research reveals a more diverse range of perspectives amongst fishing industry representatives on the issues raised by NTMPA proposals than is often assumed. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Collective action problems posed by no-take zones

Around 0.04% of the world's marine area is presently designated as no-take zone (NTZ), in which all fishing is banned. The IUCN, backed by many marine fisheries and ecology scientists, has called for this to be increased to 20-30% by 2012 in order to conserve fish stocks and marine biodiversity. This ambitious target presents a number of collective action problems (CAPs) that must be addressed and overcome if fishers and other relevant actors are to collaborate towards its achievement. These are discussed, drawing on the common-pool resource (CPR) literature, with particular reference to those raised by divergent aims, predictability, different knowledges, role of advocacy, locality, level of decision-making and enforceability. As NTZs are ultimately about altering the behaviour of humans, it is argued that studies based on social sciences, on how NTZs can be designed, implemented and enforced on a collective basis, are essential. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Governing protected areas to fulfil biodiversity conservation obligations: from Habermasian ideals to a more instrumental reality.

This paper considers the implications of the growing recognition of scale challenges, with a particular focus on those concerning the governance of protected areas (PAs), through a critical literature review. Two key scale challenges raised by PAs are considered: (1) the divergence of objectives between resource exploitation and biodiversity conservation; (2) the requirement to fulfil biodiversity conservation obligations. These are explored through a review of a UK marine PA case study which found that even though the state had adopted a controlling role that had created tensions by undermining the authority and livelihoods of some stakeholders, the partnership had been sufficiently strengthened to withstand these tensions through the instrumental development of ‘bracing social capital’. Four conclusions for governance research with a particular reference to PA governance are drawn, and it is argued that presumptions based on Habermasian ideals should not constrain governance analyses, in that they should constructively incorporate the instrumental roles of the state

From stormy seas to the doldrums: The challenges of navigating towards an ecologically coherent marine protected area network through England's Marine Conservation Zone process

There is an on-going process to establish Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in England, to form part of a coherent and representative network of marine protected areas under national and EU legislation. From 2009 to 2011, the MCZ process included strong participatory elements. Four regional multi-sector stakeholder groups developed MCZ recommendations collaboratively, in line with ecological guidance provided by the Government's nature conservation advisers. This guidance was based on Government policy principles, including that MCZs should be designated based on 'best available evidence'. This paper analyses the multi-dimensional conflicts that emerged within the stakeholder group in south-west England, which were magnified by uncertainty about future MCZ management. In September 2011, after working through these conflicts through trade-offs and negotiations, the stakeholder groups jointly recommended 127 MCZs to Government. The process subsequently shifted to a top-down approach, with further stakeholder engagement limited to bilateral consultation. There was a concurrent shift in policy, from a broad-scale network-level focus towards single-feature conservation. A lengthy series of evidence reviews concluded that the existing evidence at the time was insufficient to progress with the designation of most sites, marking a clear departure from the policy principle of proceeding with the designation of a representative network based on 'best available evidence', and effectively undermining the work carried out by stakeholder groups. Though MCZ designation was originally timetabled for 2012, in November 2013 just 27 of the recommended 127 MCZs were designated in a first tranche. At the time, no clear timetable was in place for subsequent tranches

Governance Analysis of St Anne Marine National Park, Seychelles

The aim of this paper is to explore the governance effectiveness of St Anne Marine National Park, Seychelles. By collecting qualitative data through interviews and ethnographic observations from different constituencies in May and June 2018, the Marine Protected Area Governance (MPAG) analysis framework was applied. This case study revealed that the site is governed by a parastatal organisation (SNPA) and its Board through a largely ineffective top-down, government-led approach. The primary threats to the success of the park that fall within the purview of MPA (marine protected area) governance, are poaching, coastal development and unsustainable tourism, with a clear lack of state capacity, political will and capacity for enforcement as the key drivers undermining equitable and effective governance. Additionally, the study revealed a lack of community involvement in decision-making processes, resulting in a lack of sufficient participation and knowledge incentives, which reflects the need for the inclusion of more bottom-up governance approaches. This study contributes to the broader conceptual framework by supporting the understanding that a combination of governance approaches are needed to achieve MPA objectives and resilience. The governance structure coupled with the identified conflicts and many additional driving forces and constraints discussed throughout, are obstructing the achievement of strategic MPA objectives and severely undermining effectiveness. Suggestions for improvement are therefore explored as significant governance modifications are clearly needed. Since the completion of this research, significant advances have been made to the governance of SAMNP and where relevant these have been noted briefly throughout the paper

Greenland's offshore Greenland halibut fishery and role of the Marine Stewardship Council certification: A governance case study

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification is the market-leading seafood eco-label, including in deepsea fisheries, about which there are growing concerns around sustainability. Greenland is economically dependent on deep-sea fisheries, including for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). The offshore halibut fishery, which employs demersal trawls (800–1,400 m), obtained MSC certification in 2017. This provides an opportunity to critically assess the governance of deep-sea resources, with reference to the MSC certification. The Marine Protected Area Governance (MPAG) framework, originally designed to analyse MPAs and adapted for this study, finds an effective system of state-led governance, supported by scientific, certification and industry actors. Arising from its socio-economic importance, the industry’s considerable influence is used to align management with the MSC certification. Outcomes directly attributable to engagement with the MSC certification include the introduction of a management plan and new benthic research programmes. However, questions are raised about the certification, providing case study examples of existing criticisms. Assessments are weak with respect to benthic habitats and over-reliant on the definitive, expert judgement of Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs), whose independence is questioned. Separate MSC assessments of Greenlandic and German vessels in the fleet provided an opportunity to consider the consistency and robustness of the process, which raised serious concerns. Two different CABs found the benthic impact of vessels using the same gear in the same area to be sustainable, by employing fundamentally different and conflicting logic. This represents a serious failing of certification process, undermining the assurance it is intended to provide

The Marine Bill: Cornucopia or Pandora's box?

Compromises will have to be made on the Marine Bill in the face of uncertainty and conflicting demands. The Bill represents a key chapter in a longer story, during which we must learn how to better manage and conserve our seas

Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance

This review outlines the policy frameworks for marine conservation zones (MCZs) and marine special areas of conservation (SACs), which are the main components of the emerging UK marine protected area (MPA) network. If current recommendations are implemented, the coverage of MPAs in English seas could rise to 27%. The governance challenges that this will raise are explored through case studies of MPA initiatives in south-west England. Whilst the initial processes by which MCZ recommendations have been developed provided for stakeholder participation (bottom-up), the main steer has been from central government (top-down). The subsequent designation and implementation of MCZs is likely to be more top-down. Marine SAC processes have, by contrast, been top-down from the outset. The fishing industry fears that more MPAs will lead to increasing restrictions, whilst conservationists fear that MPAs will not be sufficiently protected, potentially becoming paper MPAs. Both argue that the burden of proof should be placed on the other party. Such combinations of top-down (central government-led) and bottom-up (community and user-led) approaches and the related conflicts are typical of government-led MPAs in temperate countries that have higher governance capacities. Top-down approaches tend to dominate, but this does not mean that they cannot be combined with bottom-up approaches

Marine spatial planning in reality: introduction to case studies and discussion of findings

This paper explores the realities of marine spatial planning (MSP'ing), drawing on 12 case studies around Europe, employing a structured qualitative empirical approach. The findings indicate that (1) MSP'ing is often focused on achieving specific sectoral objectives, related to nationally important strategic priorities, and might better be termed 'strategic sectoral planning'. (2) MSP'ing processes tend to be complex, fragmented and emergent on an ad hoc basis, rather than cyclical, adaptive and prescribed on an a priori basis. (3) Top-down processes tend to dominate, more participative platforms tending to be 'disconnected by design' from executive decision-making. (4) Blue growth is the dominant overall priority, often aligned with strategic sectoral priorities, despite growing indications that the target for Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020 is unlikely to be met. This is consistent with growing concerns about the tensions between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Directive Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning. It is concluded that the realities of how MSP'ing is working contrast with widely recognised concepts and ideals as to how MSP'ing should work, as integrated-use MSP'ing based on political expedience and blue growth priorities is diverging from and potentially competing with ecosystem-based MSP'ing, including marine protected area networks, based on GES priorities. It is argued that a more empirical approach should be taken to MSP'ing research, whereby conceptual approaches which integrate sustainable blue growth and GES co-evolve with marine spatial planning practices through critical analyses of whether the realities of MSP'ing are consistent with these concepts