Alex J. Caveen
Diverging strategies to planning an ecologically coherent network of MPAs in the North Sea : The roles of advocacy, evidence and pragmatism in the face of uncertainty
Caveen, Alex J.; Fitzsimmons, Clare; Pieraccini, Margherita; Dunn, Euan; Sweeting, Christopher J.; Johnson, Magnus L.; Bloomfield, Helen; Jones, Estelle V.; Lightfoot, Paula; Gray, Tim S.; Stead, Selina M.; Polunin, Nicholas V.C.
Christopher J. Sweeting
Dr Magnus Johnson M.Johnson@hull.ac.uk
Senior Lecturer in Environmental Marine Science
Estelle V. Jones
Tim S. Gray
Selina M. Stead
Nicholas V.C. Polunin
The North Sea is one of the most economically important seas in the world due to productive fisheries, extensive oil and gas fields, busy shipping routes, marine renewable energy development and recreational activity. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the use of marine protected areas (here defined widely to include fisheries closed areas and no-take marine reserves) in its management has generated considerable controversy—particularly with regards to the design of a regional ecologically coherent MPA network to meet international obligations.
Drawing on three MPA processes currently occurring in the UK North Sea, we examine the real-world problems that make the designation of MPA networks challenging. The political problems include: disagreement among (and within) sectors over policy objectives and priorities, common access to fisheries resources at the EU level increasing the scale at which decisions have to be made and lack of an integrated strategy for implementing protected areas in the North Sea. The scientific problems include the patchy knowledge of benthic assemblages, limited knowledge of fishing gear–habitat interactions, and the increased risk of unforeseen externalities if human activity (predominantly fishing) is displaced from newly protected sites. Diverging stakeholder attitudes to these problems means that there is no consensus on what ecological coherence actually means.
Ultimately, we caution against ‘quick-fix’ solutions that are based on advocacy and targets, as they create confusion and undermine trust in the planning process. We argue for a more pragmatic approach to marine protection that embraces the complexity of the social and political arena in which decisions are made.
Caveen, A. J., Fitzsimmons, C., Pieraccini, M., Dunn, E., Sweeting, C. J., Johnson, M. L., …Polunin, N. V. (2014). Diverging strategies to planning an ecologically coherent network of MPAs in the North Sea : The roles of advocacy, evidence and pragmatism in the face of uncertainty. Advances in Marine Biology, 69, 325-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800214-8.00009-8
|Journal Article Type||Article|
|Online Publication Date||Oct 30, 2014|
|Publication Date||Oct 30, 2014|
|Deposit Date||Aug 9, 2018|
|Book Title||Advances in Marine Biology; Marine Managed Areas and Fisheries|
|Keywords||North Sea; Planning; Network; Natura 2000; MCZ; Consultation; Habitat|
You might also like
Pay Gaps Between Domestic and International Fishers: an Economic or Ethical Issue?
A development of ecological risk screening with an application to fisheries off SW England
Are fisheries-dependent communities in Scotland really maritime-dependent communities?
MPA policy: What lies behind the science?