Challenges to achieving greater and fairer stakeholder involvement in marine spatial planning as illustrated by the Lyme Bay scallop dredging closure

Fleming, D. Martin; Jones, Peter J.S.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.07.006

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, fishers' relevance for and opposition to MPAs is well known (Jones, 2012;Mangi et al, 2011). Our results point, however, towards existing evidence on the different perceptions on multipleuse MPAs by towed-gear fishers (represented mostly by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations), strongly negatively affected by MPAs, and static-gear fishers (New Under Ten Fishermens Association), somehow negatively affected by MPAs, as suggested by Fleming and Jones (2012) and Pita et al (2013). Also, the perceptions by recreational users align largely with recent participatory experiences from MPA designation processes in parts of the UK, where recreational users mostly opposed new MPAs as a result of perceived new restrictions to their activities (Jones, 2012).…”

Section: Perceived Degree Of Effects Of Multiple-use Mpas On Organisasupporting

confidence: 52%

“…We considered 'top-down' stakeholders those organisations especially relevant for influencing MPA designation and management: decision-makers, scientists and MPA managers (Jones, 2012). Given that 'top-down organisations' were under-represented in our sample (6 top-down vs 19 bottomup organisations), we weighted their replies (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000) by replicating the responses by MPA managers, researchers and decision-makers (top-down approach) 3 times each (4 times in the case of Natural England) to match the number of responses by social and economic stakeholders (bottom-up approach) and present an equitable picture between both approaches when selecting the most relevant socioeconomic variables, as suggested by Fleming and Jones (2012), Gaymer et al (2014), Jones et al (2011) and Reed (2008).…”

Section: Identification Of the Most Important Socioeconomic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of stakeholders' inclusion for the success of marine conservation initiatives is widely acknowledged (Hoelting et al, 2013;Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). Moreover, stakeholders are considered an essential part of an ecosystem approach to MPAs that integrates a diversity of views and interests in the planning and managing of these areas Fleming and Jones, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study of the social and economic effects of MPA designation is often polarised, with different studies reporting either benefits (Hussain et al, 2010;Rees et al, 2014), or costs (Balmford et al, 2004;(de) Santo, 2013). When research portrays a more balanced picture of the socioeconomic effects of MPAs, evidence remains fragmented with studies looking at individual MPA effects on local stakeholders (Fleming and Jones, 2012;Mangi et al, 2011;Rees et al, 2013a) or at the effects of different MPAs on specific stakeholders, mainly fishers (Pita et al, 2013;Rees et al, 2013b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing the socioeconomic effects of multiple-use MPAs in a European setting: A national stakeholders’ perspective

Rodríguez‐Rodríguez¹,

Rees²,

Rodwell³

et al. 2015

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Perceived Degree Of Effects Of Multiple-use Mpas On Organisasupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Identification Of the Most Important Socioeconomic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing the socioeconomic effects of multiple-use MPAs in a European setting: A national stakeholders’ perspective

Rodríguez‐Rodríguez¹,

Rees²,

Rodwell³

et al. 2015

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The fishers and their leaders strongly objected to this closure, the chair of their association formally withdrawing (albeit temporarily) from the Finding Sanctuary steering group as a protest, even though the closure was not related to MCZs or Finding Sanctuary. A subsequent statement by the Chief Executive of NE that scallop dredging in Lyme Bay represented 'rape and pillage' resurrected this issue, the chair of the fishers' association claiming that this had 'exposed deep-seated prejudice and has insulted the scallopers and their families, whose livelihoods have been decimated by the closure' (Fleming & Jones 2012).…”

Section: Lessons From Lyme Baymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jones

2012

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis 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 topdown. 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 bottomup (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.

show abstract

Securing effective and equitable coverage of marine protected areas: The UK's progress towards achieving Convention on Biological Diversity commitments and lessons learned for the way forward

Johnson

Rees

Diz

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current international agreements call for protecting 10% of marine and coastal waters by 2020, with the intention of increasing that target to 30% by 2030. With 24% of its territorial waters protected, the UK falls short of the new expected target. As well as quantitative targets, qualitative criteria have been internationally agreed for protected area designation, including minimum coverage values and characteristics that encompass effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well‐connected systems of protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape. The legal framework supporting protected area designations at sea is summarized and explained for UK territorial waters. Efforts to date to achieve current marine protected area (MPA) targets are reviewed, with emphasis on how well the existing protected area portfolio captures the qualitative criteria. Examples are given of other effective conservation measures complementary to formalized MPAs, especially with regard to achieving and promoting qualitative criteria for biodiversity conservation, including appropriate recognition of and support for areas conserved by indigenous people, local communities and private entities. A precis on the governance of MPAs and other effective conservation measures in the UK and its overseas territories is presented. Whilst the UK has made exceptional progress with quantitative MPA coverage, it is still not clear whether designated areas offer effective protection. A UK‐level strategy is in place to address this; and at site level, Lyme Bay MPA illustrates the benefits of addressing qualitative criteria. Illustrated by the UK example, an urgent call is made for ongoing and future marine in situ area‐based conservation efforts to substantiate quantitative and qualitative considerations, and to ensure that MPA networks are ultimately fit for purpose.

show abstract

Challenges to achieving greater and fairer stakeholder involvement in marine spatial planning as illustrated by the Lyme Bay scallop dredging closure

Cited by 40 publications

References 23 publications

Assessing the socioeconomic effects of multiple-use MPAs in a European setting: A national stakeholders’ perspective

Assessing the socioeconomic effects of multiple-use MPAs in a European setting: A national stakeholders’ perspective

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

Securing effective and equitable coverage of marine protected areas: The UK's progress towards achieving Convention on Biological Diversity commitments and lessons learned for the way forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About