- Email: [email protected]
Challenges on providing conservation advice for a growing network of English Marine Protected Areas
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Challenges on providing conservation advice for a growing network of English Marine Protected Areas
MARK
⁎
S. Rusha,b, , J.L. Solandtc a b c
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom University of Exeter, 143 Beeleigh Link, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 6PH, United Kingdom Marine Conservation Society, Over Ross House, Ross Park, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire HR9 7QQ, United Kingdom
A B S T R A C T The UK network of Marine Protected Areas and the application of management measures to protect conservation features has grown over the past decade. Bodies that regulate activities within MPAs require advice from ‘statutory’ conservation bodies. Therefore to assess the developing MPA networks resilience it is important to assess the ability of bodies to provide effective conservation advice. Thus ‘Natural England’ officers were interviewed to assess their ability to provide scientific advice on the impacts of operations in English MPAs. Results highlight the opinions of UK statutory conservation advisors to be able to provide concrete evidence on the impact of MPA designations and management measures. Response scores were ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 representing a low score, and 5, high. For governance, there was a very positive response to the structures in place to provide conservation advice (4.5). However, in terms of the finance available to provide adequate scientific advice, responses scored lower at 3.1. The majority of NE respondents believe the budget available for ‘feature condition assessment’ to be insufficient for the current MPA network, with most advice derived from ‘expert judgement’ based on the precautionary principle rather than site-based observation of ‘cause-and-effect’ from different human activities. Yet although budgets are a problem, the relationship between Natural England and local fisheries regulators is very healthy, resulting in better joined-up communication over management measures applied to stakeholders. Hence this research recommends the development of private-public partnerships (co-management initiatives) to reduce costs, bring in affected stakeholders and their assets, and improve trust.
1. Introduction The UK has recently seen a considerable expansion in the number and area of Marine Protected Areas [5]. With the expansion of the number of MPAs from those representing small locations considered for the preservation of individual habitats or species, the UK has embarked on a wholescale increase in ambition for the role of MPAs, i.e. to deliver protection for ecosystems [17,22,26]. But the growth in MPA measures from individual sites to networks of sites is often fraught, necessitates top-down legislation and policy that can result in difficulties in maintaining the confidence, inclusion (though co-management) and aspirations of local stakeholders [13,14,22,29]. Very much part of the picture is that of the provision of accurate data under which designation and management decisions for sites can be confidently achieved, and widely recognised in their validity [5,23]. Coincidentally, the UK is still suffering the lasting effects of the banking crisis of 2008, an ensuing reduction in the size of the state, its assets and functions [32]. As such,
⁎
the statutory nature conservation agencies that advise government on the biological evidence of both where MPAs are being designated, and what is likely to affect them, have been cut relative to the substantial increase in area of MPAs there has been over the past decade. That is, whilst the MPA ‘estate’ has increased in area from around 2% of UK seas in 2008, designation processes at both EU and domestic level has pushed the amount designated to around 17% in 2016 – an 800% increase in MPA area (over 140,000 km2). This is exemplified in the most recent conservative party manifesto before the 2015 election that called for a ‘Blue Belt’ around the British Isles in reference to completing the MPA network. Whilst the area and number of marine MPAs has vastly increased, the budget for such agencies has held steady in recent years after an initial growth spurt in 2008, and is now declining. This has made it much harder for statutory nature conservation agencies to deliver services (information and data) on the impacts of management on individual sites (Marsden, pers comm.) Fig. 1. Natural England (NE) is an ‘executive Non Departmental Public
Corresponding author at: 143 Beeleigh Link, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 6PH, United Kingdom. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Rush), [email protected] (J.L. Solandt).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.026 Received 10 May 2016; Received in revised form 1 February 2017; Accepted 16 May 2017 0308-597X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Fig. 1. Location of UK Special Areas of Conservation, and Marine Conservation Zones from 2 tranches (2013 and 2016) in England's territorial waters (< 12 nm from the coast). A further tranche of MCZs will be designated in 2018. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016. Not to be used for navigation.
body’ that is sponsored by the UK government – The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). NE provides statutory conservation advice for to enable government to designate sites as Marine Protected Areas. At the time when sites are designated, NE provides Conservation Objectives for sites, and their constituent features for which the sites are designated. NE assesses the Conservation Objectives of constituent features of sites, and suggests either a ‘maintain’ or ‘recover’ objective based on an understanding of their condition and current activities that are ongoing in the site that may have an impact on the feature. This is an extremely data heavy exercise. Currently there are 130 Marine Protected Areas (SPAs; SACs; MCZs) in English waters, so the workload to provide conservation advice on all features within all sites is considerable. As NE is not a regulator, it doesn’t have the power to then regulate the activities within these sites. Fisheries within 6 nm of the coast are subsequently managed by the 10 English Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs – a local regulator), whilst recreational activities are managed by the Marine Management Organisation (a government body). The MMO is also a licensing body, and takes NE advice before permitting certain activities at sea such as dredging and infrastructure development. On a day to day basis, conservation advice is offered by NE to regulators and relevant authorities on activities deemed likely to impact on the favourable conservation status of sites. Significant new developments are also considered by NE to ensure they can ensure the
maintenance or restoration of favourable conservation status of sites. NE provide UK government with site condition information every 6 years under EU law within 12 nm, and carry out monitoring activities in the ensuing period alongside other bodies such as fisheries regulators. In 2012, UK government announced a ‘revised approach’ to the management of commercial fishing in English EMSs. The ‘Revised Approach’ aims to ensure that all fishing activity within MPAs is managed to meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive [13,18,29]). NE provides advice on conservation status and operations that could damage EMSs in inshore waters (< 12 nm from the coast). This uses a evidence based ‘risk matrix’ showing the generic fishing gear types and their likely effect on relevant MPA features [18,19]. Activities are categories according to specific definitions as Red, Amber, Green or Blue based on the potential risk the activity presents to EMS features. This Habitats Risk Assessment process identifies the appropriate and proportionate management measures that are required to protect EMS features and sub-features (a species or habitat for the protection of which an EMS site has been designated). Measures have included the implementation of byelaws, permits (to control or reduce effort), closures to bottom towed fishing gears, seasonal restrictions and catch quotas [18]. Within 6 nm, the IFCAs have been responsible for implementing byelaws and measures. From 6 to 12 nm, the MMO leads on fisheries regulations, whilst in offshore waters (> 12 nm), fisheries management measures are dealt with by Defra. 76
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Furthermore, the UK's ‘Brexit’ referendum result to leave the European Union has introduced some uncertainty over the future application and implementation of EU laws such as the Habitats Directive in the UK. It is at present uncertain how Brexit will unfold over the coming years. Current Defra policy is to work ‘as if nothing has changed’, because the legislative drivers that come from the EU persist until such time as the UK leaves the EU. Therefore Defra and other regulatory agencies are working to complete a suite of management measures for sites under the revised approach. This paper examines the role NE play in providing conservation advice, what the major problems are with providing that advice, and what the major conservation issues they are faced with in different English coastal regions.
3. Results and discussion The interview process led to several key emerging themes influencing management effectiveness within the MPA network. This included the level of activity, lack of evidence and sampling difficulty, engagement and geographical isolation, management and governance structure, financial constraints, insufficient resources and joint-working. 3.1. Level of activity Increasing numbers of people using the sea for a growing number of activities has led to an increase in conflicts of interest and environmental pressures experienced in MPAs [12]. Lead Officers expressed multiple activities that could constitute a potential threat to MPA site features but that some activities were more difficult to manage than others due to the disparity in available regulation processes. For example, all regions stated high levels of recreational activity and voiced concern regarding regulation. Currently recreational activity does not have a typical management structure and therefore lacks a responsible competent authority for regulation. NE gave the impression it had largely been overlooked because implementing and enforcing management measures would be challenging. Recreational use included boating activity, recreational fishing, bird watching, rambling, dog walking and multiple sporting activities. High levels of disturbance within MPAs due to greater recreational use has the potential to alter environmental and biological processes [11]. Specifically, breeding bird colonies are sensitive to high levels of disturbance and may contribute to decreased reproductive success [10,34], where which SPA management will be essential. 50% of Lead Officers mentioned disturbance from recreational activities such as ‘dogs off leads’, with an interviewee from the Southeast stating it was ‘the main thing we need to look at on how to control and regulate’ because managing recreational activities has no clear licensing or regulating process. NE stressed the difficulty in managing recreational activity and described licensed activities such as dredging, renewables and port construction, covered under the Habitat Risk Assessment process, management ‘very straightforward’ with an ‘obvious sort of structure’ where ‘roles and circumstances are very clear’. This disparity between regimented management processes and the lack of a structured avenues in which to address activities such as recreation was notable throughout all discussions. Fishing activity also presented as a priority issue dependent on the level of commercial and recreational activity within a region. The level of management and conservation advice required from NE depends on the level and type of fishing activity taking place and the extent of features within an MPA. Eastern England described heavy trawling occurring offshore and considerable levels of potting, netting and line fishing throughout the district, resulting in over 1800 types of amber risk interactions between fishing gears and potentially vulnerable features. NE state for high risk features, emergency byelaws could be implemented quickly where necessary and that compliance was generally high, with 16 out of 18 NE Officers expressing a confidence in the effectiveness of byelaws to protect features. However, it must be stressed that management measures are often only implemented and complied with if there is sufficient evidence or motivation to allow conservation bodies to develop conservation advice and suggest appropriate management. Eastern officers explained that the region contains byelaws with regulatory notices, which can be amended if necessary based on subsequent evidence gathering (drop down camera and grab sampling). This can restrict fishing intensity and prohibit fishing activities which constitute a potential threat to MPA features, such as Sabellaria spinulosa (ross worm) reef, subtidal boulder and cobble communities and Zostera (Seagrass). More extreme management such as designated no take and no trawl zones are employed in the Lundy SAC and Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC to manage fisheries [16,24]. Some sites such as Upper Fowey and Pont Pill MCZ with limited fishing activity or lack of commercially desirable species do not need to adopt
2. Methodology Data was derived from telephone interviews conducted with Natural England Marine Lead Officers [2]. Interviewees were selected from a matrix of Natural England Marine Lead Officer email addresses supplied by the Marine Conservation Society. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the attitudes of Natural England Marine Lead Officers towards Marine Protected Area management and their ability to provide robust scientific advice, particularly for fisheries management. Correspondence via email exchange to arrange telephone interviews started in December 2014. Interviews began in January and ended in May 2015. Eighteen interviews were conducted, totalling 6 h and 23 min (383 min). Data covered 61 sites across England, consisting of 32 Special Protected Areas (SPAs), 18 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and 11 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). For ease of sampling England was spilt into six regions; Northeast, Northwest, East, Southeast, South and Southwest. For each region, at least two interviews were conducted with a maximum interviewee number of 5 per region (See Fig. 2). Interviews was conducted as a semi-structured conversation to allow the expression of interviewee opinions and provide opportunity for elaboration on topics they felt important [4], relating to site management and the ability of Natural England and other regulators to perform effectively. Central questions covered the extent of adverse activities, amber interactions and red risk byelaws within MPA's and the level of engagement that was conducted with fishermen regarding management. Latter questions addressed whether problems arose when providing advice to relevant stakeholders and whether this was due to a lack of governance structures or financial support to assess condition of MPA's. Interviewees were also asked closed questions in order to rank their opinion on how well they felt governance structures and financial circumstances supported the delivery of conservation advice. Response scores were ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 representing a low score, and 5, high. Individual scores were collated by region and averaged per number of MPAs sampled within the region to create a mean score. Interviewees were also asked if they felt if there was sufficient financial budget available to provide adequate scientific advice from the options: yes, no or undecided (yes/no). Regional scores were generated based on the majority response. Interview protocol was explained using a project description previewing the interview questions. Verbal consent was sought to record interviews. Assurance of anonymity in the final documentation was given to interviewees [7], however copies of transcripts were issued to interviewees on request. Interviews were transcribed and thematically coded using QSR NVivo 10, following key methods described by [25,31]. A priori code categories covered key topics addressed in the structured questions. Grounded codes were added to the A priori categories to include emergent themes and issues within the MPA network. Initial descriptive evaluation led to theoretical analysis and the development of theories to evidence the reasoning behind the data produced and the associated implications for Marine Protected Area management. 77
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Fig. 2. Part a) Geographical depiction of sample sites and allocated region and site type. Part b) List of sample sites and allocated region and site type.
only provide advice using expert judgement based on the best available evidence. In particular, as a result of sampling difficulty and a lack of data, the uncertainty of the extent of ephemeral and mobile features (e.g. Sabellaria worm reefs and sandbanks which can be moved by storms) was a common example of the precautionary approach being used to determine conservation advice for subsequent management [28,30]. Officers explained that acquiring knowledge of the exact extent of every feature in an MPA, especially features of spatial and temporal variability, within the timeframe given to deliver conservation advice is unfeasible and expressed the difference in the level of evidence available and required for different types of designations. SACs require statutory reporting every 6 years under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and SPAs must be monitored in accordance with the EU Birds Directive. Furthermore, NE reported that even when data is available, this can often be in the wrong format or too outdated to inform management. For example, monitoring data cannot necessarily reveal ‘causation factors’ for situations, such as increased bait collection and the bird population changes in Durham (Northeast region). Providing conservation advice on bait collection and its influence on avian population change would involve more extensive surveying such as benthic infaunal studies, which are notoriously difficult due to their expense and the environments natural variability. NE expressed that with limited evidence they must suggest ‘precautionary’ measures within their conservation advice which can led to management ineffectiveness. A potential solution, suggested by NE,
such severe measures. 3.2. Lack of evidence and sampling difficulty Another common theme occurring throughout all interviews was the ‘lack the evidence to show that an activity is having an impact or has the potential to impact’ on a feature. For instance, NE were unsure of the sensitivity of MPA site features to recreational activity and lack of evidence to show causality between an activity and adverse impacts on a feature. This was often stated alongside the difficulty and cost of assessing and monitoring in the marine environment. NE stressed that many activities were unregulated and highly variable spatially and temporally. Sampling the marine environment is notoriously difficult, which makes gathering robust evidence with high accuracy and proficiency, costly and time consuming [33]. This sentiment was expressed by all officers and was their main reasoning behind a lack of evidence and difficulty in determining causality between activities and adverse impacts. Interviewees described the difficulty in determining whether gaining access to carry out an activity (e.g. anglers wading through saltmarsh habitat) or the activity itself (e.g. bait digging) caused adverse effects to an MPA site feature. NE expressed a need to ‘have people on the ground’ to monitor activities closely in order to contribute to the development of management strategies that effectively recognise and mitigate damage from intensity. NE stated that they are trying to identify gaps and improve their evidence base, but if conservation is required on a feature with limited data, then they can 78
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
3.3. Engagement and geographical isolation
would be moving away from the traditional sense of full surveying for condition assessment, which stemmed from the terrestrial environment, to using proxies such as species communities as markers of site condition. Yet for this to be successful, there must be a better understanding of ‘reference condition’ to assess sites based on expected community assemblages where human impacts affecting condition are controlled. If this approach is adopted we recommend that NE must understand a feature's ‘climax community state’, whereby a sufficient area and habitat assemblage of the feature is not exposed to human activity. Reference can then be made to the effect of any subsequent activity and allow NE to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic change. Lack of evidence, as a result of sampling difficulty, was also mentioned with respect to fisheries management [33]. Officers expressed concern for the management of lower risk (or ‘amber’) activities where the interaction between activity and sensitivity is less well known, or for sites where feature distribution isn’t clear. Without direct empirical site based evidence, NE state they have difficulty in providing IFCAs with confident advice. This was particularly evident within discussions on natural ephemeral structures such as biogenic reefs e.g. Sabellaria reef – a naturally ephemeral structure made by the sediment-accreting behaviour of worms. NE described current management measures as ‘precautionary’, with closures based on areas where reef occurs more persistently. Yet it could be argued that if a precautionary approach were being taken for sites then most, if not all sites should be closed, should they comprise of suitable habitat that could host protectable features like Sabellaria reef. This approach was adopted at the South Wight Maritime EMS, where knowledge of the extent of reef was unclear due to the patchy nature of reef and therefore the local regulator chose to close a large proportion of the site to trawling. Conversely, in the East, NE used a measure of ‘persistence’ of the ephemeral feature that may contrast with the precautionary approach, resulting in < 2% of the site being protected (though this may increase in 2017). This possibility of NE using different approaches to determine their conservation advice does not foster confidence in management objectivity and suggests that in the latter example NE's conservation advice may have been more sympathetic to the shrimp trawl fishers within the site to avoid conflict rather than for the conservation of other areas of Sabellaria reef that could be damaged by trawling in the wider area. NE did recognise that further evidence is needed to understand the direct effects of fishing – at different intensities – on the distribution and development of Sabellaria reef and decisions would have been made with the best evidence available and within the management capabilities of the relevant authorities. Similar situations can be observed within other regions. Morecambe Bay in the Northwest has a well-established mussel fishery, but NE are unsure of where the mussels originate from and the extent and effect of bait digging within the region on the biological stock. From interviews, it was clear that the impact of many fishing activities within MPAs are categorised as uncertain because of a lack of knowledge of direct ‘cause and effect’ of different levels of effort on ‘feature’ condition. Further uncertainty derives from a lack of understanding of the in-combination effects with other fishing activities. For example, bait collection for lugworm and ragworm has been listed as a priority interaction for management in the Northeast due to the uncertainty of whether this activity is conducted for personal use or commercially and the impact this may have on the benthos and surrounding bird communities. Additionally determining levels of commercial versus recreational activity within the Southeast pacific oyster fishery causes major contention for NE when providing conservation advice and assessing the impact this may have on the chalk reef within the region. Therefore this suggests that the existence of large evidence gaps can undermine NE's ability to provide accurate conservation advice and may lead to controversial ineffective management measures.
Discourses identified there was a contradictory level of engagement with stakeholders, particularly with fishermen, between the regions. For most regions, NE IFCA officers enabled communication between NE and the relevant IFCA's, however overall NE's local direct engagement with fishermen was low and mostly carried out through the regional IFCA. Primarily, engagement occurred at quarterly public IFCA committee meetings consisting of a panel of IFCA members, NE IFCA leads, individuals appointed by the Marine Management Organisation, Environment Agency representatives, fishermen, local councillors and relevant industry representatives. Ad-hoc technical working groups or emergency meetings address sector-specific concerns such as the opening and closing of fisheries or if NE deem a fishery to be detrimental to MPA conservation objectives. Frequency and consistency of engagement was dependent on NE staff resource, distribution of marine users and the existence of site governance/management groups within each region. If staff resource was low and marine user distribution high then NE were less able to participate in engagement. Most engagement occurred as a result of fishermen contacting NE to receive clarification or to discuss issues. This suggests that fishermen are not being adequately informed, with most regions reporting minimal engagement due to a lack of staff and time availability, which may have a negative impact on compliance to management measures. Engagement by NE seems to only occur when initiated by external advisory bodies, principally the IFCA's, whom themselves have limited staff resource and tight timescales in which to meet their own statutory obligations. Engagement was more evident if there was an EMS situated within the region with an established management scheme with an associated advisory management group. An example is the EMS scheme for the Wash and North Norfolk Coast, which has a set of advisory groups that incorporate local marine users and the North Norfolk Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG). Together they aim to focus management actions and ensure both the local community and fishing industry benefit. NE stated they could use these management groups to disseminate information and reach marine users. The benefit of partnership working was particularly expressed in the Southeast region, who due to limited staff and the dispersal of marine users, found engagement difficult. The Southeast stressed this had implications on their ability to deliver advice, stating that they are ‘stretched as a resource’ and have to utilise ‘associations’ to spread information to highly dispersed marine users. 3.4. Management and governance structure Interviewees were asked to rate whether they believed adequate governance structures were in place to provide effective conservation advice for MPA's (See Table 1). Lower scores demonstrated a lack of structures through which NE could impart clear advice. Average scores were calculated for each region and aggregated to a national scale. For adequacy in governance structure, the Northwest region exhibited the lowest score of 3.4 in comparison with higher scores of 4.5 in the East and Southwest (See Table 1). Respondents from the Northeast believe they can sustain good governance, but had significant uncertainty as to how Natural England would govern the new national marine network as it emerges. From discussions it was evident that management structure differed between regions and also between MPAs, suggesting that differing levels of governance structure could affect NE's ability to deliver conservation advice and alter their opinion of management effectiveness within MPAs. Some sites, particularly in the Southwest, had clear management groups and robust avenues in which to deliver management effectively. For example regions which incorporated an EMS are required to have an established management scheme with an associated advisory management group, therefore these areas were associated with higher scores for adequacy of governance structure and described as well structured. MPA's with management schemes and advisory groups (though not necessarily statutory) achieve higher 79
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Table 1 Natural England Marine Lead Officer regional ratings for governance structure, resourcing and budgeting pertaining to individual Marine Protected Areas. Region
Number of interviewees (n=18)
Number of sites (n=61)
Site types included
Northwest Northeast East Southeast South Southwest Averaged National Scores
3 2 3 3 2 5
7 4 13 21 5 11
SAC, SAC, SAC, SAC, SAC, SAC,
a
SPA, SPA, SPA SPA, SPA SPA,
MCZ MCZ MCZ MCZ
Averaged governance structure rating
Averaged resource and finance rating
Sufficient budget
3.4 3.5 4.5 3.8 4.0 4.5 4.3
2.9 2.8 3.5 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.1
YES/NOa YES/NOa YES/NOa NOa NOa YES/NOa NOa
Median and most common answer.
mapping subtidal features proves more difficult due to a lack of access, the inability to undertake broad-scale accurate surveys and associated cost to link specific human activities to individual impacts. Data collection is also dependent on multiple variables that cannot be controlled, such as weather. This was particularly stressed in the Southeast, where volatile weather frequently reduces the period available to gather evidence. NE, principally in Southern areas, showed frustration towards falling back on using the ‘precautionary approach’ because of a lack of comprehensive survey information due to the combination of sampling difficulty, financial constraints and insufficient resources to inform conservation objectives. NE described sites where reduction in funding and thus resources could be considerably damaging. For examples sites such as Chichester Harbour in the Southeast, where there is a high requirement to undertake enforcement and plug significant evidence gaps, need sufficient funding. Lundy SAC in the Southwest used to have a budget of £70,000 for a warden, however funding for the post was cut in 2015, requiring NE to contribute partly to the cost of the post. Therefore to continue delivering the same robust level of conservation advice, NE officers stated that they are having to be innovative and seek joint-working opportunities to pool resources with NGOs, commercial stakeholders and volunteers in order to carry out condition assessment and reduce the cost of surveying. Also, following the UK's decision to exit the EU, there is likely to be greater uncertainty as to the potential funding and resources available for future MPA management. This means adequate resourcing, new approaches and innovative partnerships will become increasingly important to ensure the future integrity of marine ecosystems and successful MPA management. This will be especially important for MPAs designated under EU legalisation e.g. the EMS. In the Southeast, the local Thanet District Council have committed to funding an EMS Officer despite national funding cuts, showing that other public bodies can help support the work associated with marine nature conservation at the site level and understand its value within the MPA network. This kind of support from other local government sectors is rare from other parts of the nation, indeed there can even be resentment of some local councils to financially support IFCA work (e.g. counties around the Severn estuary). Conversely, partnership working between NE, regional fisheries regulators and the MMO were generally considered to be effective, with all regions boasting strong relationships in comparison to relationships with local councils. However, recent workloads associated with increased numbers of MPA designations and requirements to develop regulatory measures has resulted in increasing pressure on these organisations to meet demands with lessening resources. Recent prioritisation of ‘high risk’ interactions (between damaging activities and vulnerable site features) has helped clarify prioritisation of monitoring and condition. This allows resources to be targeted at the most pressing areas of conservation concern. Working with partners in industry and increasing co-ordination with regulatory bodies and NGOs should improve the evidence base and make management more effective. For example, within Poole Harbour, local bird observers
ratings (e.g. Norfolk, Solent, Thames) because NE would be able to utilise these governance avenues to deliver conservation advice. MPAs not covered with such legalisation received lower scores. NE explained that this did not reflect a difference in the level of input or knowledge but corresponded to the less structured approach towards governance within those sites. However, it does give the impression that some sites lack governance structures due to a lack in community motivation, funding and pressure to implement conservation management and sustain governance structures. It is clear that in areas which have additional management groups, engagement is increased and government structure is fortified, management is more likely to be sustainable, determining that resilient attitudes towards MPAs achieving conservation objectives relies on such communication, and close-nit working [13,29].
3.5. Financial constraints, insufficient resources and joint-working Interviewees were also asked to rate the availability of resources to finance governance using the same method. The lowest rating occurred in the South at 2.4 in contrast to the East at 3.5 (See Table 1). Throughout all discussions NE described a lack of resources available to effectively manage MPAs. Additional factors such as the cost of sampling the marine environment, the lack of available staff and the deficiency of government funding only reduces the availability of resources to finance governance and create a structure that can facilitate and fund the acquirement of evidence that government requests be available before permission for governmental funding for management is granted. Officers stressed that despite the clear need and call from government to increase the evidence base within MPAs, initial projects are not adequately funded to support them full time and the shortfall has reduced the ability to sustain communication and coordination of their work with development authorities to plan, implement and sustain effective management schemes. Furthermore, NE Officers were asked if they thought the budget for feature condition assessment was sufficient. NE Officers were quite conflicted on this question, with the majority of interviewees responding negatively (53%) stating they were unable to provide a definitive answer due the matter's complexity (See Table 1). Some Officers described the finance as ‘sturdy’ but with the caveat that management would be negatively affected if funding was reduced. All interviews mentioned the reduction in government funding and that NE are having to do more work with less money. General cuts by Defra have impacted the availability of resources and required budget realignment within management, which is only likely to continue as a result of the UK leaving the EU and EU funding being pulled. Even at this early stage of funding reductions, all regions agreed that current budgets doesn’t permit entire sites to be surveyed. As a consequence, site condition assessment is achieved through representational sampling whilst monitoring is prioritised for high risk features within sites. Nationally, intertidal mapping is fairly strong as it is relatively cheap to do by remote sensing [8,9,33] and isolated ground-truthing, however 80
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
activity and fisheries management within MPAs. Discussions within this study have shown that there is uncertainty as to the extent and impact of activity within MPA's throughout the regions [21], resulting in a difficulty for statutory bodies to provide confident advice. Thus this leaves regulators in a difficult position of either introducing legally compliant precautionary management (for EMS), or being at risk of breaking the law by not introducing management measures when definitive information on ‘cause and effect’ at each individual site is lacking. This study evidences key themes affecting MPA management effectiveness, such as the lack of evidence to determine causality between activity and adverse impacts, the level of activity within a site, the difficulty in sampling the marine environment, financial constraints, insufficient resources and geographical isolation. Furthermore the contradictory level of engagement between regions, dissimilar management hierarchies and the necessity for more innovative assessment and monitoring using joint working are also emergent themes. The strongest positive element in this research was the level of communication between regulators and Natural England, combined with some of the historic governance structures for MPAs such as EMS management schemes. NE did commend the IFCA's in their leadership with regard to implementing fisheries management in EMS over the past 3 years, but explained there was still ‘a long road ahead’. It is clear that strong governance structures support strong MPAs [13,20]. Current levels of government funding for management and partnership schemes is detrimental to the ability of NE to provide advice ‘with confidence’. With the IFCA's and MMO also experiencing resource limitations relative the scale of the task at hand, NE stress that current ways of working will no longer be feasible. Ultimately, Natural England believe management to be challenging due to the tight time scales and available budgets, but had no option but to ‘work within the constraints’. Therefore the huge numbers of recent MPAs and the intention to increase this network is overwhelming statutory bodies and regulators where concurrent budgetary cuts and diminishing resources have left them understaffed, underequipped and unable to meet the heavy evidence demand that a feature-based approach towards marine protected area management requires. A progressive situation will be to adopt more co-managed projects with public-private financing models [3,13,15]. This study presents an interesting evaluation of the ability of conservation bodies to deliver robust conservation in an already stretched resourced environment. Additionally with the UK's current impending exit from the EU presents an ideal opportunity to acknowledge these emergent issues, utilise partnerships and present novel solutions to gather to funds and resources required to support a strong and ecologically coherent MPA network.
and consultants were used to assess roosting sites and the implications of disturbance on the bird population under the EU Birds Directive. Mussel dredge operators in Northwest England have previously funded boat and helicopter rides in order to give NE and the IFCA access to particular areas that would be otherwise inaccessible. Additionally, to address the lack of evidence, NE teams have focused on joint working with the Environment Agency and relevant IFCA's whom have access to boats, grabs and camera sampling equipment to help build a more robust evidence base. Lyme Bay EMS is a key example of joint working and reveals that partnerships with academia and stakeholders both empower industry and can generate a large evidence base which underpins effective co-management for the protection of MPA site features [27]. For example a large scale seafloor survey of Lyme Bay was conducted by Ambios Ltd, a private consultancy, on behalf of the Devon Wildlife Trust (a conservation NGO) using side scan SONAR, sediment grab sampling and drop down video surveys, to create a biotope map showing the extent of features within the bay. This evidenced rocky reef and/or stony reef confined mostly to the North towards Portland Bill, and features of conservation importance such as maerl (Lithothamnion corallioides) and eelgrass beds (Zostera marina), resulting in the voluntary closure of these areas to fisheries [1]. Increasingly there are calls for industry participation in the governance of MPAs to which fishermen often feel estranged [6]. NE suggest that joint working should occur nationally, because onus is often on regulatory bodies to assess the impact of human activity in the marine environment, whereas in the terrestrial environment, commercial interests seeking licenses to develop must perform their own independent evaluations. Therefore it would seem logical that commercial marine operators should take responsibility for their actions, as resource-use stakeholders (e.g. fishers) will better understand the implications of their activities. Industry investment into assessment would only benefit the industry and ultimately reduce the likelihood of unsustainable developments inside MPAs. Lyme Bay is a compelling example of progressive marine conservation that has involved the fisheries sector in the decision making process and instilled confidence in policy outcomes [16]. Garrett et al. [6] state that tangible outcomes depend on engagement duration, extent of relations (whether close knit or arm's length) and if a shared vision is upheld. This paints a promising picture and suggests NE and relevant stakeholders are beginning to understand the need to utilise joint working in generating a better evidence base that underpins effective marine management. 3.6. Methodological limitations This study has been particularly informative on the opinions of individual NE officers as to the effectiveness of MPA management within England. However, it should be noted that the sample size is reasonably small in comparison to the area of which is discussed. Opinions of individuals have been extrapolated to cover the region to which their job role refers to and selected based on time availability and willingness to participate. Furthermore all respondents originate from Natural England and therefore purely consist of experiences gathered from only one organisation. This may result in perspective bias and potentially a limited review of the available pool of opinions concerning MPA management. Anonymity was specifically specified however it cannot be determined whether NE officers felt like they could truly express their views without repercussion. Therefore upon reflection it may have been beneficial to interview members of an additional relevant organisation to alleviate some of the potential bias and reduce the level of blame for repercussions should opinions cause controversy.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to express gratitude to Natural England for their participation within the project. References [1] Ambios, A Technique for Marine Benthic Biotope Mapping in Sedimentary Environments, Lyme Bay, Southern England. Ambios Report to Devon Wildlife Trust, 2006. [2] H.R. Bernard, Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Plymouth, UK, Rowman Altamira, 2011. [3] G. Borrini-Feyerabend, J. Johnston, D. Pansky, Chapter 5: governance of protected areas, in: M. Lockwood, G. Worboys, A. Kothari (Eds.), Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide, 2006 Earthscan, UK, 2006, pp. 116–145. [4] L. Bunce, P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy, R. Pollnac, Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management. Townsville, AIMS, 2000. [5] E. De Santo, Assessing public ‘’participation’’ in environmental decision-making: lessons learned from the UK Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) site selection process, Mar. Policy 64 (2016) 99–101. [6] A. Garrett, P. MacMullen, D. Symes, Fisheries as learning systems: interactive learning as the basis for improved decision making, Fish. Res. 127 (2012) 182–187. [7] J. Gill, P. Johnson, Research Methods for Managers, Sage, London, 2010.
4. Conclusion The data attained in this study revealed clear difficulties within MPA Management, particularly for statutory bodies, such as NE, to collect robust scientific evidence to deliver vital conservation advice for 81
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt [8] E.P. Green, P.J. Mumby, A.J. Edwards, C.D. Clark, A review of remote sensing for the assessment and management of tropical coastal resources, Coast. Manag. 24 (1) (1996) 1–40. [9] J.D. Hedley, C.M. Roelfsema, I. Chollett, A.R. Harborne, S.F. Heron, S.J. Weeks, W.J. Skirving, A.E. Strong, C.M. Eakin, T.R.L. Christensen, V. Ticzon, S. Bejarano, P.J. Mumby, Remote sensing of coral reefs for monitoring and management: a review, Remote Sens. 8 (2016) 18, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs8020118. [10] D. Hill, D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, J. Treweek, Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research, J. Appl. Ecol. 34 (2) (1997) 275–288. [11] M.J. Jackson, R. James, The influence of bait digging on cockle, Cerastoderma edule populations in North Norfolk, J. Appl. Ecol. 16 (1979) 671–679. [12] S. Jay, Built at sea: marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning, Town Plan. Rev. 81 (2) (2010) 173–192. [13] P.J. Jones, Governing Marine Protected Areas: Resilience Through Diversity, Routledge, New York, 2014. [14] P.J.S. Jones, Marine Protected Areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance, Environ. Conserv. 39 (3) (2012) 248–258. [15] G.K. Lowry, A.T. White, P. Christie, Scaling up to networks of marine protected areas in the Philippines: biophysical, legal, institutional, and social considerations, Coast. Manag. 37 (3–4) (2009) 274–290. [16] S.C. Mangi, L.D. Rodwell, C. Hattam, Assessing the impacts of establishing MPAs on fishermen and fish merchants: the case of Lyme Bay, UK, Ambio 40 (5) (2011) 457–468. [17] Marine and Coastal Act 2009, Available at: (Accessed 18 January 2016). [18] Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Revised Approach to the Management of Commercial Fisheries in European Marine Sites: Overarching Policy and Delivery. Managing Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas, Marine Management Organisation, London, UK, 2014a. [19] Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Fisheries in European Marine Sites: Project Implementation Plan. Managing Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas, Marine Management Organisation, London, UK, 2014b. [20] B.J. McCay, P.J. Jones, Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries, Conserv. Biol. 25 (6) (2011) 1130–1133. [21] J.G. Navedo, J.A. Masero, Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews, Anim. Conserv. 10 (1) (2007) 88–94. [22] K. Ounanian, A. Delaney, J. Raakjær, P. Ramirez-Monsalve, On unequal footing:
[23]
[24]
[25] [26] [27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] [32] [33]
[34]
82
stakeholder perspectives on the marine strategy framework directive as a mechanism of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management, Mar. Policy 36 (3) (2012) 658–666. S.K. Pikesley, B.J. Godley, H. Latham, P.B. Richardson, L.M. Robson, J.-L. Solandt, C. Trundle, C. Wood, M.J. Witt, Pink sea fans (Eunicella verrucosa) as indicators of the spatial efficacy of Marine Protected Areas in Southwest UK coastal waters, Mar. Policy 64 (2016) 38–45. S.E. Rees, L.D. Rodwell, S. Searle, A. Bell, Identifying the issues and options for managing the social impacts of Marine Protected Areas on a small fishing community, Fish. Res. 146 (2013) 51–58. G.W. Ryan, H.R. Bernard, 'Techniques to Identify Themes', Field Methods 15 (1) (2003) 85–109. G. Scarff, C. Fitzsimmons, T. Gray, The new mode of marine planning in the UK: aspirations and challenges, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 96–102. E.V. Sheehan, T.F. Stevens, S.C. Gall, S.L. Cousens, M.J. Attrill, Recovery of a temperate reef assemblage in a marine protected area following the exclusion of towed demersal fishing, PLoS One 8 (12) (2013) e83883, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0083883. E.J. Shumchenia, J.W. King, Comparison of methods for integrating biological and physical data for marine habitat mapping and classification, Cont. Shelf Res. 30 (16) (2010) 1717–1729. J.-L. Solandt, P.J.S. Jones, D. Duval-Diop, A.R. Kleiven, K. Frangoudes, Governance challenges in scaling up from individual MPAs to MPAnetworks, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (2) (2014) 145–152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc. 2504. T.F. Stevens, P.J.S. Jones, K. Howell, L. Mee, Methods for Managing Marine Protected Areas: Options for Establishing and Managing a Marine Protected Area System in the UK. Report to Natural England, Natural England, Peterborough, UK, 2006. A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990. S. Travers, The Shrinking State. Public Finance. URL 〈http://www.publicfinance. co.uk/opinion/2015/04/shrinking-state〉(Accessed September 2016), 2015. V.D. Valavanis, G.J. Pierce, A.F. Zuur, A. Palialexis, A. Saveliev, I. Katara, J. Wang, Modelling of essential fish habitat based on remote sensing, spatial analysis and GIS, Hydrobiologia 612 (1) (2008) 5–20. H. Watson, M. Bolton, P. Monaghan, Out of sight but not out of harm’s way: human disturbance reduces reproductive success of a cavity-nesting seabird, Biol. Conserv. 174 (2014) 127–133.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Challenges on providing conservation advice for a growing network of English Marine Protected Areas
MARK
⁎
S. Rusha,b, , J.L. Solandtc a b c
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom University of Exeter, 143 Beeleigh Link, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 6PH, United Kingdom Marine Conservation Society, Over Ross House, Ross Park, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire HR9 7QQ, United Kingdom
A B S T R A C T The UK network of Marine Protected Areas and the application of management measures to protect conservation features has grown over the past decade. Bodies that regulate activities within MPAs require advice from ‘statutory’ conservation bodies. Therefore to assess the developing MPA networks resilience it is important to assess the ability of bodies to provide effective conservation advice. Thus ‘Natural England’ officers were interviewed to assess their ability to provide scientific advice on the impacts of operations in English MPAs. Results highlight the opinions of UK statutory conservation advisors to be able to provide concrete evidence on the impact of MPA designations and management measures. Response scores were ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 representing a low score, and 5, high. For governance, there was a very positive response to the structures in place to provide conservation advice (4.5). However, in terms of the finance available to provide adequate scientific advice, responses scored lower at 3.1. The majority of NE respondents believe the budget available for ‘feature condition assessment’ to be insufficient for the current MPA network, with most advice derived from ‘expert judgement’ based on the precautionary principle rather than site-based observation of ‘cause-and-effect’ from different human activities. Yet although budgets are a problem, the relationship between Natural England and local fisheries regulators is very healthy, resulting in better joined-up communication over management measures applied to stakeholders. Hence this research recommends the development of private-public partnerships (co-management initiatives) to reduce costs, bring in affected stakeholders and their assets, and improve trust.
1. Introduction The UK has recently seen a considerable expansion in the number and area of Marine Protected Areas [5]. With the expansion of the number of MPAs from those representing small locations considered for the preservation of individual habitats or species, the UK has embarked on a wholescale increase in ambition for the role of MPAs, i.e. to deliver protection for ecosystems [17,22,26]. But the growth in MPA measures from individual sites to networks of sites is often fraught, necessitates top-down legislation and policy that can result in difficulties in maintaining the confidence, inclusion (though co-management) and aspirations of local stakeholders [13,14,22,29]. Very much part of the picture is that of the provision of accurate data under which designation and management decisions for sites can be confidently achieved, and widely recognised in their validity [5,23]. Coincidentally, the UK is still suffering the lasting effects of the banking crisis of 2008, an ensuing reduction in the size of the state, its assets and functions [32]. As such,
⁎
the statutory nature conservation agencies that advise government on the biological evidence of both where MPAs are being designated, and what is likely to affect them, have been cut relative to the substantial increase in area of MPAs there has been over the past decade. That is, whilst the MPA ‘estate’ has increased in area from around 2% of UK seas in 2008, designation processes at both EU and domestic level has pushed the amount designated to around 17% in 2016 – an 800% increase in MPA area (over 140,000 km2). This is exemplified in the most recent conservative party manifesto before the 2015 election that called for a ‘Blue Belt’ around the British Isles in reference to completing the MPA network. Whilst the area and number of marine MPAs has vastly increased, the budget for such agencies has held steady in recent years after an initial growth spurt in 2008, and is now declining. This has made it much harder for statutory nature conservation agencies to deliver services (information and data) on the impacts of management on individual sites (Marsden, pers comm.) Fig. 1. Natural England (NE) is an ‘executive Non Departmental Public
Corresponding author at: 143 Beeleigh Link, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 6PH, United Kingdom. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Rush), [email protected] (J.L. Solandt).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.026 Received 10 May 2016; Received in revised form 1 February 2017; Accepted 16 May 2017 0308-597X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Fig. 1. Location of UK Special Areas of Conservation, and Marine Conservation Zones from 2 tranches (2013 and 2016) in England's territorial waters (< 12 nm from the coast). A further tranche of MCZs will be designated in 2018. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016. Not to be used for navigation.
body’ that is sponsored by the UK government – The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). NE provides statutory conservation advice for to enable government to designate sites as Marine Protected Areas. At the time when sites are designated, NE provides Conservation Objectives for sites, and their constituent features for which the sites are designated. NE assesses the Conservation Objectives of constituent features of sites, and suggests either a ‘maintain’ or ‘recover’ objective based on an understanding of their condition and current activities that are ongoing in the site that may have an impact on the feature. This is an extremely data heavy exercise. Currently there are 130 Marine Protected Areas (SPAs; SACs; MCZs) in English waters, so the workload to provide conservation advice on all features within all sites is considerable. As NE is not a regulator, it doesn’t have the power to then regulate the activities within these sites. Fisheries within 6 nm of the coast are subsequently managed by the 10 English Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs – a local regulator), whilst recreational activities are managed by the Marine Management Organisation (a government body). The MMO is also a licensing body, and takes NE advice before permitting certain activities at sea such as dredging and infrastructure development. On a day to day basis, conservation advice is offered by NE to regulators and relevant authorities on activities deemed likely to impact on the favourable conservation status of sites. Significant new developments are also considered by NE to ensure they can ensure the
maintenance or restoration of favourable conservation status of sites. NE provide UK government with site condition information every 6 years under EU law within 12 nm, and carry out monitoring activities in the ensuing period alongside other bodies such as fisheries regulators. In 2012, UK government announced a ‘revised approach’ to the management of commercial fishing in English EMSs. The ‘Revised Approach’ aims to ensure that all fishing activity within MPAs is managed to meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive [13,18,29]). NE provides advice on conservation status and operations that could damage EMSs in inshore waters (< 12 nm from the coast). This uses a evidence based ‘risk matrix’ showing the generic fishing gear types and their likely effect on relevant MPA features [18,19]. Activities are categories according to specific definitions as Red, Amber, Green or Blue based on the potential risk the activity presents to EMS features. This Habitats Risk Assessment process identifies the appropriate and proportionate management measures that are required to protect EMS features and sub-features (a species or habitat for the protection of which an EMS site has been designated). Measures have included the implementation of byelaws, permits (to control or reduce effort), closures to bottom towed fishing gears, seasonal restrictions and catch quotas [18]. Within 6 nm, the IFCAs have been responsible for implementing byelaws and measures. From 6 to 12 nm, the MMO leads on fisheries regulations, whilst in offshore waters (> 12 nm), fisheries management measures are dealt with by Defra. 76
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Furthermore, the UK's ‘Brexit’ referendum result to leave the European Union has introduced some uncertainty over the future application and implementation of EU laws such as the Habitats Directive in the UK. It is at present uncertain how Brexit will unfold over the coming years. Current Defra policy is to work ‘as if nothing has changed’, because the legislative drivers that come from the EU persist until such time as the UK leaves the EU. Therefore Defra and other regulatory agencies are working to complete a suite of management measures for sites under the revised approach. This paper examines the role NE play in providing conservation advice, what the major problems are with providing that advice, and what the major conservation issues they are faced with in different English coastal regions.
3. Results and discussion The interview process led to several key emerging themes influencing management effectiveness within the MPA network. This included the level of activity, lack of evidence and sampling difficulty, engagement and geographical isolation, management and governance structure, financial constraints, insufficient resources and joint-working. 3.1. Level of activity Increasing numbers of people using the sea for a growing number of activities has led to an increase in conflicts of interest and environmental pressures experienced in MPAs [12]. Lead Officers expressed multiple activities that could constitute a potential threat to MPA site features but that some activities were more difficult to manage than others due to the disparity in available regulation processes. For example, all regions stated high levels of recreational activity and voiced concern regarding regulation. Currently recreational activity does not have a typical management structure and therefore lacks a responsible competent authority for regulation. NE gave the impression it had largely been overlooked because implementing and enforcing management measures would be challenging. Recreational use included boating activity, recreational fishing, bird watching, rambling, dog walking and multiple sporting activities. High levels of disturbance within MPAs due to greater recreational use has the potential to alter environmental and biological processes [11]. Specifically, breeding bird colonies are sensitive to high levels of disturbance and may contribute to decreased reproductive success [10,34], where which SPA management will be essential. 50% of Lead Officers mentioned disturbance from recreational activities such as ‘dogs off leads’, with an interviewee from the Southeast stating it was ‘the main thing we need to look at on how to control and regulate’ because managing recreational activities has no clear licensing or regulating process. NE stressed the difficulty in managing recreational activity and described licensed activities such as dredging, renewables and port construction, covered under the Habitat Risk Assessment process, management ‘very straightforward’ with an ‘obvious sort of structure’ where ‘roles and circumstances are very clear’. This disparity between regimented management processes and the lack of a structured avenues in which to address activities such as recreation was notable throughout all discussions. Fishing activity also presented as a priority issue dependent on the level of commercial and recreational activity within a region. The level of management and conservation advice required from NE depends on the level and type of fishing activity taking place and the extent of features within an MPA. Eastern England described heavy trawling occurring offshore and considerable levels of potting, netting and line fishing throughout the district, resulting in over 1800 types of amber risk interactions between fishing gears and potentially vulnerable features. NE state for high risk features, emergency byelaws could be implemented quickly where necessary and that compliance was generally high, with 16 out of 18 NE Officers expressing a confidence in the effectiveness of byelaws to protect features. However, it must be stressed that management measures are often only implemented and complied with if there is sufficient evidence or motivation to allow conservation bodies to develop conservation advice and suggest appropriate management. Eastern officers explained that the region contains byelaws with regulatory notices, which can be amended if necessary based on subsequent evidence gathering (drop down camera and grab sampling). This can restrict fishing intensity and prohibit fishing activities which constitute a potential threat to MPA features, such as Sabellaria spinulosa (ross worm) reef, subtidal boulder and cobble communities and Zostera (Seagrass). More extreme management such as designated no take and no trawl zones are employed in the Lundy SAC and Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC to manage fisheries [16,24]. Some sites such as Upper Fowey and Pont Pill MCZ with limited fishing activity or lack of commercially desirable species do not need to adopt
2. Methodology Data was derived from telephone interviews conducted with Natural England Marine Lead Officers [2]. Interviewees were selected from a matrix of Natural England Marine Lead Officer email addresses supplied by the Marine Conservation Society. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the attitudes of Natural England Marine Lead Officers towards Marine Protected Area management and their ability to provide robust scientific advice, particularly for fisheries management. Correspondence via email exchange to arrange telephone interviews started in December 2014. Interviews began in January and ended in May 2015. Eighteen interviews were conducted, totalling 6 h and 23 min (383 min). Data covered 61 sites across England, consisting of 32 Special Protected Areas (SPAs), 18 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and 11 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). For ease of sampling England was spilt into six regions; Northeast, Northwest, East, Southeast, South and Southwest. For each region, at least two interviews were conducted with a maximum interviewee number of 5 per region (See Fig. 2). Interviews was conducted as a semi-structured conversation to allow the expression of interviewee opinions and provide opportunity for elaboration on topics they felt important [4], relating to site management and the ability of Natural England and other regulators to perform effectively. Central questions covered the extent of adverse activities, amber interactions and red risk byelaws within MPA's and the level of engagement that was conducted with fishermen regarding management. Latter questions addressed whether problems arose when providing advice to relevant stakeholders and whether this was due to a lack of governance structures or financial support to assess condition of MPA's. Interviewees were also asked closed questions in order to rank their opinion on how well they felt governance structures and financial circumstances supported the delivery of conservation advice. Response scores were ranked from 1 to 5, with 1 representing a low score, and 5, high. Individual scores were collated by region and averaged per number of MPAs sampled within the region to create a mean score. Interviewees were also asked if they felt if there was sufficient financial budget available to provide adequate scientific advice from the options: yes, no or undecided (yes/no). Regional scores were generated based on the majority response. Interview protocol was explained using a project description previewing the interview questions. Verbal consent was sought to record interviews. Assurance of anonymity in the final documentation was given to interviewees [7], however copies of transcripts were issued to interviewees on request. Interviews were transcribed and thematically coded using QSR NVivo 10, following key methods described by [25,31]. A priori code categories covered key topics addressed in the structured questions. Grounded codes were added to the A priori categories to include emergent themes and issues within the MPA network. Initial descriptive evaluation led to theoretical analysis and the development of theories to evidence the reasoning behind the data produced and the associated implications for Marine Protected Area management. 77
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Fig. 2. Part a) Geographical depiction of sample sites and allocated region and site type. Part b) List of sample sites and allocated region and site type.
only provide advice using expert judgement based on the best available evidence. In particular, as a result of sampling difficulty and a lack of data, the uncertainty of the extent of ephemeral and mobile features (e.g. Sabellaria worm reefs and sandbanks which can be moved by storms) was a common example of the precautionary approach being used to determine conservation advice for subsequent management [28,30]. Officers explained that acquiring knowledge of the exact extent of every feature in an MPA, especially features of spatial and temporal variability, within the timeframe given to deliver conservation advice is unfeasible and expressed the difference in the level of evidence available and required for different types of designations. SACs require statutory reporting every 6 years under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and SPAs must be monitored in accordance with the EU Birds Directive. Furthermore, NE reported that even when data is available, this can often be in the wrong format or too outdated to inform management. For example, monitoring data cannot necessarily reveal ‘causation factors’ for situations, such as increased bait collection and the bird population changes in Durham (Northeast region). Providing conservation advice on bait collection and its influence on avian population change would involve more extensive surveying such as benthic infaunal studies, which are notoriously difficult due to their expense and the environments natural variability. NE expressed that with limited evidence they must suggest ‘precautionary’ measures within their conservation advice which can led to management ineffectiveness. A potential solution, suggested by NE,
such severe measures. 3.2. Lack of evidence and sampling difficulty Another common theme occurring throughout all interviews was the ‘lack the evidence to show that an activity is having an impact or has the potential to impact’ on a feature. For instance, NE were unsure of the sensitivity of MPA site features to recreational activity and lack of evidence to show causality between an activity and adverse impacts on a feature. This was often stated alongside the difficulty and cost of assessing and monitoring in the marine environment. NE stressed that many activities were unregulated and highly variable spatially and temporally. Sampling the marine environment is notoriously difficult, which makes gathering robust evidence with high accuracy and proficiency, costly and time consuming [33]. This sentiment was expressed by all officers and was their main reasoning behind a lack of evidence and difficulty in determining causality between activities and adverse impacts. Interviewees described the difficulty in determining whether gaining access to carry out an activity (e.g. anglers wading through saltmarsh habitat) or the activity itself (e.g. bait digging) caused adverse effects to an MPA site feature. NE expressed a need to ‘have people on the ground’ to monitor activities closely in order to contribute to the development of management strategies that effectively recognise and mitigate damage from intensity. NE stated that they are trying to identify gaps and improve their evidence base, but if conservation is required on a feature with limited data, then they can 78
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
3.3. Engagement and geographical isolation
would be moving away from the traditional sense of full surveying for condition assessment, which stemmed from the terrestrial environment, to using proxies such as species communities as markers of site condition. Yet for this to be successful, there must be a better understanding of ‘reference condition’ to assess sites based on expected community assemblages where human impacts affecting condition are controlled. If this approach is adopted we recommend that NE must understand a feature's ‘climax community state’, whereby a sufficient area and habitat assemblage of the feature is not exposed to human activity. Reference can then be made to the effect of any subsequent activity and allow NE to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic change. Lack of evidence, as a result of sampling difficulty, was also mentioned with respect to fisheries management [33]. Officers expressed concern for the management of lower risk (or ‘amber’) activities where the interaction between activity and sensitivity is less well known, or for sites where feature distribution isn’t clear. Without direct empirical site based evidence, NE state they have difficulty in providing IFCAs with confident advice. This was particularly evident within discussions on natural ephemeral structures such as biogenic reefs e.g. Sabellaria reef – a naturally ephemeral structure made by the sediment-accreting behaviour of worms. NE described current management measures as ‘precautionary’, with closures based on areas where reef occurs more persistently. Yet it could be argued that if a precautionary approach were being taken for sites then most, if not all sites should be closed, should they comprise of suitable habitat that could host protectable features like Sabellaria reef. This approach was adopted at the South Wight Maritime EMS, where knowledge of the extent of reef was unclear due to the patchy nature of reef and therefore the local regulator chose to close a large proportion of the site to trawling. Conversely, in the East, NE used a measure of ‘persistence’ of the ephemeral feature that may contrast with the precautionary approach, resulting in < 2% of the site being protected (though this may increase in 2017). This possibility of NE using different approaches to determine their conservation advice does not foster confidence in management objectivity and suggests that in the latter example NE's conservation advice may have been more sympathetic to the shrimp trawl fishers within the site to avoid conflict rather than for the conservation of other areas of Sabellaria reef that could be damaged by trawling in the wider area. NE did recognise that further evidence is needed to understand the direct effects of fishing – at different intensities – on the distribution and development of Sabellaria reef and decisions would have been made with the best evidence available and within the management capabilities of the relevant authorities. Similar situations can be observed within other regions. Morecambe Bay in the Northwest has a well-established mussel fishery, but NE are unsure of where the mussels originate from and the extent and effect of bait digging within the region on the biological stock. From interviews, it was clear that the impact of many fishing activities within MPAs are categorised as uncertain because of a lack of knowledge of direct ‘cause and effect’ of different levels of effort on ‘feature’ condition. Further uncertainty derives from a lack of understanding of the in-combination effects with other fishing activities. For example, bait collection for lugworm and ragworm has been listed as a priority interaction for management in the Northeast due to the uncertainty of whether this activity is conducted for personal use or commercially and the impact this may have on the benthos and surrounding bird communities. Additionally determining levels of commercial versus recreational activity within the Southeast pacific oyster fishery causes major contention for NE when providing conservation advice and assessing the impact this may have on the chalk reef within the region. Therefore this suggests that the existence of large evidence gaps can undermine NE's ability to provide accurate conservation advice and may lead to controversial ineffective management measures.
Discourses identified there was a contradictory level of engagement with stakeholders, particularly with fishermen, between the regions. For most regions, NE IFCA officers enabled communication between NE and the relevant IFCA's, however overall NE's local direct engagement with fishermen was low and mostly carried out through the regional IFCA. Primarily, engagement occurred at quarterly public IFCA committee meetings consisting of a panel of IFCA members, NE IFCA leads, individuals appointed by the Marine Management Organisation, Environment Agency representatives, fishermen, local councillors and relevant industry representatives. Ad-hoc technical working groups or emergency meetings address sector-specific concerns such as the opening and closing of fisheries or if NE deem a fishery to be detrimental to MPA conservation objectives. Frequency and consistency of engagement was dependent on NE staff resource, distribution of marine users and the existence of site governance/management groups within each region. If staff resource was low and marine user distribution high then NE were less able to participate in engagement. Most engagement occurred as a result of fishermen contacting NE to receive clarification or to discuss issues. This suggests that fishermen are not being adequately informed, with most regions reporting minimal engagement due to a lack of staff and time availability, which may have a negative impact on compliance to management measures. Engagement by NE seems to only occur when initiated by external advisory bodies, principally the IFCA's, whom themselves have limited staff resource and tight timescales in which to meet their own statutory obligations. Engagement was more evident if there was an EMS situated within the region with an established management scheme with an associated advisory management group. An example is the EMS scheme for the Wash and North Norfolk Coast, which has a set of advisory groups that incorporate local marine users and the North Norfolk Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG). Together they aim to focus management actions and ensure both the local community and fishing industry benefit. NE stated they could use these management groups to disseminate information and reach marine users. The benefit of partnership working was particularly expressed in the Southeast region, who due to limited staff and the dispersal of marine users, found engagement difficult. The Southeast stressed this had implications on their ability to deliver advice, stating that they are ‘stretched as a resource’ and have to utilise ‘associations’ to spread information to highly dispersed marine users. 3.4. Management and governance structure Interviewees were asked to rate whether they believed adequate governance structures were in place to provide effective conservation advice for MPA's (See Table 1). Lower scores demonstrated a lack of structures through which NE could impart clear advice. Average scores were calculated for each region and aggregated to a national scale. For adequacy in governance structure, the Northwest region exhibited the lowest score of 3.4 in comparison with higher scores of 4.5 in the East and Southwest (See Table 1). Respondents from the Northeast believe they can sustain good governance, but had significant uncertainty as to how Natural England would govern the new national marine network as it emerges. From discussions it was evident that management structure differed between regions and also between MPAs, suggesting that differing levels of governance structure could affect NE's ability to deliver conservation advice and alter their opinion of management effectiveness within MPAs. Some sites, particularly in the Southwest, had clear management groups and robust avenues in which to deliver management effectively. For example regions which incorporated an EMS are required to have an established management scheme with an associated advisory management group, therefore these areas were associated with higher scores for adequacy of governance structure and described as well structured. MPA's with management schemes and advisory groups (though not necessarily statutory) achieve higher 79
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
Table 1 Natural England Marine Lead Officer regional ratings for governance structure, resourcing and budgeting pertaining to individual Marine Protected Areas. Region
Number of interviewees (n=18)
Number of sites (n=61)
Site types included
Northwest Northeast East Southeast South Southwest Averaged National Scores
3 2 3 3 2 5
7 4 13 21 5 11
SAC, SAC, SAC, SAC, SAC, SAC,
a
SPA, SPA, SPA SPA, SPA SPA,
MCZ MCZ MCZ MCZ
Averaged governance structure rating
Averaged resource and finance rating
Sufficient budget
3.4 3.5 4.5 3.8 4.0 4.5 4.3
2.9 2.8 3.5 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.1
YES/NOa YES/NOa YES/NOa NOa NOa YES/NOa NOa
Median and most common answer.
mapping subtidal features proves more difficult due to a lack of access, the inability to undertake broad-scale accurate surveys and associated cost to link specific human activities to individual impacts. Data collection is also dependent on multiple variables that cannot be controlled, such as weather. This was particularly stressed in the Southeast, where volatile weather frequently reduces the period available to gather evidence. NE, principally in Southern areas, showed frustration towards falling back on using the ‘precautionary approach’ because of a lack of comprehensive survey information due to the combination of sampling difficulty, financial constraints and insufficient resources to inform conservation objectives. NE described sites where reduction in funding and thus resources could be considerably damaging. For examples sites such as Chichester Harbour in the Southeast, where there is a high requirement to undertake enforcement and plug significant evidence gaps, need sufficient funding. Lundy SAC in the Southwest used to have a budget of £70,000 for a warden, however funding for the post was cut in 2015, requiring NE to contribute partly to the cost of the post. Therefore to continue delivering the same robust level of conservation advice, NE officers stated that they are having to be innovative and seek joint-working opportunities to pool resources with NGOs, commercial stakeholders and volunteers in order to carry out condition assessment and reduce the cost of surveying. Also, following the UK's decision to exit the EU, there is likely to be greater uncertainty as to the potential funding and resources available for future MPA management. This means adequate resourcing, new approaches and innovative partnerships will become increasingly important to ensure the future integrity of marine ecosystems and successful MPA management. This will be especially important for MPAs designated under EU legalisation e.g. the EMS. In the Southeast, the local Thanet District Council have committed to funding an EMS Officer despite national funding cuts, showing that other public bodies can help support the work associated with marine nature conservation at the site level and understand its value within the MPA network. This kind of support from other local government sectors is rare from other parts of the nation, indeed there can even be resentment of some local councils to financially support IFCA work (e.g. counties around the Severn estuary). Conversely, partnership working between NE, regional fisheries regulators and the MMO were generally considered to be effective, with all regions boasting strong relationships in comparison to relationships with local councils. However, recent workloads associated with increased numbers of MPA designations and requirements to develop regulatory measures has resulted in increasing pressure on these organisations to meet demands with lessening resources. Recent prioritisation of ‘high risk’ interactions (between damaging activities and vulnerable site features) has helped clarify prioritisation of monitoring and condition. This allows resources to be targeted at the most pressing areas of conservation concern. Working with partners in industry and increasing co-ordination with regulatory bodies and NGOs should improve the evidence base and make management more effective. For example, within Poole Harbour, local bird observers
ratings (e.g. Norfolk, Solent, Thames) because NE would be able to utilise these governance avenues to deliver conservation advice. MPAs not covered with such legalisation received lower scores. NE explained that this did not reflect a difference in the level of input or knowledge but corresponded to the less structured approach towards governance within those sites. However, it does give the impression that some sites lack governance structures due to a lack in community motivation, funding and pressure to implement conservation management and sustain governance structures. It is clear that in areas which have additional management groups, engagement is increased and government structure is fortified, management is more likely to be sustainable, determining that resilient attitudes towards MPAs achieving conservation objectives relies on such communication, and close-nit working [13,29].
3.5. Financial constraints, insufficient resources and joint-working Interviewees were also asked to rate the availability of resources to finance governance using the same method. The lowest rating occurred in the South at 2.4 in contrast to the East at 3.5 (See Table 1). Throughout all discussions NE described a lack of resources available to effectively manage MPAs. Additional factors such as the cost of sampling the marine environment, the lack of available staff and the deficiency of government funding only reduces the availability of resources to finance governance and create a structure that can facilitate and fund the acquirement of evidence that government requests be available before permission for governmental funding for management is granted. Officers stressed that despite the clear need and call from government to increase the evidence base within MPAs, initial projects are not adequately funded to support them full time and the shortfall has reduced the ability to sustain communication and coordination of their work with development authorities to plan, implement and sustain effective management schemes. Furthermore, NE Officers were asked if they thought the budget for feature condition assessment was sufficient. NE Officers were quite conflicted on this question, with the majority of interviewees responding negatively (53%) stating they were unable to provide a definitive answer due the matter's complexity (See Table 1). Some Officers described the finance as ‘sturdy’ but with the caveat that management would be negatively affected if funding was reduced. All interviews mentioned the reduction in government funding and that NE are having to do more work with less money. General cuts by Defra have impacted the availability of resources and required budget realignment within management, which is only likely to continue as a result of the UK leaving the EU and EU funding being pulled. Even at this early stage of funding reductions, all regions agreed that current budgets doesn’t permit entire sites to be surveyed. As a consequence, site condition assessment is achieved through representational sampling whilst monitoring is prioritised for high risk features within sites. Nationally, intertidal mapping is fairly strong as it is relatively cheap to do by remote sensing [8,9,33] and isolated ground-truthing, however 80
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt
activity and fisheries management within MPAs. Discussions within this study have shown that there is uncertainty as to the extent and impact of activity within MPA's throughout the regions [21], resulting in a difficulty for statutory bodies to provide confident advice. Thus this leaves regulators in a difficult position of either introducing legally compliant precautionary management (for EMS), or being at risk of breaking the law by not introducing management measures when definitive information on ‘cause and effect’ at each individual site is lacking. This study evidences key themes affecting MPA management effectiveness, such as the lack of evidence to determine causality between activity and adverse impacts, the level of activity within a site, the difficulty in sampling the marine environment, financial constraints, insufficient resources and geographical isolation. Furthermore the contradictory level of engagement between regions, dissimilar management hierarchies and the necessity for more innovative assessment and monitoring using joint working are also emergent themes. The strongest positive element in this research was the level of communication between regulators and Natural England, combined with some of the historic governance structures for MPAs such as EMS management schemes. NE did commend the IFCA's in their leadership with regard to implementing fisheries management in EMS over the past 3 years, but explained there was still ‘a long road ahead’. It is clear that strong governance structures support strong MPAs [13,20]. Current levels of government funding for management and partnership schemes is detrimental to the ability of NE to provide advice ‘with confidence’. With the IFCA's and MMO also experiencing resource limitations relative the scale of the task at hand, NE stress that current ways of working will no longer be feasible. Ultimately, Natural England believe management to be challenging due to the tight time scales and available budgets, but had no option but to ‘work within the constraints’. Therefore the huge numbers of recent MPAs and the intention to increase this network is overwhelming statutory bodies and regulators where concurrent budgetary cuts and diminishing resources have left them understaffed, underequipped and unable to meet the heavy evidence demand that a feature-based approach towards marine protected area management requires. A progressive situation will be to adopt more co-managed projects with public-private financing models [3,13,15]. This study presents an interesting evaluation of the ability of conservation bodies to deliver robust conservation in an already stretched resourced environment. Additionally with the UK's current impending exit from the EU presents an ideal opportunity to acknowledge these emergent issues, utilise partnerships and present novel solutions to gather to funds and resources required to support a strong and ecologically coherent MPA network.
and consultants were used to assess roosting sites and the implications of disturbance on the bird population under the EU Birds Directive. Mussel dredge operators in Northwest England have previously funded boat and helicopter rides in order to give NE and the IFCA access to particular areas that would be otherwise inaccessible. Additionally, to address the lack of evidence, NE teams have focused on joint working with the Environment Agency and relevant IFCA's whom have access to boats, grabs and camera sampling equipment to help build a more robust evidence base. Lyme Bay EMS is a key example of joint working and reveals that partnerships with academia and stakeholders both empower industry and can generate a large evidence base which underpins effective co-management for the protection of MPA site features [27]. For example a large scale seafloor survey of Lyme Bay was conducted by Ambios Ltd, a private consultancy, on behalf of the Devon Wildlife Trust (a conservation NGO) using side scan SONAR, sediment grab sampling and drop down video surveys, to create a biotope map showing the extent of features within the bay. This evidenced rocky reef and/or stony reef confined mostly to the North towards Portland Bill, and features of conservation importance such as maerl (Lithothamnion corallioides) and eelgrass beds (Zostera marina), resulting in the voluntary closure of these areas to fisheries [1]. Increasingly there are calls for industry participation in the governance of MPAs to which fishermen often feel estranged [6]. NE suggest that joint working should occur nationally, because onus is often on regulatory bodies to assess the impact of human activity in the marine environment, whereas in the terrestrial environment, commercial interests seeking licenses to develop must perform their own independent evaluations. Therefore it would seem logical that commercial marine operators should take responsibility for their actions, as resource-use stakeholders (e.g. fishers) will better understand the implications of their activities. Industry investment into assessment would only benefit the industry and ultimately reduce the likelihood of unsustainable developments inside MPAs. Lyme Bay is a compelling example of progressive marine conservation that has involved the fisheries sector in the decision making process and instilled confidence in policy outcomes [16]. Garrett et al. [6] state that tangible outcomes depend on engagement duration, extent of relations (whether close knit or arm's length) and if a shared vision is upheld. This paints a promising picture and suggests NE and relevant stakeholders are beginning to understand the need to utilise joint working in generating a better evidence base that underpins effective marine management. 3.6. Methodological limitations This study has been particularly informative on the opinions of individual NE officers as to the effectiveness of MPA management within England. However, it should be noted that the sample size is reasonably small in comparison to the area of which is discussed. Opinions of individuals have been extrapolated to cover the region to which their job role refers to and selected based on time availability and willingness to participate. Furthermore all respondents originate from Natural England and therefore purely consist of experiences gathered from only one organisation. This may result in perspective bias and potentially a limited review of the available pool of opinions concerning MPA management. Anonymity was specifically specified however it cannot be determined whether NE officers felt like they could truly express their views without repercussion. Therefore upon reflection it may have been beneficial to interview members of an additional relevant organisation to alleviate some of the potential bias and reduce the level of blame for repercussions should opinions cause controversy.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to express gratitude to Natural England for their participation within the project. References [1] Ambios, A Technique for Marine Benthic Biotope Mapping in Sedimentary Environments, Lyme Bay, Southern England. Ambios Report to Devon Wildlife Trust, 2006. [2] H.R. Bernard, Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Plymouth, UK, Rowman Altamira, 2011. [3] G. Borrini-Feyerabend, J. Johnston, D. Pansky, Chapter 5: governance of protected areas, in: M. Lockwood, G. Worboys, A. Kothari (Eds.), Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide, 2006 Earthscan, UK, 2006, pp. 116–145. [4] L. Bunce, P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy, R. Pollnac, Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management. Townsville, AIMS, 2000. [5] E. De Santo, Assessing public ‘’participation’’ in environmental decision-making: lessons learned from the UK Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) site selection process, Mar. Policy 64 (2016) 99–101. [6] A. Garrett, P. MacMullen, D. Symes, Fisheries as learning systems: interactive learning as the basis for improved decision making, Fish. Res. 127 (2012) 182–187. [7] J. Gill, P. Johnson, Research Methods for Managers, Sage, London, 2010.
4. Conclusion The data attained in this study revealed clear difficulties within MPA Management, particularly for statutory bodies, such as NE, to collect robust scientific evidence to deliver vital conservation advice for 81
Marine Policy 83 (2017) 75–82
S. Rush, J.L. Solandt [8] E.P. Green, P.J. Mumby, A.J. Edwards, C.D. Clark, A review of remote sensing for the assessment and management of tropical coastal resources, Coast. Manag. 24 (1) (1996) 1–40. [9] J.D. Hedley, C.M. Roelfsema, I. Chollett, A.R. Harborne, S.F. Heron, S.J. Weeks, W.J. Skirving, A.E. Strong, C.M. Eakin, T.R.L. Christensen, V. Ticzon, S. Bejarano, P.J. Mumby, Remote sensing of coral reefs for monitoring and management: a review, Remote Sens. 8 (2016) 18, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs8020118. [10] D. Hill, D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, J. Treweek, Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research, J. Appl. Ecol. 34 (2) (1997) 275–288. [11] M.J. Jackson, R. James, The influence of bait digging on cockle, Cerastoderma edule populations in North Norfolk, J. Appl. Ecol. 16 (1979) 671–679. [12] S. Jay, Built at sea: marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning, Town Plan. Rev. 81 (2) (2010) 173–192. [13] P.J. Jones, Governing Marine Protected Areas: Resilience Through Diversity, Routledge, New York, 2014. [14] P.J.S. Jones, Marine Protected Areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance, Environ. Conserv. 39 (3) (2012) 248–258. [15] G.K. Lowry, A.T. White, P. Christie, Scaling up to networks of marine protected areas in the Philippines: biophysical, legal, institutional, and social considerations, Coast. Manag. 37 (3–4) (2009) 274–290. [16] S.C. Mangi, L.D. Rodwell, C. Hattam, Assessing the impacts of establishing MPAs on fishermen and fish merchants: the case of Lyme Bay, UK, Ambio 40 (5) (2011) 457–468. [17] Marine and Coastal Act 2009, Available at: (Accessed 18 January 2016). [18] Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Revised Approach to the Management of Commercial Fisheries in European Marine Sites: Overarching Policy and Delivery. Managing Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas, Marine Management Organisation, London, UK, 2014a. [19] Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Fisheries in European Marine Sites: Project Implementation Plan. Managing Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas, Marine Management Organisation, London, UK, 2014b. [20] B.J. McCay, P.J. Jones, Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries, Conserv. Biol. 25 (6) (2011) 1130–1133. [21] J.G. Navedo, J.A. Masero, Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews, Anim. Conserv. 10 (1) (2007) 88–94. [22] K. Ounanian, A. Delaney, J. Raakjær, P. Ramirez-Monsalve, On unequal footing:
[23]
[24]
[25] [26] [27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] [32] [33]
[34]
82
stakeholder perspectives on the marine strategy framework directive as a mechanism of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management, Mar. Policy 36 (3) (2012) 658–666. S.K. Pikesley, B.J. Godley, H. Latham, P.B. Richardson, L.M. Robson, J.-L. Solandt, C. Trundle, C. Wood, M.J. Witt, Pink sea fans (Eunicella verrucosa) as indicators of the spatial efficacy of Marine Protected Areas in Southwest UK coastal waters, Mar. Policy 64 (2016) 38–45. S.E. Rees, L.D. Rodwell, S. Searle, A. Bell, Identifying the issues and options for managing the social impacts of Marine Protected Areas on a small fishing community, Fish. Res. 146 (2013) 51–58. G.W. Ryan, H.R. Bernard, 'Techniques to Identify Themes', Field Methods 15 (1) (2003) 85–109. G. Scarff, C. Fitzsimmons, T. Gray, The new mode of marine planning in the UK: aspirations and challenges, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 96–102. E.V. Sheehan, T.F. Stevens, S.C. Gall, S.L. Cousens, M.J. Attrill, Recovery of a temperate reef assemblage in a marine protected area following the exclusion of towed demersal fishing, PLoS One 8 (12) (2013) e83883, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0083883. E.J. Shumchenia, J.W. King, Comparison of methods for integrating biological and physical data for marine habitat mapping and classification, Cont. Shelf Res. 30 (16) (2010) 1717–1729. J.-L. Solandt, P.J.S. Jones, D. Duval-Diop, A.R. Kleiven, K. Frangoudes, Governance challenges in scaling up from individual MPAs to MPAnetworks, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (2) (2014) 145–152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc. 2504. T.F. Stevens, P.J.S. Jones, K. Howell, L. Mee, Methods for Managing Marine Protected Areas: Options for Establishing and Managing a Marine Protected Area System in the UK. Report to Natural England, Natural England, Peterborough, UK, 2006. A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990. S. Travers, The Shrinking State. Public Finance. URL 〈http://www.publicfinance. co.uk/opinion/2015/04/shrinking-state〉(Accessed September 2016), 2015. V.D. Valavanis, G.J. Pierce, A.F. Zuur, A. Palialexis, A. Saveliev, I. Katara, J. Wang, Modelling of essential fish habitat based on remote sensing, spatial analysis and GIS, Hydrobiologia 612 (1) (2008) 5–20. H. Watson, M. Bolton, P. Monaghan, Out of sight but not out of harm’s way: human disturbance reduces reproductive success of a cavity-nesting seabird, Biol. Conserv. 174 (2014) 127–133.