The Controversy over Marine Protected Areas

Science meets Policy

verfasst von: Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Buchreihe : SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science

Enthalten in: Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" , Springer Professional "Technik"

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Über dieses Buch

This book is a critical analysis of the concept of marine protected areas (MPAs) particularly as a tool for marine resource management. It explains the reasons for the extraordinary rise of MPAs to the top of the political agenda for marine policy, and evaluates the scientific credentials for the unprecedented popularity of this management option. The book reveals the role played by two policy networks – epistemic community and advocacy coalition – in promoting the notion of MPA, showing how advocacy for marine reserves by some scientists based on limited evidence of fisheries benefits has led to a blurring of the boundary between science and politics. Second, the study investigates whether the scientific consensus on MPAs has resulted in a publication bias, whereby pro-MPA articles are given preferential treatment by peer-reviewed academic journals, though it found only limited evidence of such a bias. Third, the project conducts a systematic review of the literature to determine the ecological effects of MPAs, and reaches the conclusion that there is little proof of a positive impact on finfish populations in temperate waters. Fourth, the study uses discourse analysis to trace the effects of a public campaigning policy network on marine conservation zones (MCZs) in England, which demonstrated that there was considerable confusion over the objectives that MCZs were being designated to achieve. The book’s conclusion is that the MPA issue shows the power of ideas in marine governance, but offers a caution that scientists who cross the line between science and politics risk exaggerating the benefits of MPAs by glossing over uncertainties in the data, which may antagonise the fishing industry, delay resolution of the MPA issue, and weaken public faith in marine science if and when the benefits of MCZs are subsequently seen to be limited.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

1. Introduction

Abstract

The most important controversy in fisheries management in recent years has been the debate over marine protected areas (MPAs). The epicentre of this controversy is the issue of whether large networks of no-take MPAs (NTMPAs), more usually known as marine reserves (MRs), are necessary to protect fish stocks. On the one hand, advocates of MRs argue that without MRs the worldwide decline in fish stocks will continue to the point of threatening more stocks with extinction. On the other hand, critics of MRs argue that conventional fisheries management (CFM) which includes restrictions on quota, fishing gear, effort controls, and selective spatial restrictions, if properly enforced, is perfectly adequate to protect fish stocks. There is another element in this controversy—which concerns marine biodiversity. Advocates of MRs argue that the only way to protect non-target marine species and their habitats (biodiversity) is to establish large networks of MRs; whereas critics of MRs argue that biodiversity can be adequately protected by CFM together with some selected MRs.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

2. The Rise and Rise of the Marine Reserves ‘Bandwagon’

Abstract

In this chapter, we investigate how and why the nature protectionist (NP) paradigm of marine reserves (MRs) became so dominant in the scientific literature during the 1990s and 2000s. The fact that the NP paradigm of MRs became dominant is demonstrated in Chap. 3 and is not in much dispute: What is less clear is how and why it did so. We argue that the key to its extraordinary rise in popularity is threefold: (1) it benefitted from a widespread perception that conventional fisheries management (CFM) had failed to prevent declines in fish stocks and in marine biodiversity around the world, and that a radical new approach was needed; (2) it owed much of its momentum to an elite group of marine ecologists who formed themselves into an epistemic community dedicated to the idea of MRs; and (3) it was taken up with enthusiasm by the international environmental movement who saw it as a worthy cause to prioritise and developed an advocacy coalition to promote it. We have already discussed the first factor in Chap. 1. In the present chapter, we discuss the second and third factors. On the third factor, we note that the pro-MR advocacy coalition was belatedly challenged by an anti-MR advocacy coalition, which has eventually succeeded in slowing down the progress of the MR bandwagon.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

3. Bibliometric Test of the MR ‘Bandwagon’

Abstract

This chapter presents a bibliometric analysis which is designed to test the claims made in Chap. 2 of a marine reserve (MR) ‘bandwagon’. This bibliometric analysis of the peer-reviewed MR literature made use of a social network analysis to identify key scientists and a citation analysis to identify key papers. The social network analysis was performed to find out which scientists were most connected with their peers through research collaboration. The citation analysis was designed to discover which MR papers have been most cited, in which journals they have been most published, and the extent to which there was crossover in the most highly cited papers between different research fields. The findings of the bibliometric analysis are that MR studies dominated the marine management literature, that 90 % of MR researchers are marine ecologists, that MR publications have been highly influential among marine scientists, and that MR research has likely attracted more funding than any other subject area in the applied marine sciences. This is an emphatic confirmation of the MR ‘bandwagon’.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

4. Bias in the Peer-reviewed Literature, and Crossing the Science/Policy Divide

Abstract

One important issue raised by the dominance of MR in marine science is whether there is bias in the way in which scientific research is published. Does MR dominance mean that papers which support the orthodoxy in favour of MRs are more likely to be published than are papers which question MRs? This is the focus of Chap. 4, in which there are three key questions: (1) is there any evidence to suggest that a pro-MR bias exists amongst scientists? (2) If so, does this bias affect the type of results published in the MPA literature? (3) If so, does this mean that the pro-MR camp has crossed the line between science and policy advocacy? A short questionnaire was sent to 200 leading scientists who have studied the ecological effects of MRs, to test for such a bias. The questionnaire focused on two issues: scientists’ experience of having publications rejected; and scientists’ attitudes towards publishing non-significant research findings. The results did not find evidence of a systematic pro-MR bias, but this does not necessarily mean that pro-MR scientists have not crossed the line between science and policy advocacy.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

5. Critique of the Scientific Evidence for Fisheries Benefits of MRs

Abstract

Three sets of generalisations about the benefits of MRs are heard from nature protectionists (NPs). First, NPs claim that MRs provide biodiversity benefits. For example, Grorud-Colvert et al. (Marine protected areas: a multidisciplinary approach, 2011, p. 293) asserted that ‘Growing scientific information has shown consistent increases in species density, biomass, size, and diversity in response to full protection inside reserves of varying sizes and ages located in diverse regions’. Second, NPs claim that MRs generate fisheries benefits. For example, Geoffrey Lean (The Independent, 2009), the environment correspondent of The Independent, stated that ‘Establishing ‘no-take zones’…has been strikingly successful around the world; marine life has rapidly recovered and spread to surrounding areas, greatly increasing fish catches’. Third, NPs claim that MRs provide socio-economic benefits. For example, Fletcher et al. (Mar Policy 45:261–268, 2014, p. 264) held that ‘There is evidence that…MPA networks have successfully been used for both fisheries management and to increase social and environmental welfare’.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

6. Case Study of the ‘English Patient’

Abstract

In this chapter, a case study of England’s recent experiences of a consultation process about the proposed designation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) is analysed using the debate between NPs and SCs developed in Chap. 1 and the policy network analysis developed in Chap. 2. The English case was chosen for study for two reasons: partly because the waters around the UK (especially the North Sea) have been subjected to more intensive research scrutiny than any other inshore area around the world so data deficiency should be comparatively low; and partly because the UK demonstrates in a graphic way the controversy raised by proposals to introduce protected areas in developed countries with temperate climates where major commercial fisheries have been established for generations. From an analysis of the ‘grey’ literature and of key-informant interviews with 21 members of the English policy community who had input into the policy debates on MCZs, the contrasting NP and SP viewpoints are used as lenses to discuss contrasting opinions on five key themes regarding the planning of the MCZ network: objectives; data deficiencies; time-scales; consultation; and equity. The chapter builds on the work undertaken in Chap. 2 that explained the role that two policy network models—epistemic community (EpC) and advocacy coalition (AC)—had on influencing policymakers who work at the international level to write recommendations for MPA networks.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

7. Conclusion

Abstract

This book is a critical analysis of the major controversy that has gripped marine governance during the last 20 years—the vexed issue of marine reserves (MRs). Much of the book has concentrated on assessing the credentials of one side of this controversy—the nature protectionist (NP) argument in favour of MRs—because it was responsible for the most extraordinary speed with which marine protected areas (MPAs) rose up the academic agenda to become the most discussed policy measure in the scientific fisheries literature across the globe in recent years. The book also analysed the growing opposition to the NP perspective in the shape of the social conservationist (SC) argument, which is not opposed to selective siting of MRs, but rejects indiscriminate or blanket designations of networks of MRs based on flimsy data.

Alex Caveen, Nick Polunin, Tim Gray, Selina Marguerite Stead

Backmatter

Titel: The Controversy over Marine Protected Areas
verfasst von: Alex Caveen
Nick Polunin
Tim Gray
Selina Marguerite Stead
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-10957-2
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10956-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10957-2