Increasing symptoms of environmental decline has resulted in a pressure felt globally around the conservation and rejuvenation of the world’s oceans. The amount of Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) have seen rapid growth in the past few decades as a consequence of this, and the way in which they are designed and monitored have been undergoing near constant change and improvement. Despite the accelerating concerns surrounding the oceans, only 2.3% of global and 5.7% of national sea area is covered by MPA’s (). Depleting natural resources have resulted in a number of local and regional coastal initiatives through a bottom up approach in the United Kingdom since the early 1990’s, and as a part of national programmes globally (T.A Stoanovich). It can be inferred that many of the indicators of environmental deterioration could be attributed to poor governance, as a result the previous emphasis on efficiency and optimization of outputs have been widened and supplemented by looking at principles such as precaution, equity and accountability (gov persp). Despite making the processes for governing MPA’s more complex, it brings in a wider range of actors and informational regards and aims to reduce the sectorial divide in management at a local level by including multi-stakeholder approaches to the areas (stoa). It could be assumed that including more actors in decision making processes would only work to the benefit of MPA’s, however there are still doubts about the effectiveness a common-law (non statutory) initiative can be. Many of the issues that arise around the effectiveness of MPA’s can however be attributed to the users, with fisheries and tourism perhaps being more damaging in particular areas than climate change- as asked by Peter Jones:
“Why are those concerned about the degradation of our seas continuing to swim against the tide in their efforts to put effective MPAs in place?… How can the participation of local users in managing MPAs be balanced with the need to achieve strategic conservation objectives and fulfil related obligations?” ().
It can be assumed however that while they may contribute to the problem, it is more economic for both industries to keep the environment healthy in order to have maximum fish yield and the most attractive destination. It is important to keep these issues in mind when trying to adequately assess whether stakeholder empowerment can be improved without compromising ecological objectives.
Marine conservation zones (MCZs) and marine special areas of conservation (SACs) are key factors for the MPA system within the UK. Current recommendations suggest that if implemented the coverage of MPAs in England could rise to 27% (Jones 2011). The initial recommendations for MCZs and SACs are in direct contrast with each other- MCZs are in favour of a bottom up approach, which is developed in favour of more stakeholder empowerment however due to government implementation it is likely to result in a top down strategy (). Opposing it is the SAC methods that conversely have been very top down since the onset. The fishing industry itself is afraid that rises in MPAs will consequent in increased restrictions, while conservationists are afraid that they wont have enough protection (). An ideal governance of such MPAs would combine both approaches. MPAs can be set at varying degrees, with some of the most restrictions being placed on no take zones (NTZs), currently there are only three of these in the UK; Lundy, Flamborough Head and Lamlash Bay, there are other areas closed off to bottom trawling and fishing with static gear also to protect cold water coral reefs (). The scarcity of these in comparison with the 207 other Marine Protected areas in the UK perhaps indicates that less extreme forms of protection would be sufficient in preserving the environment while helping preserve fisheries ().
In the southwest of England marine activities such as commercial fishing, coastal tourism and maritime recreation are regular amenities and of high socio-economical importance (). It is therefore an ideal location within the UK for analysing the ways in which governance of the MPAs and stakeholders views may clash or aid one another. The region is also of particular interest for the development of marine renewable energy, and is additionally and area which has an MCZ recommendation. In the UK in particular many of the institutions that manage which manage the seas are largely composed of members with an active interest in the fishing industry, this often results in their reluctance to initiate bylaws which serve in their favour (). In 2008 the statutory closure of Lyme Bay to the closure of towed fishing gear was the conclusion of almost 20 years of debate between conservationists and fishermen (). Before this bottom led voluntary action equated in the inadequate protection of the bays natural resources, and a major downward trend in social capital (). The resources within the waters of Lyme bay are of significant social and economical value; backing up a large fishing industry with trawls and scallop dredges being common. In addition a number of sea angling clubs and dive charters are contained within the bay both of which contribute greatly to economic revenue (). In the years leading up to the complete no-take zone, fishermen had collaborated with the Devon Wildlife Trust and agreed to the closure of 2 square miles voluntarily of no mobile gear in 2001. However a rise in fishing effort in 2006 strained these collaborations and reports of infringement were heard, and the consequent meeting, which took place, failed to result in a mutually acceptable conclusion (). Due to this, Natural England reasoned that the sea fisheries weren’t in a position to take appropriate action, and an application was put forth for a stop order under the Fisheries Act of 1967 to prohibit demersal fishing over the 60 square mile area (). Despite an accepted counter treaty from the Scalloper’s association to increase the amount of voluntarily closed areas to four over a 12 square mile area, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs ultimately closed the entire 60 square mile waters off to mobile fishing entirely in 2008 (). This may be an example of stakeholders who have too much empowerment, ultimately not understanding that there need to be a balance for ultimate yield and the protection of their fishing environment. While the fisheries did ultimately agree to a compromise that was acceptable for the few years, it became clear that the required improvements needed to ease the detrimental effect previously implemented by increased efforts in fishing on the fishing population and sea floor.
Continuing with Lyme Bay, stakeholders themselves underwent interviews and questionnaires following the complete ban. Taking a qualitive as opposed to quantitive approach, a variety of actors from fishermen to users of the area were approached about their views on the subject. Almost everyone taking part in these interviews recognised the need to share their marine resources with other actors, however this does not mean they were happy about it. The fishermen in particular did not like the inclusion of the public due to their lack of specific knowledge on the subject matter and their vulnerability to being manipulated from other organisations (). They took a particularly malicious approach when questioned about this specific topic, stating: “The problem with public consultation is that you are consulting people who do not have a full under- standing of what they are being consulted about” (). While stakeholder empowerment for the fisheries in particular didn’t appear to be in the best interest of Lyme Bay, opening up the variety of stakeholder was undoubtedly a huge influence in its outcome; although the fishing industry was in favour of the closure of the four existing areas, the most popular option among all participants was the complete closure of the full 60 square miles (). This shows that stakeholder empowerment can be improved upon, while still keeping ecological objectives in mind.
The example of Lyme Bay is proof that bottom up approaches can’t be entirely implemented without the safety net that may be implemented by combining it with a top down approach. It is key that in taking a collaborative management method the issue surrounding how power is allocated and shared between stakeholders is solved (). Issues arise when broadening the scope of stakeholders as it becomes harder for everyone to come to a consensus. Many different actors will have differing priorities, despite the overarching fact that they have all been brought together due to the preservation of their marine environments. That many of the actors in the decision-making progresses for Lyme Bay were opposing each other is no surprise, and it can be acknowledged that due to the large number of interests a consensus would be near impossible to reach. It could be also inferred from Lyme Bay that perhaps a bottom up approach is not the idealistic vision initially foreseen, as for much of its history clear leadership was absent.
Coupled with the need to meet statutory obligations, leadership can be appreciated under circumstances where all actors feel their voice has been heard. This does not however indicate that everyone need be in agreement, but that they know and understand why their decision may not have been the one taken. A lack of respect or communication with the governing body can result in the loss of confidence with the process- where stakeholders feel that the decision has been taken out of their hands and subsequently destroying the trust between them (). Particularly with Lyme Bay, the fishermen were discontent with the way in which things were conducted, feeling they hadn’t been engaged with fairly, stating “NE and the NGOs are always talking about stakeholder engagement, but if this never actually results in you compromising your situation, then that is not a negotiation, it’s a dictatorship” (). However, despite this group feeling they have been marginalised during the decision making process, it can also be taken into account the near volatile way they responded, perhaps slightly childish even. Nevertheless, without the interference of the UK Governments Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Lyme Bay may have continued to be overfished and overworked until the 2009 Marine and Coastal Act, which sought to strengthen the protection of and surrounding the UK’s MCZs, as stated on the JNCC website:
“The purpose of these new conservation measures is to halt the deterioration of the state of the UK’s marine biodiversity and promote recovery where appropriate, support healthy ecosystem functioning and provide the legal mechanism to deliver our current European and international marine conservation commitments…” (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5230)
It can therefore be gathered that in order to adequately increase stakeholder empowerment within Marine Protected Areas, there would need to be a balance between the bottom up and top down approach. With ecological targets in focus particularly, the bottom up approach doesn’t work, and with Lyme Bay in specific it failed spectacularly. It is important that methods towards conflict resolutions are valued within stakeholders and the MPA’s community, due to the natural progression of conflicting interests between actors. The aforementioned Marine and Coastal Act provides adequate foundations towards increased stakeholder participation; however they are only guidelines for dealing with the issues, and does not prevent or erase the tension. An overarching body to take lead in the governance of MPAs are essential, not only do they help relieve pressure from any specific parties, a top down approach also allows for institutions to honour any National or Global duties the areas have to uphold in regard to environmental targets. International requirements mean stakeholder inclusion is vital in the decision making process, with resolutions will need to be taken under increasingly uncertain circumstances with wide values taken into consideration. Any governing bodies should tread carefully, involving a wide variety of stakeholders and taking in the views of them equally. In addition, a clear plan and goals set out by the government would only aid in helping improve stakeholder empowerment, offering an outline for negotiations to take place under.