Abstract of presentation for workshop:

of presentation for workshop: TOWARDS THE COORDINATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN MPAs Moving forwards on a participative, partnership and network basis in the face of uncertainty Dr Peter JS Jones, Environment & Society Research Unit, Dept of Geography, UCL The UK nature conservation agencies were fortunate in gaining LIFE funding for the UK Marine SACs Project (1996-2001; http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk) which involved a vast amount of research focused on supporting the management of marine SACs in the UK. Research to support the management of Marine Nature Reserves, designated under UK legislation, was undertaken prior to the Marine SACs Project, particularly under the Marine Nature Conservation Review (MNCR; http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mit/abmncr.htm). Follow-on research and dissemination activities are underway to develop the knowledge base required to successfully manage MPAs in the UK, particularly through the inter-related Mermaid (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid/ ) and Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN; http://www.marlin.ac.uk/) projects. It is possible to ‘fit’ this research into a general typology that outlines the various categories of research that are relevant to MPAs: (Marine SAC Project reports and others)Inventories to support MPA selection Marine Nature Conservation Review; MarLIN projects Studies on ecological dynamics of different marine ecosystems Various scientific papers/reports Series of 9 ‘feature’ reports + scientific summary Monitoring to assess and detect trends (consistency; cost-effectiveness; distinguishing between natural & anthropogenic changes, etc) Marine Monitoring Handbook; Series of 9 ‘feature’ reports Sensitivity of habitats/species Series of 9 ‘feature’ reports + non-technical summary and scientific summary; MarLIN projects Impacts and management of various activities Series of 7 ‘impact’ reports + non-technical summary; Conservation Agency/Sea Fisheries Committee studies on impacts of fishing in Marine Nature Reserves Establishing conservation objectives Guidelines for developing conservation objectives Different approaches to management Evaluation of approaches for promoting participation; Indications of good practice for establishing management schemes; Good practice guidance in 7 ‘impact’ reports + nontechnical summary Benefits of MPAs, eg no take zones, sustainable tourism Various scientific papers/reports Evaluation of management effectiveness Development of indicators for assessing the management effectiveness of MPAs (IUCN, WWF & NOAA) This table could be elaborated to produce a more detailed typology of research requirements to support MPA managers, and a detailed bibliography of papers, reports and other findings could be developed in relation to this typology to enable managers to source such information. Unfortunately, it is likely that the typology would largely represent a ‘wish list’ of matters on which it would be nice to have a reasonable degree of certainty in order to inform the selection and management of MPAs. Furthermore, the transferability of the list of papers and reports from one MPA context (biogeographical, institutional, cultural, etc) to another will vary, and it is unrealistic to expect such a list to represent a meaningful resource to MPA managers around Europe. As an alternative to developing such a wish and source list, the following discussion, which is largely drawn from Jones (in press) sets out an argument for a participative, partnership and network approach to developing a scientific research framework for MPAs in Europe. One reason that the potential of MPAs as a management tool has yet to be realised is that the ecological processes underlying effective MPA development and management are poorly understood. However, it has been argued that scientific uncertainty is not necessarily an obstacle to conservation initiatives, and that actions should be taken on an iterative, adaptive basis that recognises scientific uncertainty, rather than delaying actions in the quest for scientific certainty. Similarly, Dietz and Stern (1998) noted that many conflicts arise from the way in which science is applied to policy and from unreasonable expectations about how much science can aid in wise decision making. They recommend a deliberative process amongst scientists, stakeholders and decision-makers to guide and interpret scientific analysis. It is clear that the relatively limited scientific knowledge base limits the extent to which the selection and design of MPAs can be based on an empirical scientific framework. The question remains, however, what role should science have in MPAs? Some argue that science should be confined to determining the principles and benefits of MPAs at a conceptual level, with site-specific details being left to local and political interests. Others argue that science should be employed in the design of specific sites and that there will usually be sufficient information to do this. It is generally agreed that it is better to proceed with MPA designations in the face of knowledge gaps and uncertainty rather than labouring “futilely and vainly to create the theoretically ‘ideal’ MPA” (Kelleher and Kenchington, 1992), which would require the complete fulfilment of the ‘wish list’. For instance, most fisheries no-take MPAs have been located and delineated largely on the basis of opportunism and compromise, rather than science, and the evidence suggests that such reserves show clear benefits (Roberts 2000). It is has thus been argued that it is more important to have a network of a larger number of better enforced opportunistic MPAs than to strive for scientifically optimal MPAs which are more likely to be fewer in number and poorly enforced. However, it is also argued that such an approach could lead to the MPAs being sited in the wrong place (eg sinks), thus displacing effort to areas critical for fisheries dynamics (eg sources) and thereby undermining fisheries conservation objectives (Crowder et al., 2000). Such arguments reveal that discussions concerning the role of science in MPAs resonate with those concerning whether MPAs should be managed on a top-down (characterised as being government-led and science-based, with a greater emphasis on set-aside) or bottom-up (characterised as being community-based and science-guided, with a greater emphasis on multiple-use) basis. Whilst there are broadly two schools of thought in this respect, it is also clear that there is ‘middle ground’ in that not even the most ardent scientist would argue that MPA initiatives cannot go ahead until comprehensive scientific certainty has been achieved, whilst not even the most ardent sociopolitical proponent would argue that science has no role in selecting, designing and managing MPAs. Clearly, more scientific evidence for the benefits of MPAs will increase socio-political support for such approaches, but many scientists are agreed that existing scientific information justifies the application of MPAs as a marine resource management tool. However, as figure 1 illustrates, there clearly remains a divergence between those that argue for a principally scientific approach, on the basis that rigorous theoretical and empirical approaches should not be compromised by socio-political factors, and those that argue for a principally socio-politically acceptable approach, on the basis that this is pragmatically the only way forwards. It could therefore be argued that a key challenge is the determination of a constructive role for science in the selection, design and management of MPAs, accepting that this ‘middle ground’ role lies somewhere between these divergent views. Figure 1 Different stances concerning the selection, design and management of MPAs Top-down: based primarily on strategic scientific priorities Emphasis on Enforcement Executive crosssectoral authority Education to justify restrictions and promote compliance Reliance on comprehensive scientific information Little scope for compromise