Unveiling arguments on national system reforms of marine protected areas by extractive marine users in three maritime countries

IF 2.8 2区 生物学 Q1 MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
Takafumi Ohsawa
{"title":"Unveiling arguments on national system reforms of marine protected areas by extractive marine users in three maritime countries","authors":"Takafumi Ohsawa","doi":"10.3389/fmars.2025.1446357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All coastal states are expected to establish marine protected areas (MPAs) in line with international targets. For most, this will mean a radical increase in the amount of marine area protected in this way. In order to achieve effective MPAs, the opinions of stakeholders must be carefully considered. This article examines the views of marine extractive users (people engaged in fishery and mining industries) in three coastal countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, using public comments submitted in response to recent proposals for new MPAs. Specifically, I focus on practically ideal size, duration, required information for regulation, burden of proof and post-designation monitoring of MPAs. Therefore, the gathered material was analyzed to capture views on four issues: 1) to what extents MPAs should target geographical and time scale?; 2) to what extents MPAs should conserve objects and regulate activities based on limited evidence?; 3) who should bear the burden of proof with respect to the environmental impact of regulated activities?; and 4) who and how monitoring and research on ecosystems should be done in MPAs? The study finds that some extractive users oppose the large geographic/temporal scales of MPAs especially when these are based on the application of the precautionary approach. Others accepted these but use them to argue that their own activities are environmentally insignificant. Further, the arguments of some extractive users in favor of their industrial use of MPAs are also considered. These views were commonly found across all three countries, indicating that users in countries committed to the MPA project hold views that challenge this commitment. These findings suggest that challenges to the achievement of MPA targets lie ahead but also suggest new avenues of research and potential solutions. The paper makes six proposals for adjusting the application of the precautionary approach and related targets and regulations. In all cases, my results reinforce the importance of dialogue with marine extractive users for effective MPA reforms at the national and international levels.","PeriodicalId":12479,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Marine Science","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Marine Science","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2025.1446357","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

All coastal states are expected to establish marine protected areas (MPAs) in line with international targets. For most, this will mean a radical increase in the amount of marine area protected in this way. In order to achieve effective MPAs, the opinions of stakeholders must be carefully considered. This article examines the views of marine extractive users (people engaged in fishery and mining industries) in three coastal countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, using public comments submitted in response to recent proposals for new MPAs. Specifically, I focus on practically ideal size, duration, required information for regulation, burden of proof and post-designation monitoring of MPAs. Therefore, the gathered material was analyzed to capture views on four issues: 1) to what extents MPAs should target geographical and time scale?; 2) to what extents MPAs should conserve objects and regulate activities based on limited evidence?; 3) who should bear the burden of proof with respect to the environmental impact of regulated activities?; and 4) who and how monitoring and research on ecosystems should be done in MPAs? The study finds that some extractive users oppose the large geographic/temporal scales of MPAs especially when these are based on the application of the precautionary approach. Others accepted these but use them to argue that their own activities are environmentally insignificant. Further, the arguments of some extractive users in favor of their industrial use of MPAs are also considered. These views were commonly found across all three countries, indicating that users in countries committed to the MPA project hold views that challenge this commitment. These findings suggest that challenges to the achievement of MPA targets lie ahead but also suggest new avenues of research and potential solutions. The paper makes six proposals for adjusting the application of the precautionary approach and related targets and regulations. In all cases, my results reinforce the importance of dialogue with marine extractive users for effective MPA reforms at the national and international levels.
揭秘三个海洋国家采掘海洋使用者关于海洋保护区国家制度改革的争论
所有沿海国家都应按照国际目标建立海洋保护区。对大多数人来说,这将意味着以这种方式保护的海洋面积的急剧增加。为了实现有效的海洋保护区,必须仔细考虑利益相关者的意见。本文利用公众对最近新海洋保护区提案的意见,考察了英国、加拿大和新西兰这三个沿海国家的海洋采掘使用者(从事渔业和采矿业的人)的观点。具体来说,我关注的是海洋保护区的实际理想规模、持续时间、监管所需的信息、举证责任和指定后的监测。因此,对收集到的材料进行了分析,以说明对以下四个问题的看法:1)海洋保护区应在多大程度上以地理和时间尺度为目标?2)基于有限的证据,海洋保护区应该在多大程度上保护目标和规范活动?3)受监管活动对环境的影响,由谁承担举证责任?4)海洋保护区的生态系统监测和研究应该由谁来做,如何做?研究发现,一些采掘物使用者反对大的地理/时间尺度的海洋保护区,特别是当这些保护区是基于应用预防方法时。另一些人接受这些观点,但用它们来争辩自己的活动对环境是微不足道的。此外,还审议了一些采掘品使用者赞成将海洋保护区用于工业用途的论点。这些观点在所有三个国家都很普遍,这表明致力于MPA项目的国家的用户持有挑战这一承诺的观点。这些发现表明,实现海洋保护区目标的挑战还在前面,但也提出了新的研究途径和潜在的解决方案。本文提出了六项建议,以调整预防方法的应用以及相关的目标和法规。在所有情况下,我的研究结果都强调了与海洋采掘使用者对话的重要性,以便在国家和国际层面上进行有效的海洋保护区改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Marine Science
Frontiers in Marine Science Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Aquatic Science
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
16.20%
发文量
2443
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Marine Science publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of all aspects of the environment, biology, ecosystem functioning and human interactions with the oceans. Field Chief Editor Carlos M. Duarte at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology Thuwal is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, policy makers and the public worldwide. With the human population predicted to reach 9 billion people by 2050, it is clear that traditional land resources will not suffice to meet the demand for food or energy, required to support high-quality livelihoods. As a result, the oceans are emerging as a source of untapped assets, with new innovative industries, such as aquaculture, marine biotechnology, marine energy and deep-sea mining growing rapidly under a new era characterized by rapid growth of a blue, ocean-based economy. The sustainability of the blue economy is closely dependent on our knowledge about how to mitigate the impacts of the multiple pressures on the ocean ecosystem associated with the increased scale and diversification of industry operations in the ocean and global human pressures on the environment. Therefore, Frontiers in Marine Science particularly welcomes the communication of research outcomes addressing ocean-based solutions for the emerging challenges, including improved forecasting and observational capacities, understanding biodiversity and ecosystem problems, locally and globally, effective management strategies to maintain ocean health, and an improved capacity to sustainably derive resources from the oceans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信