Underwater sites should be protected - because they’re worth it

Underwater sites should be protected - because they’re worth it

Taking a longer-term, more holistic view of the impacts of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in the decision making process, rather than an excessive focus on costs is essential, says a group of researchers and conservation charities, as government considers whether or not to designate new sites later this year

The group is concerned that opportunities to protect sites in English seas may slip away due to Government impact assessments (IAs) that do not give a proper account of all the benefits these protected sites would deliver.

The New Economics Foundation, Marine Conservation Society, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts and WWF have presented the benefits of protecting sites in a more visual way, to show that these outweigh the costs of designating and managing them.  This type of infographic approach is a useful way to engage with stakeholders and decision-makers alike.

The organisations are urging government not to allow costs to get in the way of the wider benefits that could result from designating and protecting underwater sites.

If you take into account even just a proportion of the wider benefits to society and the economy, then the odds are in fact stacked in favour of protection

“The financial cost argument is a powerful one, used to argue against protecting some of our vital marine assets, but we can show that if you take into account even just a proportion of the wider benefits to society and the economy, then the odds are in fact stacked in favour of protection, says Chris Williams, of the New Economics Foundation.

“For some sites, financial costs have been used as the reason to reject Marine Conservation Zones without valuing the wider socio-economic benefits in a balanced way, which should be the main driver of the decisions.  The decision-making tools – particularly the summary pages of Impact Assessments - are inherently biased against long term sustainability and wider societal benefits as they are focussed on costs to business.

The group says that such a short-term, narrowly framed appraisal could lead to decisions that jeopardise the long-term health and productivity of our seas.  It would also fail to safeguard the health and well-being benefits that people gain through time spent in healthy and productive marine and coastal places, and from knowing that our seas are protected for future generations.

Recommended Marine Conservation Zones

Government traditionally relies on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as a tool to support environmental decision-making, but looking beyond this rather limiting approach may lead to better outcomes for people and the ocean.

“The purpose of our ‘Infographic Impact Assessment’ is to present trade-offs in a way showing a more holistic range of criteria to consider when decision-makers are thinking about safeguarding our seas, instead of the narrow focus on costs.’’

Recently published research indicates that divers and anglers attach an annual value of over 14 million pounds to protection of these MCZs and that they would also support significant benefits to people which cannot be measured in monetary terms and which are currently being overlooked.

So far, 27 new MCZs have been designated from an original list of 127 recommended by regional stakeholder groups in 2012.  Defra is currently reviewing consultation responses on 23 more sites.  While consideration of some prospective sites becomes very focused on the monetized costs in Impact Assessment summary sheets, the visual impact assessment includes monetized benefit estimates.  A consultation on a third tranche of sites is expected in 2016 and it is hoped that the approach can help decision-makers value these marine sites holistically when deciding on their designation.

In addition to an overall summary of all 23 sites currently being consulted on, illustrative ’infographic impact assessments’ have been developed for four individual sites that present a more holistic range of information to support decision-making.  The four sites presented are: Offshore Overfalls; Western Channel; Coquet to St Marys and Holderness Inshore.  In every case, including offshore sites that are not easily visited by people, the estimated benefits of protection are shown to outweigh costs.

The Infographic Impact Assessment reports can be accessed at:
www.mseproject.net

NEF is the UK's leading think tank promoting social, economic and environmental justice. Our purpose is to bring about a Great Transition – to transform the economy so that it works for people and the planet. http://www.neweconomics.org/

Contact

Oliver Fry | Political Media Relations Manager
T: +44 (0)1483 412280 | M: +44 (0)7855 456 453