Divergent perceptions of new marine protected areas: Comparing legal consciousness in Scilly and Barra, UK

Margherita Pieraccini,Emma Cardwell

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.09.016

Margherita Pieraccini, Emma Cardwell

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.09.016

Copy DOI

Abstract

The legal establishment of protected areas is often associated with a situation of conflict arising between conservation and other human activities in particular spaces. This is primarily due to the fact that protected areas law requires changes in the behaviour of resource users. Conservation conflicts arising from the establishment of protected areas are well documented in the social science literature and attempts are made to find ways to reduce such conflicts. Yet, what of cases in which the establishment of protected areas serves to officialise existing sustainable practices and may contain an element of future proofing? Do they still generate practices of resistance and conflict? These questions are answered in this paper comparing two case studies where the authors conducted primary qualitative research: the designation of new Marine Conservation Zones under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in the Isles of Scilly (South West of England) and the designation of a new Special Area of Conservation under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) in Barra (Scottish Outer Hebrides). Both protected areas are highly unlikely to impose changes in local sea-users’ behaviour, as in both cases they validate existing practices and are future proofing, in the sense that they offer tools that can be used to minimize the effects of potential future shocks and stresses, presently unknown. Yet, while in Scilly the new Marine Conservation Zones have been perceived as a positive addition to the seascape, in Barra the Special Area of Conservation has been heavily contested by the local community. The islanders' different perspectives towards protected areas law can be described as divergent ‘legal consciousness’. ‘Legal consciousness’ is a socio-legal concept concerned with the ways in which the law is experienced, interpreted and re-shaped by ordinary people. In our case studies, legal consciousness is a dependent variable, being the product of three main causes: history, power relationships between regulators and regulatees and risk.

Highlights

The establishment of protected areas is often associated with a situation of conflict arising between conservation and other human activities in particular spaces
This paper argues that the different attitudes towards the new marine protected areas are manifestations of different types of legal consciousness in Scilly and Barra, produced by different histories, power relations and perceptions of risk
The interviews with Scillonian sea users and regulators conducted in April 2014 revealed a sense of accomplishment in having being able to take the process into their own hands: “making sure that we grabbed it and made the decisions and pushed it along ... so we just spoke with Natural England people and tried to get an understanding of what they were pushing for and come up with something that was acceptable to everybody.”

Summary

Introduction

The establishment of protected areas is often associated with a situation of conflict arising between conservation and other human activities in particular spaces. This is primarily due to the fact that protected areas law imposes itself on a complex social texture and, to fulfil its objectives, it requires changes in the behaviour of resource users. Conservation conflicts arising from the establishment of protected areas are well documented in the social science literature. Conflict between environmental regulation and pre-existing human practices and rights seems to be endemic to the establishment of many protected areas. As a consequence of this, attention has been paid to ways to manage and minimise such conflicts. It has been suggested to strengthen participatory management (Jentoft et al, 2007; Leader-Williams et al, 2010; Redpath et al, 2013), to increasing strategic planning, financial support and balancing responsibilities between topedown and bottomeup management in multiple-use MPAs (Ma et al, 2013) and to consider the contextual interplay between different types incentives (economic, interpretative, knowledge, legal and participatory) to build effective and resilient governance systems (Jones, 2014)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion