UK Marine Conservation Zone's - threat (1 Viewer)

PYRTLE · Nov 11, 2011

I've received a note that the proposed MCZs around our coasts may not go ahead as planned and that the Goverment will make an announcement on Monday outlining the reductions within the scheme - it's not good news for our sealife and birds in regard to their conservation now and in the future.

See http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/saveourmczs

Many thanks for reading this. Mods, please move if in incorrect forum

martin kitching · Nov 11, 2011

Only 30 (of the 127 proposed) to go to public consultation...

Guidance given to stakeholders was that MCZ's would be designated based on 'best available' evidence. My understanding is that the rationale behind cutting the number to take to consultation is that 'best available' isn't good enough, and that 'good' evidence is required for any proposed MCZ to survive the cut. I've been involved in the process (to represent the views of nature-based tourism in the northeast, and as leader of an extensive research project in the North Sea) and I'm struggling to understand exactly what 'good' means; proposed MCZ's were only designated as such if there was a concensus among stakeholders that there were good reasons to include them, and that included consideration of all available evidence, and a judgement as to whether that evidence should be used.

What exactly is better than 'best available'?

cheers
martin

MJB · Nov 11, 2011

martin kitching said:
Only 30 (of the 127 proposed) to go to public consultation... Guidance given to stakeholders was that MCZs would be designated based on 'best available' evidence. My understanding is that the rationale behind cutting the number to take to consultation is that 'best available' isn't good enough, and that 'good' evidence is required for any proposed MCZ to survive the cut. I've been involved in the process (to represent the views of nature-based tourism in the northeast, and as leader of an extensive research project in the North Sea) and I'm struggling to understand exactly what 'good' means; proposed MCZ's were only designated as such if there was a concensus among stakeholdersthat there were good reasons to include them, and that included consideration of all available evidence, and a judgement as to whether that evidence should be used. What exactly is better than 'best available'? Cheers martin

Martin,
I worked for some time within a Ministry and quickly found out that departments issuing guidelines hated anyone asking them for terms to be explained (in this case 'best-available evidence' and 'good evidence'), but hated even more when asked where and when these explanations had first been published. Their embarrassment often was because the explanations had been first made, or published, after the guidelines had been issued. This could be a fruitful line to pursue...particularly if their 'definition' of 'evidence' can't be found in the OED...
MJB

UK Marine Conservation Zone's - threat (1 Viewer)

More options

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy

martin kitching

Obsessed seawatcher

MJB

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread