Thesis terms of reference and structure

This PhD focuses on the applicability of MPAs as fisheries and nature conservation management tools. It is an interdisciplinary research project spanning the natural and social sciences, and investigates the current natural science evidence showing effects of MPAs on fish populations, identifying where key areas of uncertainty lie. It is also a sociological analysis of the science-policy interface and attempts to address the following four deceptively simple questions:

1. What is scientific evidence?

2. How does science relate to policy?

3. What factors influence the uptake of science into policy?

4. What do the above questions mean for a scientist’s involvement in policy making, and how does a scientist’s actions in policy making affect the above questions?

23

This thesis attempts to examine these questions in the context of MPA research and policy, moving from the international level to the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act27 and legal provisions made for Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in England. The four primary data chapters deal with the three key stages of science-policy shown in Figure 1.3, with an overview of the objectives and questions asked by each chapter

summarised in Table 1.6. The four data chapters will be used to gain evidence for and against two hypotheses - that with respect to the policy debates surrounding marine protection globally and in the UK: 1/ the scientific community has become politicised, and 2/ policy debates have become scientised. The former means that science has been manipulated in some way for political gain. The latter means that political debate becomes preoccupied with the discussion of technical details over the discussion of difficult value trade-offs.

Figure 1.3 How each chapter relates to different aspects of the science-policy interface.

This way of structuring the thesis probably reflects the author’s initial mental model of how science is translated into policy28, summed up as:

Identify problem  do science or review literature  formulate policy.

Unfortunately (as this thesis demonstrates), reality is much more complex, and policy formulation is a messy, iterative, untidy process. Indeed policy formulation is rarely

27

Each of the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has its own marine acts and process for establishing MPAs.

28

This has been termed the deficit model, or linear model (Lawton 2007). Production

Chapters 3 & 4

Which groups of actors have been responsible for producing knowledge on MPAs?

Is there bias in the MPA literature for studies that show positive effects?

Interpretation

Chapter 5

How extensive is the natural science evidence base showing MPA effects?

What are the

implications of this for policy?

Application

Chapter 6

How has scientific evidence and expertise been applied in policy debates on English Marine Conservation Zones?

24

just about the science, different individuals have different legitimate interests that they will attempt to protect and promote (Sarewitz 2000). To quote John Lawton (2007) “it also involves economics, cultural values, tensions between institutions, different interpretations of what ‘the science’ actually tells us, the need to win political battles, vested interests and so on and so forth…” The linear model does not simply hold true in the real world; “science creeps into policy via indirect, cumulative and diffuse processes” (Radaelli 1995; Owens 2005), and may only start to change received political wisdom after many years (Lawton 2007).

Thus, whilst the focus of this thesis is very much on the science-policy interface, the wider political and institutional setting is kept in mind throughout. The following chapter 2 builds the theoretical framework on which the results of chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 are framed, and discusses in more detail the wider governance issues that will have some bearing on the way science is used in policy debates.

In summary, the main purpose of this PhD is not to undermine people’s efforts for better marine protection, but to reflect that such policy debates can be heavily value- laden. The body of work presented critically appraises the central role natural science has often been granted in policy debates on MPAs.

25

Table 1.5 The objectives of each chapter and the questions asked (data chapters 3-6).

Data chapter Objectives Main questions asked

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Theory and Methods 1. How does science relate to policy?

Chapter 3 To show the structure of the scientific

community.

1. Which scientists have been most

influential in terms of publications, citations, and networking?

2. Which studies have been most influential?

Chapter 4 To show which social and ideological factors

(if any) have affected the production of the evidence base.

1. Is there a bias for positive effects studies? 2. Which factors influence where a scientist

publishes their work?

Chapter 5 To overview the current ecological evidence

showing MPA effects and identify information gaps.

1. Which habitats/ types of species have

been most studied?

2. How extensive is the empirical evidence

showing the wider fisheries effects of MPAs?

Chapter 6 To interpret how science was used in decision

making during the drafting of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) and subsequent planning of English MCZs.

1. What science was used to inform the

MCAA and planning of MCZs?

2. What science did NGOs use to justify their

policy agenda?

3. What wider storylines were incorporated

into the policy debates surrounding MCZs?

26