Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef ...

Download PDF
5 downloads 18060 Views 102KB Size Report
Comment
In the UK, artificial reefs are sometimes perceived by the public as an excuse for dumping of waste ... would be dependent on sourcing low-cost construction materials ... Good communication and the ..... be within a 10-mile radius of the laboratory hosting the .... of reports in community centres and creation of web- sites.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: S178–S185. 2002 doi:10.1006/jmsc.2002.1270, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Short communication Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development: the Loch Linnhe reef, a case study M. D. J. Sayer and T. A. Wilding Sayer, M. D. J., and Wilding, T. A. 2002. Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development: the Loch Linnhe reef, a case study. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: S178–S185. In the UK, artificial reefs are sometimes perceived by the public as an excuse for dumping of waste materials. This negative perception, combined with the increased role (and statutory requirement) for public consultation in the granting of licences, means that artificial reef projects are greatly assisted by a structured approach to planning and consultation early in the developmental process. At present, a statutory framework governing reef construction within Europe has not been agreed, but new guidelines were issued in 1998 under the auspices of the Oslo Paris Commission. The Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef is a large-scale reef complex being constructed on the west coast of Scotland and intended for research purposes. It was the first artificial reef application to be successful under the new guidelines and therefore has particular relevance to any reef development occurring within Europe and, more generically, worldwide. The licensing process was assisted by open dialogue with a range of user groups and local bodies. Early and constructive consultation within a formal management structure impressed local government and licensing agencies, facilitated informed debate, and greatly enhanced the public’s understanding of complex issues related to artificial reef construction. The whole process was considered by many as being beneficial in obtaining the final permission for deployment.  2002 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: artificial reefs, licensing, planning, stakeholder consultation. Accepted 15 March 2002. M. D. J. Sayer and T. A. Wilding: Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll PA37 1QA, Scotland, UK. Correspondence to M. D. J. Sayer: tel: +44 1631 559236; fax: +44 1631 559001; e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction Artificial reef developments have many purposes and designs (Jensen et al., 2000). A predominant area of use is for coastal zone management, whereby reefs are constructed to protect shorelines (Gardner et al., 1996; Hamer et al., 1998), areas of ecological importance, or to rehabilitate (Pickering et al., 1998) and/or enhance inshore fisheries (Santos and Monteiro, 1997; Blaxter, 2000; Sayer, 2001). Indeed habitat restoration has been identified as a major goal in an overall strategy of restoring fish stocks worldwide (Caddy, 1999). Where the purpose of the reef is to protect coastlines from erosion (Gardner et al., 1996; Hamer et al., 1998) a considerable investment in construction materials may 1054–3139/02/0S0178+08 $35.00/0

be justified economically. Coastal protection schemes have immediate relevance to local populations through a policy of reducing localized risks. Because of this, and the levels of investment in the materials of construction, rarely are objections raised and the perception is not usually one of waste dumping. There has been considerable speculation on the role for artificial reefs in augmenting coastal fisheries (Pickering and Whitmarsh, 1997; Sayer, 2001). In the UK, this speculation has primarily been based on the potential returns from reef-based fisheries for the European lobster [Homarus gammarus (L.)]. It has been predicted that the economic viability of such schemes would be dependent on sourcing low-cost construction materials (Whitmarsh et al., 1995). One such by-product

 2002 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development that has demonstrated potential in Europe on a pilot scale is coal ash (Collins et al., 1992, 1994; Sampaolo and Relini, 1994; Collins and Jensen, 1995). However, its application, especially where use in artificial reefs avoids other more expensive routes of disposal, raises public concerns. On a European level, there is still debate as to whether the use of by-products constitutes waste disposal and hence whether it contravenes various international conventions (such as the London Dumping Convention) controlling the dumping of waste at sea (Pickering, 1996). The legal principle behind a majority of global fisheries is that of mare librum. Controlling the access to an artificial reef-based fishery would necessitate the overturning of this doctrine, which in some regions of the world has underpinned fishery access for centuries. However, open access is held responsible by many for the overexploitation of common resources (‘‘the tragedy of the commons’’: Feeny et al., 1996; Leal, 1998; Radomski, 1999; Milon, 2000). For an artificial reef to be employed on the basis of a commercial semi-extensive or ranching scheme, then access control will be of vital importance to the success or failure of the scheme. However, gaining exclusive property and/or harvesting rights over an area of seabed represents a difficult and lengthy process and any community-owned or privatelyowned resource is liable to face poaching problems (Pickering, 1999). In the UK, there are precedents in access control and an artificial reef system, if properly planned and designed, has the advantage of its physical form for defining the spatial boundaries within which access to resources must be regulated (Pickering and Whitmarsh, 1997). Boundary definition has been identified as the first stage in the development of successful management systems for common property resources (Crean, 2000). Therefore, the reef planning process has to integrate design and purpose with the requirements of regional and/or (inter-) national regulation and consultation. Reefs deployed into an inshore area may conflict with established user groups, be of an imposing size, and be constructed of unfamiliar materials. Poor coordination, communication or the imposition of change is likely to result in dissatisfaction in one or more stakeholder groups (Suman et al., 1999) and ultimately the alienation of policy-makers. Good communication and the involvement of various stakeholders in policy formulation (‘‘bottom-up’’ policy development) has resulted in previous examples of successful resource management (Breen and Kendrick, 1997; Kaplan, 1998; Berke et al., 1999; Nielsen and Vedsmand, 1999; Chase et al., 2000). The increasing awareness of developers and policymakers of the importance of stakeholder acceptance has increased the requirement and importance of consultation (Milon, 2000), which is now an integral part of most licensing procedures.

S179

In generic terms, prior to submitting an application for a licence to create an artificial reef, the following should be considered: its purpose and a timetable of objectives; biotic and abiotic requirements of the deployment site, particularly where these may influence the eventual chance of meeting the objectives; its design, including the physical and chemical integrity of the construction materials; the identification of the stakeholder groups; the identification of controversial issues liable to stakeholder objection; ownership and the acceptance of potential liability (to include possible lease/purchase agreements of the sea bottom); the management of reef-based fisheries (if appropriate); schemes of pre- and post-deployment monitoring to establish if the objectives are being met; and its removal if the objectives are not being met. The Loch Linnhe reef programme evolved from feasibility studies that examined the economic viability of artificial reefs in the west coast of Scotland region, the legal framework governing their construction, potential locations and the logistics associated with the establishment of a socio-economically driven artificial reef. It became evident that economic viability depended on sourcing cost-effective construction materials, but materials that had been used in other countries, for example redundant fishing vessels or tyres (Jensen et al., 2000), would not gain licence in Scotland. Also, research-based issues related to fishery management would require a complex of replicate reefs with each replicate being of a scale that was relevant to commercial stock enhancement and/or ranching. The target species chosen was the European lobster [Homarus gammarus (L.)], because the production of juveniles was well established through a series of wide-scale stock enhancement programmes and because a low-volume, high-value type fishery existed in the area for this species (Sayer, 2001). An assessment of likely scaling effects coupled with the requirements of testing how different designs would perform suggested the planned structure would need to be approximately 42 000 tonnes, making it the largest experimental reef in Europe. A potential supply of construction materials was secured through collaboration with Foster Yeoman Limited, a company that operates a coastal granite quarry on the Morvern peninsula close to the proposed site. The quarry produces low-value by-products consisting of aggregates less than 4 mm in diameter and dust. Wilding and Sayer (2002b) show that these by-products are suitable for the production of concrete blocks. A number of concrete mixes were tested to find the most cost-effective mix that met the appropriate chemical and physical specifications. The inclusion of 5% fly-ash delivered the strength gain within set temporal parameters when used in conjunction with cement. Further economic considerations highlighted the importance of block manufacture close to the site of deployment because the cost of transport

S180

M. D. J. Sayer and T. A. Wilding

could, in some cases, contribute up to 50% of the total construction costs. The proposed 42 000 tonnes, 24-module reef complex completed the licensing process in 2001. The reef will be sited to the east of Lismore Island, Loch Linnhe, Scotland (5632 N 527 W). Details of the construction materials, reef design, and pre-deployment research are given in Wilding and Sayer (2002a, b). We provide details of the route by which the necessary consents and licences have been gained, including a description of the statutory and stakeholder consultation processes.

Licensing the reef Three permits/licences must be obtained before an artificial reef can be deployed in the UK: navigational consent; seabed lease and a small works licence; a marine construction licence. Deployment of an artificial reef on the seabed has obvious navigational implications. This aspect is controlled in the UK under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. This consent is granted by the Development Department of the Scottish Executive in Scotland, and the Ports Division of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in England and Wales. The placement of a public notice in local newspapers explaining where details of the full reef proposal can be found is one of the consent requirements. Interested parties have 32 days in which to make representation to the relevant national department regarding the navigational implications of the proposal. In the application, details of the proposed site (including a bathymetric cross-section of the site), the intended materials of construction, and the whole reef complex design along with details of the ongoing consultation process must be included. Of particular pertinence is the minimum water depth above the proposed structure and its location in relation to shipping channels and recreational boating areas. As part of the application assessment, the regulating body consults with local harbour and lighthouse authorities, local sailing clubs, and other stakeholders that may have a vested interest in the navigational implications of the proposal. In this case, consent proved not to be contentious, in part, as a consequence of careful site selection. The design assured that the minimum water depth above the deployed modules is >9 m, which would not present navigational problems to any recreational users of the area. Moreover, the deployment location was chosen to be away from main shipping channels. In the UK, a majority of the seabed from the mean low water mark to the 12-mile territorial limit is part of the Crown Estate. To occupy an area of seabed, for whatever reason, requires permission from the Crown Estate and may incur a rent. In this case, the rent

imposed is nominal because the proposed reef is an experimental facility, but for a commercial reef rent would be proportional to profitability. The area of seabed leased from the Crown Estate for the Loch Linnhe reef is approximately 40 ha, and was chosen to facilitate a minimum boundary of 150 m around the outside of the reef modules. In assessing an application, the Crown Estate considers the effects on existing leaseholders close to the deployment areas, in this case local fish and shellfish farmers. On obtaining the lease for the deployment area, the reef ‘‘owner’’ now becomes a consultee of the Crown Estate prior to future lease applications in the proximity of the reef. Consultation with existing leaseholders is the main role of the Crown Estate during the process of evaluating the reef deployment proposal. The Crown Estate does not become overly involved in assessments of environmental impact because this aspect is considered to be adequately addressed during the Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) licensing process. Under provision in the London Dumping Convention and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic, the Marine Laboratory Aberdeen (a government-funded institute charged with many statutory duties), as the recognized licensing authority in Scotland, undertakes artificial reef licence assessments. Assessment is made through the implementation of the FEPA (1985 Part II: Deposits in the Sea; as amended 1990). In the international conventions governing dumping at sea, there is no explicit reference to artificial reef construction. However, the interpretation of these international conventions in relation to artificial reefs is discussed, at a European level, during meetings of a working group of the Oslo Paris Commission (OSPARCOM) that evaluate sea based activities (SEBA) (Pickering, 1996; Anon., 1998). In this case study, the way in which the licensing authority approached the application for a marine construction licence was influenced by the findings of SEBA in implementing the FEPA. Overall, the remit of the licensing authority, under compliance with the FEPA, is to ‘‘protect the marine environment, the living resources it supports or human health, or to prevent interference with other legitimate uses of the sea’’. To this end, the application had to address, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, the following issues:



that the reef minimized any stakeholder conflict; that it was designed for an acceptable, permanent purpose; that construction materials had properties of high physical and chemical integrity and were dense enough to remain within the deployment area; that deployment did not present an unacceptable threat to the marine environment;

Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development

S181

Table 1. Summary of the major issues addressed during the FEPA licence assessment process. Issue

Action

(i) Stakeholder consultation/information dissemination Buoyage Establishment of visual boundaries to reduce the incidence of accidental incursions. Control of fishing activity Identification of fishermen affected or interested. Licence requirement to consider how any fishery would be managed. Result: Voluntary Management Agreement requesting that fishermen consult with licensee prior to fishing in the area. Reef sport fishing/diving Following consultation, representatives of both bodies were requested to advise their members to avoid the proposed deployment area. Advice repeated in published notices to mariners. Ongoing and residual liabilities Licence requests demonstration of removal options. Technical feasibility demonstrated and insurance agreed to, among other things, remove entire reef if required. Notification Reporting to local communities, licensing and harbour authorities, and fishermen’s organizations at 3- or 6-monthly intervals depending on target group. (ii) Construction materials/deployment practicalities Material sources and chemical OSPAR: elemental analysis data for all constituents listed as controlled required initially and composition where sources change (Wilding and Sayer, 2002b). Quality assurance Detailed records maintained of source of block batch components, relative proportions, and production data (materials, curing intervals, size and strength). (iii) Deployment methodology Installation schedule (iv) Monitoring programme Environmental impact Reef development

Detailed methodology with expected accuracy given in licence. Report on location and minimum depth of each deployment. Environmental monitoring part of licence conditions: metal fluxes on deployed blocks, maintain ongoing programme of current profiling, examine re-suspension. Pre-deployment research (not a licence condition) will assist in making post-deployment comparisons. Study required of development of colonizing animals and of physical and biological impact on surrounding fauna, involving submission of proposed research protocols.

(v) Proof of technical ability for full reef removal Feasibility study Requirement to demonstrate removal options. Achieved through deployment and retrieval of 4 tonnes of reef blocks using divers and lifting bags. Report included scaled extrapolations to give estimates on time and cost for total reef removal.





that ownership and liability acceptance had been addressed; that deployment presented no navigational threat to surface traffic (accepted through the application for navigational consent described above); that acceptable post-deployment monitoring protocols would be undertaken; and that removal options had been examined.

Because artificial reefs are not explicitly mentioned in some legislation, implementation of the FEPA is, at present, influenced by other bodies (e.g. SEBA) and by the way in which the licensing authority interprets the intention of the legislation. Therefore, application criteria are not well defined, and because of the low frequency of applications, approaches are examined on a case-by-case basis. It proved highly beneficial to formally establish the role of the licensing authority at a very early stage in the proceedings. In this way, the important licensing issues (Table 1) are agreed on at the first stage of the application and these issues may influence both the level of pre-deployment work required and the approach taken in formulating the stakeholder consultation process.

Stakeholder consultation and project planning The licensing process involved a number of distinct stages. The initial stage in any reef programme is to identify the primary purpose, as this influences the design, helps to focus the licence application, and ultimately all subsequent consultation rounds. Any change in purpose, either intended or perceived, may have a deleterious effect on how the project is received by some stakeholder groups. The function of the proposed reef was originally defined as ‘‘to address the fundamental socio-economic and scientific problems associated with reef deployment, reef management and the exploitation of reef-based fishery resources’’. This definition of purpose was accepted at the preliminary application stage by the licensing authority, and served as the basis for all future consultations. The definition has remained unchanged in the eventual licence. The foreseen ownership influences the stakeholder perception of purpose. For example, a commercial, privately owned reef will be perceived very differently compared with a non-commercial public-sector-owned

S182

M. D. J. Sayer and T. A. Wilding

reef with a research-orientated purpose. In addition, the construction materials employed may influence the degree of pre-deployment research required. For example, employment of standard construction-grade materials is less likely to be perceived as having potential to impact the environment compared with the use of industrial by-products. Depending on the degree of regulation, early acceptance of the construction materials to be used should accelerate the licensing process, or may prevent unnecessary effort if the materials are never likely to gain acceptance. In our case, early communication with the licensing authority confirmed that concrete blocks (with 4–5% fly ash inclusion) would be acceptable. Reef design should reflect the overall purpose of the deployment. Of particular concern was the issue of scale in relation to the size of reef required in order to establish a commercially viable fishery. Previous UK studies have addressed the issue of lobster stock enhancement as a tool for commercializing artificial reef deployments (Whitmarsh et al., 1995). This theoretical study, based partly on pilot-scale studies, predicted a minimum size for commercial application of 5000 tonnes. Predicting reef performance based on a relatively sparse literature is problematical, but the null hypothesis was generated that maximizing the ratio of perimeter (length of hard to soft habitat ‘‘edge’’) to total reef volume would optimize reef performance in terms of commercial productivity. To test this hypothesis, it was necessary to approach a commercial scale but within a realistically attainable experimental matrix. Simple volume to perimeter ratio calculations indicate a strong inverse relationship whereby small, pilot-scale reefs have unrealistically high proportional edge lengths. Using the 5000 tonnes predicted by Whitmarsh et al. (1995) as a starting point, it was estimated that, by adapting the design, approximately 80% of the associated edge length might be achieved with a reduction in volume to 40%. Therefore, the target reef size was set at 1750 tonnes if a final total of 42 000 tonnes was achieved. To investigate reef performance within a robust experimental matrix, the design of the entire complex incorporated two different reef layouts, each using two different block designs, with each of the four resultant reef types being replicated six times (24 reefs, totalling 42 000 tonnes of concrete blocks). The eventual total scale, combined with the intention to use fly ash as an additional pozzolan raised stakeholder’s concerns over potential environmental impact. However, stakeholder concerns receded during the licensing process based on that pre-deployment research (Wilding and Sayer, 2002b). Site selection, and in particular its physico-chemical attributes, can be extremely important if a reef is to achieve its objectives. However, early communication with the licensing authority indicated that the reef would only ever be licensed if its location did not conflict with

other legitimate users of the area. Therefore, prior to detailed site characterization, stakeholders whose interests could be affected by such a structure were identified. These were predominantly commercial fishermen and preliminary discussions with those revealed that the responses to reef deployment would differ with the type of fishing gear employed. Static-gear fishermen expressed the concern that any new reef-based fishery would attract additional fishing effort into the area and that some of this effort would be directed at the existing wild stocks. The towed-gear sector expressed concerns regarding the concept of artificial reefs being used to protect areas of seabed through effort exclusion and, in particular, was concerned that the chosen site would not interfere with their existing fishing grounds. Initial site selection, therefore, proceeded in collaboration with the local fishermen’s organization, taking into account the requirement for logistic reasons that suitable sites should be within a 10-mile radius of the laboratory hosting the research. The assessment criteria employed included proximity, sedimentary characteristics, water depth, weather exposure, and current regimes within an overall geographical examination of existing fishing interests. Putative sites identified during this process were only then assessed in terms of interactions with other stakeholders. In entering into an information dissemination process with a wider stakeholder profile, consideration was given to the timing and nature of the information released. Releasing information too early, when the planning schedule is incomplete, or at different times to different groups, may result in misinterpretation or disenchantment. Therefore, its timing must be balanced to ensure that all stakeholders are, within reason, simultaneously notified of any developments or changes, and always prior to information entering into the public media. In addition, while increased stakeholder involvement and information has its own challenges (Suman et al., 1999; Chase et al., 2000), in our experience the information released should be as complete as possible. Where this is impractical, the incompleteness should be acknowledged and an indication given as to how remaining issues will be addressed within the expected time scale. Any decisions taken need to be defensible and some consideration should be given as to possible contentious issues, especially prior to public meetings. In practice, the main concern raised during public meetings for the Loch Linnhe reef was that of the potential for ashderived trace metals to leach from the blocks into the environment. In addition to the licensing/regulatory bodies and fishermen, the stakeholder groups consulted included sport diving and fishing charter boat operators, recreational sailing groups, academia, and other identified experts, the media, and a wide range of governmental and non-governmental bodies such as local,

Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development

S183

Table 2. Examples of stakeholder groups or regulatory bodies to be considered for membership of (a) Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC); and (b) Project Working Group (PWG), using named examples from the Loch Linnhe Reef programme bodies. Stakeholder or regulatory body

Body description

(a) Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) Marine Research Institute Proposed reef owners and research coordinators Local Industrial Body Responsible for construction costs and reef deployment Main Licensing Authority Responsible for proposal assessment and eventual issue of FEPA licence Sea Floor Leasing Body Responsible for managing utilization of the seafloor on behalf of national or regional owners Regional and Local Councils Councils in whose areas the project would fall Local and Regional Enterprise Responsible for part-funding of local marine Committees resource initiatives National Heritage Organizations Responsible for input on maintenance of natural heritage of inshore coastal areas Environmental Protection Responsible for environmental protection Agencies of coastal waters Fishermen’s Associations To represent views and wishes of local fishermen Programme Coordinator An independent facilitator charged with committee management (b) Project Working Group (PWG) Marine Research Institute Proposed reef owners and research coordinators Local Industrial Body Responsible for construction costs and deployment Regional and Local Councils Councils in whose areas the project would fall Fishermen’s Associations To represent views and wishes of local fishermen Programme Coordinator Independent facilitator charged with committee management

community and regional councils, maritime heritage groups, and nature conservation bodies. Where representative organizations exist, communication is more effective if channelled through those organizations rather than by addressing their membership directly. However, this should not exclude or demerit inputs from individuals, and it should never be assumed that the views of a ‘‘representative body’’ reflect totally the views of all the membership. Effective communication routes should be advertised to allow individual input. Regardless of the impact of a negative public perception on the licence application, bad publicity will always reduce the attractiveness of the proposal to both public and private-sector funding or sponsorship, and may increase the amount of statutory monitoring required by the licensing authority. Statutory bodies have responded in the past to negative publicity by increas-

Named examples

Scottish Association for Marine Science at Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory Yeoman (Morvern) Ltd Marine Laboratory Aberdeen acting on behalf of Scottish Executive Crown Estate Argyll and Bute Council, Lismore Community Council Highland and Islands Enterprise, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise, Lochaber Enterprise Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Environment Protection Agency Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association Marine Resource Initiative

Scottish Association for Marine Science at Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory Yeoman (Morvern) Ltd Lismore Community Council Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association Marine Resource Initiative

ing the reporting deliverables of the licencee (Bewers, 1995).

Project management structure To facilitate, formalize, and maintain good communication between interested parties, the Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef programme established two levels of project management. The function of the higher level Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) was to represent the views of particular groups of stakeholders and regulators during the pre-deployment licensing stage (Table 2a). The PMC helped establish and maintain open dialogue with user groups and local people and engendered a feeling of openness and trust. Its creation also impressed local government and licensing agencies,

S184

M. D. J. Sayer and T. A. Wilding

facilitated informed debate, and created a forum through which a greater public understanding of some of the issues related to artificial reefs could be obtained. The PMC met at regular intervals (every 6 months) and all members received copies of all pertinent research and licensing reports. A second lower level Project Working Group (PWG; Table 2b) met at more frequent intervals (ca. 6 weeks) and dealt with the more practical issues relating to research and deployment aspects. Effective communication pathways are a planning consideration. Local media channels were used constructively to assure a balanced representation of facts. In this case, a series of press statements was issued to local newspapers and radio stations. In addition, public presentations were made relating to the reef programme, and dissemination of the most recent information material was achieved through the open-access lodging of reports in community centres and creation of websites. However, to share involvement with stakeholder groups, the establishment of the management committees turned out to be advantageous. Because the various groups may not share a common approach, we chose to have their meetings coordinated by independent facilitators (Table 2). Trying to maximize productive potential through proper reef design may be of little value in the absence of a management strategy aimed at controlling additional harvesting pressure that some reef developments may attract (Pickering and Whitmarsh, 1997). During the consultative process, concerns regarding the impact of immigration of fishing effort into the local fishery were expressed. Under current legal provision in the UK, effective management of an artificial reef-based fishery is possible for enhanced stocks under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Pickering, 1999). Although previous studies have identified the shortcomings of legal approaches against poaching in stock enhancement programmes (Hauck and Sweijd, 1999), integrated, community-led approaches to coastal zone management have assisted in controlling poaching (Hegarty, 1997; Kaplan, 1998; Berke et al., 1999; Hughey et al., 2000). A recent independent review of New Zealand fisheries recommended a fundamental change from centrallymanaged to co-managed fisheries (Bess and Harte, 2000). This can be achieved through the promotion of interdisciplinary teamwork in conjunction with stakeholders and by breaking down excessive specialization and by regionalization within fisheries research (Caddy, 1999). By combining such changes in practical fisheries management with an ecosystem-based approach to fishery sustainability, habitat availability becomes an increasingly important variable in maintenance of nearshore resources (Sayer, 2001). Artificial reefs facilitate the restoration, manipulation, or protection of habitat availability and potentially assist in sustaining or restor-

ing inshore fishery resources (Santos and Monteiro, 1997; Caddy, 1999; Blaxter, 2000; Sayer, 2001).

Conclusions The Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef programme has gained all licences required for construction, and deployment was initiated in the summer of 2001. The pre-deployment phase has demonstrated how careful consideration of project objectives, construction materials, design, and stakeholder interactions can facilitate a successful licence application. The future has to prove whether the established consultative framework and associated working relationships can avoid ‘‘barriers to the widespread uptake of co-management arrangements’’ (Bess and Harte, 2000). With care, the devolution of regulation from a centralized source may be able to demonstrate how fishermen themselves can form the basis of management, erect an effective organization, construct the equity share principle, and formulate and enforce regulation (Mantjoro, 1996).

Acknowledgements This study forms part of the Loch Linnhe Artificial Reef Programme that has been funded by Foster (Morvern) Ltd., Argyll and the Islands Enterprise, Lochaber Enterprise and the EU PESCA scheme. The original feasibility study was supported through the Marine Resource Initiative (MRI), and the authors thank Dr Alistair Bullock of MRI who coordinated and facilitated much of the consultation processes presented.

References Anon. 1998. Aspects recommended by the workshop to be taken into account for a proposal of draft OSPAR guidelines on artificial reefs. Sea AR 98/5/1, Annex 4 (Ref 3.7). 9 pp. Berke, P. R., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., and Ericksen, N. 1999. Do co-operative environmental planning mandates produce good plans? Empirical results from the New Zealand experience. Environment and Planning: B, Planning and Design, 26: 643–664. Bess, R., and Harte, M. 2000. The role of property rights in the development of New Zealand’s seafood industry. Marine Policy, 24: 331–339. Bewers, J. M. 1995. The declining influence of science on marine environmental policy. Chemistry and Ecology, 10: 9–23. Blaxter, J. H. S. 2000. The enhancement of marine fish stocks. Advances in Marine Biology, 38: 1–54. Breen, P. A., and Kendrick, T. H. 1997. A fisheries management success story: the Gisborne, New Zealand, fishery for red rock lobsters (Jasus edwardsii). Marine and Freshwater Research, 48: 1103–1110. Caddy, J. F. 1999. Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: will new paradigms apply? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 9: 1–43.

Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development Chase, L. C., Schusler, T. M., and Decker, D. J. 2000. Innovations in stakeholder involvement: what’s the next step? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28: 208–217. Collins, K. J., and Jensen, A. C. 1995. Stabilised coal ash artificial reef studies. Chemistry and Ecology, 10: 193– 203. Collins, K. J., Jensen, A. C., and Lockwood, A. P. M. 1992. Stability of a coal waste artificial reef. Chemistry and Ecology, 6: 79–93. Collins, K. J., Jensen, A. C., Lockwood, A. P. M., and Turnpenny, A. W. H. 1994. Evaluation of stabilised coalfired power station waste for artificial reef construction. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55: 1251–1261. Crean, K. 2000. The influences of boundaries in the management of fisheries resources in the European Union: case studies from the UK. Geoforum, 31: 315–328. Feeny, D., Hanna, S., and McEvoy, A. F. 1996. Questioning the assumptions of the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’ model of fisheries. Land Economics, 72: 187–205. Gardner, J., Hamer, B., and Runcie, R. 1996. Physical protection of the seabed and coasts by artificial reefs. In European Artificial Reef Research – Proceedings of the 1st EARRN Conference, pp. 17–37. Ed. by A. C. Jensen. Southampton Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK. 449 pp. Hamer, B. A., Hayman, S. J., Elsdon, P. A., and Fleming, C. A. 1998. Happisburgh to Winterton sea defences: stage two. In Coastlines, Structures and Breakwaters, pp. 119–134. Ed. by N. W. H. Allsop. Thomas Telford Publishing, London. 320 pp. Hauck, M., and Sweijd, N. A. 1999. A case study of abalone poaching in South Africa and its impact on fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 1024– 1032. Hegarty, A. 1997. Start with what the people know: a community-based approach to integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 36: 167– 203. Hughey, K. F. D., Cullen, D. R., and Kerr, G. N. 2000. Stakeholder groups in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 24: 119–127. Jensen, A. C., Collins, K. J., and Lockwood, A. P. M. (eds) 2000. Artificial Reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 508 pp. Kaplan, I. M. 1998. Regulation and compliance in the New England Conch Fishery: a case for co-management. Marine Policy, 22: 327–335. Leal, D. R. 1998. Community-run fisheries: avoiding the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’. Population and Environment, 19: 225–245.

S185

Mantjoro, E. 1996. Management of traditional common fishing grounds: the experience of the Para community, Indonesia. Coastal Management, 24: 229–250. Milon, J. W. 2000. Pastures, fences, tragedies and marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66: 901–916. Nielsen, J. R., and Vedsmand, T. 1999. User participation and institutional change in fisheries management: a viable alternative to the failures of ‘top-down’ driven control? Ocean and Coastal Management, 42: 19–37. Pickering, H. 1996. Artificial reefs of bulk waste materials: a scientific and legal review of the suitability of using cement stabilised by-products of coal-fired power stations. Marine Policy, 20: 483–497. Pickering, H. 1999. Marine ranching: a legal perspective. Ocean Development and International Law, 30: 161–190. Pickering, H., and Whitmarsh, D. 1997. Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the ‘attraction versus production’ debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fisheries Research, 31: 39–59. Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D., and Jensen, A. C. 1998. Artificial reefs as a tool to aid rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems: investigating the potential. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37: 505–514. Radomski, P. J. 1999. Commercial overfishing and property rights. Fisheries, 24: 22. Sampaolo, A., and Relini, G. 1994. Coal ash for artificial habitats in Italy. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55: 1277–1294. Santos, M. N., and Monteiro, C. C. 1997. The Olhao artificial reef system (south Portugal): fish assemblages and fishing yield. Fisheries Research, 30: 33–41. Sayer, M. D. J. 2001. Fisheries: artificial fishery manipulation through stock enhancement or restoration. In Encylopedia of Ocean Sciences, pp. 1029–1035. Ed. by J. Steele, S. Thorpe, and K. Turekian. Academic Press, London. 3399 pp. Suman, D., Shivlani, M., and Milon, J. W. 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management, 42: 1019–1040. Whitmarsh, D., Pickering, H., and Sarch, M. T. 1995. Economic appraisal of artificial reef structures for lobster production. CEMARE, University of Portsmouth, Final Report. 130 pp. Wilding, T. A., and Sayer, M. D. J. 2002a. Evaluating artificial reef performance: approaches to pre- and post-deployment research. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: S222–S230. Wilding, T. A., and Sayer, M. D. J. 2002b. The physical and chemical performance of artificial reef blocks made using quarry by-products. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59: S250–S257.