Doc 10c
Email from the Crown Estate to WG 17.9.10
From: Finlay, Andrew The Crown Estate
Sent: 17 September 2010 15:19
To: George, Louise (ESH - ECM)
Cc: Moore, Jamie; Rousak, Susan; Tudor, David; Burgess, Olivia; Cowling, Prof. Mike; Selby, Ian
Subject: RE: MCZ Project Wales - Social and Economic considerations
Dear Louise
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the guidance and process for considering socio‐
economics for HPMCZs.
I hope we have managed to provide enough information in the short space of time. Our additions in the
matrix are highlighted in yellow and also through the comments tool.
Please don’t hesitate to come back to me if any of our comments/additions are unclear and require
clarification or further input.
Best regards
Andrew
SITE SELECTION METHODLOGY – incorporating ecological, social and economic
considerations
The process will contain the following key stages:
•
Stage 1:
Developing the First iteration of HPMCZs
•
Stage 2:
Developing the Second iteration of HPMCZs
•
Stage 3:
Developing the Third Iteration of HPMCZs
•
Stage 4:
Formal Consultation and the Designation Process
Whilst some of the detailed aspects of individual stages may be refined as the MCZ project
develops it is envisaged that the key stages will progress as outlined below.
1st Iteration by January/February 2011
TAG meet to undertake first site selection exercise using ecological guidance
Key Physical and Legal Constraints Map overlaid to refine site selection
Key WAG Policies considered to further refine selection
1st Iteration on selection of approximately 18-20 sites
Public Consultation on 1st Iteration
2nd Iteration by xx/xxx 2011
TAG meet to apply first filter to site selection to refine sites (qualitative assessment)
- Economic-Socio Cost Matrix
- Practical Considerations Matrix
- Socio-economic information from public consultation
- Benefits of each site to be considered
2nd I
i
l
i
f
i
l 6
i
3rd Iteration by xx/xxx 2011
TAG meet to apply second filter to site selection to refine sites (quantitative assessment)
Possible use of HPMCZ network design tools which apply economic weightings to site
selection (costs and benefits)
Expert opinion from TAG, Scientists, WAG and Industry to apply practical considerations
3rd Iteration on selection of approximately 3 sites
Public Consultation on 3rd Iteration
Stage 1: Developing the First iteration of HPMCZs
CCW will develop the ecological focus areas using the agreed ecological guidance (phase
1 of the ecological scoring system) and will present the ecological focus areas to the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG).
The TAG will consider the focus areas in light of the agreed ecological guidance and from
these areas will determine a prioritised list of potential sites (in line with phase 2 of the
ecological scoring system). The prioritised potential sites will include different
combinations and options that best deliver the desired ecological output. At this stage draft
generic conservation objectives will also be developed which will help give an indication of
the likely future management measures and restrictions associated.
The TAG will then consider the potential sites alongside the key critical practical, social
and economic issues that have been identified for early [consideration/integration] into the
process. Where necessary the suite of potential sites will be refined to remove any sites
where there are obvious constraints and/or significant issues of incompatibility with a
HPMCZ designation.
The major physical and legal constraints likely to be considered at this stage are:
• Ports/harbours areas where maintenance dredging is required
• Areas licensed for aggregate extraction
• Fisheries several orders
• Major cables and pipelines that require regular access for operation and
maintenance purposes
The TAG will then agree the potential site options for recommendation to the Steering
Group as the first iteration.
The role of the Steering Group is to endorse the first iteration of potential sites and agree
that they be shared with stakeholders and the wider public for comment and feedback.
However, beforehand the Steering Group may consider it necessary to refine the potential
sites further in light of conflicts [or any potential positive associations] with the following
Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) policies:
• WAG’s future renewable energy agenda [should know more Sept/Oct]
• WAG’s sustainable fisheries policy
•
may be others
Consulting on the First Iteration
Once the Steering Group has agreed the first iteration of potential sites the Welsh
Assembly Government will commence a 3 month period of stakeholder engagement.
The Welsh Assembly Government will issue a package of information outlining how the
potential sites have been selected, details of any sites removed from consideration on
social and economic grounds and any draft generic conservation objectives. The
information will be available on Welsh Assembly Government’s website and will be shared
with MCZ Project’s Stakeholder and Citizen Engagement Group (SCEG) and with wider
group networks. The Welsh Assembly Government may also hold public meetings with
regional communities and key sector groups.
During this phase the Welsh Assembly Government will be looking to stakeholders to
provide:
• information on known current and planned human activities in an area within or
adjacent to a potential HPMCZ,
• information of activities that are compatible with a HPMCZ proposal,
• information of activities that may be incompatible with a HPMCZ proposal,
• additional available data and evidence to inform the process,
• information on potential data/evidence gaps.
Spatial information about activities of interests will be most useful to the MCZ Project.
The Welsh Assembly Government will engage with UK Government departments, the Irish
Sea Conservation Zone Project, the Finding Sanctuary Project and the National and
International Stakeholder Forum established by JNCC. This will ensure wider government
and stakeholder input to the process and coherence between the MCZ projects.
The information collected and collated during this stage will be used to inform the next
iteration of sites.
Stage 2: Developing the Second Iteration of HPMCZs
Using the feedback and information received from the first iteration exercise the TAG will
make recommendations for refining the site options. Where social and/or economic issues
incompatible with a HPMCZ have been identified the TAG will consider refining the site
options in order to minimise the conflict – however this will only be possible where there
are ecological options to choose between. There may be situations whereby there is no
viable ecological option and therefore the TAG will be unable to refine its
recommendations in such a way as to minimise issues of incompatibility. In such
circumstance it will be for the Steering Group to decide how these sites are taken forward.
The TAG will identify any outstanding issues that require further consideration, for example
the need for further research may have been identified to inform the next stage in the
process.
Alongside this work CCW will continue to develop draft conservation objectives for the site
options for consideration by the TAG. At this stage the conservation objectives will be
more detailed and tailored to individual potential sites. This will allow the TAG to assess
and identify those activities that are likely to be considered damaging and therefore
require management and/or mitigation measures.
The TAG will present its recommendations for the second iteration to the Steering Group
with full details of how the site options have been modified and refined since the first
iteration. The recommendations will includes any issues of incompatibility that remain
unresolved by the TAG and draft conservation objectives with implications for
management measures.
The Steering Group will consider the TAG’s recommendation for the second iteration of
sites. It may decide to refine the sites further, before deciding to publish the second
iteration for stakeholder and wider public comments.
Consulting on the Second Iteration
As with the first iteration the Welsh Assembly Government will be responsible for sharing
this information with SCEG and wider stakeholder networks. The process as outlined
above for the first iteration will be repeated, although as the site options here, having been
refined, are likely to focus on specific areas we expect the stakeholder engagement to
involve more detailed deliberations in relation to the social and economic interactions.
Stage 3: Developing the Third Iteration of HPMCZs
The TAG will use the information and feedback from the second iteration to inform its final
recommendations for the location of HPMCZs in Welsh waters. The TAG’s
recommendations to the Steering Group will include details of outstanding conflicts,
conservation objectives, advice on site management and the management of any
displaced activity, plus requirements for monitoring and enforcement.
The Steering Group will consider the package of information and agree its
recommendation to Welsh Ministers.
Final recommendations to Welsh Ministers will include for each site:
• a map of the recommended site
• proposed name for the site
• description of the features of the site
• suggested conservation objectives
• pressures associated with any ongoing/planned activities
• outstanding
objections
Stage 4: Formal Consultation and the Designation Process
link to page 5 link to page 5
On receiving recommended HPMCZs Welsh Ministers will consider how they meet, and
are consistent with, the relevant statutory considerations
1, Welsh Assembly Government
policy objectives, the advice and recommendations of the MCZ Steering Group and any
international commitments before deciding whether to proceed with formal consultation.
Welsh Ministers will also take account of the draft impact assessment outlining anticipated
costs and benefits of the proposed sites including, where appropriate, information on
individual or groups of sites, and identifying the nature conservation, sustainable
development, and environmental, social and economic implications.
A formal period of public consultation will take place, for a period of 12 weeks. The impact
assessment will be consulted on simultaneously with the HPMCZ designation order(s) to
which it relates. The designation order will identify the boundaries of the HPMCZ, list the
protected feature(s) and set out the conservation objectives for the HPMCZ.
If the MCZ project has worked as intended, new issues or objections are unlikely to be
raised at this stage – this cannot be guaranteed and any unresolved concerns are likely to
be reiterated as formal objections. Welsh Ministers will consider any objections and
representations from the formal consultation exercise before deciding whether to make a
designation order. The Welsh Assembly Government may correspond, discuss or seek
further information before reaching a decision, and Welsh Ministers may decide to hold a
hearing.
Welsh Ministers will designate MCZs by orders, in line with Part 5 of the Marine and
Coastal Access Act.
It may be necessary to involve Welsh Ministers at each and every stage of this process.
The Steering Group will be responsible for deciding when it is necessary to obtain a steer
or decision from Welsh Ministers.
INSERT FLOW CHART OF PROCESS
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF HPMCZ SITE SELECTION
Background
The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
2 provides that when considering whether it is
desirable to designate an area as a MCZ the appropriate authority (Welsh Ministers in
Wales) may have regard to the economic and social consequences of doing so.
The Welsh Assembly Government has stated its intention to give full consideration to
social and economic consequences throughout the process of selecting HPMCZs in Welsh
waters. “Protecting Welsh Seas,” (September 2009) sets out the Welsh Assembly
Government’s approach to selecting HPMCZs in Wales: to develop a robust site selection
process that incorporates ecological, social and economic considerations and is informed
1 Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Sections 117-118 and Section 123
2 Section 117(7)
link to page 6
by stakeholder dialogue. The aim is to ensure that HPMCZs are chosen to maximise
benefits (ecological, social and economic) while minimising any conflicts with the different
uses of the sea, as far as possible.
Explanatory note 335 of the Marine Act states:
“Subsection (7) allows Ministers to take account of the economic or social consequences
of designation. This ensures MCZs may be designated in such a way as to conserve
biodiversity and ecosystems whilst minimising any economic and social impacts. Where an
area contains features that are rare, threatened or declining, or forms a biodiversity
hotspot, greater weight is likely to be attached to ecological considerations. Where there is
a choice of alternative areas which are equally suitable on ecological grounds, socio-
economic factors could be more significant in deciding which areas may be designated as
an MCZ.”
The Welsh Assembly Government considers that the approach it has developed to social
and economic considerations is in line with the explanatory note.
Social and Economic Considerations
The consideration of the social and economic aspects of selecting an area as a HPMCZ is
an important step in the process and a Sub-Group of the TAG has been established to
inform this process. The Sub-Group has identified the key social and economic activities
and issues thought to be relevant in determining where to designate a HPMCZ in Welsh
waters.
The social and economic activities and issues have been considered within an ecosystem
services framework. This is in line with the new Natural Environment Framework
3 (September 2010) being developed by the Welsh Assembly Government. In developing
this new framework we aim to ensure that the true value of ecosystems and their services
is fully reflected in our decision making.
Ecosystems and their services:
• the provisioning services – products obtained from ecosystems e.g. food and raw
materials
• the cultural services – non material benefits from ecosystems e.g. heritage and
recreation
• the regulating services – benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem services
e.g. flood protection and water purification
• Supporting services – processes necessary for the production of other ecosystem
services e.g. soil formation and nutrient cycling
For the purposes of this task we have focused on aspects of ecosystem services that are
of social and economic benefit to humankind – the provisioning services and cultural
services.
In considering the level of importance to apply to the social and economic activities and
issues we have looked at each of the key activities in turn, to consider the likely impact a
designation may have on that activity. Depending upon the level of impact, the social and
economic activities and issues have been categorised as to whether they are
incompatible, conflicting or negligible considerations in the decision making process.
3
http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/environmentandcountryside/eshlivingwalescons/?lang=en
An additional category has been identified as needing consideration alongside social and
economic issues and that is the practical aspects of a potential HPMCZ - such as the
manageability and enforceability of a potential site. These have been categorised as of
high, medium or low importance.
Activities have been defined as follows:
•
Incompatible – an activity known to be incompatible with HPMCZs as it
involves the extraction or deposition of living and non-living resources.
Designation will have an impact upon this activity therefore they are considered
of high importance in the decision making process as a means of refining
potential sites, where possible, to minimise any socio-economic impact.
•
Conflicting - an activity that is likely to be damaging or disturbing and may need
to be managed/mitigated to be compatible with HPMCZs. Designation may have
an impact upon this activity therefore they are considered important in the
decision making process as a means of refining site options or recommending
appropriate management measures to minimise any socio-economic impact.
•
Negligible – an activity that is likely to be compatible with HPMCZs. Designation
will have no impact on this activity and it is considered of little importance in the
decision making process.
Full details of the activities and impacts identified are provided within the matrix at
[reference].
Incorporating social and economic considerations into the site selection process
Process
The outputs from the ecological guidance will result in the identification of a network of
potential sites that best deliver the desired ecological output. The social and economic
considerations will then be applied to the potential sites to act as a filter – whereby
ultimately the sites that deliver the desired ecological output with minimum negative impact
on social and economic activities (and where possible the greatest benefits) are selected
and recommended to Ministers for designation.
Incorporating the social, economic and practical considerations will be an iterative process
between the MCZ Project and stakeholders, taking place over a period of 9-12 months
where the social and economic costs and benefits will be considered on a site by site
basis. [The methodology at [section x] provides a step by step guide to site selection and
the role of the Project groups in this process].
[Whereas we have some idea of the likely impacts of a HPMCZ and the type of socio-
economic activities that will be affected, our understanding of the social and economic
benefits of HPMCZs that are to be derived (for example increased opportunities for eco-
tourism) will be informed and developed during the public consultation exercise at the first
and second iteration.] In addition, further specific costs and benefits may arise once
individual sites have been proposed and information derived during the public consultation
exercise on a site by site basis will inform this further.
Some of activities known to be incompatible with HPMCZ have been identified as being
appropriate for consideration early on in the process – that is before the first iteration of
potential sites is issued for stakeholder and public comment. These are where issues have
been identified that present certain legal and physical constraints.
The key physical and legal constraints have been identified as:
• Ports/harbours areas where maintenance dredging is required
• Areas licensed for aggregate extraction
• Fisheries several and regulating orders
• Major cables and/or pipelines that require regular access for operation and
maintenance
There may also be instance where, although we do not yet know what potential sites will
emerge from the ecological guidance, the MCZ Project considers that the strength of
certain social and economic implications associated with a potential site when compared
to its ecological importance may mean that a potential site is considered unsuitable for
further consideration. Such a site will be removed as a potential site before the first
iteration of sites is issued for public view and comment. This is likely to occur where there
are conflicts with Welsh Assembly Government policies including:
• WAG’s future renewable energy agenda
• WAG’s sustainable fisheries policy
If any site is considered unsuitable for the first iteration due to the strength of the social
and economic implications, the MCZ Project will as part of the stakeholder engagement
package identify the site(s) that have been eliminated and the reasons for the elimination,
and also those sites that have been identified has having potential positive social and
economic implications.
All other social and economic considerations considered to be critical and important to the
process will be incorporated into decision making during the first, second and third
iteration. Stakeholders and sea users will have the opportunity to input and provide
information about their activity and area during these iterations.
Stakeholders will be able to respond as they think fit on all aspects of the package of
information – including sites that may have been excluded.
The information and feedback received will be used to refine the potential site options in
such a way as to minimise the impact on activities – and where possible maximising
benefits.
Data and evidence
The MCZ Project has started to collate and map available evidence and data on the
location of the criticallyy important social and economic activities in and around the Welsh
waters. The focus to date has been to collect Wales-wide data for those activities known
to be incompatible and/or conflicting with a HPMCZ. We know that there are gaps in this
data and we will continue to work with stakeholders to fill data gaps and increase the
confidence in the information. We envisage that more data and evidence will be provided
on a site by site basis during the iteration exercises.
REFERENCE MATRIX
Further i
her n
i for
n
m
for at
a ion
i
on
on
the k
on
e
the k y stag
y
es
stag
f
es or sel
r
e
sel cti
e
n
cti g si
g
tes i
si
s
tes i pr
s
ov
pr
i
ov ded i
i
n
ded i [inser
[i
t r
nser e
t r f
e to
t
methodology]
HPMCZ Selection - Social and Economic matrix
Ecosystem Service
Impact
Activity
How and when considered in the process
[of designation]
Provisioning Service
Incompatible Commercial
fishing
Mike, Phil – will you update text please …contribution to economy, communities, food s
& Aquaculture
Recognising that fishing is relevant to all Welsh waters the need to minimise the impact
Cultural Service
will be considered at all stages of site selection.
Consideration needs to include:
a) The number of dependant fishers from a proposed HPMCZ should be considered – m
want to consider the size of the fishery yield.
b) food production chain…..
c) Displacement – are there alternative fishing grounds? It is likely that fishing activity w
displaced to other previously less exploited areas that may not be as productive or may
difficult to fish or be more costly to reach.
d) Whether the proposed site critical for important life-history stages or vulnerable life h
stages of commercially important species? Choosing such areas will increase the likelih
an HPMCZ will benefit local fisheries although may lead to greater conflict.
Where a Several and/or Regulating order exists for the right to fish or cultivation fish in
area then the impact of a potential HPMCZ on these areas will be considered while dev
the first iteration where areas are likely to be excluded. [is it possible to revoke an order
what are consequence?]
Provisioning service
Incompatible Dredging
–
aggregate
Dredging as an extractive activity is incompatible with HPMCZ designation.
extraction
Aggregate dredging only occurs within defined areas where the resources are present
been permitted by WAG The opportunity to develop alternative sites is restricted with t
identification of resources being particularly difficult and there is significant time/ cost as
with permitting a new area.
Marine aggregates make a significant contribution to economy and associated construc
particularly in South Wales. The impact of a HPMCZ designation should be considered
As a result of the limited resource availability, the extended timescales for delivery of re
resources (e.g 10 years) and the significance the industry’s activity to the local and regi
economies any potential HPMCZ identified within an area currently licensed for aggrega
extraction should be excluded from further consideration in developing the first iteration
The continued supply of marine aggregates is critical to the Welsh Economy
Restrictions to dredging activities would cause significant losses to the national and loca
not only in revenue but also local/regional jobs.
Restrictions to dredging activities would also reduce the security of supply for coastal pr
and cause possible increases in costs and reducing the amount of coast being protecte
Similarly, the amount of supply available for construction and the export economy would
reduced causing loss of revenue and possible jobs.
Marine aggregates are also used in beach replenishment schemes. Large volumes of a
are pumped directly from dredgers onto beaches, providing coastal protection as well a
enhancing the amenity value and therefore the economy of an area. Restrictions to mar
operations would result in alternative sources being identified either on land or further o
resulting in additional financial and logistical cost of transportation.
In 2005, the market values for the marine aggregate dredging industry included £80 mi
from processing and £303 million GVA from sales of concrete products. Ancillary marke
from exploration and transport are more difficult to define in total but indicators include a
fleet replacement value of £1 billion.
The marine aggregate dredging industry employs about 640 staff, 500 of which are ship
the rest provide shore support and administration. A further 600 staff are employed on t
that receive UK marine aggregates and about 500 relate to the primary delivery of sand
from wharves to the point of initial use) (Charting Progress 2 Defra 2010).
The impact of a potential HPMCZ on areas not yet licensed for extraction but identified
for aggregate extraction in the future aggregates should be excluded as the applications
of an existing development plan to provide continuity of supply over the next 2-3 decade
WHICH SERVICE? Function
Incompatible
Dredging - disposal sites
A dispositional activity by nature therefore is incompatible with HPMCZ designation. Th
Service?
of dredged material (e.g. ) is restricted to areas of sea classified/designated by [TCE?].
to explain why important and consequence of not having them – are there alternative si
could be used?] The impact of any potential HPMCZ will be considered as part of the it
stages.
Provisioning Service
Incompatible Renewable
Energy
Areas already under wind farms are likely to be excluded from further consideration as
part of the ecological selection process - as permanently modified areas they are likely
considered limited in ecological recovery potential.
The construction of any new area/facility for renewable energy (wind, tidal and wave) w
both extractive and depositional activities – activities incompatible with HPMCZ designa
….consider the contribution to WAG’s renewable energy agenda, energy security, gree
the economy….add info from WAG Renewable Energy policies
The economic cost of sterilising wind farms would be highly significant. The industry wid
accepted capital cost of wind farm construction is approximately £3.1m per MW capacit
Based on this the capital costs of construction of these sites is approximately
Wind Farm
Round
Capital
Indicative annual
Indicative
Cost
total revenue from Annual Rental
(£millions)
generation (2010
Value to TCE
real figures)
(2010 real
£million
figures) £million
North Hoyle
Round 1
186
25.3
0.223
Rhyl Flats
Round 1
279
38
0.350
Gwynt y
Round 2
Mor
1785.6
243.2
2.24
In addition, the operational revenue of each site can be estimated using lease revenue
by The Crown Estate for each site (a percentage of the indicative annual total revenue f
generation).
A potential site identified within an area of sea recognised as vital as a future renewable
is likely to be excluded from further consideration whilst developing the first iteration.
Provisioning Service
Incompatible
Oil and Gas
Existing and the construction of new oil and gas facilities (platforms, well-heads, pipelin
considered incompatible with HPMCZs. Recognising that and depositional activities and
…contribution to economy, energy security…
[Are these likely to be highly modified areas?]
The impact of any potential sites will be considered as part of the iterative stages.
WHICH SERVICE Function
Incompatible
Cables
Existing major cables that require regular access for maintenance and operation will be
Service?
whilst developing the first iteration of HPMCZs.
Cables for offshore wind cost between £300,000-400,000perkm depending on the type of cable u
cables are required to be re-routed around a feature additional kms of cable are required to be fin
and also creates the need for additional geophysical and geotechnical surveys. This results in a s
increase in expense, delayed longer installation times and subsequent loss of operation revenue.
With domestic oil and gas production in decline, the UK is now a net importer of gas and the per
imported gas is predicted to increase to 80-90% by 2020. Pipelines costs £2million per km to pu
install. Any relocating of pipeline installation or repair would result in considerable additional co
delay to operations.
Other cables where perhaps management measures can be introduced to minimise any
and where plans for laying new cables are known the impact of HPMCZ will be conside
of the iterative stages.
WHICH SERVICE Function
Incompatible
Ports, Boats & Shipping
Maintenance dredging is required to enable a port/harbour to continue to operate and fu
Service?
contributing to the economy, communities, jobs etc…. Recognising that the location of p
Conflicting
harbours are fixed [?] any potential HPMCZ identified in an area that undergoes mainte
dredging is likely to be removed from further consideration at stage 1.
For other associated activities and facilities (including slipways, piers, moorings, anchor
navigational aides) the impact of any potential site will be considered as part of the itera
stages. Where possible management and mitigation measures may be considered to m
impact.
Provisioning Service
Conflicting
Water management
Sewage, industrial and agricultural waste outlets allow waste to ….By their very nature
part of the infrastructure, there is therefore no option for relocating to another area. The
of an outlet may not exclude a potential HPMCZ as it will depend upon the features and
type/amount of discharge. The impact of any potential site will be considered as part of
iterative stages.
Provisioning Service
Incompatible
Recreational Angling
…contribution to economy, communities, food security, well-being…. Recognising that t
is relevant to all Welsh waters the need to minimise the impact will be considered at all
Cultural Service
site selection.
Cultural service
Conflicting
Recreation - other
Is the site currently or could it potentially be used for public recreation? Consider the contributio
economy…communities, well being and health.
Areas that have high use value in terms of public recreation may or may not be compatible with th
Some recreational activities carefully managed may derive benefits from designation.
The impact of any potential sites will be considered as part of the iterative stages.
Cultural service
Conflicting Tourism
May or may not be compatible with HPMCZ….management measures may be required…
Areas that lend themselves to forms of tourism that are compatible with conservation goals may b
considered a priority. Consideration should also be made on the number of visitors a given HPMC
support.
The impact of any potential HPMCZ will be considered as part of the iterative stages.
WHICH SERVICE Function
Incompatible
Military areas
The impact of any potential HPMCZ on these activities will be considered as part of the
Service?
stages.
Conflicting
HPMCZ Selection – Practical considerations [matrix] Activity
Importance
How and when considered in the process
Research & Monitoring
High
A key consideration for a HPMCZ is that its contribution to our understanding of the marine environment. It will also
necessary to carry out monitoring to inform 6-yearly report on achieving and maintaining an coherent network of m
protected areas. Potential sites must present a positive opportunity for research and monitoring. To be considered
the iterative stages.
Management & Enforcement High
This refers to the ease and cost of managing and enforcing a potential area. The more straightforward the manage
patrols requirements the more likely they are to succeed. Areas that are difficult to manage and enforce may be les
succeed in achieving HPMCZ goals. Also consider access to the area. Consider the use of voluntary management
agreements and whether they are likely to be supported in an area. To be considered as part of the iterative sta
Safety
High
Consider the principal users of the area after designation and the degree of danger e.g. if likely to be recreation the
danger from strong currents, surf, submerged obstacles, waves and other hazards. Also consider those displaced
HPMCZ where alternative areas may be more difficult or dangerous to access e.g. alternative sites for fishers disp
HPMCZ may be more difficult, costly and/or dangerous to fish. To be considered as part of the iterative stages.
Acceptance
Medium
How much social acceptance to a potential HPMCZ? What is the degree of community support for the creation of a
in a particular area?
HPMCZ success (and more broadly MPA success) has been shown to often be reliant on compliance and support
communities. An area that is already protected through tradition or practise could represent a favourable site for in
be considered as part of the iterative stages.
International/National
High
If an area contains a proposed or possible features for international protection under an existing designation (e.g. S
Significance
Area of Conservation), or forms a link with a cross boundary MPA network it should rate highly. To be considered a
the iterative stages.