Taking a longer-term, more holistic view of the impacts of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in the decision making process, rather than an excessive focus on costs is essential, says a group of researchers and conservation charities, as government considers whether or not to designate new sites later this year. The group is concerned that opportunities to protect sites in English seas may slip away due to Government Impact Assessments (IAs) that do not give a proper account of all the benefits these protected sites would deliver.  The New Economics Foundation, Marine Conservation Society, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts and WWF have presented the benefits of protecting sites in a more visual way, to show that these outweigh the costs of designating and managing them. This type of infographic approach is a useful way to engage with stakeholders and decision-makers alike.

The organisations are urging government not to allow costs to get in the way of the wider benefits that could result from designating and protecting underwater sites.

“The financial cost argument is a powerful one, used to argue against protecting some of our vital marine assets, but we can show that if you take into account even just a proportion of the wider benefits to society and the economy, then the odds are in fact stacked in favour of protection” says Chris Williams, of the New Economics Foundation. “For some sites, financial costs have been used as the reason to reject Marine Conservation Zones without valuing the wider socio-economic benefits in a balanced way, which should be the main driver of the decisions. The decision making tools – particularly the summary pages of Impact Assessments – are inherently biased against long term sustainability and wider societal benefits as they are focussed on costs to business.”

The Infographic Impact Assessment reports can be accessed at: http://www.mcsuk.org/mpa/details/IIA *See also http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Mb8nUAphh%2BY%3D&tabid=82  and www.mseproject.net