![]() |
The panel: Roger Bradbury, Karen Edyvane
|
We expected our three panelists to deliver and they did! To the paramount question, ‘Are Marine Parks a waste of space?’ they gave contrasted, articulated and sometimes controversial answers. In a full-house theatre, Karen Edyvane pleaded for a more economically grounded approach to Marine Parks. Karen claimed that existing success-stories had more to do with sound economic agendas rather than conservation-oriented discourses. This is the case, for example, when sustainable tourism outbids extractive industries. In order to change the way we look at marine ecosystems, Karen called for a ‘Stern Report on Ocean Change’. Then came Roger Bradbury who left the audience with nothing but dread about the future of our oceans. According to our favorite Cassandra, the dice have rolled and the fate of marine ecosystems as we know them is sealed unless we ‘totally ban fishing from the surface of the oceans’. Roger based his demonstration on the ecological disaster occurring in the Black Sea, whereby disruption of the top of the food chain has transformed the marine ecosystems into slime-based energy processing ones. Finally, Richard Kenchington, while acknowledging the seriousness of the situation, insisted on the fact that the prime question wasn’t whether Marine Parks were useful or not, but rather, ‘what do we mean by Marine Parks and what can Marine Parks do?’ Richard reminded the audience about the IUCN guidelines and argued that most of the existing ‘paper parks’ were due to fuzzy or flawed interpretations of what a Marine Park should aim at in a given context. In order to reach a consensus on Marine Parks, Richard called for unbiased public debates to help bringing together conservation and exploitation viewpoints on marine environments.


Recent Comments