Suchergebnisse

We reflect on the innovation process that led to the development of the pulse trawl that was successfully trialed at a commercial scale, but eventually ended with the European Parliament passing legislation to ban its use. The ban was imposed despite published and emerging evidence that suggested that the environmental performance and catch efficiency of the pulse trawl was superior to the conventional beam trawl design. We used a stakeholder questionnaire to understand which factors undermined wider acceptance of the pulse trawl. The main factors where a lack of involvement of certain key stakeholders earlier in the process that would have ensured better co-development of innovation and a shared vision of the environmental or governance questions that needed to be addressed. Although the stakeholder process itself was seen to be positive, it was implemented too late in the innovation process, as was the implementation of an independent peer review process. We conclude by identifying a pathway for future fishing gear innovation processes that integrate the lessons learnt from the pulse trawl innovation process.

Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage's socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.