scholarly journals Spain and Marine Protected Areas: Recent Developments

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-855
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar

Abstract Spain has just declared a new marine protected area in the Mediterranean. This follows a protective trend taken by Spanish authorities during the last decades and has permitted Spain to honour its international compromises under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It contributes to a framework of protected areas established under conventional regimes such as OSPAR, RAMSAR or EU Natura 2000. The new area protects a ‘cetacean corridor’ and will be inscribed in the list of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance under the Barcelona Convention regional framework.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee Albrecht ◽  
Carly Cook ◽  
Olive Andrews ◽  
Kelsey E. Roberts ◽  
Martin FJ Taylor ◽  
...  

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are foundational to global marine biodiversity conservation efforts. Recently, countries have rapidly scaled up their MPA networks to meet targets established by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). While MPA networks are intended to permanently safeguard marine ecosystems, evidence points to widespread legal changes that temper, reduce, or eliminate protected areas, known as protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). Research on PADDD to-date has focused on terrestrial PAs, leaving fundamental questions about PADDD in MPAs unanswered. To address this knowledge gap and provide a foundation for understanding the conservation implications of PADDD in marine ecosystems, we documented patterns, trends, and proximate causes of PADDD in MPAs globally. At least six countries have enacted 44 PADDD events in MPAs, most of which were in Australian MPAs. Globally, PADDD events in MPAs have affected an area of at least 1,198,774 square kilometers, approximately the size of South Africa. Most PADDD events in MPAs (67%) are associated with industrial-scale resource use, extraction, and development, suggesting that PADDD may undermine the conservation objectives of MPAs. Additional research, transparency, and proactive policy responses are needed to address PADDD to better safeguard marine ecosystems.


2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 647-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achinthi Vithanage

Abstract In the race to meet environmental goals within approaching deadlines set by international conventions, missing the bigger picture and focusing on one complex issue amongst an interconnected array of complexities in a given context is easy to do. The marine environment is an example of such a context where the 2012 target for establishing networks of Marine Protected Areas set by the Convention on Biological Diversity and World Summit on Sustainable Development have resulted in a recent scamper for “bigger is better” and “no-take is best” policies underpinning Marine Protected Area implementation. Whilst the environmental benefits are highly commendable, the consequential absence of due regard for stakeholder interests, the implications for the access and benefit sharing provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as indigenous rights at international law are grave concerns which are explored through this Article.


2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 352
Author(s):  
Mark Westera

Guidelines to marine protected areas is a collation of efforts from the IUCN, NOAA and Cardiff University, among others. It is aimed at managers and would be managers of marine parks, but will also be of use to anyone involved in the Marine Protected Area (MPA) process from conceptual planning to establishment, monitoring and management. Its broad application takes into account the hurdles that a manager is likely to encounter. There are nine sections, an introduction, an evaluation of the legal framework required to successfully establish MPAs, a discussion on dealing with all the relevant parties, involving communities and other stakeholders, site selection, planning and managing MPAs, zoning, evaluating economic aspect and financial sustainability, and finally a section on research, monitoring and review. Boxes are used throughout the text within each chapter to summarize important points and make for quick reference to the topic of that chapter.


Oryx ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Dudley ◽  
Craig Groves ◽  
Kent H. Redford ◽  
Sue Stolton

AbstractProtected areas are regarded as the most important tool in the conservation toolbox. They cover > 12% of the Earth's terrestrial area, with over half of this designated since 1970, and are thus a unique example of governments and other stakeholders consciously changing management of land and water at a significant scale. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has a global programme to complete ecologically-representative protected area networks, and this is driving the creation of large numbers of new protected areas. But there is also growing criticism of protected areas because of the social costs of protection and doubts about their effectiveness. We acknowledge this criticism but believe that it is over-stated and applied to a protected area model that has already been replaced by newer thinking. As protected areas are becoming more complex in concept and more complicated in management, we review the six most important changes affecting them over the last 2 decades: (1) a new protected area definition with more emphasis on nature conservation; (2) a plurality of management and governance models; (3) acknowledgement of wider protected area benefits beyond nature conservation; (4) greater social safeguards for protected areas; (5) evidence that protected areas are effective conservation tools; and (6) a new emphasis on larger protected areas, transboundary protected areas, connectivity conservation and landscape approaches. We conclude by considering fresh challenges as a result of policy changes and the global criminal wildlife trade, and consider the potential of the forthcoming 2014 IUCN World Parks Congress.


Author(s):  
Nicholas Chan

Abstract Small island states are typically portrayed as vulnerable and insignificant actors in international affairs. This article traces the emerging self-identification of “large ocean states” that these small island states in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are now employing, juxtaposing their miniscule landmass and populations with the possession of sovereign authority over large swathes of the world’s oceans. Such authority is increasingly being exercised in the context of biodiversity conservation through expanding marine protected areas (an element of both the Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity) as an expression of “ecological responsibility.” This new exercise of green sovereignty reinforces state control over spaces previously governed only at a distance, but control made possible only through compromises with nonstate actors to fund, monitor, and govern these MPAs.


Oryx ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 732-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falko T. Buschke ◽  
Susie Brownlie ◽  
Jeff Manuel

AbstractAichi Biodiversity Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity sets out to conserve at least 17% of terrestrial area by 2020. However, few countries are on track to meet this target and it is uncertain whether developing countries have allocated sufficient resources to expand their protected areas. Biodiversity offsets could resolve this conservation shortfall if developers who affect biodiversity negatively at one locality are made responsible for its protection elsewhere. Here we simulate the use of biodiversity offsetting to expand protected area coverage in South Africa's grassland biome. South Africa's biodiversity offsets policy has been designed specifically to compensate for the residual loss of biodiversity caused by development, by establishing and managing protected areas within the same ecosystem type. We show that it is possible to meet protected area targets using only offsets, while facilitating economic development. However, doing so could slash the current extent of intact habitat by half. These losses could be reduced considerably should the gains in protected areas through offsetting supplement rather than supplant existing government commitments to protected area expansion. Moreover, supplementing existing government commitments would result in comparatively small reductions in potential economic gains, because the marginal economic benefit of transforming habitat decreases as more intact habitat is lost. Therefore, the intended role of biodiversity offsetting in achieving a country's protected area target should be made explicit to fully understand the associated trade-offs between conservation and economic development.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-404
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS I. WILKINSON ◽  
JONATHAN G. HALL ◽  
JULIET A. VICKERY ◽  
GRAEME M. BUCHANAN

SUMMARYSignatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to the effective protection of at least 17% of the terrestrial environment by 2020 (Aichi Target 11). Here, we assess the coverage of terrestrial protected areas (land protected by legislation) on the UK's Overseas Territories. These 14 Territories are under the sovereignty of the UK, a signatory of the CBD, and are particularly biodiverse. Eight Territories have protected areas covering 17% or more of their land, but the extent of protection across these Territories as a whole is low, with only 4.8% of this land designated as protected. This protection covered 51% of sites already identified as of conservation importance (Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas), although only 8% of the area of these sites was protected. The expansion of effective protection to meet the 17% target provides an opportunity to capture the most important sites for conservation. Locally led designation will require an improvement in knowledge of the distribution and density of species. This, together with measures to ensure that the protection is enforced and effective, will require provision of resources. This should be seen as an investment in the UK meeting its obligations to Aichi Target 11.


2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Scovazzi

AbstractThe 2003 meeting of the United Nations Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea made a call to explore a range of tools for the protection and management of vulnerable and threatened marine ecosystems and biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. To achieve this aim, the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) on the high seas not only fully complies with customary international law, but is also the subject-matter of specific obligations arising under a number of treaties (starting from UNCLOS Art. 194, para. 5). Today the time-honoured concept of freedom of the sea is to be understood in the context of the present range of marine activities and in relation to all the potentially conflicting uses and interests, such as the protection of the marine environment and the sound exploitation of marine living resources. The 1995 Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean is an interesting precedent on the issue of MPAs on the high seas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document