scholarly journals Viewpoint – Is the race for remote, very large marine protected areas (VLMPAs) taking us down the wrong track?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jones ◽  
Elizabeth M De Santo
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Conservation ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Monitoring And Enforcement ◽  
Run Up ◽  
Aichi Biodiversity Targets ◽  
Overseas Territories

This viewpoint article argues that relatively recent increases in the designation of remote, very large marine protected areas (VLMPAs) around the world threaten to undermine the very purpose and objectives of the Aichi biodiversity targets they are aiming to address. Questions are raised about the effectiveness, representativeness, and potential for connectivity of these remote VLMPAs as well as whether they are equitably managed. In addition, it is argued that the push for such designations in countries’ overseas territories deflects attention and effort from the challenge of designating and effectively managing MPAs closer to home. In the run-up to the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress and Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it is important for countries to recognize that remote VLMPAs are but one type of MPA, requiring significant investment in monitoring and enforcement in order to effectively achieve conservation objectives, and that achieving the Aichi MPA coverage target largely through such designations will undermine the aims of this target. To better meet the MPA network criteria set out by the CBD, a range of types of MPAs must be implemented, including smaller MPAs in more intensely used ‘metropolitan seas’, and social justice considerations must be better integrated in conservation planning. It is important that the race towards remote VLMPAs does not divert attention, resources and political will away from the other types of MPA that are necessary for effectively fulfilling marine conservation targets.

scholarly journals Spain and Marine Protected Areas: Recent Developments

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-855
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Barcelona Convention ◽  
Specially Protected Areas

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.

scholarly journals “Large Ocean States”: Sovereignty, Small Islands, and Marine Protected Areas in Global Oceans Governance

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Chan
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Small Island ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Ecological Responsibility ◽  
Island States ◽  
Small Island States

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.

The nature and extent of terrestrial protected area coverage on the UK's Overseas Territories

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-404
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS I. WILKINSON ◽  
JONATHAN G. HALL ◽  
JULIET A. VICKERY ◽  
GRAEME M. BUCHANAN
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Area Coverage ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Terrestrial Environment ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
The Uk

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.

scholarly journals Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), Aichi Target 11 and Canada’s Pathway to Target 1: Focusing Conservation on Reconciliation

Land ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Zurba ◽  
Karen Beazley ◽  
Emilie English ◽  
Johanna Buchmann-Duck
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Colonial History ◽  
The Past ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Aichi Biodiversity Targets

This article provides analysis of the issues relating to movement towards new models for Indigenous-led conservation in light of Canada’s initiatives for greater protected areas representation through Target 1. We provide a background on Canada’s Pathway to Target 1, which is based on Target 11 from the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set forth by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). We contemplate the past, present and future of colonization and reconciliation in Canada, and consider the influence of international declarations, programs and initiatives on the potential for the formation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). We then provide an analysis of “wicked problems” that Indigenous communities, governments, and other stakeholders in protected areas will need to navigate towards implementing the IPCA approach in Canada. We outline the different types of Indigenous involvement in protected areas and how they potentially fit within the principles for the development of IPCAs. We then turn our discussion to the need to refocus conservation on reconciliation by restoring nation-to-nation relationships and relationships between the land and peoples. The lessons we draw have potential parallels for other nation states, particularly those signatory to the CBD and with a colonial history, aiming for biodiversity conservation and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through IPCAs.

Boundary Objects and Global Consensus: Scalar Narratives of Marine Conservation in the Convention on Biological Diversity

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noella J. Gray ◽  
Rebecca L. Gruby ◽  
Lisa M. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Boundary Objects ◽  
Marine Conservation ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Global Consensus ◽  
Governance Processes

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) continues to promote marine protected areas (MPAs) as a preferred tool for marine biodiversity conservation, in spite of concerns over their effectiveness and equity. However, explanations for this consensus on the utility of MPAs focus primarily on their measurability and ignore the ways in which they are conceptualized through ongoing governance processes. Drawing on the results of collaborative event ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the CBD, this paper adopts the concepts of boundary objects and scalar narratives to analyze the ways in which consensus on MPAs is produced, in spite of conflicting understandings of MPA forms and functions. Both a local narrative of participatory MPAs and a global narrative of science driven high seas conservation articulate a regional scale as ideal for MPA governance, although with different priorities. Ultimately, consensus at the CBD is enabled only by accommodating competing visions of MPAs.

The role of science in MPA establishment in California: a personal perspective

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAY HILBORN
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Experimental Tests ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Personal Perspective ◽  
Alternative Designs

SummaryCalifornia has now largely completed a process for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) that may be considered a model for other jurisdictions seeking to meet obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the Californian process, a team of scientists established guidelines on the size and spacing of MPAs, as well as requirements for habitat representation and replication. The final outcomes, in terms of proportion of the coast encompassed by MPAs and the distribution and sizes of MPAs, were largely a result of decisions taken by the advisory scientists, rather than by the designated decision makers. Future legislation must recognize the uncertainties associated with benefits of MPAs and specifically allow for adaptive management including explicit experimental tests of uncertainties. The science team should define at the outset the major uncertainties about impacts, and deliberate experimentation and adaptive management should be essential parts of each design. Future legislation should be much more specific about the objectives of the MPAs and specify the percentage of the area that should be set aside as MPAs. Finally, quantitative models rather than guidelines should be used to evaluate the consequences of alternative designs.

scholarly journals Marine protected areas: Just for show?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAFAEL Almeida MAGRIS ◽  
Robert L. Pressey
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Marine Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Conservation Strategy ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
The Core ◽  
Historical Progress ◽  
Spatial Dependencies ◽  
Over Time

Several countries, including Brazil, are making compelling case for historical progress towards achieving the targets for marine protection under the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, this can be done through the establishment of large marine protected areas (MPAs) in the open ocean, a conservation strategy that might be only tangential to the core ecological goal of MPA designation, i.e. biodiversity conservation. By using two newly-designated large MPAs in Brazil as an example, we outline three ways in which they indicate poor adherence to best practices in MPA planning: placing no-take MPAs in areas with limited potential for extractive uses, neglecting the need to account for spatial dependencies among areas to maintain populations over time, and the inadequacy of the MPAs to regulate fishing of mobile pelagic species.

scholarly journals El crecimiento del reconocimiento local en la protección de la biodiversidad a través de otras medidas eficaces de conservación basadas en áreas

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (15) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolas Sellheim
Keyword(s):  
Protected Areas ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Effective Area ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Biodiversity Protection ◽  
Conservation Measures ◽  
Aichi Biodiversity Targets ◽  
Definition Of

At the 10th Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010. the so-called Aichi Biodiversity Targets were adopted. In Target 11, states are to use protected areas and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs) to achieve quantitative goals of biodiversity protection. However, only at CoP14 in 2018 a definition of OECMs was put in place. This paper presents how despite the absence of a definition countries and organisations have made use of OECMs in their endeavours to protect biodiversity. Focusing particularly on Arctic countries, it is shown that OECMs constitute an important tool for indigenous and local recognition and how the discourse within the CBD has made increasing reference to indigenous and local communities. It is furthermore discussed how OECMs, despite challenges of application, can contribute to a redefinition of ‘conservation’ and to the reaching of biodiversity targets 2020 and beyond.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document