The marine and coastal access act—A hornets' nest?

Appleby, Thomas; Jones, Peter J.S.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.009

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Marine Act is one of the largest pieces of legislation to have been passed by the UK Parliament in the last 100 years and is ambitious in its scope (Appleby & Jones 2012). It provides for the creation of a new Marine Management Organization (MMO), the development and implementation of an integrated marine spatial planning system, the improvement and streamlining of the system for licensing marine activities, and the reformation of inshore fisheries management.…”

Section: Legal Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Marine Act does not include a no-take MPA target, nor does it require any no-take MPAs. Instead, it maintains the flexibility to provide the appropriate level of protection in each case, based on the available evidence (Appleby & Jones 2012 areas. Specific reference area guidance has been produced which states that each broad-scale habitat type and feature of conservation interest (FOCI) should have at least one viable reference area within each of the four regional MCZ project areas, where all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is prohibited (Table 1).…”

Section: Mpa Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance

Jones

2012

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis review outlines the policy frameworks for marine conservation zones (MCZs) and marine special areas of conservation (SACs), which are the main components of the emerging UK marine protected area (MPA) network. If current recommendations are implemented, the coverage of MPAs in English seas could rise to 27%. The governance challenges that this will raise are explored through case studies of MPA initiatives in south-west England. Whilst the initial processes by which MCZ recommendations have been developed provided for stakeholder participation (bottom-up), the main steer has been from central government (top-down). The subsequent designation and implementation of MCZs is likely to be more topdown. Marine SAC processes have, by contrast, been top-down from the outset. The fishing industry fears that more MPAs will lead to increasing restrictions, whilst conservationists fear that MPAs will not be sufficiently protected, potentially becoming paper MPAs. Both argue that the burden of proof should be placed on the other party. Such combinations of top-down (central government-led) and bottomup (community and user-led) approaches and the related conflicts are typical of government-led MPAs in temperate countries that have higher governance capacities. Top-down approaches tend to dominate, but this does not mean that they cannot be combined with bottom-up approaches.

show abstract

Section: Legal Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mpa Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance

Jones

2012

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering IFCAs from a pragmatic deliberation viewpoint, we have reached different conclusions from earlier academic critiques of the institutions. More specifically, Appleby and Jones (2012) argued that the involvement of commercial fishing and environmental interests in IFCAs was problematic from a constitutional viewpoint because of the conflict of interest between these bodies. However, such argument is based on a narrow understanding of stakeholder status and not on a deliberative understanding of democracy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards deliberative and pragmatic co-management: a comparison between inshore fisheries authorities in England and Scotland

Pieraccini

Cardwell

2015

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In seeking to answer the question 'who should be included in fisheries co-management?', a constructive critique of the existing co-management literature is provided by filling the gaps of Habermas's deliberative theory of democracy with Dewey's pragmatism. Three conditions for ensuring democratic co-management are extrapolated from the theories: actors' authority over decision making (empowerment), actors' diversity (membership), and the right to self-nomination (procedures for external inclusion). The theoretical insights developed are supported with two examples of co-management institutions for inshore fisheries in the UK: Scottish Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) and English Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (IFCAs).

show abstract

“…The UK's Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) (the Marine Act) requires the designation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) within the UK Continental Shelf area, to form a representative network of MPAs together with other designations (e.g. Natura 2000 sites under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives) (Appleby and Jones, ). Together with equivalent legislation applying to inshore waters of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Marine Act thereby provides for the UK the means for implementation of Article 13 (4) of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which requires EU Member States to establish ‘coherent and representative’ MPA networks.…”

Section: Experiences From Around the Globementioning

confidence: 99%

Merging top‐down and bottom‐up approaches in marine protected areas planning: experiences from around the globe

Gaymer

Stadel

Ban

et al. 2014

Aquatic Conservation

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Five case studies from around the world illustrate key lessons in integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches to stakeholder and community engagement in the planning and implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs).2. Community resistance to MPA proposals from centralized agencies can be addressed through effective participatory processes with consistent engagement over time, transparency, and the incorporation of benefits for communities.3. Indigenous communities in particular are becoming key actors of some conservation initiatives (e.g. MPAs) and recognition of their inherent rights, traditional knowledge and deep connections to the marine environment can become the foundations for collaborative management of MPAs.4. True participation requires empowerment for engagement, and this in turn requires education and capacity building for local people to get involved in the process of planning, implementing, and managing MPAs.5. How bottom-up and top-down approaches are used should consider the scale of the MPA (e.g. small vs. large), the geographic scenario (e.g. coastal vs. remote), the level of anthropogenic influence, the conservation objectives (e.g. species, habitats, ecosystems), the political and governance context, and specific cultural conditions, such as the presence of indigenous communities.

show abstract

The marine and coastal access act—A hornets' nest?

Cited by 21 publications

References 1 publication

Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance

Marine protected areas in the UK: challenges in combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to governance

Towards deliberative and pragmatic co-management: a comparison between inshore fisheries authorities in England and Scotland

Merging top‐down and bottom‐up approaches in marine protected areas planning: experiences from around the globe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About