Can existing institutions protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Experiences from two on-going processes

Freestone, David; Johnson, David E.; Ardron, Jeff; Morrison, Kate; Unger, Sebastian

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.007

Cited by 50 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The integration of science into the decision-making process for the sustainable management of natural resources remains a significant challenge [47,24,20], with potential adverse flow-on effects to the communities that depend on the goods and services they provide. This is most commonly attributed to a legacy of disciplinary fragmentation between scientists and decision-makers [42], preventing the effective and efficient exchange of knowledge among the groups [40,52,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…17 The UNFSA places an obligation on States to establish RFMO/As where they do not exist in relation to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. 18 Despite this requirement, deep-sea bottom fisheries were allowed to develop without the establishment of a RFMO/A, in part due to the earlier failure of the UNFSA to directly cover discrete high seas bottom fisheries (Gianni 2005). 19 After the 2006 UNGA resolution 61/105, 4 i.e., Isolated areas within tectonic plates where plumes of magma rise through the crust and erupt at the seafloor.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49 In this context, it is interesting to note that NEAFC's closures partially overlap with the high seas MPAs established by OSPAR (Map 3). Further to the MoU, NEAFC is also involved in the "Madeira Process", initiated by the OSPAR Commission in 2009, to advance cooperation on marine biodiversity protection in ABNJ [18,24]. The ultimate goal of that process is to elaborate a "Collective Arrangement" for the collaborative management of selected aspects of biodiversity protection.…”

Section: Mediterranean Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing marine biodiversity protection through regional fisheries management: A review of bottom fisheries closures in areas beyond national jurisdiction

Wright

Ardron

Gjerde³

et al. 2015

Marine Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, attempting this sort of cross‐sectoral cooperation can add considerably to a secretariat's workload. For this and other reasons, cooperation between sectoral and conservation agreements that extends beyond like‐minded institutions remains rare (Freestone et al , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Place‐based approaches to marine mammal conservation

Sciara

Hoyt

Reeves³

et al. 2016

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Place-based conservation can be an effective tool for addressing threats to marine mammals, but this approach presents many challenges, such as the dilemma of whether to aim for protection at appropriately large scales or through networks of smaller protected areas, and how to address the socio-economic conditions of human societies whose welfare may conflict with marine mammal survival.2. Protecting places to conserve marine mammals started about 50 years ago, when the first parks and reserves were established to protect the critical habitat of specific populations. However, the challenges of protecting habitats that cross national borders and span oceans including the high seas remain problematic. International cooperation is needed, e.g. within the framework of multilateral environmental agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), as well as a potential new agreement through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).3. Increasingly, the process of demarcating marine protected areas (MPAs) is being supported by other spatial designations, including CBD's ecological or biologically significant areas (EBSAs), the International Maritime Organization's particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs), IUCN's key biodiversity areas (KBAs), and biologically important areas (BIAs) adopted by the USA and Australia. Recently, the important marine mammal areas (IMMA) designation has been introduced by the IUCN Task Force on marine mammal protected areas. Such approaches have the potential to increase the protection of marine mammals within the overarching approach of systematic marine spatial planning.4. Considering the attributes of marine mammals as sentinel, umbrella and flagship species, it is likely that emerging place-based approaches that incorporate IMMAs will not only benefit marine mammal populations, but also contribute more generally to the conservation of marine and aquatic species and ecosystems.

show abstract

Can existing institutions protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Experiences from two on-going processes

Cited by 50 publications

References 5 publications

Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists

Overcoming barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management; the perspectives of Australian marine scientists

Advancing marine biodiversity protection through regional fisheries management: A review of bottom fisheries closures in areas beyond national jurisdiction

Place‐based approaches to marine mammal conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About