From Paper Parks to Private Conservation: The Role of NGOs in Adapting Marine Protected Area Strategies to Climate Change

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgments

Notes

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, formerly known as the World Conservation Union) defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Nigel Dudley ed. 2008) at 6. Some confusion exists regarding the terminology used for marine protected areas (MPAs). For the purposes of this article, the term “MPAs” refers to protected areas in the marine environment that are zoned for different uses; “no-take MPAs” refers to MPAs that are completely closed to any extractive use (also known as marine reserves in some countries).

Jeff Langholz & Wolf Krug, New Forms of Biodiversity Governance: Non-State Actors and the Private Protected Area Action Plan, 7 J. Int’l Wildlife L. & Pol’y 9–29 (2004); Jeff Langholz & James Lassoie, Perils and Promise of Privately Owned Protected Areas 51 BioScience 1079–1085 (2001).

CBD COP 10 Decision X/2 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, at http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 (visited 26 January 2012).

Mark Spalding et al., The 10% Target: Where Do We Stand? In Global Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities (Caitlyn Toropova et al., eds. 2010), pp. 25–40.

Nigel Dudley Et Al., Natural Solutions: Helping People Cope With Climate Change (IUCN 2009) at 7. This report was funded and commissioned by IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the World Bank, and WWF (the World Wildlife Fund). IUCN-WCPA has produced several other reports on the importance of protected areas in the face of climate change, often in partnership with other organizations and multilateral institutions. See the IUCN-WCPA climate publication Web site for many additional titles at http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_puball/wcpa_pubsubject/wcpa_climatepub/ (visited 26 January 2012).

Global protected area targets have their roots in the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress, and the 2004 seventh Conference of Parties (COP 7) to the CBD. COP 7 produced the following binding target: “By 2010, terrestrially and 2012 in the marine area, a global network of comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national and regional protected area system is established as a contribution to (i) the goal of the Strategic Plan of the Convention and the World Summit on Sustainable Development of achieving a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2012; (ii) the Millennium Development Goals—particularly goal 7 on ensuring environmental sustainability; and (iii) the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation” (Decision VII/28, Goal 1.1).

Spalding et al., supra note 3, acknowledge that some of this rapid increase in global MPA coverage is also likely due to improvements in the methodologies used to assess marine areas worthy of conservation (i.e., improvements in data collection and analysis).

The local population was evicted in the 1960s when the UK leased Diego Garcia to the United States to build a military base. For a summary of the social justice issues associated with the Chagos designation and links to relevant sources, including the negative publicity that arose in the media following the MPA declaration, see Elizabeth De Santo, Peter Jones, & Alice Miller, Fortress Conservation at Sea: A Commentary on the Chagos MPA, 35 Marine Pol’y 258–260 (2010).

The Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) initiative has conducted reviews of peer-reviewed scientific work on the ecological benefits of no-take marine reserves. For examples and further details, see http://www.piscoweb.org/outreach/pubs/reserves (visited 26 January 2012).

For an interesting analysis illustrating the challenges of paper parks in Latin America, see Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas (Katrina Brandon, Kent Redford, & Steven Sanderson, eds. 1998).

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as defined by Articles 55–75 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea comprises the area of sea adjacent to a coastal state not exceeding 200 miles from the baseline of the territorial sea (the territorial sea encompasses the first 12 miles of the EEZ).

The 2009 Shark Haven Act, declaring Palau's entire EEZ closed to commercial shark fishing originated as a Presidential declaration and has not progressed legislatively from the bill stage to a legally binding statute. The closure was followed by shark conservation efforts (protected areas and/or bans on landing and/or possessing sharks and/or shark fins) in the Maldives, Hawaii, and Honduras in 2010 and in the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam in 2011. In the case of all these efforts, enforcement capacity appears to be very limited and there is little or no transparency about exactly how enforcement will occur. There is also a lack of written legislation available to the public.

For more on the history, development, and current state of MPA networks, see Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Happen (IUCN-WCPA 2008), and National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Progress (UNEP-WCMC 2008).

Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (James Rosenau & Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds. 1992).

See Langholz and Lassoie (2001), supra note 2, for a full typology of private nature reserves.

Langholz and Krug (2004), supra note 2, at 12.

For a survey of PPAs managed by NGOs in Latin America see Legal Tools and Incentives for Private Lands in Latin America: Building Models for Success (Environmental Law Institute 2003). Available for purchase at http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=10914 (visited 26 January 2012).

California Audubon has held a lease for the Richardson Bay Sanctuary in San Francisco Bay for more than 50 years, and in the UK the National Trust has used purchase and sale agreements and easements to protect coastal areas for decades.

More information on these workshops at http://www.mcatoolkit.org/Resources/Resources_Meetings_MCA.html (visited 26 January 2012).

Conservation easements are voluntary agreements entered into by property owners in return for direct payments or tax breaks. Easements are legally binding and permanently restrict the development and future use of the area in question, to ensure protection of its conservation values. See Protecting the land: Conservation Easements Past, Present, and Future (Julie Gustanski, Roderick Squires, & Jean Hocker, eds. 2000), at 9.

Id.

Joseph Kiesecker et al., Conservation Easements in Context: a Quantitative Analysis of Their Use by the Nature Conservancy 5(3) Frontiers Ecology Env’t 125–130 (2007).

Id. at 129.

See Michael Beck et al., New Tools for Marine Conservation: The Leasing and Ownership of Submerged Lands, 18 Conservation Biology 1214–1223 (2004); Gail Osherenko, New Discourses on Ocean Governance: Understanding Property Rights and the Public Trust, 21 J. Envtl. L. Litig. 317 (2006).

See Charles Ehler & Fanny Douvere, Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-Based Management (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6, UNESCO, Paris 2009).

The European Commission published a Maritime Spatial Planning Roadmap in 2008, and CMSP is developing in Europe as a means of achieving “Good Environmental Status” as required under the Commission's Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Some Member States have enacted national legislation aimed at achieving CMSP (e.g., the UK and its Coastal and Marine Access Bill). See Elizabeth De Santo, ‘Whose Science?’ Precaution and Power-Play in European Marine Environmental Decision-Making, 34 Marine Policy 414–420 (2010).

On 19 July 2010, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing a “National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts and the Great Lakes” which identifies CMSP as one of nine priority implementation objectives. See http://www.fedcenter.gov/Announcements/index.cfm?id=15385&pge_id=1854 (visited 26 January 2012).

See Lorena Pasquini et al., The Establishment of Large Private Nature Reserves by Conservation NGOs: Key Factors for Successful Implementation, 45 Oryx: 373–380 (2011).

The Pew Environment Group recently opened offices in Brussels and London, and has field personnel operating in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific.

See Greg Stone, Peter Shelley, Eduard Niesten, & Tukabu Teroko, Reverse Fishing in the Phoenix Islands, Kiribati (Unpublished paper presented at “A Private Sector Approach—Conservation Agreements in Support of Marine Protection,” a Marine Conservation Agreement Workshop convened by The Nature Conservancy, Barcelona, Spain, 2008), at http://www.mcatoolkit.org/Field_Projects/Field_Projects_Kiribati.html (visited 26 January 2012).

See the New England Aquarium's Web site on How We Make a Difference, at http://www.neaq.org/about_us/how_we_make_a_difference/index.php (visited 26 January 2012).

See NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations (Michelle Betsill & Elisabeth Corell, eds. 2008).

Id. at 2.

Id.

For an interesting discussion on NGO legitimacy in international environmental law, see Sebastian Oberthür et al., Participation of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Environmental Co-operation: Legal Basis and Practical Experience (2002).

Debates regarding fortress conservation (i.e., the removal of people from parks) are beyond the scope of this article. See Daniel Brockington, Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania (2002), and Mac Chapin's controversial piece, A Challenge to Conservationists, World Watch, November/December 2004, 17–31.

See Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy, & Jim Igoe, Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas (2008).

See Paige West, James Igoe, & Dan Brockington, Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas, 35 Ann. Rev. Anthropology 251–277 (2006).

Id. at 256.

Id. at 2.

See Dan Brockington, Celebrity and the Environment: Fame, Wealth and Power in Conservation (2009).

See Robert Blood, Should NGOs Be Viewed as “Political Corporations”? 9 J. Comm. Mgmt. 120–133 (2004).

Chapin, supra note 36.

TNC provides annual reports and consolidated financial statements on its Web site at http://www.nature.org/aboutus/ouraccountability/annualreport/fs_fy2010.pdf (visited 26 January 2012).

WWF 2010 Annual Report, at http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/financialinfo/2010AR/WWFBinaryitem18606.pdf (visited 26 January 2012).

Chapin, supra note 36, at 18.

Langholz and Krug, supra note 2, at 17.

Id. at 18.

See Sabine Riedmiller, Chumbe Coral Island Park Governance Analysis in Governing MPAs: Getting the Balance Right, Vol. 2 (Peter Jones, Wanfei Qiu, & Elizabeth De Santo, eds. 2011) at 174–183. Accessible online at http://www.mpag.info (visited 26 January 2012).

See Lee Breckenridge, Nonprofit Environmental Organizations and the Restructuring of Institutions for Ecosystem Management 25 Ecology L. Q. 692–706 (1999).

Id. at 706.

Assistant Professor, Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada. [email protected]. The author acknowledges the assistance of Brendal Davis with determining the legal framework for shark conservation in the Pacific.