IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v11y2022i2p34-d790338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Protection of Estuarine Margins under the Maritime–Terrestrial Public Domain, the Cases of Portugal, Angola, Brazil, and Mozambique

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Antunes

    (Doctoral Program “Marine Science, Technology and Management” (DOMAR), Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Teresa Fidélis

    (GOVCOPP, Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Miguel Lucas Pires

    (GOVCOPP, Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

Coastal and estuarine margins are considered natural resources with various functions and are covered by different management and protection tools. In Portugal, the Maritime Public Domain (MPD) aims to regulate property in maritime and coastal areas, assuming that these are public resources of the nation. Little is known, however, about how the MPD considers estuarine margins, which are also valuable, and vulnerable, environmental areas. This article analyses how the concept of MPD applies to the estuarine margins in Portugal. Moreover, as this concept has been subsequently adopted by other countries with close roots such as Angola, Brazil, and Mozambique, this paper also explores if estuaries are further considered in their legislation. For this purpose, it undertakes an analysis of legal documents establishing the MPD, focusing on the definition, types of areas where it applies, the width of the margins, ownership, and use restriction. The findings show that estuaries are considered by the MPD in Portugal and in the similar instruments of the other three countries. Nevertheless, their approaches differ, especially on the width of margins and the flexibility of the ownership regime, suggesting that the potential to protect margins has not been globally reinforced by the countries adopting MPD after Portugal. This study offers new insights on the MPD and brings to the fore a gap in the literature that deserves to be further explored in other countries with different legal traditions and deepening the analysis on the added value for the protection of estuarine margins.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Antunes & Teresa Fidélis & Miguel Lucas Pires, 2022. "The Protection of Estuarine Margins under the Maritime–Terrestrial Public Domain, the Cases of Portugal, Angola, Brazil, and Mozambique," Laws, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:34-:d:790338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/2/34/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/2/34/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carneiro, Gonçalo, 2007. "The parallel evolution of ocean and coastal management policies in Portugal," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 421-433, July.
    2. David Gibbs & Aidan While & Andrew E G Jonas, 2007. "Governing Nature Conservation: The European Union Habitats Directive and Conflict around Estuary Management," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(2), pages 339-358, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alastor M. Coleby & Dan van der Horst & Klaus Hubacek & Chris Goodier & Paul J. Burgess & Anil Graves & Richard Lord & David Howard, 2012. "Environmental Impact Assessment, ecosystems services and the case of energy crops in England," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(3), pages 369-385, July.
    2. Chmielewski Waldemar & Głogowska Magdalena, 2015. "Implementation of the Natura 2000 Network in Poland – an Opportunity or a Threat to Sustainable Development of Rural Areas? Study on Local Stakeholders’ Perception," Eastern European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 21(1), pages 153-169, December.
    3. Raoul Beunen & Kristof van Assche, 2013. "Contested Delineations: Planning, Law, and the Governance of Protected Areas," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(6), pages 1285-1301, June.
    4. Nuno Videira & Rita Lopes & Paula Antunes & Rui Santos & José Luís Casanova, 2012. "Mapping Maritime Sustainability Issues with Stakeholder Groups," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 596-619, November.
    5. Dan Lin, 2019. "Urban Growth-Oriented Green Accumulation: Ecological Conservation Planning in the Shenzhen DaPeng Peninsula in Southern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. Tatiana Kluvánková-Oravská & Veronika Chobotová & Eva Smolková, 2013. "The Challenges of Policy Convergence: The Europeanization of Biodiversity Governance in an Enlarging Eu," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 401-413, June.
    7. Bide, Tom & Balson, Peter & Mankelow, Joseph & Selby, Ian, 2016. "A new sand and gravel map for the UK Continental Shelf to support sustainable planning," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Sabrina Lai, 2011. "Management Plans for Natura 2000 Sites and the Wider Planning System: Imperfect Advancements from Sardinia (Italy)," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1508, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Phil Allmendinger & Tobias Chilla & Franziska Sielker, 2014. "Europeanizing Territoriality—Towards Soft Spaces?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(11), pages 2703-2717, November.
    10. Sabrina Lai, 2020. "Hindrances to Effective Implementation of the Habitats Directive in Italy: Regional Differences in Designating Special Areas of Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Iker Etxano & Eneko Garmendia & Unai Pascual & David Hoyos & María-à ngeles Díez & José A. Cadiñanos & Pedro J. Lozano, 2015. "A participatory integrated assessment approach for Natura 2000 network sites," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1207-1232, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:34-:d:790338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.