IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v49y2014icp155-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of OSPAR on protected area management beyond national jurisdiction: Effective regional cooperation or a network of paper parks?

Author

Listed:
  • Matz-Lück, Nele
  • Fuchs, Johannes

Abstract

Various international treaty bodies and non-governmental organisations continuously urge States to establish a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Although this goal is far from being reached, the OSPAR Convention may serve as an example illustrating the efforts made on a regional level for the North-East Atlantic. However, these efforts to effectively protect the marine environment are subject to limitations under the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Likewise, the OSPAR Convention itself restricts the scope of such protected areas. The OSPAR Convention does not adequately cover all human uses of the oceans that may interfere with a protected area, and it lacks opportunities for internationalised enforcement measures. Consequently, the responsibility for effective conservation measures under the OSPAR model ultimately remains with individual Contracting Parties, i.e. their commitment to set stricter standards and to agree on their enforcement. Nevertheless, ‘soft’ obligations such as reporting duties are suitable for collecting data on the need for protection and utilisation of the MPAs. Additionally, cooperation with regional fisheries management bodies allows for better protection of the living resources in these areas. Finally, OSPAR MPAs can draw attention to particularly vulnerable ecosystems and promote conservation standards and measures such as those developed under the auspices of the FAO.

Suggested Citation

  • Matz-Lück, Nele & Fuchs, Johannes, 2014. "The impact of OSPAR on protected area management beyond national jurisdiction: Effective regional cooperation or a network of paper parks?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-166.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:49:y:2014:i:c:p:155-166
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X13002844
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fenberg, Phillip B. & Caselle, Jennifer E. & Claudet, Joachim & Clemence, Michaela & Gaines, Steven D. & Antonio García-Charton, Jose & Gonçalves, Emanuel J. & Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten & Guidetti, Paol, 2012. "The science of European marine reserves: Status, efficacy, and future needs," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1012-1021.
    2. Cullis-Suzuki, Sarika & Pauly, Daniel, 2010. "Failing the high seas: A global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1036-1042, September.
    3. Warner, Tammy E. & Pomeroy, Robert S., 2012. "Creating compliance: A cross-sectional study of the factors associated with marine protected area outcomes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 922-932.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geijer, Christina K.A. & Jones, Peter J.S., 2015. "A network approach to migratory whale conservation: Are MPAs the way forward or do all roads lead to the IMO?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.

    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. Hussain Sinan & Megan Bailey, 2020. "Understanding Barriers in Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Allocation Negotiations on Fishing Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Crow White & Christopher Costello, 2014. "Close the High Seas to Fishing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-5, March.
    3. Galaz, Victor & Crona, Beatrice & Österblom, Henrik & Olsson, Per & Folke, Carl, 2012. "Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries — Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 21-32.
    4. Changping Zhao & Maliyamu Sadula & Xiangmeng Huang & Yali Yang & Yu Gong & Shuai Yang, 2022. "The Game Model of Blue Carbon Collaboration along MSR—From the Regret Theory Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Watson, G.J. & Murray, J.M. & Schaefer, M. & Bonner, A., 2015. "Successful local marine conservation requires appropriate educational methods and adequate enforcement," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 59-67.
    6. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Bianca Haas & Marcus Haward & Jeffrey McGee & Aysha Fleming, 2021. "Explicit targets and cooperation: regional fisheries management organizations and the sustainable development goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 133-145, March.
    8. Jacques, Peter J., 2015. "Are world fisheries a global panarchy?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 165-170.
    9. Gars, Johan & Spiro, Daniel, 2014. "Uninsurance through Trade," Memorandum 13/2014, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    10. Selles Jules & Bonhommeau Sylvain & Guillotreau Patrice & Vallée Thomas, 2020. "Can the Threat of Economic Sanctions Ensure the Sustainability of International Fisheries? An Experiment of a Dynamic Non-cooperative CPR Game with Uncertain Tipping Point," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(1), pages 153-176, May.
    11. Paul Hallwood, 2016. "International Public Law and the Failure to Efficiently Manage Ocean Living Resources," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 131-139.
    12. Mervin Ogawa & Joseph Anthony L. Reyes, 2021. "Assessment of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations Efforts toward the Precautionary Approach and Science-Based Stock Management and Compliance Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-24, July.
    13. Louise Teh & Vicky Lam & William Cheung & Dana Miller & Lydia Teh & U. Rashid Sumaila, 2017. "Impact of high seas closure on food security in low-income fish-dependent countries," Chapters, in: Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Lisa E. Svensson & Anil Markandya (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans, chapter 11, pages 232-262, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Bianca Haas & Marcus Haward & Jeffrey McGee & Aysha Fleming, 0. "Explicit targets and cooperation: regional fisheries management organizations and the sustainable development goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    15. Ardron, Jeff A. & Rayfuse, Rosemary & Gjerde, Kristina & Warner, Robin, 2014. "The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ: What can be achieved using existing international agreements?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 98-108.
    16. Héloïse Berkowitz & Larry B. Crowder & Cassandra M Brooks, 2020. "Organizational Perspectives On Oceans Governance: Meta-Organizations And Cross-Sectoral Collective Action," Post-Print hal-02872175, HAL.
    17. María-José Gutiérrez & Belén Inguanzo, 2019. "Contributing to Fisheries Sustainability: Inequality Analysis in the High Seas Catches of Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Gary D. Libecap, 2013. "Addressing Global Environmental Externalities: Transaction Costs Considerations," NBER Working Papers 19501, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Patrick Chavel & Hillel Fromm & Gil Rilov & Lewi Stone & Walter Hecq, 2019. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Achziv marine reserve expansion considering the Barcelona Convention and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers CEB 19-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Matilda Petersson & Peter Stoett, 2022. "Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 333-352, June.

    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:eee:marpol:v:49:y:2014:i:c:p:155-166. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    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.