Literature Library

Currently indexing 9210 titles

Marine Management Organisation: Coastal typologies: detailed method and outputs

Citation Information: Marine Management Orgaisation, July 2011; Roger Tym & Partners, 7 Soho Square, London W1D 3QB

Description: This report has been written by Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) with Roger Tym & Partners on behalf of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).

It provides detailed background into the typologies developed for the two reports entitled “Maximising the socio-economic benefits of marine planning for English coastal communities” and “The Eastern marine area: maximising the socio-economic benefits of marine planning” report. Maps showing the typologies around the English coast and for the East Marine Plan area have been provided with the above reports.

Marine Management Organisation: The East marine plan area: maximising the socio-economic benefits of marine planning

Citation Information: Marine Management Orgaisation, July 2011; Roger Tym & Partners, 7 Soho Square, London W1D 3QB

Description:

  1. This report has been written by Roger Tym & Partners with Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion on behalf of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).
  2. Future marine plans are expected to deliver the vision set out in the UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) of “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”. The MPS requires this vision to be delivered sustainably – meaning that economic considerations need to be integrated with social considerations as well as implications for the marine environment. Marine planning is therefore required to have positive terrestrial as well as marine impacts, and deliver “a strong, healthy and just society” with marine development which is “benefiting society as whole, [and] contributing to resilient and cohesive communities”.1 Further, the MPS states that marine planning should contribute to sustainable economic growth “both in regeneration areas and areas that already benefit from strong local economies” through integrating with terrestrial planning and engagement with coastal communities.
  3. The report aims to help marine planning deliver this latter objective of maximising the socio-economic benefits of marine planning in the East marine area. It is a sister document to the national report entitled Maximising the socio-economic impacts of marine planning for English coastal communities (provided under separate cover).
  4. We have not provided a summary, because aggregating the diverse views expressed to us might be misleading.
  5. The “considerations” in this document have been produced following interviews with Local Authority (LA) officers within the East Plan area. The consultant team has edited and selected the points made, but have attempted to retain the particular perspectives of the interviewees. The report forms one part of the evidence base for marine planning. The MMO will consider the information in this document during the marine planning process and use it, where appropriate, to discuss opportunities with stakeholders. This study will be used alongside other evidence to consider the social, economic and environmental implications of marine planning in the East Inshore and East Offshore marine plan areas.

Marine Management Organisation: Maximising the socio-economic benefits of marine planning for English coastal communities

Citation Information: Marine Management Orgaisation, July 2011; Roger Tym & Partners, 7 Soho Square, London W1D 3QB

Executive Summary:

  1. This report seeks to help the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) maximise the socio-economic benefits of the marine planning process. It was written by a team from Roger Tym & Partners and Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI).
  2. This report aims to help marine planners meet that challenge set by the Marine Policy Statement (MPS). The MPS requires marine planners to plan in such a way that “benefits society as a whole,” and contributes to resilient and cohesive communities “both in regeneration areas and areas that already benefit from strong local economies”.
  3. We begin by examining the socio-economic processes at work in coastal communities. We set out a framework for thinking about these processes. This is important, because we need a way of picking out how different socio-economic processes relate to each other, and which processes are the most important.
  4. A number of different approaches could be adopted here, but we emphasise the role of economic competitiveness as the primary explanation of subsequent socio-economic success. We use HM Treasury work to structure this approach. The Treasury work explains that economies can grow either by increasing labour resources in an economy, increasing capital in use, or by using labour and capital inputs more efficiently. The Treasury work has isolated “productivity drivers” which raise economic growth. These are skills, innovation, competition, enterprise, and investment.

Summary of the Thirteenth Meeting of the United Nations Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea

Citation Information: Earth Negotiations Bulletin; Volume 25 Number 88 - Monday, 4 June 2012

Description: The thirteenth meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process or ICP-13) took place from 29 May - 1 June 2012, at UN Headquarters in New York. The meeting brought together representatives from governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions to examine this year’s topic—marine renewable energies (MREs).

Delegates convened in plenary sessions throughout the week to discuss: views on MREs; inter-agency cooperation and coordination; the process for the selection of topics and panelists so as to facilitate the work of the UN General Assembly; issues that could benefit from attention in future work of the General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea; and the outcome of the meeting. In addition, three discussion panels were held to consider: MREs: types, uses and role in sustainable development; ongoing or planned MREs projects and work at the global and regional levels; and opportunities and challenges in the development of MREs, including for cooperation and coordination.

The Co-Chairs, Amb. Don MacKay (New Zealand) and Amb. Milan Jaya Meetarbhan (Mauritius), distributed a Co-Chairs’ summary of discussions on Friday morning. After all the paragraphs of the report had been discussed and delegates had received an update on the voluntary trust fund and on the activities occurring to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Co-Chair MacKay gaveled the meeting at 12:32 pm.

Embedding maritime spatial planning in national legal frameworks

Citation Information: Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning; Volume 14, Issue 1, p. 7-27, 2012; Special Issue: Marine Spatial Planning: A New Frontier?

DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2012.662381

Author: Petra Drankier

Abstract: Maritime spatial planning (MSP) is increasingly being introduced as a tool to improve decision-making for those maritime areas where competing human activities occur and to manage the effects on the marine environment. According to the European Commission's Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU of November 2008, for MSP to be effective, it should be established by setting up a legally binding framework. Recently, several European Union (EU) Member States have developed systems to establish a firm national legal basis to engage in MSP in all maritime waters within their national jurisdiction. However, their starting points are different; whereas, the Netherlands and Germany extended their existing territorial spatial planning framework seaward, the UK developed an entire new planning system specific for its maritime waters. This article aims to explore how the EU Member States mentioned above have embedded their maritime spatial planning activities in their national legal system and to what extent they are bound by global and EU-legislation when engaging in MSP. Special attention is paid to issues of cross-sectoral coordination and cross-border consultation with neighbouring States.

2012 U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card

Citation Information: Meredian Institute, 1920 L Street NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036; Released June 6, 2012

Description: The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative’s 2012 U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card is an assessment of the nation’s progress toward implementing the National Ocean Policy. The Joint Initiative applauds President Obama for creating the National Ocean Policy through Executive Order in July 2010 and for establishing the National Ocean Council to lead its implementation. This policy responds directly to a long-standing priority of the Joint Initiative for a national ocean policy to more comprehensively manage our ocean resources, improve coordination among federal agencies, and enhance collaboration among federal and state agencies, regional initiatives, local governments, and tribal nations. Effective implementation of the policy is critical to enhance our national security, support our coastal economies and the millions of American jobs that depend on them, and improve the health of our ocean resources.

Guidelines needed for cross-border marine planning

Citation Information: "Science for Environment Policy": European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service, edited by SCU, The University of the West of England, Bristol

Date: 7 June 2012

Description: To restore a river site to good ecological status involves comparing it to similar sites that have been far less affected by human activity. A recent study has established a set of guidelines that define an acceptable level of human pressure that can be used to identify these minimally disturbed sites and ensure consistent ecological assessment among EU Member States.

The European Water Framework Directive1 requires Member States to assess the ecological quality of European surface waters and achieve ‘good status’ by 2015. Ecological status is established by comparing the present conditions in water bodies with reference conditions, which can be based on a network of minimally disturbed sites for each stream or river type.

Co-management of coral reef fisheries: A critical evaluation of the literature

Citation Information: Marine Policy; Volume 36, Issue 2, March 2012, Pages 481–488

Authors: A.W. Wamukota,, J.E. Cinner, T.R. McClanahan

Abstract: In many parts of the world, inshore marine resources are being increasingly managed through collaborative arrangements between communities, governments, civil society and other groups. However, co-management of fisheries has had a mixture of successes and failures. Theorists and applied researchers have suggested a series of preconditions or factors thought to improve the chances of successful common-pool resource management. These include common property institutional design principles and their contextual conditions. Using a variety of web-based English keyword searches, published literature on community-based management and co-management of coral reefs was systematically reviewed with the view of determining if and how studies were evaluating these management systems as well as the extent to which critical aspects of common property theory were investigated and tested. Based on a screening of 600 and full evaluation of 157 journal articles, four measures of ecological conditions and five measures of contextual condition improvement were examined or could be evaluated with the data presented in 38 papers, which examined 49 co-management projects. Fewer than half of the 49 studies met the inclusion criteria of the analyses for documenting key design principles or contextual conditions. Additionally, most projects did not systematically report on contextual conditions, common property design principles and measures of success. The analysis demonstrates the large theoretical and empirical gaps in the evaluation of these management systems and begs for a more scientific, critical and multivariate approach.

FAO Guidelines: Collaborative natural resource management

Citation Information: Negotiation and mediation techniques for natural resource management, 2005, 230 p.

Authors: Antonia Engel and Benedikt Korf

Description: This publication is about how to help people to deal with conflicts that are undermining or disrupting natural resource management, impeding development, and causing outbreaks of violence. It looks at how negotiation and consensus building can be used to manage conflict and build collaboration, and provides practical, step-by-step guidance on how to establish and manage a process of consensual negotiations involving multiple stakeholders. The guide is intended for practitioners working on participatory/collaborative natural resource management and rural livelihoods projects.

Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in Co-Management Throughout the World

Citation Information: IIED and IUCN/ CEESP/ CMWG, Cenesta, Tehran, 2004

Authors: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Michel Pimbert, M. Taghi Farvar, Ashish Kothari and Yves Renard; with Hanna Jaireth, Marshall Murphree, Vicki Pattemore, Ricardo Ramirez and Patrizio Warren

Contents:

Foreword by Juan Mayr Maldonado
Preface and acknowledgements
Introduction

Part I. TOWARDS A CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK

Chapter 1. Managing natural resources: a struggle between politics and culture

1.1 From local livelihood strategies to global agro-industrial markets
1.2 The interface between indigenous/ local NRM systems and the modern/ a-local agro-industrial market system: five field examples
1.3 Contemporary indigenous NRM systems and co-management

Chapter 2. Actors, entitlements and equity in natural resource management

2.1 Management actors
2.2 Entitlements to manage natural resources
2.3 Equity in managing natural resources

Chapter 3. Co-management of natural resources

3.1 What is in a name?
3.2 Practising co-management
3.3 The characteristics of co-management systems

Part II. TOWARDS EFFECTIVE PROCESSES

Chapter 4. A point of departure

4.1 What is to be managed? Who is to be involved?
4.2 Is co-management needed? Is co-management feasible?
4.3 Gathering resources and creating a Start-up Team
4.4 The special case of indigenous peoples: can co-management help them assert their rights to land and natural resources?

Chapter 5. Preparing for the partnership

5.1 Gathering relevant information and tools and promoting social communication
5.2 Engaging the partners in participatory action research
5.3 Assisting local communities to organise
5.4 Preparing for the negotiation meetings: procedures, rules, logistics and equity considerations

Chapter 6. Negotiating the co-management agreement and organisation

6.1 Agreeing on the rules and procedures of negotiation
6.2 Developing and "ritualising" a common vision of the desired future
6.3 Developing a strategy to approach the common vision
6.4 Negotiating and legitimising the co-management agreement and organisation

Part III. TOWARDS EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONS

Chapter 7. Co-management agreements

Making Collaboration Work

Citation Information: Conservation Magazine, Winter 2000 (Vol. 1, No. 1)

Authors: Steven L. Yaffee and Julia M. Wondolleck

Description: A comprehensive assessment of over 200 wideranging cases of collaboration in environmental management.

Consider the Cameron County Agricultural Coexistence Committee, an unlikely alliance of farmers, government officials, and environmentalists formed in the late 1980s in south Texas. At issue was the protection of endangered species and their habitat on the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. In 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began evaluating the effect of pesticides on endangered species. Simultaneously, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was trying to reintroduce Aplomado falcons (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) at Laguna Atascosa. After consulting with FWS scientists, EPA proposed significant reductions in pesticide use on citrus, cotton, and other crops in the agricultural area surrounding the refuge.

The Emerging Policy Landscape for Marine Spatial Planning in Europe: Overview of Key Policies, Directives and Regulations, and Their Interactions

Date: December 2011

Type: Working Paper, Version 2

Authors: Qiu W and Jones PJS

Abstract: This working paper provides an overview of the emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning (MSP) in Europe, which consists of various policies, directives and regulations related to MSP in the EU. For the development of this emerging policy landscape, the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 represents an important context, in which principles related to environmental sustainability are given fundamental importance in guiding decision-making in the EU, and codecision (with shared legislative power between the European Council and Parliament) is established as the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’. As in other parts of the world, environmental protection and management of different activities in the marine environment in Europe were, and still are to some extent, fragmented into different laws and policies. In recent years, with the passage of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Integrated Maritime Policy, there is a clear trend towards integrated planning and management in marine waters, underpinned by an ecosystem-based approach to achieve sustainability. This paper explores the interactions, both in terms of potential synergies and tensions, between different policies and directives, and discusses the main challenges for their integration. The paper concludes with six key issues that may have major implications for MSP in Europe: 1) the integration of environmental protection and economic development objectives; 2) the prospects for reforming the CFP in order to deliver such integration; 3) the relationship between the MSFD and the IMP; 4) the necessity of and potential roles of an MSP Directive; 5) the implications ofco-decision making; 6) power, displacement and justice issues in the ‘race for space’ in Europe’s seas.

Workshop Report: IUCN/NRDC Workshop on Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic Marine Environment

Citation Information: IUCN and NRDC; November 22, 2011

Prepared by: Thomas L. Laughlin and Lisa Speer

Description: Human activity is expanding in the Arctic marine environment. In part, this is a result of the dramatic decrease in summer sea ice coverage. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, prepared under the auspices of the Arctic Council, concluded that ocean warming and loss of ice is expected to accelerate, exacerbating the major physical, ecological, social and economic changes already underway in the Arctic marine environment.

Expansion of human activity in the Arctic marine environment will require certain new controls. While the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, in conjunction with other international agreements and national laws, provides a general legal foundation, new rules may be necessary to preserve and protect the Arctic marine environment and subsistence use in the face of new or expanded industrial activities. Examples of existing and possible new areas of attention include new standards for Arctic marine shipping, regulation of new or expanding Arctic fisheries, rules to protect the environment in the course of natural resource development, stricter regulation of Arctic tourism, mechanisms to assess and manage the cumulative impacts of multiple activities affecting the same ecosystems, and procedures for the establishment of representative networks of protected marine areas.

Ecosystem-based management has the potential to provide an organizing framework for decision-making about these and other Arctic marine activities. Such an approach, as generally accepted at the international level, includes defining portions of ocean space for integrated management purposes based on oceanographic and ecological criteria, and the development of trans-boundary management arrangements.

At its May 2011 Ministerial Meeting, the Arctic Council expressed interest in building on its existing efforts to develop ecosystem-based management in the Arctic by establishing a Group of Experts. The Arctic Council decided that the Group should focus on both marine and terrestrial ecosystems and called on the Group to:

Comparative Analyses of the OURCOAST Cases

Citation Information: Report No. A2213R4r1, 8 June 2011, European Commission, DG Environment

Prepared by: Consortium led by ARCADIS and its subcontractor, The Coastal and Marine Union (EUCC)

Abstract: OURCOAST is a three-year project commissioned by the General Directorate (DG) Environment of the European Commission to support and ensure the exchange of experiences and best practices in coastal management. The overall objective of OURCOAST is to create an information base and groundwork that will further support implementation of ICZM in coastal areas by the establishment of long-lasting information mechanisms that promotes the sharing of experiences and practices throughout Europe. Through OURCOAST, the European Commission will share and make accessible to those who are seeking sustainable solutions to their management practices, the available ICZM experiences and practices throughout Europe.

A Blueprint for Ocean and Coastal Sustainability

Citation Information: IOC/UNESCO, IMO, FAO, UNDP. (2011). A Blueprint for Ocean and Coastal Sustainability. Paris: IOC/UNESCO

Summary: The ocean is an integral part of our planet, and is an absolutely essential component of human lives, livelihoods and the environment that sustains us. Use of ocean space and resources has been an essential component of global economic growth and prosperity.

The concepts and objectives of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘Green Economy’ make sense only if the ocean is fully incorporated. Sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development is the approach recognised by the international community to deal with environmental, social and economic issues the world has faced in the past 20 years. Nevertheless we still find the ocean in peril, coastal communities unable to cope with existing and emerging issues, and all levels of government unable to effect the institutional change required to address these issues.

The role of marine habitat mapping in ecosystem-based management

Citation Information: ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2009) 66 (9): 2033-2042.

DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp214

Authors: Cogan, C. B., Todd, B. J., Lawton, P., and Noji, T. T

Abstract: Ecosystem-based management (EBM) and the related concept of large marine ecosystems (LMEs) are sometimes criticized as being too broad for many management and research applications. At the same time, there is a great need to develop more effectively some substantive scientific methods to empower EBM. Marine habitat mapping (MHM) is an example of an applied set of field methods that support EBM directly and contribute essential elements for conducting integrated ecosystem assessments. This manuscript places MHM practices in context with biodiversity models and EBM. We build the case for MHM being incorporated as an explicit and early process following initial goal-setting within larger EBM programmes. Advances in MHM and EBM are dependent on evolving technological and modelling capabilities, conservation targets, and policy priorities within a spatial planning framework. In both cases, the evolving and adaptive nature of these sciences requires explicit spatial parameters, clear objectives, combinations of social and scientific considerations, and multiple parameters to assess overlapping viewpoints and ecosystem functions. To examine the commonalities between MHM and EBM, we also address issues of implicit and explicit linkages between classification, mapping, and elements of biodiversity with management goals. Policy objectives such as sustainability, ecosystem health, or the design of marine protected areas are also placed in the combined MHM–EBM context.

Green Economy in a Blue World

Citation Information: United Nations Environment Programme, 2012

ISBN: 978-82-7701-097-7

Authors: UNEP, FAO, IMO, UNDP, IUCN, World Fish Center, GRIDArendal

Summary: This report highlights ways to reduce the environmental impact and improve the environmental, economic and social sustainability of traditional and emerging ocean-oriented economies. The chapters that follow show where fisheries, tourism and maritime transportation can take steps to reduce their impact on the marine environment.

Moving Beyond the “I” in Motivation Attributes and Perceptions of Conservation Volunteer Tourists

Citation Information: Journal of Travel Research July 2012 vol. 51 no. 4 488-501

Authors: Kerry E. Grimm; Mark D. Needham

Abstract: Much research has examined why volunteer tourists volunteer abroad. However, little work has explored (1) if and how destination and organization attributes motivate volunteers or (2) manager perceptions of volunteer motivations. We identified attributes that pulled conservation volunteer tourists to the country, organization, and volunteer project. We compared these motivations and reasons for volunteering abroad with manager and volunteer coordinator perceptions of volunteer motivations. To collect data, we engaged in participant observation and conducted interviews with 36 volunteer tourists, 2 managers, and 3 volunteer coordinators at an Ecuadorian conservation volunteer project. Volunteers listed a range of motivations for their choices (e.g., reserve mission, price). Managers and coordinators correctly identified some motivations for volunteering abroad and selecting the destination, organization, and project (e.g., travel, price). However, they mentioned fewer reasons than volunteers and overlooked several major factors, especially altruistic and project-specific reasons. We discuss implications for managers and organizations, tourism theory, and future research.

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

Citation Information: PNAS June 5, 2012 vol. 109 no. 23 8812-8819

Authors: Terry C. Daniela, Andreas Muharb, Arne Arnbergerb, Olivier Aznarc, James W. Boydd, Kai M. A. Chane, Robert Costanzaf, Thomas Elmqvistg, Courtney G. Flinth, Paul H. Gobsteri, Adrienne Grêt-Regameyj, Rebecca Lavek, Susanne Muharl, Marianne Penkerm, Robert G. Riben, Thomas Schauppenlehnerb, Thomas Sikoro, Ihor Soloviyp, Marja Spierenburgq, Karolina Taczanowskab, Jordan Tame, and Andreas von der Dunk

Abstract: Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.

Pages

Subscribe to OpenChannels Literature Library