|
|
|
PDF
|
|
Type:
|
Conference Paper |
|
Author:
|
Pieraccini, Margherita |
|
Conference:
|
Commoners and the Changing Commons: Livelihoods, Environmental Security, and Shared Knowledge, the Fourteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons |
|
Location:
|
Mt. Fuji, Japan |
|
Conf. Date:
|
June 3-7 |
|
Date:
|
2013 |
|
URI:
|
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/8951
|
|
Sector:
|
General & Multiple Resources |
|
Region:
|
Europe |
|
Subject(s):
|
property rights
climate change
conservation
land tenure and use
IASC
|
|
Abstract:
|
"The paper investigates the environmental governance of complex commons from the point of view of nature conservation law in England, using the analytical framework for social-ecological systems developed by Ostrom and colleagues. The two commons under analysis are resource systems falling within statutorily designated sites for the conservation of nationally important habitats and species: namely Sites of Special Scientific Interest on common land and Marine Conservation Zones. The regulatory means used by conservation law to designate and manage complex marine and terrestrial environmental commons are compared. If conservation law originated with terrestrial ecosystems in mind and expanded its regulatory means seaward, the entry into force of Part V of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 marks a divide between terrestrial and marine conservation law. The divide occurs along a series of lines and it seems to be dictated by the recognition of three (proprietary, physical ad knowledge) differences between marine and terrestrial commons. Because of the lack of a structured system of property rights, marine conservation law is unable to use popular terrestrial instruments such as the 'management agreement' to regulate its commons, opting instead for the establishment of participatory decision-making at the site designation stage. Also, due to the physical qualities of the sea and the high scientific uncertainty related to the marine environment, marine conservation law uses a 'network' approach to the designation of conservation zones, whose key design principles include connectivity and best available evidence. Yet, is the divide between terrestrial and marine conservation law justified if we bring contextual variables into the analysis? The paper asks whether the approach used by marine conservation law could inform amendments to terrestrial conservation law if we bring into the picture climate change concerns and we provide a wider understanding of property rights beyond statute on common land."
|