Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/28580
Appears in Collections:Aquaculture Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: A comparative analysis of three marine governance systems for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Author(s): Jones, Estelle V
Gray, Tim
Macintosh, Donald
Stead, Selina M
Keywords: Convention on Biological Diversity
Marine governance
Marine protected areas
Shared governance
Community
Thailand
Issue Date: 30-Apr-2016
Citation: Jones EV, Gray T, Macintosh D & Stead SM (2016) A comparative analysis of three marine governance systems for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Marine Policy, 66, pp. 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.016
Abstract: Successful implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requires critical reflection on governance structures especially in the biodiverse tropics where institutional capacity is weak and fragmented. This paper explores three modes of marine governance in Thailand and discusses the challenges each faces when delivering conservation and sustainable development objectives. Focusing on Marine Protected Areas (MPA), the dominant management approaches to biodiversity conservation, centralised, decentralised and shared governance, are scrutinised through a review of the literature and 24 key informant interviews with leading Thai academics, national and regional government officers and NGOs. We find both the centralised, state-managed MPA system and the decentralised, community-based MPA system to have severe limitations, for different reasons, in protecting biodiversity, whereas shared governance, despite being less common, is the best intermediate mode. Shared governance is the most viable option available in Thailand for working towards key CBD targets because: (1) local participation can legitimise much of the relationship with the centralised system and can help embed a decentralised system in natural resources management; (2) the centralised system will still remain in ultimate control, which, whilst not favoured by those who want decentralisation, will satisfy powerful elites, and offer more opportunity to empower local people to take responsibility for conservation targets; and (3) the capacity of both local and national stakeholders can be built to deal with the complexity of the marine environment.
DOI Link: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.016
Rights: This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). You may copy and distribute the article, create extracts, abstracts and new works from the article, alter and revise the article, text or data mine the article and otherwise reuse the article commercially (including reuse and/or resale of the article) without permission from Elsevier. You must give appropriate credit to the original work, together with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI and a link to the Creative Commons user license above. You must indicate if any changes are made but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use of the work.
Licence URL(s): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/



This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.