Suchergebnisse

AbstractMarine protected areas (MPAs), a common marine conservation tool, function as both objects of governance and as a form of territory. This article tracks the long‐term effort to produce conservation territories on the high seas, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Drawing on data collected at five international environmental meetings, the paper demonstrates how an imaginative geography of the high seas is being simultaneously constituted by scientific and technological advances, particularly geospatial visualisations, as well as coordinated efforts to advocate for and develop a new international conservation instrument (an implementing agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). Conventional understandings of territory constrain this effort by equating territory with the state. At the same time, the case of high seas conservation contributes to critiques of this conceptualisation of territory, by showcasing the role of multiple actors in seeing and controlling ocean space. Overall, the production of territory on the high seas both reflects and informs a shift in the "frontier mentality" of the oceans, as conservation and science frontier as well as economic frontier. Diverse responses to representations of, and policies for, the high seas point to both possibilities and limits of territorial thinking in the oceans.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an increasingly popular tool for management of the marine commons. Effective governance is essential if MPAs are to achieve their objectives, yet many MPAs face conflicts and governance challenges, including lack of trust and knowledge integration between fishers, scientists, and policy makers. This paper considers the role of a boundary organization in facilitating knowledge integration in a co-managed MPA, the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve in Belize. Boundary organizations can play an important role in resource management, by bridging the science-policy divide, facilitating knowledge integration, and enabling communication in conditions of uncertainty. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted in Belize, the paper identifies four challenges for knowledge integration. First, actors have divergent perspectives on whether and how knowledge is being integrated. Second, actors disagree on resource conditions within the MPA and how these should be understood. Third, in order to maintain accountability with multiple actors, including fishers, government, and funders, the boundary organization has promoted the importance of different types of knowledge for different purposes (science and fishers' knowledge), rather than the integration of these. Finally, a lack of trust and uneven power relations make it difficult to separate knowledge claims from political claims. However, even if knowledge integration proves difficult, boundary organizations may still play an important role by maintaining accountability, providing space for conflicting understandings to co-exist, and ultimately for governance institutions to evolve.

Biodiversity targets were prominent at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Having failed to reach the CBD's 2010 target, delegates debated the nature of targets, details of specific targets, and how to avoid failure in 2020. As part of a group of seventeen researchers conducting a collaborative event ethnography at COP10, we draw on observations made during negotiations of the CBD Strategic Plan and at side events to analyze the production of the 2020 targets. Once adopted, targets become "naturalized," detached from the negotiations that produced them. Drawing on insights from science and technology studies, we analyze the interaction of science and politics during negotiations and discuss what targets do within the CBD and the broader global conservation governance network.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) continues to promote marine protected areas (MPAs) as a preferred tool for marine biodiversity conservation, in spite of concerns over their effectiveness and equity. However, explanations for this consensus on the utility of MPAs focus primarily on their measurability and ignore the ways in which they are conceptualized through ongoing governance processes. Drawing on the results of collaborative event ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the CBD, this paper adopts the concepts of boundary objects and scalar narratives to analyze the ways in which consensus on MPAs is produced, in spite of conflicting understandings of MPA forms and functions. Both a local narrative of participatory MPAs and a global narrative of science driven high seas conservation articulate a regional scale as ideal for MPA governance, although with different priorities. Ultimately, consensus at the CBD is enabled only by accommodating competing visions of MPAs.

This special issue introduces readers to collaborative event ethnography (CEE), a method developed to support the ethnographic study of large global environmental meetings. CEE was applied by a group of seventeen researchers at the Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) to study the politics of biodiversity conservation. In this introduction, we describe our interests in global environmental meetings as sites where the politics of biodiversity conservation can be observed and as windows into broader governance networks. We specify the types of politics we attend to when observing such meetings and then describe the CBD, its COP, challenges meetings pose for ethnographic researchers, how CEE responds to these challenges generally, and the specifics of our research practices at COP10. Following a summary of the contributed papers, we conclude by reflecting on the evolution of CEE over time.

In this article, we track a relatively new term in global environmental governance: "blue economy." Analyzing preparatory documentation and data collected at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (i.e., Rio + 20), we show how the term entered into use and how it was articulated within four competing discourses regarding human–ocean relations: (a) oceans as natural capital, (b) oceans as good business, (c) oceans as integral to Pacific Small Island Developing States, and (d) oceans as small-scale fisheries livelihoods. Blue economy was consistently invoked to connect oceans with Rio + 20's "green economy" theme; however, different actors worked to further define the term in ways that prioritized particular oceans problems, solutions, and participants. It is not clear whether blue economy will eventually be understood singularly or as the domain of a particular actor or discourse. We explore possibilities as well as discuss discourse in global environmental governance as powerful and precarious.