We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter focuses on the process of designation of MCZs in English waters at the basis of MCZs designation. The designation of MCZs is a very interesting case to study attempts at democratising conservation regulation as it has contemplated extensive participation. Departing from the technocratic and purely science-based approach to site selection typical of domestic and European nature conservation law, socio-economic considerations and participatory techniques have been key elements of the designation process of MCZs in England from the start. However, a critical reading of the participatory approach reveals certain weaknesses, mainly to do with the choice of an aggregative rather than a deliberative model of democracy. Advocating for a relational ontology and epistemology, the chapter ends with a call for bringing forth new, ‘thicker’ models of participation that are more attentive to multiple forms of communication and identities and more conducive to commoning practices.
This chapter explores impact assessments (IAs) used for designating Marine Conservation Zones. It starts with an introduction to IAs, leading to a theoretical discussion of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for rationalising regulation. It follows with a critical review of IAs produced by the regional stakeholder groups using umbrella questions derived from the theoretical analysis and then it asks if and how the formal IAs produced by the government for the designation of the three tranches of Marine Conservation Zones constitute an improvement compared to the regional stakeholder groups’ IAs before offering concluding remarks. Throughout the chapter, connections with the concept of commoning are made arguing that IAs for MCZs, by employing economic language in decision-making and focusing on industry costs over benefits, favour the voices of a few over collective ones, highlight interests at the expenses of values and undermine the potential for ethical consideration to play a role in assessment, thereby failing to encourage a shared ethics of care and responsibility towards the marine environment, hence not favouring commoning practices.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.