• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Jake Rice Marine Spatial Planning What's the Big Deal?
 

Jake Rice Marine Spatial Planning What's the Big Deal?

on

  • 962 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
962
Views on SlideShare
962
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Jake Rice Marine Spatial Planning What's the Big Deal? Jake Rice Marine Spatial Planning What's the Big Deal? Presentation Transcript

    • Marine Spatial Planning What’s the Big Deal? Jake Rice Fisheries and Oceans Canada
    • Conflicts over the use ofspace in the oceans and coasts are not new Nor are expectations that governments will do something to resolve them
    • King Edward III – charge to a Royal Commission in 1376The great and long iron of the wondyrchoun runs so heavily and hardly over the ground when fishing that it destroys the flowers of the land below the water, and also the spat of oysters, mussels and other fish upon which the great fish are accustomed to be fed and nourished. By which instrument in many places the fishermen take such quantity of small fish that they know not what to do with them; and they feed and fat their pigs with them, to the great damage of the Commons of the Realm and the destruction of the fisheries
    • Back in history Leaders hadthe power to unilaterally make decisions about how ocean space and uses were allocated
    • Nowadays, with Royal (orPresidential) Commissions more costly and leaders a little less empowered(Did Moses file an EIA and get permits?) We have more inclusive governance and science based approaches
    • Although the challenges and outcomes of marine spatialplanning are not new, the discipline is, and is growing quickly• First mention in scientific literature 1986• By 2006-2010 – 596 journal articles with the phrase as keyword or in abstract(source – web of Science search engine)• In the technical literature MUCH more
    • So what is this popular thing called “MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING”• Countless definitions (I won’t choose)• It is a PROCESS for planning – Engagement of levels of government, experts, industries, ENGOs, civil society, Bands, ….• It is a PRODUCT of the process – How multiple human uses (and values) will coexist “harmoniously” with each other and with healthy marine and coastal ecosystem.
    • Conflicts resolved? Healthy Ocean Is this too good to be true? How do we get there? Second [star] on the right and straight on ‘til morning?
    • The PROCESS and the PRODUCT must have three properties• Credibility: ALL parties, but particularly experts and government, must believe best information was used in sound ways• Legitimacy: ALL parties, but particularly those whose lives are affected by the products, must believe they were treated fairly during the process• Relevance: ALL parties, but particularly decision-makers, have to believe that core issues and conflicts have to be identified and addressed (not hidden)
    • Many things have been tried to ensure CREDIBILITY• Of the Process – Engagement of independent experts – Investment in data collation and analyses – Use of tested tools for formal evaluation of scenarios, trade-off analysis etc.• Of the Product – Peer review of interim and final products – Open access to background information and data
    • Many things have been tried to ensure LEGITIMACY• Of the Process – Inclusive of stakeholders in meaningful roles – Stakeholders defined to include industries, ENGOs, communities, – Options to contribute at many steps, not just comment• Of the Products – Accessible formats & access to background – Avoid technical AND bureaucratic jargon – Candid about trade-offs, desappointments & compromises (real “win-win” outcomes rare)
    • Many things have been tried to ensure RELEVANCE• Of the Process – Start with laws and regulatory frameworks – Start with clear mandate (and constraints) – Adaptive processes and responses• Of the Products – Stay focused on mandate and charge – Ensure objectives are operational as well as “high level” (platitudes) – Provision for periodic review and reevalution
    • MANY options for each – Are there best practices?Review by Ecosystem Science & Management Working Group of NOAA Science Advisory Board (J. Collie, lead)• Over 3 dozen candidate MSP initiatives• Found 17 with adequate documentation for completing extensive templates matched to guidance in 4 key overviews• Template results condensed to 42 yes/no questions in 7 categories:
    • Categories and examplesOBJECTIVES: Does the plan have operational objectives?SCOPE:Does the plan include all sectors and usesAUTHORITY: Does the plan have a high-level government mandate ?DATA: Were there clear criteria for data inclusion?PARTICIPANTS: Was there a formal process for identifying stakeholders ?DECISION-SUPPORT TOOLS: Were trade-offs analyzed quantitatively ?MONTORING/FOLLOW-UP: Definition of success
    • Examples from many scales and jurisdictionsBarents Sea, Norway China Marine ZPGerman EEZ Great Barrier ReefBaltic Sea Action Plan St. Kitts and NevisWadden Sea Plan Massachusetts OMPNetherlands Rhode Island OSAMPBelgium North Sea Maryland - ChesapeakeShetland Isles California Marine LifeCanada ESSIM and Cons P Beaufort Sea Hawaii ORMP
    • Question EX BAR GER BAL WS NL BEL SI CAN MA RI MD SKN CA HI CN GBR A2 Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y N N N Y BY Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N B4 Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CY Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y C3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C4 Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y D1a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y D1b Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y D2 Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y E1 Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y E2 Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y E3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y E6 Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N N N E7 Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y F1 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y F2 Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y F3 Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y F4 Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y F5 Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N F6 Y N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N F8 Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N F9 Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y G1 Y N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y G2 Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y Y N Y G3 Y N N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N N G4 Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y G5 Y Y N Y Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N N G6 Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N N
    • Main Messages• THERE IS NO SINGLE RIGHT WAY TO DO MSP• BUT, MANY THINGS DO MATTER: – Try to get to specific objectives – Be meaningfully inclusive – Have a clear mandate – Match expectations to time and funding – Design for feedback and adaptive learning
    • These are not new problems Difficult citizen engagement Vague objectives Difficult conflict resolution Unclear Mandates
    • Old Problems DO have solutions• Our past two days presented MANY applications of Marine Spatial Planning to many problems in many parts of the world• Spatial scales from 10’s of km2 to 1,000’s• Often costs in millions and years of effort• Focus on renewable offshore energy but MANY additional uses.• EVERY CASE CONCLUDED THE OUTCOMES WORTH THE EFFORT
    • For the rest of today• You will hear a lot of experience on how various processes sought credibility, legitimacy & relevance• The experiences won’t be the same: – Scale, jurisdiction, mandate, information available, time, funding etc ….• Listen, ask questions, seek information that helps with YOUR situation
    •  A PLACE FOR EVERYTHING AND EVERYYTHING IN ITS PLACE    