The document summarizes findings from a review of marine spatial plans around the world. It finds that most plans are implemented at smaller spatial scales than entire ecosystems. It also finds that few institutional changes are made to governing bodies to implement coastal and marine spatial planning, relying instead on existing agencies. Additionally, it notes that while formal decision support tools are used, informal expert judgment also plays a role. The main messages are that there is no single approach for marine spatial planning and that the value is in the planning process of engaging stakeholders as much as the final plan.

1. 2015 INTERNATIONAL MARINE
SPATIAL PLANNING SYMPOSIUM:
SHARING PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS
David Fluharty
on behalf of many researchers and
collaborators
October 6, 2015, URI

2. 3‐Nov‐15 CMSP 2
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
(CMSP): An idea whose time has come?
Presidential Executive Order 13547 of 19‐July‐
2010 sets a high bar for CMSP in US:
– Comprehensive
– Regional
– Integrated
– Resilient [vis a vis hazards – economy]
– Ecosystem Based Management
– Best Available Science and Information

3. ICES CM 2013/I05 3
Strategic Advice on Designing and
Implementing Coastal and Marine
Spatial Plans
 Many options for marine spatial planning;
 What are the attributes of existing plans?
 Empirical review to compare Marine Spatial
Plans from around the world

5. Finding: Ecosystem Scale
 Most plans are
implemented
at spatial
scales smaller
than
ecosystem
(red)
 US regional
planning areas
are near the
upper end of
existing marine
spatial plans
Mid-Atlantic
Northeast
Caribbean
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
West Coast
Alaska/Arctic
Pacific Islands
Shetland Isles
St. Kitts & Nevis
Belgium
Rhode Island SAMP
Massachusetts OP
Maryland Oyster Plan
Wadden Sea Plan
Hawaii ORM
California MLPA
German EEZ
Netherlands
Great Barrier Reef
Baltic Sea
China MFZ
Barents Sea
Canada Oceans Act
Australia NMB
5e+02 5e+03 5e+04 5e+05 5e+06
plan > ecosystem
plan = ecosystem
plan < ecosystem
Plan area (km
2
)
Plan area (Km2)
Plans
reviewed
US regional
areas

6. Finding: Implementation of Planning
Process
• There were few, if any, institutional changes
made in governing bodies to accomplish or
implement CMSP.
• The primary modus operandi for National
plans is to call upon existing agencies to
cooperate in producing CMSP plans using
existing authorities.

7. Finding: Formal Decision Support Tools
Spatial Plan Benefit‐
Cost
Analysis
Cost
Effectiveness
Analysis
Econ.
Impact
Analysis
Stakeholder
Evaluation
Informal
Expert
Judgment
Barents Sea, Norway X X
Baltic Sea Action Plan Future plans X X
Wadden Sea Plan X
Netherlands X X X X X
Canada Oceans Act
Massachusetts X
Rhode Island SAMP X X
Maryland Oyster Plan X
St. Kitts and Nevis X X X
California MLPA X X X
China
NMB of Australia
Great Barrier Reef X X X X X
Note: Stakeholder evaluation can be an informal method of undertaking a trade‐off
analysis, where the weights on the different benefits/costs are “determined” in the process.

8. ICES CM 2013/I05 8
Main Messages – The Plan
• THERE IS NO SINGLE RECIPE FOR MARINE
SPATIAL PLANNING ‐‐ MANY THINGS MATTER:
– Try to get to operational objectives;
– Be meaningfully inclusive;
– Have a clear mandate;
– Match expectations to time and funding;
– Pay attention to vertical and horizontal integration
– Design for feedback and adaptive learning
– State what constitutes success?

9. Main Messages – The Process
Value of MSP is not just the Plan it is the
PROCESS* of bringing all parties together to make
the plan because it:
– Clarifies objectives
– Examines trade‐offs among objectives
– Involves stakeholders [makes more legitimate and
thus easier to implement and enforce – but it does
take more time]
– Reduces conflict
Process must be repeated at intervals – No final plan
rather continuous adaptation.

10. Take Home Message re: US Federal
• Large variation in process and outcome
• Without adequate resources process is slow
and less complete
• Lack of or disagreement about objectives (at
different levels of government or in full
stakeholder engagement) complicates the
process
• Stay the course, we are on course.

11. Horizontal Integration relies on sectors perceiving they are participating in
a neutral , fair forum like the Arthurian “Round Table” in Camelot