ESMWG Update to the SAB

1. ESMWG Update to the SAB Peter Kareiva December 1, 2010

2. Purpose • To request approval of two new members to fill vacancies on the ESMWG; extension of term of current member • To provide an update on work to date on a report on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning to be presented at the March 2011 meeting

3. New Members • Two vacancies have been created as David Helweg and Gordon Kruse were unavailable to be reappointed • The first term of Mike Beck is expiring in January 2011 • The ESMWG has reviewed its need for expertise given the current tasking

4. Proposed Members THE ESMWG PROPOSES: • SAB Approval of a second 3-year term for Mike Beck • SAB Approval of Efi Foufoula [who has agreed to serve if appointed]. • SAB Approval of Jacquelyn Grebmeier [whose agreement to serve is pending] CMSP

5. Draft CMSP white paper • The Ecosystem Sciences and Management Working Group (ESMWG) wants to engage with NOAA SAB members on the topic of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) implementation. • An ad hoc subcommittee of the ESMWG is preparing a white paper: “Strategic Advice for Designing and Implementing CMSP”; • Interim findings in November 2010 with final report to follow in February 2011; the report will be presented at the March 2011 SAB meeting. CMSP

6. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP): An idea whose time has come? Presidential Executive Order of 19-July-2010 sets a high bar for CMSP: • Comprehensive • Regional • Integrated • Resilient • Ecosystem Based Management • Best Available Science and Information CMSP

7. Criteria For Identifying CMSP Plans • Multi-objective • Spatially explicit • Implementation in progress CMSP

8. Preliminary List of Plans to Examine •Germany [North Sea and Baltic Sea] •California MLPA •         MD Oyster Plan •         St. Lucia Coastal Zoning Plan •         Baltic Sea Action Plan •         Belgium [North Sea] •Wadden Sea – NL, DE, DK •         Netherlands [North Sea] •Barents Sea •         Canada Oceans Act [MPAN] Large Ocean Management Areas – ESS •Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan •         Massachusetts Ocean Plan •Rhode Island Marine Ocean Special Area Management Plan •         Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority •Australia’s Ocean Act – Marine Bioregional Planning •         United Kingdom [territorial sea] – Irish Sea Pilot (?) •         China – Marine Functional Zoning Green – review completedRed – review pending

9. Interim Findings: A. Objectives i. Finding- Conceptual objectives (e.g., Conserve Diversity, Sustain Fisheries) are usually identified in formal mandates or policy. More operational objectives are identified during the planning process. An independent panel of experts is often used to help to operationalize objectives. ii. Finding - Few CMSP efforts were comprehensive (e.g., the Barents Sea plan in Norway). Most plans address a few objectives at a time (e.g., energy and biodiversity conservation) or single resources (e.g., oysters for habitat conservation, fisheries, aquaculture). CMSP

10. B. Scope

11. B. Scope • Finding- Most coastal plans were done across linear distances of <= 300 km (e.g., US State, EU country). States that have longer coastlines (e.g., California and Australia) divided their planning and implementation area into subregions. ii. Finding- Most plans were done at spatial scales smaller than the ecosystem scale. Furthermore, the implementation scale is often less than that of the spatial plan (i.e. Implementation scale < spatial plan < ecosystem scale). iii. Finding – There was wide disparity in the time from start to completion of plans (from 2 to 20 years). Those that were done more quickly appear to have comparatively less stakeholder involvement CMSP

12. C. Authority i. Finding- There were few, if any, institutional changes made in governing bodies or legislation to accomplish or implement CMSP. The primary modus operandi is to call upon existing agencies to cooperate in producing CMSP plans using existing authorities. CMSP

13. D. Data i. Finding- Few, if any, if the CMSP efforts have a clear plan or framework for data management and decision support after the effort is done. ii. Finding- Data have been used both analytically and illustratively in the planning efforts. iii. Finding- Few, if any, if the CMSP efforts have a clear plan or framework for collecting consistent data across all disciplines. CMSP

14. E. Participants • Finding- There is a wide disparity in how stakeholders are included, from largely Public Comment (e.g., MD) to active engagement of stakeholder groups in using Decision Support tools to identify spatial alternatives (CA). ii. Finding- Extensive stakeholder engagement appears to increase time, effort and cost of planning. It is unclear as of yet if it increases buy-in, feasibility or long-term success. CMSP

15. F. Tools and Decision Support i. Finding- Formal trade-off analyses have rarely been used in CMSP efforts. ii. Finding- Decision support tools have not been widely used in planning efforts. The California Marine Life Protection Act is one significant counter example, which used tools such as MarineMap extensively. iii. Finding- Ecosystem services are frequently discussed but are rarely explicitly assessed in CMSP. CMSP

16. G. Monitoring & Performance Measures • Finding- Most plans do not provide for systematic monitoring and data management after the plan is implemented, which precludes adaptive management. ii. There is little if any evidence that there will be monitoring to assess if implemented plans either reduce conflicts or make management more efficient (e.g., approving permits is easier in certain zones). CMSP

17. Actions to Be Taken • Complete characterizations of case studies; B. Engage with NOAA CMSP Staff in a teleconference on interim findings; C. Prepare Report for full ESMWG vetting Feb 1-2; D. Revise report to Final version in time for NOAA SAB Spring meeting CMSP

18. Comments/Questions • The ESMWG requests comments on this workplan and would be happy to answer any questions (in person or via e-mail). • What cautions do you have about possible misinterpretations, important nuances, or critical issues NOT addressed ? (because DRAFT— there is no need to probe specific findings now) CMSP

19. THANK YOU QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CMSP