1 / 44

The potential and pitfalls of coastal and marine spatial planning as a framework for cooperative management in the Arcti

The potential and pitfalls of coastal and marine spatial planning as a framework for cooperative management in the Arctic . ISER-UAA Workshop on Strengthening Institutions: Strategies for Cooperative Management in the Marine Environment of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas

ula
Download Presentation

The potential and pitfalls of coastal and marine spatial planning as a framework for cooperative management in the Arcti

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The potential and pitfalls of coastal and marine spatial planning as a framework for cooperative management in the Arctic ISER-UAA Workshop on Strengthening Institutions: Strategies for Cooperative Management in the Marine Environment of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas Anchorage, 3rd March, 2011 Ian M. Dutton iand@alaskasealife.org

  2. Overview • Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) • Global status • General potential and pitfalls • Four key questions for CMSP in the Arctic • Summing Up – can CMSP make a useful contribution to collaborative management in the Arctic?

  3. LOTS of global guidance…

  4. State of the art… http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/msp_around_the_world?

  5. What is CMSP? Marine spatial planning is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process. http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/

  6. National CMSP Framework • CMSP = comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. • "coastal and marine spatial plans" means the plans that are certified by the National Ocean Council as developed in accordance with the definition, goals, principles, and process described in the Final Recommendations.

  7. Demand for Ocean Space in Belgium

  8. Already exists in US Ocean Use Regulation (typically single sector)

  9. Potential of CMSP • Establish common vision for future • Coordination of decision making • Regulation of use(s)/zoning • Separation of conflict(s) • Clarify regulatory authority • Defense and national security • Allocate resources to “best uses” • Formalize EBM & protect ecosystem services/features • Protect property, legal, economic and cultural rights • Create certainty for investment • Promotes transparency and public engagement • etc. Jervis Bay and watershed (Dutton,et al. 1994)

  10. PoTENTIAL Enables vision for future, transparency, promotes inclusiveness in decision making both laterally and vertically and establishes/protects rights

  11. PoTENTIAL Provides reason and inclusive process to bring stakeholders together South African example National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (No. 24 of 2008)

  12. PoTENTIAL Clarifying authority, separating conflicts, protecting key assets and simplifying permitting China Territorial Sea, 2002 Norway Oil Regulation, 2008 http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/msp_around_the_world

  13. PoTENTIAL Separates conflicts, optimizes resources, promotes investment confidence, minimizes development impacts, empowers user inquiry, etc. CA Ocean Uses Atlas project - http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/nov10/ca-ocean-uses.html

  14. PoTENTIAL MA Whale Strike Avoidancehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111668099 Smart sea use – reducing conflicts, sharing space to protect key ecological resources and industries

  15. So… why didn’t MSP catch on before? • Traditionally planned from the land outwards – first land use planning, the coastal zone, now sea? • Variable intensity of sea uses around the world • Lack of compelling “drivers” – e.g. offshore mining, crises • Fisheries, the most extensive global sea use, has its own spatial, temporal and rule-based management approaches - why add more? • More land and sea use restrictions had limited political appeal • Lack of multiple use/broader ocean governance frameworks; things working ok for now – why change? • Lack of champions – who speaks for the oceans and who listens? • Lack of data, planning /science methods and lack of spatial data processing ability to compile and analyze data in ways comparable to terrestrial systems

  16. Common Pitfalls of CMSP • Process too complex • Panacea for all issues? • Too ambitious too quickly • Often “top down” • Lack of stakeholder empowerment - e.g. tools require specialists • Over reliance on “scientific data” – technical capacity exceeds adoption capacity • Inadequate impact monitoring • Lack of coupling with implementation

  17. Pitfall Many factors shape ecosystem and governance trajectories – CMSP alone cannot address these

  18. 1. Can CMSP work in a complex governance situations at Chukchi/Beaufort Sea scales?

  19. GBRMP Act 1975 10 year initial zoning process 350,000 km2 National and State governments coordinated Mining and oil drilling banned <5% strictly protected 1979-2004 to @33% no take zoning in 2004 Tourism vs fisheries vs conservation dynamic changing Traditional users empowered PoTENTIAL 30 years of CMSP experience in a similar governance context http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/

  20. GBR Zoning Scheme Organization- zoning separates conflicts, provides basis for regulation of industry and recreation uses, targets biodiversity goals, defines management authority, etc.

  21. Pitfall CMSP is just one component of a multidimensional governance framework Where MSP fits

  22. Summation An Arctic CMSP exercise would be able to draw from a lot of global experience, should be integrated with other governance initiatives and have a LOT of stakeholder buy in (and so would require time, capacity building and trade offs). There are very few alternative tools that enable a comparable “big picture” approach. GBR 25 Year Vision www.gbrmpa.gov.au

  23. 2. Do we know enough/have enough data to develop an Arctic CMSP? D a t a Coverage Data Quality high/low high/high low/low low/high

  24. PoTENTIAL We can cope with uncertainty Spencer Gulf Zoning Plan: Paxinos et al (2008)

  25. Pitfall We let data limits slow down or undermine process CSIRO South Coast Study: Basinski, 1979

  26. Summation An Arctic CMSP exercise would require an unprecedented level of data sharing… and require data to be integrated from many sources. Lack of temporal or spatial data should not be a limitation to CMSP.

  27. 3. Can CMSP Address Climate Change?

  28. PoTENTIAL Building in Climate Change Considerations • Salm et al 2009. Coral Reefs and Climate Change: Science and Management, Coastal and Estuarine Studies 61: 207-222. • Green, Alison. 2007. Scientific design of a resilient network of marine protected areas: Kimbe Bay, West New Britain, Papua New Guinea. TNC Pacific Island countries report, No. 2/07. South Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Nature Conservancy, Indo-Pacific Resource Center.

  29. Solomon Islands MPA Network Design

  30. 52 Fathoms Lolobau Cape Tokoro Bia Buludava Heusner Kimbe Island Bialla Garua/ Restorf Cape Hoskins/Wulei Tarobi Kaiamu/Sulu Namundo Kapiuru Dagi Kilometers 0 5 10 20 Proposed Kimbe Resilient MPA Network Using Marxan to protect food security

  31. Pitfall Climate change works synergistically with other threats (pollution, global economy, etc.) – CMSP may be too slow, limited in spatial scope or focus on “wrong issues”. Low Isles 189o Same Reef 2004

  32. SUMMATION While there is much we still need to know about marine impacts of CC in the Arctic, CMSP can incorporate a range of scenarios and allow for a range of spatial and temporal adaptation strategies http://ine.uaf.edu/accap/research/sea_ice_project.htm

  33. 4. Is there any evidence that CMSP might work better than other governance systems or be worth the “extra effort”?

  34. PoTENTIAL Example of MA Decision Criteria – improves transparency, participation, certainty, etc.

  35. Pitfall Quantitative evaluations and evidence-based learning frameworks are limited http://www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk/ www.conservationmeasures.org

  36. PoTENTIAL Theory of Change Approach now measurable See www.conservationmeasures.org + www.miradi.org

  37. Using KPIs to Track Progress, Test Assumptions and Change Strategies

  38. SUMMATION CMSP can be a successful framework for meeting diverse governance demands but requires a clear vision for change (what are we trying to achieve), outcome definition and progress tracking and ability to course correct based on experience

  39. Recap: CMSP checklist • What are you trying to achieve? (Begin with the end in mind…) • Is marine spatial planning best process to help you “get there” • Appropriate institutional (+ community) capacity? • Freedom to shape the process locally? • Compatibility with governance systems • What needs to be in place to enable MSP? – science, knowledge, stakeholder engagement, related sectoral and place-based strategies • How will MSP planning link with action/implementation? (at all relevant scales) • How will you know MSP has been effective and when & how will plans be changed? (indicators, triggers, reviews, etc.)

  40. Questions? iand@alaskasealife.org http://sealifeceo.blogspot.com/

  41. MSP Cycle – latest version

  42. Double loop learning

  43. Plans for USA/Alaska? No current NOC approved CMSP for any of the 9 US regions

More Related