The document summarizes the process of developing marine plans for England under new legislation. It discusses the drivers for marine planning like sustainable use of resources and improved decision making. Key aspects of the process include developing goals and objectives in consultation with stakeholders, identifying timelines and costs, and building internal capacity at the Marine Management Organization to lead the planning. Challenges include the demanding timetable and recruiting experienced marine planners. Lessons learned emphasize the need for political and stakeholder buy-in, dedicated resources, and flexibility in the early stages of the new planning system.

1. International MSP Symposium
14th -15th May 2012
Marine Planning in England
Organising the process
through pre-planning
Paul Gilliland
Marine Planning
Development Manager

2. Outline
• Why – drivers
• Legislation
• Principles, goals, objectives
• Timing and funding
• Building capacity – people
• Challenges
• Lessons
• National (England) vs plan area

3. Why did we want marine planning – 10 years of
advocacy
• Sustainable use of marine resources
• Greater certainty for investors/developers
• Improved basis for addressing cumulative effects
• ‘Regional seas’ governance (ecosystem approach)
• Proactive and forward planning
• Plan for new activities and changing technologies
• Framework for consistent decision making
• Cohesion with coastal and terrestrial plans (ICZM)
• Early involvement of stakeholders (“democratic deficit”)

4. Why do we need marine planning?
Overarching driver – Increasing and competing use
of marine space and resources, impacting on the
sustainability of the marine environment

5. Future needs, e.g. Offshore Wind
• Target: renewables = 15% (but
aim for more) of the UK’s total
electricity needs by 2020
• 50,000+ new jobs?
• Existing/planned plus ‘Round 3’
wind = total potential capacity of
up to 40 GW
• 6,000 turbines  footprint
• Other renewables, i.e. Wave, tidal

6. Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
• Long lead in time and preparatory work
• Supported by main political parties (commitment)
• Complex piece of legislation (delivery!)
• Licensing (Consenting)
• Nature Conservation
• Fisheries
• Coastal Access
• Marine planning
• Marine Management Organisation (MMO)
• Planning, licensing, fisheries management,
conservation delivery, enforcement functions
• Vested April 2010
• Cross-government ‘agency’

7. The legal requirement for marine planning
• Marine Policy Statement (MPS): the overarching policy
framework for the UK marine area (UK Govt and Devolved
Administrations)
• Marine Plans will translate the MPS into detailed policy and
spatial guidance for each plan area (MMO, SoS)
• All 10 plan ‘areas’ (sub-divisions around the coast)
• Guide and direct decision makers, including Licensing
• No timetable prescribed but report/review every 3-6 years
• Aim: contribute to and help deliver sustainable development
• Economic, Environment, and Social
• Across all sectors
• Potentially changing emphasis (link to terrestrial planning) 
stay close to relevant department(s)

8. Principles and goals – development & consultation
UK vision ‘clean,
healthy, safe,
A long time in the making, much
productive and
consultation
biologically
diverse oceans
and seas’ •Ecosystem approach
•Streamlined, efficient
•Take account of other plans
2002 2009 2011 etc

9. Goals, Objectives, Policies
• 22 Goals (High Level Marine Objectives):
• Achieving a sustainable marine economy
• Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
• Living within environmental limits
• Promoting good governance
• Using sound science responsibly
• Policy objectives for key sectors, generally broad
• Renewables: only explicit target
• Oil & Gas: maximise economic development of resources
• Aggregates: as a minimum make provision for a level of
marine contribution to adequate and continuing UK supply
• No prioritisation

10. National picture of resources and activities
• The ‘big picture’ to set plan area in context
• Includes analysis of potential future opportunities
• Inform plan-level objectives (targets?)
Just undertaken consultation on plan-specific
objectives (but planning rather than ‘pre-planning’)

11. Where and when
Overall timetable
• Estimate 2 years for each plan
(2.5 if Independent
Investigation needed)
• Assume two at a time
• Complete first cycle by 2021
• Evaluate ≤ 3 years  Review?
Reassessed recently, end
date unchanged but overlap
(lead in time)
Revising at same time as
drafting new plans

12. East marine plan areas
58,700 km2
Timeline (two years) Inshore and Offshore
• Dec 2010: Announce, prep 2 plans, 1 process (87%)
• April 2011: Start
• Feb 2012: Evidence & Issues
• May: Draft Objectives/Vision
• July: Options
• Sept: draft plan to government
• Jan 2013: consultation
• April 2013: revised
Relentless  share ‘lead’ role;
more time to pause?
Developing whilst doing 
take longer the first time?

13. “Show me someone that’s never made a mistake and I’ll
show you someone that’s never made anything”
 a difficult message to get over and work around

14. Resource planning : Costs (and Benefits)
• ‘Impact Assessment’ of planning vs ‘do nothing’. Benefits:
• Best estimate: £487 million [$779m] over twenty years
• Environmental benefits difficult to quantify
• Savings to business sectors, e.g. activity costs
• Costs
• £2.7 million [$4.3m] per plan (all elements, e.g. Staff > evidence
gathering > Sustainability Appraisal > consultation)
• £0.54 million [$0.86m] per review (assumes 20% of original
costs) every six years
• Resources : core funding from UK government
• Too early to judge but for now £ seems less limiting than time
• Demands may fluctuate over time but ‘same’ resource

15. Capacity building - establishing a planning team
• New, from scratch  opportunity to build a ‘team’
• Range of capability, skills and disciplines
• Strategic thinkers, communicators, analysers
• Marine specialists, terrestrial planners, GIS/IT users
• In or outside of core team?
• Core ‘planning team’ (partly for longevity)
• Other MMO teams and input
• New organisation  settle ahead of planning team?

16. MMO – core team and supporting teams
Marine Regulation
Planning (>18) & Licensing
Development ‘Future’ plan areas
Policy Plan‐making
Appraisal in plan areas
Team leads
3 ‘Liaison’ officers
in East plan area
Data,
Stakeholder and
Evidence and
Communications
Knowledge

17. Challenges and lessons (some MMO-specific?)
• Recruitment challenges (at difficult time for public sector)
 Buy in interim help, e.g. Cefas (scientific advisory body),
economists
 Help ‘grow’ inexperienced staff but needs time
• Few or no ‘marine planners’ to hand
 Deliberately recruit from different backgrounds
 Team dynamic - different ‘types’ of people
• Very demanding programme = strain, long hours culture
 Recruit to planned timetable if possible
 ‘Pull together’, galvanise team etc but monitor

18. Wider capacity – other institutions and stakeholders

19. Some headline lessons
• Development and ‘buy in’ can take a long time
• Political support essential, as are ‘allies’
• Legislative basis almost certainly essential
• A framework of principles, goals/objective and policies is a
good start
• Establishing more plan-specific objectives is preferable but
<100% is OK and even then is potentially difficult
• Need allocated resources preferably over a sustained period
• Need a timetable but also some flexibility if possible
particularly in the early days
• (Dedicated planning body) with a dedicated team essential
• Do NOT underestimate the challenge

20. Questions?

21. Plan-level objectives
• Focussed consultation/workshops with selected parties
• Conclusions
• Not just about ‘SMART’ objectives
• Integrated/cross-cutting over topic/sector, e.g. Economic productivity,
or ecosystem health rather than fisheries or ports (except renewables)
• Result is plan-level set of ‘goals’ with local emphases, e.g. C Change
• Wider consultation
• 70 responses, > 1000 substantive comments
• Broadly agree with above approach
• Need more ‘plan-specific’ points (including possible ‘priorities’) not in
the Objectives themselves but in detailed ‘plan policies’ (=actions)
• Lot of effort at national ‘high level’, also to agree approach at plan-level,
not essential to be 100% SMART but still some way to go to be SMARTer