Marine spatial planning is a growing discipline aimed at resolving conflicts over ocean space usage. It involves stakeholder engagement to develop plans for how multiple human uses can coexist with healthy ocean ecosystems. While leaders historically made unilateral decisions, modern approaches use inclusive governance and science-based planning. For plans to be effective, they must have credibility, legitimacy, and relevance. Credibility involves using best available information and sound processes. Legitimacy means all parties believe they were treated fairly. Relevance means key issues are addressed. Many jurisdictions have experimented with marine spatial planning, and reviews have identified common best practices around objectives, participation, authority, data use, and monitoring. The speaker will discuss experiences seeking credibility, legitimacy and relevance at different

1. Marine Spatial Planning
What’s the Big Deal?
Jake Rice
Fisheries and Oceans
Canada

2. Conflicts over the use of
space in the oceans and
coasts are not new
Nor are expectations that
governments will do
something to resolve them

3. King Edward III – charge to a Royal
Commission in 1376
The 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

4. Back in history Leaders had
the power to unilaterally make
decisions about how ocean
space and uses were
allocated

6. Nowadays, with Royal (or
Presidential) 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

7. Although the challenges and
outcomes of marine spatial
planning 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

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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:

15. Categories and examples
OBJECTIVES: Does the plan have operational
objectives?
SCOPE:Does the plan include all sectors and uses
AUTHORITY: 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

16. Examples from many scales and
jurisdictions
Barents Sea, Norway China Marine ZP
German EEZ Great Barrier Reef
Baltic Sea Action Plan St. Kitts and Nevis
Wadden Sea Plan Massachusetts OMP
Netherlands Rhode Island OSAMP
Belgium North Sea Maryland - Chesapeake
Shetland Isles California Marine Life
Canada ESSIM and Cons P
Beaufort Sea Hawaii ORMP

17. 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

18. 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

19. These are not new problems
Difficult citizen
engagement
Vague objectives
Difficult conflict
resolution
Unclear
Mandates

20. 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

21. 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

22. 

A PLACE FOR EVERYTHING
AND
EVERYYTHING IN ITS PLACE
 
 