Wesley Flannery

Deriving Lessons Relating to Marine Spatial Planning from Canada's Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Initiative

Stakeholder participation is viewed as a key element of ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP). There is much debate over the effectiveness of stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based management (EBM) in general and over the form it should take. Particular challenges relating to participation in the marine environment are highlighted. A study of the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management initiative, which uses a collaborative planning model to implement EBM, is presented in order to explore these issues further. Criteria derived from a review of collaborative planning literature are employed to evaluate the effectiveness of this model, which is found to be a useful consensus-building tool. Although a strategic-level plan has been adopted, the initiative has encountered difficulties transitioning from plan development to plan implementation. These are attributable in large measure to deficiencies in the design of the collaborative model. Useful lessons relating mainly to stakeholder engagement, the role of the lead agency, and implementation strategies are advanced for those engaging in MSP processes.

Stakeholder Participation in Marine Spatial Planning: Lessons from the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Stakeholder participation is advanced as a key element of marine spatial planning (MSP) by the U.S. Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. It provides little guidance, however, regarding stakeholder participation. We argue that much can be learned from existing ecosystem-based marine management initiatives. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, which utilizes an advisory council to facilitate stakeholder participation, is evaluated in this article with a view to identifying key lessons for new MSP initiatives. A set of criteria, derived from collaborative planning theory, is employed to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach. The advisory council meets some criteria for effective stakeholder participation but is found to be lacking in key elements, including shared purpose and interdependency. Benefits associated with stakeholder participation are constrained accordingly. Deficiencies in the design of the council and its decision-making procedures, requiring attention in order to facilitate more effective stakeholder participation in new MSP initiatives, are highlighted.

Preparing The Ground For Marine Spatial Planning In Ireland

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is advocated as a means of managing human uses of the sea in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of the ecological goods and services of the marine environment. The adoption of a system of MSP is seen as urgent in the face of ever-increasing demands on marine resources. This is particularly so in Ireland with its extensive seas, belatedly being recognised as a significant development resource. MSP is promoted by the European Commission (EC) in a recent Green Paper to which Member States of the Union, including Ireland, generally have responded positively. Arising from this consultative process, the EC has published the ‘Blue Book’ that commits support for MSP. It has also issued guidelines for an integrated approach to maritime policy. The recently adopted EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive strengthens the case for implementing MSP as it requires each Member State to develop a strategy for its marine resources. There is evidence that a diverse range of stakeholders at national and local levels in Ireland are positively disposed toward MSP but no practical manifestation of the concept is in place, though some preparatory work is

Marine spatial planning: Cui bono?

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has rapidly become the most commonly endorsed management regime for sustainable development in the marine environment. MSP is advocated as a means of managing human uses of the sea in a sustainable manner, in the face of ever-increasing demands on marine resources. While MSP is quickly becoming the dominant marine management paradigm, there has been comparatively little assessment of the potential negative impacts and possible distributive impacts that may arise from its adoption. This should be a key challenge for both academic and practitioner communities and therefore offers a fruitful topic for Interface. In the contributions that follow, we hear from a range of voices and perspectives on these important themes. The lead paper (Ellis and Flannery, pp. 122–128) argues for a broader, more critical, understanding of the social and distributive impacts of MSP, advocating a radical turn in MSP away from a rationalism of science and neoliberal logic towards more equity-based, democratic decision-making and a fairer distribution of our ocean wealth. Then, eight responses follow, from academics, planners, policymakers and industry representatives around the world. The first two come from academics, Nursey-Bray and van Tatenhove, (pp. 129–135) who each broadly endorse the core arguments of the lead paper and advocate for a radical MSP. Nursey-Bray suggests this requires rethinking MSP as a process of cultural co-existence rather than as a tool for managing multiple uses. Van Tatenhove argues that this would involve highlighting the power dynamics involved, the interplay of structure and agency in MSP processes and how this affects the quality of planning. The next three responses offer insights from marine planners and managers. Kelly (pp. 135–138), reflecting on her experience as a marine planner in the Shetland Islands, argues that while a call for a radical MSP is well-timed, it is overly pessimistic of current practice because negative impacts can be overcome by ensuring broad stakeholder consultation and adopting flexible planning processes. Coffen-Smout (pp. 138–140, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but writing here in a personal capacity) argues that a radical approach is politically unfeasible as it requires an overhaul of marine resource management regimes. Instead, he suggests that advancing more effective MSP is best achieved within current frameworks and uses ocean governance in Canada to illustrate. Fairgrieve (pp. 140–143, Marine Scotland, but also offering some personal reflections), argues that while MSP may be imperfect, it is the best possible solution for addressing the complex governance of marine