An international perspective on marine spatial planning initiatives.

Introduction

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is the 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 are usually specified through a political process (Ehler and Douvere 2006). It is increasingly seen as a practical, operational approach to implement rather vague notions of marine ecosystem-based management. At least five countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Norway, and China) and two American states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island), have already developed and implemented spatial plans for their marine jurisdictions. In two cases, Norway and The Netherlands, MSP is already in its second, or even third, generation. Several other countries (Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Poland) and one American state (Oregon) will implement spatial plans for their marine waters over the next several years. Importantly, President Obama has recently signed an executive order (19 July 2010) that forms a National Ocean Council to oversee and facilitate the development and certification of coastal and marine spatial plans for nine regions of the exclusive economic zone of the USA--the world's largest at just over 12 million km2--over the next 3-4 years (The White House 2010). The first regional plans will be completed for certification between 2013-14 (White House Council on Environmental Quality 2010). The United Kingdom, France, and Sweden are also gearing up to implement MSP in their marine waters. Over the next 3-4 years 12 countries will have produced about 60 marine spatial plans at the national (exclusive economic zone or EEZ), sub-national (territorial sea), and state levels. This article reviews the latest developments in three of these countries, the USA, England, and Norway, and summarizes important characteristics of effective MSP. The MSP initiatives in the three major countries have been selected for more detailed description because they have most of the characteristics of effective MSP and are therefore more likely to be successful in the long run.

United States of America 

On 19 July 2010 President Obama signed an executive order directing federal agencies to implement the recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force under the guidance of a National Ocean Council (NOC). The executive order establishes an NOC under the leadership of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the heads of more than 20 federal agencies. The NOC will establish a Governance Coordinating Committee composed of 18 officials from state, tribal, and local governments. The recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force include a national policy for the stewardship of the ocean, coasts and the Great Lakes, and, most importantly, the implementation of integrated, ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning and management. Nine regional marine spatial plans will be developed cooperatively among federal, state, tribal and local governments with substantial stakeholder and public participation (Figure 1). (1) The geographic scope of the planning area for MSP is the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf. It would extend inland to the mean high-water line, and include inland bays and estuaries. Activities that occur beyond the EEZ would be considered in the plans if they potentially affect resources or human activities within the planning areas.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The NOC will work with the states and tribes to create nine regional planning bodies for the development of regional MSP plans. A federal and state person will co-lead each regional planning body. The NOC would prepare guidance for regional planning bodies in meeting these consultative process requirements in order to ensure consistency across regions. Each regional planning body will develop a work plan that will be approved by the NOC before its implementation. The recommendations of the Interagency Policy Task Force identified essential elements that need to be addressed in the regional work plans including: the identification of clear, measurable objectives; engagement of stakeholders throughout the process; consultation with scientists and other technical experts; development of alternative future spatial management scenarios; and implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The NOC would establish national objectives, national outcome-based performance measures, and guidance to promote national consistency in the development and implementation of the marine spatial plans. Regional performance measures developed by the regional planning bodies would be used to track improvements toward stated marine spatial plan objectives.

The regional marine spatial plans will not be regulatory. However, they will guide decision-making, e.g., permitting, and participating agencies would adhere to the final marine spatial plans to the extent possible, consistent with existing authorities. Once a plan is approved, Federal, State, and tribal authorities would implement them through their respective legal authorities.

In addition to the current activities in monitoring, mapping, and management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that could support MSP in the nine regions, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes two specific increases for NOAA to implement MSP:

* $6.8 million for NOAA and its partners to enhance MSP decision-support tools, data integration, and mapping; and

* $20 million for competitive Regional Ocean Partnership Grants that will help support regional MSP and regional governance priority actions.

The President's budget request also includes $4 million for the U.S. Geological Survey to support MSP activities.

United Kingdom (England)

The Marine and Coastal Access Act of 2009 lays out arrangements for a new system of marine management for the United Kingdom, including the introduction of MSP (see DEFRA, online-a). The Act divides UK waters into marine regions with an inshore (0-12 nautical miles) and offshore region (12-200 nauti cal miles) under each of the four devolved Administrations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The new arrangements provide for the creation of a Marine Management Organization (MMO) that started work in April 2010. The MMO is responsible for achieving marine policy objectives for English waters through a series of statutory marine spatial plans and other measures. The cornerstone of the marine planning system in England is the UK-level Marine Policy Statement (MPS) (DEFRA, online-b). The MPS, when completed in 2011, will set out the policies intended to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the marine areas of the United Kingdom. It will provide the framework for preparing marine plans and taking decisions that affect the marine environment.

Marine spatial plans will interpret and present the policies of the MPS at a sub-national level. The Marine and Coastal Access Act requires all public authorities taking, permitting or enforcing decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area to do so in accordance with the MPS and marine plans ''unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise". Where a decision is not taken in accordance with the MPS and marine plans the public authority must state its reasons.

Ten regional marine spatial plans will be developed by the MMO covering the English marine area (DEFRA online-c) (Figure 2). The plans will extend inland up to the level of mean high water spring tides.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Marine spatial plans must conform to the MPS and should ensure a strong link between national policy and regional application. The UK government is working with the "Devolved Administrations" to ensure that MSP operates smoothly and consistently across the administrative boundaries among England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In addition, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive of the EU requires consideration as to whether marine spatial plans may have a "significant effect" on the environment of other European Union (EU) Member States (of the seven states whose marine areas border English waters, all but Norway are EU Member States), and if so, requires consultation with those states (EU directive 2001).

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) prepared an Impact Assessment (IA) as part of its consultative process. The IA estimates the costs of setting up and running the marine planning system both to government bodies, to industry, and others. The total setting-up costs are estimated to be around [pounds sterling]40m (US$ 60m) and the total running costs are estimated to be around [pounds sterling]1 m (US$ 1.5m) per year. The IA also includes a tentative initial estimate of the economic benefits associated with the planning system of around [pounds sterling]200m (US$ 300m) per year.

The Marine Management Organization will determine the order in which it will develop marine spatial plans for eleven regions. (Two regions--North West Inshore and North West Offshore--are recommended to be prepared together, with one plan for the two regions.) Funds have been provided to develop two plans at one time--each of which will take about two and a half years to complete. MSP has begun in two of the ten regions: the East Inshore and East Offshore areas (Figure 2).

Norway

In April 2006, the Norwegian government launched a White Paper on an integrated management plan for the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea that was adopted by the Norwegian Parliament (the Storting) in 2006 (Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2006). The plan provides a framework for managing all human activities (oil and gas industry, fishing, and shipping) in the area to ensure the continued health, production, and function of the Barents Sea ecosystem. The plan covers 1,400,000 km2--about four times the size of Norway's land area. The plan represents the integration of previously separate management regimes. The management of fisheries, shipping, and the hydrocarbon industry has been brought together under one umbrella to coordinate management efforts and to achieve a healthy ecosystem.

Measurable improvements in all sectors are envisaged by implementing: (a) area-based management to resolve conflicts between activities and protecting the environment; (b) continuation of established management measures regulating the various activities; (c) implementation of environmental quality objectives; and (d) increased focus on international cooperation.

The plan identifies ecologically valuable areas and requires strict regulation of activities in these areas. To reduce conflict between fisheries and shipping, Norway has applied through the International Maritime Organization to move shipping lanes outside Norwegian territorial waters (its 12-mile limit). To avoid future conflict, some areas will be closed to hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. Several new sector-specific, spatial management measures are also considered, including plans for extension of marine protected areas and the use of seasonally closed areas to protect spawning aggregations, fish eggs and larvae, and juvenile fish and shellfish.

A governmental steering group chaired by the Ministry of the Environment, with representatives from other relevant ministries, led the MSP work. The spatial plan was developed between 2002 and 2006. The background assessments were based on scenarios up to the year 2020. Status reports were prepared by governmental institutions or by consultants, covering the state of the marine environment, the coastal zone, fisheries, aquaculture, especially valuable areas, and shipping. The initial reports uncovered major gaps in current knowledge. Therefore, a key principle was to use caution in the face of uncertainty. Determining the boundaries was another important issue, which included considerations of the ecosystem, economics, and politics.

Four extensive government-funded environmental impact assessments (EIAs) were carried out covering the impact of fisheries, shipping, hydrocarbon extraction, and external pressures (e.g., pollution) on the environment, resources, and local communities. To ensure compatibility among the EIAs, a set of common variables was used to compare impacts across sectors. Impacts were assessed in relation to the starting situation (2003) and in relation to expected future impacts up to 2020, with uncertainty obviously increasing over time. The EIA results were brought together and analyzed in more detail, focusing on: (a) the total impact of all human activities combined, both for the current situation and up to 2020; (b) area conflicts among human activities, and between human use and ecologically-valuable areas; (c) the definition of high-level management goals required for implementation; and (d) identification of gaps in current knowledge.

Major revisions to the management plans are scheduled every four years. The management plan for the Barents Sea is currently being revised. A similar management plan was completed for the Norwegian Sea and adopted by the Norwegian Parliament in 2009 (Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2009); a management plan for the Norwegian part of the North Sea will be completed and presented to the Parliament in 2013 (Erik Olsen, pers.com.) (Figure 3). The intent of the management plans is to reinforce and further develop the implementation of an integrated, ecosystem-based management regime for Norwegian sea areas. The Nature Management Act (Proposition No. 52 (20082009) to the Storting) and the new Marine Resources Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2009, are important authorities for this process.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Essential Characteristics of Successful MSP

The recent developments in marine spatial planning in the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway exhibit the characteristics of sound planning. Based on the review of recent developments in the three countries, combined with nearly 40 years of international practice in integrated marine management and five years of reviewing MSP practice world-wide, we have identified the essential characteristics of successful MSP as: participatory, ecosystem-based, integrated, and future-oriented and adaptive, But most importantly, MSP is likely to fail from its inception without clear authority (Ehler and Douvere 2009).

Authority: Success in achieving a multi-objective outcome depends on authority that requires all agencies to comply with the approved marine spatial plan. The authority to conduct MSP should be established before the planning process begins. Such authority may come from existing legislation (Norway), new legislation (United Kingdom), or administrative action (USA) that enables a multiple-objective outcome involving all agencies and stakeholders in an inclusive, transparent process. Most countries have relied on existing legislation; for example both Germany and the Netherlands extended their national land use planning acts into their EEZ in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Australia used its national biodiversity legislation to cover its entire EEZ, and Belgium relied on its existing marine environmental legislation (Douvere et al. 2007). MSP processes and outcomes in these countries are very diverse and have not been limited by the way authority was originally established. In other countries, marine spatial plans are primarily developed through existing institutions and agencies.

Participatory: MSP requires stakeholder involvement in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the plan. Involving key stakeholders in the development of MSP is essential for a number of reasons. Of these, the most important is because MSP aims to achieve multiple objectives (social, economic, and ecological) and should therefore reflect as many expectations, opportunities or conflicts occurring in the MSP area. Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or organizations that are (or will be) affected, involved or interested (positively or negatively) by MSP actions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts successfully engaged the general public and ocean user groups (exclusive of commercial fishers who chose not to participate) in developing its integrated management plan in 2009. In addition to public access through an Ocean Advisory Committee and a Science Advisory Council, the state held 18 public "listening sessions" and conducted over 60 interviews with stakeholder groups that were also used to explore data availability for planning.

Ecosystem-based: Effective MSP should reflect ecosystem patterns and processes at appropriate spatial and temporal scales (Crowder and Norse 2008). Plans need to address fundamental topographic, oceanographic, and ecological conditions enabling identification and protection of the most ecologically and economically valuable places. This is not a simple task, and many plans have not addressed this issue adequately. During the past seven years, Australia (outside of the Great Barrier Reef) has successfully used an ecosystem-based approach to develop marine bioregional plans for its entire EEZ, under its Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. It first used an integrated marine regionalization of all Australian waters to define ecosystem boundaries for five large marine regions (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). Marine planners recently have completed marine bioregional profiles, containing information on biophysical and economic characteristics, key ecological features, and protected species and places. Complete marine bioregional plans will be available in 2012.

Integrated: MSP addresses multiple objectives and integrates a wide range of uses and issues. Ideally, a marine spatial plan should include every economic sector and environmental concern in the region. But some countries have been more successful than others in meeting this challenge. In Norway's Barents Sea plan, all key economic activities - oil and gas development, fisheries, and marine transport - have been integrated with nature conservation objectives (Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2006). One of the driving issues was the proposed expansion of oil and gas extraction into areas critical to seabirds, polar bears, whales, and fisheries. Based on the plan, human activities will be managed carefully, e.g., by moving shipping lanes, limiting trawling in sensitive areas, closing some particularly valuable areas to oil and gas exploration, and extending marine protected areas and fishery closure areas to protect key life history stages of important species or critical ecological processes (Olsen et al. 2007). The spatial plan for the Barents Sea successfully integrated previously separate regimes for fishing, shipping, oil and gas development, and marine protected area management.

Marine spatial plans require consistency across state, federal-state, and international boundaries. This is rarely considered because the timing of MSP development is often out of phase across borders. In the U.S., Massachusetts and Rhode Island have developed integrated marine plans without initial consultation across their adjoining marine borders. In Europe, Belgium and The Netherlands developed their initial marine spatial plans without transnational consultation. The guiding principle from Germany's 2004 Federal legislation is development that meets social and economic demands consistent with sustainable ecological functions. But authority for MSP in the German territorial sea (012 nmi) lies with the three coastal states, each of which have developed spatial plans for their waters in the Baltic and North Seas; Federal planning must be consistent with these plans. Germany has also consulted with its neighboring countries, Poland and The Netherlands. Informal consultations across jurisdictions will ensure consistency of marine spatial plans across their shared seas. Considering and consulting neighbouring countries early on in the MSP process will help avoid future problems. Key issues that have emerged include compatibility between shipping and other uses, primarily wind energy, and consistency among the national plans for nature conservation.

Future-Oriented and Adaptive: MSP is most useful as a dynamic process and should focus on the future, not simply document the present. Unfortunately, few marine spatial plans have identified and evaluated alternative scenarios or visions for the future. One example exists in The Netherlands which completed its initial marine spatial plan for its North Sea EEZ in 2005. Planners, in consultation with stakeholders, developed "opportunity maps" for marine activities that were expected to grow most strongly and require specific locations - wind farms, sand and gravel extraction, and nature conservation. As part of a review of the initial plan conducted in 2008, expert working groups reviewed different scenarios for the future and evaluated possible conflicts and opportunities. Finally, planners prepared revised plans, including sustainable economic development and a network of marine protected areas.

These revised plans are now integral to the new Dutch Water Plan whose goal is creating a safe, healthy, and productive ocean. To achieve this goal, the government prepared three alternative spatial sea use scenarios. For each human activity, planners estimated expected economic development through 2015 and the necessary spatial requirements. For some longer-term investments, planners considered spatial requirements beyond 2015. These analyses also included an economic valuation (both direct and indirect) for each activity in relation to its demand for ocean space. Finally, based on this process, the government developed three future spatial sea use scenarios (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2008a).

Recently The Netherlands considered the problem of protecting its low-lying coastline against the effects of climate change. Government planners prepared alternative sea level rise (SLR) scenarios and integrated SLR into the plan by choosing to protect the coast through beach nourishment. This scenario required additional allocation of ocean space for sand extraction, which now has priority over other uses in this area (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2008b).

Conclusion

The recent developments in marine spatial planning in the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway -combined with other experience around the world - provides practical lessons for how to undertake MSP. Clear authority is needed before starting any MSP process -without authority, marine spatial plans will be ineffective. All sectors, including fisheries and oil and gas development, should be fully integrated in the MSP process. Allowing any important sector to opt out of the planning process will lead to problems when ocean space has been allocated and the excluded (or uninvolved) sector is not operating in the context of the approved spatial plan. MSP is dynamic and should focus on the future, not simply document present conditions. Profound and unforeseen changes are inevitable in both marine ecosystems and marine industries. Therefore plans must be adaptive as these changes could significantly alter where, when, and how we use the ocean in the future. Finally, MSP should acknowledge trans-boundary issues across ecosystems (terrestrial, coastal, and marine) and across political and administrative boundaries (states, national, and international). Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of recent developments in marine spatial planning in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway, along with other countries implementing marine plans, will help confirm the ultimate effectiveness of these key characteristics of successful marine planning systems. The evidence to date clearly provides important lessons from these international experiences to guide nations as they move to implement MSP in their own waters.

References

Commonwealth of Australia. 2006. A Guide to the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia, Version 4.0. Canberra, Australia: Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Crowder, L. and E. Norse. 2008. Essential Ecological Insights for Marine Ecosystem-based Management and Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy 32(5): 772-778.

Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). online-a. Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legislation/mcaa/index.htm [Accessed on December 14, 2010].

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). online-b. Marine Policy Statement. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legislation/mps-qa.htm [Accessed on December 14, 2010].

Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). online-c. Recommended Marine Plan Areas for the English Inshore and English Offshore Marine Regions. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marine-plan/ marine-plan-recommended-areas.pdf [Accessed on December 14, 2010].

Douvere, F., F. Maes, A. Vanhulle and J. Schrijvers. 2007. The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Sea Use Management: The Belgian case. Marine Policy 31(2).

Ehler, C. and F. Douvere. 2006. Visions for a Sea Change. Paris, France: UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

Ehler, C. and F. Douvere. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Paris, France: UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

European Union Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (SEA Directive).

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. 2008a. Verkenning van economische en ruimtelijke op de Noordzee (Exploration of economic and spatial developments in the North Sea). Den Haag, The Netherlands (Dutch only).

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. 2008b. Pre-policy Document on the North Sea. Den Haag, The Netherlands.

Olsen, E. Institute for Marine Research, Norway. Personal Communication, 10 September 2010.

Olsen, E., H. Gjosaeter, I. Rottingen, A. Dommasnes, P. Fossum and P. Sandberg. 2007. The Norwegian Ecosystem-based Management Plan for the Barents Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 64(599).

Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. 2009. Report No. 37 (2008-2009) to the Storting. Integrated Management Plan of the Marine Environment of the Norwegian Sea.

Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. 2006. Report No. 8 to the Storting (2005-2006). Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands.

The White House. 2010. Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. 19 July Executive Order. Washington, D.C.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President of the United States. 2010. Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, D.C.

(1) The nine planning areas are the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Great Lakes, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, Pacific Islands, and Alaska/Arctic.

Charles Ehler is the President of Ocean Visions and a marine spatial planning consultant to UNESCO's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) in Paris, France. Before moving to Paris in 2005 he was a senior executive at the U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 32 years. He previously taught regional planning and environmental management at the University of Michigan, University of California, Los Angeles, and the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Fanny Douvere is the Coordinator of UNESCO's World Heritage Marine Programme in Paris, France. From 2005-09 she was the co-coordinator of IOC's marine spatial planning initiative and co-author of UNESCO's influential guide, Marine Spatial Planning, a Step by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem based Management, published in 2009. She completed her PhD in marine spatial planning at the University of Ghent (Belgium) in May 2010.