Download REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP

REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE
SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP):
A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION PAPER
1-2 JUNE 2011, HALIFAX, CANADA
1
Table of Contents
1
1 Background ..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 A Technical Learning Session...............................................................................................1
1.2 Instruments and Operational Aspects of MSP......................................................................1
1.3 Limits of the Workshop.........................................................................................................2
1.4 Anticipated Outcomes...........................................................................................................3
2 Relevant Definitions.....................................................................................................................3
2.1 Ecosystem-Based Approach..................................................................................................3
2.2 Integrated Management vs. MSP vs. Ocean Zoning.............................................................3
3 Status of MSP development in Canada, The US and Europe.......................................................5
3.1 MSP in Canada......................................................................................................................5
3.2 The US Approach Towards MSP..........................................................................................6
3.3 Experience with MSP in Europe...........................................................................................7
4 MSP Tools.....................................................................................................................................9
4.1 Assessment of Human Activities and Mapping....................................................................9
4.2 Measuring Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................9
4.3 Risk Analysis.......................................................................................................................10
4.4 Challenges of Data Collection............................................................................................10
5 Linkages Between MSP and Marine Conservation Planning.....................................................11
5.1 Marine Protected Areas as Part of MSP..............................................................................11
6 The role of MSP in Planning and Facilitating Sustainable Economic Development.................12
6.1 MSP Creates a Framework for Sustainable Economic Development.................................12
7 Outlook.......................................................................................................................................13
i
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
1
BACKGROUND
As a follow-up to the Ottawa Oceans Summit
on marine spatial planning (MSP) in June
2010, the main objective of this regional
workshop is to provide a technical learning
session for government staff, industry and
stakeholders about the practical utility of developing and implementing MSP in the Maritimes Region.
1.1
A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
The workshop will largely focus on instruments that can be used for MSP implementation.
Objectives of the workshop are:
1. To analyze the assessment of the region regarding existing and predictable
future human activities at sea;
2. To learn from “MSP in practice” examples, for instance in Massachusetts and
Rhode Island;
3. To discuss the importance of MSP for
economic development-related decision
making in the region, e.g. with regard to
renewable offshore energy, pipelines and
cables, and other use interactions;
4. To elaborate on the linkages between
marine conservation planning and MSP.
The workshop will bring together experts
that have been involved in marine spatial
planning processes to share their expertise
and knowledge. Additionally, the workshop
will explore the main characteristics needed
for an MSP process from an economic point
of view in order to aid the responsible and
sustainable development of marine regions in
line with healthy ecosystems.
1.2 INSTRUMENTS AND OPERATIONAL
ASPECTS OF MSP
The workshop offers a learning opportunity
for all stakeholders with regard to the instruments that can be used within an MSP process and its operational aspects.
This means that individual workshop sessions have been developed that are dedicated
to specific instruments for MSP. The tools
that will be tackled during the workshop are
further described in section 4 below.
The workshop does not intend to provide
“ready to use” solutions, nor does it seek to
develop concrete strategies or measures that
will be implemented in the Maritimes Region.
Rather, the workshop aims at increasing the
knowledge level about the process of MSP, its
different stages and tools, and elaborating
how cross-sectoral decision-making based on
sound integrated process can work in practice.
Against this background, it is also important
to acknowledge the direct link between this
workshop and the existing framework of
Canada’s ocean policy.
In January 1997, the Government of Canada
brought the Oceans Act into force. The Oceans
Act calls for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to “lead and facilitate the development and implementation of a national
strategy for the management of estuarine,
coastal and marine ecosystems [...].”1 The
Minister is also called to develop and implement related policies and programs2 and to
“encourage activities necessary to foster the
understanding, management and sustainable
Oceans Act, Part II, Oceans Management Strategy,
paragraph 29
2
Cf. Oceans Act, Part II, Oceans Management Strategy,
paragraph 32
1
1
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
development of oceans and marine resources.”3
In 2002, the Government of Canada adopted
Canada’s Oceans Strategy which responds to
the Oceans Act requirement to develop a national ocean management strategy. The
strategy “seeks to implement a program of
Integrated Management planning to engage
partners in the planning and managing of
ocean activities. [...].” Integrated management establishes decision-making structures
that consider both the conservation and protection of ecosystems, while at the same time
providing opportunities for creating wealth
in oceans-related economies and communities.
While the Act lays the more general foundation for integrated policy making across government departments, the Strategy provides
more explicit guidance for integrated planning and management of the oceans, their
natural resources and ecosystems.
The Oceans Act and Canada’s Oceans Strategy
provide a framework for the development
and implementation of MSP in Canadian waters.
However, despite the designation of five
Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs)
under the Oceans Act in Canada and the development of two Integrated Management
Plans (IMPs) for the Eastern Scotian Shelf
(ESSIM) and the Beaufort Sea, a comprehensive approach to MSP has not been used in
Canada so far.
1.3
LIMITS OF THE WORKSHOP
MSP can be described as a circular process.
Figure 1 gives an overview of the different
stages of a comprehensive MSP process.
Oceans Act, Part III, Powers, Duties and Functions of
the Minister, paragraph 40
3
2
Figure 1: MSP Cycle
Source: PlanCoast Handbook on IMSP, www.plancoast.eu
In addition to the tools that are used throughout this process – e.g., assessing human activities and the environmental status of a given
sea area, measuring cumulative effects of human activities on an ecosystem, or risk analysis of certain developments – other factors
also exist that determine the design and success of MSP.
Among those factors are: a clear political will
and mandate to embark on MSP; an authority or government department has been
clearly identified and assigned to take the
lead on MSP development and implementation; the issue of accountability for the MSP
process and resulting consequences has been
clarified; the legal status of the outcomes of
an MSP process has been decided upon (i.e.,
legally binding or guidance for government
decision-making and policy design); and specific legislation is deemed to be necessary to
enforce MSP results.
Although the above-mentioned factors are
extremely important, this workshop does not
aim to cover all of them.
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
Rather than tackling all stages of an MSP process and thus being only able to scratch the
surface for each of these steps, it has been decided to focus on the instruments and technical practicalities of MSP.
This is not only to allow for a more in-depth
discussion, but also to focus on implementation needs for the Maritimes Region where
efforts are now underway to advance spatial
and temporal approaches to achieve ocean
management objectives.
This offers excellent opportunities to build
upon existing data regarding human activities at sea, as well as developed mapping and
GIS material. Similarly, coastal planning and
risk analysis work in the Northumberland
Strait portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and
multi-stakeholder resource planning efforts
in the Southwest New Brunswick portion of
the Bay of Fundy have considered MSP as
part of the approach to achieve management
objectives.
1.4
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
As mentioned above, the workshop is not
aiming to determine the design and concrete
use of MSP in the Maritimes Region.
However, the learning opportunity that the
workshop provides will help to raise awareness about MSP, how the process can potentially be used in the framework of Canada’s
oceans policy and how its implementation
could look in practice at a regional level.
Additionally, the learning experience may
have some policy influence at both provincial
and national government levels.
The workshop could kick-start a series of further initiatives or workshops that would aim
to continue the debate about the different
stages of a comprehensive MSP process and
what aspects and information have to be considered for practical implementation.
The workshop results will be captured by a
key messages report that will be distributed
amongst workshop participants.
2 RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
2.1
ECOSYSTEM-BASED APPROACH
Ecosystem-based management is the underpinning principle of MSP. In other words,
ecosystem-based management provides the
overarching framework within which MSP
can be used to influence where and when human activities occur in marine spaces.
Thereby, ecosystem-based management is an
integrated approach to management that
considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. “The goal of ecosystem-based management is to maintain an ecosystem in a
healthy, productive and resilient condition so
that it can provide the goods and services humans want and need.”4
Ecosystem-based management considers the
cumulative impacts of different sectors and
human activities on a specific ecosystem and
emphasizes the protection of ecosystem
structure, functioning, and key processes.5
2.2 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT VS.
MSP VS. OCEAN ZONING
During the past decade, it has become common knowledge that the goods and services
provided by marine ecosystems are seriously
compromised. This knowledge has led to a
shift in marine science towards more solution-driven research. It has also moved marine policy from management of individual
sectoral activities to integrated, ecosystembased management.6
Ehler et al. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. page 24
5
cf. Ehler et al. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step
approach toward ecosystem-based management. page
24
4
3
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
Integrated management (IM), also referred to
as sea use management, is a central principle
of Canada’s Oceans Act. It is strategic and forward-looking by nature, and a commitment
to planning and managing human activities
in a comprehensive manner while considering all measures necessary for the conservation, protection and sustainable use of ocean
resources and the shared use of ocean areas.7
DFO defines IM as: “A continuous process
through which decisions are made for the
sustainable use, development, and protection
of areas and resources. IM acknowledges the
interrelationships that exist among different
uses and the environments they potentially
affect. It is designed to overcome the
fragmentation inherent in a sectoral management approach, analyzes the implications of
development, conflicting uses and promotes
linkages and harmonization among various
activities.”8
The IM planning process as described in the
Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated
Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine
Environments in Canada involves six inter-related stages:
•
defining and assessing a management
area;
•
•
engaging affected interests;
•
endorsement of plan by decision
making authorities;
•
•
developing an Integrated
Management plan;
implementing the plan; and
monitoring and evaluating outcomes.
Cf. Crowder, L., Norse, E., Essential ecological insights
for marine ecosystem-based management and marine
spatial planning, page 772
7
Cf. http://policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?
pagenm=2010-0045_06, visited June 30, 2010
6
http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/cosframeworkcadresoc/page07-eng.asp
8
4
To date, Canada’s IM policy has mainly delivered on the first three steps. Five LOMAs
have been identified and IM plans have been
developed for two of these areas: ESSIM and
the Beaufort Sea.
The areas have been intensively assessed, human activities have been mapped and all
concerned stakeholders have been involved
in the process. The vision, goals, guiding
principles and approaches of these plans,
however, remain at a very general, strategic
level and provide little guidance for concrete
implementation.
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.”9
Hence, MSP is not a policy onto itself but a
policy tool that is embedded in IM. Through
the process of MSP, ocean space can be “analyzed and allocated in a way that minimizes
conflicts among human activities, as well as
conflicts between human activities and
nature, and, where possible, maximizes compatibilities among sectors.”10
MSP offers the means to advance Canada’s
IM policy and program, and deliver on the
remaining steps described in the Policy and
Operational Framework, namely the implementation of the IM plans and the monitoring and evaluation of outcomes.
MSP does not require user-user or user-environment conflicts to justify its implementation.
Rather, it provides a framework to develop
appropriate management strategies to prevent conflicts both at present and in the future, and manage the cumulative impacts of
human activities on the marine environment.
Ehler et al. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. page 18
10
Ehler et al. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step
approach toward ecosystem-based management. page
24
9
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
MSP thus assists in the maintenance and protection of marine ecosystem integrity.
The strongest element that distinguishes MSP
from IM is its spatial dimension in that it utilizes existing knowledge and data (gathered
through the IM processes) about the marine
ecosystem and human activities at sea and
applies it to concrete spatial and temporal
management planning for marine space.
Ocean zoning “is a set of regulatory measures
used to implement marine spatial plans akin to land-use plans - that specify allowable uses in all areas of the target
ecosystem(s). Different zones accommodate
different uses, or different levels of use. [...]
All zoning plans are portrayed on maps,
since the regulations are always areabased.”11
It is important to recognize that MSP is not
equal to zoning. Zoning is only one tool that
can be used within the MSP process, beside
other regulatory measures, such as criteria
setting, identification of thresholds, and the
use of planning targets and principles.
3 STATUS OF MSP DEVELOPMENT IN CANADA, THE US
AND EUROPE
Generally, two main reasons can be identified
that led internationally to the application of
MSP: economic development, particularly
with regard to new marine uses like offshore
wind and renewable energy, and marine conservation and protection, mainly through environmental law or commitments to environmental conventions that required establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
3.1
MSP IN CANADA
The Oceans Act, Canada’s Oceans Strategy, and
the Policy and Operational Framework for Integ11
Agardy. Ocean Zoning. page 6
rated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and
Marine Environments in Canada provide the
policy framework and guide Canada’s approach to oceans management.
As mentioned above, the approach is
centered on the principle of Integrated Management (IM), which seeks to establish decision-making structures that consider both
the conservation and protection of ecosystems, while at the same time providing opportunities for creating wealth in oceans-related economies and communities.
IM efforts in Canada are being undertaken
through an area-based approach that supports marine planning, management and decision making at appropriate spatial scales,
from regional to site-specific. It also promotes
an ecosystem approach to management, with
consideration of various interactions among
human activities, and between those activities and the marine environment.
IM in Canada is implemented through a regional approach. Therefore, it is important to
determine the key social, technical, legislative/policy and political challenges to advancing spatial and temporal planning at a regional level. Additionally, constraints have to
be identified that could affect the modeling of
future scenarios of human use in a given region. Knowledge about these factors would
aid the development of large-scale marine
spatial plans that could include area-based
regulations and zoning.
It could also be relevant to analyze spatial
products and services that have already been
produced at a regional level in order to learn
from gained experience and identify room for
improvement.
Five priority planning areas, termed Large
Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs), have
been identified for the initial development of
IM plans. The Eastern Scotian Shelf is one of
the five priority areas.
The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) process is an offshore-focused
5
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
effort to develop and implement an integrated ocean management plan for a large portion of the Scotian Shelf, off Nova Scotia.
Although the longer term aim is to expand
the integrated management process to cover
the full Scotian Shelf, as well as Canadian
portions of the Gulf of Maine and Bay of
Fundy, the current planning area focuses on
the Eastern Scotian Shelf. Work is also underway to link with coastal management processes in Nova Scotia.
One of the key aims of the ESSIM plan is to
provide guidance for a sustainable and practical balance of ocean use. To facilitate this,
the process brings together ocean users,
ocean interests and regulators to work toward achieving shared objectives for a large
marine space. A comparison of the objectives
for the ESSIM plan and the principles and
practices that have emerged from marine
spatial planning efforts around the world
suggests that a significant component of plan
implementation can be advanced through
marine spatial planning.
The ESSIM plan recognizes that marine spatial planning provides a useful toolkit for
managing the demands on ocean space and
marine ecosystems. It can help improve decision making, providing clarity and certainty about what activities are suitable in
particular areas, and what areas need to be
managed more carefully or protected. A
number of the management objectives contained in the ESSIM plan can be addressed
through spatial and temporal planning and
management approaches, particularly those
related to reducing use conflicts and the conservation of biodiversity or habitat.
For a full discussion on the application of
MSP approaches on the Scotian Shelf, see
the background reference document for this
workshop by T. Hall et al. “Advancing objectives-based, integrated ocean management through marine spatial planning: current and future directions on the Scotian
Shelf off Nova Scotia, Canada.”
6
3.2
THE US APPROACH TOWARDS MSP
In the United States, coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) is defined as a “comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystembased, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing
current and anticipated uses of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes areas.”
In July 2010, US President Obama signed Executive Order 13547, establishing a national
ocean policy using coastal and marine spatial
planning (CMSP) as a tool to achieve ecosystem-based management of the United States
Great Lakes, coasts, and ocean with the goals
of ecosystem health and sustainable economic development.
CMSP identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to
reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses,
and preserve critical ecosystem services to
meet economic, environmental, security, and
social objectives.
In practical terms, CMSP provides a public
policy process for society to better determine
how the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are
sustainably used and protected - now and for
future generations.
The US is intending to implement CMSP
through a regional approach in accordance
with the variability of US marine areas. Given the likely involvement of existing regional
governance structures in developing CMS
Plans, large marine ecosystems (“LMEs”
which are similar to the LOMAs in Canada)
have been created to provide a consistent
planning scale.
The Executive Order also established a National Ocean Council (NOC) to oversee adoption of regional coastal and marine spatial
plans. For this purpose, the US will be subdivided into nine regional planning areas
based on LMEs to ensure enclosure of the entire EEZ and continental shelf area, and to allow incorporation of existing state or regional
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
ocean governance bodies. These nine regions
are: Alaska /Arctic, Caribbean, Great Lakes,
Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Atlantic, and the West
Coast.
The NOC is comprised of federal agencies
with authority over coastal and ocean issues.
In November 2010, the NOC met for the first
time, setting in motion a five-year timeline
during which all nine regions are expected to
complete CMS plans.
The NOC will work together with states and
federally-recognized tribes to create regional
planning bodies, coinciding with the regional areas.
Each regional planning body is requested to
ensure representation from all states within a
regional area. Due to interrelations between
activities taking place outside the planning
area and CMSP decisions inside the area, ex
officio membership on regional planning bodies can be extended to neighboring states to
aid integration and planning consistency.
Prior to the signature of the Executive Order,
several States took the lead in embarking on
integrated ocean management processes, in
particular Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Both States have developed and adopted integrated ocean management plans: the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (December 31, 2009) and the Rhode Island Ocean
Special Area Management Plan (Ocean
SAMP, October 19, 2010).
Both plans comprise broad sets of strategic
goals and objectives. The planning for offshore wind energy development and the designation of appropriate sites for such a development can be considered as one of the major
drivers for the development of both plans.
However, ecosystem-based management is
considered the overarching guiding objective
for the development and implementation of
both ocean management plans.
Extensive scientific research was undertaken
and data collected to support the develop-
ment of the marine plans in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, including bathymetry, climate related issues such as extreme
storms and wave heights, data related to
marine habitats and species, etc.
Besides Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
Florida established marine zoning for the
management of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary. As the objectives of this
management are foremost to protect biological diversity, to reduce user conflicts, and to
lessen the concentrated impact to marine organisms in heavily used areas, zoning is used
as a management tool to focus on small portions of the Sanctuary. Broader, un-zoned
portions are managed by set ecosystem criteria addressing topics such as water quality
or habitat degradation.
Different zone types have been established
where each is designed to reduce resource
damage and threats to environmental quality,
while allowing uses that are compatible with
resource protection. The Sanctuary’s zoning
program is regularly evaluated by updating
the management plan on a five-year time
frame. This appraisal process is accompanied
by a variety of research activities and might
lead to modifications or even elimination of
zones.12
3.3
EXPERIENCE WITH MSP IN EUROPE
The driving forces behind recent examples of
MSP implementation in Europe (Belgium,
The Netherlands, and Germany) are foremost the licensing requests for offshore wind
development and other marine uses in combination with the requirement (in accordance
with European Union Environmental Law) to
designate Marine Protected Areas within the
so-called Natura 2000 network. All MSP approaches are relatively young and have been
developed between the early 2000s and
today.
For further information please visit
http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/resource_protection/welc
ome.html#zoning
12
7
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
Norway has developed two integrated regional management plans thus far: (a) the
Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea
and the Lofoten Area (2006) and the Integrated
Management Plan for the Marine Environment
of the Norwegian Sea (2009). These management plans clarify the overall framework for
both existing and new activities, and seek to
facilitate the co-existence of different industries, particularly the fisheries industry, maritime transport and the petroleum industry.
The triggers behind MSP in Norway were the
high ecological values in Norwegian waters
and the need to secure continued value creation based on the resources of the sea areas
in question whilst protecting the marine environment.
Portugal is currently developing MSP for all
its waters, distinguishing (in relation to different challenges, demands and needs)
between the sea area off the main coast of
Portugal and the areas around the Azores
and Madeira. The overall objective of Portuguese MSP is to manage the present and
future uses and activities of marine space in
close integration with coastal zone management. Main triggers for Portugal’s activities
in MSP were the adoption of the Integrated
EU Maritime Policy, as well as the general interest to maintain control over Portugal’s
marine and coastal development and the
country’s proposal for the extension of the
continental shelf.
So far, only German spatial plans have legally binding status, i.e. they are binding for
everybody. All other countries have decided
to use MSP as a guiding tool. The plans have
been agreed upon and signed by all relevant
government departments and are used to
steer government decision- and policy-making.
The UK and Sweden have adopted national
legislation for the management of marine resources. The related acts in both countries
foresee the integrated planning of all waters
8
under national jurisdiction, but marine spatial plans have not yet been established.
More concretely the UK Marine and Coastal
Access Act received Royal Assent in November
2009. It provides the framework for the development of a strategic marine planning system that
clarifies marine objectives and priorities for the
future, and directs decision makers and users towards more efficient, sustainable use and protection of resources. It is intended to create a series
of marine spatial plans. The plans have yet to be
established.
The Act also creates streamlined licensing and
decision-making processes. A new authority – the
Marine Management Organization (MMO) has
been established that will be responsible for the
issuing of the majority of marine licenses. It is
intended to simplify the license application
procedure for operators.
Sweden has adopted the Government Bill
2008/09:170 A coherent Swedish Maritime
Policy. The Bill is seen as the starting point for
the Government’s cohesive approach to marine
issues. Sweden has also launched an inquiry to
create a new agency for marine and water
environment issues. Responsibilities will be
shifted mainly from the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, the Swedish Board of
Fisheries and the five Swedish Water Authorities.
It is envisaged to use MSP for the implementation
o f t h e S w e d i s h m a r i t i m e p o l i c y. T h e
responsibility for planning will probably be
shared by the Swedish state and the
municipalities. A government agency will be
given responsibility for planning in the EEZ and
an inquiry has been appointed to propose
legislation for this planning.
4 MSP TOOLS
MSP is a neutral instrument for improved decision-making, providing a framework for arbitrating between human activities at sea and
for managing their impact on the marine en-
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
vironment. Its objective is to balance sectoral
interests, achieve sustainable use of marine
resources and optimize the use of marine
space. In order to do so, the best available
knowledge has to be used to inform the planning process and the subsequent management decisions. Different tools can be used to
support the process.
4.1 ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND MAPPING
Maps are a common language: they are understandable for any stakeholder concerned
by and involved in ocean management. The
assessment of human activities in a given sea
area and mapping of these are essential tools
to reduce the complexity of marine ecosystems by showing interactions, delineating
areas of certain potential or specific characteristics, and making complex data easily accessible.
The assessment of the status of an ocean area
and mapping play an essential role for stakeholder engagement. International experience
illustrates that it is often not until maps are
presented that industries, local communities
or fishermen are buying-in and contributing
to the MSP process. Maps make information
tangible and provide a platform for people
with local knowledge to engage and correct
information where necessary.
There are at least three different types of information that should be mapped by an MSP
process:
(a) Biophysical conditions. Assessing
and mapping these conditions identifies
distinctive assemblages or communities
of marine organisms, such as kelp forests,
coral reefs, or shellfish beds.
(b) Human uses. Mapping socio-economic data and information identifies the spatial distribution of marine uses like fishing, aquaculture, shipping or oil and gas
exploitation, new uses like offshore renewable energy sites, as well as recre-
ational uses like boating, scuba diving or
whale watching.
(c) Political and legal arrangements. Jurisdictional overlays would help to delineate areas covered by existing management arrangements such as fisheries closures, military zones, national marine reserves, etc.
Taken together in integrated maps, these biophysical, socio-economic and jurisdictional
overlays can produce meaningful operational
use scenarios of places suitable for certain
uses or sensitive to particular activities. Resulting maps provide an appropriate tool on
which decision making and informed planning processes can be based.
4.2 MEASURING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Marine ecologists and oceanographers have
been actively developing new techniques to
understand the spatial and temporal dynamics and interlinkages of the marine environment.
As described above, MSP is embedded in IM
and underpinned by the principles of ecosystem-based management. This differs from
traditional approaches that usually focus on a
single species, sector, activity or concern. Instead, ecosystem-based management considers the cumulative impacts of different
sectors and activities.
Sound MSP has to be based on cumulative
impacts and effects of human activities at sea.
First attempts notwithstanding, methodologies to measure cumulative effects are not yet
in place, both regarding the occurrence of human activities and their differing intensity.
Cumulative effects assessment approaches
are also lacking in legally required procedures such as environmental impact assessments.
The consideration of cumulative impacts suffers from science and knowledge gaps, as
9
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
well as from lacking institutionalization
within the IM process.
The impact of any kind of human activity on
the marine ecosystem depends on:
•
What it affects (species, communities,
habitats);
•
•
•
Its intensity;
Its spatial and temporal frequency;
The resistance of the ecosystem to the
activity; and
•
The recovery time of the ecosystem.
Within the ongoing IM process at the Pacific
North Coast LOMA (PNCIMA) first attempts
have been undertaken to map and quantify
cumulative impacts on the ecosystem.
The methods that are used incorporate:
1. The assembling of spatial information
on use and intensity;
2. The identification of key stressors resulting from these activities;
3. The determination of the distance to
which individual activities have an impact from their point of occurrence (zone
of influence);
that translates the relative impact of different activities on different habitats;
DFO is also developing an ecological riskbased approach to coastal management in the
Northumberland Strait portion of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence.
5. The modeling of a spatially explicit
4.4
4. The application of a sensitivity score
impact score for each activity-habitat
combination; and
6. The calculation of the cumulative impact of activities, i.e. the additive impacts
of all activities over the different habitats.
Within the Maritimes Region, DFO is embarking on a similar process to advance spatial planning and decision support.
4.3
RISK ANALYSIS
Risk is about understanding the likelihood of
an occurrence and degree of impact. Under10
standing and controlling both these dimensions through meaningful risk assessment is
critical. Therefore, risk assessment and analysis can be an important tool in the framework of MSP development and implementation.
Under DFO’s Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fisheries on Sensitive Benthic Areas,
DFO will conduct a risk analysis using a proposed Ecological Risk Analysis Framework.
The analysis will be based on all data collected from fishing activity and relevant data
and information from other sources, on a scientific basis. Other sources could include
data from research by other government departments, provincial governments, non-governmental organizations, academics, and Aboriginal, local and traditional knowledge.
The risk analysis will provide information on
the likelihood of serious or irreversible harm
fishing may have on the sensitive benthic
area and key ecosystem components and the
level of harm and its reversibility, both in
terms of magnitude and scale, if any. It will
present and consider the implications of
uncertainties that remain.13
CHALLENGES OF DATA
COLLECTION
The above-mentioned tools rely strongly on a
sound data and information base. Therefore,
knowledge about the dissemination of spatial
information, as well as existing risks or concerns regarding sharing spatial information
within a region is a prerequisite to embark on
a sound marine spatial planning process.
MSP is a participatory approach, involving
stakeholders throughout the entire process,
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/pechesfisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/benthi-eng.htm
13
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
including monitoring and evaluation. An appropriate stakeholder validation process
should be determined early in the MSP process to verify the accuracy of mapped data
and thus improve public acceptance of the
process.
5 LINKAGES BETWEEN MSP
AND MARINE CONSERVATION
PLANNING
5.1 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AS
PART OF MSP
Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas
Strategy aims for the “establishment of a network of marine protected areas, established
and managed within an integrated oceans
management framework, that contributes to
the health of Canada’s oceans and marine
ecosystems.”14
The Oceans Act provides DFO with a leading
and facilitating role in this endeavor. Achieving the Federal Marine Protected Areas
Strategy’s objectives and the supporting
measures are a shared responsibility of the
federal departments and agencies with MPA
mandates, namely DFO, Environment
Canada and the Parks Canada Agency.
Since the Strategy’s adoption in 2005 measures have been undertaken to designate
MPAs and establish a network in Canadian
waters. Despite the attempts to manage
MPAs in an IM framework, the network has
not yet been established.
This is partly due to the fact that the lead departments do not have exclusive jurisdictional authority and a mandate to deliver MSP,
but they do have a strong mandate to plan
for and establish a network of MPAs.
It seems obvious that both MPA planning
and MSP are closely linked to each other with
MSP being the more comprehensive, integrated approach. The designation of MPAs
within an MSP framework could be described as the “environmental pillar” of the
entire MSP process.
Both processes require similar data collection
and information gathering. Planning a network of MPAs involves mapping of human
activities, and the characterization of socio-economic values, which is also a critical step
for MSP.
Within the context of the existing multiple
mandate-based authorities for establishing
zones through IM planning and regulatory
processes and the clear political mandate for
MPA planning, mapping of human activity
and socio-economic values that is needed for
MPA network planning in the short-term
could be used to advance more comprehensive MSP in the Maritimes Region in the long
term.
Some marine stakeholders support this idea
and have highlighted that MSP could be the
appropriate approach to “broaden” the assessment, incorporating all marine uses and
activities and integrating marine protection
into a holistic MSP regime.
In order to identify synergies and commonalities between spatial planning approaches for
conservation planning and MSP it is important to further analyze data and information
needs and management requirements for
both processes.
Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy,
page 3
14
11
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
6 THE ROLE OF MSP IN PLANNING AND FACILITATING
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
6.1 MSP CREATES A FRAMEWORK FOR
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MSP provides an appropriate framework to
assess and explain the role of each marine
sector in a given sea area and thus integrate
all uses in an entire ecosystem-based management regime. It can aid the enhancement
of economic prosperity and promote the fulfilling of sectoral mandates in a more sustainable and environmentally friendly way.
MSP does not aim to hinder use. Rather it
aims to create a framework for society to operate so that unwanted effects are minimized
and desired effects are maximized.
Countries utilizing or preparing MSP believe
that it provides significant economic benefits.15 The likely effects of MSP implementation include:
•
enhanced coordination and simplified
decision processes;
•
enhanced legal certainty for all stake
holders in the marine arena;
•
enhanced cross-border cooperation;
and
The UK for instance carried out a study on economic
benefits of MSP to accompany the development of its
Marine and Coastal Access Act (see Marine and Coastal
Access Act 2009 Impact Assessment,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/docu
ments/legislation/marine-ia-0410.pdf). Similarly, The
European Commission launched a study on economic
benefits of MSP, based on some specific case studies
that should soon be available at
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/spatial_planning
_en.html#3
15
12
•
enhanced coherence with other
planning systems.
Initial studies undertaken by the United
Kingdom and the European Commission
have attempted to prove the anticipated economic benefits with concrete figures. Due to
the specific framework conditions in Canadian waters the results of those studies may
not be directly transferable, but the main arguments remain valid. The benefits include:
(a) Coordination benefits for governments are likely to be a result of MSP due
to improved cooperation amongst government departments and integrated decision making;
(b) A properly designed MSP approach
will lead to lower transaction costs for
companies operating in the marine environment. For example, marine activities
like offshore oil and gas, wind or wave
energy require significant exploratory
time and investigation to identify the optimal location. MSP would incorporate
assessments and analysis of scenarios to
identify appropriate sites for these activities and thus increase planning and investment certainty.
(c) Society will benefit from the enhanced
certainty provided by MSP which results
in a better investment climate. International companies invest large amounts of
money to identify the most appropriate
sites for their marine energy projects.
However, it can turn out that the preferred
site for one sector’s development is also of interest for another ocean use - either an
already existing, traditional one or one that
can be predicted for the near future, e.g.,
marine energy and aquaculture. Competing
interests over the same space result in costs
of non-coordination such as the need to resolve a conflict between different sectors or
sectoral development and the marine environment.
Background Information Paper, 1-2 June 2011, Halifax
MSP not only provides valuable and reliable
knowledge to avoid those situations. It also
provides a stakeholder involvement platform
that can be used to resolve conflicts between
sectors and balance diverging user interests
in the same marine area.
Additionally, marine sectors put significant
amounts of money into the collection of data
that is used, for instance, for environmental
impact assessments (EIA). Currently, EIAs
are carried out on a project-by-project basis.
Hence, no common data platform exists that
would allow sectors to share relevant data
amongst them.
MSP provides a platform to collect all the
data necessary to manage a given marine
area and thus helps to create synergies
between industries operating in the same region instead of asking each sector on a project basis to collect the same information over
and over again.
Investors have to apply for numerous licenses and permits, often with different authorities, before they get the green light to develop an offshore wind farm or an aquaculture site. Usually, these licensing processes
are not coordinated and different regulatory
procedures do not necessarily complement
each other. Marine stakeholders sometimes
complain about contradicting requirements
resulting from different government policies
and administrative bodies that hinder efficient and effective economic development.
MSP can be used to coordinate and streamline licensing procedures.
Countries such as the UK have, through their
national Marine and Coastal Access Act, created a strategic marine planning system that
clarifies marine objectives and priorities for
the future, and directs decision makers and
users towards more efficient, sustainable use
and protection of resources. The legislation
also creates streamlined licensing and decision-making processes through the estab-
lishment of the UK’s Marine Management
Organization (MMO).
This organization will be responsible for issuing the majority of UK marine licenses in order to improve and speed-up the decisionmaking process for developments in the marine environment. 16
7
OUTLOOK
This workshop seeks to provide a learning
experience about tools that can be used for
MSP at a regional level. It does not attempt to
be exhaustive, but aims to foster discussion
on MSP in a Canadian regional context and
enhance the debate regarding the benefits of
MSP for the management of Canada's oceans
in a sustainable and environmentally friendly
manner.
For further information please visit
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legisl
ation/mcaa/index.htm
16
13
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING (MSP): A TECHNICAL LEARNING SESSION
References
Agardy, Tundi. “Ocean zoning. making marine management more effective.” Earthscan, London, 2010
Crowder, Larry and Norse, Elliot. “Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine
spatial planning.” In: Marine Policy, Special Issue on The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-Based, Sea-Use Management, Volume 32, No. 5, page 772-778, 2008
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Canada in Partnership with Environment Canada and Parks Canada.
“Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy.” Ottawa: Communications Branch DFO, 2005
Ehler, Charles and Douvere, Fanny. “Marine Spatial Planning. A Step-by-Step Approach towards Ecosystem-based
Management.” Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Program. IOC Manual
and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO, 2009 (English)
Government of Canada. “Canada’s Oceans Strategy. Our Oceans, Our Future.” Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and
Oceans (DFO), 2002
Government of Canada. “Oceans Act.” Ottawa: Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996
Marine Policy, Special Issue on The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-Based, Sea-Use
Management, Volume 32, No. 5, 2008
PlanCoast: “Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning”, from the INTERREG IIIB CADSES PlanCoast Project, available at www.plancoast.eu
14