Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Marine microorganism wikipedia , lookup
Marine life wikipedia , lookup
Ecosystem of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre wikipedia , lookup
Marine debris wikipedia , lookup
Raised beach wikipedia , lookup
Marine habitats wikipedia , lookup
Marine pollution wikipedia , lookup
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