Guide MSP

VISIONS FOR A SEA CHANGE
Report of the First International

Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
and the Man and the Biosphere Programme
UNESCO Headquarters
Paris, France
8-10 November 2006
Intergovernmental Man and ICAM

Oceanographic Biosphere
Commission
The designation employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNESCO in particular concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or the delineation of
its frontiers or boundaries.
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this manual and for the opinions expressed therein,
which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
Designer: Eric Lodde

Written by Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere
For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as follows:

Ehler, Charles, and Fanny Douvere. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovern-
mental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, 46: ICAM Dossier, 3. Paris: UNESCO, 2007
(English).
Printed by ???
© UNESCO iOC 2006
2 Visions for a SEA CHANGE – Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Table OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 4
Foreword 5
1 Introduction to the Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning 7

2 Introduction to Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management 15
3 Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management and Marine Spatial Planning 23
4 Key Scientific Issues for Ecosystem-based, Marine Spatial Planning 29
5 Legislation and Policy Framework for Marine Spatial Planning 35
6 A Process for Marine Spatial Planning 45
7 Defining the Human Dimension of Marine Spatial Planning 53
8 Implementing Marine Spatial Planning 57
9 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Adapting Marine Spatial Planning 65
10 Conclusions and Next Steps 71
References 73
Annexes
Workshop Programme 78
Workshop Participants 80
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning – Visions for a SEA CHANGE 3
Acknowlegment
Several people in UNESCO were invaluable in making the first Interna- Financial support was provided by a broad range of donors and partners.
tional Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning possible, especially Dr. Patricio Fourteen different governmental and non-governmental organizations made
Bernal, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com- financial contributions to the workshop including: the Flemish Government;
mission (IOC), and Dr. Natarajan Ishwaran, Director of the Division of Ecolog- the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; the National Oceanic and
ical and Earth Sciences and Secretary of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA; the Belgian Science Policy Office;
Programme. In early 2006 they both agreed to support an initiative on eco- the Belgian Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety, and Environ-
system-based, marine spatial planning and provided seed money to get it ment; Natural England; the European Commission Maritime Policy Task Force;
launched. They continue to support the initiative today and want to move the European Environment Agency; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Author-
it forward within UNESCO and with other partners. Julian Barbiere, Pro- ity, Australia; the World Conservation Union/World Commission on Protected
gramme Specialist in IOC and manager of its Integrated Coastal Area Man- Areas (Marine); Conservation International; WWF International; The Nature Con-
agement (ICAM) Programme and Salvatore Arico, Programme Specialist in servancy; and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
the MAB Programme, were particularly helpful in supporting the workshop.
Jan Schlichting, an IOC intern, helped design and implement the workshop We prepared this technical report from expert presentations made at the work-
Website. Virginie Bonnet and Natasha Lazic both provided administrative shop and subsequent discussions during and following the workshop, supple-
support before and during the workshop. mented and updated with new information where appropriate. Marine spatial
planning is a rapidly developing field, and we wanted to keep this report up to
The workshop would not have been possible without the contribution of an date. We take responsibility for any misinterpretation or misrepresentation of
enthusiastic and experienced group of participants that included scientists and ideas in the original presentations or factual errors in the report.
practitioners from 20 countries. Presentations were given by ten experts includ-
ing Frank Maes, Elliott Norse, Larry Crowder, Paul Gilliland, Dan Lafolley, Kevin St.
Martin, Cathy Plasman, Yves Auffret, Jon Day, and Antonio De Leon. Their con- Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere
tinuing professional accomplishments in researching, developing, and imple- Workshop Co-chairs
menting marine spatial planning in the context of ecosystem-based manage- Paris, France
ment was of major importance to the overall success of the workshop. May 2007
Foreword
”...The problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need
to be considered as a whole…”
Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
When the authors of the Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the UNESCO is in a unique position through the international perspective of its pro-
Law of the Sea wrote this prescient phrase in 1982, few people recognized how grams, particularly the IOC and the MAB Programme, to evaluate and improve
relevant it would become to the marine world of today. Scientists are calling the effectiveness of marine spatial planning as a tool to secure both marine
increasingly for ecosystem-based management of marine areas and consider- biodiversity and economic development. The workshop was a cooperative ini-
able work has already been done on developing the conceptual aspects. In tiative between the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and
fact, conceptual work has dominated ecosystem-based management and the the Man and the Biosphere Programme of the Ecological and Earth Sciences
debate has often become academic for the lack of practical evidence of what Division. In the longer run, these activities could provide an opportunity to de-
works and what does not. Hopefully, this workshop moved the theoretical work velop broader partnerships both within and outside UNESCO, that could lead
forward by shifting the focus more toward putting marine ecosystem-based to better integration of spatial management of human activities in terrestrial
management into practice. areas, watersheds, coasts and oceans.
Marine spatial planning at the ecosystem level is a first step toward ecosystem-
based management. Patricio Bernal, Executive Secretary
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
and
Natarajan Ishwaran, Director
Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences and
Secretary, Man and the Biosphere Programme
UNESCO
1Introduction to the Workshop on
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
What Is Marine Spatial Planning?
environment, have led to two types of conflict. First, this multitude of
Marine spatial planning is a way of improving decision making and human activities (mostly uncoordinated among economic sectors) has
delivering an ecosystem-based approach to managing human activi- resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss and damage to the
ties in the marine environment. It is a planning process that enables diversity of life in marine and coastal areas (use-environment conflicts,
integrated, forward looking, and consistent decision making on the e.g., habitat loss). Second, not all uses are compatible with one another
human uses of the sea. Marine spatial planning is analogous to spatial and are competing for ocean space or have adverse effects on each other
or land use planning in terrestrial environments. (use-use conflicts, between, e.g., shipping and offshore wind farms).
Ecosystem-based, marine spatial planning seeks to sustain the ben- Historically, management approaches have focused on single sectors
efits of the ecological goods and services that the oceans provide to with little consideration of the potential conflicts across sectors. During
humans as well as all living organisms on the planet. the past decade, the traditional sectoral approach to natural resource
Why Was an International Workshop on Marine Spatial

Planning Organized? Table 1. Examples of the Human Use of Ocean Space
Rapid population growth and shifting consumer demands have con- Commercial Fishing
siderably increased the need for more food, more energy and more Recreational Fishing
trade from marine areas. Because of limited resources and space on
land, an increasingly larger share of goods and services is coming Aquaculture
from coastal and marine areas. This trend will continue, and more Shipping
likely accelerate, in the next decades. Future outlooks, in particular for Oil & Gas Exploration and Production
offshore aquaculture, offshore energy, maritime transport, and tour-
Renewable Energy Production, e.g., wind, waves
ism, predict increasing uses of marine areas in the coming years. It is
difficult to understate the value of the oceans to present and future Sand and Gravel Mining
1 economic prosperity. Dredging
The Convention of Biological Diver-
sity defines the “ecosystem approach” Dredged Material Disposal
However, other values of the oceans are also critically important, in-
as “…a strategy for integrated
management of land, water, and cluding the benefits of the ecological goods and services that the Recreation and Tourism
living resources that promotes oceans provide to humans as well as all living organisms on the plan- Offshore Housing, Factories, Airports
conservation and sustainable use in
an equitable way. The ecosystem et. In addition to the provisioning services provided by marine areas,
Pipelines, Cables, Transmission Lines
approach is based on the application including food, fiber, and medicine, the oceans provide regulating
of appropriate scientific methodolo-
services (storm protection provided by coral reefs and wetlands), sup- Bio-prospecting
gies focused on levels of biological
organization, which encompass the porting services (carbon capture and nutrient recycling), and cultural Desalinization
essential processes, functions and services (including unique knowledge systems about marine resourc-
interactions among organisms and Military Activities
their environment. It recognizes that es). (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
humans, with their cultural diversity, Scientific Research
are an integral component of ecosys-
tems.” Decision V/6 of the Conference Since marine resources are limited both in space and size, economic Marine Protected Areas
of the Parties to the Convention on development has been devastating to marine biodiversity in many
Biological Diversity. Available at: Cultural and Historic Conservation, e.g., ship wrecks
http://www.biodiv.org.
places. Essentially, increased development pressures on the marine
and environmental management has been recognized to be insuf- ularly with marine spatial planning and zoning. A complete list of
ficient to address the cumulative effects of human activities on the participants and their contact information is included as an annex
marine environment and has shifted to a more holistic “ecosystem to this report.
approach” that calls for comprehensive analysis of all dimensions of
environmental problems. How Was the Meeting Organized?
Despite its general acceptance however, so far the ecosystem approach The meeting was organized around some of the basic elements of
has been more a concept, widely discussed at scientific meetings, but management, i.e., authorization, research, planning and analysis, im-
with few examples of actual practice. It is increasingly clear that govern- plementation, monitoring, evaluation, and capacity building. Case
ments lack concrete tools to make an ecosystem approach operational in studies of particular geographic areas were used only to illustrate
the marine environment. A key challenge today is to take the ecosystem the importance and interconnectedness of each of these elements
approach beyond the conceptual level, and one practical way to do this in an overall management framework. The workshop programme is
is through marine spatial planning. included as an annex to this report.
From 8-10 November 2006 the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com- What Happened at the Workshop?
mission (IOC) and the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNES- After introductory comments by the co-chairs that framed the objec-
CO) held the first international workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. The tives of the workshop, its organization, and basic definitions, Frank
meeting was held at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France. Maes, University of Gent (Belgium) described the international, Euro-
pean and Belgian legal context of marine spatial planning—noting
What Was the Purpose of the Workshop? that legislation was a desirable, but not necessarily, critical prerequi-
site. Elliott Norse of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (USA)
The purpose of the workshop was to: and Larry Crowder of Duke University pointed out incompatibilities
between some human uses (e.g., bottom trawling) and the mainte-
• Identify good practices that illustrate how marine spatial planning nance of biodiversity and effectively argued the case for using marine
can help implement an ecosystem-based approach to sea use man- spatial planning to protect and recover biodiversity and ecosystem
agement; functions. At the same time, they pointed out the need to keep the
• Develop an international community of scientists and planners that ecosystem in “ecosystem-based management” and marine spatial
wants to put ecosystem-based management into practice; planning. Paul Gilliland and Dan Lafolley of Natural England pre-
• Share information and experience through new partnerships and sented an ecosystem-based process for marine spatial planning, em-
the Internet; and phasizing the importance of clear objectives, meaningful indicators,
• Identify priorities for future action, including developing international effective stakeholder involvement, and mitigating conflicts through
guidelines and building new capacities for marine spatial planning. planning. Kevin St. Martin of Rutgers University made a strong case
for adding the “human dimension” and the “missing layer” to marine
Who Attended the Workshop? spatial planning, particularly by relating offshore activities to onshore
communities, livelihoods, and cultures through community participa-
About 50 policy makers, managers, and scientists from over 20 coun- tion, incorporation of local knowledge, and geographic information
tries attended the workshop. Participants were invited based on their systems. Yves Auffret of the European Commission’s Maritime Policy
practical experience in sea use planning and management, partic- Task Force described the alternative institutional arrangements for
marine spatial planning considered through the draft Maritime Policy technical report and a special issue of the international journal, Ma-
of the EU. The realties of implementing marine spatial plans, espe- rine Policy, will summarize the themes of the workshop in more detail.
cially the different evaluation criteria, were highlighted by a elected Publication of the special issue is expected by early 2008. Longer-term
public official, Cathy Plasman of the Belgian Ministry of Mobility and activities include preparation of international guidelines on marine
North Sea Affairs. Jon Day of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine spatial management and training for building capacity. These results
Park emphasized the need for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and will be part of UNESCO’s contributions to the implementation of the
adaptive management, based a major re-zoning of the GBRMP after work plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the longer
30 years. Finally, Antonio Diaz de Leon, Director-General of Mexico’s run, these activities could provide an opportunity to develop broader
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, focused on capacity international and regional partnerships that could lead to better inte-
building needed for effective sea use planning in the Gulf of Mexico gration of spatial management of human activities in terrestrial areas,
and Gulf of California. watersheds, coasts—and oceans.
What Were Some of the Principal Findings of the Workshop? Why UNESCO?
Some of the principal findings of the workshop are that: (1) marine spatial UNESCO is in a unique position through the international perspective of
planning is an important element of ecosystem-based sea use manage- its programmes in the IOC and MAB, as well as its World Heritage Center
ment; (2) marine spatial planning is only one part of the tool box of ecosys- and Coastal Areas and Small Islands Programme, to evaluate and improve
tem-based, sea use management—actual applications will include a mix of the effectiveness of ecosystem-based management, especially through
control measures including regulatory and non-regulatory (e.g., economic) marine spatial planning and ocean zoning. For example, for the past 30
incentives; (2) early and continuing engagement of stakeholders in a clear years the MAB Programme has pioneered the concept of spatial plan-
management process is critical to success and engenders trust and owner- ning and zoning for biodiversity conservation through the Biosphere
ship of the process; (3) monitoring and evaluation are critical elements of Reserve Programme2 in almost 100 countries. Of 440 Biosphere Reserves
the MSP process; (4) integrating the human dimension into marine spatial established by 2006,109 are coastal and/or marine.
2 planning requires the same diversity of disciplines/perspectives as does the
The origin of Biosphere Reserves ecosystem approach relative to the biophysical environment; (5) compre-
goes back to the “Biosphere Confer- hensive, spatially-explicit data on ecosystem characteristics, human uses,
ence organized by UNESCO in 1968,
the first intergovernmental confer- and offshore jurisdictions are required—these data are not readily available
ence to seek to reconcile the conser- for most marine areas, and can be expensive and time-consuming to col-
vation and use of natural resources,
foreshadowing the current notion lect; and (6) decision makers are unlikely to accept marine spatial planning
of sustainable development. The until its benefits can be better documented. A more complete list of find-
Man and the Biosphere Programme
was officially launched in 1970.
ings is included in the last chapter of this report.
One of the MAB projects consisted
of establishing a coordinated world
network of new protected areas, to
What Will Happen As a Result of the Workshop?
be designated as Biosphere Reserves.
MAB’s programmatic goal is achiev- A Website (http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp) that contains back-
ing a sustainable balance between
the sometimes-conflicting goals ground documents, presentations, and links to other marine spatial
of conserving biological diversity, planning sites, and preliminary conclusions of the workshop has al-
promoting economic development,
and maintaining associated cultural
ready been prepared and will be modified substantially over the next
values. year. The results of the workshop are documented in this UNESCO
The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Programme (http://www.unesco. the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites. There are 830
org/mab) is one of the first to use “core areas”, “buffer zones,” and “properties” on the World Heritage list. Of these, 162 are natural sites,
“transition zones”—designations that are still relevant to marine and only 18 sites (about 2% of the total) are “marine”. Marine areas
biodiversity conservation today. Generally, each biosphere reserve that are currently listed include the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), the
is comprised of three areas: (1) one or more core areas that are Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), the Belize Barrier-Reef Reserve System
securely protected sites for conserving biological diversity, monitor- (Belize), the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve (Mexico), and Tubbataha
ing minimally disturbed ecosystems, and undertaking non-destruc- Reef Marine Park (Philippines) – all of which have employed a wide
tive research and other low-impact uses, such as education; (2) a variety of zoning approaches in their management strategies.
clearly identified buffer zone that usually surrounds or adjoins the
core areas, and is used for cooperative activities compatible with UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, through
sound ecological practices, including environmental education, its Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) Programme (http://
recreation, ecotourism and applied and basic research; and (3) a ioc.unesco.org/icam/) is pioneering the use of indicators for evalu-
flexible transition area, or “area of cooperation” that may contain a ating the effectiveness of integrated coastal and ocean manage-
variety of activities, settlements, and other uses, and in which local ment, including zoning as a management measure4. At the same
communities, management agencies, scientists, non-governmental time, IOC’s Coastal-Global Ocean Observing System (C-GOOS) Pro-
organizations, cultural groups, economic interests, and other stake- gramme (http://www.ioc-goos.org/) has developed an operational
holders work together to manage and develop the area’s resources approach for monitoring many of the parameters of coastal areas
sustainably. Although originally envisioned as a series of concentric that would be essential in populating a series of coastal and ocean
rings, the three zones have been implemented in many different indicators. Both the ICAM and C-GOOS programmes are important
ways to meet local needs and conditions. In fact, one of the greatest to an evaluation of spatial planning and zoning for marine biodi-
strengths of the Biosphere Reserve concept has been the flexibility versity conservation.
and creativity with which it has been realized in various situations.
Aren’t There Other International Programmes that Could Be
Some countries have enacted legislation specifically to establish Appropriate Partners for Marine Spatial Planning?
Biosphere Reserves. In many others, the core areas and buffer
zones are designated (in whole or in part) as protected areas under Yes—at least two others are obvious. The United Nations Environ-
national law. A large number of Biosphere Reserves simultaneously ment Programme’s Regional Seas Programme and the International
belong to other national systems of protected areas, such as na- Maritime Organization’s areas that are designated as “Particularly
tional parks or nature reserves, and/or other international networks, Sensitive Sea Areas”. The Regional Seas Programme (www.unep.
such as World Heritage or Ramsar sites3. Despite this wide cover- org/regionalseas/) addresses the accelerating degradation of the
age and depth of experience with spatial planning and zoning in world’s oceans and coastal areas through the sustainable manage-
protected areas, no systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of ment and use of the marine and coastal environment, by engag-
3
marine spatial planning and zoning as management strategies for ing neighboring countries in comprehensive and specific actions
Out of 1651 Ramsar sites, 720
biodiversity conservation has been undertaken. to protect their shared marine environment. Today, more than 140 covering 485,000 km2 globally are
countries participate in 13 Regional Seas Programmes (RSPs): the listed as coastal or marine. Only
about 60% have any management
UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre (http://whc.unesco.org) encourages Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean Sea, West and Central Africa, planning process.
States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to nominate sites Eastern Africa, East Asian Seas, the North West Pacific, the ROPME
within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List Sea Area, the South East Pacific, the North East Pacific, the Red Sea 4
and to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on and Gulf of Aden, the South Pacific, the Black Sea, and the South See Belfiore et al., 2006
Table 2. Examples of Marine Spatial Planning and Ocean Zoning
Fig 1.
Large, Integrated Sea Use Management Programs/Projects Using MSP
The Regional
Australia Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Seas Programme
Australia Marine Bioregional Planning
(Source: UNEP)
Belgium Belgian Part of the North Sea (GAUFRE Project)
Canada Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Project
China Territorial Sea Functional Zoning
Denmark, Germany Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation Area
Asian Seas. While not officially designated as “Regional Seas”, five & The Netherlands
other programs characterize themselves as “partners” of the Re- Germany EEZ and Territorial Sea Spatial Planning
gional Seas Programme: the Baltic Sea, the North East Atlantic, the Mexico Ecological Ocean Use Planning in Gulf of California
Caspian Sea, the Arctic, and the Antarctic. Several of these Regional
New Zealand Ocean Survey 20/20 and National Ocean Policy
Seas Programmes, e.g., the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic, are
developing networks of MPAs that will use spatial planning and zon- The Netherlands Integrated Management Plan for North Sea 2015
ing as a core management strategy. United Kingdom MSP Pilot Project in Irish Sea and the Marine Bill
5 Examples of Marine Protected Areas Known to Use Zoning
In Annexes I, II and V, MARPOL 73/78
The International Maritime Organization’s (www.imo.org/Environ-
Belize Belize Barrier Reef
defines certain sea areas as «special ment/) Marine Environment Protection Committee issues guidelines
areas» in which, for technical reasons for the identification and designation of particularly sensitive seas ar- Ecuador Galápagos Marine Resources Reserve and Galápagos
relating to their oceanographic and
ecological condition and to their eas (PSSAs)5. A PSSA is an area that needs special protection through Whale Sanctuary
sea traffic, the adoption of special action by IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological Italy Miramare Biosphere Reserve and Marine Reserve
mandatory methods for the preven-
tion of sea pollution is required. or socio-economic or scientific reasons and that may be vulnerable Mexico Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve
Under the Convention, these special to damage by international maritime activities. The criteria for the
areas are provided with a higher The Netherlands Bonaire and Saba Marine Parks
level of protection than other areas
identification of particularly sensitive sea areas and the criteria for the
Antilles
of the sea. designation of special areas are not mutually exclusive. In many cases
a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area may be identified within a Special Palau Palau Marine Park
6
The following PSSAs have been Area and vice versa. IMO has approved the designation of 10 PSSAs6. Russian Federation Far East Marine and Commander Islands Biosphere
designated: the Great Barrier Reef, Reserves
Australia (designated in 1990 and
extended in 2005); the Sabana-Ca- The Philippines Tubbataha Marine Park
maguey Archipelago, Cuba (1997);
Malpelo Island, Columbia (2002), Tanzania Mafia Island Marine Park
the sea around the Florida Keys, USA
(2002); the Wadden Sea, Germany United States Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
& The Netherlands (2002); Paracas
United States Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
National Reserve, Peru (2003); West-
ern European Waters (2004); Canary United States California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (California
Islands, Spain (2005), the Galapagos
Archipelago, Ecuador (2005), and the
state waters)
Baltic Sea area, Denmark, Estonia, Viet Nam Ha Long Bay World Heritage Site and Hon Mun & Cu Lao
Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Sweden (2005). Cham Marine Parks
Ecosystem-based Management (4) Identifies, safeguards, or where necessary and appropriate, re- Box 1.
(1) Protects ecosystem structure, functioning, and processes; covers or restores important components of marine ecosystems in- Definition of
(2) Recognizes inter-connectedness within and among systems; (3) cluding natural heritage and nature conservation resources; and (5)
Integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives; Allocates space in a rational manner that minimizes conflicts of inter- Some Important
and (4) Is place-based or area-based (adapted from COMPASS, 2005). est and, where possible, maximizes synergy among sectors. Sea use Terms
management is an element of ecosystem-based management.
Sea Use Management
(1) Works toward sustainable development, rather than simply con- Marine Spatial Planning
servation or environmental protection, and in doing so contributes A process of analyzing and allocating parts of three-dimensional ma-
to more general social and governmental objectives; (2) Provides a rine spaces to specific uses, to achieve ecological, economic, and so-
strategic, integrated and forward-looking framework for all uses of cial objectives that are usually specified through the political process;
the sea to help achieve sustainable development, taking account of the MSP process usually results in a comprehensive plan or vision for
environmental as well as social and economic goals and objectives; a marine region. MSP is an element of sea use management.
(3) Applies an ecosystem approach to the regulation and manage-
ment of development and activities in the marine environment by Ocean Zoning
safeguarding ecological processes and overall resilience to ensure A regulatory measure to implement MSP usually consisting of a zon-
the environment has the capacity to support social and economic ing map and regulations for some or all areas of a marine region.
benefits (including those benefits derived directly from ecosystems); Ocean zoning is an element of marine spatial planning.
2 Introduction to Ecosystem-based
SEA USE MANAGEMENT
Why Do We Need an Integrated Approach?
achieving sustainable use of eco-system goods and services and mainte-
Natural resource managers today, whether working on the land or in the nance of ecosystem integrity” (HELCOM-OSPAR, 2003).
sea, face formidable problems. Demand for natural resources, including
space, is accompanied by differing perceptions of their values, conflicts “Ecosystem approaches” are different things to different people and different
over their use, and concern about the natural and human environments disciplines. Although for some this variety is strength, overall it has probably
affected. These problems are exacerbated by fragmented jurisdiction neither increased the use nor the scientific respectability of ecosystem ap-
over the resource base, ambiguous government policies, lengthy review proaches.
processes and weak regulations.
Some key characteristics of ecosystem approaches would include:
Natural resource planners, developers and managers are responding to
these problems by seeking more integrated approaches that will en- • Describing parts, systems, environments and their interactions, i.e., a “sys-
able their projects and programs to deliver as many benefits as possible, tems” approach;
within acceptable limits of social and environmental impact, and with • Working through a holistic, comprehensive, trans-disciplinary approach;
minimum conflict and cost. • Defining the ecosystem naturally, e.g., bio-regionally, instead of politically;
• Looking at different levels/scales of system structure, process and func-
See Ehler and Douvere workshop presentation (2006) at http://ioc3.unesco. tion;
org/marinesp/. • Describing system dynamics, e.g., with concepts of homeostasis (i.e., the
ability to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting physiological process-
Why is Ecosystem-Based, Sea Use Management and Marine Spatial es), feedbacks, cause-and-effect relationships, self-organization, etc.);
Planning Important? • Including people and their activities in the ecosystem;
• Recognizing goals and taking an active, management orientation;
The evolution of marine spatial planning is an important step toward • Including actor-system dynamics and institutional factors in the analysis;
making “ecosystem-based, sea-use management” a reality. While initially • Using an anticipatory, flexible research and planning process;
the idea was stimulated by international and national interests in devel- • Entailing an implicit or explicit ethics of quality, well-being and integrity;
oping marine protected areas, e.g., the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park7 and
more recent attention has been placed on managing the multiple use • Recognizing systemic limits to action—defining and seeking sustainabil-
7 of marine space, particularly in areas where use conflicts are already clear, ity (Slocombe, 1993).
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park e.g., the North Sea.
was established in 1975. After
13 years its first zoning plan was How Can an Ecosystem Approach Be Implemented?
implemented in 1988, and partially Ocean space is a valuable resource—one that is increasingly over-used in
revised in 1998. A new compre-
hensive zoning approach, based on many places of the world’s oceans (e.g., the North Sea) and often poorly Gill Shepherd, Thematic Leader of the Ecosystem Approach, in IUCN’s Com-
a Representative Areas Programme, managed. mission on Ecosystem Management, has defined (from the Convention on
was approved in 2004 (Day, 2006).
The extent of no-take areas was
Biological Diversity) the “ecosystem approach” as a strategy for the integrated
increased from 5% to 33% of the What is an Ecosystem Approach to Management? management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conserva-
GBRMP, including representative tion and sustainable use in an equitable way. She goes on to identify
examples of each of the park’s 70
bioregions. Information on the RAP An ecosystem approach refers to “…the comprehensive integrated manage- five steps to implementing the 15 principles of the ecosystem approach
is available at: http://www.gbrmpa. ment of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge (Shepherd, 2004). See Box 2.
gov.au. The area of the GBRMP is
345,200 km2; for comparison, the about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action
area of the North Sea is 750,000 km2. on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby
Step A. Determining the stakeholders and defining the eco- Step C. Economic Issues Box 2.
system area Principles Implementing
Principles Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need the Ecosystem
1. The objectives of management of land, water, and living resources to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Approach
are a matter of societal choice Any such ecosystem management program should:
2. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate 1. Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological (Source: IUCN, 2004)
spatial and temporal scales diversity;

3. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant infor- 2. Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustain-
mation, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, in- able use; and
novations, and practice 3. Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent
4. The ecosystem approach should involve al relevant sectors of society feasible
and scientific disciplines
Step D. Adaptive management over space
Step B. Ecosystem structure, function, and management Principles
Management should be decentralized to the lowest appro- 1. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual and poten-
priate level tial) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems
Principles 2. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate
1. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, to maintain spatial and temporal scales
ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem
approach Step E. Adaptive management over time
2. Ecosystems should be managed within the limits of their functioning Principles
3. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance be- 1. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate
tween, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity spatial and temporal scales
2. Recognizing the varying temporal and lag effects that characterize
ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should
be set for the long term
3. Management must recognize that change is inevitable
Why Use “Sea Use Management” Instead of Ecosystem
This situation is made worse by the sector-by-sector responsibilities
Management?
for determining development applications in the marine environ-
Ecosystems and ecosystem components of marine areas cannot be ment. The time has come for a strategic and integrated plan-based
managed in themselves. Only people and their behavior toward approach for sea use management, instead of the piecemeal view,
the use of ocean space and resources can be managed. Sea use not the least so that commitments made in a number of impor-
management refers to the management of human uses of ocean tant international and national marine policy declarations, including
resources, including the use of ocean space, in such a way that eco- commitments to an “ecosystem approach,” can be fulfilled.
logical, social, and economic objectives are achievable. Sea use
8
management is used analogously to land use management in ter- Why Manage Human Activities in the Sea?
Most local jurisdictions in the US and
Western Europe have a “compre- restrial environments.
hensive plan”, a long-range policy Social demands for outputs (goods and services) usually exceed the
document that directs growth for
the next 20-50 years and beyond.
So What’s the Problem? Aren’t Many Uses of the Ocean capacity of the marine area to meet all of the demands simultane-
Especially in the US, these plans are Compatible with One Another? ously. Marine resources are often “common property resources” with
implemented principally through open or free access to users. Free access often, if not typically, leads
zoning and subdivision ordinances
and regulations. “Zoning” is the Many human uses of the sea can be—and are—compatible with to excessive use of the resources, e.g., over fishing, and eventual ex-
process by which a local jurisdiction one another, e.g., fishing and marine protected areas. On the oth- haustion of the resources. Because not all of the outputs from ma-
legally controls the use of property
and the physical configuration of er hand, however, human uses of ocean space often conflict with rine areas can be expressed in monetary terms, free markets cannot
development upon tracts of land one another (use-use conflicts) and some human uses are entirely perform the allocation tasks. Some process must be used to decide
within its jurisdiction. A zoning map
is usually approved when a local ju-
incompatible with maintaining critical ecosystem functions (use- what mix of outputs from the marine area will be produced.
risdiction adopts a zoning ordinance. environment conflicts).
This map divides the community into That process is sea use management—and marine spatial planning
zoning districts (zones). Each district
will carry a designation that refers to Many of these conflicts can be avoided or reduced through marine spa- is one of its important elements.
the zoning code regulations for that tial planning (MSP) by influencing the location of human activities in
district. By referring to this map, it is
possible to identify the use district space and time; other tools are needed to manage the performance of What Is the Purpose of Ecosystem-based, Sea Use
within which any parcel of land is human activities, e.g., to manage the quantity and quality of pollutant Management?
located. Then, by referring to the text
of the zoning code, it is possible to
discharges from these activities
discover the uses that are permitted The overall purpose of sea-use management is to work toward
within that district. Don’t We Already Designate Zones for Many Places in the Ocean? sustainable development9 rather than simply conservation or envi-
9 ronmental protection, and in doing so contribute to more general
Sustainable development does not Yes. Most countries already designate ocean space for marine trans- social and governmental objectives. Specifically, the purpose of sea
focus solely on environmental issues.
More broadly, sustainable develop- portation, oil and gas development, wind farms, aquaculture, waste use management is to:
ment policies encompass three disposal, and so on, but on a case-by-case, sector-by-sector basis. Com-
general policy areas: economic, en-
vironmental and social. In support of
prehensive MSP is rarely practiced today. • Provide a strategic, integrated and forward-looking framework
this, several UN texts, most recently for all uses of the sea to help achieve sustainable development,
the 2005 World Summit Outcome In many respects, ‘planning’ in the marine environment today resem- taking account environmental as well as social and economic
Document, refer to the «interde-
pendent and mutually reinforcing bles terrestrial planning in the 1970s8. With only a few exceptions, objectives;
pillars» of sustainable development no clearly articulated spatial visions exist for the use of marine areas, • Apply an ecosystem approach to the regulation and manage-
as economic development, social
development, and environmental no plan-based approach to management, and consequently, marine ment of development and activities in the marine environment
protection. developers and users face a lack of certainty. by safeguarding ecological processes and overall resilience to en-
sure the environment has the capacity to support social and eco- • Maintain or improve marine environmental quality;
nomic benefits (including those benefits derived directly from • Result in sustained increases in human welfare (well being)11.
ecosystems);
• Identify, safeguard, or where necessary and appropriate, recover What Are the Natural or Ecological Goods and Services that
or restore important components of marine ecosystems includ- Come from Marine Ecosystems?
ing natural heritage and nature conservation resources; and
• Allocate space in a rational manner that minimizes conflicts of Ecological goods and services (EG&S) are the benefits arising from the
interest and, where possible, maximizes synergy among sectors ecological functions of healthy ecosystems. These benefits accrue to
[emphasis added]10 . all living organisms, including animals and plants, not only to humans
alone. However, there is a growing recognition of the importance to
Why Should Sea Use Management Be Ecosystem-based? society that the ecological goods and services provide for health, cul-
tural, social, and economic needs.
The marine environment is both an ecosystem and an interlocking
network of ecosystems. All the components of an ecosystem, includ- The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identified four catego-
ing the human component, function together and interact to form an ries of EG&S’s:
integrated network. Ensuring the integrity of the ecosystems, restor-
ing when practicable and/or maintaining their characteristic structure • “Provisioning services” are products and services harvested or passively
and functioning, productivity and biological diversity, requires long- provided by ecosystems, including wildlife and plant products for food,
term integrated management of human activities, explicitly: fiber, and medicines, water, extracted minerals, and genetic resources;
• “Regulating services” regulate overall environmental conditions on
10
• Managing human activities to respect the capacity of ecosystems the Earth, such as maintenance of air and water quality, erosion con-
Adapted from the UK County Agen-
to fulfill human needs sustainably; trol, and storm protection provided by coral reefs and wetlands; cies Interagency Working Group on
• Recognizing the values of ecosystems, both in their continuing • “Cultural services” are the non-material benefits from ecosystems, MSP, 2005.
unimpaired functioning and specifically in meeting those human including spiritual and cultural benefits, unique knowledge systems, 11
needs; and diversity of cultures, languages, understandings, recreational de- Human well being depends on
• Preserving or increasing their capacity to produce the desired mands; and material welfare, health, good social
relations, security and freedom. All
benefits in the future (OSPAR, 2003). • “Supporting services,” maintain conditions for life on Earth, such as the of these are affected by changes in
production of oxygen and capture of carbon and nutrient cycling. ecosystem services, but also by the
supply and qualify of, for example,
Canada’s first integrated ocean management plan is an example of this social capital and technology. When
type of management approach. See Box 3. Isn’t Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management Simply Another the supply of ecosystem services
exceeds the demand, an increase in
Term for Marine Protected Area Management? supply tends to enhance human well
What Are the Overall Goals of Sea Use Management? being only marginally. In contrast,
No. Ecosystem-based management is comprehensive and integrates when the service is in short supply,
a small decrease can substantially
Examples of the goals (that will obviously vary from place to place) across all economic sectors, including nature conservation. A protected reduce well being. The degradation
could include the management of human activities in the marine area is “an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of ecosystem services is harming
many of the world’s poorest people,
environment in ways that: of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and is sometimes the principal factor
and managed through legal and other effective means.” (IUCN, 1994). The causing poverty. For example, the
• Sustain the long-run productivity of marine ecosystems that provide goal of MPAs, as seen by IUCN, is to conserve biological diversity and pro- declining state of capture fisheries is
reducing a cheap source of protein in
natural goods and services; ductivity, including ecological “life support” systems, of the oceans. developing countries.
Box 3. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative is In February 2005, the ESSIM Planning Office, housed in DFO Mari-
Canada’s a collaborative ocean planning process led and facilitated by Fisheries times’ Oceans and Coastal Management Division, presented an
and Oceans Canada (DFO), Maritimes Region, under Canada’s Oceans initial draft Integrated Ocean Management Plan to stakeholders
First
Act. The ESSIM Initiative was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and for review. Based on the generally positive feedback received, the
Integrated Oceans in December 1998 and followed the recommendation from the Planning Office launched a broad public review of the draft Plan
Ocean Sable Gully Conservation Strategy that integrated management ap- over the spring, summer, and fall of 2005. Following the public re-
Management proaches be applied to the offshore area around the Sable Gully Area of view, a group of stakeholders representing all major ocean sectors
Interest (AOI) under DFO’s Marine Protected Areas Program. and government agencies in the planning area was assembled
Plan
to consider the feedback received and to work with the Planning
The 1997 Oceans Act and its supporting policy, Canada’s Oceans Strat- Office to revise the draft Plan. In July 2006, this group, known as
egy, affirm DFO’s mandate as the lead federal authority for oceans and the Stakeholder Advisory Council, completed a final draft Plan
provide the national context for the Initiative. The principles and ap- that was released again for broader stakeholder and government
proaches of the Initiative are rooted in developing international ocean discussion. In November 2006, the Stakeholder Advisory Council
governance processes and Canada’s ocean-related international legal assembled a final set of amendments to the Plan and provided
commitments. DFO’s national Integrated Management Policy and Op- its endorsement of the document. In December 2006, the senior
erational Framework provides further guidance on the development intergovernmental Regional Committee on Ocean Management
of integrated management plans and processes under the Oceans Act. similarly provided its endorsement of the Plan. In February 2007,
Of particular importance is the commitment to establish Large Ocean the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received letters from both
Management Areas (LOMAs) for all of Canada’s marine regions. groups endorsing the Plan and recommending that it be given
status as an Integrated Management Plan under Section 31 of the
The ESSIM planning process considers the ecosystem and all of its us- Oceans Act. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Manage-
ers comprehensively. The Initiative brings regulatory authorities from all ment Plan is the product of an extensive collaborative and inclu-
levels of government together with a wide array of ocean stakeholders sive planning process. It has been shaped and accepted by stake-
to work collaboratively. This allows for a more coordinated, comprehen- holders, supported and endorsed by government authorities, and
sive and inclusive management approach and helps to prevent conflict formally recognized as Canada’s first Integrated Ocean Manage-
among different ocean users and between humans and the environment Plan under the Oceans Act.
ment. The primary aim of the Initiative is to develop and implement
an Integrated Ocean Management Plan that will guide the sustainable Modified from DFO Canada’s Website,
use, conservation, and management of this large marine region. http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/e/essim/essim-plan-e.html.
Box 4.
1. HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS 2. SUSTAINABLE HUMAN USE Categories
of Goals and
A. Biodiversity A. Social and Cultural Well-being Objectives
• community diversity • sustainable communities
• incidental mortality • sustainable ocean/community relationships
• species at risk • safe, healthy and secure oceans
• invasive species
• genetic integrity B. Economic Well-being
• sustainable wealth generation from renewable ocean resources, non-
B. Productivity renewable ocean resources, ocean infrastructure, and ocean-related
• primary and secondary productivity activities
• tropic structure
• population productivity 3. COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT
C. Marine Environmental Quality A. Integrated Management

• physical and chemical characteristics • building collaborative structures and processes
• habitat • appropriate legislation, policies, plans and programs
• noise • fulfillment of legal obligations and commitments
• wastes and debris • compliance and accountability of ocean users and regulators
• overall atmospheric pollution • stewardship and best practices
• reduction of multi-sectoral resource use conflicts
B. Information and Knowledge

• natural and social science research being responsive to knowledge
needs
• effective information management and communication
• timely monitoring and reporting
Adapted from Canada’s ESSIM Project, 2006
Isn’t Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management the Same as
While MPAs can be managed toward a range of goals, from strict nature
Integrated Coastal Zone Management?
protection (IUCN Category I) to sustainable, multiple use (IUCN Cat-
egory VI), their principal goal will be nature conservation and protection. Yes and no. Both involve a strategic approach; both are concerned
Ecosystem-based sea use management, including marine spatial planning, with the integration of different uses and activities—both aim to
tries to integrate multiple objectives across sectors, including MPAs. avoid conflict. However, the definition of the boundaries of coastal
management has been limited in scope traditionally. In most places
Isn’t Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management the Same as an of the world, coastal management has focused on a narrow strip of
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management? coastline, typically within a kilometer or two from the shore and oc-
casionally focusing on a water body such as an estuary. Rarely have
No. The goal of ecosystem-based management is to conserve the struc- the inland boundaries of coastal management included coastal wa-
ture, diversity and functioning of ecosystems through management ac- tersheds or catchments areas, although that is changing in some
tions that focus on the biophysical components of ecosystems. places due to concerns about nonpoint source runoff, e.g., pollu-
tion from agriculture. Even more rarely does coastal management
Fisheries management aims to meet the goals of satisfying societal and extend into the territorial sea and/or beyond to the exclusive eco-
human needs for food and economic benefits through management nomic zone.
actions that focus on the fishing activity and the target resource. The pur-
pose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries is to plan, develop, and man- Ecosystem-based, sea use management focuses on marine places in
age fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires which the boundaries are ecologically meaningful and ensures integra-
of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to tion with coastal and inland areas. Marine spatial planning is a critical
benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by the marine element of sea use management.
ecosystem (FAO 2003).
3 Ecosystem-based Sea Use Management and
What is Marine Spatial Planning?
• Guidelines, e.g., best environmental practices/codes of practice or
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process for regulating, managing and conduct;
protecting the marine environment that addresses the multiple, cumu- • Surveillance and enforcement sanctions (e.g., fines, cancellation of
lative and potentially conflicting uses of the sea (Defra, 2005). MSP in permits);
its broadest sense is about analyzing and allocating parts of the three- • Technical assistance; and
dimensional marine space to specific uses, to achieve ecological, eco- • Education and outreach.
nomic, and social objectives that are usually specified through the po-
litical process. MSP is place–or area-based and can provide a practical What Can Marine Spatial Planning Do? And What Can’t It Do?
approach to long-term ecosystem-based management. MSP should
be comprehensive and adaptive, and resolve conflicts among multiple Marine spatial planning can be used to analyze and assess the need for
uses and the ecosystem. ocean space by current and future human activities. It can be used to
assess the cumulative impacts in space and time of current and future
The overall aim of MSP is to create and establish a more rational organi- economic developments on ecological processes in ocean areas and
zation of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, their resources. It can be used to identify compatibilities and conflicts
to balance demands for development with the need to protect the en- among uses and between uses and the environment. It can be used
vironment, and to achieve social and economic objectives in an open to allocate space to different uses and therefore control the location of
and planned way. A comprehensive plan, developed in consultation and specific human activities in time and space.
agreement with relevant stakeholders, should provide a firm basis for ra-
tional and consistent decisions on permit applications, and allow users of However, it cannot be used to control the performance or behavior
the sea to make future decisions with greater knowledge and confidence of human activities in terms of the production of goods and services.
(Defra, 2005). Other tools or management measures mentioned in the previous sec-
tion must be used in conjunction with marine spatial planning.
Marine spatial planning is only one of the tools with which to establish
ecosystem-based, sea-use management. Other tools include: Does Marine Spatial Planning Always Need Zoning?
• Sea use management plans, including comprehensive marine spa- There are a number of elements to marine spatial planning without pro-
tial plans, as one element; ceeding as far as a comprehensive zoning plan and regulations. It is also
• Zoning maps and regulations; clear that there is no prerequisite for marine spatial planning to proceed as
• Site plans; far as prescribed spatial allocations. It might instead simply indicate prefer-
• Infrastructure investments/capital facilities siting; ences or priorities (such ‘indicative planning’ would not prevent users from
• Special management areas; applying to use other areas including an area indicatively allocated to an-
• Regulations; other use. Equally, zoning may not need to apply across the whole plan
• Standards (ambient water quality standards, sediment quality stan- area in the sense that specific ‘zones’ might be identified, e.g., a conserva-
dards); tion priority zone, among one general ‘zone’ that covers most of the area.
• Permits (construction permits, pollution discharge permits, operat-
ing permits); Don’t We Already Have “Zones” in the Ocean?
• Economic instruments (e.g., development charges, other user charg-
es, license or permit fees, grants, subsidies, taxes, depletion allow- Yes, at a global scale the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
ances, tax credits); (UNCLOS), which went into effect in 1994, provides an over-arching
framework for the allocation of marine spaces to nation states. It codi- Fig 2.
fied concepts such as the “territorial sea” of 12 nautical miles, the “ex- Total Claims
clusive economic zone” of 200 nautical miles, the contiguous zone, the for Ocean Space in
continental shelves, and the high seas. Belgium
(Source: Maes, et al., 2005)
The surface area of the world’s oceans is 361,060,000 km2. About
102,108,000 km2 of that area is under the jurisdiction of nation states
(WRI Earthtrends database). The high seas (areas beyond national juris-
diction) cover about 202,000,000 km2.
According to the IUCN, less than one-half of one percent of the surface
area of the ocean has some form of protected status, i.e., marine pro-
tected area designation, compared to four percent of terrestrial areas.
Don’t Most Coastal Countries Currently Allocate Ocean Space

Today?
Yes, but on a single-sector basis (see Table 3). Current practice is not
plan-based with little or no consideration of other uses that may be
compatible or conflicting. Only a few examples of comprehensive ma-
rine spatial planning exist in the world today (see table in first chapter).
What Is Lacking in Current Practice?
Current practice often leads to conflicts among uses or among user

objectives. Current practice often leads to conflicts between hu-
man use and the natural environment. Current practice does not
account for the cumulative effects of current and future space use
allocations.
In many countries the demand for ocean space exceeds the amount
available. For example in Belgium, if space is allocated based on exist-
ing legal rights, the sum of all potential demand for ocean space would
already be about 2.6 times larger than the amount available (see Fig. 2).
And future requirements for space are expected to grow.
How is Marine Spatial Planning Different? Table 3. Examples of Existing Ocean Space Designations
MSP can be used to identify conflicts and compatibilities between hu- Vessel Traffic Routes
man uses and the environment before they occur. It can be used to
assess the cumulative effects of space use allocations. MSP can articu- Vessel Traffic Separation Zones & Precautionary Zones
late a plan-driven approach to the management of marine areas and Areas To Be Avoided (by vessels)
can articulate a clear vision for the human uses of space within marine Safety Zones Around Vessels and Terminals
areas. It can provide certainty to developers and other users of marine
areas. It provides a process in which biodiversity commitments can be Anchoring & No-Anchoring Areas
at the heart of planning and management. It can ensure “room” for bio- Security Zones in Ports and Waterways
diversity and nature conservation and provide a context for establish- Oil & Gas Lease or Concession Areas
ing network of protected areas (adapted from English Nature, 2005).
Wind Farm and Wave Park Lease or Concession Areas
What Are Some of the Benefits of Marine Spatial Planning? Safety Zones Around Oil & Gas Installations, Wind Farms, Wave Parks, etc.
Military Operations or Exercise Zones
Most evidence of the economic benefits of MSP is qualitative rather
Dredging Sites or Areas
than quantitative. (see Box 5).More quantitative evidence of benefits
is likely to appear in the next few years as further spatial planning Designated Dredged Material Dumping Areas or Zones
schemes are developed, and the consequences currently underway Oil & Gas Pipeline Rights of Way
are documented.
Submarine Communications Cable Rights of Way
What Are the Costs of Marine Spatial Planning? Energy Transmission Line Rights of Way
Sand & Gravel (Aggregate) Extraction Areas
MSP is not free. To be effective, MSP requires time, both to implement
Fishery Closure Areas, including seasonal closures
and to see real results, and resources, including trained personnel. MSP
also requires spatially explicit information on ecosystem characteristics, No Trawl Areas
human activities (current and future), including their social and eco- Critical Habitat Designations
nomic characteristics, and offshore jurisdictions. This information is
Offshore Aquaculture Areas
often not readily available for most areas and is expensive and time-
consuming to collect. Marine Protected Areas
Protected Archeological Areas, e.g., Ship Wrecks
Why Is Stakeholder Participation Critical? Cultural or Religious Areas
Management of the ocean is a matter of political and societal choice. Scientific Reference Sites
MSP will propose priorities among different uses of marine resources
and may redistribute the costs and benefits of management strate-
gies among different groups (see section on the “Human Dimension”
in this report). Involving stakeholders in the development and imple-
mentation of MSP is essential to sustained implementation of spatial
management plans.
Facilitating Sector Growth—MSP can provide a framework that Promoting Appropriate Uses—By considering the variety of Box 5.
facilitates the sustainable development of different economic ac- uses appropriate to the area in question, the value of different ac- The Benefits of
tivities, therefore helping to enhance income and employment tivities, the potential conflicts of use, and the suitability of differ-
ent areas for different uses, MSP should help to promote a mix of Marine Spatial
Optimizing the Use of the Sea—MSP can help to ensure that
uses that are compatible with each other and the environment, Planning
maximum benefits are derived from the use of the sea by encour-
and help to optimize the use of the marine area.
aging activities to take place where they bring most value and do
not devalue other activities Supporting the Environmental Economy—By improving
the conservation and management of the marine environment,
Reducing Costs—MSP can reduce the costs of information,
MSP helps to promote activities that depend on environmental
regulation, planning and decision-making.
quality, such as recreation and fishing. This is particularly true in
These benefits arise through: areas of high conservation value where activities such as diving
and wildlife tourism are significant.
Strategic Planning—MSP provides a strategic planning frame-
work that helps to facilitate sectoral development by guiding in- Improving Stakeholder Involvement—MSP can provide a
vestment decisions. Oil and gas have benefited from strategic transparent and structured mechanism in which the interests of
planning approaches at a sectoral level; there is reason to believe different sectors can be represented and reconciled.
that other sectors such as ports and fisheries would also benefit
Information Efficiencies—By developing common approach-
from strategic planning. An integrated and cross-sectoral ap-
es to the acquisition and dissemination of information, MSP can
proach to marine spatial planning could provide significant fur-
help to improve information provision and reduce duplication of
ther economic benefits by considering the different needs and
effort, therefore bringing cost efficiencies.
opportunities of different users of marine areas and helping to
resolve potential conflicts. Regulatory Efficiencies—By improving information exchange
and providing a more certain environment in which regulatory
Conflict Resolution—The potential for conflicts between dif-
ferent marine sectors is increasing over time, particularly as devel- decisions are made, MSP can be expected to reduce regulatory
oping sectors such as aquaculture and renewable energy grow in and compliance costs.
significance. MSP provides a means of avoiding and managing
potential conflicts, and ensuring that the needs of different sec- From: GHK Consulting Ltd., 2004. Potential Benefits of Marine Spatial
tors are addressed in a coordinated way. Planning to Economic Activity in the UK. RSPB: Sandy, UK. 100 p.
Sustainable Resource Use—MSP should facilitate the sustain-
able exploitation of natural resources—such as fisheries and ag-
gregates—and thereby secure the long-term future of the indus-
tries that depend on them.
Provision of Development Space—MSP helps to ensure that
all marine activi-ties—including developing sectors such as re-
newable energy and aquaculture as well as more established
ones—are fairly allocated space to develop.
4 Scientific Issues for Ecosystem-based
What Is “Biodiversity”? In contrast to more readily definable ecosystems (e.g., a lake or a for-
est), the character of the sea appears relatively seamless with ecological
Biodiversity is the collection of genomes12, species and ecosystems oc- processes operating over large scales and distances. Boundaries can be
curring in a geographically defined region (NRC, 1995). Biodiversity re- subtle, being defined by temperature, currents, depth, stratification and
fers to a variety of life forms including plants, animals, and microorgan- salinity. In practice, the scale of the marine ecosystems most suitable for
isms, the genes that they contain and the ecosystems that they form. application of the ecosystem approach are the scales at which it is most
Biodiversity is composed of three main categories: (1) genetic diversity; appropriate to manage particular human activities. Scales ranging from
(2) species diversity; and (3) ecosystem diversity. ocean to regional sea to estuary may all be equally appropriate.
The 1992 United Nations Earth Summit defined “biodiversity” as “the The Convention on Biological Diversity defines a “marine ecosystem” as
variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, “dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and
terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (CBD, 1992).
complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within spe- The World Wildlife Fund has defined “ecoregions” as a large area of land
cies, between species and of ecosystems”. or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural
communities that share a large majority of their species and ecological
See also Norse and Crowder workshop presentation (2006) at http:// dynamics, share similar environmental conditions, and interact ecologi-
ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp/. cally in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence.
What is a Marine Ecosystem? Conservation International uses the term “seascape” to define large,
multiple use marine areas, e.g., the Sulu-Sulawest Seascape, defined
Ecosystems are subdivisions of the Earth’s surface, including marine ar- scientifically and strategically, in which government authorities, private
eas, and lower atmosphere within which natural processes operate and organizations, and other stakeholders cooperate to conserve the diver-
biological communities perpetuate themselves. Often they do not have sity and abundance of marine life and to promote human well being
readily identifiable boundaries because many of the intrinsic processes (CI, no date).
(e.g., supply of water or nutrients) originate beyond any obvious habitat
or structural limits and operate at a range of scales. (Lafolley et al, 2004). NOAA (USA) has defined “large marine ecosystems” (LMEs) as natural
regions of ocean space encompassing coastal waters from river basins
Fig 3. and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the
Large Marine outer margins of coastal currents. LMEs are relatively large regions of
200,000 km2 (77,000 mi2) or greater, with boundaries based on four
Ecosystems and
criteria—bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophic relation-
Regional Seas
ships—especially relevant for fisheries management. LME’s cover only
Programmes the continental margins and not the deep ocean and oceanic islands
(source: UNEP) (Sherman, 1991).
In the context of the EU Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment,

Europe used the concept of “ecoregions” to divide its seas into ecologi-
12 cally-meaningful management units. Eleven eco-regions have been
A genome is an organism’s genetic defined based on bio-geographic features, oceanographic features,
material..
and existing political, social, and management divisions. They include Fig 4.
the Greenland and Iceland Seas, Barents Sea, Faroe Islands, Norwegian European
Sea, Celtic Sea, North Sea, South European Atlantic Shelf, Western Med- Eco-regions
iterranean Sea, Adriatic-Ionian Seas, Aegean-Levantine Seas, and the
(Source: EU Marine Strategy)
Oceanic Northeast Atlantic (EU Marine Strategy, 2005).
Are “Ecosystems” the Same as “Bioregions”?
Miller (1996) defines a bioregion as a geographical space that con-

tains one whole or several nested ecosystems characterized by land-
forms, vegetative cover, human culture and history as identified by
local communities, governments and scientists. IUCN describes a
bioregion as a land and water territory, the limits of which are not
defined by political, but the geographical boundaries of human com-
munities and ecological systems.
Berg (2002) defines a bioregion in terms of the unique overall pat-

tern of natural characteristics that are found in a specific place. The
boundaries of a bioregion are best described by the people who live
within it, through human recognition of the realities of “living-in-
places” (Miller, 1996);
There is no single right scale for a bioregion. It is important to note Fig 5.

that bioregions can occur at any scale, as they are based on “bio-fac-
Offshore
tors” that are not scale-dependent. Setting up the scale of the biore-
Provincial
gion is essential to reaching shared individual and institutional goals.
However, a program of dialogue, scientific trial and error and adapta- Bioregions of
tion over time, is the best way to determine a bioregion’s boundaries Australia
Thus, the right scale is determined by dialogue and informed by sci- (Source: Australia Department of
ence, technology, information, and social considerations. Environment and Heritage)
Are Marine Ecosystems Distinctly Different from Terrestrial

Ecosystems?
13
Marine primary producers are represented by small and mobile phyla13.
A phylum is a primary division of a
Terrestrial producers tend to be large and sessile. Marine producers are kingdom. The taxonomic organiza-
subject to fluid transport processes, can be spatially mixed, and can tion of species is hierarchical. Each
unexpectedly produce blooms that can be toxic. species belongs to a genus, each
genus belongs to a family, and so on
through order, class, phylum, and
kingdom.
Large marine carnivores and grazers—top predators such as fish and • Migration stopover points (e.g., for whales, turtles, and billfishes) and
sea stars—have a greater range of life history characteristics than ter- bottlenecks (e.g., migratory shorebirds) (Norse, 1993).
restrial counter-parts. Most marine predators have planktonic and ben-
thic life stages, each with unique environmental responses. Marine What Factors Underlie Long-term Sustainability?
predators differ strikingly in their much higher reproductive output.
This may buffer them from extinction due to overexploitation, but it Historically, exploitation of marine resources has been localized. Users
also renders their populations far more variable and less predictable knew limitations of marine resources in their areas, and societies and
and makes them more vulnerable to threshold effects. communities decided who would fish where and enforced the privi-
lege effectively.
When ocean and continental (aquatic and terrestrial) systems are com-
pared, biomass14 is found to be thousands, to hundreds of thousands The productivity of the sea was unharmed, and technological change
of times more dilute in the oceans. Oceanic species interact trophically was very slow.
with more other species than continental species, the largest marine
predators and prey are larger by one or two orders of magnitude, and What Are Some of the Indications of Problems in the Sea?
the oceans are on average several to hundreds of times less productive
than the continents. Fisheries are collapsing. The loss of marine biodiversity is profoundly re-
ducing the ocean’s ability to produce seafood, resist diseases, filter pol-
Distant marine habitats can be linked through dispersing larvae. Such lutants, and rebound from stresses like over fishing and climate change
systems are “open”, and connections between benthic and planktonic (Worm et al., 2006). Current global trends project the collapse of all
life-history stages assume great significance, unlike most terrestrial species of wild seafood that are currently fished by the year 2050—col-
systems. lapse is defined as 90 percent depletion (Worm et al., 2006).
The higher-order diversity of marine life is substantially richer. There are Megafauna are disappearing. Large predatory fish biomass today is
14 13 unique marine animal phyla (as opposed to one unique land phy- only about 10% of pre-industrial levels—declines of large predators in
Biomass is the total mass of living lum). The existence of such a large number of unique phyla provides a coastal regions have extended throughout the global ocean, with po-
matter within a given unit of envi-
ronmental area.
compelling argument for the importance of the evolutionary history of tentially serious consequences for ecosystems (Myers & Worm, 2003).
the sea (NRC, 1995).
15 Habitat-formers are vanishing. A report on the status of coral reefs of
For example, Orth et al. (2006) Are Some Areas of the Sea More Important than Others From an the world reports that 24% of the world’s reefs are under imminent risk
report an almost 10-fold increase
in the loss of seagrasses in tropical Ecological Viewpoint? of collapse from human pressures, and a further 26% are under a lon-
and temperate regions over the ger-term threat of collapse (Wilkinson, 2004).
past 40 years world-wide. Threat
include degraded water quality and
Yes. Some examples of important ecological areas include:
rising water temperatures, as well as Noxious or alien species are proliferating.
emergent threats from fish farming • Areas of high diversity
and aquaculture.
• Areas of high endemism (endemic species are ones with relatively What Are the Causes of these Problems?
16 narrow distributions)
Sea-level rise and human develop- • Areas of high productivity, e.g. upwelling areas There are many causes of the problems, including:
ment are together contributing to
losses of coastal wetlands (IPCC, • Spawning areas that serve as sources of recruits • Overexploitation of marine resources, e.g., over fishing
2007). • Nursery grounds • Habitat loss15 and physical alterations to habitat16
• Chemical pollution and eutrophication processes and governance happen on different temporal scales. Com-
• Alien species (invasions of exotic species)17 prehensive ecosystem-based spatial management can alleviate these
• Climate change, including increased ultraviolet radiation, potential problems (Crowder et al., 2006)
rising temperatures, resulting in potential changes to ocean circula-
tion (NRC, 1995) Marine ecosystem-based management will takes years to develop, but
there are key steps that we can take now:
In addition, non-climate stresses can increase vulnerability to climate
change by reducing resilience and can also reduce adaptive capacity • We can work toward ecosystem-based management through ma-
because of resource deployment to competing needs. For example, rine spatial planning that could dramatically reduce harmful ef-
current stresses on some coral reefs include marine pollution and fects of open-access competition and spatial mismatches—endless
chemical runoff from agriculture, as well as increases in water tem- conflicts, uncertainty, and high costs—by separating incompatible
perature and ocean acidification. Vulnerable regions face multiple uses;
stresses that affect their exposure and sensitivity as well as their ca- • Recognize that some human uses are incompatible with maintain-
pacity to adapt (IPCC, 2007). ing biodiversity, e.g., bottom trawling, and eliminate or reduce the
impacts of those incompatible uses on the marine environment;
Isn’t Governance Part of the Problem as Well? • Recognize that some human uses are incompatible with others and
reduce those conflicts through effective marine spatial planning;
Unfortunately, yes. Our oceans are in trouble because governance is not and
yet configured to manage them. Decision-making is fragmented, with • Acknowledge that some things only occur in one place, e.g., fish
major overlaps and gaps in governing authority. Natural processes and spawning aggregations, and ensure the effective protection of
governance often occur at different spatial scales. Additionally, natural those areas through marine spatial planning and zoning. 17
Invasive species mean alien species
whose introduction does or is likely
to cause economic or environmental
harm or harm to human health.
Invasive species represent the second
leading cause of species extinction
and loss of biodiversity in aquatic
environments worldwide. Common
sources of aquatic invasive species
introduction include ballast water,
aquaculture escapes, and accidental
and/or intentional introductions,
among others. For example, shipping
moves 3-5 billion tonnes of ballast
water internationally each year.
It’s estimated that at least 7,000
different species are carried in the
ballast waters of ships worldwide.
There are hundreds of examples of
catastrophic introductions around
the world, causing severe human
health, economic and/or ecological
impacts in their host environments
(see Global Ballast Water Manage-
ment Programme at http://www.
globallast.imo.org/.
5 Legislative and Policy Context for
What Are Some Early Examples of Authorities for MSP?
species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with the
Initial MSP legislation focused on marine protected areas (MPAs) such target species.
as Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and the Florida Keys in the USA—and
MPAs continue to be a driving force in marine spatial planning today. Following the successful inclusion of an ecosystem-based and
For example, Member States of the European Union have to identify precautionary approach in the work of the Convention for the
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the
(SACs) and have a legal obligation to provide sufficient protection concept was incorporated into the Convention for the Conserva-
under Natura 2000. In addition, marine spatial planning was only tion of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean and the 1995
occasionally an integral part of coastal management initiatives. UN Fish Stock Assessment. In the past three years an ecosystem ap-
proach to fisheries management has been considered at an interna-
See also Maes workshop presentation available at http://ioc3.unesco. tional level through the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible
org/marinesp/. Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem and the subsequent 2003 FAO
Technical Guidelines on “The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries”.
Can MSP Be Influenced by International Law or Practice?
While this sectoral-focused work has contributed to international,
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ac- regional and domestic fisheries management, as a single-sector ap-
knowledges that the problems of ocean space are closely related and proach, it cannot provide a comprehensive ecosystem-based man-
need to be considered as a whole. However, the legal boundaries set agement approach. It cannot cover the full range of human activi-
for maritime zones do not coincide with ecosystem boundaries. ties within an ecosystem and does not account for the potentially
cumulative and additive impacts that result from both fishing and
In 1999 the UN established an informal consultative process on non-fishing activities.
oceans and Law of the Sea, which has promoted to the UN Gen-
eral Assembly the requirement for an integrated, ecosystem- based The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers that an eco-
approach to management for the world’s oceans. Principle 7 of the system-based approach is the primary framework for the implemen-
Rio Declaration states that countries should cooperate in a spirit of tation of its international convention. The ecosystem approach is
global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and seen as a way to achieve the CBD’s three objectives of conservation,
integrity of the earth’s ecosystems. The adoption of Agenda 21 pro- sustainable use, and the equitable sharing of resources.
vided for the management of the ecosystem as an entirety, including
biotic and abiotic components. Finally, the UNEP Regional Seas Programme aims to address envi-
ronmental problems in the management of marine and coastal ar-
Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 calls for coastal states to commit themselves eas. The 18 regional programmes that have been established adopt
to integrated management and sustainable development of coastal the principle of integrated management, with most also addressing
areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdiction. trans-boundary issues through an ecosystem-based approach.
Under the FAO’s “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” coun- Can MSP Be Initiated through National Legislation?
tries are encouraged to conserve the biodiversity of aquatic habi-
tats and ecosystems, taking into account the fragility of coastal Yes. For example the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act (1975) pro-
ecosystems and integrated use of resources, and ensuring that vides a framework for planning and management of the Marine
conservation measures are applied to both target species and Park, including zoning plans, plans of management, and permits.
An integrated management plan for the Eastern Scotian Shelf has Fig 6.
been drafted under Canada’s Oceans Act (1997) that is expected to Zoning Map for
eventually lead to zoning. China’s Sea Use Management Legislation the Dutch part of
(2002) requires the functional zoning of its territorial sea. The United
the North Sea
Kingdom’s proposed Marine Bill (2007) has marine spatial planning as
one of its keystones. (See Box 6). (Source: Rijkswaterstaat
Noordzee)
Can MSP Be Initiated through National Policy?
Yes. In 2005, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the En-
vironment published for the first time a North Sea paragraph in its Na-
tional Spatial Planning Policy Document for the Netherlands. The North
Sea paragraph gives guidance through spatial planning for the manage-
ment of human activities in the North Sea. An Integrated Plan for the
North Sea 2015 was developed in which the strategy outlines how the
Dutch part of the North Sea will be managed in the next decade. Core
objectives of the management plan address the need for a healthy, safe,
and profitable sea. (See Fig. 6).
Some other examples where national ocean policy statements have led
to preliminary attempts toward marine spatial planning include:
• China’s Ocean Agenda 21 (1996)

• Australia Ocean Policy (1998)
• New Zealand’s Ocean Policy (2000)
• Canada’s Oceans Strategy (2002)
• United Kingdom’s Safeguarding Our Seas (2002)
• Korea’s Ocean Policy (2004)
• Mexico’s Ecological Sea Use Planning and Zoning, Gulf of California
and Gulf of Mexico (2006)
• European Commission’s Maritime Policy Green Paper (2006). (See
Box 7)
Is there a Good Example of MSP with National Legislation?
Yes, Germany. The Federal Spatial Planning Act of Germany has recently
been amended to extend national sectoral competencies for spatial
planning to its EEZ. In German coastal areas (up to 12 nautical miles
offshore), the Lander (states) can establish marine spatial planning on
Fig 7. the basis of their terrestrial planning laws. The Lander Mecklenburg-
INTERNATIONAL POLICIES
Policy Hierarchy Vorpommern (Baltic Sea) and Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony, North Sea)
of Marine Spatial have expanded their existing land use plans to the coastal area. (See
Conventions, Agreements, Directives, Policies Box 8).
Planning
(modified from MSPP
Consortium, 2006) Some of the positive points with this approach include:
• A legally enforceable duty for governmental bodies;
• Public participation can not easily be offset due to legal procedures
NATIONAL POLICIES
(access to courts);
• Legal enforcement tools besides administrative enforcement;
National Ocean Strategy • A holistic legal basis for environmental impact assessment (EIA and
SEA) or assessment of ecological effects;
• Better legal protection of user rights and nature; and
National Ocean Legislation
• Improved management on a long-time scale.
Vision and Strategic Goals for Marine Areas Some of the negative points associated with this approach include:
• Less flexibility to take into account new scientific data due to rigid
procedures for planning adaptation and results of public participa-
General and Sectoral Goals, Objectives, and Targets tion; and
• Higher political and administrative resistance might result in a weak
plan.
REGIONAL POLICIES Is There a Good Example of MSP Without National Legislation or

Policy?
REGIONAL MARINE SPATIAL PLANS
Yes, Belgium is one of the first countries to actually implement ma-
rine spatial planning despite the fact that there is no specific legisla-
Regional Goals, Objectives & Targets for Marine Areas
tion requiring it to do so. The development and implementation of
a spatial plan for its waters is based n a strong Marine Protection Act
Regional Goals, Objectives & Targets for Marine Sectors (1999). Central to the Act is a licensing procedure and the obligation
of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for new human activities.
( See Box 12).
Spatial Visualization of Marine Ecosystem (maps)
The positive aspects of this approach include:
Spatial Visualization of Current & Future Uses (maps) • Flexible allocation of activities based on demands;
• Flexible public or stakeholder participation depending on urgency;
and
Sub-Regional Plans (if required) • Policy can easily be adapted based on new scientific knowledge
Some of the negative features of this approach include:
• Continuity of the future implementation of MSP is not guaranteed;
• Does not necessarily solve competition among different govern-
mental bodies involved;
• No redistribution of competences if necessary for a holistic approach;
• Planning does not take into account user-user conflicts for a broader
area; and
• No EIA or assessment of ecological effects for the whole planning
area (SEA), i.e., only single use EIAs
What Are Some of the Other Key Legal Issues?
Some of the remaining legal issues include:

• Appropriate planning scale: regional or national or international?
• Boundaries: legal-administrative or ecosystems?
• Top down/bottom up approach or combined? How?
• Spatial planning based on a statutory or non-statutory plan?
• Conflict resolution by public participation or legal procedures?
• Enforcement: administrative or legal?
• Should there be a hierarchy in managing conflicting uses?
• Appropriate link with spatial planning on land, i.e., with integrated
coastal management and watershed or catchment area management?
Box 6. On 15 March 2007 the government of the United Kingdom released its ning system should be the creation of a UK marine policy statement.
The UK Marine Marine Bill White Paper. Five key areas are covered in the Marine Bill: The statement would set out both short and longer-term objectives
Bill and Marine for the marine environment and would be created with the clear
A new Marine Management Organization: The UK Government purpose of contributing toward the sustainable use of the marine
Spatial Planning and Northern Ireland administration have decided that a new Marine environment. It would provide general guidance to marine regula-
Management Organization (MMO) is needed to help effectively deliver tors and users, but would also be specifically implemented through
many marine policies. The MMO will be guided by a UK marine policy marine plans and decisions, and would therefore help steer toward a
statement. It will deal with a range of functions (including marine plan- vision for the marine environment.
ning, licensing and enforcement) that together provide a holistic ap-
proach to marine management. The shared UK marine policy statement would apply throughout UK
seas. However, use of marine space and resources varies widely in dif-
Marine planning: The Marine Bill will introduce a new system of ma- ferent areas. Therefore the second stage of the marine planning process
rine planning. This will provide a strategic approach to the use of marine should be the creation of a series of marine plans to cover the whole
space and the interactions between its uses. It will encompass all activi- of UK waters, applying to specific geographic areas and providing a
ties and deliver sustainable development by facilitating forward looking spatial context. Plans would need to represent the three-dimensional
decision-making. Marine plans will guide decisions on license applica- nature of the marine environment by addressing the seabed and area
tions and other issues, and provide users of the sea with more certainty. below it, the whole of the water column and area above it.
Licensing marine activities: The proposals will deliver a marine li- Policies plus sustainable development and environmental objectives
censing system that is more efficient and transparent, leading to less will be clarified and applied through marine plans. This will help busi-
risk, delay and cost to business. Some existing legislation will be re- nesses to assess the potential impact of their developments on ma-
placed with a modern streamlined system. The changes will simplify rine ecosystems and will inform subsequent decisions on licensing. Ef-
marine licensing processes and provide for a rationalized and more ficient, flexible planning arrangements that minimize bureaucracy will
integrated approach. be introduced. Marine plans will provide targeted and relevant infor-
mation to business to help reduce business costs and regulatory risks
Marine nature conservation: The proposals will provide for new of exploiting marine resources, and will provide efficient decisionmak-
mechanisms that will supplement existing tools for the conservation ing through the licensing process. Marine planning will be an inclusive
of marine ecosystems and biodiversity. This will include a new ap- process for all interested stakeholders.
proach to protected areas for important species and habitats.
Managing marine fisheries: The Marine Bill will modernize inshore fish- All decisions made in the marine area, or that could have implications for
eries management arrangements and enable a more active approach the marine area, to be made in accordance with the shared UK marine
to managing recreational sea angling. It will strengthen fisheries en- policy statement and any relevant marine plan. When taking decisions,
forcement powers and provide for recovery of the costs of fishing ves- public bodies would have to review the content of the policy statement,
sel license administration. in addition to the content of any relevant marine plan, to ensure that
their proposed course of action is in accordance with both.
The UK wants to move towards a more integrated approach to ma-
rine management. For that reason, the first stage of the marine plan- Adapted from The Marine Bill White Paper, 2007.
On 7 June 2006, the EU launched its Green Paper, Toward a Future Mari- The Maritime Policy concludes that a spatial planning system Box 7.
time Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas. The should be conducted on an ecosystem-based approach and es- Marine Spatial
Commission is providing a wide public consultation on a future mari- tablished for maritime activities in all waters under jurisdiction of
time policy for Europe that allows the development of well-balanced its member states.
Planning in the
and coherent sea-based policies and activities that reassure mutual EU Maritime
reinforcement of economic growth, social welfare (based on commit- The EU Marine Thematic Strategy (2005) provides a supportive Policy
ments of the Lisbon Strategy), and good status of the marine environ- framework for national marine spatial plans, particularly for achiev-
ment and its resources (based on the commitments of the Thematic ing ‘good environmental status’ of EU waters by 2021. In the context
Strategy for the Marine Environment). Marine spatial planning is seen of the Marine Strategy, Europe introduced the concept of ‘eco-re-
as a key aspect to managing a growing and increasingly competing gions’ based on which its seas are divided into ecologically-mean-
maritime economy, while at the same time safeguarding marine bio- ingful management units. Eleven eco-regions have been defined,
diversity. It describes marine spatial planning as a means to: based on bio-geographic features, oceanographic features, and
existing political, social and management divisions. They include
• Coordinate the spatial implementation of offshore renewable Greenland and Iceland Seas, Barents Sea, Faroe Islands, Norwegian
energy with other activities; Sea, Celtic Seas, North Sea, South European Atlantic Shelf, Western
• Provide financial security for investment decisions; Mediterranean Sea Adriatic-Ionian Seas, Aegean-Levantine Seas
• Manage the competition among various uses and objective of and the Oceanic Northeast Atlantic. This division into eco-regions
the marine environment; can be seen as a basic geographical requirement for implement-
• Develop a stable regulatory environment that ensures better and ing the ecosystem approach in European waters and builds further
simpler regulation toward the location of economic activity; on the condition that ecosystem-based management is inherently
• Ensure that individual decision on activities, taken at a national place-based or area-based.
or regional level, but affecting the same ecosystem or cross-bor-
der activities (for example pipelines, shipping routes) are dealt Toward a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for
with in a coherent manner; the Oceans and Seas, 7 June 2006. Available at:
• Ensure consistency between land and marine systems; and http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/
• Ensure that the future development of offshore activities is con-
sistent with the need to evolve multilateral rules.
Box 8. Marine spatial planning in Germany is still in an early stage. In July An important step toward allocation of marine space for specific
Marine Spatial 2004 an amendment to the Federal Spatial Planning Act entered uses was the designation of ‘preferred areas’ for wind energy in De-
into force stating that the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and cember 2005 for one area in the North Sea and two areas in the
Planning in Urban Affairs (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau and Stadtent- Baltic Sea. These ‘preferred areas’ will automatically turn into priority
Germany wicklung, former Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Hous- areas as soon as the spatial plan enters into force.
ing) should develop a legal instrument setting out the objectives
and principles of spatial planning in the EEZ. The planning initiative In the German territorial sea, the Länder (states) are responsible for
for the EEZ started with the Federal Ministry setting up goals and spatial planning, which can be done in the framework of the State
principles for spatial planning in the framework of UNCLOS. Last Planning Act. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Baltic Sea) and Nieder-
year, the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt sachsen (Lower Saxony, North Sea) already expanded their existing
für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie) completed a draft spatial plan spatial plans from the landside to the coastal area. Mecklenburg-
and an associated environmental report for the German EEZ in Vorpommern extended its 2005 Spatial Development Programme
both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The aim of the spatial plan to “ensure conflict management between the demands of new
is to establish sustainable development of ocean space, in which technologies, tourism and nature protection and traditional sec-
social and economic demands for space are consistent with the tors like shipping, fishing and defense at an early stage.” 18
ecological functions of space. The associated environmental report
aims to identify and evaluate the likely significant effects on the In the framework of EU Natura 2000, Germany designated various
environment that could result from implementing the spatial plan. protected areas in May 2004. An important step toward the de-
The spatial plan will be open for public consultation (including increase of fragmentation in national marine protected area man-
ternational participation) during the second half of 2007. agement is that the coordinates of the German areas of the Dogger
Bank and the Borkumse Stones have been used for the determina-
The German spatial planning approach includes the possibility to tion of the boundaries of the areas proposed for protection in the
designate areas as: Dutch part of the North Sea.
Priority Areas that are reserved for defined use in which other
conflicting uses are excluded; Adapted from a personal communication from Nico Nolte, German
Reservation Areas in which defined uses have a priority; and Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, 15 January 2007
Suitable Areas in which defined uses are allowed inside, but ex-
cluded outside, the designated areas.
18
Landesraumentwicklungspro-
gramm Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
mern. Ministerie für Arbeit, Bau
und Landesentwicklung des
Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
mern. May 2005.
Fig 8.
Existing and
Future Uses
of Nature
Conservation
of the German
EEZ in the
North Sea
(Source: Budesamt
für Seeschiffaht and
Hydrographie)
Fig 9.
Existing and
Future Uses
of Nature
Conservation
of the German
EEZ in the
Baltic Sea
(Source: Budesamt
für Seeschiffaht and
Hydrographie)
6 A Process for
What Is “Planning”?
Analysis is the activity that generates information for management
Operationally, planning is the process of analyzing who gets what, decisions. In discussing planning it is essential to consider explicitly:
when, and where, how, at what costs, and who pays the costs? Both (1) the process of planning, i.e., how the planning is organized; and
the initiation of planning and the ultimate decisions as a result of plan- (2) what analyses are essential to develop the information needed for
ning are normally a function of the political process in a society. management decisions?
Fig 8. Because the management of sea uses should be a continuous activ-

The Elements ity, the planning process must be organized to generate information at
of Management Research various points in time. There should be a continuous activity of analysis,
as part of management, to generate information for development of
Financing strategies to respond to changing conditions and information (Bower,
Ehler & Basta, 1994).
Planning & See also Gilliland workshop presentation (2006) at http://ioc3.unesco.

Analysis of org/marinesp/.
Alternative
Strategies What Are the Important Processes of Marine Spatial
Management?
Marine spatial management is comprised of at least three ongoing

phases:
Implementation
of Management
Strategy • Planning and Analysis: generating and adopting one or more
integrated, comprehensive spatial plans for the protection, en-
hancement and sustainable use and development of the sea and
its resources;
• Implementation: implementing the plan through the execution
Monitoring of of programmed works or investments, enabling change, encour-
Outputs & aging improvement and through regulation and incentives and
Outcomes enforcement of proposed changes and ongoing activities in, on,
over and under the sea, in accordance with the plans; and
• Monitoring and Evaluation—assessing the effectiveness of the
plans, their time scales and implementation mechanisms, consid-
Stakeholder
ering ways in which they need to be improved and establishing
Participation
Evaluation review and adaptation procedures. Results of evaluation are fed
back into the planning and analysis element of management, and
the process begins again.
Is There an Appropriate Approach to Setting Management
regional delivery and the horizontal integration across economic
Objectives? 19
sectors or agencies of government;
Defining overall goals and objectives for marine areas has a high value • A better basis on which to consider the inter-relationship between
compared to, as currently done, simply defining each individual sector’s economic, environmental and social objectives at the same time,
needs and hoping that these needs can be integrated or reconciled in rather than sequentially, and increase the chances of achieving sus-
the absence of some overall vision or ‘top down’ direction. Improved tainable development;
coordination of data gathering, management and greater accessibility • To encourage synergies and reduce conflicts, i.e., to provide a more
of datasets can have obvious benefits to both government agencies strategic basis for any one economic sector to identify the objec-
and developers. tives of other sectors and their environmental, economic, and so-
cial impacts. This should reduce the burden on any one sector for
Marine spatial planning within the context of sea-use management undertaking this type of comprehensive analysis;
can provide a framework within which to articulate, reconcile, and in- • An improved basis for analyzing the cummulative effects of incre-
tegrate relevant economic, environmental and social objectives collec- mental decisions;
tively, i.e., government policy. This is not done at present in the marine • A better basis for identifying widely-agreed, common scenarios
environment or under the auspices of any existing authorities. Objec- for the future taking account the best available forecasts such
tives, with associated targets, are defined for some individual sectors, as identifying which targets are likely to change significantly be-
either explicitly, e.g., a 10% by 2010 target for renewable energy, quotas yond, for example, a 20-year planning time frame (e.g., renewable
for fisheries, or implicitly, e.g., to optimize exploitation of oil and gas energy targets) and their projected increases. The ability to fore-
reserves wherever they are found or to maintain or improve environ- cast will vary among sectors. These differences would need to be
mental quallity. accommodated irrespective of the management measure under
consideration;
Even then, objectives are not broken down into more operational re- • A proactive approach to the delivery of objectives for the safeguard-
gional targets and rarely do they have a spatial context, although again ing and recovery of the marine ecosystem and the services that it
these are sometimes implicit. Therefore, a marine spatial plan provides provides rather than through each sector of economic activity hav-
a framework within which to identify and state the contribution that ing to enter into consultation on these for every permit application;
will be made by the planning area, i.e., “the region”, to national objec- and
tives, such as wind and other renewable energy targets to be achieved, • Improved governance with greater confidence of government, in-
fish stocks in need of recovery, environmental quality, habitat protec- dustry, and other stakeholders of how and where their objectives
tion or restoration targets. can and should be translated into reality at the level of the marine
ecosystem.
Defining overall goals, and then more specific and measurable objec-
tives, that ideally are spatially defined, for different human use activi- What Is the Process of Making a Plan?
ties, should provide the following added value compared to existing
practice: The process of making a plan should involve:
• Clear, “top-down” or strategic direction for what is to be achieved • Analysis: information gathering, including surveying and map- 19
Adapted from: “The added value of
within the sea-use management area to complement “bottom-up” ping, better understanding the interaction of activities with each marine spatial planning” (2005), UK
stakeholder involvement and interests, strengthening the vertical other and with the environment, identifying and filling gaps in Country Agencies Interagency Work-
integration between national policy guidance and targets and their information; ing Group on MSP
• Forecasting and Developing Alternative Scenarios: Analyz- • specifying alternative ecological and socio-economic models to be
ing trends and changes, identifying issues and what needs to be used in the analysis;
done, or not done, and what needs to be resolved, potential con- • specifying possible scenarios for analysis, where a scenario includes
flicts, opportunities for multiple use and development. A good ex- economic and demographic conditions, environmental and ecolog-
ample of how forecasting and developing alternative scenarios for ical conditions; and
the future use of space can be applied is provided by the Belgian • selecting scenarios for detailed analysis and evaluation.
research project “GAUFRE” (Maes, et al., 2005) (at http://www.belspo.
be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?|=en&COD=MA/02); Then for each “scenario” selected:
• Assessing Alternatives: considering the costs and benefits of
possible alternatives and options; • estimating demands on the resources of the management area;
• Stakeholder and Public Participation: including the meaningful • analyzing human activities in the management area with respect to
involvement of stakeholders, at a time when they can be genuinely resource use, direct modifications of habitat, and discharges of pol-
influential on the plan, for example, in the selection of options or alter- lutants;
native strategies, and where necessary, possibly involving mediation • analyzing the responses of marine ecosystems and natural processes
to resolve any more deeply embedded conflicts of interest; and in relation to human activities;
• Outreach: making the draft plan available to the public, along with • analyzing the effects (injuries) of the changes in marine ecosystems
supporting reports such as the environmental report, issue papers, on various species, habitats, and ecosystems;
surveys, etc., and providing meaningful opportunities for interested • analyzing monetary damages and benefits in relation to effects de-
members of the public to express their views in a reasonably infor- lineated in the previous step;
mal, open and non-adversarial setting. • formulating alternative management strategies to reduce undesired
effects and damages and produce desired outputs;
What Are the Steps of Analysis in Making a Plan? • selecting management strategies for analysis;
• evaluating management strategies; and
The various analyses undertaken for planning can be described as a se- • presenting results to the decision makers and other stakeholders.
quence of activities. Some of the activities, or portions of the activities,
can be done simultaneously; and there is—or should be—continuing
feedback among the activities and continuing interaction between the
planners and the decision makers and other stakeholders throughout
the analytic activities, i.e., during each “round” of analysis in the continu-
ing management context. At the same time there should be a finite
period of time for a given “round” of analysis. All of the segments should
be completed within some specified time period.
Examples of analytical activities include:
• identifying current conditions/problems of the management area;

• specifying problems in detail;
• evaluating resources of the management area with respect to po-
tential for producing goods and services;
The Irish Sea Pilot helped develop a strategy for marine nature con- ing and mapping 18 coastal and seabed marine landscape types, Box 9.
servation that could be applied to all UK waters and, with interna- and 4 water column marine landscape types. The Irish Sea
tional collaboration, the adjacent waters of the north-east Atlantic.
The work fulfils a commitment made by the UK Government in May Nationally-important marine features. A draft set of criteria for
Pilot Project
2002 at the launch of Safeguarding our Seas. The Pilot was funded the identification of nationally-important marine landscapes, habi-
primarily by Defra with contributions from other partners. tats and species was tested. A recommendation was made that fur-
ther work should be undertaken to determine which marine nation-
One of the aims of the Irish Sea Pilot was to test the proposed frame- ally-important features would benefit from specific Action Plans.
work for marine nature conservation, developed by the Review of
Marine Nature Conservation Working Group. The framework was de- Nationally-important marine areas. The Pilot investigated the
veloped to demonstrate that action needed to be taken at a range concept of ecologically-coherent networks of important marine ar-
of scales. The proposed framework anticipated that a range of mea- eas as envisaged under the EC Habitats Directive and under OSPAR,
sures would be needed to conserve marine biodiversity, including tested draft criteria for the identification of important marine areas,
protected areas, spatial planning and other measures. and investigated a range of methods to develop a network of areas
for the Irish Sea.
The results of the Pilot study have been published. The report, Ma-
rine Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development, The Irish Sea The Pilot also investigated means of identifying and conserving im-
Pilot, Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is portant marine geological and geomorphological areas, an aspect
available on the JNCC website (http://www.jncc.gov.uk). A synopsis previously little considered in the UK or internationally.
of the main areas investigated and conclusions drawn included:
Conservation objectives. Building on the vision and strategic goals
Data and information. The Pilot collated geophysical, hydro- set out in Safeguarding our Seas and in Seas of Change, a generic series of
graphical, nature conservation, ecological and human use data and high level conservation objectives and operational conservation objec-
used GIS analysis. While intertidal and near-coast biological informa- tives applicable to national waters was formulated.
tion was found to be satisfactory, data were sparse for most offshore
localities to a degree which would constrain good decision-making. Overarching measures required. Mechanisms by which the Re-
Furthermore, some survey data were not available to the Pilot, either gional Sea could be managed to achieve the conservation objectives at
because they were held in an inappropriate format or because the the various scales of the proposed framework for marine nature conser-
data owner was unable or unwilling to release it. vation were considered, in relation to current measures and legislation.
Marine landscapes. The Pilot tested the concept of ‘Marine Land- International working. While the previous conclusions are intended
scapes’ which is based on using geophysical and hydrographical to apply directly to the United Kingdom, one of the main conclusions of
data to identify habitat types in the absence of biological data. If the Pilot was the importance of working closely with international Gov-
reliable, such an approach would enable management measures for ernment partners and stakeholders. This will be crucial in the effective
offshore areas to be developed with confidence in the absence of future management of the national seas and adjacent waters.
biological data, which is very expensive to obtain in offshore areas.
The Pilot successfully applied this approach to the Irish Sea, identify- Adapted from the Defra Website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/re-
sprog/findings/irishseapilot/index.htm
Fig 9.
Proposed
Multiple Use
Zoning Map of
the Irish Sea
(Source: Boyes et al.,
2005)
Why Is Public Participation So Important? Fig 10.
Regional
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the effective involvement
of the public and stakeholders throughout the MSP process. People Context of
matter and are the agents for change – political and other. However, Florida Keys
the process of engagement needs time and financing. The investment National
is worth it. Marine
Sanctuary
A balance is needed. Stakeholder engagement should inform and (Source: NOAA)
support, but not to be the sole determinant of any MSP scheme. That
should be achieved through the leadership of politicians and the plan-
ning team.
The degree to which all stakeholders are involved at different points in

the process will vary. Sometimes it is not helpful to involve everyone
at every point. However, stakeholder engagement should occur from
the outset – it should be early, often, and sustained throughout the
MSP process.
Stakeholders should be properly informed to enable them to play their

full roles, e.g., the pros and cons of different activities or options. It can
work, even in a very “top-down” situation. It can be a lengthy and labor-
intensive activity. Care is needed to keep the costs associated with it in
proportion to the activities being undertaken—a balance should be
struck throughout the process.
How it is done is critical, but the outcome of effective stakeholder in-

volvement is invaluable.
Box 10. The Tortugas Ecological Reserve, a fully protected marine reserve criteria for the reserve, evaluate draft boundaries, and recommend
Stakeholder that is currently the largest such area in the United States, is part a preferred boundary.
of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a multiple-use MPA
Involvement in that uses marine zoning to protect resources while allowing com- What were the ingredients of success? First and foremost, it was es-
Expanding the patible activities. The design and implementation of the reserve are sential to begin the design process with a common foundation of
Florida Keys considered to be a successful example of collaborative decision- knowledge among all decision-makers. Secondly, making the same
National Marine making. The community-based planning process for the reserve knowledge available to the local community and the general public
acknowledged the important contributions of the area’s users, and enhanced interest in and support for the eventual decisions made
Sanctuary represented a significant departure from government-driven, top- about the reserve. Internet posting of technical papers, maps, and
down marine conservation initiatives that are often the norm in other visual data was particularly useful; however, the more signifi-
many developed countries. The inclusion of citizen representatives cant vehicle by which the Sanctuary shared scientific and traditional
with an equal voice in the decision-making process was significant. knowledge was through the informational forums that were held at
In addition to unprecedented community involvement, socio-po- the beginning of the design phase. Given the broad dissemination of
litical and economic factors weighed heavily in the outcome of the scientific information related to reserve design it was important that
reserve process. Science played a crucial role in balancing short- the data be easily interpreted and understood by a variety of audi-
term economic concerns with potential long-term economic and ences. GIS maps based on familiar units and scales were extremely
ecological benefits. helpful for visualizing reserve boundaries and determining how al-
ternatives would meet specific criteria and affect certain users. Lastly,
At the core of Tortugas 2000 was a 25-member working group that it was important that science experts were seated at the table with
included Sanctuary Advisory Council members, stakeholders, and other relevant stakeholders from project inception. Scientific data
government agency representatives. The Working Group ensured and research results are important to a reserve design process, but
that all constituents and agencies with an interest in activities in the should be considered alongside traditional knowledge provided by
Tortugas were present during the design phase. The Tortugas 2000 users of the area. Also, when scientific experts participate directly in
Working Group was charged with reviewing available natural sci- the process they are able to answer questions and advise on techni-
ence and socio-economic information and making a recommen- cal matters as needed. This direct exchange of information served
dation to NOAA on the size, shape, and placement of the Tortugas to build trust and engendered a sense of accountability among the
Ecological Reserve. A professional facilitator guided the Working Working Group members and the public.
Group, which over the course of 13 months met five times to de-
fine operating goals, agree to ground rules, develop and weight Adapted from Cowie-Haskell & Delany, 2004.
7 Defining the Human Dimension of
How Is Geographic Information System (GIS) Technology How Can the “Human Dimension” Be Added to MSP?
Changing Marine Resource Management?
The human dimension of MSP reduces in most cases to a listing of
New geo-technologies are revolutionizing marine resource manage- activities (e.g., recreation, oil/gas, fisheries, shipping). These are, of
ment. Through remote sensing and geo-positioning technologies, sci- course, vital to document, but they are complex processes across a
ence is making visible what had been previously been hidden or inacces- variety of scales parallel to biophysical processes. Ecosystem-based
sible. Living and non-living marine resources, species ranges and their approaches have transformed the way we view the latter and, even-
life histories, habitats, physical and chemical conditions, and sea bottom tually, manage the biophysical environment by understanding pro-
morphology are increasingly being measured, monitored, and mapped. cesses, connections, space, and scales (as opposed to, for example,
single species fisheries management). Human dimensions need to be
This information is being stored, managed, and analyzed using geo- thought of similarly through a similar understanding of processes (e.g.,
graphic information systems (GIS). GIS is quickly becoming the forum community and territory), connections (e.g., within and across commu-
where marine spatial data are aggregated, planning options are visu- nities, economies), space (e.g., territories, mappings, cultural percep-
alized, impact analyses are performed, and ocean zones, e.g., marine tions) and scales (e.g., local, regional, national scales of society).
protected areas or fishery closure areas, established and mapped.
Related to the above is the perception that the incorporation of hu-
However, GIS models the environment as layers of information to be man dimensions into MSP will be done by engaging with economists
queried, combined, and analyzed in various ways. This way of think- and, presumably, economists’ understandings of human behavior.
ing structures decision making as the consideration of layers and their While the economy is an important consideration relative to human
overlap, e.g., siting a wind farm offshore. dimensions, there are other considerations, other human motiva-
tions, other society processes, etc. to be considered. Indeed, econom-
Most research and data collection is a documentation of the bio-physi- ics (e.g., fisheries bioeconomics) reduces the “human dimension” to
cal geography of the oceans. This new geographic information makes fishing effort as a result of utility maximization. Other social sciences
marine resources more open to exploitation and makes necessary a de- (e.g., anthropology) have suggested that other processes drive hu-
tailed and permanent governance of the spaces where those resources man behavior, etc. Also, the economy is studied and understood not
are located. just through the discipline of economics, it is the focus of many ge-
ographers, anthropologists, and sociologists as well. Therefore, while
See also St. Martin presentation (2006) available at http://ioc3.unesco. advancing and refining MSP, it is vital that the human dimension does
org/marinesp/). not reduce to economics as representing by economists alone. Inte-
grating the human dimension requires the same diversity of disciplines/
How Is This Different from What Resource Managers Used in the perspectives as does the ecosystem approach relative to the biophysical
Past? environment.
While the full extent of an ecosystem is important to consider and de- Little work is being done on the social or human geography of the
fine, it is the complex of processes and interactions within the system, oceans. The “human dimensions” of the marine environment are
between species and habitats, and between users and the environ- widely recognized as important to include and integrate into deci-
ment, that are the focus of most ecosystem analysis and ideally the ba- sion making, but there are few layers of socio-economic informa-
sis for policy development. These interactions are typically local events tion that one might combine with the bio-physical in, for example,
demanding local data collection and analyses that can then be inte- spatial suitability analyses for the establishment of a marine pro-
grated with analyses at other scales (St. Martin, 2004). tected area.
Furthermore, to the degree that socio-economic information is avail- ment the connections between offshore locations and onshore com-
able and integrated, it is expressed as the presence or absence of par- munities need to be developed along with socio-economic layers
ticular activities, e.g., fishing, mineral extraction, dredging, and shipping. generally. It also points out the need for greater community-level par-
Documenting these activities in space is clearly important to spatial ticipation in marine spatial planning.
planning and decision making, but once reduced to layers in the GIS,
these activities are severed from the communities that they support Is There an Alternative Approach to Adding the Human
and/or from which they originate. What is incorporated into the GIS Dimension?
is, for example, a layer representing fishing intensity rather than one
representing the territories of fishing communities. The “missing layer” in the GIS is “community”, i.e., the link between off-
shore activities and onshore economies, livelihoods, cultures, places,
The layer that is missing then is not just the socio-economic, though etc. Ignoring community produces uneven impacts and conflict, and
that is often absent, but the relationship between offshore locations area closures based on activity cannot account for communities.
and the onshore communities and economies to which offshore loca-
tions are necessarily attached. It’s a question of methodology that requires community participation
and the incorporation of local knowledge, assessing local impacts of
As a result, community-level participation in management is difficult to area management, incorporating qualitative methods and GIS.
implement. Local knowledge is not incorporated in planning. Impact
analyses miss local economic effects, and human meanings, social his- The growing need for more localized data in terms of local habitat and
tory, and cultural context are lost. environment, as well as local community analyses, suggests a participa-
tory role for communities in both science and management. Fishers
What Is a Good Example of This Problem? can act as sources of valuable localized information within a regime of
trust and mutual benefit. Similarly, community members can provide
The designation of a marine protected area (MPA) may have considered information necessary for informed and reliable impact analyses at the
fishing intensity along with other layers of information such as biological community level, information that is simply not otherwise available
diversity, species presence or absence, habitat vulnerability, recreational within existing data bases. Importantly, GIS increasingly is associated
use, and so on. A suitable location for an MPA may be proposed and may with community participation in both science and the assessment of
appear to minimally affect commercial fishing. Perhaps it will close only policy and planning impacts.
10% of regionally-important fisheries. However, the MPA may represent
the entire fishing territory of a particular fishing community that might not GIS is an important technology for marine spatial planning. Howev-
be able to fish elsewhere due to distance, custom, safety, etc. In addition to er, the promise of GIS goes beyond supplementing current numeric
simple dispossession, spatial planning that ignores community territoriality methods with a new technology. It implies performing management
also produces conflict as people move to other locations already inhab- in new ways at several institutional levels. The promise of GIS is that its
ited by other users, intensifies resource exploitation in remaining areas, and incorporation into science and management might, at the same time,
makes fishing more hazardous as fishers must travel further to catch fish. create new opportunities to combine social data with biological data,
Neglecting the connection between locations offshore and communities to enhance cooperation between user communities and marine scien-
onshore can result in uneven impacts and unforeseen hardships. tists and managers, and to make management more participatory and
multi-objective (St. Martin, 2004).
This problematic raises significant questions about spatial planning
methodologies. In particular, it suggests that methods to better docu-
Fig 11. Box 11. The work of Kevin St. Martin of Rutgers
Community- University illustrates how the human di-
Mapping
based Fishing mension can be added to marine spatial
Grounds in the the Social planning. Based on the local knowledge
Gulf of Maine Landscape of of fishers of the Gulf of Maine, he and his
Fishers in the colleagues have been developing maps
(Source: Kevin St. Martin,
of: (1) where fishers fish; (2) who fishes
Rutgers University) Gulf of Maine
(by gear type and port) in what locations
(identifying discrete areas corresponding
to the “home range” of vessels from various ports; and (3) where
do peer groups fish (identifying fishing locations by gear type for
single ports)?
The results of this work include development of a method for pro-

ducing maps of the “social landscape” of the Gulf of Maine, an im-
proved understanding of the processes of human community and
territory in this ocean space, a way of reducing uneven impacts of
spatial planning decisions, and improved participation of fishers in
science and management
8 Implementing
Do Politicians Have Different Criteria than Planners for
• If there is no current problem, is it worth the costs of implementa-
Evaluating Plan Implementation?
tion today?
Absolutely. Politicians have a different time frame than scientists and • Explain why zoning and other control measures are necessary if
planners. Their term in usually about 4-5 years of which half is typically there is not existing problem.
dedicated to re-election. Consequently, results from plan implementa- • Who benefits as a result of plan implementation? Who pays? How
tion are expected within a short term—which is usually not possible. much, how, and when?
Often decisions to implement plans are based on the potential contri-
bution to re-election. Scientists and planners, on the other hand, pro- Costly proposals will need fine tuning. Conclicts and solutions will have
pose solutions to current and future problems or damaging trends that to be defined clearly and solutions, e.g., is a total prohibition of an activ-
go far beyond the time frame of 4-5 yeasrs. ity really necessary or can a temporal prohibition, e.g., during winter, or
during spawning season?
See also Plasman presentation (2006) available at http://ioc3.unesco.
org/marinesp/. How Can Plans Best Be Transformed into Action?
It is also necessary to have a broad concensus by all actors and stake- Politicians will usually look for a concensus among the stakeholders.
holders, no risk of legal challenges, and compliance with international They do not like the lack of transparency, i.e., no black box, where a
or regional agreements and legislation. “commission will decide upon the measures to be taken”.
The time required for implementation often determines the way plans Set a clear line from the beginning and look for margins to discuss,
are evaluated. Politicians will often want to know if the time before re- for example, “historical rights”. Search for “win-win” situations, e.g.,
sults are realized can be shortened by aspects such as scientific knowl- marine spatial planning can provide legal/economic stability in the
edge or experience, existing legislation, or debates that have already longer term.
been underway for some years.
Ensure participation and access to information. User committees and
Other questions relevant for politicians to implement marine spatial voluntary agreements can be a solution when there is polarization at
planning include: the extremes, which is often the case. Look for a concensus within
• What are the resource requirements? government.
• What is the budget?
• Over what period of time? Broad acceptance makes it difficult for someone to be against the plan.
• What human resources are required—staffing, consultancies, However, the plan must be in line with administrative rules such as sim-
training? plicity and impact on staffing/budget.
• Are there other administrative costs?
• Is more scientific advice needed?
• Is that need immediate, based on the existing scientific programs or
are there proposals for new (and potentially expensive) studies?
• Is there broad-based scientific concensus for the plan? A lack of con-
census can be counter-productive.
• What is the real problem?
• Does it exist now, or is it something that will happen in the future?
The legislative framework in Belgium has shaped marine spatial The zones defined for wind farms now allows companies to Box 12.
planning in a continuous process. The need for a comprehensive submit proposals without the former risks of denial of permit or Implementation
approach toward spatial planning became particularly urgent be- compensation costs to other marine resource users (e.g., fisher-
cause of new objectives and associated targets for future ocean ies) resulting from the lack of a spatial framework for the area as
of Marine Spatial
use and protection. The core issues of the MSP policy framework a whole. Planning in
included the development of an offshore wind farm, the delimita- Belgium
tion of marine protected areas, a policy plan for sustainable sand Future initiatives concerning spatial planning in Belgium are be-
and gravel extraction, enhanced financial resources for the pre- ing considered. New actions will focus on the protection of ma-
vention of oil pollution, the mapping of marine habitats, protec- rine shipwrecks for archeological, biodiversity, and ecological
tion of wrecks valuable for biodiversity, and the management of interests, development of a marine component for existing ter-
land-based activities affecting the marine environment. Together, restrial, protected areas, and the allocation of a research zone for
these objectives provide the basis for a Master Plan that has been alternative fishing methods.
implemented incrementally since 2003. The first two phases of
the Master Plan are now operational and focus on: At the scientific level, a multidisciplinary two-year research proj-
ect (GAUFRE) was set up to develop a visionary approach for the
• Spatial delimitations for sand and gravel extraction and a zone marine environment, applying and translating land use planning
for future offshore wind energy projects (Phase 1), followed by concepts and methodologies. This visionary approach – in the
• Delimitation of marine protected areas as part of the Natura form of alternative scenarios for future sea use reflecting various
2000 Network (Phase 2). importance of core objectives – has been developed to provide a
basic tool for policy decisions because of deficiencies in existing
The spatial plan has led to a more diverse zoning system for sand scientific knowledge and data.
and gravel extraction that includes new control zones with se-
quential rotation for the most intensive exploitation areas, sea- From Douvere, F., et al., 2007.
sonally closed zones in which extraction is prohibited during fish
spawning seasons and an exploration zone where potential fu-
ture use is examined.
Fig 12.
Implementation
of Marine Spatial
Planning in Belgium
(Source: Belgian Federal
Government, Directorate
General for Environment)
Fig 13.
Existing Ocean
Uses in the
Belgian Part of
the North Sea
(Source: Maes et al.,
2005)
Box 13. In 1997, responding to the policy of China’s national government der stricter control of the provincial level and national government
to “rigorously enforce laws governing the management and pro- and that the long-term benefits of the State is guaranteed in a sus-
Implementing
tection of land, water, forests, minerals, and seas”, the State Oceanic tainable manner. According to the Law, 70% of the fees collected
China’s Sea Use Administration (SOA) officially proposed the formulation of a law to from sea use will rest with the local government, and 30% will go
Management Law manage sea use. In 1999, after two years of effort, the Law on the directly to the State revenue, for marine development, protection
Management of Sea Use was drafted and submitted for approval. and management.
On 27 October 2001, the 24th session of the Standing Committee
of the Ninth National People’s Congress adopted the Law, which Starting in 2000, under the overall supervision of the State Coun-
entered into effect on 1 January 2002. The law has established cil, SOA, along with other relevant ministries and coastal provinces,
three principles: autonomous regions and municipalities formulated a nation-wide
marine functional zoning scheme. After extensive data collection,
(a) The right to the sea-use authorization system. According intensive studies and several consultations, the National Marine
to the law, the seas are owned by the State. The State Council Functional Zoning Scheme was submitted to the State Council and
exercises the ownership of the seas on behalf of the State. Any approved on 22 August 2002. The scheme was widely publicized
entity or individual who intends to use the sea must apply in and implemented by SOA starting in September 2002.
advance and obtain the right to use the sea; they are authorized
only after the approval of the national government; The State Council provided comprehensive guidelines on the na-
(b) A marine functional zoning system. The law stipulates that tional implementation of the zoning scheme and its management,
any use of the sea areas must comply with the marine functional and further defined the responsibilities and mandates of the various
zoning scheme established by the State. The scheme is the foun- competent governmental organizations in ocean management. It
dation for marine management, under which the sea is divided emphasized that marine functional zoning scheme is the legal basis
into different types of functional zones (according to the criteria of the management of sea use and marine protection and should
related to ecological functions and priority use), to regulate and therefore be strictly implemented. The Council also pointed out
guide rational use of the sea area; and that relevant laws and regulations on ocean management should
(c) A user-fee system. The right to sea use is protected under the be firmly implemented based on the principle of “development in
State’s legal system. The State imposes a user-fee system, which protection and protection in development”, with the ultimate goal of
requires that any entity or individual who uses the sea must pay the rational development and sustainable use of the sea.
a fee in accordance with the regulations of the State Council.
This system stipulates that the sea is a State-owned asset, and The implementation of the National Marine Functional Zoning
all entities and individuals who intend to use the sea to carry out Scheme marks the initial establishment of a regional planning system
production and other economic activities, must pay for its use. and an integrated management framework for marine development
and conservation in China. Over two-thirds the zoning schemes of
The law has also established a “two-level management system”, i.e., the 11 coastal provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities
all sea-use applications will be assessed and approved by the pro- have been completed, and most of the schemes had been approved
vincial, as well as the national government. Governments at city by their respective local governments for implementation.
and county levels do not have the authority to approve sea-use
applications. This is to ensure that sea-use activities are placed un- Adapted from Li, 2006
Fig 14.
Xiamen Zoning
Scheme
(Source: State Oceanic
Administration)
Fig 15.
Shanghai
Zoning Scheme
(Source: State Oceanic
Administration)
9 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Adapting
Why are Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Adaptive Why Are Clear, Measurable Management Objectives
Management Important? Important?
Monitoring, evaluation, effective reporting and adaptive manage- Clear, measurable objectives are fundamental for assessing effec-
ment are widely recognized as fundamental components for effectiveness. Articulating the desired outcome for each objective helps
tive marine management. MSP is a continuous process involving all define a practical interpretation of that objective. Objectives should
the above elements (and more—see previous sections). Monitoring be developed for different management levels (e.g., broad goals, re-
and evaluation needs to concentrate on the most important issues gional areas, specific tasks/projects). Objectives should be estab-
affecting or potentially affecting a marine area. Adaptive, ecosys- lished early in any planning/management process.
tem-based, sea use management can ensure healthy, productive
and resilient marine areas that provide the goods and services that What Do We Mean by “Indicators”?
people want and need.
An indicator is a measure (quantitative or qualitative) of how close
See Day presentation available at http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp/. we are to achieving what we set out to achieve (i.e., our objective).
Adaptive management can: Indicators are quantitative/qualitative statements or measured/ob-

served parameters that can be used to describe existing situations
• demonstrate the extent to which objectives have been achieved; and measure changes or trends over time. Their three main func-
• identify gaps that can be rectified; tions are simplification, quantification and communication (Belfiore
• provide feedback as to what’s working and what’s not, enabling et al., 2006).
more informed decision-making;
• promote accountability and demonstrate resources have effectively What Is the Problem of “Shifting Baselines”?
used; and
• enable effective review of management direction, priorities, resource “Each generation accepts the species composition and stock sizes
requirements, etc. that they first observe as a natural baseline from which to evaluate
changes. This ignores the fact that this baseline may already repre-
Use an adaptive planning approach—don’t wait for perfect infor- sent a disturbed state. The resource then continues to decline, but
mation. Always be prepared to learn new information—and use the next generation resets their baseline to this newly depressed
that information to adapt management plans and decisions. state. The result is a gradual accommodation of the creeping disap-
pearance of resource species, and inappropriate reference points...
What Are the Main Steps in Evaluating Management for identifying targets …..” (Pauley, 1998)
Effectiveness?
What Lessons Have We Learned from Applying Indicators?
• Identify management objectives/desired outcomes;
• Choose indicators; Some of the lessons learned from applying indicators in a manage-
• Undertake monitoring; ment context include:
• Periodically assess results;
• Report findings & recommendations; and • Indicators must reflect changes at spatial and temporal scales of rel-
• Adjust management as necessary (= adaptive management). evance to management and what needs to be measured;
• Differing indicators should be used for site level and system level;
• As well as more obvious environmental indicators, need also to de- • Managers, especially those in the field;
velop social and governance indicators; • Other managers/other agencies;
• Ecological goals and socio-economic goals are not mutually exclusive. • Decision makers/governments; and
However, they do need different evaluation criteria/indicators; and • Interest groups (funding bodies, NGOs, international community/
• Problems of “dangerous targets” (Agardy et al., 2003). programs).
What Is “Monitoring”? Reporting may take many different forms, including written (reports, pa-
pers), mass media, internet/web, and oral presentations.
Monitoring is the process of repeated observation for specified pur-
poses, according to prearranged schedules in space and time and What Lessons Have We Learned about Reporting and Adaptive
using comparable data collection methods (after Meijers, 1986). Management?
How Can Monitoring Meet Management Needs? Assessments should be open, transparent and accessible to community.
“A picture paints a thousand words” (importance of visuals, graphs to show
Monitoring can be used to: trends, etc.). It’s important to think about reporting means at the outset of
the project, and to tailor the report style and level of detail to the target au-
• Assess the ecological state of ecosystems; dience. Timing/release of a report can be critical, especially if using media.
• Assess whether regulated performance criteria have been exceeded; Reporting research results can sometimes take years/decades—far outside
• Detect and assess impacts of human-generated disturbance(s); management, and especially political, timeframes.
and
• Assess responses to restoration efforts. Have We Learned any General Principles about Adaptive
Management?
What Lessons Have We Learned from Monitoring?
• There are many theoretical calls for comprehensive evaluation
Monitor wisely—at ecologically- and socially-relevant temporal and of management effectiveness of marine areas. Reality is few re-
spatial scales. Many monitoring programs ‘do the thing right’ (i.e., source management agencies have implemented such systems
precise local measurements) rather than ‘doing the right thing’! If or procedures.
possible, get managers and users who are on the water daily to as- • Most evaluation efforts to date have concentrated on the bio-
sist with monitoring. Know the value of quick, easily accessible re- physical aspects/condition in a few selected areas. Very few are
sults. Development of affordable/acceptable monitoring programs comprehensive assessments of management effectiveness, or
for some areas may typically involve innovation in scientific meth- include social or economic aspects.
ods and approaches. Finally, you may need to monitor outside your • Many evaluations have relied upon staff from academic or re-
particular area or jurisdiction to ascertain the context upon which search institutions to do the work. Very few have been conduct-
your results may be assessed. ed by, or effectively involved, management staff.
• Most management plans today refer to adaptive management
Why Is Reporting Important? and the need to monitor performance. Few really have, with the
main excuses seeming to be high costs, institutional barriers,
Reporting is a key part of communicating monitoring or evaluation and lack of political support.
results to a wide range of interested parties including:
Fig 16.
The Great
Barrier Reef
Representative
Areas
Programme
(source: Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park
Authority)
Can We Draw Any Conclusions about the Need for Marine Spatial
• Zoning is only one of a wide range of management tools that can
Planning To Be Adaptive?
be used for marine management.
• Monitoring, evaluation, effective reporting and adaptive man-
agement are all fundamental components of effective sea use • A complementary approach is needed across appropriate jurisdic-
management. Marine spatial planning should be a continuous tional boundaries, i.e., local, state, federal, regional, international.
process that involves all these elements. • Adaptive management can: (1) demonstrate the extent to which
• Adaptive, ecosystem-based sea use management can ensure objectives have been achieved; (2) identify gaps that may be rec-
healthy, productive and resilient marine areas that provide the tified; (3) provide feedback as to what’s working and what’s not,
goods and services that people want and need. enabling more informed decision-making; (4) promote account-
• Monitoring and evaluation need to concentrate on the most im- ability and demonstrate resources have effectively used; and (5)
portant issues affecting or potentially affecting a marine man- enable effective review of management direction, priorities, re-
aged area. Managers should develop a comprehensive list of source requirements, etc
research and monitoring priorities required to address key man-
agement needs. Finally, use an adaptive planning approach. Don’t wait for perfect infor-
• Apply the precautionary principle – don’t wait for “perfect” science mation that will never come. Be prepared to take on new information
before taking management action. and use it to inform the next round of management decisions.
10 Conclusions and
NEXT STEPS
What Are Possible Next Steps After the Workshop? What Meetings/Workshops Could Be Organized?
Workshop participants developed the following list of potential follow- • Convene workshops dedicated to the implementation process of
up activities both during and after the workshop: ecosystem-based, marine spatial planning that include political, le-
gal, and economic/financial aspects of MSP; develop improved ben-
• Continue to develop an international community of MSP research- efit measures of MSP; identify legal constraints to achieving ecosys-
ers and practitioners through the Internet and other communica- tem-based MSP; and
tions and build on the work of the “pioneers” in practice; • Organize meetings with sectoral representatives (i.e., users) to get a
• Maintain the UNESCO MSP website (http://ioc3.unesco.org/marine- reality check on their ideas about MSP.
sp) to continue to follow developments in different countries and
regions; What Documents Could Be Prepared?
• Identify how MSP is reflected in regional and sectoral legislation,
management systems, and regulations as well as what kind of “po- • Develop a common vocabulary of MSP terminology; the use of exist-
litical opportunities” exist for moving MSP forward; ing groups such as OSPAR Working Groups and EU working groups
• Develop information for the general public, resource managers, and may be helpful in this endeavor. (note, for example, that the Polish
the politicians, especially about the nature of the problem and how language does not have a word for “zoning” and Chinese does not
MSP can help, i.e., the benefits of MSP; have a word for “governance”);
• Communicate with and learn from terrestrial and coastal zone man- • Develop “how to” guidelines or a list of best practices to assist prac-
agement examples and planning processes for ecosystem-based titioners in the implementations of MSP. Use lessons learned from as
spatial planning; many case studies as possible, emphasizing what works and what
• Work to integrate the human dimensions into MSP in more complex doesn’t in each MSP experiment. The guidelines could also define
and complete ways. Given the scarcity of social science data gather- a set of marine problems and define how MSP can be used to help
ing, etc., learn from and adapt terrestrial models and methodologies. solve them as well as provide instructions for identifying and select-
• Develop case studies in developing countries that have pioneered ing indicators or “measures of success” for MSP efforts;
and advanced the integration of community-level participation, lo- • Develop an annual report of international achievements and chal-
cal knowledge, and conflict resolution, in MSP (e.g., The Philippines lenges of MSP practice;
and Mexico); • Over next two years, conduct a critical international review of practi-
• Acknowledge and address the first world bias of MSP, i.e., MSP ap- cal MSP experiences;
pears to be emerging from the growing need to reserve space for • Use results of workshop to prepare comments on draft EU “Green Pa-
semi-permanent structures such at wind farms, aquaculture, oil/gas per on Maritime Policy” before 30 June 2007—the earlier the better
platforms, etc. and other competing activities (e.g., industrial fishing, — timing is everything.
recreation). MSP, so far, addresses these competing activities as ac-
tivities and interests of equal “actors.” In developing countries, many
of these activities (e.g., industrial fishing, oil/gas, recreation) are not
the activities of local actors. Insofar as MSP is about dividing and al-
locating common property, just whose commons is being divided
and allocated to whom is vital to consider as we develop universal
models, typologies, techniques, etc., for MSP?
References
Agardy, T., et al., 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological Boyes, S., M. Elliott, S. Thomson, S. Atkins, & P. Gilliland, 2007. A proposed
clashes around marine protected areas. Journal of Aquatic Conservation: multiple-use zoning scheme for the Irish Sea: an interpretation of
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 13. pp. 353-367. current legislation through the use of GIS-based zoning approaches and
Agardy, T., 2007. Ocean zoning is coming. Ocean zoning is coming! Music to effectiveness for the protection of nature conservation interests. Marine
some ears, a fearsome sound to others. The Ocean Observer. Available at: Policy. 31: 287298.
http://thew2o.net/newsletter.html Brown, J., 2003. The case for marine spatial planning – the WWF view. In Earll, R.
Arkema, K.K., et al. 2006. Marine ecosystem-based management: from (ed.) Spatial planning in the coastal and marine environment: next steps to action.
characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment CoastNet Conference, 1 October 2003, SOAS, University of London, p.48.
4(10): 525-532. Canning, R., 2003. The elements of marine spatial planning. In CoastNet Conference:
Avasthi, A., 2005. California tries to connect it scattered marine reserves. Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next Steps to Action.
Science. 308 (5721): 487-488. Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R.W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:
Belfiore, S., et al., 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of concepts and practices. Washington: Island Press.
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management. IOC Manuals and Guides, 46. Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R.W., 2000. The Future of US Ocean Policy: Choices for
ICAM Dossier Series 2. Paris: UNESCO. 217 p. the New Century. Washington: Island Press.
Beck, M. The around us—planning in marine regions. In: Groves, C.R., ed. CoastNet, 2003. Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next
Drafting a Conservation Blueprint. The Nature Conservancy. Steps to Action, Briefing papers for delegates to the CoastNet Conference.
Beck, M., and M. Adaya, 2001. Ecoregional planning in marine environments: Connor, D.W., et al., 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland.
identifying priority sites for conservation in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Version 04.05. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 49 p.
Aquatic Conservation. 11: 235-242. Connor, D.W., P.M. Gilliland, N. Golding, P. Robinson, D. Todd, & E. Verling,
Beck, M., Z. Ferdana, D. Dorfman & J. Deblieu, 2006. Using marine assessments 2006. UKSeaMap: the mapping of seabed and water column features of
with multiple objectives to advance ecosystem-based management. The UK seas. Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough, UK.
Nature Conservancy. Presentation available at: http://ioc3.unesco.org/ 103 p.
marinesp Conservation International, no date. Seascapes: globally important marine
Birdlife International, 2003. Developing a Framework for Marine Spatial Planning ecosystems [brochure]. Washington: CI. Available at: http://portals.
in the North Sea: Principles. Paper presented to the OSPAR Convention conservation.org/marine
for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic, Country Agencies Interagency Marine Spatial Planning Working Group. The
Meeting of the Commission, 23-27 June. Ref. OSPAR 03/4/12-E. added value of marine spatial planning. UK. 16 pp. Unpublished.
Boersma, D., J. Ogden, et al. 2004. Lines on the water: ocean-use planning in Country Agencies Interagency Marine Spatial Planning Working Group. 2005.
large marine ecosystems. Chap. 6 in Defying Ocean’s End: An Agenda for Natural Heritage/Nature Conservation objectives for a Marine Spatial Planning
Action (L. Glover and S. Earle, eds.). Washington: Island Press. pp. 125-138. (MSP) system.
Bower, B.T., Ehler, C.N., & Basta, D.J., 1994. A Framework for Planning for Courtney, Fara, and Jack Wiggin. 2003. Ocean Zoning for the Gulf of Maine: A
Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic Background Paper. Gulf of Maine Council for the Marine Environment. 33 p.
& Atmospheric Administration. 65 p. Cowie-Haskell, B., and J.M. Delaney, 2004. Integrating science into the design
Boyes, S., M. Elliott, S. Thomson, S. Atkins, P. Gilliland, J. Hamer, & A. Hill, 2005. of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. MTS Journal. Vol. 37, no.1. pp. 68-79.
Multiple- use zoning in UK and Manx Waters of the Irish Sea: an interpretation Christensen. N.L., et al. The report of the Ecological Society of America
of current legislation through the use of GIS-based zoning approaches. Perth, committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological
UK: Scottish Natural Heritage. 69 pp. Applications. 6: 665-691.
Crowder, L.B., G. Osherenko, O.R. Young, S. Airamé, E.A. Norse, N. Baron, J.C. Day, English Nature. 2005. Our coasts and seas - making space for people, industry
F. Douvere, C.N. Ehler, B.S. Halpern, S.J. Langdon, K.L. McLeod, J.C. Ogden, and wildlife. Peterborough, UK: English Nature.
R.E. Peach, A.A. Rosenberg, and J.A. Wilson, 2006. Resolving mismatches in European Commission, 2006. EU Marine Strategy. The story behind the strategy.
U.S. ocean governance. Science. 313: 617-618 (4 August 2006). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC. 32 p.
Day, J.C., 2002. Zoning—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean European Commission Maritime Policy Task Force, 2006. Towards a future
& Coastal Management, 45, 139-156. maritime policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas.
Day, J.C., 2002. Marine park management and monitoring: lessons for adaptive Maritime Policy Green Paper. J-99 7/12. EC: Brussels. At: http://ec.europa.
management from the Great Barrier Reef. In: S. Bondrup-Nielsen, et al., eds. eu/maritimeaffairs.
Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World: Proceedings of the Fourth Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean
International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 14- Management Plan (2006-2011). Draft for discussion. ESSIM Project Office.
19 May 2000. pp. 1258-1282. Dartmouth, NS: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 73 pp.
Day, J., M. Hockings & G. Jones, 2003. Measuring effectiveness in marine Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005. The Scotian Shelf: An Atlas of Human
protected areas—principles and practice. Presented at World Congress on Activities. DFO Maritime Region: Dartmouth, NS. 120 p.
Aquatic Protected Areas, Cairns, August 2002. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2003. The
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2002. Safeguarding Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
Our Seas: a strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our Fisheries. Rome: FAO. 112 p.
marine environment. Defra: London, UK. 80 p. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2005. Putting
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2007. A Sea into Practice the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Rome: FAO. 76 p.
Change: A Marine Bill White Paper. March. Marine Legislation Division. von Gadow, Inken, 2006. Report on marine spatial planning. Prepared for the
Defra: London. 176 p. Maritime Policy Task Force of the European Commission. 36 p. Available at:
Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2005. National Marine http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp
Bioregionalization of Australia. National Oceans Office: Hobart, Australia. Gee, Kira, et al. 2004. National ICZM strategies in Germany: a spatial planning
145 p. approach. In Managing the Baltic Sea (Schernewski, G., and N. Loser, eds.).
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), 2002. Canada’s Oceans Strategy: Coastline Reports 2. pp. 23-33.
Our Oceans, Our Future. Oceans Directorate: Ottawa, Canada. 30 p. Gilliland, P.M., S. Rogers, J.P. Hamer & Z. Crutchfild, 2004. The practical
Douvere, F., and C. Ehler, 2007. New perspectives on ecosystem-based implementation of marine spatial planning—understanding and
management: lessons from recent European experiences with marine addressing cumulative effects. Report of a workshop held 4 December
spatial planning (submitted for publication). 2003, Stansted. English Nature Research Reports. No. 599. Peterborough:
Douvere, F., et al., 2007. The role of marine spatial planning in sea use English Nature.
management: the Belgian case. Marine Policy, Vol. 31, March. pp. 182-191. GHK Consulting & S. Wilson, 2004. Potential Benefits of Marine Spatial Planning
Dutch Fish Product Board, 2004. Fishing on a square inch. Rijswik: Productschap to Economic Activity in the UK. Sandy, UK: Royal Society for the Protection
Vis. 12 pp. of Birds. 100 pp.
Ehler, C., et al., 1986. New oceanic and coastal atlases focus on potential EEZ Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2003. Zoning Plan. GBRMPA:
conflicts. Oceanus. Vol. 29, no. 3. pp. 42-51. Townsville, Australia. 211 p.
Ehler, C., and D.J. Basta, 1982. Information for assessing the future use of ocean Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology.
resources. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 13, no. 6. pp. 186-191. Vol. 8, no.1. March. Pp. 27-38.
Ehler, C., and T.-E. Chua, 2006. The ecosystem approach to integrated ocean Gubbay, S., 2004. Marine Protected Areas in the context of Marine Spatial Planning
and coastal management. In: B. Cicin-Sain, ed., Reports from the Third – discussing the Links. A report prepared for WWF-UK. 22 pp.
Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands: Moving the Global Agenda Hall, P., 2002. Urban and Regional Planning (4th edition). London: Routledge. 237 p.
Forward. University of Delaware. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), 2005. Guidance on
Ehler, C., B. Cicin-Sain, and S. Belfiore (eds.), 2004. Incorporating Marine the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Management of Human
Protected Areas into Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Principles Activities in the European Marine Environment. ICES Cooperative Research
and Guidelines. IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas: Gland, Report, Rapport des Recherches Collectives 273, 1-28.
Switzerland. 38 p.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II, 2007. Netherlands 2000. Summary: Making Space, Sharing Space. Fifth National
Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Policy Document on Spatial Planning 2000/2020. The Netherlands: Ministry
Summary for Policy Makers. Fourth Assessment Report. Available at http:// of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Communication
www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf. Directorate.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2004. The Irish Sea Pilot. Report to Defra. Nolte, N., 2006. Marine spatial planning in the German Exclusive Economic
JNCC: Peterborough, UK. 171 p. Zone. Presentation available at: http://ioc3.unescco.org/marinesp
Kaiser, Edward J., David R. Godschalk, and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. 1995. Urban Land Norse, E.A. (ed.), 1993. Global Marine Biological Diversity: a strategy for building
Use Planning. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 493. p. conservation into decision making. Washington: Island Press. 383 p.
Kenchington, R.A., 1990. Managing Marine Environments. New York: Taylor & Norse, E.A., 2002. A zoning approach to managing marine ecosystems. In
Francis. 247 p. Improving Regional Ocean Governance in the US (B. Cicin-Sain and C.N. Ehler,
Kenchington, R.A. and M.T. Agardy. 1990. Achieving marine conservation eds.). Newark: University of Delaware. pp. 53-57.
through biosphere reserve planning and management. Environmental Norse, E.A., and Crowder, L.B. (eds.), 2005. Marine Conservation Biology.
Conservation 17(1):39-44. Washington: Island Press. 470 p.
Laffoley, D., et al, 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: coherent actions for marine North Sea Conference, 2002. Ministerial Declaration of the Fifth International
and coastal environments. A report to the UK Government. Peterborough: Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, Bergen, Norway, 20-21 March
English Nature. 65 pp. 2002.
Lee, A., and J. Ramster. 1981. Atlas of the Seas Around the British Isles. London: HMSO. North Sea Secretariat. 1999. The North Sea: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach
Li, H., 2006. The impacts and implications of the legal framework for sea use for Sustainable Development. International Conferences on the Protection
planning and management in China. Ocean & Coastal Management. 49: of the North Sea. Helsinki: Department of the Environment.
717-726. Olsen, O.T., 1883. The Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea, English and St. Georges Channels,
Lindeboom, H., et al. 2005. Areas with Special Ecological Values on the Dutch illustrating the fishing ports, boats, gear and species, and other information
Continental Shelf. The Hague: Rijkswaerstaat. November. 105 p. concerning fish and fisheries. Taylor and Francis: London, UK. 50 maps.
McLeod, K,, J. Lubchenco, S.R. Palumbi, and A.A. Rosenburg, 2005. Scientific Orth, R.J., et al. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):
Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. COMPASS 987-996.
(Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea) at http:// Osherenko, G., 2007. New discourses on ocean rights: understanding property
compassonline.org/?q=EBME. right, the public trust, and ocean governance. Journal of Environmental
Maes, F., et al., 2005. A Flood of Space: toward a spatial structure plan for sustainable Law & Litigation (forthcoming).
management of the North Sea. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy. 204 p. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Marine Spatial Planning Pilot Consortium, 2006. Marine Spatial Planning Northeast Atlantic, 2003. Planning the North Sea—a first attempt to
Pilot: toward marine spatial planning and management (Final Report). describe the existing spatial control mechanisms. Annex to London
Prepared for the UK Department of Environment, Food, and Rural meeting, 8-9 January 2004. 57 p.
Affairs (Defra). 105 p. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Marine Spatial Planning Pilot Consortium, 2005. Marine spatial planning project: Northeast Atlantic, 2004. Workshop on spatial planning in the North Sea
literature review. 121 pp. (SPINS). London, 8-9 January 2004.
Meijers, E.M.J., 1986. Defining confusions—confusing definitions. Journal of OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Vol. 7, no. 2. pp. 157-159. Northeast Atlantic, 2005. Workshop on spatial planning in the North Sea
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Washington: Island Press. At http:// (SPINS). The Hague, 2-3 February 2005. 5 p.
www.MAweb.org OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Myers, R.A., and B. Worm, 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish Northeast Atlantic, 2003. Legal regulations and legal instruments to achieve
communities. Nature 423: 280-283. the management objectives in OSPAR marine protected areas. At: http://ioc3.
National Research Council, 1995. Understanding Marine Biodiversity: a research unesco.org/marinesp
agenda for the nation. Washington: National Academy Press. 114 p. Peel, D., and Lloyd, M.G., 2004. The social re-construction of the marine
Netherlands North Sea Department, 2005. Integrated Management Plan for the environment: toward marine spatial planning. Town Planning Review 75(3).
North Sea, 2015. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Rijkswaterstaat Noordsee. 166 p. pp 359-378
Pauly, D., et al., 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863. Sanchirico, J.N., and J.E. Wilen, 2006. Optimal spatial management of
Pauly, D., et al., 2005. Chapter 18: marine fisheries systems. In: Conditions and renewable resources: matching policy scope to ecosystem scale. Journal
Trends Assessment Volume of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. of Environmental Economics and Management (in press).
Island Press: Washington, D.C. Scottish Environment LINK, 2006. Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Bulletin 3,
PEMSEA (Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development Programme/ September.
International Maritime Organization Regional Programme for the Prevention and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004. The Ecosystem
Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas (MPP-EAS)/ Partnership Approach (CBD Guidelines). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia), 1999. Water use zoning Biological Diversity. 50 pp.
for the sustainable development of Batangas Bay, Philippines. MPP-EAS Technical Shepherd, G., 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation.
Report No. 25/PEMSEA Technical Report No. 3, 50 p. Quezon City, Philippines. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. vi + 30 pp.
People’s Republic of China, 2001. Law on the Management of Sea Area Use. Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold (eds.), 1990. Large Marine Ecosystems:
Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the 9th National Patterns, Processes, and Yields. American Association for the Advancement
People’s Congress on 27 October 2001. of Science: Washington, DC.
Pew Oceans Commission, 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sherman, K., 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: research and
Sea Change. Pew Oceans Commission: Arlington, VA. management strategy for living marine resources. Ecological Applications.
Randolf, J., 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. 1:349-360.
Washington, DC: Island Press. 664 p. Shepherd, G., 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation.
Richardson, E.A., et al., 2006. Developing Scenarios for a Network of Marine IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 30 p.
Protected Areas: building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. Department Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management.
for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra): London, UK. June. 69 p. Bioscience. 43(9): 612-622.
Roff, J.C., and Taylor, M.E., 2000. National frameworks for marine conservation— Smith, H., and A. Vallega (eds.). The Development of Integrated Sea Use
a hierarchical geophysical approach. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Management. Routledge: London. 1991.
Freshwater Ecosystems. 10: 209-223. Southgate, M. (2003) The plan-led approach. In Earll, R. (ed.) Spatial planning
Ruan, W. and Yu, H., 1999. Design and implementation of marine functional in the coastal and marine environment: next steps to action. CoastNET
zoning scheme in Xiamen, China. In Proceedings of the International conference 1 October 2003, SOAS, University of London, pp.19-21.
Conference on Challenges and Opportunities in Managing Pollution State Oceanic Administration, 1996. China Ocean Agenda 21. China Ocean
in the East Asian Seas, published by PEMSEA: Quezon City, Philippines, Press: Beijing. 193 p.
pp. 341-354. Sun, S., 2004, Director-General, Sea Area Use Division, State Oceanic
St. Martin, K., 2001. Making space for community resource management in Administration, Briefing on the Sea Use Management System in China
fisheries. The Annuals of the American Association of Geographers. 91: (unpublished).
122-142. Symes, D., 2005. Marine Spatial Planning: a fisheries perspective. Report to
St. Martin, K., 2004. GIS in marine fisheries science and decision-making. In: English Nature. 35 pp.
W.L. Fisher and F.J. Rahel, eds. Geographic Information Systems in Fisheries. TFG International, 2002. Review of the Implementation of [Australian] Ocean
American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD. pp. 237-258. Policy. 32 pp + appendices
St. Martin, K., 2005. Mapping economic diversity in the First World: the case of Tyldesley, D. 2005. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the Planning
fisheries. Environment and Planning. 37: 959-79. System in England. English Nature Research Report 643, Peterborough:
St. Martin, K., 2006. The impact of ‘community’ on fisheries management in the English Nature.
U.S. Northeast. GeoForum 37(2): 169-184. Tyldesley, D., and B. Hunt, 2004. Review of how the Land Use Planning System could
St. Martin, K., 2007. Charting fishing communities at sea: revealing new influence the development of a Marine Spatial Planning System for England.
potentials for participation in fisheries science and management. English Nature Research Report No. 566. Peterborough: English Nature.
Submitted to ICES Journal. David Tyldesley & Associates, 2004. Irish Sea Pilot Project: Coastal and Marine
St. Martin, K., B.J. McCay, G. Murray, T. Johnson & B. Oles, 2007. Communities, Spatial Planning Framework. Report to the Joint Nature Conservation
knowledge, and fisheries of the future. International Journal of Global Committee. London: Defra.
Environmental Issues (forthcoming).
David Tyldesley & Associates, 2004. Making the Case for Marine Spatial Planning Vincent, M.A., Atkins, S.M., Lumb, C.M., Golding, N., Lieberknecht, L.M., and Webster,
in Scotland. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland and the Royal M., 2004. Marine Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development—the Irish
Town Planning Institute Scotland. 35 pp. Sea Pilot. Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Underhahl, A., 1980. Integrated marine policy—What? Why? How? Marine Peterborough: UK. Available at www.incc.gov.uk
Policy. July. Pp. 159-169. de Vrees, L., 2006. Spatial management on the (Netherlands part of the) North
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Sea. Available at: http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp
Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to the President and Walmsley, J., 2005. Developing objectives and indicators for marine ecosystem-
Congress. Washington, DC. based management: international review of marine ecosystem-based
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1980. The Gulf of management initiatives throughout the world. Oceans and Coastal
Mexico Coastal and Ocean Zone Data Atlas. USGPO: Washington, DC. 163 Management Report 2005-09. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated
maps + text. Management (ESSIM) Initiative. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Dartmouth,
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1986. Eastern Nova Scotia. 54 p.
United States Coastal and Ocean Zone Data Atlas. NOAA: Rockville, MD. 127 Wildlife and Countryside LINK, 2006. Spatial Planning Guidance. London, UK. 19 p.
maps + text. Wilkinson, C. (ed.), 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. 2 Vols. Australian
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Marine Institute of Marine Science: Townsville, Australia. 301 p.
zoning and coastal zone management. Ecosystem White Paper 4. Silver Worm, B., 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services.
Spring, MD: NOAA. 13 p. Science. 3 November. 314: 787-790.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2005. Mapping WWF, 2004. Marine spatial planning: a down to earth view of managing
Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory activities in the marine environment for the benefit of humans and wildlife.
Methods: Workshop Summary. National MPA Center. December 2005. 26 p. Marine Update, No. 55. Godalming: WWF and Wildlife Trusts.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),WWF-International,
and IUCN, 2005. How Is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social
Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness.
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Workshop AGENDA
Tuesday, 7 November
1800-2000 Welcome Reception (UNESCO Annex—Millios Bar)
Wednesday, 8 November
0845-0915 Coffee & Croissants
0900-0930 Registration (UNESCO Annex, Bonvin, Conference Room 13)
0930-1000 Welcome (Patricio Bernal & Natjaran Ishwaran, UNESCO) and Introductions
OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP

1000-1030 Session 1: Introduction to the Practice of Marine Spatial Planning and Sea Use Management
(Fanny Douvere & Charles Ehler, Co-Chairs, UNESCO)
1030-1100 Discussion
1100-1130 Coffee
LEGAL ISSUES
1130-1200 Session 2: International Examples of Authorization for Marine Spatial Planning
(Frank Maes, Ghent University, Belgium)
1300-1315 Summary of Discussion
1315-1500 Lunch
TECHNICAL ISSUES
1500-1530 Session 3: The Process of Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management and Marine Spatial Planning
(Paul Gilliland, Natural England, and Dan Lafolley, IUCN/WCPA)
1630-1700 Coffee
1700-1730 Summary of Discussion
1730-1800 Summary of the Day’s Discussions
Thursday, 9 November
TECHNICAL ISSUES, cont.
0930-1030 Session 4: Examples of Good Practice in the Application of Science for Marine Spatial Planning
(Elliott Norse, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, and Larry Crowder, Duke University)
1100-1130 Coffee
1130-1200 Session 5: Examples of Good Practice in the Application of New Tools for Marine Spatial Planning
(Kevin St. Martin, Rutgers University)
1300-1430 Lunch (on your own)
1430-1500 Summary of Morning Discussions
1500-1530 Session 6: Examples of Good Practice in Implementation of Marine Spatial Planning
(Cathy Plasman, Belgian Ministry of Mobility and North Sea Affairs)
1630-1700 Coffee
1700-1730 Summary of Afternoon Discussion
1730-1800 Summary of the Day’s Discussions
2000-2200 Group Dinner (Le Petit Zinc, 11 rue St-Benoit, 6e)
Friday, 10 November
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
0930-1030 Session 7: Institutional Arrangements for Marine Spatial Planning
(Yves Auffret, European Commission)
1100-1130 Coffee
1130-1200 Session 8: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptation
(John Day, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia)
1300-1430 Lunch
1430-1500 Summary of Morning Discussions
1500-1520 Session 9: Capacity Building for Marine Spatial Planning
(Antonio Diaz De Leon, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico)
1600-1615 Summary of Afternoon Discussion
1615-1630 Coffee
SUMMARY
1630-1645 Summary and Actions from the Day’s Discussions
1645-1730 Summary of Workshop and Next Steps (Ehler & Douvere, Co-Chairs, UNESCO)
Worshop PARTICIPANTS
Joe Arbour, Regional Manager Julian Barbiere, Programme Specialist Biliana Cicin-Sain, Co-Chair
Oceans and Coastal Management Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada UNESCO Professor and Director
Bedford Institute of Oceanography 1, rue Miollis Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy
PO Box 100 75732 Paris University of Delaware
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2 France Robinson Hall, room 301
Canada Tel: 0033 1 4568 4045 Newark, DE 19716
Tel: 001 902 426 3894 [email protected] USA
[email protected] Tel: 001 302 831 8086
Mike Beck, Senior Scientist [email protected]
Salvatore Arico, Programme Specialist Global Marine Initiative
Man & the Biosphere Programme The Nature Conservancy Andrzej Cieslak, Chief Specialist
UNESCO 100 Shaffer Road Maritime Office in Gdynia
1, rue Miollis Santa Cruz, CA 95060 ul. Chrzanowskiego 10
75732 Paris USA Gdynia 81-338
France Tel: 001 831 459 1459 Poland
Tel: 0033 1 4568 4090 [email protected] Tel: 0048 58 6217525
[email protected] [email protected]
Kathy Belpaeme, Coordinator
Yves Auffret Coordination Centre on ICZM Simon Cripps, Director
Maritime Policy Task Force Wandelaarkaai 7 Global Marine Programme
DG Fisheries & Maritime Affairs Ostende 8400 WWF International
European Commission Belgium Avenue du Mont-Blanc
99, rue Joseph – II Office 7/11 Tel: 0032 59 342141 Gland CH-1196
Brussels 1049 [email protected] Switzerland
Belgium Tel: 0041 22 364 9032
Tel: 0032 2 2969135 Patricio Bernal, Executive Secretary scripps@wwfint.org
yves.auff[email protected] Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
UNESCO Larry Crowder, Professor
Brian Baird, Assistant Secretary 1, rue Miollis Marine Biology and Coastal Systems Science
Ocean and Coastal Policy 75732 Paris Duke University
California Resources Agency France 135 Duke Marine Lab Road
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Tel: 0033 1 4568 3983 Beaufort, NC 28516
Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected] USA
USA Tel: 001 252 504 7637
Tel: 001 916 657 0198 Janet Brown, Senior Policy Officer [email protected]
[email protected] WWF-UK
Panda House, Weyside Park
Godalming GU7 1XR
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 1483 412559
[email protected]
Jon Day, Director Charles Ehler, Consultant Alain Jeudy de Grissac, Technical Advisor
Conservation, Heritage, & Indigenous Partnerships Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission ECMIB Project Eritrea
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority UNESCO UNDP/UNOPS – GEF
2-68 Flinders Street 1, rue Miollis PO Box 58
Townsville 4810 75732 Paris Massawa
Australia France Eritrea
Tel: 0061 7 4750 0803 Tel: 0033 1 4568 4103 Tel: 00291 1 55 11 09
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Antonio Diaz de Leon, Director-General Inken von Gadow-Stephani, Associate Lynne Hale, Director
Environmental Regional and Sectoral Integration International Max Planck Research School for Mari- Global Marine Initiative
Policy time Affairs The Nature Conservancy
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources University of Hamburg South Ferry Road, URI Bay Campus
Mexico City 14210 Mittelweg 187 Narragansett, RI 02882
Mexico 20148 Hamburg USA
Tel: 0052 55 5628 0749/50 Germany Tel: 001 401 874 6872
[email protected] Tel: [email protected]
[email protected]
Fanny Douvere, Consultant Kimberly Heiman, Ecosystem-based Management
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Paul Gilliland, Marine Policy Advisor Science Coordinator
UNESCO Natural England COMPASS (Communication Partnership for Science
1, rue Miollis Northminster House and Sea)
75732 Paris Peterborough PE1 1UA Department of Zoology
France United Kingdom Oregon State University
Tel: 0033 1 4568 3983 Tel: 0044 1733 455236 3029 Cordley Hall
[email protected] [email protected] Corvallis, OR 97331
USA
Stefania Dritsa, Associate Researcher Emily Goodwin, Program Associate Tel: 001 541 737 9982
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Marine Conservation Initiative [email protected]
ENCORA Network The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Environmental Planning Laboratory The Presidio of San Francisco, PO Box 29910 Rudy Herman
University of the Aegean San Francisco, CA 94129-0910 Flemish Ministry for Science and Innovation
Athens USA Boudewijnlaan 30
Greece Tel: 001 415 561 7593 Brussels 1000
Tel: [email protected] Belgium
[email protected] Tel: 0032 2 553 6001
Morgan Gopnik, Senior Vice-President Conservation [email protected]
Euan Dunn, Head of Marine Policy The Ocean Conservancy
RSPB/BirdLife International 2029 K St., NW Annie Hillary
The Lodge, Sandy Washington, DC 20006 International Program Office
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL USA National Ocean Service
United Kingdom Tel: 001 202 249 5609 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tel: 0044 1767 680 551 [email protected] 1305 East-West Highway
[email protected] Silver Spring, MD 20910
USA
Tel: 001 301 713-3078
[email protected]
Natjaran Ishwaran, Director Andrus Meiner Stephen Oxley, Assistant Secretary
Ecological and Earth Sciences Division Spatial Analysis Group Marine Conservation Branch
UNESCO European Environment Agency Australia Department of the Environment and Heritage
1, rue Miollis European Union Canberra ACT 2600
75732 Paris 6 Kongens Nytorv Australia
France Copenhagen 1050 Tel: 0061 2 6274 2244
Tel: 0033 1 4568 4067 Denmark [email protected]
[email protected] Tel: 0045 33 36 71 30
[email protected] Emily Pidgeon, Senior Technical Advisor
Robert Jara, Division Chief/Programme Coordinator Regional Marine Strategies
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Karen Morgan, Head Conservation International
Dillman Marine and Coastal Policy 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Quezon City 1100 DEFRA Washington, DC 20036
The Philippines 3-8 Whitehall Place USA
Tel: 00632 926 2693/928 1225 London SW1A 2HH Tel: 001 202 912-1315
[email protected] United Kingdom [email protected]
Tel: 0044 207 270 8637
Dan Laffoley, Vice-Chair (Marine) [email protected] Cathy Plasman, Advisor
World Commission on Protected Areas—IUCN Belgian Ministry of Mobility and North Seas Affairs
c/o Natural England Nico Nolte, Head (Spatial Planning) Brederodestraat 9
Northminster House Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie Brussels 1000
Peterborough PE1 1UA Bernhard-Nocht-Strasse 78 Belgium
United Kingdom Hamburg D-20359 Tel: 0032 2 237 6746
Tel: 0044 1733 455234 Germany [email protected]
dan.laff[email protected] Tel: 0049 40 3190 2113
[email protected] Kevin St. Martin, Assistant Professor
Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Manager (Indicators) Department of Geography
Flemish Institute for the Sea Elliott Norse, President Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Wandelaarkaai 7 Marine Conservation Biology Institute 54 Joyce Kilmer Drive
Ostende 8400 15806 NE 47th Court Piscataway, NJ 08854-8045
Belgium Redmond, WA 98052 USA
Tel: 0032 59 342146 USA Tel: 001 732 445 7394
[email protected] Tel: 001 425 833 8914 [email protected]
[email protected]
Frank Maes, Director Serge Scory, Head
Maritime Institute Chu Hoi Nguyen, Director Belgian Marine Data Centre
University of Gent Vietnam Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models
Universiteitstraat 6 (VIFEP) Gulledelle 100
Gent 9000 Ministry of Fisheries (MoFi) Brussels 1200
Belgium 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan St. Belgium
Tel: 0032 9 264 6895 Ha Noi Tel: 0032 2 7732133
[email protected] Viet Nam [email protected]
Tel: 0084 4 7718451
chuhoi.ifep@mofi.gov.vn
[email protected]
Andy South, Spatial Analyst—Fisheries Leo de Vrees, Watermanager
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Rijkswaterstaat North Sea
Aquaculture Science Ministry of Transport, Publilc Works & Water Mana-
Pakefiled Road gement
Lowestoft NR33 OHT Rijswijk 2280 HV
United Kingdom The Netherlands
Tel: 0044 1502 513865 Tel: 0031 70 3366609
Virginie Tilot, International Expert Torsten Wilke

Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
8, rue des Beaux Arts Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 143
75006 Paris Leipzig D-04277
France Germany
Tel: 0033 1 43544623 Tel: 0034 1 3097716
Ole Vestergaard, Scientific Coordinator Qiuliln Zhou, Chief Research Fellow

Danish Institute for Fisheries Research Third Institute of Oceanography
Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries State Oceanic Administration
Charlottenlund Castle No. 178, Daxue R. Siming District
Charlottenlund DK-2920 Xiamen 361005
Denmark PR China
Tel: 0045 33 96 33 00 Tel: 0086 592 219 5286

Guide MSP

Uploaded by

Guide MSP

Uploaded by

VISIONS FOR A SEA CHANGE

Report of the First International

8-10 November 2006

Intergovernmental Man and ICAM

Designer: Eric Lodde

For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as follows:

© UNESCO iOC 2006

1 Introduction to the Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning 7

Why Was an International Workshop on Marine Spatial

spatial and temporal scales diversity;

C. Marine Environmental Quality A. Integrated Management

B. Information and Knowledge

Adapted from Canada’s ESSIM Project, 2006

Don’t Most Coastal Countries Currently Allocate Ocean Space

What Is Lacking in Current Practice?

Current practice often leads to conflicts among uses or among user

In the context of the EU Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment,

Are “Ecosystems” the Same as “Bioregions”?

Miller (1996) deﬁnes a bioregion as a geographical space that con-

Berg (2002) deﬁnes a bioregion in terms of the unique overall pat-

There is no single right scale for a bioregion. It is important to note Fig 5.

Are Marine Ecosystems Distinctly Diﬀerent from Terrestrial

Can MSP Be Initiated through National Policy?

• China’s Ocean Agenda 21 (1996)

Is there a Good Example of MSP with National Legislation?

REGIONAL POLICIES Is There a Good Example of MSP Without National Legislation or

What Are Some of the Other Key Legal Issues?

Some of the remaining legal issues include:

Fig 8. Because the management of sea uses should be a continuous activ-

Planning & See also Gilliland workshop presentation (2006) at http://ioc3.unesco.

Marine spatial management is comprised of at least three ongoing

Examples of analytical activities include:

• identifying current conditions/problems of the management area;

The degree to which all stakeholders are involved at diﬀerent points in

Stakeholders should be properly informed to enable them to play their

How it is done is critical, but the outcome of eﬀective stakeholder in-

The results of this work include development of a method for pro-

Adaptive management can: Indicators are quantitative/qualitative statements or measured/ob-

OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP

Virginie Tilot, International Expert Torsten Wilke

Ole Vestergaard, Scientiﬁc Coordinator Qiuliln Zhou, Chief Research Fellow

You might also like