MSP Pre-Planning

From Ocean Teacher Library

MSP Pre-Planning

The area for which you develop MSP is usually designated through a political process that, explicitly or implicitly, is to be managed as a single unit, e.g., the entire exclusive economic zone (Germany or The Netherlands), the marine waters of a specific state (California or Massachusetts) or bio-region (Southwest Marine Bioregion of Australia). Typically, the management boundaries of the marine area will not coincide with the boundaries of a single ecosystem, because often a number of ecosystems of varying sizes exist within, and may extend beyond, the designated management area. At the same time, the boundaries will probably coincide with only some of the areas from which demands are imposed on the resources of the marine area for which you develop MSP. Finally, the boundaries are not likely to delimit the influences of natural processes that are external to the designated management area, such as larval dispersion, sediment transport, and atmospheric deposition of nutrients.

Therefore, the boundaries for analysis for MSP often will not (and do not have to) coincide with the boundaries for management. On the contrary, defining boundaries for analysis (e.g., for planning) broader than the boundaries for management (e.g., for implementation) will enable you to identify sources of influence (e.g., land-based sources of pollution) that have an effect in your management area and ultimately include the authorities or institutions responsible for those sources in the implementation of your spatial plan.

When the State of Rhode Island (USA) developed its “special area management plan” for its marine waters (which extend seaward only to three nautical miles), it analyzed information for an area that extended 20-nautical miles to sea (seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/). Similarly, when the State of Oregon (USA) developed its “ocean plan”, it addressed the entire 200-nautical mile US exclusive economic zone with emphasis on an “ocean stewardship area” (0-50 miles) generally covering the continental shelf and slope (www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Ocean_TSP.shtml).

Finally, the United States of America (11,351,000 km sq) and Australia (8,505,000 km sq) have two of the largest exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the world. For MSP purposes, the USA has divided its EEZ into nine planning regions: the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, West Coast, Alaska/Arctic, Pacific Islands, and the Great Lakes. Australia has divided its EEZ into five "bioregions" for MSP: the Southeast, Southwest, Northwest, North, and East. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which already has developed and updated its zoning plan, has been exempted from the current bioregional planning process.

Defining the time horizon
In addition to establishing boundaries, it is essential to define a time frame for your MSP initiative. The time frame consists of two parts:
(a) A base year or base period to be used to provide a common or standard basis for identifying “current” conditions or a “baseline” (see Step 5, Defining and analyzing existing conditions); and
(b) Target year or target period that defines the period you are planning for and allows you to identify “future conditions” (see Step 6, Defining and analyzing future conditions).

Often the time frame will have to coincide with other national planning periods for planning, e.g., Viet Nam has a five-year economic planning cycle to which other plans, including marine spatial plans, have to conform.

Another example is the Dutch National Waterplan (english.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/water/water_and_the_future/national_water_plan/). It provides the basis for MSP in The Netherlandsd and sets out a vision for the further development of the Dutch marine areas between 2009-2015. Even though the National Waterplan provides the basis for MSP, it is not limited to the marine area. Instead it covers all waters in The Netherlands as an integrated whole in which land and water are not separate entities but integrally linked with one another. The baseline for the Dutch National Waterplan is 2009. It considers both short-term and long-term components of MSP. While the target year for the plan is 2015 (management measures are defined for the period 2009-2015), the plan also analyses trends and tries to anticipate changing circumstances until 2025.

Identifying Principles for MSP

MSP should be guided by a set of principles that: (a) determine the nature and characteristics of the MSP process; and (b) reflect the results you want to achieve through MSP (see section 2 of this course, Concepts and terminology for marine spatial planning).

A principle is a basic or essential quality or element determining the intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior of MSP.

Principles can be derived from a number of sources, including international treaties and agreements, national policy and legislation, or examples of good practice. It is important to remember that principles do not stand by themselves, but should be reflected throughout the MSP process, and in particular, linked to the goals and objectives you identify later.

Examples of Principles for MSP

Ecosystem integrity: The principle implies a primary focus on maintaining ecosystem structure and functioning within a MSP area. It includes the recognition that ecosystems are dynamic, changing and sometimes poorly understood, therefore requiring precautionary planning decision-making. Applying this principle will require defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystem, rather than political, boundaries.
Preservation of Marine Biodiversity: Downward trends in marine biodiversity should be reversed where they exist, with a desired end of maintaining or recovering natural levels of biological diversity and ecosystem services.
Integration: Working in sectoral and institutional compartments or “silos” is often an efficient way to manage, but it creates significant costs of non-coordination that should be identified and addressed. MSP can play a critical role in facilitating coherence and integration. Integration among levels of government can help create complementary and mutually reinforcing decisions and actions.
Multiple-Use: The many potentially beneficial uses of ocean and coastal resources should be acknowledged and managed in a way that balances competing uses, while preserving and protecting the overall integrity of the ocean and coastal environment.
Public trust: This principle (or doctrine) implies that marine resources, including marine space, belong to the people and are held in trust by the government for its people and future generations. Marine space should be managed as a “commons”, i.e., as part of the public domain, not owned exclusively or to be benefited by any one group or private interest.
Participation: MSP should ensure widespread participation by all citizens on issues that affect them.
Transparency: This principle suggests that the processes used to make MSP decisions should be easily understood by the public, allow citizens to see how decisions are made, how resources have been allocated, and how decisions have been reached that affect their lives.
Best Available Science and Information: MSP should be based on the best available understanding of the natural, social, and economic processes that affect ocean and coastal environments. Decision makers should be able to obtain and understand quality science and information in a way that facilitates successful planning and management of the ocean and coastal resources.
Precaution: This principle suggests that if a decision could cause severe or irreversible harm to society or the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate taking the action.
Polluter-pays: The costs of pollution or damage to the environment should be paid by the responsible party.
Adaptive Management: MSP should be designed to meet clear goals and provide new information to continually improve the scientific basis for future management. Periodic reevaluation of the goals and effectiveness of management measures, and incorporation of new information in implementing future management, are essential.

Numerous organizations and institutions have already defined principles for MSP. They are very diverse, and often cross the thin line between principles and goals. Examples of principles from the European Union and the State of Massachusetts, among others, are available on the UNESCO marine spatial planning website, http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp.

Specifying “SMART” Objectives for Marine Spatial Planning

Specifying MSP goals and objectives is essential to help focus and tailor your MSP efforts toward achieving outcomes and results. Typically, goals and objectives should be derived from the problems and conflicts identified in Step 1, Identifying the need and establishing authority, of this course.

Despite what is often practiced in many plans, goals and objectives are different from one another. Differences between goals and objectives include:

• Goals are broad; objectives are narrow
• Goals are general intentions; objectives are precise
• Goals are intangible; objectives are tangible
• Goals are abstract; objectives are concrete
• Goals can’t be measured; objectives can be measured

A goal is a statement of general direction or intent. They are high-level statements of the desired outcome that you hope to achieve.

Goals provide the umbrella for development of objectives and should reflect the principles upon which subsequent objectives are based.

Examples of MSP goals might include:

• Conserve or protect marine resources in the specified marine planning area;
• Conserve ecological structure—at all levels of biological organization—to maintain biodiversity and natural resilience of the marine area;
• Protect ecologically valuable areas;
• Restore degraded areas;
• Ensure sustainability of economic uses of marine space;
• Promote appropriate uses of marine space;
• Reduce and resolve conflicts among current and future human activities;
• Reduce and resolve conflicts between current and future human activities and nature; and
• Ensure economic return to the public from the use of ocean space.

An objective is a statement of desired outcomes or observable behavioral changes that represent the achievement of a goal. Characteristics of good objectives are that they are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, i.e., “SMART”.

Monitoring and evaluating progress toward the achievement of desired outcomes or results can only be measured when objectives are specified in this manner. Often objectives will be preliminary and indicative when you specify them for the first time, and firmer when re-examined later in the MSP process (See Step 7, preparing and approving the spatial management plan and Step 9, Monitoring and evaluating performance).

Examples of well-specified objectives would include:
• Protect 90% of essential habitat for diving birds by 2012;
• Ensure that adequate marine space is available to produce 25% of energy needs from offshore sources by the year 2020;
• Ensure that a minimum of 10% of marine space is available for offshore aquaculture by 2015;
• Implement a representative system of marine protected areas by 2014; and
• Reduce the time required to approve/reject marine construction permits by 50% by 2013.

Relationship Among Goals, Objectives, Indicators, and Management Measures

Subsections of this Article

No subsections available

Information about this article

Short title: MSP Pre-Planning

Description: none

Expertise level: beginner

Author: Cdelgado

Approval status: approved

Approved by: Cdelgado

Last change: 2011-2-26

Subsection of: Marine Spatial Planning

Contact

If you have any direct comments or suggestions for the author of this page then please feel free to send an email to the author (listed above). For discussions on this page please use the discussions page.

Toolbox

From Ocean Teacher Library

Contents

Subsections of this Article

Information about this article

Contact