Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance/Marine spatial planning: Cui bono?/“More than fishy business”: epistemology, integration and conflict in marine spatial planning/Marine spatial planning: power and scaping/Surely not all planning is evil?/Marine spatial planning: a Canadian perspective/Maritime spatial planning – “ad utilitatem omnium”/Marine spatial planning: “it is better to be on the train than being hit by it”/Reflections from the perspective of recreational anglers and boats for hire/Maritime spatial planning and marine renewable energy

Introduction

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has rapidly become the most commonly endorsed management regime for sustainable development in the marine environment. MSP is advocated as a means of managing human uses of the sea in a sustainable manner, in the face of ever-increasing demands on marine resources. While MSP is quickly becoming the dominant marine management paradigm, there has been comparatively little assessment of the potential negative impacts and possible distributive impacts that may arise from its adoption. This should be a key challenge for both academic and practitioner communities and therefore offers a fruitful topic for Interface.

In the contributions that follow, we hear from a range of voices and perspectives on these important themes. The lead paper (Ellis and Flannery, pp. 122–128) argues for a broader, more critical, understanding of the social and distributive impacts of MSP, advocating a radical turn in MSP away from a rationalism of science and neoliberal logic towards more equity-based, democratic decision-making and a fairer distribution of our ocean wealth.

Then, eight responses follow, from academics, planners, policymakers and industry representatives around the world. The first two come from academics, Nursey-Bray and van Tatenhove, (pp. 129–135) who each broadly endorse the core arguments of the lead paper and advocate for a radical MSP. Nursey-Bray suggests this requires rethinking MSP as a process of cultural co-existence rather than as a tool for managing multiple uses. Van Tatenhove argues that this would involve highlighting the power dynamics involved, the interplay of structure and agency in MSP processes and how this affects the quality of planning.

The next three responses offer insights from marine planners and managers. Kelly (pp. 135–138), reflecting on her experience as a marine planner in the Shetland Islands, argues that while a call for a radical MSP is well-timed, it is overly pessimistic of current practice because negative impacts can be overcome by ensuring broad stakeholder consultation and adopting flexible planning processes. Coffen-Smout (pp. 138–140, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but writing here in a personal capacity) argues that a radical approach is politically unfeasible as it requires an overhaul of marine resource management regimes. Instead, he suggests that advancing more effective MSP is best achieved within current frameworks and uses ocean governance in Canada to illustrate. Fairgrieve (pp. 140–143, Marine Scotland, but also offering some personal reflections), argues that while MSP may be imperfect, it is the best possible solution for addressing the complex governance of marine space. She suggests that we need to give MSP a chance and work with MSP practitioners to secure sustainable development.

The final three responses relate the issues discussed in the lead paper to specific industries. Knol and Jentoft (pp. 143–146) discuss the need to consider the possible negative effects of new industries on fisheries-dependent communities. Then Bacon (pp. 146–148), a recreational angling boat operator, decries the rise of MSP-type processes and argues that scientists and academics use spatial management processes, such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), to develop income streams for their research, ignoring the negative impacts these instruments have on existing users. Finally, O’Hagan (pp. 148–151), reflects on the utility of MSP to marine renewable energy (MRE) outlining a hope that MSP will become more flexible than current licencing systems to facilitate more MRE projects.

All responses tend to agree that we need a more holistic understanding of the distributional impacts of MSP, but differ on the nature of the challenge this creates. We hope that even if other academics, policymakers or practitioners disagree with our diagnosis, this Interface will stimulate a broader discussion and even some recognition that radicalism has a role everywhere, even at sea.

Notes on contributors

Wesley Flannery is a Lecturer in the School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering Queen’s University, Belfast. His key research interests are in marine spatial planning (MSP), integrated coastal zone planning and stakeholder participation in environmental decision-making. He has conducted research on behalf of the Marine Institute of Ireland and the OSPAR Commission, the Irish government and local-level environmental NGOs. He is an editor at the ICES Journal of Marine Science. E-mail: [email protected]. Twitter: @WesleyFlannery

Geraint Ellis is Chair of Environmental Planning and Director of Research in the School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering at Queen’s University, Belfast. His key research interests are in planning and sustainability with a particular emphasis on renewable energy, planning governance and healthy urban planning and he has published widely on each of these topics. He is also co-editor of the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. His full profile is at: http://bit.ly/ZYkPNM. E-mail: [email protected]. Twitter: @gellis23

Marine spatial planning: Cui bono?

Introduction

Globalisation, weak governance and increasing industrialisation of the seas are having a substantial impact on the sustainability of many types of marine resource, giving rise to major challenges for conservation and governance. An evocative exemplar of this is provided by Berkes et al., (2006) who portray how distant-water fishing fleets operate like “roving bandits”, fishing in areas of weak institutional arrangements, cumulatively contributing to overexploitation. Similarly, the potential consequences of terrestrial fossil fuel depletion and increased marine exploration have been highlighted in the Gulf of Mexico with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Williams et al., 2011). Indeed, there are many indicators that suggest we are failing to effectively regulate and conserve vital ocean-based resources, potentially leading to consequences that include ecosystem tipping points, or dramatic shifts in structure and function that are often hard to reverse (Selkoe et al., 2015).

The increasing exploitation of marine resources is perhaps an inevitable consequence of the logic of growth in a globalised economy (Smith, 2000), and the capitalist system itself. This could therefore be seen as another element of the wider socio-ecological crisis, whose management is entwined with social relations and the reproduction of economic power. From this perspective the EU’s euphemism of “blue gowth” starts to look more crudely like a system of “blue production”, and a political economy approach would suggest that where there is production, there is inevitably exploitation. Although we know a little about the exploitative outcomes of sectors like fishing and energy (Kerr et al., 2015; Stringer et al., 2016), we do not really have a clear understanding of social relations in this context, which will operate at a range of scales from geo-politics to the working conditions aboard a floating fish factory. In other words, we do not really have a comprehensive picture of the consequences of the spatial and distributive implications of the marine economy.

To many, this may seem like a concern that falls outside the realm of planning. However, this is where, as planners, we need to confront issues of power and exploitation as it is the system of marine spatial planning (MSP) that, from the mid 2000s onwards, has been promoted as a way of managing the conflicts that inevitably arise.

MSP has been defined as the “rational organization of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economic objectives in an open and planned way” (Douvere, 2008, p. 766). Advocates claim it enables sectoral integration, incorporates hierarchical policies from the supra-national to the local, and seeks to anticipate and address future resource demands in a sustainable manner (Claydon, 2006). It is suggested that MSP can replace the current piecemeal, sectoral approach to managing our seas and provide a mechanism for a strategic and integrated plan-based approach to managing “current and potential conflicting uses, the cumulative effects of human activities, and marine protection” (Douvere, 2008, p. 766). MSP therefore seems to offer a clear, ordered, rational approach to managing the threat of overexploitation. However, such rationalism tends to be framed on specific, and often unarticulated assumptions and values. Indeed, one could draw parallels with the ideas that dominated the heyday of modernist terrestrial planning whose application of technocracy and rationalism ended up privileging dominant interests and prioritising initiatives such as urban motorways and high-rise housing that ultimately inflicted long-term damage on some of the most deprived social groups (Sandercock, 1997). While we acknowledge that we should not overplay simple extrapolations, it is clear that insufficient attention has been paid to the wide range of potential distributive impacts that are caused and condoned by an uncritical approach to MSP.

The need to critically reflect on such issues is urgent, given that the rationalist MSP paradigm is being implemented rapidly and extensively, and is now the most widely endorsed tool for the management of the marine environment (Jay et al., 2013). While there have been calls for the need to assess MSP systems (Day, 2008; Douvere & Elher, 2010), these have mainly focused on evaluating the performance of management and technical aspects, with social and distributive impacts rarely meriting a mention. We often look to the academic community to raise challenging questions, yet of the 1192 articles we identified on Scopus¹ only 250 were from the social sciences and of these, only a small handful can be considered as taking a remotely critical position². MSP studies exhibit a dominance of research on positivist traditions in natural resource management, technical assessment processes or descriptive case studies. We acknowledge that such studies do have a place in contributing to our emerging understanding of how best to “do” MSP, but we decry that without a wider appreciation of the social and distributive impacts we may end up adopting systems of MSP that are socially regressive and even possibly, “evil”, at least as used by Baum (2011) to indicate neglecting the needs of the vulnerable.

Calls for a critical turn in how we evaluate MSP, including a more explicit acknowledgment of the distributional outcomes of the process (Kidd & Ellis, 2012), are not simply mischievous but should be central to how we understand MSP. In this short paper we therefore seek to stimulate a more critical debate and ask whether we have really considered who are the winners and losers in this new mode of governance, or: “marine spatial planning; cui bono?”(who benefits?)

Thinking about the distributional impacts of marine spatial planning

MSP, like any other form of public policy and regulation, makes claims to act in the public interest, offering an opportunity for a more strategic, integrated and forward-looking framework for all uses of the sea, based on a higher order protection of ecosystems (for example, Douvere, 2008). It is argued that the pre-MSP arrangement of disjointed management of the environment in individual sectors (such as fishing, shipping, energy, for example) is not conducive to the sustainable development of natural resources as it does not take account of the cumulative impacts of these activities, resulting in increased eutrophication, pollution and habitat loss. A sectoral management approach views impacts in isolation, and only in the context of the sector from which they emanate. Sectoral decision-making also has implications for the governance of our seas, as it tends to focus solely on the players within a given industry, creates conflicts between different economic sectors and seldom goes beyond paying lip service to a broader public interest. Clearly in a world of depleting resources, any approach that will improve how these ecosystems and resources are managed must be a good thing, but rarely is the question asked about the ultimate purpose or beneficiaries of this action. One can assume that this will ultimately be for the benefit of humanity rather than being entirely eco-centric, but as Swyngedouw (2007) has highlighted, there is no one idea of “Nature” around which a policy of sustainability can be constructed. Indeed, the fishing industry will have a very different idea of sustainability than the ecologist, while even the oil industry deploys a whole variety of greenwash techniques to appropriate the term. In this sense, ecosystem-based approaches to MSP are mobilised for a range of different interests, and while MSP does give space for debating differences in how we define “sustainability”, this is usually focussed on the different technological or managerial fixes that we should apply, rather than more basic questions over who should be given access to marine resources and who should benefit from them. Because power (in its different guises) is not acknowledged in MSP, we can assume that the process will simply reflect existing power structures. So when we see the UK government acknowledging that MSP should “Contribute to the societal benefits of the marine area, including the sustainable use of marine resources to address local social and economic issues” (HM Government, 2011, p. 3) we must understand that the mechanisms, definition and type of societal benefits will be defined within the market logic that dominates virtually all other realms of public policy and ultimately secondary to the first aim of MSP, to “Promote sustainable economic development” (HM Government, 2011, p. 3).

There are examples of how emerging MSP strategies have had little impact in addressing the complex, highly-fragmented institutional arrangements they were designed to address. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) initiative in Canada is often cited as a highly participatory marine planning process that could be emulated by MSP processes (Douvere, 2008; Schaefer & Barale, 2011). However, the initiative encountered difficulties when transitioning from plan development to implementation due to poor institutional design, the lack of political support (Flannery & Ó Cinnéide, 2012a) and under resourcing of some participating sectors (McCuaig & Herbert, 2013). Participants in this process argued that the lack of implementation suited dominant and powerful stakeholders, such as the fishing industry, who had failed to fully engage with the planning process and benefited from the status quo (Flannery, 2011). Likewise, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) zoning process is often highlighted as good practice MSP (Agardy et al., 2012; Douvere et al., 2007). A recent evaluation of the ecological conditions of the reef, however, indicates that up to 50% of the coral reef has been lost over the last two decades due to the failure of coastal and marine planning processes to improve water quality by addressing the impacts of major economic stakeholders in the region such as through coastal development and agriculture (De’ath et al., 2009). The lack of integration between MSP and other marine planning and licensing processes may have a negative impact on its capacity to deliver planning for the public good. In the UK, for example, MSP processes are out of step with offshore wind farm licensing processes, meaning that much of the large-scale development will be licensed before marine plans are implemented (Scarff et al., 2015). This disconnect is mirrored across much of Europe, where planning decisions about strategically important infrastructure developments are often made through a reactive consents-led process at a central state level rather than through MSP processes (Jones et al., 2014). It therefore seems unlikely that MSP will transform into the plan-led approach for development that it was supposed to be.

MSP is also promoted as a way of overcoming the “inefficiencies” that arise from fragmented governance that predominates in pre-MSP regimes, such as inter-agency conflict, multi-agency responsibilities and prolonged licencing procedures. The Dutch plan for the North Sea reportedly cut the cost of offshore wind permits by two-thirds, while the Massachusetts Ocean Plan is credited by developers with speeding up the sub-sea cable application process (Blau & Green, 2015). While there is nothing inherently progressive about inefficient administration, neither should we be under the illusion that the streamlining of policy and consenting procedures acts for the benefit of all. It is common to problematise regulatory processes as a way of avoiding more fundamental questions about the long-term sustainability of different modes of economic growth, as witnessed in often-debated terrestrial planning (e.g. Gunder & Hillier, 2009). The accusation of bureaucratic inefficiency and “burden” has been routinely used to justify a streamlining of planning processes in the interests of business, but denying, or displacing, the confrontation of deeper development conflicts (Inch, 2012).

MSP is often offered as a mechanism for increasing stakeholder participation in marine governance (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008), and therefore promises to democratise the seas (Ritchie & Ellis, 2010). Conventionally, increased participation in marine governance, as in terrestrial planning, is seen as a benefit as it promises to: facilitate “better” planning by allowing local and sectoral knowledge to feed into decision-making processes, address conflicts between different marine users, build trust in governance agencies, enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of plans, and increase the likelihood of plan implementation (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). However, participation is, of course, highly contested and while there are examples of how public engagement has led to progressive outcomes, there are also many cases of “participatory” process being executed in a perfunctory, top-down manner with little benefits accruing to less powerful stakeholders (Day, 1997). For example, the Massachusetts and Rhode Island marine plans are believed to have reduced conflict between fishers and wind energy developers, and the Massachusetts and Great Barrier Reef planning processes have allowed for traditional, Indigenous knowledge to be assimilated into marine plans (Blau & Green, 2015). On the other hand, the adoption of tokenistic participatory measures, disconnected from decision-making, is resulting in a damaging impression of MSP amongst stakeholders and the wider public (Jones et al., 2014). A perception of a lack of influence is leading some stakeholders to question the utility of continuing to engage with MSP processes (Flannery & Ó Cinnéide, 2012b). The UK process has also had to deal with the inherent tension between centralisation of marine competencies and the adoption of participatory approaches, with some statutory consultees reporting inadequate levels of participation (Scarff et al., 2015).

We must also consider the more explicit political context for MSP and how this can influence its proposed “rational” objectives. For example, Jay et al., (2012) have shown how the powerful German offshore wind sector successfully lobbied the planning ministry to have preferential changes included in German marine plans, even though these were originally resisted by the marine planning agency. Similarly, Flannery and Ó Cinnéide (2012c) detail the capacity of a powerful environmental NGO to go outside the collaborative planning process and to directly lobby marine planners to have their demands incorporated into a plan for the Channel Islands National Maine Sanctuary. In the USA, MSP is characterised by some as an excessively top-down bureaucratic process and has been resisted by state governments and some industries. This has led to Republican members of Congress habitually adding riders to various bills so as to prevent funding for MSP (Torres et al., 2015). We cannot, of course expect MSP to act independent of wider power structures and modes of governance, but we should at least seek some appreciation of how the definition of problems, projected outcomes and processes are shaped by the powerful interests that engage with MSP.

At its best, MSP could offer us a progressive, evidence-based process for guiding a fair exploitation of marine resources, thus helping to safeguard the wealth of our oceans for future generations. At worst it could be seen as a legitimating process for the continued market-led exploitation of marine resources, which powerful interests can manipulate for their own ends, obfuscating the real politics of development and the environment (Swyngedouw, 2007). If we look again at the UK Marine Policy Statement (HM Government, 2011), it does claim that MSP is a way of considering the “benefits and adverse effects in marine planning” (p. 14), but these are aggregated, with no indication that distribution is a relevant concern. This is also reflected in the first marine plans that are emerging in the UK, which have laudable public interest objectives aimed at offering local communities new jobs, improved health and well-being. However, we see little or no actions that will deliver such benefits and the accumulation of these appears to rely on the trickle-down effect from increased marine development, particularly offshore energy. If this is the process that MSP ultimately relies on to lever in these wider benefits, we would suggest that it can only be a matter of time before it faces major crises in credibility.

The need for a radical marine spatial planning?

We critically raise questions over the potential impacts of MSP, but do not really have any effective answers here for how a sound, pluralistic system of MSP could be designed and implemented. Indeed, the fact that there is such a dearth of progressive, normative models for MSP highlights how it has been conceptualised as being asocial and as such removed from the dirty world of power, wealth and exploitation. Yet, as a regulatory regime, MSP clearly reflects the existing structures of those societies that sanction it, or more realistically, the dominant interests that may allow it to be sanctioned. Therefore, although we are indeed in desperate need of a process to ensure that we do not squander our marine resources, that they are used most effectively for the benefit of humanity and that the most sensitive ecosystems are protected in perpetuity, we suggest that this cannot be achieved through the unproblematic application of tools derived just from the rationalism of science or the allegories of economics. It is essential that MSP recognises that how it frames “marine planning problems”, and identifies appropriate objectives and methods, can be deeply problematic. All these issues will inevitably be contested, so an effective MSP process must find a way to accommodate plurality of perspectives and confront its conflicts. Indeed, we would suggest that such approaches should be tempered by what we see as the utopian tradition of land use planning, which sees the essence of planning activity not just to “manage” resources but to actively use development to secure a better world. To do so, we need to begin thinking about what spatial, environmental or social justice would look like in a marine context, and how the “land” value derived from marine development could be captured and deployed for socially progressive purposes. In turn, this leads to a range of other questions, including how we learn from the lessons that can be derived from terrestrial planning (Kidd & Shaw, 2014) and whether initiatives such as advocacy planning or more grassroots participatory methods have a place in making MSP more “equitable”. While the logic of resource management may have been the main motivation for MSP, we would like to include space for a “radical” MSP that invites alternatives, actively intervenes to secure a more democratic decision-making and promotes a fairer distribution of the benefits derived from our marine resources. Is that so unreasonable?

“More than fishy business”: epistemology, integration and conflict in marine spatial planning

Introduction

MSP is advanced internationally as a model by which countries can manage their marine environments, and yet ensure economic and social activities remain. It is a “win–win “solution. Yet, as Ellis and Flannery highlight (this issue, pp. 00–00), this optimism can be misplaced, and create distributional and other issues in its implementation. Their call for the articulation of a radical MSP is timely. This paper presents some reflections on how a radical turn in MSP may be achieved and in so doing unseat and shift the key elements of MSP which currently cause the issues Ellis and Flannery outline so well. Firstly, picking up on their point about sectoral integration, I argue that it is the epistemological basis of MSP itself that currently embeds an assumption that it has capacity to enable (sectoral and knowledge) integration. However, it is the very attempt at this integration which often causes imbalances and conflicts in distribution and power. Second, I argue that this assumption needs to be unseated and suggest that embedding a conflict lens as part of the implementation of MSP process could have transformative potential, most particularly in its capacity to distil and draw out different cultural mores for, and uses of the marine estate. Finally, I argue for a MSP process that embraces different world views, in ways that can actually go some way to achieving the sectoral harmony which the model tries so hard to achieve.

Epistemological differences

One of the key tensions in achieving a radical turn in MSP is that between epistemologies or world views inherent in its implementation. While the MSP model is based on managing multiple uses, this is not the same as reconciling the multiple cultures and knowledge domains within those groups. For it is these sub- and competing cultures, which create automatic road blocks to effective management. The case of management of seal species in South Australia is illustrative – recent social research highlights that despite multiple management measures, marine stakeholders still believe that seals affect and negatively compromise their livelihoods. They believe this regardless of any evidential base. Fisheries planning, while attempting to include stakeholder views, is finding it hard to address the social culture around this issue. In many instances, the notion of multiple use Marine Protected Areas MPAs, based on principles of MSP, still raise the (considerable) ire of fishers and tour operators, as outlined by Bacon (this issue, pp. 00–00), who feel legislated out of incomes and opportunities. Fisheries science is not enough to dethrone the on-going angst and real misery many stakeholders feel about marine conservation, their nemesis and, to them, the real “fishy business”.

The epistemological frame within which stakeholder or cultural groups operate are often completely different: Indigenous peoples in Australia do not subscribe to the notion of marine estates being split up into any kind of zone; this is completely contrary to their own epistemology. For Indigenous peoples, the marine estate is part of “country” – a contiguous area of land and sea, that defines their cultural identity, and of which they are part. To legislate or regulate bits within that country is an arbitrary and false delineation of how management should be constructed. Scale becomes an important factor here. Despite use of the term “spatial”, MSP tends to be characterised by large regional boundaries – e.g. the Great Barrier Reef. Yet from an Indigenous perspective, or indeed the perspective of local or artisanal fishers, scale is constructed quite differently. Scale here is dependent on the boundaries of one’s country or sea estate and may even be determined by the travel routes of key species. For example, in Northern Australia, the migration routes of types of turtle inform traditional management and are regulated through local governance regimes distributed geographically amongst different Indigenous nations/groups. This is different from the state-based jurisdictions that usually dominate current MSP. Thus there are complexities in definition and world view understanding that continue to inhibit MSP in practice.

MSP is based on an implicit assumption that it offers a platform for governance that is flexible and embracing of other views. This runs into difficulties when its implementation forces confrontations within and between other co-existent governance frameworks. For example, we see a stark difference between Indigenous and Western governance systems. For Hunt and Smith (2006, p. 5), governance is defined as “the evolving processes, relationships, institutions and structures by which a group of people, community or society organise themselves collectively to achieve the things that matter to them”, yet for Indigenous groups, governance is also about group membership and identity, who has authority over what, agreed rules to ensure authority is exercised properly, how decisions are enforced, how individuals and groups negotiate rights and interests with others, and which arrangements will best enable them to achieve their goals. How can models such as MSP integrate and incorporate these dimensions and strengthen the cultural palatability of its practice? Is that integration possible when it also implies a redistribution of power and potentially responsibility for decision-making to others?

Integration

Integration then emerges as a significant concept in MSP. When deconstructed, MSP assumes that integration of multiple interests has merit, and can be achieved. However, in practice this is problematic, because MSP is essentially a Western construct. Every knowledge system operates in practice in different ways: for example Western knowledge systems tend to be linear, sequential, and follow scientific principles, whereas Indigenous peoples’ knowledge systems are more circular. In the Western world, while access to knowledge is in reality mediated by power and resource constraints, it is nonetheless theoretically “open” to access by all, and science is conceived as a “common pool” resource. Yet in an Aboriginal context, knowledge is distributed, held and maintained by different members of society and strictly adheres to various delineations which prescribe specific responsibilities in relation to that knowledge.

Integration is impossible in this context because “integration” of multiple interests in MSP implies the adopting or incorporation of Indigenous and other cultural knowledges into current jurisdictional and institutional arrangements, but they may simply not fit. It is assumed that science is the harbinger and accurate guide for effective management. From an Indigenous perspective, this is not only incorrect, but also serves as a mechanism of appropriation and reduction. This is not integration and needs to be deconstructed in theory and practice before rigorous and radical MSP can occur.

Conflict

Conflict is an important yet overlooked driver in MSP. The aim of most environmental planning regimes is to ensure either avoidance of conflict or to have conflict resolution tools at the ready to address conflict when it emerges. Given the inherent epistemological and cultural conflicts discussed above, this is a risky approach. Conflict is an enduring feature of marine management initiatives worldwide. The question remains, how do we deal with it? One strategy is to embed conflict itself as a dimension of governance where, as part of the MSP process, we can begin to map and identify the conflict landscape up front, make the conflicts explicit in the process as management issues, rather than waiting for them to become responses to management decisions (Nursey-Bray, 2013). Boldly incorporating conflict in this case is not the same as ensuring conflict resolution tools exist, so this approach would herald a new and transformative approach to MSP.

As Tjosvold (2006) notes, conflict is not the issue, people make conflict, hence we need to redefine conflict itself. MSP, by becoming an adaptive governance tool, could deliberatively harness the energy of conflict to support rigorous social learning, and in turn build social justice outcomes across stakeholder groups. Andrade et al. (2008) note that rather than seeing conflict as a breakdown, one can construct it as an energy source, a fuel that generates opportunity and growth. Conflict becomes a mechanism that actively contributes to adaptive learning and by its very nature challenges the embedded assumptions that are part of any developed threat or other frame across both expert and professional realms. Conflict thus becomes part of a process rather than a subject or object to be managed. In being used, rather than avoided or resolved, it can build or enhance more socially just and equitable adaptive capacity.

Co-existence as a radical turn

In progressing MSP, a reconciliation of cultures and epistemologies must occur, but, as argued here, not necessarily by the traditional vehicles of “integration” or stakeholder consultation. Perhaps the notion of co-existence, then, is a better “fit” and may provide a way in which to conceive how the integration of science and culture may occur, and how to address the very real conflicts that endure when trying to manage the marine commons. Co-existence, as defined by Howitt and Lunkapis (2010, p. 110) is “sharing space in more just, equitable, and sustainable ways.” Multiple interests and values about the marine domain co-exist alongside, rather than being integrated within, other rights and interests. It is an epistemological shift that implies recognition that all parties are equal and that each knowledge system is legitimate and valid. Commitment to co-existence implies working in ways where all parties retain autonomy and control over how knowledge is used, disseminated and presented. I argue for a shift in our epistemological thinking: a re-crafting of MSP away from being a framework to reconcile and incorporate multiple interests, towards a facilitative process which can enable the co-existence of multiple world views and interests. This would advance the case for socially just marine conservation, where there are more “winners” than “losers” in what is an increasingly neo-liberal world.

Notes on contributor

Melissa Nursey-Bray is Head of Department and Associate Professor for Geography, Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide. Melissa’s work focusses on the role communities play in environmental decision-making and in this capacity has worked for non-government organisations, government, Indigenous groups, and a number of universities. She investigates the factors (particularly social learning, conflict, and perceptions) that drive community involvement in decision-making in the context of climate change adaption and achieving socially just conservation. She is particularly interested in how these factors affect conventional models of management such as marine protected areas and the ways in which other environmental conservation measures (OECMs) can be developed. E-mail: [email protected]

Marine spatial planning: power and scaping

Introduction

Since the mid-2000s, MSP has been promoted as a way of managing the conflicts that arise from the increased exploitation of marine resources. While UNESCO emphasizes MSP as “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas … through a political process” (UNESCO, 2015), the European Union (EU) presents MSP as a tool for improved decision-making, by providing a framework for arbitrating between competing human activities and managing their impact on the marine environment (European Commission, 2008). In policy and scientific debates, the instrumental and design characteristics of MSP are emphasized, such as balancing conflicting spatial claims, realizing integrated approaches and enhancing legitimacy of the planning process by involving stakeholders. As Ellis and Flannery highlight (this issue, pp. 00–00), the uncritical presentation of MSP pays no attention to distributional outcomes, arguing for a “radical” MSP”, which invites alternatives, actively intervenes to secure a more democratic decision-making and promotes a fairer distribution of the benefits derived from our marine resources.

Being sympathetic towards Ellis and Flannery’s plea for a radical approach, in the following I will discuss and present some possible building blocks for a “radical” MSP. The line of argument is that MSP is not a neutral or objective instrument to decide about conflicting claims. Conceptualizing MSP as marine scaping and as a power game gives insight into how the power dynamics and the interplay of structure and agency in MSP processes affect the access to and the quality of planning in fragmented governance systems.

MSP as a process of scaping

MSP is a form of marine scaping as it is concerned with the staging and ordering of maritime activities in time and space, as the result of the interrelations of these activities with specific marine ecosystems (seascape), to other human activities and their social and political institutional environments (humanscape) and the way actors think about and define maritime activities (mindscape) (Toonen & Van Tatenhove, 2013). The concept of marine scaping gives insight into the interplay of structure and agency in marine planning processes. Based on the morphogenetic approach of Margaret Archer (1996, 2010) actors in MSP processes are strongly influenced by the context in which action takes place (structural and cultural conditioning). These structural and cultural conditions are the result of past actions and affect the interactions and the interests of people. However, during social interaction, actors have the capability to do otherwise and to affect events. As a result of these actions, the conditions might change. This process of elaboration (or reproduction) is a result that no group or individual could completely foresee, but nonetheless emerges as the outcome of conflict or compromise.

MSP processes are the sum of conditioning, interactions and elaboration. The structural context of maritime activities consists on the one hand of the physical conditions of the marine environment and the way people historically relate to marine ecosystems (seascape) and on the other hand the enabling and constraining conditions of the fragmented institutional (international, national and EU) setting (humanscape). Ideas, visions, norms and values about governing and planning activities (and competences) for a common sea are the cultural conditions in which institutional rules come about. Structural and cultural conditions shape the inclusion and exclusion of actors and the legitimate topics of MSP processes. The selection of actors (with specific spatial claims), the form of participation, how to deal with conflicting claims, and the status of a marine plan are structured by legislative and administrative contexts (structural and cultural conditions). Dominant discourses are also structuring agents: is MSP aiming at stimulating the maritime economy? Is it dominantly rooted in nature conservation? Is it permit driven? MSP processes can reproduce the status quo or can change the legitimate use of marine space (seascapes) the legitimate discourses (mindscapes), or the institutional rules which influence the ordering and staging of maritime activities (humanscapes, process of elaboration).

MSP as multi-layered power process

MSP as marine scaping is a multi-layered power game in which territorial spaces and the spatial patterns of marine activities are redefined and political spaces are contested and (re)composed (Soma et al., 2015). Power is here defined as

the organisational and discursive capacity of agencies, either in competition with one another or jointly, to achieve outcomes in social practices, a capacity which is however co-determined by the structural power of those social institutions in which these agencies are embedded. (Arts & Van Tatenhove, 2005, p. 347)

Power should be understood as multi-layered, incorporating relational, dispositional and structural power. Relational power is the capability of actors to realize outcomes by using resources in interaction. Dispositional power shapes an actor’s capacity to act. Institutional rules and an unequal distribution of resources position actors differently in planning arrangements, co-determining what actors may achieve in terms of relational power. Structural power refers to the way in which macro-societal structures shape the nature and conduct of actors (Arts & Van Tatenhove, 2005; Van Tatenhove, 2015).

The capacity of actors to decide about the spatial claims and to define political spaces, i.e. deciding about who gets access to decision-making arenas and whom to involve or to empower, depends on the unequal distribution and access of actors to resources (e.g. knowledge, finances) These forms of relational power are played out within the specific dispositional and structural power frameworks. The positioning of public and private actors vis-à-vis each other in national MSP governance arrangements is based on the unequal distribution of resources and on the dominant discourses about what MSP should be and what activities should be stimulated. For example in the North Sea 2050 Spatial Agenda (Noordzee 2050 Gebiedsagenda), the Dutch government presents five themes in the new North Sea policy plan for 2015–2021: building with North Sea nature, energy transition at sea, multiple use of space, connecting land and sea, and accessibility of shipping. Each theme will accommodate extra resources and will affect the power position of certain maritime activities vis-à-vis others.

Conclusion

The quality of MSP is determined by the ways in which the development of (spatial) visions, knowledge mobilization and democratic legitimacy are linked, interwoven and embedded in a continuous process of articulation (of stories) and coordination (cf. Hajer et al., 2010). The settings in which these processes of articulation and coordination take place are formed in processes of marine scaping, which set the (dispositional and structural) power structure of predominantly national MSP arenas. While the EU perceives regional cooperation¹ as a necessity for integrated solutions (such as ecosystem-based management) at the level of regional seas, national processes of conditioning and dispositional power structures hamper regional cooperation between states. Existing initiatives of regional cooperation, such as offshore super grids (Jay & Toonen, 2015), networks of MPAs (Toonen, 2013), maritime transport networks (as part of, for example, the macro regional strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region) or the development of a sea-basin strategy² (EU Regulation number 1,303/2013) could be frustrated by national processes of marine scaping and power. To explore the enabling and constraining conditions of these forms of regional cooperation and to enhance the quality of transboundary MSP processes, insight is needed into the processes of marine scaping and the power dynamics in adjacent states.

Notes on contributor

Jan P.M. van Tatenhove is Professor of Marine Governance at the Environmental Policy Group in the Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University. He is co-director of the Centre for Maritime Research (MARE) and he is associate editor of Maritime Studies (MAST). In March 2015, he was appointed as Honorary Professor in the School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering (Institute of Spatial and Environmental Planning) at Queen’s University in Belfast. His research focuses on the institutionalization and dynamics of marine governance arrangements and the assessment of the quality of marine governance institutions and processes. E-mail: [email protected]

Surely not all planning is evil?

The call for a “radical” marine spatial planning (MSP) system is timely. As we look to the development of ocean resources to support global growth and consumption, it is now a necessity rather than a choice to ensure the successful management of our marine spaces (e.g. Stamoulis & Delevaux, 2015). As EU member states are currently transposing the institutional arrangements to comply with the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, it is not unreasonable to ask who MSP is for, and who will benefit from this process.

It is acknowledged that many lessons can be drawn from the implementation and evolution of land use planning. Highlighting the negative as well as the positive aspects of terrestrial spatial planning is worthwhile, particularly at a time when land use planning in the UK and Ireland is accused of becoming increasingly neoliberalised (e.g. Ellis, 2015). This is concerning given that terrestrial planning may be used to understand and inform the process of MSP (Kidd & Shaw, 2014). So “Who benefits from MSP” is an imperative question.

The MSP Directive is however, deficient in specific detail on how to deliver MSP, allowing flexibility in how national governments implement it. If they are savvy, governments can learn from others’ experience when designing arrangements for MSP (European Union, 2014). It is important to ensure that any system established is comprehensive, rigorous, legally binding, and facilitates the balancing of various marine interests through early and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

By examining case studies critically and engaging in a dynamic debate, this can be constructive in enabling both the planning profession and academia to reach a consensus about core values. Ellis and Flannery (this issue, pp. 00–00) prompt questions about MSP, but emphasise bad or “evil planning” rather than “good” practice. By reflecting on my own experience of MSP (in the Shetland Islands and Scottish planning system), I hope this paper may help to address this gap (Kelly et al., 2014a).

The Scottish MSP system, having invested in and learned from the initial pilot schemes under the Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative (SSMEI), has established new institutional arrangements and is progressing a plan-led system for the management of its marine waters i.e. the Marine (Scotland) Act, 2010 and new Directorate, Marine Scotland¹. While the Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan (SMSP) was initiated in 2006 without the benefit of the Scottish Government’s MSP system that is now in place, it nonetheless provides nine years of learning experiences. Furthermore, the SMSP was intrinsic in developing and testing different management approaches on behalf of the Scottish Government and therefore helped to shape the current MSP system (Marine Scotland, 2010).

Social and distributive impacts

One of the first steps involved in developing the SMSP was setting out a shared vision with a local advisory group². This comprised decision-makers, regulators, NGOs, local industry and community representatives. Following a review in 2012 the group expanded to include additional marine stakeholders to ensure more diverse representation. This reduced the potential for dominant interests influencing marine planners, as highlighted in the Channel Islands (Flannery & Ó Cinnéide, 2012c).

A vision encompasses “values” that are considered important to people and can influence thinking and action (Kolzow, 1999). The shared vision for Shetland’s marine and coastal environment is one that is clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse, managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and the local people (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). This vision supports the Scottish and UK Governments’ vision and is a first step in encouraging people to work together by fostering a common identity and a platform of understanding (Scottish Government, 2015).

Since the first edition of the SMSP was published in 2008 it has progressed from a non-statutory, aspirational and data-focused blueprint to a more locally specific, spatially integrated and environmentally robust statutory plan with greater stakeholder support. This has been achieved by extending the membership of the advisory group to represent more marine interests, the collection and collation of more spatial data on community interests, identifying areas of opportunity for development, addressing cumulative impacts, and carrying out strategic environmental and appropriate assessments (Kelly et al., 2014a, 2014b). The SMSP now fully endorses the ecosystem-based approach. This is evident in its policy framework where it stipulates that developments must comply with all the policies providing clean and safe, healthy and diverse marine waters first before they can adhere to the productive sectoral policies. This planning mechanism is the means of achieving the vision and objectives of the SMSP ensuring that all marine interests benefit from the sustainable development of Shetland’s marine resource.

Power and exploitation

Ellis and Flannery (this issue, pp. 121–128) highlight issues of power and exploitation where MSP has been promoted as a way of managing conflicts. The SMSP has been continuously refined to avoid and reduce conflicts. The development of regional locational guidance for wave and tidal energy endorsed a sensitivity-led approach to identifying suitable areas for renewable energy and associated shore-based infrastructure (Tweddle et al., 2014). This process involved working closely with local stakeholders and incorporating key issues into one constraint model informed by local and societal values, rather than monetary equivalent. This reflects a fair and transparent process ensuring issues of power and exploitation do not materialise and societal benefits are not purely defined by market logic.

Sectoral integration

The lack of integration between MSP and other marine licensing and planning processes (e.g. Scarff et al., 2015), can be avoided through strategic planning. The draft Scottish National Marine Plan was accompanied by a number of related consultation documents. These included draft sectoral marine plans for offshore marine renewables, possible marine protected areas, priority marine features, and a draft planning circular explaining the relationship between the marine and terrestrial planning systems (Scottish Government, 2013). This integrated approach provides early guidance and certainty to all marine sectors in a co-ordinated manner. This should lead to a reduction of conflicts, providing greater certainty for long-term investment decisions as well as streamlining decision-making. This should not necessarily be seen as facilitating “blue production” but balancing conservation and sustainable development objectives. The closure of certain shell-fisheries to protect important seabed habitats by the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation helped the Shetland inshore fleet gain Marine Stewardship Council accreditation (Shelmerdine et al., 2014). This demonstrates how local economic and environmental interests can achieve “win–win” solutions.

Conclusion

Ellis and Flannery quite rightly question who benefits from MSP. Their critique of “blue production” unfortunately conjures negative connotations associated with a damaged and neoliberalised terrestrial planning that has lost sights of its social objectives. This regressive approach must not infiltrate the newly emerging MSP systems.

Nonetheless, it is important to explore the potential transferability and adaptability of certain aspects of terrestrial planning into MSP. Ellis (2015) advised governments to ensure that the purpose of planning is enshrined into law from the onset. It will be important therefore to establish a robust legislative and regulatory MSP system from inception which is designed around good practice, applies an ecosystem-based approach that is specific to its own marine region, and allows for adaptive management.

Stakeholder and citizen involvement from the initial stages and throughout the MSP process will be critical in creating a shared vision based on common values, as well as ensuring an equitable, integrated, well-informed and transparent marine plan. Similarly to terrestrial planning, “advocacy planning” or more “grassroots participatory” methods have a place in making MSP more “equitable” (Kidd & Shaw, 2014). Stakeholder engagement will also help to achieve broad acceptance, ownership and support for implementation of MSP.

The importance of monitoring, reviewing and adaptation in MSP cannot be emphasised enough. MSP in the Shetland Islands has been a long iterative process which has benefited greatly from this “learning by doing” process. As reflected in Shetland, if implemented correctly, MSP could confront issues of fragmented governance, power and exploitation. Having a robust MSP system in place from the beginning will help to avoid some of the unnecessary planning “evils” experienced in terrestrial planning and hopefully nobody ends up exploited by the marine economy.

Notes on contributor

Christina Kelly is researching her PhD at Queen’s University, Belfast on the topic of integrated estuarine and coastal management. This follows on from her previous work in marine spatial planning at the NAFC Marine Centre, Shetland Islands, where she was a main contributor to the Shetland Islands’ Marine Spatial Plan, one of the first statutory marine plans in the UK. Christina has also previous experience of terrestrial planning having worked as a planner for over seven years in Ireland and Australia. Email: [email protected]

Marine spatial planning: a Canadian perspective

Oversight of the distribution¹ of social benefits and cumulative environmental effects need greater monitoring and integration in marine spatial planning (MSP) processes. This suggests the need for a central gatekeeper or clearinghouse mechanism for objectives-based decision-making on coastal and ocean use to limit ecosystem thresholds from being exceeded and to assign spatial and temporal human use priorities. These functions are real challenges to achieve in MSP processes, particularly because they involve setting ecological, economic and social objectives related to analysing and allocating spatial and temporal human activities that are normally specified through political processes. Given the multi-jurisdictional context of MSP (e.g. federal, provincial and municipal levels in Canada), a collaborative governance approach is necessary.

The legislative and regulatory authority and policy framework for MSP is core to the issue of distribution impacts; however, as Ellis and Flannery (this issue, pp. 121–128) note “because power … is not acknowledged in MSP … the process will simply reflect existing power structures.” Complex changes in Canada’s ocean governance regime require either legal reinterpretation of existing statutes, legislative amendments, or more onerous federal constitutional changes. In the Canadian context, the latter must be passed by Parliament and require a two-thirds majority of provincial legislatures, those provinces together representing at least 50% of the national population. Recent federal governments have avoided opening constitutional debates for various political reasons; hence, any mandated federal–provincial ocean governance regime change is an unlikely driver for Canadian constitutional reform and revision. Advancing MSP as an explicit element of integrated oceans management policy development at the national level holds more promise than legislative renewal of Canada’s Oceans Act (1996), which is implemented by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

Law and policy shifts for implementation of MSP do require high-level political will and direction, so collaborative political commitment and whole-of-government support is critical for effective MSP. Because MSP potentially overrides existing divisions of constitutional and sector-based authority by consolidating decisions in a central zoning plan that is adhered to by each ocean sector, Canada’s political realities have led us to focus on the use of MSP as an operational tool and for best practice guidance to deliver integrated and strategic oceans management programs. Such an arrangement requires a shared vision of how ocean space should be managed according to core principles (i.e. ecosystem-based, integrated, area-based, adaptive, strategic, anticipatory and participatory), leaving oceans-mandated regulatory sectors to implement the shared vision via their own decision-making processes. Accountability gaps may continue to exist under this MSP approach; however, the need for centralized zoning plans can be considered in future applications after tracking MSP successes and progress in other jurisdictions.

Departing from centralized zoning plan models, MSP can be viewed as part of a much broader process for developing a shared vision and for collating information, assessment, monitoring, and reporting that supports informed decisions and actions for effective integrated oceans management, without resulting in a centralized zoning plan. Centralized plans can range from a regulatory-based zoning plan to a human use characterization plan with voluntary management guidance. Appropriate MSP steps can be incorporated without compromising existing integrated oceans management programs, changing existing oceans management decision points, or developing a centralized zoning plan. Strong linkages also exist between MSP and Canada’s Oceans Act (1996) requirement to develop bioregional marine protected area (MPA) network plans. Both MSP and MPA network planners agree on the need to match human use values with ecological values, so distributional impacts are important considerations in both.

MSP approaches are only implicitly stated in Canada’s Oceans Act (1996) as it mandates the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to 1) gather, compile, analyse, coordinate and disseminate information (s. 33), 2) collect data for the purpose of understanding oceans and their living resources and ecosystems (s. 42), and 3) encourage activities necessary to foster understanding, management and sustainable development of oceans and marine resources (s. 40). Therefore the supporting policy and programs under the Oceans Act point towards MSP, but without specifically enabling it, and no federal oceans-related Acts explicitly recommend or exclude the use of MSP approaches. Further, it is arguable that the Oceans Act gives authority to plan for and implement MSP relative to marine protected areas, fisheries, aquaculture, habitat protection, and pollution prevention, all of which are mandated to DFO. Other federal oceans-mandated ministers have sectoral authority to implement MSP for maritime transport, submarine cables, oil and gas exploration and development, renewable energy, ocean dumping, marine conservation areas, and marine wildlife areas. Thus, collaborative governance structures are needed to make MSP operational under sector-based authorities.

In response to the suggested need for “radical” M S P, it is not an unreasonable academic question to pose, but from a Canadian perspective it is one that is fraught with ocean governance complexities and practicalities that are probably best left unruffled. There is general acceptance of the spatial and temporal reality of ocean management, and there is potential to address spatial and temporal planning issues under Canada’s current governance frameworks and structures. For example, when using ecological and socioeconomic geospatial information and data, consistent and accepted portrayal and use is very important. Care and flexibility are needed in MSP applications at appropriate scales and for appropriate purposes. Limitations need context recognition due to the dynamic nature of the marine environment, knowledge gaps, and multi-jurisdictional governance. Agreement is needed on objectives, definitions and guiding principles. Priority areas should be the first focus, but within a broader bioregional planning framework. Lastly, how, when and where activities are conducted (e.g. codes of practice guidance) are key to ensure effective oceans management.

In Canada, we may eventually achieve centralized zoning plans for MSP and/or implement the concept of an oceans management gatekeeper/clearinghouse mechanism in the long-term, but the potential political and administrative costs of these changes do not preclude us from advancing practical MSP tools and approaches in the interim. Those tools and information bases include valuations of economic, environmental, social and cultural importance, socioeconomic principles for marine conservation planning that seek to minimize socioeconomic impacts on resource users, and regional-scale assessments of ocean use intensity for analyzing cumulative effects. These MSP approaches can address, to some extent, the distributional impact concerns advanced.

Notes on contributors

Scott Coffen-Smout is an oceans management practitioner with the Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. He studied marine biology and marine affairs at Dalhousie University in Halifax and marine environmental science at the University of Wales, Bangor, UK. He is an alumnus and senior research fellow at the International Ocean Institute, Canada, an associate of the Marine and Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie University, and co-editor of the Ocean Yearbook. His background includes oceans management and policy research, fisheries development, management and research, shellfish aquaculture development, management and research, and marine affairs project management. E-mail: [email protected]

Maritime spatial planning – “ad utilitatem omnium”

This Interface poses¹ the question “Marine spatial planning: cui bono”? The answer is “Ad utilitatem omnium” – for the benefit of all. However, the differences between theory and reality can be significant, and it is unsurprising, given that we are still in the relatively early stages of implementing MSP, that its benefits are overlooked in favour of negative reports about what it does not do, rather than positive reinforcement about what it does. MSP is not perfect but no-one ever claimed it was. In the absence of anything else, with capitalism as the current economic orthodoxy and with humankind yet to adopt altruism as its default setting, MSP is the best option that reflects the realities of the world in which we actually live. It also gives hope for, and a route towards, the sort of world in which we would like to live.

Back to basics

That we live in a world where increasing use is made of our marine resources is incontrovertible. In the European Union area alone, well over 40% of the population lives within 50 km of a coastline and there has been demonstrable and increasing competition for maritime and coastal space in recent years. This has led to increasing pressures on coastal and marine resources in areas of high economic, ecological, social and cultural value. We know this has resulted in an inefficient and unbalanced use of available resources, conflicting claims on space (with peaks and troughs in demand at different times throughout the year) and degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems; only 8% of coastal habitats and 11% of coastal species are in favourable condition (European Commission, 2013a).

MSP is a multi-sector tool to facilitate the implementation of the ecosystem approach, to support the reconciliation of concurrent human activities in a given maritime region and consider the impact of maritime activities on the marine environment without any built-in priority for either type of spatial claim. It is a politically guided, but stakeholder-driven, process that utilises communication, cooperation and coordination to achieve a balance of activities in marine (and associated coastal) areas. Its ultimate aim is to avoid, or substantially reduce, the potential for conflicting decisions to be made over the utilisation of the sea and to accommodate different uses within binding or agreed plans. It is a good thing.

In recent years, the drive towards stakeholder engagement in the development of policy across all sectors has undoubtedly opened up the decision-making process. This is also a good thing; no longer are decisions taken without some element of transparency and consideration of multiple viewpoints. Democracy has entered the marine planning process but there is a danger of a democratic deficit if there is not an equitable representation of relevant positions. Mechanisms to address this at multiple levels are available. In Scotland, for example, the National Marine Plan, which was created with the benefit of unparalleled stakeholder engagement over a five-year period, will subsequently be complemented by the development of sub-national marine plans. The first of these, created by Regional Marine Planning Partnerships designed to add local input to the national, statutory marine planning process and facilitate successful planning across the land/sea divide, are evolving from existing voluntary initiatives in the Clyde estuary and, as outlined by Kelly (this issue, pp. 135-138), around Shetland².

In defence of MSP

Ellis and Flannery (this issue, pp. 121–128) argue that no-one is paying real attention to the views of those who are disenfranchised as a result of the headlong rush towards economic growth; raw capitalism is winning and no-one is taking into account social science alongside environmental well-being in tempering its worst excesses. The danger is that we end up with systems of MSP that are “socially regressive and even possibly ‘evil’.”

One would hope not. MSP is common sense. It offers a way to overcome the “tragedy of the commons”, when individuals neglect the well-being of the group in favour of the pursuit of personal gain. If everyone wants a slice of the marine action, MSP is a way of ensuring that everyone gets something. It tries to provide an equitable distribution of the benefits and disadvantages given the limitations of available knowledge and the human presumption of being the most important player in the game.

While critics detail the weaknesses, they make no suggestions about what to do to overcome them. In their conclusion, Ellis and Flannery ask whether it is so unreasonable to seek a “radical” MSP. It is not remotely unreasonable; it is just somewhat unrealistic right now, but we live in hope of things getting better over time.

The EU marine spatial planning directive

Politics is “the art of the possible.” The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, adopted on 23 July 2014, bears out the truth of that statement. No-one involved in the process got exactly what they wanted but what emerged after a year of intensive negotiations and countless re-drafts was, probably, the best possible compromise.

Those involved in integrated coastal management across Europe, a complementary process that enables joined-up thinking across the land/sea interface, were hugely disappointed that it fell out of the scope of the Directive. However, the Directive establishes the framework for MSP in the EU, aimed at promoting the sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources. It requires that the marine plans, which must be produced by the EU’s 23 coastal states by 31 March 2021, should take the ecosystem-based approach. It links to existing elements of EU legislation, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the data requirements of the INSPIRE Directive. MSP undertaken at the European level will utilise science that is usable in a community context and will help to deliver Good Environmental Status by ensuring that activities take place in appropriate areas. Those are significant objectives for Member States to deliver.

Crucially, the Directive introduces the concept of “land–sea interactions” as a means of reflecting that you cannot achieve effective planning and management of offshore areas and resources without considering what happens where the sea meets the land, and vice versa. This makes the whole thing work because this is the level at which humans interact with everything else involved.

MSP, at least as practised in the European member states, is perceived as having an in-built bias towards the market forces that drive our economy. Being realistic, most stakeholders are in it for the money, although strong environmental objectives are evident too. The problem, however, is that such concerns are too often on either side of a dividing line between national and/or sectoral interests. MSP offers the route by which offshore renewable energy generation and other genuine attempts to establish a greener economy can be considered within an integrated framework of environmental awareness, policy, licensing and management.

Ironically for something that is supposed to streamline the decision-making process and make it easier for developments to take place, experience from both the public and private sectors suggests that MSP does not easily take into account, or quickly respond to, either market-based forces or environmental variabilities. It can be inflexible in its outcomes and the decision-making process can be out of step with fluid and short-term market conditions as well as natural processes with a longer lifespan. Adopting a trans-boundary approach does not come easily to nation states either.

However, MSP is trying to do the best it can with what is available. It is not perfect and dissatisfaction is not, for once, an indication that we are doing something right. Rather, it is an indication that MSP is desperately needed and improvements are there for the making. A review of the situation in 2021 would offer a fairer assessment of progress made.

Conclusion

You can gripe about the imperfections of MSP but, unless or until someone comes up with a better way of considering the plethora of activities and interests making use of marine resources, both within Europe and elsewhere, it is our best collective chance of allowing the majority of them to take place in the most appropriate/least worst areas. We should stop complaining about what MSP does not do and embrace the possibilities for what it does. And make it work along with those who are trying to do the same.

Notes on contributors

Rhona Fairgrieve is the Manager of the Scottish Coastal Forum. She has combined her degrees in Politics & Modern History (Edinburgh) and Marine Resource Management (Cardiff) to good effect in a 20-year career that has spanned both the private and public sector, at home and abroad. From implementing the UK’s first Aquatic Management Plan to being part of the negotiations for the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, she has consistently worked to facilitate an integrated approach to coastal and marine management. She currently manages the Scottish Coastal Forum and is working with the Scottish Government’s Marine Directorate to successfully implement the Scottish National Marine Plan, published in March 2015. E-mail: [email protected]

Marine spatial planning: “it is better to be on the train than being hit by it”

Ellis and Flannery (this issue, pp. 121–128) raise important issues that are often overlooked among planning authorities who deal with marine spatial planning (MSP). We share their skepticism about MSP; indeed, it can only be successful when it is based on an interactive planning approach that includes user groups from the start of the process. In what follows, we attempt to contribute to a discussion on the definition, aims, and design processes of MSP. We conclude that MSP is a necessity and that we social scientists have an important task to help make it stable, durable and functional.

Many case studies show that MSP processes are catalyzed with a specific objective in mind. For example ecological restoration, the expansion of wind energy, or solving existing problems of multiple use conflicts or pollution. There are, however, only a few examples where ecological conservation is the main driver of an MSP process (Day, 2002). More often, the introduction or expansion of an economic activity is the motor behind MSP (Jay, 2010), particularly the goal to produce renewable offshore energy in the European Union. When the objective is to introduce or expand activities in the ocean and the coastal zone, chances are high that there will also be socio-economic trade-offs due to the decrease in available space, limitation of resource extraction or other activities, and thus an increase in costs. When the sea is becoming more crowded, it is most likely that this will also lead to ecological trade-offs. However, this is not necessarily the case. Excluding fisheries through zoning – in order to make space for wind energy, for example - might lead to ecological restoration in overfished areas, and thus to ecological benefits. This, however, does not imply that MSP is good for the fisheries in a socioeconomic sense, as people lose access to fishing grounds, which may reduce their livelihood opportunities and hurt coastal communities.

MSP is often defined as “a process of analyzing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marine spaces to specific uses, to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through the political process” (Douvere & Ehler, 2009, p. 78). Although this definition is not necessarily problematic, it does not take account of the diversity of actors and activities in an MSP setting, where there is always a variety of social and economic objectives and interests at stake, which more often than not are conflicting. Equally, the definition does not account for the diversity of political institutions, rationalities and worldviews involved. Thus, creating a win–win situation that satisfies new and existing user groups is a process that is far more complex and goes beyond the allocation of space for specific activities. It requires elaborate understanding of the social and historical context and socioeconomic dependencies of a region. It also involves intervention in existing power relations that may or may not help to level the playingfield for stakeholders competing for marine resources and space.

We cannot do without MSP in an increasingly crowded sea. It is the logical answer to the increase of activities and the need to assess local and regional effects on the ecosystem and other activities through an array of new mapping and monitoring technologies. We argue that it is important not to consider MSP as a vision, but rather as an approach to operationalize new modes of marine governance, not merely as a technical instrument but a complex governance process, involving objectives such as democratization and empowerment. MSP as an operational mechanism and an interactive governance process seems to be the best answer to many of the current challenges at sea and in the coastal zone. It is thus important to analyze its design and implications constructively.

For MSP to be successful, its processes and design need to follow principles of good governance. This is best done by early and continual involvement of all stakeholders that use the affected marine area in the planning process. This should not merely be through hearing and consultation processes, but through actually involving all sea users in drawing maps and producing knowledge about the ecosystem and its valuable and vulnerable areas. Rather than just being informed about the process, it is vital that these groups are involved in the co-production of the knowledge base upon which a marine plan is built. Fishermen possess knowledge about local conditions that state-led assessments may not be able to reveal (Johnsen et al., 2014). Through the inclusion of local (or traditional) ecological knowledge, the negative implications of management decisions may be tempered.

There will, however, always be winners and losers when the sea becomes more crowded. An increase of new activities implies that both the incoming and traditional users of the sea need to adapt and (re)position themselves relative to each other, even if they have been part of a well-designed process. When space becomes more limited, the vital mobility of fishermen is at risk. This can result in loss of income and eventually – in a more serious scenario – the destruction of fisheries-dependent communities. It is therefore important that planners have thorough knowledge about such potential effects and that they carefully consider socioeconomic dependencies and the possibility of alternative livelihoods of traditional users. MSP is an intervention in a complex social and ecological system where fitting in new activities means less space for existing activities. There will thus always be trade-offs in any MSP process. However, it is not always the case that traditional users have to make space for new industries. For example, in Norway, in the case of the reopening of the Barents Sea-Lofoten area for petroleum activity in 2006, collaborative mapping processes led to the understanding and subsequently the political decision that certain areas were too valuable and vulnerable for petroleum activity, both with respect to the functioning and productivity of the ecosystem in these locations, as well as with respect to their value for small-scale fisheries. These areas thus remained closed for industrial expansion and the fisheries “won” the battle over this region, at least temporarily. The case also shows that MSP is highly subject to the political climate and does not necessarily result in solutions with a satisfactory degree of political stability (Knol, 2011).

MSP is an instrument whose time has come (Jentoft & Knol, 2014). As a fishery industry representative once argued in an interview with our colleagues (Degnbol & Wilson, 2008, p. 197) “it is better [for stakeholders] to be on the [MSP] train than being hit by it.” We should acknowledge that MSP involves problems that are complex and “wicked” (Rittel & Webber, 1973), but assume that MSP processes are not evil in their objectives. It is essential that the MSP process is transparent and inclusive. MSP may not be able to fix a democratic deficit on its own, but should still have ambitions not to create power asymmetries, as they will enhance the level of conflict and increase the transaction costs required to resolve them. MSP must aim to create order and justice out of the chaos and conflict that follow in the wake of the crowding of the sea and the coastal zone.

We argue for a more intensive study of the effects and implications MSP as a new approach in marine governance. The current literature mainly describes how MSP processes are designed and the objectives of marine planners and stakeholders. There is relatively little knowledge about the extent to which these objectives are reached and what unintended effects MSP brings along. There is also scant research on conflict, conflict resolution, and the processes of knowledge integration in MSP (Stepanova, 2015). This is a task for the social sciences, providing insight into the potential durability and stability of marine governance instruments and arrangements. Importantly, it will give marine planners a longer-term perspective on the potential implications of their decisions and modes of governance.

Notes on contributors

Maaike Knol is a social scientific researcher with special interest in integrated marine governance, Arctic issues, environmental policy, marine spatial planning and the regulation of offshore petroleum activities. She obtained her Master of Science degree in International Development Studies at Wageningen University in the Netherlands (2007) and her PhD in Natural Resource Management at the University of Tromsø, Norway (2011). She currently holds a researcher position at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø. E-mail: [email protected]

Svein Jentoft is a sociologist and a professor at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Norway. Throughout his long career his work has been focused on social and political issues in fisheries in his native country and around the world. Svein has written extensively on small-scale fisheries, coastal communities, co-management, indigenous peoples, and interactive governance, and has published 25 books, numerous book chapters, research and popular articles. E-mail: [email protected]

Reflections from the perspective of recreational anglers and boats for hire

From my point of view, emerging marine spatial planning (MSP) processes can be seen as an extension of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) paradigm and will result in some sea areas taken from one set of users and given to another. If I could wish away these management processes, I would do it in a heartbeat in the name of socioeconomic justice and to keep fisheries management in the realm of the true professional fisheries managers.

When MPAs are considered and subsequently created, there are winners and losers. In my experience, it has seemed that the most active and loud MPA proponents were the very ones who began generating stacks of grant requests once the MPAs were implemented. I believe this to be a conflict of interest, making it appear that academia and other interests were fighting a political battle for personal financial gain. It is an age-old tactic, but always “dirty”. I suspect this scenario plays out all around the world, where opportunities for grant money are strongly linked to policy shifts and the values of socioeconomics are ignored.

From my perspective, I see recreational anglers and owners and crew of fishing boats for hire as being the losers of MPA implementation. We lose big time. The typical MPA creation scenario goes something like this: MPA advocates want 20% of the nearshore habitat designated as MPAs and they will fight very hard for the most productive areas. Anglers know that 80% of the harvestable population of desired species live in 20% of the habitat, so losing 20% of the habitat can very realistically mean losing 60% or more of the productive fishing areas. Such a loss is catastrophic in terms of the local economies that have grown up around fishing and catastrophic in terms of the viability of the remaining fishing areas.

Once MPAs have put large parts of the best fishing habitat off-limits, anglers’ fishing efforts are focused on the remaining good smaller habitats with fish and invertebrate populations inadequate to absorb all of the fishing pressure. The term often used to describe this is “compaction.” Over time, those remaining spots become less productive and produce smaller fish, thereby reducing the viability of fishing as a pastime or for the family table. Local economies are stressed and families go without a valuable source of fresh, healthy protein that they can go out together to harvest.

The greatest reason that anglers are losers in MPA processes is because our loss is uncompensated. Fishing freedoms are wrested away from families and from businesses and they get absolutely nothing in return. Then things get worse as compaction renders the remaining open areas less and less viable as time goes by.

Fisheries management is another topic of great concern to the recreational angling community. The main goal of fisheries management is “sustainability”, a concept that is absent in MPA plans which are really all about preservation, not conservation. MPAs are not about fisheries management. They are often about absolute preservation and grant money, while viable fishing and the associated local economies and industries are lost. We really need some socioeconomic justice here.

Businesses such as boats for hire, bait and tackle shops and others begin suffering from MPAs long before they are implemented. Battles over MPAs typically take a few years and MPA advocates go quickly to mainstream media with a story about how commercial and recreational anglers have looted and pillaged the sea and MPAs are the only hope of saving life in the sea. They ignore the long, hard, valuable work done by the true fisheries management professionals, because the interest of MPA advocates is not about sustainable fisheries, it is about hard-line preservation and I think it is also about grant money. The media picks up these one-sided and inaccurate stories and suddenly the public thinks we have an emergency. Many feel they should not make the problem worse by going fishing and so fishing-related businesses and industries suffer and some die. Sadly, the few socioeconomic studies that have been conducted begin their assessment post-MPA implementation, when the reality is that considerable damage has already been done as a result of the media battles during the MPA planning process. By the time MPAs are in place, businesses have already been damaged.

It seems to me any time that restrictions are placed on our privileges and our rights, they should be initially justified and then periodically re-justified so that we can gain those privileges back in a timely fashion. Our rights and privileges should not be taken lightly and should never be taken from us without strong and clear evidence that MPAs are needed to preserve a sustainable population of fish. Once those criteria have been satisfied and an MPA put in place, that restriction should always have a sunset date, when it is lifted, unless new strong and clear evidence shows that our continuing loss of fishing opportunity is absolutely necessary for the sake of long-term sustainability. Anglers want sustainable management that keeps us in the mix so that we can fish and enjoy fresh, healthy seafood dinners for our families and to pass on our traditions and culture.

That old worn-out term, “best available science” is used to close areas to fishing and then keep them closed until a windfall of money (which rarely comes along) allows for funding of modern science to effectively study MPAs and fishing areas outside MPAs with modern techniques. The burden of proof that our continued loss of fishing freedoms is absolutely necessary should be on the advocates of MPAs. To keep a balance of burden and believability, the potential conflict of interest should be analysed when MPA advocates then seek grant monies as a result of them. Radical preservations should have less of a say in the decisions.

Once common sense and justice are ignored and MPAs are implemented, they typically come with rigorous monitoring plans which fall apart down the road due to lack of funding and leadership. I want two things from monitoring plans: 1) thorough and adequately funded socioeconomic monitoring, beginning three years before MPA implementation to measure the damage to our fishing industries caused by public perception shifts attributable to promotion of MPAs in the media, often by academics and the students they inspire, 2) a mandate that researchers collaborate with the fishing industries by chartering our boats and hiring fishing industry professionals (skippers and crew, for example), rather than researchers using the money to buy themselves boats and other resources.

MPA implementation and monitoring problems can be corrected to the benefit of all. A further policy recommendation I would make is to seek socioeconomic justice by adopting a policy I call, “A reef for a reef.” This policy would see a new reef structure created, in an area where we can fish, and of equal or greater fishing value than the proposed MPA. The key is the new structure must be created before the new MPA is implemented. This policy allows preservationists to close some areas and yet maintain sustainable fishing opportunities. Even the fish and other critters win with this policy because there are more homes and productive forage areas available to them. This can still be done before any more MPAs are implemented. I ask and challenge all countries and states to study and adopt this “reef for a reef” policy. Call it part of the price of designing and implementing MPAs. This program will help heal the injuries inflicted on fishing industries and economies because the public will know and understand that creating more reefs for fish will increase their population and make for better fishing.

“Mitigation reefing” is a good programmatic solution which local anglers will probably agree to because at the core of the program is the concept that anglers will end up with the same or greater fishing value as they had before MPAs were taken from them. This is accomplished by building high-relief reefs made of a combination of reefballs and quarry rock which provide the best known habitat enhancements. An example can be seen at http://fishreef.org/. MSP could be a useful tool for facilitating a “reef for a reef” policy. I am worried, however, that MSP will be captured by the same interests that dominate MPA planning and that recreational anglers will end up losing all over again.

Notes on contributors

David Bacon is the owner of WaveWalker Charters and the Hook, Line and Sinker fishing center in Santa Barbara, California. He is an executive director of the nonprofit organization Seafaring for Those in Need. He is a member of the Coastal Conservation Association, California, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council and the Recreational Fisheries Working Group for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He is Senior Editor at Pacific Coast Sportfishing magazine, a staff writer for Western Outdoor News and a columnist at Noozhawk.com. E-mail: [email protected]

Maritime spatial planning and marine renewable energy

The European Commission’s (EC) Blue Growth strategy (COM/2012/494) recognises the huge potential of offshore wind and ocean energy (wave and tidal), yet planning and consenting requirements remain key hurdles for project development. For example, in a public consultation on ocean energy conducted by the EC in 2012, the length and complexity of the consenting process was highlighted by 55% of respondents as the most prominent administrative barrier, followed by a lack of qualified staff (26%) and licensing across borders (27%) (DG MARE, 2012). A follow-up Communication (COM(2014) 8) (European Commission, 2014) on action needed to deliver ocean energy specifically recognised that consenting, and uncertainties about the application of environmental legislation, can cause delays and raise costs.

Developments at sea require planning consents in much the same way as developments on land. Given the complexity of maritime developments, however, there are often a range of consents to be obtained before construction and operation can occur. These administrative procedures tend to be governed by national legislation but must incorporate overarching EU legal requirements such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directives , Habitats Directives and Public Participation Directives. Recommendations from recent projects (Greaves et al., 2013; Woolf, 2011) highlight the important role of maritime spatial planning (MSP) in addressing planning and consenting issues. Developers and some regulators see MSP as a way of coordinating decision-making, providing clarity in consenting, reconciling conflicts between sea uses, protecting the environment and encouraging investment (O’Hagan, 2016). It is perceived by developers as prescribing where and when activities can occur. Yet apprehension remains about how ocean energy requirements will be reflected in MSP, with the dominant view being that MSP is more suited to existing activities rather than future uses. Findings from the SOWFIA project (Greaves et al., 2013) suggest those involved in ocean energy hope that MSP would be more flexible and adaptive than existing planning systems and enable the realisation of more energy projects (O’Hagan et al., in press). Such an increase would help to meet Blue Growth objectives but the challenge is ensuring sustainable development.

MSP realities for offshore energy

The aspirations of the ocean energy sector can be contrasted with the current reality: MSP remains poorly developed in many countries, and where plans exist, very few take account of the new energy sector. A recent survey conducted for the International Energy Agency Ocean Energy Systems (IEA-OES) Annex IV programme found that of the 11 countries that participate, only four have formal MSP in place, three have no MSP and four have coastal management plans that can include marine and coastal uses such as shipping, fisheries and conservation (O’Hagan, 2016). MSP already has a strong legal basis in certain EU countries (Belgium, Germany, the UK), but elsewhere it is more strategic or advisory, with implementation reliant on existing authorities. The most significant EU wind and ocean energy resources are in the Atlantic region (i.e. France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK) and the exploitation of those resources is one of the priority areas in the Action Plan (COM(2013) 279) (European Commission, 2013b) under the Atlantic Strategy (COM(2011) 782) (European Commission, 2011). In Portugal potential areas for wind and wave energy development are included in a map which identifies potential future uses of the maritime space. The final MSP gives a spatial extent of marine renewables under the category “areas designated for specific uses” which covers a large part of the available coastal area. In England, currently four marine plans have been developed with all 11 marine regions expected to have plans in place by 2021. Offshore wind is the only marine renewable energy (MRE) technology that is currently deployed at a commercial scale and thus features most conspicuously in existing marine plans.

A National Marine Plan (NMP) for Scotland was adopted in March 2015 (Scottish Government, 2015) and covers all current marine sectors and overarching environmental objectives (e.g. Marine Strategy Framework Directive). It also covers cross-cutting themes such as marine planning, consenting and maximising benefits from development. Interestingly, the Scottish Government has embraced a non-statutory process of sectoral marine planning for offshore wind, wave and tidal energy. These sectoral plans are subject to Socio-Economic Assessment (SEA), Habitats Regulations Appraisal and Sustainability Appraisal as well as consultation with regulators and the public (Davies and Pratt, 2014). The requirement for a sustainability appraisal originates from the UK’s Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and wider EU SEA requirements. Subsequently, the Plan is refined, approved and forms the spatial basis for future leasing areas. Sectoral plans are used to identify strategic development areas for MRE that reflect sustainable development principles required for successful MSP. If the areas identified are adopted in the NMP then there is a presumption in favor of development, with each proposed development still subject to obtaining all relevant consents. There are mechanisms to incorporate social and economic factors into plan development but it is too early to say if these are adequate to address social and distributive impacts.

Future directions

Traditional, sectoral consenting and wider planning processes rely on SEA and EIA to address all possible impacts from a development, yet in practice these processes are heavily weighted towards anticipated ecological effects rather than economic or social impacts. In EIAs carried out for 15 ocean energy sites across the EU, socio-economic impacts were included at only six sites (Leeney et al., 2014). This is ironic given that local communities are usually most interested in the latter type of impacts (e.g. job creation, infrastructure development, impacts on existing industries). If extant consenting processes cannot reveal such impacts then it is no surprise that MSP, as a different process, is perceived positively. The distributional impacts of MSP will depend on how it is implemented. If MSP results in zoning for certain uses then some might view that as privatisation of marine space. Consents for foreshore development in Ireland are granted by the relevant minister, if it is in the public interest. A more participatory approach to planning could yield results that are more readily accepted by the public. In the west of Ireland, at the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site (AMETS), the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland invested significant effort into discussions with local fishermen and adjusted the layout of the site to accommodate fishing interests in that area. Higher levels of acceptance of marine renewable energy installationsby commercial fishermen are now evident in that area compared with other sites (Reilly et al., 2015). This could be attributed to the ability of the fishermen around AMETS to successfully influence the ultimate outcome.

MSP is heralded as a panacea to all issues currently experienced during consenting, yet arguably there is a limited evidence-base for such claims. Conflicts of use are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and, of all the MSP systems examined as part of the International Energy Agency–Ocean Energy Systems (IEA–OES) work, none of the applicable systems actually contain any conflict resolution mechanisms (O’Hagan, 2016). However, there is a definite desire for more integrated planning in whatever form that might take. Planning as applied to MRE needs to have formal or informal approaches to coordination and communication between the numerous regulators. The requirements must be clear to all those trying to work within that framework, regardless of sector or interest. The public want to be involved in decision-making at the strategic level as well as in site-specific decisions. Planning must also incorporate all elements of development: for example there is little point in having a marine plan that identifies areas for MRE development if no grid connection is available. It must have robust links with terrestrial planning. MSP is not a replacement for sectoral planning, rather it seeks agreement between the plans that each sector develops for a given area. This is the key challenge and demands strong leadership.

The recently adopted EU MSP Directive (2014/89/EU) requires marine spatial plans in each coastal Member State by 2021. The Directive applies to marine waters but not coastal waters that are subject to a member state’s town and country planning legislation. It could be argued that the version of MSP required by the EU could potentially omit the most complex part: the coastal zone, where all sectors, users and demands coalesce. Article 6 provides that land–sea interactions are taken into account and cohere with other processes, such as integrated coastal management or equivalent practices. It is hard to envisage how this will transpire into practical changes. Different industries continue to be “planned” differently, with little consistency in approach, which can frustrate developers and regulators. The various definitions and descriptions of MSP suggest that it will bring changes for the better but until we have more practical experience from actual implementation it is difficult to say cui bono.

Join in the debate on Twitter #PTPinterface

Notes on contributors

Anne Marie O’Hagan is a Senior Research Fellow in the MaREI Centre, University College Cork and has over 15 years of experience in marine and coastal research. Her recent work has focused on the legal aspects of ocean energy, planning and management systems for offshore energy devices and their environmental effects. She is involved in a number of multidisciplinary projects focused on aquaculture, spatial planning, environmental assessment and risk-based consenting. Anne Marie represents MaREI on a number of working groups including IEA-OES Annex IV, the EC’s Ocean Energy Forum Environment and Consenting Steering Committee and the all-Ireland Marine Renewables Industry Association. E-mail: [email protected].

Notes

1. http://www-scopus-com, searched on 30/6/15 using “marine spatial planning” as the search term.

2. i.e. in the sense of raising questions about taken-for-granted “truths” related to MSP.

1. Regional cooperation is formulated in Article 6 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EG) and Article 11 of the Marine Spatial Planning Directive (2014/89/EU).

2. “Sea-basin strategy” means a structured framework of cooperation in relation to a given geographical area, developed by EU institutions, member states, their regions and, where appropriate, third countries sharing a sea basin; a sea-basin strategy takes into account the geographic, climatic, economic and political specificities of the sea basin.

1. See: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement

2. The Steering Group provided guidance on the development of the SMSP from 2006–2012. In 2012 the governance structure for the SMSP was revised and expanded in the form of a local advisory group.

1. Comments are given here in a personal capacity.

1. Comments are given here in a personal capacity.

2. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/regional