https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6156-3657
![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Although marine spatial planning (MSP) is increasingly being applied worldwide, it appears to be based on an ambiguity that has arisen from its dichotomous role of ensuring both conservation and development. This elusive ideal hints at a possible discrepancy between theory and practice. This paper explores the hypothesis that beyond a performative narrative, MSP is actually better described as a variety of devices which fulfil other roles and converge in terms of planning type. To test this hypothesis, this paper analyses the content of past and present MSP initiatives from around the world. The findings show that these initiatives view MSP either as a strategic sectoral spatial planning tool or strategic planning tool, brought in to complement existing initiatives. Furthermore, these two approaches can actually be seen to converge in the type of planning used, through the role attributed to spatial aspects, and more specifically in the place given to zoning. There are two key implications of these findings: the need to open up theoretical debates more broadly to different disciplinary perspectives on MSP; and the need for crucial choices to be made to ensure that MSP does not become an illusion behind which other agendas lie.
Highlights
Several scientific communities are working on MSP in parallel
MSP does not in reality fulfil its theoretical objectives, but it fulfils other roles
We make a critical review of 44 experiences of MSP from throughout the world
Different forms of MSP generally make similar uses of zoning
MSP is both illusory and necessary and must engage a critical turn
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. I am grateful to the reviewers for their comments that helped to improve an earlier version of the paper. I am also very thankful to Tim Stojanovic for the stimulating exchange we had on this paper as well as his help during the revision process.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Brice Trouillet (PhD, habilitation) is ‘maître de conférences’ (equivalent to Associate professor with tenure) at the University of Nantes (France), where he specialises in human geography of the sea. Through the lens of STS and critical approaches, he uses the case of fisheries in marine spatial planning to study how power relations and knowledge issues intertwine in (geo)technological devices (data, types of knowledge, planning documents, mapping features) that ultimately shape ‘socio-technical agencements’ forming an intermediate with the marine ‘environment’. He is also deputy director of a joint research lab of CNRS (LETG) and a co-founder of the MSP Research Network.
Notes
1 These tools are cited, for example, as being behind the need for planning in the first preamble of European Directive 2014/89 on establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.
2 http://www.mpatlas.org/map/mpas/ (retrieved in September 2019). Other terms are also sometimes put forward, such as ‘fully protected areas’ (see Pendleton et al., Citation2017). The overall idea is to exclude ‘extractive activities’ – a term which is rather surprising as it seems to put all types of ‘extraction’ in the same basket.
3 Here we show that the conservation benefits of 87 MPAs investigated worldwide increase exponentially with the accumulation of five key features: no take, well enforced, old (>10 years), large (>100 km2), and isolated by deep water or sand (Edgar et al., Citation2014).
5 The two other scenarios (sustainable/unsustainable) produce similar figures (USD 3.2 and 2.8 trillion, respectively).
6 Important as it may be, as an absolute value (USD 227 billion), it comes in only third place, notably behind the tourism sector (USD 387 billion) in terms of growth.
9 See Article 8 of the MSPD.
10 The quotation marks underline the fact that the notion of ecosystem-based management (EBM) is not stable and can take on different meanings within the scientific community (Long et al., Citation2015). Also see the interesting contribution made by Slocombe (Citation1993) on this topic.
11 The park was established in 1975 and the first zoning plan was drawn up in 1981 (Day, Citation2002).
12 Whereas the title of the English version of the MSPD (2014/89) is ‘Maritime spatial planning’, the titles of the Directive in other languages (Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, etc.) refer to ‘planning of maritime space’, which tends to evoke the space to which planning is applied rather than how the planning in itself can be envisaged.
13 Besides, in Europe, the MSPD proposes that plans be reviewed every 10 years at the most.
14 In terms of MSP, as for many seemingly new and politically-integrated ideas or fields of study, a ‘label’ or fad effect can naturally emerge, which contributes to muddying the waters.
15 In addition to a smaller and more marginal fifth group (in blue).
16 Notably: ecosystem-based, integrated, area-based, adaptive, strategic, anticipatory, participatory, etc.