scholarly journals Iberoamerican Contribution for the Achievement of the Objectives of the Roadmap to Accelerate Marine Spatial Planning Processes Worldwide

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (Vol Esp. 2) ◽  
pp. 9-32
Author(s):  
Alejandro Iglesias-Campos ◽  
Michele Quesada-Silva
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Western Mediterranean ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Joint Work ◽  
Member States ◽  
Agenda 2030 ◽  
Marine Management ◽  
National Planning ◽  
Institutional Strategy ◽  
Planning Processes

Since 1997, IOC-UNESCO has been developing and applying the concepts of coastal and marine management and planning, as part of its institutional strategy. The conclusions of the first international conference on marine spatial planning (MSP) in 2006 led to the publication of the first step-by-step guide to support IOC-UNESCO’s Member States in the development of marine spatial plans. IOC-UNESCO and the European Commission committed themselves in 2017 to promote the development of MSP at global level through a roadmap (MSProadmap) open to all countries of the world. Ibero-American countries are active beneficiaries of this roadmap and the MSPglobal Initiative, in its pilot cases in the Western Mediterranean and the Southeast Pacific. The objective is to support the implementation of actions to advance national planning processes considering transboundary aspects in favor of institutional exchange and cooperation at regional level. This article puts into context the present and future joint work of the IOC-UNESCO and its Ibero-American Member States, in line with the commitments and objectives of the Agenda 2030 and the Ocean Decade (2021-2030).

scholarly journals Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Said ◽  
Brice Trouillet
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Knowledge Model ◽  
Deep Knowledge ◽  
Types Of Knowledge ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Planning Processes ◽  
Policy And Planning

Abstract In marine spatial planning (MSP), the production of knowledge about marine-based activities is fundamental because it informs the process through which policies delineating the use of space are created and maintained. This paper revises our view of knowledge—developed during the mapping and planning processes—as the undisputed factual basis on which policy is developed. Rather, it argues that the construction, management, validation, and marginalisation of different types of knowledge stemming from different stakeholders or disciplinary approaches is at the heart of policy and planning processes. Using the case of fisheries-generated knowledge in the implementation of MSP, we contend that the fisheries data informing the MSP process are still very much streamlined to classical bio-economic metrics. Such metrics fall short of describing the plural and complex knowledges that comprise fisheries, such as localised social and cultural typologies, as well as the scale and dynamics, hence, providing incomplete information for the decision-making process of MSP. In this paper, we provide a way to move towards what we conceptualize as ‘Deep Knowledge’ and propose a model that brings together of the existing datasets and integrates socio-cultural data as well as complex spatiotemporal elements, to create dynamic rather than static datasets for MSP. We furthermore argue that the process of knowledge production and the building of the parameters of such datasets, should be based on effective stakeholder participation, whose futures depend on the plans that eventually result from MSP. Finally, we recommend that the ‘Deep Knowledge’ model is adopted to inform the process of knowledge production currently being undertaken in the diverse countries engaging in the MSP process. This will result in policies that truly reflect and address the complexities that characterise fisheries, and which are legitimized through a process of knowledge co-production.

scholarly journals The social and political realities of marine spatial planning: some land-based reflections

2014 ◽  
Vol 71 (7) ◽  
pp. 1535-1541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Kidd ◽  
Dave Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
Plan Implementation ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
Planning Processes

Abstract This paper highlights the value for marine spatial planning (MSP) of engaging with terrestrial planning theory and practice. It argues that the traditions of reflection, critique, and debate that are a feature of land-based planning can inform the development of richer theoretical underpinnings of MSP as well as MSP practice. The case is illustrated by tempering the view that MSP can be a rational planning process that can follow universal principles and steps by presenting an alternative perspective that sees MSP as a social and political process that is highly differentiated and place-specific. This perspective is discussed with reference to four examples. First, the paper considers why history, culture, and administrative context lead to significant differences in how planning systems are organized. Second, it highlights that planning systems and processes tend to be in constant flux as they respond to changing social and political viewpoints. Third, it discusses why the integration ambitions which are central to “spatial” planning require detailed engagement with locally specific social and political circumstances. Fourth, it focuses on the political and social nature of plan implementation and how different implementation contexts need to inform the design of planning processes and the style of plans produced.

scholarly journals Integrating scientific guidance into marine spatial planning

2014 ◽  
Vol 281 (1781) ◽  
pp. 20132252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rassweiler ◽  
Christopher Costello ◽  
Ray Hilborn ◽  
David A. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Dynamic Models ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Spatially Explicit ◽  
Marine Resources ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Rules Of Thumb ◽  
Planning Processes ◽  
Explicit Dynamic

Marine spatial planning (MSP), whereby areas of the ocean are zoned for different uses, has great potential to reduce or eliminate conflicts between competing management goals, but only if strategically applied. The recent literature overwhelmingly agrees that including stakeholders in these planning processes is critical to success; but, given the countless alternative ways even simple spatial regulations can be configured, how likely is it that a stakeholder-driven process will generate plans that deliver on the promise of MSP? Here, we use a spatially explicit, dynamic bioeconomic model to show that stakeholder-generated plans are doomed to fail in the absence of strong scientific guidance. While strategically placed spatial regulations can improve outcomes remarkably, the vast majority of possible plans fail to achieve this potential. Surprisingly, existing scientific rules of thumb do little to improve outcomes. Here, we develop an alternative approach in which models are used to identify efficient plans, which are then modified by stakeholders. Even if stakeholders alter these initial proposals considerably, results hugely outperform plans guided by scientific rules of thumb. Our results underscore the importance of spatially explicit dynamic models for the management of marine resources and illustrate how such models can be harmoniously integrated into a stakeholder-driven MSP process.

scholarly journals ‘Hooks’ and ‘Anchors’ for relational ecosystem-based marine management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Jane Macpherson ◽  
Stephen C. Urlich ◽  
Hamish G. Rennie ◽  
Adrienne Paul ◽  
Karen Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Marine Management ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
High Level ◽  
Interdisciplinary Study ◽  
The Impact

There remains uncertainty about the legal and policy tools, processes and institutions needed to support ecosystem-based marine management (EBM). This article relies on an interdisciplinary study of ecosystem-based language and approaches in the laws and policies of New Zealand, Australia and Chile, which uncovered important lessons for implementing EBM around the need to accept regulatory fragmentation, provide effective resourcing, respect and give effect to Indigenous rights, and avoid conflating EBM with conventional approaches to marine spatial planning. We suggest a new way of thinking about EBM as a ‘relational’ process; requiring laws, policies and institutions to support its dynamic process of dialogue, negotiation and adjustment. We argue that relational EBM can be best supported by a combination of detailed rule and institution-making (hooks) and high- level norm-setting (anchors). With its focus on relationships within and between humans and nature, relational EBM may enable new ways to secure cross-government collaboration and community buy-in, as well as having inbuilt adaptability to the dynamics of the marine environment and the impact of climate change at different scales.

scholarly journals Assessing marine spatial planning governmentality

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley Flannery ◽  
Ben McAteer
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Time Space ◽  
Planning Processes ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Rational Process ◽  
Management Issues

Abstract Marine spatial planning (MSP) is advanced by its champions as an impartial and rational process that can address complex management issues. We argue that MSP is not innately rational and that it problematises marine issues in specific ways, often reflecting hegemonic agendas. The illusion of impartial rationality in MSP is derived from governmentalities that appear progressive but serve elite interests. By understanding the creation of governmentalities, we can design more equitable planning processes. We conceptualise governmentalities as consisting of problematisations, rationalities and governance technologies, and assess England’s first marine plans to understand how specific governmentalities de-radicalise MSP. We find that progressive framings of MSP outcomes, such as enhanced well-being, are deployed by the government to garner early support for MSP. These elements, however, become regressively problematised in later planning phases, where they are framed by the government as being difficult to achieve and are pushed into future iterations of the process. Eviscerating progressive elements from the planning process clears the way for the government to focus on implementing a neoliberal form of MSP. Efforts to foster radical MSP must pay attention to the emergence of governmentalities, how they travel through time/space and be cognisant of where difference can be inserted into planning processes. Achieving progressive MSP will require the creation of a political frontier early in the process, which cannot be passed until pathways for progressive socio-environmental outcomes have been established; advocacy for disenfranchised groups; broadening MSP evaluations to account for unintended impacts; and the monitoring of progressive objectives.

scholarly journals The politics of Estonia’s offshore wind energy programme: Discourse, power and marine spatial planning

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Tafon ◽  
David Howarth ◽  
Steven Griggs
Keyword(s):  
Wind Energy ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Offshore Wind ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Offshore Wind Energy ◽  
Community Resistance ◽  
Planning Processes ◽  
Core Issues

There is growing recognition that marine spatial planning is an inherently political process marked by a clash of discourses, power and conflicts of interest. Yet, there are very few attempts to make sense of and explain the political practices of marine spatial planning protests in different contexts, especially the way that planners and developers create the conditions for the articulation of objections, and then develop new strategies to negotiate and mediate community resistance. Using poststructuralist discourse theory, the article analyses the politics of a proposed offshore wind energy project in Estonia within the context of the country’s marine spatial planning processes. First, through the lens of politicization, it explores the strategies of political mobilization and the rival discourses of expertise and sustainability through which residents and municipal actors have contested the offshore wind energy project. Secondly, through the lens of depoliticization, it explains the discursive and legalistic strategies employed by developers, planners and an Administrative Court to displace – spatially and temporally – the core issues of contestation, thus legitimizing the offshore wind energy plan. We argue that the spaces created by the pre-planning conjuncture offered the most conducive conditions for residents to voice concerns about the proposed project in a dialogical fashion, whereas the marine spatial planning and post-planning phases became mired in a therapeutic-style consultation, set alongside rigid and unreflexive interpretations and applications of legality. We conclude by setting out the limits of the Estonian marine spatial planning as a process for resolving conflicts, while offering an alternative model of handling such public controversies, which we call pragmatic adversarialism.

scholarly journals A place-based perspective on marine and coastal space

Europa XXI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 59-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kira Gee ◽  
Daniela Siedschlag
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Marine Spatial Planning ◽  
Place Making ◽  
Intimate Connection ◽  
Cultural Processes ◽  
Quality Of Place ◽  
Planning Processes ◽  
Emotional Dimensions ◽  
Coastal Space

Over recent years the sea has experienced re-interpretation as marine space, or more specifically as marine spatial planning (MSP) space. This article uses the concept of place as a contrasting interpretation to space, referring to place-making as a metaphor for the various ways in which meaning is created in the sea. As expressions of an intimate connection between experienced materiality and symbolism, places (unlike space) are never abstract, but always carry emotional dimensions. Place attachment can be the result of everyday profe ssional links, recreational activities, or living by the sea, and arises despite the greater intangibility of locations in the sea. As a result of their greater physical intangibility, places in the sea may require more frequent (re-)making than places on land, pointing to the inherent importance (and value in their own right) of the associated (socio-cultural) processes of place-making. The ability to engage in place-making is thus an important avenue for expressing place-based values, an understanding which could be used to enrich marine spatial planning processes. Focusing more on the intimate connections people have with places in the sea and how quality of place matters to them could turn MSP into an enabler of place-making, becoming more of a rich and continuous dialogue around the multiple ways in which people interact with and value the sea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document