ESMWG Update to the SAB

Peter Kareiva

December 1, 2010

Apr 21, 2023 draft 1

Purpose

• To request approval of two new members to fill vacancies on the ESMWG; extension of term of current member

• To provide an update on work to date on a report on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning to be presented at the March 2011 meeting

Apr 21, 2023 2

New Members

• Two vacancies have been created as David Helweg and Gordon Kruse were unavailable to be reappointed

• The first term of Mike Beck is expiring in January 2011

• The ESMWG has reviewed its need for expertise given the current tasking

Apr 21, 2023 3

Proposed Members

THE ESMWG PROPOSES:1. SAB Approval of a second 3-year

term for Mike Beck2. SAB Approval of Efi Foufoula [who

has agreed to serve if appointed].3. SAB Approval of Jacquelyn

Grebmeier [whose agreement to serve is pending]

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 4

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 5

Draft CMSP white paper

• The Ecosystem Sciences and Management Working Group (ESMWG) wants to engage with NOAA SAB members on the topic of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) implementation.

• An ad hoc subcommittee of the ESMWG is preparing a white paper: “Strategic Advice for Designing and Implementing CMSP”;

• Interim findings in November 2010 with final report to follow in February 2011; the report will be presented at the March 2011 SAB meeting.

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 6

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP): An idea whose

time has come?Presidential Executive Order of 19-

July-2010 sets a high bar for CMSP:• Comprehensive• Regional• Integrated• Resilient• Ecosystem Based Management• Best Available Science and

Information

Criteria For Identifying CMSP Plans

• Multi-objective• Spatially explicit• Implementation in progress

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 7

Preliminary List of Plans to Examine

•         Germany [North Sea and Baltic Sea]•         California MLPA •         MD Oyster Plan •         St. Lucia Coastal Zoning Plan •         Baltic Sea Action Plan •         Belgium [North Sea] •         Wadden Sea – NL, DE, DK•         Netherlands [North Sea] •         Barents Sea •         Canada Oceans Act [MPAN] Large Ocean Management Areas – ESS•         Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan•         Massachusetts Ocean Plan•         Rhode Island Marine Ocean Special Area Management Plan•         Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority•         Australia’s Ocean Act – Marine Bioregional Planning•         United Kingdom [territorial sea] – Irish Sea Pilot (?)•         China – Marine Functional Zoning Green – review completed Red – review pending

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 9

Interim Findings: A. Objectives

i. Finding- Conceptual objectives (e.g., Conserve Diversity, Sustain Fisheries) are usually identified in formal mandates or policy. More operational objectives are identified during the planning process. An independent panel of experts is often used to help to operationalize objectives.

ii. Finding - Few CMSP efforts were comprehensive (e.g., the Barents Sea plan in Norway). Most plans address a few objectives at a time (e.g., energy and biodiversity conservation) or single resources (e.g., oysters for habitat conservation, fisheries, aquaculture).

B. ScopeBarents Sea Plan

Wadden Sea Plan

California MLPA

Maryland ORADP

Rhode Island SAMP

All sectors considered?

Yes Yes No No Yes

How long did it take?

19 years from start

10+ years 2 years 2 years

Demanding steps

Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholderengagement

Planning interval

Until 2020, 2-yr updates

6 years ? 5+ years ongoing

Funding structure

National government

700k Euros per annum

Public-private

No new funds

$6.6 million

Spatial scale of plan

1.4 million km2

11,000 km2

14,347 km2

> 10,000 km2

3,800 km2

Plan < = > ecosystem

= < = < <

Implement-ation scale

= same as plan

< by country

< by region

= same as plan

< state and federal

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 11

B. Scope

i. Finding- Most coastal plans were done across linear distances of <= 300 km (e.g., US State, EU country). States that have longer coastlines (e.g., California and Australia) divided their planning and implementation area into subregions.

ii. Finding- Most plans were done at spatial scales smaller than the ecosystem scale. Furthermore, the implementation scale is often less than that of the spatial plan (i.e. Implementation scale < spatial plan < ecosystem scale).

iii. Finding – There was wide disparity in the time from start to completion of plans (from 2 to 20 years). Those that were done more quickly appear to have comparatively less stakeholder involvement

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 12

C. Authority

i. Finding- There were few, if any, institutional changes made in governing bodies or legislation to accomplish or implement CMSP. The primary modus operandi is to call upon existing agencies to cooperate in producing CMSP plans using existing authorities.

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 13

D. Data

i. Finding- Few, if any, if the CMSP efforts have a clear plan or framework for data management and decision support after the effort is done.

ii. Finding- Data have been used both analytically and illustratively in the planning efforts.

iii. Finding- Few, if any, if the CMSP efforts have a clear plan or framework for collecting consistent data across all disciplines.

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 14

E. Participants

i. Finding- There is a wide disparity in how stakeholders are included, from largely Public Comment (e.g., MD) to active engagement of stakeholder groups in using Decision Support tools to identify spatial alternatives (CA).

ii. Finding- Extensive stakeholder engagement appears to increase time, effort and cost of planning. It is unclear as of yet if it increases buy-in, feasibility or long-term success.

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 15

F. Tools and Decision Support

i. Finding- Formal trade-off analyses have rarely been used in CMSP efforts.

ii. Finding- Decision support tools have not been widely used in planning efforts. The California Marine Life Protection Act is one significant counter example, which used tools such as MarineMap extensively.

iii. Finding- Ecosystem services are frequently discussed but are rarely explicitly assessed in CMSP.

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 16

G. Monitoring & Performance Measures

i. Finding- Most plans do not provide for systematic monitoring and data management after the plan is implemented, which precludes adaptive management.

ii. There is little if any evidence that there will be monitoring to assess if implemented plans either reduce conflicts or make management more efficient (e.g., approving permits is easier in certain zones).

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 17

Actions to Be Taken

A. Complete characterizations of case studies;

B. Engage with NOAA CMSP Staff in a teleconference on interim findings;

C. Prepare Report for full ESMWG vetting Feb 1-2;

D. Revise report to Final version in time for NOAA SAB Spring meeting

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 18

Comments/Questions

• The ESMWG requests comments on this workplan and would be happy to answer any questions (in person or via e-mail).

• What cautions do you have about possible misinterpretations, important nuances, or critical issues NOT addressed ? (because DRAFT— there is no need to probe specific findings now)

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

Apr 21, 2023 CMSP 19