VISIONS FOR A SEA CHANGE: Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Full text

Intergovernmental
Oceanographic
Commission
ICAM
VISIONS
FOR A
SEA CHANGE
Report of the First International
Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
and the Man and the Biosphere Programme
UNESCO Headquarters
Paris, France
8-10 November 2006
Man and
Biosphere

2
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
The designation employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of UNESCO in particular concerning the legal status of any country, territor y, city or area or of its authorities, or the delineation of
its frontiers or boundaries.
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this manual and for the opinions expressed therein,
which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
Designer: Eric Lodde
Written by Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere
For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as follows:
Ehler, Charles, and Fanny Douvere. Visions for a Sea Change. Repor t of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovern-
mental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, 46: ICAM Dossier, 3. Paris: UNESCO, 2007
(English).
Printed by ???
© UNESCO iOC 2006

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
3
Table
OF
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 4
Foreword 5
1 Introduction to the Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning 7
2 Introduction to Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management 15
3 Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management and Marine Spatial Planning 23
4 Key Scientific Issues for Ecosystem-based, Marine Spatial Planning 29
5 Legislation and Policy Framework for Marine Spatial Planning 35
6 A Process for Marine Spatial Planning 45
7 Defining the Human Dimension of Marine Spatial Planning 53
8 Implementing Marine Spatial Planning 57
9 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Adapting Marine Spatial Planning 65
10 Conclusions and Next Steps 71
References 73
Annexes
Workshop Programme 78
Workshop Participants 80

Acknowlegment
Several people in UNESCO were invaluable in making the first Interna-
tional Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning possible, especially Dr. Patricio
Bernal, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com-
mission (IOC), and Dr. Natarajan Ishwaran, Director of the Division of Ecolog-
ical and Earth Sciences and Secretary of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB)
Programme. In early 2006 they both agreed to support an initiative on eco-
system-based, marine spatial planning and provided seed money to get it
launched. They continue to support the initiative today and want to move
it forward within UNESCO and with other partners. Julian Barbiere, Pro-
gramme Specialist in IOC and manager of its Integrated Coastal Area Man-
agement (ICAM) Programme and Salvatore Arico, Programme Specialist in
the MAB Programme, were particularly helpful in supporting the workshop.
Jan Schlichting, an IOC intern, helped design and implement the workshop
Website. Virginie Bonnet and Natasha Lazic both provided administrative
support before and during the workshop.
The workshop would not have been possible without the contribution of an
enthusiastic and experienced group of participants that included scientists and
practitioners from 20 countries. Presentations were given by ten experts includ-
ing Frank Maes, Elliott Norse, Larry Crowder, Paul Gilliland, Dan Lafolley, Kevin St.
Martin, Cathy Plasman, Yves Auffret, Jon Day, and Antonio De Leon. Their con-
tinuing professional accomplishments in researching, developing, and imple-
menting marine spatial planning in the context of ecosystem-based manage-
ment was of major importance to the overall success of the workshop.
Financial support was provided by a broad range of donors and partners.
Fourteen different governmental and non-governmental organizations made
financial contributions to the workshop including: the Flemish Government;
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA; the Belgian Science Policy Office;
the Belgian Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety, and Environ-
ment; Natural England; the European Commission Maritime Policy Task Force;
the European Environment Agency; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Author-
ity, Australia; the World Conservation Union/World Commission on Protected
Areas (Marine); Conservation International; WWF International; The Nature Con-
servancy; and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
We prepared this technical report from expert presentations made at the work-
shop and subsequent discussions during and following the workshop, supple-
mented and updated with new information where appropriate. Marine spatial
planning is a rapidly developing field, and we wanted to keep this report up to
date. We take responsibility for any misinterpretation or misrepresentation of
ideas in the original presentations or factual errors in the report.
Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere
Workshop Co-chairs
Paris, France
May 2007
4
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
5
Foreword
”...The problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need
to be considered as a whole…”
Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
When the authors of the Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea wrote this prescient phrase in 1982, few people recognized how
relevant it would become to the marine world of today. Scientists are calling
increasingly for ecosystem-based management of marine areas and consider-
able work has already been done on developing the conceptual aspects. In
fact, conceptual work has dominated ecosystem-based management and the
debate has often become academic for the lack of practical evidence of what
works and what does not. Hopefully, this workshop moved the theoretical work
forward by shifting the focus more toward putting marine ecosystem-based
management into practice.
Marine spatial planning at the ecosystem level is a first step toward ecosystem-
based management.
UNESCO is in a unique position through the international perspective of its pro-
grams, particularly the IOC and the MAB Programme, to evaluate and improve
the effectiveness of marine spatial planning as a tool to secure both marine
biodiversity and economic development. The workshop was a cooperative ini-
tiative between the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and
the Man and the Biosphere Programme of the Ecological and Earth Sciences
Division. In the longer run, these activities could provide an opportunity to de-
velop broader partnerships both within and outside UNESCO, that could lead
to better integration of spatial management of human activities in terrestrial
areas, watersheds, coasts and oceans.
Patricio Bernal, Executive Secretary
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
and
Natarajan Ishwaran, Director
Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences and
Secretary, Man and the Biosphere Programme
UNESCO

1
Introduction to the Workshop on
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
7

What Is Marine Spatial Planning?
Marine spatial planning is a way of improving decision making and
delivering an ecosystem-based approach to managing human activi-
ties in the marine environment. It is a planning process that enables
integrated, forward looking, and consistent decision making on the
human uses of the sea. Marine spatial planning is analogous to spatial
or land use planning in terrestrial environments.
Ecosystem-based, marine spatial planning seeks to sustain the ben-
efits of the ecological goods and services that the oceans provide to
humans as well as all living organisms on the planet.
Why Was an International Workshop on Marine Spatial
Planning Organized?
Rapid population growth and shifting consumer demands have con-
siderably increased the need for more food, more energy and more
trade from marine areas. Because of limited resources and space on
land, an increasingly larger share of goods and services is coming
from coastal and marine areas. This trend will continue, and more
likely accelerate, in the next decades. Future outlooks, in particular for
offshore aquaculture, offshore energy, maritime transport, and tour-
ism, predict increasing uses of marine areas in the coming years. It is
difficult to understate the value of the oceans to present and future
economic prosperity.
However, other values of the oceans are also critically important, in-
cluding the benefits of the ecological goods and services that the
oceans provide to humans as well as all living organisms on the plan-
et. In addition to the provisioning services provided by marine areas,
including food, fiber, and medicine, the oceans provide regulating
services (storm protection provided by coral reefs and wetlands), sup-
porting services (carbon capture and nutrient recycling), and cultural
services (including unique knowledge systems about marine resourc-
es). (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
Since marine resources are limited both in space and size, economic
development has been devastating to marine biodiversity in many
places. Essentially, increased development pressures on the marine
environment, have led to two types of conflict. First, this multitude of
human activities (mostly uncoordinated among economic sectors) has
resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss and damage to the
diversity of life in marine and coastal areas (use-environment conflicts,
e.g., habitat loss). Second, not all uses are compatible with one another
and are competing for ocean space or have adverse effects on each other
(use-use conflicts, between, e.g., shipping and offshore wind farms).
Historically, management approaches have focused on single sectors
with little consideration of the potential conflicts across sectors. During
the past decade, the traditional sectoral approach to natural resource
8
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
1
The Convention of Biological Diver-
sity defines the “ecosystem approach”
as “…a strategy for integrated
management of land, water, and
living resources that promotes
conservation and sustainable use in
an equitable way. The ecosystem
approach is based on the application
of appropriate scientific methodolo-
gies focused on levels of biological
organization, which encompass the
essential processes, functions and
interactions among organisms and
their environment. It recognizes that
humans, with their cultural diversity,
are an integral component of ecosys-
tems.” Decision V/6 of the Conference
of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Available at:
http://www.biodiv.org.
Table 1.
Examples of the Human Use of Ocean Space
Commercial Fishing
Recreational Fishing
Aquaculture
Shipping
Oil & Gas Exploration and Production
Renewable Energy Production, e.g., wind, waves
Sand and Gravel Mining
Dredging
Dredged Material Disposal
Recreation and Tourism
Offshore Housing, Factories, Airports
Pipelines, Cables, Transmission Lines
Bio-prospecting
Desalinization
Military Activities
Scientific Research
Marine Protected Areas
Cultural and Historic Conservation, e.g., ship wrecks

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
9
and environmental management has been recognized to be insuf-
ficient to address the cumulative effects of human activities on the
marine environment and has shifted to a more holistic “ecosystem
approach” that calls for comprehensive analysis of all dimensions of
environmental problems.
Despite its general acceptance however, so far the ecosystem approach
has been more a concept, widely discussed at scientific meetings, but
with few examples of actual practice. It is increasingly clear that govern-
ments lack concrete tools to make an ecosystem approach operational in
the marine environment. A key challenge today is to take the ecosystem
approach beyond the conceptual level, and one practical way to do this
is through marine spatial planning.
From 8-10 November 2006 the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com-
mission (IOC) and the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNES-
CO) held the first international workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. The
meeting was held at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France.
What Was the Purpose of the Workshop?
The purpose of the workshop was to:
• Identify good practices that illustrate how marine spatial planning
can help implement an ecosystem-based approach to sea use man-
agement;
• Develop an international community of scientists and planners that
wants to put ecosystem-based management into practice;
• Share information and experience through new partnerships and
the Internet; and
• Identify priorities for future action, including developing international
guidelines and building new capacities for marine spatial planning.
Who Attended the Workshop?
About 50 policy makers, managers, and scientists from over 20 coun-
tries attended the workshop. Participants were invited based on their
practical experience in sea use planning and management, partic-
ularly with marine spatial planning and zoning. A complete list of
participants and their contact information is included as an annex
to this report.
How Was the Meeting Organized?
The meeting was organized around some of the basic elements of
management, i.e., authorization, research, planning and analysis, im-
plementation, monitoring, evaluation, and capacity building. Case
studies of particular geographic areas were used only to illustrate
the importance and interconnectedness of each of these elements
in an overall management framework. The workshop programme is
included as an annex to this report.
What Happened at the Workshop?
After introductory comments by the co-chairs that framed the objec-
tives of the workshop, its organization, and basic definitions, Frank
Maes, University of Gent (Belgium) described the international, Euro-
pean and Belgian legal context of marine spatial planning—noting
that legislation was a desirable, but not necessarily, critical prerequi-
site. Elliott Norse of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (USA)
and Larry Crowder of Duke University pointed out incompatibilities
between some human uses (e.g., bottom trawling) and the mainte-
nance of biodiversity and effectively argued the case for using marine
spatial planning to protect and recover biodiversity and ecosystem
functions. At the same time, they pointed out the need to keep the
ecosystem in “ecosystem-based management” and marine spatial
planning. Paul Gilliland and Dan Lafolley of Natural England pre-
sented an ecosystem-based process for marine spatial planning, em-
phasizing the importance of clear objectives, meaningful indicators,
effective stakeholder involvement, and mitigating conflicts through
planning. Kevin St. Martin of Rutgers University made a strong case
for adding the “human dimension” and the “missing layer” to marine
spatial planning, particularly by relating offshore activities to onshore
communities, livelihoods, and cultures through community participa-
tion, incorporation of local knowledge, and geographic information
systems. Yves Auffret of the European Commission’s Maritime Policy
Task Force described the alternative institutional arrangements for

10
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
marine spatial planning considered through the draft Maritime Policy
of the EU. The realties of implementing marine spatial plans, espe-
cially the different evaluation criteria, were highlighted by a elected
public official, Cathy Plasman of the Belgian Ministry of Mobility and
North Sea Affairs. Jon Day of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park emphasized the need for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and
adaptive management, based a major re-zoning of the GBRMP after
30 years. Finally, Antonio Diaz de Leon, Director-General of Mexico’s
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, focused on capacity
building needed for effective sea use planning in the Gulf of Mexico
and Gulf of California.
What Were Some of the Principal Findings of the Workshop?
Some of the principal findings of the workshop are that: (1) marine spatial
planning is an important element of ecosystem-based sea use manage-
ment; (2) marine spatial planning is only one part of the tool box of ecosys-
tem-based, sea use management—actual applications will include a mix of
control measures including regulatory and non-regulatory (e.g., economic)
incentives; (2) early and continuing engagement of stakeholders in a clear
management process is critical to success and engenders trust and owner-
ship of the process; (3) monitoring and evaluation are critical elements of
the MSP process; (4) integrating the human dimension into marine spatial
planning requires the same diversity of disciplines/perspectives as does the
ecosystem approach relative to the biophysical environment; (5) compre-
hensive, spatially-explicit data on ecosystem characteristics, human uses,
and offshore jurisdictions are required—these data are not readily available
for most marine areas, and can be expensive and time-consuming to col-
lect; and (6) decision makers are unlikely to accept marine spatial planning
until its benefits can be better documented. A more complete list of find-
ings is included in the last chapter of this report.
What Will Happen As a Result of the Workshop?
A Website (http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp) that contains back-
ground documents, presentations, and links to other marine spatial
planning sites, and preliminary conclusions of the workshop has al-
ready been prepared and will be modified substantially over the next
year. The results of the workshop are documented in this UNESCO
technical report and a special issue of the international journal, Ma-
rine Policy, will summarize the themes of the workshop in more detail.
Publication of the special issue is expected by early 2008. Longer-term
activities include preparation of international guidelines on marine
spatial management and training for building capacity. These results
will be part of UNESCO’s contributions to the implementation of the
work plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the longer
run, these activities could provide an opportunity to develop broader
international and regional partnerships that could lead to better inte-
gration of spatial management of human activities in terrestrial areas,
watersheds, coasts—and oceans.
Why UNESCO?
UNESCO is in a unique position through the international perspective of
its programmes in the IOC and MAB, as well as its World Heritage Center
and Coastal Areas and Small Islands Programme, to evaluate and improve
the effectiveness of ecosystem-based management, especially through
marine spatial planning and ocean zoning. For example, for the past 30
years the MAB Programme has pioneered the concept of spatial plan-
ning and zoning for biodiversity conservation through the Biosphere
Reserve Programme2 in almost 100 countries. Of 440 Biosphere Reserves
established by 2006,109 are coastal and/or marine.
2
The origin of Biosphere Reserves
goes back to the “Biosphere Confer-
ence organized by UNESCO in 1968,
the first intergovernmental confer-
ence to seek to reconcile the conser-
vation and use of natural resources,
foreshadowing the current notion
of sustainable development. The
Man and the Biosphere Programme
was officially launched in 1970.
One of the MAB projects consisted
of establishing a coordinated world
network of new protected areas, to
be designated as Biosphere Reserves.
MAB’s programmatic goal is achiev-
ing a sustainable balance between
the sometimes-conflicting goals
of conserving biological diversity,
promoting economic development,
and maintaining associated cultural
values.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
11
The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Programme (http://www.unesco.
org/mab) is one of the first to use “core areas”, “buffer zones,” and
“transition zones”—designations that are still relevant to marine
biodiversity conservation today. Generally, each biosphere reserve
is comprised of three areas: (1) one or more core areas that are
securely protected sites for conserving biological diversity, monitor-
ing minimally disturbed ecosystems, and undertaking non-destruc-
tive research and other low-impact uses, such as education; (2) a
clearly identified buffer zone that usually surrounds or adjoins the
core areas, and is used for cooperative activities compatible with
sound ecological practices, including environmental education,
recreation, ecotourism and applied and basic research; and (3) a
flexible transition area, or “area of cooperation” that may contain a
variety of activities, settlements, and other uses, and in which local
communities, management agencies, scientists, non-governmental
organizations, cultural groups, economic interests, and other stake-
holders work together to manage and develop the area’s resources
sustainably. Although originally envisioned as a series of concentric
rings, the three zones have been implemented in many different
ways to meet local needs and conditions. In fact, one of the greatest
strengths of the Biosphere Reserve concept has been the flexibility
and creativity with which it has been realized in various situations.
Some countries have enacted legislation specifically to establish
Biosphere Reserves. In many others, the core areas and buffer
zones are designated (in whole or in part) as protected areas under
national law. A large number of Biosphere Reserves simultaneously
belong to other national systems of protected areas, such as na-
tional parks or nature reserves, and/or other international networks,
such as World Heritage or Ramsar sites3. Despite this wide cover-
age and depth of experience with spatial planning and zoning in
protected areas, no systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of
marine spatial planning and zoning as management strategies for
biodiversity conservation has been undertaken.
UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre (http://whc.unesco.org) encourages
States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to nominate sites
within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List
and to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on
the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites. There are 830
“properties” on the World Heritage list. Of these, 162 are natural sites,
and only 18 sites (about 2% of the total) are “marine”. Marine areas
that are currently listed include the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), the
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), the Belize Barrier-Reef Reserve System
(Belize), the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve (Mexico), and Tubbataha
Reef Marine Park (Philippines) – all of which have employed a wide
variety of zoning approaches in their management strategies.
UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, through
its Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) Programme (http://
ioc.unesco.org/icam/) is pioneering the use of indicators for evalu-
ating the effectiveness of integrated coastal and ocean manage-
ment, including zoning as a management measure4. At the same
time, IOC’s Coastal-Global Ocean Observing System (C-GOOS) Pro-
gramme (http://www.ioc-goos.org/) has developed an operational
approach for monitoring many of the parameters of coastal areas
that would be essential in populating a series of coastal and ocean
indicators. Both the ICAM and C-GOOS programmes are important
to an evaluation of spatial planning and zoning for marine biodi-
versity conservation.
Aren’t There Other International Programmes that Could Be
Appropriate Partners for Marine Spatial Planning?
Yes—at least two others are obvious. The United Nations Environ-
ment Programme’s Regional Seas Programme and the International
Maritime Organization’s areas that are designated as “Particularly
Sensitive Sea Areas”. The Regional Seas Programme (www.unep.
org/regionalseas/) addresses the accelerating degradation of the
world’s oceans and coastal areas through the sustainable manage-
ment and use of the marine and coastal environment, by engag-
ing neighboring countries in comprehensive and specific actions
to protect their shared marine environment. Today, more than 140
countries participate in 13 Regional Seas Programmes (RSPs): the
Mediterranean Sea, the Caribbean Sea, West and Central Africa,
Eastern Africa, East Asian Seas, the North West Pacific, the ROPME
Sea Area, the South East Pacific, the North East Pacific, the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden, the South Pacific, the Black Sea, and the South
3
Out of 1651 Ramsar sites, 720
covering 485,000 km
2
globally are
listed as coastal or marine. Only
about 60% have any management
planning process.
4
See Belfiore et al., 2006

12
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Asian Seas. While not officially designated as “Regional Seas”, five
other programs characterize themselves as “partners” of the Re-
gional Seas Programme: the Baltic Sea, the North East Atlantic, the
Caspian Sea, the Arctic, and the Antarctic. Several of these Regional
Seas Programmes, e.g., the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic, are
developing networks of MPAs that will use spatial planning and zon-
ing as a core management strategy.
The International Maritime Organization’s (www.imo.org/Environ-
ment/) Marine Environment Protection Committee issues guidelines
for the identification and designation of particularly sensitive seas ar-
eas (PSSAs)5. A PSSA is an area that needs special protection through
action by IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological
or socio-economic or scientific reasons and that may be vulnerable
to damage by international maritime activities. The criteria for the
identification of particularly sensitive sea areas and the criteria for the
designation of special areas are not mutually exclusive. In many cases
a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area may be identified within a Special
Area and vice versa. IMO has approved the designation of 10 PSSAs6.
5
In Annexes I, II and V, MARPOL 73/78
defines certain sea areas as «special
areas» in which, for technical reasons
relating to their oceanographic and
ecological condition and to their
sea traffic, the adoption of special
mandatory methods for the preven-
tion of sea pollution is required.
Under the Convention, these special
areas are provided with a higher
level of protection than other areas
of the sea.
6
The following PSSAs have been
designated: the Great Barrier Reef,
Australia (designated in 1990 and
extended in 2005); the Sabana-Ca-
maguey Archipelago, Cuba (1997);
Malpelo Island, Columbia (2002),
the sea around the Florida Keys, USA
(2002); the Wadden Sea, Germany
& The Netherlands (2002); Paracas
National Reserve, Peru (2003); West-
ern European Waters (2004); Canary
Islands, Spain (2005), the Galapagos
Archipelago, Ecuador (2005), and the
Baltic Sea area, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Sweden (2005).
Large, Integrated Sea Use Management Programs/Projects Using MSP
Australia Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Australia Marine Bioregional Planning
Belgium Belgian Part of the North Sea (GAUFRE Project)
Canada Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Project
China Territorial Sea Functional Zoning
Denmark, Germany
& The Netherlands
Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation Area
Germany EEZ and Territorial Sea Spatial Planning
Mexico Ecological Ocean Use Planning in Gulf of California
New Zealand Ocean Survey 20/20 and National Ocean Policy
The Netherlands Integrated Management Plan for North Sea 2015
United Kingdom MSP Pilot Project in Irish Sea and the Marine Bill
Examples of Marine Protected Areas Known to Use Zoning
Belize Belize Barrier Reef
Ecuador Galápagos Marine Resources Reserve and Galápagos
Whale Sanctuary
Italy Miramare Biosphere Reserve and Marine Reserve
Mexico Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve
The Netherlands
Antilles
Bonaire and Saba Marine Parks
Palau Palau Marine Park
Russian Federation Far East Marine and Commander Islands Biosphere
Reserves
The Philippines Tubbataha Marine Park
Tanzania Mafia Island Marine Park
United States Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
United States Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
United States California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (California
state waters)
Viet Nam Ha Long Bay World Heritage Site and Hon Mun & Cu Lao
Cham Marine Parks
Table 2.
Examples of Marine Spatial Planning and Ocean Zoning
Fig 1.
The Regional
Seas Programme
(Source: UNEP)

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
13
Box 1.
Definition of
Some Important
Terms
Ecosystem-based Management
(1) Protects ecosystem structure, functioning, and processes;
(2) Recognizes inter-connectedness within and among systems; (3)
Integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives;
and (4) Is place-based or area-based (adapted from COMPASS, 2005).
Sea Use Management
(1) Works toward sustainable development, rather than simply con-
servation or environmental protection, and in doing so contributes
to more general social and governmental objectives; (2) Provides a
strategic, integrated and forward-looking framework for all uses of
the sea to help achieve sustainable development, taking account of
environmental as well as social and economic goals and objectives;
(3) Applies an ecosystem approach to the regulation and manage-
ment of development and activities in the marine environment by
safeguarding ecological processes and overall resilience to ensure
the environment has the capacity to support social and economic
benefits (including those benefits derived directly from ecosystems);
(4) Identifies, safeguards, or where necessary and appropriate, re-
covers or restores important components of marine ecosystems in-
cluding natural heritage and nature conservation resources; and (5)
Allocates space in a rational manner that minimizes conflicts of inter-
est and, where possible, maximizes synergy among sectors. Sea use
management is an element of ecosystem-based management.
Marine Spatial Planning
A process of analyzing and allocating parts of three-dimensional ma-
rine spaces to specific uses, to achieve ecological, economic, and so-
cial objectives that are usually specified through the political process;
the MSP process usually results in a comprehensive plan or vision for
a marine region. MSP is an element of sea use management.
Ocean Zoning
A regulatory measure to implement MSP usually consisting of a zon-
ing map and regulations for some or all areas of a marine region.
Ocean zoning is an element of marine spatial planning.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
15
2
Introduction to Ecosystem-based
SEA USE MANAGEMENT

Why Do We Need an Integrated Approach?
Natural resource managers today, whether working on the land or in the
sea, face formidable problems. Demand for natural resources, including
space, is accompanied by differing perceptions of their values, conflicts
over their use, and concern about the natural and human environments
affected. These problems are exacerbated by fragmented jurisdiction
over the resource base, ambiguous government policies, lengthy review
processes and weak regulations.
Natural resource planners, developers and managers are responding to
these problems by seeking more integrated approaches that will en-
able their projects and programs to deliver as many benefits as possible,
within acceptable limits of social and environmental impact, and with
minimum conflict and cost.
See Ehler and Douvere workshop presentation (2006) at http://ioc3.unesco.
org/marinesp/.
Why is Ecosystem-Based, Sea Use Management and Marine Spatial
Planning Important?
The evolution of marine spatial planning is an important step toward
making “ecosystem-based, sea-use management” a reality. While initially
the idea was stimulated by international and national interests in devel-
oping marine protected areas, e.g., the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park7
more recent attention has been placed on managing the multiple use
of marine space, particularly in areas where use conflicts are already clear,
e.g., the North Sea.
Ocean space is a valuable resource—one that is increasingly over-used in
many places of the world’s oceans (e.g., the North Sea) and often poorly
managed.
What is an Ecosystem Approach to Management?
An ecosystem approach refers to “…the comprehensive integrated manage-
ment of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge
about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action
on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby
achieving sustainable use of eco-system goods and services and mainte-
nance of ecosystem integrity” (HELCOM-OSPAR, 2003).
“Ecosystem approaches” are different things to different people and different
disciplines. Although for some this variety is strength, overall it has probably
neither increased the use nor the scientific respectability of ecosystem ap-
proaches.
Some key characteristics of ecosystem approaches would include:
• Describing parts, systems, environments and their interactions, i.e., a “sys-
tems” approach;
• Working through a holistic, comprehensive, trans-disciplinary approach;
• Defining the ecosystem naturally, e.g., bio-regionally, instead of politically;
• Looking at different levels/scales of system structure, process and func-
tion;
• Describing system dynamics, e.g., with concepts of homeostasis (i.e., the
ability to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting physiological process-
es), feedbacks, cause-and-effect relationships, self-organization, etc.);
• Including people and their activities in the ecosystem;
• Recognizing goals and taking an active, management orientation;
• Including actor-system dynamics and institutional factors in the analysis;
• Using an anticipatory, flexible research and planning process;
• Entailing an implicit or explicit ethics of quality, well-being and integrity;
and
• Recognizing systemic limits to action—defining and seeking sustainabil-
ity (Slocombe, 1993).
How Can an Ecosystem Approach Be Implemented?
Gill Shepherd, Thematic Leader of the Ecosystem Approach, in IUCN’s Com-
mission on Ecosystem Management, has defined (from the Convention on
Biological Diversity) the “ecosystem approach” as a strategy for the integrated
management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conserva-
tion and sustainable use in an equitable way. She goes on to identify
five steps to implementing the 15 principles of the ecosystem approach
(Shepherd, 2004). See Box 2.
16
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
7
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
was established in 1975. After
13 years its first zoning plan was
implemented in 1988, and partially
revised in 1998. A new compre-
hensive zoning approach, based on
a Representative Areas Programme,
was approved in 2004 (Day, 2006).
The extent of no-take areas was
increased from 5% to 33% of the
GBRMP, including representative
examples of each of the park’s 70
bioregions. Information on the RAP
is available at: http://www.gbrmpa.
gov.au. The area of the GBRMP is
345,200 km
2
; for comparison, the
area of the North Sea is 750,000 km
2
.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
17
Step A. Determining the stakeholders and defining the eco-
system area
Principles
1. The objectives of management of land, water, and living resources
are a matter of societal choice
2. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate
spatial and temporal scales
3. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant infor-
mation, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, in-
novations, and practice
4. The ecosystem approach should involve al relevant sectors of society
and scientific disciplines
Step B. Ecosystem structure, function, and management
Management should be decentralized to the lowest appro-
priate level
Principles
1. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, to maintain
ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem
approach
2. Ecosystems should be managed within the limits of their functioning
3. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance be-
tween, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity
Step C. Economic Issues
Principles
Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need
to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context.
Any such ecosystem management program should:
1. Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological
diversity;
2. Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustain-
able use; and
3. Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent
feasible
Step D. Adaptive management over space
Principles
1. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual and poten-
tial) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems
2. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate
spatial and temporal scales
Step E. Adaptive management over time
Principles
1. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate
spatial and temporal scales
2. Recognizing the varying temporal and lag effects that characterize
ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should
be set for the long term
3. Management must recognize that change is inevitable
Box 2.
Implementing
the Ecosystem
Approach
(Source: IUCN, 2004)

Why Use “Sea Use Management” Instead of Ecosystem
Management?
Ecosystems and ecosystem components of marine areas cannot be
managed in themselves. Only people and their behavior toward
the use of ocean space and resources can be managed. Sea use
management refers to the management of human uses of ocean
resources, including the use of ocean space, in such a way that eco-
logical, social, and economic objectives are achievable. Sea use
management is used analogously to land use management in ter-
restrial environments.
So What’s the Problem? Aren’t Many Uses of the Ocean
Compatible with One Another?
Many human uses of the sea can be—and are—compatible with
one another, e.g., fishing and marine protected areas. On the oth-
er hand, however, human uses of ocean space often conflict with
one another (use-use conflicts) and some human uses are entirely
incompatible with maintaining critical ecosystem functions (use-
environment conflicts).
Many of these conflicts can be avoided or reduced through marine spa-
tial planning (MSP) by influencing the location of human activities in
space and time; other tools are needed to manage the performance of
human activities, e.g., to manage the quantity and quality of pollutant
discharges from these activities
Don’t We Already Designate Zones for Many Places in the Ocean?
Yes. Most countries already designate ocean space for marine trans-
portation, oil and gas development, wind farms, aquaculture, waste
disposal, and so on, but on a case-by-case, sector-by-sector basis. Com-
prehensive MSP is rarely practiced today.
In many respects, ‘planning’ in the marine environment today resem-
bles terrestrial planning in the 1970s8. With only a few exceptions,
no clearly articulated spatial visions exist for the use of marine areas,
no plan-based approach to management, and consequently, marine
developers and users face a lack of certainty.
This situation is made worse by the sector-by-sector responsibilities
for determining development applications in the marine environ-
ment. The time has come for a strategic and integrated plan-based
approach for sea use management, instead of the piecemeal view,
not the least so that commitments made in a number of impor-
tant international and national marine policy declarations, including
commitments to an “ecosystem approach,” can be fulfilled.
Why Manage Human Activities in the Sea?
Social demands for outputs (goods and services) usually exceed the
capacity of the marine area to meet all of the demands simultane-
ously. Marine resources are often “common property resources” with
open or free access to users. Free access often, if not typically, leads
to excessive use of the resources, e.g., over fishing, and eventual ex-
haustion of the resources. Because not all of the outputs from ma-
rine areas can be expressed in monetary terms, free markets cannot
perform the allocation tasks. Some process must be used to decide
what mix of outputs from the marine area will be produced.
That process is sea use management—and marine spatial planning
is one of its important elements.
What Is the Purpose of Ecosystem-based, Sea Use
Management?
The overall purpose of sea-use management is to work toward
sustainable development9 rather than simply conservation or envi-
ronmental protection, and in doing so contribute to more general
social and governmental objectives. Specifically, the purpose of sea
use management is to:
• Provide a strategic, integrated and forward-looking framework
for all uses of the sea to help achieve sustainable development,
taking account environmental as well as social and economic
objectives;
• Apply an ecosystem approach to the regulation and manage-
ment of development and activities in the marine environment
by safeguarding ecological processes and overall resilience to en-
8
Most local jurisdictions in the US and
Western Europe have a “compre-
hensive plan”, a long-range policy
document that directs growth for
the next 20-50 years and beyond.
Especially in the US, these plans are
implemented principally through
zoning and subdivision ordinances
and regulations. “Zoning” is the
process by which a local jurisdiction
legally controls the use of property
and the physical configuration of
development upon tracts of land
within its jurisdiction. A zoning map
is usually approved when a local ju-
risdiction adopts a zoning ordinance.
This map divides the community into
zoning districts (zones). Each district
will carry a designation that refers to
the zoning code regulations for that
district. By referring to this map, it is
possible to identify the use district
within which any parcel of land is
located. Then, by referring to the text
of the zoning code, it is possible to
discover the uses that are permitted
within that district.
9
Sustainable development does not
focus solely on environmental issues.
More broadly, sustainable develop-
ment policies encompass three
general policy areas: economic, en-
vironmental and social. In support of
this, several UN texts, most recently
the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document, refer to the «interde-
pendent and mutually reinforcing
pillars» of sustainable development
as economic development, social
development, and environmental
protection.
18
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

sure the environment has the capacity to support social and eco-
nomic benefits (including those benefits derived directly from
ecosystems);
• Identify, safeguard, or where necessary and appropriate, recover
or restore important components of marine ecosystems includ-
ing natural heritage and nature conservation resources; and
• Allocate space in a rational manner that minimizes conflicts of
interest and, where possible, maximizes synergy among sectors
[emphasis added]10 .
Why Should Sea Use Management Be Ecosystem-based?
The marine environment is both an ecosystem and an interlocking
network of ecosystems. All the components of an ecosystem, includ-
ing the human component, function together and interact to form an
integrated network. Ensuring the integrity of the ecosystems, restor-
ing when practicable and/or maintaining their characteristic structure
and functioning, productivity and biological diversity, requires long-
term integrated management of human activities, explicitly:
• Managing human activities to respect the capacity of ecosystems
to fulfill human needs sustainably;
• Recognizing the values of ecosystems, both in their continuing
unimpaired functioning and specifically in meeting those human
needs; and
• Preserving or increasing their capacity to produce the desired
benefits in the future (OSPAR, 2003).
Canada’s first integrated ocean management plan is an example of this
type of management approach. See Box 3.
What Are the Overall Goals of Sea Use Management?
Examples of the goals (that will obviously vary from place to place)
could include the management of human activities in the marine
environment in ways that:
• Sustain the long-run productivity of marine ecosystems that provide
natural goods and services;
• Maintain or improve marine environmental quality;
• Result in sustained increases in human welfare (well being)11.
What Are the Natural or Ecological Goods and Services that
Come from Marine Ecosystems?
Ecological goods and services (EG&S) are the benefits arising from the
ecological functions of healthy ecosystems. These benefits accrue to
all living organisms, including animals and plants, not only to humans
alone. However, there is a growing recognition of the importance to
society that the ecological goods and services provide for health, cul-
tural, social, and economic needs.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identified four catego-
ries of EG&S’s:
• “Provisioning services” are products and services harvested or passively
provided by ecosystems, including wildlife and plant products for food,
fiber, and medicines, water, extracted minerals, and genetic resources;
• “Regulating services” regulate overall environmental conditions on
the Earth, such as maintenance of air and water quality, erosion con-
trol, and storm protection provided by coral reefs and wetlands;
• “Cultural services” are the non-material benefits from ecosystems,
including spiritual and cultural benefits, unique knowledge systems,
diversity of cultures, languages, understandings, recreational de-
mands; and
• “Supporting services,” maintain conditions for life on Earth, such as the
production of oxygen and capture of carbon and nutrient cycling.
Isn’t Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management Simply Another
Term for Marine Protected Area Management?
No. Ecosystem-based management is comprehensive and integrates
across all economic sectors, including nature conservation. A protected
area is “an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection
of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources,
and managed through legal and other effective means.” (IUCN, 1994). The
goal of MPAs, as seen by IUCN, is to conserve biological diversity and pro-
ductivity, including ecological “life support” systems, of the oceans.
10
Adapted from the UK County Agen-
cies Interagency Working Group on
MSP, 2005.
11
Human well being depends on
material welfare, health, good social
relations, security and freedom. All
of these are affected by changes in
ecosystem services, but also by the
supply and qualify of, for example,
social capital and technology. When
the supply of ecosystem services
exceeds the demand, an increase in
supply tends to enhance human well
being only marginally. In contrast,
when the service is in short supply,
a small decrease can substantially
reduce well being. The degradation
of ecosystem services is harming
many of the world’s poorest people,
and is sometimes the principal factor
causing poverty. For example, the
declining state of capture fisheries is
reducing a cheap source of protein in
developing countries.
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
19

Box 3.
Canada’s
First
Integrated
Ocean
Management
Plan
The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative is
a collaborative ocean planning process led and facilitated by Fisheries
and Oceans Canada (DFO), Maritimes Region, under Canada’s Oceans
Act. The ESSIM Initiative was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans in December 1998 and followed the recommendation from the
Sable Gully Conservation Strategy that integrated management ap-
proaches be applied to the offshore area around the Sable Gully Area of
Interest (AOI) under DFO’s Marine Protected Areas Program.
The 1997 Oceans Act and its supporting policy, Canada’s Oceans Strat-
egy, affirm DFO’s mandate as the lead federal authority for oceans and
provide the national context for the Initiative. The principles and ap-
proaches of the Initiative are rooted in developing international ocean
governance processes and Canada’s ocean-related international legal
commitments. DFO’s national Integrated Management Policy and Op-
erational Framework provides further guidance on the development
of integrated management plans and processes under the Oceans Act.
Of particular importance is the commitment to establish Large Ocean
Management Areas (LOMAs) for all of Canada’s marine regions.
The ESSIM planning process considers the ecosystem and all of its us-
ers comprehensively. The Initiative brings regulatory authorities from all
levels of government together with a wide array of ocean stakeholders
to work collaboratively. This allows for a more coordinated, comprehen-
sive and inclusive management approach and helps to prevent conflict
among different ocean users and between humans and the environ-
ment. The primary aim of the Initiative is to develop and implement
an Integrated Ocean Management Plan that will guide the sustainable
use, conservation, and management of this large marine region.
In February 2005, the ESSIM Planning Office, housed in DFO Mari-
times’ Oceans and Coastal Management Division, presented an
initial draft Integrated Ocean Management Plan to stakeholders
for review. Based on the generally positive feedback received, the
Planning Office launched a broad public review of the draft Plan
over the spring, summer, and fall of 2005. Following the public re-
view, a group of stakeholders representing all major ocean sectors
and government agencies in the planning area was assembled
to consider the feedback received and to work with the Planning
Office to revise the draft Plan. In July 2006, this group, known as
the Stakeholder Advisory Council, completed a final draft Plan
that was released again for broader stakeholder and government
discussion. In November 2006, the Stakeholder Advisory Council
assembled a final set of amendments to the Plan and provided
its endorsement of the document. In December 2006, the senior
intergovernmental Regional Committee on Ocean Management
similarly provided its endorsement of the Plan. In February 2007,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received letters from both
groups endorsing the Plan and recommending that it be given
status as an Integrated Management Plan under Section 31 of the
Oceans Act. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Manage-
ment Plan is the product of an extensive collaborative and inclu-
sive planning process. It has been shaped and accepted by stake-
holders, supported and endorsed by government authorities, and
formally recognized as Canada’s first Integrated Ocean Manage-
ment Plan under the Oceans Act.
Modified from DFO Canada’s Website,
http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/e/essim/essim-plan-e.html.
20
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

1. HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS
A. Biodiversity
• community diversity
• incidental mortality
• species at risk
• invasive species
• genetic integrity
B. Productivity
• primary and secondary productivity
• tropic structure
• population productivity
C. Marine Environmental Quality
• physical and chemical characteristics
• habitat
• noise
• wastes and debris
• overall atmospheric pollution
2. SUSTAINABLE HUMAN USE
A. Social and Cultural Well-being
• sustainable communities
• sustainable ocean/community relationships
• safe, healthy and secure oceans
B. Economic Well-being
• sustainable wealth generation from renewable ocean resources, non-
renewable ocean resources, ocean infrastructure, and ocean-related
activities
3. COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT
A. Integrated Management
• building collaborative structures and processes
• appropriate legislation, policies, plans and programs
• fulfillment of legal obligations and commitments
• compliance and accountability of ocean users and regulators
• stewardship and best practices
• reduction of multi-sectoral resource use conflicts
B. Information and Knowledge
• natural and social science research being responsive to knowledge
needs
• effective information management and communication
• timely monitoring and reporting
Box 4.
Categories
of Goals and
Objectives
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
21
Adapted from Canada’s ESSIM Project, 2006

While MPAs can be managed toward a range of goals, from strict nature
protection (IUCN Category I) to sustainable, multiple use (IUCN Cat-
egory VI), their principal goal will be nature conservation and protection.
Ecosystem-based sea use management, including marine spatial planning,
tries to integrate multiple objectives across sectors, including MPAs.
Isn’t Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management the Same as an
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management?
No. The goal of ecosystem-based management is to conserve the struc-
ture, diversity and functioning of ecosystems through management ac-
tions that focus on the biophysical components of ecosystems.
Fisheries management aims to meet the goals of satisfying societal and
human needs for food and economic benefits through management
actions that focus on the fishing activity and the target resource. The pur-
pose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries is to plan, develop, and man-
age fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires
of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to
benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by the marine
ecosystem (FAO 2003).
Isn’t Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management the Same as
Integrated Coastal Zone Management?
Yes and no. Both involve a strategic approach; both are concerned
with the integration of different uses and activities—both aim to
avoid conflict. However, the definition of the boundaries of coastal
management has been limited in scope traditionally. In most places
of the world, coastal management has focused on a narrow strip of
coastline, typically within a kilometer or two from the shore and oc-
casionally focusing on a water body such as an estuary. Rarely have
the inland boundaries of coastal management included coastal wa-
tersheds or catchments areas, although that is changing in some
places due to concerns about nonpoint source runoff, e.g., pollu-
tion from agriculture. Even more rarely does coastal management
extend into the territorial sea and/or beyond to the exclusive eco-
nomic zone.
Ecosystem-based, sea use management focuses on marine places in
which the boundaries are ecologically meaningful and ensures integra-
tion with coastal and inland areas. Marine spatial planning is a critical
element of sea use management.
22
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

3
Ecosystem-based Sea Use Management and
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
23

What is Marine Spatial Planning?
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process for regulating, managing and
protecting the marine environment that addresses the multiple, cumu-
lative and potentially conflicting uses of the sea (Defra, 2005). MSP in
its broadest sense is about analyzing and allocating parts of the three-
dimensional marine space to specific uses, to achieve ecological, eco-
nomic, and social objectives that are usually specified through the po-
litical process. MSP is place–or area-based and can provide a practical
approach to long-term ecosystem-based management. MSP should
be comprehensive and adaptive, and resolve conflicts among multiple
uses and the ecosystem.
The overall aim of MSP is to create and establish a more rational organi-
zation of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses,
to balance demands for development with the need to protect the en-
vironment, and to achieve social and economic objectives in an open
and planned way. A comprehensive plan, developed in consultation and
agreement with relevant stakeholders, should provide a firm basis for ra-
tional and consistent decisions on permit applications, and allow users of
the sea to make future decisions with greater knowledge and confidence
(Defra, 2005).
Marine spatial planning is only one of the tools with which to establish
ecosystem-based, sea-use management. Other tools include:
• Sea use management plans, including comprehensive marine spa-
tial plans, as one element;
• Zoning maps and regulations;
• Site plans;
• Infrastructure investments/capital facilities siting;
• Special management areas;
• Regulations;
• Standards (ambient water quality standards, sediment quality stan-
dards);
• Permits (construction permits, pollution discharge permits, operat-
ing permits);
• Economic instruments (e.g., development charges, other user charg-
es, license or permit fees, grants, subsidies, taxes, depletion allow-
ances, tax credits);
• Guidelines, e.g., best environmental practices/codes of practice or
conduct;
• Surveillance and enforcement sanctions (e.g., fines, cancellation of
permits);
• Technical assistance; and
• Education and outreach.
What Can Marine Spatial Planning Do? And What Can’t It Do?
Marine spatial planning can be used to analyze and assess the need for
ocean space by current and future human activities. It can be used to
assess the cumulative impacts in space and time of current and future
economic developments on ecological processes in ocean areas and
their resources. It can be used to identify compatibilities and conflicts
among uses and between uses and the environment. It can be used
to allocate space to different uses and therefore control the location of
specific human activities in time and space.
However, it cannot be used to control the performance or behavior
of human activities in terms of the production of goods and services.
Other tools or management measures mentioned in the previous sec-
tion must be used in conjunction with marine spatial planning.
Does Marine Spatial Planning Always Need Zoning?
There are a number of elements to marine spatial planning without pro-
ceeding as far as a comprehensive zoning plan and regulations. It is also
clear that there is no prerequisite for marine spatial planning to proceed as
far as prescribed spatial allocations. It might instead simply indicate prefer-
ences or priorities (such ‘indicative planning’ would not prevent users from
applying to use other areas including an area indicatively allocated to an-
other use. Equally, zoning may not need to apply across the whole plan
area in the sense that specific ‘zones’ might be identified, e.g., a conserva-
tion priority zone, among one general ‘zone’ that covers most of the area.
Don’t We Already Have “Zones” in the Ocean?
Yes, at a global scale the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), which went into effect in 1994, provides an over-arching
24
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
25
framework for the allocation of marine spaces to nation states. It codi-
fied concepts such as the “territorial sea” of 12 nautical miles, the “ex-
clusive economic zone” of 200 nautical miles, the contiguous zone, the
continental shelves, and the high seas.
The surface area of the world’s oceans is 361,060,000 km2. About
102,108,000 km2 of that area is under the jurisdiction of nation states
(WRI Earthtrends database). The high seas (areas beyond national juris-
diction) cover about 202,000,000 km2.
According to the IUCN, less than one-half of one percent of the surface
area of the ocean has some form of protected status, i.e., marine pro-
tected area designation, compared to four percent of terrestrial areas.
Don’t Most Coastal Countries Currently Allocate Ocean Space
Today?
Yes, but on a single-sector basis (see Table 3). Current practice is not
plan-based with little or no consideration of other uses that may be
compatible or conflicting. Only a few examples of comprehensive ma-
rine spatial planning exist in the world today (see table in first chapter).
What Is Lacking in Current Practice?
Current practice often leads to conflicts among uses or among user
objectives. Current practice often leads to conflicts between hu-
man use and the natural environment. Current practice does not
account for the cumulative effects of current and future space use
allocations.
In many countries the demand for ocean space exceeds the amount
available. For example in Belgium, if space is allocated based on exist-
ing legal rights, the sum of all potential demand for ocean space would
already be about 2.6 times larger than the amount available (see Fig. 2).
And future requirements for space are expected to grow.
Fig 2.
Total Claims
for Ocean Space in
Belgium
(Source: Maes, et al., 2005)

26
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
How is Marine Spatial Planning Different?
MSP can be used to identify conflicts and compatibilities between hu-
man uses and the environment before they occur. It can be used to
assess the cumulative effects of space use allocations. MSP can articu-
late a plan-driven approach to the management of marine areas and
can articulate a clear vision for the human uses of space within marine
areas. It can provide certainty to developers and other users of marine
areas. It provides a process in which biodiversity commitments can be
at the heart of planning and management. It can ensure “room” for bio-
diversity and nature conservation and provide a context for establish-
ing network of protected areas (adapted from English Nature, 2005).
What Are Some of the Benefits of Marine Spatial Planning?
Most evidence of the economic benefits of MSP is qualitative rather
than quantitative. (see Box 5).More quantitative evidence of benefits
is likely to appear in the next few years as further spatial planning
schemes are developed, and the consequences currently underway
are documented.
What Are the Costs of Marine Spatial Planning?
MSP is not free. To be effective, MSP requires time, both to implement
and to see real results, and resources, including trained personnel. MSP
also requires spatially explicit information on ecosystem characteristics,
human activities (current and future), including their social and eco-
nomic characteristics, and offshore jurisdictions. This information is
often not readily available for most areas and is expensive and time-
consuming to collect.
Why Is Stakeholder Participation Critical?
Management of the ocean is a matter of political and societal choice.
MSP will propose priorities among different uses of marine resources
and may redistribute the costs and benefits of management strate-
gies among different groups (see section on the “Human Dimension”
in this report). Involving stakeholders in the development and imple-
mentation of MSP is essential to sustained implementation of spatial
management plans.
Vessel Traffic Routes
Vessel Traffic Separation Zones & Precautionary Zones
Areas To Be Avoided (by vessels)
Safety Zones Around Vessels and Terminals
Anchoring & No-Anchoring Areas
Security Zones in Ports and Waterways
Oil & Gas Lease or Concession Areas
Wind Farm and Wave Park Lease or Concession Areas
Safety Zones Around Oil & Gas Installations, Wind Farms, Wave Parks, etc.
Military Operations or Exercise Zones
Dredging Sites or Areas
Designated Dredged Material Dumping Areas or Zones
Oil & Gas Pipeline Rights of Way
Submarine Communications Cable Rights of Way
Energy Transmission Line Rights of Way
Sand & Gravel (Aggregate) Extraction Areas
Fishery Closure Areas, including seasonal closures
No Trawl Areas
Critical Habitat Designations
Offshore Aquaculture Areas
Marine Protected Areas
Protected Archeological Areas, e.g., Ship Wrecks
Cultural or Religious Areas
Scientific Reference Sites
Table 3.
Examples of Existing Ocean Space Designations

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
27
Facilitating Sector Growth—MSP can provide a framework that
facilitates the sustainable development of different economic ac-
tivities, therefore helping to enhance income and employment
Optimizing the Use of the Sea—MSP can help to ensure that
maximum benefits are derived from the use of the sea by encour-
aging activities to take place where they bring most value and do
not devalue other activities
Reducing Costs—MSP can reduce the costs of information,
regulation, planning and decision-making.
These benefits arise through:
Strategic Planning—MSP provides a strategic planning frame-
work that helps to facilitate sectoral development by guiding in-
vestment decisions. Oil and gas have benefited from strategic
planning approaches at a sectoral level; there is reason to believe
that other sectors such as ports and fisheries would also benefit
from strategic planning. An integrated and cross-sectoral ap-
proach to marine spatial planning could provide significant fur-
ther economic benefits by considering the different needs and
opportunities of different users of marine areas and helping to
resolve potential conflicts.
Conflict Resolution—The potential for conflicts between dif-
ferent marine sectors is increasing over time, particularly as devel-
oping sectors such as aquaculture and renewable energy grow in
significance. MSP provides a means of avoiding and managing
potential conflicts, and ensuring that the needs of different sec-
tors are addressed in a coordinated way.
Sustainable Resource Use—MSP should facilitate the sustain-
able exploitation of natural resources—such as fisheries and ag-
gregates—and thereby secure the long-term future of the indus-
tries that depend on them.
Provision of Development Space—MSP helps to ensure that
all marine activi-ties—including developing sectors such as re-
newable energy and aquaculture as well as more established
ones—are fairly allocated space to develop.
Promoting Appropriate Uses—By considering the variety of
uses appropriate to the area in question, the value of different ac-
tivities, the potential conflicts of use, and the suitability of differ-
ent areas for different uses, MSP should help to promote a mix of
uses that are compatible with each other and the environment,
and help to optimize the use of the marine area.
Supporting the Environmental Economy—By improving
the conservation and management of the marine environment,
MSP helps to promote activities that depend on environmental
quality, such as recreation and fishing. This is particularly true in
areas of high conservation value where activities such as diving
and wildlife tourism are significant.
Improving Stakeholder Involvement—MSP can provide a
transparent and structured mechanism in which the interests of
different sectors can be represented and reconciled.
Information Efficiencies—By developing common approach-
es to the acquisition and dissemination of information, MSP can
help to improve information provision and reduce duplication of
effort, therefore bringing cost efficiencies.
Regulatory Efficiencies—By improving information exchange
and providing a more certain environment in which regulatory
decisions are made, MSP can be expected to reduce regulatory
and compliance costs.
From: GHK Consulting Ltd., 2004. Potential Benefits of Marine Spatial
Planning to Economic Activity in the UK. RSPB: Sandy, UK. 100 p.
Box 5.
The Benefits of
Marine Spatial
Planning

4 Scientific Issues for Ecosystem-based
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
29

What Is “Biodiversity”?
Biodiversity is the collection of genomes12, species and ecosystems oc-
curring in a geographically defined region (NRC, 1995). Biodiversity re-
fers to a variety of life forms including plants, animals, and microorgan-
isms, the genes that they contain and the ecosystems that they form.
Biodiversity is composed of three main categories: (1) genetic diversity;
(2) species diversity; and (3) ecosystem diversity.
The 1992 United Nations Earth Summit defined “biodiversity” as “the
variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological
complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within spe-
cies, between species and of ecosystems”.
See also Norse and Crowder workshop presentation (2006) at http://
ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp/.
What is a Marine Ecosystem?
Ecosystems are subdivisions of the Earth’s surface, including marine ar-
eas, and lower atmosphere within which natural processes operate and
biological communities perpetuate themselves. Often they do not have
readily identifiable boundaries because many of the intrinsic processes
(e.g., supply of water or nutrients) originate beyond any obvious habitat
or structural limits and operate at a range of scales. (Lafolley et al, 2004).
In contrast to more readily definable ecosystems (e.g., a lake or a for-
est), the character of the sea appears relatively seamless with ecological
processes operating over large scales and distances. Boundaries can be
subtle, being defined by temperature, currents, depth, stratification and
salinity. In practice, the scale of the marine ecosystems most suitable for
application of the ecosystem approach are the scales at which it is most
appropriate to manage particular human activities. Scales ranging from
ocean to regional sea to estuary may all be equally appropriate.
The Convention on Biological Diversity defines a “marine ecosystem” as
“dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and
their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (CBD, 1992).
The World Wildlife Fund has defined “ecoregions” as a large area of land
or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural
communities that share a large majority of their species and ecological
dynamics, share similar environmental conditions, and interact ecologi-
cally in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence.
Conservation International uses the term “seascape” to define large,
multiple use marine areas, e.g., the Sulu-Sulawest Seascape, defined
scientifically and strategically, in which government authorities, private
organizations, and other stakeholders cooperate to conserve the diver-
sity and abundance of marine life and to promote human well being
(CI, no date).
NOAA (USA) has defined “large marine ecosystems” (LMEs) as natural
regions of ocean space encompassing coastal waters from river basins
and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the
outer margins of coastal currents. LMEs are relatively large regions of
200,000 km2 (77,000 mi2) or greater, with boundaries based on four
criteria—bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophic relation-
ships—especially relevant for fisheries management. LME’s cover only
the continental margins and not the deep ocean and oceanic islands
(Sherman, 1991).
In the context of the EU Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment,
Europe used the concept of “ecoregions” to divide its seas into ecologi-
cally-meaningful management units. Eleven eco-regions have been
defined based on bio-geographic features, oceanographic features,
30
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Fig 3.
Large Marine
Ecosystems and
Regional Seas
Programmes
(source: UNEP)
12
A genome is an organism’s genetic
material..

and existing political, social, and management divisions. They include
the Greenland and Iceland Seas, Barents Sea, Faroe Islands, Norwegian
Sea, Celtic Sea, North Sea, South European Atlantic Shelf, Western Med-
iterranean Sea, Adriatic-Ionian Seas, Aegean-Levantine Seas, and the
Oceanic Northeast Atlantic (EU Marine Strategy, 2005).
Are “Ecosystems” the Same as “Bioregions”?
Miller (1996) defines a bioregion as a geographical space that con-
tains one whole or several nested ecosystems characterized by land-
forms, vegetative cover, human culture and history as identified by
local communities, governments and scientists. IUCN describes a
bioregion as a land and water territory, the limits of which are not
defined by political, but the geographical boundaries of human com-
munities and ecological systems.
Berg (2002) defines a bioregion in terms of the unique overall pat-
tern of natural characteristics that are found in a specific place. The
boundaries of a bioregion are best described by the people who live
within it, through human recognition of the realities of “living-in-
places” (Miller, 1996);
There is no single right scale for a bioregion. It is important to note
that bioregions can occur at any scale, as they are based on “bio-fac-
tors” that are not scale-dependent. Setting up the scale of the biore-
gion is essential to reaching shared individual and institutional goals.
However, a program of dialogue, scientific trial and error and adapta-
tion over time, is the best way to determine a bioregion’s boundaries
Thus, the right scale is determined by dialogue and informed by sci-
ence, technology, information, and social considerations.
Are Marine Ecosystems Distinctly Different from Terrestrial
Ecosystems?
Marine primary producers are represented by small and mobile phyla13.
Terrestrial producers tend to be large and sessile. Marine producers are
subject to fluid transport processes, can be spatially mixed, and can
unexpectedly produce blooms that can be toxic.
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
31
Fig 4.
European
Eco-regions
(Source: EU Marine Strategy)
Fig 5.
Offshore
Provincial
Bioregions of
Australia
(Source: Australia Department of
Environment and Heritage)
13
A phylum is a primary division of a
kingdom. The taxonomic organiza-
tion of species is hierarchical. Each
species belongs to a genus, each
genus belongs to a family, and so on
through order, class, phylum, and
kingdom.

32
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Large marine carnivores and grazers—top predators such as fish and
sea stars—have a greater range of life history characteristics than ter-
restrial counter-parts. Most marine predators have planktonic and ben-
thic life stages, each with unique environmental responses. Marine
predators differ strikingly in their much higher reproductive output.
This may buffer them from extinction due to overexploitation, but it
also renders their populations far more variable and less predictable
and makes them more vulnerable to threshold effects.
When ocean and continental (aquatic and terrestrial) systems are com-
pared, biomass14 is found to be thousands, to hundreds of thousands
of times more dilute in the oceans. Oceanic species interact trophically
with more other species than continental species, the largest marine
predators and prey are larger by one or two orders of magnitude, and
the oceans are on average several to hundreds of times less productive
than the continents.
Distant marine habitats can be linked through dispersing larvae. Such
systems are “open”, and connections between benthic and planktonic
life-history stages assume great significance, unlike most terrestrial
systems.
The higher-order diversity of marine life is substantially richer. There are
13 unique marine animal phyla (as opposed to one unique land phy-
lum). The existence of such a large number of unique phyla provides a
compelling argument for the importance of the evolutionary history of
the sea (NRC, 1995).
Are Some Areas of the Sea More Important than Others From an
Ecological Viewpoint?
Yes. Some examples of important ecological areas include:
• Areas of high diversity
• Areas of high endemism (endemic species are ones with relatively
narrow distributions)
• Areas of high productivity, e.g. upwelling areas
• Spawning areas that serve as sources of recruits
• Nursery grounds
• Migration stopover points (e.g., for whales, turtles, and billfishes) and
bottlenecks (e.g., migratory shorebirds) (Norse, 1993).
What Factors Underlie Long-term Sustainability?
Historically, exploitation of marine resources has been localized. Users
knew limitations of marine resources in their areas, and societies and
communities decided who would fish where and enforced the privi-
lege effectively.
The productivity of the sea was unharmed, and technological change
was very slow.
What Are Some of the Indications of Problems in the Sea?
Fisheries are collapsing. The loss of marine biodiversity is profoundly re-
ducing the ocean’s ability to produce seafood, resist diseases, filter pol-
lutants, and rebound from stresses like over fishing and climate change
(Worm et al., 2006). Current global trends project the collapse of all
species of wild seafood that are currently fished by the year 2050—col-
lapse is defined as 90 percent depletion (Worm et al., 2006).
Megafauna are disappearing. Large predatory fish biomass today is
only about 10% of pre-industrial levels—declines of large predators in
coastal regions have extended throughout the global ocean, with po-
tentially serious consequences for ecosystems (Myers & Worm, 2003).
Habitat-formers are vanishing. A report on the status of coral reefs of
the world reports that 24% of the world’s reefs are under imminent risk
of collapse from human pressures, and a further 26% are under a lon-
ger-term threat of collapse (Wilkinson, 2004).
Noxious or alien species are proliferating.
What Are the Causes of these Problems?
There are many causes of the problems, including:
• Overexploitation of marine resources, e.g., over fishing
• Habitat loss15 and physical alterations to habitat16
14
Biomass is the total mass of living
matter within a given unit of envi-
ronmental area.
15
For example, Orth et al. (2006)
report an almost 10-fold increase
in the loss of seagrasses in tropical
and temperate regions over the
past 40 years world-wide. Threat
include degraded water quality and
rising water temperatures, as well as
emergent threats from fish farming
and aquaculture.
16
Sea-level rise and human develop-
ment are together contributing to
losses of coastal wetlands (IPCC,
2007).

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
33
• Chemical pollution and eutrophication
• Alien species (invasions of exotic species)17
• Climate change, including increased ultraviolet radiation, potential
rising temperatures, resulting in potential changes to ocean circula-
tion (NRC, 1995)
In addition, non-climate stresses can increase vulnerability to climate
change by reducing resilience and can also reduce adaptive capacity
because of resource deployment to competing needs. For example,
current stresses on some coral reefs include marine pollution and
chemical runoff from agriculture, as well as increases in water tem-
perature and ocean acidification. Vulnerable regions face multiple
stresses that affect their exposure and sensitivity as well as their ca-
pacity to adapt (IPCC, 2007).
Isn’t Governance Part of the Problem as Well?
Unfortunately, yes. Our oceans are in trouble because governance is not
yet configured to manage them. Decision-making is fragmented, with
major overlaps and gaps in governing authority. Natural processes and
governance often occur at different spatial scales. Additionally, natural
processes and governance happen on different temporal scales. Com-
prehensive ecosystem-based spatial management can alleviate these
problems (Crowder et al., 2006)
Marine ecosystem-based management will takes years to develop, but
there are key steps that we can take now:
• We can work toward ecosystem-based management through ma-
rine spatial planning that could dramatically reduce harmful ef-
fects of open-access competition and spatial mismatches—endless
conflicts, uncertainty, and high costs—by separating incompatible
uses;
• Recognize that some human uses are incompatible with maintain-
ing biodiversity, e.g., bottom trawling, and eliminate or reduce the
impacts of those incompatible uses on the marine environment;
• Recognize that some human uses are incompatible with others and
reduce those conflicts through effective marine spatial planning;
and
• Acknowledge that some things only occur in one place, e.g., fish
spawning aggregations, and ensure the effective protection of
those areas through marine spatial planning and zoning.
17
Invasive species mean alien species
whose introduction does or is likely
to cause economic or environmental
harm or harm to human health.
Invasive species represent the second
leading cause of species extinction
and loss of biodiversity in aquatic
environments worldwide. Common
sources of aquatic invasive species
introduction include ballast water,
aquaculture escapes, and accidental
and/or intentional introductions,
among others. For example, shipping
moves 3-5 billion tonnes of ballast
water internationally each year.
It’s estimated that at least 7,000
different species are carried in the
ballast waters of ships worldwide.
There are hundreds of examples of
catastrophic introductions around
the world, causing severe human
health, economic and/or ecological
impacts in their host environments
(see Global Ballast Water Manage-
ment Programme at http://www.
globallast.imo.org/.

5 Legislative and Policy Context for
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
35

What Are Some Early Examples of Authorities for MSP?
Initial MSP legislation focused on marine protected areas (MPAs) such
as Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and the Florida Keys in the USA—and
MPAs continue to be a driving force in marine spatial planning today.
For example, Member States of the European Union have to identify
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation
(SACs) and have a legal obligation to provide sufficient protection
under Natura 2000. In addition, marine spatial planning was only
occasionally an integral part of coastal management initiatives.
See also Maes workshop presentation available at http://ioc3.unesco.
org/marinesp/.
Can MSP Be Influenced by International Law or Practice?
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ac-
knowledges that the problems of ocean space are closely related and
need to be considered as a whole. However, the legal boundaries set
for maritime zones do not coincide with ecosystem boundaries.
In 1999 the UN established an informal consultative process on
oceans and Law of the Sea, which has promoted to the UN Gen-
eral Assembly the requirement for an integrated, ecosystem- based
approach to management for the world’s oceans. Principle 7 of the
Rio Declaration states that countries should cooperate in a spirit of
global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and
integrity of the earth’s ecosystems. The adoption of Agenda 21 pro-
vided for the management of the ecosystem as an entirety, including
biotic and abiotic components.
Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 calls for coastal states to commit themselves
to integrated management and sustainable development of coastal
areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdiction.
Under the FAO’s “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” coun-
tries are encouraged to conserve the biodiversity of aquatic habi-
tats and ecosystems, taking into account the fragility of coastal
ecosystems and integrated use of resources, and ensuring that
conservation measures are applied to both target species and
species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with the
target species.
Following the successful inclusion of an ecosystem-based and
precautionary approach in the work of the Convention for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the
concept was incorporated into the Convention for the Conserva-
tion of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean and the 1995
UN Fish Stock Assessment. In the past three years an ecosystem ap-
proach to fisheries management has been considered at an interna-
tional level through the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible
Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem and the subsequent 2003 FAO
Technical Guidelines on “The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries”.
While this sectoral-focused work has contributed to international,
regional and domestic fisheries management, as a single-sector ap-
proach, it cannot provide a comprehensive ecosystem-based man-
agement approach. It cannot cover the full range of human activi-
ties within an ecosystem and does not account for the potentially
cumulative and additive impacts that result from both fishing and
non-fishing activities.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers that an eco-
system-based approach is the primary framework for the implemen-
tation of its international convention. The ecosystem approach is
seen as a way to achieve the CBD’s three objectives of conservation,
sustainable use, and the equitable sharing of resources.
Finally, the UNEP Regional Seas Programme aims to address envi-
ronmental problems in the management of marine and coastal ar-
eas. The 18 regional programmes that have been established adopt
the principle of integrated management, with most also addressing
trans-boundary issues through an ecosystem-based approach.
Can MSP Be Initiated through National Legislation?
Yes. For example the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act (1975) pro-
vides a framework for planning and management of the Marine
Park, including zoning plans, plans of management, and permits.
36
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

An integrated management plan for the Eastern Scotian Shelf has
been drafted under Canada’s Oceans Act (1997) that is expected to
eventually lead to zoning. China’s Sea Use Management Legislation
(2002) requires the functional zoning of its territorial sea. The United
Kingdom’s proposed Marine Bill (2007) has marine spatial planning as
one of its keystones. (See Box 6).
Can MSP Be Initiated through National Policy?
Yes. In 2005, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the En-
vironment published for the first time a North Sea paragraph in its Na-
tional Spatial Planning Policy Document for the Netherlands. The North
Sea paragraph gives guidance through spatial planning for the manage-
ment of human activities in the North Sea. An Integrated Plan for the
North Sea 2015 was developed in which the strategy outlines how the
Dutch part of the North Sea will be managed in the next decade. Core
objectives of the management plan address the need for a healthy, safe,
and profitable sea. (See Fig. 6).
Some other examples where national ocean policy statements have led
to preliminary attempts toward marine spatial planning include:
• China’s Ocean Agenda 21 (1996)
• Australia Ocean Policy (1998)
• New Zealand’s Ocean Policy (2000)
• Canada’s Oceans Strategy (2002)
• United Kingdom’s Safeguarding Our Seas (2002)
• Korea’s Ocean Policy (2004)
• Mexico’s Ecological Sea Use Planning and Zoning, Gulf of California
and Gulf of Mexico (2006)
• European Commission’s Maritime Policy Green Paper (2006). (See
Box 7)
Is there a Good Example of MSP with National Legislation?
Yes, Germany. The Federal Spatial Planning Act of Germany has recently
been amended to extend national sectoral competencies for spatial
planning to its EEZ. In German coastal areas (up to 12 nautical miles
offshore), the Lander (states) can establish marine spatial planning on
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
37
Fig 6.
Zoning Map for
the Dutch part of
the North Sea
(Source: Rijkswaterstaat
Noordzee)

38
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
INTERNATIONAL POLICIES
Conventions, Agreements, Directives, Policies
NATIONAL POLICIES
National Ocean Strategy
National Ocean Legislation
Vision and Strategic Goals for Marine Areas
General and Sectoral Goals, Objectives, and Targets
REGIONAL POLICIES
Regional Goals, Objectives & Targets for Marine Areas
Regional Goals, Objectives & Targets for Marine Sectors
Spatial Visualization of Marine Ecosystem (maps)
Spatial Visualization of Current & Future Uses (maps)
Sub-Regional Plans (if required)
REGIONAL MARINE SPATIAL PLANS
the basis of their terrestrial planning laws. The Lander Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern (Baltic Sea) and Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony, North Sea)
have expanded their existing land use plans to the coastal area. (See
Box 8).
Some of the positive points with this approach include:
• A legally enforceable duty for governmental bodies;
• Public participation can not easily be offset due to legal procedures
(access to courts);
• Legal enforcement tools besides administrative enforcement;
• A holistic legal basis for environmental impact assessment (EIA and
SEA) or assessment of ecological effects;
• Better legal protection of user rights and nature; and
• Improved management on a long-time scale.
Some of the negative points associated with this approach include:
• Less flexibility to take into account new scientific data due to rigid
procedures for planning adaptation and results of public participa-
tion; and
• Higher political and administrative resistance might result in a weak
plan.
Is There a Good Example of MSP Without National Legislation or
Policy?
Yes, Belgium is one of the first countries to actually implement ma-
rine spatial planning despite the fact that there is no specific legisla-
tion requiring it to do so. The development and implementation of
a spatial plan for its waters is based n a strong Marine Protection Act
(1999). Central to the Act is a licensing procedure and the obligation
of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for new human activities.
( See Box 12).
The positive aspects of this approach include:
• Flexible allocation of activities based on demands;
• Flexible public or stakeholder participation depending on urgency;
and
• Policy can easily be adapted based on new scientific knowledge
Fig 7.
Policy Hierarchy
of Marine Spatial
Planning
(modified from MSPP
Consortium, 2006)

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
39
Some of the negative features of this approach include:
• Continuity of the future implementation of MSP is not guaranteed;
• Does not necessarily solve competition among different govern-
mental bodies involved;
• No redistribution of competences if necessary for a holistic approach;
• Planning does not take into account user-user conflicts for a broader
area; and
• No EIA or assessment of ecological effects for the whole planning
area (SEA), i.e., only single use EIAs
What Are Some of the Other Key Legal Issues?
Some of the remaining legal issues include:
• Appropriate planning scale: regional or national or international?
• Boundaries: legal-administrative or ecosystems?
• Top down/bottom up approach or combined? How?
• Spatial planning based on a statutory or non-statutory plan?
• Conflict resolution by public participation or legal procedures?
• Enforcement: administrative or legal?
• Should there be a hierarchy in managing conflicting uses?
• Appropriate link with spatial planning on land, i.e., with integrated
coastal management and watershed or catchment area management?

On 15 March 2007 the government of the United Kingdom released its
Marine Bill White Paper. Five key areas are covered in the Marine Bill:
A new Marine Management Organization: The UK Government
and Northern Ireland administration have decided that a new Marine
Management Organization (MMO) is needed to help effectively deliver
many marine policies. The MMO will be guided by a UK marine policy
statement. It will deal with a range of functions (including marine plan-
ning, licensing and enforcement) that together provide a holistic ap-
proach to marine management.
Marine planning: The Marine Bill will introduce a new system of ma-
rine planning. This will provide a strategic approach to the use of marine
space and the interactions between its uses. It will encompass all activi-
ties and deliver sustainable development by facilitating forward looking
decision-making. Marine plans will guide decisions on license applica-
tions and other issues, and provide users of the sea with more certainty.
Licensing marine activities: The proposals will deliver a marine li-
censing system that is more efficient and transparent, leading to less
risk, delay and cost to business. Some existing legislation will be re-
placed with a modern streamlined system. The changes will simplify
marine licensing processes and provide for a rationalized and more
integrated approach.
Marine nature conservation: The proposals will provide for new
mechanisms that will supplement existing tools for the conservation
of marine ecosystems and biodiversity. This will include a new ap-
proach to protected areas for important species and habitats.
Managing marine fisheries: The Marine Bill will modernize inshore fish-
eries management arrangements and enable a more active approach
to managing recreational sea angling. It will strengthen fisheries en-
forcement powers and provide for recovery of the costs of fishing ves-
sel license administration.
The UK wants to move towards a more integrated approach to ma-
rine management. For that reason, the first stage of the marine plan-
ning system should be the creation of a UK marine policy statement.
The statement would set out both short and longer-term objectives
for the marine environment and would be created with the clear
purpose of contributing toward the sustainable use of the marine
environment. It would provide general guidance to marine regula-
tors and users, but would also be specifically implemented through
marine plans and decisions, and would therefore help steer toward a
vision for the marine environment.
The shared UK marine policy statement would apply throughout UK
seas. However, use of marine space and resources varies widely in dif-
ferent areas. Therefore the second stage of the marine planning process
should be the creation of a series of marine plans to cover the whole
of UK waters, applying to specific geographic areas and providing a
spatial context. Plans would need to represent the three-dimensional
nature of the marine environment by addressing the seabed and area
below it, the whole of the water column and area above it.
Policies plus sustainable development and environmental objectives
will be clarified and applied through marine plans. This will help busi-
nesses to assess the potential impact of their developments on ma-
rine ecosystems and will inform subsequent decisions on licensing. Ef-
ficient, flexible planning arrangements that minimize bureaucracy will
be introduced. Marine plans will provide targeted and relevant infor-
mation to business to help reduce business costs and regulatory risks
of exploiting marine resources, and will provide efficient decisionmak-
ing through the licensing process. Marine planning will be an inclusive
process for all interested stakeholders.
All decisions made in the marine area, or that could have implications for
the marine area, to be made in accordance with the shared UK marine
policy statement and any relevant marine plan. When taking decisions,
public bodies would have to review the content of the policy statement,
in addition to the content of any relevant marine plan, to ensure that
their proposed course of action is in accordance with both.
Adapted from The Marine Bill White Paper, 2007.
Box 6.
The UK Marine
Bill and Marine
Spatial Planning
40
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

On 7 June 2006, the EU launched its Green Paper, Toward a Future Mari-
time Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas. The
Commission is providing a wide public consultation on a future mari-
time policy for Europe that allows the development of well-balanced
and coherent sea-based policies and activities that reassure mutual
reinforcement of economic growth, social welfare (based on commit-
ments of the Lisbon Strategy), and good status of the marine environ-
ment and its resources (based on the commitments of the Thematic
Strategy for the Marine Environment). Marine spatial planning is seen
as a key aspect to managing a growing and increasingly competing
maritime economy, while at the same time safeguarding marine bio-
diversity. It describes marine spatial planning as a means to:
• Coordinate the spatial implementation of offshore renewable
energy with other activities;
• Provide financial security for investment decisions;
• Manage the competition among various uses and objective of
the marine environment;
• Develop a stable regulatory environment that ensures better and
simpler regulation toward the location of economic activity;
• Ensure that individual decision on activities, taken at a national
or regional level, but affecting the same ecosystem or cross-bor-
der activities (for example pipelines, shipping routes) are dealt
with in a coherent manner;
• Ensure consistency between land and marine systems; and
• Ensure that the future development of offshore activities is con-
sistent with the need to evolve multilateral rules.
The Maritime Policy concludes that a spatial planning system
should be conducted on an ecosystem-based approach and es-
tablished for maritime activities in all waters under jurisdiction of
its member states.
The EU Marine Thematic Strategy (2005) provides a supportive
framework for national marine spatial plans, particularly for achiev-
ing ‘good environmental status’ of EU waters by 2021. In the context
of the Marine Strategy, Europe introduced the concept of ‘eco-re-
gions’ based on which its seas are divided into ecologically-mean-
ingful management units. Eleven eco-regions have been defined,
based on bio-geographic features, oceanographic features, and
existing political, social and management divisions. They include
Greenland and Iceland Seas, Barents Sea, Faroe Islands, Norwegian
Sea, Celtic Seas, North Sea, South European Atlantic Shelf, Western
Mediterranean Sea Adriatic-Ionian Seas, Aegean-Levantine Seas
and the Oceanic Northeast Atlantic. This division into eco-regions
can be seen as a basic geographical requirement for implement-
ing the ecosystem approach in European waters and builds further
on the condition that ecosystem-based management is inherently
place-based or area-based.
Toward a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for
the Oceans and Seas, 7 June 2006. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/
Box 7.
Marine Spatial
Planning in the
EU Maritime
Policy
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
41

42
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Marine spatial planning in Germany is still in an early stage. In July
2004 an amendment to the Federal Spatial Planning Act entered
into force stating that the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and
Urban Affairs (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau and Stadtent-
wicklung, former Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Hous-
ing) should develop a legal instrument setting out the objectives
and principles of spatial planning in the EEZ. The planning initiative
for the EEZ started with the Federal Ministry setting up goals and
principles for spatial planning in the framework of UNCLOS. Last
year, the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (Bundesamt
für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie) completed a draft spatial plan
and an associated environmental report for the German EEZ in
both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The aim of the spatial plan
is to establish sustainable development of ocean space, in which
social and economic demands for space are consistent with the
ecological functions of space. The associated environmental report
aims to identify and evaluate the likely significant effects on the
environment that could result from implementing the spatial plan.
The spatial plan will be open for public consultation (including in-
ternational participation) during the second half of 2007.
The German spatial planning approach includes the possibility to
designate areas as:
Priority Areas that are reserved for defined use in which other
conflicting uses are excluded;
Reservation Areas in which defined uses have a priority; and
Suitable Areas in which defined uses are allowed inside, but ex-
cluded outside, the designated areas.
An important step toward allocation of marine space for specific
uses was the designation of ‘preferred areas’ for wind energy in De-
cember 2005 for one area in the North Sea and two areas in the
Baltic Sea. These ‘preferred areas’ will automatically turn into priority
areas as soon as the spatial plan enters into force.
In the German territorial sea, the Länder (states) are responsible for
spatial planning, which can be done in the framework of the State
Planning Act. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Baltic Sea) and Nieder-
sachsen (Lower Saxony, North Sea) already expanded their existing
spatial plans from the landside to the coastal area. Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern extended its 2005 Spatial Development Programme
to “ensure conflict management between the demands of new
technologies, tourism and nature protection and traditional sec-
tors like shipping, fishing and defense at an early stage.” 18
In the framework of EU Natura 2000, Germany designated various
protected areas in May 2004. An important step toward the de-
crease of fragmentation in national marine protected area man-
agement is that the coordinates of the German areas of the Dogger
Bank and the Borkumse Stones have been used for the determina-
tion of the boundaries of the areas proposed for protection in the
Dutch part of the North Sea.
Adapted from a personal communication from Nico Nolte, German
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, 15 January 2007
Box 8.
Marine Spatial
Planning in
Germany
18
Landesraumentwicklungspro-
gramm Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
mern. Ministerie für Arbeit, Bau
und Landesentwicklung des
Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
mern. May 2005.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
43
Fig 8.
Existing and
Future Uses
of Nature
Conservation
of the German
EEZ in the
North Sea
(Source: Budesamt
für Seeschiffaht and
Hydrographie)

Fig 9.
Existing and
Future Uses
of Nature
Conservation
of the German
EEZ in the
Baltic Sea
(Source: Budesamt
für Seeschiffaht and
Hydrographie)
44
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

6 A Process for
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
45

What Is “Planning”?
Operationally, planning is the process of analyzing who gets what,
when, and where, how, at what costs, and who pays the costs? Both
the initiation of planning and the ultimate decisions as a result of plan-
ning are normally a function of the political process in a society.
Analysis is the activity that generates information for management
decisions. In discussing planning it is essential to consider explicitly:
(1) the process of planning, i.e., how the planning is organized; and
(2) what analyses are essential to develop the information needed for
management decisions?
Because the management of sea uses should be a continuous activ-
ity, the planning process must be organized to generate information at
various points in time. There should be a continuous activity of analysis,
as part of management, to generate information for development of
strategies to respond to changing conditions and information (Bower,
Ehler & Basta, 1994).
See also Gilliland workshop presentation (2006) at http://ioc3.unesco.
org/marinesp/.
What Are the Important Processes of Marine Spatial
Management?
Marine spatial management is comprised of at least three ongoing
phases:
• Planning and Analysis: generating and adopting one or more
integrated, comprehensive spatial plans for the protection, en-
hancement and sustainable use and development of the sea and
its resources;
• Implementation: implementing the plan through the execution
of programmed works or investments, enabling change, encour-
aging improvement and through regulation and incentives and
enforcement of proposed changes and ongoing activities in, on,
over and under the sea, in accordance with the plans; and
• Monitoring and Evaluation—assessing the effectiveness of the
plans, their time scales and implementation mechanisms, consid-
ering ways in which they need to be improved and establishing
review and adaptation procedures. Results of evaluation are fed
back into the planning and analysis element of management, and
the process begins again.
46
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Fig 8.
The Elements
of Management Research
Planning &
Analysis of
Alternative
Strategies
Implementation
of Management
Strategy
Monitoring of
Outputs &
Outcomes
Evaluation
Stakeholder
Participation
Financing

Is There an Appropriate Approach to Setting Management
Objectives?
19
Defining overall goals and objectives for marine areas has a high value
compared to, as currently done, simply defining each individual sector’s
needs and hoping that these needs can be integrated or reconciled in
the absence of some overall vision or ‘top down’ direction. Improved
coordination of data gathering, management and greater accessibility
of datasets can have obvious benefits to both government agencies
and developers.
Marine spatial planning within the context of sea-use management
can provide a framework within which to articulate, reconcile, and in-
tegrate relevant economic, environmental and social objectives collec-
tively, i.e., government policy. This is not done at present in the marine
environment or under the auspices of any existing authorities. Objec-
tives, with associated targets, are defined for some individual sectors,
either explicitly, e.g., a 10% by 2010 target for renewable energy, quotas
for fisheries, or implicitly, e.g., to optimize exploitation of oil and gas
reserves wherever they are found or to maintain or improve environ-
mental quallity.
Even then, objectives are not broken down into more operational re-
gional targets and rarely do they have a spatial context, although again
these are sometimes implicit. Therefore, a marine spatial plan provides
a framework within which to identify and state the contribution that
will be made by the planning area, i.e., “the region”, to national objec-
tives, such as wind and other renewable energy targets to be achieved,
fish stocks in need of recovery, environmental quality, habitat protec-
tion or restoration targets.
Defining overall goals, and then more specific and measurable objec-
tives, that ideally are spatially defined, for different human use activi-
ties, should provide the following added value compared to existing
practice:
• Clear, “top-down” or strategic direction for what is to be achieved
within the sea-use management area to complement “bottom-up”
stakeholder involvement and interests, strengthening the vertical
integration between national policy guidance and targets and their
regional delivery and the horizontal integration across economic
sectors or agencies of government;
• A better basis on which to consider the inter-relationship between
economic, environmental and social objectives at the same time,
rather than sequentially, and increase the chances of achieving sus-
tainable development;
• To encourage synergies and reduce conflicts, i.e., to provide a more
strategic basis for any one economic sector to identify the objec-
tives of other sectors and their environmental, economic, and so-
cial impacts. This should reduce the burden on any one sector for
undertaking this type of comprehensive analysis;
• An improved basis for analyzing the cummulative effects of incre-
mental decisions;
• A better basis for identifying widely-agreed, common scenarios
for the future taking account the best available forecasts such
as identifying which targets are likely to change significantly be-
yond, for example, a 20-year planning time frame (e.g., renewable
energy targets) and their projected increases. The ability to fore-
cast will vary among sectors. These differences would need to be
accommodated irrespective of the management measure under
consideration;
• A proactive approach to the delivery of objectives for the safeguard-
ing and recovery of the marine ecosystem and the services that it
provides rather than through each sector of economic activity hav-
ing to enter into consultation on these for every permit application;
and
• Improved governance with greater confidence of government, in-
dustry, and other stakeholders of how and where their objectives
can and should be translated into reality at the level of the marine
ecosystem.
What Is the Process of Making a Plan?
The process of making a plan should involve:
• Analysis: information gathering, including surveying and map-
ping, better understanding the interaction of activities with each
other and with the environment, identifying and filling gaps in
information;
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
47
19
Adapted from: “The added value of
marine spatial planning” (2005), UK
Country Agencies Interagency Work-
ing Group on MSP

48
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
• Forecasting and Developing Alternative Scenarios: Analyz-
ing trends and changes, identifying issues and what needs to be
done, or not done, and what needs to be resolved, potential con-
flicts, opportunities for multiple use and development. A good ex-
ample of how forecasting and developing alternative scenarios for
the future use of space can be applied is provided by the Belgian
research project “GAUFRE” (Maes, et al., 2005) (at http://www.belspo.
be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?|=en&COD=MA/02);
• Assessing Alternatives: considering the costs and benefits of
possible alternatives and options;
• Stakeholder and Public Participation: including the meaningful
involvement of stakeholders, at a time when they can be genuinely
influential on the plan, for example, in the selection of options or alter-
native strategies, and where necessary, possibly involving mediation
to resolve any more deeply embedded conflicts of interest; and
• Outreach: making the draft plan available to the public, along with
supporting reports such as the environmental report, issue papers,
surveys, etc., and providing meaningful opportunities for interested
members of the public to express their views in a reasonably infor-
mal, open and non-adversarial setting.
What Are the Steps of Analysis in Making a Plan?
The various analyses undertaken for planning can be described as a se-
quence of activities. Some of the activities, or portions of the activities,
can be done simultaneously; and there is—or should be—continuing
feedback among the activities and continuing interaction between the
planners and the decision makers and other stakeholders throughout
the analytic activities, i.e., during each “round” of analysis in the continu-
ing management context. At the same time there should be a finite
period of time for a given “round” of analysis. All of the segments should
be completed within some specified time period.
Examples of analytical activities include:
• identifying current conditions/problems of the management area;
• specifying problems in detail;
• evaluating resources of the management area with respect to po-
tential for producing goods and services;
• specifying alternative ecological and socio-economic models to be
used in the analysis;
• specifying possible scenarios for analysis, where a scenario includes
economic and demographic conditions, environmental and ecolog-
ical conditions; and
• selecting scenarios for detailed analysis and evaluation.
Then for each “scenario” selected:
• estimating demands on the resources of the management area;
• analyzing human activities in the management area with respect to
resource use, direct modifications of habitat, and discharges of pol-
lutants;
• analyzing the responses of marine ecosystems and natural processes
in relation to human activities;
• analyzing the effects (injuries) of the changes in marine ecosystems
on various species, habitats, and ecosystems;
• analyzing monetary damages and benefits in relation to effects de-
lineated in the previous step;
• formulating alternative management strategies to reduce undesired
effects and damages and produce desired outputs;
• selecting management strategies for analysis;
• evaluating management strategies; and
• presenting results to the decision makers and other stakeholders.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
49
The Irish Sea Pilot helped develop a strategy for marine nature con-
servation that could be applied to all UK waters and, with interna-
tional collaboration, the adjacent waters of the north-east Atlantic.
The work fulfils a commitment made by the UK Government in May
2002 at the launch of Safeguarding our Seas. The Pilot was funded
primarily by Defra with contributions from other partners.
One of the aims of the Irish Sea Pilot was to test the proposed frame-
work for marine nature conservation, developed by the Review of
Marine Nature Conservation Working Group. The framework was de-
veloped to demonstrate that action needed to be taken at a range
of scales. The proposed framework anticipated that a range of mea-
sures would be needed to conserve marine biodiversity, including
protected areas, spatial planning and other measures.
The results of the Pilot study have been published. The report, Ma-
rine Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development, The Irish Sea
Pilot, Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is
available on the JNCC website (http://www.jncc.gov.uk). A synopsis
of the main areas investigated and conclusions drawn included:
Data and information. The Pilot collated geophysical, hydro-
graphical, nature conservation, ecological and human use data and
used GIS analysis. While intertidal and near-coast biological informa-
tion was found to be satisfactory, data were sparse for most offshore
localities to a degree which would constrain good decision-making.
Furthermore, some survey data were not available to the Pilot, either
because they were held in an inappropriate format or because the
data owner was unable or unwilling to release it.
Marine landscapes. The Pilot tested the concept of ‘Marine Land-
scapes’ which is based on using geophysical and hydrographical
data to identify habitat types in the absence of biological data. If
reliable, such an approach would enable management measures for
offshore areas to be developed with confidence in the absence of
biological data, which is very expensive to obtain in offshore areas.
The Pilot successfully applied this approach to the Irish Sea, identify-
ing and mapping 18 coastal and seabed marine landscape types,
and 4 water column marine landscape types.
Nationally-important marine features. A draft set of criteria for
the identification of nationally-important marine landscapes, habi-
tats and species was tested. A recommendation was made that fur-
ther work should be undertaken to determine which marine nation-
ally-important features would benefit from specific Action Plans.
Nationally-important marine areas. The Pilot investigated the
concept of ecologically-coherent networks of important marine ar-
eas as envisaged under the EC Habitats Directive and under OSPAR,
tested draft criteria for the identification of important marine areas,
and investigated a range of methods to develop a network of areas
for the Irish Sea.
The Pilot also investigated means of identifying and conserving im-
portant marine geological and geomorphological areas, an aspect
previously little considered in the UK or internationally.
Conservation objectives. Building on the vision and strategic goals
set out in Safeguarding our Seas and in Seas of Change, a generic series of
high level conservation objectives and operational conservation objec-
tives applicable to national waters was formulated.
Overarching measures required. Mechanisms by which the Re-
gional Sea could be managed to achieve the conservation objectives at
the various scales of the proposed framework for marine nature conser-
vation were considered, in relation to current measures and legislation.
International working. While the previous conclusions are intended
to apply directly to the United Kingdom, one of the main conclusions of
the Pilot was the importance of working closely with international Gov-
ernment partners and stakeholders. This will be crucial in the effective
future management of the national seas and adjacent waters.
Adapted from the Defra Website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/re-
sprog/findings/irishseapilot/index.htm
Box 9.
The Irish Sea
Pilot Project

50
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Fig 9.
Proposed
Multiple Use
Zoning Map of
the Irish Sea
(Source: Boyes et al.,
2005)

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
51
Why Is Public Participation So Important?
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the effective involvement
of the public and stakeholders throughout the MSP process. People
matter and are the agents for change – political and other. However,
the process of engagement needs time and financing. The investment
is worth it.
A balance is needed. Stakeholder engagement should inform and
support, but not to be the sole determinant of any MSP scheme. That
should be achieved through the leadership of politicians and the plan-
ning team.
The degree to which all stakeholders are involved at different points in
the process will vary. Sometimes it is not helpful to involve everyone
at every point. However, stakeholder engagement should occur from
the outset – it should be early, often, and sustained throughout the
MSP process.
Stakeholders should be properly informed to enable them to play their
full roles, e.g., the pros and cons of different activities or options. It can
work, even in a very “top-down” situation. It can be a lengthy and labor-
intensive activity. Care is needed to keep the costs associated with it in
proportion to the activities being undertaken—a balance should be
struck throughout the process.
How it is done is critical, but the outcome of effective stakeholder in-
volvement is invaluable.
Fig 10.
Regional
Context of
Florida Keys
National
Marine
Sanctuary
(Source: NOAA)

52
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
The Tortugas Ecological Reserve, a fully protected marine reserve
that is currently the largest such area in the United States, is part
of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a multiple-use MPA
that uses marine zoning to protect resources while allowing com-
patible activities. The design and implementation of the reserve are
considered to be a successful example of collaborative decision-
making. The community-based planning process for the reserve
acknowledged the important contributions of the area’s users, and
represented a significant departure from government-driven, top-
down marine conservation initiatives that are often the norm in
many developed countries. The inclusion of citizen representatives
with an equal voice in the decision-making process was significant.
In addition to unprecedented community involvement, socio-po-
litical and economic factors weighed heavily in the outcome of the
reserve process. Science played a crucial role in balancing short-
term economic concerns with potential long-term economic and
ecological benefits.
At the core of Tortugas 2000 was a 25-member working group that
included Sanctuary Advisory Council members, stakeholders, and
government agency representatives. The Working Group ensured
that all constituents and agencies with an interest in activities in the
Tortugas were present during the design phase. The Tortugas 2000
Working Group was charged with reviewing available natural sci-
ence and socio-economic information and making a recommen-
dation to NOAA on the size, shape, and placement of the Tortugas
Ecological Reserve. A professional facilitator guided the Working
Group, which over the course of 13 months met five times to de-
fine operating goals, agree to ground rules, develop and weight
criteria for the reserve, evaluate draft boundaries, and recommend
a preferred boundary.
What were the ingredients of success? First and foremost, it was es-
sential to begin the design process with a common foundation of
knowledge among all decision-makers. Secondly, making the same
knowledge available to the local community and the general public
enhanced interest in and support for the eventual decisions made
about the reserve. Internet posting of technical papers, maps, and
other visual data was particularly useful; however, the more signifi-
cant vehicle by which the Sanctuary shared scientific and traditional
knowledge was through the informational forums that were held at
the beginning of the design phase. Given the broad dissemination of
scientific information related to reserve design it was important that
the data be easily interpreted and understood by a variety of audi-
ences. GIS maps based on familiar units and scales were extremely
helpful for visualizing reserve boundaries and determining how al-
ternatives would meet specific criteria and affect certain users. Lastly,
it was important that science experts were seated at the table with
other relevant stakeholders from project inception. Scientific data
and research results are important to a reserve design process, but
should be considered alongside traditional knowledge provided by
users of the area. Also, when scientific experts participate directly in
the process they are able to answer questions and advise on techni-
cal matters as needed. This direct exchange of information served
to build trust and engendered a sense of accountability among the
Working Group members and the public.
Adapted from Cowie-Haskell & Delany, 2004.
Box 10.
Stakeholder
Involvement in
Expanding the
Florida Keys
National Marine
Sanctuary

7 Defining the Human Dimension of
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
53

How Is Geographic Information System (GIS) Technology
Changing Marine Resource Management?
New geo-technologies are revolutionizing marine resource manage-
ment. Through remote sensing and geo-positioning technologies, sci-
ence is making visible what had been previously been hidden or inacces-
sible. Living and non-living marine resources, species ranges and their
life histories, habitats, physical and chemical conditions, and sea bottom
morphology are increasingly being measured, monitored, and mapped.
This information is being stored, managed, and analyzed using geo-
graphic information systems (GIS). GIS is quickly becoming the forum
where marine spatial data are aggregated, planning options are visu-
alized, impact analyses are performed, and ocean zones, e.g., marine
protected areas or fishery closure areas, established and mapped.
However, GIS models the environment as layers of information to be
queried, combined, and analyzed in various ways. This way of think-
ing structures decision making as the consideration of layers and their
overlap, e.g., siting a wind farm offshore.
Most research and data collection is a documentation of the bio-physi-
cal geography of the oceans. This new geographic information makes
marine resources more open to exploitation and makes necessary a de-
tailed and permanent governance of the spaces where those resources
are located.
See also St. Martin presentation (2006) available at http://ioc3.unesco.
org/marinesp/).
How Is This Different from What Resource Managers Used in the
Past?
While the full extent of an ecosystem is important to consider and de-
fine, it is the complex of processes and interactions within the system,
between species and habitats, and between users and the environ-
ment, that are the focus of most ecosystem analysis and ideally the ba-
sis for policy development. These interactions are typically local events
demanding local data collection and analyses that can then be inte-
grated with analyses at other scales (St. Martin, 2004).
How Can the “Human Dimension” Be Added to MSP?
The human dimension of MSP reduces in most cases to a listing of
activities (e.g., recreation, oil/gas, fisheries, shipping). These are, of
course, vital to document, but they are complex processes across a
variety of scales parallel to biophysical processes. Ecosystem-based
approaches have transformed the way we view the latter and, even-
tually, manage the biophysical environment by understanding pro-
cesses, connections, space, and scales (as opposed to, for example,
single species fisheries management). Human dimensions need to be
thought of similarly through a similar understanding of processes (e.g.,
community and territory), connections (e.g., within and across commu-
nities, economies), space (e.g., territories, mappings, cultural percep-
tions) and scales (e.g., local, regional, national scales of society).
Related to the above is the perception that the incorporation of hu-
man dimensions into MSP will be done by engaging with economists
and, presumably, economists’ understandings of human behavior.
While the economy is an important consideration relative to human
dimensions, there are other considerations, other human motiva-
tions, other society processes, etc. to be considered. Indeed, econom-
ics (e.g., fisheries bioeconomics) reduces the “human dimension” to
fishing effort as a result of utility maximization. Other social sciences
(e.g., anthropology) have suggested that other processes drive hu-
man behavior, etc. Also, the economy is studied and understood not
just through the discipline of economics, it is the focus of many ge-
ographers, anthropologists, and sociologists as well. Therefore, while
advancing and refining MSP, it is vital that the human dimension does
not reduce to economics as representing by economists alone. Inte-
grating the human dimension requires the same diversity of disciplines/
perspectives as does the ecosystem approach relative to the biophysical
environment.
Little work is being done on the social or human geography of the
oceans. The “human dimensions” of the marine environment are
widely recognized as important to include and integrate into deci-
sion making, but there are few layers of socio-economic informa-
tion that one might combine with the bio-physical in, for example,
spatial suitability analyses for the establishment of a marine pro-
tected area.
54
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Furthermore, to the degree that socio-economic information is avail-
able and integrated, it is expressed as the presence or absence of par-
ticular activities, e.g., fishing, mineral extraction, dredging, and shipping.
Documenting these activities in space is clearly important to spatial
planning and decision making, but once reduced to layers in the GIS,
these activities are severed from the communities that they support
and/or from which they originate. What is incorporated into the GIS
is, for example, a layer representing fishing intensity rather than one
representing the territories of fishing communities.
The layer that is missing then is not just the socio-economic, though
that is often absent, but the relationship between offshore locations
and the onshore communities and economies to which offshore loca-
tions are necessarily attached.
As a result, community-level participation in management is difficult to
implement. Local knowledge is not incorporated in planning. Impact
analyses miss local economic effects, and human meanings, social his-
tory, and cultural context are lost.
What Is a Good Example of This Problem?
The designation of a marine protected area (MPA) may have considered
fishing intensity along with other layers of information such as biological
diversity, species presence or absence, habitat vulnerability, recreational
use, and so on. A suitable location for an MPA may be proposed and may
appear to minimally affect commercial fishing. Perhaps it will close only
10% of regionally-important fisheries. However, the MPA may represent
the entire fishing territory of a particular fishing community that might not
be able to fish elsewhere due to distance, custom, safety, etc. In addition to
simple dispossession, spatial planning that ignores community territoriality
also produces conflict as people move to other locations already inhab-
ited by other users, intensifies resource exploitation in remaining areas, and
makes fishing more hazardous as fishers must travel further to catch fish.
Neglecting the connection between locations offshore and communities
onshore can result in uneven impacts and unforeseen hardships.
This problematic raises significant questions about spatial planning
methodologies. In particular, it suggests that methods to better docu-
ment the connections between offshore locations and onshore com-
munities need to be developed along with socio-economic layers
generally. It also points out the need for greater community-level par-
ticipation in marine spatial planning.
Is There an Alternative Approach to Adding the Human
Dimension?
The “missing layer” in the GIS is “community”, i.e., the link between off-
shore activities and onshore economies, livelihoods, cultures, places,
etc. Ignoring community produces uneven impacts and conflict, and
area closures based on activity cannot account for communities.
It’s a question of methodology that requires community participation
and the incorporation of local knowledge, assessing local impacts of
area management, incorporating qualitative methods and GIS.
The growing need for more localized data in terms of local habitat and
environment, as well as local community analyses, suggests a participa-
tory role for communities in both science and management. Fishers
can act as sources of valuable localized information within a regime of
trust and mutual benefit. Similarly, community members can provide
information necessary for informed and reliable impact analyses at the
community level, information that is simply not otherwise available
within existing data bases. Importantly, GIS increasingly is associated
with community participation in both science and the assessment of
policy and planning impacts.
GIS is an important technology for marine spatial planning. Howev-
er, the promise of GIS goes beyond supplementing current numeric
methods with a new technology. It implies performing management
in new ways at several institutional levels. The promise of GIS is that its
incorporation into science and management might, at the same time,
create new opportunities to combine social data with biological data,
to enhance cooperation between user communities and marine scien-
tists and managers, and to make management more participatory and
multi-objective (St. Martin, 2004).
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
55

The work of Kevin St. Martin of Rutgers
University illustrates how the human di-
mension can be added to marine spatial
planning. Based on the local knowledge
of fishers of the Gulf of Maine, he and his
colleagues have been developing maps
of: (1) where fishers fish; (2) who fishes
(by gear type and port) in what locations
(identifying discrete areas corresponding
to the “home range” of vessels from various ports; and (3) where
do peer groups fish (identifying fishing locations by gear type for
single ports)?
The results of this work include development of a method for pro-
ducing maps of the “social landscape” of the Gulf of Maine, an im-
proved understanding of the processes of human community and
territory in this ocean space, a way of reducing uneven impacts of
spatial planning decisions, and improved participation of fishers in
science and management
Fig 11.
Community-
based Fishing
Grounds in the
Gulf of Maine
(Source: Kevin St. Martin,
Rutgers University)
56
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Box 11.
Mapping
the Social
Landscape of
Fishers in the
Gulf of Maine

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
57
8 Implementing
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

Do Politicians Have Different Criteria than Planners for
Evaluating Plan Implementation?
Absolutely. Politicians have a different time frame than scientists and
planners. Their term in usually about 4-5 years of which half is typically
dedicated to re-election. Consequently, results from plan implementa-
tion are expected within a short term—which is usually not possible.
Often decisions to implement plans are based on the potential contri-
bution to re-election. Scientists and planners, on the other hand, pro-
pose solutions to current and future problems or damaging trends that
go far beyond the time frame of 4-5 yeasrs.
See also Plasman presentation (2006) available at http://ioc3.unesco.
org/marinesp/.
It is also necessary to have a broad concensus by all actors and stake-
holders, no risk of legal challenges, and compliance with international
or regional agreements and legislation.
The time required for implementation often determines the way plans
are evaluated. Politicians will often want to know if the time before re-
sults are realized can be shortened by aspects such as scientific knowl-
edge or experience, existing legislation, or debates that have already
been underway for some years.
Other questions relevant for politicians to implement marine spatial
planning include:
• What are the resource requirements?
• What is the budget?
• Over what period of time?
• What human resources are required—staffing, consultancies,
training?
• Are there other administrative costs?
• Is more scientific advice needed?
• Is that need immediate, based on the existing scientific programs or
are there proposals for new (and potentially expensive) studies?
• Is there broad-based scientific concensus for the plan? A lack of con-
census can be counter-productive.
• What is the real problem?
• Does it exist now, or is it something that will happen in the future?
• If there is no current problem, is it worth the costs of implementa-
tion today?
• Explain why zoning and other control measures are necessary if
there is not existing problem.
• Who benefits as a result of plan implementation? Who pays? How
much, how, and when?
Costly proposals will need fine tuning. Conclicts and solutions will have
to be defined clearly and solutions, e.g., is a total prohibition of an activ-
ity really necessary or can a temporal prohibition, e.g., during winter, or
during spawning season?
How Can Plans Best Be Transformed into Action?
Politicians will usually look for a concensus among the stakeholders.
They do not like the lack of transparency, i.e., no black box, where a
“commission will decide upon the measures to be taken”.
Set a clear line from the beginning and look for margins to discuss,
for example, “historical rights”. Search for “win-win” situations, e.g.,
marine spatial planning can provide legal/economic stability in the
longer term.
Ensure participation and access to information. User committees and
voluntary agreements can be a solution when there is polarization at
the extremes, which is often the case. Look for a concensus within
government.
Broad acceptance makes it difficult for someone to be against the plan.
However, the plan must be in line with administrative rules such as sim-
plicity and impact on staffing/budget.
58
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
59
The legislative framework in Belgium has shaped marine spatial
planning in a continuous process. The need for a comprehensive
approach toward spatial planning became particularly urgent be-
cause of new objectives and associated targets for future ocean
use and protection. The core issues of the MSP policy framework
included the development of an offshore wind farm, the delimita-
tion of marine protected areas, a policy plan for sustainable sand
and gravel extraction, enhanced financial resources for the pre-
vention of oil pollution, the mapping of marine habitats, protec-
tion of wrecks valuable for biodiversity, and the management of
land-based activities affecting the marine environment. Together,
these objectives provide the basis for a Master Plan that has been
implemented incrementally since 2003. The first two phases of
the Master Plan are now operational and focus on:
• Spatial delimitations for sand and gravel extraction and a zone
for future offshore wind energy projects (Phase 1), followed by
• Delimitation of marine protected areas as part of the Natura
2000 Network (Phase 2).
The spatial plan has led to a more diverse zoning system for sand
and gravel extraction that includes new control zones with se-
quential rotation for the most intensive exploitation areas, sea-
sonally closed zones in which extraction is prohibited during fish
spawning seasons and an exploration zone where potential fu-
ture use is examined.
The zones defined for wind farms now allows companies to
submit proposals without the former risks of denial of permit or
compensation costs to other marine resource users (e.g., fisher-
ies) resulting from the lack of a spatial framework for the area as
a whole.
Future initiatives concerning spatial planning in Belgium are be-
ing considered. New actions will focus on the protection of ma-
rine shipwrecks for archeological, biodiversity, and ecological
interests, development of a marine component for existing ter-
restrial, protected areas, and the allocation of a research zone for
alternative fishing methods.
At the scientific level, a multidisciplinary two-year research proj-
ect (GAUFRE) was set up to develop a visionary approach for the
marine environment, applying and translating land use planning
concepts and methodologies. This visionary approach – in the
form of alternative scenarios for future sea use reflecting various
importance of core objectives – has been developed to provide a
basic tool for policy decisions because of deficiencies in existing
scientific knowledge and data.
From Douvere, F., et al., 2007.
Box 12.
Implementation
of Marine Spatial
Planning in
Belgium

60
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Fig 12.
Implementation
of Marine Spatial
Planning in Belgium
(Source: Belgian Federal
Government, Directorate
General for Environment)

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
61
Fig 13.
Existing Ocean
Uses in the
Belgian Part of
the North Sea
(Source: Maes et al.,
2005)

In 1997, responding to the policy of China’s national government
to “rigorously enforce laws governing the management and pro-
tection of land, water, forests, minerals, and seas”, the State Oceanic
Administration (SOA) officially proposed the formulation of a law to
manage sea use. In 1999, after two years of effort, the Law on the
Management of Sea Use was drafted and submitted for approval.
On 27 October 2001, the 24th session of the Standing Committee
of the Ninth National People’s Congress adopted the Law, which
entered into effect on 1 January 2002. The law has established
three principles:
(a) The right to the sea-use authorization system. According
to the law, the seas are owned by the State. The State Council
exercises the ownership of the seas on behalf of the State. Any
entity or individual who intends to use the sea must apply in
advance and obtain the right to use the sea; they are authorized
only after the approval of the national government;
(b) A marine functional zoning system. The law stipulates that
any use of the sea areas must comply with the marine functional
zoning scheme established by the State. The scheme is the foun-
dation for marine management, under which the sea is divided
into different types of functional zones (according to the criteria
related to ecological functions and priority use), to regulate and
guide rational use of the sea area; and
(c) A user-fee system. The right to sea use is protected under the
State’s legal system. The State imposes a user-fee system, which
requires that any entity or individual who uses the sea must pay
a fee in accordance with the regulations of the State Council.
This system stipulates that the sea is a State-owned asset, and
all entities and individuals who intend to use the sea to carry out
production and other economic activities, must pay for its use.
The law has also established a “two-level management system”, i.e.,
all sea-use applications will be assessed and approved by the pro-
vincial, as well as the national government. Governments at city
and county levels do not have the authority to approve sea-use
applications. This is to ensure that sea-use activities are placed un-
der stricter control of the provincial level and national government
and that the long-term benefits of the State is guaranteed in a sus-
tainable manner. According to the Law, 70% of the fees collected
from sea use will rest with the local government, and 30% will go
directly to the State revenue, for marine development, protection
and management.
Starting in 2000, under the overall supervision of the State Coun-
cil, SOA, along with other relevant ministries and coastal provinces,
autonomous regions and municipalities formulated a nation-wide
marine functional zoning scheme. After extensive data collection,
intensive studies and several consultations, the National Marine
Functional Zoning Scheme was submitted to the State Council and
approved on 22 August 2002. The scheme was widely publicized
and implemented by SOA starting in September 2002.
The State Council provided comprehensive guidelines on the na-
tional implementation of the zoning scheme and its management,
and further defined the responsibilities and mandates of the various
competent governmental organizations in ocean management. It
emphasized that marine functional zoning scheme is the legal basis
of the management of sea use and marine protection and should
therefore be strictly implemented. The Council also pointed out
that relevant laws and regulations on ocean management should
be firmly implemented based on the principle of “development in
protection and protection in development”, with the ultimate goal of
the rational development and sustainable use of the sea.
The implementation of the National Marine Functional Zoning
Scheme marks the initial establishment of a regional planning system
and an integrated management framework for marine development
and conservation in China. Over two-thirds the zoning schemes of
the 11 coastal provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities
have been completed, and most of the schemes had been approved
by their respective local governments for implementation.
Adapted from Li, 2006
Box 13.
Implementing
China’s Sea Use
Management Law
62
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
63
Fig 14.
Xiamen Zoning
Scheme
(Source: State Oceanic
Administration)
Fig 15.
Shanghai
Zoning Scheme
(Source: State Oceanic
Administration)

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
65
9 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Adapting
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

Why are Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Adaptive
Management Important?
Monitoring, evaluation, effective reporting and adaptive manage-
ment are widely recognized as fundamental components for effec-
tive marine management. MSP is a continuous process involving all
the above elements (and more—see previous sections). Monitoring
and evaluation needs to concentrate on the most important issues
affecting or potentially affecting a marine area. Adaptive, ecosys-
tem-based, sea use management can ensure healthy, productive
and resilient marine areas that provide the goods and services that
people want and need.
See Day presentation available at http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp/.
Adaptive management can:
• demonstrate the extent to which objectives have been achieved;
• identify gaps that can be rectified;
• provide feedback as to what’s working and what’s not, enabling
more informed decision-making;
• promote accountability and demonstrate resources have effectively
used; and
• enable effective review of management direction, priorities, resource
requirements, etc.
Use an adaptive planning approach—don’t wait for perfect infor-
mation. Always be prepared to learn new information—and use
that information to adapt management plans and decisions.
What Are the Main Steps in Evaluating Management
Effectiveness?
• Identify management objectives/desired outcomes;
• Choose indicators;
• Undertake monitoring;
• Periodically assess results;
• Report findings & recommendations; and
• Adjust management as necessary (= adaptive management).
Why Are Clear, Measurable Management Objectives
Important?
Clear, measurable objectives are fundamental for assessing effec-
tiveness. Articulating the desired outcome for each objective helps
define a practical interpretation of that objective. Objectives should
be developed for different management levels (e.g., broad goals, re-
gional areas, specific tasks/projects). Objectives should be estab-
lished early in any planning/management process.
What Do We Mean by “Indicators”?
An indicator is a measure (quantitative or qualitative) of how close
we are to achieving what we set out to achieve (i.e., our objective).
Indicators are quantitative/qualitative statements or measured/ob-
served parameters that can be used to describe existing situations
and measure changes or trends over time. Their three main func-
tions are simplification, quantification and communication (Belfiore
et al., 2006).
What Is the Problem of “Shifting Baselines”?
“Each generation accepts the species composition and stock sizes
that they first observe as a natural baseline from which to evaluate
changes. This ignores the fact that this baseline may already repre-
sent a disturbed state. The resource then continues to decline, but
the next generation resets their baseline to this newly depressed
state. The result is a gradual accommodation of the creeping disap-
pearance of resource species, and inappropriate reference points...
for identifying targets …..” (Pauley, 1998)
What Lessons Have We Learned from Applying Indicators?
Some of the lessons learned from applying indicators in a manage-
ment context include:
• Indicators must reflect changes at spatial and temporal scales of rel-
evance to management and what needs to be measured;
• Differing indicators should be used for site level and system level;
66
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

• As well as more obvious environmental indicators, need also to de-
velop social and governance indicators;
• Ecological goals and socio-economic goals are not mutually exclusive.
However, they do need different evaluation criteria/indicators; and
• Problems of “dangerous targets” (Agardy et al., 2003).
What Is “Monitoring”?
Monitoring is the process of repeated observation for specified pur-
poses, according to prearranged schedules in space and time and
using comparable data collection methods (after Meijers, 1986).
How Can Monitoring Meet Management Needs?
Monitoring can be used to:
• Assess the ecological state of ecosystems;
• Assess whether regulated performance criteria have been exceeded;
• Detect and assess impacts of human-generated disturbance(s);
and
• Assess responses to restoration efforts.
What Lessons Have We Learned from Monitoring?
Monitor wisely—at ecologically- and socially-relevant temporal and
spatial scales. Many monitoring programs ‘do the thing right’ (i.e.,
precise local measurements) rather than ‘doing the right thing’! If
possible, get managers and users who are on the water daily to as-
sist with monitoring. Know the value of quick, easily accessible re-
sults. Development of affordable/acceptable monitoring programs
for some areas may typically involve innovation in scientific meth-
ods and approaches. Finally, you may need to monitor outside your
particular area or jurisdiction to ascertain the context upon which
your results may be assessed.
Why Is Reporting Important?
Reporting is a key part of communicating monitoring or evaluation
results to a wide range of interested parties including:
• Managers, especially those in the field;
• Other managers/other agencies;
• Decision makers/governments; and
• Interest groups (funding bodies, NGOs, international community/
programs).
Reporting may take many different forms, including written (reports, pa-
pers), mass media, internet/web, and oral presentations.
What Lessons Have We Learned about Reporting and Adaptive
Management?
Assessments should be open, transparent and accessible to community.
“A picture paints a thousand words” (importance of visuals, graphs to show
trends, etc.). It’s important to think about reporting means at the outset of
the project, and to tailor the report style and level of detail to the target au-
dience. Timing/release of a report can be critical, especially if using media.
Reporting research results can sometimes take years/decades—far outside
management, and especially political, timeframes.
Have We Learned any General Principles about Adaptive
Management?
• There are many theoretical calls for comprehensive evaluation
of management effectiveness of marine areas. Reality is few re-
source management agencies have implemented such systems
or procedures.
• Most evaluation efforts to date have concentrated on the bio-
physical aspects/condition in a few selected areas. Very few are
comprehensive assessments of management effectiveness, or
include social or economic aspects.
• Many evaluations have relied upon staff from academic or re-
search institutions to do the work. Very few have been conduct-
ed by, or effectively involved, management staff.
• Most management plans today refer to adaptive management
and the need to monitor performance. Few really have, with the
main excuses seeming to be high costs, institutional barriers,
and lack of political support.
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
67

68
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Fig 16.
The Great
Barrier Reef
Representative
Areas
Programme
(source: Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park
Authority)

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
69
Can We Draw Any Conclusions about the Need for Marine Spatial
Planning To Be Adaptive?
• Monitoring, evaluation, effective reporting and adaptive man-
agement are all fundamental components of effective sea use
management. Marine spatial planning should be a continuous
process that involves all these elements.
• Adaptive, ecosystem-based sea use management can ensure
healthy, productive and resilient marine areas that provide the
goods and services that people want and need.
• Monitoring and evaluation need to concentrate on the most im-
portant issues affecting or potentially affecting a marine man-
aged area. Managers should develop a comprehensive list of
research and monitoring priorities required to address key man-
agement needs.
• Apply the precautionary principle – don’t wait for “perfect” science
before taking management action.
• Zoning is only one of a wide range of management tools that can
be used for marine management.
• A complementary approach is needed across appropriate jurisdic-
tional boundaries, i.e., local, state, federal, regional, international.
• Adaptive management can: (1) demonstrate the extent to which
objectives have been achieved; (2) identify gaps that may be rec-
tified; (3) provide feedback as to what’s working and what’s not,
enabling more informed decision-making; (4) promote account-
ability and demonstrate resources have effectively used; and (5)
enable effective review of management direction, priorities, re-
source requirements, etc
Finally, use an adaptive planning approach. Don’t wait for perfect infor-
mation that will never come. Be prepared to take on new information
and use it to inform the next round of management decisions.

10 Conclusions and
NEXT STEPS
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
71

What Are Possible Next Steps After the Workshop?
Workshop participants developed the following list of potential follow-
up activities both during and after the workshop:
• Continue to develop an international community of MSP research-
ers and practitioners through the Internet and other communica-
tions and build on the work of the “pioneers” in practice;
• Maintain the UNESCO MSP website (http://ioc3.unesco.org/marine-
sp) to continue to follow developments in different countries and
regions;
• Identify how MSP is reflected in regional and sectoral legislation,
management systems, and regulations as well as what kind of “po-
litical opportunities” exist for moving MSP forward;
• Develop information for the general public, resource managers, and
the politicians, especially about the nature of the problem and how
MSP can help, i.e., the benefits of MSP;
• Communicate with and learn from terrestrial and coastal zone man-
agement examples and planning processes for ecosystem-based
spatial planning;
• Work to integrate the human dimensions into MSP in more complex
and complete ways. Given the scarcity of social science data gather-
ing, etc., learn from and adapt terrestrial models and methodologies.
• Develop case studies in developing countries that have pioneered
and advanced the integration of community-level participation, lo-
cal knowledge, and conflict resolution, in MSP (e.g., The Philippines
and Mexico);
• Acknowledge and address the first world bias of MSP, i.e., MSP ap-
pears to be emerging from the growing need to reserve space for
semi-permanent structures such at wind farms, aquaculture, oil/gas
platforms, etc. and other competing activities (e.g., industrial fishing,
recreation). MSP, so far, addresses these competing activities as ac-
tivities and interests of equal “actors.” In developing countries, many
of these activities (e.g., industrial fishing, oil/gas, recreation) are not
the activities of local actors. Insofar as MSP is about dividing and al-
locating common property, just whose commons is being divided
and allocated to whom is vital to consider as we develop universal
models, typologies, techniques, etc., for MSP?
What Meetings/Workshops Could Be Organized?
• Convene workshops dedicated to the implementation process of
ecosystem-based, marine spatial planning that include political, le-
gal, and economic/financial aspects of MSP; develop improved ben-
efit measures of MSP; identify legal constraints to achieving ecosys-
tem-based MSP; and
• Organize meetings with sectoral representatives (i.e., users) to get a
reality check on their ideas about MSP.
What Documents Could Be Prepared?
• Develop a common vocabulary of MSP terminology; the use of exist-
ing groups such as OSPAR Working Groups and EU working groups
may be helpful in this endeavor. (note, for example, that the Polish
language does not have a word for “zoning” and Chinese does not
have a word for “governance”);
• Develop “how to” guidelines or a list of best practices to assist prac-
titioners in the implementations of MSP. Use lessons learned from as
many case studies as possible, emphasizing what works and what
doesn’t in each MSP experiment. The guidelines could also define
a set of marine problems and define how MSP can be used to help
solve them as well as provide instructions for identifying and select-
ing indicators or “measures of success” for MSP efforts;
• Develop an annual report of international achievements and chal-
lenges of MSP practice;
• Over next two years, conduct a critical international review of practi-
cal MSP experiences;
• Use results of workshop to prepare comments on draft EU “Green Pa-
per on Maritime Policy” before 30 June 2007—the earlier the better
— timing is everything.
72
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
73
Agardy, T., et al., 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological
clashes around marine protected areas. Journal of Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 13. pp. 353-367.
Agardy, T., 2007. Ocean zoning is coming. Ocean zoning is coming! Music to
some ears, a fearsome sound to others. The Ocean Observer. Available at:
http://thew2o.net/newsletter.html
Arkema, K.K., et al. 2006. Marine ecosystem-based management: from
characterization to implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment
4(10): 525-532.
Avasthi, A., 2005. California tries to connect it scattered marine reserves.
Science. 308 (5721): 487-488.
Belfiore, S., et al., 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management. IOC Manuals and Guides, 46.
ICAM Dossier Series 2. Paris: UNESCO. 217 p.
Beck, M. The around us—planning in marine regions. In: Groves, C.R., ed.
Drafting a Conservation Blueprint. The Nature Conservancy.
Beck, M., and M. Adaya, 2001. Ecoregional planning in marine environments:
identifying priority sites for conservation in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Aquatic Conservation. 11: 235-242.
Beck, M., Z. Ferdana, D. Dorfman & J. Deblieu, 2006. Using marine assessments
with multiple objectives to advance ecosystem-based management. The
Nature Conservancy. Presentation available at: http://ioc3.unesco.org/
marinesp
Birdlife International, 2003. Developing a Framework for Marine Spatial Planning
in the North Sea: Principles. Paper presented to the OSPAR Convention
for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic,
Meeting of the Commission, 23-27 June. Ref. OSPAR 03/4/12-E.
Boersma, D., J. Ogden, et al. 2004. Lines on the water: ocean-use planning in
large marine ecosystems. Chap. 6 in Defying Ocean’s End: An Agenda for
Action (L. Glover and S. Earle, eds.). Washington: Island Press. pp. 125-138.
Bower, B.T., Ehler, C.N., & Basta, D.J., 1994. A Framework for Planning for
Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic
& Atmospheric Administration. 65 p.
Boyes, S., M. Elliott, S. Thomson, S. Atkins, P. Gilliland, J. Hamer, & A. Hill, 2005.
Multiple- use zoning in UK and Manx Waters of the Irish Sea: an interpretation
of current legislation through the use of GIS-based zoning approaches. Perth,
UK: Scottish Natural Heritage. 69 pp.
Boyes, S., M. Elliott, S. Thomson, S. Atkins, & P. Gilliland, 2007. A proposed
multiple-use zoning scheme for the Irish Sea: an interpretation of
current legislation through the use of GIS-based zoning approaches and
effectiveness for the protection of nature conservation interests. Marine
Policy. 31: 287298.
Brown, J., 2003. The case for marine spatial planning – the WWF view. In Earll, R.
(ed.) Spatial planning in the coastal and marine environment: next steps to action.
CoastNet Conference, 1 October 2003, SOAS, University of London, p.48.
Canning, R., 2003. The elements of marine spatial planning. In CoastNet Conference:
Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next Steps to Action.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R.W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:
concepts and practices. Washington: Island Press.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R.W., 2000. The Future of US Ocean Policy: Choices for
the New Century. Washington: Island Press.
CoastNet, 2003. Spatial Planning in the Coastal and Marine Environment: Next
Steps to Action, Briefing papers for delegates to the CoastNet Conference.
Connor, D.W., et al., 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland.
Version 04.05. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 49 p.
Connor, D.W., P.M. Gilliland, N. Golding, P. Robinson, D. Todd, & E. Verling,
2006. UKSeaMap: the mapping of seabed and water column features of
UK seas. Joint Nature Conservation Committee: Peterborough, UK.
103 p.
Conservation International, no date. Seascapes: globally important marine
ecosystems [brochure]. Washington: CI. Available at: http://portals.
conservation.org/marine
Country Agencies Interagency Marine Spatial Planning Working Group. The
added value of marine spatial planning. UK. 16 pp. Unpublished.
Country Agencies Interagency Marine Spatial Planning Working Group. 2005.
Natural Heritage/Nature Conservation objectives for a Marine Spatial Planning
(MSP) system.
Courtney, Fara, and Jack Wiggin. 2003. Ocean Zoning for the Gulf of Maine: A
Background Paper. Gulf of Maine Council for the Marine Environment. 33 p.
Cowie-Haskell, B., and J.M. Delaney, 2004. Integrating science into the design
of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. MTS Journal. Vol. 37, no.1. pp. 68-79.
Christensen. N.L., et al. The report of the Ecological Society of America
committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological
Applications. 6: 665-691.
References

74
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Crowder, L.B., G. Osherenko, O.R. Young, S. Airamé, E.A. Norse, N. Baron, J.C. Day,
F. Douvere, C.N. Ehler, B.S. Halpern, S.J. Langdon, K.L. McLeod, J.C. Ogden,
R.E. Peach, A.A. Rosenberg, and J.A. Wilson, 2006. Resolving mismatches in
U.S. ocean governance. Science. 313: 617-618 (4 August 2006).
Day, J.C., 2002. Zoning—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean
& Coastal Management, 45, 139-156.
Day, J.C., 2002. Marine park management and monitoring: lessons for adaptive
management from the Great Barrier Reef. In: S. Bondrup-Nielsen, et al., eds.
Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 14-
19 May 2000. pp. 1258-1282.
Day, J., M. Hockings & G. Jones, 2003. Measuring effectiveness in marine
protected areas—principles and practice. Presented at World Congress on
Aquatic Protected Areas, Cairns, August 2002.
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2002. Safeguarding
Our Seas: a strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our
marine environment. Defra: London, UK. 80 p.
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2007. A Sea
Change: A Marine Bill White Paper. March. Marine Legislation Division.
Defra: London. 176 p.
Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2005. National Marine
Bioregionalization of Australia. National Oceans Office: Hobart, Australia.
145 p.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), 2002. Canada’s Oceans Strategy:
Our Oceans, Our Future. Oceans Directorate: Ottawa, Canada. 30 p.
Douvere, F., and C. Ehler, 2007. New perspectives on ecosystem-based
management: lessons from recent European experiences with marine
spatial planning (submitted for publication).
Douvere, F., et al., 2007. The role of marine spatial planning in sea use
management: the Belgian case. Marine Policy, Vol. 31, March. pp. 182-191.
Dutch Fish Product Board, 2004. Fishing on a square inch. Rijswik: Productschap
Vis. 12 pp.
Ehler, C., et al., 1986. New oceanic and coastal atlases focus on potential EEZ
conflicts. Oceanus. Vol. 29, no. 3. pp. 42-51.
Ehler, C., and D.J. Basta, 1982. Information for assessing the future use of ocean
resources. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 13, no. 6. pp. 186-191.
Ehler, C., and T.-E. Chua, 2006. The ecosystem approach to integrated ocean
and coastal management. In: B. Cicin-Sain, ed., Reports from the Third
Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands: Moving the Global Agenda
Forward. University of Delaware.
Ehler, C., B. Cicin-Sain, and S. Belfiore (eds.), 2004. Incorporating Marine
Protected Areas into Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Principles
and Guidelines. IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas: Gland,
Switzerland. 38 p.
English Nature. 2005. Our coasts and seas - making space for people, industry
and wildlife. Peterborough, UK: English Nature.
European Commission, 2006. EU Marine Strategy. The story behind the strategy.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC. 32 p.
European Commission Maritime Policy Task Force, 2006. Towards a future
maritime policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas.
Maritime Policy Green Paper. J-99 7/12. EC: Brussels. At: http://ec.europa.
eu/maritimeaffairs.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean
Management Plan (2006-2011). Draft for discussion. ESSIM Project Office.
Dartmouth, NS: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 73 pp.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005. The Scotian Shelf: An Atlas of Human
Activities. DFO Maritime Region: Dartmouth, NS. 120 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2003. The
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
Fisheries. Rome: FAO. 112 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2005. Putting
into Practice the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Rome: FAO. 76 p.
von Gadow, Inken, 2006. Report on marine spatial planning. Prepared for the
Maritime Policy Task Force of the European Commission. 36 p. Available at:
http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp
Gee, Kira, et al. 2004. National ICZM strategies in Germany: a spatial planning
approach. In Managing the Baltic Sea (Schernewski, G., and N. Loser, eds.).
Coastline Reports 2. pp. 23-33.
Gilliland, P.M., S. Rogers, J.P. Hamer & Z. Crutchfild, 2004. The practical
implementation of marine spatial planning—understanding and
addressing cumulative effects. Report of a workshop held 4 December
2003, Stansted. English Nature Research Reports. No. 599. Peterborough:
English Nature.
GHK Consulting & S. Wilson, 2004. Potential Benefits of Marine Spatial Planning
to Economic Activity in the UK. Sandy, UK: Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds. 100 pp.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2003. Zoning Plan. GBRMPA:
Townsville, Australia. 211 p.
Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology.
Vol. 8, no.1. March. Pp. 27-38.
Gubbay, S., 2004. Marine Protected Areas in the context of Marine Spatial Planning
– discussing the Links. A report prepared for WWF-UK. 22 pp.
Hall, P., 2002. Urban and Regional Planning (4th edition). London: Routledge. 237 p.
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), 2005. Guidance on
the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Management of Human
Activities in the European Marine Environment. ICES Cooperative Research
Report, Rapport des Recherches Collectives 273, 1-28.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
75
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II, 2007.
Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Summary for Policy Makers. Fourth Assessment Report. Available at http://
www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2004. The Irish Sea Pilot. Report to Defra.
JNCC: Peterborough, UK. 171 p.
Kaiser, Edward J., David R. Godschalk, and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. 1995. Urban Land
Use Planning. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 493. p.
Kenchington, R.A., 1990. Managing Marine Environments. New York: Taylor &
Francis. 247 p.
Kenchington, R.A. and M.T. Agardy. 1990. Achieving marine conservation
through biosphere reserve planning and management. Environmental
Conservation 17(1):39-44.
Laffoley, D., et al, 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: coherent actions for marine
and coastal environments. A report to the UK Government. Peterborough:
English Nature. 65 pp.
Lee, A., and J. Ramster. 1981. Atlas of the Seas Around the British Isles. London: HMSO.
Li, H., 2006. The impacts and implications of the legal framework for sea use
planning and management in China. Ocean & Coastal Management. 49:
717-726.
Lindeboom, H., et al. 2005. Areas with Special Ecological Values on the Dutch
Continental Shelf. The Hague: Rijkswaerstaat. November. 105 p.
McLeod, K,, J. Lubchenco, S.R. Palumbi, and A.A. Rosenburg, 2005. Scientific
Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. COMPASS
(Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea) at http://
compassonline.org/?q=EBME.
Maes, F., et al., 2005. A Flood of Space: toward a spatial structure plan for sustainable
management of the North Sea. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy. 204 p.
Marine Spatial Planning Pilot Consortium, 2006. Marine Spatial Planning
Pilot: toward marine spatial planning and management (Final Report).
Prepared for the UK Department of Environment, Food, and Rural
Affairs (Defra). 105 p.
Marine Spatial Planning Pilot Consortium, 2005. Marine spatial planning project:
literature review. 121 pp.
Meijers, E.M.J., 1986. Defining confusions—confusing definitions. Journal of
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Vol. 7, no. 2. pp. 157-159.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Washington: Island Press. At http://
www.MAweb.org
Myers, R.A., and B. Worm, 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities. Nature 423: 280-283.
National Research Council, 1995. Understanding Marine Biodiversity: a research
agenda for the nation. Washington: National Academy Press. 114 p.
Netherlands North Sea Department, 2005. Integrated Management Plan for the
North Sea, 2015. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Rijkswaterstaat Noordsee. 166 p.
Netherlands 2000. Summary: Making Space, Sharing Space. Fifth National
Policy Document on Spatial Planning 2000/2020. The Netherlands: Ministry
of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Communication
Directorate.
Nolte, N., 2006. Marine spatial planning in the German Exclusive Economic
Zone. Presentation available at: http://ioc3.unescco.org/marinesp
Norse, E.A. (ed.), 1993. Global Marine Biological Diversity: a strategy for building
conservation into decision making. Washington: Island Press. 383 p.
Norse, E.A., 2002. A zoning approach to managing marine ecosystems. In
Improving Regional Ocean Governance in the US (B. Cicin-Sain and C.N. Ehler,
eds.). Newark: University of Delaware. pp. 53-57.
Norse, E.A., and Crowder, L.B. (eds.), 2005. Marine Conservation Biology.
Washington: Island Press. 470 p.
North Sea Conference, 2002. Ministerial Declaration of the Fifth International
Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, Bergen, Norway, 20-21 March
2002.
North Sea Secretariat. 1999. The Nor th Sea: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach
for Sustainable Development. International Conferences on the Protection
of the North Sea. Helsinki: Department of the Environment.
Olsen, O.T., 1883. The Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea, English and St. Georges Channels,
illustrating the fishing ports, boats, gear and species, and other information
concerning fish and fisheries. Taylor and Francis: London, UK. 50 maps.
Orth, R.J., et al. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):
987-996.
Osherenko, G., 2007. New discourses on ocean rights: understanding property
right, the public trust, and ocean governance. Journal of Environmental
Law & Litigation (forthcoming).
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Northeast Atlantic, 2003. Planning the North Sea—a first attempt to
describe the existing spatial control mechanisms. Annex to London
meeting, 8-9 January 2004. 57 p.
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Northeast Atlantic, 2004. Workshop on spatial planning in the North Sea
(SPINS). London, 8-9 January 2004.
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Northeast Atlantic, 2005. Workshop on spatial planning in the North Sea
(SPINS). The Hague, 2-3 February 2005. 5 p.
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Northeast Atlantic, 2003. Legal regulations and legal instruments to achieve
the management objectives in OSPAR marine protected areas. At: http://ioc3.
unesco.org/marinesp
Peel, D., and Lloyd, M.G., 2004. The social re-construction of the marine
environment: toward marine spatial planning. Town Planning Review 75(3).
pp 359-378

76
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Pauly, D., et al., 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863.
Pauly, D., et al., 2005. Chapter 18: marine fisheries systems. In: Conditions and
Trends Assessment Volume of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Island Press: Washington, D.C.
PEMSEA (Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development Programme/
International Maritime Organization Regional Programme for the Prevention and
Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas (MPP-EAS)/ Partnership
in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia), 1999. Water use zoning
for the sustainable development of Batangas Bay, Philippines. MPP-EAS Technical
Report No. 25/PEMSEA Technical Report No. 3, 50 p. Quezon City, Philippines.
People’s Republic of China, 2001. Law on the Management of Sea Area Use.
Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the 9th National
People’s Congress on 27 October 2001.
Pew Oceans Commission, 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Char ting a Course for
Sea Change. Pew Oceans Commission: Arlington, VA.
Randolf, J., 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management.
Washington, DC: Island Press. 664 p.
Richardson, E.A., et al., 2006. Developing Scenarios for a Network of Marine
Protected Areas: building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. Department
for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra): London, UK. June. 69 p.
Roff, J.C., and Taylor, M.E., 2000. National frameworks for marine conservation—
a hierarchical geophysical approach. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems. 10: 209-223.
Ruan, W. and Yu, H., 1999. Design and implementation of marine functional
zoning scheme in Xiamen, China. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Challenges and Opportunities in Managing Pollution
in the East Asian Seas, published by PEMSEA: Quezon City, Philippines,
pp. 341-354.
St. Martin, K., 2001. Making space for community resource management in
fisheries. The Annuals of the American Association of Geographers. 91:
122-142.
St. Martin, K., 2004. GIS in marine fisheries science and decision-making. In:
W.L. Fisher and F.J. Rahel, eds. Geographic Information Systems in Fisheries.
American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD. pp. 237-258.
St. Martin, K., 2005. Mapping economic diversity in the First World: the case of
fisheries. Environment and Planning. 37: 959-79.
St. Martin, K., 2006. The impact of ‘community’ on fisheries management in the
U.S. Northeast. GeoForum 37(2): 169-184.
St. Martin, K., 2007. Charting fishing communities at sea: revealing new
potentials for participation in fisheries science and management.
Submitted to ICES Journal.
St. Martin, K., B.J. McCay, G. Murray, T. Johnson & B. Oles, 2007. Communities,
knowledge, and fisheries of the future. International Journal of Global
Environmental Issues (forthcoming).
Sanchirico, J.N., and J.E. Wilen, 2006. Optimal spatial management of
renewable resources: matching policy scope to ecosystem scale. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management (in press).
Scottish Environment LINK, 2006. Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Bulletin 3,
September.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004. The Ecosystem
Approach (CBD Guidelines). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. 50 pp.
Shepherd, G., 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. vi + 30 pp.
Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold (eds.), 1990. Large Marine Ecosystems:
Patterns, Processes, and Yields. American Association for the Advancement
of Science: Washington, DC.
Sherman, K., 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: research and
management strategy for living marine resources. Ecological Applications.
1:349-360.
Shepherd, G., 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation.
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 30 p.
Slocombe, D.S., 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management.
Bioscience. 43(9): 612-622.
Smith, H., and A. Vallega (eds.). The Development of Integrated Sea Use
Management. Routledge: London. 1991.
Southgate, M. (2003) The plan-led approach. In Earll, R. (ed.) Spatial planning
in the coastal and marine environment: next steps to action. CoastNET
conference 1 October 2003, SOAS, University of London, pp.19-21.
State Oceanic Administration, 1996. China Ocean Agenda 21. China Ocean
Press: Beijing. 193 p.
Sun, S., 2004, Director-General, Sea Area Use Division, State Oceanic
Administration, Briefing on the Sea Use Management System in China
(unpublished).
Symes, D., 2005. Marine Spatial Planning: a fisheries perspective. Report to
English Nature. 35 pp.
TFG International, 2002. Review of the Implementation of [Australian] Ocean
Policy. 32 pp + appendices
Tyldesley, D. 2005. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the Planning
System in England. English Nature Research Report 643, Peterborough:
English Nature.
Tyldesley, D., and B. Hunt, 2004. Review of how the Land Use Planning System could
influence the development of a Marine Spatial Planning System for England.
English Nature Research Report No. 566. Peterborough: English Nature.
David Tyldesley & Associates, 2004. Irish Sea Pilot Project: Coastal and Marine
Spatial Planning Framework. Report to the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee. London: Defra.

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
77
David Tyldesley & Associates, 2004. Making the Case for Marine Spatial Planning
in Scotland. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland and the Royal
Town Planning Institute Scotland. 35 pp.
Underhahl, A., 1980. Integrated marine policy—What? Why? How? Marine
Policy. July. Pp. 159-169.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to the President and
Congress. Washington, DC.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1980. The Gulf of
Mexico Coastal and Ocean Zone Data Atlas. USGPO: Washington, DC. 163
maps + text.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1986. Eastern
United States Coastal and Ocean Zone Data Atlas. NOAA: Rockville, MD. 127
maps + text.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Marine
zoning and coastal zone management. Ecosystem White Paper 4. Silver
Spring, MD: NOAA. 13 p.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2005. Mapping
Human Activity in the Marine Environment: GIS Tools and Participatory
Methods: Workshop Summary. National MPA Center. December 2005. 26 p.
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), WWF-International,
and IUCN, 2005. How Is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social
Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness.
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Vincent, M.A., Atkins, S.M., Lumb, C.M., Golding, N., Lieberknecht, L.M., and Webster,
M., 2004. Marine Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development—the Irish
Sea Pilot. Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Peterborough: UK. Available at www.incc.gov.uk
de Vrees, L., 2006. Spatial management on the (Netherlands part of the) North
Sea. Available at: http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp
Walmsley, J., 2005. Developing objectives and indicators for marine ecosystem-
based management: international review of marine ecosystem-based
management initiatives throughout the world. Oceans and Coastal
Management Report 2005-09. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated
Management (ESSIM) Initiative. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia. 54 p.
Wildlife and Countryside LINK, 2006. Spatial Planning Guidance. London, UK. 19 p.
Wilkinson, C. (ed.), 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. 2 Vols. Australian
Institute of Marine Science: Townsville, Australia. 301 p.
Worm, B., 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services.
Science. 3 November. 314: 787-790.
WWF, 2004. Marine spatial planning: a down to earth view of managing
activities in the marine environment for the benefit of humans and wildlife.
Marine Update, No. 55. Godalming: WWF and Wildlife Trusts.

78
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Workshop
AGENDA
Tuesday, 7 November
1800-2000 Welcome Reception (UNESCO Annex—Millios Bar)
Wednesday, 8 November
0845-0915 Coffee & Croissants
0900-0930 Registration (UNESCO Annex, Bonvin, Conference Room 13)
0930-1000 Welcome (Patricio Bernal & Natjaran Ishwaran, UNESCO) and Introductions
OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP
1000-1030 Session 1: Introduction to the Practice of Marine Spatial Planning and Sea Use Management
(Fanny Douvere & Charles Ehler, Co-Chairs, UNESCO)
1030-1100 Discussion
1100-1130 Coffee
LEGAL ISSUES
1130-1200 Session 2: International Examples of Authorization for Marine Spatial Planning
(Frank Maes, Ghent University, Belgium)
1200-1300 Discussion
1300-1315 Summary of Discussion
1315-1500 Lunch
TECHNICAL ISSUES
1500-1530 Session 3: The Process of Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management and Marine Spatial Planning
(Paul Gilliland, Natural England, and Dan Lafolley, IUCN/WCPA)
1530-1630 Discussion
1630-1700 Coffee
1700-1730 Summary of Discussion
1730-1800 Summary of the Day’s Discussions

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
79
Thursday, 9 November
TECHNICAL ISSUES, cont.
0845-0915 Coffee & Croissants
0930-1030 Session 4: Examples of Good Practice in the Application of Science for Marine Spatial Planning
(Elliott Norse, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, and Larry Crowder, Duke University)
1030-1100 Discussion
1100-1130 Coffee
1130-1200 Session 5: Examples of Good Practice in the Application of New Tools for Marine Spatial Planning
(Kevin St. Martin, Rutgers University)
1200-1300 Discussion
1300-1430 Lunch (on your own)
1430-1500 Summary of Morning Discussions
1500-1530 Session 6: Examples of Good Practice in Implementation of Marine Spatial Planning
(Cathy Plasman, Belgian Ministry of Mobility and North Sea Affairs)
1530-1630 Discussion
1630-1700 Coffee
1700-1730 Summary of Afternoon Discussion
1730-1800 Summary of the Day’s Discussions
2000-2200 Group Dinner (Le Petit Zinc, 11 rue St-Benoit, 6e)
Friday, 10 November
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
0845-0915 Coffee & Croissants
0930-1030 Session 7: Institutional Arrangements for Marine Spatial Planning
( Yves Auffret, European Commission)
1030-1100 Discussion
1100-1130 Coffee
1130-1200 Session 8: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptation
(John Day, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia)
1200-1300 Discussion
1300-1430 Lunch
1430-1500 Summary of Morning Discussions
1500-1520 Session 9: Capacity Building for Marine Spatial Planning
(Antonio Diaz De Leon, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico)
1520-1600 Discussion
1600-1615 Summary of Afternoon Discussion
1615-1630 Coffee
SUMMARY
1630-1645 Summary and Actions from the Day’s Discussions
1645-1730 Summary of Workshop and Next Steps (Ehler & Douvere, Co-Chairs, UNESCO)

80
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Joe Arbour, Regional Manager
Oceans and Coastal Management
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Bedford Institute of Oceanography
PO Box 100
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2
Canada
Tel: 001 902 426 3894
arbourj@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Salvatore Arico, Programme Specialist
Man & the Biosphere Programme
UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 4568 4090
s.arico@unesco.org
Yves Auffret
Maritime Policy Task Force
DG Fisheries & Maritime Affairs
European Commission
99, rue Joseph – II Office 7/11
Brussels 1049
Belgium
Tel: 0032 2 2969135
yves.auffret@cec.eu.int
Brian Baird, Assistant Secretary
Ocean and Coastal Policy
California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
USA
Tel: 001 916 657 0198
brian.baird@resources.ca.gov
Julian Barbiere, Programme Specialist
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 4568 4045
j.barbiere@unesco.org
Mike Beck, Senior Scientist
Global Marine Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
100 Shaffer Road
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
USA
Tel: 001 831 459 1459
mbeck@tnc.org
Kathy Belpaeme, Coordinator
Coordination Centre on ICZM
Wandelaarkaai 7
Ostende 8400
Belgium
Tel: 0032 59 342141
kathy.belpaeme@west-vlaanderen.be
Patricio Bernal, Executive Secretary
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 4568 3983
p.bernal@unesco.org
Janet Brown, Senior Policy Officer
WWF-UK
Panda House, Weyside Park
Godalming GU7 1XR
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 1483 412559
jbrown@wwf.org.uk
Biliana Cicin-Sain, Co-Chair
Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands and
Professor and Director
Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy
University of Delaware
Robinson Hall, room 301
Newark, DE 19716
USA
Tel: 001 302 831 8086
bcs@udel.edu
Andrzej Cieslak, Chief Specialist
Maritime Office in Gdynia
ul. Chrzanowskiego 10
Gdynia 81-338
Poland
Tel: 0048 58 6217525
cieslak@umgdy.gov.pl
Simon Cripps, Director
Global Marine Programme
WWF International
Avenue du Mont-Blanc
Gland CH-1196
Switzerland
Tel: 0041 22 364 9032
scripps@wwfint.org
Larry Crowder, Professor
Marine Biology and Coastal Systems Science
Duke University
135 Duke Marine Lab Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
USA
Tel: 001 252 504 7637
lcrowder@duke.edu
Worshop
PARTICIPANTS

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
81
Jon Day, Director
Conservation, Heritage, & Indigenous Partnerships
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
2-68 Flinders Street
Townsville 4810
Australia
Tel: 0061 7 4750 0803
j.day@gbrmpa.gov.au
Antonio Diaz de Leon, Director-General
Environmental Regional and Sectoral Integration
Policy
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
Mexico City 14210
Mexico
Tel: 0052 55 5628 0749/50
adiazdeleon@semarnat.gob.mx
Fanny Douvere, Consultant
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 4568 3983
f.douvere@unesco.org
Stefania Dritsa, Associate Researcher
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
ENCORA Network
Environmental Planning Laboratory
University of the Aegean
Athens
Greece
Tel:
sdritsa@yahoo.gr
Euan Dunn, Head of Marine Policy
RSPB/BirdLife International
The Lodge, Sandy
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 1767 680 551
euan.dunn@rspb.org.uk
Charles Ehler, Consultant
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 4568 4103
charles.ehler@mac.com
Inken von Gadow-Stephani, Associate
International Max Planck Research School for Mari-
time Affairs
University of Hamburg
Mittelweg 187
20148 Hamburg
Germany
Tel:
inken.stephani@web.de
Paul Gilliland, Marine Policy Advisor
Natural England
Northminster House
Peterborough PE1 1UA
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 1733 455236
paul.gilliland@naturalengland.org.uk
Emily Goodwin, Program Associate
Marine Conservation Initiative
The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
The Presidio of San Francisco, PO Box 29910
San Francisco, CA 94129-0910
USA
Tel: 001 415 561 7593
emily.goodwin@moore.org
Morgan Gopnik, Senior Vice-President Conservation
The Ocean Conservancy
2029 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
USA
Tel: 001 202 249 5609
mgopnik@oceanconservancy.org
Alain Jeudy de Grissac, Technical Advisor
ECMIB Project Eritrea
UNDP/UNOPS – GEF
PO Box 58
Massawa
Eritrea
Tel: 00291 1 55 11 09
alain.jeudy@undp.org
Lynne Hale, Director
Global Marine Initiative
The Nature Conservancy
South Ferry Road, URI Bay Campus
Narragansett, RI 02882
USA
Tel: 001 401 874 6872
lhale@tnc.org
Kimberly Heiman, Ecosystem-based Management
Science Coordinator
COMPASS (Communication Partnership for Science
and Sea)
Department of Zoology
Oregon State University
3029 Cordley Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331
USA
Tel: 001 541 737 9982
heimank@science.oregonstate.edu
Rudy Herman
Flemish Ministry for Science and Innovation
Boudewijnlaan 30
Brussels 1000
Belgium
Tel: 0032 2 553 6001
rudy.herman@ewi.vlaanderen.be
Annie Hillary
International Program Office
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
USA
Tel: 001 301 713-3078
annie.hillary@noaa.gov

82
Visions for a SEA CHANGE –
Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
Natjaran Ishwaran, Director
Ecological and Earth Sciences Division
UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 4568 4067
n.ishwaran@unesco.org
Robert Jara, Division Chief/Programme Coordinator
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dillman
Quezon City 1100
The Philippines
Tel: 00632 926 2693/928 1225
rjara@denr.gov.ph
Dan Laffoley, Vice-Chair (Marine)
World Commission on Protected Areas—IUCN
c/o Natural England
Northminster House
Peterborough PE1 1UA
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 1733 455234
dan.laffoley@naturalengland.org.uk
Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Manager (Indicators)
Flemish Institute for the Sea
Wandelaarkaai 7
Ostende 8400
Belgium
Tel: 0032 59 342146
annkatrien.lescrauwaet@vliz.be
Frank Maes, Director
Maritime Institute
University of Gent
Universiteitstraat 6
Gent 9000
Belgium
Tel: 0032 9 264 6895
frank.maes@ugent.be
Andrus Meiner
Spatial Analysis Group
European Environment Agency
European Union
6 Kongens Nytorv
Copenhagen 1050
Denmark
Tel: 0045 33 36 71 30
andrus.meiner@eea.europa.eu
Karen Morgan, Head
Marine and Coastal Policy
DEFRA
3-8 Whitehall Place
London SW1A 2HH
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 207 270 8637
karen.morgan@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Nico Nolte, Head (Spatial Planning)
Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie
Bernhard-Nocht-Strasse 78
Hamburg D-20359
Germany
Tel: 0049 40 3190 2113
nico.nolte@bsh.de
Elliott Norse, President
Marine Conservation Biology Institute
15806 NE 47th Court
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Tel: 001 425 833 8914
elliott@mcbi.org
Chu Hoi Nguyen, Director
Vietnam Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning
(VIFEP)
Ministry of Fisheries (MoFi)
10 Nguyen Cong Hoan St.
Ha Noi
Viet Nam
Tel: 0084 4 7718451
chuhoi.ifep@mofi.gov.vn
nchoi52@yahoo.com
Stephen Oxley, Assistant Secretary
Marine Conservation Branch
Australia Department of the Environment and Heritage
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Tel: 0061 2 6274 2244
stephen.oxley@deh.gov.au
Emily Pidgeon, Senior Technical Advisor
Regional Marine Strategies
Conservation International
1919 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
USA
Tel: 001 202 912-1315
e.pidgeon@conservation.org
Cathy Plasman, Advisor
Belgian Ministry of Mobility and North Seas Affairs
Brederodestraat 9
Brussels 1000
Belgium
Tel: 0032 2 237 6746
cathy.plasman@mobilit.fgov.be
Kevin St. Martin, Assistant Professor
Department of Geography
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
54 Joyce Kilmer Drive
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8045
USA
Tel: 001 732 445 7394
kstmarti@rci.rutgers.edu
Serge Scory, Head
Belgian Marine Data Centre
Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models
Gulledelle 100
Brussels 1200
Belgium
Tel: 0032 2 7732133
s.scory@mumm.ac.be

Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning
–
Visions for a SEA CHANGE
83
Andy South, Spatial Analyst—Fisheries
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Science
Pakefiled Road
Lowestoft NR33 OHT
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044 1502 513865
andy.south@cefas.co.uk
Virginie Tilot, International Expert
Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle
8, rue des Beaux Arts
75006 Paris
France
Tel: 0033 1 43544623
v.tilot@wanadoo.fr
Ole Vestergaard, Scientific Coordinator
Danish Institute for Fisheries Research
Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries
Charlottenlund Castle
Charlottenlund DK-2920
Denmark
Tel: 0045 33 96 33 00
osv@difres.dk
Leo de Vrees, Watermanager
Rijkswaterstaat North Sea
Ministry of Transport, Publilc Works & Water Mana-
gement
Rijswijk 2280 HV
The Netherlands
Tel: 0031 70 3366609
l.p.m.dvrees@dnz.rws.minvenw.nl
Torsten Wilke
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 143
Leipzig D-04277
Germany
Tel: 0034 1 3097716
torsten.wilke@bfn.de
Qiuliln Zhou, Chief Research Fellow
Third Institute of Oceanography
State Oceanic Administration
No. 178, Daxue R. Siming District
Xiamen 361005
PR China
Tel: 0086 592 219 5286
zhou@public.xm..cn