governance baselines as a basis for adaptive marine spatial planning

Governance baselines as a basis for adaptive marinespatial planning

Stephen Bloye Olsen & Erik Olsen & Nicole Schaefer

Received: 11 January 2010 /Revised: 26 January 2011 /Accepted: 8 March 2011 /Published online: 12 April 2011# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract A marine spatial planning (MSP) initiative—if tobe successful—has to be rooted in a thorough understand-ing of the tradition and structures of the governance systemin the area targeted for the initiative. After decades of amainly sectoral approach towards maritime affairs, govern-ments began to recognised the need for a governanceframework that applies a more integrated approach tomaritime policy. The new Integrated Maritime Policy ofthe European Union is only one example for such achanged way of policy and decision making. The assemblyof a governance baseline can help to identify the crucialhindering and success factors for the implementation ofMSP. A governance baseline has two parts. Part Onefocuses upon the past and current performance of thegovernance system as it has responded—or failed torespond—to changes in the condition of ecosystems in aspecific locale. Part Two of a baseline outlines a strategicapproach to the design of a new program and records thegoals, objectives and strategies of MSP implementation.Focus on both governance processes and their outcomes is

essential and forms the core justification for documentinggovernance responses to ecosystem change.

Keywords Marine spatial planning . Ecosystem .

Governance system . Governance baseline . Integration

Maritime spatial planning as an expression of ecosystemgovernance

Ecosystems are places (Ehler 2008) and maritime spatialplanning (MSP) is the process by which ecosystem-basedmanagement is organized to produce desired outcomes inmarine environments (Douvere 2008; Ehler and Douvere2009). Ecosystem based management, in turn, is anapproach to analysis, planning and decision making thatconsiders entire ecosystems, including humans, andevaluates the cumulative impacts of diverse humanactivities. Ecosystem-based management defines its goalas maintaining or restoring an ecosystem in a healthy,productive and resilient condition that provides theservices that humans want and need (McLeod et al.2005). This paper contends that to be successful a MSPinitiative should be rooted in a thorough understanding ofthe traditions and structures of the existing governancesystem in the areas targeted for an MSP initiative. In thispaper we describe how the assembly of a governancebaseline (Olsen et al. 2009) can (1) structure an analysis ofthe existing governance system and thereby inform anMSP planning process; (2) provide an explicit basis for thelong-term practice of adaptive governance that learns fromits experience and responds to changing ecosystemconditions, and (3) provide a structure and formats thatencourage comparative analysis across MSP initiativesand collaborative learning.

S. B. Olsen (*)Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography,University of Rhode Island,Narragansett, RI, USAe-mail: [email protected]

E. OlsenInstitute of Marine Research,PO Box 1870 Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norwaye-mail: [email protected]

N. SchaeferSustainable Ocean Solutions Inc.,65 Capri Avenue NW,Calgary, Alberta, Canadae-mail: [email protected]

J Coast Conserv (2011) 15:313–322DOI 10.1007/s11852-011-0151-6

The term ecosystem governance is used to describe theprocess by which the long term societal and environmentalgoals for a specific place are defined and the processes andstructures are assembled by which to achieve them. Forexample, in 2007 the European Commission adopted anIntegrated Maritime Policy (the “Blue Book”) that sets outan integrated governance framework for maritime affairsthat addresses the maritime dimension of the major issuesfacing Europe’s seas and oceans today, including energysupply and security, climate change, environmental protec-tion and conservation, research and innovation, competi-tiveness and job creation, internal trade, transport andlogistics. This integrating approach makes the MaritimePolicy a vehicle for the practice of the ecosystemgovernance. The Action Plan that accompanied the “BluePaper” highlights the need for a governance framework thatapplies the integrated approach at all levels, and providescross-cutting policy tools. The Commission adopted morespecific guidelines in 2008a, b that underscore theimportance of providing for the active involvement ofstakeholders and coastal communities and the “Roadmapon Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Princi-ples in the EU” that further details the need for stakeholdersto “coordinate their action and optimises the use of marinespace to benefit economic development and the marineenvironment.” The EU Commission sees the desiredoutcome of MSP as the rational and well-balancedallocation of marine space to maritime uses and the marineenvironment. The organization of these EU actions into agovernance baseline, as described in this paper, and theapplication of its standardized markers for assessing boththe processes and the outcomes of the Integrated MarinePolicy would provide an objective basis for evaluating theimpacts of the policy and encourage the practice of alearning-based approach as it reacts to the experiencegained from its implementation.

Governance baselines as a response to the centralchallenges of marine spatial planning

The major questions to be addressed when analyzing thegovernance of maritime space include the following:

& What are the features of the existing governance systemand what are its strengths and weaknesses as theserelate to the desired outcomes of an MSP initiative?

& What are the features in the long-term trajectory ofecosystem change (both its societal and environmentaldimensions) that should be addressed by MSP policiesand the associated plan of action?

& By what processes can planning and policy formulationbe structured to make the participation of interested

parties effective in winning trust and collaborationamong a diversity of stakeholders?

& What are the features of the planning process that aremost critical to the effective implementation of a plan ofaction?

& How can the maritime spatial governance system bedesigned to encourage the incorporation on new knowl-edge and adaptation to changing circumstances?

The assembly of a governance baseline sheds light, andin some cases answers, these questions. Experience showsrepeatedly that the processes of governance do not alwaysproduce the desired outcomes. Thus focus on both processand outcomes of MSP as a practice is essential and formsthe core justification for documenting governanceresponses to ecosystem change. A governance baselineresponds to the identification of such features of MSPpractice as the need to build upon existing practices andtools, the need to address conceptual ambiguities and theneed to recognize the spatial and temporal scales at whichgovernance must operate (Calado et al. 2010).

What is ecosystem governance?

A governance baseline adopts a definition of governance(Juda 1999; Juda and Hennessey 2001; Olsen et al. 2006)that was originally developed to structure the governanceand socio-economic elements of management programs forLarge Maine Ecosystems (LMEs). This definition ofgovernance encompasses the formal and informal arrange-ments, institutions, and mores that structure and influence:

& How resources or an ecosystem are utilized,& How problems and opportunities are evaluated and

analyzed,& What behavior is deemed acceptable or forbidden, and& What rules and sanctions are applied to affect how the

goods and services within an ecosystem are distributedand used.

This definition views governments, civil society andmarkets as the principle sources of the power and influencethat define the fundamental goals of a society and the rulesand procedures by which they are achieved (Fig. 1).Governments hold the primary power and responsibilityover the content of an MSP. However, to varying degreesmarkets and the desires and values of civil society influencethe MSP process and its outcomes. Indeed, in some worldregions the power of governments is overshadowed by thepower of global markets that are the dominant drivers ofboth the process and the outcomes of governance. Thisrealization lies at the root of the importance of stakeholderand public participation in MSP and the need to build

314 S.B. Olsen et al.

constituencies within and outside government for an MSPprocess and the resulting policies and plan.

Central to these definitions is the recognition that gover-nance is not only the prevue of governments. Indeed therelative influence of governments, markets and civil societyvary considerably depending upon the governance traditionsand the institutions by which influence and authority isexercised in a specific place. The mechanisms by which thesethree principles sources of governance express their power aredifferent. Thus governments act through laws, regulations andpolicies and have the authority to forcibly impose theirauthority and punish offenders. But the power and influenceof markets are also considerable and in some settings exceedthose of government in shaping the trajectories of change inan ecosystem. Civil society acts through other mechanismsthat affect markets through the choice of products and shapegovernment through vote casting, lobbying and voicing ideas,priorities and values that may be in opposition to the actions ofmarkets or government. This definition of governance callsattention to the full scope of the web of forces that shape howhuman society makes use of, and alter, ecosystems.

The elements of a governance baseline

A governance baseline has two parts (Olsen et al. 2009). Asshown by Fig. 2, Part One focuses upon the past andcurrent performance of the governance system as it hasresponded—or failed to respond—to changes in thecondition of ecosystems in a specific locale. It placescurrent pressures and threats in the context of long termecosystem change. It assumes that a careful documentationand analysis of the existing governance system providesimportant insights into how best to design a forwardlooking management and governance initiative.

Part Two of a baseline outlines a strategic approach tothe design of a new program and records the goals,objectives and strategies of a MSP program. Thesefundamental features are organized as the issues, long-term goals, near term objectives and the strategies of aMSP program. As described below, once these funda-mentals are defined, sets of standardize graduatedindicators are applied as the initial reference point for aMSP initiative at Time One. Subsequent assessments ofprogress and of how conditions and issues may havechanged are made in reference to this baseline (at TimeTwo, Time Three etc.). This provides for an objectiveand explicit foundation for the practice of adaptivegovernance that responds to its experience and to theevolving conditions in the ecosystems of concern. Thefrequency of such assessments is dependent on manyfactors but annual or tri-annual assessments have provedeffective in many settings.

A governance baseline relies upon two conceptualframeworks for the analysis of the processes and theoutcomes of governance system responses to ecosystemchange. Both frameworks are designed to provide asimplifying visual representation of how complex gover-nance systems evolve over time. Many decades ofexperience in the practice of various forms of coastaland marine ecosystem governance have reinforced that itis critically important to utilize frameworks that can bereadily understood by the diversity of stakeholders thatmust participate in an ecosystem governance initiative.These may span fisherfolk, business people, politicians atthe local and national levels and those working withingovernmental institutions and NGOs. The first frame-work addresses the processes of governance and set forthin an adaptation of the learning cycle the sequence ofactions that trace the development of an MSP initiative

Fig. 1 The principle sources and mechanisms of governance.Adapted from Juda 1999 to Olsen et al. 2006

Fig. 2 Major elements of parts 1 and 2 of a governance baseline.From Olsen et al. 2009

Governance baselines as a basis for adaptive marine 315

from issue definition and goals setting, through prepara-tion of a plan and program, to its formal adoption and onto its implementation. This policy cycle has been widelyused in integrated coastal management (ICM) since itwas put forward by GESAMP (1996) and has beenfurther elaborated and adapted to organize the sequence ofactions for a diversity of initiatives (Brewer 1974; deLeon1999; Olsen et al. 2006) . It has recently been detailed byEhler and Douvere (2009) as the “roadmap” for thepractice of MSP. The policy cycle is useful (Fig. 3)because it can help identify the factors that enable or resistthe successful transition from the assembly and formalapproval of a MSP to the success, or lack of success, in itsimplementation.

The reality for many coastal and maritime managementprograms is that we often see only fragments of uncon-nected cycles. Particularly for integrating forms of man-agement, a governance baseline will reveal a major gapbetween repeated efforts at issue analysis and planning(Steps 1–3) and implementation of a plan or program ofaction (Step 4). Table 1 lists the priority actions associatedwith each step in the cycle. Too often, subsequent initiativesdo not build strategically on a careful assessment of whatcan be learned by earlier attempts to address the same orsimilar issues (Step 5) (Olsen 2003; UNEP/GPA 2006).

Since the processes of governance do not alwaysproduce the desired outcomes, careful attention to theassociated sequence of essential outcomes is critical. Thesecond conceptual framework used to examine MSP asgovernance therefore segregates the advance to thefundamental goals of increasingly sustainable forms of

ecosystem conditions and use into the sequence ofoutcomes shown in Fig. 4 (Olsen 2003; UNEP/GPA2006). This second framework defines the outcomes ofanalysis and planning (steps 1–3 of the management cycle)as the articulation of (1) unambiguous goals that guide thegovernance process and make explicit its purpose and intent,(2) the assembly of the governmental commitment, thenecessary authorities and financing to implement the MSP,(3) the presence of the institutional capacity to implement theplan, and (4) a sufficient base of informed support amongthose who will be affected by the implementation of the MSPto make enforcement of the procedures and rules of the MSPviable. Sets of graduated markers for assessing the presenceand robustness of each of these 1st Order preconditions havebeen developed for linked watershed and coastal areamanagement (UNEP/GPA 2006; Olsen et al. 2009) that canbe adapted for application in baselines for MSP initiatives.Table 2 illustrates the indicators that can be selected to probethe degree to which constituencies are present that supportan MSP initiative as one element of the 1st Order outcomes.

The 2nd Order addresses the changes in human behaviorthat are central to the practice of the ecosystem approachand therefore to the implementation of an MSP. Theseoutcomes are subdivided in changes in the behavior ofinstitutions, changes in the behavior of resource users andchanges in investment. For example, the application of thepolicies, procedures and performance standards as set forthin a MSP to the permitting and installation of a windfarmwould likely produce evidence of all three categories ofbehavioral change. Here too the graduated 2nd Ordermarkers put forward by UNEP/GPA can be adapted to thespecific needs of an MSP as illustrated by Table 3.

The 3rd Order defines the human and environmentalconditions that the MSP is designed to conserve, restoreor generate. Advances towards, and fulfilment of thesegoals are the ultimate basis for evaluating the success ofan MSP program in achieving its state goals for thecondition of the environment and the human activitiesthat are the subject of MSP policies. The definition ofthe 3d Order goals of an MSP program or policy requiresthe careful selection of time bounded and quantitativeindicators that can be monitored over the long term andthat will be the basis for evaluating the degree to whichthe long term societal and environmental goals of anMSP are being achieved.

The Orders framework is proving to be useful because itrecognizes that in complex systems conditions are con-stantly changing and the governance system can onlycontrol, or mitigate some of the forces at work. Bysegregating the outcomes of governance into a sequenceof three Orders, this framework elucidates what combina-tions of actions and forces will be are most effective incontributing to desired outcomes.

Fig. 3 The policy cycle as presented by GESAMP (1996). Comple-tion of the five steps is considered a full generation of an ecosystemgovernance program


Part one of a governance baseline: The existinggovernance context

Part One of a governance baseline (Olsen et al. 2009) is thedocumentation and analysis of how the existing governancesystem has responded historically, and is currently reacting,to ecosystem change in the area of focus. This promotes anintegration of the natural science elements of the planningprocess with the governance dimension.

Thus the first step in the preparation of a governancebaseline is the documentation of long term trends in thecondition of environment, the goods and services itgenerates, in the magnitude and impacts of important formsof human activity, and in variables that trace the associatedconditions in the affected human society. Such a documen-tation of long term trends provides important insights intothe issues that governance should address and a perspectiveon the long term future implications of trends in the

condition of the ecosystem and the human activities that areshaping it. Initial experience in applying these methods in arange of contexts is showing that it is useful to divide thepast into a sequence of eras, each of which is characterizedby prevailing ecosystem conditions, a set of issues (prob-lems and opportunities) of concern to the governancesystem and patterns of behavior in the governance system.This long-term perspective on “how did we get to today’sconditions?” places current issues and current priorities inperspective. Once the patterns of change for such importantvariables as maritime traffic, fish stocks, fishing activity,aggregate mining, bird populations and water quality thetraditions and mechanisms of governance can be assessed byanalyzing in greater detail how the governance system hasresponded—or failed to respond—to past and current expres-sion of change in the ecosystem. This is best accomplished bythe examination of case studies that apply the two conceptualframeworks to analyze both the processes and the outcomes of

Table 1 The essential steps that trace the process of an MSP program by the policy cycle. Adapted from Olsen et al. 2009

Step Indicators 0 = not initiated 1 = underway 2 = completed Progress

0 1 2

Step 1: Issue identification and assessment • Principal environmental, social and institutional issues and their implications assessed

• Major stakeholders and their interests identified

• Issues upon which the MSP initiative will focus its efforts are selected

• Goals of the MSP initiative defined

• Stakeholders actively involved in the assessment and goal setting process

Step 2: Preparation of the plan • Scientific research on selected management questions conducted

• Boundaries of the areas to be managed defined

• Baseline conditions documented

• Action plan and the institutional framework by which it will be implemented defined

• Institutional capacity for implementation developed

• Behavioral change strategies at pilot scales tested

• Stakeholders actively involved in planning and pilot project activities

Step 3: Formal adoption and funding • Policies/plan formally endorsed and authorities necessary for their implementation provided

• Funding required for program implementation obtained

Step 4: Implementation • Behaviors of key partners conforms to the plan

• Societal/ecosystem trends monitored and interpreted

• Investments in necessary physical infrastructure made

• Progress and attainment of goals documented

• Major stakeholder groups sustain participation

• Constituencies, funding and authorities sustained

• Program learning and adaptations documented

Step 5: Self assessment and externalevaluation

• Program outcomes documented

• Management issues reassessed

• Priorities and policies adjusted to reflect experience and changing social/environmentalconditions

• External evaluations conducted at junctures in the program’s evolution

• New issues or areas identified for inclusion in the program


a response to a specific issue raised by change in anecosystem. For example, the preparation of a governancebaseline for the coast and marine waters off Western Regionof Ghana (Olsen et al., 2010) examined the processes and the

outcomes of a recent attempt to promote co-management offisheries and a long-standing and controversial fuel subsidyprogram. Such case studies, when examined from theperspective of the policy cycle to the Orders of Outcomes

Fig. 4 The orders of outcome(adapted from Olsen 2003)

Table 2 Example of graduated indicators for 1st order outcomes: constituencies. From Olsen et al. 2009

Key questions 0 1 2 3 Ranktime 1

Do the user groups whowill be affected by theMSP’s actionsunderstand andsupport its goals,strategies and targets?

many important usergroups are unaware ofthe MSP’s goals,strategies and targets

user groups are aware ofMSP’s goals andtargets but the degreeof support varies

with a few importantexceptions, usergroups understand andsupport the MSP

relevant user groupsunderstand MSP goalsand targets andactively support them

Justification for the ranking:

Is there public supportfor the MSP?

there is little publicawareness of the MSP

public awareness isincipient

public support isbuilding up due topublic educationefforts, positive presscoverage,endorsements fromcommunity leaders

surveys reveal that thereis wide public supportfor the MSP and itsgoals and targets


Do the institutions thatwill assist inimplementing theMSP and/or will beaffected by its actionsunderstand andsupport its agenda?

there is little awarenessof the MSP withininstitutions that will beimportant partnersduring implementation

while pertinentinstitutions are awareof the MSP theirdegree of support isunclear

with few exceptionspertinent institutionsunderstand andsupport the MSP andhave publiclyendorsed it

MSP recognized asimportant andlegitimate byinstitutions that will beinvolved inimplementing plan ofaction



is highly revealing of the current governance system as itplays out at the local, provincial and nations scales.

The application of the both process and outcomesanalysis to case studies of past and current responses ofgovernance in the MSP area provide answers to suchquestions as:

& To what degree are the preconditions for ecosystem-based management present; what are the barriers?

& What priorities and strategies does the governancebaseline suggest when considering how to addresscurrent ecosystem management issues?

& What variables should be monitored as the basis forassessing progress and the adapting the program tofurther shifts in the condition and functioning of theecosystem, changes in the governance system and theprogram’s own learning?

Part One of a governance baseline therefore sets thestage for the strategic design of a new MSP initiative byidentifying the strengths and weaknesses of the existing

system and the reforms that are needed if desired futureconditions are to be achieved.

Part two of a governance baselines; MSP as strategicdesign

Part Two of a governance baseline distils out the mostfundamental features of an MSP design by providingstandardized formats for the identification of the issues tobe addressed by a generation of governance, the long term3d Order goals (see Fig. 4) to which such an initiative isdesigned to contribute, the actions that will be taken tostrength and sustain the 1st Order enabling conditions andthe specific 2nd Order changes in behaviour that will signalthe implementation of a plan of action. A particularemphasis is placed upon the degree to which the 1st Orderenabling conditions are present. Experience in a widediversity of settings suggests (Olsen 2003; UNEP/GPA2006) that the transition to implementation can be antici-

Table 3 Example of graduated 2nd order indicators for changes in the behavior of institutions from Olsen et al. 2009

Key questions 0 1 2 3 Rank time 1

Are the implementinginstitutions collaboratingeffectively to implementthe MSP?

no action to date broad issues identified byproject team; somestakeholder involvement

specific issues identifiedwith stakeholders;prioritization underway

issues have been identifiedand prioritized withstakeholders


Are MSP policies,procedures andregulations beingenforced?

no goals defined goals are being negotiatedwith stakeholders buthave not been formalized

desired long-term goals ad-dress either societal orenvironmental outcomes

goals define both desiredsocietal andenvironmental outcomes


Are conflict mediationmethods being effectivelyapplied?

no investments in conflictresolution

attempts to practice conflictresolution; the results areuneven

methods in place, usuallyapplied effectively

conflict mediation skills arehigh and are consistentlyproducing positive results


Are private-public partner-ships functional and gen-erating desired results?

no private-public partner-ships

some partnerships exist, butnot generating desiredresults

public and private sectorpartners worksuccessfully, and oftengenerate positive results

public-private relationshipsare robust andconsistently generatepositive results


Is the MSP practicingadaptive management?

adaptive management notpracticed

minor attempts to practiceadaptive management arebeing made, but withlimited success

adaptive management hasbrought some significantadjustments to MSP

adaptive management fullyinstitutionalized at allMSP levels


Is support within thepolitical structure at anational level beingmaintained?

political support is weak ornon-existent

political leaders recognizeMSP; public statementsin support are rare

political leadersoccasionally speakfavorably of MSP ingeneral terms

political support is strong,well informed andfrequently expressed


Is an appropriate set ofindicators beingmonitored to documentprogress toward theMSP’s goals and targets?

progress indicators have notbeen selected

few progress indicatorsidentified, but monitoringis uneven

full suite of progressindicators have beenselected, but monitoringis intermittent

full suite of social andenvironmental indicatorshave been selected andare being consistentlymonitored to assessprogress



pated only when all four of the following 1st Orderconditions are present:

& A core group of well informed and supportive constit-uencies actively support the program,

& Sufficient initial capacity is present within the institu-tions responsible for the program to implement itspolicies and plan of action,

& Governmental commitment to the policies of a programhas been expressed by the delegation of the necessaryauthorities and the allocation of the financial resourcesrequired for long-term program implementation, and

& Unambiguous goals that address both societal and theenvironmental conditions have been adopted againstwhich the efforts of the program can be measured.

Part Two of a governance baselines culminates in theselection of the partners that will be play the most centralrole in achieving the program’s objectives and the identi-fication of the variables that will be used to monitor andassess progress.

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission(IOC) recently released a handbook that describes anexpanded and detailed step-by-step approach to marinespatial planning (Ehler and Douvere 2009) that expandsupon the policy cycle as defined by GESAMP (1996) anddescribes in greater detail the planning process set forth inPart Two of a governance baseline. The IOC handbookdetails the actions associated with a ten step planning cyclethat begins with the identification of needs and securing amandate for an MSP process and culminates with adaptinga future generation of planning to new knowledge and theexperience gained in implementing an initial cycle of planimplementation. Neither the GESAMP version of theplanning cycle nor the IOC version imply a cookbookapproach to a complicated task. Such step-by-step guidesare valuable in suggesting the sequence in which a greatdiversity of actions should be taken but in practice theactions associated with more than one step may unfoldsimultaneously. For example, a mandate for an MSPprocess is essential to Step 1 but the specific authoritiesrequired to implement the final version of the plan mayonly be negotiated and assigned as part of the formaladoption of the program that is the essence of Step 3 of theGESAMP cycle (Step 7 in the IOC version). Similarlygoals may be defined in general terms in Step 1 but becomeadopted as specific time bounded and quantifiable targets atthe time of formal adoption. There are, however, differ-ences in emphasis in the Part Two of a baseline and the IOCplanning process. The IOC guide focuses on the sequenceof operational issues needed to develop an MSP (eg.mapping resources, identifying future demands for oceanspace and practical actions for enforcement). A governancebaseline stresses the importance of balancing the complex-

ity of the issues to be addressed against the capacity of theexisting governance system. It places a major emphasis onsetting 3d Order goals that address in specific terms theenvironmental and societal outcomes that define an advanceto more sustainable forms of development and use. Thebaseline methodology is designed to focus strategies onbuilding linkages between the three Orders.

A governance baseline as a foundation for adaptationand learning

Finally, a governance baseline provides a detailed andobjective reference point against which the performance ofa MSP program can be measured and evaluated. Theformats in Part Two call for the identification of the issuesthat are to be addressed by an MSP initiative, an analysis ofhow power and responsibility are allocated among thevarious stakeholders within and without government, andthe explicit statement of the strategies that are selected forachieving desired outcomes. Detailed sets of graduatedindicators have been developed (GPA/UNEP 2006; Olsenet al. 2009) that provide an explicit reference point for asubsequent review of progress and an objective basis fordiscussion of how the context, the issues and the objectivesmay have shifted, and how the policies and procedures ofan MSP program may need to be modified. For example thefive step version of the governance cycle (Fig. 3) identifieswhat are believed to be the most essential actions associatedwith each phase of the planning, implementation andevaluation process. Table 1 traces how the degree to whicheach step and associated actions have been completed canbe documented at the time of baseline preparation.

The policy cycle suggests that the United Kingdom hascompleted at least one generation of MSP as this applies tothe siting and operation of windfarms for specific, relativelysmall areas. Norway has completed two first generationregional MSP plans for the Norwegian EEZs in the Barentssea (Olsen et al. 2007) and Norwegian sea. The Barents Seaplan will be revised in 2010 and then starts on a secondgeneration of the governance cycle while the Norwegiansea plan will be a first-generation plan through 2014 whenit is due for review. The more detailed expansion of thegovernance cycle set forth by the IOC could be readilyorganized into a format similar to the one presented inTable 1 to ease the visualization of progress and identifydifferences in the sequencing of actions and the emphasisplaced on different element when comparing one MSPprogram to another.

Graduated markers have also been developed for each ofthe four essential outcomes associated with the 1st Order andthe three categories of 2nd Order behaviour change that maybe required to achieve full implementation of an MSP


program. For example, the hypothesis of the 1st Order is that athreshold of supportive constituencies, institutional capacity,governmental commitment and unambiguous goals are allrequired as essential preconditions for successful implemen-tation of an MSP program. Table 2 illustrates graduatedmarkers associated with three questions that probe the degreeto which constituencies are present at the time of baselinepreparation and at subsequent assessments.

It is important to underscore that the rating awarded to anindicator is less important than the justification that is givenfor each rating. As experience accumulates and an MSPprogram is periodically evaluated, such notes often demon-strate that the criteria or evidence used to make a judgementon an indicator will appear ill founded at a later date. Suchrealization spur the learning process when the differences inperceptions and new sources of evidence are selected as aprogrammatures. Here again, the standardized formats call fordocumenting such reasoning and judgements in a manner thatprevailing approaches to program evaluation seldom display.

As an MSP program transitions from planning intoimplementation the careful documentation of changes in thebehaviour of the governmental institutions, the business anduser groups that are active within the boundaries of theprogram and the NGOs that have an interest in thecondition and use of the area becomes critically important.Here 2nd Order graduated markers provide methods forassessing the degree to which the objectives of the MSPprogram are being achieved. Table 3 offers seven graduatedindicators for assessing the degree to which the behaviourof institutions is conforming to the outcomes that define theimplementation of an MSP program. Such indicators canand should be tailored to the specific features and needs ofindividual programs.

However, the conceptual framework suggests stronglythat the “big picture” of ecosystem governance andecosystem change as suggested by Fig. 4 (the Orders)should not be lost when such adjustments are made.

When the frameworks and indicators discussed aboveare applied to an MSP program a detailed benchmark iscreated against which future change to both the conditionand uses of a maritime area and the design and functioningof the governance system can be assessed. This provides anobjective basis for the practice of adaptive governance thatresponds thoughtfully and deliberately to new issues, newknowledge and the experience gained from the practice ofthe ecosystem approach in an MSP. When governancebaselines are assembled following common conceptualframeworks, use key terms in a consistent manner, applythe same or similar formats to those illustrated by Tables 1,2 and 3, then the process of comparing across differentapplications of marine spatial planning and management isgreatly enhanced. This encourages collective learning andthe dissemination of good practices.

Central to the assembly of governance baselines is therecognition that the design and functioning of governancesystems are shaped by the context of the issues and thetraditions of planning, decision making in that place. Agovernance baseline identifies the salient characteristics ofthe existing governance system and suggests how theprinciples of the ecosystem approach should be adapted tothose realities in a forward looking MSP.

Conclusions

We contend that MSP is an expression of ecosystemgovernance when it defines the environmental conditionsthat are to be restored or maintained in a specificgeography, the goods and services to be reaped from theecosystem to benefit human society, the intensities ofhuman activity that will be permitted and the rules bywhich it’s both environmental and societal goals are to beachieved. Governance baselines are designed to recognisethat the success of a MSP effort should be judged by theoutcomes of its implementation and the degree to which thelong-term desired societal and environmental conditionswithin the targeted ecosystem are achieved. MSP coversa range of sectors and establishing the authority and theinstitutional capacity to plan and implement an MSP is acrucial topic for a governance baseline at the start of anMSP process. Without a clear mandate and the necessaryauthority and resources to both develop and implementan MSP an initiative will likely fail. A governancebaseline sees as critically important the transition fromissue analysis and planning to the effective implementa-tion of a plan of action. It views planning as the meansby which desired outcomes are achieved. Governancebaselines therefore provide a tool and a method designedto make ecosystem governance an operational reality.The methods encourage a long-term perspective, anappreciation of the roles played by civil society, marketsand government and a holistic, ecosystem-based, ap-proach to coastal stewardship.

References

Brewer GD (1974) The policy sciences emerge: to nurture andstructure a discipline. Policy Sci 5(3)

Calado H, Ng K, Johnson DE, Sousa L, Phillips NR, Alves F (2010)Maritime spatial planning: lessons learned from the Portugueseexperience. Mar Policy 34:1341–1349

Commission of the European Communities (EC) (2008a) Communi-cation from the commission, roadmap for maritime spatialplanning: achieving common principles in the EU, COM 791final: 3

Commission of the European Communities (EC) (2008b) Communi-cation from the commission, roadmap for maritime spatial


planning: achieving common principles in the EU, COM 791final: 9

DeLeon P (1999) The stages approach to the policy process: what hasit done? Where is it going? In: Sabatier P (ed) Theories of policyprocess. Westview Press, Boulder

Douvere F (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancingecosystem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 32:762–771

Ehler C (2008) Conclusions: benefits, lessons learned and futurechallenges of marine soatial planning. Mar Policy 32:840–771

Ehler C, Douvere F (2009) Marine spatial planning: a step-by-stepapproach towards ecosystem based management. InternationalOceanographic Commission, UNESCO, Paris

GESAMP (1996) The contributions of science to integrated coastalmanagement. GESAMP reports and studies no. 61. Rome, Italy

Juda L (1999) Considerations in developing a functional approach tothe governance of large marine ecosystems. Ocean Dev Int Law30:89–125

Juda L, Hennessey T (2001) Governance profiles and the managementand use of large marine ecosystems. Ocean Dev Int Law 32:43–69

McLeod KL, Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Rosenberg AA (2005)Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based

management. Signed by 219 academic scientists and policyexperts with relevant expertise and published by the Communi-cation Partnership for Science and the Sea

Olsen SB (2003) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress inintegrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean Coast Manage46:347–361

Olsen SB, Sutinen JG, Juda L, Hennessey TM, Grigalunas TA (2006)A handbook on governance and socioeconomics of large marineecosystems. Coastal Resources Center, University of RhodeIsland, Narragansett

Olsen E, Gjøsæter H, Røttingen I, Dommasnes A, Fossum P, SandbergP (2007) The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan forthe Barents Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 64(4):599–602

Olsen SB, Page GG, Ochoa E (2009) The analysis of governanceresponses to ecosystem change: a handbook for assembling abaseline. LOICZ reports and studies no. 34. GKSS ResearchCenter, Germany

United Nations Environment Programme/Global Programme ofAction for the Protection of the Marine Environment fromLand-Based Activities 2006 Ecosystem-based management:markers for assessing progress. The Hague, Netherlands: 49


governance baselines as a basis for adaptive marine spatial planning

Documents