Managing Competition for Marine Space Using the Tools of Planning

Managing competition for marine space using the tools of planning

Professor Angela D. Hull

School of the Built Environment

Heriot-WattUniversity

Riccarton

Edinburgh

EH13 4AS

Tel: O131 451 4407

Email:
Managing competition for marine space using the tools of planning

Abstract

This article engages with the new and complex problem of managing the competition for marine space and the institutional work of establishing a set of governance structures to converge with existing terrestrial and marine multi-level institutions with their overlapping spatial and sector based priorities. The structures being put in place are designed to anticipate potential conflicts amongst marine users whilst ensuring that the assets owned in common can be sustained for future generations. The article draws on the substantial body of work on the efficacy of terrestrial planning and governance tools and the international literature on marine management, and provides both new empirical material from interviewswith key actors and textual analysis of the concepts in use as the governments in the United Kingdom interpret the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive to balance the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources. Specifically this article reviews the progress towards the spatial management of marine resources and finds there has been considerable collaboration to share datasets and to scope the possible conflicts in marine planning zones but that, in most cases, the difficult work of sharing understanding of these conflicts and partnership working to find resolutions has yet to start.

Introduction

New structures are being put in place to coordinate the planning of marine activities. There are several drivers behind this process. Firstly, the European Parliament adopted an Integrated Maritime Policy (European Parliament, 2007) in 2007 and then issued a Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning (European Commission, 2008) in 2008 to ensure a common approach to maritime economic development amongst Member States. Secondly, the EU issued the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (European Parliament, 2008), which sets a timetable for Member States to achieve and maintain “good environmental status” of EU marine waters by 2020. Thirdly, the growing demands of the “wet” renewables industry for seabed rights and coastal connections have added pressure to an already dynamic, three-dimensional space. In response to these industry pressures and legal requirements, Member States are testing out new management structures to comply with the European Union’s aim to promote the sustainable management of marine and coastal areas and the conservation of marine ecosystems.

This paper compares the emerging formsof marine governance in the United Kingdomusing a sociological institutionalist approach to develop an understanding of the policy drivers and distribution of power embedded in the agenda setting, design of new institutions and decision making procedures (Vigar et al, 2000). Data have principally been sourced from policy documents, from a stakeholder workshop held in Inverness in February 2011 (Johnson et al, 2011) and eleven interviewscarried out in a 14 month period starting from the end of 2009. Rhetorical analysis is employed to tease out the policy intent, the assumptions concerning priorities, the importance of different forms of knowledge and conceptions of whatgood governance of marine space might mean. The findings are compared with published research in other national contexts.

The paper is structured in the following way:Following this introduction, the first section summarises the claims for space by different marine uses and introduces some of the key stakeholders in marine planning, and the second section uses the policy documentation to examine theemerging principles and structures of marine governance in the United Kingdom. Specific attention is given in the second section to governance interventions at the different spatial levels in Scottish marine planning to allow representation of the mainly Scottish interviews that have been undertaken. Where Scottish practice diverges from the rest of the UK this is noted. The third section focuses on the work the marine spatial plan (MSP) purports to achieve and the principles and criteria proposed to resolve place-based conflicts drawing on the work of the pilot MSPs. The final sections discuss the key findingsthat have emerged from the research on how the institutional structures are being shaped, the data requirements, and the engagement and building of trust.

Competition for marine space

The interactions between marine users are becoming more complex as the marine renewable industry prepares for commercial project development of wave and tidal stream machines as well as offshore windfarms.The MSFD and the UK Government’s Marine Policy Statement (HM Government, 2011) refer to the increasing demand for use of the seas and the need to manage these competing demands taking an “eco-system based approach”. As an example of the scale of the claims for space and the possible conflicts of interest, Table 1 shows 30 marine users or sectors identified as having a claim on Scottish marine space. Since the prime policy focus in Scotland is to achieve “sustainable economic growth” (The Scottish Government, 2010)data have been collected to show each sector’s value to the Scottish economy, where possible, using direct turnover, gross value added and infrastructure replacement cost in 2007-08.The data are incomplete and mainly based on estimated economic benefits. (Forum for Renewable Development in Scotland, 2009; Osborne,2010; Saunders et al, 2010). Renewable Energy is expected to grow in value to the Scottish economy as companies take up the substantial government subsidies for marine renewables.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

Many of the sectors in Table 1 already have established rights of use or exploitation of the marine environment set within existing agreements. For example, specific agreements cover commercial fisheries (EU Common Fisheries Policy), navigational channels and routes for shipping (International Maritime Organisation (IMO)),and nature conservation interests (EU Natura 2000 strategy, EU Birds & Habitats Directives, UK legislation) In addition, several sectors such as Aggregates, Aquaculture, Energy developments, Oil and Gas, and Telecommunication cables are regulated through specific UK legislation. There are also ownership rights and authoritative rights to issue licences or to restrict activities. In the UKthe Crown Estate Commissioners own the seabed out to the 12 nautical mile (nm) territorial limit and hold the development rights of 80% of the seabed (territorial waters and the UK Continental Shelf). The Crown Estate also own around half the UK foreshore between the high (HWM) and low water mark (LWM. The remaining seabed and coastal areas are under the authority of the UK and Scottish Governments. The other major player is the Ministry of Defence with the power to regulate sea areas and restrict their use either temporarily or permanentlyby making byelaws under nineteenth century legislation and the LandPowers Defence Act 1958.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

The table shows that the marinegovernance task is complex one involving multiple institutions and stakeholders. The task of developing a common agenda amongst these competing interests in a democratic society involves a huge collaborative effort. Several deficiencies in the existing sector management frameworks are noted in the literature and the interviews:

• They consider activities in “isolation” (Halpern et al, 2008).
• Often they are “piecemeal” or on a small spatial scale covering either individual species or habitats (Scott, 2010; Hull, 2010).
• Management practices are difficult to enforce because of a lack of defined ownership rights and/or lack of compensation procedures and/ or hidden or complex licensing systems (DEFRA, 2011a; Hull, 2010).
• They address the near shore zone (within the 3nm covered by the Water Framework Directive[i]) but not the offshore zone (interview) .
• The dominance of the mental concept of the “open sea” (interview).

The pertinent question is whether a spatial,or multi-sector, management approach to the marine space can deliver a more comprehensive and coordinated management plan that anticipates and resolves conflicts amongst the many potential users of the sea-space according to the principles of securing “sustainable economic growth” and “good environmental status” of national, and European, territorial waters.

Governancetools for Marine Planning

Governance tools encompass legal rules and responsibilities, financial tools, decision making structures and processes, agreed benchmarks and criteria, and guidance. According to Vigar et al (2000) effective governance requires (i) clarity about legal responsibilities and required outcomes; (ii) financial resources aligned with policy goals; (iii) wide participation of stakeholders to give the decision making process authority. Ostrom & Ahn’s (2003) research identifies that decision making structures allocate roles and authority to certain stakeholders. Governance tools, therefore, can be used to cajole as well as to advantage stakeholders.

The MSFD provides clarity to Member States in terms of timeframe and objectives. By 2020, they should have Marine Strategies and other management measures in place to achieve good environmental status in the marine environment. This should include:

• by 2012 an assessment of the state of territorial waters including the characterisation of what “good environmental status” (GES) means and setting targets to achieve this;
• by 2014 the development of monitoring programmes to assess progress towards GES; and
• by 2016 the implementation of programmes developed to achieve GES by 2020.

The MSFD identified broad descriptors of GES for Member States to use as a basis for their more detailed characterisation of GES (HM Governments, 2011: 17). These are listed below in Table 2.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

Member States are implementing the MSFD by establishing an institutional architecture which includes the following governance tools(European Commission, 2005):

• national legislation on marine spatial planning requiring collaboration by key government agencies
• establishment of a dedicated responsible organisation
• joint agreements on marine objectives with neighbouring governments
• a plan-making process
• a system and process of marine spatial management
• implementation, monitoring and data collection activities

Member States that already have the capability to comprehensively manage their marine space, or have few maritime obligations, are using their existing structures to implement the MSFD (European Commission, 2008). Table 3 shows how complex the vertical nested structure for marine governance has become. TheUKmarine governance framework sits within existing international and EU legal directives that set the broad scope of the marine planning agenda by steering attention to certain forms of knowledge and institution. National level actors then interpret and re-interpret the agenda placing particular emphasis on some aspects through setting new requirements within national priorities and through defined action programmes.

The UK Government has enacted the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure common principles for marine spatial planning among the devolved governments of the UK.Whilst Table 3 shows these include the creation of marine plans and powers to designate zones for rare, threatened and representative habitats and species, Scotland has a separate marine management organisation and is setting out its own approach to the streamlining of licence requirements for marine development, and the “modernisation” of enforcement powers. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 is nested within, and integrated with, the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Up to 12 nm (the inshore region) Scotland has a legally separate responsibility for marine management, although this does not include powers over navigation, oil or gas,reserved for the UK government. Marine planning in Scotlandhas to deliver the UK Marine Policy Statement (HM Governments, 2011). In exchange, Scotlandhas executive responsibility for marine planning, including wave and wind power, for fishing and for marine conservation, from 12 out to 200 nm (the offshore region) abiding with international and EU laws (See Table 3).

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

Dominant in the UK governance structure are the two marine management organisations, both of which have taken over the existing Marine and Fisheries responsibilities.The Marine Management Organisation set up in 2010 in Englandand Walesis a stand alone public body responsible for producing the regional marine spatial plans, the lowest level of nested plan-making proposed. Marine regions for planning purposes have been identified for England and Wales, and for Scotland. In contrast, Marine Scotland was established in April 2009 as a Scottish Government directorate and has published a National Marine Plan (2011) consultation document(The Scottish Government, 2011a),as part of the process of gaining consensus on the National Marine Objectives. In Scotland, regional marine spatial management will be presided over by Marine Planning Partnerships composed of a Board appointed by the Scottish Government. On behalf of Marine Scotland, they will oversee the production of the regional marine spatial plans, which will deliver the national priorities for marine space whilst being attuned to the management of specific local issues.

Parallel with the development of these governance processes has been the scientific assessment of the state of the territorial waters required by 2012 MSFD timeline led by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee[ii] (JNCC) and devolved government environmental agencies. The prime work here has been the characterisation of “good environmental status” and agreeing guidelines for the selection of marine protected areas. Known as marine conservations zones (MCZ) in England, Wales and Northern Irelandproposals for a further 127 MCZs have been identified for consideration by the JNCC and the UK government through a regional process of discussion organised through 4 MCZ projects[iii]covering the England and Wales inshore and offshore areas (DEFRA, 2011b). This has been an expert-led process working with representatives of sea user and interest groups from 2009 to 2011. Currently there is an impasse with the JNCC-appointed Scientific Advisory Panel, and several user groups[iv], questioning the scientific evidence base for these recommendations (DEFRA, 2011b; Kelly, 2012; Plymouth Herald, 2012). The government minister for the environment stated that “It is important that we get this right. It is vital that we have an adequate evidence base for every site if we are to create successful well-managed MCZs. An adequately robust evidence base will be essential when we come to implement management measures” (DEFRA, 2011b).

A similar process has been carried out in Scotland through a partnership of government bodies (Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland)in collaboration with Marine Scotland Science and the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The work has focused mainly on specifying new nature marine conservation areas (MCAs) but also identifying demonstration and research, and historic, marine conservation areas for consideration by the Scottish Government. Proposals supported by Scottish Ministers are subject to a 12 week consultation period. Interestingly, the Scottish legislation encourages third parties, and community groups, to submit proposals for MCAs too. Engagement has mainly been organised by Marine Scotland, focussing in 2011 on collecting data, raising awareness and consulting on the processes for selecting MCAs (Marine Scotland, 2011).

Since the marine planning structures are still evolving it is not clear which of the marine objectives will be given primacy e.g. facilitating new development; securing eco-system based management; protecting interests of established rights of exploitation; etc. Central to the effectiveness of regional marine plans will be clear and consistent principles on both process and substantive outcomes that define the sustainability principles and how to measure “good environmental status”.Research by ABP MER (2010) identified four different marine management outcome models which embody different concepts of partnership. In Figure 1 below Model 1 is a ‘top-down’ single marine management plan whilst Model 2 presents a set of nested marine plans that can incorporate local objectives. Models 3 and 4 build on this local dialogue (and consensus) to establish marine activity zones to manage competing activities, which includes in Model 4 the active management of protected areas within the marine plan-making and spatial management processes rather than being a separate government process.The Scottish Government have piloted Models 3 and 4 to test out different management strategies in the Shetlands and the Pentland Firth and Orkney Watersthrough non-statutory marine spatial plans. Institutional tools have allowed an integrated approach to develop in Orkney and Shetland where legislation dating from 1974 has given the local authorities works licensing powers extending over inshore waters allowing them to integrate the landward and seaward connections between activities such as fish farming. The strengths and weaknesses of this bottom-up approach are discussed later in this article.

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

Marine spatial management decision support tools

Marine spatial planning across Europe is using and adapting existing terrestrial planning tools and sustainable developmentconcepts to inform the dimensions/ scope of the conceptualisation of the “sustainable use of the sea”. The terrestrial planning tools include: