Suchergebnisse

NPS NRP Executive Summary ; Report Type: Final Report ; Project Summary: The primary goal of this project was to develop data sets and tools to facilitate coastal marine spatial planning (CMSP) for the U.S. Pacific islands. We have identified and collected over 200 datasets into a comprehensive data portal organized into the sub-regions of American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and Hawaii, and further organized by data categories. We have also developed several types of geographic information systems (GIS) mapping applications in order to help government agencies, stakeholders, and the general public visualize and use the data. We have also documented and organized the datasets in order to facilitate a smooth transition to a final hosting and managing site. We have coordinated and collaborated with the Pacific Islands Regional Planning Body to help in their efforts in CMSP. ; MARFORPAC ; NPS-18-M261-A ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Multiple competing uses of continental-shelf environments have led to a proliferation of marine spatial planning initiatives, together with expert guidance on marine spatial planning. This study provides an empirical review of marine spatial plans, their attributes, and the extent to which the expert guidance is actually being followed. We performed a structured review of 16 existing marine spatial plans and created an idealized marine spatial plan from the steps included in recent expert papers. A cluster analysis of the yes/no answers to 28 questions was used to ordinate the 16 marine spatial plans and to compare them with the idealized plan. All the plans that have been implemented have a high-level government mandate and the authority to implement spatial planning vested in existing institutions. Almost all the plans used data with clear criteria for data inclusion. Stakeholders were included in almost all the plans; they did not participate in all stages of the planning process but their roles were generally clearly defined. Decision-support tools were applied inconsistently across plans and were seldom used dynamically over time. Most spatial planning processes did not select specific outcomes, such as preferred use scenarios. Success is defined inconsistently across plans; in half the cases there are no metrics of success with reference benchmarks. Although monitoring is included in the majority of plans, only in some cases do monitoring results feed back into management decisions. The process of marine spatial planning had advanced in that some of the more recent plans were developed more quickly and contain more desirable attributes than earlier plans. Even so, existing marine spatial plans are heterogeneous—there are essential ingredients, but no single recipe for success.

In this article, I consider marine spatial planning (MSP) as a complex of analyses, calculations, and evaluations aimed to prove feasibility of economic activities and contribute to their development in a certain part of a sea or an ocean. A most likely comprehensive MSP object is an integrated segment of coastal/marine area. Consisting of a marine part and a coastal area, such segments are a product of zoning. In this article, I explore the key MSP stages — from identifying the panning object to evaluating the natural resource potential and performing calculations for relevant aquaterritorial structures. The basic principles of the geographical division of marine geosystems are the following ones: identifying relatively integrated marine sectors and relatively integrated coastal sectors and connecting them into a single whole. A hierarchical approach is key to transboundary marine basins. I propose the following techniques: geographical zoning, identification of an area and basin-specific combinations of natural resources, geoinformation modelling, and forecast analysis for different activities and relevant spatial elements of aquaterritorial structures.

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

The concept of Blue Economy has triggered the coastal states to explore their marine resources from their own maritime boundaries. Bangladesh has to be one step advance in the competition as its land based resources are very limited in comparison to its huge population. It must be very critical for Bangladesh if it does not have a well-planned policy adopted in considering both the economic and environmental aspects. MSP can only be the process for Bangladesh to go ahead for consumption of marine resources without jeopardy to marine environment. The existing national policies, plans and legislations for ocean governance are very scattered in nature which needs to be an integrated and uniform legal stand. The study analysis those legal loopholes and recommends for an effective MSP in the Bay of Bengal.

The importance of stakeholder involvement in marine spatial planning was assessed in a Maltese Marine Protected Area (MPA) through a questionnaire survey of six main stakeholder groups, namely governmental authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), bus and boat trip operators, dive centres and small business owners. The questionnaires revealed the different views of the stakeholder groups based on their interest in the Dwejra MPA, conflicts among users, environmental concerns, and also helped identification of potential management measures. Interests differed among stakeholders, but response rates were highest for questions related to economic and environmental concerns. Two additional existing data sets, one on marine habitat distribution and one on fishing activities in the MPA were included in a spatial analysis of conflicts identified through the questionnaire. A major conflict exists between stakeholders engaged in fishing and diving activities, due to overlap of activity ranges in the relatively small MPA. The number of ongoing activities was highest during the months April to October, which results from the high influx of tourists during the summer months, favourable weather conditions, and the fact that fishers are more active during this period. Environmental NGOs considered the number of tourists visiting the MPA to be too high, and a similar perception was expressed by most stakeholders with regards to the number of divers. Fifteen management measures which may be used to improve regulation of human activities in the area were identified, including the introduction of a visitor fee. This suggestion was favoured by NGOs, government authorities, and most dive centres interviewed, but opposed by bus and boat trip operators, as well as by small business owners. A zonation plan was considered beneficial by most interviewees, with the results of the statistical analyses indicating no significant difference among the responses given by the different stakeholder groups. A comparison between a zonation scheme developed by the Maltese national government, the San Lawrence local council, and the NGO Nature Trust in 2005, and a second draft scheme prepared by the Professional Diving Schools Association, which was presented during the stakeholder interviews carried out as part of the present study in 2014, showed partial overlap of conservation measures. However, the 2005 zonation plan is more comprehensive since it takes into account available data on benthic habitats and includes measures to protect sensitive habitats and species. ; peer-reviewed

Marine spatial planning is a relatively new area of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region — a site of long-term joint efforts towards environmental protection and sustainable development. At the beginning of the 21st century, the integrated management of coastal zones and marine spatial planning emerged as a new area of international cooperation. Despite intensive theoretical work on the mentioned concepts, the development of a harmonised spatial planning in the Baltic Sea region is complicated by the complex nature of the problem, a relatively intensive exploitation of marine resources, diverse interests of the stakeholders, and differences in national institutional systems. We describe the key stages of the process, which is regulated by the EU standards on the one hand and affected by the activity of such organisations as VASAB and HELCOM, on the other. In this article, we examine basic documents defining the principles and scope of marine planning and analyse recent research works into spatial development. We conclude that marine spatial planning is a principal tool of the EU's integrated policy. Many European countries of the Baltic region are seeking cooperation with Russia to preserve the natural and economic environment of the Baltic Sea. Most joint spatial planning projects have been initiated by Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Poland.

There is growing concern that MSP is not facilitating a paradigm shift towards democratic marine management and that it may simply repackage old power dynamics in the rhetoric of participation. MSP has been advanced using the logic of 'rationality' and 'post-political' forms of planning that emphasise consensus and managerial-technological apparatuses for the governance of socio-political natural spaces. MSP has been described as the rational organization of the use of marine space. Rationality is, however, context dependent and the context of rationality is power. MSP processes are, therefore, arenas where specific and multiple instances of power manifests itself. MSP is also an inherently political (sensu Mouffee, 2005) process. Rather than acknowledging debate and dissensus, MSP is advanced as a neutral, participatory process that can develop win-win outcomes. The result is a choreographed form of governance and participation, with clearly defined roles, processes and acceptable outcomes, which renders invisible the politics of disagreement and legitimises the agendas of dominant actors. This chapter argues that to recapture its democratising potential, MSP requires explicit engagement with power and politics.

Bangladesh acquired a large maritime area(1,18,813 km2) which is almost the same as its land area; therefore, this vast marine area provoked Bangladesh to use its maritime resources in a sustainable way called this term "Blue Economy". For implementing "Blue Economy" in the marine area a proper ocean management tool is required; unfortunately, Bangladesh is in the early stage of managing its maritime resources. However, Marine Spatial Planning(MSP) is a very popular multidimensional tool for ocean management. Its integrated approach helps to resolve issues between the ocean users and it can secure ecological, economic and social advantages. There are four prerequisites for implementing MSP; among them, Bangladesh satisfies one; therefore other prerequisites should be satisfied as early as possible. The present legal framework is not enough for implementing MSP in Bangladesh though some legal framework is useful therefore, strong legislative protection and framework and integrated policy along with establishing a special authority for MSP are urgent. Stakeholder engagement in policymaking and arranging ocean literacy and regular meeting for them is badly needed to implement MSP in Bangladesh. Short term and long term monitoring can be implemented for monitoring ecosystem components in Bangladesh's maritime area. Marine Spatial Planning and Blue Economy related previous papers(2011-2020) has been reviewed in this study to give perfect guidelines for policy-makers, researchers and concerned individuals to know about the prospects, challenges and mitigation measures of MSP implementation in Bangladesh. This paper will be an important information hub about MSP in Bangladesh.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is defined as an integrated and comprehensive approach to ocean governance. Planning has the potential to ensure ecosystem and biodiversity conservation and establish rational use of marine space, combining activities relating to extraction industries, maritime transport, fisheries and related services and infrastructure. This article looks at what part transnational and national marine spatial planning can play in the Arctic. There is no international convention on marine spatial planning, and there are no requirements under international law that marine plans, as such, should be prescribed by law. MSP-regulation in different jurisdictions is diversified. It is difficult to claim that the international rights and obligations of a state under UNCLOS, CBD or regional instruments such as OSPAR, need to be fulfilled through the instrument of marine spatial planning. The comprehensive EU approach to marine planning is thus of particular interest. The EU members Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not have coastlines bordering the Arctic. EU has no direct influence over the regulation of marine spatial planning in Arctic marine areas through its relationship to Greenland or Norway, states with a close connection to the EU. The status of marine spatial planning in the European Arctic is thus dependent on the policies of Norway, Greenland and Russia. It is an open question whether spatial planning will be used for preventive and precautionary purposes in the Arctic, before the area is overwhelmed by marine activities and spatial conflicts.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is defined as an integrated and comprehensive approach to ocean governance. Planning has the potential to ensure ecosystem and biodiversity conservation and establish rational use of marine space, combining activities relating to extraction industries, maritime transport, fisheries and related services and infrastructure. This article looks at what part transnational and national marine spatial planning can play in the Arctic. There is no international convention on marine spatial planning, and there are no requirements under international law that marine plans, as such, should be prescribed by law. MSP-regulation in different jurisdictions is diversified. It is difficult to claim that the international rights and obligations of a state under UNCLOS, CBD or regional instruments such as OSPAR, need to be fulfilled through the instrument of marine spatial planning. The comprehensive EU approach to marine planning is thus of particular interest. The EU members Denmark, Finland and Sweden do not have coastlines bordering the Arctic. EU has no direct influence over the regulation of marine spatial planning in Arctic marine areas through its relationship to Greenland or Norway, states with a close connection to the EU. The status of marine spatial planning in the European Arctic is thus dependent on the policies of Norway, Greenland and Russia. It is an open question whether spatial planning will be used for preventive and precautionary purposes in the Arctic, before the area is overwhelmed by marine activities and spatial conflicts. ; publishedVersion