· XLS file · Web viewPotentially nested within broader Coral Triangle ... ......

This Global MSP Inventory has been developed by UNEP-WCMC to support the EC 'Study on international best practices in cross-border Maritime Spatial Planning' (Service Contract: EASME/ECFF/2014/1.3.1.8/SI2.717082).

The Global MSP Inventory uses information from the UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative and its associated database of MSP processes.

The worksheets contained in this file are:- Methodology - a description of the approach taken to develop the inventory. This methodology has been extracted from the Final Report. Please see the Final Report for more details.- Inventory - the spreadsheet of MSP processes and information fields- Description of inventory fields - the description and source of information contained within the inventory- Dropdown - the list of pre-selected responses used within the inventory

European CommissionDirectorate-General for Maritime Affairs and FisheriesContact: Valentia MabiliaE-mail: [email protected]

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)Contact: David Sanmiguel EstebanE-mail: [email protected]

This Global MSP Inventory was last updated on 8 May 2017. For further information about the Inventory, please contact the Head of the Marine Programme ([email protected]).

A total of 62 MSP processes and 41 descriptive fields make up the Global MSP inventory

This Global MSP Inventory draws upon the significant amount of information contained within the database of global MSP processes created by the UNEP/GEF-STAP MSP in Practice Initiative (UNEP 2017; UNEP & GEF-STAP 2014), used as a starting point and framework for the development of the required inventory of global (non-European) MSP implementation.

The MSP in Practice Initiative database is the result of an extensive online survey involving over 50 targeted questions and direct follow-up interviews designed to understand the challenges and assess the context-specific enabling factors of MSP, which was defined as ‘any effort that attempts to reconcile development objectives and activities of more than one sector from a spatial perspective in order to deliver a healthy marine environment’ (UNEP 2017) The database contains 79 single self-identified MSP entries and 221 fields of data, together with a further 8 fields of metadata description, making it an excellent source of information from which to identify non-European MSP processes and relevant descriptive data.

In order to ensure a standardised interpretation of MSP, criteria were developed from the EC MSP Directive definition and were applied to MSP processes from the database that were selected for inclusion within the inventory. The criteria identified MSP processes as initiatives that:• aim to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives which contribute to an overarching sustainability goal• apply the ecosystem approach• include multiple (at least two) marine sectors in the planning process• aim to improve coherence between MSP and other processes, such as ICM or multiple use MPAs• involve stakeholders (government and/or private) and/or the public• make use of marine spatial dataThese criteria allow the content of the inventory to align with recognized European MSP practice and frameworks, which in turn underpins the credibility of the inventory and supports useful lesson sharing within Europe and between Europe and elsewhere.

To ensure the most comprehensive inventory was developed for the Project, information on additional MSP processes not found within the MSP in Practice Initiative database were also collated from a variety of sources. The final inventory contains information from the following sources: • UNEP/GEF STAP funded MSP in Practice Initiative (UNEP & GEF-STAP 2014) as described above. A total of 48 MSP processes and 25 fields were imported directly from this database.• WWF global review of MSP (WWF 2014). This study provides an update on the current status of global MSP practices, and. is largely focused on describing the characteristics of MSP processes (inter alia area, budget, sectors included). No new MSP processes were identified from this review but descriptive characteristics were used to enhance the inventory fields.• UNESCO-IOC catalogue , which includes a number of MSP initiatives around the world, as defined by UNESCO-IOC, and a description of their “key elements”. Eight MSP processes were imported from this catalogue and descriptive elements were used to enhance the inventory fields. • A literature review of relevant sources in the academic and practitioner MSP literature. Six new MSP processes were imported as a result of this activity.

Following the compilation of MSP processes into the Inventory, remaining gaps in data (blank data fields) were filled wherever possible through a bespoke search activity of publically available web-based information. Once data integration was completed, the inventory data underwent a verification process to confirm the accuracy of both the original data and any information added subsequently. Where MSP processes were sourced from the MSP in Practice Initiative database, the original data providers were contacted to validate the data. Where new MSP processes were included from other sources (i.e. UNESCO-IOC catalogue or other), suitable representatives from the lead organisation were identified and contacted to verify the information provided as required. Since not all data providers responded to the validation process, a further process of updating the inventory was undertaken by searching the publically available web-based sources of information.

Process ID Region Country Name of MSP process Timing (date of initiation) Year of adoption Spatial scale of process Size of the area (km2) Lead Entity / Entities

MSP_01 Atlantic: North West USA 2010 1 year 3 years 6 months 6 years 2011 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 3,800 km2

MSP_02 Pacific: South West New Zealand Hauraki Gulf/ Seachange 2013 Unknown > 4 years Unknown Not yet implemented 2016 Sub-national (e.g. state, province)

MSP_03 Pacific: South West Australia Bioregional planning in the EEZ 2006 5 years 1 year 2 years 2014 National (e.g. country-wide, island)

Time spent: Preparation (months & years)

Time spent: Plan Development (months & years)

Time spent: Plan Adoption (months & years)

Time spent: Implementation (months & years)

Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP)

Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)

University of Rhode Island

13,900 km2 (area of Hauraki Gulf Marine Park)

The Stakeholder Working Group has developed the Plan through extensive engagement with mana whenua, local communities, and stakeholder groups, gathering science and mātauranga from many sources including technical experts, and considerable contributions from local and central government agencies.

6 years (South-west, North-west, North and Temperate East marine regions plans)

There is currently no plan for the South-east region, only a bioregional profile created in 2015.

6 ,000,000 km2 in total

Five bioregional planning areas: South-west Region (1,300,000 km2); North-west Region (1,000,000 km2);North Region (625,000 km2); Temperate East Region (1,470,000 km2) and the Coral Sea (972,000 km2);South-east Region (1,600,000 km2)

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities (responsible for administering the EPBC Act)

Department of the Environment

Process ID Region Country Name of MSP process Timing (date of initiation) Year of adoption Spatial scale of process Size of the area (km2) Lead Entity / EntitiesTime spent: Preparation (months & years)




MSP_04 Pacific: South West Australia Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 1981 9 months 35 years 1987 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 344,400 km2

MSP_05 Pacific: North East USA Washington State 2012 1 year Not yet occurred Not yet occurred 2017 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 5,200 km2

MSP_06 Pacific: North East 2001 3 years Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Regional (e.g. international transboundary) 2,110,000 km2

MSP_07 Pacific: North East Costa Rica Gulf of Nicoya (MSP Golfos) 2013 7 months 5 months Not yet occurred not yet occurred Not yet occurred Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 2,400 km2

MSP_08 Pacific: South East Argentina 1993 9 month 3 years 5 years 4 years 2015 National (e.g. country-wide, island)

MSP_09 Mediterranean Turkey Kas-Kekova Specially protected Area 2009 2 years 2013 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 260 km2 (land and marine)

MSP_10 Wider Caribbean Dominican Republic Samana Bay 2009 6 months 2 years Not yet occurred not yet occurred Not yet occurred Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 112 km2

MSP_11 Pacific: North East Mexico 2015 5 years In process Not yet occurred not yet occurred not yet occurred Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 500 km2

MSP_12 Pacific: South West Papua New Guinea Kimbe Bay 2004 10 years 2 years n/a >10 years 2006 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 9,800 km2

9 years

5 years (plan revision)

9 years

5 years (plan revision)

Australian and Queensland Governments

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Roughly 3 years - Draft plan completed in Dec 2016

Washington Department of Ecology responsible for coordinating the planning process.

Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Panama

Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR) (Corredor Marino del Pacífico Este Tropical)

The rotating Technical Secretariat is in charge of coordinating the actions between parties, groups, agencies and entities involved in the implementation of the CMAR.

Stakeholders

Local Governments

NGOs

Lead organisation is SINAC (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación)

CMPZ: Coastal and Marine Zone of Patagonia-Argentina (Zona Costero-Marina de la Patagonia Argentina)

53,000 km2 (49 Coastal-marine Protected Areas in the area of intervention: 49 MPA in the CMZP)

Federal Council of EnvironmentFederal Fisheries Council Ministry of Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentProvincial Coastal Authorities (Buenos Aires, RíoNegro, Chubut, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego provinces)

2 years

(10 years lobbying prior)1 year (Plan is only partially approved)

Implementation of only the fishing and diving sectors so far

WWF-Turkey, WWF Mediterranean Program Office, General Directorate for the Protection of Natural Assets

The Nature Conservancy and CEBSE, supported by USAID, David and Lucile Packard Foundation and teams from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), and the Fisheries and aquaculture Councils (CODOPESCA)

Puerto Penasco-Puerto Lobos Biological-Fisheries Corridor Northern Gulf of California, Sonora, Mexico

The National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA) (input from the Group of authorities -composed of representatives of 10 Mexican government institutions with authority over fisheries, the environment and related fields)

The Nature Conservancy, with support from Mahonia Na Dari “Guardians of the Sea”.





MSP_13 Wider Caribbean St Lucia Soufriere Marine Management Area 1992 1 year 1 year 1 year 22 years National (e.g. country-wide, island) 12 km2

MSP_16 Wider Caribbean Belize 2010 2.5 years 2.5 years Ongoing Not yet occurred Not yet occurred National (e.g. country-wide, island)

MSP_17 Persian Gulf 2009 7 years Unknown Unknown Unknown Regional (e.g. international transboundary) Unknown

MSP_18 South China Sea Indonesia Sunda-Banda Seascape 2012 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Local (e.g. bay, county, district) Unknown Organisations / Working groups

MSP_19 Pacific: South East Colombia 1998 1 year 2 years n/a 8 years 2008 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 13,179 km2

MSP_20 Pacific: North East Canada 2011 Unknown 4 years 1 year 2015 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 102,000 km2

MSP_21 Wider Caribbean Puerto Rico Cabo Rojo 2012 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Local (e.g. bay, county, district) Unknown The Nature Conservancy

MSP_22 South China Sea Viet Nam Hon Mun Marine Protected Area 2001 Unknown 1.5 years Unknown 2.5 years 2002 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) Unknown

MSP_23 South China Sea Indonesia Raja Ampat MPA network 2007 Unknown 4 years Unknown Unknown 2012 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 11,859km2 (7 MPAs in the network)

MSP_24 South China Sea Malaysia Semporna Priority Conservation Area 2013 1 year 1 year Not yet occurred Not yet occurred not yet occurred Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 7,680km2

Adopted in 1994

Reviewed and improved in 1997/1998

Government of St Lucia (in collaboration with NGOs)

Spatial planning for the coastal and marine environment of Belize

The coastal area of Belize is comprised of about 386 km of coastline, 3 atolls, 220 km of the world’s second largest barrier reef system and over 300 small mangrove cayes scatteredacross 23,660 km2 of territorial seas

The Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI)

Bahrain; Iraq; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Iran; United Arab Emirates

Marine Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture in the RECOFI region

In 2011, RECOFI adopted a FAO/RECOFI joint working group on aquaculture and a Working Group on Fisheries Management regional spatial planning approach to marine capture fisheries and aquaculture

FAO and Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI)

Unidad Ambiental Costera de la Llanura Aluvial del Sur - UAC LLAS

Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

Marine Planning Partnership (MaPP) for the Canadian Pacific North Coast

<1 year (implementation agreements signed in 2016)

17-Member Coastal First Nations (Haida Gwaii, North Coast, Central Coast, and North Vancouver Island) and the Province of British Columbia (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

2 years (plan completed in 2014)

Local stakeholders

(IUCN was the executing agency for this pilot project)

(project working to establish an MPA authority in Khanh Hoa that will be responsible for the care and development of the MPA)

The Nature Conservancy

(in partnership with Conservation International, University of Queensland and Raja Ampat Government)

Town and Regional Planning Department Sabah (TRPD)

WWF-Malaysia





MSP_25 South China Sea Viet Nam Coastal use zoning plan of Danang city 2000 1 year Unknown Unknown 2005 Local (e.g. bay, county, district)

MSP_26 South China Sea Philippines 2005 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2008 Local (e.g. bay, county, district)

MSP_27 East Asian Seas Viet Nam 2010 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Local (e.g. bay, county, district) Unknown

MSP_28 South China Sea Indonesia 2006 3 years 5 years 2 years 3 years 2012 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 498 km2

MSP_29 Wider Caribbean Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis 2009 18 months 1 year Not yet occurred Not yet occurred Unknown National (e.g. country-wide, island) The Nature Conservancy

MSP_30 South China Sea 2007 2 years 2 years 1 year 8 years Regional (e.g. international transboundary)

MSP_31 South China Sea Thailand Koh Tao, Surathani province 2010 2 years 1 year Unknown 6 years (for first cycle) 2014 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 21 km2

MSP_32 Mozambique Primeiras & Segundas Seascape 2012 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 10,000 km2

MSP_33 Pacific: North West USA Channel Islands Marine Protected Area 1998 Unknown 11 years Unknown 2009 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 3,807 km2

MSP_34 Antarctic Southern Ocean 1975 3 years 2 years 1982 Regional (e.g. international transboundary) 35,716,100 km2

4 years

(Coastal Strategy of Danang release in 2001)

The management boundary encompasses Lien Chieu, Thanh Khe, Hai Chau, Son Tra, Ngu Hanh Son and Hoa Vang districts and coastal water up to a depth of ~50m, along a coastline of approximately 92km.

Danang Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Coastal and Marine Areas within the municipal waters of Bataan

Coastal Land-and Sea-Use Zoning Plan (CLSUZP)

sea and seabed area within the maximum 15km municipal waters limit.

Project Management Office - Bataan Integrated Coastal Management Program

Thua Thien Hue Coastal use zoning plan to 2020, toward 2030

Strategy was approved in 2004

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE)

City of Bontang (East Kalimantan Province), it is a small-sized city

Center for Coastal and Marine Resources Studies, Bogor Agricultural University (CCMRS IPB) working together with Local City Government of Bontang

845 km2 (draft zoning map covers continental shelf area)

260 km2

Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste

The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF)

2009

(Regional Secretariat fully ratified and accepted in 2014)

Approx. 6,000,000 km2 ocean area and 73,000 km2 coral reef

The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) (Convening body)

Department of Marine and Coastal ResourcesPrince of Songkla UniversityKoh Tao Municipality

Indian Ocean: Western

Inter-Ministerial Task Force (Mozambique Government)

2009 (reviewed plan completed in)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Offices of National Marine Sanctuaries

Australia; Argentina; Belgium; Brazil; Chile; People's Rep. of China; European Commission; France; Germany; India; Italy; Japan; Korea, Rep of.; Namibia; New Zealand; Norway; Poland; Russia; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States of America; Uruguay

2 years (adopted in 1980)

35 years(1982-present)

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)





MSP_35 Atlantic: North West USA 2013 2 years 3 years 2 months n/a 2017 Sub-national (e.g. state, province)

MSP_36 Pacific: North East Colombia 2000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Local (e.g. bay, county, district) Unknown Unknown

MSP_37 South China Sea China Xiamen Marine Functional Zoning Plan 2010 1 year 2016 Local (e.g. bay, county, district)

MSP_38 Pacific: North East USA 1992 2 years 1992 National (e.g. country-wide, island) 15,781 km2 NOAA's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

MSP_39 Red Sea and Gulf of Aden 2000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2002 Regional (e.g. international transboundary) Unknown

Mid-Atlantic region of the United States

Territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf off of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body (MidA RPB) is composed of the following member entities: States: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; Federal Agencies: Department of Agriculture (represented by the Natural Resources Conservation Service), Department of Commerce (represented by NOAA), Department of Defense (represented by the US Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Department of Energy (represented by Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy), Department of Homeland Security (represented by USCG), Department of Interior (Represented by BOEM), Departments of Transportation (represented by the Maritime Administration), and the Environmental Protection Agency; The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; and Federally recognized Tribes in the region: Shinnecock Indian Nation and Pamunkey Indian Tribe. The RPB is led by three Co-Leads, which are representatives of Federal entities, States, and Tribes.

Coastal and marine areas of the Republic of Colombia

For the latest plan: 1 year (Nov 2010 - Nov 2011)

The latest plan 5 years (2011-2016) The latest plan was

approved in 2016 390 km2 (the sea area under jurisdiction of the Xiamen City Government)

Marine Management Coordination Committee (MMCC) and Oceans and Fisheries Bureau of Xiamen, Zhangzhou and Quanzhou.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

At least 15-20 years of community activism to help gather interest and work with Congress to establish the Sanctuary

Once the nomination process had been accepted, it took approximately 2 years to complete the rule making process of designation

The 1992 Management Plan was updated in 2008.

The 2008 plan is currently being updated and it is hoped that it will be completed in 2018

Red Sea & Gulf of Aden

Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen

The Regional Organisation for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea & Gulf of Aden (PERSGA)

State Authorities





MSP_40 Atlantic: South West Brazil 2009 2 years 3 years 1 year 4 years 2013 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 44.3 km2

MSP_41 Pacific: South West Pacific Region 1993 Unknown Unknown 5 years for each plan 1993 Regional (e.g. international transboundary) 30,570,000 km2

MSP_42 Wider Caribbean 2006 6 years 18 months In process Not yet occurred Not yet occurred Regional (e.g. international transboundary) 2,000 km2 NGO, Academia, Government partnership

MSP_43 Atlantic: South East Mauritania 2012 Unknown 2 years Unknown National (e.g. country-wide, island) 234,000 km2 (+ 39,000 km2 continental shelf) Unknown

MSP_44 Wider Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda Barbuda Blue Halo Initiative 2013 1 year 1 year n/a 3 years 2014 National (e.g. country-wide, island) Unknown

MSP_45 Pacific: South West Fiji 2005 6 months 6 months 2012 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 261.6 km2

MSP_46 Arctic Canada 2006 3 years Unknown Unknown 6 years 2009 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 1,750,000 km2 Multistakeholder Regional Group

Anhatomirim Environmental Protected Area

EPA Anhatomirim management council (Comprised of 42 institutions)

The area of the Pacific Region as defined by the SPREP agreement including 21 island countries and territories in the Pacific from PNG in the west to French Poly in the east, CNMI in the north to Tonga in the South

5-10 year strategic plans

(previously action plans +strategic programmes)

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)

State Authorities

St Vincent & the Grenadines & Grenada

The transboundary Grenada Bank & Grenadine Islands

The Mauritanian shelf break area lying within the EEZ

Adoption for security only - not yet occurred for biodiversity measures

Not yet occurred for biodiversity measures

Barbuda Council

Waitt Institute

Adaptive Co-management of the Kubulau District Marine Protected Area Network

1 year initial planning

6 months EBM planning4 years (ongoing since 2012 plan adaptation)

Kubulau Resource Management Committee (KRMC)

Kubulau Hierarchy Council

Wildlife Conservation Society Fiji Program

Beaufort Sea Integrated Ocean Management Plan (IOMP)





MSP_47 Atlantic: North West USA Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2008 Unknown 1 year Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 5,549 km2 (state waters of Massachusetts)

MSP_48 Atlantic: North West USA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 1991 Unknown Unknown Unknown Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 9,800 km2

MSP_49 Pacific: North East USA State of Oregon Territorial Sea Plan 2008 3 yrs 1 yr 8 months 3 months 3 years 10 months 2013 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 2,600 km2

MSP_50 Pacific: North East Canada 2010 7 years Unknown n/a 2017 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 102,000 km2

MSP_51 Mediterranean Israel The Israel Marine Plan 2013 Unknown 2 years Not yet occurred Unknown Not yet occurred National (e.g. country-wide, island) 10,000 - 50,000 km2 Technicon - Israel Institute of Technology

MSP_52 Atlantic: North West USA US Northeast Ocean Plan 2011 5 years Unknown Unknown 2016 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) >100,000 km2 Northeast Regional Planning Body (NE RPB)

MSP_53 Pacific: North East USA 2006 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Sub-national (e.g. state, province) Unknown

MSP_54 Atlantic: North West Canada 1998 Unknown 8 years 2006 10 years 2006 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 325,000 km2

Approved in 2009

NOAA approval in 2011 (Massachusetts coastal management program)

Reviewed and updated every 5 years

2009

(2015 for updated plan)Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

26 years (1991-2007)

1997, 2002, 2007, unknown for current review (still ongoing April 2017).

NOAA

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Land conservation and Development Commission

Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Plan (PNCIMA)

6 years of preparatory work prior to planning

PNCIMA Steering committee made up of First Nations, Federal (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)and Provincial government staff.

Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee (IOAC)

1 year

(RPB formed in 2012 to develop plan)

Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan

Pacific Islands Regional Planning Partnership (PROP)

Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Plan

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Maritime Region)





MSP_55 Pacific: South East Ecuador 1997 Unknown 3 years 6 years 10 years Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 138,000 km2

MSP_56 Pacific: North East Colombia Environmental Coastal Unit of Choco 2013 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Sub-national (e.g. state, province) Unknown MarViva

MSP_57 Pacific: North East Panama Gulf of Montijo 2013 7 months 5 months Not yet occurred Not yet occurred Not yet occurred Local (e.g. bay, county, district) MarViva

MSP_58 Wider Caribbean Saba Bank 2007 10 years 1 year Unknown 2013 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 1,800 km2

MSP_59 Seychelles 2014 Unknown 6 years Not yet occurred not yet occurred not yet occurred National (e.g. country-wide, island) 1,374,000 km2

MSP_60 Pacific: North East USA 1999 2 years (2008-2010) 1 year (2010-2011) 5 years 2012 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 27,347 km2

MSP_61 South China Sea Indonesia Lesser Sunda Ecoregion 2013 6 months 2020 Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 700,466 km2

MSP_62 Wider Caribbean Mexico Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve Unknown 2011 National (e.g. country-wide, island)

MSP_63 South China Sea Philippines 1988 1 year 17 years (1999 to date) 2010 Local (e.g. bay, county, district) 970 km2 (marine park)

MSP_64 South China Sea Viet Nam Ha Long Bay (Qunag Ninh province) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Sub-national (e.g. state, province) 434 km2 Ha Long Bay Management Unit

Management Plan for Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Galapagos Marine Reserve

2000

(Latest reviewed plan from 2014)

Ministry of the Environment

(Management of the Galapagos National Park)

Boundaries defined based on pre-existing RAMSAR site boundaries

864 km2 (protectedplanet.net)

Netherlands (Dutch Caribbean)

1 year (plan completed in 2008)

National Government and the Island's governing bodies

Saba Conservation Foundation

Indian Ocean: Western

The Seychelles Marine Spatial Planning Initiative

Seychelles Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate change

MSP Steering Committee (with input from advisory Technical Working Groups)

Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative California

5 years (from 1999 when MLPA established) and including failed attempts to establish plans.

California Fish and Game Commission

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Blue Ribbon Task Force

2 years (expected to finalise in 2017)

1 year (expected adoption in 2018)

2 years (expected implementation in 2020)

Indonesian government in collaboration with the Nature Conservancy - Indonesian Coasts and Oceans Program

8 (uncertainty if years or months)




5,281 km2

(Marine area = 1200 km2)National Protected Areas Agency (CONANP) under the Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAT)

Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park (TRNMP) / Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP)

2 years for park establishment

World Heritage designation unknown

2 years for management plan

Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB)

Process ID

MSP_01

MSP_02

MSP_03

Entity Type Funding Initial planning issue or driver for MSP Primary Goals Objectives / Aims

Local Government

Users/Stakeholders

National Government Approximately AUS$2-4million per year

US$ 7.6 million

US$1,000,000 per year

The major driver for the development of the Ocean SAMP was the determination by the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources in 2007 that investment in offshore wind farms would be necessary to achieve Governor Donald Carcieri’s mandate that offshore wind resources provide 15 percent of the state’s electrical power by 2020.

Facilitate the development of marine infrastructure or other economic initiatives

Maintain or develop local, small-scale or traditional use/s

Conserve or restore the health of marine ecosystem/s

Maximize the overall economic value of the marine ecosystem in a sustainable way

The initial goals of the Ocean SAMP were defined in 2008 as "the formulation of a framework for coordinated decision-making between state and federal management agencies that would: • Streamline the permitting process; • Promote and enhance existing uses; • Encourage marine-based appropriate economic development; and • Restore and maintain the ecological integrity and resilience of the biophysical and socio-economic systems in the Ocean SAMP region".

US$ 1,000,000 - $3,000 000 provided for planning. Funding for implementation not known at present.

Increasing pressures on Hauraki Gulf Marine Park from development, space conflicts among users (e.g. aquaculture, recreational boating, and MPAs) and marine pollution.


To use the Gulf sustainably and maintain its health (reversing decline)

To resolve conflicting demands for resources and space

Described by the outcomes desired:1) Fishing stocks and aquaculture-Transitioning commercial fishing methods that impact benthic habitat out of the Hauraki Gulf.-Reviewing the management settings for priority fish stocks.-13 new areas prioritised for future aquaculture development

2) Biodiversity and habitats restoration initiative-Fifteen new marine protected areas, including no take areas nested within larger, special management areas with fisheries management objectives.-Restoring historic habitats such as green lipped and horse mussel beds.

3) A gulf sediment initiative-Setting and achieving catchment sediment and nutrient load limits for all major catchments to minimise adverse impacts on water quality.-Restoration and creation of major wetland systems to trap sediment before it reaches coastal waters.-Land-based measures to ensure sediment stays on the land where possible to significantly reduce sediment reaching the coast.-Stabilising sediment already in the marine environment.

4) Ahu Mohana Initiative- Novel co-management areas covering the coastline of Tīkapa Moana / Te Moananui-ā-Toi to provide for joint mana whenua and community co-management of local marine areas.

5) Kaitiakitanga/guardianship- Connecting everyone including the next generation and different ethnicities to the marine environment to strengthen kaitiakitanga and guardianship

The need to improve the management of whole ecosystems; improve the way decisions are made particularly in relation to the protection of marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of oceans and their resources by marine-based industries.



•Support strategic, consistent and informed decision-making under Commonwealth environment legislation in relation to Commonwealth marine areas.•Support efficient administration of the EPBC Act to promote the ecologically sustainable use of the marine environment and its resources.•Provide a framework for strategic intervention and investment by government to meet policy objectives and statutory responsibilities.

Process ID

MSP_04

MSP_05

MSP_06

MSP_07

MSP_08

MSP_09

MSP_10

MSP_11

MSP_12


National Government

National Government Over US$6 million in state funds

Regional Organisation Unknown

Users/Stakeholders $1,212,000 (Total External funding)

National Government

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) 400,000 euro for 3 years Conservation of marine biodiversity and fish populations

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) US$ 150,000

National Government US$ 150,000 / year

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) US$ 400,000 High coral reef biodiversity

Resources for managing the Marine Park for the 2015/2016 financial year were $54.351 million, which includes a contribution from the Queensland Government as part of the joint field management program(http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/corporate-information/annual-report/annual-report-2015-16)

Original concerns in 1970s about reef degradation due to phosphate mining and oil and gas exploration on the Great Barrier Reef, overfishing, and anticipated declines in environmental quality.

The 2014 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report highlighted the greatest risks to the Reef as climate change, poor water quality from land-based run-off, impacts from coastal development and some remaining impacts from fishing (including illegal fishing).(http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/cdn/2014/GBRMPA-Outlook-Report-2014/)

To ensure the long-term protection, ecologically sustainable use, understanding and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef for all Australians and the international community through the care and development of the Marine Park with a focus on achieving four goals:• Protect and restore the Reef’s ecosystem health and biodiversity• Safeguard the Reef’s heritage• Ensure ecologically sustainable use and benefits for current and future generations• Reduce cumulative impacts(http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/3034/1/2016-2017-GBRMPA-Corporate-Plan.pdf)

To ensure for the entire GBR World Heritage Area that nature conservation, cultural, heritage values, or scientific values, that are or may be threatened, are addressed by appropriate measures to eliminate threats or reduce them to levels that remove the potential to become threats.

To ensure management for the recovery and continued protection and conservation of species and ecological communities that are, or may become: extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or conservation dependent.

To promote education and knowledge sharing about the Marine park and enable visitors and other users of the Marine park to participate in a range of recreational activities.

To ensure that activities within areas of the Marine Park are managed on the basis of ecologically sustainable use. To provide a basis for managing the uses of a particular area of the Marine Park that may conflict with other uses of the area or with the values of the area. To provide for the management of areas of the Marine Park in conjunction with community groups in circumstances where those groups have a special interest in the areas concerned.

Washington’s Pacific Coast may be adversely affected by increasing pressures on the resources in this 8 area, conflicts among uses, and proposed new uses.

Proposals for renewable energy facilities in 2002 and 2007 ( particularly wave energy) off the Washington Pacific coast, the 2009 National Ocean Plan, and 2010 state legislation on marine planning were the drivers for implementing proactive marine spatial planning (MSP) in these waters.

Ensure that future developments related to marine activities and uses are appropriately sited such that existing activities and new development can successfully coexist, while maintaining a productive, healthy marine ecosystem.

Overarching goal: To ensure a resilient and healthy marine ecosystem on Washington’s coast that supports sustainable economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities for coastal communities, visitors and future generations.

Goal 1: Protect and preserve existing sustainable uses to ensure economic vibrancy and resource access for coastal communities. Objective 1: Protect and preserve healthy existing natural resource based economic activity on the Washington Coast. ‐Goal 2: Maintain maritime coastal communities from now into perpetuity. Objective 2: Sustain diverse traditional uses and experiences to ensure continuity of WA’s coastal identity, culture, and high quality of life

Goal 3: Ensure that our marine ecosystem is preserved for future generations. Objective 3: Foster healthy and resilient marine ecosystem functions, biodiversity and habitats.

Goal 4: Develop an integrated decision making process which supports proactive, adaptive and efficient spatial planning. Objective 4: Develop a locally supported and collaborative process that is coordinated with existing authorities for aligning management decisions.

Goal 5: Encourage economic development that recognizes the aspirations of local communities and protects coastal resources. Objective 5: Enhance sustainable economic opportunities to achieve a resilient economy and improved quality of life.

This area presents major currents that allow the dispersal of planktonic larvae in the sea and demonstrated connectivity between the different MPAs of the countries, where several migrations of organisms of ecological and economic importance occur.



1. Promoting the management and conservation of the biodiversity and coastal-marine resources of the marine corridor, focusing on ecosystems, endemic and endangered species, as well as species with commercial importance.2. Improving the management of the marine protected areas that constitute the CMAR.3. Establishing a regional management of the CMAR, consistent with national laws and policies of the four countries, and under international agreements and conventions.4. Promoting the cooperation and collaborative work between the governments, international agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations, and other stakeholders, in order to facilitate the adequate management of the CMAR.5. Targeting technical and financial cooperation at the national and regional level for the CMAR, based on priorities established for the four countries.6. Encouraging tourism and fishing that contributes to sustainable development in local communities involved with the CMAR.7. Encouraging stakeholder’s participation concerning the CMAR management.

Rapid tourism development, overfishing, inefficient existing regulatory framework, and pollution all threaten the economic livelihood of all residents along the coast.

Facilitate the development of marine Infrastructure or other economic initiatives




From 2013 Interview (MSP in Practice Initiative): The development of port infrastructure, the establishment of MPA, the zoning of tourism and artisanal fisheries will be the main objectives.

US$ 400,000/year (from 3 GEF grants) between 1993 and 2015

Total: US$ 7,000,000 (from GEF since 1993)

Accelerated economic development without infrastructure or coordinated management compromising the long-term biodiversity of marine ecosystems and the sustainable use of natural resources.

Conserve or restore the health of coastal-marine ecosystem/s.

Maximize the overall economic value of the coastal-marine ecosystem in a sustainable way.

Conserve marine and coastal biodiversity in the region and make local activities sustainable.

The main goal of the project is conserving the Argentinean coastal and marine biodiversity of importance on a global scale. The specific goal of the project is developing a framework for an inter-jurisdictional system of marine and coastal protected areas (SIAPCM in Spanish), which is effectively managed and economically sustainable for the conservation and sustainable management of the Argentinean coastal and marine biodiversity. Indicators/ Operational objectives: (A) - Increasing coastal and marine total surface under a protection regime (wider protected habitats for birds and mammals within the coastal and marine zone) (B) - Magellanic Penguin reproductive populations are either stable or increasing in 50% of the existing colonies within the Argentinean MCPAs.(C) - Change in the SIAPCM financial capacity in Argentina after applying the Average Total Score for all the MCPAs included in the list of Financial Sustainability Score (FSS) of UNEP-GEF/STAP (D) - Number of MCPAs provided with sustainable funding in order to cover basic management needs(E) - Incidental catch and wildlife mortality reduction due to improvements of fishing techniques in the pilot MCPAs adjacent area


4 General Objectives: Minimise liquid and solid waste pollution that adversely affect the marine and coastal ecosystem of Kaş - Kekova SPA.

In 5 years, 70% of marine and coastal habitats of Kaş-Kekova SPA is recovered.

Conservation priorities and sustainable development of Kaş-Kekova SPA provide.

Kaş-Kekova SPA is managed in a participatory approach and centralized management unit.

The management plan includes also specific objectives for the 4 general ones listed above.

Site selected as a marine priority site for the country, but is subject to a number of conflicting interests. Stakeholders requested to provide management approach for activities in the bay rather than designating MPAs.




General objective: to demonstrate the effective development, use and deployment of marine zoning tools in Samana Bay.

Specific objectives: 1. Increase the capacity and skill of selected planners and practitioners in the use of marine zoning tools2. Develop a Draft Zoning Scheme for Samana Bay using a participatory approach

Conflict and overfishing resulting from open access to fisheries and lack of management, which threatens primary economic activity and destabilises small communities.



In the Penasco-Lobos Corridor: 1) Sustain biodiversity, fisheries, biological and ecosystem processes2) Ensure the well-being of coastal communities through implementation of spatial-temporal management tools designed and validated through active participation of all stakeholders. *Specific Objectives with timelines are being designed with stakeholders.


Address local marine resource management needs (Green et al 2009)

Marine protected area network objectives are twofold:to conserve marine biodiversity and natural resources of Kimbe Bay in perpetuity, and to address local marine resource management needs.

Conservation targets include the full range of marine biodiversity in the bay, including key habitats and associated flora and fauna.

Process ID

MSP_13

MSP_16

MSP_17

MSP_18

MSP_19

MSP_20

MSP_21

MSP_22

MSP_23

MSP_24


National Government US $200,000 (per year)

National Government

Regional Organisation About US$80,000

National Government Indonesian Rupiah 1,219,000,000 National Government

Local Government Unknown

Local Government

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)

Local Government Total funding for GEF project was US$ 2,173,121

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Representation of ecosystems and protection of species of conservation concern; fisheries sustainability and access to fisheries

Local Government Overfishing and destructive fishing practices

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the multiplicity of uses and growing demand for scarce and fragile resources generated critical impacts and conflicts. The main environmental problems prior to the establishment of the SMMA include:- Degradation of coastal water quality, with direct implications for human health and for the protection of the reef ecosystem;- Depletion of near-shore fish resources;Loss of the economic, scientific and recreational potential of coral reefs, particularly in the context of diving tourism;- Degradation of landscapes and general environment quality, notably on or near beaches, -Pollution generated by solid waste disposal in ravines or directly in the sea;Yacht anchor damage to reefs;Sedimentation of the reefs caused by runoffs from rivers and storm damage




In the case of Saint Lucia the achievement of these goals are not as quantified. They are:

1) To ensure the sustainable use of marine resources for all users - economic livelihoods of fishers, day yachters, dive tourism and local beach users.

2) To meet LBS Protocol water quality standards in 10 years for the different categories of uses.

3) To improve the quality of water in fresh water systems to facilitate the traditional use of rivers for recreation and an alternative supply of water.

4) To meet national biodiversity targets.

5) To reduce the threat of invasive species of fish e.g. the Lion Fish.

6) Restore the health of key reef and sea grass beds.

US$300,000 (very crude estimate for Belize). The total budget for the project is not available since the intervention was done through a collaborative effort with CZMAI and The Natural Capital Project

Anthropogenic threats associated with rapid coastal development and activities associated with tourism and recreational facilities, compounded by natural hazards, global warming and rising sea levels, and the vulnerability of sensitive ecological systems to climate change.

Main driving authority: National Government, CZMAI





The overarching objective that guided the process was that by 2025, Belize will see an improvement in the health of ecosystems (coral, mangroves, and seagrass) that support communities (in terms of delivery of ecosystem services), who in turn will support the proper use and management of the coastal zone. The plan document and regional guidelines go into greater detail on these specific objectives

Regional organisation (RECOFI)

Desirability of introducing spatially based management of fisheries and aquaculture, including procedures, to address the long-term decline in fishery resources and productivity in the RECOFI region.




Sustainable development for marine fisheries and mariculture

The overall objective of our work so far is to promote sustainable fisheries and aquaculture development within an ecosystem approach (i.e. an ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integration of the activity within the wider ecosystem such that it promotes sustainable development, equity, and resilience of interlinked social-ecological systems).



By 2018, Critical marine habitats of 50% of coral reefs, sea grass beds and mangrove forest; 100% sea turtle's major nesting habitat and 30% of major sites for fish spawning and nursery grounds of Sunda Banda seascape are conserved through spatial planning at provincial and district level, and by means of effectively and equitably managed MPAs network.

Local government

Pollution of marine and river waters and a decline in marine ecosystems




Ecosystem approach

To ensure the sustainability of the natural heritage present in the UAC LLAS, so as to guarantee the supply of natural resources and environmental services for future generations

A total of about $10 million over 4 years for the four plans ($8.5 million from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and about $1.5 million of in-kind funding by Province of British Columbia and Coastal First Nations)

Coastal First Nations stewardship responsibilities for marine environment; marine protection; economic opportunities, e.g., aquaculture; emergency response; tenure management of marine space




British Columbia and First Nations are jointly leading the MaPP process, which is intended to generate more operational and localised advice for marine uses. MaPP is focused on the nearshore and foreshore areas of the four sub-regions and will produce spatial (or site specific) guidance for a variety of activities

~$600,000

(http://coralreef.noaa.gov/conservation/resources/fy12_grant_awards.pdf)

Poorly planned coastal development and persistent land based sources of pollution have severely impacted the coastal and marine environments



To maintain and restore functional coastal and marine ecosystems that promotes compatible recreational and commercial uses and ecological integrity through effective management and research.

For example: - Reduce illegal fishing in nursery areas by targeted enforcement.- Establish regulations on take limits and reduce take limits on species of commercial value- Increase compliance with commercial fishing regulations- Protect and Restore Coral Reefs- Develop a New Sustainable Fishery- Increase management of critical areas through establishment of co-management structure between local concession and enforcement

Local government

IUCN recommended Hon Mun as a global priority for marine biodiversity conservation and as Vietnam's national MPA pilot site. It has internationally important coral reef areas with amongst the highest coral biodiversity recorded for mainland Vietnam. Despite the pressure from tourism and illegal fishing Hon Mun retains some of the very few intact reefs in south central Viet Nam. Areas of the proposed Hon Mun MPA that are critical for biodiversity appear to be largely isolated from polluted riverine fresh water current flows from the mainland.




To conserve a representative example of internationally significant and threatened marine biodiversity.

To enable local island communities to improve their livelihoods and, in partnership with other stakeholders, effectively protect and sustainably manage the marine biodiversity at Hon Mun as a model for collaborative MPA management in Viet Nam.

Each MPA 500,000USD/yr (funding from NGO involvement and donor funding - little support from government at present)

The Raja Ampat archipelago’s natural resources face an array of threats:- destructive fishing practices (e.g. dynamite and poison fishing)- overfishing of coastal and pelagic fisheries resources- targeted hunting of vulnerable or protected species (e.g. turtles, sharks, crocodiles)- deforestation, which taxes the region’s resources and thins the region’s ecologically vital stands of vegetation- rapid land development, poor land-use practices, and a surge in oil and gas exploration, which diminish and damage marine environments- future climate change impacts from sea-level rise, increased sea surface temperatures, and ocean acidification

Local communities have substantial control over natural resource management and traditional natural marine resource management practices ('sasi') are still in place. This governance system and the relatively healthy status of the ecosystem create the real possibility of designing and implementing effective marine management strategies.




1 million ringgit

300,000/year Ringgit




Introduce the better marine development planning to the decision maker

To produce “win-win” outcomes both conserving biodiversity and fostering economic activities that are compatible with ocean health.

Process ID

MSP_25

MSP_26

MSP_27

MSP_28

MSP_29

MSP_30

MSP_31

MSP_32

MSP_33

MSP_34



Local Government PhP 1.2million

National Government Unknown Local government


Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) 500,000 USD Unknown To address multiple management objectives under a common framework

Regional Organisation Funding to date is in the range of $ 400 - 500 million.

100,000 USD Degradation of coral reef resources, increase in tourists

National Government Roughly 500,000 USD

National Government Unknown

Regional Organisation Member-led funding Increasing unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean led to the creation of CCAMLR. Conserve or restore the health of marine ecosystem/s

The rapid growth of coastal tourism along the coast resulted in increased solid waste generation, sewage discharges and beach erosion. Public security at swimming beaches and seafood safety were also issues of high concern. Aside from unregulated tourism activities, the two districts in Danang were also used for maritime transport and port operation, fishing and aquaculture, coastal industry and infrastructure, as well as residential development. These activities put additional pressures on the environment and contributed to the degradation of habitats and resources in the two areas. Lack of integrated planning compounded the problems. The limited participation of stakeholders in the consultation process for the implementation of land use and development plans of the City made it difficult to implement regulated and permitted activities in designated areas, resulting in conflicting uses




Reducing multiple use conflicts

General objective: Protect and improve the environmental quality of the coastal and marine environment of Danang; promote rational use of resources while allowing development to proceed, thus ensuring sustainable development and attaining the vision set by the people.

Prevent and mitigate environmental pollution by improving the quality of water, air and soil, particularly in industrial parks, urban areas, hospitals, tourism sites, rivers and estuaries and ports.

Prevent resource degradation in the coastal and marine environment by promoting rational use of resources; protecting and conserving biodiversity as well as cultural and historical values.

Enhance public awareness on natural resource and environmental protection

Build the City's capacity in coastal resource and environment management

Local government and users

Poor planning coupled with uncontrolled human and economic activities have put pressure on, and resulted in significant degradation of the integrity and condition of the coastal and marine ecosystem and environment of Bataan.

Bataan is the pilot area for the coastal use zoning of Manila Bay



Delineate the functional and potential areas/zones of municipal waters of the province (e.g. area intended for mangroves/ traditional fishing/ aquaculture/ industrial/ tourism/sanctuaries and others. Increase fish stocks by 50% by 2020 Increase the mangrove cover by 50 hectares by 2020





Optimise the use of resources in a sustainable way, protect and improve the environmental quality, minimize and mitigate negative impacts of natural disasters, impulse socio-economic development in order to improve and enhance living conditions of local communities.

>75,000USD

~US$ 20,000 / year

Facilitate harmonisation between land and marine area development, including the development of marine economic initiatives and conservation of coastal ecosystems and habitats, integrating terrestrial and marine spatial planning

To achieve integration of land and marine spatial uses in one system, balancing between optimum economic development and conserving natural coastal habitats and ecosystems





Regional organisation (multiple countries).

The discovery that the Coral Triangle was the 'global centre of coral reef diversity', which is home to >600 species of coral (>75% of the global diversity); >3000 species of reef fishes (~40% of global diversity); 6/7 marine turtle species; >30% of the world's coral reef area and the largest extent of mangrove forests in the world; with ~363million people dependent on these resources for their food sources and livelihoods. The CT is threatened by a number of stressors including: overfishing, destructive fishing, watershed-based pollution, coastal development, and rising ocean temperatures.

1. “Priority Seascapes” designated and effectively managed

2. Ecosystem approach to management of fisheries (EAFM) and other marine resources fully applied

3. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) established and effectively managed

4. Climate change adaptation measures achieved

5. Threatened species status improving

1.1 “Priority Seascapes” designated and effectively managed1.2 Marine and coastal resources within all “Priority Seascapes” are being sustainably managed2.1 Strong legislative, policy and regulatory frameworks in place for achieving an ecosystem approach to fisheries management2.2 Improved income, livelihoods and food security in an increasingly significant number of coastal communities across the region through a new sustainable coastal fisheries and poverty reduction initiative “Coastfish”2.3 Effective measures in place to help ensure exploitation of shared tuna stocks is sustainable, with tuna spawning areas and juvenile growth stages adequately protected 2.4 A more effective management and more sustainable trade in live-reef fish and reef-based ornamentals achieved3.1 Region-wide Coral Triangle MPA system (CTMPAS) in place and fully functional 4.1 Region-wide early action plan for climate change adaptation for the near-shore marine and coastal environment and small island ecosystems developed and implemented4.2 Networked national centers of excellence on climate change adaptation for marine and coastal environments are established and in full operation5.1 Improved status of sharks, sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, corals, seagrass, mangroves and other identified threatened species

National GovernmentAcademic InstituteLocal Government



Sustainable coral reef tourism and diving business

Conserve coral reef of Koh Tao

Increasing land use pressures leading to ecosystem degradation and increased pressure on surrounding marine and coastal areas. Development of a management plan to buffer these impacts.


The main objective is to develop a management plan for the Primeiras & Segundas multi-use conservation area, subsequent to the official designation of this area by the Government of Mozambique. Considerations here are that (i) this is the second largest marine protected area in the world; (2) that the zone is currently designated to different, sometimes conflicting purposes, including fisheries, tourism, sand mining, etc., and also has a high conservation value. The marine spatial plan will be based on a through assessment of existing natural capital, to guide decision makers on the best use of the environmental assets, balancing various needs and objectives.

Conserving, protecting, and enhancing the biodiversity, ecological integrity, and cultural legacy of marine resources surrounding the Channel Islands for current and future generations.

CINMS recognizes significant advances in science and technology, innovations in marine resource management techniques, and challenging new resource management issues have emerged and, as such, have rendered the original 1983 management plan obsolete. Thus, the management plan revision process is also a vehicle for the Sanctuary to integrate new tools and practices into site management.



The Channel Islands MPA network is designed to:-Protect and restore habitats and ecosystems;-Provide a refuge for all sea life;-Provide reference areas for research and educational opportunities;-Protect our nation's marine natural heritage for future generations.

Overall aim of CCAMLR: Conservation and rational use of Antarctic marine living resources. Within that aim there are several objectives: maintaining sustainable populations; ensuring a healthy ecosystem; developing a representative network of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean (i.e. in areas beyond national jurisdiction)

Process ID

MSP_35

MSP_36

MSP_37

MSP_38

MSP_39


National Government

Academic Institution col$5.000.000.000.oo Academic Institution

Local Government

National Government US$ 2,000,000

Regional Organisation

Per the Executive Order, Federal agencies are required to participate in the RPB. Participation is optional for States and Tribes. Co-Leads may provide financial support for the administration of the RPB or in-kind support.

In 2009, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (Task Force) was established to develop recommendations for the nation’s first national ocean policy. The recommendations of the Task Force were formally adopted in 2010 through Executive Order 13547, to establish a National Ocean Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. The Executive Order created the National Ocean Council (NOC) to implement the Task Force recommendations and to ensure Federal agency participation in any regional ocean planning processes that the regions elected to pursue.

The goals established through the Framework (Framework goals) are high-level statements of the outcomes that the RPB hopes to achieve. The RPB considers the two goals to be of equal importance and deeply interconnected. The objectives under each goal (Framework objectives) describe specific outcomes and observable changes that contribute to achieving ocean planning goals. They serve as guideposts for the focus and work of the RPB.

The first Framework goal, a Healthy Ocean Ecosystem, is to “promote ocean ecosystem health, functionality, and integrity through conservation, protection, enhancement, and restoration.” The Healthy Ocean Ecosystem goal and related objectives focus on promoting the health of ocean and coastal resources through efforts that improve our understanding of ocean resources and habitats, account for ecosystem changes, consider traditional values and scientific data in regional ocean planning, and foster collaboration across jurisdictions around ocean conservation efforts.

The second Framework goal, Sustainable Ocean Uses, is to “plan and provide for existing and emerging ocean uses in a sustainable manner that minimizes conflicts, improves effectiveness and regulatory predictability, and supports economic growth.” The Sustainable Ocean Uses goal and related objectives focus on fostering coordination, transparency, and use of quality information to support existing, new, and future ocean uses in a manner that minimizes conflict and enhances compatibility.

The RPB has established several objectives under each goal. Under Healthy Ocean Ecosystem, the three objectives are: • Discovering, understanding, protecting, and restoring the ocean ecosystem. • Accounting for ocean ecosystem changes and increased risks.• Valuing Traditional Knowledge. Under Sustainable Ocean Uses the objectives include: • National security. Account for national security interests in the Mid-Atlantic through enhanced coordination, increased transparency, and sharing of information across agencies. • Ocean energy. Facilitate greater collaboration around ocean energy issues in the Mid-Atlantic. • Commercial and recreational fishing. Foster greater understanding of the needs of MidAtlantic fishers and fishing communities in the context of the full range of ocean uses and conservation efforts. • Ocean aquaculture. Inform ocean aquaculture siting and permitting in the Mid-Atlantic through greater coordination among stakeholders and management authorities to address compatibility issues. • Maritime commerce and navigation. Enhance institutional awareness of the impact maritime commerce exerts on the national and Mid-Atlantic economies, and ensure that new and updated maritime commerce and navigational information is available at the local and regional levels for integration into regional ocean planning. • Offshore sand management. Facilitate enhanced coordination among coastal jurisdictions, Federal and State regulatory agencies, and Tribal entities on the use of sand and gravel resources in theMid-Atlantic in the context of coastal adaptation and resilience planning and implementation. • Non-consumptive recreation. Account for the importance of nearshore and offshore non-consumptive recreational uses, and their local and regional economic contributions in the Mid-Atlantic; and in the management of other ocean uses and resources, consider impacts on non-consumptive recreational activities (e.g., surfing, boating, whale watching, birding, diving). • Tribal uses. Recognize and respect the right of Tribal Nations to free, prior, and informed consent while taking into account important Tribal uses and submerged cultural resources in the planning process. • Critical undersea infrastructure. Facilitate greater understanding of the current and potential future location of submerged infrastructure, such as submarine cables (e.g., for communication and electricity) and pipelines




Science: by the year 2025 have completed a basic inventory of biodiversity components of the coastline of the country and have it represented in thematic geovisors.

Conservation: by the year 2016 to have established a Subsystem for the management of a set of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) duplicating the área coverage MPA existing in 2010 and aming to have at least 10% of the total marine jurisdiction of the country declared as areas for conservation of biodiversity.

Risk Management: by the year 2019 to have completed the assessment of vulnerability of the coasts to climate chang and to have a master plan to cope to major threats such as coastal erosion, flooding, fresh water shortages.

Spatial planning: by the year 2019 to have introduced in the development plans of the coastal municipalities chapter of coastal zone integrated management

Funding for planning and management provided through a user charge system

The drivers were sea use conflicts, the deterioration of the marine environment, a range of institutional and sectoral conflicts, and a lack of coordination of legislation and management.

In detail, there were four challenges in the Xiamen Sea Areas uses, including:- the constraint of sea area resources, including spatial resources in particular- more competition in marine industires among cities- conflicts between increasing requirements of ecological demands- ocean exploitation

To promote the sustainable use of marine resources in the Xiamen Sea Areas.

To achieve the maximum marine economic, social and ecological benefits.

To guide the optimization of the marine economic structure of Xiamen City.

To strenghten the protection of the marine ecological environment.

To reserve marine spatial resources for future use.

To restore coastal and ocean ecosystems.

Resource protection, research and monitoring, education and outreach, and public use.



The following process is led by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PMFC) and NOAA Fisheries.

By 2016/17, work within the Pacific Fishery Management Council to establish spatial modifications to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designations that restrict bottom trawl gear by:(a) adding additional area to existing EFH Conservation Areas; (b) proposing new EFH Conservation Areas designations; (c) proposing new designations of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), and;(d) proposing reopening of certain areas from existing EFH Conservation Areas to allow access to key historically bottom trawled areas of economic importance.

A secondary goal is to establish "Voluntary Management Areas" which are non-regulatory areas adopted by fishermen as no bottom trawl zones as a pilot project to be evaluated and monitored by the sanctuary to determine their effectiveness. For more information see proposal:http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/ebmi/130731efh_proposal.pdf

Varies from year to year depending memberships and external funding

Use of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden environments and resources has substantially increased with the development of petroleum-based economies that require sea transport for petroleum exports; the growth of international dive tourism; expansion of national and international fisheries operations; coastal developments; and general population growth in the coastal zone.

MPAs were established in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden to manage human uses, to support sustainable resource usage and economic development, and to conserve representative and significant biodiversity . Although 75 MPAs have been established or recommended for the region, few are managed appropriately. In addition, there were gaps within these MPAs in representation of regionally significant and representative habitats.



• Conservation, protection and management of the Region’s resources and their habitats should be sustainable and ecosystem-based and reflect a holistic understanding of ecosystem structure, processes and interactions;• Resource development and other coastal zone activities should be based on ecologically sound integrated coastal planning and management;• Effective communication and active co-operation among all citizens with an interest in the Region’s coasts and seas, and linkages with groups and programs that share similar objectives are vital to this enterprise;• To mobilise the strength of the private sector to provide efficient and sustainable environmental solutions.• Strategies and actions adopted are robust and flexible in the light of changing priorities, and other uncertainties in both the Region and beyond.

From Paper (see hyperlink):1. To develop regional capacity in all aspects of MPA planning and management2. To provide for the sustainable use of living marine resources3. To support local and national economic and social development4. To involve local communities and stakeholders as partners in MPA management5. To conserve representative and prime examples of the biodiversity of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden6. To conduct research and monitoring programmes for the benefit of MPA management7. To enhance public awareness for the marine resources and biodiversity of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and the principles of sustainable use8. To protect the unique cultural heritage of the marine and coastal environments of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

Process ID

MSP_40

MSP_41

MSP_42

MSP_43

MSP_44

MSP_45

MSP_46


National Government 20,000USD Unknown

Regional Organisation

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) US$ 150,000 Continued environmental degradation of the Grenadine Islands

Public/Private Partnership Seed money of 1,5 Million Euros

Public/Private Partnership Unknown Biodiversity and fisheries conservation Use the ocean sustainably, profitably, and enjoyably, for this and future generations.

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)

National Government



Ensure protection of the porpoise kind Sotalia fluviatilis resident population, their feeding and breeding area, as well as remnants of the Atlantic Rain Forest and water sources of relevant interest for the survival of artisanal fishing communities in the region. (Federal Decree nº 528/1992)

There are more than twenty objectives as: By 2014 - renew management council; By 2014 - regulate and monitor mass tourism (schooners); By 2014 - stablish a Sotalia guianensis monitoring system;By 2014 - stablish a fishery monitoring system;By 2014: signalling the terrestrial and marine unit boundaries;By 2015 - install two agroforestry experiments; By 2015 - qualify the small scale fishery and malacoculture productive chain;By 2015 - regulate and qualify small scale tourism;By 2018 - eradicate pinus elliottis

It varies from year to year- from background operating budgets to the current 500,000 Euro Paciocea project or 8 million 5 year GIZ funder MACBIO project (split between 3 organizations)

Pacific island people depend on their natural environment for their sustenance and livelihoods. These vital resources and ecosystems are under ever-increasing pressure as our islands strive to address their economic aspirations and meet the needs of their growing populations.




Conservation is a major objective as is economic development and sustainable finance for island governments

Addressing local needs for sustainable fisheries now and in the future, as well as tourism potential and current needs

Addressing national goals (10-30% of national waters protected by 2012-2020 depending on country) NBSAP objectives (species conservation etc.)

Sustainable fisheries both in EEZ and in traditional fishing grounds for communities, sustainable livelihoods etc.

To address multiple resource uses in overlapping areas - fishing, deep sea mining and fishing for example.

Fulfilling regional commitments (Pacific Plan, Oceanscapes framework, PIROP)

Fulfilling national commitments to MEAs (CDB, CITES, CMS etc.)




Fishing - Manage Grenada Bank as one area (and harmonized regulations across the entire bank) - Maintain access to landing facilities for fishers - Managed access to baitfish & coastal pelagic fish - Ensure undersized fish are not caught & nursery areas protected - Multi-use zoning areas to include closed areas, open access and other areas where selected gear or access restrictions apply Tourism/Recreation - Healthy coastal and submerged ecosystems, clean water & beaches for swimming, sailing, diving, picnicking, etc. - Adequate areas for swimming and other activities (snorkelling/diving, sailing, wind-surfing/kite-boarding) - Areas designated for future sustainable tourism infrastructure - Areas where development is not allowed - Ample facilities for recreational boating (beach and pier access, moorings) - Free access for all beaches for locals/tourists Transportation / Industrial - Distinct identification and demarcation of ferry and shipping lanes - Marina development plan—identify locations where seaports & marinas may be developed in the future (for both commercial, local & tourism purposes) Conservation - Identify and protect submerged marine resources (critical habitats and species, nursery areas & breeding grounds) - Identify and protect coastal resources (beaches, mangroves, salt-ponds, whelks, oysters, seabird & turtle nesting) - Identify and protect culturally important marine areas - Provide healthy natural resources for everyone - Integrated land and sea management - Build resilience to natural and man-made disastersMariculture - Identify areas of current and potential for mariculture activities - Well managed environmentally sound mariculture industry livelihoods

Discovery of the largest carbonate mud mound formed by cold water corals and a supportive oil and gas sector to put marine biodiversity protection on the political agenda.





To strengthen the necessary research, policy, legislative and financial instruments as well as the capacity of government and civil society stakeholders, in partnership with the oil and gas industry, to improve marine biodiversity protection and social equity.

No operational objectives have been formulated yet. We are in the process of consolidation and doing research on marine ecosystems of the shelf break and establishing and environmental monitoring programme. Potential objectives:

Research objective 1: By 2020 all benthic and pelagic ecosystems of the shelf break are mapped in space and time. Research objective 2: By 2020, environmental norms for micro contamination are developed and ecological indicators comply with these Infrastructure: By 2020, oil and gas is extracted and developed by maintaining the integrity and connectivity of deep sea and coastal ecosystems. Habitat: By 2020, security zones around oil and gas infrastructures are enlarged in the shelf break area and industrial fishing zone to include also biodiversity protection objectives and objectives for poverty alleviation by opening these zones to artisanal fishermen only. Water quality: ecological indicators comply with the environmental norms.



Funding for preparation and development of the original EBM plan came from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Funding to adapt the plan came from a NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program award and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

To date, KRMC’s primary sources of income to implement the plan have been user fees for Namena Marine Reserve and external funding from partner organisations and donors. Partner organisations and community members also make significant in kind contributions, including equipment, time ‐and labour.

In the long term, KRMC aims to make its management ‐activities self sustaining, with little or no reliance on external ‐funding sources. In order to achieve this aim, KRMC and the Coral Reef Alliance(CORAL) have developed the Namena Marine Reserve Business Plan, a five year plan to:1. sustainably grow the Namena Marine Reserve into a renowned tourist destination;2. contribute to the long term sustainable development of ‐Kubulau District; and3. derive economic benefits and develop alternative livelihoods for the people of Kubulau.

The Kubulau chiefs and local community members were concerned about declining fish stocks which they attributed to commercial fishing in their customary fishing grounds.

(1) Maintain or restore marine resources; (2) Maintain ecosystem connectivity and function; (3) Protected and provide good habitats for endemic forest species; (4) Ensure sustainable land management; (5) Protect water catchments; (6) Provide economic opportunities for the people of Kubulau

Management targets are:1. Increase fish abundance and biomass, including food fish and endangered species.2. Increase invertebrate abundance and biomass, including clams and beche de mer.‐ ‐3. Maintain or improve coral reef health, productivity and resilience. 4. Maintain turtle abundance, including green, hawksbill, loggerhead and leatherback turtles.5. Maintain spawning aggregations by protecting spawning sites, including reef channels.

Federal Funding became available in 2006 under a Federal Initiative known as the Oceans Action Plan.

The vision of the IOMP is to keep the ecosystem healthy while creating sustainable economies and communities.

The purpose of the plan is to streamline existing decision making processes and guide and coordinate future activities, as they pertain to development in the Beaufort Sea.

The Plan strives for a fair balance between:• The need for resource development (on and off shore) as a key part of regional and community stability and prosperity;‐ ‐• Commitment to responsible environmental stewardship;• Recognition of environmental changes and their origins both natural occurrences and long cycles of variation, and human activity;‐• Understanding that biophysical, social, cultural and economic impacts can, and often do, have both negative and positive impacts or outcomes; and• The necessary capacity, knowledge (TK, LK and science) and processes to inform and support decision making (which fundamentally requires choices and trade offs be made to ensure both environmental and economic security).‐Six thematic goals:Governance – To achieve effective governance for the sustainable use of the Beaufort Sea.Economic – To foster sustainable economic opportunities and options for Canadians, northerners and coastal communities.Cultural – To maintain and increase peoples’ sense of place and preserve cultural identity and spiritual connections as they relate to oceans and coastal areas.Social – To improve human capacity, health, quality of life and opportunities as they connect to oceans and coastal areas.Traditional and Local Knowledge – To promote the value, credibility and use of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Local Knowledge (LK) to current and future generations.Ecosystem – To understand the Beaufort Sea ecosystem, to identify important areas and priority species and to maintain or enhance ecosystem integrity

Process ID

MSP_47

MSP_48

MSP_49

MSP_50

MSP_51

MSP_52

MSP_53

MSP_54



National Government NOAA

Local Government US$1-5million Offshore renewable energy, particularly wave energy


Academic Institution Unknown

Regional Organisation > $ 5,000,000 for planning

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Unknown Unknown

National Government Average of $272,279/ year (1999 - 2011)

$5-10million (Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation)

Space conflicts among wind farm siting, commercial fishing, marine transport, and concerns about effects of climate change


The goal is to balance conservation of marine wildlife/habitats with compatible economic development (fisheries are not included) in ocean act jurisdictional waters (0.3 to 3 miles off of the coast)

Public outcry over continued pollution, overfishing, physical impacts (i.e. ship groundings), oil drilling proposals, overuse and user conflicts from 1970s-1990s despite designation of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in the 1960s.

Current effort: In response to requests by the public, shifting environmental conditions and threats in the Florida Keys, better scientific information, and legal requirements.

A. To improve the diversity of natural biological communities in the Florida Keys to protect, and, where appropriate restore and enhance natural habitats, populations and ecological processes overall and in each of these sub regions Tortugas; Marquesas; Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys.

B. To facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities.

Current Effort see website for details: http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/review/goals.html

The purpose of the proposed Management Plan is to ensure the sustainable use of the Keys' marine environment by achieving a balance between comprehensive resource protection and multiple, compatible uses of those resources.

The goal of the Sanctuary is to protect the marine resources of the Florida Keys. It also aims to interpret the Florida Keys marine environment for the public and to facilitate human uses of the Sanctuary that are consistent with the primary objective of sanctuary resource protection.

UNESCO: The goal of marine spatial management in the Florida Keys is to protect and preserve sensitive components of the ecosystem, to ensure that areas of high ecological importance evolve naturally with minimal human influence, and to allow human uses only where they are consistent with the primary objective of sanctuary resource protection.

Facilitate the appropriate siting of Marine Renewable Energy in Oregon's Territorial Sea.

To protect the natural resources and human uses existing within the Territorial Sea while allowing for the responsible development of a new industry.

To develop mandatory policies that apply to state and federal agency approvals for the location and operation of ocean-based energy power generation facilities in the Oregon territorial sea

Increase in ocean use and decline in ocean health (PNCIMA has highly diverse ocean ecosystems and supports 30 distinct first nations and coastal communities).

2002 identification of PNCIMA as an important area for ocean planning.

Maintain or develop local, small-scale or traditional use/s;Conserve or restore the health of marine ecosystem/s;Maximize the overall economic value of the marine ecosystem in a sustainable way;

Engage all interested and affected parties in the collaborative development and implementation of an integrated management plan to ensure a healthy, safe and prosperous ocean area

1. Integrity of the marine ecosystems in PNCIMA, primarily with respect to their structure, function and resilience2. Human well-being supported through societal, economic, spiritual and cultural connections to marine ecosystems in PNCIMA3. Collaborative, effective, transparent and integrated governance, management and public engagement4. Improved understanding of complex marine ecosystems and changing marine environments

Increased national attention to the opportunities and threats in the marine space, mainly because of the discovery of large gas reservoirs. Also due to the understanding that initiatives in and around the area will continue to expand, and that it is also necessary to take into account global changes such as climate change, and geological and political developments in the eastern Mediterranean

Need for a more integrated approach; Economic growth concerns; Perceived conflicts among uses, e.g., marine mining v. fishing; Perceived conflicts between uses and nature conservation, e.g., marine protected areas; Marine conservation or biodiversity concerns; New and emerging uses of the marine area, e.g., wind energy, aquaculture; Effects of climate change (e.g., sea-level rise)

The process aims at maximizing a framework and tools for effective management of Israel’s marine space.

1. Improve governance of the marine space2. Advance scientific knowledge and develop information about the marine space and make it accessible3. Protect, conserve and rehabilitate the marine environment4. Develop energy resources in the Marine Space in a wise and cautious manner 5. Develop shipping, ports and sailing in a cautious and sustainable manner6. Develop sustainable interfaces of fishing and mariculture7. Use the marine space as an alternative for land uses in a cautious and sustainable manner8. Incorporate security considerations in the planning and balancedmanagement of the marine space9. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the marine and coastal space10. Establish the status of the sea as a public entity, and develop sustainable uses for the public benefit11. Discover, conserve and enhance the heritage and cultural treasures in the marine space12. Develop the role of the sea as a bridge and an opportunity forinternational cooperation

Growing awareness of significant changes in the ocean environment,combined with incoming proposals for new ocean activities, made it clear that a renewed focus on coordinated ocean management was warranted.

Healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems;

Effective decision-making;

Compatibility among past, current, and future ocean uses

Healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems:• Characterize the region’s ecosystem, economy, and cultural resources.• Identify and support existing non-regulatory opportunities to work toward conserving, restoring, and maintaining healthy ecosystems.• Produce a regional ocean science plan that prioritizes ocean science and data needs for the region for the next five years.Effective decision-making:• Coordinate existing federal and state decision-making processes.• Implement specific actions to enhance public input in decision-making.• Incorporate maps and other products into agency decision-making processes.• Improve respect for the customs and traditions of indigenous peoples in decision-making processes.• Improve coordination with local communities in decision-making processes.Compatibility among past, current, and future ocean uses:• Increase understanding of past, current, and future interactions among ocean uses and the ocean and coastal ecosystem.• Ensure that regional issues are incorporated in ongoing efforts to assess new and existing human activities.

Increasing pressure placed on Hawaii's ocean and coastal resources by economic growth and activities of the population, including increased urbanization, tourism, recreation, and commercial uses.

Connecting land and sea:- Improve coastal water quality by reducing land-based sources of pollution and restoring natural habitats- Protect beaches, wetlands and coastal communities from shoreline erosion and other coastal hazards- Improve and ensure maintenance and appropriate use of environmental infrastructurePreserving Our Ocean Heritage:- Improve coastal water quality by reducing marine sources of pollution - Improve the health of coastal and ocean resources for sustainable traditional, subsistence, recreational and commercial uses- Enhance public access and appropriate coastal dependent uses of the shoreline- Promote appropriate and responsible ocean recreation and tourism that provide culturally informed and environmentally sustainable uses for visitors and residents- Encourage cutting edge and appropriate ocean science and technology with safeguards for ocean resource protection Promoting Collaboration and Stewardship:- Apply integrated and place-bases approaches to the management of natural and cultural resources-Institutionalise integrated natural and cultural resources management

Increasing levels of use and competition for ocean space and resources - and growing concern around human pressures on the marine environment.

Collaborative governance and integrated management

Sustainable human use

Healthy Ecosystems

Three main goals: Collaborative governance and integrated managementSustainable human useHealthy Ecosystems

Process ID

MSP_55

MSP_56

MSP_57

MSP_58

MSP_59

MSP_60

MSP_61

MSP_62

MSP_63

MSP_64



Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) US$380,000 conflict between artisanal fisheries and industrial fisheries The reduction in the conflict between artisanal fisheries and industrial fisheries was the main objective.

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Increasing pressure on coastal habitats and populations

National Government

National Government

Public/Private Partnership Individual estimates of funding for each regional plan. National development and the need for sustainable resource use Designation of an ecologically representative network of MPAs in California

National Government Approximately US$ 200,000/year

Regional Organisation 1,300,000 MXN

Local Government

Local Government Unknown Unknown Unknown

The need to protect and sustainably use marine and coastal environments and their natural resources to continue supporting local communities, whilst also facilitating economic opportunities in the area.

Protect and conserve the marine-coastal ecosystems of the archipelago and its biological diversity for the benefit of humanity, local populations, science and education.

(A) Protect and conserve the marine and coastal ecosystems of Galapagos to maintain the evolutionary and ecological processes in the long term.B) Complement the protection of terrestrial environments with components of the marine and coastal ecosystems of the Galapagos and the communities and protected species of fauna and flora which depend on the marine environment for their survival.(C) Protect marine and coastal species that are important because they are endemic, vulnerable and for their genetic, ecological, intrinsic.(D) Ensure maintenance and preservation, or in certain cases, the recovery of stocks that have great commercial importance for fishing.(E) Facilitate Galápagos fishermen to maintain and improve their basic social and economic security by ensuring completion of fishing activities that are compatible with biodiversity.(F) To preserve Galapagos marine and coastal ecosystems as the basis for tourism activity by controlling, preventing and mitigating environmental impacts caused by it.(G) Provide and promote scientific activities in order to increase the understanding of marine biodiversity, sites and species exploited, and the ecological impacts caused by human activities.H) Provide and promote scientific and cultural education on marine and coastal nature.I) Implement an adaptive and participatory management system of the Marine Reserve, by means of which monitoring data can be used with the objective of being able to modify the management according to new information or socio-economic and environmental situations.J) To create and strengthen permanent structures and financing through the PNG for the operation of the Participatory Management Board of the Galapagos Marine Reserve.(K) Ensure the preservation and maintenance of the scenic values of the marine and coastal ecosystems of Galapagos.L) Establish basic scientific and technical requirements to ensure the environmental protection and conservation of natural resources in Marine Reserve and its sustainable development.



US$120,000

US$ 80,000/year




No implementation yet, but we are aiming at regulation by zoning of transportation uses (maritime traffic), small scale and industrial fishing, tourism activities and infrastructure development.

130000 (unknown currency) from Foundation for Development of the Netherlands Antilles (SONA).

Reports of decreasing fish stocks, destructive fishing activities of foreign vessels, anchoring of oil tankers and tank cleaning, has raised concerns about the environmental state of the Bank.




• Protect and maintain the biological diversity and other natural values of the area for long term use,• Promote sound fisheries management practices for sustainable purposes• Avoid conflicts between different users (e.g. shipping, fisheries)• Protect the natural resource base from being altered by anchorage of shipping vessels or traffic that would be detrimental to the area’s biological diversity.

Value Unknown - funding provided through a number of grants to Government of Seychelles and an Oceans 5 grant awarded to TNC.

TNC mobilised an US$80 million debt-swap for the government of Seychelles in exchange for its commitment to enhance marine conservation and climate adaptation commitments.

The Seychelles’ is a global biodiversity hotspot - biodiversity is one of the country’s most important assets and it supports several major economic sectors, including fisheries and tourism. Geological studies indicate that there may be valuable petroleum reservoirs in Seychelles and renewable energy potentials exist near the coast and offshore. Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a practical, transparent and participatory way to plan for the sustainable use of the Seychelles’ marine space and to balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment.


Develop and implement an integrated marine plan to optimise the sustainable use and effective management of the Seychelles marine environment while ensuring and improving the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of its people.

To create the Indian Ocean's second largest marine reserve, where some 200,000km2 of Seychelles' territorial waters would be classified as replenishment zones to protect important tuna feeding grounds and therefore the tuna industry.

Redesign California’s existing system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to increase its coherence and effectiveness for protecting the state’s marine life, habitats, and ecosystems

Recognition that the Lesser Sunda Ecoregion could become a refuge for marine life and productive fisheries amid global climate change. Additionally, the deep-sea habitats offer unique opportunities for local communities e.g. nature-based tourism.

Resource management issues i.e. destructive fishing, overfishing and illegal harvesting of cetaceans and turtles, disposal of mine tailings in the ocean, land-based pollution, species entanglement and ship strikes.

Facilitate the development of marine Infrastructure or other economic initiatives for food security and sustainable tourism




By 2020, the government of Indonesia will adopt and use marine spatial planning to promote economic investment and conservation in support of sustainable development within the Lesser Sunda Ecoregion.

The undesired effects of uncontrolled development led to the creation of a nature reserve.

Regional organisation (multiple countries)



Enhance site management capacity for using tourism to support conservation

Build local awareness of and support for conservation efforts

Fees collected from dive tourists are the main source of income - ave. US$122,000/yr from 2014-2016

Destructive fishing and abuse of natural environment and its resources (seabird and turtle egg collection) throughout the 1980s.

To preserve the outstanding universal value of Tubbataha and to manage it in a sustainable basis

Biodiversity conservation





Process ID

MSP_01

MSP_02

MSP_03

Final or expected outcome Legal basis Governance Mechanisms Government support Planning Tools

No

No

Yes

Previous MSP Process?

Comments on previous process

Contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to global climate change; facilitate coordination mechanisms between state and federal agencies and the people of Rhode Island; Encourage marine-based economic development that considers the aspirations of local communities.

The Rhode Island General Assembly mandates the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore the coastal resources of the state for this and succeeding generations through comprehensive and coordinated long range planning and management designed to produce the maximum benefit for society from these coastal resources; and that the preservation and restoration of ecological systems shall be the primary guiding principle upon which environmental alteration of coastal resources will be measured, judged and regulated [R.I.G.L. § 46-23-1(a)(2)]. To more effectively carry out its mandate, the CRMC has established use categories for all of the state’s waters out to three nautical miles from shore. The Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Program (RICRMP) is approved as part of the national Coastal Zone Management Program under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et. seq.

Was in place prior to process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)

Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)

Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

Put in place to support the process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)



There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP

Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP

Financial resources have been allocated to all stages of MSP

Clearly defined responsibilities have been given to authorities for MSP planning and implementation

Optimisation or network tools User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments

The CRMC is responsible for implementing the State’s coastal management programme and plays a key role in planning and managing the State’s marine and coastal areas, and coordinating the different agencies in what affects these areas. The SAMP process had been used in several occasions to manage specific resources, but no comprehensive marine plan had been previously produced.

Securing the Hauraki Gulf as a healthy, productive and sustainable resource for all users, now and in the future.

The Marine Spatial Plan will improve the health, mauri (life force and vitality), and abundance of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park by:• Restoring depleted fish stocks and restoring benthic (sea floor) habitats that support healthy fisheries.• Reducing the impacts of sedimentation and other land-based activities on water quality.• Recognising and protecting cultural values.• Enhancing the mauri of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.• Protecting representative marine habitats.• Promoting economic development opportunities for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park while ensuring marine environments are restored.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act of 2000.

Regional councils are tasked, under the 1991 Resource Management Act, with integrated management of the resources of the region. It is legally possible to prepare a joint regional coastal plan for the Hauraki Gulf. Section 80(2) states that: “two or more regional councils may agree to jointly prepare, implement, and administer a combined regional plan for the whole or any part of their combined regions”.

The legal basis of the plan is Advisory/Strategic


Governance is already in place through statutoryagencies, and much of the implementation will occurthrough these agencies; in particular the AucklandCouncil, Waikato Regional Council, the Ministry forPrimary Industries, and DOC.

An overarching perspective is provided by the HaurakiGulf Forum. This body is currently considering itsfuture structure and attributes, and its new form mayprovide the coordinating co-governance entity that isessential for the implementation of the Plan.

Four partner agencies assisted by providing information, technical advice, and guidance. These are:• Waikato Regional Council (WRC)• Auckland Council (AC)• Department of Conservation (DOC)• Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation toolsImpact and risk assessments

Existing and future MPAs incorporated in the management plan

The RMPs were designed to facilitate cross-sectoral (integrated) and jurisdictional integration that focused on one marine ecosystem. A proposed representative network of marine reserves is the major output of each bioregional plan.

Australia’s oceans policy (1998), attempted to achieve full integration of ocean management by using ecosystem approaches through regional marine plans (RMPs).

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Management plans prepared under Section 176. (EPBC Act)

Plans are statutory and binding on users.


Was put in place to support the process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)




Optimisation or network tools Impact & risk assessments

*GIS was a core tool used in the process to collect additional information, examine scenarios and communicate outputs to stakeholders.

One example is the South-east Regional Marine Plan (released in May 2004) which will eventually be brought under the EPBC Act.

Process ID

MSP_04

MSP_05

MSP_06

MSP_07

MSP_08

MSP_09

MSP_10

MSP_11

MSP_12

Final or expected outcome Legal basis Governance Mechanisms Government support Planning Tools Previous MSP Process?


Yes

No

Unknown Unknown

Unknown Voluntary agreement (MoU) was put in place to support the process Yes

Unknown Yes

Yes

Optimisation or network tools - Marxan Yes

Unknown Yes

Unknown Yes

Conservation and reasonable use, including: - facilitate the development of marine infrastructure or other economic initiatives- maintain or develop various uses including local or traditional use/s- conserve or restore the health of marine ecosystem/s- maximize the overall economic value of the marine ecosystem in a sustainable way

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 (regulatory instruction and enforceable)

Statutory Plans of Management for the Cairns, Whitsundays and Hinchinbrook areas


Was put in place to support the process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance) • Operational policy and site planning documents to guide agency decision making • Great Barrier Reef Inter-Governmental Agreement 2015• Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan• Eco-tourism certification scheme

Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has a range of voluntary agreements with various entities:• Department of Defence• Stewardship programs i.e. Reef Guardians




Optimisation or network tools User-driven site selection toolsMARXAN used as a comparative site evaluation toolEconomic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments

*The GBR has been a test area for development of several tools, including economic evaluation, planning, public consultation and specifically MARXAN.

Initial zoning plans, initiated in four sections, were developed from 1981-87

Re-zoning of the entire GBRMP was completed from 1998-2004

The plan will seek to evaluate and identify areas that these potential new uses should avoid, areas that are potentially suitable for new uses, and preferred areas for these potential new uses. The plan will integrate existing state management plans and become part of the state's coastal zone management program.

Washington Marine Spatial Planning Legislation of 2010

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

The Marine Spatial Plan is non-regulatory

Coastal Zone Management Program, Ocean Resources Management Act, and Shoreline Management Plans

RCW 43.372.040 Comprehensive Marine Management Plan.

RCW 43.143.060 created the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council and directed the council to advise the governor on funding for marine spatial planning.

RCW 43.372.070 created the Marine Resources Stewardship Trust Account to be used for marine spatial planning.

Some MARXAN

Ecological modelling of seabird and mammal distribution and of Ecologically Important Areas

The CMAR initiative aims to promote collaboration between the four member states to ensure coordinated management of marine resources, consolidating opportunities for sustainable development in the region, focusing on four management themes: biodiversity (designation of MPAs), sustainable fisheries (through strengthened monitoring), sustainable tourism (development of good practices and monitoring system to promote responsible tourism practices) and improvement of control and monitoring systems in MPAs and areas of influence

San Jose Declaration, 2004Cooperative relationship: Non-binding agreementLegal basis for cooperation: None

Political level• Regional Ministerial Committee: is formed by the Ministries of the Environment of the 4 countries, and politically supports the CMAR.• Pro Tempore Presidency: sectorial coordination at the regional level. Technical level• Pro Tempore Technical Secretariat: proceed with the mandates and actions requested by both Committees (Regional and Technical). • Regional Technical Committee: Advise and prepare technical proposals to support the CMAR actions. Comprised of governmental representatives or official delegates from the Ministries.• National Commissions: sectorial coordination at the national level. It works under the regional guidelines of the Regional Committees but according to the national policies and sovereignty of every country.• Working Groups: Conduct technical actions addressed to accomplish the CMAR objectives in four lines of actions: biodiversity, fishing, responsible tourism, control and surveillance.

The creation of the CMAR arises from a Presidential intention of the 4 countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica) that responds to the international commitments made by the countries at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), on the urgent need to implement actions that aim to protect and manage the natural resources, base for the economic and social development.


Was put in place to support the process:Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

Unknown Impact & risk assessments*Participatory mapping and expert panels as decision support mechanisms

Lessons from the previous initiative include: and improved planning methodology, previously involved institutions know more about the process now, the stakeholders are more aware of the relevance of this process.

Promotion of the creation of a new law for national MPA which establishes an MPA National System. The Marine Protected Areas (MPA) National System was created by the Argentine Congress in December of 2014, by Law 27.037.


Was put in place to support the process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance) Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)




Optimisation or network tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments METTs & FSCs GEF tools

A “lead consortium” (interjurisdictional) was formed during 2004 and was integrated by a representative of each of the five coastal-marine province and a representative of each organism belonging to the national/federal government which is involved in the area; it has been working on supporting and validating the process.

Establishment of a management unit authority, regular monitoring of marine biodiversity, patrolling of the region and mooring system

There is no specific law to regulate Maritime Spatial Planning in Turkey.

Existing legal provisions which are relevant in the context of Maritime Spatial Planning include:− Shore law:o In use as the main legislative structure in Turkey;o Sets out the principles for protection of the sea, natural and artificial lakes, rivers, shores and the shore strips;o Does not foresee a separate approach towards land-ward and sea-ward planning , both of them are within the scope of this law;− Harbours law;− Environmental law;− Fisheries law: protection, exploitation, production and control of living resources;− National Parks law: identification of areas which posses values of national and international importance and management of these areas without degrading their values and characteristics


Was put in place to support the process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)



There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP in MPAs

The geographical scale did not require any technological tool. Value and Threats Prioritisation, mapping, and use compatibility analysis were done by stakeholders during the participatory workshop. Thematic maps were then created in GIS.

The development of a zoning Plan in Kas-Kekova SPA was part of a regional project (e.g. WWF MedPAN South Project / UNEP MedPartnership) which built up to the momentum created to MPA in the Mediterranean

The process was completed in 2 years (2009 -2011). The objectives and the results were as follows: 1. At least three marine zoning schemes were developed for Samana Bay, with the participation of three sectors conservation, fisheries and tourism; and a technical report was delivered to the government. 2. The existing digital database for Samana Bay (in regards to the stakeholders and the marine environment at the area of interest) was at least doubled as part of the project; and provided to the government and local NGOs. 2. A training workshop on the spatial planning tool used during the project (Marxan) was provided to government technical staff members. 3. A donation of equipment (administrative and field equipment) were provided to the involved government agencies, after conducting a Needs Assessment.

National commitment between the DR government and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to work on the national system of protected areas.

Was in place prior to process Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)

Was put in place to support the processVoluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP The same institutions were involved, and previous knowledge was shared.

The process is working to establish: 1) locally managed areas; 2) fisheries refuges; 3) fishing quotas; and 4) other measures that reduce fishing effort and conflict.

Was in place prior to process: Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)



CONAPESCA, the National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture has agreed to be the leading government agency, and informal meetings were held with 9 other government agencies at different levels, all showing support.

A new fisheries law in Mexico allows for establishment of fisheries refuges, and MSP is mentioned in the law.

Environmental authorities have planned for marine protected areas and MSP is in their vocabulary.

Specific financial resources for the long-tern funding of the process is not evident in government agencies. NGO funding in Mexico is short-term, year to year, although funders have strategic initiatives that they fund continuously. MSP has not been specifically funded yet, as far as I know.

Optimisation or network tools User-driven site selection tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments

An EIA process was done within the overlapping Upper Gulf Biosphere Reserve, and a similar process might be used in the corridor. Considering entering data into MARXAN as a reference. Need a better evaluation of the available tools.

Atlantis Ecosystem Model that was built for the Northern Gulf of California is available, but the scale may not be small enough.

The first fisheries refuges in Mexico were created in 2012 and the legal framework for it, evolved from this first initiative. Later a law on how to implement the refuges was created. MPAs designated by environmental authorities have an established framework and are developed in collaboration with NGOs.

Papua New Guinea Organic Law for Provincial and Local Governments.

Local Level Government LMMA legislation was drafted by The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

Provincial level: TNC have signed an MOU with the West New Britain Government to develop a governance system for Kimbe Bay Marine Management Area (MMA). A national or provincial government law is still needed to declare the entire KBMMA as one marine managed area.

Traditional law for LMMAs.





Local Level Government LMMA legislation was drafted by TNC. TNC have signed an MOU with the West New Britain Government to develop a governance system for Kimbe Bay MMA. A national or provincial government law is still needed to declare the entire KBMMA as one marine managed area.

Optimisation or network tools *Marzone (Marxan with Zones)

Previous LMMAs introduced the concept of LMMA to the area, which is the primary implementation mechanism.

Process ID

MSP_13

MSP_16

MSP_17

MSP_18

MSP_19

MSP_20

MSP_21

MSP_22

MSP_23

MSP_24



Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP Impact & risk assessments Yes

Coastal Zone Management Act (1998) No None

There is a law/decree in place to support MSP No None

Unknown There is a law/decree in place to support MSP Yes

Unknown Yes

Unknown Unknown None

Unknown There is a law/decree in place to support MSP Participatory GIS Unknown None

There is a law/decree in place to support MSP No None

Yes

Yes None

The mission of the Soufriere Marine Management Area is to contribute to national and local development, particularly in the fisheries and tourism sectors through management of the Soufriere coastal zone based on the principles of sustainable use, cooperation among resource users, institutional collaboration, active and enlightened participation, and equitable sharing of benefits and responsibilities among stakeholders.

The area was established as a Local Fisheries Management Area under the provisions of the Fisheries Act.

Management of the area is governed by a new agreement, which was negotiated among the members of the TAC, and which defines the vision, mission, objectives, regulations, zoning, programmes and institutional arrangements of the SMMA.

Current zoning and regulations will be maintained, and a detailed map identifying all zones forms part of the proposed new agreement.

Coordination of management is the responsibility of a new organisation, called the Soufriere Marine Management Association Inc., comprised of all the agencies which have a demonstrated management function in the Area.




Provided a framework that can be extended (Soufriere and Canaries /Anse la Raye Marine Management legal framework)

Recommend actions that will ensure sustainable coastal resources use by balancing conservation ideals with the economic and social needs of the country


The process is not formalized by law (legislation) but the policy is supported

National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy (2003)

Optimisation or network tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis (InVEST)Impact & risk assessments

"To illustrate how spatial planning frameworks and processes are essential elements to achieving sustainable clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine seas in the RECOFI region, and how they allow for mariculture and marine fishery production activities to be maximized whilst at the same time taking into account the other users of the marine space" (Cairo Workshop, 2012)



User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments

*Social tools such as participatory GIS are of great use, also touchable and Virtual theatre are increasingly being used (http://nsquaredsolutions.com/tables/).

Satellite remote sensing data

Was in place prior to process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)







Our previous initiative become lesson learned to adopt in wider process.

There is a law/decree in place to support MSP

Management plan formulated under within the framework of the National Environmental Policy for the Sustainable Development of the Oceanic spaces and the Coastal and Insular Zones of Colombia (Politica Nacional Ambiental para el Desarrollo Sostenible de los Espacios Oceanicos y las Zonas Costeras e Insulares de Colombia - PNAOCI)





User-driven site selection tools *Social mapping methodologies, local communities proposed zoning areas and resource uses

2 MPAs established within the area, local communities involved and supporting the process

Non-statutory Plan

Partnership Agreement among Coastal First Nations—Great Bear Initiative, North Coast-Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society, Nanwakolas Council, and Province of British Columbia.

Kunst'aa Gu-Kunst'aayah Reconciliation Protocol (2009) on decision making.

Integrated planning concept from UNCLOS

Oceans Act, Canada

Regional Action Framework for implementation

Put in place to support process:Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

Provincial and First Nations governments are undertaking collaborative coastal and marine planning, noted in a Letter of Intent. The Letter of Intent establishes a bilateral governance arrangement that operates at three levels through an Executive Committee, a Working Group and sub-regional Technical Teams.

First Nations Governments

No formal federal government involvement in the planning process

Optimization or network tools (e.g. Marxan);Economic valuation tools (e.g. Rapfish)





The development of a zoned, multiple-use marine protected area (MPA) that protects globally important examples of Viet Nam's best remaining coral reef, mangrove and seagrass ecosystems. Through zoning, the MPA plan will protect the essential biodiversity values of Hon Mun while providing for reasonable access and sustainable use of resources.

This project will establish Hon Mun as an MPA pilot site, developing methodologies for MPA establishment and management that can be replicated in other areas as part of a national MPA system.








Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSPthe Government of Vietnam’s commitment was strong and the Ministry of Finance in 2002 allocated US$78,000 through 2005 to KhanhHoa Province in direct support of the Hon Mun MPA Authority and US$137,000 to theMinistry of Fisheries for its work on broadening the program at the national level.



Tourism - have special areas allocated for diving Pearl fishers have a healthier ecosystem, which supports their resource and provides greater security Fishermen are no longer in conflict with the illegal or outside fishermen in the designated areas

Developing a network-wide zoning system for the MPAs will strengthen sustainable management of these activities in Raja Ampat by identifying appropriate areas for both conservation and resource use.

There is a law/decree in place to support MSP-

Law 27/2007 - under which MPAs are management for multiple uses through a management plan which includes zoning plans for each of the MPAs in the network.



Raja Ampat Government worked in partnership with TNC, CI and University of Queensland to zone MPAs




Optimisation or network tools (Marxan)*GIS-based work

The previous initiative was the broader planning process at national and regional level - each area has a government body and a decentralised approach. Despite efforts to integrate the Raja Ampat MPA network design into the broader planning process, there was not a great deal of cross over between the two. However, in the provincial plan the Raja Ampat protected areas were integrated and recognised as conservation zones.

By 2017 Semporna Marine Spatial Planning accepted and acknowledge by the District office and taking into consideration in the planning document in the statutory institution.

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) established between the Sabah Town and Regional Planning Department and WWF-Malaysia in 2015




Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP Optimisation or network tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments

Process ID

MSP_25

MSP_26

MSP_27

MSP_28

MSP_29

MSP_30

MSP_31

MSP_32

MSP_33

MSP_34



Impact & risk assessments Yes

Unknown Unknown Yes

Vietnam’s strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) to 2020, vision toward 2030 No None

Yes

Unknown Yes

Yes

Unknown Yes

Unknown Yes


Unknown Yes

"A coastal area of rapid and diversified development, with green, clean, beautiful and healthy environment; where the natural resources system is under long-term planning and sustainable use; where the ecological, cultural and historical values are preserved; where the Danang people are provided with maximum benefits while the ecological values are maintained; and where Danang shall spearhead Vietnam and the Region towards sustainable development"

Environmental Protection Law, 1994

National Strategy for Environmental Protection for 2001-2010

National Plan for Environmental and Sustainable Development (NPESD), 1991-2000 - which provides a general framework for the management of environment in Vietnam, including the marine and coastal environment.

National Program on Marine Protected Areas Planning








Technical capacity has been built; useful data have been gathered; similar user groups have been retained

National level: National Marine Policy, Coral Resources Development Decree, NIPAS Act, Wildlife Resources and Habitat Conservation and Protection Act, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

EO 533 - Integrated Coastal Management EO 578 - Biodiversity Policy EO 610 - River basin management

Local level: Bataan Sustainable Development Strategy

Was in place prior to process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance) - Bataan Coastal Strategy

The Provincial Government of Bataan issued an executive order in 2005, forming an activating a Technical Working Group to develop the zoning plan (CLSUZP).

There are existing zones and uses in the waters around Bataan, however there were many overlapping and conflicting uses between the 10 coastal municipalities and 1 coastal city of Bataan. Local government units therefore found it hare to manage their jurisdictional coastal and municipal waters due to the absences of boundary demarcations.

Thua Thien Hue Integrated Coastal use zoning plan provide a basis for the direction, adjust the plan and resolve the conflicts in mining, use of coastal natural resources and environment; help to protect and improve the environment and natural resources in the lagoon, conserve coastal biodiversity, preserve and promote cultural values, landscape; mitigate natural disasters, climate change, improve livelihoods of coastal community for the coastal sustainable development of Thua Thien Hue. To ensure the sustainable management, exploitation and protection of seas, islands and lagoons







Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP Optimisation or network tools User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments

Ecologically: Improvement of the quality of coral reef and mangrove ecosystems through setting up coastal and marine protection zones in the Bontang City and enhanced upland area management. Socially: Reduction of spatial conflicts among stakeholders in the Bontang City area, leading to improved multiple-use of the coastal zone. In the long run, it is expected to facilitate economic capital investment in the area.Economically: Potential improvement of capture fisheries production, hence improvement of local fishermen income leading to poverty reduction.

Boundaries were defined based on the Indonesian Act No. 27/2007 on Integrated Coastal and Small Islands Management

Indonesian Law No 26/2007 on Spatial Planning











The previous initiative has been really helpful in identifying the issues to be implemented in the next MSP process (currently) and also to be the stepping stone for the current MSP process.

Complete groundwork for future implementation of marine zoning in St. Kitts and Nevis by assisting in the development of a marine zoning design and providing a set of tools that could inform this and other management efforts.




There is government support, but not in the form of a law/decree; organisations/working groups; financial resources; or authority responsibilities

Optimisation or network tools (Marxan)User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis

Scepticism of users as previous initiative was not multi-objective in nature and zoning process was

The implementation of actions to achieve the sustainable management of marine and coastal resources over the long-term to ensure the sustainable flow of benefits from marine and coastal resources for present and future generations.

At its initiation, the CTI-CFF formed a purely voluntary partnership between the CT6 and its partner organisations and was consolidated through the adoption of the 10-year CTI-CFF Regional Plan of Action (CTI RPOA). In 2011, the CT6 agreed to legally formalise the CTI-CFF partnership as a regional body through the Secretariat Agreement. The CTI-CFF now has a coordinating Regional Secretariat, formalised coordination procedures, and requires all six countries to support the financial costs of the Regional Secretariat. The legal status of the CTI RPOA is agreement classified under "soft law" and there is no legal obligation on any of the CT6 to support the CTI. Implementation of actions is incremental, with hard law measures following soft law instruments.

There are laws/decrees in place to promote MSP that vary between countries, e.g.:Indonesia: Law 27/2007 Management of Coastal Areas and Isles; Law 32/2009 Environmental Protection and Management; Law30/2010 Guidance for Managing Resources in Maritime TerritoryMalaysia: Establishment of Marine Parks Malaysia Order, 2008; Environmental Protection Enactment 2002.Papua New Guinea: Conservation Areas Act 1978; Environment Planning Act 1978; Environment Act 2000.Philippines: National Integrated Protected Areas System Act 1992; Senate Bill No. 3208 Marine and Coastal Resources Protection Act 2009; Senate Bill No. 1370 Integrated Coastal Management Act 2010Solomon Islands: The Environment Act (No.8, 1998); Protected Areas Act 2010.Timor-Leste: Regulation No. 19/2000 on Protected Places; Decree Law No. 5/2011; various others in draft.







Optimisation or network tools Economic valuation tools Impact & risk assessmentsInformation management tools Communication tools

Previous initiatives offered many lessons upon which to draw

Healthy coral reefSustain local tourism business and diving business




Clearly defined responsibilities have been given to authorities for MSP planning and implementation Economic valuation tools

Uses conflict and compatibility matric toolsUnsuccessful in some areas. The local residents would not agree with the plan if they were not involved.

A future in which marine and terrestrial ecosystems are thriving and the poor who depend on them have better lives and broader options.


Was put in place to support the process:Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)





Previous MSP did not help current MSP. This concerns a country-wide strategic environmental assessment of the coastal zone, which unfortunately was never fully endorsed by Government.

Through education, conservation, science, and stewardship, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary provides protection to its extraordinary natural and cultural resources so that nature can thrive, historic shipwrecks and artefacts remain respectfully in place, cultural connections remain strong, and careful public use and enjoyment can be sustained

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) is the organic legislation governing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment or Great Lakes with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities. In addition, the NMSA established the NMSP as the federal program charged with managing national marine sanctuaries. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect marine resources. The NMSA also directs the NMSP to facilitate all public and private uses of those resources compatible with the primary objective of resource protection.


- National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA): Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

- The NMSA requires the program to prepare and periodically update management plans that guide day-to-day activities at each sanctuary.

Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP (NOAA)

1982 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) - conservation measures and non-binding resolutions

Strategic Plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 to 'conserve 10% of marine and coastal areas through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas by 2020.'


There are different levels of engagement in MSP between Member governments


Capacity within Member states is essential for multilateral process

Process ID

MSP_35

MSP_36

MSP_37

MSP_38

MSP_39



Unknown Yes

Unknown There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP No None

Yes

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 1972 Annual Congressional allocation GIS, ERMA, NOAA spatial management tools No


In November 2016, the Mid-Atlantic RPB released its first iteration Regional Ocean Action Plan. The Plan is the result of over three years of collaborative planning to address complex ocean management challenges and advance the two goals of the Mid-Atlantic RPB. It details a set of best practices , related to use of data and early coordination in decision making, and specific collaborative actions that the RPB member entities will take to advance these goals.

National Ocean Policy (2010). Executive Order 13547 "Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes".National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (2013)

The RPB is not a regulatory body and has no independent legal authority to regulate or otherwise direct Federal, State, Tribal entities, local governments, or the MAFMC. Agencies involved in this effort respectively administer a range of statutes, regulations, and authorized programs that provide a basis to implement regional marine planning. The process and non-binding decision making for regional marine planning will be carried out consistent with and under the authority of these existing statutes, regulations, and authorized programs. While regional marine planning cannot supersede existing laws and agency authorities, it is intended to provide a framework for application of existing laws and authorities. Marine planning is intended to guide and align Federal and State agency legal authority and decision making, and agencies will adhere to the plan and/or other products to the extent possible, consistent with their existing authorities.

Was in place prior to process: Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

Put in place to support the process: Non-binding Instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)



Mid-Atlantic regional ocean planning has benefitted greatly from the process and spirit of collaboration, and the RPB recognizes the important role partnerships play in leveraging resources, conducting stakeholder engagement, and enhancing technicalcapacity. To date, key partners have included MARCO and the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal Team (Portal Team), among others, which have a history of supporting ocean activities in the region.




*Kick off document was the National Environmental Policy for Coastal, Marine and Insular Areas of Colombia (PNAOCI, 2000)




Optimisation or network tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments*We developed our own tools such as MPA Decission Support Tool for Colombia (SSDCOLSAMP) or Invemar Fisheries Information System (SIPEIN) amongst other geovisor tools

A map of marine functional zoning during the years from 2013 to 2020.

Outcomes of the 2007 MSP process:The coincidence rate of authorized certificates of sea area uses with the MSP reached 99.63%, fully reflecting the key role of the MSP in guiding the distribution of sea area uses of Xiamen City.

A series of marine ecological restoration projects, including integrated treatment of the bay environment, aquaculture phasing out, dredging, dyke opening, the beach protection and restoration, the wetland restoration and the rare marine species protection, were implemented under the guidance of the MSP. The implementation of ecological restoration projects significantly improved the marine environment of the Xiamen Bay.

A series of national, provincial and municipal laws and regulations provide the legal basis for the marine functional zoning in Xiamen.

National Level:- The Law of the Management of Sea Use (2001)- The Marine Environmental Protection Law (1999)

Provincial level:- Regulation of Fujian Province on Marine Environmental Protection- Regulations of Fujian Province on the Administration of Sea Areas

Municipal level:- Provisions of Xiamen City on Protecting the Marine Environment- Provisions of Xiamen City on the Administration of Sea Areas, etc.

The marine functional zoning plan is the legal basis for sea use. The exploitation and utilization of the sea area shall conform to the marine functional zoning.

The Oceans and Fisheries Bureau of Xiamen is responsible for guiding, coordinating and enforcing the implementation of the marine functional zoning plan.

The Xiamen Marine Management Leading Group was established to coordinate and communicate the sea use among different departments. The Executive Vice-Mayor was the director of the Marine Management Leading Group. The Marine Experts Group provides technical support for the marine functional zoning.

Technical Guidance of Marine Functional Zoning (GB/T17108-2006)

Marine functional zoning is one of three systems to manage the oceans in China. Xiamen is the pioneer city to initiate marine functional zoning. To date, the compiling of the marine functional zoning plan in Xiamen has experienced three rounds.

The outcomes of marine functional zoning in Xiamen are very significant in the aspects of promoting the development of the marine economy and protecting the marine ecological environment at the same time.

For the EFH process, we hope PFMC decides to establish boundary modifications with the goals of protecting high value habitat and sustainable fishing practices.

Federal code of regulations: See regulatory webpage for information:http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/prohibitions.html

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries serves as trustee for the nation’s system of marine protected areas. A primary objective of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act is resource protection of marine areas of special national significance (i.e. the designated national marine sanctuaries), including protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is one of 13 in the national system.http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov

The outcome of the planning process is a site specific master and management plan for the MPA.

The development of experience that can be applied to all the MPAs in each country

Jeddah of the Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment (the "Jeddah Convention") 1982

Protocol Concerning the Conservation of Biological Diversity and the Establishment of a Network of Protected Areas the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, 2005

Most countries in the region have site-specific legislation related to the establishment of MPAs:

Egypt: Law 102 Concerning Natural Protectorates (1983) (includes articles that define protected area, forbid certain activities within Pas; control activities in adjacent area; specifies the administrative body responsible for enforcement).

Saudi Arabia: Royal Decree M/12 (1995) enacted the Protected Areas Act (sets out requirements for a network of protected areas to be established and managed, and the range of activities prohibited within all protected areas).





Process ID

MSP_40

MSP_41

MSP_42

MSP_43

MSP_44

MSP_45

MSP_46



Unknown Yes

Unknown Yes

None None Optimisation or network tools Yes

Unknown Unknown Yes

User-driven site selection tools (Seasketch) No None

Optimisation or network tools Yes

On-going None No None

National Protected Areas System (Snuc)- Law 9985 (2000)

Federal Law 9985/2000.



Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom) Was put in place to support the process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)





Optimisation or network tools User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation tools Trade off / cost-benefit analysis Impact & risk assessments*We used a lot of participatory tools, mainly from Brazilian popular education experience, such as "FOFA" and "Veen´s diagram"

The gap between the Federal Decree 528/1992 and the MSP (2013) is over 20 years. The key stakeholders have changed since then. But in the participatory process of the MSP the Federal Decree 528/1992 was the "base norm" for the debate and deliberation.

State legislation

Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy (PIROP)



Put in place to support the process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision);

Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance) ;




There is a familiarity among some practitioners regarding the need for MSP

Collaboratively developing a vision for the development of the Grenadine Islands and increase the capacity to protect, manage and sustainably use the resources of the Grenada BankBuilding the foundation for the designation of the Grenadine Islands as a transboundary UNESCO World Heritage Site


* There is a low level of government support due to the challenges of transboundary planning and the geographical and socio-political nature of the area (it's remote, has few people, and is not the primary focus of either governments)

MPAs were established, networks were then developed and communication occurred with stakeholders

Was put in place to support the processVoluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

There is government support / There is an integrated coastal management plan but no formal structure yet for a marine spatial plan

Impact & risk assessments* Plan to use intergenerational Cost benefit Analysis to support decision making to enlarge security zones around oil and gas infrastructures to meet biodiversity protection and social equity objectives - requires more research on role of no take zones and oil platforms in ecosystem rehabilitation.

The coastal Management plan and the EBSA proposition is referred to significantly

Comprehensive zoning map; new fisheries management regulations; five-year plan for implementation; increased enforcement capacity; scientific monitoring program; long-term financing strategy

Healthier coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass; more abundant fish, lobster, and conch; improved fishing catches and livelihoods; access to new, high-end fish markets; new local tourism and job opportunities; reputation as a global leader in conservation; stronger ocean economy for future generations; preserve coastal tradition and way of life

Barbuda Fisheries Regulations (2014)Barbuda Coastal Zoning and Management Regulations (2014)Barbuda National Parks Authority Regulations (2014)

Put in place to support the process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision);


The MSP aims to support long term sustainable development ‐in Kubulau by maintaining the health and productivity of the district’s ecosystems – in particular, the coastalfisheries that most village households rely on as a source of food and income.

The Fisheries Act recognises and maintains subsistence fishing rights for traditional resource owners within their customary fishing ground (qoliqoli).

There are two mechanisms available for legally protecting marine areas under the Fisheries Act: 1. restricted areas2. fishing licence conditions.

Was in place prior to process Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom)

Was put in place to support the processNon-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)

A project is currently underway in Fiji to develop a typology for zones that could be applied on national basis through marine spatial planning approaches.

There is momentum currently underway in several provinces (e.g. Bua Province, where Kubulau is located; Ra Province) to develop integrated coastal management plans that will align to the National Integrated Coastal Management Framework, a policy document developed by the Fiji Department of Environment in 2011. In these contexts, MSP will be incorporated as a critical component into ICM plans and will be led by provincial council offices, supported by NGOs, community groups and private sector interests.

Both initiatives were happening simultaneously and methods and lessons learned were shared between the two.

Canada Oceans Act (1997)

Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984) - establishes Inuvialuit area within which the Beaufort Sea lies. Legal status of the plan is advisory

Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP;Financial resources have been allocated to stages of MSP;Clearly defined responsibilities have been given to authorities for MSP planning and implementation

MSP has not truly begun. Development of conservation layer for MSP underway, includes use of network tools to identify priority conservation areas in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Social, cultural and economic analysis will also be involved.

Process ID

MSP_47

MSP_48

MSP_49

MSP_50

MSP_51

MSP_52

MSP_53

MSP_54



Unknown Yes

Unknown Marxan, SPARC Unknown None

Yes None

Unknown Unknown Yes

Unknown Unknown No None


Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown None

GIS for decision support Unknown None

Balance and protect the natural, social, cultural, historic, and economic interests of the marine ecosystem through integrated management.

Recognize and protect biodiversity, ecosystem health, and the interdependence of ecosystems.

Support wise use of marine resources, including renewable energy, sustainable uses, and infrastructure.

Incorporate new knowledge as the basis for management that adapts over time to address changing social, technological, and environmental conditions.

Massachusetts Oceans Act, 2008

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972

Legal status of the plan: regulatory and enforceable

Was put in place to support the processBinding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)





There was no relationship between the NEFMC Closed Areas; NOAA Fisheries whale protection schemes and the formation of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the MOMP process

Updated regulations and marine zones that aim to protect the natural resources of the Sanctuary while also allowing sustainable use.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 1972

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 1990 (public Law 101-605)

NOAA; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. National Park Service; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; State of Florida

(1) find ocean energy sites (2) protect commercial/recreational fisheries(3) prevent conflicts with existing ocean users(4) protect important ecological areas and values

Oregon State Legislation

Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 19Was in place prior to process: Binding, Legally enforceable instruments existed that guided how the policy process and authorities were implemented.

There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP;Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP;

optimization or network tools (e.g Marxan);User driven site selection tools (e.g. Oregon MarineMap);

Canada Oceans Act (1997)

Collaborative Governance Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) (2008) among Canada, the Province of British Columbia and First Nations


Was in place prior to process:Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom);

Letter of Intent (2012) addressing issues on spatial planning with regard to protected areas, co-management and increased economic opportunities for First Nations in commercial fisheries and commits the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to work collaboratively with First Nations.

A number of the First Nations have developed plans and management tools at multiple scales. These include community, sub-regional and regional integrated marine use plans.

Marine Plan Partnership (MaPP)

The Israel Marine Spatial Plan will support and integrate itself with other initiatives to advance collective objective of generating a comprehensive, information-and science-based marine plan for balanced, effective, and sustainable management of Israel’s marine resources. The Israel Marine Spatial Plan will serve all stakeholders who have an interest in the marine space: government bodies and enforcement and administrative systems and the public at large.

Advance the proposed Marine Areas Law, 5775-2014 - aims to establish the State’s authorities, rights and duties in the various parts of Israel’s marine space, including its coastal waters, the area adjacent to it and the EEZ, to deign responsibilities and delegate authorities in line with international law.

Protection of the Coastal Environment Law of 2004

No clear spatial policy or effective regulatory tools have been formulated for planning and managing Israel's marine space.

The Plan is a forward-looking document intended to strengthen intergovernmental coordination, planning, and policy implementation, while at the same time enhancing the public’s ability to participate in the process of managing ocean resources.

National Ocean Policy (2010)

National Environmental Policy Act

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (1972)

Was in place prior to process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision) ;

Put in place to support the process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)

There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP;

Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP;

A requirement under the Hawaii Revised Statutes 205A-62(1)

State Coastal Zone Management Programme

The Vision for the Eastern Scotian Shelf is of healthy and sustainable ecosystems, economies andcommunities, supported by collaborative, integrated and harmonized governance and management.

Canada's Oceans Act (1996)

Legal status of the plan is strategic and advisory Was in place prior to process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)

There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP;


Process ID

MSP_55

MSP_56

MSP_57

MSP_58

MSP_59

MSP_60

MSP_61

MSP_62

MSP_63

MSP_64



Unknown The Special Law of the Galapagos (1998) Unknown Unknown Yes

Unknown Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision); Yes

Unknown National Environmental Strategy (Estrategia Nacionale del Ambiente) Yes

Unknown Impact & risk assessments Yes

Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Unknown yes

Unknown Commitments to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Programme of work on Protected Areas. Yes

Unknown Unknown Yes None

Unknown In kind, intermittent funding allocation Unknown Unknown None

Unknown Unknown Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP Unknown Yes None


The first zoning plan was adopted in 1992 (6 years after the marine reserve was created), however the plan was never implemented due to the complex zoning.

Regional support, however has not secured formal adoption at the national level.

Lacking an executive decree approving the Plan that would allow institutions to apply and enforce the Plan.

Financial resources have been allocated to all stages of MSP *We have used participatory maps and experts

panels plus GIS to support decision-making

Previous initiative has been the establishment of MPAs that have provided experience on planning and stakeholder involvement. MSP process with a wider set of objectives and stakeholders have provided a bigger challenge for the institutions.


This is a NGO-originated initiative that has gradually received support from local and national level governments

Impact & risk assessments*The process was supported by participatory mapping and expert panels

Stakeholders are more keen to participate in the process since this will impact their activities. Planning and regulatory units in the local/national government with some experience on MPA establishment processes

The Marine Environment Ordinance (1987) designated the Saba Marine Park

The Nature Policy Plan 2013-2017 provides a framework for sound management and the wise use of nature in the Caribbean Netherlands

The plan is rooted in the international agreements, conventions and regional agreements the Kingdom has committed itself to (CBD, Ramsar convention, Cartagena convention, SPAW protocol, CITES), and in national legislation on nature and biodiversity.

Was put in place to support the processBinding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)




Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP;

The same regulatory framework was used

Guiding principles based on Article 38 of the Seychelles Constitution

Marine Spatial Plan being drawn up following the Seychelles' ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Put in place to support the process:Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)

Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP;Financial resources have been allocated to all stages of MSP;Clearly defined responsibilities have been given to authorities for MSP planning and implementation

Marine Life Protection Act 1999

Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act 2000

California Ocean Protection Act 2004

Put in place prior to prior to process:Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision)


There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP;Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP;Financial resources have been allocated to all stages of MSP;Clearly defined responsibilities have been given to authorities for MSP planning and implementation

MarineMap - custom-developed decision support tool for stakeholders

Two attempts to establish MPAs failed prior to the MLPA Initiative (public/private partnership)



Financial resources have been allocated to development stages of MSP. Series of consultatives processes has not been funded yet


Using regional development approaches (integration between land-use and marine planning), considering the characteristic of Lesser Sunda Ecoregion with a combination of small and big islands as well as marine waters in close proximity and not to mention the seasonal up-welling.

Moving from traditional zoning approaches to performance-based zoning to accommodate multi uses/purposes of ocean space

In 2009 TNC facilitated government engagement around designing MPAs in the region. Through a conservation planning process, hundreds of Areas of Interest were identified, many of which have become MPAs

There is now shared experiences regarding how to develop management and zoning plans and those involved have learned a great deal. Also now have a better understanding about how to distribute authority between national and local levels to make this process work.


Was put in place to support the processNon-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance)



Optimisation or network tools User-driven site selection tools Economic valuation tools

• Protect the unique marine life and maintain its balance within the Tubbataha Reefs • Provide benefits to local and international communities• Inspire a sense of stewardship for the marine environment among the public

Tubbataha Reef Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009 (Republic Act No.10067) - provides for the establishment of a 10nm buffer zone from the park's boundaries

National integrated Protected Areas System Act (1992) (Republic Act No.7586)

Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (2001) (Republic Act No. 9147)

Regulations on Management of Ha Long Bay

Decree on Ha Long Bay Environmental Protection

The Provincial Resolution No.9 on Management, Preservation and Promotion of the Ha Long Bay Heritage

Master plan for Ha Long Bay Development up to 2020

The Cultural Heritage Law; Bio-Diversity Law; Tourism Law; Environmental Protection Law; Fishery Law; and Marine Transport Law.

Process ID

MSP_01

MSP_02

MSP_03

Sectors Stakeholders Decision-making Procedure for stakeholder consultation Conflict Resolution Mechanism Data used Monitoring indicators Cross-border planning

Facilitated consensus None

Primarily renewable energy and fishing

Non-extractive uses; Commercial fishing; Leisure and Tourism; Environment and Conservation; Culture and Heritage; Local community; General Public

Government agencies; the Narragansett Indian Tribe; fishermen; environmental organisations

Government was core decision maker

Affected users, experts/academia, regulation/enforcement, local community and the general public were all formally consulted.

A public review process was put in place for the Ocean SAMP rulemaking on October 15, 2009. Prior to approval, this process was discussed at the October 6th Ocean SAMP stakeholder meeting and public comments were heard during a public meeting on the October 15th. There is an Ocean SAMP stakeholder group. All meetings are announced on the Ocean SAMP Listserv and are open to the public. Mechanisms to facilitate stakeholder engagement include a new Fishermen’s Advisory Board (FAB) and Habitat Advisory Board (HAB).

Facilitated consensus

Prioritised objectives

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial informationEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information

Environmental indicators (e.g. water quality; habitat/species distribution)

Social indicators (e.g. employment levels; conflict resolution)

Sub-national limited collaboration between states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts (they have a MoU in place for joint development of offshore wind), and also with representatives from Conneticut and New York.

All sectors; including fishing (including aquaculture); Leisure and Tourism; Environment and conservation; Cultural Heritage; General Public

Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) was convened in 2013 and consists of Mana whenua, recreational and commercial fishing, farming, aquaculture, industry, community, and environmentalists, and works in partnership with central and local government agencies.

Stakeholder Working Group has primary decision-making responsibilities.

During the process, Mana whenua,recreational and commercial fishing, farming, aquaculture, industry, community, local government stakeholders were formally consulted.

A stakeholder working group (SWG), appointed to the role in December 2013, developed the plan through a consensus-directed collaborative, stakeholder-led,co-governance process, with the involvement of many people who live, work, and play, in and around the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and its catchments.

SWG members attended 25 group discussions, involving more than 250 participants. Seven issues-based 'roundtables' were established to explore the different pressures on the Marine Park and there has also been significant involvement by mana whenua.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionEcosystem goods and services/benefits

Environmental indicators (e.g. water quality; habitat/species distribution)Cultural health indicators (e.g. Mauri, Kaitiakitanga)

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); General public

Affected users; experts/academia; Regulation/enforcement authorities; Government; Industry

Core decisions were made by Government.

Affected users, Experts/Academia and Regulation/Enforcement stakeholders were formally consulted

Formal consultation with stakeholders at various stages of the MSP process. There are three main steps in Australia’s MBP process: 1. preparation of a bioregional profile; 2. release of a draft MBP and a commonwealth marine reserve network proposal for public consultation; 3. completion of a final MBP and a final commonwealth marine reserve network proposal.

The consultation process was open to all, including open public meetings. Targeted meetings were focused on the impacted sectors including commercial and recreational fishing, offshore oil and gas and NGOs. Local communities and the general public were informed of the process and encouraged to submit to the process but with limited engagement.

Conflict resolution was not a primary objective of this MSP, however the government has the ultimate call on how any conflicts were resolved, and indeed if they could be resolved through this MSP process.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information


Economic indicators (e.g. fish catch; income trends)


Sub-national covers all Australian states

Process ID

MSP_04

MSP_05

MSP_06

MSP_07

MSP_08

MSP_09

MSP_10

MSP_11

MSP_12


None known


All sectors Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Facilitated consensus Unknown None



None

Unknown None

Commercial marine; tourism; Department of Defence; Fishing (commercial, recreational, charter); Ports; Department of Environment and Coast; Recreational (e.g. swimming, diving, sailing); Research and educational institutions; Shipping; Traditional use (including fishing and hunting)

Extensive stakeholder participation in re-zoning plan 1998-2004 as required by legislation - stakeholder consultations with user groups, experts, government, regulatory/enforcement stakeholders, communities, the general public.

Ongoing local, regional, and property wide sectoral expertise advisory committees. Major element of day to day implementation programs. (Further partnership information on website).

Government and regulation/enforcement stakeholders were responsible for decision making.

Stakeholders formally consulted during planning include, affected users experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement, local community, general public

Public engagement in marine park management has evolved over time. Today there are 3 regionals offices along the length of the Marine Park, 12 local marine advisory committees, two issue-specific expertise-based advisory committees (Indigenous, Tourism), numerous informal committees established on an ‘as needs’ basis.

Public consultation in relation to statutory changes to Plans of Management, Zoning Plan or some permit applications is mandated in the Act.

Outlook Report requires a formal peer review process as outlined in the Act.Policy and site management plan development allows for public comment.

Social media platforms have evolved to allow for greater connections with people. Today GBRMPA’s internet presence extends beyond our website to include Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, a dedicated YouTube channel and the Eye on the Reef App.



Arbitration/mediation

Legal rights to review of certain statutory decisions

Legal ability to request certain types of information





The GBRMPA is required to produce an outlook report every 5 years. This report contains projections of the future based on past trends and changing environmental and socio-economic drivers.

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public; Tribal rights and the co-management relationship.

Coastal stakeholders, the public and local, tribal and federal governments, fishermen, shellfish farmers, recreational users, conservation interests, Governor's office, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Sea Grant and State Parks and Recreation Commission.

State agencies and Governor of Washington State responsible for decision-making.

Stakeholders formally consulted through the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council (an advisory body to the Governor). Council members include representatives of county Marine Resources Committees and stakeholders including fishermen, shell-fish farmers, recreational users, conservation interests and many others.

State law requires an interagency team of state natural resource agencies to develop the plan (State Ocean Caucus). The governor’s office chairs the team and the Department of Ecology coordinates it. Stakeholder involvement, informal tribal consultation, government coordination and public input will occur throughout all stages of the MSP process.

Public workshops for stakeholder engagement coordinated through the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council.

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Future development/activities;Social information;Economic/valuation information;Governance information

Environmental indicators (e.g. water quality; habitat/species distribution);Economic indicators (e.g. fish catch; income trends);Social indicators (e.g. employment levels; conflict resolution);

Government; NGOs; Enforcement/Regulation authorities

Decision-making by the Government (Regional Ministerial Committee)

Multi-national MPA network between 4 countries

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

Affected user groups (fishermen, wind farm companies, tourism companies); Experts / academia; Government (regional, national, local); Local community

Core decisions made by affected users, experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement, local community

Strong communication campaign Strengthening the association level of small scale stakeholders (fishers and tourism operators). Training of small scale stakeholders (leadership, legal framework)


Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (finfish/shrimp trawling, finfish-netting, squid-potting, shellfish-dredging); Leisure and tourism (sun and beach, shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community

Affected user groups (fishermen, wind farm companies, tourism companies); Government (regional, national, local); Regulation / enforcement authorities; Local community; General Public

Decisions taken by Government.

Affected users, regulation/enforcement, local community and the general public were formally consulted during planning.

Local conservation authorities (inter-sectoral) have been formed, as well as management commissions (with the participation of local actors of governments, private sector and civil society/NGOs). Development / implementation of participatory management plans on coastal-marine protected areas is making progress; advisory boards are active in fisheries, tourism, environment, etc., with good participation rates from government organizations, industry / private and civil society.

Facilitated consensusPrioritised objectivesArbitration/mediation

Biological / ecological informationCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information



Sub-national Inter-jurisdictional management between coastal provinces of Argentina

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community

Local NGOs; local authorities (municipality, governorship, coast guard, port authority, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock and Environment and Urbanization)

Affected users, experts/academia, government, and regulation/enforcement authorities responsible for decision-making.

The local community was formally consulted during the planning process.

An extensive process was carry out to inform and involve the key stakeholders at local and national level in the decision-making process. At local level the process included many consultation meeting and informal gathering to include the needs of resource users (fishermen and diving centres), whereas, at the national level, political and technical steering committees were created to review and harmonise national law and regulations.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesSocial informationEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information


Economic and Social indicators

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community.

Government (national, local);Regulation / Enforcement Authorities

Decisions taken by affected users, experts/academia and government.

Stakeholders formally consulted were the government and regulation/enforcement authorities.

An NGO-led effort to communicate with stakeholders, making clear that their inputs were for a draft zoning plan, but the government has the last say over this plan.

3 Workshops (fishing, tourism and conservation sectors) --> consensus for a zoning scheme was not achieved (many stakeholders still advocating 'open access' to all marine resources). However stakeholder recommendations were made and taken into consideration in the draft plan.

Public access to project information through the project web portal.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesGovernance information

Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community

Affected users; experts/academia; Regulation/enforcement authorities; Government

Affected users and government stakeholders had decision-making responsibilities.

Users have been involved in monitoring resources, documenting their use through surveys, and in design of mitigation actions. They have implemented various management actions and good practices. They will continue to be involved in deciding on most appropriate management tools to implement, spatial planning, and in deciding indicators to measure effectiveness.

Creation of an Intercommunity Group (composed of representatives from each of the 6 local communities) that interacts with a Technical Group (Gulf of California experts) to present management proposals to group of authorities.

Next steps include defining management consultative groups to define management objectives, development of management scenarios validation of management scenarios with a consultative scientific group and authorities, then back to communities to make decisions about which management scenarios are the best and to define indicators.


Voting


Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresSocial informationGovernance information



*Baselines established, but continuous monitoring is required

Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

Affected user groups; experts/academia; Government (regional, national, local); Local community; NGOs

Decisions taken by affected users, experts/academia, local community.

During planning process, affected users, government and local community were formally consulted.

The first phase of the design was essentially a scientific process led by NGOs and scientists, with minimal input from user groups (although best available info was used to take their needs and interests into account).

In the second phase (community based planning), the communities were the decision-makers and this has been supported by local, provincial and national governments. Local communities are being supported to set up Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA). In addition to the ones which have been set up further communities are requesting assistance to establish LMMAs. The needs and interests of the tourism groups were taken into account in both phases, but the LMMA process was driven by the needs and interests of the communities.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionSocial informationEconomic/valuation information


Process ID

MSP_13

MSP_16

MSP_17

MSP_18

MSP_19

MSP_20

MSP_21

MSP_22

MSP_23

MSP_24




A number of consultations through surveys and workshops have been conducted.

Facilitated consensus None known

Unknown

Unknown None

None


None

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community; General Public

Affected user groups; Government (regional, national, local); Regulation / enforcement authorities; Local community

Government and regulation/enforcement authorities have decision-making responsibilities.

Affected users, government and local community were formally consulted.

A series of consultations was conducted, jointly facilitated by the Department of Fisheries and the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) a local NGO. The first meeting, which brought together over sixty persons, representing twenty-five different sectors or institutions, was convened with the following objectives: to establish a consensus on the need for resolution of marine resource use conflicts in the Soufriere region; to create the conditions for negotiation and settlement of any dispute; to define issues affecting marine and coastal resource management; to locate areas of potential and existing conflict and to define the boundaries of the various resource uses. It was made clear to the participants that all previous decisions and all management arrangements were subject to discussion and review. During a boat trip the participants had the task of mapping the resources, their uses and the location of conflicts as they travelled along the coast. The discussions held on the boat trip led to the agreement within the group that zoning was not the only management instrument and that the plan produced as a result of this exercise should be much broader in its identification of measures and solutions.

At a second meeting the participants were asked to confirm the information on resources, current uses and location of conflicts which had been established during the previous session and to reach agreement on all areas and issues for which agreement appeared relatively easy to reach

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activities


Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government: Regulation/Enforcement authorities; Local communities; General public; NGOs

Decision making was the responsibility of affected users, experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement, local community, general public stakeholders.

The stakeholder engagement process primarily coordinated with Coastal Advisory Committees (CACs) for the coastal planning regions which convene representatives from multiple sectors and interests – from tourism to fishing to preservation – to make recommendations for development and conservation in their regions.

Stakeholder consultations were held countrywide at strategic locations during the planning phase. These consultations included community level group meetings, and interviews (face to face and telephone) with local experts in coastal zone management and key partners at the United States-based Natural Capital Project.




Sub-national

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Affected User Groups; Experts/Academia; Government (regional, national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public

Government and regulation/enforcement authorities had core decision-making responsibilities.


Voting


Surveys and workshops discussions





Multi-national between Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia; Iran; United Arab Emirates


Affected User Groups; Experts/Academia; Government (regional, national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public

Government and regulation/enforcement authorities had decision-making responsibilities.

Stakeholders formally consulted include affected users, experts/academia, local community and the general public.

Resource users are involved in the process from planning until implementation. They monitor and give input and comments in the implementation to the authority (government) and involved in enforcement.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionGovernance information




Affected User Groups; Government (regional, national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community

Government, regulation/enforcement and the local community had decision-making responsibilities.

Affected users were formally consulted.

Participatory workshops were integral to the project. 5 workshops were held for the delimitation of the study area.8 workshops were conducted to defining the scope and mechanism for participation and selection of co-researchersCommunity Councils with the coastal area of Cauca and3 workshops for the coastal zone of Nariño


Voting


Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial informationEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information




Sub-national management between provinces

Forestry, tourism, fisheries, oil and gas, recreation, renewable energy

Commercial businesses and industries, local government, marine conservation, academic institutions, non-commercial users and local community members.

Decision-making by coastal First Nations and Province of British Columbia.

Marine stakeholders representing multiple sectors contributed advice to the process through advisory committees: four sub-regional and one regional. In addition, a Science Advisory Committee gave expert technical and scientific knowledge and advice throughout the planning process. Extensive, the MaPP advisory committees met approximately every two months. The committee members represented a wide variety of marine uses and activities.

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Social information;Economic/valuation information;

Environmental indicators (e.g. water quality; habitat/species distribution);

Sub-national management between provinces, first nations

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community; General public

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government; Local community

Decisions taken by Government.

Affected users, experts/academia and local community stakeholders were formally consulted during planning.

The resulting Cabo Rojo Conservation Plan is a culmination of input from various stakeholders vested in southwest Puerto Rico.

The Conservation Action Planning (CAP) was implemented through a series of planning meetings and workshops with local stakeholders, community members, fishers, academics, researchers and government officials. Facilitated discussions resulted in the identification of priority conservation resources and their condition, understanding of human activities and other threats impacting the resources, and selection of strategies for improving or maintaining the resources of southwest Puerto Rico. The process of working through CAP for protected areas results in a plan based on a solid ecological foundation focused on specific and attainable strategies for biodiversity conservation and threat abatement.

This process relied heavily on community expertise, with community workshops held in March 2013 with fishers in Puerto Real and June 2013 at University of Puerto Rico’s Magueyes field station with the academic community and government officials. Various one-on-one meetings were held from December 2012 through September 2013 to generate input on conservation target viability, threat ranking, strategies and monitoring.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distribution

Environmental indicators (e.g. water quality; habitat/species distribution); Economic indicators (e.g. fish catch; income trends);

Biodiversity Conservation; Fisheries (domestic, subsistence, and international tuna); Marine Infrastructure and Public Utilities; National Security and Maritime Safety; Marine Transportation and Shipping; Non-renewable Resources; Renewable Energy; Tourism

Affected user groups; experts/academia; Government (regional, national, local); Local community; General public.

Experts/academia, government and regulation/enforcement authorities had decision-making responsibilities.

Affected users, local community and the general public were consulted during the process.

Social and environmental assessment of MPA site.

A participatory rural appraisal conducted interviews and extensive discussions with local and provincial officials and institutions.

Stakeholder consultation workshops with local fishermen, village leaders, provincial officials, local stakeholders.

National workshop on MPA institutional issues.

Voting







Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

Affected User Groups; Government (regional, national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public

Decision-making by affected users and the local community.

Stakeholders formally consulted include government, regulation/enforcement authorities and the general public.

Huge investment in education and awareness programmes, spanning parliamentarians to in the field communities. An extensive effort of radio programmes, newspaper articles and various communication mechanisms.

Community participatory mapping: Local communities identified local fishing grounds and preferred areas for conservation zones in each MPA.Expert mapping: Local government agency representatives and MPA practitioners documented the location of conservation targets, threats and priority areas for conservation and fishing.Feedback on zoning plan design: Local government agency representatives and MPA practitioners provided inputs on draft zoning plan designs.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial informationEconomic/valuation information




Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community; Fisheries; Security

Affected User Groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional, national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community, Privates (tour operators)

Decision-making by government, regulation/enforcement and District Officer.

Stakeholders formally consulted during the process include affected users, experts/academia, local community, private sector (fisheries and tourism) and government.

Stakeholders consultation meeting.

The three-day public consultation included several dialogue and analytical sessions which resulted in fruitful discussions and consensus amongst participants from highly varied backgrounds, expertise and experience. Out of this, five action committees have been established, which are:1. Tourism, which will be led by Semporna District Council and Sabah Parks,2. Biodiversity Conservation , by Sabah Wildlife Department and WWF-Malaysia,3. Fisheries, by the Department of Fisheries,4. Mariculture, by Farmers Organisation Authority of Semporna, and5. Heritage and Culture, by Community College, Sabah Museum, and Department of EducationThe five action committees commit to produce a plan following their respective sectors with regards to MSP.

Prioritize objective based on Steering Committee public discussion

Biological / ecological informationCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial informationEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information


Economic indicators (e.g. fish catch; income trends, Tourism occupancy rate)

Process ID

MSP_25

MSP_26

MSP_27

MSP_28

MSP_29

MSP_30

MSP_31

MSP_32

MSP_33

MSP_34


Specific regulations None


Unknown Unknown

None

Facilitated consensus None None


Voting None

Consultations with the wider public / local communities is in the planning, but has not happened yet. Unknown Unknown



Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community; General public

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public.

Decision making by experts/academia, government and regulation/enforcement.

Affected users, local community and general public formally consulted.

Efforts were focused on enhancing the awareness and understanding of the stakeholders on the ICM approach and the importance of developing a shared vision. This objective was realized through stakeholder consultation workshops and meetings





Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community; Municipal Fishing, Private sector

National and Provincial Agencies, Private Sector, Civil Society Groups, NGOs, Fisherfolk Associations and Local Government Units

2003-2004: 10 municipal workshops and 1 city consultation and capacity-building workshops.

2005: Technical officers from PEMSEA conducted a 2-day inception workshop for various stakeholder groups from national and provincial agencies, private sector, civil society groups, fisherfolk associations and local government units.

We convene the Project Coordinating Committee and set up consultative process to tackle the issue on implementation process.

Current human activity distributionEconomic/valuation information


Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public.

Decision making by affected users, experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement, local community and the general public.


Voting







Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; Local Government (coordination among the agencies)

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community (fisher and shrimp farmers); General public.

Government and regulation/enforcement authorities have decision-making responsibilities.

Affected users, experts/academia, local community and the general public were formally consulted.

Apply the consultative acts during the process of the MSP implementations;

Multi-sectoral stakeholder committee.








Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Affected user groups; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public, Civil society organisations , NGOs

Decisions taken by affected users and government.

Regulation/enforcement authorities, local community and general public formally consulted.

A series of workshops and informal meetings.

The project included more than a dozen formal and numerous informal meetings with diverse stakeholders and decision makers from government community groups, the private business sector, and fishers’ associations.

Through a participatory process, stakeholders and decision makers defined a vision for marine zoning in their waters. This vision was used as a basis for all project activities.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionFuture development/activitiesSocial informationGovernance information

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community;Private sector

Government (Council of Ministers and Council of Senior Officials), experts/academia (Technical and Governance working groups make recommendations) responsible for decision-making.

Stakeholders formally consulted during the process were affected users, experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement and the local community.

Consultations (including local community and stakeholder consultations within each country) and participatory planning mechanisms



Multi-national voluntary collaboration between Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste

Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community; General Public

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public

Affected users, government, regulation/enforcement, local community, fishing community, diving business and Resorts stakeholders were responsible for decision making.

Experts/academia and the general public were formally consulted during the planning process.

Small group discussion with each stakeholder and a big meeting involved representative from each stakeholder which are supported by municipal.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial informationGovernance information



Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local)

Government had decision-making responsibilities.

Affected users and experts/academia formally consulted.


Sub-national between provinces (Zambezia and Nampula)

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

The Sanctuary Advisory Council (Advisory Council) consists of 21 voting members and 21 alternates that represent the general public, tourism, business, recreational fishing, commercial fishing, non-consumptive recreation, education, research, conservation and Chumash community interests, as well as local, State and Federal government agencies. Additionally, the respective managers of three California National Marine Sanctuaries (Channel Islands, Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay) participate as non-voting members of the Council.

Government (NOAA with recommendations from the SAC) responsible for decision-making.

Public involvement, through the Sanctuary Advisory Council (members representing constituent groups and government agencies), special workshops, public hearings, submission of written comments, and other means, has been vital to the management plan review process, helping sanctuary managers and staff to identify resource management issues and possible solutions.

In 2006, NOAA released the draft management plan and DEIS for public review and comment, followed by a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) in 2008. NOAA received over 700 comments from agencies, organizations, and individuals during the comment periods, which have been addressed by NOAA.

Three fundamental steps in review: 1) public scoping meetings; 2) the prioritization of issues and development of action plans; and 3) the preparation of draft and final management plans and the relevant National Environmental Policy Act documentation (such as an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment). Public comments on the draft plan help staff revise the document into a final management plan outlining the Sanctuary’s priorities for the next five to ten years.

Additionally, the Sanctuary Advisory Council provides a public forum for consultation and community deliberation on resource management issues affecting the Sanctuary. Also, there are ongoing consultation efforts including: • Consultation with local mariners to develop ethnographic data about Sanctuary resources and uses, providing for enhanced management decision-making; • Providing public access to sanctuary interactive kiosks (with over 40 online regional weather links) at local harbours and visitor centers;

Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Scientific Research

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional, national, local)

Decision-making the responsibility of affected users and government.

Experts/academia were formally consulted.

The MSP process in CCAMLR is developed by the Commission therefore it is fundamentally shaped by stakeholders. The process of MSP is being applied in ABNJ to the development of MPAs and is ongoing - but interaction with civil society is therefore rather different to a national programme.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresEcosystem goods and services/benefits

Multi-national/International between 25 CCAMLR Members in the Southern Ocean high seas. The CAMLR Convention Area also includes sovereign waters of France, SA, Australia, and UK, so collaboration occurs between these sovereign nations and CAMLR Commission.

Process ID

MSP_35

MSP_36

MSP_37

MSP_38

MSP_39


Facilitated consensus Not yet determined

Workshops with all the possible stake-holders explaining the process and making them part of it

Consultations between government departments and open for public comments. Various sources

Environmental indicators None


Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public; Military and National Security

Ocean industries; commercial fishing; ocean recreation interests; environmental and conservation groups; research institutions; the general public and state tribes.

Government with decision-making responsibilities.

Affected users, experts/academia, government, local community and the general public were formally consulted.

Stakeholder and public engagement has been a cornerstone of the regional ocean planning process and will continue to be a critical component of Plan implementation, and future updates and revisions. Opportunities for engagement have included formal RPB decision making meetings, all of which have been open to the public and included public comment sessions, as well as separate stakeholder outreach events hosted by the RPB and MARCO. These additional events included stakeholder workshops and meetings, public webinars, and rounds of public listening sessions in the States at key junctures in the process. MARCO also established and periodically engaged a Stakeholder Liaison Committee (SLC) to secure regular input and strengthen communication with stakeholder groups.

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Governance information;

Sub-national between states (Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania)

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public; Defense (security); Scientific Research

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; general public

Decision-making by government, regulation/enforcement authorities and the local community.

Stakeholders formally consulted during the process include affected users, experts/academia, and the general public.

Ethnic minorities consultation protocols established in Colombian Law





*Demographic transition

Sub-national between districts

The port and shipping, and Commercial fishing; Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, sailing, kayaking, swimming); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

The Municipal Development and Reform Commission; the Municipal Planning Commission; the Environmental Protection Bureau; the Municipal Transportation Bureau; the Port Authority; the Maritime Bureau; the Land Management Bureau; the Construction Bureau; the Water Conservancy Bureau; the Tourism Bureau; the Municipal Gardens Bureau; the District Government; the corresponding provincial departments; military sectors; local communities; fishermen; tourists; NGOs.

Decision-making by the Xiamen Municipal Government and the Fujian Provincial Government.

During the development process of the marine functional zoning plan, stakeholders are asked to provide their comments on the draft, public hearings also held.

The Marine Management Leading Group is responsible for coordinating sea use among different departments so as to address sea use conflicts. During the development of the marine functional zoning plan, the consulting stage provides the chance to address sea use conflicts.

The MSP geographic information system to manage the sea area was established in 2000.

The center of dynamic monitoring of Xiamen Sea Area uses was established in 2007.

Sub-national limited collaboration with neighbouring cities

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Fishermen; general public and sanctuary users; local community

Decision-making by government.

Affected users, experts/academia, government, local community and the general public were formally consulted.

Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) - comprised of eighteen voting members with alternates, and six non-voting members representing various stakeholders. For the EFH process, a collaborative stakeholder process was used that included affected fishermen, NGOs and sanctuary staff, and the process included local knowledge, input and information from all stakeholders. Also, the areas to modify and add into EFH were developed by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) based on a prior process to identify and establish -"Sanctuary Ecologically Significant Areas" (SESAs). The SESA areas provided the foundation as they include habitat that supports ground fish species, as well as biogenic habitat.http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/ebmi/welcome.html

Use a collaborative approach when working with stakeholders and affected parties

Biological/ecological informationGovernance information

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; Research and Education

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community;

Decision-making by government and regulation/enforcement authorities.

Affected users, experts/academia, and the local community were formally consulted.

The development of a set of regionally agreed objectives, goals and management strategies for the regional network of MPAs involved a process of consultation with MPA experts from each country in a workshop in Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) in November 2000. The objectives and goals were based on regional priorities, and on the objectives and goals of existing MPA management

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionFuture development/activitiesSocial informationEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information



Multi-national between Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen

Process ID

MSP_40

MSP_41

MSP_42

MSP_43

MSP_44

MSP_45

MSP_46


None


Facilitated consensus Unknown



Chiefs meet together and make final decisions None

Consensus based decision making process

Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; general public

Affected users, government, and local community responsible for decision-making.

Experts/academia, regulation/enforcement authorities and the general public were formally consulted.

The Anhatomirim EPA management plan was result of a great participatory effort, with more than 100 meetings, involving approximately 50 institutions (from local to federal) and almost all local community leaders. As Anhatomirim EPA has very limited financial and human resources, the effectiveness of its formal institutions largely depends on their perceived legitimacy. This is why an emphasis has been placed in the participatory assessment of problems, conflicts and strategies to tackle them.


Voting







Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community

Affected users, government, regulation/enforcement authorities and local community responsible for decision-making.

Experts/academia, and regulation/enforcement authorities were formally consulted.

SRPEP Meetings and consultations with members, secretariat staff and partner organisations.

Each member state is responsible for implementing planning under the SPREP framework.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial informationEconomic/valuation informationGovernance information




Multi-national between 21 countries. There are multiple planning efforts at varying time scales and ranging in size from community to regional scales.

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; Artisanal fishing; Mariculture

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Local community; General Public

Decision-making by affected users, experts/academia, and the local community and government.

The general public was formally consulted during the planning process.

Stakeholders were involved in all data gathering over 5 year process. 65% of the database was based upon local knowledge and was validated by stakeholders. A series of four workshops was held to discuss the process. A multi-stakeholder committee of 30 people was set up with 1 rep from each island. Community meetings were held on each island.

The Grenadines Marine Resource Space-use Information System (MarSIS) - From 2006 to 2012, this participatory GIS was created together with a wide range of stakeholders including a variety of people who work in the sea, such as fishers, dive shops, day tours, water taxis, yachting charter companies and ferries; the marine management agencies of both countries; the Grenadine island communities; local and regional NGOs; and academics.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial information

Sub-national between islands

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; Artisanal fishers

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government (regional; national, local); Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; General public

Decision-making by government, experts/academia, regulation/enforcement authorities and the local community.

Affected users and the general public were formally consulted during the process.





Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Affected user groups; Government (regional; national, local); Local community

Decision-making body is Barbuda Council.

Affected users, government and local community were formally consulted.

Community interviews with fishers and other key stakeholders e.g. tourism operators to give an idea of what management approaches are supported

Community surveys and interviews, "There will be a minimum of five Community consultation meetings, which will be well advertised and open to the public." "Additional consultations will take place with smaller groups, including fishermen, a Stakeholder Committee (with representatives of all key stakeholder groups who are chosen by the Barbuda Council), and other interested community members.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionGovernance information

Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

The stakeholder consultative group includes government agencies, non government ‐organisations and the private sector.

There are also external stakeholders from the fisheries, forestry, agriculture, environment, health, tourism, and government sectors.

Decision-making by local community.

Affected users, experts/academia, government and regulation/enforcement authorities formally consulted during the planning process.

The management plan reflects the outcomes of the Kubulau Ecosystem Based Management Planning ‐Workshop (Namalata, 25 27 February 2009) and subsequent consultations with community, civil ‐society, government and private sector stakeholders. The Kubulau Resource Management Committee (KRMC) meets with the stakeholder consultative group four times per year to discuss resource management issues. The KRMC may hold additional meetings as necessary. Two thirds of members ‐must be present to make decisions. The KRMC Chair reports to the Bose Vanua, and attends Bose Vanua meetings as an observer. The plan is reviewed every 5 years.




Primarily Inuvialuit (aboriginal) interests; federal and territorial government; academia; ENGOs; industry (oil and gas, resource based, marine shipping); management bodies; northern coastal community residents with interests in the beaufort Sea

Aboriginal peoples; government; local community; academia; environmental non-government organizations; Marine industry

Decision-making by government and Aboriginal Co-management partners.

Broader stakeholders including, academia, environmental NGOs and industry were formally consulted.

The Beaufort Sea Partnership- comprised of 83 members from 37 organisations (regional level representatives) and is the primary forum for stakeholder engagement.

Working groups, community tours, workshops and meetings Beaufort Sea e-forum - repository for workshop reports and minutes of meetings/consultations and offered stakeholders the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback on draft documents.

Not finished but current focus on:Biological / ecological information;human impacts/pressures;Future development/activities;Social information;Economic/valuation information;Governance information;

Monitoring of individual sites, i.e.. Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area, Anguniaqvia niqiqyuam Marine Protected Area; as well as Beluga Whale monitoring across ISR

Sub-national between states, indigenous regions (Beaufort sea lies within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR))

Coordination across Canadian territories, and with Alaska and Inupiat

Process ID

MSP_47

MSP_48

MSP_49

MSP_50

MSP_51

MSP_52

MSP_53

MSP_54


Extensive, 18 public hearings and 90 stakeholder consultations in one year of planning Unknown

None

All Stakeholder Advisory Council None

Unknown Unknown Not yet determined

Government Unknown Current human activity distribution; Unknown None

Unknown Unknown Unknown

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown None

Decision making by government. Facilitated consensus

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); wind energy

Fisheries management measures excluded from plan by Oceans Act

Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP); General public

Affected user groups; Government; Regulation/Enforcement authorities; Local community

Unknown decision-making body.

Affected users, experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement, local community and the general public were formally consulted.



Sub-national limited collaboration between states (Rhode island and Massachusetts)

Commercial and recreational fishing; Tourism and Recreation; General Public; Local Community; Environment and Conservation; Culture and Heritage

General public; User groups; Federal, State and Local Governments

Affected users provide scoping and public comment on alternatives developed by NOAA. Final decision is NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with State of Florida.

Formally consult with Government.

Informally Consult with Affected Users, experts/academia, regulation/enforcement, local community, and the general public.

Initial plan (1996): A series of workshops followed a set of public scoping meetings.Interagency Core Group formed (1991) - composed of Federal, State, and local agencies with direct jurisdictional responsibility in the Sanctuary, purpose to develop policies, direct and oversee the management plan development process.Sanctuary Planners held a series of workshops (1991-1992) - focused on a range of topics including mooring buoys, education, photobathymetry, research, submerged cultural resources, and zoning.A Strategy Identification Work Group, composed of 49 local scientists and management experts, generated the initial set of strategies and details on implementation requirements.The Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) was established by the FKNMSPA to ensure public input into the Plan, and to advise and assist NOAA in its development and implementation - conducted over 30 meetings (open to the public). The SAC was an integral part of the Sanctuary planning process by serving as a direct link to the Keys' user communities, such as the dive industry, environmental groups, and commercial and recreational fishermen. In addition, the SAC has been instrumental in helping NOAA to formulate policy, particularly with regard to: 1) the marine zoning plan, 2) activities needing regulation, and 3) recommending a preferred alternative for the Management Plan.Public review process (1995 & 2001-2006)

Facilitated consensusVotingPrioritised objectives

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Cumulative human impacts/pressures;Future development/activities;Ecosystem goods and services/benefits;Social information;Economic/valuation information;Governance information;


Local community and tribes; enforcement; resource users; experts/academia

Decision making by the government and the Public Commission.

Affected users, experts/academia, government, regulation/enforcement, local community and the general public were formally consulted.

Facilitated consensus followed by Voting;

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Cumulative human impacts/pressures;Social information;Economic/valuation information;Governance information;


Fishing; Shipping; Energy; Recreation; Tourism; Conservation; Aquaculture

Coastal First Nations; affected sectors; scientists; government; coastal residents

5 preparatory meetings in the communities of Skidegate, Masset, Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Port Hardy.

Introductory Forum March, 2009 in Richmond, British Columbia - attended by over 300 people, in addition to approximately 80 more people who participated through webcasting --> launched the integrated management planning process for the Pacific North Coast.

Numerous multi-stakeholder meetings and workshops have been held since the Forum - Release of Initiative Engagement Strategy.

Draft management plan released for public review in 2013.

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution

Sub-national between local authorities/states

Energy; Shipping; Fisheries; Tourism and recreation ; Environment and conservation

Shipping industry representatives; Energy industry representatives; Government ministries; Local government; Environmental Organisations; General Public; Experts/academia

Stakeholder meetings; meetings with consultants and advisory board; and workshops held from 2014-2016

Marine transport; commercial and recreational fishing; energy and infrastructure; aquaculture; offshore resource; national security; Environment and conservation; Cultural heritage; Tourism; Leisure and recreation

Scientists/academia; fishermen; boaters; recreation community; environment groups; representatives of industry (shipping, aquaculture, energy); general public; local tribes

Engaged multiple audiences and stakeholders through RPB-led public meetings. Each of these meetings included time for public comment and prior to each, public workshops and gatherings were convened.

Stakeholder forums and workshops; state-based public meetings and advisory groups; subject-specific projects, targeted outreach and work groups (comprised of RPB member organisation representatives and experts); Opportunistic outreach; Northeast Ocean Data Portal Development; and electronics and social media. Additionally, RPB members were responsible for internal communication and coordination (e.g. within agencies, tribes, states, and the New England Fishery Management Council).

Decisions always followed a consensus-based approach that welcomed and incorporated public and stakeholder input.

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;

Sub-national between New England states of Rhode Island, Conneticut, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Fishing; Leisure and Tourism; Cultural Heritage; Environment and conservation

Academia/experts; agencies; local communities; affected users; government

2006 ORMP process Input gathered over several months(2005) via a workshop, web page with easy access to documents for review; incorporation of stakeholder recommendations into draft and public review meetings on each major island (2006)

2013 ORMP Revision Process8 state-wide Public Listening Sessions (PLS) Apr-Jun 2012 - attended by over 300 individuals who identified issues on their islands

Public Review Draft 2013 ORMP Oct 2012 was the basis for a second round of 9 state-wide PLS and comment period until Jan 2013

Marine transport (shipping); oil and gas; wind energy; pipelines and cables; commercial fishing; Mari culture; military; local communities

Affected users, fishing groups, First Nations, community associations, environmental NGOs, regional development authorities, and municipalities

The ESSIM initiative employs a multi-stakeholder, collaborative planning approach - developing and implementing the plan is done by all sectors and stakeholders. Collaborative planning model comprised of: The ESSIM Forum - serves as a network for multi-stakeholder communications, information sharing and input - biennial meetings (not a decision-making body)The Stakeholder Advisory Council - responsible for leading and guiding the ESSIM initiative, membership representative of ocean sectors, communities of interest and stakeholders, quarterly meetings, decisions made by consensus.The Government Sector Structure -Regional Committee on Ocean Management - The RCOM is a body of decision makers, each with mandated decision-making powers at the zonal and regional level. The RCOM provides advice and recommendations to mandated decision-making processes to be implemented via the relevant government departments, agencies and boards. Semi-annual meetings (or as necessary) Federal-Provincial ESSIM Working Group- intergovernmental forum that focuses on policy, management, operations and regulatory coordination for the ESSIM Initiative. 4-5 meetings/yearThe ESSIM Planning Office (DFO) - provides shared leadership and coordination for development and implementationof the Plan

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Governance information;Social information;Economic/valuation information


Sub-national collaborative planning between Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador

Process ID

MSP_55

MSP_56

MSP_57

MSP_58

MSP_59

MSP_60

MSP_61

MSP_62

MSP_63

MSP_64


Facilitated consensus Unknown Unknown None

Facilitated consensus Unknown




Facilitated consensus Unknown None

Unknown Unknown Unknown

Involvement in management is promoted through an Advisory Council Unknown Cumulative human impacts/pressures None

Multi-stakeholder consultations, meetings Unknown None

Government; local communities Unknown Unknown Facilitated consensus Unknown Unknown

Tourism; Artisan fishing; scientific research; Fishing

Affected users; local communities; scientific research, government, NGOs

Local users, national government and environmental NGOs had decision-making responsibilities.

In June 1997 the presence of participants selected from local guilds and institutions directly and indirectly involved in the Management and use of the Marine Reserve was required. With the additional assistance of observers from institutions with interests in the Galapagos, a workshop was carried out to revise the Management Plan for the Marine Reserve

Establishment of an alliance between involved parties and local users in order to develop a management agreement for areas and their natural resources.

The Central Group set up a forum for united meetings of local users and those with interests and/or concerns in the area who are both directly affected by the management of the Galapagos Marine Reserve

The Central Group worked for 15 months, summoning a total of 74 meetings, 3 workshops and 2 fishing summits.

Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

Affected user groups; Experts/Academia; Government; Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community

Decision-making by affected users, government and the local community.

Experts/academia and regulation/enforcement authorities were formally consulted.

This has been a highly participatory process, with workshops, participatory mapping and communication among institutions and stakeholders.



Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local community

Affected user groups; Experts/academia; Government; Regulation/Enforcement authorities; local community

Decision-making by the government.

Affected users, experts/academia, regulation/enforcement, and the local community were formally consulted

Workshops with users have been implemented to explain plan, gather information and consult on possible decisions.

*Time constraints have limited involvement of stakeholders.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionCumulative human impacts/pressuresFuture development/activitiesEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial information

Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); tourism, law enforcement; government; academia/experts

*the shipping sector was not formally consulted other than through the IMO process.

Affected user groups; NGOs, Experts/Academia; Government, Local Community

Decision-making by the government.

Affected users, experts/academia, government, and the local community were formally consulted

The consultations were carried out using meetings and presentations. Input was also received via individual communications.

Public presentations led to broad support for the measures on the island of Saba.

Biological / ecological informationCurrent human activity distributionEcosystem goods and services/benefitsSocial information;Economic/valuation information



*Shipping is also monitored

Sub-national State, province

Biodiversity Conservation; Fisheries (domestic, subsistence, and international tuna); Marine Infrastructure and Public Utilities; National Security and Maritime Safety; Marine Transportation and Shipping; Non-renewable Resources; Renewable Energy; Tourism and Recreation (including sport fishing)

Affected user groups; local community; general public

Decisions made by the Seychelles Government, through the Executive Committee. The MSP Steering Committee provides technical advice and reviews technical outputs. Three Technical Working Groups provide ecological and socio-economic input and advice on planning outputs and assist with developing planning products for the MSP. Members of the Technical Working Groups include marine and terrestrial ecologists, economists, environmental non-governmental organisations, and private sector representatives for fishing, oil & gas, tourism, ports, renewable energy, and economic development.

Website to communicate the process to stakeholders and the public. Stakeholder workshops and consultations throughout phase 1 and 2; Mapping and spatial representation of stakeholder preferences

Extractive uses; Non-Extractive Uses; Commercial and recreational fishing; Environment and conservation; Culture and Heritage; Leisure and Tourism; Scientific research; Local community; General public

Affected users; Government; enforcement/regulation authorities; California tribes and tribal governments; NGOs; experts/academia; general public

Regional Stakeholder Groups formed to identify areas. MPA proposals submitted to California Fish and Game Commission for designation.

Open meetings - all meetings of the Task Force, SAT and regional stakeholder group were/are open to the public and meeting agendas and materials available for public review.

Public comments - written and at meetings

Stakeholder panels - at task force meetings, 4-6 stakeholders asked to provide their perspectives

State-wide Interests Group - includes representatives of key constituent groups throughout the state to serve as an additional mechanism for two-way communication between the task force and its stakeholders.

Study tours and field trips; workshops; stakeholder-hosted meetings

MLPA Regional Stakeholder Groups

MLPA State-wide Interests Group

Biological / ecological information;Current human activity distribution;Social information;Economic/valuation information;Governance information;Unknown

Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); Mariculture (pearl, seaweed, shrimp pond, salt pond); Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, surfing, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Affected users; experts/academia (universities and marine research institutions); Government (Local, National and Provincial); Local communities; NGOs

Workshops on Marine Protected Areas attended by more than 1,000 participants, and technical MPA training initiatives for around 200 participants from national and local government agencies, local universities, marine research institutions, local communities, NGOs, as well as the fishing and tourism industries.

A series of consultations with national and provincial government agencies to align coastal and marine spatial planning with the proposed MPA network design.

Legal and policy analysis was finalised and consulted, providing recommendations on authority for marine spatial planning including recommendation on the decision-making processes and the roles and responsibilities of each agency/stakeholder groups.

Consultative meetings with relevant ministries and sectors, including (1) Indonesia Coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs (that coordinates 4 ministries, namely Transportation; Tourism and Economic Creatives; Marine Affairs and Fisheries; and Energy and Mineral Resources); (2) National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS); and (3) Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. The consultative meetings will continue in the coming year with other relevant sectors, including marine tourism, marine transportation, fisheries and mariculture, conservation and environment.


Sub-national between islands and provinces

Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); Environment and Conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); Local Community; General Public

Affected user groups; Regulation/enforcement authorities; Local community; Academia; NGOs

Decision-making by affected users.

Stakeholders formally consulted during the process include regulation/enforcement authorities and the local community.


Environment and Conservation; Leisure and Tourism; Local community; Defense

Affected users (tourism, fishers); Government; NGOs; Scientific Research and Academia; Non-users (who are interested in the bequest values of TRNP)

Decision-making by the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB).

Several consultations held in 1996 to contribute to updated management plan in 1999. Multi-sectoral consultations held for planning and rule-making.

Workshop entitled "Tubbataha through Changing Times" Annual biophysical monitoring, socio-economic and governance every 3 years

Environment and conservation; Leisure and tourism; Culture and Heritage




Process ID

MSP_01

MSP_02

MSP_03

MSP_UNEP MSP_WWF MSP_UNESCO OTHER Internet links

1 0 0 1

None known None known 1 1 1 1

None known 1 1 1 0

Cross-border linkage mechanisms - e.g. shared committees, fora, etc.

Potential cross-border links, within country, between countries, country/ABNJ

Frequent contacts and exchanges between the respective authorities. RI State agency advisory committee included representatives from Massachusetts, Conneticut and New York.

CRMC involved in the federally-led North East Ocean Plan (MSP_52).

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/pdf/samp_crmc_revised/RI_Ocean_SAMP.pdf

http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/MSP_RhodeIsland_reduced-size.pdf

http://www.seachange.org.nz/PageFiles/1166/5086_SCTTTP_Marine%20Spatial%20Plan_WR.pdf

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/haurakigulfforum/Documents/Governing%20the%20Gulf%20Giving%20Effect%20to%20the%20Hauraki%20Gulf%20Marine%20Park%20Act%20through%20Policies%20and%20Plans.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/oceania/nz/hauraki-gulf/

http://www.seachange.org.nz/

As States and the Northern Territory are responsible for the marine environment for the first three nautical miles from the shore and many ecological processes work across both the state and national waters, the Australian Government aims to work cooperatively with them in developing and implementing the plans.

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/oceania/australia/bioregions/

http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-bioregional-plans

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/5aa4ff80-e0d7-4ec8-8e39-d58e9352eeeb/files/mbp-brochure.pdf

Process ID

MSP_04

MSP_05

MSP_06

MSP_07

MSP_08

MSP_09

MSP_10

MSP_11

MSP_12

MSP_UNEP MSP_WWF MSP_UNESCO OTHER Internet linksCross-border linkage mechanisms - e.g. shared committees, fora, etc.


None known 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1

None known 0 0 0 1


Nested Systems (local / regional-provincial / national) 1 0 0 1

None known 1 1 0 0




Cross-border links with Torres Strait, Commonwealth Coral Sea Marine Reserve. broader Coral Triangle and SIDS (directly and through research or university groups)

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/oceania/australia/great-barrier-reef/

http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2855

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d98b3e53-146b-4b9c-a84a-2a22454b9a83/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan.pdf

Washington State has four Coastal Treaty Tribes (the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation) who manage shellfish and finfish in tribal “usual and accustomed areas” in accordance with tribal law.

Washington Pacific Coast municipalities and counties have community-developed Shoreline Master Programs that manage shoreline lands and waters out to 3 nautical miles. MSP in this area will reconcile these different management approaches.

Coordinate with neighbouring states and provinces to share technical information across all 253 sectors, enhance management of coastal ecosystems

The West Coast Regional Planning Body will be working on linking activities across state borders.

http://www.msp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Preliminary_Draft_MSP_Complete_File.pdf

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1706007.pdf

http://msp.wa.gov/learn/resources/

http://www.msp.wa.gov/

Presidential joint declaration between the governments of Costa Rica and Ecuador for a bilateral management of the shared resources in the Eastern Tropical Pacific.

The CMAR initiative is supported by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), UNESCO, Conservation International (CI), the IUCN among others. With over 80 NGOs, research organizations, local community groups, and representatives from the private sector participating, CI’s Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (ETPS) initiative has promoted regional cooperation for the training, education and conservation of marine resources

Cooperative management arrangement: Regional Action Plan (every regional group and national committees not only target to this general plan, but also have their own action plans with annual activities).

http://cmarpacifico.org/web-cmar/

http://naturalresourcespolicy.org/docs/Hands%20Across%20Borders/TBC%20Profiles/TBC%20Profile%20Template_Eastern%20Tropical%20Pacific%20Marine%20Corridor_CMAR_Garcia%20Leon.pdf

http://www.thegef.org/project/integrated-management-marine-and-coastal-resources-puntarenas

http://www.sinac.go.cr/ES/docu/Proyectos/INFORME%20FINAL%20DE%20SEGUIMIENTO%20PROYECTOS%20EN%20EJECUCION%20%20Is%202016.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/overview/

http://www.marviva.net/en/node/19

Cross-border links with Chile (in the south of the area of intervention)

Fundación Patagonia Natural:http://www.patagonianatural.org/proyectos

Inter-jurisdictional System of Coastal-Marine Protected Areas (2010-2014): https://www.thegef.org/project/inter-jurisdictional-system-coastal-marine-protected-areas-iscmpa

Consolidation and Implementation of the Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Programme for Biodiversity Conservation (1999-2009): https://www.thegef.org/project/consolidation-and-implementation-patagonia-coastal-zone-management-programme-biodiversity

Patagonian Coastal Zone Management Plan (1993-1996/97) https://www.thegef.org/project/patagonian-coastal-zone-management-plan

With Kastelorizzo the Greek island near by the MPA

http://awsassets.wwftr.panda.org/downloads/wwf_ka_kekova_2012_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/studies/documents/turkey_01_en.pdf

https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/8411

https://vimeo.com/44409775

http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgpw12004/data/papers/65-25.pdf

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JJC4.pdf

http://bluesolutions.info/integrated-msp-for-a-biological-corridor-in-the-northern-gulf-of-california-mexico/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259578584_Ecosystem-Based_Fisheries_Management_of_a_Biological_Corridor_Along_the_Northern_Sonora_Coastline_NE_Gulf_of_California

http://www.cedo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CEDO-FUNDRAISING-booklet-03282017-UPDATED-FINAL.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08920753.2014.877768

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549.6320&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Process ID

MSP_13

MSP_16

MSP_17

MSP_18

MSP_19

MSP_20

MSP_21

MSP_22

MSP_23

MSP_24




1 1 0 1

None known 1 0 0 1


None known Cooperation with Ecuador 1 0 0 1

None known 1 0 1 1




1 0 0 1

http://www.smma.org.lc/context/

http://www.smma.org.lc/Public/Case%20Studies/SMMA%20Case%20Study.pdf

http://www.smma.org.lc/Public/Conception/1994%20SMMA%20Management%20Plan.pdf

Coastal advisory committees (CACs) for nine coastal planning regions along the coast and offshore cayes

Potential for collaboration with Mexico and Guatemala

http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DRAFT%20BELIZE%20Integrated%20Coastal%20Zone%20Management%20Plan%20_MAY%2020.pdf

http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BELIZE-Integrated-Coastal-Zone-Management-Plan.pdf

There are also opportunities for cooperation e.g. co-location, integration.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3362e/i3362e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3100e/i3100e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6043e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/recofi/en#Org-OrgsInvolved

http://www.invemar.org.co/redcostera1/invemar/docs/6397UAC-LLAS_fase_I.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-04/other/mcbem-2014-04-co-5-en.pdf

http://www.minambiente.gov.co/images/normativa/decretos/2013/dec_1120_2013.pdf

For all the MaPP plans, a Provincial MarineCaucus was created, with membership from a broad range of provincial ministries, including Agriculture,Environment, Energy and Mines, International Trade, Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, Natural GasDevelopment, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Transportation and Infrastructure, and the office ofthe Attorney General

Plans available at:http://mappocean.org/

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/canada/pacific-coast/

http://mappocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/raf_mapp_v2.22_web.pdf

http://mappocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/MaPP_Implementation_Strategy_web_20161230.pdf

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/other/grants/NA09NOS4190173/Puerto_Rico/PR_TNC_Cabo_Rojo_Conservation_Plan.pdf

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/other/grants/NA09NOS4190173/Puerto_Rico/PR_TNC_Cabo_Rojo_Tech_Rept.pdf

https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/project_documents/Project%2520Document%2520for%2520WP%2520part1.doc

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/615711468782389546/pdf/multi-page.pdf

https://www.iucn.org/downloads/hon_mun_aide_memoire.pdf

http://www.marineplanning.org/Case_Studies/Indo_RajaAmpatZoning.html

http://birdsheadseascape.com/download/fact-sheets/Raja%20Ampat%20MPA%20Network%20Fact%20Sheet%202012.pdf

https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Agostini%20etal12_Raja%20Ampat%20Zoning%20REPORT.pdf

http://www.marineplanning.org/pdf/RajaAmpat-Oct08factsheet.pdf

http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/news/local-communities-raja-ampat-embrace-mpa-zoning-plan

Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion and Coral Triangle Initiatives are both overarching mechanisms for collaboration

Potential for collaboration within the broader Coral Triangle Seascape (with Indonesia & Philippines)

http://www.wwf.org.my/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/sulu_sulawesi_marine_ecoregion_programme/semporna_priority_conservation_area/

http://www.wwf.org.my/?21925/Malaysias-First-Marine-Spatial-Plan-Proceeds-to-Public-Consultation

http://eascongress.pemsea.org/sites/default/files/file_attach/PPT-06-S2W3-MoniqueSumampouw.pdf

http://www.theborneopost.com/2015/06/04/malaysias-first-marine-spatial-plan-in-semporna/

Process ID

MSP_25

MSP_26

MSP_27

MSP_28

MSP_29

MSP_30

MSP_31

MSP_32

MSP_33

MSP_34




None known 1 0 0 1




1 0 0 1



None known 1 0 0 1

None known 1 0 0 1

http://pemsea.org/dev/sites/default/files/KP%2013_0_0.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/doc/33388676/Coastal-Strategy-of-Danang-City#fullscreen&from_embed

http://www.danangcoastalink.org.vn/English/Danangcoast/mission.htm

Potentially nested within broader Coral Triangle Seascape

http://iwlearn.net/publications/misc/presentation/integrated-coastal-management-icm-revitalizing-the-coasts-and-oceans-program-in-the-philippines

https://www.scribd.com/document/32869826/Coastal-Land-and-Sea-Use-Zoning-Plan-of-the-Province-of-Bataan

http://pemsea.org/news/bataan-coastal-land-and-sea-use-zoning-plan-published

http://vasi.gov.vn/trang-chu-vi.aspx

https://www.scribd.com/document/6609260/ICZM-in-Vietnam-Strategy-Orientation

http://daln.gov.vn/en/ac130a924/integrated-coastal-zone-management-strategy-iczm-of-vietnam-to-2020-vision-toward-2030-announcement-and-implementation.html

http://www.monre.gov.vn/wps/portal/news/!ut/p/c5/dclJDoIwFADQs3AA87-EQlwWE4pMCq0EuiENQcIggwNBTq8XMG_5QMLPoJamVq9mHFQPGUizODLqGlaAyFJqIuU8Pp8sT0eGkIO0_r5vgIAMjYK3OL4DPvkbX1ZR4uOQiaTdYj165W4zyaszizlZZ3oPB1LxlNrc9m6p2JdR5rG8J5XqSHjRifPMa0JriruPMmtNg6lT9AvxXVd4/

https://info.undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/VNM/Signed%20Prodoc-Wetland%20full-sized%2076965.pdf

https://bluesolutions.info/images/161122_BS_Doku_Asien_screen.pdf

http://panorama.solutions/en/solution/implementation-integrated-coastal-and-marine-spatial-planning-bontang

http://www.marineplanning.org/Case_Studies/StKittsNevisZoning.html

http://www.marineplanning.org/pdf/StKitts_Nevis_Full_Report.pdf

Creation of CTI-CFF Regional Plan of Action

Three levels of regular collaborative engagement between the six CTI countries: 1) Council of Ministers; 2) Committee of Senior Officials; 3) Working Groups. In addition, Regional Exchanges are regular meetings arranged around a particular theme of interest to the CTI countries.

Tri-national agreements on the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea Marine Ecoregion, and the Bismarck Solomon Seas Marine Ecoregion, Arafura and Timor Seas Experts Forum (ATSEF).

No portion of the CTI-CFF area lies beyond national jurisdiction.

CTI RPOA available at: http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/sites/default/files/resources/CTI-CFF%20Regional%20Plan%20Of%20Action%20(RPOA)%20.pdf

http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/about-us

Country plans available at: http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/resource_by_type/61

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08920753.2014.878177

http://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/winter-2013/articles/primeiras-e-segundas--2

https://primeirasesegundas.net/2014/08/18/primeiras-and-segundas-the-story-from-land-to-sea/

http://www.reefresilience.org/case-studies/mozambique-monitoring-reef-resilience/

Nested within the MLPA California (MSP_60)

management plan: http://channelislands.noaa.gov/management/manplan/cinms_fmp_2009.pdf

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/management/manplan/pdf/cinmsmprhistory.pdf

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/management/welcome.html

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/

A single convention (CAMLR Convention) with Member States and a Commission established to facilitate decision making.

Mechanism for data reporting and sharing between Members.www.ccamlr.org

http://www.ccamlr.org/

Process ID

MSP_35

MSP_36

MSP_37

MSP_38

MSP_39



N/A 1 0 1 1

None known 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/asia/china/

Sanctuary Advisory Council 1 0 0 1

None known 1 0 0 1

The RPB will serve as a forum to increaseinterjurisdictional coordination to facilitate efficient andeffective management of existing and potential futureMid-Atlantic ocean uses and resources. Suchcoordination will extend to partners and issues inadjacent areas that impact the Mid-Atlantic oceanplanning focus area, including internationalwaters as appropriate.

https://www.boem.gov/Ocean-Action-Plan/

https://www.boem.gov/Mid-Atlantic-Regional-Ocean-Action-Plan/

https://www.boem.gov/Mid-Atlantic-Regional-Plan-Adoption-Memo/

https://www.boem.gov/Approach-to-Mid-Atlantic-Regional-Ocean-Action-Plan/

A definition of a mixed ecological-economical-administrative new boundary was defined and validated with stakeholders

City Alliance among Xiamen, Quanzhou and Zhangzhou. There are some initial projects ongoing to promote the cross-border planning under the framework of City Alliance among Xiamen, Quanzhou and Zhangzhou.

Integrated enforcement in Xiamen-Kinmen Sea Area has been proposed and practiced in the past years.

Nested within the MLPA California (MSP_60)

Part of a broader network of marine sanctuaries.

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/pdfs/mbnms_fmp_2008.pdf

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/welcome.html

ArcView GIS map was used for stakeholder process:http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=4e2a885bb06b48d9b3a48ca532dc7208&extent=-121.8034,35.5481,-120.9938,35.9232

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/ebmi/130731efh_proposal.pdf

Creation of the Regional Organisation for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) 1995.

Regional Coordinating Committee (to develop, coordinate and provide training programmes and staff exchanges; to provide the physical location and resources for the webpage and electronic databases; to provide a regional library of resource material on MPAs)

Establishment of an Association of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden MPA Managers and Scientists, to function as an active, professional society; (2) development of an MPA web site in the Regional Activity Centre that will serve as a source of information for, and about MPAs in the region and beyond(3) a regular MPA feature in the PERSGA Newsletter Al-Sanbouk(4) Production of a booklet/CD on the Regional MPA Network and other MPAs in the region(5) Publication of a directory of regional specialist in MPA planning and management, socio-economic, living marine resources and the management, biodiversity, public awareness, GIS, research and monitoring.

http://www.persga.org/Files//Common/MPA/MPA_Network_DetailedReport_2003.pdf

http://www.persga.org/inner.php?id=110

http://www.persga.org/inner.php?id=62

http://www.persga.org/Files//Common/MPA/3_MPAnetwork_MasterPlan.pdf

Process ID

MSP_40

MSP_41

MSP_42

MSP_43

MSP_44

MSP_45

MSP_46



None known 1 0 0 1

Country/ABNJ 1 0 0 1

None known 1 1 0 1

None known 1 0 0 1

None known Potential to link to Antigua 1 1 0 1

1 0 0 1

None known 0 1 1 1

Anhatomirim EPA (EPAA) management council has institutions which are responsible for policies beyond the MPA boundaries (e.g. Ministry of Fisheries).

The EPAA management plan also proposes measures beyond its borders and establishes strategies to strengthen the dialogue with other agencies related to the theme. However, as there are several different management bodies with different perspectives for the territory, mismatches persist.

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/apa-anhatomirim

http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/docs-planos-de-manejo/apa_anhatomirim_pm_enc3.pdf

The Pacific Environment Information Network (PEIN)

Pacific Islands Protected Area Portal

SPREP Best Practice case study (to support future management decisions) http://www.sprep.org/Publications/good-coastal-management-practices-in-the-pacific-experiences-from-the-field

E.g. 2 Samoa's Initiative - 2 EEZs linked biologically and politically

https://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000937_684.pdf

https://www.sprep.org/Legal/agreement-establishing-sprep

http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000921_SPREPStrategicPlan2011_2015.pdf

https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Publications/Corporate_Documents/strategic-plan-2017-2026.pdf

http://www.sprep.org/pyor/reefdocs/000606_CMP.pdf

Islands / Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) http://www.grenadinesmarsis.com/

Country EEZ/ABNJ

Sub-regional (between countries)

http://www.programmebgp.mr/fr/images/downloads/poste-general-BGP-EN-final.pdf

http://www.unpei.org/sites/default/files/dmdocuments/PRODOC_3700_PartnershipsMauritania_021209%5B2%5D.pdf

http://www.spcsrp.org/en/mauritania

http://barbuda.waittinstitute.org/concept/

http://barbuda.waittinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Barbuda-Zoning-Regulations-2014-final-from-legal-affairs-CLEAN-8Aug2014.pdf

http://barbuda.waittinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Blue-Halo-Barbuda-Short-Description-26Nov2014.pdf

There is membership from Kubulau on a Bua Province Yaubula Management Support Team (YMST), which links to government to advise on community concerns related to environmental management.

An integrated coastal management plan is being developed for the whole of Bua Province, which may include planning across district borders.

http://www.wcsfiji.com/Portals/82/Kubulau_EBM_Plan_2009_FINAL.pdf?ver=2010-03-16-232531-840

Establishment of the Regional Coordinating Committee (RCC) and the Beaufort Sea Partnership (BSP) - the primary forum for stakeholder engagement.

www.beaufortseapartnership.ca

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/350719.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/canada/beaufort-sea/

http://www.grenadinesmarsis.com/

Process ID

MSP_47

MSP_48

MSP_49

MSP_50

MSP_51

MSP_52

MSP_53

MSP_54




None known 0 0 1 1 http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/mgmtplans/welcome.html


None known Nested within larger ocean plan 0 1 1 1

None known 0 1 1 1

None known 0 1 1 1

None known 0 0 0 1

0 1 1 1

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/us/massachusetts/

http://www.mass.gov/eea/waste-mgnt-recycling/coasts-and-oceans/mass-ocean-plan/

http://public.dep.state.ma.us/EEA/eeawebsite/mop/final-v1/v1-complete.pdf

Potential for connectivity with waters of other US States and the wider Caribbean.

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=41b11f32beefba0380ee8ecb5&id=94c98e72f9&e=0ed6e94fcf

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/Pages/Ocean_TSP.aspx

http://oregonocean.info/

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/us/oregon/

http://www.pncima.org/

Final Plan: http://www.pncima.org/media/documents/2016-plan/2316-dfo-pncima-report-v17-optimized.pdf

Integrated Engagement Strategy: http://www.pncima.org/media/documents/pdf/pncima_engagement_strategy_may_30_10.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/canada/pacific-north-coast/

Israel’s EEZ serves as a central sailing route at the regional level because it connects between the Suez Canal and the major ports of Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, and Greece.

http://msp-israel.net.technion.ac.il/

http://msp-israel.net.technion.ac.il/files/2015/12/MSP_plan.compressed.pdf

http://msp-israel.net.technion.ac.il/files/2014/12/Summary-of-stage-A-Report.pdf

http://msp-israel.net.technion.ac.il/files/2015/04/Israel-Marine-Plan-Stage-B-Report.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/middle-east/israel/

Establishment of the Northeast Regional Ocean Council

Development of Northeast Ocean data portal (2010 onwards)

http://neoceanplanning.org/

http://neoceanplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Northeast-Ocean-Plan_Full.pdf

http://neoceanplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NE-Regional-Ocean-Planning-Framework-February-2014.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/us/atlantic-regions/

Establishment of Pacific Regional Ocean Partnership (PROP) - a voluntary partnership between the Governors of the US Pacific Islands Region (does not share physical boundaries)

2006 Planhttp://www.ahamoku.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Hawaii-Ocean-Resources-Management-Plan-Hawaii-Office-of-Planning-2006.pdf

2013 Planhttp://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/czm/ormp/ormp_update_reports/final_ormp_2013.pdf

http://planning.hawaii.gov/czm/ocean-resources-management-plan-ormp/

The Plan respects all jurisdictions and management responsibilities under the Accord Acts and promotes continued regional collaboration through existing coordination mechanisms

Coordinated planning in the Gulf of Maine and Scotian Shelf

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/333115.pdf

http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/americas/canada/essim/

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/mpo-dfo/Fs97-6-3025-eng.pdf

http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/folios/00248/docs/ESSIM_Com_Workshops.pdf

Process ID

MSP_55

MSP_56

MSP_57

MSP_58

MSP_59

MSP_60

MSP_61

MSP_62

MSP_63

MSP_64



None known 0 0 0 1



Regional cooperation 1 0 0 1


None known 0 0 0 1

1 0 0 1




Potentially nested within Ecuadorian management

http://suia.ambiente.gob.ec/documents/10179/242256/01+PLAN+DE+MANEJO+GALAPAGOS.pdf/5f23fd2f-cdf5-4555-be45-6cec04b75ff4

http://www.galapagos.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/07/DPNG_Plan_de_Manejo_2014.pdf

http://www.galapagos.gob.ec/nueva-zonificacion-se-elaboro-con-amplia-participacion-de-todos-los-sectores-productivos-de-galapagos/

http://www.carlospi.com/galapagospark/documentos/DPNG_linea_base_rmg.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236658361_Improving_fisheries_co-management_through_ecosystem-based_spatial_management_The_Galapagos_Marine_Reserve?_sg=KL7175y4P7qkIZ6j5_m6gs67U-zDfLj4Ko-a5ox7k8tNyi5Je5XchM_pWiWGxnhQJiaV7MtjDiY_dnKT_USs9w

http://marviva.net/en/geoportal/ordenamiento-espacial-marino-en-el-norte-del-pacifico-colombiano

http://www.protectedplanet.net/102252

https://cedsapanama.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/3-estado-actual-de-los-ecosistema-marino-costeros-de-panama.pdf

Regional cooperation is aimed at neighbouring countries Saint Kitts and Nevis, Venezuela, France, the Dominican Republic, the United Kingdom and the United States of America through participation in:

The Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative (WHMSI), RFMOs and the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI).

http://www.dcbd.nl/sites/www.dcbd.nl/files/documents/Lundvall%25202008%2520Management%2520Plan%2520Saba%2520Bank.pdf

https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/nl/nl-nbsap-v4-p3-en.pdf

http://www.sabapark.org/

http://seymsp.com/the-initiative/

The MLPA has other processes nested within it i.e. Monterey Bay, Channel Islands.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Master-Plan#31841350-2008-master-plan-for-mpas

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=113010&inline

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=113021&inline

Collaborations with government of Timor Leste to provide training and technical input to policy and MPA network design.

communication with Timor Leste has not started yet in the context of ecoregion marine spatial planning

Workshops, technical training initiatives and consultations with national and provincial governments.

Further engagement with Timor Leste to undertake MSP

http://www.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/Lesser_Sunda_factsheet.pdf

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/lesser-sundas.xml?redirect=https-301

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/410

http://tubbatahareef.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Management-Plan-2011.pdf


http://www.mekongtourism.org/wp-content/uploads/HL-Bay-Management-Plan-Full-English-Version-June-2010.pdf


http://seymsp.com/the-initiative/


Field name

MSP Process ID

Region

Country

Name of MSP process

Timing (year of initiation)

Time spent in preparation phase (months & years)

Time spent in plan development phase (months & years)

Time spent in plan adoption phase (months & years)

Time spent in implementation phase (months & years)

Year of adoption

Spatial scale of process*

Lead entity/entities

Entity type*

This tab describes the data fields included in the inventory.* indicates that the data have been based upon pre-selected responses imported from UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database.

Size of the area (km2)

Funding

Initial planning issue or driver for MSP

Primary goals*

Objectives/Aims

Final or expected outcome

Legal basis

Governance mechanisms*

Government support*

Planning tools*

Previous MSP process?*

Comments on previous MSP process

Sectors

Stakeholders

Decision making*

Procedure for consultation

Conflict resolution mechanism*

Data used*

Monitoring indicators*

Cross-border planning

Cross-border linkage mechanisms

MSP_UNEP

MSP_WWF

MSP_UNESCO

Other

Internet links

Potential cross-border links, within country, between countries, country / ABNJ

Description

Unique ID number for the MSP processes in the Global MSP Inventory

Marine Region (broad-scale regions defined for the inventory but based on Regional Seas areas)

Country or countries involved in the MSP process

Full name from original data source

Start data including preparation phase

Year that implementation began

Coverage of the MSP process, classified by

Name of the principle entity or entities driving the process

Description of the lead entity, classified according to a list of options

This tab describes the data fields included in the inventory.* indicates that the data have been based upon pre-selected responses imported from UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database.

Preparation - all work undertaken prior to the development of the plan itself, including establishing the legal basis for an MSP initiative, collecting data, designing the process, undertaking stakeholder analysis, communication and outreach of initiative objectives, establishing the stakeholder groups and personnel involvedDevelopment - work undertaken to establish the marine spatial plan itself (at whatever level has been agreed), including stakeholder engagement, area identification, identification of management measuresAdoption - the process of operationalising the plan, which may involve formal governmental signature or less formal agreement from stakeholdersImplementation - activities involved in delivering the objectives of the plan and the resulting changes in behaviour, such as communication and outreach, establishment of appropriate regulatory institutions, management planning, enforcement of management measures, monitoring and evaluation

As described by data source and converted to km2

Total amount invested in the process in USD

The key issue that catalysed the initiation of MSP

Broad goals for the process, categorised under a list of options:

Specific activities designed to achieve the goals

As described in the planning process

Legal instruments or policies underpinning the MSP process

Indicators of government support are classified within a list of options

Includes governance mechanisms both in place prior to the process or introduced to support the process. Classified as:

Decision support tools that have been incorporated into the planning phase

Description of the previous MSP process

Sectors considered by the MSP process

Description of the types of stakeholders engaged in the process, selected from a list of options

Description of the stakeholders involved in decision-making in the MSP process.

Description of the stakeholder consultation procedure

Indication of whether the current MSP process was the first of its kind or followed on from a previous MSP process

Mechanisms in place for resolving conflicts between stakeholders in the planning phase.

Data used to prepare the develop the MSP plan, selected from a list of options.

Types of indicators used for monitoring, selected from a list of options.

e.g. shared committees, working groups

Hyperlinks provided to selected MSP process information

Specific jurisdictional boundaries involved in the cross-border MSP process, selected from: -Across sub-national borders -Across multi-national borders (2 or more) -Across international borders (i.e. into areas beyond national jurisdiction) -None -Unknown

Indicates where MSP area borders another jurisdiction (with which there is currently no collaboration)Information sourced from UNEP and GEF-STAP (2014) MSP in Practice Initiative database (Yes = 1; No = 0)MSP process sourced from WWF (2014)(Yes = 1; No = 0)MSP process sourced from UNESCO-IOC catalogue (Yes = 1; No = 0)MSP process sourced from other sources(Yes = 1; No = 0)

Source of dataList of pre-selected responses from UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative

database (where applicable)

Created for the EC DG MARE Global MSP Inventory

These data are based upon information from the UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.





- Regional (e.g. international transboundary) - National (e.g. country-wide, island) - Sub-national (e.g. state, province) - Local (e.g. bay, county, district)


These data are based upon information provided by the IOC-UNESCO MSP website, and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.

These data are based upon information from UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.

- Academic Institution; - Local Government; - National Government; - Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO); - Public/Private Partnership; - Regional Organisation ; - Users/Stakeholders;


These data are based upon information provided by the IOC-UNESCO MSP website and UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database, and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.

These data are based upon pre-selected responses and free text information from the UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.

- Facilitate the development of marine Infrastructure or other economic initiatives; - Maintain or develop local, small-scale or traditional use/s; - Conserve or restore the health of marine ecosystem/s; - Maximize the overall economic value of the marine ecosystem in a sustainable way; - Unknown; - Respondent's own answer


These data have been collected from various sources, project documents and free text in UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database.

These data are based upon information provided by the IOC-UNESCO MSP website and UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database, and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.

These data are based upon pre-selected responses from the UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database and have been further updated from other sources where necessary.

Was in place prior to process : - Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision) ; - Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance) ; - Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom); - Unknown

Put in place to support the process: - Binding, legally enforceable instrument (law, ruling, policy or decision); - Non-binding instrument (action plans, declarations or guidance) ; - Voluntary agreement/s (Memorandum of Understanding, custom) ;- Unknown


- There is a law/decree in place to promote MSP; - Organisations/working groups are tasked with MSP; - Financial resources have been allocated to all stages of MSP; - Clearly defined responsibilities have been given to authorities for MSP planning and implementation


- Optimization or network tools (e.g. Marxan); - User driven site selection tools (e.g.SeaSketch); - Economic valuation tools (e.g. Co$ting Nature); - Tradeoff and/or costbenefit analysis (e.g. InVEST); - Impact and risk assessments (e.g. EIA); - Unknown; - Respondent's own answer


- Yes - No



- Extractive uses (mining, dredging, oil, gas); - Non-extractive uses (ports, shipping, renewable energy); - Commercial fishing (trawling, netting, potting, lining, shellfish dredging); - Leisure and tourism (shore/sea angling, diving, sailing, kayaking); - Environment and conservation (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); - Cultural heritage (NGOs, advocacy, general interest); - Local Community - Unknown - Respondent's own answers


Affected Users;-Experts/Academia;-Government;-Regulation/Enforcement;-Local Community;-General Public;-Unknown-Other (respondent's own answers)


Core decision makers were: Affected Users;-Experts/Academia;-Government;-Regulation/Enforcement;-Local Community;-General Public;-Unknown-Other (respondent's own answers)

Consultation occurred with: Affected Users;-Experts/Academia;-Government;-Regulation/Enforcement;-Local Community;-General Public;-Unknown-Other (respondent's own answers)

Information pertaining to consultation procedures comes from a range of sources including UN Environment's MSP in Practice Initiative database, online resources, project reports.


-Facilitated consensus; -Voting; -Prioritised objectives; -Arbitration / mediation; -Unknown -Respondent's own answer -Other


-Biological / ecological information; -Current human activity distribution; -Cumulative human impacts/pressures; -Future development/activities; -Ecosystem goods and services/benefits; -Social information; -Economic/valuation information; -Governance information; -Unknown


-Environmental indicators (e.g. water quality; habitat/species distribution); -Economic indicators (e.g. fish catch; income trends); -Social indicators (e.g. employment levels; conflict resolution); -None; -Unknown -Other

Created for the EC DG MARE Global MSP Inventory

Created for the EC DG MARE Global MSP InventoryCreated for the EC DG MARE Global MSP InventoryCreated for the EC DG MARE Global MSP InventoryCreated for the EC DG MARE Global MSP InventoryCreated for the EC DG MARE Global MSP InventoryCreated for the EC DG MARE Global MSP InventoryCreated for the EC DG MARE Global MSP Inventory

Date post:	07-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duonganh
View:	225 times
Download:	10 times