Search

Abstract: Public participation was one of the hallmarks of the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, a planning process to support the redesign of California''s system of marine protected areas (MPAs). The MLPA Initiative implemented innovative and unconventional public outreach and engagement strategies to assist local communities share relevant knowledge and data, and provide timely and targeted contributions to MPA planning discussions. This collaborative model helped broaden traditional forms of participation to ensure public input received and integrated into MPA planning legitimately reflected the interests and priorities of California''s coastal communities. A number of considerations were critical to the success of this collaborative approach, including: understanding the needs and limitations of public audiences; working directly with communities to identify appropriate outreach and engagement strategies; prioritizing strategies that supported a multi-directional exchange of information; adapting strategies based on public feedback and internal lessons learned; and hiring professional public engagement specialists. Strategies evolved over time and increased the level and quality of public participation over this multi-stage planning process. Experiences gained from the MLPA Initiative can be used to encourage consideration of collaborative participation in other environmental planning and decision-making processes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The State of California recently planned and is implementing a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state waters as mandated by the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). A public–private partnership (the MLPA Initiative) completed four regional public MPA planning processes characterized by robust stakeholder contributions and the incorporation of best readily available science. Prior to enactment of the MLPA in 1999, less than 3% of California state waters were in MPAs, and most of those MPAs were small and lacked clear objectives. By 2013, approximately 16% of state waters will be in 124 MPAs that represent and replicate most marine and estuarine habitats and are designed to be ecologically-connected. The redesigned statewide network of MPAs improves marine ecosystem protection in California, advanced the science and practice of designing MPA networks, and increased the awareness and capacity of stakeholders, scientists and decision-makers for marine spatial planning. The public planning effort took almost seven years and significant financial investment (approximately $19.5 million in private charitable foundation funds and $18.5 million in public funds). Not all stakeholders were pleased with the outcomes and the planning processes faced many challenges. While the design of the MPA network aimed to meet science and feasibility guidelines, final decisions on MPAs in each region reflected tradeoffs needed to garner public acceptance and support for implementation. The MLPA Initiative offers some key lessons about implementing policy through a public planning process. While California is developing mechanisms for assessing effectiveness of the MPA network in coming years, including establishing a MPA Monitoring Enterprise and a process for periodic review and adaptive management of MPAs, significant challenges remain for effective implementation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In addition to fostering biodiversity goals, marine protected area (MPA) implementation has economic consequences for both commercial and recreational fisheries. During the implementation of the State of California (USA) Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which mandates the creation of an MPA network in California''s state waters, the stakeholders and policymakers utilized a pair of economic analyses that addressed these considerations. One was a comparative, static assessment of short-term, “worst case” potential socioeconomic impacts to important fisheries based on surveys of local fishermen. This analysis made no assumptions about fishery management outside of MPAs, assumed no spillover of fish from MPAs into fished areas or reallocation of fishing effort, and estimated the maximum potential dollar-value economic impacts over a short time scale. The other was a dynamic, bioeconomic assessment of the changes in spatial distribution of biomass and catch, based on published biological parameter values, oceanographic models of larval connectivity, and a range of possible levels of fishing. This analysis explicitly accounted for fish population dynamics, spillover, fisher movement, and fishery management outside of the MPAs, but was limited to long-term, equilibrium-based results because of a lack of baseline abundance data. Both evaluation methods were novel in their spatial resolution and their use directly in an MPA design process, rather than after implementation. The two methods produced broadly similar (at a regional spatial scale) evaluations of the likely effects of proposed MPAs on fisheries, at least when the bioeconomic model assumed fishery management was conservative. Our experience with these analyses in the MLPA Initiative process led to several suggestions for future MPA design efforts: (i) since the change in fish biomass inside MPAs partly depends on fisheries management outside of them, it is useful to integrate or coordinate conventional fishery management and MPA planning efforts; (ii) integrate modeling assessments early into MPA design, as part of a post-implementation adaptive management approach; and (iii) integrate empirical fishery data into bioeconomic models in order to improve representations of human behavior and short-term forecasts of changes in fished populations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The creation of a spatial decision support system that enabled stakeholder participation in designing marine protected areas (MPAs) was a necessary component of the planning process for California''s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. Implementation of the MLPA required stakeholders to understand and use a complicated set of spatial and scientific guidelines for MPA design that relied heavily on geographic information. Tools for the delivery and visualization of geographic information have changed radically in the seven years of planning during the MLPA Initiative. We collaborated to create a state-of-the-art spatial decision support system called MarineMap to facilitate the design and evaluation of MPA proposals. MarineMap provided an intuitive user experience that simplified complicated spatial concepts, delivered critical information immediately to allow users to iterate through scenarios rapidly. This tool provided transparency in the process, and moved spatial analysis away from the domain of GIS experts to a broader group of stakeholders. We think the lessons from this experience can contribute to the further development of tools and approaches for coastal and marine spatial planning more broadly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Marine protected areas (MPAs) can be an effective tool for marine conservation, especially if conservation goals are clearly identified and MPAs are designed in accordance with ecological principles to meet those goals. In California (USA), the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative led four regional public planning processes to design a statewide network of MPAs. The MLPA planning processes were carefully structured to provide a clearly-defined and important role for science and scientists. Over 50 scientists contributed directly to this MPA planning effort as members of a Science Advisory Team or in other capacities. Stakeholders were charged with developing alternative MPA proposals in each region, while scientists served as advisors and evaluated MPA proposals against science-based guidelines. Four key conditions supported the successful integration of science into the MPA network planning effort. First, the MLPA legislation provided a strong legal mandate for the use of the best readily available science and policy-makers strongly supported scientific input and the use of science-based MPA design guidelines. Second, the structure of the public planning process clearly identified the role of scientists and enabled a transparent and participatory process that promoted the use of science. Third, simple science-based MPA design guidelines provided benchmarks for assessing the likely effectiveness of alternative MPA proposals at achieving MLPA goals. Finally, scientists were engaged extensively and were responsive to the evolving informational needs of each regional MPA planning process. The redesigned statewide network of MPAs generally reflects the successful integration of science and science-based MPA design guidelines into a public policy process. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative (Initiative) was a public-private partnership focused on designing a statewide network of marine protected areas (MPAs) to increase coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state’s marine life, habitats, and ecosystems through a public planning process. In pursuing this core charge, the Initiative had to consider a range of other (non-MPA) policy issues and develop approaches to ensure that MPA network planning continued unimpeded, while also facilitating the consideration of issues deemed outside of California’s MPA planning process. This paper explores the strategies used to address policy issues that arose in MPA planning and provides examples from six specific topic areas: fisheries management, water quality, military use areas, marine bird and mammal protection, dredging and maintenance, and tribal gathering activities. Each of these topics helps illustrate a different strategy utilized, including engaging policy issues early, providing additional evaluations, engaging additional support, putting complimentary issues on a parallel track, utilizing flexibility in statutes, and ensuring frequent and direct stakeholder communication. Considering how multiple issues were addressed in a MPA planning process provides important insights for more integrated coastal and marine spatial planning. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Marine protected area (MPA) network planning in California was conducted over the course of nearly seven years through implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). State agency and contract staff collaborated through a public–private partnership called the MLPA Initiative (Initiative), supporting regional groups of stakeholders in crafting MPA network proposals for consideration by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and ultimately the California Fish and Game Commission. To design a statewide network, the Initiative divided California’s 1770 km coastline into five “study regions” for sequential planning, each with a separate “regional stakeholder group” (RSG) consisting of fishermen, conservationists, recreational users, and others with intimate knowledge of the area, who were tasked with proposing alternative MPA network designs. Each study region presented a different set of factors that needed to be considered by Initiative staff in designing the overall stakeholder planning process. Furthermore, as planning for each study region was completed, a formal “lessons learned” evaluation was conducted that informed process design in subsequent study regions. Thus, designing a statewide MPA network through regional MPA planning processes presented the opportunity and challenge of adapting the stakeholder process design to both regional differences and lessons learned over time. This paper examines how differences in regional characteristics and lessons learned influenced three important elements of the stakeholder process, including convening the stakeholders, managing stakeholder engagement, and integrating input from managing state agencies. The fundamental structure and unique management characteristics of the Initiative were essential in facilitating adaptation of these process elements over time. The California MLPA Initiative provides a case study in process flexibility to address changing contexts and a model for similar coastal and marine spatial planning processes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Without the proper enabling conditions, MPA planning processes can be significantly hindered in their capacity to achieve stated goals. In California, after two unsuccessful attempts, statewide planning of a network of marine protected areas (MPA) was achieved through the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. Six initial enabling conditions contributed to moving the MLPA Initiative forward, ultimately meeting the statutory objective of redesigning the statewide system of MPAs. Those conditions included: (1) a strong legal mandate which provided guidance and flexibility; (2) political support and leadership which enabled the process to overcome political challenges and opposition; (3) adequate funding which ensured sufficient staff support and facilitated innovative approaches to a public MPA network planning process; (4) an aggressive timeline with firm deadlines which propelled the process forward; (5) willingness of civil society to engage which provided for better informed and broadly supported outcomes; and (6) an effective and transparent process design which optimized contributions from stakeholders, scientists, and policy makers. These conditions enabled the MLPA Initiative to avoid shortcomings of similar planning processes, with implications for broader national policy on coastal and marine spatial planning in the United States. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: California enacted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) in 1999 to redesign and improve the state''s system of marine protected areas (MPAs), which the State Legislature found created the illusion of protection while falling far short of its potential to protect and conserve living marine life and habitat. In 2004, after two unsuccessful attempts to implement the MLPA, California created the MLPA Initiative through a memorandum of understanding among two state agencies and a privately-funded foundation that established objectives for a planning process, set out a timeline for deliverables, and established roles and responsibilities for key bodies. This paper analyzes how recommendations developed through the Initiative supported regulatory decisions by the California Fish and Game Commission to greatly expand the network of marine protected areas. That network includes 124 MPAs, covering 16.0% of state waters outside of San Francisco Bay, including 9.4% of state waters in "no-take" areas. Such an extensive network of MPAs that consciously incorporates science-based design guidelines is an important achievement worldwide and is a rare example of a sub-national government creating MPAs. Successful implementation of formally adopted public policies is well recognized as a complex process critical to achieving policy goals. The Initiative''s Blue Ribbon Task Force played a significant role in guiding the planning process to its successful conclusion in providing the State the information it needed to redesign its system of MPAs. Additional elements of the Initiative''s success included: effective statutes, adequate funding and professional capacity, robust stakeholder engagement, strong science guidance, effective decision support tools, transparent decision making, and sustained support from top state officials and private foundations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A general conceptual framework for the management of marine protected areas (MPAs) was developed. The driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) framework was used to determine the elements affecting MPAs. The developed evaluation framework helped to select an appropriate suite of indicators to support an ecosystem approach, an assessment of the MPAs functioning and policy decisions. Gaps derived from the management and policy responses in the MPAs were also outlined. It was concluded that the DPSIR framework can help to simplify the complexity of MPA management. This document is a tool for policy makers, scientists and general public on the relevance of indicators to monitor changes and MPAs management. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]