Ecosystem-Based Integrated Ocean Management: A Framework for Sustainable Ocean Economy Development

• Representativity (reserve networks should protect the full range of biodiversity) • Adequacy / Viability (individual sites as well as their combined footprint across the net- work should be large enough to safeguard ecosystem integrity) • Replication (any given feature should be represented in more than one location) • Connectivity (pathways for ecological link- ages should be designed into a reserve net- work). Not all MPAs are managed effectively (Rife et al. 2013, Solandt et al. 2020), but if they are, they restrict or eliminate environmentally damaging activities within their boundaries. MPA networks can thus be seen as a type of ‘ocean use’ that competes with others, potentially impacting on livelihoods or dis- placing users and exacerbating conflicts elsewhere (Bennett et al. 2015, Charles & Wilson 2008, Röck- mann et al. 2015, Stevenson et al. 2013, Suuronen et al. 2010). However, MPAs can also be a tool for managing and preventing conflicts, for example, by creating space for activities with low environ- mental impacts (Cadiou et al. 2008) and maintain- ing ecosystem services that ocean users elsewhere depend upon in the long run (Arbo & Th ủ y 2016, Gell & Roberts 2003). Systematic planning principles allow planners the flexibility to explore alternative spatial configu- rations of protected areas with different sets of trade-offs, thereby managing user-user conflicts and capitalizing on synergies where possible. Plan- ners can also use these principles to complement existing protected areas efficiently and to build in requirements to protect any particularly valuable, vulnerable or threatened EBSAs in order to ensure their ecological value is safeguarded within the wider MPA network configuration. By planning across spatial scales that match those of ocean ecosystems, by explicitly focusing on ecosystem connections and on protecting all parts of the eco- system, and by providing space for human well-be- ing needs as well as nature conservation, systemat- ically planned MPA networks align closely with the ecosystem approach. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commis- sion of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC-UNESCO) defines MSP as “a public process of analyzing and allocat- ing the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities inmarine areas to achieve ecological, eco- nomic, and social objectives that usually have been 3.3.3. Marine spatial planning

specified through a political process. Characteris- tics of MSP include ecosystem-based, area-based, integrated, adaptive, strategic and participatory” 9 . Thus, MSP allocates marine space to different uses (including conservation, through MPAs) and its out- puts include a map of zones that certain activities are permitted in, excluded from, or regulated within (Arbo & Th ủ y 2016). The IOC-UNESCO MSP web- site 10 provides links to MSP guidance documents (e.g. Ehler & Douvere 2007, Ehler & Douvere 2009), as well as detailed information on MSP processes around the world. The MSP concept originated essentially as a call to embed systematic MPA networks in wider spatial measures that simultaneously pursue environmen- tal, social and economic objectives (Ban et al. 2012, Jay et al. 2012). Most MSP literature is therefore rooted in the ecosystem approach, with many MSP frameworks resembling generic EBM frameworks that all emphasize the need for an integrated, adaptive, multisectoral, and strategic approach that involves stakeholders and delivers social and economic benefits within ecosystem boundaries (Agardy et al. 2011, Ansong et al. 2017, Arbo & Th ủ y 2016, Crowder & Norse 2008, Domínguez-Tejo et al. 2016, Douvere 2008, Foley et al. 2010, Gilliland & Laffoley 2008, Katsanevakis et al. 2011, Noble et al. 2019a). Viewed this way, MSP is central to EB-IOM, addressing the ‘where’ in ‘who can do what, where, how and when at sea‘ in line with the ecosystem approach. Strategic cross-sectoral MSP should simultaneously plan MPA networks and multi-use zones that separate incompatible activities, co-lo- cate compatible or mutually beneficial activities, help manage cumulative impacts, and provide enough space for nature and humans to thrive in. MSP implementation in policy and practice, how- ever, often lacks genuinely strategic cross-sectoral integration (Jones et al. 2016) and some recent MSP literature has started to frame MSP not as an instru- ment for EBM, but for supporting ‘blue growth‘ by maximizing efficiencies in the economic use of marine space (Bonnevie et al. 2019, Depellegrin et al. 2019, Gimpel et al. 2015, Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. 2016, Schupp et al. 2019, Stelzenmüller et al. 2017, Zanuttigh et al. 2016). This illustrates the ten- sion between nature conservation and economic growth (discussed in section 2.4), which should be circumvented by re-framing the sustainable ocean economy as the blue doughnut: it isn’t economic growth, but human needs and ecosystem bounda- ries that take centre stage in EB-IOM.

9 http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/about/ 10 See http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/

15