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

on the final decision. Consultation is usually bilat- eral, which means that each interested party pro- vides their own comments separately, with few (if any) opportunities for different stakeholder groups to communicate with each other to develop any kind of joint position. Consultation is very common in public planning, including as a requirement of EIAs. This means that there can be well-established consultation processes in ocean management that have become institutionalized and that stakehold- ers are familiar with. Deliberation, in contrast, brings different stake- holder groups together to jointly inform a process. They may not have power to make decisions, but the deliberative space provides an opportunity to exchange knowledge, views and perspectives, bring conflicts to light, address them, and develop well-informed solutions that no single party may have been able to find on their own. Deliberation (like collaboration, the next level up in Figure 6) can be a vehicle for transdisciplinary knowledge inte- gration (section 3.4.4) and for integration across governance silos (section 3.4.2). It can also have intangible benefits by developing social capital and relationships of trust which can subsequently facil- itate integration in other processes. Where bilateral consultation is already standard practice, however, the associated institutional iner- tia can make it challenging to move up the partici- pation ladder in a new EB-IOM initiative. It is there- fore essential to secure genuine commitment for higher levels of participation from existing govern- ance bodies, including the necessary delegation of power and control. Failure to do so can lead to par- ticipation becoming tokenistic, ultimately reducing rather than creating social capital when expecta- tions are dashed (Bennett 2018, Gaymer et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2016, Lieberknecht & Jones 2016). To be effective, deliberation and collaboration also require dedicated and skilled support in the form of process design and facilitation, workshop prepara- tion, communication, knowledge and information provision, feedback, etc. (Sayce et al. 2013). Thus, while well-managed deliberative and collaborative participation can yield great benefits, there are situ- ations when bilateral consultation is the preferable option.

may be a necessary foundation for effective buy-in and support from stakeholders. In other instances – for example, if there are strong governance insti- tutions that are well-trusted in a society – it may be most efficient for overarching goals to be for- mulated in a top-down, expert-driven process, with higher levels of participation in the planning and implementation stages so that stakeholders can help shape the way in which the overarching goals are achieved. Similarly, monitoring and evaluation of management measures may be best carried out by expert institutions with relevant mandates or may be delegated entirely to local communities. The adaptive management cycle in section 4.2 can serve as an orientation when planning stake- holder participation. Asking the why, how, what and who questions for every individual stage in the cycle can help find the most appropriate balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches for any given process. Stakeholders may take on many different roles in EB-IOM, such as information recipient, informa- tion/knowledge provider, collaborator in develop- ing potential management options or solutions to a given problem, representative of sectoral per- spectives or interests in conflict resolution, adviser to decision makers, or decision maker (in co-man- agement). These roles closely tie in with the level of partici- pation previously discussed, so the most appropri- ate roles at each stage in the planning cycle will depend on the scope and context of a given initi- ative. The adaptive management cycle in section 4.2 can help determine what these are. Irrespective of the specific roles that stakeholders take on, all actors in a process should have a shared under- standing of these roles and what they entail. Ocean managers should map out roles and levels of par- ticipation through each stage of any given initiative, manage expectations accordingly, and provide appropriate levels of support and capacity-building to stakeholders. This ties in with the next question, which concerns the what: What role should stakeholders be given?

The subsequent question focuses on who : Who are the stakeholders that need to be involved?

The next question to address is the when: At what stage(s) should stakeholders be included?

The who can depend on the when and the what , because different constellations of stakeholders may take on different roles at different stages. In every event, ocean managers should carry out a thorough and competent stakeholder analysis to identify stakeholders and map their main inter- ests, relative power and influence, as well as their relationships with one another. Particular empha-

At each stage of EB-IOM, a different form of par- ticipation may be appropriate. What these levels should be is entirely dependent on the scope and context of a given initiative. For example, in some instances, collaborative formulation of goals and objectives at the very earliest stage of the cycle

20