Remaking Oceans Governance

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Fairbanks ◽  
Noëlle Boucquey ◽  
Lisa M. Campbell ◽  
Sarah Wise

Marine spatial planning (MSP) seeks to integrate traditionally disconnected oceans activities, management arrangements, and practices through a rational and comprehensive governance system. This article explores the emerging critical literature on MSP, focusing on key elements of MSP engaged by scholars: (1) planning discourse and narrative; (2) ocean economies and equity; (3) online ocean data and new digital ontologies; and (4) new and broad networks of ocean actors. The implications of these elements are then illustrated through a discussion of MSP in the United States. Critical scholars are beginning to go beyond applied or operational critiques of MSP projects to engage the underlying assumptions, practices, and relationships involved in planning. Interrogating MSP with interdisciplinary ideas drawn from critical social science disciplines, such as emerging applications of relational theory at sea, can provide insights into how MSP and other megaprojects both close and open new opportunities for social and environmental well-being.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 484-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noëlle Boucquey ◽  
Kevin St. Martin ◽  
Luke Fairbanks ◽  
Lisa M Campbell ◽  
Sarah Wise

We are currently in what might be termed a “third phase” of ocean enclosures around the world. This phase has involved an unprecedented intensity of map-making that supports an emerging regime of ocean governance where resources are geocoded, multiple and disparate marine uses are weighed against each other, spatial tradeoffs are made, and exclusive rights to spaces and resources are established. The discourse and practice of marine spatial planning inform the contours of this emerging regime. This paper examines the infrastructure of marine spatial planning via two ocean data portals recently created to support marine spatial planning on the East Coast of the United States. Applying theories of ontological politics, critical cartography, and a critical conceptualization of “care,” we examine portal performances in order to link their organization and imaging practices with the ideological and ontological work these infrastructures do, particularly in relation to environmental and human community actors. We further examine how ocean ontologies may be made durable through portal use and repetition, but also how such performances can “slip,” thereby creating openings for enacting marine spatial planning differently. Our analysis reveals how portal infrastructures assemble, edit, and visualize data, and how it matters to the success of particular performances of marine spatial planning.


Author(s):  
Stephen B. Olsen ◽  
Jennifer McCann ◽  
Monique LaFrance Bartley

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison W. Bates

Marine spatial planning (MSP) offers an operational framework to address sustainable and well-planned use of ocean space. Spatial allocation has traditionally been single-sector, which fails to account for multiple pressures on the marine environment and user conflicts. There is a need for integrated assessments of ocean space to advance quantitative tools and decision-making. Using the example of offshore wind energy, this article offers thoughts about how MSP has evolved in the United States and how the varying scales of MSP achieve different outcomes. Finally, a review of quantitative and qualitative studies that are needed to support MSP are presented.


Author(s):  
Peter Baldwin

When Americans Compare Their Country to others, it is almost invariably to find fault with it. Of course, there are tub-thumpers on the right wing, for whom the United States is the greatest nation and comparisons are drawn merely to underline that preeminence. But they are a predictable lot, and intellectually of no consequence. Comparisons with abroad are of little use when preaching to the choir if the choir does not care. Most conservative Americans are too uninterested in Europe to sit still for comparative explanations of U.S. superiority. Mitt Romney got very little traction from attacking French health care and other things Gallic during his abortive run for the Republican nomination in 2007. The vast majority of Americans’ comparisons are undertaken by social scientists with liberal leanings who hope that the United States will some day approximate Europe when it comes to family allowances, universal health insurance, parental leave, and the like. For them, Europe means northern Europe. They either ignore the south or see it too as aspiring to north European status. Stockholm is the mecca toward which the social science faithful pray. Because of their political reform agenda—fervent but unfulfilled—the tone they strike is wistful. Take as a recent example the American Human Development Report, published by a preeminent institution, the Social Science Research Council, and prefaced by multiple well-wishes from the great and the good. It is modeled on the UN’s attempt to sum up economic and human well-being in a single number, to compare nations and progress over time. Its wealth of information lays bare the sometimes dramatic disparities within the United States and shows where it is lagging in relation to peer comparison countries. That is all well and good, and who could fault it? It is when sight is lost of the larger picture that worries begin. Thus, the report presents a chart (Figure 1.2) showing an apparently precipitous decline in America’s human development ranking. The United States stood in second place, after Switzerland, in 1980. This held steady until 1995, when it plummeted over the next 15 years to land at the 12th spot in 2005. America’s numerical score has increased steadily, we are reassured. But the scores of other countries have risen even faster. As a result, the United States has fallen behind its more efficient competitors.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (04) ◽  
pp. 1850012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra Ryan ◽  
Andy Danylchuk ◽  
Adrian Jordaan

The United States only accounts for 0.2% of the global offshore wind installed capacity despite a potential technical resource four orders of magnitude greater. A cumbersome permitting process is one of the challenges in implementing new projects. Part of this process requires biological data in order to inform assessments of environmental impacts; yet these data may be lacking for particular taxa at the required scale. Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process that often includes data identification, collection, collation and analyses components. In this paper, we conduct a collective case study of three areas with offshore wind projects located in waters managed by marine spatial plans, focusing on how data efforts inform MSP and offshore wind development. Our study finds that MSP can facilitate data efforts during the permitting phase of offshore wind projects, but that other initiatives, particularly renewable energy policies and zoning, appear critical towards establishing offshore wind.


2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-38
Author(s):  
Chris E. Ostrander ◽  
Harvey Seim ◽  
Elizabeth Smith ◽  
Ben Studer ◽  
Audra Luscher-Aissauoi ◽  
...  

AbstractA changing climate, coupled with increasing development and population growth within the coastal margins of the United States, presents a growing threat to coastal populations, ecosystems, and infrastructure associated with chronic and catastrophic coastal hazards and a growing reliance on coastal resources. The U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) provides a unique capability to observe the coastal and open ocean waters of the United States and provide value-added, customized data tools, products, and services to inform decision making related to coastal hazards and resources management, assessment, and risk by individuals, resource managers, policy makers, and local agencies. Increasingly, the partnership of IOOS Regional Associations with the U.S. IOOS Program Office has the capacity to provide critical observational and scientific information needed to inform coastal planning and management efforts related to some of the most pressing problems facing our coastal zone: namely, impacts of a changing climate on coastal communities and ecosystems, sea level rise, and the competing and oftentimes conflicting uses of our coastal zone that necessitate integrated Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. Discussed herein are three examples of regional IOOS capacity to provide information related to beach safety, coastal inundation, and marine spatial planning.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassidy Bibo ◽  
Julie Spencer-Rodgers ◽  
Benaissa Zarhbouch ◽  
Mostafa Bouanini ◽  
Kaiping Peng

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document