Brought to you by
publisher of MPA News and
Marine Ecosystems & Management (MEAM)

Ask the Expert: Marine Spatial Planning, with Jennifer McCann

Jennifer McCann has co-led the develop­­­ment and implementation of the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP), the first formally adopted Ocean Spatial Plan in the US.  As a member of several national and regional marine spatial planning (MSP) advisory boards, and a trainer and/or MSP resource expert at several international capacity building and symposia events, Jennifer has shared her expertise and lessons learned with hundreds of MSP practitioners.  She is also Director of the US Coastal Program at the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center and Director of Extension Programs for the Rhode Island National Sea Grant College Program, and has served as a coastal management practitioner for over 20 years in both Latin America and the US.

Do you have a question?  Post it in the comments section below and Jennifer will be sure to answer.

Comments

Submitted by Barbara (not verified) on

Dear Jennifer: The MSP project that I’m working on is committed to using the best available science to support our work. Our team has several smart scientists involved on a variety of research projects, which is great. However, sometimes there is a bit of a disconnect between what the individual research projects are examining and the main management questions that my policy team is grappling with. I want to make sure that the science is as useful and applicable as possible to the actual planning. Do you have any suggestions on how I can make sure the research activities go beyond simply data gathering and analysis, and actually inform the shaping of policy?

Submitted by Jen McCann on

Thank you for your question, Barbara. Social, biological, economic and physical information are very important in developing the foundation for your MSP effort.  With the Ocean SAMP work, the project management team regularly met with the researchers to ensure that the research was responding to the issues and could be incorporated into the development of the SAMP.  Frequently these meetings provided researchers across different disciplines to interact – so at times you would have the avian, benthic, and fish experts interacting and discussing common themes across these topics, which really contributed toward allowing us to take an ecosystem approach.  In addition, we developed a set of questions that was constantly asked of the researchers during project meetings and at one point we even asked researchers to respond in writing to these questions.  These questions proved to be effective, and can and should be used by anyone undertaking this big a task:

1. Describe how your findings help us understand how the SAMP study area functions as an ecosystem that is heavily impacted by human activities.

2. Has your research identified areas, processes, or resources that should be protected, conserved, or otherwise given special consideration by the SAMP?

3. What, in your opinion, are the potentially significant unknowns in your topic or in the SAMP area.  What we don’t know is as important as what we do know.

4. Are there specific recommended actions (e.g., regulatory, policy, management) you would like the Ocean SAMP to support or implement in response to your findings?

All researchers presented their information directly at stakeholder group meetings.  This allowed the researchers to hear the priority concerns of the public; to understand the diversity of views the people they were providing their results to; and to reinforce the fact that they were part of a much bigger team that was relying on them -­ and by virtue of their commitment ­- working as a partners to accomplish the overall objectives.  This produced a buy-in by scientists and researchers who could see and understand the end results of their input, and how highly it was regarded.

By drawing on top-notch local resources at the University of Rhode Island, we also had the advantage of having people working for us who had a stake in the eventual outcome.  They were not consultants brought in from elsewhere, but people whose efforts and input would have a direct affect on their lives, and that of their children, who would be growing up living in Rhode Island. 

By soliciting the input of exceptional researchers and scientists, and showing them how their work had hard, practical application in a major initiative, with partners who attached a great deal of value to their findings, was not only important as part of the science-based work being done, but in the overall buy-in to the goals and objectives of the project, making them part of a team that was dedicated to succeeding.

Submitted by Richard Nelson (not verified) on

Hi Jennifer,

With the first meeting of the RPB for New England behind us, I'm concerned over many issues dealing with stakeholder participation. Although the SAMP and the Mass Plan were effective in accomplishing their main goals, the the setting aside of areas for wind energy projects, I believe their marks for stakeholder involvement left something to be desired. Very few fishermen seemed to have felt their input meant very much, and certainly didn't find any degree of proactive participation from the start. Now the RPB is heading out on much the same course, with an even more difficult task ahead, being they're mainly a Federal Body that might seem even more remote to user groups. Many studies have come out to suggest such things as early outreach, education on MSP, and informing people early on what kind of meaningful form of participation they are going to have. So far I have seen none of this...and it scares me. These are all intelligent people who seem to know what's going on, so what's the story?

Submitted by Jen McCann on

Dear Richard,

Thanks for your question.  I agree with you that involving stakeholders –individuals or institutions who can be positively or negatively impacted by, or have an interest in a project or a planning process – must be a priority for all public planning processes. 

The Regional Planning Body (RPB) for the Northeast, made up of all state, federal, Tribal, and New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFM) representatives have come together to improve coordination, share information, and reduce agency redundancy, with the goal of enhancing the understanding of regional implications of management decisions.  

The first step for any marine spatial planning process includes issue identification, development of goals, as well as development of a comprehensive outreach and communication strategy that: 1) provides everyone access to the process; 2) instills public confidence that their issues/concerns are heard and appreciated; and 3) demonstrates that stakeholder involvement influences the final outcome.  Through the work of the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC) and the RPB, regional ocean planning in New England is currently focused on capturing issues identified by stakeholders, amassing existing baseline data, and implementing actions to fill in some major regional data gaps including commercial fisheries, recreational boating activity and habitat classification.  They have worked very hard to share this information through their web site, data portal, and presenting at conferences, meetings, and other existing forums to anyone who is interested.  RPB members are presently developing goals for this effort, deeply considering the stakeholder issues and research.  A more formal outreach and communication strategy is being crafted which will help communicate the goals (again, that are based on stakeholder issues), actions, and how people can engage if they choose.  The RPB team has also taken steps to informally surround themselves with stakeholder and topic experts, as well as individuals within the region who are trusted leaders within an industry or topic.  They recognize regional ocean planning is a tough nut to crack and they are going to need an agile, “in the know network” to be as responsive as they can to issues and opportunities.  These are all the right steps. 

Please remember that officially the RPB has just gotten started.  I hope that the RPB staff and leaders do continue to dedicate a good chunk of their time to implementing a robust stakeholder outreach strategy.  Putting in the effort now to engage regionally with stakeholders will ultimately pay dividends with a more productive and effective plan, aided by broad support and implementation.   My primary advice to them, however, would be to dedicate even more time, energy, and creativity towards getting RPB members (federal, state, tribal and NEFM representatives) to work together to identify, and then implement actions for the good of the region.  For the RPB to be successful it needs to demonstrate that regional coordination can result in economic, cultural, regulatory or environmental benefits. 

If we believe, at a minimum, that improving communication and coordination within our region (combined with better data and information) will help us solve our issues and take advantage of opportunities, then we need to be asking what we can do to help as opposed to waiting for someone to reach out to us. 

I think we need to continue to believe that this regional effort will have an impact – to allow governments to make better informed (informed because decision makers understand stakeholder issues, existing information, and have a stronger relationship with their RPB colleagues) and coordinated decisions - it just may take some time.  

P.S.  I would like to respond to your comments on fishermen not being adequately involved in both the Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean Plan, but will hold my thoughts for another day.

Submitted by Richard Nelson (not verified) on

Jennifer,

First let me thank you for your thoughts and for taking the time to do this. I believe we should strive to get this process done right, and I appreciate your efforts.

I see that you both begin and end your answer with statements on the importance of the RPB's task of coordinating regional information and reducing agency redundancy. This narrowing of focus would be fine if the RPB's only objective was to facilitate the trends toward fast tracking proposals, such as the “Smart from the start” program for ocean energy, but it is not. They were brought together to initiate MSP in this region as part of the implementation of the NOP. At the first meeting they properly stated that the first step would be the development of goals. Now the question is, is that administration goals, management goals, “Decision makers” goals, or as I believe, societal goals gleaned from input from throughout the region. And if this is true, then we need stakeholders to be “at the table” right from the start, or else any conversations started here will not have much meaning further down the road. I don't believe that in the next few months we are going to suddenly amass an adequate and accurate enough amount of ocean user and ecosystem data to supersede the need to make full use of the experiential knowledge of scientists, fishermen and energy experts etc. Let's truly be “smart from the start” and set this process up to be ultimately successful not just piecemealed for show.

Submitted by John (not verified) on

Hi Jennifer, hopefully this is a quick question for you:

I’ve been hearing from some of our stakeholders that they are tired of attending meetings and “don’t get” why our process is valuable to them. What can I do to keep their attention and convince them that they should stay engaged?

Thank you, John

Submitted by Jen McCann on

Dear John,

What you are experiencing is called stakeholder fatigue syndrome (SFS) – the act of over-engaging your stakeholders to the point that they have lost interest in the process or don’t recognize the value of participating any further.  Compared to other activities in their lives – making a living, taking care of their personal and family needs, or participating in another public process, your initiative has become a low priority.  Some of the signs for SFS include decreased attendance at meetings, workshops, or related conferences, or less website or Facebook hits.  I have also seen stakeholders quite angry either because they have invested time, however have felt they were wasting their time because they did not feel they were having any influence over the process.

If SFS happens to your project, ask your stakeholders (one-on one or in small groups): 1) Is the project responding to one of their priority issues? If not, how can we change that?; 2) Do they feel they are being heard and their comments are being taken seriously?  If not, what needs to change?; and 3) Is it relatively easy to engage in this process?  If not, how can you make it easier for them to be involved? 

Although you need to explain your constraints, try as hard as you can to respond to these issues and make this process relevant and convenient. Some strategies you may need to implement include:

  1. Rethink your meeting logistics. Maybe your meetings are held at the wrong time, are too long, poorly facilitated, or don’t allow all stakeholders time to vet their issues or present their opinions.  Ask the stakeholders what they believe are obstacles to maximizing their input, and then take steps to fix these problems.
  2. Respond to specific issues.  Show stakeholders that their opinions matter.  Set up a specific meeting (based on their availability) to discuss a specific issue that they identified.  Invite a professional or scientist who thoroughly knows the issue or bring in a stakeholder from another place that has grappled with the identified topic to enhance the conversation.  Take summary notes and send them around, or post on the project Web site so that the people who could not make it can review the proceedings, and make it easy for others to see what is happening with your project.  You could also research a topic that is of great concern to these individuals.  In the Ocean SAMP process, fishermen wanted to know how the federal government would respond to issues including navigation, mitigation, competing uses.   So we would set up special meetings with the fishermen and the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management, the U.S. Coast Guard, or experts from Europe on offshore wind impacts.
  3. Hone your message to include stakeholder priority issues.  Project description and expected results must include how the project is going to respond or not respond to priority issues identified by the stakeholders. 

I would be interested in hearing how others have dealt with SFS in their own individual projects.  This is something we are all susceptible to, and project leaders must be alert to this situation and quickly take steps to ensure it does not destroy the entire process. 

Add new comment