Fishery stakeholder engagement and marine spatial planning: Lessons from the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan

Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Fishery stakeholder engagement and marine spatial planning: Lessons from the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan Heidi M. Nutters a, *, Patricia Pinto da Silva b a b

Brown University, Center for Environmental Studies, 135 Angell St., Providence, RI 02912, USA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 15 June 2012

Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) is a key component of the US National Ocean Policy. Efforts to implement CMSP in US federal waters are beginning in earnest. Beyond sound science and data, a stakeholder engagement process that encourages public participation, collaboration and communication between disparate groups is at the heart of effective marine spatial planning (MSP). While a rich body of literature on stakeholder engagement exists, few opportunities exist to compare different stakeholder engagement processes as they occur on the ground for a particular stakeholder group. Between 2008 and 2010 marine spatial planning efforts were conducted by the neighboring US states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan and Rhode Island Ocean SAMP provide models for the nation in structuring effective stakeholder processes for ocean management. Within both states, commercial fishermen were identified as key stakeholders. For this study, commercial fishermen’s perceptions of the engagement process in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were examined. Specifically, this paper explores the role fishermen sought in these two pioneering MSP efforts, and the role they felt they actually played. Key findings include the need for clear communication of the role of stakeholders, stakeholder empowerment and background stakeholder analysis to understand the needs and challenges faced by participating groups. This work provided a unique opportunity to examine how each ocean planning effort engaged commercial fishermen and to reflect on lessons learned for future such initiatives in the US and beyond. Exploring effectiveness through the perceptions of primary stakeholders such as commercial fishermen further elucidates the challenges and opportunities of carrying out MSP and stakeholder processes in practice. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Marine spatial planning (MSP), a spatially focused approach to ecosystem-based management (EBM), is one of nine priority objectives under the US National Ocean Policy (http://www. whitehouse.gov/files/documents/2010stewardship-eo.pdf). There is broad agreement for the need to shift away from single sector approaches and toward multi-sector, ecosystem-based management (Lubchenco, 2009; Ekstrom, 2009; Leslie and McLeod, 2007; Curtin and Prellezo, 2010). Efforts to begin regional coastal and marine spatial planning in federally managed waters around the United States are gaining momentum (Ehler and Douvere, 2010; Meridian Institute, 2011). Marine spatial planning improves upon

* Corresponding author. Present address: San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, San Francisco State University, 3152 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (H.M. Nutters). 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.05.020

the current compartmentalized approach to managing marine areas and enhances coordination and information sharing. Already in place in the Netherlands and Belgium, MSP provides a framework for decision-making, emphasizing stakeholder participation and a place-based and multi-sector approach (Douvere and Ehler, 2009; Douvere, 2008). In Belgium, for example, existing ocean users were found to experience significant competition for space while needing to meet international and national commitments to protect biodiversity (Douvere et al., 2006). As a whole, the European Union is moving toward MSP as an organizing framework for licensing and siting for marine activities while still emphasizing the need to work with local jurisdictions (Maes, 2008). In the United States, a few states have already embarked on MSP in state waters. The Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (OMP) and Rhode Island Ocean SAMP (RI SAMP) are considered models for developing plans that balance new and existing uses, and for extensive and successful stakeholder engagement (Lubchenco, 2011). Recognizing the need for greater coordination and development of comprehensive strategies,

10

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

federal efforts to develop a National Ocean Policy are looking to state level experiences to gain insights on how to move forward at a broader regional level. While regional plans require coordination at a much larger scale than has been conducted abroad or at the state level, these experiences hold important lessons that should be integrated into future MSP efforts. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, emerging ocean uses such as sand and gravel mining, liquid natural gas terminals, port expansion, and offshore wind energy development are arising in response to state-level renewable energy requirements, technological innovations, and a growing coastal population (Odell and Morrison, 2010). For New England states, many of which are seeking locally sourced renewable energy, offshore wind development in particular is causing a “gold-rush” mentality around ocean development (Zezima, 2008; Kuffner, 2009). Offshore wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable energy sources (Hagos, 2007). However, in an already crowded ocean environment, emerging ocean uses have the potential to result in multiple user conflict with existing activities such as commercial fishing. In addition, the construction of wind energy in other nations has triggered serious alarm among commercial fishermen, who see the potential loss of fishing and spawning grounds as a threat to their livelihood (Mackinson et al., 2006). Previous research has shown that fishermen in New England show general support for offshore wind energy, but express concern about the potential space use conflicts and loss of fishing grounds (Hagos, 2007). MSP provides a decision-making framework and tools for harmonizing existing and future ocean users through science-based, multi-stakeholder decision making. The inclusion of stakeholders is one of the central tenants of MSP and one of the guiding principles for EBM (Young, 2007; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Gelcich, 2009). In the context of MSP, stakeholder participation is the process through which management objectives and core values are defined. As Pomeroy and Douvere (2008, p 116) explain, “People are central to this decision-making process and are the agents for change”. Bringing people into the process provides a number of benefits. It increases understanding of a complex ecosystem and human influence on it and provides a forum to examine human uses of the ocean to address and resolve conflicts (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). There is an emphasis on early, sustained participation through the many stages of the process to identify management priorities (Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Gililland and Laffoly, 2008). Existing theory from political economy, social development and collaborative fisheries management provide numerous models for participation (St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008; Pretty, 2001; Dalton, 2005; Duraiappah et al., 2005; Rietbergen-McCracken and Narayan, 1998; Fiorino, 1990; Pinto da Silva, 2006). These models illustrate that the level of influence stakeholders can have in decisionmaking can vary significantly. Sherry Arnstein’s landmark work “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” illuminates the degrees and range of citizen engagement that can exist. Steps on the ladder go from non-participation (manipulation, therapy) to tokenism (informing, consultation, placation) to citizen control (partnership, delegated power, citizen control) (Arnstein, 1971). Models of comanagement advocate for resource users to become more involved in decision-making, and that ultimately, participation can lead to more effective management outcomes, as stakeholders feel greater ownership over and compliance with outcomes. Such a framework has been advocated for in commercial fisheries, where co-management is seen as both a collaborative and participatory approach for stakeholders (Jentoft et al., 1998). Scholars who have elaborated on concepts of common property resource management suggest that existing management paradigms make incorrect

assumptions about resource use on common property (Feeny et al., 1990). In her work on incorporating complex social-ecological systems into management paradigms, Elinor Ostrom suggests that even making minor changes to a system such as increasing face-to-face interaction between users can have major effects, switching from an overharvesting to an optimal harvesting scenario (Ostrom, 2007; Becker and Ostrom, 1995). While there is a rich body of literature on stakeholder engagement, few opportunities exist to compare different stakeholder engagement approaches as they occur on the ground for a particular stakeholder group. Between 2008 and 2010 marine spatial planning efforts were conducted by the neighboring US states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In both states, commercial fishermen were identified as key stakeholders. This paper examines the engagement of commercial fishermen in the RI SAMP and the OMP. Research focused on commercial fishermen’s perceptions of the decision-making process, and how their expectations for participation aligned with outcomes and the processes designed to engage them. The RI SAMP and OMP processes provided a unique opportunity to examine how each ocean planning effort engaged commercial fishermen in the process and to reflect on lessons learned for future such initiatives in the US and beyond. Exploring effectiveness through the perceptions of primary stakeholders such as commercial fishermen further elucidates the challenges and opportunities of carrying out MSP and stakeholder processes in practice. 1.1. Commercial fishermen as key CMSP stakeholders As marine spatial planning is fundamentally place-based, primary stakeholders will differ depending on predominant industries, uses, existing tribal and fishing communities, characteristics of coastal populations, agency jurisdictions and other factors. While participation of multiple stakeholders can yield more effective outcomes, it also involves tradeoffs. Stakeholder engagement requires significant investment in a transparent and at times lengthy process that must confront diverse and conflicting values (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Not all participants will experience optimal outcomes (Young, 2007). Some tradeoffs that may be inherent in MSP processes include: local vs. national priorities, regional or state control or timely deliverables vs. a thorough participation process, spatial or temporal incompatibilities between uses and provision of ecosystem services (Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Gopnik, 2008). Determining how to weigh and manage tradeoffs is likely one of the most challenging aspects of the MSP decision-making process. Commercial fishermen represent a key group of ocean users whose livelihoods depend directly on their access to fishing grounds. As such, commercial fishermen were identified as a primary stakeholder group in both the OMP and the RI SAMP. Fishing activity is distributed widely across both states and the harmonization of fishing activities with other uses was considered essential to success of the two plans. As one manager who was interviewed said: “It is insane and suicidal to think about mucking around out in marine waters without making sure that fishermen are at the table as much as possible” (Manager interview, 2010). While commercial fishermen are often considered one stakeholder group, fishermen are diverse and multifaceted with many different interests, values and concerns surrounding their connection and use of ocean space. Commercial fishing is highly diversified between ports and fisheries. Some fishing ports are located in rural areas with limited facilities for a small number of vessels, while at other ports such as New Bedford, MA massive scallop boats line the docks with vessels that can house several crew members for weeks at a time. Social and cultural differences exist between and within

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

ports that define industries and relationships among fishing community members (Clay and Olson, 2008). The commercial fishing industry is also characterized by intense competition, internal conflict, and a strong emphasis on personal independence (Pollnac, 1988). These characteristics create challenges for integrating this groups interests into planning processes. In addition to the social and cultural diversity within ports, the current fisheries management context in which these processes occurred can affect the role fishermen play in the process. In New England, many fishermen have experienced significant changes in the way fisheries are managed as a result of increasing pressure on diminishing stocks and the introduction to rights-based approaches to management (Singer-Taylor, 2011). These transitions have often been contentious and highly politicized and have left fishermen and the organizations that represent them overwhelmed with the administrative and participation burden of these new approaches. For some, participation fatigue has left little time and resources to engage in additional participatory process (such as ocean planning efforts) even though their importance is recognized. These challenges and changes have been both a burden in terms of adjusting to change and new regulatory shifts but they have also been a source of innovation, requiring fishermen to consider new strategies and relationships to continue their operations. 2. Methods The study of commercial fishermen by social scientists has intensified over the last few decades (Abbott-Jamieson and Clay, 2010). Some of this attention is mandated via National Standard 8 of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, but it also reflects an increasing interest in the complex socio-ecological systems connected to fishermen, fishing communities and fishing grounds (McCay et al., 2011; St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008; Berkes, 1999). Fishermen and fishing communities are a core component of land-sea connections in coastal communities, where historical engagement with the ocean reflects cultural adaptation to ecological change, and applied questions in social development and fisheries management (Ingles, 2007; Pinto da Silva and Fulcher, 2007). For this study forty-nine interviews with members of the commercial fishing industry were conducted, recorded and transcribed between August 2009 and May 2010. Interview participants were identified through purposive and network sampling (Bernard, 2002). Background research was conducted to identify the leaders of fishermen’s organizations who had been engaged in both states, and many provided additional names of participants. Additional interviews were conducted on fishing harbors to ensure a diverse sample. Fishermen engaged in either the RI SAMP or the OMP were interviewed as well as fishermen that were not engaged but also fished in those states. Sampling efforts were made to ensure that interview participants represented a range of fishery types, geographic locations, and affiliations (belonging to a fishermen’s organization). While some participants ranged greatly in their knowledge of the two plans studies here, as well as on MSP and EBM. Ensuring diversity of perspectives in the interview sample was important to understand how perceptions of participation varied among subpopulations within the larger commercial fishing industry in the two states. Participants in this study included sixteen pot/trap fishermen (including lobstermen), two gillnet fishermen, ten ground fishermen, six rod and reel fishermen, two charter boat fishermen, four scallopers, and either retired or inactive fishermen Table 1. Interview questions covered a number of topic areas, including participants’ knowledge of the two state efforts and the stakeholder input process, perceptions of stakeholder meetings, and

11

Table 1 Interview participants.

Fishermen leadersa Regular fishermenb Managers Total Total organization/agency affiliations

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Total

14 10 3 27

10 9 3 22

24 19 6 49 30

a For the purposes of this study, fishermen leaders were defined as fishermen working in a voluntary or paid capacity in a fishermen’s organization. b For the purposes of this study, regular fishermen were defined as active fishermen who were either affiliated with a fishermen’s organization, or unaffiliated.

stakeholder influence over the process. In addition, participants were asked about their views on marine spatial planning, how best to deal with user conflicts and other management activities they might be engaged in. In addition to interviews, archival research included a comprehensive review of public documents, transcripts from numerous public hearings and stakeholder meetings, the public record of comments submitted during the review period for the two plans, and communications exchanged between fishermen and state managers about the two plans. Finally, participant observation was utilized at stakeholder meetings and public hearings in both states during the same time period that interviews were conducted. Final analysis involved detailed examination of coded data using NVIVO qualitative analysis software. Data were coded thematically based on themes of participation that were identified after literature review. Codes were created based on different aspects of participation found across the literature reviewed. Some examples of 28 themes used to code data include motivation to participate, influence over the outcome, opportunity for input and transparency. Coded data was grouped by state and subsample and coded and analyzed for common threads, major differences, and areas that needed further examination. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (RI SAMP) Recognizing increased potential in ocean development, the RI SAMP is a plan designed to balance future and existing uses of the state’s waters under an MSP framework. Table 1 below depicts the study area of the RI SAMP. The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) has jurisdiction over development in state waters and is the lead agency for the RI SAMP. As the state agency tasked with carrying out the Coastal Zone Management Act, its mission is the “preservation, protection, development and where possible the restoration” of state coastal waters (CRMC, 2009b). The RI SAMP was adopted by the CRMC in October of 2010. CRMC derives its authority to develop SAMPs from the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which defines a SAMP as: A comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and reasonable coastal-dependant economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive statement of policies; standards and criteria to guide public and private uses of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographic areas within the coastal zone. Commercial fishermen’s organizations represented the second largest constituency and the largest industry group among stakeholder groups who participated. The stakeholder process for the RI SAMP was initiated in August 2008, and initially involved meeting with stakeholders to discuss issues and concerns (Payne, 2010;

12

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

Fig. 1. Planning area for the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP. Source: (CRMC, 2010).

CRMC, 2009a). Fig. 1 below compares the types of stakeholder groups participating in the RI SAMP and OMP. In addition, Fig. 3 depicts specific opportunities for participation offered in the RI SAMP. These opportunities were diverse, and included attendance at stakeholder meetings, commercial fisheries technical advisory committees and public hearings. The RI SAMP also sought participation of commercial fishermen for siting of wind farm locations. In

addition, Fig. 2 below presents a comparison of the types of stakeholder groups who participated in the RI SAMP and MA OMP. Stakeholder meetings were the primary opportunity for participation offered to stakeholders. Meetings served as a forum for educating the public and hearing feedback from interested parties. They included educational presentations and discussion of chapters under review. The RI SAMP’s technical advisory

Fig. 2. Comparison of primary stakeholder groups in each state. Adapted from: (Payne, 2010; CBI, 2009).

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

committees (TACs) allowed citizen groups to provide further feedback on relevant chapters of the RI SAMP. For the chapter on commercial fishing, the TAC included twenty organizations and agencies. This included ten commercial fishermen’s organizations, Rhode Island Sea Grant Fisheries, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the New England Marine Fisheries Council. The final outcome of the RI SAMP is a document that designates specific areas for protection and cites potential locations for offshore wind development (CRMC, 2010). Ultimately, the RI SAMP is designed to allow ease of permitting for future offshore wind development, and provides the basis for future environmental impact reports by including extensive background research on existing conditions within the RI SAMP study area (Schumann, 2010). 3.2. Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan The Ocean Management Plan (OMP) balances protection of historic uses, conservation and future develop such as offshore wind power. The legal basis for the OMP, the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008, lays out fifteen guiding principles including how the plan should be developed with specific requirements for the public participation process (see Fig. 3). These included preliminary semistructured interviews with stakeholders to collect information on major concerns and issues among different groups. At later stages, stakeholder meetings and workshops were held. The Ocean Advisory Commission (OAC) and Science Advisory Council (SAC), were both required by the Oceans Act of 2008 and included wide participation from many groups, including commercial fishermen. In addition, public listening sessions were held in different locations across the state for managers to gather feedback on the OMP. Public hearings and a public comment period were also part of the participation process. Fig. 3 below depicts the planning area for the OMP. Early and significant participation in the language of the Oceans Act allowed commercial fishermen to shape the decision-making process that followed. This meant that fishermen expressed a general sense of “buy-in” to the OMP. In addition, actual participation of fishermen’s groups was lower in the OMP meetings and public hearings that followed passage of the Act, despite significant outreach to fishermen’s organizations from both the state and the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership, a non-profit organization that worked to support stakeholder engagement and research efforts for the OMP. In addition, leaders of the fishing industry continued to participate and attend pertinent meetings, and often worked to disseminate the information they gathered to their constituents. One fisherman leader elaborates on this point: Since they won, and got the [Oceans] Act rewritten, they haven’t really participated. There’s been a few individuals who attend these meetings, and are sort of there as watchdogs. (Author interview #48 2009). However, minimal participation could also have been the result of insufficient outreach to the community. The outreach strategy for engaging the fishing community involved accessing a small number of key leaders who could disseminate information to a larger audience. State officials could rely on people who were already well trusted to engage the larger community of fishermen. However, these leaders were also heavily engaged in other fishery management issues, and could not sufficiently represent the broad diversity of fisheries in the state. One fisherman leader explains: “For better or for worse, fishermen have a lot going on in their lives. A lot of them belong to organizations up and down the coast and there’s an expectation that the leadership of these organizations are at the very least monitoring the Act and its implementation. So, its sort of like, I don’t have the time to pay

13

attention to something that may or may not impact me five years from now when my groundfish fishery is a mess, my scallop fishery is a quota-based system is gonna be implemented, my herring fishery has got a quota cut.” (Author interview #41 2009). While fishermen relied on leaders of fishermen’s organizations to participate, these leaders were unable to focus their attention on the OMP. Managers relied on these organizations to communicate with the broader community, but they did not have the staff or time to do so. The final plan, released on December 31, 2009, identifies three major use areas: mixed use, renewable energy siting, and protected areas. It also requires that future development in state waters to undergo more stringent review. Multi-use areas constitute 85% of the planning area. These areas are open to aquaculture, cables and pipelines, community-scale wind facilities, and sand and gravel extraction. Prohibited areas represent 13% and are defined by the existing Ocean Sanctuaries Act, as amended by the Oceans Act. Finally, renewable energy areas for possible community and commercial scale wind development represent 2% of the planning area. Commercial fishing was considered a protected use in the plan. Future uses would have to take reconcile spatial use conflicts with commercial fishing and mitigation funds could be used for enhancement of fisheries resources (MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2009). 3.3. Common challenges to participation: engaging commercial fishermen’s organizations In both states, managers sought to engage stakeholders through a number of mechanisms (Table 2). These mechanisms included formal processes required by law and informal mechanisms designed to increase participation and understanding of stakeholder needs. Marine spatial planning by its nature requires the creation of new lines of communication and interaction between groups without a collaborative history. In MSP, energy developers, policymakers, fishermen, planners and scientists must work collaboratively to shape decisions (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). To bring fishermen into this decision-making process, both states engaged key leaders and organizations in the process, who then worked to disseminate information outward to the larger community. Due to the demanding timelines in both states and the decentralized nature of many of the fisheries in state waters, managers were not able to access the larger industry. One manager interviewed in Massachusetts explains this strategy: “As far as the commercial fishing groups, really our strategy for the past 18 months has been to work directly with the leaders of the organizations” (Author interview #49 2009). Attending meetings and keeping up with planning activities was challenging for a largely volunteer-run group of organizations that were also deeply involved in other fisheries management related activities. Many representatives involved were also active fishermen. For these fishermen, attending meetings after a long day of fishing was a practice that was hard to maintain. One fisherman explains this challenge: You go out all day working, you get home and then you find out you gotta get cleaned up and head to Pt. Judith or Providence for a meeting. A lot of guys are like “Screw that, I’m too tired”. But then you’re not there to stick up for yourself, and then something comes down the road that doesn’t benefit you (Author interview #8 2010). Commercial fishermen’s organizations have been entrenched in a number of struggles in recent years. Their strategy, largely due to lack of time, staff and resources has been to focus on urgent management issues that affect their fisheries. This means that long-

14

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

Fig. 3. Planning area for the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. Source: (MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2009).

term planning efforts such as MSP go unnoticed or are a low priority for leaders. While fishermen leaders interviewed recognize the need for greater focus on MSP, many felt that they lacked the time and resources to engage. One fisherman leader in Massachusetts explains: “We basically don’t have the luxury of focusing in on those issues. We’re fighting every day for survival. We don’t have the time to be involved in that” (Author interview #45 2009). In addition, attending meetings is difficult for fishermen, whose work schedules often change depending on the season and the species they are targeting. As one fisherman leader in Massachusetts explains:

The true fisherman is most often times out at sea. So, he’s missing from the fight.Particularly now, with the fisheries being in such a poor state of affairs, they can’t afford to.jump into the fight (Author interview #44 2009). These logistical challenges presented significant barriers to participation for commercial fishermen. As a stakeholder group, fishermen leaders expressed a lack of capacity to participate. For fishermen who have previously worked on fisheries management issues, moving into MSP may mean working with professionals

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

15

Table 2 Comparison of public participation for commercial fisheries stakeholders and the general public in the two plans. Types of public participation offered

Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan

Rhode Island ocean SAMP

Stakeholder process timeline

June 2008eMay 2009

August 2008eFebruary 2009

Citizen review panels

Ocean Advisory Commission e Established by Oceans Act and included Director of MA Division of Marine Fisheries and one member from a commercial fishing organization. Met 6 times, Aug 2008eMay 2009 Science Advisory Council-Established by Oceans Act, one scientist designated by the MA Fishermen’s Partnership. Semi structured interviews with 66 participants, Fall and Winter 2008 Various meetings and workshops held throughout the stakeholder process. Public access to draft plan 6 months before establishment of the Plan, including electronic and printed copy form Public comment period, including 4 public hearings in 4 different coastal regions (with notice published 30 days prior). 60 days public comment period after public hearing. Review of the plan, its baseline assessment and relevant statutes and regulations every 5 years 18 Public Listening Sessions across the state, Fall 2008

Technical Advisory Committee–Formed to advise on specific chapters of SAMP. Membership decided by CRMC. Fisheries TAC included fishermen’s organizations and relevant agencies.

Public survey Stakeholder meetings and events Public comment Public hearing

Additional opportunities

who have no knowledge or working understanding of the diversity of the fishing industry and whose approaches to communication may differ greatly from fishermen. Fishermen’s feeling of being “outsiders” in meetings also negatively affected their participation. As one fishermen explained, “We’re invited to the table, but sometimes I feel like I’m eating with chopsticks and everybody is using a salad spoon” (Author interview #44, 2009).

3.4. Passive to proactive participation: mismatches in expectations and outcomes Mismatches were observed between what kind of participation fishermen and managers were seeking. Clearer communication around the meaning of participation can help close the divide between expectations and outcomes for collaborative decisionmaking in MSP. Having clear communication about the purpose of participation can help managers and citizens define and shape decision-making and can decrease the divide between expectations and outcomes for participants. Participation can also be understood across a spectrum, ranging from passive participation where participation is a means of collecting information to inform decisions to proactive participation, where all groups engage in decisions to inform equitable outcomes (Duraiappah et al., 2005). Both plans communicated mixed messages around the engagement of stakeholders. Indeed, the literature on MSP itself presents conflicting interpretations on this subject. On one hand, some scholars of MSP promote a proactive approach to participation that involves including bottom-up influence and collaboration in decision-making (Douvere, 2008; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Collaboration at this level implies levels of mutual learning, shared responsibility and the possibility for significant capacity-building for all parties involved (Walker et al., 2006) However, this approach has a number of tradeoffs. While it may result in greater conformance to final decisions, trust and increased social capital (Pretty, 2001), it can also lead to stalemates and lengthy, unwieldy processes (Young, 2007). Achieving proactive engagement requires designing process with these tradeoffs in mind. Major elements of a process such as timeline, trust and capacity among stakeholders and level of authority managers are willing to hand over should be re-imagined, and considered carefully before communicating how participation is defined in a particular context.

17 meetings over 20 months from October 2008 to June 2010 30-day public comment period for each chapter before public hearing, and then for final document. CRMC held public hearings to approve chapters separately, and then document as a whole 6 special meetings with commercial fisheries stakeholders, Oct. 2008eAug 2009 and informal sessions with leaders of the industry.

As can be seen in Table 2, the majority of the opportunities for participation in both plans can be considered passive participation, where commercial fishermen largely worked to inform the decision making process by providing information to managers. Fishermen expressed the desire to engage in a higher degree of shared decision-making in both plans. In interviews many fishermen indicated that they felt their participation was largely to legitimize the process. Fishermen spoke of wanting to be truly “at the table” in the decision-making process. In interviews with fishermen, 37% expressed this sentiment. Another significant portion expressed general disillusionment that prevented them from participating or engaging in policy and management decisions. As might be easy to predict, fishermen who had the potential to be directly impacted by the plans were more likely to participate, and specifically fishermen active in state waters. The work of fishermen’s organizations has gone far to develop a voice for the fisheries, and to create unifying messages across the highly diversified fleet. Despite not having the level of influence they sought, these organizations tried to attend meetings and influence the process, but lacked the capacity to engage even at this level. One fisherman leader in Rhode Island explains: I think it was difficult for them because they’re trying to get themselves organized and they’re trying to keep fishing and there’s a million meetings and at least at the beginning of the stakeholder process there was feeling that they really didn’t have a seat at the table. They really wanted a seat at the table. (Author interview #9 2010). During the time that fishermen were trying to engage by participating in meetings in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, many were also working to engage with a number of major changes in the fisheries management system. For example, the groundfish fishery represents the largest fishery in the region in terms of number of participants. During this period, the management regime changed from an input controlled fishery (limits to the number of fishing days at sea) to an output controlled fishery where the majority of the fishery is now managed though a group based quota system similar to harvest cooperatives. The process that led to this regulatory shift as well as the implementation of the new policies demanded a great deal of time on the part of permit holders who were joining/building new fishermen’s organizations, developing new business strategies and adapting to new reporting requirements.

16

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

In addition to not always feeling “at the table”, fishermen who were interviewed in both states also expressed that providing public comment did not lead to enough influence over outcomes. One fisherman in Massachusetts explains: They responded to [public comments] verbally, but that’s as far as they went. Then they came out with their [Ocean Management] Plan and the windmills were right where we’re fishing. They just said yes, but then they did what they please (Author interview #34 2010). This quote demonstrates that existing space conflicts have caused tension between commercial fishermen and other stakeholders that affected their participation in these two state plans. MSP decision-making processes include complex analysis of spatial information, with a significant focus on biophysical processes that inform management decisions. Scholarly work has begun to point to the “missing layer” of the social landscape of marine systems (St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008). In addition, fishermen’s expectations for participation in the OMP and the RI SAMP differed significantly from the process that was designed to engage them. There are a number of explanations for this. First, commercial fishermen were seeking greater proactive participation and a level of shared authority in decision-making. However, commercial fishermen who were interviewed expressed feeling that the public stakeholder process was not designed to allow stakeholders significant influence over outcomes. Their role was largely as passive participants, including attending meetings and providing public comment and information to managers. Fishermen who participated expressed feeling that they were largely there to legitimize the decision-making process, and did not truly have a seat “at the table”. In addition, commercial fishermen’s organizations lacked the capacity to engage. Fishermen’s organizations are often volunteer-run, and leaders did not have the time or ability to do outreach to their constituents about the two plans. In the two plans studies here, mismatches over proactive vs. passive participation could only have been resolved by greater influence over the policies that shape the decision-making process that follows. This was achieved to some degree in Massachusetts with fishermen’s influence over the Oceans Act of 2008. Ultimately, the mismatches that occurred between expectations and outcomes could have been ameliorated by clearer communication about what stakeholder participation meant, and the level of decision-making authority managers were willing to share with stakeholders. While clearer communication would not have resolved the fundamental difference in the level of influence participants had over the process, it would have minimized confusion and allowed fishermen to prioritize limited time and resources with a clearer understanding of what was being asked of them. 4. Conclusion As the National Ocean Policy brings MSP to more regions across the US, managers will encounter diverse stakeholder groups with varying and at times conflicting concerns. MSP as an emerging framework for coastal and marine management builds off of a long history of land use planning that has worked to engage stakeholders. As with all planning processes, a MSP moves ahead in the US, proactive engagement of stakeholders remains key to it success. This research reveals a number of important findings that can inform how stakeholders are engaged in these efforts. First, stakeholder engagement efforts were not sufficiently targeted to commercial fishermen in both states. Despite this group being a major stakeholder group with the potential to be significantly affected by management outcomes, commercial fishermen expressed frustration at meeting location, timing and lack of

capacity to keep up with the rapid planning timeline. As a stakeholder group commercial fishermen were represented by a largely volunteer run and loosely knit group of organizations. The leaders of these organizations, often full-time fishermen themselves, could hardly keep up with up to date information on the planning process to provide thoughtful comment to managers. These challenges could have been ameliorated to some degree if managers had better tailored the engagement of this stakeholder group. Conducting a comprehensive stakeholder analysis helps managers become more knowledgeable about the vested interests of core participant organizations and agencies (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). In the case of the OMP and RI SAMP, conducting a stakeholder analysis would have helped managers to focus outreach efforts on relevant groups and to offer meeting locations and times that were more convenient to commercial fishermen, who often struggled to attend meetings regularly due to their demanding and unpredictable work schedule. Preliminary stakeholder analysis can improve understanding of the population of fishermen most affected by potential outcomes, and how to best work with them. The second major finding from this research is the need for a clear policy framework for MSP and public participation. The Oceans Act, which passed with significant participation of multiple stakeholders including commercial fishermen and provided a clearer roadmap for participation and the way the state would balance historic and emerging uses. Conversely, Rhode Island Ocean SAMP managers derived authority for MSP through expanding the reach of existing legal guidance, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The major difference here is that in Massachusetts, a legal mandate was established for MSP with the participation and influence of stakeholders, including commercial fishermen. In the process that followed, the perceptions of commercial fishermen were mixed. Some fishermen who were interviewed felt the industry had exerted sufficient influence in the policy process and did not feel the need to engage further. Others, who were less knowledgeable about this early influence or indeed about the OMP, expressed significant concern over the implications of MSP for commercial fishing grounds. These differences reflect that fact that the OMP could have benefitted from more outreach to the industry, particularly around the benefits and challenges associated with MSP for the industry. Building relationships and trust was an important benefit to all participants. Though more opportunities could have been created for empowerment, fishermen leaders who participated did note that simply attending meetings facilitated new working relationships. In addition, both states provided a diverse array of informal opportunities to engage, through direct contact and special meetings. Recent literature suggests that providing a diverse array of opportunities for participation (both formal and informal) is key to engaging stakeholders (Buanes et al., 2005). One fisherman leader said, “I think that one of the things that we were able to cross over with different agencies understanding of fisheries. We might not have had the working relationship before” (Author interview #41 2009). While fishermen expressed dissatisfaction with the level of influence they had over, even as passive participants, fishermen’s organizations lacked the capacity to participate at the level that was asked of them, including tracking the process, attending meetings, and providing comment and information to managers. One fisherman’s advocate explains the challenges of her work, “We know we will be setting the example for the nation and it needs to be done right. But, at the same time. it’s limited to what I can do.. Even those of us who have been so involved, we’re not prepared to make full comments” (Author interview #39 2009). Regular fishermen who were less involved in fishermen’s organizations were not knowledgeable about the proposed plans and had fears and concerns surrounding the potential for loss of fishing

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

grounds. As one fisherman leader explains, “Spatial planning, what is that to a fisherman? Not to say there aren’t fishermen that are aware of it and are paying attention to it, but on balance a lot of them aren’t paying attention to it” (Author interview #48 2009). The challenges of engaging regular fishermen in policy and management are great e they spend many of their hours on the water and often work unpredictable schedules. One way to improve communication and outreach to their group is through a greater focus on empowerment in stakeholder processes. Empowerment can aid stakeholder groups with differential capacity and helps to alleviate existing inequalities between groups that may hinder equal access to participation (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; RietbergenMcCracken and Narayan, 1998). Without empowerment, stakeholder processes can easily become opportunistic, simply opening the process to those groups who already have the time, staff and resources to engage. Both plans did create some educational opportunities such as public presentations on related topics. Some areas established in MSP literature where managers could create additional opportunities for empowerment include education, social development, and capacity building (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). This could include workshops for stakeholders on topics such as ocean science, grant-writing, communication skills; leadership development for participants; and collaborative research. Finally, the degree of shared authority sought in decisionmaking should be clearly communicated. Full citizen power is not always the goal of participation. In fact, in some cases, managers may simply be seeking valuable information from stakeholders to help inform the overall process. Communicating this clearly makes it easier for stakeholders to understand their role. In some cases, the stated role may not be the one that stakeholders determine their level of involvement and their interest in being involved. Managers must find a mechanism for these issues to be brought forward and considered. The OMP and RI SAMP reveal important mis-matches in terms of the role fishermen played and the role they hoped to play. In both states, managers engaged commercial fishermen as passive participants, where stakeholders share knowledge and information to inform decisions. However, commercial fishermen expected to have a greater voice in the process and engage more proactively. These mis-matches were compounded by unclear communication over the true purpose of participation in each plan as well as by the limited capacity of fishing groups to engage in the process. Ethical statement The authors declare that they have read and comply with this Journal’s ethics in publishing guidelines, including all guidelines relating to reporting standards, data access, originality and plagiarism, other publication, acknowledgement of funding and sources, authorship, subjects, conflicts of interest and fundamental errors in the work. References Abbott-Jamieson, S., Clay, P.M., 2010. The long voyage to including sociocultural analysis in NOAA’s national marine fisheries service. Mar. Fish. Rev. 72 Arnstein, S.R., 1971. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35 Becker, C.D., Ostrom, E., 1995. Human ecology and resource sustainability: the importance of institutional diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26, 113e133. Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA. Bernard, H.R., 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Buanes, A., Jentoft, S., Maurstad, A., Soreng, S.U., Runar Karlsen, G., 2005. Stakeholder participation in Norwegian coastal zone planning. Ocean and Coastal Manag. 48, 658e669. CBI, 2009. Stakeholder Participation in Massachusetts Ocean Planning: Observations on the Plan Development Stage. Consensus Building Institute, Boston, MA.

17

Clay, P., Olson, J., 2008. Defining ‘Fishing Communities’: vulnerability and the Magnuson-Steven fisheries conservation and management act. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 15, 143e160. CRMC, 2010. Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) (Wakefield, RI). CRMC, 2009a. RI Ocean SAMP Fisheries Process and Timeline Rev. 3/18/2009 (Wakefield, RI). CRMC, 2009b. Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs). State of Rhode Island, Wakefield, RI. Curtin, R., Prellezo, R., 2010. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Mar. Policy 34, 821e830. Dalton, T., 2005. Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of US marine protected areas. Conserv. Biol., 1392e1401. Douvere, F., Maes, F., Vanhulle, A., Schrijvers, J., 2006. The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: the Belgian case. Mar. Policy 31, 182e191. Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 32, 762e771. Douvere, F., Ehler, C., 2009. New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 77e88. Duraiappah, A.N., Roddy, P., Parry, J., 2005. Have Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities. Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2010. An international perspective on marine spatial planning initiatives. Environ. J. Interdisciplinary Stud. 37 Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-step Approach toward Ecosystem Based Management. In: IOC Manual and Guides No. 53. ICAM Dossier No. 6. Ekstrom, J., 2009. A tool to navigate overlaps in fragmented ocean governance. Mar. Policy 33, 532e535. Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B.J., Acheson, J.M., 1990. The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Hum. Ecol. 18, 1e19. Fiorino, D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 15, 226e243. Gelcich, S., 2009. Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South America: stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation. Mar. Policy 33, 801. Gililland, P., Laffoly, D., 2008. Key elements in the process of developing ecosystembased marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 787e796. Gopnik, M., 2008. Integrated Marine Spatial Planning in U.S. In: Waters: The Path Forward. Hagos, K.W., 2007. Impact of Offshore Wind Energy on Marine Fisheries in Rhode Island. RI Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife (University of Rhode Island Coastal Institute IGERT Project). Ingles, P., 2007. Anthropology and fisheries management in the United States. NAPA Bull. 28, 1. Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., Wilson, D.C., 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy 22, 423e436. Kuffner, A., 2009. RI, Mass, to work together on offshore wind power. Providence J. Leslie, H.M., McLeod, K.L., 2007. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 540e548. Lubchenco, J., 2009. Written Testimony of Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D. Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce. Lubchenco, J., 2011. Written Testimony of Jane Lubchenco, Ph. D., Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Hearing on the Executive Order for a National Policy for the Stewardship of the Oceans, Our Coasts and the Great Lakes Before the US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources. October 26, 2011. . Mackinson, S., Curtis, H., Brown, R., McTaggart, K., Taylor, N., Neville, S., Rogers, S., 2006. A report on the perceptions of the fishing industry into the potential socio-economic impacts of offshore wind energy developments on their work patterns and income. Sci. Ser. Tech. Rep. Cefas Lowestoft 133, 99. MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2009. Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, vols. I and II. McCay, B.J., Brandt, S., Creed, C.F., 2011. Human dimensions of climate change and fisheries in a coupled system: the Atlantic Surfclam case. ICES J. Mar. Sci.: J. Conseil. 68, 1354e1367. Maes, F., 2008. The international legal framework for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 797. Meridian Institute, 2011. National Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop, June 21e23, 2011. Washington DC. Odell, J., Morrison, K.K., 2010. Humans within Northwest Atlantic Ecosystems: An Overview of Uses and Values. Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. of Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 15181e15187. Payne, K.F., 2010. Report of the Ocean Special Area Management Plan Stakeholder Process to the CRMC (Wakefield, RI). Pinto da Silva, P., 2006. Collaborative fisheries management in the Northeast US: emerging initiatives and future directions. Mar. Policy 30, 832. Pinto da Silva, P., Fulcher, C., 2007. Using GIS to visualize land/sea connections: case study e NE herring fishery. Mar. Resour. Rev. 67, 19e25. Pollnac, R., 1988. Social and cultural-characteristics of fishing peoples. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 14, 23e39.

18

H.M. Nutters, P. Pinto da Silva / Ocean & Coastal Management 67 (2012) 9e18

Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 32, 816e822. Pretty, J., 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Dev. 29, 209. Rietbergen-McCracken, J., Narayan, D., 1998. Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques. Schumann, S., 2010. SAMP Facilitates Offshore Wind Power; Adapts to Future Concerns. ecoRI News. Singer-Taylor, L., 2011. The Development of Catch Shares: Lessons Learned from New England.

St. Martin, K., Hall-Arber, M., 2008. The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32, 779e786. Walker, G.B., Senecah, S.L., Daniels, S.E., 2006. From the forest to the river: citizens’ views of stakeholder engagement. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 13 Young, O.R., 2007. Solving the crisis in ocean governance: place-based management of marine ecosystems. Environment 49, 20. Zezima, K., 2008. Massachusetts Law to Manage and Protect Ocean Waters. New York Times.