A “learning paradox” in maritime spatial planning

Both policy-makers and scholars acknowledge and emphasize the need for learning in maritime spatial planning (MSP). However, few explain why learning is important. As such, it remains a vague and understudied process and is taken for granted and assumed to be and do “only good” which might hinder an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of learning in policy-making. In this paper, we investigate whether, and if so in what way, explicit attention is given to learning in MSP. In this way, we try to unpack a (plausible) “learning paradox” and gain more insight into the different conceptualizations of learning in MSP. We use seven dimensions to examine learning in MSP by conducting a literature review of scientific MSP literature and a case study, which analyzes learning in the Dutch MSP process. The literature review and case study point to a “learning paradox” in MSP, showing both similarities and differences. The common lack of attention for risk and ambiguities is particularly problematic, while the existing clarity about who (should) learn and how can be seen as opportunities to gain insights in learning in MSP. Overall, we argue that acknowledging the paradox is paramount to improve the effectiveness of learning processes in MSP.</p

What do we know about the impacts of the Marine Stewardship Council seafood ecolabelling program? A systematic map

Abstract Background Voluntary Sustainability Standards and ecolabels are market-based mechanisms used to encourage producers and consumers toward environmental sustainability. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) aims to improve ocean health and promote a sustainable seafood market. There is growing interest in the program’s impacts (direct and indirect) from changes to fisheries management and consumer awareness to market access and the reputation of fisheries. To better understand what is known about the program’s impacts and the quality of evidence available, this map collates and describes articles on the environmental, social, institutional and economic effects of the MSC, identifying the methods used to determine impacts, and highlighting knowledge gaps and clusters. Methods Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches of peer-reviewed literature were conducted in Web of Science, SCOPUS and AGRIS. Grey literature was gathered from Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and three subject-specific websites. A total of 771 articles were retrieved, 271 of which were screened at full-text. 28 articles met all inclusion criteria and a further 37 met all the criteria but did not have a comparator. Additionally, 108 articles that describe the MSC but do not investigate its impacts (thus failing on ‘comparator’ and ‘outcome’ inclusion criteria) were included in the narrative report. This provides an overview of MSC topics that are of general interest to researchers in comparison to articles that investigate MSC’s impact. Results Evidence of the impact of MSC certification fall in the following topic categories: economic (38%), environmental (25%), governance (29%) and social (8%). These articles documented diverse outcomes related to MSC certification. The most common are price premiums, market access, changes in stock health, ecosystem impacts and fisheries management changes. A key knowledge gap are articles on the effects of the MSC’s Chain of Custody Standard and its effects on the supply chain. Generally, literature focused on European and North American fisheries with little focus on fisheries situated in lower-income countries. Conclusions Research interest in the MSC has grown over the last two decades, however, little research uses study designs and evidence that can robustly detect or attribute change to the MSC. Greater focus on conducting robust quasi-experimental designs would help to better understand the program effects. Comparing areas of interest in the general literature (which, for example, shows greater focus on the governance aspects of the programme than found in literature using comparators) suggests that this is partly due to lack of resources, data access and the challenge of obtaining counterfactuals. Nevertheless, some topics were absent in all areas, such as the social and economic dynamics that link harvesters and supply chain actors. It is important to fill the identified knowledge gaps as the behaviours of certified harvesters, supply chain actors and other stakeholders are the key through which the public influence sustainability, market inclusion/exclusion operates, and inequality is generated. Understanding these processes can have wider relevance in the field, informing the design of other sustainability interventions

Scrutinizing environmental governance in a digital age: New ways of seeing, participating, and intervening

Digital technologies play an increasingly important role in addressing environmental challenges, such as climate change and resource depletion. Yet, the characteristics and implications of digitalized environmental governance are still under-conceptualized. In this perspective, we distinguish three dimensions of governance: (1) seeing and knowing, (2) participation and engagement, and (3) interventions and actions. For each dimension, we provide a critical perspective on the shifts that digital technologies generate in governance. We argue against the assumption that the use of digital technologies automatically results in improved outcomes or in more democratic decision-making. Instead, attention needs to be paid to the wider political and normative context in which digital technologies are proposed, designed, and used as environmental governance tools. We conclude with key questions for academics and policymakers to broaden the debate on responsible design and use of digital technologies in environmental governance

Science-Policy Interactions in MPA Site Selection in the Dutch Part of the North Sea

At the 7th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-COP7, Kuala Lumpur, 2004) it was agreed to establish a global network of marine and coastal protected areas by 2012. The defined objectives of this MPA-network are based on the ecosystem approach: to protect biodiversity and other ecological values, and to ensure sustainable use. The (inter)national policy guidelines state that the selection of MPAs should be based on scientific information and ecological criteria only. As a signatory to the Convention, the Netherlands is now faced with meeting this obligation, and the process of designating the first Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Dutch part of the North Sea is currently in progress. We focus on the science–policy interactions that are part of this Dutch MPA selection process. By taking a closer look at the contemporary site selection process as well as its historical background, we show that ecological, socio-economic and political considerations cannot always be easily separated. Uncertainty is high and the ultimate selection and delimitation of candidate sites rather seems to be the result of a balancing act between ecological, socio-economic and political interests, in which scientific and policy guiding procedures blend with ad-hoc political decision making, and with expert judgment in cases where data is lacking. As such, this paper presents an example of present-day environmental policy making in action

The digital frontiers of fisheries governance: fish attraction devices, drones and satellites

High seas fisheries remain one of the least transparent global production practices. Distance from shore, coupled with the highly mobile nature of fish stocks, has put attention on new monitoring, control and surveillance technologies to collect spatially referenced data on the location of fishing vessels, gears and even fish stocks and eradicate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activity. Faced with their nascent implementation, research is yet to address how these technologies are reconfiguring the roles and responsibilities of public and private actors involved in fisheries management, including who collects and controls fisheries related information. In this paper, we compare three monitoring, control and surveillance technologies that are gaining traction in fisheries; the use of private fish attraction devices in oceanic tuna fisheries, unmanned public drones for marine surveillance and global satellite monitoring of fishing vessels. In doing so, we question how different configurations of actors are structuring flows of information and with what effect on sustainability performance of high seas fisheries. We also explore how these technologies configure new (and imagined) geographies of high seas fisheries which challenge existing modes of fisheries management

The power of the offshore (super-) grid in advancing marine regionalization

Large scale and transnational electricity grids facilitate balancing capacity across the areas that they serve and increase potential for energy trading. Offshore grids and the more ambitious notion of supergrids are beginning to play a significant part, especially in Europe, in the realization of improving security of domestic energy supply and expanding renewable energy production. As such, offshore (super-) grid development provides an excellent example of the move towards marine regionalization. Moreover, because of limited spatial claims and environmental impacts, marine electricity systems seem well-aligned with the rationale of ecosystem-based management, which is at the heart of European marine governance. By outlining their historical path and the envisioned outlook, in this article we show how offshore (super-) grid developments link up to marine regionalization and its related processes of integration and cooperation. It is argued that scaling-up grids to the level of regional seas is not unproblematic, but faces obstacles which depend on persistent practical and policy realities, and which may be relevant to other expressions of marine regionalization.</p

Le tournant numérique de la planification maritime : une analyse globale des géoportails océaniques

International audienceRecent research highlighted the use and role played by digital technologies supporting marine spatial planning (MSP), especially geoportals. This research seldom considers to study an overview of the role of digital technologies and examines the digitalization of marine governance in planning. Employing a critical cartography framework and assemblage theory, we elaborate on the use of geoportal and public involvement in the digital turn of MSP. We show how the digital turn in marine planning is taking place at different levels depending on: the functionalities present on geoportals, the political support for MSP implementation, the regions of the world, and the level of plan development. According to the three dimensions of digital (marine) governance (Kloppenburg et al., 2022), we reveal that the role of geoportal in MSP is a part of the first dimension by seeing and knowing, sometimes the second dimension by selfengagement and in the most advanced forms of geoportal part of the third dimension by leading actions and interventions. In general, we find that the geoportal is more of a facade than a tool for doing MSP. The digital turn in marine planning is real but does not yet allow the public to be a real stakeholder in the process.Des recherches récentes ont mis en évidence l'utilisation et le rôle des technologies numériques dans la planification de l'espace marin (MSP), en particulier les géoportails. Ces recherches ont rarement envisagé d'étudier une vue d'ensemble du rôle des technologies numériques et examiner la numérisation de la gouvernance marine dans la planification. En utilisant un cadre de cartographie critique et la théorie de l'assemblage, nous développons l'utilisation du géoportail et l'implication du public dans le virage numérique de la planification spatiale marine. Nous montrons comment le virage numérique de la planification marine se produit à différents niveaux en fonction des fonctionnalités présentes sur les géoportails, du soutien politique à la mise en œuvre de la planification marine, des régions du monde et du niveau d'élaboration des plans. Selon les trois dimensions de la gouvernance numérique (marine) (Kloppenburg et al., 2022), nous révélons que le rôle du géoportail dans la planification marine fait partie de la première dimension par la vision et la connaissance, parfois de la deuxième dimension par l'auto-engagement et dans les formes les plus avancées de géoportail, de la troisième dimension par la conduite d'actions et d'interventions. En général, nous constatons que le géoportail est plus une façade qu'un outil pour la planification marine. Le virage numérique de la planification marine est réel, mais ne permet pas encore au public d'être véritablement partie prenante du processus