Difference between revisions of "Northeast Regional Ocean Planning"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|Stakeholder Type=Sovereign state/national/federal government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens | |Stakeholder Type=Sovereign state/national/federal government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens | ||
}}{{Issue}} | }}{{Issue}} | ||
| − | |Key Questions= | + | |Key Questions={{Key Question |
| + | |Subject=Integration across Sectors | ||
| + | |Key Question - Industries=How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=As the case overview outlines, the Northeast Regional Ocean Planning Process had a robust stakeholder engagement process. The process included different methods and meetings for stakeholders to get involved, different locations, and different levels of engagement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps most notable in this case, the stakeholder engagement process was integrated into the ocean planning process from early on. It was not just a one stop check box for general input, but a thoughtful and coordinated approach throughout every phase of planning. This is a valuable lesson for other processes as it helped ensure stakeholders were engaged early on and had meaningful input throughout. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If the Northeast Regional Planning Body had not integrated such engagement throughout, it is unlikely that their final Plan would be as widely supported. Often times, in such circumstances, stakeholders instead feel they are asked to rubber stamp something that has already been decided. By engaging early on, incorporating feedback throughout, and continuing to dialogue, the Northeast ocean planning process was more effective in their stakeholder engagement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In addition, the engagement process was facilitated by third-party neutrals which allowed for productive and meaningful conversations between decision-makers on the NE RPB and the broader community of ocean users. The third-party neutral team also provided neutral documentation of the meetings that allowed all parties to be on the same page with what feedback needed to be incorporated into the planning process. | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Power and Politics | ||
| + | |Key Question - Influence=How do national policies influence water use at the local level? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=In the case of the Northeast ocean planning process, the National Ocean Policy was certainly a driving factor in helping to catalyze improved regional coordination that built off of existing state level initiatives. When the National Ocean Policy was created, the Northeast already had two state-level ocean plans and a regional ocean council working to improve coordination on ocean management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The national level policy helped bring federal agencies to the table with a clear mandate from the Executive branch to focus on supporting regional ocean planning. In addition, it helped bring tribal governments to the table as an important resource in planning, technical ecological knowledge, and cultural resources. Having increased leadership and collaboration from both federal and tribal representatives, overall improved the ocean management work in the Northeast. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps most importantly with this national initiative, it encouraged regions to help drive the process and tailor their needs from the bottom-up. It did not create additional regulatory requirements, but instead encouraged existing entities to improve their work through increased coordination and stakeholder input towards a collective future vision of ocean management. | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=Although parties have not yet adjusted their Northeast Ocean Plan to adaptive management needs, the Plan prioritizes this in future work. Adaptive management was a key principle for the planning process and central in the Ocean Plan. In prioritizing this, parties also focused on research needs and information gaps as priorities to inform future work. This will ideally help shape future adaptive management work. Integrating collaborative adaptive management into the planning process and future meetings for implementation are positive approaches for success. | ||
| + | }} | ||
|Water Feature= | |Water Feature= | ||
|Riparian= | |Riparian= | ||
Revision as of 10:08, 22 May 2017
| Geolocation: | 42° 36' 0", -69° 30' 0" |
|---|---|
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | religious/cultural sites |
| Important Uses of Water | Fisheries - wild, Fisheries - farmed, Industry - non-consumptive use, Other Ecological Services, Recreation or Tourism |
Contents
Summary
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Issues and Stakeholders
How can coordination be improved for regulatory and management decisions?
NSPD: Governance, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens
How can data be more accessible and shared for better decision-making?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Water Quality, Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens
What additional areas of research and data are needed to further inform ocean management in the Northeast?
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Non-legislative governmental agency, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest, Community or organized citizens
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreNo ASI articles have been added yet for this case
Key Questions
Integration across Sectors: How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered?
As the case overview outlines, the Northeast Regional Ocean Planning Process had a robust stakeholder engagement process. The process included different methods and meetings for stakeholders to get involved, different locations, and different levels of engagement.
Perhaps most notable in this case, the stakeholder engagement process was integrated into the ocean planning process from early on. It was not just a one stop check box for general input, but a thoughtful and coordinated approach throughout every phase of planning. This is a valuable lesson for other processes as it helped ensure stakeholders were engaged early on and had meaningful input throughout.
If the Northeast Regional Planning Body had not integrated such engagement throughout, it is unlikely that their final Plan would be as widely supported. Often times, in such circumstances, stakeholders instead feel they are asked to rubber stamp something that has already been decided. By engaging early on, incorporating feedback throughout, and continuing to dialogue, the Northeast ocean planning process was more effective in their stakeholder engagement.
In addition, the engagement process was facilitated by third-party neutrals which allowed for productive and meaningful conversations between decision-makers on the NE RPB and the broader community of ocean users. The third-party neutral team also provided neutral documentation of the meetings that allowed all parties to be on the same page with what feedback needed to be incorporated into the planning process.
Power and Politics: How do national policies influence water use at the local level?
In the case of the Northeast ocean planning process, the National Ocean Policy was certainly a driving factor in helping to catalyze improved regional coordination that built off of existing state level initiatives. When the National Ocean Policy was created, the Northeast already had two state-level ocean plans and a regional ocean council working to improve coordination on ocean management.
The national level policy helped bring federal agencies to the table with a clear mandate from the Executive branch to focus on supporting regional ocean planning. In addition, it helped bring tribal governments to the table as an important resource in planning, technical ecological knowledge, and cultural resources. Having increased leadership and collaboration from both federal and tribal representatives, overall improved the ocean management work in the Northeast.
Perhaps most importantly with this national initiative, it encouraged regions to help drive the process and tailor their needs from the bottom-up. It did not create additional regulatory requirements, but instead encouraged existing entities to improve their work through increased coordination and stakeholder input towards a collective future vision of ocean management.
Transboundary Water Issues: What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?
Although parties have not yet adjusted their Northeast Ocean Plan to adaptive management needs, the Plan prioritizes this in future work. Adaptive management was a key principle for the planning process and central in the Ocean Plan. In prioritizing this, parties also focused on research needs and information gaps as priorities to inform future work. This will ideally help shape future adaptive management work. Integrating collaborative adaptive management into the planning process and future meetings for implementation are positive approaches for success.
