A practical framework for implementing and evaluating integrated management of marine activities

Twelve Recommendations for Advancing Marine Conservation in European and Contiguous Seas

“…Cumulative effects assessments need to be well-framed to contribute in integrated planning, and function as tools that bridge different management objectives (Stephenson et al, 2019). Thus, applying the risk-based CEA framework proposed in MarCons (Stelzenmüller et al, 2018) and defining a strategy to communicate uncertainty is key for the operationalization of CEA (Stelzenmüller et al, 2020).…”

Full-spectrum sustainability: an alternative to fisheries management panaceas

“…Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and market actors in the sustainable seafood movement, which use ranking systems, buying guides, traceability initiatives, certification programs, and various initiatives that combine one or several of these instruments (Jacquet and Pauly 2007, Parkes et al 2010, Konefal 2013, have also tended to focus on conservation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems and not meaningfully engage with social dimensions (Ponte 2012, Micheli et al 2014, a factor driving the emergence of alternative eco-certifications that incorporate ethical and social justice principles and criteria (Foley 2019). Some governmental and intergovernmental agencies, NGOs, fish harvester groups, and academic researchers have begun to develop tools to integrate social development dimensions into fisheries management, assessment, and marketing systems (Brooks et al 2015, Symes and Hoefnagel 2010, Micheli et al 2014, Kittinger et al 2017, Stephenson et al 2019b, Witter and Stoll 2017, Foley 2019. However, these initiatives also tend to be fragmented and little empirical research has been conducted to compare these assessment frameworks with actual fisheries and seafood contexts.…”

“…Practical application: Future work is needed to move fullspectrum sustainability frameworks into more usable toolkits for different societal actors. In addition to the papers in this special feature, the CFRN framework has been useful in extending the perspective of the ecosystem approach to regional management in Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Daly, Bundy, and Stephenson, unpublished manuscript), as a lens for evaluation of fisheries management plans (Paul and Stephenson 2019), as a framework for practical integration of integrated management (Stephenson et al 2019b), and to help shape the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's Strategic Initiative on Human Dimensions, and Cumulative Effects Assessment Framework (ICES 2018(ICES , 2019. As others have noted for other frameworks, future practical applications could also be facilitated through the development of an online version that develops databases with hyperlinks, menus, and other tools that can be used by different organizations and decision makers (see discussion in Young et al 2018).…”

Addressing Marine and Coastal Governance Conflicts at the Interface of Multiple Sectors and Jurisdictions

“…Competing uses by multiple sectors of interconnected ecosystem components that span multiple jurisdictional boundaries and ecological structures generate cross-sectoral externalities (i.e., side effects on other parties) that can impede attainment of conservation objectives (Rice, 2011). Governance systems for fisheries, power generation, irrigation, aquaculture, marine biodiversity conservation, and other coastal and maritime activities are generally organized to manage conflicts within sectors, but not across sectors (Crowder et al, 2006;Stephenson et al, 2019). Cross-sectoral conflicts typically involve heterogeneous stakeholder groups with different value systems, conflicting aims and views of the management problem, different objectives or priorities, different knowledge bases, and disagreement regarding the allocation of the costs and benefits associated with proposed solutions (Adams et al, 2003;Crowder et al, 2006;Redpath et al, 2013).…”

“…In addition, these governance conflicts are not necessarily limited to spatial conflicts, but can relate to tradeoffs and fundamentally different perceptions of resource values among diverse user groups. Stephenson et al (2019) identified the main deficiencies often encountered in sector-based governance systems when they face cross-sectoral conflicts: (1) management of diverse, interacting sectors falls under the jurisdiction of different authorities using different approaches and concepts; (2) diverse sectors have different objectives and values, and management fails to account for the full range of ecological, economic, social, and institutional dimensions that are essential for formulating successful resource management strategies; (3) explicitly identified and agreed upon objectives are lacking, which leads to the absence of evaluation of tradeoffs (or potential synergies), among objectives and across sectors, and of cumulative effects of all interacting activities, and a lack of mechanisms in place to facilitate or implement cross-sectoral coordination. Understanding how cross-jurisdictional governance systems may emerge from such situations is important in order to durably address these conflicts (Rice, 2011).…”