From the Forest to the Sea: Lessons in Managing Public Space Morgan Gopnik, Ph.D. Open Channels/EBM Tools Network Webinar March 18, 2015 From the Forest.

From the Forest to the Sea:Lessons in Managing Public Space

Morgan Gopnik, Ph.D.

Open Channels/EBM Tools NetworkWebinarMarch 18, 2015

“Congress, working with the National Ocean Council, … should establish a balanced, ecosystem-based, offshore management regime that sets forth guiding principles for the coordination of offshore activities …”

USCOP 2004

“ecosystem-based” “efficient” “coordinated” “integrated” “consistent” “comprehensive”

Sunnyside, WANorth Sea

Belgian Marine Spatial Plan

Belgium

U.S. EEZ (4 million sq. mi.)U.S. Public Lands (1 million sq.mi.)

Can ocean managers

learn from

public landmanagers?

Forest-ocean timeline

1900 1950 2000

Fore

st R

eser

ve A

ctFo

rest

Ser

vice

Mul

tiple

Use

Act

Wild

erne

ss A

ctFo

rest

Pla

nnin

g A

ct

Trum

an P

rocl

amat

ion

Exec

. Ord

er fo

r MSP

200-

mile

EEZ

Mar

ine

Sanc

tuar

ies

Act

NO

AA

Forest

Ocean

“[The] demand for use of resources is becoming intense and there is little doubt that demands will continue to grow… forest resources are not adequate to fully satisfy these individual desires for space.”

Forest Service, 1963

Echoes of ocean policy?

“[Ecosystem management] would impose constraints upon single purpose approaches to the [land], and would arouse hostility among individuals whose single purpose pursuits would thereby be constrained.”

Caldwell, 1970

Echoes of ocean policy?

Question #1

Is the EEZ like a national forest, in a meaningful, policy-relevant sense?

Question #2Has over a hundred years of forest management produced any “lessons for success,” particularly with respect to multiple-use planning and management?

Question #3How might forest-based lessons be used to improve MSP implementation?

= ?

= ?≠

=

Understanding policy elements

Source: Sabatier and Weible 2005

Source: Ostrom 2005

Similarities between national forests and the EEZ

• Transition from laissez-faire to state management• Stressed, but intact and diverse ecosystems that transcend

political boundaries

• Similar bundles of goods and services

• Public-trust responsibilities

• Overlapping laws and agencies

• Multiple-use mandates and resulting conflicts

• Divergent local and national interests

• Evolving ecological and social understanding

Research methods

Document review• government records, reports, and regulations• academic, legal, and popular writings

Confidential interviews• 82 forest & ocean users, scholars, and managers• Thematic analysis of transcripts

Case studies• site visits to National Forests• met with agency staff, loggers, ENGOs, and community members

Willamette NF, OR

Siuslaw NF, OR

Croatan NF, NC

Balancing competing goals

Scale of solutions

National Local

• Public trust duty• Broad representation• Large ecosystem scale

• Local knowledge• Community engagement• Better monitoring and

enforcement

Balancing competing goals

Degree of uniformity

Standardized Flexible

• Certainty• Consistency• Sets a “floor”

• Context specific• Adaptive• Innovative

Balancing competing goals

Style of decisionmaking

• Can adapt• Objective

• Science-based

Collaborative

Technocratic

Political

Judicial

• Representative• Legitimate• Stable

• Seeks compromise• Builds trust• Less adversarial

• Independent• Respected• Weight of law

What this all means for MSP in the U.S.

Lessons for:Congress

The NOC and federal agencies

The RPBs and states

The Courts

Stakeholders

The research community

“… planning has been controversial. Some … have argued that the process is too technical and expensive … [But] it creates valuable inventories, offers the potential of engaging the public, … and holds out the promise of creating ordered and principled decisionmaking.”

Wilkinson, 1987, on Forest Service planning

Then or now?

Questions?

For further info: [email protected]/in/morgangopnikwww.researchgate.net/profile/Morgan_Gopnik