Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks for Scientific Input
into Oregon State Ocean and Coastal Decision-Making
A Report Prepared for the Oregon Nearshore Research Task Force
By .ƭdzŜ 9ŀNJǘƘ /ƻƴǎdzƭǘŀƴǘǎ, LLC and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
July 22, 2010
i | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
DISCLAIMER: WHILE WE HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, AND OBTAINED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES, .[¦9 9!w¢I /hb{¦[¢!b¢{Σ LLC & GABRIELA GOLDFARB CONSULTING MAKE NO GUARANTEE OF THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM PROJECT SOURCES, PARTICULARLY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS FROM INTERVIEWS AND SELF-REPORTING. WE HAVE TRIED TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT TIMELINE SET BY THE NEARSHORE RESEARCH TASKFORCE.
COVER PHOTO: NOAA PHOTO LIBRARY (PHOTO CREDITS CLOCKWISE LEFT TO RIGHT) 1) MICHAEL THEBERGE 2) ELINOR DEWIRE, SENTINEL PUBLICATIONS 3) MARY HOLLINGER, NODC BIOLOGIST, NOAA 4)OREGON STATE POLICE
ii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
LOCATION: OREGON, COQUILLE RIVER ENTRANCE PHOTOGRAPHER: ELINOR DEWIRE, SENTINEL PUBLICATIONS.
iii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... VIII
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
SECTION I – METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 2
SECTION II – OREGON SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 8
SECTION III – CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................ 19
CASE STUDY 1: CALIFORNIA .................................................................................................................... 19 CASE STUDY 2: CHESAPEAKE BAY ............................................................................................................ 38 CASE STUDY 3: GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK (AUSTRALIA/QUEENSLAND) ....................................... 62 CASE STUDY 4: GULF OF MAINE .............................................................................................................. 89
SECTION IV – OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 102
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY SURVEY TOOL .................................................................................................. 114
APPENDIX B: INFORMANT LIST ................................................................................................................. 118
APPENDIX C: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY SCREENING ......................................................... 120
APPENDIX D: CASE STUDY COMMITTEES AND BOARD COMPOSITION INFORMATION AND WEBPAGE LINKS ......................................................................................................................................................... 123
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. IX
TABLE 2: DEFINITION CRITERIA USED IN MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR CASE STUDIES ......... 5
TABLE 3: DEFINITION CRITERIA USED FOR CASE STUDY OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT ...................................... 7
TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF OREGON STATE RESOURCE AGENCIES, ROLES, AND ACTIVITIES ......................... 11
TABLE 5: OVERVIEW OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OREGON STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES .................. 17
TABLE 6: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 34
TABLE 7: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 37
TABLE 8: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 9: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY INSTITUTIONS COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 61
TABLE 10: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR THE GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 82
TABLE 11: 2009 ARC STATEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENDITURE .............................................................. 87
iv | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
TABLE 12: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 88
TABLE 13: MECHANISM OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR GULF OF MAINE COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 98
TABLE 14: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF GULF OF MAINE COASTAL AND OCEAN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 101
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM BUDGET DISBURSEMENT ............................................................ 47
FIGURE 2: ANNUAL REVENUE FOR GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY ............................... 69
FIGURE 3: GBRMPA EXPENSES FOR 2008-2008 .......................................................................................... 86
LIST OF BOXES
BOX 1: IMPORTANT CONTEXT: THE MARINE LIFE PROTECTION ACT INITIATIVE ....................................... 22
BOX 2: COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRES AND COLLABORATIVE APPROACH ......................................... 76
BOX 3: EXCERPT FROM SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK 2009 ............................................................................................................. 78
v | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Acronym List
Acronym Organization
ACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
AIMS Australia Institute of Marine Science and its satellite at James Cook University (AIMS@JCU)
AMPTO Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators
AMSA Australia Maritime Safety Authority
ARC Coral Reef Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
CBP or Bay Program Chesapeake Bay Program
CBT Chesapeake Bay Trust
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CMS Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland
COPA California Ocean Protection Act
CORMA California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990
CORSA California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act of 2000
CRC Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization
CSMP California Seafloor Mapping Project
CWRAC Coastal and Watershed Resources Advisory Committee
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DFG California Department of Fish and Game
DHS Department of Human Services
DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development
DOGAMI Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
DPA Dugong Protection Areas
DSL Department of State Lands
ESIP GOMC’s Ecosystem Indicators Partnership
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
GBRMPA or the Authority
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
GIS geospatial information systems
GNRO Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office
GOM Gulf of Maine
GoMA Gulf of Maine Area Census of Marine Life
GOMC Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
GOMMI Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative
Gulfwatch Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Program
vi | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
IGA Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement
JCU James Cook University
LMAC Local Marine Advisory Committees
LTMP GBRMPA Long Term Monitoring Program
MDNR Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources
ME OST’s Marine Protected Area Monitoring Enterprise
MLPA Marine Life Protection Act
MTSRF Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility
NEMO Network for Education of Municipal Officials
NERACOOS Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS National Park Service
NROC Northeast Regional Ocean Council
NRTF Nearshore Research Task Force
NTRB Native Title Representative Bodies
OCRM NOAA- Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OCZMA Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association
ODA Department of Agriculture
ODFW Department of Fish and Wildlife
OPAC Ocean Policy Advisory Council
OPC California Ocean Protection Council
OPC-SAT Ocean Protection Council- Science Advisory Team
OPRD Department of Parks and Recreation
OSMB Oregon State Marine Board
OSP Oregon State Police
OST California Ocean Science Trust
Outlook Report Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009
OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
OWET Oregon Wave Energy Trust
OWRD Water Resources Department
PIER California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program
QDNR Queensland Department of Natural Resources
QDoT Queensland Department of Transport
QDPI&F Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
vii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
QFMA Queensland Fisheries Management Authority
QPWS Queensland Park and Wildlife Service
RAC Reef Advisory Committees
RARGOM Research Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine
RASGAP Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel
RFP Request for Proposal process
RGC Reef Guardian Councils
RHMDS Regional Habitat Monitoring Data System
RLFF Resources Legacy Fund Foundation
RRRC Reef and Rainforest Research Centre
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SCG Sea Country Guardians
SLOSEA San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance
SMC ARC Coral Reef’s Science Management Committee
SOER State of the Environment Report
STAC Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
STAC OPAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
TAPAS Tracking Action Plan Activities System
the Association Association of US Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council
TSPAC Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UCMC University of California Marine Council
UMCES University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USDOI U.S. Department of Interior
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Society
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission
WCGA West Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health
viii | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Executive Summary
In June 2009, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3106 establishing the Nearshore Research Task
Force (NRTF). Under this legislation, the NRTF must deliver to the legislature by August 2010
recommendations for new frameworks to coordinate and promote research in Oregon’s nearshore. In
April 2009, NRTF commissioned Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting (“the
Consulting Team”) to support their work by preparing an evaluation of institutional frameworks for
scientific input into the State of Oregon’s ocean and coastal decision-making.
The results of the evaluation include a Situational Analysis of existing Oregon institutions, four in-depth
case studies, and recommendations regarding best practices for funding and implementing robust
scientific support for ocean and coastal management activities. The NRTF articulated 12 attributes or
“mechanisms” that it wanted information about (e.g., prioritized and transparent funding process,
incorporation of science in decision-making and adaptive management, data management and sharing)
and six “objectives” (e.g., ability to receive funding from diverse sources, neutrality and trust, flexibility
and adaptability), which guided the Consulting Team’s examination of the case studies and distillation of
recommendations.
The four selected case studies are: California, Chesapeake Bay (focusing on the State of Maryland and
Commonwealth of Virginia), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (focusing on both Australia and the State of
Queensland), and the Gulf of Maine (focusing on the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment).
The Consulting Team conducted the project in three phases: preliminary research and selection of case
studies, in-depth case study research via review of NRTF documents, web research, and interviews (see
Appendix A for a copy of the survey tool), and report preparation. The selected case studies reflected
both national and international examples of institutional arrangements supporting research and
facilitating incorporation of science into decision-making. Three of the four cases were selected because
their status as long-standing initiatives facilitated the Consulting Team’s ability to distill lessons learned.
The fourth case study of California institutional arrangements was included despite its relative newness
because has innovative new institutions and it is of special interest to Oregon as a neighboring state and
a West Coast institutional example.
The case studies are prefaced by an overview of Oregon’s existing ocean and coastal policy, management, and research arrangements. The Consulting Team developed the overview as baseline information for comparisons with the four case studies and to inform the recommendations for shaping a future Oregon framework for management-relevant marine science. Each of the four case studies presents a description of the local context for ocean and coastal management, principal institutional arrangements, and an assessment and ranking of the mechanisms and objectives described above. Important lessons from each context are bulleted at the close of the case study. The Consulting Team identified twenty high-level recommendations for the NRTF to consider, drawing
on the analysis of mechanisms, objectives, and findings from the four case studies. The
ix | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
recommendations, organized by their relevance to the mechanisms and objectives, are summarized in
Table 1 below and presented with accompanying detail in Section IV, page 102.
Table 1: Summary of Report Recommendations
MECHANISM OR OBJECTIVE
RECOMMENDATION
Types of Institutional Partners
Recommendation 1: Create institutional partnerships with key coastal and ocean-related constituencies to ensure buy-in and support. This includes research and academic institutions; local, state, and federal agencies; stakeholders in the community and key industries; and nonprofits.
Legislative Mandate Recommendation 2: Have legislative mandates in place outlining clear and distinct roles and responsibilities for participants, and include representation from all entities that are key to the science-policy-and-management process.
Funding Sources and Security
Recommendation 3: Secure funds from diverse sources and when possible develop and secure fee-based revenue sources. Stakeholders at the table who want and will use information may be willing to become funding partners.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process
Recommendation 4: Develop a strategic plan or guiding document that outlines priorities and that ideally directs development of a consistent science plan. This will provide clear guidance on how funds will be allocated.
Recommendation 5: Develop clear communication materials and mechanisms to share information with the general public about audited financials, sources of revenue, the decision-making process, fund allocations, and progress toward goals.
Stakeholder Advice Recommendation 6: A formal mechanism or committee structure for representing all stakeholder groups to provide input and advice is essential to secure and maintain support for coastal and ocean management.
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach
Recommendation 7: Invest in electronic and web-based communication tools and public engagement activities and embed funds for all programs to participate in such activities. This will also help ensure transparency.
Scientific Research
Recommendation 8: Establish a formal role for quality science institutions to support ocean and coastal management goals that links scientists with managers and stakeholders to inform their understanding and research priorities while ensuring that science is independent and safeguarded through peer-review.
Recommendation 9: Consider collaborative research programs that, if designed well, can be an effective and cost- efficient way to produce long-term monitoring data.
Science Advice
Recommendation 10: Develop a formal structure or body of science experts for advice that is also nimble enough to address specific issues. Clearly outline the role(s) of this body and how the advice and peer-review will be utilized. This structure will need a robust conflict of interest policy and transparency in publishing peer-review comments.
Incorporation of Science In Decision-making and Adaptive Management
Recommendation 11: Consider establishing a boundary organization or unit (such as OST, see definitions page 37) to play a key role in bridging the producers and users of knowledge and help facilitate science, the production of useful research, advice, incorporation of science into decision-making, and synthesis. Boundary institutions can ensure that science produced is relevant, timely, and useful for decision-makers and stakeholders.
Recommendation 12: Ensure the use of science in decision-making by establishing a legal mandate to use science for adaptive management.
MECHANISM OR OBJECTIVE RECOMMENDATION
x | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input
Recommendation 13: Regularly assess and redefine science priorities in collaboration with scientists and end-users (end-users include all users of data, such decision-makers at all levels and scales, and stakeholders representing all sectors).
Recommendation 14: Robust synthesis documents can be effective tools to support management decision-making. Synthesis documents show where key concerns and issues exist and should incorporate neutral and unbiased information to be relevant to decision-makers.
Data Management, Sharing, and Products and Accessible Information
Recommendation 15: Develop a centralized portal or website where all reports, documents, meeting minutes will be stored. Furthermore, develop an information management system that is highly accessible to a wide range of users
Recommendation 16: Invest in good website design to maximize the accessibility, communication, and transparency benefits of providing internet access to an organization’s information.
Ability to Receive and
Distribute Funds from
Various Sources
Recommendation 17: Develop a nonprofit status organization to distribute and receive funds with strong governance, transparent processes, and clear policies on fund distribution and conflicts of interest.
Neutrality and Trust Addressed by other recommendations, in particular Recommendation 5.
Flexibility Recommendation 18: Regularly revisiting and revising guiding strategic documents is important to confirm the validity of an organization’s focus and promote responsiveness to emerging issues.
Transparency Addressed by Recommendations 7, 8, 10, and 13-16.
Objective and Trusted Science for Decision-making
Recommendation 19: To ensure neutrality of science develop mechanisms and firewall, such as a “third party” system to ensure stakeholders and decision-makers are not directly funding science.
Administrative Costs Recommendation 20: Once the NRTF has a prospective structure identified for a new institution or institutional arrangements, it might consider a targeted search for and survey of institutions that are similar to try to identify the real world administrative costs of such an institution(s).
1 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Introduction
Oregon is experiencing what may be the most dynamic time in its history with respect to its nearshore
environment. Oregon citizens and policy-makers find themselves at the intersection of traditional ocean
uses such as fishing, new priorities to establish marine protected areas, emerging uses such as
renewable ocean energy, and the regional impacts of global climate change.
This new reality has spurred the development or expansion of a number of policy and program
innovations such as amendments to Oregon’s landmark Territorial Sea Plan that will guide the siting of
renewable ocean energy facilities, negotiation of a memorandum of agreement with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, implementation of a coast-wide action plan under the West Coast Governors’
Agreement on Ocean Health, designation of Oregon’s first marine reserves, and development of the Sea
Grant West Coast regional marine research and information plan. These initiatives build upon the state’s
existing robust ocean and coastal policy framework and other policies guiding decision-making, including
the implementation of land-use Goals 16-19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and
Dunes, and Ocean Resources), establishment of the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, and the Oregon
Nearshore Marine Resource Management Strategy.
Oregon is also fortunate to possess outstanding marine science capabilities in its academic and public
agency research institutions. However, the State of Oregon, like many other state governments,
currently lacks the funding to develop and integrate management-relevant science in its decision-
making about ocean and coastal resources and the human activities affecting those resources.
These circumstances prompted the Oregon legislature to enact House Bill 3106 establishing the
Nearshore Research Task Force (NRTF). Policymakers recognized that new institutional arrangements
and mechanisms for collaborating across institutions, experts, and stakeholders to fund, develop, and
implement effective science-based decision-making are needed. These new processes, to gain public
support, must be transparent and fair, ensure a long-term technical capacity for good management, and
honor Oregon’s long-standing tradition of vigorous engagement by citizens in decisions and programs
affecting Oregon’s ocean resources.
The legislation directs the NRTF report to the legislature by August 2010 with recommendations for new
frameworks to coordinate and promote research in Oregon’s nearshore. The NRTF commissioned
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting (“the Consulting Team”) to prepare this
evaluation of institutional frameworks for scientific input into Oregon’s ocean and coastal decision-
making to inform its recommendations.
This report is organized into the following four sections:
Section I – Methodology: A description of the approach and methods employed to research
this report.
2 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Section II – Oregon Situational Analysis: A concise overview of Oregon’s current institutional
arrangements, stakeholder engagement, science integration, and funding of ocean and coastal
policy, management, and research.
Section III – Case Studies: A description of institutional arrangements, as well as an assessment
and qualitative discussion of strengths and weaknesses for each of the following case studies:
o California
o Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia initiatives)
o Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia/Queensland)
o Gulf of Maine (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment)
Section IV – Observations and Recommendations:
o Across all four case studies – overarching trends, lessons, challenges, and opportunities
o Recommendations for changing Oregon’s approach to ocean and coastal policy and
management based on insights and lessons distilled from the case studies, with a
particular emphasis on the integration of science and funding.
Section I – Methodology
The Consulting Team prepared this report in three steps, as follows:
Researching the Oregon Context:
The Consulting Team prepared the Oregon Situational Analysis drawing on research completed by the
NRTF,1 NRTF meeting notes, additional web research, and by select interviews (see Appendix B for a
comprehensive list of informants interviewed for this project). Interviews were conducted using the
same survey tool developed for the case study interviews (see Appendix A for a copy of the survey tool).
The purpose of mapping Oregon’s existing situation was to facilitate comparisons with case studies and
the development of recommendations for changes to that existing framework.
Screening Potential Case Studies:
The Consulting Team conducted a rapid assessment of 15 potential case studies, completing an
assessment tool, performing web-based research, and drawing on past experience to screen for those
ocean and coastal case studies whose institutional arrangements included mechanisms for the
following:
1 NRTF documents included “The Oregon Program Assessment/Oregon Ocean Program Evaluation,” “The Characterization of
Oregon’s Nearshore Research and Monitoring Enterprise” white paper, and the “Schematic Diagram of Ocean Planning and Management” for Oregon.
3 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Funding;
Stakeholder advice;
Science advice;
Incorporation of science in
management decision-making;
Data management, sharing, and
products;
Education, outreach, and community
engagement;
Scientific research; and,
Scientific synthesis for policy input.
On May 24, 2010, the Consulting Team met with the NRTF Operations Committee to discuss options for
in-depth case study selection (see Appendix C for case study selection overview). The NRTF members
deferred to the Consulting Team to make the selection of final case studies. Based on this guidance, the
Consulting Team chose the four place-based case studies noted above. With one exception, the
Consulting Team selected case studies that had long-standing programs.
Collecting and Assessing Data for Case Studies:2
For each of the place-based case studies, the Consulting Team conducted in-depth interviews and web
research to document the nature of the institutional arrangements and mechanisms noted above, and
assessed the degree to which the institutional arrangements in each of the four cases met the following
six objective assessment criteria:
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources;
Neutrality and Trust;
Flexibility and Adaptability;
Transparency; and,
Objective and Trusted Science for Decision-making
The NRTF was also interested in the question administrative costs associated with various institutional
arrangements; information about this aspect was included when available, but was not assessed
because only limited information was available from informants and documentary sources.
The Consulting Team applied a ranking system to illustrate the relative strengths and weakness of
institutional arrangements and mechanisms in each case study. The Consulting Team then distilled the
most successful approaches and cautionary tales in developing recommendations for a potential
institutional framework in Oregon.
Write-up and Organization of Key Findings and Lessons Learned:
Section II and III of this document contain the core findings and lessons learned from our data collection
and analysis. The text below describes the format used to present the Oregon context and then
2 An in-depth explanation of case study selection may be found in Appendix C.
4 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
documents and analyzes the four case studies: California, Chesapeake Bay, Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park, and Gulf of Maine.
Each case study includes the following sections:
CASE STUDY RESEARCH RESULTS
Case study research by the Consulting Team generated the following information:
General overview: A brief description of the context for ocean and coastal management.
Description of principal institutional arrangements and relationships: A narrative description
and a visual presentation of the key institutions involved with ocean and coastal policy,
management, and science in each case study, their interrelationships, and funding flows.
Description of mechanisms: A narrative description and a visual summary of twelve mechanism
categories in each case study. The categories are:
Types of Institutional Partners
Legislative Mandate
Funding Sources and Security
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process
Stakeholder Advice
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach
Scientific Research
Science Advice
Incorporation of Science In Decision-Making and Adaptive Management
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input
Data Management, Sharing, and Products
Accessible Information
See Table 2 below for definitions of case study assessment overview criterion.
CASE STUDY OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT
The Consulting Team’s assessment of a case includes a narrative overview and individual tables
evaluating the institutional arrangements and each of the twelve categories of mechanisms using six
objective assessment evaluation criteria discussed above on page 3. See Table 3 below for definitions of
objective assessment criterion.
IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE CASE
Each case study concludes with a distillation of its advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics.
5 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 2: Definition Criteria Used in Mechanism Overview Assessment for Case Studies
Criteria Definition 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High Types of Institutional Partners
*Government (Local, State, Federal/National) * Inter-governmental * Academic * Industry * Private foundation * Non-governmental
0-1 institutional partners who lack diversity (e.g,. all are government based)
2-3 institutional partners who are from 1-2 sectors
3 or more institutional partners who are from 2 or more sectors
Legislative Mandate Agreement, Mandate, o governing process in place
Formal agreement, mandate, or governing process not in place
Formal agreement, mandate, or governing process present but not strong
Strong formal agreement, mandate, or governing process present
Funding Sources and Security
Diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research
Little diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research
Some diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research
Strong diversity and security of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine management and research
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process
Description of process/mechanism for funding institutional activities
Mechanism for prioritizing funding absent and lacks transparency of funding decision processes
Moderate mechanism for prioritizing funding and some funding decision processes transparency
Strong mechanism for prioritizing funding and have transparent funding decision processes
Stakeholder Advice Stakeholders act in advisory role via committee or other representative method
Stakeholder advice rarely sought Stakeholder advice occasionally sought- e.g., comment periods on plans and papers
Stakeholder advice sought regularly-e.g., stakeholder team or commission that informs decision-making process
Community Engagement/ Education/Outreach
Outreach mechanisms (workshops, media campaign, etc.) in place
Few to no outreach or education activities
Some outreach or educations activities-e.g., Website information and media
Strong community engagement via regular workshops, education curricula development, media, and interactions
Scientific Research Institution and capacity (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making,
Little capacity to conduct scientific research (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making
Some capacity to conduct scientific research (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making
Strong capacity to conduct scientific research (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and natural science) research relevant for decision-making
Science Advice Science advice and peer-review provided /obtained
Science advice and peer-review is rarely sought
Science advice and peer-review is occasionally sought
Science advice and peer-review is sought regularly
= Low = Medium = High
6 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Criteria Definition 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High Incorporation of Science in Decision-making and Adaptive Management
Mechanism, requirements, and capacity for incorporating science and science-based decision-making process, including re-evaluation of data needs and means to adapt strategies and institutional arrangements in light of changing environment
No mechanism, requirements and little capacity for adaptive management
A mechanism, requirements and some capacity for adaptive management
Formal mechanism, requirements and strong capacity for adaptive management
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input
Mechanism and capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)
No mechanism and little capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)
A mechanism with some capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)
Formal mechanism with strong capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g., prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making (e.g., bridging, boundary institution)
Data Management/ Sharing/ Products
Mechanisms for data management, sharing, and products
No data easily accessible via web or request
Data management framework present, sharing and products moderately accessibly via web or request
Strong data management framework present, sharing and products easily accessible via web or request
Accessible Information
Grants, Strategy, Evaluation, Process, Organizational charts, Legislation etc.
Information not accessible Some present, but limited Present and available-e.g., strategic plan is prominent on website and accessible
= Low = Medium = High
7 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 3: Definition Criteria Used for Case Study Objective Assessment
Criteria Definition 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources
Mechanisms in place to acquire/ disburse funding from various sources to areas of need
Little or no ability to obtain and channel funds from the spectrum of governmental, nongovernmental, and private sources
Some ability to obtain and channel funds from the spectrum of governmental, nongovernmental, and private sources
Can easily obtain and channel funds from the spectrum of governmental, nongovernmental, and private sources
Neutrality and Trust
Mechanism in place to ensure neutral and trustworthy decision-making-such as review panel, use of published information, expert advice, and oversight
Few, if any, mechanisms in place to ensure neutral and trustworthy decision-making
Ad-hoc mechanisms in place for obtaining trustworthy information, some level of formal committee or review available
Strong diversity of mechanisms in place to ensure trustworthy and neutral decision-making. Committee/ review/oversight is strong
Flexibility Level of ability to adapt to new information and needs
No framework for adapting institutional framework to new needs
Some process of review and programmatic changes occasionally made based on assessments and benchmarks
Strong process of review and programmatic changes made based on assessments and benchmarks
Transparency Mechanisms in place to ensure that decision-making process (funding choices, science advice, management decisions) is clear to public, partners, government
Few, if any, mechanisms in place to ensure neutral and trustworthy decision-making
Ad-hoc mechanisms in place for obtaining trustworthy information. Some form of committee or review available
Strong diversity of mechanisms in place to ensure trustworthy and neutral decision-making-committee/ review/ oversight strong
Objective and trusted Science for Decision-making
Mechanism in place to ensure objective and trusted scientific advice is provided to decision-makers
Few or no mechanism to provide review/guidance/oversight of science
Some mechanisms to provide review/guidance/ oversight of science
Many mechanisms in place to provide review/guidance/oversight of science
Administrative Costs
Cost of administering programs-staffing and financial
= Low = Medium = High
8 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Section II – Oregon Situational Analysis
The following presents a concise overview of Oregon’s current institutional arrangements, stakeholder
engagement, science integration, and funding of ocean and coastal policy, management, and research.
This information is offered as context and baseline for considering the case studies in section III of this
report and the observations and recommendations in section IV. The information was distilled from
NRTF documents, internet research, and interviews with select state-affiliated individuals. The section
concludes with some observations about existing elements in Oregon that provide a solid foundation for
improving the state’s institutional capacity to carry out its nearshore priorities.
General Overview of the Oregon Context:
Oregon’s coastal and ocean policy, management, and science evolved largely in response to traditional
uses of commercial and sport fishing, harbor maintenance and associated disposal of dredged materials,
municipal waste discharge, ports activities, tourism and recreation, shellfish cultivation, and farmland
conversion. During the late 1970s and 1980s, opposition to the federal government’s efforts to promote
offshore oil and gas and mineral development in the Northwest prompted the State of Oregon, in the
1990s, to establish the elements of a framework governing ocean and coastal resource use and
protection. The framework was grounded in state statutes, described in the introduction of this report
(ocean, estuarine, shoreline, beach and dune land use goals, the Ocean Plan, the Territorial Sea Plan, the
Ocean Policy Advisory Council). Subsequent policy changes are detailed below.
In terms of the socioeconomic context for managing Oregon’s coastal and ocean resources, the coast
has become increasingly dependent upon retiree income, small businesses, and public agency
employment, though resource-based extractive industries and tourism remain important components of
the economy.3 Despite these recent economic and demographic trends and concentrated urban centers,
the State of Oregon remains a state that has relatively low population pressures in its coastal regions.
Today, approximately 225,000 people reside on the Oregon Coast compared to a statewide population
of 3.8 million. The relatively small size of the population of the state in general (both coastal and
statewide) makes it possible to coordinate policy decisions both at a formal and informal level.
Principal Institutions and Arrangements:
The following highlights the principal Oregon coastal and ocean policy-setting bodies, management
institutions, advisory and stakeholder bodies, science sources, and funding flows, with their
interrelationships described throughout.
3 Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. 2006. A Demographic and Economic Description of the Oregon Coast: 2006
Update. OCZMA. Newport, OR.
9 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Policy Institutions
Policy is established by the state legislature, the Governor, and agency Commissions. Policy institutions
that are distinctive to Oregon’s coastal and ocean policy regime are the legislative Coastal Caucus and
the Governor’s Natural Resources Office and Marine Cabinet.
The Coastal Caucus
In addition to a number of legislative committees with formal purview over legislation affecting ocean
and coastal policy, programs, and funding, a bipartisan legislative group known as the “Coastal Caucus”
has regularly taken a leading role in crafting and shaping legislation affecting coastal and ocean issues.
Within the Oregon Legislature, the Coastal Caucus is given a large degree of deference from non-coastal
legislators regarding these issues. The Coastal Caucus consists of eight members of the Oregon Senate
(3 members) and House (5 members) with coastal areas in their districts. The Coastal Caucus meets
weekly during Oregon’s biennial legislative sessions to track and provide input into coastal issues and
bills in committees, and meets at other times as needed. The Caucus communicates with relevant state
agencies and ocean and coastal stakeholders, and has received the assistance of an Oregon State
University Sea Grant fellow to staff their activities during the legislative session.4
Governor’s Natural Resources Office and Marine Cabinet
The staff of the Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office (GNRO) provides policy analysis and advice
to the Governor on natural resource issues, coordinates with the state natural resource agencies to
advance their budget and legislative proposals to the legislature and facilitate cooperation on
interagency matters.5 The Office also serves as the liaison between the state and federal agencies
involved in natural resource and environmental protection issues. The GNRO convenes a Natural
Resources Cabinet comprising the heads of all natural resource related agencies on a regular basis, and
on an as-needed basis a subset of those agencies known as the Marine Cabinet (identified below), with
other agencies invited to participate on a case-by-case basis.
Agency Commissions
The agencies with the most direct responsibilities for ocean and coastal issues are governed by
Commissions whose members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate (see
list of “Management Institutions” below). The key ocean and coastal-related Commissions appoint
agency directors, establish agency policies, and adopt rules; some are regulatory and set fees. These
Commissions include:
4 The Coastal Caucus does not maintain its own website, but its functions can be inferred from the position description posted
for the Sea Grant Fellow here: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/funding/fellowships/legislative_fellow.html. A list of the members is posted at the website of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association here: http://www.oczma.org/pdfs/2009 Coastal Legislators.pdf. Accessed June 7,2010. 5
Information about the GNRO is available at http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GNRO/index.shtml. Accessed June 7,2010.
10 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Land Conservation and Development Commission
Fish and Wildlife Commission
Environmental Quality Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Oregon State Marine Board.
The Department of State Lands is the exception; the State Land Board, comprised of the Governor,
Secretary of State, and State Treasurer carries out the policy and rulemaking functions for that agency.
Management Institutions
A dozen state agencies are responsible to various degrees for implementing state policies and programs
related to coastal and ocean resources.6 All of the agencies do or may participate in the GNRO Marine
Cabinet. The agencies, their primary roles, and key activities are presented in Table 4. The agencies are
listed roughly in order of their relative prominence in ocean and coastal management.
6 A State of Oregon website lists many, though not all of the permits and agencies involved in permitting projects in wetlands
and waterways provides a helpful snapshot of Oregon’s institutional arrangements for ocean and coastal management:
http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_wlcm&pfa=welcome_keyword&link_item_id=26428. Accessed
June 10,2010.
11 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 4: Overview of Oregon State Resource Agencies, Roles, and Activities
State Agency Primary Role(s) Key Activities
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
Coastal Ocean Management Program
Funding
Policy
Federal consistency review
Information and technical assistance
Support to local governments, other agencies, federal project and permit review, ocean and coastal policy framework
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Marine Resources Program Regulation
Management
Science
Fishery management, endangered species, marine reserves implementation
Department of State Lands (DSL)
Divisions of Land Management and Wetlands and Waterways
Submerged lands management
Regulation
Dredge/fill permitting, wetland protection and restoration, state submerged land management and leasing
Department of Parks and Recreation (OPRD)
Natural Resources Division, Ocean Shores Program
Land management
Regulation
State beaches, all intertidal areas, habitat management
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Water Quality Division
Regulation
Data
Water quality
Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB) Regulation
Outreach
Boat licensing, closures for species protection, invasive species, clean marinas
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI)
Data Coastal erosion, tsunami information
Department of Agriculture (ODA)
Agricultural Commodity Commissions, Natural Resources Division, Food Safety Division
Economic development
Regulation
Crab, salmon, albacore, and trawl commissions, seafood safety testing
Department of Human Services (DHS)
Environmental Public Health Office
Data Beach water quality and harmful algae blooms monitoring and public outreach
Oregon State Police (OSP) Enforcement Enforcement for ODFW, OSMB
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)
Funding
Information and technical assistance
May fund watershed councils addressing estuarine issues, sea level rise implications for restoring habitat
Water Resources Department (OWRD) Regulation Wave energy permitting
Advisory Bodies
The Governor, legislature, and state coastal and ocean agencies are informed by advisory bodies that
include both formal councils established in law and informal advisory groups convened by agencies. The
groups may be any combination of temporary or standing, and broadly or narrowly focused.
Significant examples of legislatively mandated coastal and ocean advisory bodies include the following:
12 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Ocean Policy Advisory Committee: A standing committee established by state statute in
1991 to provide coordinated policy advice on an ongoing basis to the Governor, state
agencies, and others. Voting members appointed by the Governor represent ocean users
(fishing, marine transportation), local and tribal governments, conservation interests, and
the public; nonvoting members include the GNRO, state agencies, Oregon Sea Grant, a
federal liaison, and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA). In recent
years Ocean Policy Advisory Council has responded to requests for recommendations
relating to marine reserves, wave energy, and the Territorial Sea Plan. A number of these
directives were contained in a 2008 Executive Order issued by Governor Kulongoski
(Executive Order 08-07).7
Seafood Commodity Commissions (albacore, crab, salmon, and trawl): Standing committees
operating under the umbrella of ODA with industry members appointed by the ODA
director, funded by a percentage of catch revenues, engaged in tracking and commenting on
legislation and regulations affecting their industry in addition to their central marketing
mission.8
Oregon Invasive Species Council: A standing committee of state agency, academic, and
nongovernmental members established to develop and implement an action plan to stop
the introduction and spread of invasive species.9
Marine Reserves Community Teams: Temporary committees the Oregon Legislature charged
ODFW to establish and support as part of state legislation to establish marine reserves in
state waters; the legislation was grounded in recommendations developed by OPAC in
November 2008.10
Nearshore Resources Task Force: A temporary committee charged with making
recommendations to the legislature for a long-term funding and coordination strategy to
7 More information about OPAC is available at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/. For the Governor’s Executive Order see:
Kulongoski, Theodore R. 2008. Executive Order 08-07: Directing State Agencies to Protect Coastal Communities in Siting Marine Reserves and Wave Energy Projects. The order can be downloaded at
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/docs/executive_orders/eo0807.pdf. Accessed June 10,2010. 8 This ODA website links to the websites of the four Seafood Commodity Commissions:
http://oregon.gov/ODA/ADMD/cc_list01.shtml - top. Accessed June 10,2010. 9 The OISC website is at http://www.oregon.gov/OISC/. Accessed June 7,2010.
10 The ODFW’s implementation of the marine reserves initiative is described at
http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=2. Accessed June 10,2010.
13 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
meet the state’s nearshore priorities.11
Examples of ongoing and recent ad hoc committees established by agency commissions include the
following:
Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee: Linked to OPAC through overlapping membership,
but with additional representation from different levels of government, industry, and
additional representatives of the conservation community, DLCD established this committee
in response to Governor Kulongoski’s 2008 Executive Order (referenced above). Starting
from recommendations developed by the OPAC’S Territorial Sea Plan Working Group, the
Committee worked in 2009 to develop Territorial Sea Plan amendments adopted late that
year by the Land Conservation and Development Commission to determine appropriate
sites for offshore renewable energy facilities.12
ODFW Ad Hoc Advisory Committees: ODFW staff on an ongoing basis convenes groups of
knowledgeable individuals to provide input through the following ad hoc advisory
committees: Sport Fish Committee, Commercial Dungeness Crab Committee, Pre-Council
Committee (preparation for Pacific Fishery Management Council Meetings – see section on
federal bodies). Meetings of these committees are not closed, but they are not publicly
noticed.
Nearshore Advisory Committee: Established by ODFW to advise on the implementation of
ODFW’s 2005 Oregon Nearshore Strategy, but inactive since 2007 due to lack of funding to
implement the strategy.
State legislation and agency directives to establish advisory bodies regularly identify types of
organizations (e.g., conservation, recreational fishing) to include, often also specifying for inclusion “a
coast-wide organization representing a majority of small ports and local governments” understood to be
synonymous with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA).13
A relatively new entity playing an influential role in the emerging ocean issue of wave energy
11
Information about the NRTF is available at
http://www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=29&Itemid=21. Accessed May
28, 2010. 12
OPAC's Territorial Sea Plan Working Group met Feb 2008 to May 2009 and issued a draft with recommendations in June 2009. These recommendations can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml#Territorial_Sea_Plan_Working_Group. Accessed June 15, 2010. In addition, further information on the Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/tspac.shtml. Accessed June 10, 2010. 13
This language is included, for example, in ORS § 196.438 establishing the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (see https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/196.438). House Bill 3106 establishing the NRTF explicitly identified OCZMA for membership. Accessed June 10, 2010.
14 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
development is the public-private Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET).14 Established in 2007 as an
initiative of the state’s Oregon Innovation Council (Oregon Inc), with members representing the fishing
industry, the conservation community, local government member, the wave energy industry, utilities,
and state government, OWET engages stakeholders and funds research to promote wave energy project
development in state waters. The Oregon Legislature allocated $4.2 million to OWET in 2007 and $3
million in 2009.15 OWET funding supported local ocean resource planning groups and a project to map
fishing grounds that is expected to inform decision-making about wave energy siting under the amended
Territorial Sea Plan.
Stakeholder Engagement
Many of the advisory bodies described above are intended to provide a mechanism for stakeholder
interests to be considered in policy-making and management. There are many more outreach and
education efforts, both formal and informal, carried out by the agencies listed in the “Management
Institutions” section above. Stakeholders and the public participate in the decision-making processes of
the commissions governing most management agencies; such meetings are publicly noticed, with public
comment received and documented. However, there is a strong agency tradition of vetting agency
budget and program proposals and keeping the public informed about significant issues by convening
ad hoc public meetings up and down the coast. For example, prior to presenting a proposed budget to
the Fish and Wildlife Commission for approval and forwarding to the Governor’s office and on to the
legislature, ODFW has a series of public meetings it advertises through press releases, radio and
newspaper ads, and via mailings to its licensee databases.
Other public entities engaging stakeholders and the public on ocean and coastal issues include Oregon
Sea Grant (discussed elsewhere) and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA), a
nonprofit entity that is an inter-governmental organization of local coastal governments.16
Science Institutions
The principal Oregon science entities supporting coastal and ocean management include the following:
State agency scientists. Among state agencies, ODFW has a particularly robust complement
of fisheries scientific expertise, as does DEQ with respect to water quality science. ODSL
generally relies on scientific input from other agencies in reviewing its permitting decisions,
except that it has strong internal wetland science capabilities. OPRD has staff scientists to
14
Information about OWET available at its website http://www.oregonwave.org/. Accessed July 15, 2010. 15
Oregon State Legislature, Legislative Fiscal Office. 2009. LFO Analysis of 2009-11 Legislatively Adopted Budget – Economic and Community Development. p. 206. Available at http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lfo/2009_11_budget/ECONOMIC.pdf Accessed July 15, 2010. 16
Authorized under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 190; see http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/190.html. Accessed June 15, 2010.
15 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
carry out its stewardship responsibilities in parks and intertidal areas. DOGAMI is another
agency that has internal science resources related to sea floor mapping and tsunami, sea
level rise, and other coastal hazard issues.
OPAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). The legislature originally
mandated the establishment of STAC to support the science and technical information
needs of OPAC by acting as a broker to identify and engage the assistance of experts when
requested by OPAC. The legislature again named STAC as the provider of science support to
ODFW in its implementation of legislation creating marine reserves. STAC members are
Oregon academics and experts in oceanography, fisheries, ecology, marine biology, law, and
economics, from Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, and the University of Oregon.17
Oregon Sea Grant. Oregon Sea Grant sponsors marine related socioeconomic research and
applied natural science research through its competitive grants program, and has a mandate
to disseminate research results through its Marine Extension and other education and
outreach programs.18
Academic scientists. A substantial concentration of Oregon’s academic marine science is
found at Oregon State University, encompassing a half dozen affiliated organizations which
run the spectrum from basic to applied science and targeting different types of
collaboration (e.g., user groups, West Coast marine academics, state-federal cooperation).19
Other important marine science academic centers in Oregon include the University of
Oregon (in particular its Oregon Institute of Marine Biology20 and coastal law library), and
Portland State University’s coastal modeling and invasive species teams.21
Federal program scientists. See the chart below under “Federal Institutions” for a summary
of science-related federal agency interactions with Oregon’s ocean and coastal institutions.
Consultation among the scientists of these different organizations occurs regularly, but typically
informally or on an ad hoc basis in response to a specific need or policy initiative. In general, agency
scientists operate on relatively short timelines compared to their academic colleagues, with a focus on
17
The STAC’s OPAC-related role is described here: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml - Scientific_and_Technical_Advisory_Committee. Accessed June 15, 2010. 18
Oregon Sea Grant’s programs are described here: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/index.html. Accessed June 15, 2010. 19
A good overview of Oregon State University’s marine science components is described here: http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/marineportal/index.html. Accessed June 15, 2010. 20
The Oregon Institute of Marine Biology’s website is http://www.uoregon.edu/~oimb/. Accessed June 15, 2010. 21
Portland State University websites related to these programs are http://www.cee.pdx.edu/research/environmental_waterresources.php (coastal modeling) and http://www.clr.pdx.edu/ (invasive species). Accessed June 15, 2010.
16 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
immediate management concerns. There is no ongoing process or entity to periodically assess and
reconcile these differences in time scales, specificity, and degree of management relevance, identify
common research priorities, and determine opportunities to pool and more effectively use resources. In
general, state agencies develop research priorities internally and without a formal process of external or
public consultation.
Funding Flows
A preliminary assessment conducted for the NRTF indicates that in 2009 the majority of funding for
ocean and coastal research and monitoring in the state, perhaps on the order of three-quarters of the
total, came from the federal government, either directly to state and academic scientists or in some
cases traveling through intermediary state entities for redistribution to other state agencies and
academic institutions. Of the quarter of funds remaining, state funding accounted for a bit less than 15
percent with the remainder coming from private and other sources. 22 Informants contacted in the
preparation of this report described funding for coastal and ocean management activities carried out by
DLCD as coming almost entirely from federal Coastal Zone Management Act Funds (with DLCD passing
funding through to several other state agencies, including ODFW’s Marine Resources Program), while
ODFW’s Marine Resources Program activities are funded in the main (65 percent in 2009) by user fees
and taxes (e.g., commercial fish landing tax, recreational license fees), with a significant proportion
coming from federal restoration and monitoring funds (28 percent in 2009) and a small amount from the
state general fund (7 percent in 2009). (Note that these “management funds” may in some cases
overlap with the funding for research and monitoring activities examined by the NRTF.) Most of ODFW’s
funding is earmarked for use in the sector generating the revenue. This situation offers the advantage
of ensuring a source of revenue for specific types of management activities, but also limits the agency’s
ability to shift resources in response to changing or emerging priorities. Time did not allow for
verification of funding flows for the remaining state coastal and ocean agencies for this report. We can
report that OPRD receives Oregon Lottery funding, though clarifying whether those funds support ocean
and coastal management and science will require further research; doing such research at least for that
agency and DSL, which also has substantial responsibilities in these areas, would be worthwhile.
Federal Institutions
Table 5 summarizes the interactions, including funding and science support, between federal agencies
and a given Oregon state coastal and ocean institution.
22
Reiff, Heather. Forthcoming 2010. Characterization Of Oregon’s Nearshore Research And Monitoring Enterprise. A Report Prepared for the Oregon Nearshore Research Task Force. (Contact the NRTF via http://www.oregonocean.info/ to obtain a copy.)
17 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s process for licensing hydrokinetic energy
facilities in both state and federal waters involves a majority of these agencies in project review and
recommending license conditions. For federal waters beyond Oregon’s Territorial Sea, the U.S.
Department of Interior (USDOI) has articulated an approach that prioritizes coordination with state,
local, and tribal governments and other federal agencies in regards to renewable energy leasing
programs developed pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act for the Outer Continental Shelf.23
Table 5: Overview of Interactions between Oregon State and Federal Agencies
State Agency Key Federal Interactions/Partners
Governor’s Natural Resources Office
Overall liaison to federal agencies in regards to all natural resources and environmental issues.
DLCD Coastal-Ocean Management Program
NOAA National Ocean Service – Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (policy and funding) and Coastal Services Center (technical assistance)
Minerals Management Service (future federal consistency for offshore projects)
Other federal agencies undertaking or permitting activities that affect Oregon’s coastal zone.
ODFW Marine Resources Program
Pacific Fishery Management Council (fisheries management plans, science)
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (regulatory and science)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered species, refuges management)
DSL U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (dredge/fill regulation)
U.S. EPA (wetland restoration funding)
DEQ U.S. EPA (dredged material disposal siting, water quality)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (dredge/fill regulation)
OPRD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered species, refuges management)
DOGAMI NOAA (funding, technical support)
U.S. Geological Survey (funding, technical support)
OSMB U.S. Coast Guard (navigation)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (marina dredging)
U.S. EPA (clean marinas)
DHS Environmental Health Division
U.S. EPA (beach water quality)
Important Lessons from the Oregon Situational Analysis:
Existing advantageous aspects of Oregon’s institutional arrangements for carrying out its nearshore
priorities include:
Robust Policy and Institutional Framework: Oregon has in place strong laws, policies, and
23
USDOI’s offshore Renewable Energy Program and priorities are described at http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/index.htm. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/content-detail.html. Accessed June 15, 2010.
18 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
agencies and a network of skilled professionals to carry out traditional coastal and ocean
management activities. It is one of few states in the US that has a Territorial Sea Plan.
Strong Science Expertise: Oregon agencies, federal marine agencies located in Oregon,
Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, the University of Oregon’s Oregon Institute of
Marine Biology, and other institutions in the state are populated with accomplished social
and natural scientists and marine educators.
Culture of Cooperation: Oregon managers and scientists regularly cooperate through formal
and especially informal channels to support coastal and ocean science and decision-making;
the small size of this community facilitates this collaborative culture.
Culture of Stakeholder Engagement and Advice: From cooperative research between ODFW
and commercial and recreational fishermen, to holding public forums about significant
issues absent legal obligations to do so, to the convening of community teams for marine
reserve siting, the need for stakeholder participation in developing and implementing
policies and programs is a fundamental premise in Oregon.
New Political and Policy Dynamic Created by Emerging Ocean Uses: The economic and
renewable energy promise of wave energy development proposals, together with a
similarly-timed initiative to establish marine reserves in Oregon waters, have created the
conditions for the next new era of policy development for Oregon’s offshore.
New Community-based mechanisms Emerging: Oregon’s tradition of stakeholder
participation together with emerging ocean uses have resulted the formation of a number
of community-based groups such as the local-government appointed fishermen’s groups
and the ODFW-established marine reserve community teams. These diverse (and evolving)
local ocean resource planning committees provide a promising model to formalize and
extend mechanisms for stakeholder involvement in decision-making and to maximize local
participation in marine research.
The case studies in section III of this report are intended to help the NRTF build on this foundation in the
areas identified in the NRTF’s authorizing legislation House Bill 3106, and in NRTF’s charge to the
Consulting Team. The case studies will describe, analyze, and distill recommendations about
mechanisms Oregon may wish to adopt in regards to their ability to satisfy a range of objectives
identified as important to protecting and utilizing the state’s coastal and ocean resources to advance
Oregon’s nearshore priorities.
19 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Section III – Case Studies
CASE STUDY 1: CALIFORNIA
General Overview:
The State of California has established two statewide marine institutions within the past decade to
coordinate policy and science between the existing state coastal and ocean resource agencies, science,
and general public. These are the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and the California Ocean
Science Trust (OST). Although recent in design and implementation, California presents an innovative
system, supported by strong legislative mandates, making this case a relevant example for Oregon to
draw upon.
The California Ocean Protection Council was established in 2004 by the California Ocean Protection Act
(COPA) “to coordinate governance and stewardship of the State’s Ocean, to identify priorities, bridge
existing gaps, and ensure effective and scientifically sound approaches to protecting and conserving the
important ocean resources.”24 Chapter 3 of COPA clearly outlines the structure of the institutional
arrangement, mandated objectives and activities, and requirements for ensuring transparency. The
overall mission of the OPC is to “ensure that California maintains healthy, resilient, and productive
ocean and coastal ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations.”25 To achieve this
mission, the OPC facilitates collaboration among several state agencies to improve ocean and coastal
management. The OPC is also responsible for developing policies that increase collection and sharing of
ocean and coastal resource data. COPA also mandates OPC to make recommendations to the Governor
and state Legislature about changes to state and federal law that would improve management.
A Vision for Our Ocean and Coast: The Ocean Protection Council Five-Year Strategic Plan outlines priority
goals, objectives, and deliverables for OPC between 2006-2011. Under this Plan the OPC is to
coordinate and “build bridges” around six high-level themes:
governance;
research and monitoring;
ocean and coastal water quality;
physical processes and habitat structure;
ocean and coastal ecosystems; and
24
State of California. California Ocean Protection Act. Division 26.5 of the California Public Resources Code. Revision January 1, 2009. 25
The California Ocean Protection Council. A Vision for Our Ocean and Coast: Five Year Strategic Plan. 2006.
20 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
education and outreach.26
The OST was established as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation by the California Ocean
Resources Stewardship Act of 2000 (CORSA). OST’s purpose is to “encourage coordinated, multi-agency,
multi-institution approaches to translating and applying ocean science to management and policy.”27
Although OST is an independent nonprofit organization, it is mandated to provide science services for
State of California agencies and the OPC. The OST works closely with state agencies and OPC to identify
science needs and coordinate expert science advice, and serve as a bridge between science and
management. OST seeks to “facilitate two-way connections between the world of science and that of
policy and management by establishing and supporting multi-partner information systems and
exchanges that yield tangible improvements in coastal and ocean management—The OST will serve as a
bridge among science, management, and policy organizations through activities such as its support of
the OPC and coordination of science and research among the OPC, state agencies, federal agencies,
academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations”.28 The OST Executive Director has been
officially designated as the science advisor to the OPC and is also responsible for coordinating and co-
chairing the Ocean Protection Council Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT). Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), local, regional, state, and federal government agency staff, private sector, and
researchers collaborate with both the OPC and OST.
Principal Institutions and Relationships in California:
Ocean Protection Council
The Ocean Protection Council is housed within the state government and more specifically within
California’s Ocean Resource Management Program of the California Resource Agency. The OPC consists
of:
Secretary of the Resources Agency;
Secretary for Environmental Protection;
Chair of the State Lands Commission;
one member of the state Senate and one member from the state Assembly as nonvoting, ex
officio members; and
two members of the public appointed by the governor.29
The OPC’s composition is one of its key strengths. Council members represent the highest level of
leadership within California’s coastal and ocean resource agencies and have the ability to deliver high-
level information directly to decision-makers. The OPC and staff have proven effective at accessing and
26
Ibid. 27
California Science Trust. Annual Report 2008-2009. 28
Ibid. 29
State of California. California Ocean Protection Act. Division 26.5 of the California Public Resources Code. Revision January 1, 2009.
21 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
leveraging public and private funds to finance ocean management within California. The OPC is
structured and mandated as a non-regulatory body which allows it to play the role of a non-threatening,
coordinating body among California coastal and ocean resource agencies, the state legislature, the
Governor’s office, and the general public.
The OPC and its individual members represent and interact with each of the state agencies responsible
for aspects of coastal and ocean management, ensuring transmission of data and information to inform
policy and decision-makers. The public members of the Council serve four-year terms and are
appointed based on their educational and professional experience in coastal and ocean ecosystems.
The OPC Chair is a voting member elected by fellow voting council members at the beginning of each
calendar year. The state Senate and state Assembly each appoint representatives as nonvoting, ex
officio members on the OPC. The OPC also has a steering committee comprised of government
department leadership who provide input to the OPC and OPC staff, although in practice this committee
has been relatively inactive.
The OPC has an Executive Director (who also carries the title of Assistant Secretary for Coastal Matters)
supporting the policy work of the organization and an OPC Secretary, designated as the Executive
Officer of a separate state agency, the California State Coastal Conservancy. The OPC Secretary carries
out fiscal and administrative functions for the OPC such as administering grants and expenditures
authorized by the council and arranging meetings and agendas.30 The state Legislature provides
appropriations to cover OPC operating costs through the California Ocean Protection Trust Fund (see
“Funding” for more information).
Ocean Science Trust
The OST and its staff are governed by a Board of Trustees charged with providing policy level oversight
and governance to the OST. The current board composition represents multiple stakeholders including:
California Natural Resources Agency;
California Environmental Protection Agency;
California Department of Finance;
University of California/California State Universities;
Ocean Protection Council;
ocean and coastal interest groups; and
general public.
As stated previously, the OST is responsible for coordinating the OPC-SAT. See “Science Advice” below
for greater detail on SAT.
30
Ibid.
22 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Box 1: Important Context: the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
In 1999 the California legislature enacted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) directing the California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to evaluate the state’s existing marine protected areas (MPAs) and
propose a network of new MPAs along the coast to protect and conserve marine life and habitat.
Several issues delayed implementation of the law until 2004, when the state and a coalition of
foundations launched a public-private partnership, the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA
Initiative) to fund and implement the law. MPAs have been established in two of five regions, with
planning and regulatory development underway in two more regions, and the final region, San Francisco
Bay, to be addressed starting in late 2010. The MLPA Initiative has been a major focus of California’s
ocean and coastal institutions in recent years, and is referenced regularly in the analysis below.
Description and Analysis of Mechanisms of California:
This section provides key findings and best-practices identified from the Consulting Team’s research of
the California case study.
Types of Institutional Partners:
OPC coordinates extensively with numerous state, federal, academic, NGO, and funding partners.
Through the individual OPC members and their affiliations, the body interacts with the California Natural
Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the California State Lands
Commission. OPC closely partners with other state agencies including the California State Coastal
Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game. See above for more information on the roles these
organizations play in partnership with OPC.
The OPC has established close relationships with federal resource agencies. In Appendix A of the OPC’s
Five-Year Strategic Plan the organization lays out a detailed list of actions, including proposed roles for
OPC and its potential partners. This document demonstrates the importance of partnership to OPC as it
works towards its goals. OPC has partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and United States Geological Society (USGS) since 2007 to conduct the California Seafloor
Mapping Project (CSMP). OPC has partnered with multiple federal agencies including Army Corp of
Engineers (ACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFW), NOAA, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of the San
Francisco Bay Joint Venture. In addition, Federal agency staff from USGS currently sits on the OPC SAT.
The OPC built regional partnerships through its work with the West Coast Governors’ Agreement on
Ocean Health (WCGA). OPC staff has participated on the WCGA Action Teams and will play a leadership
role in the implementation of pilot projects related to the actions laid out in the Agreement.
23 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
The OPC works closely with science institutions to solicit science advice for decision-making. University
of California, California State Universities, Stanford University, and Monterey Bay Research Institute are
some institutes who have partnered with the OPC in this manner. OPC has also reached out to other
research institutions for issue specific support. For example, the Center for Ocean Solutions has
collaborated with the OPC to host workshops focusing on marine spatial planning.
Turning to the OST, its institutional relationships include OPC, California Sea Grant, government agencies
such as the California Department of Fish and Game and NOAA Coastal Service Center, and many
research and academic institutions such as the Center for Ocean Solutions (COS), Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). The OST reached out to scientists from several academic and
science institutions to recruit members for the OPC-SAT. In addition, it has funding relationships with
multiple sectors including industry and private foundations, discussed in more detail below.
Legislative Mandate:
Several legislative mandates guide the institutional arrangements described in this section.
California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990 (CORMA): Established the California
Ocean resources Management Program. Housed within the California Resources Agency,
the program’s goal is to “ensure comprehensive and coordinated management,
conservation, and enhancement of the state’s ocean resources.”31
California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act of 2000 (CORSA): This bill authorizes the
Secretary of the Resource Agency to enter into an agreement with a nonprofit organization,
a 501(c)(3) (later to be called the OST) to seek and provide funding for ocean resource
science projects and to encourage coordinated, multiagency, multi-institution approaches to
ocean resource science.32
California Ocean Protection Act (COPA): Signed into law in 2004. This law lays out priorities
and activities for California’s ocean protection policy and established both the Ocean
Protection Council and the Ocean Protection Trust Fund.33
Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel (RASGAP): Under the provisions of Section 6230
of the Public Resources Code, RASGAP is charged with the responsibility to: 1) identify state
needs which might be met through Sea Grant research projects, including but not limited to
such fields as living marine and estuarine resources, aquaculture, ocean engineering, marine
minerals, public recreation, coastal physical processes, coastal and ocean resources planning
31
California Ocean Resources Management Act. 1990. Section 36000-36003. California Public Resources Code. 32
California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act. 2000. AB 2387. California Public Resources Code. 33
California Ocean Protection Act. 2004. Division 26.5 of the California Public Resources Code.
24 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
and management, and ocean data acquisition and dissemination; 2) establish priorities
concerning research needs; 3) periodically review progress of continuing research projects;
and 4) submit research needs and priorities to the Legislature each year.
Funding Sources and Security:
California’s multiple institutions and varied arrangements are able to receive funds from multiple
sources and sectors to support coastal and ocean resource management and science. The OPC primarily
receives funds from state sources while OST, a nonprofit, can receive funds from both public and private
sources. This multi-sectoral approach to funding ensures more funding stability for the institutions as
funding streams shift year to year.
The Ocean Protection Trust Fund, created under COPA, is the OPC’s primary funding source. Multiple
state revenue streams are deposited into the Ocean Protection Trust Fund to finance the OPC. Revenue
from voter-approved state bonds for natural resource protection is the main source of funding for the
OPC, however, informants did discuss limitations on how these funds could be used as well as
California’s economic crisis and limited bond sales since early 2009 that caused severe budget cuts.
The OPC also receives funding from a federal coastal impact assistance fund (established to mitigate
impacts to states from outer continental shelf oil and gas production), some funding from state tideland
oil-lease revenues, and a small amount from conservation license plate funds. A proposed increase in
the state vehicle license fees that, if passed, would create a State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Fund. This fund would allocate 15 percent of its revenue to ocean resource and protection agencies.
The OPC has also been successful in leveraging funding from private and federal sources. In addition to
covering its administrative costs, the OPC uses funding to award competitive grants and contract for
services to advance its mandated priorities, including a contract to OST to finance ongoing science
services to the state.
Funding for the OPC has been unstable during the financial crisis. For example, bond funds for OPC
projects was reduced. Furthermore, many departments and programs funded by the state general
funds have been cut. The OPC has had to prioritize and cut projects to adjust to the crisis. There has
been a reduction in granting and contracting to outside organizations. On the other hand, funding in
California for programs earmarked from funds outside the general funds or through fees has fared
better through the recession. For example, the State and Regional Water Boards have had minimal cuts
because of their fee and permit system.
As a 501(c) (3), the OST is able to receive funds from both public and private sources and has developed
relationships with industry and non-governmental funders that complement its state contract. The OST
Executive Director is responsible for developing and maintaining these relationships. OST has
established funding relationships with the following entities:
25 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Chevron Corporation;
David and Lucile Packard Foundation;
Ocean Conservancy;
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation;
Sportsfishing Conservancy;
United Anglers; and
U.S. Mineral Management Services.
Like many nonprofits, funding can be unstable for the OST. As of June, 2010 funding for the OST has not
been secured past 2012. However, a combination of state, federal, and private funds have enabled both
OST and OPC to maintain core operations despite California’s ongoing budget crisis which has forced
cuts to their budgets and projects.
The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF) bears special mention as a significant donor to the efforts
of OST and has funded efforts complementary to the goals and objectives of the OPC. RLFF is a 501(c)
(3) that administers funds from multiple donor sources, including the Campbell Foundation, David and
Lucile Packard Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Marisla Foundation and has joined
into a public-private partnership to implement the MLPA Initiative (see Box 1 above). This is an
innovative public-private partnership to address the financial needs of long-term implementation of the
MLPA, a state law that required a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state waters be
established. To date, the state has not identified long-term funding for MLPA implementation including
science for monitoring. The ballot measure, mentioned above, is set to go to before voters in November
2010, if passed would increase vehicle license fees to support the management, enforcement, and
science for the network of MPAs. Currently RLFF and OPC are co-funding the OST’s Marine Protected
Area Monitoring Enterprise (ME) program.
While the preceding information focuses on funding sources and security of OPC and OST, these
institutions and several others are in turn sources of funding for marine science and management in
California. The text that follows highlights these organizations in their funding capacity, and a number
of other public and private entities that are significant players in the California ocean and coastal science
context:
California Ocean Science Trust: While the OST does not conduct original research it may
contract research, as a regrantor of funds, for specific purposes related to decision-making.
For example, the OST’s ME program contracts with researchers to conduct original research
for the baseline characterization of marine protected areas established in a given region.
California Ocean Protection Council: The Council funds approximately $1 million of research
and monitoring activities annually to support management of the state’s ocean and coastal
26 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
resources such as seafloor mapping, ocean observing, and a monitoring program for the
statewide MPA network. OPC also established a grant program in partnership with Sea
Grant (see below).
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Through joint Resource Agency and Resource Legacy
Fund Foundation funding a number of studies have been conducted to specifically inform
the MLPA stakeholder process.
California Sea Grant: Sea Grant coordinates the proposal and peer-review process and
administers the funding of a number of research grant processes including the OPC, and
makes its funding decisions under the guidance of the Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory
Panel (RASGAP).34
California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program: Some of this
funding supports climate change research, related to coastal and ocean ecosystems.
Water Quality State and Regional Boards: Organizations like Southern California Coastal
Water Research Project (SCCWRP ) along with the San Francisco Estuary Institute provide
science support and are funded by regional and State Water Boards, polluters, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process:
The OPC developed granting guidelines and priorities, in alignment with COPA, to ensure a clear and
transparent funding process. These guidelines and priorities are posted on the OPC website. Grant
proposals are submitted to the OPC, reviewed by OPC staff, then voted on during OPC meetings. All
OPC staff recommendations are posted online and voting occurs during public meetings, ensuring
maximum transparency. The OPC also solicits competitive Requests for Proposals (RFP). Although
information on all funding and projects is available through public records regulations, there is currently
no inventory of funded projects available online.
In addition to guiding Sea Grant funding decisions, the Resources Agency Sea Grant Advisory Panel
(RASGAP), discussed earlier and below, is a transparent process for disbursement of OPC funding for
science to Sea Grant. RASGAP works with multiple state agencies, Boards, and Commissions to identify
research needs for the state.
OST has, thus far, allocated funds through a competitive Request for Proposal process. RFPs have been
issued for synthesis projects such as invasive species vector risk assessment and the oil and gas
34
RASGAP is described at http://www.resources.ca.gov/ocean/rasgap.html. Accessed June 20, 2010.
27 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
decommissioning study.
Stakeholder Advice:
Although the OPC does not currently have a formal body to incorporate stakeholder advice, two Council
Members are members of the public and all OPC meetings are open to the public and webcasted online
at multiple sites throughout the state to increase opportunities for public participation. The OPC also
provides opportunities for public comment on projects and documents. OPC is currently conducting a
third-party evaluation of the organization, and has publicized to stakeholders the opportunity to
complete an online survey, accessed via the OPC website, regarding OPC’s effectiveness. OPC has
convened ad-hoc, issue-specific committees to help implement its goals. For example, the California
Sustainable Seafood Initiative program has convened a public advisory panel to assist the OPC in the
implementation of the Sustainable Seafood Initiative Assembly Bill (AB 1217). The panel is comprised of
representatives from state and federal fishery management agencies, NGOs, the commercial fishing
industry, fish processors, fish retailers or traders, restaurateurs, public health and nutrition officials,
fishing port officials, and the scientific community. Similarly, in 2009, OPC convened a Dungeness Crab
Task Force representing fishing and processor interests to develop a set of recommendations for
fisheries management.
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach:
As discussed above, the OPC creates opportunities for the general public to provide input during OPC
deliberations. The OPC distributes information to over 4,000 Californians via an online list-serve and
manages the “Thank You Ocean” Campaign. Thank You Ocean is a nonprofit partnership between the
State of California, NOAA, and the Ocean Communicators Alliance. The overall goal of the Campaign is
raise awareness of ocean ecosystem services among California’s general public. This is part of OPC’s
goal to promote ocean and coastal awareness and stewardship.
Scientific Research:
California has a number of institutions with good capacity to conduct natural science research for
decision-making, although their scope of activities has been constrained by the state budget crisis. The
research organizations include the following:
California Sea Grant Extension: 35 Sea Grant has 10 extension advisors serving the state to
conduct applied research and share and inform relevant decision-makers. Guiding Sea
Grant extension is the mission of improving environmental stewardship, long-term
economic development and responsible use of California’s marine resources. Priorities for
Sea Grant Extension are to: protect water quality; ensure safe and sustainable seafood;
control aquatic invasive species; recover endangered salmon; restore watersheds and
35
California Sea Grant Extension. http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/EXTENSION/ExtensionIndx.html Accessed June 21, 2010.
28 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
protect marine habitats; understand socioeconomic factors affecting fishing and fishing
communities; develop ecosystem-based management; and create partnerships to address
critical needs in aquaculture, coastal community development and fisheries management,
among others.
University of California and University of California Marine Council: 36 The University of
California campuses have marine research and education capabilities that are unparalleled
in the nation. There are approximately 650 faculty and researchers conducting marine
research within the University system. The University plays an important role in the study of
California's ocean issues and problems, and the University of California Marine Council
(UCMC) was established to provide leadership and direction to the University to perform a
major role in the coordination of marine policy, research, education and public service, and
the exercise of responsible stewardship of the state's marine resources. The Council
members represent the various marine research, policy, and education programs at the
University. One of the products they have created is a searchable database of all faculty
researchers as well as descriptions of the marine research and education programs on each
UC campus. The directory can be searched by name, research area, or campus.
Other Research Institutions: There are many other institutions with individuals conducting
research in California such as California State University system’s Moss Landing Marine
Laboratory, Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
Naval Post-Graduate School, and the University of Southern California. In this group, there
are also a number of regional institutions conducting research for the state on a wide range
of topics. For example the SCCWRP, is a research institute focusing on the coastal
ecosystems of Southern California from the white water to the blue water. Established in
1969, SCCWRP’s goal is “to enhance the scientific understanding of linkages among human
activities, natural events, and the health of the Southern California coastal environment; to
communicate this understanding to decision-makers and other stakeholders; and to suggest
strategies for protecting the coastal environment for this and future generations.”
Scientists from many of these institutions serve in an advisory capacity to OPC and OST or implement
projects funded by the two organizations. There is currently strong natural science and engineering
capacity and limited coastal and ocean social science capacity. At the same time, there has been
investment by public and private funders to build capacity and resources for bridging and boundary
functions and institutions such as the OST.
36
University of California and University of California Marine Council. http://www.ucop.edu/research/ucmarine/. Accessed June 21, 2010.
29 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Science Advice:
In order to achieve the science-based decision-making goals outlined in the OPC strategic plan, the
California Ocean and Coastal Information, Research and Outreach Strategy, and legislative mandates,
the OPC established, in February 2008, the OPC Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT) and created a part-
time OPC Science Advisor position to sit on the OPC staff management committee and also serve as the
Executive Director of the OST. The OPC-SAT is co-chaired by the OPC’s Science Advisor and Executive
Director of the OST. Members serve three years and are selected through a rigorous process
coordinated with the National Academy of Science to identify a group of unbiased experts to serve the
state who represent all relevant disciplines and regions of the state.
As discussed, there is a strong commitment by the state and OPC for increasing and improving science
advice and science-based decision-making. The state has developed a number of new institutions and
mechanisms to enable science-based decision-making. OPC grants funding to the OST for fee-for-service
work to act as the OPC’s Science Advisor, contract management and oversight of applied research and
synthesis, and to coordinate the OPC-SAT. Key activities to highlight include:
OPC Science Advisor: The OST Executive Director also acts as the OPC Science Advisor. This
enables the Science Advisor to remain neutral and unbiased because the Advisor is based in
an institution outside of a government agency. The Science Advisor provides input and
feedback specifically with a science voice to the senior OPC staff management committee on
OPC projects.
Spotlight on Science: Each OPC meeting has a designated agenda item committed to
science; the spotlight on science allows the Science Advisor to inform the Council through an
expert presentation, expert panel, or staff briefing on an issue relevant to the state for
policy and management and discuss existing or needed science.
OPC-SAT: Peer review of key reports and projects by the OPC-SAT and coordinated by the
OST is critical to improve state policy and management. For example, according to one
informant, expert input through an OST run peer review process, was helpful for the Marine
Life Management Act evaluation to improve fisheries management.
Specifically, OPC-SAT members may be called upon to:37
develop recommendations on scientific issues identified by the OPC;
respond to information requests from the OPC;
evaluate the technical merits of scientific and technical projects proposed to the OPC;
37
California Ocean Science Trust. http://www.calost.org/OPC_SAT_Accomplishments.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.
30 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
provide technical advice on OPC agenda items and reports;
participate in technical working groups and scientific forums to address critical management
problems;
assist in ranking and refining annual research priorities;
recommend outside experts as peer-reviewers; and,
identify critical emerging science issues that should be of concern to the OPC and the state.
Examples of projects, proposals, and reports for which the OPC-SAT has provided recommendations
include:
nominations for members of the Expert Advisory Committee for the Oil and Gas Platform
Decommissioning Study;
peer reviewers for the Marine Life Management Act Lessons Learned Study;
peer reviewers for the OPC report Developing Wave Energy in Coastal California: Potential
Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects; and,
peer reviewers for a Salmon Synthesis report.
Peer reviewers who evaluate OPC projects or reports do so anonymously; all reviewers’ comments are
synthesized into a document highlighting trended comments and themes. The synthesized comments
and originals are then shared with OPC staff. OPC staff then chooses how to share responses with the
institution who wrote the report and how to respond to the comments. For some projects, peer-review
comments are shared through the public comment process.
University of California Marine Council (UCMC) also plays a role in science advice. UCMC will provide
advice to local, regional, and State of California governments, and to governmental agencies pertaining
to California's ocean-related concerns. One of the Council's first actions, at the request of a state
legislator, was to appoint a select committee drawn from UC scientists to review the scientific
information associated with the proposal to decommission offshore oil and gas production facilities and
to prepare a comprehensive decommissioning report on the ecological impacts of platform removal in
order to inform future decision-making.
As discussed above Sea Grant Extension staff also play an advisory role.
There are many other science advisory groups established by the state agencies or processes on an as
need basis. For example, the MLPA Science Team has played a role in each region of the coast where
marine protected areas have been proposed, assisting with criteria and the evaluation of the proposed
alternative. The State Water Resources Control Board has a Clean Beaches Task Force comprised of
experts to review proposals for research and provide advice for the state and the State Water Board.
SCCWRP is a joint-powers public agency that since 1969 has conduct coastal environmental research to
31 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
inform its member government agencies.
Incorporation of Science into Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:
OPC and OST have influenced and are committed to the incorporation of science in management
decision-making of California’s ocean and coastal resource agencies by commissioning (OPC) and
carrying out (OST) the synthesis of management-relevant science products (discussed below under
“Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input”). OPC and OST are both new institutions and are developing new
mechanism to ensure the incorporation of science into decision-making and for adaptive management.
Furthermore, OPC is not a management agency, but rather a coordinating body that can influence and
provide recommendations for policy-makers and managers. Science can help OPC in their own internal
decision-making as well as inform and influence policy and update managers for adaptive management
application.
OPC has funded and coordinated science for decision-making and adaptive management such as
seafloor mapping of state waters for ocean management, ocean observing system to inform oil spill
response and other real-time management decisions. OST plays a direct role in incorporating science
into management decision-making with the incubation of the ME and developing the ability to deliver
monitoring data essential for performance evaluation and adaptive management of the new statewide
system of MPAs designated under the state’s Marine Life Protection Act.38
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input:
OPC and OST both play significant roles in the synthesis of scientific information to inform policy and
management at the state level. OPC identifies information needed by the state to improve the scientific
basis of decision-making on specific topics (e.g. oil and gas platform decommissioning, fisheries
management, sea level rise) and also by setting research priorities through the following mechanisms:
California Ocean and Coastal Information, Research and Outreach Strategy (Adopted by the
OPC): 39 This report outlines five key state priority information and research needs. OPC co-
sponsored a conference with California Sea Grant College and Extension Program, UCMC,
OST, and the Resources Agency, bringing together over 60 participants representing
academia, NGOs, governments, and industry to help identify California’s high priority
information, research, and outreach needs. OPC staff captured the results in a draft
strategy, which was made available for public comment, reviewed at a public workshop,
revised, and adopted by the OPC in September 2005 as an overarching strategy for the OPC
to follow.
38
For information on OST’s MPA Monitoring Enterprise, see http://www.calost.org/monitoring_ent.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 39
Ocean Resources Management Program California Resources Agency. 2005. California Ocean and Coastal Information, Research and Outreach Strategy. Adopted by the California Ocean Protection Council September 23, 2005. Sacramento, CA.
32 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
OPC- SAT: The OPC directs the SAT annually to identify research priorities and emerging
issues for the state to consider in the science context. This list of research priorities and
emerging issues is shared with the OPC to help inform the allocation of its science funding.
OPC Oversight and Peer Review of Synthesis Reports: The OST’s role managing the
controversial Oil and Gas Platform Decommissioning Study and Analysis illustrates the
organization’s ability to ensure an unbiased, neutral product. OST developed a rigorous
transparent process with a technical review committee overseeing every stage of the
project. OPC and/or OST have commissioned other synthesis products and tools as needed.
When science and synthesis is requested by the OPC there is not always an RFP process, but
a staff recommendation is made. OST conducts the peer-review process for products such
as the Salmon Synthesis Report commissioned by OPC.
OPC Annual Research Priorities: OPC annually reviews and adopts research priorities for
funding. This process is informed by the OPC-SAT as well as RASGAP. Once OPC sets its
priorities Sea Grant issues requests for proposals to fund research consistent with the OPC’s
priorities. The research priorities for 2009 included climate change and ocean acidification,
harmful algal blooms, invasive species, water quality, and wave and tidal energy
development.
OST is becoming the entity OPC funds to provide science advice, oversee science peer-review, and
synthesis identified by the OPC. OST is about to launch its own process to identify gaps and prioritize
science needs and opportunities for science and data synthesis to inform decision-making for statewide
coastal and ocean management. The process is yet to be determined but will likely commence fall 2010.
There are many other prioritization processes underway on specific issues, such as emerging
contaminants, or climate change. Workshops are sponsored, coordinated, and held with many partners,
then a report is drafted, made available to the public for comment, and revised. This process has been
used for collaborative fisheries research, ocean observing, contaminants of emerging concern, and other
areas. Either or both OPC and OST have sponsored some these activities.
There are many other such “bridging and boundary” organizations at local and regional scales, such as
SCWRRP or the San Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance (SLOSEA). In 2007, the Sea Grant
programs in Washington, Oregon, and California began collaborating on a first-of-its-kind effort to
assess the long-term marine research and information needs of the entire U.S. West Coast. This charts
of course for the tri-state priorities.
Data Management, Sharing, and Products:
33 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
There is currently no “one stop shop” for California and coastal and ocean data and information.
Reports commissioned or produced by the state are generally made publically available. Most agencies
have reports produced in the last few years on their websites. Peer reviewed papers are also available
through journals. Data management and sharing is more complex. There are few agencies with data
available for decision-makers, researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The MLPA website does
have regional maps and synthesized data layers available to the public. According to one informant,
approximately $20 million dollars was spent on MLPA process-some allocated for data management and
dissemination. Fisheries data has regulatory restrictions limiting its availability to the public and,
subsequently, the Department of Fish and Game manages the access and synthesis of that data and
information. When possible, OPC also publishes spatial information and maps on Google Earth. Finally,
agency staff do not have access to web-based science journals. This according to informants is a major
hindrance for conducting their jobs on a daily basis.
Accessible Information:
In general, the OPC, OST, Resources Agency and Departments have websites that are accessible with
clear organizational charts, strategies, and legislative mandates available to the public. Grants,
evaluations, and processes are more challenging to identify.
California Mechanisms Summary Table:
The table below summarizes the information presented above for California’s mechanisms supporting
coastal and ocean science and management.
34 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 6: Mechanism Overview Assessment for California Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices
Legislative Mandate
Three strong mandates exist outlining the institutional arrangements and commitment to science-based
decision-making.
Funding Sources
and Security California has diverse funding.
Prioritized and
Transparent Funding
Process
OPC 5-year Strategic Plan and grant-making guidelines; OPC Science and Information Report and annual science
priorities; and, staff recommendations guide funding decisions.
Stakeholder Advice
OPC holds public meetings; OPC was legislatively mandated to facilitate DCTF, a new approach for seeking
stakeholder advice and input.
Community
Engagement,
Education, Outreach
Public meetings, list-serve, and website are all good tools for outreach.
Scientific Research
Depth and breadth of California institutions supports strong scientific research.
Science Advice
OPC-SAT comprised of 25 experts and role of Science Advisor as part of OPC management committee; OST
starting to run peer-review processes.
Incorporation of
Science into Decision-
making and Adaptive
Management
This is beginning to happen and there is a strong commitment by the OPC to institutional building. An example
is the real-time ocean observing system to inform oil spill response and other management decisions.
Scientific Synthesis for
Policy Input OPC and OST commissioning synthesis documents for decision-makers.
Data Management/
Sharing/Products Building the MPA ME. As available, information is shared.
Accessible Information Public Records Act requires sharing documents on public spending.
= Low = Medium = High
35 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
California Objective Assessment:
This section outlines six objective criteria and highlights the key information for the California case study.
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources:
When looked at collectively, the OPC and OST have the ability to receive and distribute funds from
multiple sectors including state and federal government, NGOs, industry, and private foundations. The
OPC can access state funds from multiple sources, including bonds, license fees, and oil-lease fees. The
body has also been successful in leveraging funds for projects from federal sources through partnership
and collaboration. The OST, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and Sea Grant, as 501(c) (3)
organizations, are able to receive and distribute funds from various sources.
Neutrality and Trust:
OPC is a political body and in the past few years has been developing mechanisms to ensure its
reputation for neutrality through peer-review and solicitation of science advice. Review by the
independent SAT creates opportunities for neutral-party input to help drive the decision-making process
within the OPC. OPC also has an extensive network of partners, including the OST that plays the role of
a neutral and trusted science advisor. As a state affiliated body, the OPC is also subject to extensive
rules that prevent conflicts of interest.
Flexibility and Adaptability:
Overall, the institutional arrangement of the OPC allows it to be flexible and adaptable on how it
implements its programs and coordination. The body’s Strategic Plan was written to allow the OPC to
shift to address emerging issues. For example, OPC is currently addressing the emerging issues of
marine spatial planning and wave energy.
OPC’s partnership with the OST and OST’s 501(c) (3) status allow both organizations to be flexible and
nimble with respect to facilitating the development of management-relevant science, data, information,
and tools to support ocean and coastal decision-making.
Transparency:
OPC’s position within the state government requires that the organization operate in a transparent
manner. All information on projects is available via the website, listserv, or by request. Public records
laws require the OPC to provide any documents or funding information if requested by the general
public. OPC and its mandate require that all meetings are open to the public. As mentioned above, OPC
televises meetings in multiple locations around the state to increase opportunities for the public to
observe meetings. In addition, all recommendations by OPC on project proposals are made available to
the public. Overall, these actions support OPC’s transparent mandate, however some informants noted
that the public may not always be aware of its opportunity to provide input to the OPC. Informants also
36 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
acknowledged that further outreach efforts could increase public participation and the website could be
improved to make financial information and documents readily available.
Ability to Provide or Use Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers:
OPC, through its partnership with the OST and the OPC-SAT, is developing strong mechanisms and
processes for integrating science advice to inform decision-makers. Strong involvement from science
experts increases communication between the science community and decision-makers. In addition,
close relationships with science institutions and resource agencies, like Sea Grant, the University of
California, the Center for Ocean Solutions, and NOAA, allows OPC to support original data collection,
provide synthesis and analysis that is then made available to policy-makers and state resource managers
to inform relevant policy and management decisions. Clear conflict of interest policies for OPC-SAT
members have been developed as scientists, as it is important to remember that scientists are a
stakeholder too.
The use and composition of the OPC-SAT is still being formulated. OPC-SAT members would like to play
a larger role in the science to policy and management space and that role is currently being developed.
In addition, informants stated that government agency scientists would also like to play more of an
advisory role for the state.
Administrative Costs:
Although there have been changes in the income and budget of the OPC, the administrative cost of
operating the body is approximately $1.4 million annually.40
The OST 2008-2009 Annual Report states that the administrative costs of running the organization were
approximately $335,000.41 OST is a boundary organization42 and a boundary organization requires time,
in-person meetings, and skilled staff that can communicate with both producers and users of
knowledge.
California Objective Assessment Summary Table:
The following table summarizes the information discussed in the Objective Assessment above.
40
Conversation with Confidential Informant. May 2010. 41
California Science Trust. Annual Report 2008-2009. 42
A boundary organization links producers and users of knowledge. They serve as a bridge between the two sides and ideally have the following characteristics: non-partisan, dual accountability, safe harbor, use-driven science, and co-production of science. Nation Research Council, Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability 2006. Linking Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development: The Role of Program Management – Summary of a Workshop. William C. Clark and Laura Holliday, rapporteurs. Washington: National Academic Press.
37 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 7: Objective Assessment of California Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds
from Various Sources 501(c) (3) status allows for increased flexibility.
Neutrality and Trust Peer-review process through OPC- Science Advisory
Team.
Flexibility and Adaptability
OPC is able to address emerging issues including
MSP and wave energy; OST is nimble and can
incubate new programs and projects.
Transparency
Public attendance is open at meetings. Not all
documents and information are readily available
online.
Objective and Trusted Science for
Decision-making
High participation and collaboration with Science
Advisory Team; Development of peer-review
process.
Administrative Costs
OPC- $1.4 million
OST- $335,000
= Low = Medium = High
Important Lessons from California:
A distillation of relevant characteristics and lessons learn follow below.
Science and Policy and Management: Delivery of new, highly relevant scientific information
into the policy arena through commissioned, targeted authoritative studies can be an
effective tool.
Boundary Organization: Developing an effective boundary institution requires skilled staff,
time, and resources to do well. There needs to be clear mandate and institutional
arrangement and commitments for the boundary organization to be truly effective.
Furthermore, there are potential challenges and costs when managing the expectations and
communications of science advisors. Finally, it is important to remember that scientists are
a stakeholder too and clear conflict of interest policies are essential to maintain neutrality.
Coordinating Body: A non-regulatory body, like OPC, allows for enhanced collaboration and
cooperation. This body can convene and facilitate the collaboration among public agencies
and key stakeholders.
Significant, Consistent, Long-term Funding: Funding for strategic projects and research has
38 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
advanced sustainable coastal and ocean policy and management. Funding amounts need to
be large enough for multiple years to implement programs and projects for the long-term.
This funding increases opportunities for effective leverage and distribution of funds.
Reliable long-term financing mechanisms from diverse sources are essential.
Transparency: Facilitating easy access to information online for the following types of items:
funding prioritization and decisions-making processes; funding sources; appointments;
budgets; process for grantee and contractor selection; and allocations supports a culture of
trust.
The Role of Strategic Planning and Evaluations: A public process can inform strategy
development. Situational analysis of key players/partners, needs, types of policy, potential
projects, outcomes and goals can aid in developing a clear strategy. External evaluations
have been an effective tool and will support an adaptive management strategy.
CASE STUDY 2: CHESAPEAKE BAY General Overview of the Chesapeake Bay:
There are dozens of institutions and partnerships that support or implement marine resource protection
and restoration within the Chesapeake Bay region.43 The level of collaboration between state and
federal jurisdictions operating within the Bay is considered a national model for regional resource
management. This case study will focus on a subset of organizations that highlight inter-governmental
and state-driven partnerships and programs and their interrelationships.
Primary among them is the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP or Bay Program), a federal-state partnership
focused on restoration of the Bay. The CBP has served as a prototype for other collective management
regimes and has hosted international delegations implementing other large-scale restoration programs
throughout the world. In order to provide a relevant context for the NRTF, we highlight how the
Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland interact and participate in this program, the
institutional arrangements that facilitate these interactions, and complementary organizations and
programs established by Maryland and Virginia to further state-specific priorities.
The Chesapeake Bay Program was established as a result of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987.
Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (representing the federal government); and the Chesapeake Bay Commission were all party to
43
A list of many governmental, non-governmental, and academic organizations can be found on the Chesapeake Bay Program website: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/partnerorganizations.aspx?menuitem=14916.
39 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
this initial agreement which laid out regional goals, objectives, and activities for the management of the
Chesapeake Bay.44 A primary goal of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987 was to “support and
enhance the present comprehensive, cooperative, and coordinated approach toward management of
the Chesapeake Bay system.”45 The Chesapeake Bay Program aims to coordinate multiple players in the
region to reach this goal.
Today, a 2000 revision of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement guides the CBP’s actions. Chesapeake 2000
outlines goals and objectives around five main themes:
living resource protection and restoration;
vital habitat protection and restoration;
water quality protection and restoration;
sound land use; and
stewardship and community engagement.46
The Bay Program partners work collectively towards the overarching goal of restoring the health of the
ecosystems within the Chesapeake Bay using the goals and objectives noted above to guide that
process. There are currently over 50 partners within CBP representing interests from multiple sectors
including state government, federal government, academia, non-governmental organizations, marine
industry, and funder institutions.47 The Bay Program partners are actively involved in a multitude of
restoration activities in the region including research, management plans development, education and
outreach programs, physical restoration, and reduction of agricultural runoff. There has been progress
in addressing aspects of water quality and other impairments to the Bay, but daunting challenges
remain.48 Despite significant financial investment in the region, long-standing threats such as nutrient
pollution persist, while emerging threats from climate change are starting to be felt.
Most recently, President Obama issued an Executive Order to develop a new strategy for protecting and
restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed.49 Federal agencies recognized and communicated to the
Obama Administration a need to shift the management strategy of the restoration and preservation of
the Chesapeake Bay and its associated watershed. In May 2009, President Obama released Executive
Order 13508 outlining a revised strategy for tackling restoration. The overarching goals of this Executive
Order are to:
44
Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987. 1987. 45
Ibid. 46
Chesapeake Agreement of 2000. 2000. 47
See link for a full list of partners: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/partnerorganizations.aspx?menuitem=14916 Accessed June 16, 2010. 48
Chesapeake Bay Program Accomplishments. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/accomplishments.aspx?menuitem=14906 Accessed June 16, 2010. 49
Exec. Order No. 13508, 3 C.F.R. (2010). Print.
40 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
restore clean water;
recover habitat;
sustain fish and wildlife;
conserve land and increase public access;
expand citizen stewardship;
respond to climate change;
develop environmental markets; and
strengthen science.
These goals align closely with those of Chesapeake 2000; according to an informant, the main impetus
and effect of the executive order to date has been to clarify roles of the many federal agencies involved
in protection and restoration activities in Chesapeake Bay to increase effectiveness of those efforts and
allocate resources more efficiently. The executive order created a new Federal Leadership Committee
that, beginning in 2010, is charged with publishing an annual Chesapeake Bay Action Plan describing
how federal funding proposed in the President's budget will be used to protect and restore the
Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming fiscal year and, in consultation with the states and other
stakeholders, to issue an Annual Progress Report reviewing indicators of environmental conditions in
the Chesapeake Bay, assessing implementation of the Action Plan during the preceding fiscal year, and
recommending steps to improve progress in restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. Because
these changes are new and not fully implemented, this case study will evaluate the Chesapeake Bay
institutional arrangements as governed by the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
The alignment of the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland with the goals and objectives of
the CBP derives from their status as signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreements, which confers
considerable decision-making authority. One example of how management priorities overlap between
the Bay Program and Virginia and Maryland is found in the approach to managing fisheries in the Bay.
The fisheries Goal Implementation Team—comprised of representatives from state and federal fisheries
management agencies, NGOs, and regional fisheries commissions—develops single species Fisheries
Management Plans that describe ecosystem-based management directives across state lines. For
example, the 2004 Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan provides a “general framework and
specific guidance” for managing and improving the Bay’s native oyster populations’ recovery.50 The plan
outlines a “strategic, coordinated, multi-partner management effort” designed to include state and
federal agencies, academia, NGOs, and the oyster industry. Using the direction and goals identified
within the management plan, Maryland and Virginia have independently developed restoration plans in
alignment with this management plan.
50
The Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan. 2004.
41 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
In addition to the significant overlap and coordination that exists between Maryland and Virginia via the
CBP there is an array of state-affiliated institutions, some multi-stakeholder, some specific to individual
states, that complement and reinforce the work of the CBP while being responsive to constituencies and
needs of Maryland or Virginia. These include:
Multi-state legislative commission: The Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative
assembly representing Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The majority (15 members)
are legislators, with the remaining six split between Governors’ representatives and public
representatives.
Innovative fundraising mechanisms: The Chesapeake Bay Trust(CBT) financed by Maryland
and other sources funding community-based projects in three states since 1985, the
Chesapeake & Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund established by Maryland in 2007 targeting
recently-prioritized projects in Maryland, and the Virginia legislature’s Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Fund investing in environmental education and restoration in the state since
1992.
State-chartered marine science institute: The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), a
state-created institution mandated to perform science to inform decision-making.
These mechanisms are described in more detail in the following sub-section.
Principal Institutions and Relationships in Chesapeake Bay: The Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program and its activities are managed by the Chesapeake Executive Council, made
up of the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the administrator of the U.S. EPA; the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission (described below).
The Executive Council is responsible for setting policy directives for restoration and protection of the
Bay and living marine resources and ensuring accountability to the public for progress towards the
Chesapeake 2000 Plan. The Principals’ Staff Committee serves as a policy advisor to the Executive
Council and facilitates communication between the Council, the Management Board, and three advisory
committees (see below).
The Management Board is made up of senior managers from each of the main partner agencies and the
chairs from each of its related Subcommittees. The Management Board is responsible for executing the
policy decisions laid down by the Executive Council and implementing activities to achieve the goals and
objectives of the Chesapeake 2000. As part of this function, the Board develops and coordinates six
Subcommittees and sets an annual work plan and budget. Each Subcommittee, known as the Goal
Implementation Teams, work towards one of the six goals of the Chesapeake 2000:
42 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
protecting and restoring fisheries;
protecting and restoring aquatic habitats;
protecting and restoring water quality;
maintaining healthy watersheds;
fostering community stewardship; and
enhancing partnership, leadership, and management.
The Goal Implementation Teams are made up of topical experts from state and federal government,
academia, NGOs, foundations, and marine-related industry.
The Council, Management Board, Staff Committee, and Goal Implementation Teams interact, either
directly or via other bodies, with three advisory committees—the Citizens Advisory Committee, Local
Government Advisory Committee, and the Science and Technical Advisory Committee. The chairs of
each Advisory Committee sit on the Management Board to increase opportunities for input.
At the federal level, over 40 departments and agencies are coordinating on Chesapeake Bay efforts
through the CBP. Some of the agencies and departments most heavily engaged include the following:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers;
U.S. Geological Survey;
National Park Service;
U.S. Forest Service;
U.S. Coast Guard; and
U.S. Department of Education.
Maryland and Virginia are both actively involved with the leadership and implementation of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Both states’ Governors sit on the Executive Council and participate, at times
through the Principals’ Staff Committee, in developing policies and signing agreements and
amendments. Maryland state agencies engaged with the CBP include:
Department of Natural Resources;
Department of Agriculture;
Department of the Environment;
Department of Education;
Maryland Cooperative Extension Services;
43 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Maryland Environmental Services;
Maryland Geological Services; and
Department of Planning.
Commonwealth of Virginia agencies participating in the CBP include:
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
Department of Conservation and Recreation;
Department of Education;
Department of Environmental Quality;
Department of Forestry;
Department of Fame and Inland Fisheries;
Secretary of Natural Resources;
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service;
Virginia Marine Resources Commission; and
Virginia Naturally.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission
The Chesapeake Bay Commission is a tri-state legislative assembly representing Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania created in 1980. The Commission is made up of twenty-one members representing the
three states. Five legislators from each state currently sit on the Commission, as well as cabinet
secretaries representing the three states’ natural resource agencies and one citizen representative from
each state. The Commission coordinates policy across state lines with respect to the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The Commission acts as an advisory panel focusing on how to move forward the regional
goals of the CBP and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Informants report that Commission members are
in a position to communicate the needs and priorities of the Chesapeake Bay restoration to fellow
legislators and promote alignment between state policies and the Chesapeake Bay Program. The
Chesapeake Bay Commission’s Cost Report: The Cost of a Clean Bay has been instrumental at putting a
“price tag” on the restoration of the Bay. The Commission also works to leverage federal funding for
Chesapeake Bay restoration projects. Chairmanship of the Commission rotates between the three
states, and each state contributes a staff member to administer the Commission.
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund
The State of Maryland’s Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund was legislatively mandated in
2007 to “provide funding for various purposes aimed primarily at restoring and preserving and the
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays… and meeting the related commitments and goals of the
44 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.”51 As a recent program (2007), the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays
Trust Fund is still developing and finalizing its institutional arrangements. Currently, the Trust Fund sits
within Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) with oversight from the Office of the
Governor. The Trust Fund was established help finance actions to address priorities highlighted by
Maryland’s BayStat program, an innovative priority setting and accountability mechanism.52 The BayStat
program uses geospatial tools to identify priority restoration sites for Trust Fund monies to be directed.
The Trust Fund prioritizes spending on nonpoint source pollution control projects aligned with the 2011
Milestones to Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus study conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Trust Fund is financed through an excise tax on motor vehicles and gasoline. The legislative
mandate establishing the Trust Fund specifies that all funds must go to projects conducted by state,
county, and bi-county agencies.53 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the administrator of the
Trust Fund, uses an RFP approach to target funding to projects within the geographic and topical priority
areas identified by BayStat.
Chesapeake Bay Trust
The Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT) was formed in Maryland in 1985 as an independent 501(c) (3). The
Trust was intended as a mechanism for increasing funding flexibility compared to the state’s traditional
procurement processes. The CBT is primarily funded by income from Maryland’s specialty license plate
program and through a voluntary giving option listed on state income tax forms. Private sources, such
as foundations and industry, may also contribute money to the CBT.
The Trust is governed by an Executive Director and a 19-member Board of Trustees representing state
agencies, foundations, science, and business. The Board is responsible for setting policies relating to
grant-making, finances, investment, management, and governance. Although the organization is not a
unit of state government, the Maryland Governor appoints fourteen members of the Board. CBT’s
board also includes the following ex-officio members: two representatives from the State General
Assembly, one representative from MDNR, one representative from the Maryland Department of
Environment, and one representative from the Maryland Department of Agriculture.
The Bay Trust awards approximately $ 4 million annually to NGOs and schools within ten grant areas
including capacity building, outreach and community awareness, and fisheries. The independent nature
of this organization allows funding of projects across the entire Chesapeake Bay region. Over 400
projects have been funded in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
51
Department of Legislative Services. §HB 23. Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund Summary. November 10, 2007. 52
The Chesapeake and Atlantic Bays Trust Fund. http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_fund.asp Accessed June 18, 2010. 53
Department of Legislative Services. §HB 23. Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund Summary. November 10, 2007.
45 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a legislatively created body, is housed under the graduate
School of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary. Code of Virginia. § 28.2-1100 mandates
VIMS staff and students to conduct science to help inform decision-making at the state level. The
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) is the primary recipient of VIMS scientific data and is the
contact between the Institute and other government agencies. Natural resource agencies, such as the
Department of Conservation and Recreation or Department of Environmental Quality, can request
information to inform decisions via the VMRC. On the other hand, VIMS may also present data on
emerging issues that the Institute deems relevant to decision-making.
VIMS receives the majority of its funding from federal sources, including NOAA, National Science
Foundation, Department of Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In 2009, approximately
11 percent of VIMS’s grants and contracts funding came from the Commonwealth of Virginia. As an
academic institution endowed with a trust fund, private funds may be gifted to projects conducted at
VIMS. The combination of public and private funds and government-driven priorities allows VIMS to be
a more neutral institution.
Description and Analysis of Mechanisms in Chesapeake Bay:
In this section, we highlight selected findings and best practices from our data collection. To help
maintain relevance for the Oregon NRTF, we present findings on the Chesapeake Bay Program and how
the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland interact and relate to the efforts of the multi-
state, multi-sector effort. Innovative state-driven mechanisms are shared to communicate potential
models for the NRTF. There is a complex network of actors working within the Chesapeake Bay system
and this section provides an overview of some of the major players, institutions, and partnerships.
Types of Institutional Partners:
As evident in the preceding description of institutional arrangements, the Chesapeake Bay is notable for
the number and diversity of partners in its many institutions. Multiple organizational sectors are
interacting and partnering within the Chesapeake Bay context. As mentioned previously, the
Chesapeake Bay Program has a network of over 50 partners representing local, state, and federal
government, academic institutions, NGOs, and funding partners. The state resource agencies from
Maryland and Virginia both play a considerable role in the CPB. State legislators interact with the CBP
primarily through the Chesapeake Bay Commission. As the representative of the federal government in
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is central
to CBP’s implementation, with NOAA the next-most significant federal participant. An extensive
network of federal departments and agencies collaborate and coordinate with the CBP. See above for
detailed list.
Both the State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Virginia interact among multiple local, state, and
46 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
federal governments and private institutions. The states’ involvement in the CBP connects them to
federal agency partners implementing projects within the Chesapeake Bay. Legislators from both states
also participate in the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a regional legislative entity. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has a unique relationship with science institutions, primarily the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences. In addition, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission, which is described in detail below, acts
as a liaison between science and the Virginia commonwealth resource agencies to identify science needs
and priorities for decision-making. Maryland’s innovative fundraising mechanisms have created
relationships across Maryland state agencies and regional NGOs in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
Legislative Mandate:
Institutional arrangements in the Chesapeake Bay are supported by a very strong framework of
agreements, laws, and executive orders (at both the federal and state levels) providing a strong basis for
action to address the Bay’s management challenges. A selection of the most important agreements and
laws includes the following:
Chesapeake Bay Agreement: Originally drafted in 1983, formalized in 1987, and most
recently revised in 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement outlines priorities and goals for the
restoration and preservation for the Chesapeake Bay. The Agreement is signed by Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the U.S. EPA (for the United States of
America), and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The document commits all parties to
mutual goals. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement established the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Executive Order 13508: This Presidential Executive Order was issued in 2009 to redefine a
federal strategy for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund: This State Bill established the Chesapeake and Atlantic
Coastal Bays Trust Fund.
Code of Virginia. § 28.2-1100: Chapter 11 of the Code of Virginia mandates the creation and
roles of the Virginia Marine Science Institute. According to this legislation, the Institute is
required to conduct research to inform decision-making within Virginia.
Funding Sources and Security:
The Chesapeake Bay Program, Maryland, and Virginia receive varying degrees of federal, state, and
private funding to support programs, projects, and activities related to the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is allocated annual funding from the U.S. EPA (approximately $20-35
million). According to Chesapeake Bay Program documents, 45 percent of these funds are re-granted to
47 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
the member states through implementation grants, 15 percent of funds are directed towards
monitoring programs, 20 percent funds grants, contracts, and agreements between agencies for special
projects, 5 percent supports the computer modeling, and 15 percent of the Chesapeake Bay Program
budget is spent on personnel and overhead (see Figure 1).54 In addition to the routine funding provided
by the U.S. EPA, special project grant funding exists such as the B-WET grants, administered by NOAA,
and the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants.55
Figure 1: Chesapeake Bay Program Budget Disbursement
Each year, Virginia and Maryland apply to NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) for federal grants. OCRM provides states with four types of funding through the directive of the
Coastal Zone Management Act.56 These grants include:
Administrative Grants: 1:1 matching funds for states to administer coastal zone
management programs.
Coastal Resource Improvement Program: A portion of the Administrative Grant can be
54
Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Partnership."Funding and Financing." Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Partnership. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fundingandfinancing.aspx?menuitem=14907. Accessed June 15, 2010. 55
Ibid. 56
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/funding/welcome.html Accessed June 20, 2010.
45%
15%
20%
5%
15%
Chesapeake Bay Program Budget Disbursement
Regranting to Member States
Monitoring
Interagency grants/ contracts/agreements
Computer Modeling
Personnel
48 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
spent on small-scale construction or land acquisition programs to enhance public access,
redevelop urban waterfronts, or preserve and restore coastal resources.
Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants: Non-matched funds to enhance state CZM programs.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: 1:1 matching funds to help states implement
nonpoint pollution programs.
In 2008, Maryland’s House of Representatives passed MD-HB 23, which created the Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust. The trust fund supports activities that meet the goals of the Chesapeake
2000 agreement, but does so through reliance on an innovative new accountability and prioritization
mechanism called “BayStat,” discussed below. The bill outlines funding allocations and use of BayStat
expenditure and work plan reporting.
In addition to the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust, the Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT) provides
broad-ranging funding for projects that apply to their core strategic objectives: education, community
engagement, and restoration.57 CBT grant programs include capacity building for watershed
organizations and Riverkeepers and K-12 environmental education support. One of the core
mechanisms for securing Trust funding is the “Save the Bay” license plate program. In 2009,
commemorative license plate purchases ($20 per plate, of which $10 allocated to the Trust) raised
$545,763 and plate renewal fees raised $1,629,340 for the year ending June 30, 2009.58 Virginia has a
similar license program, which is affiliated with the state government; however, the revenue collected is
significantly less than the Maryland program.
Virginia’s coastal programs and management programs receive funding primarily though federal grants
and state allocations. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has annual allocations of funding from the
state, and bolsters its operating budget through research grants and the VIMS Foundation. During
Fiscal-Year 2009, NOAA provided 38 percent of VIMS’s $19.3 million in grants and contracts funding.59
The total revenue for the program, which is comprised of allocations from the Commonwealth of
Virginia General Fund, grants and contracts, tuition, and private donors, was $43 million and from the
VIMS Foundation $634,000.60,61
57
Chesapeake Bay Trust. “’09 Year in Review: Impacting the Bay and Beyond.” http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E8-8C3D-50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_2009_FINAL_Website.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010. 58
Anderson, Davis & Associates. "Chesapeake Bay Trust Financial Report.” June 2009. http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E88C3D50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_AuditReport_2009_Final.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2010. 59
VIMS. “2009 Annual Report.” The Virginia Institute of Marine Science. January 2010. http://www.vims.edu/about/_docs/annual_report_09.pdf Accessed June 16, 2010. 60
Ibid. 61
The annual report notes that the revenue figure excludes the VIMS Foundation.
49 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
In addition, Virginia also directs user fees from commercial and recreational saltwater fishing licenses to
finance the operation of the VMRC. The VMRC sells licenses through independent agents.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process:
The institutions described in this section have developed multiple mechanisms for prioritizing funding
and ensuring that all funding allocations are made transparently. Below we provide some highlights as
to how these mechanisms operate.
The Chesapeake Bay Program underwent a review by the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) in 2005. The assessment confirmed the CBP’s commitment to ensuring transparent
funding and implementation. The final GAO report provided key findings and recommendations to
improve operations and funding processes.
Maryland’s BayStat62 program is an example of a mechanism used to clearly identify geographic and
thematic priorities in a highly transparent manner, with all information collected by BayStat available
online. The BayStat program has been a model to other institutions operating in the area, including the
Chesapeake Bay Program. In June 2010, the U.S. EPA officially launched ChesapeakeStat. 63 Like
BayStat, this online accountability tool allows the general public to monitor the performance and
funding of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The tool uses “a systematic process … analyzing information
and data to continually assess progress towards goals and adapt strategies and tactics when needed”
and is “a public website that promotes improved accountability, fosters coordination, and promotes
transparency by sharing performance information on goals, indicators, strategies, and funding.”64
Informants stated that the tool is relatively new and has potential to act as a program “watchdog.” Both
BayStat and ChesapeakeStat are significant new accountability and management tools that appear to
have great potential for improving reporting and performance of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.
Stakeholder Advice:
The Chesapeake Bay Program solicits stakeholder advice through its Citizens Advisory Committee. The
Committee represents agriculture, industry, environmental NGOs, and civic groups. The Citizens
Advisory Committee provides stakeholder advice to the Executive Council, Management Board, and all
Goal Implementation Teams on an as-needed basis.65 Members communicate with their constituencies
to share information on the Chesapeake 2000, the CBP, and programs to restore the Bay. The
Committee shares advice on policy matters with the leadership of the CBP. The Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, a regional nonprofit organization, administers the Citizens Advisory Council.
62
Maryland BayStat. http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/transcript.html. Accessed June 20, 2010 63
ChesapeakeStat. http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/2. Accessed June 20, 2010. 64
Ibid. 65
Chesapeake Bay Program Citizens Advisory Committees. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/cac/CAC_Bylaws.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.
50 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
One mechanism by which Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources solicits stakeholder advice is
through the Coastal and Watershed Resources Advisory Committee (CWRAC). The CWRAC is comprised
of 45 representatives of local government, NGOs, industry, state and federal agencies, academia, and
the general public. The Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service of Maryland’s Department of
Natural Resources appoint CWRAC members. Members convey the views of their constituents on all
policies and issues before the Committee.
Virginia has convened Advisory Committees to support decision-making by the Virginia Marine Resource
Commission. Stakeholders populate nine advisory committees each focused around fisheries and
habitat management themes. For example, the Finfish Management Advisory Committee advises the
Commission on the needs and utilization of recreational and commercial finfish fisheries.
Representatives from industry, NGOs, funders, and community organizations comprise the committees.
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach:
The dozens of Chesapeake Bay institutions at all levels of government, nongovernmental groups, and
academic organizations have collectively made substantial investments in community engagement,
education, and outreach to advance the goal of Chesapeake Bay health. Notable education and
outreach mechanisms within the region include the Network for Education of Municipal Officials
(NEMO) Program, which provides educational programs, technical help, and financial assistance for
sound planning and watershed protection66 and the VIMS training programs for example, the Tidal
Wetlands Workshops for members of citizen Wetlands Boards and its Coastal Training Program that
promotes science-based decision-making.67 More typical programs of NGOs and government agencies
include activities targeting youth, environmental education, community participation in local restoration
efforts such as tree planting,68 ”things you can do” education efforts to encourage individuals to change
behaviors, and more.
Scientific Research:69
Within the Chesapeake Bay, long-term monitoring is an important tool for management. Since 1955,
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science has conducted long-term monitoring of the blue crab and other
key fisheries.70 The robust data acquired through long-term trawl monitoring informs decisions
66
"NEMO Fact Sheet 021408". Chesapeake NEMO. http://www.chesapeakenemo.net/pdf/NEMOFactSheet021408.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010. 67
VIMS. “Public Programs.” http://www.vims.edu/public/index.php. Accessed June 16, 2010. 68
Chesapeake Bay Trust. “’09 Year in Review: Impacting the Bay and Beyond.” Chesapeake Bay Trust. http://www.cbtrust.org/atf/cf/%7BEB2A714E-8219-45E8-8C3D-50EBE1847CB8%7D/AnnualReport_2009_FINAL_Website.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010. 69
A list of Chesapeake Bay-related research entities can be found at the Maryland Sea Grant website: http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/programs/gateway/links/#scientific 70
VIMS Blue Crab Monitoring Program. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/crab/crabindex.html. Accessed June 14, 2010.
51 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
regarding catch limits and management. In addition to long-term monitoring, VIMS sets annual science
priorities that determine research decisions.
A primary science mechanism for the Chesapeake Bay region is the Chesapeake Research Consortium,
which administers the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee and
supports integration of science into policy and decision-making. The consortium, a nonprofit, includes
six member institutions: the Johns Hopkins University, the Smithsonian Institution, University of
Maryland, VIMS, Old Dominion University, and Pennsylvania State University.71
Water quality monitoring is conducted by multiple state and federal agencies, science institutions, and
citizen science groups across the entire Chesapeake Bay system. A standardized methodology for data
collection ensures consistency. For example, since 2006, the Chesapeake EcoCheck (a partnership
between the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and NOAA) has developed a
standardized method and collects data on six indicators to inform the Chesapeake Bay Report Card
discussed below.72
Science Advice:
The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), provides science
advice to the Management Board and annually to the Executive Council. The STAC has a sixteen-year
history of providing “scientific and technical advice in various ways, including 1) technical reports and
papers, 2) discussion groups, 3) assistance in organizing merit reviews of CBP’s programs and projects, 4)
technical conferences and workshops, and 5) service by STAC members on CBP subcommittees and
workgroups.”73 According to informants, the STAC is quite nimble and able to respond to CBP
subcommittee and working group requests for scientific and technical input.74 Another feature of the
STAC is ability “to bring the most recent scientific information to the Bay Program and its partners.”75
Informants report that much of the science advice used by the States of Maryland and Virginia to inform
each state’s decision-making derives from Chesapeake Bay Program science development that occurs
with the participation of federal, state, and academic scientists. However, each state also has science
institutions with an explicit mandate to advise state coastal and ocean resource decision-making.
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has a mandate from the State of Maryland
to “conduct a comprehensive program to develop and apply predictive ecology for Maryland to the
71
Further details about the Chesapeake Research Consortium can be found at http://www.chesapeake.org. Accessed July 16, 2010. 72
Further details about the Chesapeake EcoCheck organization and the Chesapeake Bay Report Card reports can be found at http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2009/. Accessed June 16, 2010.
73Science and Technical Advisory Committee. http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacinfo. Accessed June 20, 2010.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
52 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
improvement and preservation of the physical environment.”76 Activities include providing science to
support the state’s BayStat program and advising the Maryland Department of Natural Resources with
independent analyses of data such as fishery population surveys and water quality sampling in the Bay.
Maryland has also established specialized advisory mechanisms, such as its Oyster Advisory Commission
(who provided peer review to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oyster Restoration
in the Chesapeake Bay),77 to inform its decision-making about certain ocean and coastal resources. Sea
Grant Programs in both states are also a source of science advice.78
Virginia’s Institute of Marine Science also provides a mechanism for ensuring the use of peer-reviewed
science advice in Chesapeake Bay. In 1962, by an act of Virginia’s General Assembly the Institute was
established as an independent institution with governmental advisory roles. Although the Institute
affiliated with the College of William and Mary, the program continues to provide scientific advice to the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. The program is required to:
conduct studies and investigations of the seafood and commercial fishing and sport fishing
industries.
consider ways to conserve, develop, and replenish fisheries resources and advise the Marine
Resources Commission and other agencies and private groups on these matters.
conduct studies of problems pertaining to the other segments of the maritime economy.
conduct studies of marine pollution in cooperation with the State Water Control Board and
the Department of Health and make the data and their recommendations available to the
appropriate agencies.
conduct hydrographic and biological studies of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and all
the tidal waters of the Commonwealth and the contiguous waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
engage in research in the marine sciences.
conduct such special studies and investigations concerning these subjects as requested by
the Governor.
engage in research and provide training, technical assistance and advice to the Board of
Conservation and Recreation on erosion along tidal shoreline, the Soil and Water
Conservation Board on matters relating to tidal shoreline erosion, and to other agencies
upon request.79
Because VIMS receives funding independently of the commonwealth government, the integrity and
76
Annotated Code of Maryland, Natural Resources Article, Sec. 3-403. 77
Information about the MD Oyster Advisory Commission is available at http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/oysters/index.html
and http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0133e.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2010. 78
The websites for each state’s Sea Grant program are at http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/ (Maryland) and
http://www2.vims.edu/seagrant/ (Virginia). Accessed July 21, 2010. 79
Code of Virginia. § 28.2-1100. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
53 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
neutrality of collected data remain intact. Informants also stated that the institute is nimble and
responds to emerging issues using external funding. When the commonwealth requires additional
information, it also relies on experts and consultants.
Incorporation of Science in Management Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:
Chesapeake Bay Program partners developed an adaptive management strategy that incorporates
science into the decision-making process in response to a 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) audit report that outlined a series of recommendations to improve the program’s success
including the use of an adaptive management strategic plan. The program adopted Kaplan and Norton’s
(2008) “Five-stage Model of Adaptive Management.” In addition, the Bay Program Adaptive
Management Task Force developed “13 key indicators for measuring the health of the bay and
categorized these indicators into three indices of bay health” as well as “20 key indicators for measuring
the progress of restoration efforts and categorized these indicators into five indices of restoration
efforts.”80 In a 2008 follow-up report, GAO noted that the use of bay health and restoration indices and
indicators would improve the Chesapeake Bay Program’s ability to monitor the effects of restoration
efforts within the bay and respond to new threats.81
Maryland has adapted a comprehensive land-based mapping assessment to the marine environment.
The Coastal Atlas program focuses on identifying and connecting “hubs” (un-fragmented ecologically
healthy areas) via corridors.82 The Blue Infrastructure project within the program involves extensive
inventories, assessments, and mapping.83 An informant stated that the tool has already supported
additional legislation regarding coastal stabilization. According to a presentation by Maryland coastal
management staff, managers supported the integration of land-based and ocean assessment tools.84
Applications of the Ocean Coastal Atlas include prioritizing sites for renewable energy and coastal
planning specific data.85
In addition, integration of science research into policy decision-making led to the coordinated efforts of
the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission to limit
80
U.S. General Accounting Office. Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps toward more Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, GAO-08-1033T. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 2008. 81
Ibid. 82
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “Green Infrastructure.” 2006. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html. Accessed June 16, 2010. 83
Cortina, Chris, and Catherine McCall. “Restoration and Protection Targeting Tools: Business Not As Usual.” Maryland Chesapeake & Coastal Program. December 2008. 84
Ibid. 85
Ocean Coastal Atlas. http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/coastalatlas/ocean.asp. Accessed June 15, 2010.
54 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
harvest pressure on female blue crabs.86 In response to the harvest limits, the 2009-2010 winter dredge
survey showed promising increases in the current population of blue crabs.87
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input:
The Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee conducts science reviews on
measures to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. For example, in 2008, STAC drafted Climate
Change and the Chesapeake Bay: State-of-the Science Review and Recommendations. The report
reviewed over 300 peer-reviewed sources to synthesize information on the potential effects of climate
change on the Chesapeake Bay system.
The University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) has partnered with the state of
Maryland, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, and the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop the habitat
health Chesapeake Bay Report Card.88 EcoCheck (a UMCES and NOAA partnership) integrates and
synthesizes data on six indicators to measure the overall health of the entire Chesapeake Bay system.
Indicators are grouped by water quality and biotic indices.
Data Management, Sharing, and Products:
All three Chesapeake Bay institutions examined in this case study (CBP and the State of Maryland and
Commonwealth of Virginia) support a combination of web-based data sharing, geospatial information
systems (GIS), monitoring programs, and publications. While many regions support centralized data
management systems, informants supported maintaining decentralized databases with a unified sharing
interface, in the form of a user-friendly website. Informants supported this strategy because data
maintenance and ownership remains with data developers. GIS tools include Virginia’s Ocean Atlas,
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Data Hub89, and Maryland’s Coastal Bays Program.90 Each tool strives to
provide up-to-date information in a useful way through GIS.
As mentioned in the funding section, Maryland’s BayStat and the Chesapeake Bay Program’s
ChesapeakeStat are unique accountability tools, which focus on transparent funding acquisition and use
reporting as well as reporting project success and on the ground restoration efforts.
These data and many more are compiled at Chesapeake Information Management System (CIMS). CIMS
is an “organized, distributed library of information and software tools designed to increase basin-wide
86
Blue Crab Management. http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/Notices/VMRC_2010_Crab_Dredge_Survey_Results.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2010 87
Ibid. 88
Chesapeake Bay Report Card 2009. http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2009/ Accessed June 16, 2010. 89
Chesapeake Bay Program Data Hub. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/dataandtools.aspx. Accessed June 20, 2010. 90
Maryland Coastal Bays Program. http://www.mdcoastalbays.org. Accessed June 20, 2010.
55 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
public access to Chesapeake Bay information.”91
Accessible Information:
All of the institutions described in this case study maintain websites with extensive access to program,
funding, technical, and scientific information. These platforms are described above.
Chesapeake Bay Mechanisms Summary Table:
The table below summarizes the mechanism assessment and key findings or best practices that exist
within the Chesapeake Bay Region and the institutional arrangements in Virginia and Maryland that
related to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Key findings for the Chesapeake Bay Region include strong
management agreements and rapid willingness to respond to the 2005 findings from the U.S.GAO, for
example, developing a strategic framework.92 Virginia’s science advice mechanism is of particular
interest because it relies on the independent legislatively mandated VIMS to conduct and recommend
actions based on science. In Maryland, the BayStat accountability and prioritization tool, the Blue
Infrastructure Nearshore Assessment and Coastal Atlas projects, as well as the legislatively formed
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust are unique approaches for making management decisions
and funding goal-based projects.
91
Chesapeake Information Management System. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/cims/index.htm. Accessed June 20, 2010. 92
U.S. General Accounting Office. Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps toward more Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, GAO-08-1033T. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 2008.
56 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 8: Mechanism Overview Assessment for Chesapeake Bay Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
= Low = Medium = High
Criteria Assessment
Chesapeake
Bay
Assessment
Maryland
Assessment
Virginia
Key Findings & Best Practices
Types of Institutional
Partners
In addition to the state and federal signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreements, the
Chesapeake Bay Program engages a wide array of academics, industry, and non-governmental
organizations.
Legislative Mandate
Long-standing Chesapeake Bay Agreements recently supplemented by Executive Order: 13508 to
clarify the relationships and responsibilities for Bay restoration efforts by federal agencies.
Funding Sources
and Security
Each entity uses federal and state funds to support programs.
MD: In 2008, Maryland’s Legislative Department, through HB23, created the Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust. The Chesapeake Bay Trust collects monies from multiple sources,
public and private.
VA: Commercial and recreational fishing licenses are directed to the VMRC.
Prioritized and
Transparent Funding
Process
CB: ChesapeakeStat communicates information on funding sources and allocations.
MD: Established milestones, use RFPs, and BayStat program greatly upgraded these aspects.
VA: Funding activities based on science priorities. Priorities assessed annually. Use RFP process.
Stakeholder Advice
All three entities have advisory committees, other mechanisms to engage stakeholders.
Community
Engagement,
Education, Outreach
CB: Have goal and objective related to outreach and education and increasing stewardship.
CB/MD/VA: Chesapeake NEMO partners with MD/VA state agencies and CBP to conduct
educational programs, and technical and financial assistance to regional community based
organizations.
Scientific Research
VA: Legislatively mandated VIMS conducts routine monitoring including the annual.
Region has had strong scientific resources and capacity for decades.
Science Advice
VA: Independent Legislatively mandated VIMS is unique to VA.
57 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
= Low = Medium = High
Criteria Assessment
Chesapeake
Bay
Assessment
Maryland
Assessment
Virginia
Key Findings & Best Practices
Incorporation Science in
Decision-making and
Adaptive Management
MD: -Coastal Atlas and Blue Infrastructure Initiative has led to policy changes for coastal
stabilization.
Scientific Synthesis for
Policy Input
CB: STAC develops reports to inform Executive Council of CBP using existing data sources.
VA: VMRC can draw upon science experts to provide information relevant to decision-making.
MD: University of Maryland synthesizes water quality information to develop the Chesapeake Bay
Report Card.
Data Management/
Sharing/Products VA: Bring in experts to discuss in-depth information on key issues.
CB / MD: ChesapeakeStat and BayStat are excellent portals for data and information access.
Accessible Information
CB: Five stage adaptive management framework easily accessible on website.
58 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Chesapeake Bay Objective Assessment:
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds:
Our analysis demonstrates that the multiple institutions found within the Chesapeake Bay region and
Virginia and Maryland are highly capable when it comes to the ability to receive and distribute funds
within the institutions of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program coordinates multiple
sectors and jurisdictions to aid in funding restoration and management programs within the region. An
annual appropriation of $20-35 million from Congress is allocated to the CBP subsequently redistributed
to the Chesapeake Bay state agencies for restoration projects and monitoring programs in alignment
with CBPs goals. The CBP also may receive special grants acquired in collaboration with the U.S. EPA.
These special grants allow the CBP to be more nimble and flexible in their granting. Both Virginia and
Maryland allocate money towards the goals of the CBP.
Maryland’s notable mechanisms for distributing funds to projects include the Chesapeake and Atlantic
Coastal Bays Trust Fund and the Chesapeake Bay Trust. Similarly, Virginia has distributed funds
collected from specialty license funds to restoration projects through the Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Fund.
Neutrality and Trust:
All three institutions described in this section—the Chesapeake Bay Program and the State of Maryland
and Commonwealth of Virginia—utilize the Chesapeake 2000 agreement to help direct their activities in
the Bay. These states and organization have committed themselves to align their projects towards the
goals outlined in the agreement.
The Chesapeake Bay Program relies on input from three advisory committees representing local
communities, local government, and science. These advisory councils and their individual members are
actively involved in providing advice to the Executive Council, Management Board, and six Goal
Implementation Teams. The advisory committees are described in greater detail above.
Flexibility and Adaptability:
Informants had mixed opinions on the level of flexibility of the institutions in the Chesapeake. Overall,
lack of funding and staffing capacity most limited these institutions ability to act adaptively and nimbly.
The partners of the CBP have identified that flexibility and adaptability should be a priority when
conducting resource management. The CBP reviewed multiple adaptive management models and
determined that the program had aspects of adaptive management integrated into their management
however, there was not a cohesive strategy to act as a guide. CBP took aspects of a model developed by
59 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Kaplan and Norton (2008)93 and adapted it to fit its own purpose.
Within Virginia, VIMS provides a vehicle for the state to act nimbly and explore emerging issues facing
the region. VIMS and the Virginia natural resource agencies are able to work collaboratively to identify
information needs for decision-making.
Virginia and Maryland annually apply to for funding through the Coastal Zone Management Act. Within
their proposals, the states are able to apply for CZMA Section 309 “enhancement grants” funding which
can be used to address any emerging issues.
Transparency:
There is high transparency for the states and organizations described in this section. Currently, there
are multiple web-based tools available for the general public to review progress and funding details.
BayStat and ChesapeakeStat provide extensive data on the performance to-date of, respectively,
Maryland and the CBP towards achieving their goals. Visitors to the site can view tables and charts
visually displaying the percent of the goal achieved, level of funds being directed to achieving those
goals, and relevant indicators demonstrating progress. In addition, the general public can review the
investment by federal, state, and non-governmental organizations towards achieving the goals of the
Bay Program.
In collaboration with multiple state and federal agencies and academic institutions, Maryland also
produces an annual report card on the health of the Bay using multiple evaluation indicators.
Informants from Virginia frequently spoke of transparency within state institutions. Public involvement
in decision-making is done through public meetings and public record. Informants also spoke of the
need for increased transparency when receiving federal allocations. Reporting requirements from
agencies like NOAA obligate state agencies to report on progress.
Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers:
Solicitation of science advice occurs frequently within the CBP, Virginia, and Maryland. At the core of
science-based decision-making within the region is the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC) of the CBP. This committee integrates science information to be shared with the CBP, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, and other decision-makers.
93
Kaplan and Morton, 2008. Mastering the Management System. Harvard Business Review. Pp 63-77.
60 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Administrative Costs:
As noted above, the ChesapeakeStat tool ensures funding information is not only transparent, but
allows the public to explore the administrative costs associated with regional programs. In 2009 for
example, the entire region utilized $29,832,757 for enhancing partnering leadership and management.94
In 2009, Maryland and Virginia allocated $2,823,527 and $ 19,471,323 respectively for enhancing
partnering leadership and management. The Chesapeake Bay program’s annual report show that
administrative costs range between 15-20percent of their total program costs.
Informants listed lack of funding to afford staff as one concern. In addition, one informant supported
creating a flexible and adaptable program framework allowing management programs to adapt staff and
capacity according to program needs. In adopting a flexible program framework could limit
institutionalization of obsolete staff positions.
Chesapeake Bay Objective Assessment Summary Table the:
The table below summarizes the assessment score and key findings or best practices that exist within
the Chesapeake Bay Region. The ChesapeakeStat program is particularly strong transparency
mechanism. Maryland’s ocean atlas facilitates science-based decision-making and Virginia’s
independent science advisor, VIMS, provides trustworthy and neutral science because the institute is
independent from the overarching management program.
94
Chesapeake Bay Program Funding. http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/3&goal=Enhance Partnering Leadership %26 Management&topic=. Accessed June 20, 2010.
61 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 9: Objective Assessment of Chesapeake Bay Institutions Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
Criteria Assessment
Chesapeake Bay
Assessment
Maryland
Assessment
Virginia
Key Findings & Best Practices
Ability to Receive
and Distribute Funds
from Various
Sources
CB: Annual appropriations from congress are allocated to the CBP, which
is able to distribute it to aligned projects.
All: Chesapeake Bay Trust [501 (c) (3) receives funds from state, federal, and private sources for projects across the Bay region. MD: Set up new Chesapeake and Atlantic Bays Trust to be able to target
funds to scientifically prioritized nutrient reduction projects.
Neutrality and Trust
CB: CBP has extensive partnership with over 50 partners across multiple
sectors. Include local governments, scientists, and communities in
decision-making process.
MD: BayStat program implemented to improve accountability, influenced
CBP to set up ChesapeakeStat.
VA: Decisions rely on identified strategic focal areas.
Flexibility and
Adaptability
CPB: The CBP was designed to be nimble and has broad goals to allow for
flexibility in approach.
VA: VIMS is able to focus on emerging issues because funding sources are
diverse.
Transparency
All: ChesapeakeStat was launched in June 2010 to display data on
funding and performance. Public meetings and disclosure of budgets
exist. BayStat program implemented to improve transparency for MD CB
activities.
CB: CBP has established a Citizens Advisory Council.
Objective and
Trusted Science for
Decision-making
VA: Use of the independently funded VIMS promotes neutral and
trustworthy science.
CB: Improved reporting system after previous modeling data were show
to incorrectly report water quality improvements.
Administrative Costs Approximately 15-20 percent of Chesapeake Bay Program budget allocated for administrative costs.
= Low = Medium = High
62 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Important Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay: Key lessons shared with the Consulting Team include:
Legislative Mandate: Strong support existed for an independent legislatively mandated body
to support research and recommend science-based management priorities in the face of
massive environmental degradation with widespread economic impacts.
Strategic Planning: Clearly articulated collective goals and objectives can guide multiple
agencies across jurisdictional boundaries.
Science Informing Strategic Planning: Utilize best-available data sources, including original
data and model projections, to inform strategic planning.
Tools for Increasing Transparency: Financial and decision-making transparency has been
improved through use of accurate reporting tools such as BayStat/ChesapeakeStat tools.
Data Management: Decentralized data management systems are more efficient and
preferable to one centralized database because each data owner can manage and update
their own information.
Funding Mechanisms: Nonprofit, independent funding mechanism aligned with state goals
can increase flexibility and opportunities for accessing multiple funding sources (e.g.,
Chesapeake and Coastal Bays Trust, Chesapeake Bay Trust).
Federal Partnerships: Increased funds may be accessed for marine resource management
needs through close partnership with federal agencies.
Involving the Community: Having advisory councils representing local communities, local
governments, and science experts can increases transparency, such as the CBP’s Citizen
Advisory Councils and the VMRC’s Advisory Committees.
CASE STUDY 3: GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK (AUSTRALIA/QUEENSLAND) This section reviews the institutional arrangements of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority (GBRMPA or the Authority). This institution, which has been in place for over thirty years,
serves as an international model for coastal and ocean area-based management. The Great Barrier
Marine Park Act 1975 created GBRMPA and provides a strong mandate for collaboration across state
and Commonwealth jurisdictions, engagement of local stakeholders in decision-making, integration, and
63 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
promotion of science, and inclusion of traditional users. To increase relevance to NRTF and its
exploration of institutional arrangements, we focus on the context of the Authority and its key
institutional partners.
General Overview of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:
The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most complex, rich, and diverse ecosystems in the world. The Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park stretches more than 1400 miles along the north-east coast of Australia. The
main objective of the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975 is to provide “long-term protection and
conservation of the environment, biodiversity, and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region.”95
Object 3.b of the Act established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a statutory authority
responsible for management of the Marine Park. GBRMPA is charged with maintaining “the long-term
protection, ecologically sustainable use, understanding, and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef for all
Australians and the international community, through the care and development of the Marine Park.”96
GBRMPA governs the Park based on a framework set out by the legislative requirements of the Great
Barrier Marine Park Act 1975, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Public
Services Act 1999, the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (between the governments of
the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland), and various Memoranda of Understanding. GBRMPA
develops policy and regulates the various activities within the Park that include tourism, fishing,
recreation, shipping, aquaculture, and dredging.97 GBRMPA established three high-level objectives to
guide the strategies and progress of the organization:
1) address key risks affecting the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef;
2) ensure that management delivers ecologically sustainable use of the Great Barrier Reef; and
3) maintain a high performing, effective and efficient organization.98
Mandated by law, GBRMPA is the “principal advisor” to the Australian Government and resource
managers on the management and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. Specific activities it is
authorized to carry out include:
develop and implement zoning and management plans;
conduct environmental impact assessments and review and issue use permits;
conduct and facilitate research, monitoring, and interpretation of data; and
provide information, educational services, and marine environmental management advice.99
95
Commonwealth of Australia. Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975. 96
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Corporate Plan 2010-2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 97
Ibid. 98
Ibid.
64 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
The Public Services Act 1999100 requires GBRMPA to lay out a strategy to provide services and assistance
to the general public and stakeholder groups. The high-level services associated with this legislation
include:
assessment and issuance of permits to undertake commercial activities in the Marine Park;
advice and assistance, both nationally and internationally, on marine environmental
management;
provision of information and educational resources related to the Reef; and
operation of the Reef HQ Aquarium, the education center for the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park.101
Great Barrier Reef region co-management (Commonwealth and State) began in 1979 with a formal
agreement.102 In 2009, another inter-governmental agreement affirmed Queensland’s role in joint-
management (referred to as the Joint Field Management Program) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park. The Australian Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier (governor) signed the Great Barrier
Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in 2009. The agreement outlines roles, a jurisdictional
framework, and objectives and principles for collaboration relating to the management and
conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. The agreement commits both governments to:
prohibit oil and mineral exploration and recovery;
maintain complementary management frameworks, such as zoning plans and
environmental assessment and permit requirements;
continue a Commonwealth/Queensland Ministerial Council to facilitate implementation and
achievement of the objectives of this agreement;
continue a joint program of field management, with 50:50 cost-sharing;
continue joint action to halt and reverse the decline in quality of water entering the Great
Barrier Reef;
continue joint action to maximize the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change;
99
Ibid. 100
Commonwealth of Australia. Public Services Act 1999. No. 147 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/psa1999152. Accessed June 20, 2010. 101
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Corporate Plan 2010-2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 102
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T.P. Hughes. 2008. “Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:9489–9494
65 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
address significant threats to the health and biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef
ecosystem, including pollution from the land and sea, the impacts of climate change,
ecologically unsustainable fishing activities, and other resource extraction activities;
periodically review the condition of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and any need for
further action;
ensure that indigenous traditional cultural practices continue to be recognized in the
conservation and management of the Great Barrier Reef.103
Principal Institutions and Relationships in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:
Multiple entities are responsible for policy and management of the Great Barrier Reef; however, there is
extensive collaboration across these groups. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which acts
as the administrator of the Marine Park, is part of the federal Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage, and the Arts. The Authority has a Board comprised of four part-time members selected by the
Australian Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage, and the Arts and a full-time Chairman of the
Board, who also serves as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).104 In addition to a governing Board
overseeing the organization, there is also the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. The Ministerial
Council is a government mandated council separate of GBRMPA that is comprised of four Ministers two
from the Commonwealth and two from Queensland’s government. The Council interacts closely with
the GBRMPA to coordinate high-level policy for the Great Barrier Reef. The Council’s role is strategic in
that it facilitates and oversees the implementation and achievement of the objectives of the Great
Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement. The GBRMPA Board, as is required by the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Act 1975, advises the Ministerial Council.105
Reporting to the GBRMPA Board and Chairman/CEO are two executive directors who manage the
Authority’s five key programs: Climate Change; Conservation, Heritage and Indigenous Partnerships;
Tourism and Recreation; Fisheries; and Water Quality and Coastal Development. The executive
directors also manage staff to implement the Authority’s main activities—communication and
education; science, technology, and information; program delivery; community partnerships; corporate
services; day-to-day management; and coordinating the Outlook Report Task Force.
GBRMPA has been very successful in integrating external experts and stakeholders into the
organizational structure. Currently, four Reef Advisory Committees (RACs) exist to advise four out of the
103
The Commonwealth of Australia and The State of Queensland. “Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement.” June 2009. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/pubs/gbr-agreement-2009.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 104
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Commonwealth Government Agencies.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. June 15, 2010. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/who_participates/commonwealth_government_agencies 105
Commonwealth of Australia. Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975.
66 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
five main programs of the Authority.106 The Authority Board appoints and receives reports from the RAC
members. Members are experts in fields related to each of the program areas. Also providing
stakeholder advice are the Local Marine Advisory Committees (LMACs), representing eleven Queensland
coastal communities. These committees advise on local level management issues. More details about
the RACs and LMACs are listed below under “Stakeholder Advice” and “Science Advice.”
Multiple Commonwealth level agencies coordinate with GBRMPA to manage the Marine Park. GBRMPA,
a division of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts provides annual reporting to
the Minister of the Environment, Heritage, and Arts. Other Commonwealth agencies collaborating
closely with GBRMPA include:
Australia Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA): Responsible for managing shipping activities
within the Marine Park.
Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs): Work with the Authority to develop and
maintain ongoing partnerships and planning with indigenous groups.
Australia Customs Service: Coastwatch conducts patrols on behalf of government agencies.
As outlined in the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), Queensland is involved in the
management of the Great Barrier Marine Park. Through multiple agreements and MOUs, Queensland
and Australia have clearly delineated management jurisdictions and responsibilities. The Authority
coordinates most closely with two Queensland agencies; Queensland Park and Wildlife Service (QPWS)
and Queensland Fisheries Management Authority (QFMA).
The Authority charges the QPWS with the day-to-day management of the Park. Both agencies equally
divide the cost of management between them. QPWS is also responsible for surveillance, monitoring
and enforcement, resource management, and issuing permits for commercial collecting, education
programs, and moorings. QFMA, working closely with GBRMPA, manages fishing activities located
within the Marine Park. Both agencies work collectively to develop management plans and conduct
joint research projects, integrated natural resource management, stock assessments, and planning.
QFMA also enforces illegal fishing regulations. GBRMPA also coordinates with the:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries (QDPI&F): Enforcement of special
Dugong Protection Areas (DPAs).
Queensland Department of Transport (QDoT): Oil spill response agency.
Queensland Department of Natural Resources (QDNR): Information exchange on land-based
activities.
106
The Climate Change program does not currently have a Reef Advisory Council.
67 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
GBRMPA also has a close relationship with several government-affiliated and academic research
institutions that provide information to inform decision-making. The IGA supports coordinated
monitoring efforts under the Joint Field Management Program through a number of institutions.
Description and Analysis of Mechanisms:
In this section, we highlight key findings and best practices from the Great Barrier Reef Region. The
Great Barrier Reef region’s management strategy is a long-standing example of best practices for
community supported, science-based ocean and coastal management. Below, we examine the Great
Barrier Reef Management in the context of the Queensland and Commonwealths’ joint approach to
addressing each of the twelve mechanism criteria.
Types of Institutional Partners: Institutional partners include government agencies (commonwealth and state), research collaborations
(educational institutions and industry partners), and community members. As stated above, the QPWS
and the QFMA are particularly important to the management of the Park and the IGA directs the
responsibilities between the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth.
Research Centres and Education Institutions (please note that each of the following will be described in
more detail under the science sections of the assessment):
Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF): managed by the Reef and
Rainforest Research Centre: Focuses on research and solutions for the Great Barrier Reef
and its catchments, tropical rainforests including the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and
Torres Strait;107
Australia Institute of Marine Science (AIMS): Focuses on tropical marine research and long-
term monitoring generally, a satellite at James Cook University (AIMS@JCU) focuses on
three themes: tropical aquaculture, stress in tropical marine systems, coastal processes, and
modeling. Statutory authority established AIMS under the Australian Institute of Marine
Science Act 1972. The purpose of the institute is to ensure that Australia is meeting the
challenges facing marine ecosystems and stakeholder needs.108
James Cook University(JCU): Participates as a member of AIMS@JCU, MTSRF, the Australian
Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC Coral Reef), and the
Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO);
107
Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF). http://www.rrrc.org.au/mtsrf/index.html. Accessed June 20, 2010. 108
Australia Institute of Marine Science. “08-09 Annual Report.” Townsville: Australia Institute of Marine Science, 2009. . http://www.aims.gov.au/source/publications/pdf/ar20082009.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.
68 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC Coral Reef):
Partners with educational institutions, GBRMPA, Commonwealth and State government,
international institutions and companies, foundations, and NGOs ; and
Centre for Marine Studies, at the University of Queensland (CMS): Addresses a wide range
of marine science concerns109 including marine biology and biodiscovery,110 coastal plant
communities, aquaculture, and aquatic animal health.
Key Australian Commonwealth and State Departments:
Please see the discussion above under “Principal Institutions and Relationships”
Community Partnerships:
In addition to the Reef Advisory Councils’ and Local Marine Advisory Committees’ participation in
planning and management described earlier, there is an Indigenous Partnerships Liaison Unit111 at the
GBRMPA. The Unit was established in 1995 to provide timely and accurate advice to the GBRMPA and
to stakeholders on indigenous issues and cooperative management arrangements in the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park.
GRBMPA also partners with industry. For example, the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators
(AMPTO) is a nonprofit trade association and the key industry body for marine tourism within the Park.
AMPTO works closely with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to continually monitor and
improve management of the reef.
Legislative Mandate: As mentioned above the two most important pieces of legislation governing the Great Barrier Reef
region are the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975, as amended, as well as the Great Barrier Reef
Intergovernmental Agreement in 2009. The Act established the GBR Marine Park and GBRMPA. In
addition, the IGA outlines the management relationship between the Commonwealth and the
Queensland governments.
109
Centre for Marine Studies, at University of Queensland “is mandated to assist in the integration, collaboration, and development of research and educational programs related to, or involving, marine science.” More information can be found at the program’s website: http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=52423. Accessed June 20, 2010. 110
Biodiscovery is another term for bioprospecting. Biodiscovery activities are regulated under the Biodiscovery Act 2004. 111
Indigenous Partnerships Liaison Unit http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships Accessed June 20, 2010.
69 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Funding Sources and Security:112 Commonwealth and State Funding:
The Australian and Queensland Governments together spend approximately $US 100 million annually on
research and management activities in the Great Barrier Reef.113 The institutions responsible for day-to-
day management of the Great Barrier Reef split funding responsibilities evenly. The overall cost of
managing GBRMPA for 2008-2009 was $US 39 million.114 Forty-seven percent ($US 25 million) of the
total income is sourced from Commonwealth appropriations within the Annual Budget of the
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. GBRMPA also received special
appropriations from the Commonwealth, which together with the revenue obtained from a user fee
program, called the Environmental Management Charge, accounted for 17 percent of the overall annual
income of the program. Queensland allocated $US 14 million, a portion of which represented the 50:50
match with the Commonwealth for day-to-day management costs as mandated in the Great Barrier Reef
Intergovernmental Agreement. Revenue from the GBRMPA-managed aquarium, Reef HQ, contributed
eight percent to the annual revenue for FY 2008-2009. See Figure 2 below for a depiction of how
revenue in FY 2008-2009 was spent.
Figure 2: Annual Revenue for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
112
All amounts listed are in Australian Dollars unless otherwise stated. 113
Based on text from http://svc65.wic904d.server-web.com/Whoweare/Wherewefit.aspx as of July 23. 2010. 114
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Annual Report 2008-2009. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010.
32%
36%
15%
11%
6%
GBRMPA: FY 2008-2009 Revenue
Special Appropriations/ EMC
Queensland Government
Related Entitiy
Reef HQ
Other
70 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Research and Monitoring Funding:
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies115 (ARC Coral Reef): a collective
of researchers and institutions that also acts as a research funding source. ARC Coral Reef was seed
funded in 2005 with federal funds under the Australian Research Council. Its 2009 budget was
approximately $US 7 million. ARC Coral Reef takes a leading role in multi-national research programs. It
is the largest single institutional contributor to the Global Coral Reef Targeted Research Program,
funded by the World Bank, and is an institutional member of the Resilience Alliance. ARC Coral Reef has
strong links to the Census of Marine Life project, and to coral reef management agencies worldwide in
addition to its close relationship with GBRMPA.
Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs): Two reef-focused CRCs were an important source of funding for
reef research and laid the groundwork for long-term successor entities. Background on Australia’s CRC
program is needed to understand this unique program among the case studies chosen. CRCs are
limited-duration entities that exist to provide “funding to build critical mass in research ventures
between end-users and researchers which tackle clearly-articulated, major challenges for the end-
users.”116 A CRC is a “collaboration of partnerships between publicly funded researchers and end users”
and can be an “incorporated or unincorporated organization.”117 In addition, “CRCs must comprise at
least one Australian end-user (either from the private, public, or community sector) and one Australian
higher education institution (or research institute affiliated with a university).”118 At this time, there are
48 CRCs operating under six broad categories: Manufacturing Technology, Information and
Communication Technology, Mining and Energy, Agriculture and Rural-based Manufacturing,
Environment, and Medical Science and Technology.119
From 1993-1999 the CRC for Ecologically Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef focused on
sustainable multi-use of the Great Barrier Reef Region and had the following core participants: James
Cook University, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Queensland Department of Primary Industries
and Fisheries, Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, Ltd., and the Great Barrier Reef Marine
115
ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies website: http://www.coralcoe.org.au/. Accessed June 20, 2010. 116
Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “Welcome to the CRC Program.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/default.aspx. Accessed June 20, 2010. 117
Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “The Program.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. https://www.crc.gov.au/Information/ShowInformation.aspx?Doc=about_programme&key=bulletin-board-programme&Heading=The Program. Accessed June 20, 2010. 118
Ibid. 119
Ibid.
71 | P a g e
Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Park Authority.120 From 1999-2006, a successor CRC for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
(later named the CRC Reef Research Center, Ltd.) continued the work from the previous reef based CRC
and counted as core participants the five institutions named above, and in addition the following:
Australian Fisheries Management Authority;
Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization;
Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation;
National Oceans Office;
Queensland Commercial Fisherman’s State Council;
Queensland Seafood Industry Association, Inc.;
Sunfish Queensland; and
Torres Strait Regional Authority.121
Both CRC programs resided at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland. After the second round
of funding ended, the CRC Reef Research Center, Ltd. merged with the Rainforest CRC to form the
Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, discussed further below (see Box 2 on CRC Coral Reef).
The Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF): Founded in 2006 as the successor to the
CRCs described above, is the recipient of considerable funding from the Commonwealth to support
research conducted in the Marine Park. The Australian Government invested $US 35 million in MTSRF
for a four year period.122 In 2010 the MTSRF obtained a renewed commitment from the Commonwealth
of approximately $US 17 million per year towards environmental research to “understand, manage, and
conserve Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of world-class research
and its delivery to Australia environmental decision-makers and other stakeholders.”123
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation: Supports research projects which might be missing from current
programs in areas in which government and other investors either cannot or will not invest. As a
nonprofit charity, it focuses on raising funds from industry and individual donors.
Queensland State government: support for research is channeled through the state’s Department of
Environment and Resource Management and Queensland Fisheries Management Authority.
120
Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “Environment Sector History.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. https://www.crc.gov.au/HTMLDocuments/Documents/PDF/Environ_Sector_HIST_color.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 121
Ibid. 122
Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. “Home Page.” Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/programs/cerf/marine-tropical.html. Accessed June 20, 2010. 123
Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities. “Home Page.” Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/programs/cerf/index.html. Accessed June 20, 2010.
72 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Typically, these five funders support research and monitoring conducted by the Australia Institute of
Marine Science and James Cook University and some of the Queensland government agencies.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process: To ensure that funding decisions are transparent and prioritized, GBRMPA uses five-yearly Scientific
Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park reports to prioritize
projects and resources for research as well as the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report issued on the same
schedule. More details about the science needs report are found below in the discussion of
“Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management.” In accordance with the
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Intergovernmental Agreement, annually the
joint Commonwealth/Queensland Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council reports to the Prime Minister
and the Premier of Queensland. Third-party audits further ensure accurate reporting and management.
Stakeholder Advice: GBRMPA incorporates stakeholder concerns at all management levels through its Board and
committees. The GBRMPA Board includes two stakeholder members who represent indigenous and
tourism interests respectively.
Advisory committees inform and engage stakeholders in the process of developing policy and managing
the Great Barrier Reef. GBRMPA’s two principal types of advisory committees are the Reef Advisory
Committees (RACs) and the Local Marine Advisory Committees (LMACs). Both the RAC and LMAC have
staff support from GBRMPA to organize, participate, and coordinate committee meetings, activities, and
input.
RACs are “competency-based committees comprising a cross-section of stakeholder interests with
expertise and experience in relevant areas.”124 One informant stated that “this is to ensure that policy
development and strategic direction are developed in consultation with stakeholders.” RAC members
are appointed for their individual expertise or as a representative of a particular group, sector, or
government agency. All RAC members are expected to adopt a broad perspective on GBRMPA issues.
LMACs operate in regional centers along the coast of Queensland and address localized marine and
coastal issues affecting Marine Park stakeholders. The LMACs are a forum to both inform the public and
124
Ibid. and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Organizational Chart-Advisory Group Structure.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/22059/ce1307_advisory_structure_07.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.
73 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
support user group and local community communication. LMACs committee membership strives to
balance local interests, is voluntary, and requires a three-year commitment.125
GBRMPA’s Indigenous Partnerships Liaison Unit focuses on four key programs126:
sustainable traditional use of marine resources;
cultural and heritage values and cooperative arrangements for sea country management;
sea country research and education; and
indigenous participation in tourism and its management.
In addition to working with all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional Owner groups along the
Great Barrier Reef, the Unit also consults with other government authorities through regular
presentations and information sessions to the tourism industry, the fishing industry, and conservation
groups in order to build a greater understanding of Traditional Owner issues within Marine Park
management.
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach: GBRMPA invests in education and communications. GBRMPA’s communications officer developed a
“reef under pressure” campaign during the most recent rezoning process to communicate the threats to
the reef and needs for protection to ensure health of the system.127 An important community education
and stewardship program is the Reef Guardian program.128 Reef Guardian began with Reef Guardian
Schools (RGS). More than 150 schools have pledged their involvement in the RGS. RGS is an “action-
based school participation program” that involves “students, teachers, and the community in
environmental initiatives."129 The RGS curricula uses internal and external student participation in reef
protection activities including “energy audits, creating worm farms, compositing, growing their own fruit
and vegetables, and taking part in local clean ups.”130 In return, participating schools are recognized as
environmental leaders.
The RGS program’s success led to two new programs: Sea Country Guardians (SCG) and Reef Guardian
Councils (RGC). The SCG expands the RGS program and focuses on working with indigenous
125
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Local marine Advisory Committees.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/who_participates/lmac. Accessed June 20, 2010. 126
Indigenous Partnership Liaison Unit. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/indigenous_partnerships. Accessed June 20, 2010. 127
Olsson, P., C. Folk, and T.P. Hughes. 2008. “Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:9489–9494. 128
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Corporate Plan 2010-2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 129
Ibid. 130
Ibid.
74 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
communities and youth to foster stewardship through creative activities.131 Implementation of the SCG
is ongoing. The RGC aims to “raise awareness and encourage best management practice in local
government activities, while recognizing that effective protection and management of the Great Barrier
Reef requires partnerships at all levels of government, industry, and the community.”132 Because poor
water quality is a key threat to the health of the GBR, the RGC program works as a cooperative effort to
address pollution concerns and management. In order to address these concerns, each RGC creates
action plans to address the issues of water management, waste management, land management, and
community engagement.
In addition to the Reef Guardian programs, the GBRMP uses newsletters, fact sheets, and the Eye on the
Reef Monitoring Program to support community education and engagement. Eye on the Reef seeks to
deliver science information to the tourism industry, improve understating about the reef in general, and
monitor popular tourism destinations for reef health changes.133 In addition, the joint field management
program also uses interpretation projects to educate the public and promote stewardship throughout
the reef region.
GBRMPA is also responsible for the management of the Reef HQ Aquarium in Townsville, Queensland.
The Aquarium provides an opportunity for the general public and visitors to the region to learn about
the Great Barrier Reef and the threats facing the system.
Scientific Research: Australia has breadth and depth in marine research. They are a worldwide leader in coral reef and
fisheries science and management. As listed above there are a number of researcher and monitoring
providers, including some state agencies.
Australia Institute of Marine Science “surveys and documents marine life from microbes to whole-of-
ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them; monitors changes and identifies trends in the marine
environment; and develops molecular tools and ocean technologies.” AIMS employs approximately 200
people (support staff and researchers). A major project relevant to the GBR region is the GBRMPA Long
Term Monitoring Program (LTMP), which surveys the health of 47 reefs in the Great Barrier Reef
(ongoing since 1993).134
131
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Sea Country Guardians.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/education/sea_country_guardians. Accessed June 20, 2010. 132
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Reef Guardian Councils Programme.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/reef_guardian_councils. Accessed June 20, 2010. 133
Eye on the Reef. “Program Information.” Eye on the Reef. http://www.eyeonthereef.com.au/program-info/index.cfm. Accessed June 20, 2010. 134
Australia Institute of Marine Science. “Reef Monitoring.” Australia Institute of Marine Science. http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html. Accessed June 20, 2010.
75 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Australia Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC Coral Reef) contributes in a
variety of ways to the research and advice GBRMPA uses including research focused on policy
development, institutions, and governance of coral reefs.135 Like AIMS, ARC Coral Reef is located at
James Cook University and is linked to the university’s program. The ARC Coral Reef Studies 2009
Annual Report states the following programmatic targets:
research;
research training and professional education;
end-user and community linkages;
national and international linkages;
management and governance; and
commercial activities.
ARC Coral Reef’s Science Management Committee (SMC)136 plans for the Centre's scientific research
program.137 SMC reviews and expands the objectives and operations for the research programs,
develops collaborations, recruits postdoctoral fellows, plans professional development programs, and
looks at ARC’s communication strategy and process to engage end-users.138 Examples of research
conducted in 2009 included findings from monitoring long-term influence of ocean acidification on reefs
and a review and synthesis of information about biological connectivity among reefs in marine reserves.
James Cook University (JCU) and the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland (CMS)
contribute a wide variety of data to the management of the GBRMPA and collaborate with all the other
marine science organizations identified in this case study.
The Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility carries out theme-based research in five areas:
status of ecosystems, risks and threats to ecosystems, halting and reversing the decline of water quality,
sustainable use and management of natural resources, and enhancing delivery of relevant synthesized
scientific information to targeted end users.139
135
ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies. “Research.” ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies. http://www.coralcoe.org.au/research.html. Accessed June 20, 2010. 136
Members include Professor Yossi Loya (chair), the leaders of ARC Coral Reef’s eight Research Programs, and the Director of the Knowledge Management Group from GBRMPA. 137
ARC Coral Reef Studies 2008-2009 Annual Report. http://www.coralcoe.org.au/annualreport09.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010. 138
Ibid. 139
Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. “Structure of the MTSRF Research Programme.” Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. . http://www.rrrc.org.au/mtsrf/programme_structure.html. Accessed June 17, 2010.
76 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Box 2: Cooperative Research Centres and Collaborative Approach
The Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme is an initiative of the Australian government designed to
bring together researchers and research-users. CRCs are established through a competitive selection process that
focuses on whether the proposed center will benefit Australia’s economy or environment. The program also
emphasizes the training of graduate students who will then pursue careers in industry. CRC Reef Research Centre
(CRC Reef) was established in 1993 to provide research solutions designed to mitigate threats to the world’s coral
reefs, with a particular focus on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. After the second round of funding
expired in 2006, the center merged with the Rainforest CRC to form the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research
Facility, located at James Cook University in Cairns and Townsville.
CRC Reef’s work was structured to ensure that research products were useful to industry partners. CRC Reef’s
strategic direction, although not the specific research agenda, was determined by the board of directors, which
was composed of representatives from partner organizations who had contributed matching funds. Participants
included representatives from industry as well as academic and public institutions. A Scientific Advisory
Committee was also established to provide the board with technical advice.
The CRC Reef’s research focused on six different areas:
Conserving World Heritage Values
Sustainable Industries
Maintaining Ecosystem Quality
Healthy Country Health Reef
Reef Futures
Torres Strait
Each of these research programs was divided into projects, which were then divided further into research tasks.
Each program, project, and task was led by a scientist from one of the participating institutions. Each task was
also assigned a “task associate,” an industry or management partner who assisted in developing research
objectives, maintaining research focus, and communicating research results and recommendations to industry and
management agencies. To ensure effective collaboration, funds were released to researchers only after the task
associate signed off on the research and progress reports.
CRC Reef provided an effective mechanism to generate monitoring data that was collected consistently over the
center’s entire lifespan. The Australian Institute for Marine Science, a CRC partner, hosted a centralized data
center for research findings, making it easy to study long-term trends. To ensure that CRC-funded research was
readily available to users, CRC Reef retained ownership of all intellectual property that was produced; however,
researchers were actively encouraged to publish their findings. In addition, one of the outcomes for most projects
was the production of a technical report that summarized research findings at a level appropriate for industry and
management partners.
77 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Science Advice:
140
See www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/finalsynthesis/Making-a-difference_72dpi.pdf; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003, available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/10591/Zoning_Plan.pdf. 141
Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. “Who.” Innovation Industry, Science and Research: Cooperative Research Centres. http://www.reef.crc.org.au/about/who.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.
Policy and management outcomes resulting from CRC’s efforts are documented in a recent report entitled World
Heritage Research: Making a Difference CRC Reef: Research, Education and Capacity Building 1999-2006.140
The
CRC is a model for integrated end-user driven research. Dozens of policy and management changes and solutions
result from each CRC focused research area. Taking one line of research as an example, the CRC Reef contributed
to better understanding of the threatened dugong, including its life history, population estimates, and special
habitat requirements. In turn, this knowledge led to a number of policy and management changes by both the
Commonwealth and Queensland governments including:
Declaration of Dugong Protection Areas in both Commonwealth and State waters, which include the
removal of net fishing from some significant dugong habitat.
Inclusion of key dugong habitat in 'no-take' and limited fishing zones of the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Zoning Plan 2003.
Introduction of voluntary vessel lanes and/or speed restrictions to protect dugongs from vessel strikes in
prime dugong habitat (e.g., Hinchinbrook Island).
Development of mutually acceptable legal agreements with traditional owners for the management of
traditional hunting in local areas.
Replacement of shark nets with drumlines at most locations where bather safety is an issue.
A review of the use of herbicide, which has been detected in both dugong tissues and the sediments
associated with seagrass beds.
Organization of a collaborative marine wildlife carcass salvage program.
Provision of evidence to the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council about indigenous harvest
of dugongs in the northern GBR and Torres Strait, that led to the establishment of the national
partnership approach to the harvest of marine turtles and dugongs in Australia in 2005.
The CRC Reef Board used a Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), who provided technical and scientific advice via
“the CEO and Task Review Committee on the research and technology transfer aspects of CRC Reef’s
programs.”141
Core Participants: Each participant contributed funds annually to the federal match requirement
Industry: Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators Limited; Queensland Seafood Industry
Association; SUNFISH Queensland Inc.
University: James Cook University.
Commonwealth: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; Australian Institute of Marine Science.
State: Queensland Department of Primary Industries.
Other: Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation.
(excerpt from TCHA 2007 White Paper Integrating Science into Coastal and Ocean Policy and Management:
Barriers and Solutions)
78 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Both GBRMPA and the joint Commonwealth/Queensland Field Management Program obtain science advice from Reef Advisory Committees and the multitude of science partners described above: the Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, the University of Queensland Centre for Marine Studies, and others. The GBRMPA Science Coordination Group is responsible for linking research and information about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the policy and management decision-making processes. Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management: Thirty years after the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Commonwealth
appointed a panel to review the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and to recommend actions to
set out a clear direction for future management of the park and “continued protection for marine life
and biodiversity, as well as for ongoing sustainable economic and recreational activity and engagement
with business and local communities.”142 A key recommendation from the report called for “a regular
and reliable means of assessing performance in the long-term protection of the Marine Park in an
accountable and transparent manner” and led to the publication of the first Great Barrier Reef Outlook
Report 2009 (or Outlook Report). The outlook report must be updated every five years. The Outlook
Report assesses the current state of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem's environmental, social, and
economic values, examines the pressures and current responses, and finally considers the likely outlook
for the park. The Outlook Report, which was independently peer-reviewed, does not make
recommendations, deferring to the Commonwealth and Queensland government to identify and
implement solutions. Informants described the Outlook Report as a pivotal synthesis tool for setting and
communicating management priorities for the park.
The Outlook Report also reshaped another important document, Marine Park’s Scientific Information
Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Previously published in 2001 and
2005, the 2009 version was restructured to align with five-year overarching research questions (see Box
3) informed by the findings of the Outlook Report.143 The overarching questions consider the key risks to
the reef ecosystem, management options for reducing risks, and the knowledge needed to implement
those options.144
Box 3: Excerpt from Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009
142
Department of the Environment and Heritage. 2006. “Forward.” Review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 - Review Panel Report. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/gbr-marine-park-act.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 143
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-2014.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/42377/GBRMPA_Scientific_Information_Needs.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 144
Ibid.
79 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
How can we best understand and manage the cumulative impacts of multiple pressures on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and the goods and services it provides?
What are the effects of existing management strategies on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem?
What adaptation strategies, including improvements to current management and completely novel strategies, could be used to improve the Great Barrier Reef's resilience (particularly in the face of climate change)?
How can catchment and nearshore management strategies (planning and decision-making across all uses) in the Reef catchment be improved to better protect coastal ecosystems adjacent and connected to the Reef and to improve water quality, ecosystem health and ecosystem resilience of the Great Barrier Reef?
The Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009 report
acknowledges that answering the four question areas necessitates using multiple approaches including
monitoring, synthesis of existing research, and “effective and long-term institutional arrangements for
data collection and management to ensure research results are put to best use and duplication of effort
is avoided.”145 In addition, the document outlines four steps for determining if research is likely to be
useful to managers: 1) determining if the issue addresses a management concern; 2) asking whether
existing research explains the issue; 3) assessing the feasibility of researching the question in terms of
time and resource limitations; and 4) considering whether answering the research questions helps the
organization meet its objectives.146 This document is first prepared internally and then peer-reviewed
by leading experts.
In addition to the guidelines above, the GBRMPA Science Coordination Group is responsible for linking
research and information about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the policy and management
decision-making processes. This ensures that the GBRMPA bases management decisions on the best
available scientific information.147
One observation from an informant in comparing the current institutional arrangements for effective
stakeholder input to earlier arrangements suggested that industry representation was more effective
when the CRC Coral Reef program was in place in the early 2000s, citing it as very successful in
integrating industry, research, and management needs. For example, an informant suggested that
industry stakeholders could conduct routine monitoring that, in conjunction with scientifically rigorous
yearly or biannual monitoring, would show temporal changes and help identify emerging issues.
145
Ibid. 146
Ibid. 147
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science and information: Using the best available scientific information to manage the Marine Park.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/science_management. Accessed June 21, 2010.
80 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has close relations with the science community. As outlined in the
Foundation’s mission and strategy, they established an advisory committee (comprised of leading
researchers and managers) and topic-specific working groups to build out the foundation’s research
frameworks. They commission research conducted by experts , and ensure results are used by decision-
makers through the advisory and working group structure.
Data Management, Sharing, and Products: GBRMPA shares information and the latest knowledge via an array of products (newsletters, information
sheets, publications, etc.)148 and makes available the following key documents on its website: the Great
Barrier Reef marine Park Act 1975, Outlook Report, Corporate Plan, Portfolio Budget Statement, Annual
Report, Annual Operating Plan, and Individual Performance Plans.
Informants expressed the view that good information is imperative to inform management decisions. A
significant portion of GBRMPA’s management efforts relies on monitoring and evaluation of data to
assess the health of the region (for example the AIMS GBRMPA Long Term Monitoring Program). The
Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 based findings on existing publications and data supporting the
status of the region as well as extensive peer-review, including an independent review by four reviewers
appointed by the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage, and the Arts. The Outlook Report
summarized the past and present triple bottom line (environmental, economic, and social values) of the
Great Barrier Reef.
Research institutions that collaborate with the GBRMPA include published products on their respective
websites and are relatively easy to access. For example, under “Publications,” AIMS lists available
electronic publications, corporate publications, research publications, newsletters, and a library
catalogue. Like AIMS, the State of Queensland’s DERM has all of its annual reports, annual compliance
plans, codes of conduct, statement of affairs, strategic plans, etc. available for review on its website
under “Corporate Documents.”149 In addition, the Australian Freedom of Information Act 1982
promotes access to information.150
In addition to relying on research co-operations and institutes (such as AIMS and MSTRF), the GBRMPA
is responsible for creating the official zoning maps for the GBR Marine Park. These maps are available
via the web.151 GBRMPA also released data to Google Maps and downloadable files for Google Earth in
2008 as part of the International Year of the Reef.
148
Ibid. 149
Department of Environmental and Resource Management. “Corporate Documents.” Department of Environment and Resource Management. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/about/corporatedocs/index.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 150
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. "Freedom of Information". Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/freedom_of_information. Accessed June 21, 2010. 151
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Zoning Maps.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/zoning/zoning_maps.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.
81 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Accessible Information: Because the institutional arrangements have been ongoing since 1975, a vast amount of information is
available via web-based resources. GBRMPA posts all guidance documents, research priorities, annual
reports, budget information, outreach material, etc on their website. In addition, each research
institution discussed above provides published papers.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Mechanisms Summary Table: The table below summarizes the mechanism assessment and key findings or best practices that exist
within the Great Barrier Reef Region. Key findings for the Great Barrier Reef Region include routinely
prioritizing research needs based on management gaps,152 improving management evaluation through
the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009, and integration of a strong set of stakeholder and science
institutions to support effective management of the Great Barrier Reef.
152
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-2014.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/42377/GBRMPA_Scientific_Information_Needs.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010.
82 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 10: Mechanism Overview Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Region Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
= Low = Medium = High
Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices
Types of Institutional
Partners Management of the marine park involves all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, industry, and academia.
Legislative Mandate
Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975 and later version, as well as the Intergovernmental Agreement support a strong system of marine and resource protection and management.
Funding Sources
and Security An unusually strong financial commitment from the national government to science generally and the Marine Park specifically is complemented by supplemental funding from private sources.
Prioritized and
Transparent Funding
Process
Outlook Report 2009 publicly and prominently sets priorities to guide funding. Annual reporting and auditing ensures that business plans and funded research align. Use of RFP and competitive process to ensure transparent funding process.
Stakeholder Advice
Use of committees, particularly RACs with a cross-section of stakeholder interests and LMACs representing coastal communities, provide opportunities for incorporating stakeholder advice.
Community
Engagement,
Education, Outreach
LMACs, communications materials, messaging campaigns, Reef Guardian program developing environmental stewards in schools and government all contribute to strengths in this area.
Scientific Research
GBRMPA is a focal point for world class Australian and international researchers.
Science Advice
The Science Coordination Group links Great Barrier Reef research and information to decision-makers. GBRMPA works closely with research providers including, five principal research entities.
Incorporation of
Science into Decision-
making and Adaptive
Management
Continual review and monitoring supports adaptive management strategies within the Park. Outlook Report 2009 is seen as a milestone in identifying priorities and gaps in science, primarily by refocusing the document Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Scientific Synthesis for
Policy Input
The Outlook Report 2009 and Science Coordination Group ensure science is synthesized for policy input.
Data Management/
Sharing/ Products Newsletters, zoning maps, and publications are widely accessible and freely shared.
Accessible Information
Web-based resources are widely available on all aspects of programs, processes, and operations.
83 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Objective Assessment:
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources: The majority of funds used to implement the programs and activities of the Authority are allocated from
state and government sources. The Commonwealth makes an annual allocation to the Authority to
cover the majority of its costs. Special annual appropriations from the Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage, and the Arts allow GBRMPA to access funds for emerging issues. Partnerships with
other Commonwealth and Queensland government agencies also help to supplement some of the cost
for management, such as surveillance and enforcement.
GBRMPA has also set up two alternate revenue sources that help to supplement the organization’s
income. In 2007, GBRMPA set up a user fee program to increase revenues. An Environmental
Management Charge is assessed to most commercial permit holders operating within the Marine Park.
Operators required to participate in this program include tourist operators—diving tours or hotels— and
non-tourist commercial charters—research or filming. As directed through the program, visitors to the
Park are required to pay the permit holder $5.00AUD for the charge; permit holders in turn transfer the
collected funds to the Authority. All funds received are applied directly to the management costs of the
Park, including education, research, patrolling, and policy development.
Revenue from Reef HQ Aquarium admissions, membership, and retail sales all contribute to the overall
cost of managing the Marine Park.
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation, as an Australian nonprofit, is also able to receive donor funds from a
wide range of organizations tax-free. They are trying to grow their donor base among industry and the
general public.
Neutrality and Trust: An important purpose of the Outlook Report 2009 is to ensure that GBRMPA remains neutral and
trustworthy.153 To this end, the report is “tabled in *i.e., reviewed by+ Parliament to ensure full public
accountability.”154 The Outlook Report’s findings were based on existing publications and data
supporting the status of the region. The Report underwent extensive review and oversight beginning in
2007 when the Outlook Report Taskforce was established within the GBRMPA and ending with four
peer-reviewers selected by the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage, and the Arts.
153
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009.” Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, July 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 154
Ibid.
84 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
In addition to the Outlook Report, informants stated that peer-review is extensively used and programs
are accountable to Parliament and the public. Annually, the GBRMPA undergoes audits from the
GBRMPA Authority Audit Committee and the Australian National Audit Office.
Effective stakeholder engagement mechanisms also help ensure neutrality and trust. Committees exist
at all community and government levels to ensure that stakeholders have input and receive information
on GBRMPA activities.
Flexibility and Adaptability: The GBRMPA supports adaptive management strategies. The GBRMPA uses plans and reports to
identify key management adaptation needs. To this end, the 2006 Review of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Act 1975, recommended and endorsed an Outlook Report. The report, published on a
“five-yearly basis,” is “a key input for any future changes to zoning plans and consideration of broader
issues by governments.” Although the GBR Outlook Report process is new, it is a comprehensive
assessment of the current state of the GBR Marine Park ecosystem and informants stated it would be a
useful tool for future management and identification of trends.155
Additional reporting and planning that support adaptive management strategies include:
Corporate Plan (every four years)
Annual Operating Plan
Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park156
Although the GBRMPA supports adaptive management, it is important to note that the program
recognizes the need to allow time for changes to be implemented. For instance, after new zoning rules
are enacted, a minimum seven-year “lock-down” exists.157 The “lock-down” allows businesses,
communities, and biological systems to stabilize and respond to zoning changes.
Transparency:
155
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Corporate Plan 2010-2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 156
Ibid. 157
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Amendments to the Great Barrier Reef marine park act 1975.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/review. Accessed June 21, 2010.
85 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Similar to the observations above under “Neutrality and Trust,” the GBRMPA openly shares reports,
planning documents, and publication via the web and through newsletters.158 The Outlook Report
process exemplifies transparent reporting and peer-review. The report uses eight assessment criteria
outlined and required by the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975.159 GBRMPA makes grading statements
based on the required assessment criteria.
In addition, annually the joint Commonwealth-Queensland Ministerial Council reports to the Prime
Minister and the Premier of Queensland. Every five years the Ministerial Council provides a
“substantive assessment on the implantation of the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement.160
The IGA Joint Field Management Program’s Strategy Group develops annual business plans documenting
funding decisions.
Finally, the IGA and GBRMPA ensure accurate reporting and management of the programs with external
third-party audits.
The research institutions publish an annual report and show accountability metrics related to research,
training, partnerships, funding, and publications. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation also has well
documented reports available to the public. These groups also have committees and key stakeholders
participating actively in governance.
Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers: The Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2009-2014
outlines important data needs for making management decisions. To further this end, the GBRMPA
Science Coordination Group is responsible for connecting good research and information about the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to the policy and management decision-making processes. The use of a
dedicated science group ensures management decisions are based on the best available scientific
information.161
As noted in the Science Advice section above, the unique Cooperative Research Centers (CRC) and the
Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF) connect end-users and researches in
158
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Corporate Plan 2010-2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44844/GBRMPA_CorpPlan_2010-14.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 159
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009.” Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, July 2009. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 160
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Service Charter.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/service_charter. Accessed June 21, 2010. 161
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Science and information: Using the best available scientific information to manage the Marine Park.” Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/science_management. Accessed June 21, 2010.
86 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
cooperative agreements to foster primary research.162 In MTSRF alone, 38 end-user organizations in
partnership with 15 research providers work together to develop management-relevant and timely
research.163 Research produced within the CRC, MTSRF, and other research cooperatives is rigorously
peer-reviewed thereby fostering objectivity and trustworthiness of the research products.
Administrative Costs: In the GBRMPA and the Department of Environment and Resource Management annual reports,
administrative costs are included under the overall operational costs of the programs. The operational
costs for GBRMPA fall into four categories: Field Management, Suppliers, Employees, and Other. The
2008-2009 GBRMPA Annual Report stated that the operating expense of managing the Marine Park in
2008-09 was $US 40 million.164 Based on the information available we cannot determine the
administrative costs of operating. Figure 3 below shows expenses by category for 2008-2009 operating
expenses. 165
Figure 3: GBRMPA Expenses for 2008-2008
162
Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. “Welcome.” Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. http://www.rrrc.org.au/. Accessed June 21, 2010. 163
Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. “About.” Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. http://www.rrrc.org.au/about/index.html. Accessed June 21, 2010. 164
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. “Annual Report 2008-2009.” Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009 http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41778/AR2008-2009.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010 165
Ibid.
27%
28%
42%
3%
Expenses by Category in 2008-2009
Field Management
Suppliers
Employees
Other
87 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Like GBRMPA and DERM, the ARC annual Statement of Operating Income and Expenditure for FY2009
financial statement did not separate administrative costs. The table below depicts the 2009 ARC
Expenditures.
Table 11: 2009 ARC Statement of Operating Expenditure
Expenditure 2009 Cost ($AUS)
Salaries $3,829,430
Equipment $526,204
Travel $1,236,948
Research maintenance and consumables $1,087,630
Scholarships $153,077
Public outreach and administration $171,776
Total Expenditure $7,005,065
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation annual budget for 2009 was $US 3 million, projects costs accounted
for 74.3 percent of the budget and the prior year it was 71 percent.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Objective Assessment Summary Table: The table below summarizes the assessment and key findings or best practices that exist within the
Great Barrier Reef Region. For example, the Outlook Report, a response to recommendations in the
2007 review, enforces a strong transparency mechanism.
88 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 12: Objective Assessment of Great Barrier Reef Region Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices
Ability to Receive and Distribute
Funds from Various Sources
Institutions are in place to tap revenues from all levels of
government and user fees, and through partner organizations,
private foundations. Use nonprofits such as ARC and the Great
Barrier Reef Foundation.
Neutrality and Trust
Program evaluations, use of peer-review processes, public disclosure,
and involvement of stakeholders support the Authority’s endeavors
to remain neutral and trustworthy.
Flexibility and Adaptability
Setting science priorities every five years ensures that funding
supports relevant research for management needs.
Transparency
Information about GBRMPA priorities, management, and finances
are readily available. The Outlook Report process utilized a strong
peer-review and oversight system ensuring transparency.
Objective and Trusted Science
for Decision-making
Reliance on peer-review, former CRC program, current MTSRF, and
other research institutional partnerships support continued use of
exemplary research findings.
Administrative Costs The IGA distributes the burden of managing the park between the Commonwealth and
Queensland.
= Low = Medium = High
Important Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:
GBRMPA uses a variety of mechanisms to manage the Great Barrier Reef. Key lessons reflecting these
mechanisms and shared with the Consulting Team include:
Partnerships: The large number of partnerships – among levels of government, and among
governments, stakeholders, and science – backed by substantial financial investments and
guided by strong mandates form an effective set of institutional arrangements for
addressing the protection and restoration of this globally significant marine ecosystem.
Invest in Community Partnership, Education, and Outreach: Good communication products
and programs, such as the Reef Guardian Program, develop environmental stewards across
Queensland.
Strategic Guiding Documents: The robust Outlook Report guides the science prioritization
process and development of the Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which ensures that research obtained, is relevant to the
89 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
management of the GBRMPA.
Secure Funding: Many institutions have secured funds for multiple years ensuring their
ability to conduct work and develop effective programs and partnerships.
Adaptive Management: Setting realistic time frames to see changes and implement new
management measures. For example, use of “lock-down” period after zoning changes
allows businesses, communities, and the ecosystem time to respond and adjust to new
zoning.
Boundary Organization: The CRC Coral Reef Model was seen as an effective structure for
securing funding from the private sector and ensuring relevant and timely user-driven
science.
CASE STUDY 4: GULF OF MAINE General Overview of the Gulf of Maine:
The Gulf of Maine (GOM) has a number of regional marine institutional arrangements focused to
different degrees on management, science, and stakeholder engagement issues. One of the most long-
standing arrangements is the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GOMC), which was
established as a regional forum in 1989. GOMC is a joint effort by the governors and premiers of the
U.S. states and Canadian provinces that border the Gulf of Maine—Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Although policy-makers from state, provincial, and
federal governments are included in its operational components, GOMC does not have the power to set
and implement policy, but rather seeks to provide a vehicle for information exchange and long-term
planning for the Gulf of Maine.166
In recent years, other marine-focused regional entities have emerged, including the Northeast Regional
Ocean Council167 (NROC, established 2005) and the Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean
Observing Systems (NERACOOS, established 2008). These joined existing regional entities like the Gulf
of Maine Research Institute,168 the Research Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine
166
"Mission and Principles". Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. www.gulfofmaine.org/council/mission.php. Accessed June 10, 2010 167
A website for NROC, which includes Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, but does not have Canadian representation, is at http://collaborate.csc.noaa.gov/nroc/default.aspx. 168
The Gulf of Maine Research Institute website is http://www.gmri.org/.
90 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
(RARGOM),169 and the National Sea Grant College-funded Gulf of Maine Regional Ocean Science
Initiative.170
The Consultant Team chose to focus on the GOMC for this case study because the GOMC’s longevity
allows for the identification of more robust lessons, it is largely a state-driven (and Canadian province-
driven) initiative, and its mission encompasses management, science, and outreach goals. This
combination of features made it a compelling choice for informing Oregon’s situation.
As a transboundary institution, the GOMC facilitates collaboration across political and bureaucratic
bodies within the Gulf of Maine Region. While the GOMC does not have statutory authority, its mission
is strongly aligned with state, provincial, and federal legislative priorities. GOMC supports science-based
decision-making by creating synthesis products, data products, and some research. For example, the
State of the Gulf of Maine report and Marine Habitat Primer synthesize science for use in decision-
making. The Regional Habitat Monitoring Data System (RHMDS), the Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative
(GOMMI), and Gulfwatch Monitoring Program are all examples of projects launched by the Council to
provide data products or facilitate data collection across the five states and provinces.171 The
government agency representation ensures that this information informs policy decisions.
The GOMC revises its goals and objectives every five years, thereby ensuring its programs and grant
funded projects are relevant and adapt to emerging concerns. An action plan directs the goals, desired
short-term and long-term outcomes, and activities of the organization.172 Stakeholders provide
significant input for the action plan. At its June 2010 Council meeting, GOMC initiated the next Action
Plan update process, which will culminate in late 2011.
Principal Institutions and Relationships in the Gulf of Maine:
The GOMC is a model of cross-jurisdictional coordination; Council member agencies represent multiple
levels of government. GOMC’s five state and provincial members are the following:
Maine: Maine State Planning Office and the Department of Marine Resources;
Massachusetts: Office of Coastal Zone Management;
New Brunswick: Department of Environment and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and
Aquaculture;
New Hampshire: Department of Environmental Services; and
169
The RARGOM website is http://www.rargom.org/ 170
The website of the Gulf of Maine Regional Ocean Science Initiative is at http://seagrant.mit.edu/rosi/index.html. 171
Information on these programs and the Gulf of Maine Council generally is available at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/. 172
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. 2007-2010 Gulf of Maine Council Action Plan. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/actionplan/GOMC%20Action%20Plan%202007-2012.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010
91 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Nova Scotia: Department of Environment and Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.173
GOMC’s U.S. and Canadian federal members include the following agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England Regional Office;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—New England District and Waterways Experiment Station;
U.S. Department of the Interior—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and
National Park Service;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—National Marine Fisheries Service and
Coastal Services Center);
Environment Canada—Atlantic Region Environmental Conservation Branch; and
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.174
The Council is comprised of Twenty-four Councilors, appointed for renewable two-year terms by the
state Governors and province Premiers. They are leaders of state, provincial, and federal agencies, non-
government organizations, and the private sector. GOMC recently modified its terms of reference to
add two senior science councilors to the Council to better inform Council discussions. The Council
operates by consensus. A Working Group that includes one representative from each state, provincial,
and federal member government carries out the Council directives. The Working Group oversees work
plans and budgets, conducts planning, prepares policy proposals for Council consideration, and oversees
the work of five topical Committees.175 The five Committees focus on habitat, contaminants, maritime
activities, crosscutting themes, and services. The Canadian and U.S. co-chairs from each of the five
Committees also serve on the Working Group to promote stronger linkage between implementation and
oversight.
The overall management of GOMC rotates on an annual basis, according to a predetermined schedule,
among the five state/provincial jurisdictions that take turns serving as the GOMC “Secretariat.” The
Secretariat is in charge of convening meetings and maintaining the day-to-day administration of the
Council with the support of a contracted Council Coordinator. A salient organizational feature of GOMC
is that it has no employees; all the work of the council is carried out by contractors, and by
state/provincial or federal agency staff who are “loaned” to work on Council projects.
Similarly, a contracted Executive Director and Finance Assistant operate a subsidiary entity, the US
173
"The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Reference Handbook". The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/rh/gomcorgchart.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010 174
Further information on GOMC member agencies can be found at: http://www.gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/gomc_member_links.php. 175
"The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Reference Handbook". The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/rh/gomcorgchart.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010.
92 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
501(c)(3) U.S. Gulf of Maine Association (“the Association”).176 Through this mechanism, the GOMC is
able to receive and expend funds from federal, state, and private sources; that funding goes primarily to
hire contractors. The major advantage of the GOMC’s contractor-based arrangement is the flexibility to
ramp activities up or down consistent with fluctuations in funding. The Association’s Board of Directors
are all the non-federal Council members; unlike a typical nonprofit board, the Association’s Board of
Directors does not do any fundraising.
GOMC collects dues from its members to cover core services, defined as a contract fundraiser who seeks
project grants, communication costs (e.g., website), and part of the costs of the Council’s and
Association’s contract administrative positions (Council Coordinator, Association Executive Director, and
Association Finance Assistant). The Association annual budget, which does not count “in-kind” services
contributed by members, has been as high as $1.5 million, but in recent years has ranged between
$600,000 and $800,000.
The informants interviewed for this case study emphasized coordination and communication among
participants as a central value and benefit of GOMC. Contributing elements include regular use of
information technology (e.g., communication via listservs) and interlocking institutional mechanisms
(e.g., the chair and co-chair of each topic-based Committee serve on the Working Group). Less tangibly,
but emphasized by informants as important, is that leaders model strong communication behaviors.
Councilors meet only twice yearly, but value the opportunities to build relationships and awareness of
relevant activities around the Gulf. Informants reported increasing communication between meetings
as reductions in financial resources pressure agencies to find economies of scale by pooling resources.
Informants cited the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment/NOAA Habitat Restoration
Grants Program as a prime example of resource pooling, channeled via a competitive grant process, to
address Gulf-wide priorities. Communication and collaboration occurs regularly among the Working
Group, and particularly among participants in the five topical committees, as they meet more
frequently.
A new and significant effort underway, which GOMC is a principal facilitator, is the New England-
Canadian Maritime Collaboration and Planning Initiative. Regional marine research, management,
policy, and conservation organizations that gathered at a fall 2009 RARGOM conference conceived of
the idea of collectively examining their already-prioritized projects, as reflected in each organization’s
strategic plans and reports, to identify shared priorities for projects in four categories: ocean
observations, coastal hazards, ocean energy planning and management, and ocean and coastal
ecosystem health. Over the course of four meetings in the first half of 2010, one for each of the four
topics, a wide array of stakeholders came to agreements on lists of projects that were most important to
176
A counterpart Canadian Association of Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council exists to collect funding in Canada, but all funds supporting GOMC work are ultimately channeled via the U.S. 501(c)(3) Association.
93 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
most institutions. In fall 2010, the participating organizations will meet as a group to identify lead
organizations to implement the agreed-upon projects, in effect pooling resources and divvying up
financial responsibilities for carrying out mutually advantageous projects.177
Description and Analysis of Mechanisms of the Gulf of Maine:
For the reasons noted earlier, in the following section we highlight key findings and best practices from
GOMC as the overarching institution within the Gulf of Maine region The GOMC exemplifies the use of
multi-jurisdictional agreements to support science-based decision-making and management within a
region. Below, we examine the GOMC’s approach to addressing each of the mechanism criteria.
Types of Institutional Partners:
The Gulf of Maine has numerous regional entities with different scopes and emphases. Participants in
and projects of the GOMC may also variously be engaged with the Northeast Regional Ocean Council
(NROC), the Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS), the
Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), the Research Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine
(RARGOM), and others. Within the GOMC itself, state, provincial, and federal (U.S. and Canadian)
government representatives occupy a majority of Councilor positions, yet the GOMC’s many
implementing committees and subcommittees that apply the goals of the GOMC Action Plan include
representation from a broad array of institution types.
Legislative Mandate:
The GOMC was established in December 1989 by an “agreement on the conservation of the marine
environment of the Gulf of Maine” signed by the governors and premiers of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Though not legally binding, it has enabled
sustained and continually growing collaboration and product development for two decade.
Funding Sources and Security:
When GOMC was founded, it received large, multi-million dollar, multi-year federal Congressional
earmarks. Funds were first channeled via the U.S. EPA and more recently NOAA. Federal dollars
continue to be an important funding source for projects, and the member states and provinces pay
modest dues to help defray core administrative expenses. A June 2010 document summarizing the
budget needs and status of its range of programs described shortfalls for many activities.178 These
funding challenges appear to be a recurring problem, recently exacerbated by the effects of the current
global recession and its effect on state and federal budgets. An informant confirmed the recurring
177
Summary document from New England-Canadian Maritime Collaboration and Planning Initiative provided by David Keeley, GOMC Development and Policy Coordinator. 178
Among meeting documents for the Council’s June 2010 meeting see this “TAPAS Workplans” document: http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/docs/TAPAS.6.2010.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010
94 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
nature of these deficits , but also indicated that GOMC has consistently been able to make up for
deficits with fundraising during the year and by scaling projects to meet available budgets. In recent
times some member agencies have helped GOMC’s projects be more competitive in winning grants by
assisting in pre-proposal phases to meet funders’ interest in “shovel ready” projects.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process:
Aside from its administrative contracts, GOMC’s cash resources are spent primarily on contractors
carrying out projects to advance the organization’s Action Plan, which reflects priorities approved by the
Council. Informants reported that all project contracts are deliverable-based (i.e., no open-ended hourly
contracts), selected through a competitive request for proposal process and posted on the GOMC
website.179 GOMC’s recent State of the Gulf of Maine180 report along with the Habitat Conservation and
Restoration Plan will inform the upcoming 5-year Action Plan (2013-2018). Action Plan updates and
initiatives like the State of the Gulf of Maine report reflect a consistent approach to transparent and
prioritized funding.
In addition, the GOMC developed a Tracking Action Plan Activities System (TAPAS), which increases the
GOMC’s transparency within the organization. Informants stated that TAPAS is an online reporting
program that the Council, Working Group, and Committees can post updates on initiative status and the
Association Executive Director can update budget information, including funding secured and expenses
and income.
Stakeholder Advice:
The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan 2007-2012 identifies eight stakeholder
groups the GOMC should target for direct outreach and engagement. The eight stakeholder groups
include: premiers and governors; coastal lawmakers; coastal decision-makers; coastal managers;
academics; Gulf residents and visitors; marine-dependent industries; and the science community.181,182
Most of these groups are well-represented on the Council, Working Group, and implementing
Committees. On key or controversial issues, the Committees may create subcommittees to explore and
obtain stakeholder knowledge and advice. (See below regarding community engagement).
179
Historically GOMC also had an Action Plan Grants program awarding funds to organizations in the region carrying out projects to advance the plan; GOMC suspend the program in 2008 due to lack of funding. 180
Walmsley, Jay. 2009. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Reporting: Scoping Document (Final Report). Fisheries and Oceans Canada-Ocean and Coastal Management Division. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010 181
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GOMC). 2007. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Action Plan 2007-2012. http://www.gulfofmaine.org. Accessed June 10, 2010 182
Walmsley, Jay. 2009. "Gulf of Maine Council State of the Environment Reporting: Scoping Document (Final Report)". Fisheries and Oceans Canada-Ocean and Coastal Management Division. Available at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/docs/gulf-of-maine-state-of-the-environment-reporting-scoping-document.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010
95 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach:
While informants noted that GOMC committees are open and welcoming to interested members of the
public, they acknowledged that GOMC’s “Gulf of Maine Times” newsletter circulated to 10,000
subscribers is the only significant tool targeting the general Gulf of Maine community. There is a desire
to conduct other community outreach, but this is constrained by a lack of funding and staff capacity.
Informants identified initiatives like the State of the Gulf of Maine environmental reporting as helpful for
general outreach. However, it is clear that in its allocation of resources, GOMC sees its primary
audience as coastal and ocean decision-makers. The scoping document that laid the groundwork for the
State of the Gulf of Maine report acknowledged this explicitly when it noted, “despite the primary target
audience being decision-makers, the public should also be able to make use of the Gulf of Maine [state
of the environment report+.”183
Scientific Research:
While most of GOMC’s efforts focus on other endeavors, the organization does have two ongoing
research initiatives: the Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative (GOMMI) and Gulfwatch Contaminants
Monitoring Program (Gulfwatch). GOMMI is a U.S.-Canadian partnership of government and non-
government organizations that conducts geological and biological surveys, collects seafloor imagery, and
analyzes data. GOMMI was conceived at a mapping workshop in 2001. Currently GOMMI continues to
map regions of the Gulf of Maine not already mapped by multi-beam sonar. Gulfwatch focuses on
chemical contaminants monitoring. Gulfwatch tests blue mussels to assess the types and
concentrations of contaminants in GOM waters and is related to NOAA’s Mussel Watch program.
GOMC provides support for Gulfwatch and GOMC’s Contaminants Monitoring Committee and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency provides guidance to Gulfwatch. In addition to these two initiatives,
subcommittees such as the Habitat Monitoring Subcommittee focus on planning research, as well as
prioritizing monitoring in the Gulf Region. Fostering trustworthy primary research and monitoring is a
strength of the GOMC.
Science Advice:
The GOMC terms of reference institutionalize the incorporation of experts and agency science and
environmental advice. The Working Group and the theme-based Committees (Habitat, Contaminants,
Maritime Activities, Crosscutting Committees, and Services) facilitate the use of appropriate science and
identify science needs. The Working Group compiles committee recommendations and prepares policy
options for the GOMC’s consideration.184 One example of a themed committee is the Gulfwatch
Contaminants Monitoring Committee that assesses human and environmental health issues and
implements contaminant monitoring (including the Gulfwatch monitoring program).185
183
Walmsley, op. cit., p. 4. 184
GOMC Working Group. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/working_group.php. Accessed June 20, 2010. 185
Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Committee. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/gulfwatch/. Accessed June 20, 2010.
96 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:
While the GOMC does not have direct management responsibilities, it does support a wide variety of
science synthesis for managers and policy decision-makers, described below.
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input:
The State of the Gulf of Maine report, The Gulf of Maine Habitat Restoration and Conservation Initiative
(a public-private effort), and GOMMI demonstrate the GOMC’s focus on providing synthesis products for
science-based management. The Gulf of Maine Habitat Restoration and Conservation Initiative is a
public-private effort that strives to coordinate and unify the GOM approach to restoration and
conservation. 186 Likewise, GOMC established the Ecosystem Indicators Partnership (ESIP) program in
2006 because there was an identified need to understand ecosystem status and trends.187 To identify
regionally specific needs, ESIP’s approach includes convening regional practitioners in the following
fields: coastal development, contaminants and pathogens, eutrophication, aquatic habitat, fisheries and
aquaculture, and climate change. 188 ESIP’s indicators and past work fed heavily into the 2010 State of
the Gulf of Maine report that is GOMC’s effort to produce a Gulf-wide synthesis of pressures on the
environment, biophysical and socio-economic status and trends, and responses to identified issues.189
The State of the Gulf of Maine report is a “living document” that can change as the state of knowledge
and new needs are identified.
Prioritization and action plans support management-focused research and monitoring. Reliance on
theme based committees, science advisors, and peer-review suggests that fact-based decision-making is
a core value for the organization. Through the committees, science input exists at all council and
committee levels therefore ensuring close linkages between relevant science and policy decisions. The
State of the Gulf of Maine report and the GOMC action plans also support the uses of science in
decision-making and continual adaptation to new information.
Data Management, Sharing, and Products:
The GOMC ranks highly with respect to data management systems use. Some of the data management
systems available include the Gulf of Maine Area Census of Marine Life (GoMA) and GOMC’s programs
GOMMI and Gulfwatch.
Informants reported that vast amounts of data are maintained in distinct and incompatible systems
186
Ibid. 187
EcoSystem Indicator Partnership (ESIP), "EcoSystem Indicator Partnership Fact Sheet."http://www.gulfofmaine.org/esip/docs/ESIPFactSheetversionJan2010.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2010 188
Ibid. 189
Details regarding ESIP’s contributions to the 2010 State of the Gulf of Maine report are found in the Gulf of Maine State of the Environment Report Scoping Document. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/internal/docs/gom.ser.3.17.09.pdf. The State of the Gulf of Maine report itself is available at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state-of-the-gulf/.
97 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
within sub-regional programs and organizations. Although the majority of data is not standardized and
compatible for regional analysis and/or use, informants stated there is a limited need to use program
specific data at a Gulf-wide scale. The 2009 State of the Environment Scoping Document, which laid the
groundwork for the subsequent 2010 State of the Gulf of Maine report, stated that reporting data from
disparate formats in a cohesive manner would be more useful to GOM regional analysis than
establishing a unified GOM-wide reporting format,190 and that reporting approach was taken in
producing the State of the Gulf of Maine report.
Accessible Information:
GOMC provides comprehensive access to the organization’s products (action plans, publications,
mapping tools, monitoring/reporting tools) and information about its deliberations and operations via
its website.
Gulf of Maine Mechanisms Summary Table:
The table below summarizes the mechanism assessment and key findings or best practices that exist
within the GOMC. Some key findings are that GOMC prioritizes its activities via a regularly-updated
action plan, has a structure that ensures alignment with state, provincial, and federal priorities,
facilitates the pooling of financial and in-kind resources to advance Gulf-wide goals, has a strong culture
and structure for communication, and is continuously working to upgrade the scientific basis of its
decision-making.
190
Ibid.
98 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 13: Mechanism Overview Assessment for Gulf of Maine Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
= Low = Medium = High
Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices Types of Institutional Partners
Large Council and multiple implementation Committees with members from all levels of government also include representatives from academia, foundations, industry, and NGOs.
Legislative Mandate
Nonbinding agreement between Governments does not have regulatory authority, however a long track record of productive work over two decades exists.
Funding Sources and Security
Relatively modest cash budget and current financial squeeze due to general economic stress, but consistent and substantial in-kind contribution of staff and related support to carry out GOMC priorities exists. Budgetary shortfalls regularly met through 501 (c)(3) fundraising.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process
Action Plans outline goals and activities, which direct the GOMC’s 5-year pursuits. Public funding and priority setting ensures accountability and oversight. Internal TAPAs program increases transparency across GOMC programs.
Stakeholder Advice
Use of comment period and public meetings (willingness to participate up to public/stakeholders) Stakeholder involvement through committee and subcommittee structures and participation of co-chairs on Working Group. Convene Stakeholder/Industry specific subcommittees as needed.
Community Engagement, Education, Outreach
“Gulf of Maine Times” newsletter is the principal outreach tool, lack of funding limits other community outreach, organizational priority is resource managers, and policy-makers.
Scientific Research Some research funded by GOMC includes GOMMI and Gulfwatch programs, which collect and analyze data.
Science Advice
Use of published data is common; scientists participate at all levels and provide input.
Incorporation Science in Decision-making and Adaptive Management
Although GOMC is not a management entity, it specializes in providing synthesis products used by regional decision-makers and managers.
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input
Primary focal point for GOMC activities. Significant products include the State of the Gulf of Maine report and Ecosystem Indicator Partnership that provides region-wide benefits to managers and policy-makers. Committee process for evaluating issues is informal, via discussion and expert participation.
Data Management/ Sharing/ Products
Publications are made available via website.
Accessible Information
Extensive information about all aspects of GOMC available on its website.
99 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Gulf of Maine Objective Assessment:
The following section addresses objectives identified as NRTF priorities and highlights key findings for
the Gulf of Maine.
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources:
The U.S. Gulf of Maine Association 501(c)(3) and the Canadian Gulf of Maine Association were created
to accept and distribute GOMC funding from any source, governmental or private. This flexibility also
extends to the GOMC’s commitment since its inception to operate free of a physical office or
employees, relying upon contractors to provide all administrative services and conduct all projects not
carried out by its member organizations.
Neutrality and Trust:
The GOMC uses peer-review and published science to set priorities and develop synthesis products to
support managers and decision-makers. While the GOMC integrates science experts and community
and industry knowledge through the committee process, the results of these deliberations are not
subject to a formal review process. An informant mentioned that with its issuance of the recent State of
the Gulf of Maine report GOMC was crossing a threshold from offering its ESIP as a neutral data
warehouse, to becoming an interpreter of what the data says about the Gulf’s marine resources,
possibly affecting perceptions of GOMC as a relatively neutral party.
Flexibility and Adaptability:
Respondents stated that the council is relatively nimble and can address emerging needs and changed
priorities. This ability stems in large degree from strong knowledge sharing and communication
facilitated by the GOMC’s interlocking Council, Working Group, Committee, and ad hoc subcommittee
structures. In addition, the use of contractors for all projects supports a flexible and dynamic
framework.
Transparency:
Research showed that the GOMC is relatively transparent because of the high level of communication
between members and open public meetings. Committees, Working Group, and Council meetings are
all open to the public, documents are posted on the GOMC website, and tools such as the TAPAS
tracking program ensure that status of initiatives are transparent. In addition, the GOMC has the Project
Evaluation Team who provides oversight by collecting “information to measure outcomes and
successes” of the program.191
191
GOMC website http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/project_evaluation.php. Accessed June 14, 2010.
100 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Objective and Trusted Scientific Advice to Inform Decision-Makers:
To ensure that the decisions and recommendations made by the GOMC are scientifically supported, the
GOMC uses peer-reviewed literature and committee evaluation to guide its synthesis product
development. In addition, the GOMC is comprised of many partner agencies responsible for coastal
management and science representatives who are knowledgeable about management concerns and
needs at the local and regional scales. The multidisciplinary structure promotes linkages between
science, policy, and management.
Administrative Costs:
The GOMC employs two mechanisms to control costs. As mentioned above, secretariat duties rotate
annually thereby reducing administrative burdens to any one member, and reducing the need for cash
to pay contractors. The GOMC’s reliance on contractors as administrators and project leads allows
GOMC to more easily adjust its programming to available funding and generally avoid the overhead
expenses associated with maintaining employees or a physical office. At the same time, informants note
the rotating nature of the Secretariat and Working Group Chair system and limited contract staff
support means that flexibility comes at some expense to institutional memory that may affect the
organization’s efficiency.
GOMC collects dues192 from its members to cover core services, communication costs (e.g., website),
and part of the costs of the Council’s and Association’s contract administrative positions (Council
Coordinator, Association Executive Director, and Association Finance Assistant). An indirect cost
allocation in all project budgets covers remaining administrative costs. The cost allocation figure is set
annually after the Association’s annual independent financial audit; the allocation is equal to program
costs divided by the costs of the administrative positions, and has run between 13 and 23 percent. The
Association maintains a reserve account funded by an accumulation of dues or indirect allocations that
carry over in surplus years, or cover overages in deficit years. The Association’s annual budget, which
does not count “in-kind” services contributed by members, has been as high as $1.5 million, but in
recent years has hovered between $600,000 to $800,000.
Gulf of Maine Objective Assessment Summary Table: The table below summarizes the assessment and key findings that exist within the GOMC. GOMC is
striving for improvement in many areas and is evolving to meet new challenges. Particularly strong
characteristics of the GOMC include the ongoing use of strategic planning, the desire to work among
programs to apply for grants to fund and complete projects (e.g., the New England-Canadian Maritime
Collaboration and Planning Initiative), and the use of contractors to reduce administrative costs.
192
Informant stated that States and Provinces pay $15,000 per year in membership dues.
101 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Table 14: Objective Assessment of Gulf of Maine Coastal and Ocean Institutional Arrangements
Criteria Assessment Key Findings & Best Practices
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds from Various Sources
Use of 501(c)(3) permits receipt of funds from all sources.
Neutrality and Trust
Use of peer-reviewed/published reports, use of science advisors, committees, and TAPAS reports support GOMC’s efforts to be neutral and trustworthy. Committee assessments and recommendations based on deliberations are not subject to peer-review.
Flexibility and Adaptability
GOMC structure promotes knowledge sharing and communication promotes flexibility to address emerging issues. Contract staff allow for responsiveness to new funding opportunities.
Transparency
Activities, plans, project information are well documented and available via the GOMC website. TAPAS project status tracking tool promotes accountability.
Objective and Trusted Science for Decision-making
GOMC is not a resource manager, but does provide useful, objective, and trusted synthesis tools and reports to support decision-making by the region’s managers and policy-makers.
Administrative Costs The rotating nature of the Secretariat and Working Group Chair system and limited contract staff support means very low administrative costs.
= Low = Medium = High Important Lessons from the Gulf of Maine:
Key lessons learned shared with the Consulting Team include:
Alignment of Interests: Overlapping membership among decision-makers and implementers increases alignment. In addition, initiatives such as the nascent New England-Canadian Collaboration and Planning Initiative help programs secure regionally important projects and funding.
Transparent Reporting Mechanism: TAPAS reporting mechanism increases transparency and funding accountability within GOMC.
Strategic Plans: Regularly revised guiding documents, like a strategic plan, with goals and objectives guarantee projects are relevant to and decisions are based on achieving goals and objectives.
Science Synthesis Documents: Production of region-wide synthesis documents such as the State of the Gulf of Maine report ensures that managers and policy makers have trustworthy information to make management and policy decisions.
102 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Strong Communication Practices: The organization’s use of information technology (e.g., communication via listservs), its interlocking institutional mechanisms (e.g., the chair and co-chair of each topic-based Committee serve on the Working Group), and modeling by Councilors of strong communication behaviors are essential to the organization’s accomplishments.
Section IV – Observations and Recommendations
The following section provides a trend analysis for both the Mechanism Assessment and the Objective
Assessment for all case studies reviewed. For each mechanism or objective we identify common
approaches among case study institutions, as well as common concerns or issues. Following each
category analysis, text boxes highlight relevant recommendations for Oregon Nearshore Research Task
Force to consider.
Mechanism Assessment:
Types of Institutional Partners:
All the institutions described in this report interact with multiple partners and stakeholders to address
coastal and ocean policy and management concerns and integrate science-based decision-making
successfully. Partners typically include state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions,
funders, non-governmental organizations, and stakeholder groups. For example, the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) maintains formal partnerships between multiple agencies of state and
national governments, five science institutions, four multi-stakeholder Resource Advisory Committees
(RAC), and a dozen voluntary community-based committees called Local Marine Advisory Committees
(LMAC). Informants stated that having select, overlapping committee members can help ensure
continuity and alignment of priorities across institutions. However, there need to be clear policies
around conflict of interest.
Recommendation 1: Create institutional partnerships with key coastal and ocean-
related constituencies to ensure buy-in and support. This includes research and
academic institutions; local, state, and federal agencies; stakeholders in the community
and key industries; and nonprofits.
Legislative Mandate:
All case studies have formal agreements or legislation supporting their activities. Because all of the
cases are marine focused and therefore cross-jurisdictional in nature, the issue of clearly defining roles
and responsibilities especially stood out. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 (updated
in 1987 and again in 2000) established a formal partnership between the federal government, multiple
103 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
state governments, and a tri-state legislative assembly. In 2009, the problem of unclear responsibilities
and lack of coordination among federal agencies prompted President Obama to issue an executive order
clarifying roles and establishing a new coordinating entity among federal agencies engaged in the
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). Legislative mandates or formal agreements are also essential for
defining who gets to sit at the table. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment’s (GOMC)
agreement among the governors of three New England states and two Canadian provinces, as amended,
stipulates the participation, on an interlocking set of governing and implementation mechanisms, of
state and federal resource agencies, scientists, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the
public. This broad representation is seen as essential to the knowledge sharing and strong
communication that synthesizes management-relevant science for use throughout the region.
A challenge noted by some informants was loosely defined institutional roles and overlapping
jurisdictions (such as federal and state). Informants cautioned that clearly defining roles and
responsibilities was an important part of establishing and maintaining successful institutional
arrangements.
Recommendation 2: Have legislative mandates in place outlining clear and distinct roles
and responsibilities for participants, and include representation from all entities that are
key to the science-policy-and-management process.
Funding Sources and Security:
All of the case study intuitional relationships rely heavily on government funding to support operations
and programs. For example, NOAA or U.S. EPA funding plays an important role in supporting coastal and
ocean management programs and institutions in the Gulf of Maine, Chesapeake Bay, and California.
The majority of institutional arrangements worked with nonprofit partners to increase funding security
by making it possible to obtain non-governmental funding in addition to governmental support. For
example, GOMC’s U.S. Gulf of Maine Association is a nonprofit that receives and distributes funding
from multiple sources on the GOMC’s behalf. Another example for funding end-user focused science
and technology are the Australian Cooperative Research Centres (CRC), which rely on industry and
government funding to support programs. GBRMPA also has been able to raise revenues by profitably
operating an aquarium and by imposing a user fee, generally paid by tourists. The Virginia Institute of
Marine Science (VIMS) receives a portion of its funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia, but derives
the majority of its income from federal and private research grants and contracts. Maryland has a “Bay
Plate” vehicle license plate program that generates revenues.
104 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Several informants stated that reliance solely on earmarked funds lacked security and as one informant
quoted, “you live by earmarks, then you die by earmarks.” These informants strongly supported
diversifying revenues.
Recommendation 3: Secure funds from diverse sources and when possible develop and
secure fee-based revenue sources. Stakeholders at the table who want and will use
information may be willing to become funding partners.
Prioritized and Transparent Funding Process:
All institutional arrangements prioritize funding by guiding funding choices with strategic planning
documents. For example, GOMC bases decisions on 5-year Action Plans, GBRMPA produces a 5-yearly
Outlook Report, OPC adopts a five-year Strategic Plan, and the CBP has repeatedly updated its
management plans. These documents inform the selection of science priorities. VIMS bases decisions
on annual science priority assessments, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) has a guiding
science strategic plan and annually reassesses its funding priorities, and GBRMPA updates every five
years Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park each of
these documents align to management needs and goals of the institutional arrangements. Another tool
for ensuring that funding decisions align with priorities is the use of reporting mechanisms. Examples of
funding reporting systems used include the Chesapeake BayStat program, GOMC’s Tracking Action Plan
Activities System (TAPAS) project status tracking system, and Australia’s annual governmental audits.
Informants stated that it was important to be transparent about where funding comes from, where it is
directed, and how those decisions were made. In addition, several informants stated that the public and
funders are often concerned with accounting processes and a third party review is recommended.
Recommendation 4: Develop a strategic plan or guiding document that outlines
priorities and that ideally directs development of a consistent science plan. This will
provide clear guidance on how funds will be allocated.
Recommendation 5: Develop clear communication materials and mechanisms to share
information with the general public about audited financials, sources of revenue, the
decision-making process, fund allocations, and progress toward goals.
Stakeholder Advice: 193
All regions use public comment opportunities, requests for advice, and formal stakeholder committees
to engage stakeholders in the decision-making process. Australia’s RACs and LMACs are key participants
in the management of the GBRMPA. In the GOMC, the tourism sub-committee comprises stakeholders
193
A list of case study committees and board composition information and webpage links may be found in Appendix D.
105 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
from tourism operations and state government. In addition, several institutional arrangements use ad
hoc committees for peer-review and advice on key or controversial decisions, such as the oil and gas
decommissioning project in California.
Informants from several regions noted that public comment periods are insufficient at maintaining
public interest and involvement in the decision-making process. Informants favored the use of
committees to engage stakeholders. Stakeholder consultation was seen as essential to securing and
maintaining public support for management of coastal and ocean resources.
Recommendation 6: A formal mechanism or committee structure for representing all
stakeholder groups to provide input and advice is essential to secure and maintain
support for coastal and ocean management.
Community Engagement, Education, and Outreach:
All entities point to their workshops and public meetings as opportunities for the public to participate
and become informed about the organization’s activities. Across the case studies, institutions use
primary and secondary school programs to educate and build youth environmental stewardship. In the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Reef Guardian Schools Program (RGS) has been particularly
successful in not only empowering the student population, but also improving community support and
knowledge.
In addition, all institutions use online listservs to inform partners and the public about issues affecting
them, as well as to obtain feedback on programs, projects, activities, and publications. An informant
mentioned in particular the importance of reaching out to the community throughout planning
processes, such as mapping initiatives.
A common concern that was echoed throughout the case studies was the lack of staffing and financial
capacity to support strong public education and outreach programs.
Recommendation 7: Invest in electronic and web-based communication tools and
public engagement activities and embed funds for all programs to participate in such
activities. This will also help ensure transparency.
Scientific Research:
Institutions examined in the case studies varied in the degree to which science research mechanisms
were a significant feature. The GOMC and the California Ocean Science Trust (OST) and OPC carry out
little to no direct research, but coordinate intensively with scientists and research institutions and are
heavily involved in a number of science-related activities (see below). The CBP and the Commonwealth
of Virginia and State of Maryland all employ scientists who carry out research activities to support their
106 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
organizations’ missions to varying degrees. For example, VIMS, by mandate, provides research to
decision-makers and is responsible for monitoring key commercial fisheries. VIMS often conducts
research on contentious issues, such as the use of non-native oysters in the bay, which ensures science
remains independent of policy and management decisions. GBRMPA has an explicit mandate to
conduct and facilitate research, monitoring, and interpretation of data; however, since it is primarily a
management agency, most research is carried out by a group of five research institutions that are
independent, but closely partnered with GBRMPA.
One key concern noted by informants was long-term monitoring longevity. Several informants
mentioned that academics’ interest in long–term monitoring often wanes, but could be resolved by
reducing monitoring effort performed by academic institutions and increasing industry partners’
contributions to routine monitoring. Combining routine industry partner monitoring and periodic
“quality control” monitoring by academic researchers was found in the Great Barrier Marine Park to
provide quality data for monitoring large-scale temporal changes and trends.
Recommendation 8: Establish a formal role for quality science institutions to support
ocean and coastal management goals that links scientists with managers and
stakeholders to inform their understanding and research priorities while ensuring that
science is independent and safeguarded through peer-review.
Recommendation 9: Consider collaborative research programs that, if designed well,
can be an effective and cost- efficient way to produce long-term monitoring data.
Science Advice:
All institutional arrangements relied heavily on peer-reviewed literature and projects and the use of
science advisors, experts in the fields of study, and panels. OST and the OPC’s Science Advisory Team
(OPC-SAT) play the role of neutral providers of science advice and peer-review to OPC projects. Grant
funded projects also often receive oversight from peer-review and comment; such as GOMC’s
committees or GBRMPA’s Science Coordination Group (SCG). Again, engaging scientists in the
management and policy decision process was common across the case studies and supports decision-
making that incorporates accurate recent data.
One key concern noted during interviews was the delay between research completion and publication.
Researchers are often reluctant to release data until reports have been publicized and peer-reviewed.
Although this process ensures science is accurate, informants stated that it can lead to long delays in
reporting and incorporation (e.g., decision-makers may not always benefit from using the most up-to-
date information)
107 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Recommendation 10: Develop a formal structure or body of science experts for advice
that is also nimble enough to address specific issues. Clearly outline the role(s) of this
body and how the advice and peer-review will be utilized. This structure will need a
robust conflict of interest policy and transparency in publishing peer-review comments.
Incorporation of Science in Decision-Making and Adaptive Management:
All case studies have mechanisms in place for incorporating science into decision-making and adaptive
management. Common amongst all of the cases is an institution such as the Virginia Marine Resource
Commission (VMRC), GBRMPA, OPC, or GOMC, that requests and wants science to inform their
decisions. All of the case studies have strong science partners coordinating and producing science that
feeds back to the decision-makers. Each case study uses a slightly different model to ensure the
incorporation of science for decision-making and adaptive management. In Virginia, VIMS’ is mandated
to research commercial and recreational fisheries, for example providing long-term monitoring of blue
crab population cycles to inform catch-limits and other blue crab fishery management decisions. In
California, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) legally requires adaptive management of the network
of MPAs informed by monitoring and evaluation. OST is incubating the Marine Protected Area MPA
Monitoring Enterprise (ME), funded by OPC, to provide decision-makers with data needed to manage
this network. In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, multiple binding agreements (e.g., the amended
Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975 and the Commonwealth-Queensland state Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) outline science requirements for management. Strong institutional arrangements for
management tend to mix monitoring results with targeted research regularly. In addition, there is also a
need for issue-specific science and synthesis to address new policy decisions or emerging issues.
Recommendation 11: Consider establishing a boundary organization or unit (such as
OST, see definitions page 37) to play a key role in bridging the producers and users of
knowledge and help facilitate science, the production of useful research, advice,
incorporation of science into decision-making, and synthesis. Boundary institutions can
ensure that science produced is relevant, timely, and useful for decision-makers and
stakeholders.
Recommendation 12: Ensure the use of science in decision-making by establishing a
legal mandate to use science for adaptive management.
Scientific Synthesis for Policy Input:
Many institutional arrangements use strategic planning, prioritization, and gap analysis to address
science needs and guide synthesis products. All regions use monitoring, expert knowledge, and
workshops to guide the prioritization and synthesis process. GOMC relies on committee members to
assess research gaps and recommend program pursuits. GBRMPA’s Outlook Report 2009 informed the
structure and priorities of the Scientific Information Needs for the Management of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park 2009 document. The State of the Gulf of Maine and Bay Barometer: A Health and
Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed report are two key recent synthesis
108 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Integrating Science: Essential Ingredients
A study performed by TCH&A in 2007 found that the
elements for successfully integrating science into coastal
ocean policy and management include:
Communication of research and the
implications for policy to decision-makers;
Consistent timeframes and temporal continuity;
A strengthening of coastal and ocean social
science research;
Strong communications and connections
between producers of knowledge, users of
knowledge, and stakeholders;
Promotion of cross-disciplinary literacy;
Collaborative science-to-policy and
management processes;
User-friendly data management and access;
Transparency between science and funders;
Incorporating variability into the regulatory
framework.
documents that have distilled vast amounts of publications and data to inform managers and policy-
makers. As noted above, clearly distilling research and information into usable documents is imperative
for policy and decision-making.
Several informants supported providing “good science” to decision-makers because they had seen poor
policy developed due to inaccurate and biased science. For example, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted the CBP’sneed to explain modeling versus monitoring
data results and that relying too heavily on modeling data was insufficient for management.
Recommendation 13: Regularly assess and redefine science priorities in collaboration
with scientists and end-users (end-users include all users of data, such decision-makers
at all levels and scales, and stakeholders representing all sectors).
Recommendation 14: Robust synthesis documents can be effective tools to support
management decision-making. Synthesis documents show where key concerns and
issues exist and should incorporate neutral and unbiased information to be relevant to
decision-makers.
Data Management, Sharing, Products, and Accessible Information:
Internet resources and database tools comprise most data management programs and products. The
GOMC’s Ecosystem Indicators Partnership (ESIP) and Maryland’s BayStat are two database methods for
pooling and sharing data across programs. Many institutions produce Geospatial Information Systems
(GIS) based maps and reports to share data in a useful manner. Two examples of data products include
Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative’s (GOMMI) map products and the Chesapeake Bay Report Card.
One issue echoed by several informants
involved centralized data management
systems. Concerns over centralized data
management systems included lack of
ownership over data, failure to easily or
regularly update or change inaccurate
information (some entities’ updates occur on
a yearly scale), and inability to integrate
disparate data. Several informants supported
using a user-friendly front-end program that
requests information from decentralized
databases. In addition, informants stated that
centralized systems are not necessary for
much of the data collected. On the other
hand, some informants touted standardized
109 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
data collection methods and supported methods to streamline or standardized data for overall
monitoring and trend analysis.
Internet-based resources facilitate access to wide variety of information. Data include publications,
annual reports, newsletters, outreach materials, regulations, databases, and tools.
Numerous informants mentioned the widespread availability of data and information in conjunction
with limited time to read and internalize new information, making scientifically-sound yet user-friendly
documents such as the GBRMPA Outlook Report 2009 and program annual reports especially welcome.
Informants noted the Outlook Report 2009 as a superior milestone document with much potential for
improving management of the park.
While the internet can be a boon for accessibility of information and transparency and a cost-effective
way to reduce printing costs and increase dissemination, the Consulting Team found a wide disparity in
the quality of website design. Poorly designed websites undermine all of these potential advantages.
Recommendation 15: Develop a centralized portal or website where all reports,
documents, meeting minutes will be stored. Furthermore, develop an information
management system that is highly accessible to a wide range of users.
Recommendation 16: Invest in good website design to maximize the accessibility,
communication, and transparency benefits of providing internet access to an
organization’s information.
Objective Assessment:
Ability to Receive and Distribute Funds:
All institutional arrangements used federal, state, and private funds to support activities. For example,
in California, the OPC accesses state funds from multiple sources, including bonds, license fees, and oil-
lease fees. The OPC has set up a trust to channel these sources to the OPC’s projects. Another common
mechanism most institutional arrangements have adopted is nonprofit entities. These entities ensure
that programs and organizations can receive funding from numerous sources (private donations,
membership dues, grants, etc.). In addition to providing access to private dollars, having nonprofits
receive and distribute funding protects the overarching institution from conflicts of interest, and ensures
donor trust. In California, OST, OPC‘s nonprofit science partner, can leverage private dollars to match
OPC funds. In GOMC, the U.S. and Canada Gulf of Maine Associations act as funding pass-through
organizations that receive and distribute funding for projects. In Chesapeake Bay, Maryland’s
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust was structured to focus funding on the highest priority,
data-supported improvement projects.
110 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Many of place-based case studies use nonprofits to regrant a portion of their funds to support projects
and proposals in their region. Often times the nonprofit is more nimble and can respond to emerging
issues. The GOMC supports several large programs including GOMMI, ESIP, and “Gulf of Maine Times.”
In the Chesapeake Bay region, the Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT) awards grants to an array of community-
based bay protection and restoration projects.
Informants stated it was important to establish transparent processes, strong conflict of interest
policies, manage risk, and outline clear guidelines for fund distribution and/or procurement.
Recommendation 17: Develop a nonprofit status organization to distribute and receive
funds with strong governance, transparent processes, and clear policies on fund
distribution and conflicts of interest.
Neutrality and Trust:
All institutional arrangements utilize published information to support decisions as well as peer-review
through committees or councils. In the GBRMPA and the GOMC, recent state of the environment
reports (Outlook Report and State of the Gulf of Maine) relied heavily on published information to
support findings. The Outlook Report used extensive committee and public review, in addition to a four-
person final peer-review process. Also, yearly GBRMPA reports results from its financial audits and
programs to the Ministerial Council, State, and Commonwealth leaders ensures neutral and trustworthy
decisions are made.
With regard to neutrality and trust, improving dissemination of information and communication
between members and stakeholders are keys to success. In Australia, GBRMPA hired a communication
expert to increase stakeholder awareness for the Great Barrier Reef’s poor health and improve
participation during the rezoning process. Without stakeholder participation, the program would not
accurately incorporate the needs of stakeholders at all levels. Informants stated that high distrust of the
government can exist when a program has a long-standing history of disregarding stakeholder input.
Ensuring stakeholder input and participation throughout planning processes reduces public mistrust.
The Consulting Team is not identifying separate recommendations here because several
recommendations made above help to address this issue, including in particular recommendations
relating to stakeholder advice (see Recommendation 5).
Flexibility:
Most institutional arrangements use adaptive management strategies to reassess program status and
evolve to meet emerging concerns. OST and VIMS are particularly flexible with regard to emerging
issues and research. VIMS evaluates science needs annually, which improves their ability to adapt to
changing needs. In addition, OST can incubate new programs and projects in short timescales. Many
larger institutional arrangements such as GOMC and GBRMA use five year plans to set new priorities.
111 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Although all regions noted the need for flexibility, many stated that larger institutions tend to lack
flexibility. This finding may support the creation of new, specialized institutions that can be more
responsive to specific environmental priorities. For example, Maryland’s Chesapeake and Atlantic
Coastal Bays Trust Fund, focuses funding on non-point source pollution control projects that meet the
State’s Tributary Strategies and 2-Year Milestones.194 Ensuring flexibility in staffing is a principle reason
GOMC operates via contractors rather than employees.
It is important to note that adaptive management must be allowed adequate time for implementation
and subsequent assessment of changes. For instance, in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park a seven-
year stay on zoning revisions exists to allow business owners, stakeholders, and the ecosystem time to
adapt to changes and assess their effects.
Recommendation 18: Regularly revisiting and revising guiding strategic documents is
important to confirm the validity of an organization’s focus and promote responsiveness
to emerging issues.
Transparency:
Transparent decision-making exists in various ways across the case study regions. Reporting out to
public and stakeholders commonly occurs. Examples of mechanisms ensuring transparency include
routine newsletters, online reporting methods (annual reports), and workshops/conferences. While
public comment opportunities, posting information to websites, and public meetings are seen as
providing a required minimum for transparency, many informants stated that these approaches are not
sufficient to make institutional arrangements thoroughly transparent. Complementary mechanisms
observed in case studies included formal stakeholder-specific committees as well as committees that
integrated stakeholders, scientists, and managers. GOMC’s topic-based committees include all three
constituencies, and overlapping membership with the working group and councilors facilitates
communication that aids in transparency. In addition, informants said it was important also to
communicate progress towards programmatic goals. The CBP uses the Bay Barometer: A Health and
Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed, and other publications to foster
programmatic transparency. In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, use of community-based advisory
committees improves reporting and transparency of the GBRMPA’s actions. Finally, publishing results
and responses in peer-review processes is another mechanism to achieve transparency and boost
confidence in the science used for decision-making.
194
More information on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust fund can be found at: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_fund.asp and information regarding the Senate bill which enacted the Fund can be found at: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/sb213.pdf. Accessed as of July 21, 2010.
112 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Informants reported that locating relevant information within the vast amounts available is difficult and
a weakness of many institutional arrangements. Without distilling information in a useful way to public,
partners, and stakeholders, institutional transparency suffers.
There are no new recommendations cited here because recommendations above about stakeholder
involvement (Recommendation 6), using peer-review processes for science (Recommendation 8, 10),
ensuring that reports are user-friendly distillations of policy and science (Recommendations 7, 13, 14),
and that they be accessible via well-designed websites (Recommendations 15, 16) apply in relation to
transparency as well.
Objective and Trusted Science for Decision-Making:
Common among all case studies was the use of scientific peer-review, research institution-led data
collection, and science advisors. Although the GOMC is not a decision-maker, the program produces
synthesis documents and includes science experts to guarantee management decisions are supported
by trustworthy science. Like GOMC, the GBRMPA’s Science Coordination Group and OST coordinate
peer-review processes of science products and at times peer-review groups may review products from
the beginning to end of the science production cycle – reviewing questions, methods, analysis, result,
and draft report. These organizations also ensure alignment between accurate science and
management needs.
Both Virginia and California have mechanisms to identify and reduce conflicts of interest and ensure
production of unbiased research and science synthesis products. For example, OST requires peer-
reviewers to sign conflict of interest statements and will not use a reviewer if there is a clear conflict of
interest. Furthermore, OST identifies peer-reviewers solely from recommendations by the OPC-SAT, and
not the producer of the science product to further ensure a robust review. In Virginia, VIMS’ funding
allocations are not linked to the to the government agencies that receive their data and analyses
thereby ensuring VIMS’ ability to remain objective and neutral. VIMS makes clear that it is not making
the policy decision but rather focusing on the production and delivery of robust and objective science.
This disconnection between the end-user and producer is another mechanism to help ensure objectivity.
In the case of the OST, for some projects funds from end-users are given to OST as a third party neutral
to “hire” the producer of science and ensure a process that is neutral, unbiased, and objective. OST at
times will also use Sea Grant California to run its Request for Proposal (RFP) process, because of its
robust application peer-review process, this was the case for collection of the Monitoring Enterprise’s
baseline monitoring data.
One concern noted by informants included science communication. Problematic instances included
situations where science was conveyed in an inaccessible manner and therefore was not incorporated
into decisions. In other instances, managers often needed distilled science information—too much
information in inaccessible or technically rich formats led to limited inclusion in decisions.
113 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Recommendation 19: To ensure neutrality of science develop mechanisms and firewall,
such as a “third party” system to ensure stakeholders and decision-makers are not
directly funding science.
Administrative Costs:
As noted above, administrative costs for each case study could not be accurately ascertained;
information about this aspect was included when available. The CBP uses approximately15-20 percent
of its yearly budget to support administrative costs. In California, approximately $1.4 million per year
supports OPC’s administrative costs. $335,000 were devoted to OST operational costs in 2008-2009.
GOMC uses contractors, in-kind staff time contributions, and a rotating Secretariat to reduce member’s
administrative burden, and has overhead costs that run in the range of 13 to 23 percent of program
costs. In addition, one informant suggested that improving programs’ staff position flexibility, by not
locking in staff positions and linking positions to relevant projects, could reduce long-term
administrative costs. Improving the program’s flexibility in this way lessens institutionalization of
outdated positions and maintains relevant positions.
Recommendation 20: Once the NRTF has a prospective structure identified for a new
institution or institutional arrangements, it might consider a targeted search for and
survey of institutions that are similar to try to identify the real world administrative
costs of such an institution(s).
114 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Appendix A: Case Study Survey Tool
Interviewee Information
Institutional Relationships
Stakeholders
Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:
Engagement: How do these Institutional Arrangements engage stakeholders in terms of disseminating
Interviewee Information: What is your role in ocean management or science (natural and social) for X
place? Do you have a strong knowledge and understanding of the institutional arrangements in X?
Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:
Key Institutions and Interactions: Please explain to me the overarching institutional arrangements for X
in the context of coastal and ocean management and science –based decision-making. What
Institutions are in this structure? and how do they interact?
Mandates: Is there formal agreements/mandate for these relationships? If so, is the legislation or
cooperative agreement effective? What works and what does not?
Effectiveness: Is the structure of the institutional arrangements effective in carrying out X’s ocean and
coastal priorities? Have any evaluations been conducted in recent years? Reports available?
Information Sharing: What mechanisms are in place for communicating and coordinating information
(such as research results and policy/ management changes ) among the key institutions responsible for
coastal/ocean management? Do they work well, or are there gaps?
Updating/Adaptive Management: Is there a system in place to adapt to new information or identify
needs within the region on a regular basis (yearly reviews, strategic plans, etc)?
Flexibility/Nimbleness: How flexible and nimble are these arrangements and mechanisms for coastal
and ocean management and science –based decision-making?
Strengths & Weaknesses: What are strengths/weaknesses of the Institutional Arrangements? If you
could draft over what would you change?
Institution/Organization:
Organization/Institution Role: What role does X organization play in the institutional arrangements
within the state (or region)?
Effectiveness: Is X’s role within these intuitional arrangements effective in carrying out X’s ocean and
coastal priorities? Have any evaluations been conducted in recent years? Reports available?
Information Sharing: What mechanisms are in place for communicating and coordinating information
(such as research results and policy/ management changes ) among the key institutions responsible for
coastal/ocean management? Do they work well, or are there gaps?
Updating/Adaptive Management: Does organization X have a system in place to adapt to new science
information or identify science needs on a regular basis (yearly reviews, strategic plans, etc)?
Flexibility/Nimbleness: How flexible and nimble is X’s mechanisms for coastal and ocean management
and science –based decision-making?
115 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
information to them and receiving their input into the policy and management decision-making
process? (e.g., advisory panels, public meetings and comment, development and dissemination of
notices and public education materials)
Institution/Organization:
Engagement: How does the X engage stakeholders in terms of disseminating information to them and
receiving their input into the policy and management decision-making process? (e.g., advisory panels,
public meetings and comment, development and dissemination of notices and public education
materials)
Science
Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:
Obtaining Science Advice: How do the Institutional Arrangements obtain science advice (is it funded, or
is there an expert panel, etc)?
Identifying Priorities and Gaps: Is science advice or research prioritized and are there mechanisms for
identifying gaps? Is this regularly revised? (for instance, some Institutional Arrangements use an
annual science plan). How is research chosen/funded by the Institutional Arrangements? Do you think
this is a transparent process?
Ensuring Neutrality, Objectivity, and Trust: If it uses consultation and advice, how do the Institutional
Arrangements ensure that the scientific advice is objective, unbiased, and trusted? Is there a peer
review process of science and research conducted for policy and management?
Institution/Organization:
Obtaining Science Advice: How does X obtain science advice (is it funded, or is there an expert panel,
etc)?
Identifying Priorities and Gaps: Is science advice or research prioritized and are there mechanisms for
identifying gaps? Is this regularly revised? (for instance, organizations use an annual science plan).
How is research chose/funded? Do you think this is a transparent process?
Ensuring Neutrality, Objectivity, and Trust: If it uses consultation and advice, how does X ensure that the
scientific advice is objective, unbiased, and trusted? Is there a peer review process of science and
research conducted for policy and management?
Integration of Science into Decisions
Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:
Science Integration Mechanisms: How do policy-makers and agency staff integrate scientific advice in
policy and management decision-making? (for example, do agency staff incorporate science panel’s
findings into set of recommendations for policy-makers)
Transparency; Do you think this is a transparent process?
Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses? What would you
change if you could design the system from scratch?
116 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Institution/Organization:
Science Integration Mechanisms: How does X integrate scientific advice into its policy and management
decision-making?
Transparency; Do you think this is a transparent process?
Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses? What would you
change if you could design the system from scratch?
Data Management
Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:
Storage: How are research data stored? (Publications, maps, tools, etc).
Accessibility: How is it made available to the public and partners?
Use: How is used or incorporated into policy and management decision?
Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses?
Institution/Organization:
Storage: How are research data stored? (Publications, maps, tools, etc).
Accessibility: How is it made available to the public and partners?
Use: How is used or incorporated into policy and management decision?
Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths of this system? Weaknesses?
Funding
Institutional Arrangements/Mechanisms:
Sources: What types of funding sources does the Institutional Arrangements have access to/ uses?
Acceptance Channels: How are funds received (allocations, foundation support, project based) within
the Institutional Arrangements?
Funding Allocations: For each of the categories we discussed above – general Institutional
Arrangements for ocean and coastal management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data
Management – how are funding disbursement choices made (competitive process, allocations, etc)?
Funding-Accountability: For each of the categories we discussed above – general Institutional
Arrangements for ocean and coastal management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data
Management – how are disbursement choices reported and made clear to stakeholders, the public, and
other agencies?”
Administration: The administrative burden for coordinating these institutional arrangements may vary
across institutions. Do you have any insight into what these burdens, costs, and gaps (human resources,
funding, etc) are?
Strengths and Weaknesses: Can you cite particular strengths/weaknesses in the way the Institutional
Arrangements acquire and disburse funding?
Opportunities for Change: If you could draft over the process of allocating funding for policy/programs
and science, what changes would you make?
117 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Institution/Organization:
Sources: What types of funding sources does X organization have access to/ uses?
Acceptance Channels: How are funds received (allocations, foundation support, project based) within
X?
Funding Allocations: For each of the categories we discussed above – X’s role in ocean and coastal
management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data Management – how are funding
disbursement choices made (competitive process, allocations, etc)?
Funding-Accountability: For each of the categories we discussed above – X’s role in ocean and coastal
management, Stakeholder engagement, Science Integration, Data Management – how are
disbursement choices reported and made clear to stakeholders, the public, and other agencies?”
Administration: Do you have any insight into the administrative burdens, costs, and gaps (human
resources, funding, etc) for X in relation to supporting the efforts of nearshore research and
management?
Strengths and Weaknesses: Can you cite particular strengths/weaknesses in the way X acquires and
disburses funding?
Opportunities for Change: If you could draft over the process of allocating funding for policy/programs
and science, what changes would you make?
Other
Lessons learned?
Do you have any other thoughts or ideas you would like to share?
Is there anyone else who you think we should talk to about what we discussed today?
118 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Appendix B: Informant List
Case Study Region Informant
Oregon Robert Bailey, Manager, Oregon Coastal Management Program
Dave Fox, Marine Resource Assessment and Management Section
Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Marine
Resources Program
Jessica Keyes, Natural Resources Policy Advisor
Case Study Region Informant
Australia Toni Dam, Manager Program Strategy and Communications Section,
Cooperative Research Centres Branch, Research Division, Department of
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
Jon Day, Director, Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable Use, Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)
John Hicks, Business Manager, Marine Directorate, Queensland Parks
and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Resource
Management
Terry Hughes, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
David Souter, Research and Spatial Systems Director, Reef and
Rainforest Research Centre Limited
British Columbia Meaghan Calcari, Program Officer- British Columbia, Marine
Conservation Initiative, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Andrew Day, Director, Tsawalk Partnership, West Coast Vancouver
Island Aquatic Management Board
Evert Kenk, Program Director, PacMARA
Henry Kucera, Executive Director, PacMARA
California Amber Mace, Executive Director, Ocean Protection Council
Skyli McAfee, Executive Director, California Ocean Science Trust
Sam Schucat, Executive Officer, California Coastal Conservancy
Chesapeake Bay Joe Grist, Fisheries Management, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission
Matt Fleming, Program Director, Coastal Program, Department of
Natural Resources
Carl Hershner, Director, Center for Coastal Resources Management
Associate Professor of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science
Frederick Hoffman, Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program, VA
119 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Department of Environmental Quality
Jane McCroskey, Jane McCroskey, Chief, Administration and Finance,
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
Laura McKay, Program Manager, Coastal Zone Management Program,
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Robert O’Reilly, Deputy Chief, Fisheries Management, Virginia Marine
Resources Commission (VMRC)
Peyton Robertson, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office
Gwynne Schultz, Director, Coastal Zone Management Program,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Gwen Shaunhnessy, Coastal Hazards and Climate Programs Specialist,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Gulf of Maine Stewart Fefer, Project Leader. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gulf of
Maine Program
David Keeley, Principal, Keeley Group
Cindy Krum, Association of U.S. Delegates to the Gulf of Maine Council
on the Marine Environment
Michele Tremblay, Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
Coordinator
120 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Appendix C: Detailed Description of Case Study Screening
The Consulting Team conducted a rapid assessment of 15 potential case studies (see Table 1 for a list of
the potential case studies), completing an assessment tool, performing web-based research, and
drawing on experience to screen for those ocean and coastal case studies whose institutional
arrangements included mechanisms for the following:
Funding
Stakeholder Advice
Science Advice
Incorporation of science in management decision-making
Data management, sharing, and products
Education, outreach, and community engagement
Scientific research
Scientific synthesis for policy input
Table 1: List of Potential Place-based Case Studies
U.S. /States
U.S. Multi-State/Regional
International
California
Florida
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Washington
Virginia
Chesapeake Bay
Gulf of Maine
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Pacific States
Australia-Queensland
Canada - British Columbia
New Zealand
The Consulting Team collected data about marine institutions and their programs, screening numerous
institutions in each place-based case study against twelve criteria in light of the NRTF mandate. Table 2
outlines the twelve criteria.
Table 2: Criteria for Selection of Case Studies
Criteria Definition
Types of Institutional
Partners:
Government (local, state, federal/ national), nongovernmental organization
(NGO), inter-governmental organization (IGO), private foundation
Legislative Mandate
or Agreement:
Mandate or Agreement and governing process in place
Funding Sources: Diversity of revenue and long-term funding mechanism for marine
management and research
Funding Process: Description of process/mechanism for funding institutional activities
121 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Stakeholder advice: Stakeholders’ advisory role via committee or representation
Community
engagement/
outreach:
Brief description of type of outreach mechanisms: workshops, media campaign,
etc.
Science Advice: Science advice and peer review provided /obtained
Scientific Research: Institution and capacity (financial and human) to conduct scientific (social and
natural science) research relevant for decision-making
Incorporation of
science into decision-
making process:
Mechanism, requirements, and capacity for incorporating science and science-
based decision-making process
Synthesis of science
for policy input:
Mechanism and capacity for scientific synthesis for decision-making (e.g.,
prioritization, gap analysis, synthesis of science and data for decision-making, or
use of boundary institution such as California Ocean Science Trust)
Data management/
sharing/ products:
Mechanisms for data management, sharing, and products
Accessibility of
Information:
Grants, strategy, evaluation, process, organizational charts, legislation, etc
The Consulting Team used a rapid assessment tool for case study selection. Each place-based case study
was ranked according to the preliminary data gathering effort that used the Consulting Team’s best
effort to quickly make an assessment.195 The Consulting Team shared two elements – institutional
analysis synthesized from a larger volume of raw data, and ranking definitions – with the NRTF
Operations Committee and discussed the case study options on a May 24, 2010 conference call. The
NRTF members expressed an interest in funding mechanism and institutional interactions (how
arrangements differ and which organizations are involved). The Operations Committee directed the
Consulting Team to incorporate their guidance in making a final selection of cases. Based on this
guidance, the Consulting Team chose four place-based case studies as follows:
California: While a number of the most innovative components of California’s system are
relatively new, the state provides a West Coast example with similar concerns and management
actions. In addition, Oregon’s nearshore policies will at times need to utilize cross-border
political actions; the need to coordinate across state boundaries supported an in-depth case
study write-up.
195
The analysis synthesizes information about multiple organizations within each case study area; the rankings reflect whether, within a given case, at least some component satisfies the criteria. For our recommended case studies, we worked with the raw data to select those cases, which we believe best satisfied the criteria. These underlying data distinguished selected cases from others, which appear to have a similar rank in the simplified analysis we are providing the NRTF Operations Committee with this memo.
122 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Chesapeake Bay (Maryland and Virginia): Maryland and Virginia were chosen not only for the
longevity of their programs, but for the overarching context of managing the Chesapeake Bay
region and the methods of funding projects through such organizations as the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia/ Queensland): Australia was selected because it has
been a strong leader in coastal and resource management particularly in the context of the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the State of Queensland, and the Cooperative
Research Centers.
Gulf of Maine (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment): Gulf of Maine was selected
for its management and use of public participation in the development of their action plans.
123 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Appendix D: Case Study Committees and Board Composition information and webpage links
California
Organization: Link
Ocean Protection Council (OPC) http://www.opc.ca.gov/about/
OPC Staff http://www.opc.ca.gov/opc-staff/
OPC Science Advisory Team (OPC-SAT) http://www.opc.ca.gov/ocean-protection-council-
science-advisory-team-opc-sat/
California Ocean Science Trust (OST) Board http://www.calost.org/bios.html
OST Staff http://www.calost.org/staff.html
Chesapeake Bay Region
Organization Link
Chesapeake Bay Program Organizational
Structure
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committeeactiviti
es.aspx?menuitem=14890
Chesapeake Bay Program History http://www.chesapeakebay.net/historyofcbp.aspx
?menuitem=14904
Chesapeake Bay Program Staff http://www.chesapeakebay.net/officestaff_alpha.
aspx?menuitem=14915
Chesapeake Bay Program Science and Technical
Advisory Committee (STAC)
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/members
Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board http://www.chesapeakebay.net/management_bo
ard.aspx?menuitem=47089
Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_cac_i
nfo.aspx?menuitem=46325
Chesapeake Executive Council http://www.chesapeakebay.net/exec.htm
Implementation Committee http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_ic_inf
o.aspx?menuitem=16436
Chesapeake Bay Trust Board of Trustees http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.545
4857/k.B331/Board_of_Trustees.htm
Chesapeake Bay Trust Staff http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.545
4853/k.CA36/Staff.htm
Chesapeake Bay Commission Members http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/members.htm
Chesapeake Bay Commission Staff http://www.chesbay.state.va.us/offices.htm
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/trust_f
und.asp and
http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/trustfund_info.
html
SB 213-established the Chesapeake and Atlantic http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/funding/pdfs/s
124 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Coastal Bays Trust Fund, BayStat Subcabinet, and
Scientific Advisory Panel
b213.pdf
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Departments http://www.vims.edu/research/departments/inde
x.php
VIMS-Ways to Give http://www.vims.edu/giving/waystogive/index.ph
p
VIMS Foundation http://www.vims.edu/giving/foundation/index.ph
p
Virginia Marine Resource Council Board
Membership and Term Limits
http://www.mrc.state.va.us/commissionboard.sht
m
Great Barrier Reef
Organization Link
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
(GBRMPA) About including: Organizational Chart,
Advisory Group Structure, and Performance
Framework
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:5tkQfJnqk7oJ:www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_
site/about_us+GBRMPa+Advisory+Group+Structur
e&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
GBRMPA Board http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/g
reat_barrier_reef_marine_park_authority_board
GBRMPA Science Integration http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_service
s/science_management
GBRMPA Consultation and Community
Involvement
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/manageme
nt/who_participates/consultation_community_inv
olvement and
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/manageme
nt/who_participates/lmac
Australia Institute of Marine Science Council http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/about/corporate/co
rporate-governance-council.html
ARC Centre of Excellence Coral Reef Studies
annual report
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/pub-
annualreport.html
Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) Board http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/Board.asp
x
GBRF Team http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/GBRFTea
m.aspx
GBRF Scientific Advisory Committee http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/ScientificA
dvisoryCommitteeISAC.aspx
GBRF Chairman’s Panel http://www.barrierreef.org/Whoweare/Chairmans
Panel.aspx
125 | P a g e Evaluation of Institutional Frameworks—For OSU/NRTF
Blue Earth Consultants and Gabriela Goldfarb Consulting
Gulf of Maine
Organization Link
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
(GOMC) About
http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/
GOMC Councilors http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/councilors.ph
p
GOMC Committees (including the Working Group,
Secretariat Team, Outreach, Management and
Finance, ESIP, Gulfwatch, etc.)
http://www.gulfofmaine.org/council/committees/
GOMC Member Agencies http://www.gulfofmaine.org/knowledgebase/gom
c_member_links.php