The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan-A Case Study of Fisherman Stakeholder Involvement in Marine Spatial Planning

...

- In your opinion, was fisherman stakeholders’ participation in the SAMP a success or failure? Why/why not?

In my opinion fisherman stakeholder’s participation in the SAMP was a success with a need for a few improvements.

The FAB was successful in convincing the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to remove Cox’s Ledge from the list of areas for proposed energy leasing. The board worked with fisherman and the CRMC in creating the detailed maps which identified the value of Cox’s Ledge to them. The area was removed from the proposed leasing area thus protecting the valuable fishing grounds from future development.

The failure lies in the lack of engagement and the way that the FAB was created. Membership should have been open to all fisherman and not appointed by the CRMC. This gives all an opportunity to be more involved in the process and more representative to their stakeholder groups views and values. Their board meetings should have also been open to all fisherman to attend to ensure their views are heard. When things are done behind closed doors trust becomes an issue.

- Both practitioners and stakeholders interviewed for this case study shared a lesson learned that trust is critical to a MSP process. What do you think about this? Do you see evidence that trust was established through this Ocean SAMP process? If, so what strategies seemed to help build trust? Why do you think this is important?

There are a number of lessons learned from this process. In the development and implementation of Ocean SAMP in was found that relationship building and trust are just as important factors as science and policy.

Lessons learned in the process include:

- Leadership building: during plan development, identify potential leaders from all sectors and allow ample opportunities for participation and engagement. Leaders advocate for their respective groups and ensure that their views are known

- Trust: work proactively to build trust and be aware that this takes adequate time. Mistrust takes time and hard work to change (for example some fisherman)

- Relevant Objective: use your planning driver to keep stakeholders engaged.

- Create clear policy tools: utilizing tools to help inform and streamline decision making are beneficial. They contribute to effective plan implementation and keep stakeholders engaged. The Fisherman’s Advisory Board for example provided this key stakeholder group with an official means of staying involved in the process.

Trust was definitely a factor in this process. Many fishermen conveyed their distrust of government. Rhode Island fisherman had not previously worked with CRMC and had to start a new relationship with the state’s coastal management agency. This new relationship however gave the opportunity to establish a new relationship from the ground-up. SAMP leaders organized stakeholder meetings for fisherman to discuss fisheries specific issues and concerns; provided them with access to specialized resources such as maps, charts, studies and offshore wind farm experts; and facilitated direct communication between fisherman and Deepwater Wind. These communication activities helped build a new relationship between the CRMC and fisherman and form a basis of trust. Trusted working relationships are vital during the planning and implementation phase. Practitioners worked proactively to build trust and allow adequate time for it to develop as the process unfolded (CRC, 2016).

References

Coastal Resources Centre and Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program. 2016. www.crc.uri.edu/initiatives_page/msp/

Hasbrouck, E., J. Scotti, J. Stent, K. Gerbino. Rhode Island Commercial Fishing and Seafood Industries-The development of an industry profile. Cornell Cooperative Extension Marine Program. October 12, 2011 http://www.seafoodri.com/reports/pdfs/RI-Profile-Final-2nd-Print.pdf

Pomeroy. R and F. Douvere. 2008. The Engagement of Stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy. Vol 32 pp. 816-822