From the Forest to the Sea:
Lessons in Managing Public Space
Morgan Gopnik, Ph.D.
Open Channels/EBM Tools Network
Webinar
March 18, 2015
“Congress, working with
the National Ocean
Council, … should
establish a balanced,
ecosystem-based,
offshore management
regime that sets forth
guiding principles for the
coordination of offshore
activities …”
USCOP 2004
“ecosystem-based”
“efficient”
“coordinated”
“integrated”
“consistent”
“comprehensive”
Belgian Marine Spatial Plan
Sunnyside, WA
North Sea
Belgium
U.S. EEZ (4
U.S.
Public
Lands
(1
million
sq.mi.)
million sq. mi.)
Can ocean
managers
learn from
public land
managers?
Forest-ocean timeline
Forest
1900
1950
2000
Ocean
Echoes of ocean policy?
“[The] demand for use of resources is
becoming intense and there is little doubt
that demands will continue to grow…
forest resources are not adequate to fully
satisfy these individual desires for
space.”
Forest Service, 1963
Echoes of ocean policy?
“[Ecosystem management] would
impose constraints upon single purpose
approaches to the [land], and would
arouse hostility among individuals whose
single purpose pursuits would thereby be
constrained.”
Caldwell, 1970
Question #1
Is the EEZ like a national forest, in a meaningful, policyrelevant sense?
Question #2
Has over a hundred years of forest management produced any
“lessons for success,” particularly with respect to multiple-use
planning and management?
Question #3
How might forest-based lessons be used to improve MSP
implementation?
=≠?
==?
Understanding policy elements
Source: Sabatier and Weible 2005
Source: Ostrom 2005
Similarities between national forests and the EEZ
• Transition from laissez-faire to state management
• Stressed, but intact and diverse ecosystems that transcend
political boundaries
• Similar bundles of goods and services
• Public-trust responsibilities
• Overlapping laws and agencies
• Multiple-use mandates and resulting conflicts
• Divergent local and national interests
• Evolving ecological and social understanding
Research methods
Siuslaw NF, OR
Document review
• government records, reports, and regulations
• academic, legal, and popular writings
Confidential interviews
Willamette NF, OR
• 82 forest & ocean users, scholars, and managers
• Thematic analysis of transcripts
Case studies
• site visits to National Forests
Croatan NF, NC
• met with agency staff, loggers, ENGOs, and community members
Balancing competing goals
Scale of solutions
National
• Public trust duty
• Broad representation
• Large ecosystem scale
Local
• Local knowledge
• Community engagement
• Better monitoring and
enforcement
Balancing competing goals
Degree of uniformity
Standardized
• Certainty
• Consistency
• Sets a “floor”
Flexible
• Context specific
• Adaptive
• Innovative
Balancing competing goals
Style of decisionmaking
• Independent
• Respected
• Weight of law
Collaborative
• Seeks compromise
• Builds trust
• Less adversarial
Judicial
Political
• Representative
• Legitimate
• Stable
Technocratic
• Can adapt
• Objective
• Science-based
What this all means for MSP in the U.S.
Lessons for:
Congress
The NOC and federal agencies
The RPBs and states
The Courts
Stakeholders
The research community
Then or now?
“… planning has been controversial.
Some … have argued that the process is
too technical and expensive … [But] it
creates valuable inventories, offers the
potential of engaging the public, … and
holds out the promise of creating ordered
and principled decisionmaking.”
Wilkinson, 1987, on Forest Service planning
Questions?
For further info:
morgan.gopnik@gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/morgangopnik
www.researchgate.net/profile/Morgan_Gopnik