11

Dr. Jonathan RaabDr. Jonathan Raab

12 Farnsworth St. Boston, MA 0221012 Farnsworth St. Boston, MA 02210617.350.5544 www.RaabAssociates.org617.350.5544 www.RaabAssociates.org

BRTF MeetingSeptember 6, 2006Burbank, California

California Marine Life Protection Act

Evaluation of the Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Process

22

Our Lessons Learned ChargeOur Lessons Learned Charge

1. Accurately describe and analyze CCRSG process

2. Develop recommendations for improving future RSG processes

33

MethodologyMethodology

1. Interviews—59 individuals (CCRSG, BRTF, DFG, SAT, SIG, CRA, MLPA I-Team)

2. On-line survey—25 CCRSG members

3. Reviewed background and CCRSG/BRTF/DFG process documents

4. Attended March BRTF and May FCG meetings

44

Summary of Key FindingsSummary of Key Findings

1. CCRSG process succeeded in developing multiple packages of MPAs.

2. Accomplished this on time and within budget.

3. But hit numerous bumps along the way (both within the CCRSG process and in the subsequent BRTF and DFG processes).

4. There is room for improvement in future RSG processes.

55

RecommendationsRecommendations

66

A. Overarching RecommendationsA. Overarching Recommendations

1. Clarify process from start

2. Stabilize underlying policy, science, and enforcement requirements prior to commencing

77

B. Overall Structure of the B. Overall Structure of the RSG Processes Over Time RSG Processes Over Time

1. Reconsider the respective roles and responsibilities of a SIG, SAT and BRTF in future RSGs

88

C. Stakeholder Selection and C. Stakeholder Selection and MembershipMembership

1. Reconsider the balance and diversity of RSG membership, while reducing the number of formal members in RSG processes

99

C. Stakeholder Selection and C. Stakeholder Selection and

MembershipMembership

2. Let primary representatives pick their own alternates

3. Retain facilitators/mediators early enough to assist with stakeholder selection

1010

D. Start-Up Phase of RSG ProcessD. Start-Up Phase of RSG Process

1. Compile regional spatial data, develop detailed regional profiles, and analyze existing MPAs before commencing each new study area

2. Socio-economic study requirements should be clarified and any required study should also be completed prior to the start of an RSG process

3. Enhance the regional profile with joint fact-finding on coastal resources and uses (by sub-region)

1111

D. Start-Up Phase of RSG ProcessD. Start-Up Phase of RSG Process4. Clearly define and describe from the

outset the CCRSG goal and process and the subsequent decision-making processes, as well as any explicit requirements that must be met

5. Streamline or eliminate altogether the development of regional goals and objectives

6. Provide training in modeling tools and mutual gains negotiation

1212

E. Package Development Phase E. Package Development Phase of RSG Process of RSG Process

1. Consider changing the overall goal and focus of the RSG processes from developing multiple MPA packages to attempting to develop a single MPA package

2. Provide more time for MPA package development and negotiation

1313

E. Package Development Phase E. Package Development Phase of RSG Process of RSG Process

3. Skip having everyone draw individual MPAs prior to focusing on creating packages

4. Minimize the need for MPA proposals from outside the RSG process

1414

E. Package Development Phase E. Package Development Phase of RSG Processof RSG Process

5. DFG staff should participate even more actively in package development in RSG processes

6. BRTF should provide feedback and guidance throughout the MPA package development process in an iterative fashion

1515

F. BRTF and DFG Review and F. BRTF and DFG Review and Recommendation ProcessesRecommendation Processes

1. Align the incentives at the BRTF, DFG and Fish and Game Commission to foster joint problem solving and consensus in RSG processes

1616

F. BRTF and DFG Review and F. BRTF and DFG Review and Recommendation ProcessesRecommendation Processes

2. The BRTF and the DFG should not unilaterally change MPA packages agreed to by RSG members

3. The BRTF (and probably the DFG) should not develop their own preferred alternatives if RSG members develop package(s) that meet SAT guidelines

1717

G. RSG Timelines and BudgetsG. RSG Timelines and Budgets

1. Lengthen RSG processes to at least one year to allow for more joint fact-finding and negotiation

2. Consider allowing more time between meetings

1818

G. RSG Timelines and BudgetsG. RSG Timelines and Budgets

3. Carefully reevaluate budget needs in light of central coast project experience and future RSG process design

4. Seek state funding, diversified private funding, or both