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”

Sunnyside, WA

North Sea

Belgian Marine Spatial Plan

Belgium

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

Can ocean

managers

learn from

public land

managers?

Forest-ocean timeline

1900 1950 2000

Forest

Ocean

“[The] demand for use of resources is

becoming intense and there is little doubt

that demands will continue to grow…

forest resources are not adequate to fully

satisfy these individual desires for

space.” Forest Service, 1963

Echoes of ocean policy?

“[Ecosystem management] would

impose constraints upon single purpose

approaches to the [land], and would

arouse hostility among individuals whose

single purpose pursuits would thereby be

constrained.”

Caldwell, 1970

Echoes of ocean policy?

Question #1

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

relevant sense?

Question #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

Document review• government records, reports, and regulations

• academic, legal, and popular writings

Confidential interviews• 82 forest & ocean users, scholars, and managers

• Thematic analysis of transcripts

Case studies• site visits to National Forests

• met with agency staff, loggers, ENGOs, and community members

Willamette NF, OR

Siuslaw NF, OR

Croatan NF, NC

Balancing competing goals

Scale of solutions

National Local

• Public trust duty

• Broad representation

• Large ecosystem scale

• Local knowledge

• Community engagement

• Better monitoring and

enforcement

Balancing competing goals

Degree of uniformity

Standardized Flexible

• Certainty

• Consistency

• Sets a “floor”

• Context specific

• Adaptive

• Innovative

Balancing competing goals

Style of decisionmaking

• Can adapt

• Objective

• Science-based

Collaborative

Technocratic

Political

Judicial

• Representative

• Legitimate

• Stable

• Seeks compromise

• Builds trust

• Less adversarial

• Independent

• Respected

• Weight of law

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

Lessons for:

Congress

The NOC and federal agencies

The RPBs and states

The Courts

Stakeholders

The research community

“… planning has been controversial.

Some … have argued that the process is

too technical and expensive … [But] it

creates valuable inventories, offers the

potential of engaging the public, … and

holds out the promise of creating ordered

and principled decisionmaking.”

Wilkinson, 1987, on Forest Service planning

Then or now?

Questions?

For further info:

morgan.gopnik@gmail.com

www.linkedin.com/in/morgangopnik

www.researchgate.net/profile/Morgan_Gopnik