Assessing marine spatial planning governmentality

Wesley Flannery,Ben Mcateer

doi:10.1007/s40152-020-00174-2

Abstract

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is advanced by its champions as an impartial and rational process that can address complex management issues. We argue that MSP is not innately rational and that it problematises marine issues in specific ways, often reflecting hegemonic agendas. The illusion of impartial rationality in MSP is derived from governmentalities that appear progressive but serve elite interests. By understanding the creation of governmentalities, we can design more equitable planning processes. We conceptualise governmentalities as consisting of problematisations, rationalities and governance technologies, and assess England’s first marine plans to understand how specific governmentalities de-radicalise MSP. We find that progressive framings of MSP outcomes, such as enhanced well-being, are deployed by the government to garner early support for MSP. These elements, however, become regressively problematised in later planning phases, where they are framed by the government as being difficult to achieve and are pushed into future iterations of the process. Eviscerating progressive elements from the planning process clears the way for the government to focus on implementing a neoliberal form of MSP. Efforts to foster radical MSP must pay attention to the emergence of governmentalities, how they travel through time/space and be cognisant of where difference can be inserted into planning processes. Achieving progressive MSP will require the creation of a political frontier early in the process, which cannot be passed until pathways for progressive socio-environmental outcomes have been established; advocacy for disenfranchised groups; broadening MSP evaluations to account for unintended impacts; and the monitoring of progressive objectives.

Highlights

Marine spatial planning (MSP) has been quickly adopted by national governments as the solution to an array of issues, yet questions remain about its capacity to reform unsustainable marine management (Ritchie and Ellis 2010; Jones et al 2016; Smith and Jentoft 2017; Smith 2018; Tafon et al 2018; Saunders et al 2019; Gissi et al 2019)
We argue that power is exercised in MSP through the creation of specific governmentalities that reflect the interests of elite stakeholders and co-opts others into believing that MSP will serve their interests
We suggest that the Maritime Studies (2020) 19:269–284 broad appeal of MSP is due to spatial planning appearing to be a relatively value-neutral concept when compared to ecosystem approaches, which may be perceived as having inherent biases towards achieving environmental objectives

Summary

Introduction

Marine spatial planning (MSP) has been quickly adopted by national governments as the solution to an array of issues, yet questions remain about its capacity to reform unsustainable marine management (Ritchie and Ellis 2010; Jones et al 2016; Smith and Jentoft 2017; Smith 2018; Tafon et al 2018; Saunders et al 2019; Gissi et al 2019). Progressive rationalities (e.g. best available science) and technologies (e.g. stakeholder participation) become regressively problematised by the government at each subsequent planning phase, while neoliberal ambitions become the main governance objects of the MSP governmentality.

Results

Conclusion