Abstract

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offers the possibility of democratising management of the seas. MSP is, however, increasingly implemented as a form of post-political planning, dominated by the logic of neoliberalism, and a belief in the capacity of managerial-technological apparatuses to address complex socio-political problems, with little attention paid to issues of power and inequality. There is growing concern that MSP is not facilitating a paradigm shift towards publicly engaged marine management, and that it may simply repackage power dynamics in the rhetoric of participation to legitimise the agendas of dominant actors. This raises questions about the legitimacy and inclusivity of participatory MSP. Research on stakeholder engagement within MSP has predominately focused on assessing experiences of active MSP participants and has not evaluated the democratic or inclusive nature of these processes. Adopting the Northeast Ocean Planning initiative in the US as a case study, this paper provides the first study of exclusion and non-participation of stakeholders in an MSP process. Three major issues are found to have had an impact on exclusion and non-participation: poor communication and a perception that the process was deliberately exclusionary; issues arising from fragmented governance, territorialisation and scale; and lack of specificity regarding benefits or losses that might accrue from the process. To be effective, participatory MSP practice must: develop mechanisms that recognise the complexity of socio-spatial relationships in the marine environment; facilitate participation in meaningful spatial decision-making, rather than in post-ideological, objective-setting processes; and create space for debate about the very purpose of MSP processes.

Highlights

  • Evaluating the democratic legitimacy of participatory Marine Spatial Planning1 (MSP) is imperative as it exhibits many symptoms of the post-political condition [1, 2]

  • Symptoms of post-political planning include a fetishisation of managerial- technological planning approaches, a failure to problematise issues that might arise from consensus-based decision making, the foreclosure of debate about the very purpose of a planning process, and the preservation of neoliberal agendas

  • The present paper addresses this gap by providing the first exploration of exclusion and nonparticipation in an MSP process, the Northeast Ocean Planning process in the US

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Evaluating the democratic legitimacy of participatory Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is imperative as it exhibits many symptoms of the post-political condition [1, 2]. Post-political planning uncritically exalts participatory decision making, ignoring how it habitually narrows the scope for debate and can, paradoxically, be deeply undemocratic and exclusionary [3]. Planning processes afflicted by the post-political condition hide their undemocratic nature by appearing to offer progressive changes (e.g. bottom-up decision-making or an emphasis on environmental issues) while facilitating and accelerating the agenda of elite actors [3,4,5]. Rapid uptake [6], and parallels with post-political planning, there is a fundamental need to critically examine the democratic legitimacy and inclusivity of MSP processes

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call