Executive Director Massachusetts Ocean Partnership
By: Matthew Boger
Stephanie Moura is Executive Director of the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP) an independent, broadly representative public-private partnership supporting the development and implementation of integrated ocean management for Massachusetts' coastal oceans. MOP's work includes facilitating stakeholder forums for collaborative problem solving on difficult ocean management issues and facilitating the synthesis and development of processes, data, and tools to improve the integration of natural and social science with management.
For nearly twenty years, Stephanie has worked on marine and coastal resource policy/management issues, and has developed complementary experience in managing multi-stakeholder processes. From 1998 to 2006, she managed large combined sewer overflow (CSO) projects, and the associated public involvement programs, for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) in accordance with responsibilities under the Clean Water Act to minimize sewage discharges to the Boston Harbor watershed. Prior to that, she spent six years as a project manager and mediator/facilitator with a Boston-based dispute resolution firm. Stephanie also worked on sustainable fisheries management and habitat issues for a national environmental organization. She earned her B.A. in Marine Biology/Environmental Policy in 1984 from University of California, Santa Cruz and her M.A. in Urban and Environmental Policy in 1990 from Tufts University.
Q.) You are the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP). Please discuss MOP's critical role as the first-in-the-nation Ocean Management Plan is developed?
A.) The Massachusetts Ocean Partnership is an independent public-private partnership that exists to both support the state's efforts to create the first-in-the-nation statewide ocean management plan and, in parallel to that, to pursue the broader long-term objectives that were identified by MOP's five-year strategic plan. Our ultimate goal is to advance integrated multi-use ocean management for the purpose of ensuring a healthy and resilient ocean ecosystem, while fostering sustainable marine industries and businesses. MOP pursues these goals through convening stakeholders, science integration, and public outreach strategies.
The genesis of MOP can be tracked back to recommendations made in the Waves of Change Report which was the result of the Ocean Task Force that was convened by Governor Mitt Romney in 2003. That Task Force was the state's effort to examine ocean management challenges in Massachusetts. Out of that Task Force came several major recommendations, one was to draft legislation for a comprehensive ocean management plan, which later became the Oceans Act. Another outgrowth from that effort was interest in launching a public-private partnership to support ocean management, which later became MOP.
The idea behind MOP was to provide additional resources to the state in terms of research and scientific data, but also to create a non-partisan forum where competing stakeholders with different perspectives could convene to speak and problem-solve informally. This was the basis of the creation of MOP and several members from that Ocean Task Force, including Robbin Peach, CZM Director Susan Snow-Cotter, Paul Diodati from DMF, Priscilla Brooks from CLF, and Andy Rosenberg from UNH secured a planning grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. This grant recognized that Massachusetts was at the forefront of ocean planning, and that a public-private partnership would be a very beneficial organization to help move the process along and provide needed resources. Out of this grant came the creation of MOP and a five-year strategic plan for the Partnership. MOP's five-year plan is really a business plan for what the Partnership would do - the roles it would play and how it would contribute and add value in ways that would distinguish itself from all the other groups already in existence. It should be pointed out that the strategic plan is for MOP, not the state, nor the Ocean Management Plan. This innovative public-private partnership model is something that other states are also considering to assist in implementing integrated multi-use ocean management. As we developed the five-year strategy for MOP, the Oceans Act was moving along in the legislature. For a time it didn't look like the legislation would get anywhere, but we still felt that the Partnership could be a catalyst to move the planning concepts forward and work with the many ocean user groups. The idea was to create an entity that would be a consistent and enduring voice for integrated ocean management in Massachusetts, and carry it forward no matter how the political winds blow.
Q.) Please discuss how MOP, a non-governmental group, works hand-in-hand with the state to help provide critical scientific information.
A.) We have a very good relationship with the state, Deerin Babb-Brott, and his staff. Together we have been successful in coordinating to collect data, host meetings, and make sure that the plan is hitting the deadlines as required by the legislation. To be clear, MOP has no governmental authority or regulatory power, and no mandate, besides the mandate that the Partners give us. Instead, MOP plays a catalytic, organizing, and convening role. Prior to the Oceans Act passing, CZM, DMF, DEP and DCR had already begun to conceptually think about how to organize an ocean plan and what would be needed. Our idea, pre-legislation, was to continue those efforts, bring stakeholders together, and focus on gathering the needed scientific data to make informed ocean management decisions. For example, MOP identified that a key science integration tool that we wanted to bring to fruition was a statewide ocean data network that would have dynamically updated information and several levels of user interface, so that you would not have to be a GIS expert in order to use it. As of now, the instrument to store and use that data is the state's Massachusetts Ocean Resources Information System (MORIS).
Q.) Please discuss the importance of balancing the many different uses and demands in our ocean waters. From addressing the need to protect and preserve critical ocean habitats and wildlife, to the energy issues that are facing Massachusetts and New England, to important commercial and recreational fisheries uses.
A.) That is key, to make sure that there is a balance to all the ocean uses and that all those decisions are based upon scientific data and stakeholder input. Preserving and protecting "special, sensitive, or unique" (SSU) marine habitats is important, and something that the Oceans Act requires, but we at MOP are not and will not promote any one use over the other. What we will do, once the draft plan is released, is to help our Partners understand the plan so they can be informed and comment on it themselves representing their various interests in a constructive fashion.
The Partnership is not advocating for any one particular outcome or use. We are not a conservation organization, nor are we a renewable energy advocate. We are also not a government agency that is confined to all the regulations established by the Oceans Act. So, for example, that gives us the freedom to think about uses closer to the shore than what the legislation called for and even further into the ocean than only three miles.
Our role is unique. For example, we did not weigh in on the development of the Oceans Act, but many of our Partners were strong advocates, such as the Mass Ocean Coalitions' strong position on protecting ocean wildlife and habitats and identifying SSUs. We had other Partners espousing the importance of fisheries and renewable energy, but we as an entity stayed, and will remain, non-partisan. Our goal is to move integrated ocean management forward.
Q.) Please discuss the importance of this legislation and the influence it can have on policy development for integrated ocean management.
A.) From a policy, science integration, and a stakeholder management point of view, developing the first-in-the-nation Ocean Management Plan is a complicated thing to do. There are a lot of groups with a stake in how the lines are drawn in Massachusetts ocean waters and, on top of that, you have a world wide audience watching what is going on. People want to see how this first-in-the-nation plan is developed, how we tackle our challenges, and our successes and failures. In order for the product of the Ocean Management Plan to be durable, credible, and effective, it needs to have broad-based support from across all sectors. Failure to achieve stakeholder support could cause this effort to sink. To help ensure buy-in and stakeholder trust in the Plan, two things must happen. First, it is essential that the Plan is based upon credible scientific data and other information, at least the best that is currently available. Second, stakeholders need to be part of the process by having their voices heard.
Additionally, the MA Ocean Management Plan will need to be an adaptive. What we are currently working on can really be seen as the first version of the Ocean Management Plan, something we refer to as version 1.0, which is what will be produced by the timeline set by the legislation, December 31, 2009. As we collect more information and the Ocean Plan is reviewed, new versions of the plan, version 2.0, version 3.0 and so forth, will be developed. The key is to keep the stakeholders involved as future versions of the plan are developed. Science integration is also paramount for this effort to succeed. There is a lot of data out there relating to our ocean waters, but there is also a lot we don't know. The version 1.0 MA Ocean Management Plan is going to be informed by as much existing data as possible, knowing that the data quality and quantity will improve over time. This will enable stakeholders to look at and understand how decisions are made - and prove that the decisions are based on scientific data as opposed to backroom politically-motivated decisions. I can see the Plan incorporating trade-off analyses to inform ocean use decisions, in lieu of just responding to those interests with the biggest voice and the most influence. This approach will provide transparency and a clear process in which ocean use decisions are made.
We feel that MOP can add significant value to the process by helping to build collaborative skills to get people talking. I believe that if we can get groups seen as "competitors" to communicate more collaboratively then theoretically they would arrive at wiser solutions and more creative problem solving. Informed conversation that opens up opportunities rather than creating divisions is something that we strive for. Our goal at MOP is to improve and develop the capacity of the stakeholders and decision makers to talk collaboratively with one another in terms of solving difficult ocean use and management problems.
Q.) Please discuss how MOP will help incorporate Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) principles into the development of the Ocean Management Plan.
A.) Human activities on land and in the ocean are changing coastal and marine ecosystems and threatening their ability to provide important services to society, such as healthy and abundant seafood, clean beaches, and protection from storms and flooding. EBM is an innovative management approach designed to address all these challenges. It considers the whole ecosystem, including humans and the environment, rather than managing one issue or resource in isolation. As a definition we use the one developed by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) which describes EBM as a management approach that integrates ecological, social, and economic goals and recognizes humans as key components of the ecosystem. Specifically EMB:
I like this definition, but my concern is that when people hear the word "ecosystem" it sounds like it is purely a conservation term, when, in fact, it encompasses everything including human uses.
The other term that is bantered about is Area-Based Management (ABM) and that denotes place-based or area-specific marine management. ABM focuses on smaller regions, where as EBM is really an all encompassing look, like what we hope to achieve with the MA Ocean Management Plan.
Q.) Please discuss the short time period that you have been given to create the first version of the Ocean Management Plan.
A.) Deerin and his team have done a wonderful job in setting achievable goals, given the tight deadline that the state has to work with. He has thoroughly reviewed the legislation and identified that it mandates that the plan must identify Òspecial, sensitive, or uniqueÓ (SSUs) marine habitats as well as areas for renewable energy development. They took a realistic approach to what they could actually get done by the draft plan deadline of June 30th and that is what they are focusing on. Version 1.0, will address these mandates in the time period given. Simultaneously, with the release of the draft plan there will be the companion document outlining the Plan for the Plan, which will lay out how science integration, stakeholder engagement and the policy and regulatory framework will continue to be developed during the implementation phase. It is in that longer time frame that the deeper EBM themes will be developed. For example, between now and June 30th there is no way that we or the state are able to get a full fledged integrated ecosystem, economic model running that helps play out scenarios, but that is something that we will achieve in future versions of the MA Ocean Management Plan.
Q.) The legislation requires that the MA Ocean Management Plan be reviewed as least every five years. Do you know if there are plans to revisit and review the successes or any shortcomings of this ocean policy before that five year period?
A.) At this point I have not heard anything to indicate when the plan will be reviewed, it will be up to the state to decide the schedule. I will say that it is my understanding that EEA plans to be thoroughly engaged in the management of this policy and it would not surprise me at all if a review happened in three years as opposed to five. I will also say that even when the Ocean Management Plan officially goes into effect on December 31, 2009, the scientific work and data collecting is going to continue without missing a beat. So I would expect that during the first couple of years of implementation, EEA will be taking a look at how version 1.0 is working and asking - are we making good decisions - what are we learning. I suspect somewhere along the way they will consider options for evaluating the process.
Q.) What are your thoughts on a national Ocean Management Plan?
A.) I would be very supportive on a national ocean endeavor. I know that NOAA has been very involved in data monitoring and collecting and is the primary funder of most of the regional ocean observing systems, such as the Gulf of Maine Data Partnership and Mid-Atlantic Regional Coast Ocean Observance System. To that end, it would be important to tap into and share valuable information with these data collecting groups, and look to NOAA for guidance on a comprehensive national ocean plan.
A national ocean management plan for our ocean waters is a massive endeavor but I think that there are a lot of puzzle pieces coming together that make the possibility of well formed and thoughtful legislation being submitted. Putting aside the economic crisis that the nation is currently facing, I think the Obama Administration and the people he has put in leadership positions are forward thinking and I have great hope that there will be political will to get something done. There already has been national attention on the need for national ocean endeavors by groups such as the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (JOCI).
The states that are most actively tackling ocean management in a meaningful way include MA, RI, CA, NY, and ME and each have their own set of political concerns and mandates. All these initiatives need to be studied and understood at the state and regional level so that when federal legislation is being developed that they respect the individual efforts of each state.
Q.) The Oceans Act states that the plan must address "climate change and sea-level rise". Please discuss how the Ocean Plan will face this important albeit daunting task.
A.) There is broad agreement that climate change considerations have to go into any resources management decisions that are being made. Because of the great time challenges that the state is facing in meeting the deadline of delivering the draft MA Ocean Management Plan by the end of June, my guess is that version 1.0 will not go into great detail on addressing the climate change provision. That is not to say that it is not important, for it most certainly is. I am confident that climate change will be addressed in the MA Ocean Management's Plan for the Plan, outlining what the plan will focus on in the future and continue to study. Concepts about coastal adaptations to climate change, sea level rise, acidification, and redistribution of specials habitat and species because of the warming of ocean waters are going to be important areas to focus on in future generations of the Ocean Management Plan.
© 2009 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon