Bringing ‘Deep Knowledge’ of Fisheries into Marine Spatial Planning

Abstract

In marine spatial planning (MSP), the production of knowledge about marine-based activities is fundamental because it informs the process through which policies delineating the use of space are created and maintained. This paper revises our view of knowledge—developed during the mapping and planning processes—as the undisputed factual basis on which policy is developed. Rather, it argues that the construction, management, validation, and marginalisation of different types of knowledge stemming from different stakeholders or disciplinary approaches is at the heart of policy and planning processes. Using the case of fisheries-generated knowledge in the implementation of MSP, we contend that the fisheries data informing the MSP process are still very much streamlined to classical bio-economic metrics. Such metrics fall short of describing the plural and complex knowledges that comprise fisheries, such as localised social and cultural typologies, as well as the scale and dynamics, hence, providing incomplete information for the decision-making process of MSP. In this paper, we provide a way to move towards what we conceptualize as ‘Deep Knowledge’ and propose a model that brings together of the existing datasets and integrates socio-cultural data as well as complex spatiotemporal elements, to create dynamic rather than static datasets for MSP. We furthermore argue that the process of knowledge production and the building of the parameters of such datasets, should be based on effective stakeholder participation, whose futures depend on the plans that eventually result from MSP. Finally, we recommend that the ‘Deep Knowledge’ model is adopted to inform the process of knowledge production currently being undertaken in the diverse countries engaging in the MSP process. This will result in policies that truly reflect and address the complexities that characterise fisheries, and which are legitimized through a process of knowledge co-production.

Authority in Ocean Governance Architecture

“…Regarding implementation, the specific integrative capacity depends on various national and local contextual features, e.g., types of knowledge that are being incorporated in marine spatial planning processes (Said & Trouillet, 2020), the functioning of informational flows (Toonen & van Tatenhove, 2020), and the role of non-state actor participation (Karnad & St. Martin, 2020). Yet several issues have received too little attention, such as environmental challenges in land-sea interactions such as acidification (Mendenhall, 2019).…”

Ecosystem-Based MSP for Enhanced Fisheries Sustainability: An Example from the Northern Adriatic (Chioggia—Venice and Rovigo, Italy)

“…The spatial explicit outputs of the CEA application are shown in Figure 5a. Highest scores (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) are located in the whole case study area, where intense maritime traffic areas, highly trawled fishing grounds and hot spots of species (i.e., marine turtles and mammals) and habitats (e.g., the circalittoral bio-constructions called tegnùe) of conservation interest occur: between 3 and 10 nm offshore, in a relatively small area in International waters (approximately 20 nm offshore) and close to the port of Chioggia. Areas showing medium-high scores (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) are widely spread along the area, mainly due to maritime traffic and trawling activities, while coastal areas far from ports and marinas and within the 3 nm, where trawl fisheries are banned with the significant exception of the areas subject to fishing with hydraulic dredges, feature lower CEA scores (<10).…”

“…The reliability of these outputs is however largely dependent on the available knowledge. In particular, the knowledge on the spatial distribution of fishing activities, and the related pressures to environmental components and fisheries resources can be scarce; this restricts the availability of accurate quantitative data at proper scales limiting the provision of spatially explicit knowledge for the MSP processes [18,30].…”

A critical turn in marine spatial planning

“…They argue that learning is important, and it needs to be an explicit part of the MSP process. Said and Trouillet (2020) focus on the types of knowledge that are being incorporated into MSP processes, with particular reference to fisheries. They contrast quantitative, bioeconomic fisheries' data with the 'deep knowledge' of fishers themselves on such things as social and cultural aspects of their activities.…”

“…Toonen and van Tatenhove (2020) and Karnad and St. Martin (2020) draw our attention to the role of non-state actors and the development of MSP-like processes beyond the state. Vince and Day (2020), Keijser et al (2020), and Said and Trouillet (2020) extended the analysis of power beyond the governance realm and analyse how 'taken-for-granted' terms like integration, learning, and knowledge are mobilized to shape MSP in specific ways.…”