Marine Spatial Planning in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem

Abstract

The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) in the south-east Atlantic covers the territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ's) of Angola and Namibia and partly of South Africa. Increasing demands, user-user and user-environment conflicts occur throughout the area. The three countries, which are parties to the Benguela Current Convention (BCC), have begun to implement Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) to support the sustainable development of the area and enhance ocean governance. This makes the region one of the first in a developing economies context and on the African continent to introduce MSP. The article (1) traces the origin of MSP in the region and describes the reasons for its development, (2) reviews the status of MSP processes to date at the regional and national level, and (3) reflects on the regional and individual country processes in terms of differences and similarities in approach and process governance, shared opportunities and difficulties. The study finds that MSP in the region is introduced because of both strong interests to use it as a means to help grow the blue/ocean economy and as a mechanism to further the implementation of the ecosystem approach. Similar steps have been taken so far and alike approaches to MSP exist across the three countries, with the BCC as regional convention facilitating knowledge sharing and assisting to improve cross-border coherence and consistency on MSP from the outset. Although challenges, such as limited finances and data gaps exist both at national and regional level, the MSP processes to-date have created an enabling environment to develop the first marine spatial plans in each country and to exchange knowledge and experiences within the region and with other regions.

The hits and misses of Namibia’s attempt to implement the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) Management

“…Regarding minimizing bycatches (Table 1, Principle 6), Namibia has implemented various measures, including minimum mesh size regulations (MRA regulations) and the fact that a fee is payable in respect of bycatches of commercially exploited fish (MRA regulations). These measures disincentivize fishers from • Marine spatial Planning work has been conducted and aims to consider various marine ecosystem spaces for multiple users (Finke et al 2020a).…”

“…(Continued) • Marine spatial planning initiative has produced recommendations (Finke et al 2020a) but not yet implemented.…”

“…In terms of institutional integration (Table 1, Principle 7), the implementation of the marine spatial planning initiative (Finke et al 2020a) is imperative. This will help make sure that fisheries management decisions account for interactions with other types of uses of the ecosystem.…”

“…A concerted effort is also needed concerning collaboration between sub-national or national bodies like the fisheries-environment-mining committee that considered phosphate mining (Finke et al 2020a). The existing inter-ministerial committees that give inputs on fisheries' issues are good initiatives; however, some of these bodies lack authority as they are not established by any legal instrument like an Act of parliament.…”

“…For the fisheries management process to conform to the EAF principle of institutional integration (Table 1, Principle 7), it needs to account for interactions with other types of uses and users of the ecosystem (Garcia et al 2003). Efforts toward this are reflected in projects like the Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) initiative that has made important recommendations, which, if implemented, will ensure the consideration of various users of the ocean spaces in decision-making processes (Finke et al 2020a). There are also interministerial committees that consist of representatives from different sectors like mining, environments, fisheries and have responsibilities to advise on decisions that have cross-sectoral issues.…”