Coming to the table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning Morgan Gopnik a,n , Clare Fieseler b,1 , Laura Cantral c , Kate McClellan b,2 , Linwood Pendleton b , Larry Crowder d,3 a Duke University Marine Lab, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd., Beaufort, NC 28516, USA b Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, P.O. Box 90335, Durham, NC 27708, USA c Meridian Institute, 1920L Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, USA d Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd., Beaufort, NC 28516, USA article info Article history: Received 21 October 2011 Received in revised form 10 February 2012 Accepted 11 February 2012 Keywords: Ocean policy Stakeholder collaboration Marine spatial planning abstract From 2009 to 2011, marine spatial planning (MSP) rapidly gained visibility in the United States as a promising ocean management tool. A few small-scale planning efforts were completed in state waters, and the Obama Administration proposed a framework for large-scale regional MSP throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. During that same time period, the authors engaged a variety of U.S ocean stakeholders in a series of dialogs with several goals: to share information about what MSP is or could be, to hear stakeholder views and concerns about MSP, and to foster better understanding between those who depend on ocean resources for their livelihood and ocean conservation advocates. The stakeholder meetings were supplemented with several rounds of in-depth interviews and a survey. Despite some predictable areas of conflict, project participants agreed on a number of issues related to stakeholder engagement in MSP: all felt strongly that government planners need to engage outsiders earlier, more often, more meaningfully, and through an open and transparent process. Equally important, the project affirmed the value of bringing unlike parties together at the earliest opportunity to learn, talk, and listen to others with whom they rarely engage. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. The emergence of marine spatial planning in U.S. policy The idea of managing coastal and marine areas in a more integrated, holistic way has been around for decades, couched in a variety of terms, each with a different genesis and nuance (see Box 1). In recent years, the concept of marine spatial planning (MSP, also known as maritime spatial planning in Europe) has been widely promoted, although its precise definition is not always agreed upon. The UNESCO guide to MSP [1] defines it as: ‘‘a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process.’’ The U.S. Executive Branch has adopted a variation of that definition (at the same time introducing an even more cumbersome term, with a new acronym): ‘‘Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) means a comprehensive, adap- tive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial plan- ning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. Coastal and marine spatial planning identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security, and social objectives’’ [2]. However, some U.S.-based initiatives have been described as MSP that do not meet either of these definitions (e.g., the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program [3] and California’s Marine Life Protection Act process [4]). Even the regional Fisheries Management Councils have declared that they too are engaged in MSP [5]. For the purposes of the Institute project and this paper, the term MSP refers only to those coastal and ocean management approaches that are:  Multi-objective, i.e., planning includes ecological, social, eco- nomic, and governance objectives.  Spatially oriented, i.e., results are expressed in spatial terms within some defined geographic area, typically corresponding to an ecosystem boundary. Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Marine Policy 0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.012 n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 202 294 6810. E-mail address: morgan.gopnik@duke.edu (M. Gopnik). 1 Present affiliation: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2 Present affiliation: New England Aquarium, Boston, MA, USA. 3 Present affiliation: Center for Ocean Solutions and Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Monterey, CA, USA. Marine Policy 36 (2012) 1139–1149