California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Supporting implementation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected areas

California enacted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) in 1999 to redesign and improve the state’s system of marine protected areas (MPAs), which the State Legislature found created the illusion of protection while falling far short of its potential to protect and conserve living marine life and habitat. In 2004, after two unsuccessful attempts to implement the MLPA, California created the MLPA Initiative through a memorandum of understanding among two state agencies and a privately-funded foundation that established objectives for a planning process, set out a timeline for deliverables, and established roles and responsibilities for key bodies. This paper analyzes how recommendations developed through the Initiative supported regulatory decisions by the California Fish and Game Commission to greatly expand the network of marine protected areas. That network includes 124 MPAs, covering 16.0% of state waters outside of San Francisco Bay, including 9.4% of state waters in "no-take" areas. Such an extensive network of MPAs that consciously incorporates science-based design guidelines is an important achievement worldwide and is a rare example of a sub-national government creating MPAs. Successful implementation of formally adopted public policies is well recognized as a complex process critical to achieving policy goals. The Initiative’s Blue Ribbon Task Force played a significant role in guiding the planning process to its successful conclusion in providing the State the information it needed to redesign its system of MPAs. Additional elements of the Initiative’s success included: effective statutes, adequate funding and professional capacity, robust stakeholder engagement, strong science guidance, effective decision support tools, transparent decision making, and sustained support from top state officials and private foundations.

[1]  M. Caldwell,et al.  Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: Achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead , 2013 .

[2]  C. Edwards,et al.  A comparison of approaches used for economic analysis in marine protected area network planning in California , 2013 .

[3]  Matt Merrifield,et al.  Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from north central California , 2010 .

[4]  M. Caldwell,et al.  “Lessons for marine conservation planning: A comparison of three marine protected area planning processes” , 2010 .

[5]  Amy B. Zegart,et al.  Blue Ribbons, Black Boxes: Toward a Better Understanding of Presidential Commissions , 2004 .

[6]  R. Dahlgren Natural Experiments– Ecosystem-Based Management and the Environment , 2010 .

[7]  R. Haynes,et al.  Adaptive Management of Forest Ecosystems: Did Some Rubber Hit the Road? , 2007 .

[8]  M. Gleason,et al.  Adapting stakeholder processes to region-specific challenges in marine protected area network planning , 2013 .

[9]  Ann Chih Lin,et al.  Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison , 2000 .

[10]  Margaret R. Caldwell,et al.  The Role of “Rules of Thumb” in Science-Based Environmental Policy: California’s Marine Life Protection Act as a Case Study , 2010 .

[11]  Peter deLeon,et al.  What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach , 2002 .

[12]  M. Caldwell,et al.  Enabling conditions to support marine protected area network planning: California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative as a case study , 2013 .

[13]  M. Gleason,et al.  The role of science in supporting marine protected area network planning and design in California , 2013 .

[14]  Florida. Final environmental impact statement , 1979 .

[15]  John Whittaker,et al.  Rules of Thumb , 1996 .

[16]  Christopher M. Weible,et al.  Caught in a Maelstrom: Implementing California Marine Protected Areas , 2008 .

[17]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Implementation and public policy, with a new postscript , 1989 .

[18]  C. Shuman,et al.  Beyond traditional stakeholder engagement: Public participation roles in California's statewide marine protected area planning process , 2013 .

[19]  Daniel A. Mazmanian,et al.  Implementation and public policy , 1983 .

[20]  C. Shuman,et al.  Addressing policy issues in a stakeholder-based and science-driven marine protected area network planning process , 2013 .

[21]  Garry D. Brewer,et al.  The foundations of policy analysis , 1983 .

[22]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: A case study from the california channel islands , 2003 .

[23]  M. Spalding,et al.  Global ocean protection : present status and future possibilities , 2010 .

[24]  H. Lasswell The decision process : seven categories of functional analysis , 1956 .

[25]  B. Kendall,et al.  Striking a Balance between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine Protected Areas , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[26]  James V. Hansen,et al.  2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report. Volume 1 , 2005 .

[27]  Matthew S. Merrifield,et al.  MarineMap: A web-based platform for collaborative marine protected area planning , 2013 .