1. California Marine Life Protection Act Evaluation of the Central Coast
Regional Stakeholder Group Process
BRTF Meeting
September 6, 2006
Burbank, California
Dr. Jonathan Raab Farnsworth St. Boston, MA

2. Our Lessons Learned Charge
Accurately describe and analyze CCRSG process
2. Develop recommendations for improving future RSG processes

3. Methodology
Interviews—59 individuals (CCRSG, BRTF, DFG, SAT, SIG, CRA, MLPA I-Team)
On-line survey—25 CCRSG members
3. Reviewed background and CCRSG/BRTF/DFG process documents
4. Attended March BRTF and May FCG meetings

4. Summary of Key Findings
CCRSG process succeeded in developing multiple packages of MPAs.
Accomplished this on time and within budget.
But hit numerous bumps along the way (both within the CCRSG process and in the subsequent BRTF and DFG processes).
There is room for improvement in future RSG processes.

5. Recommendations

6. A. Overarching Recommendations
Clarify process from start
Stabilize underlying policy, science, and enforcement requirements prior to commencing

7. B. Overall Structure of the RSG Processes Over Time
Reconsider the respective roles and responsibilities of a SIG, SAT and BRTF in future RSGs

8. C. Stakeholder Selection and Membership
Reconsider the balance and diversity of RSG membership, while reducing the number of formal members in RSG processes

9. C. Stakeholder Selection and Membership
Let primary representatives pick their own alternates
Retain facilitators/mediators early enough to assist with stakeholder selection

10. D. Start-Up Phase of RSG Process
Compile regional spatial data, develop detailed regional profiles, and analyze existing MPAs before commencing each new study area
Socio-economic study requirements should be clarified and any required study should also be completed prior to the start of an RSG process
Enhance the regional profile with joint fact-finding on coastal resources and uses (by sub-region)

11. D. Start-Up Phase of RSG Process
Clearly define and describe from the outset the CCRSG goal and process and the subsequent decision-making processes, as well as any explicit requirements that must be met
Streamline or eliminate altogether the development of regional goals and objectives
Provide training in modeling tools and mutual gains negotiation

12. E. Package Development Phase of RSG Process
Consider changing the overall goal and focus of the RSG processes from developing multiple MPA packages to attempting to develop a single MPA package
2. Provide more time for MPA package development and negotiation

13. E. Package Development Phase of RSG Process
Skip having everyone draw individual MPAs prior to focusing on creating packages
Minimize the need for MPA proposals from outside the RSG process

14. E. Package Development Phase of RSG Process
DFG staff should participate even more actively in package development in RSG processes
BRTF should provide feedback and guidance throughout the MPA package development process in an iterative fashion

15. F. BRTF and DFG Review and Recommendation Processes
Align the incentives at the BRTF, DFG and Fish and Game Commission to foster joint problem solving and consensus in RSG processes

16. F. BRTF and DFG Review and Recommendation Processes
The BRTF and the DFG should not unilaterally change MPA packages agreed to by RSG members
The BRTF (and probably the DFG) should not develop their own preferred alternatives if RSG members develop package(s) that meet SAT guidelines

17. G. RSG Timelines and Budgets
Lengthen RSG processes to at least one year to allow for more joint fact-finding and negotiation
Consider allowing more time between meetings

18. G. RSG Timelines and Budgets
Carefully reevaluate budget needs in light of central coast project experience and future RSG process design
Seek state funding, diversified private funding, or both