Introduction

1Coastal and marine environments and their resources are governed by a fragmented framework of international, national and regional institutions. But their conservation and sustainable use depends on planning and managing social uses both within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction. This fragmentation in governance can be problematic, as marine areas need to be considered holistically, a need recognised in the preamble to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): “State parties to this convention are conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole.” The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) reinforced an ecosystem approach and the use of area-based management tools in spaces under national jurisdiction (Ehler and Douvere, 2009).

2After decades of international discussions, theories and practices on coastal and marine governance, marine spatial planning (MSP) emerged in the early 1980s. Going beyond other area-based management tools, it is an innovative policy process for the spatial and temporal allocation of living and non-living resource use, supporting sectoral policies to find a balance between use and conservation (Scott, 2015).

3Since then, MSP has been part of broader marine strategies in many countries and defined and practised in different ways, reflecting a range of governance systems and political priorities. Prior to 2000, a few countries began to use spatial planning of maritime areas: for example, China, where marine functional zoning was first proposed by the government in 1998 and became a mandatory basis for marine development planning, marine resource management and the establishment of marine nature reserves (Feng et al., 2016). In the same year, Australia set out its Oceans Policy to guide the implementation of ecosystem-based ocean planning and management, incorporating previous Great Barrier Reef zoning plans and bioregional plans focusing on marine conservation (Day, 2002). In 2002, the European Union (EU) promoted the adoption of MSP in national jurisdictions and regional seas, with a focus on maritime rather than marine spatial planning: i.e. as a tool to promote blue growth in maritime economies (Schultz-Zehden et al., 2019). This trend has spread to Africa, Asia and the Americas along a similar path, highlighting potential economic gains as a relevant – and for some, the main – objective (Unesco, 2019). While there is still no single globally accepted concept of MSP, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) described it in 2009 as “a public process of analysis and spatial and temporal allocation of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process”. By 2019, MSP initiatives were being developed in more than 70 countries, ranging from agenda setting and plan formulation to adoption, implementation and evaluation (Unesco, 2019).

4Nevertheless, in order to meet the challenges of an overexploited ocean in flux, there is a growing demand for broader marine governance, and for more effective and concrete public engagement in coastal marine issues taking a holistic perspective. Governments, institutions, civil society and academia are interested in the capacity of MSP to manage the use and protection of coastal marine resources in a sustainable manner. Theoretical and empirical studies on the different dimensions of MSP have recently been developed in fields such as geography, ecology, economics and social sciences to examine its rationale, methods and outcomes.

5This research shows that MSP is an essential tool for effective marine policy, improving decision-making in coastal marine environments (Ehler et al., 2019). It highlights the potential of MSP to strengthen ecosystem-based management and biodiversity conservation, addressing the cumulative effects of many stressors as well as promoting tools such as marine protected areas, coastal zone management and others. MSP is seen as an open and dynamic approach that improves the regulation of marine activities and harmonises economic outcomes and social benefits to better reconcile the heterogeneous interests of the diverse users of these spaces – hence its complexity.

6Yet much remains to be done on the social pillar of MSP. Fundamental issues, such as the scope and process of MSP, need to be studied through a “social lens”, inspiring critical analyses and data-driven solutions. Understanding of the interaction of the marine world and society needs to be deepened, contributing to new approaches to planning (Jay et al., 2011).

7In the context of debates on the ecological and social variables to include in MSP, this chapter analyses the link between MSP and emerging initiatives to protect surfing zones. Surfing zones are a scarce marine resource and provide ecosystem services and opportunities for non-extractive/low-impact activities, which should encourage their consideration in policy decisions. The protection of the “surfing ecosystem” represents an opportunity to foster coastal marine governance as set out in MSP strategies and coastal and marine protected area management plans. Innovative systems such as “surfing reserves” have arisen, favouring bottom-up management, including the involvement of the surfing community in decision-making on coastal and marine use.

8Based on a review of the literature on the social dimension of MSP, the chapter first presents the theories that have given rise to debates on coastal marine planning. The second section critically assesses the literature on public participation in this process. Lastly, the chapter looks at current legal and voluntary frameworks for surfing site protection, with an end to recognising collective interests in the MSP agenda and improving public participation in the process.

The social pillar of MSP

9Despite the complexity of MSP and the variability of its adoption around the world, it is expected that this process should produce more than maps. To sustainably develop marine space, a range of ecological, social and economic objectives need to be considered, with the real participation of stakeholders in decision-making on the multiple uses of coastal marine space. While ecological and economic sustainability receive significant political and scientific attention, social sustainability needs to be better understood and integrated into policy practice (Boström, 2012). This issue has arisen in the governance and management of natural resources, so it is not surprising that this is also the case in MSP. Assuming that research has an important role to play in improving the consideration of social sustainability in MSP, how much of the scientific literature is devoted to the human/social dimension of MSP?

10Focusing on the conceptualisation of social sustainability in MSP, Saunders et al. (2019a) question whether social benefits are taken into account in the consideration of environmental and economic components in coastal marine planning. The authors point out that while social concerns are partly – and differently – taken into account in the ecological and economic dimensions, they are rarely considered in their own right. From the economic point of view, development on a societal scale holds out the hope of well-being for all; from the point of view of environmental protection, it is a question of ensuring the sustainability of resources and conditions in order to maintain market potential and capital accumulation. Even if there are exceptions to this, for these authors, “referring to purely economic priorities such as blue growth or even ‘sustainable growth’ (with environmental protection in mind) as an objective of MSP does not take into account other factors related to the economy, such as the unequal distribution of wealth and access to resources”.

11Rather than viewing the three pillars – social, economic and environmental – as a means to an end, the achievement of each pillar should be justified in its own right. To meaningfully integrate social sustainability into MSP (or overcome the lack of consensus on its definition), several key questions need to be asked: What are the objectives of MSP? Who decides on access to marine resources and how? Who should benefit? To promote social inclusion and equity and avoid power disparities, social sustainability needs to be a part of MSP in its constitutive (objectives), procedural (decision-making process) and substantive (outcomes) aspects. Without this, MSP will not be able to serve as a “promising means of pluralistic marine governance capable of mediating the tensions between competing values and interests to achieve a ‘common public interest’ in how we should use the sea” (Saunders et al., 2019a). To this end, these authors have developed a conceptual framework to consider social sustainability in MSP, outlining key guidelines that can be adapted for different practices and contexts (table 1).

12Each of the guidelines in this conceptual framework for social sustainability gives rise to a series of related questions that may also be useful for the development of assessment indicators.

13With regard to the question of democracy, the central concern is the extent of truly participatory spaces. Based on a literature review of MSP decision-making (including Jentoft, 2017; Ritchie and Ellis, 2010; Jones et al., 2016; Tafon, 2019, etc.), Saunders et al. (2019a) point out that MSP needs to be reconfigured to enable (1) more socially cooperative approaches, including more stakeholders (public, private and non-profit entities, i.e. government, civil society, business, NGOs, general public, vulnerable social groups, trade unions) and (2) their engagement in planning decisions in which they have an interest (receive tangible and/or intangible benefits) and which affect them. Of course, this will require more effort from all stakeholders, especially the planners, but the result will be more effective, avoiding potential conflicts in the implementation of MSP by taking into account the values, interests and knowledge of all concerned. While some authors consider this response insufficient, as it does not address the material and non-material distributional implications of MSP (Flannery et al., 2016; Tafon et al., 2019), according to Saunders et al. (2019a), a more democratic form of MSP is possible based on a pluralistic view of power, without naively assuming that all stakeholders have equal power to advance their interests.

14Saunders et al. (2019a) extend this idea by examining how specific groups, their knowledge, values and location-related benefits – i.e. socio-cultural elements – have been effectively considered in decision-making and shaped the outcomes of MSP. The emerging literature on this topic explores mainly cultural services from ecosystems. It appears that MSP tends to neglect the intangible values associated with culture, which is “problematic, as they contribute to human well-being and are considered to have a strong influence on the way we conceptualise sustainability” (Soini and Birkeland, 2014). One difficulty is that cultural services depend on cultural practices and frameworks to be reproduced, recognised and valued, which are difficult to incorporate into planning and management tools such as MSP as the latter rely on quantitative data and methods (Kenter et al., 2011). Yet “the representation of socio-cultural elements in essentially spatial and economic terms misses not only the infinite spatiality and intrinsic affective character of these values, but also their incommensurability with material (economic) benefits”, which can lead to the marginalisation of those who hold these values (Tafon, 2017). To avoid this, Saunders et al. (2019a) stress the need to go beyond the simple expression of socio-cultural elements in the MSP process in order to promote “a dialogue and exchange in decision-making that will lead to more equitable outcomes” (Kidd and Ellis, 2012). These authors offer some ideas on how to do this: for example, through participatory mapping or deliberative interaction (Saunders et al., 2019a).

15Another element in the Saunders et al. (2019a) conceptual framework is the choice of equity as a guideline for planning. This focuses on the existence (or not) of explicit/specific recognition/accounting for distributional implications in marine planning: who wins and who loses in MSP decisions and outcomes? Indeed, there are different views of what equitable MSP would look like. According to these authors, “equity in marine planning could be seen as not further harming already disadvantaged or vulnerable social groups and making decisions about the sea in the direction of equality (recognising that people/groups flourish in different ways; based on different values/benefits/conditions)” for current and future generations. Their proposal is to rethink MSP to give “adequate attention to the distribution of costs and benefits of sea use (now and in the future) […] within society and how different elements of quality of life are affected (e.g. work, access to leisure, aesthetics, money, etc.). Of course, this creates challenges that could be overcome by engaging ‘MSP equity planners’ who would advocate for equitable outcomes via MSP, thus going beyond the boundaries of rational planning (or the role of a ‘neutral’ planner) to objectively balance the competing arguments for the goals of the three pillars of sustainability” (Saunders et al., 2019a).

16The final guideline in this innovative proposal is social cohesion, understood by the authors as “the processes (i.e. shared views, values, norms, perceptions and behaviours) that underpin social relationships (individuals, social groups, communities, etc.)” (Prell et al., 2009), aiming to “accommodate diversity while promoting equality”. Social cohesion fosters social bonds and trust through opportunities, which in the context of MSP means promoting collaborative planning to reduce disruptions that lead to harmful conflicts. Even in a situation of intractable conflict, a sense of social cohesion can help “ensure that the process of planning for plurilateral space does not exacerbate existing schisms in society through processes of exclusion or the reinforcement of existing privileges (intentionally or unintentionally)”. In practice, the guidelines described above (democracy, inclusion of socio-cultural elements, equity and social cohesion) are related and overlapping, yet they are different: “when taken together, they help to conceive of social sustainability as a pillar of sustainability – covering both substantive and procedural aspects of MSP” (Saunders et al., 2019a).

17Concerned about the currently weak consideration of social aspects and impacts (e.g. exclusion or loss of ocean space, diversion of resources away from traditional users, disregard of cultural values, etc.) in processes supporting MSP decision-making, Grimmel et al. (2019) propose developing socially inclusive guidelines to strengthen social justice and inclusiveness in existing processes, promoting a new approach to ocean sustainability that integrates all dimensions of planning. Based on a literature review on the social dimension of MSP (including Bennett et al., 2015; Flannery et al., 2016; Bennett, 2018), the authors provide a conceptual model that is very similar to the framework of Saunders et al. (2019b), including the same objective: to foster the equitable integration of social, economic and environmental interests in MSP, assuming that equity becomes possible with the consideration of all three pillars of sustainability.

18Also of interest, Grimmel et al. (2019) present two possible aims in including the social dimension in MSP. The first aim is described as a set of connected layers. The first level (the base) is “the integration of social sustainability, social equity and justice as well as ethics and intrinsic value”. At a second level, “social stability and social licence are measures of social sustainability and should be inherent objectives of MSP processes”. Social equity here means “an equal and fair distribution of the costs and benefits of measures, the involvement of stakeholders at all levels and a focus on livelihood maintenance or alternatives”. They stress that “ethical and moral obligations exist towards the environment, other species, as well as all human beings, while intrinsic valuation refers to the values and beliefs, culture and traditions that are present”. All these components must be valued and maintained in MSP processes and derived practices. As for the second aim of the social pillar of MSP, this should “refer to all socially relevant aspects that contribute to the present and future status quo in the planning area in socio-economic and socio-ecological domains and be adequately included in the planning process by finding balanced and ethically sound trade-offs between social, economic and environmental sustainability” (Grimmel et al., 2019). Given the different scales of the social dimension (from the individual to the global), and the fact that it is driven by the economy, Grimmel et al. (2019) propose an alternative model (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the social dimension in MSP

19The social science concepts and theories that the authors adopted to produce this model are, in sum, ethics and morality as a basis for thinking about social justice, and social resilience and vulnerability as a basis for the adaptive capacity of vulnerable social groups, prompting changes in economic, environmental and social factors. Social licence and responsibility are achieved through social justice and equity, and enable long-term social acceptance of marine governance processes and outcomes (Grimmel et al., 2019). Some of these rationales have been explored by Saunders et al. (2019a), who argue that the social sciences include many categories that should guide MSP and further develop its social sustainability. The authors recommend the adoption of practical tools such as social impact assessment, socio-economic impact assessment and tools designed to link mainstream “common” knowledge with traditional or local knowledge (including ecological knowledge). Another possibility to be explored is to link the social and environmental pillars, using socio-ecological systems and the systems approach as references (Grimmel et al., 2019).

The socio-cultural dimension in MSP

20McKinley et al. (2019) focus on the social dimension of MSP, including socio-cultural thinking and practices, based on three theoretical approaches: cultural ecosystem services, societal connection to the sea, and well-being. Cultural components have been taken into account in coastal marine planning efforts, but insufficiently so far. These authors discuss the meaning of the term “socio-cultural”, pointing out that the connection between people and their environment is defined by a set of religious, aesthetic, economic and place-related values, and not only explains attitudes and behaviours, but can also “shape sense of place, personal identity and a wide range of opportunities for recreation, leisure and work” (McKinley et al., 2019). A literature search on the subject leads these authors to define the socio-cultural element as a “term that incorporates those many facets of human society, including attitudes, values, behaviours as well as structures that frame social organisations and actions”. Concepts that express this notion in ocean governance include ecosystem services, ocean literacy, marine citizenship and well-being (McKinley et al., 2019) (table 2).

21McKinley et al. (2019) also explore the application of these concepts to MSP. Cultural ecosystem services, seascapes and well-being emerge as the most recurrent concepts in MSP (e.g. attitudes and perceptions, cultural heritage, human activities, social, monetary and non-monetary values, and socio-demographics) (for more information on these concepts see McKinley et al., 2019).

22An ecosystem approach that considers the complexity of an area in its entirety is essential for marine management and decision-making. Taking ecosystem services into account is important in MSP, including the socio-cultural benefits that people derive from nature. Yet cultural ecosystem services present enormous challenges in terms of recognition and valuation. This is because they are defined as “non-material benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences” (MEA, 2003), including: “cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relationships, sense of place, cultural heritage values, and recreation and ecotourism”. A growing number of studies are focusing on the relationship between cultural ecosystem services and coastal marine planning (e.g. Ruiz-Frau et al., 2013 and Guerry et al., 2012), putting forward innovative tools to integrate cultural ecosystem services in the context of MSP (McKinley et al., 2019).

23The concept of seascape represents a sense of connection between the coastal marine environment and the individual/society; it takes into account how people interact with and use this environment based on different values, attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and experiences. Clearly, this concept also poses a challenge for MSP, due to the difficulty of capturing heterogeneous visions and considering them in the planning process. Nonetheless, the seascape provides a starting point for improving public engagement, generating the interconnected concepts of marine citizenship and ocean literacy, which promote a society more conscious of the importance of the marine environment, ultimately leading to positive behaviour change (McKinley et al., 2019).

24The integration of the notion of well-being within MSP is also linked to the objective of public engagement, but with a view to improving the quality of human life (Stiglitz et al., 2009). Beyond producing maps of marine uses, MSP is expected to result in greater human well-being – an ideal far from that of economic prosperity – well-being that needs to be measured and achieved (McKinley et al., 2019). However, these authors argue that despite international objectives and the increasing importance given to the “human” element in interactions within environmental governance, the lack of understanding of its functioning impacts the effectiveness of maritime spatial planning. To address this, McKinley et al. make recommendations for overcoming the challenges associated with socio-cultural factors in coastal marine planning, suggesting a greater understanding and inclusion of the concepts discussed in MSP practice, with particular attention to different scales and epistemologies and other factors. In their concluding remarks, they argue that “it is, however, the socio-cultural dimension and the key concepts explored […] that often form the basis for engaging the public within the planning process and demonstrating the societal relevance of MSP” (McKinley et al., 2019).

25All of these concepts can contribute to developing more comprehensive MSP that considers all values associated with the coastal marine space in a holistic approach, including ecological, social and economic aspects related to the range of resources and services provided by the ocean, as well as the variety of extractive and non-extractive uses (and their respective degrees of impact). There are a multitude of options and opportunities for improving ocean governance and MSP through public participation and the engagement of traditional communities. One promising area is coastal marine recreational activities, which can offer innovative tools based on the expertise of the stakeholders. An example is the protection of surfing sites, considering their natural, social and economic value. The following section focuses on the importance of surf breaks in all three pillars of sustainability, the ongoing initiatives to protect them and the need to integrate them in the MSP process where relevant.

The natural, social and economic value of surfing sites

Surfable waves: a rare phenomenon

26Surf breaks are a scarce resource, formed by complex natural features (Skellern et al., 2013). The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement describes them as “a natural feature composed of swell, currents, water levels, seabed morphology and wind”, which gives rise to a “surfable wave” (NZCPS, 2010). They occur in the inshore marine area, at the transition between the open ocean and the wave-forming zone, arising from a combination of hydrodynamic characteristics (waves, currents and tides), seabed morphology and wind patterns. Water depth, for example, is one of the main physical factors governing wave breaking.

27A surf break includes the “swell corridor”, the movement of the swell and the morphology of the seabed in this swell corridor to the point where the waves dissipate and become unsurfable. The swell corridor refers to the area off a breaker where the ocean swell moves and becomes a “surfable wave” (a wave that can be caught and surfed). Surfable waves have a breaking point that flows along the crest of the unbroken wave, so that the surfer is propelled laterally along the wave crest (Hutt, 1997; Mead and Black, 2001).

28The features that create surf breaks span both short and long timescales and can be artificial or natural (Reiblich and Reineman, 2018). In ecological terms, these features are responsible for shoreline stabilisation and sediment control, protection of breakwaters and seawalls, composition of seascapes, living and non-living resources, and serve as habitats, particularly in the case of coral reefs and rock formations.

The multiple services of surf breaks

29Different kinds of activities have been developed on and around surf breaks (Thompson, 2007; Stocker and Kennedy, 2009), some for economic purposes, e.g. tourism and the water sports industry. In addition, they also hold social value (spiritual/religious values, knowledge, heritage/cultural diversity, sense of place, aesthetic values, social relationships, etc.), and are appreciated for their recreational uses, not only by surfers, but by all beachgoers.

30Surf breaks are important for maintaining the balance between ocean and terrestrial environments for current and future generations, involving as they do social, cultural and economic relationships, and protecting them can also protect biodiversity (Santos and Blackwell, 2020). Around the world, there are initiatives to define strategies to safeguard them. Surf breaks have a singular place in surfers’ careers and are also important social, competitive and cultural gathering points that equally boost the local economy; but these areas so important for surfing and, more broadly, for society, are little known (Lazarow and Olive, 2017). Surfers themselves have contributed to knowledge about these systems, informing the study of waves and the coastal environment (Boundy, 2008; Brewin et al., 2015; Reineman et al., 2017). It is known that waves are very sensitive to changes, natural or otherwise, in the coastal environment (Reiblich and Reineman, 2018).

31The environmental services provided by “surfing ecosystems” are not only important for surfers, but also for local communities given the improved economic and social context linked to this activity. In these unique coastal marine areas, both a top-down approach by government policymakers and a bottom-up approach including the participation of local communities (Lazarow and Olive, 2017; Teles da Silva et al., 2015), with a specific effort to protect biodiversity, are needed (Santos and Blackwell, 2020).

32Citizen-led initiatives, favouring a bottom-up approach, play an important role in biodiversity protection and restoration. They are usually led by (1) non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which provide political support and activism for better governance, and/or (2) environmental philanthropists and community volunteers who provide important benefits to the environment. Good management by individuals remains essential (Santos and Blackwell, 2020).

33Surfing generates approximately US$4 billion globally (McGregor and Wills, 2017). Recent studies have focused on the surfing economy in many different regions of the world: South Stradbroke Island, Australia (Lazarow and Nelsen, 2007), Mundaka, Spain (Murphy and Bernal, 2008), Gold Coast, Australia (Lazarow, 2009), Half Moon Bay, United States (Durham and Driscoll, 2010), Trestles, United States (Nelsen et al., 2013), Uluwatu, Indonesia (Margules et al., 2014), Pichilemu, Chile (Wright et al., 2014), Huanchaco, Peru (Hodges, 2015b), Bahía de Todos Santos, Mexico (Hodges, 2015a), and Guarda do Embaú, Brazil (Bosquetti and Souza, 2019).

34Surfing economics, or “surfonomics”, analyses data on surfing-related income, taking into account standards and the quality of surfable waves using different methodologies in surfing areas. In both developing and developed countries, the “surfonomics” approach aims to assess the importance of waves, the “lifestyle” of beach culture (Plummer, 1974) and surfing ecosystems, as well as how these might be threatened and all the socio-economic impacts this might entail.

35In these studies, regardless of the surf waves considered around the world – low quality, high quality or world class – and their natural assets, improvements in economic returns are observed at various scales. However, if the quality of surf waves varies in one location (e.g. with the artificial creation of a new surf break), resonating negative or positive economic impacts can be observed up to a 50-km radius around these locations (McGregor and Wills, 2017).

36In terms of the environment, some surfing communities are involved in conservation efforts and partnerships. Of course, not all surfers are necessarily environmental activists who participate in environmental protection actions (Hill and Abbott, 2009; Lazarow and Olive, 2017). The low involvement of surfers in the protection of these natural, freely accessible places can make them “irresponsible consumers”. And while surfing itself is considered a low-impact activity (Santos and Blackwell, 2020), it can have negative impacts, such as those related to the surfing industry/companies, unsustainable surf tourism (Ponting et al., 2005), contamination by chemicals from the surf equipment industry, incompatibility and conflicts with other beach users or coastal marine activities (Thompson, 2007; Stocker and Kennedy, 2009), such as with using waves as a renewable energy resource (Ryan et al., 2015; Hemer et al., 2017), etc.

Consideration of surf breaks in MSP

37Typically, MSP pays little attention to recreational activities. References to surfing are rare. However, the International Guide to Marine Spatial Planning of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO) mentions surfing as a human activity in the marine environment (see Step 5 of its MSP approach). This guide also mentions that this activity could be included as an example of spatial management by recreational sectors (see Step 7, UNESCO, 2009). Some countries have considered surfing, including those with existing MSP or those known for their high-quality or world-class waves, namely Australia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and the United States. An Olympic sport, surfing is also considered a popular leisure activity rooted in coastal culture, with significant economic and cultural impacts and often profound effects on those who practice it (Reiblich and Reineman, 2018).

38The capacity of MSP to manage high-impact activities and economic development in coastal marine areas – such as oil exploration/development, fishing, mining, urbanisation, etc. – is well recognised. It could also be useful for creating sustainable standards for recreational activities, including surfing, avoiding impacts on beach access (Reblish and Reineman, 2019). In doing so, MSP should take into account natural, social and cultural aspects and ensure the principle of effective participation (Teles da Silva et al., 2016a) as well as more equitable planning processes (Flannery and McAteer, 2020).

39Given the different characteristics of surf break ecosystems, what objective(s) should MSP take into account? Nature conservation or generating economic benefits? Should these areas be classified as sacrosanct natural sites and efforts made to protect surfing as an activity? The answer is certainly context dependent and requires a multidisciplinary and systemic approach to ascertain.

40There is no consensus on the main objectives of MSP in the literature (Flannery and McAteer, 2020). Initially, in the late 1970s, MSP focused on marine protected areas in order to improve their effectiveness and avoid threats and negative impacts of human activities on marine environments (Folke et al., 2005): marinas, ports, jetties, breakwaters, urbanisation, industrial pollution and run-off, oil platforms, seabed mining, shipping industries, overfishing, ocean grabbing, climate change, beach access, etc.

41The use of the term “marine” in planning shows a concern for the biodiversity of coastal marine areas (the natural environment), while the term “maritime” emphasises the economic relationships between sea-related commercial or military activities (Ehler et al., 2019). The latter term has been criticised as encouraging post-political planning dominated by the logic of neo-liberalism and undermining participation in spatial planning decision-making (Clarke and Flannery, 2019).

42A number of MSP initiatives have been developed worldwide, through processes led by governments and non-governmental institutions, taking into account marine protected areas, coastal zone management policies and other legal and administrative frameworks, as well as local characteristics of the marine environment and maritime activities (Jay, 2017). Several countries have established marine protected areas (Marine Conservation Institute, 2020), which can be considered in MSP strategies; however, low-impact nature-based recreational activities such as surfing do not receive the same attention.

43For example, EU Directive 2014/89/EU13 refers to the need to establish maritime spatial plans considering a range of pressures such as human activities, the effects of climate change, natural hazards and coastal dynamics (erosion and accretion). But the perception of nature-based recreational activities still seems to be exclusively linked to tourism. The MSP process could go beyond this, considering surf breaks as limited natural resources that merit legal protection, as is the case in Peru, the first country in the world to protect waves by national law (Scheske et al., 2019; Monteferri et al., 2019): the Law on the Preservation of Waves for Sport¹ in Peru (Law No. 27280/2000 and Supreme Decree No. 015-2013/2013).

44Aside from this, there are a number of countries that recognise the importance of surf breaks for the environment, the economy and the maintenance of coastal marine culture, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Indonesia, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay (Orfila, 2020), etc. There are also specific legal texts aimed at the protection of marine and/or terrestrial areas such as the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS, 2010), as well as a series of laws in Australia (in the states of New South Wales and Victoria) (Santos and Blackwell, 2020) and some legal framework initiatives in Brazil and Chile (Santos, 2018) and on the Gold Coast in Australia (Queensland Government, 2020b). Some of these legal texts are described below in relation to MSP initiatives.

MSP initiatives and surf site protection

New Zealand

45New Zealand has not developed MSP at a national level. However, a regional document was developed in 2016 that encompasses the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, where there are some surf breaks, although these are not formally considered to be “nationally significant”. New Zealand’s legal framework for ocean governance consists of the ocean management principles developed under the Resource Management Act (RMA) of 1991, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) of 2010 and the definition of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 2012 (Scott, 2016).

46The 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS, 2010) was a response to demands from civil society (Surf break Protection Society, 2006, 2008). Among its measures, it includes a specific policy to protect nationally important surf breaks: “Protect surf breaks of national importance for surfing listed in Annex 1 by: (a) ensuring that activities in the coastal environment do not adversely affect surf breaks; and (b) avoiding adverse effects of other activities on access, use and enjoyment of surf breaks” (Measure 16). In addition, NZCPS 2010 includes a measure relating to strategic planning (Measure 7) and provides “that this must be carried out by persons exercising functions and powers under the Act”. New Zealand has a large number of high-quality, world-class surf breaks (Orchard, 2020). While it does not specifically use MSP, there is scope to create marine coastal management initiatives and policies linked to the surf break protection programme.

Peru

47To date, MSP is not used in Peru. However, the recent National Maritime Policy 2019–2030² is oriented towards a sustainable economy and includes legal provisions to protect waves and surf³. This is the first legal act in the world to protect waves and adjacent areas, and to define them as natural heritage and the “inalienable” property of the Peruvian state (Scheske et al., 2019). It is also the first legal act to consider waves as a legal entity once registered by the Peruvian Navy (Directorate General of Ports and Coastguards, National Wave Registry)⁴.

48The law does not fall under the legal environmental framework for protected areas managed by the Ministry of Environment, but is the responsibility of the Navy, which is part of the Ministry of Defence. The Navy manages the allocation of aquatic use rights (Scheske et al., 2019) and has taken the lead in developing a multi-sectoral strategic plan up to 2024, covering aspects related to MSP⁵. This creates opportunities to link MSP with the surf break protection agenda in Peru. This legal governance framework, together with a multitude of marine and environmental legal acts, could stimulate the development of MSP strategies in Peru that take into account the need for good governance and management of coastal marine areas where recreational practices, including surfing, have been appropriated by local communities and contribute to the natural environment, the blue economy and the culture.

Chile

49In Chile, MSP has not yet been adopted. Chile is among the top 20 countries with a considerable number of surf breaks (McGregor and Wills, 2017), although there is no specific legislation to protect them. Nevertheless, two recent examples of good governance to protect surf breaks exist within the legal framework of Chile’s marine protected areas, led by a coalition of stakeholders:

• The Punta de Lobos surf break has been certified as a World Surfing Reserve by the non-profit Save The Waves (STW) coalition. In addition, under Chilean Law No. 20930-2016, the NGO Fundación Punta de Lobos was founded to acquire marine coastal properties and manage them for conservation purposes (Scheske et al., 2019). The state’s real right to the Mirador area was transferred in perpetuity to the World Surfing Reserve of Punta de Lobos under binding conditions, in order to protect its ecosystems, regardless of who owns the land⁶.

• The NGO Fundación Rompientes has developed an initiative whose main objective is to dialogue with fishermen regarding the protection of surf breaks within the benthic resource management areas (AMERB), based on quotas defined in the management plans and seeking economic opportunities for fishermen through surf tourism. The territorial rights for fishing (Turf-Surf) and AMERB-Surf include the protection of six Chilean surf breaks located in the Piedra del Viento Marine Sanctuary (Santos, 2020), a marine protected area approved by the Chilean Ministerial Council of the Environment under Article 31 Title VII of Chilean Law No. 17288 (Chile, 2020).

50The development of an MSP policy does not yet seem to be part of the Chilean government’s priorities despite the fact that its coastal marine areas have important biodiversity and cultural interest, as well as considerable potential for sustainable economic development, and these areas are under threat (Aguilera et al., 2019). There is thus an urgent need to create and consolidate the surf zone protection programme and to improve initiatives to protect these areas, making them more effective and linking them to the global MSP sustainable development agenda.

Spain

51Spain has recently developed national MSP. Draft MSP plans were finalised in 2021, including the draft Royal Decree approving these plans and the strategic environmental assessment study. Subsequently, the Spanish government launched a public consultation on the proposed MSP, as well as a cross-border consultation with neighbouring countries (France, Portugal and Italy). The final versions of these drafts were submitted to the Environmental Administration, which then published the Strategic Environmental Report, with a view to approving the plans by Royal Decree. The Spanish MSP was adopted in February 2023, and the implementation of the measures and monitoring will take place between 2022 and 2027.⁷ According to the executive summary of these MSP plans, the planning objectives indicate a clear commitment to the protection of surf breaks, due to the importance of this resource for tourism and recreational activities (España, 2021). The Mundaka surf break received legal protection in 2016 (Decree 139 of the Basque Government), becoming the first to obtain this status in Europe. The protection considers the singularities of the wave as a natural heritage. It is included as part of the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve, on the coast of the Bay of Biscay, north of the Iberian Peninsula (Basque Government, Decree 139/2016; Trueba and Rodrigo, 2021).

Australia

52Australia has a diverse legal framework in relation to coastal sea issues (MSP Global, 2020), with some key planning examples such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 43 of 1975, the Marine Bioregional Plan for the North-west Marine Region, the Marine Bioregional Plan for the North Marine Region, the Marine Bioregional Plan for the South-west Marine Region, the Marine Bioregional Plan for the East Temperate Marine Region and the South-east Marine Region (Scott, 2016). The country is considered the best place in the world to surf (Pierson, 2018). It was also the first country to introduce a model surfing recreation reserve (land-based) (Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve in 1973) and a national surfing reserve programme. Australia also holds the largest number of World Surfing Reserve certificates, mainly for two beaches, Gold Coast and Noosa (Santos, 2018).

53Under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Bells Beach Recreational Surfing Reserve is located in the South-east Marine Region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015), around Point Addis Marine National Park and Great Otway National Park. It is managed by the Surf Coast Shire. It is governed by the Coastal Management Act 1995, the Draft Western Regional Coastal Plan 2015–2020, the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 and the Heritage Act 1995, which includes Bells Beach as part of Victoria’s cultural heritage (Santos, 2018).

54The City of Gold Coast introduced an innovative tool in 2015 – the Gold Coast Surf Management Plan – which covers 52 km of surf around the Gold Coast World Surfing Reserve (GCWSR). The plan aims to balance the interests of beach users and the ocean through keeping the beaches open and inclusive while remaining ecologically healthy and clean. The plan also aims to implement global best practice in coastal management strategies to preserve and enhance surfing by recognising the key role it plays in the city’s economy, culture, sporting life and social capital (City of Gold Coast, 2015). Recently, the state of Queensland (where the City of Gold Coast is located) has also begun a process to create specific legislation for its two World Surfing Reserves, GCWSR and Noosa (Queensland Government, 2020b).

55Australia has great potential to link these initiatives to national or regional MSP, and to show how surfer-driven surf break protection (Reineman, 2016) could help improve sustainable coastal marine management policies elsewhere in the world.

Brazil

56Brazil includes 17 coastal states and 279 coastal municipalities covering an average area of 10,900 km (IBGE, 2020) (fig. 2). Brazil made a commitment at the 2017 UN Ocean Conference to implement MSP by 2030, so a national MSP programme has gradually gained prominence in recent years. The Interministerial Commission on Marine Resources (CIRM), which coordinates national policy for marine resources, established a Working Group on Shared Uses of the Marine Environment (GT-UCAM) in 2013 (resolution no. 1/2013). In 2014, within the framework of GT-UCAM, the Marine Spatial Planning subgroup was formed to propose guidelines, tools and methodologies to support decision-making related to GT-UCAM’s activities. In 2017, this group established a roadmap towards a national MSP process. In 2020, Federal Decree No. 10,544 enacted the 10^th Sectoral Plan for Marine Resources, with the objective of promoting the shared use of marine resources through the implementation of comprehensive MSP.

57There is no doubt that MSP is on the agenda of Brazilian ocean and marine resources policy. Nevertheless, governmental actions are lacking to coordinate participatory governance to address the challenges and opportunities of national MSP. At the regional level, a few bottom-up MSP initiatives have been designed and implemented, such as in Babitonga Bay (Gerhardinger et al., 2019; Herbst et al., 2020). Given this limited experience, Brazil lags behind international MSP programmes (Gerhardinger et al., 2019). This could hinder the inclusion of all stakeholders and activities in MSP, including in the protection of surf zones. There is still work to be done in this country to construct a wide democratic process that recognises all activities that contribute to sustainable development.

Figure 2. Coastal states and municipalities in Brazil

58In 2019, a surf break in Brazil was recognised by STW as one of the 11 World Surfing Reserves (Guarda do Embaú World Surfing Reserve, state of Santa Catarina). There are also a large number of legal acts concerning coastal marine environments, which could be used as a legal framework to establish links between environmental law, integrated ocean policies and governance initiatives focused on the inclusion of recreational and low-impact activities in Brazilian planning strategies (Santos and Blackwell, 2020).

59The Brazilian Constitution has a specific chapter (Article 225) on environmental issues that underlines the duty of the national government, the states and the municipalities to create protected areas. This represents a real opportunity to implement innovative legal frameworks regarding specific areas or even small ecosystems, for example, the surf break protection programme. Teles da Silva et al. (2016a) have highlighted some Brazilian surf breaks located in national protected areas (national system of conservation units⁸, Law No. 9 985/2000). These surf breaks have the potential to become surfing reserves in line with the criteria of the STW World Surfing Reserves programme: (1) wave quality and consistency; (2) significant environmental features; (3) surfing culture and history; (4) governance capacity and local support or included in the management plans/strategies of protected areas (national, regional or local).

60The inclusion of the Guarda do Embaú World Surfing Reserve in the management plan of the Baleia Franca Environmental Protection Area (APA) (ICMBIO, 2018) in southern Brazil is a good example of the integration of different measures to protect coastal marine environments. Although there is no specific legislation to protect its surf breaks, Brazil has sufficient legal acts from environmental, administrative and urban law applied through jurisprudence to protect these sites. A legal governance framework linked to an MSP programme will need to take into account new patterns of use of marine spaces and their resources. The management of small coastal marine areas through innovative initiatives around low-impact recreational activities, such as surfing, and through a surf break protection programme, should be considered.

Conclusion: recognition of the value of surf breaks in MSP

61Integrating socio-cultural values in decision-making faces the challenge of defining acceptable valuation methods. Stakeholder consultation and deliberation offers a way to take into account diverse deeply held cultural values alongside the other ecosystem service valuation approaches needed for MSP.

62All values – tangible and intangible – associated with the coastal marine space need to be considered in a holistic approach, with a broad understanding of the ecosystem services provided by the ocean, including cultural services.

63In relevant contexts, surf breaks should be taken into account in MSP, involving the participation of the citizens concerned. There are a number of international examples in which surf areas are protected by legal or voluntary mechanisms.

64The way we govern and manage ecosystems and natural resources must be enhanced to not only consider development opportunities, but tackle inequality and poverty, ensure livelihoods, avoid conflict and improve human well-being.