Climate-smart ocean planning in small island developing states—exploring pathways in Dominica

Climate Change Integration in the Risk Assessment Mapping of the CMSP

CC is an integral part of Dominica’s CMSP. Both components of the CMSP, the marine spatial and the coastal master plan, make use of a risk assessment mapping (RAM), undertaken to identify ‘hotspots’ in the coastal area that were most vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate²⁷. The RAM comprises three components: 1) human-related activities as identified by an EBM-DPSER (Ecosystem Based Management, Drivers-Pressures-State-Ecosystem-Services-Response) model; 2) ecosystems with various species and ecological state components; and 3) CC impacts on ecosystems and their inhabitants²⁷ with insight from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)¹⁴.

For the risk hotspot analysis, combined risks of interactions between human activities, the coastal and marine ecosystem and CC were depicted in a risk assessment map for the nearshore coastal area (CMSP: Figs. B2–1, Risks in the Nearshore Coastal Area²⁷). The map illustrates regions with elevated risk levels, where higher risk values indicate a greater risk of conflicts arising from competing uses. For example, one hotspot identified is Canefield, where natural gas and petroleum industries are located close to the coast, implying a high risk of contamination with rising sea levels. The RAM was developed employing a risk scoring approach, which incorporated a CC risk factor based on CC risk assessment levels as part of the EBM-DPSER model²⁷. CC has the potential to impact all DPSER relationships²⁷.

The IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate¹⁴ was used to assess the impacts of CC on coastal and marine ecosystems under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario (“business as usual scenario”) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The added risk to specific coastal and marine ecosystems was evaluated based on observed and projected climate impacts from multiple climatic hazards, including ocean warming, deoxygenation, acidification, nutrient changes, particulate organic carbon flux and sea-level rise. All CC risks for Dominica not explicitly addressed in the 2019 IPCC report were assessed by the CMSP project team, using scientific evidence and local and regional knowledge. These assessments applied risk levels developed by the IPCC (e.g. very high, high, moderate). For example, there is a high estimated CC impact on demersal and pelagic fish populations and a very high risk for the Caribbean spiny lobster due to ocean acidification²⁷.

Climate Change in Dominica’s CC-Related Policies and the CMSP

Resilience, Adaptation, Mitigation, Sustainable Development, and Governance represent the main pillars of CC policy in Dominica (Table 1) and were guiding themes throughout the analysed policies (Table 2). The five themes described below (1) – (5) establish a connection between the CC elements of the national policies and how these elements are integrated into the CMSP.

(1) The CMSP largely incorporates Resilience as a central theme by introducing measures to achieve the implementation of restoring, conserving and sustainably managing the coastal and marine environment, hazard and emergency preparedness and a climate-resilient transportation system (Table 1). It refers to the vision of the National Ocean Policy (NOP), which outlines a firm commitment to “ensure resilience to climate impacts”^27,28. CC was streamlined into blue economy priority projects with climate resilience representing one out of five blue economy outcomes in the coastal master plan. The outcome refers to investments and actions focussed on climate mitigation and adaptation adding to greater resilience to natural disasters and CC impacts²⁷. The CMSP also incorporates disaster and climate resilience considerations and recommendations in every project proposed based on the RAM undertaken²⁷. Proposed projects for increased climate resilience include developing green energy infrastructure, replanting Dominica’s littoral forest and creating resilient fisheries infrastructure, such as boat storage facilities in specific identified locations (CMSP: Figs. C3–1, Proposed Priority Projects Focused on Climate Resilience²⁷).

(2) & (3) Adaptation and Mitigation measures are also reflected in the CMSP, particularly in the coastal master plan. The CMSP emphasises adaptation measures while focussing on restoring and protecting critical habitats as well as safeguarding coastal infrastructure²⁷. Nevertheless, the country has set emission reduction targets to protect carbon sinks through, e.g., the creation of additional marine reserves, transition to a low-carbon transportation system, and the goal of using 100% renewable energy by 2030, mainly through exploiting its geothermal energy resources^29,30. Although investments in offshore renewables are stated as an intervention towards achieving climate resilience in the ‘Blue Economy Outcome’ of the CMSP²⁷, it was not found to be part of sectoral policies.

(4) Sustainable Development is a common thread through the CMSP, linking actions with specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and achieving the 2030 Development Agenda²⁷. The Eastern Caribbean Regional Ocean Policy (ECROP)³¹ and NOP, in particular, highlight the role of Blue Economy Development in achieving the SDGs, including SDG 13 Climate Action, considering interlinkages among the goals^28,31. Additionally, sustainable blue financing mechanisms have been recognised to play an important role, as well as partnerships and collaborations with the private sector and foreign donor agencies.

(5) Environmental management and governance principles associated with several agreements to which Dominica is a signatory, such as the 2018 National Resilience Development Strategy 2030 (NRDS) and the 2019 NOP, permeated the policies^20,28 and are central to the CMSP²⁷. Approaches comprise the sustainable use of marine resources, collaborative management, cumulative impact analysis, education and information enhancement and scientific and technological information sharing²⁷. Additionally, the CMSP in Dominica was developed with a Blue Economy lens, aiming at achieving Dominica’s vision of maximising the potential of its Blue Economy, applying an integrated, multiple-use ocean planning approach to managing coastal and marine resources. Various methodologies and tools that apply several conceptual frameworks, i.e., Island Systems Management (ISM), Ecosystem-based management and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)^27,31, were incorporated. ISM is particularly relevant in the context of islands, as it takes a holistic, ridge-to-reef approach, where the interactions and interdependencies between the terrestrial and marine environments are considered in planning²⁷.

Barriers and Pathways

The CMSP widely considers CC by employing relevant tools and data²⁷ and incorporating measures for Resilience, Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development based on CC-relevant principles and governance approaches (Table 1). However, despite these efforts, barriers persist and impede more effective integration of CC. Several barriers and potential pathways towards achieving climate-smart ocean planning in Dominica have been identified.

The CMSP was partially developed during the COVID-19 pandemic²⁷, which required adjustments to the work plan, specifically a move from in-person to virtual stakeholder engagement activities^27,32,33. There was also a change in the timeframe for the delivery of the plans, from 48 months to 30 months, due to administrative delays at the project’s inception, which presented an additional challenge to the process^32,33. In 2021, the CMSP was completed for Dominica, but up until February 2025, it had not yet been formally adopted or implemented³² due to several factors, including a lack of ownership and institutional arrangements discussed below.

Additional factors impeding progress towards implementation of the CMSP and CC-relevant policies are connected to policy-making processes. The CMSP notes that long-term sustainability is often hindered by a legislative and institutional environment that does not allow mainstreaming interventions beyond project-based actions, having implications for both the implementation and institutionalisation of plans^27,32. Dominica’s NOP directs that MSP should be established and implemented²⁸. Several pieces of key legislation that address coastal and maritime areas and maritime activities in Dominica will guide the implementation of the CMSP, some of which are in draft for approval, such as the Climate Change, Environmental and Natural Resource Management Bill 2016 and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy for the Commonwealth of Dominica 2012 – 2037, developed in 2012. After a significant delay, fisheries regulations that seek to improve fisheries management and modernise approaches were passed in 2023. Generally, policy-making in Dominica is challenged as it operates within a governance system where a siloed approach to sectoral policy-making is an additional contributing factor to impeding progress. Review and evaluation processes easily drop down the state’s list of priorities, particularly when the process is not institutionalised and/or the coordination mechanism has not been operationalised. Moreover, the system is hampered by resource and capacity challenges to enforce existing legislation effectively³².

Limited technological infrastructure, capacity and resources impede access to relevant data crucial for advancing efforts on CC in ocean planning. Limited access to ocean monitoring infrastructure (e.g. buoys, vessels), funding, and human resource constraints hamper data collection and efforts to fill knowledge gaps. For example, the economic value of Dominica’s biodiversity assets is largely unknown due to a lack of data²⁷. Additionally, access to ocean data is restricted by proprietary rights, data exclusivity, and departmental or agency policy, making it difficult to obtain, use, share and build upon existing knowledge. This is compounded as there is variability in data quality and standards across different sources, which can impede effective knowledge integration^32,34,35. Beyond these challenges, stakeholders call for more timely information sharing and transparency in how data is collected and used³².

A critical need for the country is to advance a system to facilitate regular updating of data. As one interviewee noted “sharing data, build[ing] a platform for data sharing and housing data and updating data is probably one of the things that [..] is a limitation to being flexible³².” The shared regional-level spatial data platform³⁶, for which the islands need to collaborate to populate and maintain²⁶, must be developed further. Additionally, the development of detailed zoning was challenged by the lack of offshore data at the time the CMSP was developed^27,32. The offshore zoning framework (CMSP: Figure B3-8, Offshore Marine Zoning Framework²⁷) is more conceptual in nature²⁷ and requires a higher level of detail to guide decision-making and implementation. Subsequent plans can benefit from additional data relevant to assessing CC impacts on biodiversity and resources, including how spatial locations of maritime activities (e.g. fishing, tourism) may change, particularly for the deeper, less explored offshore areas. The data required should have a high level of detail and be site-specific³².

A great number and diversity of stakeholder groups were consulted throughout the CMSP planning process²⁷, including academia, community members, the Kalinago, non-governmental organisations, private sector entities, and the public sector. Emphasis was placed on prioritising vulnerable communities, especially those engaged in fisheries and tourism, and the Kalinago due to their important role in Blue Economy development²⁷, as well as their valuable local ecological knowledge³⁷. An End-of-Project Review and Evaluation report of the CROP was conducted by two consultants contracted by the OECS commission to evaluate the CROP’s effectiveness, impact, relevance, and sustainability for all five participating countries. The report stated that in the project, efforts were made to involve all relevant stakeholders, and the level of participation was reasonably high, however, some sectors reported limited participation. Overall, stakeholders’ participation, cooperation and equity was assessed as “moderately satisfactory”³³.

The present study revealed that stakeholders, particularly those in state agencies and involved in the planning process, already have a good level of awareness about CC, its impacts and why climate-smart MSP is required: “You cannot do good marine spatial planning without including climate change. To me, that is not scientifically sound, nor is it going to be effective in the future³².” At the societal level, the CMSP recognised the need for widespread awareness-raising and proposed a national education campaign led by the state as one of the projects for implementation under the plan²⁷. Promoting awareness can serve a dual purpose, not solely to promote understanding of the value of the CMSP for moving forward but, crucially, to foster a sense of ownership. Only if all stakeholders are aware of the importance of the CMSP can they operationalise and implement it on a local level³². However, factors such as understaffed agencies and departments³² and “zoom fatigue”³³ contributed to the limited participation of certain stakeholder groups. Post-delivery of the CMSP, particular stakeholders have expressed concerns about the final output due to having expectations of a more readily implementable plan, contributing to a feeling of a lack of ownership with the CMSP. Also, although the Climate Resilience Execution Agency for Dominica (CREAD), the national coordinating body for implementing CC policies, was consulted during the planning process, our findings indicate that their role in the CMSP implementation was unclear³².

Financial capital for implementing CC projects, including data collection, is limited, and allocating funds to climate action faces additional challenges from external factors. Dominica largely depends on external funding from organisations, development banks and governments of developed countries³². However, funding is often channelled into developing plans with considerably less budgeted for subsequent implementation. If a project runs out of funding, work is often halted and tends to regress to its earlier status before the financial investment³². Furthermore, government funding is usually allocated to more pressing needs. For example, in 2017, Hurricane Maria led to an immediate reordering of priorities at the national level³².

Additionally, the analysis reveals that even if more financial resources were available, developments are expected to happen slowly due to limited human resource capacities. Critical departments in Dominica’s state ministries and agencies are understaffed³², and specific technical skills required for climate-smart ocean planning are limited in the island’s workforce.

The National Ocean Governance Committee (NOGC), in its role in implementing the NOP, coordinates projects to deliver CMSP objectives. In 2023, two years after the completion of the CMSP, the NOGC was not yet established, stalling the progress of plan implementation and development towards climate-smart ocean planning³². Significant challenges face those responsible for MSP who seek to coordinate among the various stakeholders and interests in developing and implementing the plan. Differing sectoral interests and governance arrangements between agencies can make joint working challenging. This was highlighted by one interviewee: “We talk about mainstreaming, we talk about integration, but we don’t really work together at that level all the time³².” Difficulties in sharing information are other impediments identified by interviewed stakeholders. As the Dominica NOP outlines, the cross-sectoral NOGC must be convened with a mandate to implement the policy objectives, including the CMSP. This committee must be formalised and operationalised for work to commence. As one participant pointed out, “using a coordinated, integrated body like a NOGC would be a great starting point…³²”, particularly with regard to bridging the implementation gap, as the diverse perspectives can support a coordinated approach to implementation, as well as potential revisions to the plans. Furthermore, to increase the adaptability and flexibility necessary for addressing CC, the diversity of perspectives and stakeholders within the NOGC can better inform future planning initiatives and how the plan can integrate CC considerations holistically. However, simply having a cross-sectoral group like the NOGC does not automatically imply a more integrated approach, as it is difficult for state ministries and agencies to break out of the siloed approach to ocean management³².