| 1. |
- Sandström, Annica, et al.
(författare)
-
Disputed policy change: the role of external events, policy learning and negotiated agreements in coastal and marine conservation planning.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Paper presented at the 2018 conference of the European Consortium for Political Research.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- What are the driving forces behind and obstacles to policy change in disputed policy processes? The general purpose of this paper is to explore and explain policy change – a major and debated issue in contemporary policy research – in the context of Swedish coastal and marine conservation planning. The paper draws on the advocacy coalition framework that accentuates the critical role of coalitions for the outcome of policy processes and identifies three primarily drivers to policy change: triggering key events, policy learning and negotiations via brokerage. Three national park planning processes, with divergent results, are mapped and analysed over 30 years time through a document- and interview study. What combination of factors in relation to policy coalitions – triggering events, policy learning and negotiated agreements – can explain divergent outcomes in the studied national park planning processes? The empirical analysis identified all three factors as important for the turnout. Triggering events, in combination with either negotiated agreements or policy learning, were the main pathways to change and our findings suggest that the type of policy beliefs around which the competing coalitions are formed influenced the specific route taken The results of the study contribute with knowledge on disputed policy change and give rise to new intriguing questions; they provide an empirical illustration of political conflicts and their solutions in nature conservation, and generate insights critical to the implementation of international and national conservation policy in multi-level governance systems.
|
|
| 2. |
- Morf, Andrea, 1968, et al.
(författare)
-
The Road Towards Koster Sea National Park - Potentials and Challenges of Implementing Ecosystem Based and Participatory Maritime Management
- 2011
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report provides results from a comprehensive analysis of the process leading towards Koster Sea national park, Sweden’s first marine national park. International pressure for participatory and ecosystem based management of marine resources is increasing (e.g. Convention of Biodiversity or EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy, Marine Strategy Directive, and ICZM-recommendations). Introducing integrative, participatory management of marine resources to a centralist, sector-based system of governance as in Sweden presents challenges. Various management experiments are under way. An interesting one combines protection and sustainable use in Sweden’s most valuable marine cold-water habitats: Koster Sea national park was inaugurated 2009 in parallel to the Norwegian park Ytre Hvaler and covers a large part of the archipelago and territorial waters in the municipalities of Tanum and Strömstad. The park makes an example for innovative marine management. The road towards it has been long and curvy. In the wake of proposals and protests, a process of community development with an integrative sustainability perspective has developed through an intensive dialogue between authorities and local stakeholders. After 30 years of recurring clashes locals and authorities agree that ecological and cultural values can be protected and used at the same time – under the condition that these uses are designed to be long-term sustainable, and evaluated and developed further in collaboration. Top-down management has met bottom-up initiative. Conservation is no more seen as a dead end by the users but as providing potential for rural development with sustainable tourism. The park’s goals include conservation, education, and sustainable use. Locals are not merely tolerated but an important part in the park's co-management structure – the steering committee Koster Sea Delegation and its working groups. Many participants are interested in analysing this process, which they call the ”Koster Sea Dialogue” in order to learn from it. The participation-process has been documented by the project “The Road Towards Koster Sea National Park”, financed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The study focused on the process, its drivers, the institutional framework, participation, stakeholders’ roles and networks, and conflict management. Methods include semi-structured interviews, observation and document analysis. An important process characteristic has been the long-term, active involvement of those living and working in the area. Local perspectives and knowledge have reached authorities to a larger extent than usual, making solutions adapted to local circumstances. Another characteristic is a linking of fisheries and local socio-economic development with conservation. The use of a rural development perspective, an evolving collaboration over years and active individuals at many levels have been important too. Researchers at the local marine research station have been important knowledge bearers and defenders of conservation but also translators and mediators in clashes between conservation and use. Other, more “usual” factors have been political interest, time, and resources. However, delegating the responsibility for a participation process to locals and letting it develop ad-hoc has its challenges. In rural areas it is important to proceed with care. Here, individuals are a main driving force – on leisure time. It cannot be expected from all to have the skills and resources for process leadership. People depend on each other and may be reluctant to confront neighbors. Conflicts easily become destructive if escalated. Locally based, ad-hoc process management allows for adaptation to local needs but is less transparent for outsiders. Continuous collaboration over years builds trust among those involved. On the flip side, an insider-elite with access to knowledge but little time to work with outreach may unintentionally be excluding others. Even if delegated to local forces, such processes require authorities’ back up with financial and other resources. The planning is concluded; implementation has just begun. Assessing the process from an adaptive co-management and ecosystem approach perspective – using criteria such as integration along various dimensions, adaptation and learning, participation, and a sustainable development perspective integrating ecological limits with socio-economic needs – the process and its institutional arrangements score relatively high. Some things need to be developed further: • A larger scale marine planning perspective including uses and environment in the surroundings. • The management system with working groups and the roles of the Delegation. • An more structured communication and participation planning and readiness for conflict management. • Monitoring effects in all three dimensions of sustainable development: ecological, social, economic. • Developing structures for organizational learning.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hassler, Björn, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Collective action and agency in Baltic Sea marine spatial planning: Transnational policy coordination in the promotion of regional coherence
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Marine Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-597X .- 1872-9460. ; 92, s. 138-147
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite the increasing attention given to marine spatial planning and the widely acknowledged need for transnational policy coordination, regional coherence has not yet improved a great deal in the Baltic Sea region. Therefore, the main objectives in this article are: (a) to map existing governance structures at all levels that influence how domestic marine spatial planning policy strategies are formed, (b) to identify specific challenges to improved regional cooperation and coordination, and (c) to discuss possible remedies. Based on data from in-depth case studies carried out in the BONUS BALTSPACE research project, it is shown that, despite the shared goal of sustainability and efficient resource use in relevant EU Directives, action plans and other policy instruments, domestic plans are emerging in diverse ways, mainly reflecting varying domestic administrative structures, sectoral interests, political prioritisations, and handling of potentially conflicting policy objectives. A fruitful distinction can be made between, on the one hand, regulatory institutions and structures above the state level where decision-making mechanisms are typically grounded in consensual regimes and, on the other hand, bilateral, issue-specific collaboration, typically between adjacent countries. It is argued that, to improve overall marine spatial planning governance, these two governance components need to be brought together to improve consistency between regional alignment and to enhance opportunities for countries to collaborate at lower levels. Issue-specific transnational working groups or workshops can be one way to identify and act upon such potential synergies. © 2018 The Authors
|
|
| 4. |
- Jay, Stephen, et al.
(författare)
-
International Progress in Marine Spatial Planning
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Ocean Yearbook. - : Brill. - 0191-8575 .- 2211-6001. ; 27:1, s. 171-212
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article provides an overview of how MSP is being developed in a number of geographical and institutional contexts. This is not intended to be a thorough empirical analysis of the progress of MSP. Rather, the article aims to provide an indication of how MSP is developing in a number of leading maritime nations, the legislative and institutional arrangements these nations are adopting, the provisional outcomes of these processes and likely future challenges. The article begins by reviewing the origins of MSP and how it relates to other marine management processes. This is followed by a review of 13 national MSP initiatives, leading to conclu- sions about some of the factors currently at work in the uptake of MSP.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sundblad, Eva-Lotta, 1956, et al.
(författare)
-
Social analys – en havsrelaterad samhällsanalys. Underlagsrapport för Sveriges inledande bedömning i havsmiljöförordningen
- 2012
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Havsmiljöförordningen, SFS 2010:1341, (HMF) ingår i en strategi för en ekosystembaserad förvaltning och ett hållbart nyttjande av havsmiljön som avses i Havsmiljödirektivet (2008/56/EG). Förordningen syftar till att upprätthålla eller nå en god miljöstatus i havsmiljön. Enligt HMF ska Havs- och vattenmyndigheten se till att det görs en inledande bedömningen av havsmiljön i de svenska delarna av de två förvaltningsområdena Nordsjön och Östersjön (13 § - 16 §). Den inledande bedömningen, som ska vara avslutad den 15 juli 2012 och rapporteras till Europeiska kommissionen senast den 15 oktober samma år, ska ligga till grund för fastställande av god miljöstatus, miljömål och miljöövervakningsprogram samt utarbetande av åtgärdsprogram för att nå uppsatta mål. I den inledande bedömningen ingår att utföra en ekonomisk och social analys, den förra kan delas in i två delar där den första syftar till att analysera nyttjandet av havsområdet och den andra delen att beskriva kostnaderna av att miljön i havsområdena försämras (HMF, 13 §, p.4 samt Havsmiljödirektivet, Artikel 8.1c). Det primära syftet med den sociala analysen i den inledande bedömningen är att skapa en bild av förutsättningarna för det kommande arbetet med att uppnå direktivets syften, dvs. god miljöstatus (GES, artikel 9). Analysen ska också tjäna som underlag vid utformningen av miljömål (artikel 10) som sedermera kommer att ligga till grund för åtgärdsprogram och styrmedel (artikel 13). Bedömningen inbegriper en analys av hur olika grupper i samhället kan beröras av havets nyttjande, havsrelaterade miljöproblem och deras åtgärdande. I denna studie lanseras en metod att genomföra en sådan analys. Metoden inbegriper en tankemodell som består av komponenterna Indirekta drivkrafter, Direkta drivkrafter, Påverkan/tillstånd/effekt i miljön, Effekt i samhället och Respons med. Modellen används tillsammans med en frågemall för att kartlägga aktörer och drivkrafter. Fallstudier avseende tre miljöproblem - selektivt överfiske av torsk samt oönskad spridning av kvicksilver och fosfor - visar att ett stort antal aktörer är inblandade såväl indirekt som direkt. Dessutom verkar aktörerna på olika nivåer: lokalt/regionalt, nationellt och internationellt. Varje miljöproblem behöver sin egen analys och har egna förutsättningar. Studien visar att den information som behövs för att besluta om åtgärder är relativt omfattande. Avvägningen av vilken mängd information som är tillräcklig och som bör övervakas i framtiden kan ha stor påverkan på utvecklingen i samhället och i miljön. Slutligen lämnas förslag på hur framtida havsmiljörelaterade samhällsanalyser kan genomföras.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Morf, Andrea, 1968
(författare)
-
Contributions of Public Participation in Planning to the Management of Coastal Resource Conflicts: Case Studies in Swedish West Coast Municipalities
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Paper resented at the Coastal Zone Canada Association’s sixth biennial Conference “All Within One Ocean: Co-operation in Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Management” in St. John’s, Newfoundland, June 25-30, 2004.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper is based on empirical research for a Ph. D.-thesis: case studies of physical (spatial) planning and coastal resource-use conflicts in two Swedish West Coast municipalities. Departing from the question of the thesis, possible contributions of public participation in municipal planning to the management of coastal resource conflicts shall be discussed. Coastal management literature emphasises the need for integration regarding many aspects: between water and land, across administrative- and use sectors, across hierarchical levels, etc. Participation of as many stakeholders as possible when formulating and implementing coastal policy is an important requirement, for improving plan-quality, enhancing acceptance, and facilitating implementation. In Sweden, municipal physical planning is one management tool (out of few) co-ordinating resource management across administrative sectors and environmental systems – a complement to sector management on municipal level. Broad public participation is statutory; many types of stakeholders can be included. Physical planning thus has the potential to serve as forum for a public and local debate about coast-typical problems. Coastal resource use conflicts are part of planning. They usually have several layers or dimensions. The case studies indicate that the commonly applied procedures do not include all types of conflict dimensions to the same extent (e.g. water-related problems or the value-dimension of a conflict do not enter documents as easily as land-use aspects). Creating public attention for strategic level coastal problems can be difficult; local and specific questions are more mobilising. Political attention for coastal problems has at times been low – coastal planning and method-development depended highly on transitory external financing. Furthermore, important coastal policy decisions are made sectorally on national and regional, rather than on municipal level, with a narrow range of selected participants. Creating a broad local debate about coastal resources under these conditions is a challenge for municipalities. Difficulties lie in the present design of the planning- and natural resource management system and with the question of how to mobilise whom. Thus, standard participation procedures often do not facilitate a general public debate about more “difficult” topics and resource-use conflicts and may not sufficiently be tied to the larger management system, which can lead to incomplete or short-sighted solutions. For improving management, the possibilities for contact between stakeholders would need to be enhanced through e.g. complementary forums, an adaptation of planning-procedures, and further integration with the overall-management system.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Böhler, Tom, 1955, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing environmental conflicts in Sweden: Case studies from the Malmö and Gothenburg areas.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Environmental Conflicts in Coastal Urban Areas: Towards a Strategic Assessment Framework for Sustainable Development. A. Z. Khan, L. X. Quynh, F. Canters, E. Corijn. Sapienza Università Editrice, Vol. IV.. - Italy, Rome : Sapienza Università Editrice. - 9788898533008 ; , s. 279-318
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Four conflicts of resource use have been analysed in the Swedish study areas of the SECOA-project. In the Malmö area we studied (1) a conflict about urban sprawl and settlement and (2) one about land use for nature protection, agricultural production or settlement in the surrounding of the city (Falsterbo peninsula). In the Gothenburg area we studied (3) a conflict about nature protection and economic development in the outer parts of the city (Torsviken, with similarities to the Falsterbo conflict in the Malmö area) and (4) a conflict about windpower location in the outer ring community of Kungsbacka. All four conflicts are relevant for the long-term development of the study areas, independent of solutions achieved so far. They cover important issues for natural resource management, for development, productive or consumptive resource use, conservation or protection. Dilemmas of sustainable development and climate change adaptation become visible: the environmental conflicts need to be solved on the way towards coastal and urban sustainable development. But the resolution of the conflicts is – except to some degree for the Falsterbo conflict – not yet integrated with strategies for climate adaptation and transition management for sustainability.
|
|
| 10. |
- Gee, Kira, et al.
(författare)
-
BONUS BALTSPACE Deliverable 3.3: Addressing MSP integration challenges: The role of tools and approaches. Geesthacht.
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report discusses seven different tools and approaches to address important integration challenges in marine and coastal spatial planning and management, namely in relation to sectors and policies, boundaries, stakeholders and different types of knowledge. BONUS BALTSPACE (2015-2018) was conceived against the background of the EU MSP Directive and the need for Member States to produce marine spatial plans by 2021. MSP is an integrative concept that requires integration of sectors and stakeholders, of different types of knowledge, as well as integration across administrative borders. BALTSPACE was the first transnational, interdisciplinary MSP research project in the BSR to focus on four key integration challenges in MSP, namely policy and sector integration, multi-level and transboundary integration, stakeholder integration and knowledge integration. Work Package 3 was tasked with developing and assessing practitioner-oriented approaches and tools for MSP to help deal with the integration challenges identified (www.baltspace.eu). The capacity of seven problem- and process-specific techniques and approaches (subsequently termed tools) was assessed in different case study settings: •Bowtie •Culturally Significant Areas •Governance Baselines •Integrated Indicator System for monitoring the spatial, economic and environmental effects of MSP solutions •Marxan •Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation •Spatial Economic Benefit Analysis (SEBA) Each tool was applied once in a particular country context in a format determined by the tool user. Some applications were desktop exercises, others were more participative, although most had some form of verification by stakeholders. Tool selection reflected both the variety of available methods and the diverse range of tasks in MSP, leading to the inclusion of product- and process-oriented tools, descriptive and analytical tools, as well as data and forecasting tools. One of the tools (SEBA) was specifically developed for MSP as part of BALTSPACE. An overview of academic literature revealed that “tools” in MSP are mostly understood as technical instruments that provide decision support. To a large part, the tools described in the literature rely on scientific data and information, in line with a view of MSP as an evidence-based exercise requiring data collection and analysis as a basis for planning. There is little mention of the role of process in MSP and the learning that might result from tool-supported processes. Also, most assessments do not focus on the indirect or ‘soft’ impacts of tool use, which are often related to the persons or groups engaging with the tool – and which could have positive integration effects by and for themselves. Examples of such impacts include greater mutual understanding or an improved sense of trust, both of which could arise from improved stakeholder and knowledge integration facilitated by a tool. Integration effects may therefore manifest themselves when the tool is being used - e.g. to generate a particular output such as a map – or when the results are being fed back into the MSP process. After a short overview of the purpose of each tool and where it fits in the MSP cycle, an analytical template is set out. This breaks down the four integration challenges into a series of sub-challenges, so as to enable a comparative evaluation of the seven tools against the same set of challenges. It also sets out some more general contributions the tools could make with respect to MSP, such as contributing to the efficiency of the MSP process or to improved decision-making. The assessment is based on the retrospective evaluation of the BALTSPACE researchers and largely descriptive, focusing also on the direct outputs and indirect outcomes of tool use. Throughout, the assessment focuses on the capacity of each tool, taking account of the fact that tool use is context-dependent and that a range of external factors comes into play when it comes to the actual integration results. The assessment shows that the integration challenges most readily addressed are stakeholder and knowledge integration. Conversely, policy integration is difficult to achieve as a direct result, although some tools are well suited to analysing the existing policy landscape and potential integration gaps. Multi-level (transboundary) integration depends on the scale of tool use and is potentially achievable as all tools can be up-scaled if necessary. Some tools are also well-placed to contribute to land-sea integration. An important difference is noted between the inherent capacity of the tools and their application. Some tools are better at certain tasks than others but ultimately, it is the application that is make or break. For example, some tools (such as OS or CSA) are specifically designed to support stakeholder and knowledge integration, in the sense that they would not deliver a result without them. Other tools that are less specifically designed for this purpose can also contribute to stakeholder integration, but this then happens as a result of how the tool is applied – in this case in a participative setting. To some degree, the capacity to facilitate stakeholder and knowledge integration depends on whether a tool is process- or product-oriented or analytical or experimental. Generally, process-oriented tools, especially complex ones such as OS require active stakeholder involvement and input, but there are also product-oriented tools (such as CSA or SEBA) that rely on the integration of various stakeholders and their knowledge. Analytical tools such as Bowtie or Governance Baselines could in theory be conducted as mere desktop exercises, which would restrict their impact on knowledge integration; if applied as participatory tools they would also make an indirect contribution to stakeholder integration. The mere fact that a tool requires stakeholder involvement does not automatically lead to integration benefits, although involvement is certainly a prerequisite. Especially with respect to process-oriented tools, much depends on the skill of the tool user and the quality of the application process, including for example facilitation skills, timing and resources, also on the part of the participating stakeholders. Much also depends on the quality of the (surrounding) MSP process and whether this is capable of absorbing the benefits that may be generated from tool use. The seven tools are unable to contribute to increasing national/transnational policy coherence and resolving institutional compatibilities, and less well placed to help evaluate the consequences of planned action. Only the most comprehensive process-oriented tool (OS) is able to create a forum for deliberation. A key aspect for applying the seven BALTSPACE tools in practice is to know the precise challenge to be addressed, the capacity of the tool (its potential outcomes) including any soft benefits to be achieved, and the capacity of those using the tool (time, timing, resources). It is also important to consider which role the tool is expected to play in the MSP process: Will it be used as a free-standing, independent entity and process, feeding results into the MSP process? Will it be used as a trigger of the MSP process and “way in” or door-opener, for example to motivate stakeholders? Or is the tool to be intimately linked to the entire MSP process, effectively running large parts of it? Insights and practical tips for using the tools are provided in a separate Tools Handbook which is available for download on the BALTSPACE website (www.baltspace.eu). The website also contains short video tutorials on selected tools, as well as a briefing note and short summary of the opportunities and challenges in using tools to support integration in MSP.
|
|
