| 1. |
- Morf, Andrea, 1968, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards sustainability of marine governance: Challenges and enablers for stakeholder integration in transboundary marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Ocean & Coastal Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0964-5691. ; 177, s. 200-212
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Integrating stakeholder knowledge, views and needs in marine or maritime spatial planning (MSP) processes is important from a governance and social sustainability perspective both for MSP practitioners and for the evolving field of MSP research. Transboundary MSP appears particularly challenging for participation, which is why it is important to identify opportunities and address obstacles for stakeholder integration in this specific context. This article examines how stakeholder integration is currently practiced in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), an enclosed sea where policy coherence and addressing conflicting interests across borders are especially relevant. It synthesises a range of challenges and enablers for stakeholder participation and mobilisation that have emerged from two transboundary MSP research and development projects, BaltSpace and Baltic SCOPE. The article finds that with the exception of statutory authorities, stakeholder engagement in the BSR is mostly limited to self-motivated stakeholders and consultation rather than more inclusive forms of participation. This can reduce the quality and legitimacy of MSP processes and risks to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of actors. For transboundary stakeholder integration to become more interactive and effective, five types of challenges need attention, regarding a) timing, b) governance systems, c) capacity and processes, d) stakeholder characteristics and e) knowledge and language. These obstacles can be addressed by (1) a dedicated research and development agenda that critically reflects on integrative tools and processes, and (2) by encouraging transnational institutions in the BSR to devote more resources to transboundary stakeholder integration and adopt flexible and adaptive strategies and tools that can facilitate stakeholder involvement throughout the MSP policy cycle.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hassler, Björn, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
BONUS BALTSPACE D2:2 : Ambitions and Realities in Baltic Sea Marine Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach: Policy and Sector Coordination in Promotion of Regional Integration
- 2017
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report is part of the BONUS BALTSPACE project and is focused on challenges for policy and sector integration in Baltic Sea marine spatial planning (MSP). The main objectives have been to identify concrete coordination problems, to analyse why they have emerged and to discuss possible remedies. It is based on selected aspects extracted from case studies carried out in this project related to the development of regional MSP approaches in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden and on an additional case study on the HELCOM-VASAB Working Group on MSP. To facilitate the analysis of vertical policy interactions between institutions at different levels as well as of horizontal interactions over sector and country borders, an analytical framework was constructed. This framework consists of two main components; (a) institution-driven coordination where institutions such as global treaties, the EU, regional organisations, and state authorities provide boundaries for decisions taken at lower levels and (b) benefit-driven coordination capturing horizontal coordination across sector and country borders.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Saunders, Fred, 1961-, et al.
(författare)
-
BONUS BALTSPACE Deliverable D2.4 : MSP as a governance approach? Knowledge integration challenges in MSP in the Baltic Sea
- 2017
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Developing integrative decision-making underpinned by a diverse knowledge base is seen as essential to meet marine spatial planning’s (MSP) sustainable development aspirations. In contributing to a better understanding of how this might be achieved, this report considers knowledge integration challenges drawing on several MSP empirical cases across the Baltic Sea Region. Each case-study, involves Baltic Sea states at different stages of developing national marine spatial plans. At the Baltic-wide level, HELCOM-VASAB has interpreted the Ecosystem Approach in MSP as relying heavily on an evidence-base informed by natural scientific and expert knowledge. The results of the report show that challenges arise when trying to apply scientific knowledge to MSP events or processes for a number of reasons such as, incomplete data and associated substantial uncertainty or because stakeholders contest the policy interpretation of the data. This raises questions of how to assess or evaluate the quality and comprehensiveness/sufficiency of scientific and stakeholder knowledge or input into MSP decision-making, particularly in highly politicised, conflictual contexts, such as the integration of parts of the fishing sector in MSP in Poland. MSP in German territorial waters provides a positive example, where science and stakeholder knowledge input have been integrated in decision-making through informal and formal processes. This case exhibits evidence of social learning where authorities have reflected on previous experiences and invested in actively nurturing the meaningful participation of a wide variety of stakeholders (to form a community of practice) over an extended period of time. The key findings of the report call for more attention to be paid to ways that scientific and stakeholder knowledge can be fruitfully incorporated in MSP, through initiatives such as: the development of knowledge evaluation measures; drawing more actively on social science expertise to help facilitate processes of stakeholder engagement and knowledge inclusion; and paying more attention to how to include heterogeneous socio-cultural values and knowledge (placed-based) in a way that improves the salience of scientific knowledge and the legitimacy of MSP decision-making.
|
|
