Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings

Marine spatial planning (MSP) as a means of marine governance has been given more prominence recently in response to the problems of fragmentation of marine regulation, environmental protection from increasing pressures upon the seas and the emergence of new maritime industries (Douvere and Ehler, 2009). Therefore enhancing multiple aspects of the way that marine authorities, sectors and stakeholders interact and engage with each other is integral to MSP's role and function and seen as a key means to address fragmented and isolated decision-making in marine space (Portman, 2016). While the function and processes of enhancing integration should not be seen as ends in themselves, they aim to create institutionalised platforms that support multi-level and multi-sectoral governance interaction to achieve 'sustainable use' of marine space (Gilek et al., 2016; Ritchie and Ellis, 2010; Varjopuro et al., 2015). Here, integration mostly plays an instrumental role in realising multiple and divergent political ends (e.g. blue growth, sustainable use, legitimate decision-making) related to ‘integrated spatialized outcomes' that seek to reflect a balance of competing goals (Flannery et al., 2016; Flannery et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Olsen et al., 2014a). Integration is also seen to be important to foster greater connectivity over borders, beneficial for conservation, shipping and fishing (Jay et al., 2016). While claims of the benefits of more integration are intuitively appealing, whether and how these are actually delivered through integration practices remains under-examined in MSP practice; as are empirical insights on the multiplicity of roles that integration plays in MSP. So, while integration has been universally adopted as a policy principle where it is believed that more integration is seen to be closely related to successful planning in numerous ways, there is confusion about what it means, how to do it and what it implies in different MSP contexts. In response, the key aim of this article is to develop an analytical framework useful for examining integration in MSP across a diversity of contexts and processes. Given the central role of integration in MSP, it is vitally important to better understand the linkages between ideas of integration and their practical application in MSP. To examine the role of integration across multiple MSP contexts, we first describe the approach taken in this study. This is followed by a review of relevant MSP and integration related literature to develop an analytical framework. We draw on this framework to illustrate important expressions of integration challenges and responses in our cases. The experiences from the multiple cases are then discussed to generate insights into the various roles that integration plays in MSP and how problems arise and have been addressed. In closing, we underline key findings and reflect on the usefulness and adaptability of the integration approach developed in this article

Mainstreaming coastally just and equitable marine spatial planning:Planner and stakeholder experiences and perspectives on participation in Latvia

Community participation and influence are vitally important for meeting the multidimensional sustainability aims of marine spatial planning (MSP) and more specifically for procedural and distributive justice. While participation has received substantial research interest, we identify a need to: 1) develop equity-based principles for coastal community participation that can be used to assess and reform MSP practices; 2) generate rich empirical accounts of coastal community participation and representation linked to real-world MSP practices. Here we present the results of a study that synthesizes critical MSP and blue justice scholarship to develop principles and indicators of coastally equitable and just planning. Drawing on interviews with planners and stakeholders and analysis of planning and legal documents, these principles are used to assess participatory processes linked to Latvian MSP practices in the period 2015 to 2019. Our analysis shows that equitable and just MSP needs to be based on participation that is timely, inclusive, supportive & localized, collaborative, methodical and impactful. When applied to the Latvian case these six principles provide a comprehensive and versatile heuristic approach to assess participation in MSP. In the context of Latvian MSP practices, we revealed a fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusive and localized participation throughout the full planning cycle. To counteract the successive narrowing/hardening of participatory space our results indicate a need for continuously promoting diversity of voices and perspectives, opportunities for collaborative sense making, visioning and critique. This will help to bridge diverse MSP divides (e.g., between land and sea, between local, national, and global values and priorities, between science and local knowledge, and between blue growth, conservation, and justice goals). If applied more generally in research and as part of MSP evaluation an equity-based approach can promote the mainstreaming of coastally just and equitable MSP practices. Finally, considering contextual factors (e.g., history, culture, power, legislation) that shape participation and representation is crucial when applying the equity principles to a particular MSP setting to acknowledge and accommodate its particular characteristics and challenges

Environmental Risk Governance of the Baltic Sea : RISKGOV Final report : Deliverable 12

Environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea area is still unable to fully support implementation of the ecosystem approach to management. Hence, the aims of the international RISKGOV project were: 1) to improve our understanding of environmental risk governance and its challenges in the Baltic Sea; 2) to suggest possible avenues for improvement. These aims were addressed by integrating social and natural science approaches on five strategically selected environmental risks (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive species, chemical pollution and oil discharges). The findings, recommendations and dissemination products of RISKGOV are described in detail in the Final report (http://www.sh.se/riskgov). Researchers from Södertörn University were involved in all case studies and cross-case comparisons. In summary, RISKGOV concludes that it is necessary to improve the robustness and responsiveness of governance practices to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Specifically, RISKGOV recommends that: (i) Governance structures need to move towards more reflexive governance by improving regulatory coordination, cross sector collaboration, and interaction space for reflexivity. This is, for example, exemplified by increased interactions between HELCOM and the EU aiming at the combination of mandatory regulation and voluntary agreements; (ii) Assessment-management interactions require improvements e.g. relating to the regional and interdisciplinary knowledge-base, stakeholder participation and coping with scientific uncertainty and disagreement; (iii) Stakeholder participation and communication require improvements in terms of a more integrated system of stakeholder input possibly via an expansion of HELCOM’s stakeholder involvement policy and enhanced efforts to communicate environmental issues to the general public. Implications of these general recommendations for specific actors and stakeholders were analysed and developed through thematic roundtable discussions

Vägar till en friskare Östersjö

Gapet är stort mellan miljömål och miljötillstånd i Östersjön. De omfattande insatser som görs av offentliga institutioner, näringsliv och allmänhet räcker inte. Samtidigt finns ett stort och växande engagemang från många politiker, företagare och enskilda för att stärka havsmiljöarbetet. När vi nu summerar ett större treårigt forskningsprojekt finner vi viktiga ledtrådar till vägar som kan leda till en förbättrad situation

Towards improved environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea : RISKGOV Deliverable 11

Moving towards sustainable ecosystem governance practices is potentially a complex and time consuming endeavour. The RISKGOV project identified three main governance challenges linked to implementing an ecosystem approach to management in the medium to long term time span (i.e. years to decades), that, if adequately addressed by actors and stakeholders, could help improve the governance of environmental problems and risks in the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Firstly, fostering a move towards reflexive and adaptive governance structures and processes by improving regulatory coordination, cross sector collaboration and forming spaces for interaction and dialogue. Secondly, strengthening the regional and ecosystem basis of knowledge generation and management is needed, including integration of various forms of scientific knowledge, stakeholder input, and increased attention to interdependencies among environmental problems and risks to better address uncertainties and disagreements. Thirdly, to develop a more integrated system of stakeholder input and communication, e.g. in the form of a “regional marine advisory council”, to face issues of inclusiveness, create a common concern for the Baltic ecosystem, improve the motivation and capacity, and improve coordination across scales and sectors

The Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Development in Baltic Sea Marine Spatial Planning: The Social Pillar, a ‘Slow Train Coming’

This chapter develops an analytical framework, drawing on the multidimensional role of integration, to explore how the Ecosystem Approach (EA) is variously conceived and practiced in marine spatial planning (MSP) in the Baltic Sea region (BSR). This framework is used to examine how EA practices reflect differing conceptions of sustainable development (SD) in Baltic marine and coastal areas. This work intersects with several of the other chapters on marine planning in this volume by explicitly exploring links between EA and SD through examination of in-depth BSR case studies. Results reveal that EA principles for MSP developed at the international level (HELCOM/VASAB) and in some national MSP settings (e.g. Latvia), combined with a common assumption of ecological limits to development, largely acknowledge a wide definition of EA as a governance approach building on societal choice and diverse knowledge inclusion (as seen e.g. in the Malawi principles). However, looking at more specific guidelines and MSP practices, there is a significant gap between espoused principles and the practical implementation of EA in BSR MSP, especially regarding social aspects of sustainability such as participation, social inclusion and knowledge pluralism. While work on ecological services in EA looks promising as a means of developing joined-up thinking between ecological and economic interests, it is uncertain whether this approach can deliver on EA’s social sustainability ambitions. We conclude the chapter by discussing ways that could strengthen the social pillar in MSP as a form of governance to bridge the gap between EA principles and practice.Baltspac

Riskbedömning i Östersjön

Miljöproblemen i Östersjön är allvarliga, och kunskapen om exakt vilka risker de innebär är omdebatterad. I ett forskningsprojekt har vi kartlagt hur miljöriskerna bedöms och hanteras idag, och konstaterar att det finns ett behov av att den traditionella riskbedömningen kompletteras med ett större mått av försiktighet och ett ökat deltagande av samhällets olika aktörer