My Most Awsome Öresund

Home , Baltic Sea

Challenges and enablers of cross- border marine spatial planning and stakeholder involvement Experiences and perspectives from the Sound/Öresund

Aalborg university, Copenhagen, 2020-02-20

Andrea Morf [email protected]

Including slides created with colleagues from partners organisations within the BONUS projects BaltSpace and BASMATI and EU-DG MARE financed Baltic SCOPE & Pan Baltic Scope collaborations

My most awsome Öresund J A collaboration of 5 Swedish universities to serve marine environmental management in Sweden www.havsmiljoinstitutet.se , www.havet.nu Andrea Morf: MSP, ICZM, participation, conflict mgmt. [email protected] / [email protected] Scientific coordinator and analyst (since 2009) Þ Analysis & synthesis: Research & reports! Þ Advice & Reviews: SOU, Natl. plans, Blue Plans (Blå ÖP) Þ Link research & mgmt: ICES WGMPCZM, Nordic MSP Expert Network, MSP research network Þ Information & 3rd task. Research & development: BaltSeaPlan, BaltSpace. Teaching: lectures, course development, expert training

Nordic Centre for regional development and planning Andrea Morf (Senior Research Fellow) • Skeppsholmen, Stockholm, http://www.nordregio.org/ • Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordic Collaboration: research & policy analysis • Social & economic sustainability, urban & rural development, green innovation, Arctic • Nordic & Baltic maps (statistics over years): http://www.nordregio.se/en/Maps/ & www.nordmap.se • Marine spatial planning since 2015: – http://www.balticscope.eu – https://bonusbasmati.eu – Nordregio News # 3 on MSP http://www.nordregio.se/en/Publications/Publications-2017/Nordregio- News-3-2017/ – State of the Nordic Region 2020 https://pub.norden.org/nord2020-001/#4 Overview

1. Shared problems in shared seas 2. MSP & ICZM: developing integrative practice 3. Integration challenges: Baltic Sea & Öresund 4. Enablers: evolving integrative practice linked with transdisciplinary R &D

Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html

1. Shared problems in shared seas Challenges: intensifying use, uncertainty, plurality

Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html Busy Baltic Sea & ØNarrow, intensively used Ø Shipping => increasing Øresund Ø Highly polluted => decreasing? Ø Power/telecom cables Ø Pipelines (Nordstream!) Ø Dump sites (weapons WW II) Ø Sand/gravel extraction Ø Fishing grounds, nursery areas Ø Sensitive nature, brackish/salt Ø MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) Ø IMO Particularly Sensitive Sea Area - PSSA ØNewcomers Ø Offshore-Wind Ø Aquaculture Ø Oil & gas extraction Ø Hydrocarbon sequestration © WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu Þ Complex cross-border issues

Many Stakeholders Sharing Sea Space How get along & make it work…?!?

Don’t forget the overall perspective on other users and drivers and pressures from land…! I really need to know the status of the eastern cod to run my model!

9 Drawings: © WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu

2. Developing field of practice Coastal & marine/time spatial planning • New field of governance practice • @ multiple institutional levels Not entirely new: but new aspects, levels, perspectives • “integration” • Fast development, accompanied by research • Baltic Sea = pioneering cross-border collaboration

Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html Spatial planning

Blue Growth ó ecological sustainability?

Public process ó Political ó Expert driven?

Spatial planning: plan + process

Blue-Green Growth Balancing Sustainability Pillars What sets the boundaries? ! => Different views!

Economy Environment Society Society Enviro Econ nment omy

14 EU-MSP Framework Directive Proposal for MSP/ICM COM(2013) 133 final Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning

EU: Maritime Spatial Planning in Member States => whip & carrot!

Until 2021 Appointed authority Marine Spatial Plans Aligned transnationally

EU MSP Directive

© WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu Governing the Baltic Sea Complex problems => Challenges => Integration…? Ø Watershed > 90 million inhabitants Ø Many X-border activities & interests Ø Strong sector planning/management Ø Various +/- integrated EU policies Differences • 9 countries, 1 autonomous territory: 9+ official languages • Priorities: protect ó use now/future? • Border conflicts (Grey Zones) • Administrative & planning traditions, levels and boundaries • Different sectors at different government levels • Spatial and admin. overlaps • Varying status of integrative mgmt. Ø But: pioneering institutional development & collaboration compared to other marine basins © WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu

Many MSP Projects in the Baltic Sea Region Financed by: INTERREG, EU-EASME, BONUS, HORIZON2020

Skagerrak/Kattegat: e.g. Sea Meets Land..

2006 2008 2009 2012 2015 2017 2019 Red: AM @HMI BaltSpace - Towards Sustainable Bold line: AM @Nordregio Governance of Baltic Marine Space MSP Planning Status 2019 spring

SCOPING & ANALYSIS ORGANISATION OF KNOWLEDGE PROCESS Lithuania ROAD MAP Germany: EEZ VISION OR OTHER Germany: STRATEGY Schleswig-Holstein DOCUMENTS Germany: PROBLEMS, Mecklenburg- NEEDS & IDEAS Vorpommern MONITORING & EARLY DRAFT PLANS EVALUATION Latvia 1ST DRAFT PLANS Sweden Poland 2ND DRAFT PLANS Denmark Estonia FINAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Finland ADOPTED Åland

Source: Morf et al. 2019. adapted, special thanks to Holger Janßen

3. Challenges: Multidimensional integration across Öresund & Baltic Sea in general

• Research (applied, practice relevant)

Towards sustainable governance of Baltic marine space 2015 – 2018 • Development (& problem based learning)

Towards better alignment of MSP in the Baltic Sea Region

Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html 3.1 Cross-border collaboration to develop MSP in the BSR Authority driven projects

Development & Research: Observation & reflective practice in Baltic SCOPE & Pan Baltic Scope

Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html

Development Project 1st project bringing 2015-17 1st step together mandated national MSP Ø Implement EU Directive authorities to Ø Aim: closer alignment of national plans collaborate in transboundary Ø Platform for knowledge-sharing, -creation MSP, with the aim and communication to identify cross- Ø 2-way knowledge building and learning border issues and Ø Transboundary à National solutions

Ø National à Transboundary Focus on Ø Partners: Authorities responsible for MSP national level & (those interested), Regional organisations topics relevant (HELCOM, VASAB), Research institutes for all countries (Nordregio, SYKE) in the outer EEZ Ø 2 Cases: Southwest Baltic (& sub-areas) & Central Baltic …translating territorial governance approach into project partner perspectives… Cross-sector integration & synergies = Energy, environment, fisheries & Coordination & collaboration shipping of institutional actors = Working together, coordinating, collaborating etc.

Stakeholder participation & engagement = (institutional) stakeholders in international & national events Maritime specificities & jurisdictional boundaries = Differences in planning systems, multi-level governance, regulatory systems etc.

Source: Maritime Institute in Gdańsk (prepared by Joanna Pardus).

Case studies based on planning status, place specific needs! 2 different complementary approaches – Reports see www.balticscope.eu Central Baltic case South West Baltic case Overarching: Area specific: Ø Overall perspective Ø Focus on sub-areas with cross- Ø Process-focus sectoral and cross-border Ø Identification of synergies and issues conflicts between sectors Ø Development of a conflict Ø Ecosystem-Based Approach matrix per area applied in tri- Task Force and bilateral meetings; Ø Combining maps & mapping Ø Mapping exercise exercise Ø Shipping guidelines See: Giacometti et al. 2017 See: Urtane et al. 2017 -19 2nd step 2018

Development Project 2018-19

200 7

Towards better alignment of MSP in the Baltic Sea Region

26 Case studies: e.g. Finland- Åland- Sweden

Reports, see: www.panbalticscope.eu

FIAXSE-Storymap, see: Map: Johanna Jokinen & Julien Grunefeld, Nordregio 27 https://arcg.is/1mfmDD Graphs: Project partners: AX Landscape Govt, Finnish MSP Cooperation, SwAM

3.2 Developing MSP in the BSR Mapping the challenges & enablers • Research & Development BONUS BaltSpace: Cross border & cross level integration in the Öresund as in 2016-8 www.baltspace.eu

Source map: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html Approach to study integration in MSP Cross-border & Policy & sector Stakeholder Knowledge transboundary

In-depth case studies

• Baltic-wide – • Key challenges in different VASAB/HELCOM WG situations? • Öresund/Øresund • Lithuania & Latvia • Enabling conditions? • Mecklenburg- comparison/cross- Vorpommern vs. border German EEZ • Implications for sustainable • Sector integration (fisheries) in Poland use and good environmental status?

Analysis of MSP Integration Challenges Sound Case Öresund/Øresund – Intensively used strait between Sweden & Denmark – Attractive for residents, users & visitors – History of locally driven cross-border collaboration (Hlsb-Hlsø/Malmö-CPH) – On-going national/local MSP

www.msp-platform.eu www.havochvatten.se BaltSpace Case Study: The Sound

Perspective • Past: wind power & sand extraction • Present: observe on-going MSP- processes spring 2016 - spring 17 • Identify integration challenges and enablers for all dimensions Sources & methods • Documents • 26 semi-structured interviews (2016) • Observation • Dialogue meetings w. informants

Figure: CAB Scania 2017

Marine & Coastal Spatial Planning Systems (MSP) Sweden & Denmark: different planning systems National MSP processes under development, at different stages

Sweden: System & status National MSP: 3 national plans (Sound: Baltic Sea Plan) 2nd draft plans on public review 2018, final draft review 2019, Denmark: System & status submitted to national Government for adoption. National MSP: National process under way, only national CAB Scania in the Sound: project to develop more detailed planning in the sea. material prioritising uses for national planning Before, sector planning or case-by-case management. Municipal planning in territorial sea (12 NM): local planning competence overlaps by 11 NM, local parliament adopts plans, Municipal planning onshore: local planning only along requirements to take account to national interest areas in planning. Used to varying extent: capacity, interest! coast onshore and for some infrastructure Actors Actors Swedish Agency for Marine and Water management (SwAM) since 2014, national agencies, County administrative Boards Danish Maritime Agency (DMA), responsible since 2015. (CABs), county councils and coastal municipalities, organisations, MSP Act 2016: plan to be developed in consultation with enterprise, public, politicians and scientists (different roles) other ministries affected, coastal municipalities and National Board for Housing, Building & Planning (Guidelines for regions as well as enterprise and interest organisations. municipalities) Figures: B.C Kaee 2014; Baseline Report, SwAM, 2014 Results Sound Case 1: Integration in MSP

Dimension Challenges Enablers Policy sectors DK/SE: different priorities Environment ó Blue EU MSP –Dir & project money horizontal - Growth => On-going MSP process & international Different procedures: development friendly licensing future cross Border projects (e.g. process ó ecosystem limiting, lengthy proc. Pan BalticSCOPE)? Responsible ministries/agencies: DK: DMA Min. of Industry, Business & Financial Affairs SE: SwAM Ministry of the Environment & Energy Cross-sector X-border collaborations yes – but issue fragmentation: Local and regional collaboration, X-borders existing forums restricted to specific issues: possible to expand? e.g. water quality, infrastructure, regional development Espoo procedure (but: so far limited scope, very formal) Vertical Multilevel governance: SE local ó DK national MSP-processes? across levels Transboundary interaction between administrative Contacts, time, communication, levels, uncertainty in roles, mandates, contacts etc. collaboration projects, clear Regional & local gaps mandates DK: municipal level no planning competence but local SE: overlapping plans – an interests in marine areas – how include? enabler for spatial coherence= SE: overlap of local /national plans => concerns!

Results Sound Case 2: Integration in MSP

Dimension Challenges Enablers

Stakeholders Still initial stage: many users - unidentified, Building on existing forums unmobilised, uninformed and ongoing processes, How handle stakeholders across borders (e.g. clarifying mandate for fishermen)? contact, more permanent Role of unmobilised politicians (esp. in SE) process

Knowledge Gaps within sectors, scales, fragmentation & Can be handled in ongoing quality processes? SE map scale and resolution of nat. plan and how Data groups and exchange? local interests and statements are translated and KOMPIS (SE) & other adjusted into other categories financial support

Other Timing: National & local planning not synchronised MSP processes = opportunity challenges & DK&SE: New role and planning responsibility for to make contacts and for dimensions the state learning, need to SE: CAB new, and dual role: monitor & negotiate communicate between levels DK: recurrent reorganisations – competence loss, slowing down Conclusions: BaltSpace & Sound Case

• Transboundary integration broad: X-border, X-level, larger ecosystem without discreet boundaries, coupling with other dimensions • Links between 4 dimensions => overlap via stakeholders, also institutional actors (policy sectors, knowledge, inst. levels), cross border complicates! • Further important dimension: time & timing! • Challenges of x-border integration in MSP: policy priorities, different legal and organisation systems, responsibilities at different levels (confirmed)! Cross-level/Vertical integration especially challenging. • Enablers for of x-border integration in MSP: use problems as drivers, keep communicating, scale up existing forums and projects, continuity, participation and process facilitation. Key: resources/time/capacity! • MSP-overlap in Sweden: municipal-national juridically yet unsolved!

Extra slides with general Baltspace conclusions in two fields of integration very relevant for the Öresund

Cross-border & Policy & sector Stakeholder Knowledge transboundary

Challenges & Enablers of integration?

BaltSpace extra slides: we talked about this, but without these slides, developed together with Kira Gee Borrowed from BaltSpace presentation to the EU parliamentary group held in March 2018 in Brussels Cross-border integration

Why is this important? Art. 11 MSP Directive: “Member States bordering marine waters shall cooperate with the aim of ensuring that maritime spatial plans are coherent and coordinated across the marine region concerned.”

Cross-border integration: = to work across various types of administrative and geographical borders

developed by Kira Gee

Benefits of cross-border integration

• More coherent plans – Neighbouring plans do not contradict each other • More coordinated planning processes – More effective processes – More synergetic processes

Developed by Kira Gee Differences are fine…

• as long as there is awareness and understanding of each other’s structures and norms • as long as there is willingness to communicate • as long as there are instruments that facilitate communication. à A question of capacity

Developed by Kira Gee

Stakeholder integration

Cross-border & Policy & sector Stakeholder Knowledge transboundary Stakeholder Integration: Why? Two perspectivesTwo perspectives – Two sides

Authorities’ view involve stakeholders because of... Stakeholders’ view • Instrumental reasons: information get involved because of… exchange, acceptance, legitimacy... • Influence: interests, views • Normative reasons: democracy, • Democratic rights, represent emancipation, learning • Personal development => Regulation can contain both

Þ Why? => who, when, how, where Þ Top down MEETS bottom up

Stakeholder Integration

Challenges 1. General – marine & coastal – Stakeholders: many, diverse, mobile – Authorities: limited resources and time 2. Initial phase of institutional development – Stakeholders: awareness, mobilisation – Authorities: capacity, knowledge, politicians 3. Cross-border MSP (especially coastal) – Complicating further: language, conflicting goals, understanding systems, planning cycles, mandate... Stakeholders: Polish Fishers

Challenges Enablers • Distrust, difficult to engage • Careful stakeholder analysis • Initial information & (incl. social sciences) mobilisation => differentiate, adapt to needs • Highly diverse stakeholder • Listening & trust building: seascape (subgroups!): resources for capacity harbors, target species and development & planning fishing patterns, gear types • Good process facilitation

Across the Sound //SE & DK

Challenges Enablers (potential) • Coastal zone: X-border AND X-level ! • Institutional development: MSP • Regional level gap in MSP: Blue Growth projects good, continuity better • Timing: early MSP development, • Social capital: existing tradition of different stages => awareness, X-level & X-border collaboration, mobilisation networks and forums (sector, • Mandate for X-border involvement? expert, political) • Different plan/permit systems & goals! Municipal & national MSP National MSP

www.msp-platform.eu www.havochvatten.se Enabling Stakeholder Integration Challenges 1. General – marine & coastal – Stakeholders: many, diverse, mobile – Authorities: limited resources and time Learn from facilitators & land planners 2. Initial phase of institutional development – Stakeholders: awareness, mobilisation – Authorities: capacity, knowledge, politicians Communication, projects, inst. learning 3. Cross-border coastal & MSP – Complicating further: language, conflicting goals, understanding systems, planning cycles, mandate... Awareness & exchange

Enabling Stakeholder Integration Learning by doing – from each other Social capital: use existing forums & channels Continuity in non-planning phase, beyond projects Know your stakeholders many needs & dimensions Clarity: roles and possible influence, transparency of process Why: purpose => “process ethics” of SI => legal frameworks Capacity: resources, time & facilitation skills

Þ Overlap ÞKey for integration in other dimensions ÞSo are its enablers!

See also Morf et al. 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.009 4. Overall enablers for integration in MSP • Awareness of differences - live and work with them • Time/timing • Language awareness, translating • Capacity/resources • Good facilitation • Trust and mutual learning • Learning by doing • Platforms to share and collaborate BUT: integration is no silver bullet. It can also be efficient to take a sector or partial approach for certain issues or during certain phases.

Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html

Watch movie, click & explore for more on integration challenges & enablers in MSP www.baltspace.eu

Towards Sustainable Governance of Baltic Marine Space MSP in BSR: No one size fits all • Forerunner in institutional collaboration = key • Many MSP pilots (INTERREG, European Fisheires Fund) • Research & development linked: BONUS, HORIZON. • X-boder more challenging but needy & worthwhile. • No single „best” MSP model for BSR. Scale matters! - Differing stages of plannig cycle - National, regional & local rules & responsibilities vary - Varying degree of political & user involvement - Varying objectives and/or purposes (Ecosystem ó Blue Growth ó Social & cultural values) - Need to include all inst. levels/sectors & build capacity - Awareness & mobilisation - Knowledge & method gaps: LSI, social SD, cumulative Source: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html

Öresund today Discussion & present problems 1 Sweden & Denmark Öresund today Discussion & present problems 2 Solutions & related risks

THANKS! A lot is happening! You are part of it! Happy to tell more! [email protected] / [email protected] Þ Scientific papers: Marine Policy & Ocean and Coastal Management https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ocean-and- coastal-management Þ New book – free to download Zaucha, J., & Gee, K. (eds). Marine spatial planning – past, present, future. Palgrave Macmillan. 2019 Þ Project homepages: Baltic SCOPE, Pan Baltic Scope, BONUS BaltSpace, BONUS BASMATI MSP & ICZM further reading - useful links

Havsmiljöinstitutet/Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment: www.havsmiljoinstitutet.se (eng/sw), www.havet.nu (info on marine environment, in Swedish) Nordregio: www.nordregio.se (check also out http://nordmap.se/) J. Zaucha’s book on MSP development in the Baltic Sea (2014) from VASAB homepage: http://www.vasab.org/index.php/documents/msp-and-iczm/doc_download/799-the-key-to- governing-the-fragile-baltic-sea-maritime-spatial-planning-in-the-baltic-sea-region-and-way- forward MSP Platform (EU and beyond): http://msp-platform.eu/ (very good website with lots of info!) MSP @ UNESCO/IOC (global): http://www.ioc- unesco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=147&Itemid=76 Research (BONUS-financed) www.baltspace.eu (project reports & film), www.bonusbasmati.eu (on-going) Development projects (INTERREG & EASME) http://www.panbalticscope.eu/ (on-going) www.balticscope.eu (maps, reports) www.baltseaplan.eu, www.partiseapate.eu (INTERREG Baltic) www.havmoterland.se (Hav möter Land/Sea meets Land INTERREG Skagerrak) Organisations: www.vasab.org (VASAB, check out MSP, working group & country fiches) www.helcom.fi (HELCOM), https://www.ospar.org/ (OSPAR Commission) https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/home_en (EU DG Mare)

Further reading/exploring • Havsutsikt latest issue (2019/2) in Swedish: http://www.havet.nu/havsutsikt/ • FIAXSE Story Map: https://arcg.is/1mfmDD Stakeholder involvement • Morf, A., Moodie J, Giacometti A, Kull M, Gee K, Piwowarzyk J, and Zaucha, J, Giacometti A, Kellecioglu I, Luttmann A, Strand H, Schiele K. 2019. Towards sustainability of marine governance from a stakeholder integration perspective: challenges and enablers for stakeholder involvement in transboundary Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) in the Baltic Sea Area. Ocean and Coastal Management. Vol. 177, 1 July 2019, Pages 200-212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.009 • Morf A, Gee K, Kull M, Piwowarczyk J. 2019. Towards a ladder of MSP participation. Chapter 10 In: Zaucha, J., & Gee, K. (eds). Marine spatial planning – past, present, future. Palgrave Macmillan. Pp. 219-244. ISBN 978-3-319-98695-1 ISBN 978-3- 319-98696-8 (eBook); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 98696-8 54