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? © WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu Spatial planning: plan + process © WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu …on a map, shippingPlanning & wind powercontent might look like this… 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