sh.sePublications
Change search
ExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA

Project

Project type/Form of grant
Project grant
Title [en]
Marine Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region – Integrating Scales, Sectors and Knowledge
Abstract [en]
Threats to the Baltic Sea marine environment and natural resources posed by disparate activities such as overfishing, shipping, and wind parks have led to an increased understanding of the need of a refined approach to integrated marine spatial planning (MSP). As a result, MSP initiatives are being pursued in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) not only by governments, but by various international, national and local stakeholder groups as well. As much as there is normative agreement on the need for MSP from a sustainability and public policy perspective, there is still considerable debate on how to best resolve questions of competing use, pro-actively and equitably. In this project we address this debate by focussing on possibilities for integration across scales, sectors and knowledges in MSP, which has been found to be a key area of concern in recent studies. However, there is a lack of critical analysis of MSP integration possibilities and challenges at national, cross-border and pan-Baltic levels. In response to this research gap this interdisciplinary project aims to generate an improved understanding on what promotes and restricts integration in various MSP contexts in the BSR. More precisely, we focus on three particular aspects of integration: a) Scale integration: How complex vertical integration plays out between governmental authorities and stakeholder groups as guided, influenced and regulated under e.g. EU directives, regional agreements and national regulations. b) Sector integration: To what extent sector borders within e.g. ministries, committees and working groups, and between public authorities or stakeholder groups, constrain horizontal integration. c) Knowledge integration: To what extent the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) is adopted as a vehicle to improve integration in most recent MSP initiatives. We will address these research topics by developing an interdisciplinary analytical framework and, subsequently, undertaking an in-depth case study of the Pomeranian Bight and Arkona Basin Area. The most important outcomes of this project will be (a) a deepened understanding of how increased integration in Baltic Sea MSP may increase effectiveness and efficiency in management but also lead to unexpected side effects regarding centralized decision-making and reduced equity, and (b) how this enriched understanding could translate into suggestions on how to improve existing MSP institutional processes in the Baltic Sea.
Publications (7 of 7) Show all publications
Kidd, S., Calado, H., Gee, K., Gilek, M. & Saunders, F. (2020). Marine Spatial Planning and sustainability: Examining the roles of integration - Scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge. Ocean and Coastal Management, 191, Article ID 105182.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Marine Spatial Planning and sustainability: Examining the roles of integration - Scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge
Show others...
2020 (English)In: Ocean and Coastal Management, ISSN 0964-5691, E-ISSN 1873-524X, Vol. 191, article id 105182Article in journal, Editorial material (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has been heralded as the key means of achieving a more integrated approach to marine use across sectors and spatial scales. Achieving greater integration and coherence in MSP governance arrangements is seen as a way to resolve current problems of marine governance (such as fragmentation) and address future resource demands in a sustainable way. However, there is a lack of clarity and consensus in practice regarding sustainability in MSP, both in terms of MSP governance practices and sustainable resource use. For example, how are we to treat the environment in MSP? Should we conceive the environment as just another sector with interests to be negotiated, or as the very boundary condition that limits possibilities for maritime activities and developments? How do we integrate diverse views on this in MSP decision-making? This is but one example of an integration challenge in MSP important for sustainability. There are numerous others. Integration is intimately connected to the ability of MSP to deliver sustainable marine resource use at various levels and scales. The roles of integration are diverse and interconnected, including those that affect social-ecological integration or land-sea interaction, but also aspects of good governance and social sustainability. The latter include inter-sectoral decisionmaking, stakeholder engagement, cross-border interaction and knowledge pluralism. How integration is exercised in these procedural aspects of MSP is likely to substantively affect outcomes both in terms of sustainable blue growth or the ability to deliver an ecosystem-based approach. Integration as a policy and analytical problem to be addressed has also been discussed elsewhere – most saliently in the fields of sustainable development, ICZM, environmental policy integration, planning theory and socio-ecological systems. While there has been some work on integration in MSP, additional insight is needed: to better empirically ground the roles of integration in MSP, to understand the multidimensionality and interdependencies of integration dimensions and to unpack what ‘balance’ might mean for understanding and pursuing sustainability in different MSP contexts. In response, this special issue aims to explore the roles, problems and opportunities of various types of integration in relation to MSP's sustainability ambitions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2020
Keywords
Integrated marine policy, Marine governance, Marine spatial planning
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-40459 (URN)10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105182 (DOI)2-s2.0-85082398988 (Scopus ID)
Projects
46/2018_OSS / Taking Social Sustainability to the Sea
Funder
Swedish Research Council FormasEU, European Research Council
Available from: 2020-04-02 Created: 2020-04-02 Last updated: 2020-04-02Bibliographically approved
Saunders, F. P., Gilek, M. & Tafon, R. (2019). Adding People to the Sea: Conceptualizing Social Sustainability in Maritime Spatial Planning. In: Jacek Zaucha & Kira Gee (Ed.), Maritime Spatial Planning: past, present, future (pp. 175-199). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Adding People to the Sea: Conceptualizing Social Sustainability in Maritime Spatial Planning
2019 (English)In: Maritime Spatial Planning: past, present, future / [ed] Jacek Zaucha & Kira Gee, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, p. 175-199Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

While there is growing critique emerging to address social sustainability in marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP), overwhelmingly attention has been on governance, economic and environmental aspects. This chapter redresses this by proposing a conceptual framework to elucidate key features of social sustainability in MSP. The ambition is to both note the existing critique of MSP and go beyond it by more clearly and comprehensively articulating how social sustainability could be conceived in MSP, as well as how this framework could be applied to analyse MSP practice. Key features of social sustainability elaborated are: deepening democratic decision-making, inclusion of socio-cultural values and knowledge, equitable distribution and social cohesion. Finally, the chapter concludes by nominating strategies to give greater visibility to social sustainability as a key MSP concern.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019
Keywords
Development studies
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Baltic and East European studies; Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-37455 (URN)10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8_8 (DOI)000487297300009 ()2186/3.1.1/2014 (Local ID)978-3-319-98695-1 (ISBN)978-3-319-98696-8 (ISBN)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Archive number)2186/3.1.1/2014 (OAI)
Projects
BONUS BALTSPACE project
Funder
EU, European Research CouncilThe Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 27/2014Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and WelfareSwedish Research Council
Note

This work was the result of (1) the BONUS BALTSPACE project and was supported by BONUS (Art 185), funded jointly by the EU, Swedish Research Council FORMAS and other Baltic Sea national funding institutions and (2) research funding from The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies.

Available from: 2019-01-28 Created: 2019-01-28 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved
Saunders, F., Gilek, M., Day, J. C. C., Hassler, B., McCann, J. & Smythe, T. (2019). Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: Towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings. Ocean and Coastal Management, 169, 1-9
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: Towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings
Show others...
2019 (English)In: Ocean and Coastal Management, ISSN 0964-5691, E-ISSN 1873-524X, Vol. 169, p. 1-9Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019
Keywords
Development studies, marine spatial planning, integration, sectors, stakeholders, knowledge, policy
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Environmental Studies; Baltic and East European studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-36931 (URN)10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.11.011 (DOI)000459518700001 ()2-s2.0-85058030474 (Scopus ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Local ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Archive number)2186/3.1.1/2014 (OAI)
Projects
BALTSPACE
Funder
BONUS - Science for a better future of the Baltic Sea regionThe Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 27/2014
Note

This article develops an integration framework to analyse MSP practices across several Baltic Sea Region cases studies as well as cases studies from Australia (Great Barrier Reef) and the US (Rhode Island). While integration has been universally adopted as a policy principle to strive for, there is confusion about what it means, how to do it and what it implies in different MSP contexts. The task set here was not to fix a singular meaning to integration and what work it should do in MSP, but to better understand particular uses of the concept and their purposes in MSP practices. To do we consider existing literature to develop a five-part analytical framework, which includes cross-border, policy/sector, knowledge, stakeholder and temporal integration dimensions. The framework was applied to the several cases and usefully illustrated a variety of integration-related MSP questions, challenges and responses. Furthermore, we argue that an analytical focus on the multidimensionality of integration can help shed light on the various ‘balances’ related to sustainability commonly sought after in MSP – between environmental protection and maritime development; between strategic decision-making and participation; between scientific and experiential knowledge; on current problems and a concern for the future, among others.

Available from: 2018-12-11 Created: 2018-12-11 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved
Tafon, R. V., Howarth, D. & Griggs, S. (2019). The Politics of Estonia's Offshore Wind Energy Programme: Discourse, power and marine spatial planning. Environment and Planning. C, Government and Policy, 37(1), 157-176
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Politics of Estonia's Offshore Wind Energy Programme: Discourse, power and marine spatial planning
2019 (English)In: Environment and Planning. C, Government and Policy, ISSN 0263-774X, E-ISSN 1472-3425, Vol. 37, no 1, p. 157-176Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

There is growing recognition that marine spatial planning is an inherently political process marked by a clash of discourses, power and conflicts of interest. Yet, there are very few attempts to make sense of and explain the political practices of marine spatial planning protests in different contexts, especially the way that planners and developers create the conditions for the articulation of objections, and then develop new strategies to negotiate and mediate community resistance. Using poststructuralist discourse theory, the article analyses the politics of a proposed offshore wind energy project in Estonia within the context of the country’s marine spatial planning processes. First, through the lens of politicization, it explores the strategies of political mobilization and the rival discourses of expertise and sustainability through which residents and municipal actors have contested the offshore wind energy project. Secondly, through the lens of depoliticization, it explains the discursive and legalistic strategies employed by developers, planners and an Administrative Court to displace – spatially and temporally – the core issues of contestation, thus legitimizing the offshore wind energy plan. We argue that the spaces created by the preplanning conjuncture offered the most conducive conditions for residents to voice concerns about the proposed project in a dialogical fashion, whereas the marine spatial planning and post-planning phases became mired in a therapeutic-style consultation, set alongside rigid and unreflexive interpretations and applications of legality. We conclude by setting out the limits of the Estonian marine spatial planning as a process for resolving conflicts, while offering an alternative model of handling such public controversies, which we call pragmatic adversarialism.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2019
Keywords
Marine spatial planning, politicization and depoliticization, discourse theory and power, offshore wind energy conflict, discourses and resistance strategies
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Baltic and East European studies; Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-34961 (URN)10.1177/2399654418778037 (DOI)000458856000008 ()2-s2.0-85047821963 (Scopus ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Local ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Archive number)2186/3.1.1/2014 (OAI)
Projects
BaltSpace
Funder
The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 27/2014BONUS - Science for a better future of the Baltic Sea regionSwedish Research Council Formas
Available from: 2018-05-15 Created: 2018-05-15 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved
Hassler, B., Blažauskas, N., Gee, K., Luttmann, A., Morf, A., Joanna Piwowarczyk, J., . . . Jacek Zaucha, J. (2018). BONUS BALTSPACE: Deliverable 2.7: New generation EU Directives and the role of transnational coordination: Marine Spatial Planning of the Baltic Sea. Huddinge: Södertörns högskola
Open this publication in new window or tab >>BONUS BALTSPACE: Deliverable 2.7: New generation EU Directives and the role of transnational coordination: Marine Spatial Planning of the Baltic Sea
Show others...
2018 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP Directive) from 2014 is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. Because of this larger room for adaptation, transposition becomes a process of designing domestic policy frameworks that fulfil the broad requirements of the Directive, rather than a simple and linear implementation procedure. However, allowing Member States to design marine spatial planning frameworks that fit domestic contexts, have thus far meant that regional coherence suffers. Although the pivotal role of transnational coordination is emphasised in the Directive, it does not stipulate how to set up such coordination, and the Member States have not yet been able to achieve much of self-organising in this area.A closer look is in this report taken on four policy-dimensions that are emphasised in the MSP Directive: Planning approach, Organisation, Sustainability, and Stakeholder inclusion. Based on in-depth case studies carried out in the BALTSPACE research project on MSP frameworks in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden, examples of coordination and coherency challenges are described and discussed for each dimension.It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across country borders. Even though they share the same (EU) regulatory pressures, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, are developing national MSP frameworks based on quite different conceptual foundations. Whereas Latvia has taken the Ecosystem Approach as a point of departure for constructing a new MSP framework, Lithuania has instead chosen to adapt existing functional zoning approaches to management of maritime areas. Such diversity may be possible to explain because of differing domestic contexts, but may nevertheless lead to coordination problems when coordination is needed.Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from different political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions, that is, in societal organisation. In an example based on case studies undertaken in Denmark and Sweden, it is shown that degree of societal centralisation and distribution of political power can be related to differences in how environmental protection and blue growth are prioritised. However, it is difficult to tell whether diverging prioritisations have led to differences on organisation, or of it is the other way around, that differences in organisation have led to diverging prioritisations.It is stated in the MSP Directive that the overarching objective is to promote sustainable development. The focus on sustainable development can be said to reflect the Directive’s new generation characteristics. The concept of sustainable development is broad and imprecise, which facilitates political agreement. However, when more precise details must be addressed, disagreements may surface that make implementation challenging. In cases where neighbouring countries diverge substantially on how ecological, economic and social sustainable ought to be balanced, finding agreements on how to coordinate policies and practices, when needed, can be difficult. Based on case studies in Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, it is, for example, argued that adoption of functional zoning or the Ecosystem Approach may not say much about how ecological, economic, and social dimensions are prioritised in different countries.Stakeholder consultations of some kind have historically been undertaken in all Baltic Sea countries. However, how such consultations have been undertaken, who have been invited, and the role the consultations play in relation to political decision-making differ, as shown in examples from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland. Because the MSP Directive is silent on how to design stakeholder consultations – it only says that they should be held – there is no political pressure on regional coordination. It is not clear from our data if these differences cause efficiency losses due to coordination deficits, but a reasonable assumption is that when, for example, marine natural resources are shared between two or more countries, jointly designed and undertaken consultations on specific transboundary issues potentially can promote transparency, understanding, and coordination.In conclusion, it is suggested that while regional coherency is often called for as a means to reduce inefficiencies, it might not be a good idea to integrate without discretion. Considering that the MSP Directive allows domestic context to matter when Member States design national MSP frameworks and that adaptation to domestic context is likely to reduce implantation gaps and increase the legitimacy of marine spatial planning, a more reasonable objective can be to embrace domestic diversity, while simultaneously adaptively promoting possibilities to solve coordination problems at lower levels, if they emerge or can be foreseen. From this perspective, increased coherence is a tool to reduce efficiency losses, rather than an intrinsic good.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Huddinge: Södertörns högskola, 2018. p. 27
Keywords
Development studies
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Environmental Studies; Baltic and East European studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-37205 (URN)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Local ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Archive number)2186/3.1.1/2014 (OAI)
Projects
BALTSPACE
Funder
The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 27/2014Swedish Research Council FormasBONUS - Science for a better future of the Baltic Sea region
Available from: 2019-01-09 Created: 2019-01-09 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved
Tafon, R. V. (2018). Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(2), 58-273
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning
2018 (English)In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, ISSN 2399-6544, E-ISSN 2399-6552, Vol. 36, no 2, p. 58-273Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Responding to calls for a more theoretically driven, post-positivist and radical marine spatial planning research that approaches the policy as a political project, this paper develops a poststructuralist discourse theory approach to critical marine spatial planning. Elaborating radical contingency as an ontological condition of social life, which points to the ineradicability of power and conflict in marine spatial planning social relations, the paper problematizes marine spatial planning as constituting politics, or key practices that attempt to organize human coexistence and thus, conceal this radical contingency. These practices (e.g. ecosystem-based management, participation, planning regulation and the organization of socio-natural spaces), whose outcomes are far from adaptive, consensual or neutral are discussed as sites of ‘politics’ that effectively marginalize particular groups of people and ‘herd’ their participation and ways of knowing toward achieving limited policy outcomes. Drawing on the EU Marine Spatial Planning Directive, the paper further teases out how specific narratives and rhetorical signifiers around ‘integrating’ and ‘balancing’ potentially irreconcilable sustainable development objectives may interpellate particular stakeholders in ways that render them ideologically complicitous in sustaining, rather than challenging, neoliberal logics of managerialism and economic maximization of marine resources. But in tune with the ontological condition of the social as radically contingent, the paper discusses how and why participatory spaces may constitute a potential space of contestation for marginalized voices and thus, reveal the political moment of marine spatial planning. Calls are made for future empirically grounded research that explores how these marine spatial planning practices are lived in both planning and extra-planning settings, and with what implications for marine protection and extant social relations of power in different marine spatial planning contexts.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2018
Keywords
Critical marine spatial planning, post-structuralist discourse theory, ecosystem-based management, participation, power (politics and the political)
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Environmental Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-32811 (URN)10.1177/2399654417707527 (DOI)000429797300005 ()2-s2.0-85033586255 (Scopus ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Local ID)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Archive number)2186/3.1.1/2014 (OAI)
Projects
BaltSpace
Funder
The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 27/2014Swedish Research Council FormasEU, FP7, Seventh Framework Programme
Available from: 2017-06-14 Created: 2017-06-14 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved
Gilek, M., Saunders, F. & Stalmokaite, I. (2018). The Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Development in Baltic Sea Marine Spatial Planning: The Social Pillar, a ‘Slow Train Coming’. In: David Langlet and Rosemary Rayfuse (Ed.), The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance: Perspectives from Europe and Beyond (pp. 160-194). Nijhoff: Brill Nijhoff
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Development in Baltic Sea Marine Spatial Planning: The Social Pillar, a ‘Slow Train Coming’
2018 (English)In: The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance: Perspectives from Europe and Beyond / [ed] David Langlet and Rosemary Rayfuse, Nijhoff: Brill Nijhoff, 2018, p. 160-194Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Nijhoff: Brill Nijhoff, 2018
Series
Publications on Ocean Development, ISSN 0924-1922
Keywords
Development studies, Marine and coastal management, ecosystem-based approach, MSP, social sustainability, Sustainable Development Goal 14, marine governance, maritime planning
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Research subject
Environmental Studies; Baltic and East European studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-37186 (URN)10.1163/9789004389984_007 (DOI)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Local ID)978-90-04-38998-4 (ISBN)2186/3.1.1/2014 (Archive number)2186/3.1.1/2014 (OAI)
Projects
Baltspace
Funder
The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 27/2014BONUS - Science for a better future of the Baltic Sea region, 185
Available from: 2019-01-08 Created: 2019-01-08 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved
Co-InvestigatorHassler, Björn
Principal InvestigatorGilek, Michael
Co-InvestigatorKarlsson, Mikael
Co-InvestigatorSaunders, Fred
Coordinating organisation
Södertörn University
Funder
Period
2015-01-01 - 2017-12-31
Keywords [sv]
Östersjö- och Östeuropaforskning
Keywords [en]
Baltic and East European studies
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
DiVA, id: project:1925Project, id: 27/2014_OSS

Search in DiVA

Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar