possibilities and challenges for msp integration in …1 in some countries e.g. in sweden the term...

BALTSPACE has received funding from BONUS (Art 185) funded jointly from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, and from Baltic Sea national funding institutions.

POSSIBILITIESANDCHALLENGESFORMSPINTEGRATION

intheBalticSea

BONUS BALTSPACE DELIVERABLE: D2.1:

BASELINE-MAPPING AND REFINED CASE STUDY DESIGN

Authors:

Jacek Zauchab, Michael Gileka , Nerijus Blažauskasc, Karsten Dahld, Kira Geee, Björn Hasslera, Anne Luttmannf, Andrea Morfg, Joanna Piwowarczykh, Bo Riemannd, Fred Saundersa,

Gdańsk, July 2016

Key words: maritime spatial planning, integration challenges, MSP policy analysis, Baltic Sea and marine governance

Contributions made by: a Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Sweden; b Maritime Institute in Gdansk, Poland; c Coastal Research and Planning Institute, Lithuania; d Aarhus University, Denmark; e Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum für Material-und Küstenforschung GmbH, Germany; f Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde, Germany; g Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, Sweden; h Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland;

Important note: This document is a deliverable of the BONUS BALTSPACE project.

Recommended reference: Zaucha, J., Gilek, M. (2016): BONUS BALTSPACE Deliverable 2.1: Baseline-Mapping and Refined Case Study Design.

BONUSBALTSPACEDeliverable2.1-Baseline-MappingandRefinedCaseStudyDesign

2

Tableofcontents

Summary 3

Introduction 3

1.KeyMSPintegrationchallenges 6

1.1Verticalintegration-cross-scaleandtransboundary 6

1.2Horizontalpolicy/sectorintegration 7

1.3Stakeholderintegration 8

1.4.KnowledgeIntegration 9

2.InitialObservationsonMSPinthestudiedBalticSeacountries 10

2.1.ProgressinMSP 10

2.2Integrationchallengesidentifiedinthenationalassessments 16

3.TowardsanindepthanalysisofintegrationchallengesinBalticSeaMSP 19

3.1Selectionofcasesasvehiclesforanalyzingintegrationchallenges 20

3.2 Exploring the identified Baltic Sea MSP cases in terms of integrationchallenges

3.2.1TheGermanCase

3.2.2TheLithuanian-LatvianCase

3.2.3ThePolishCase:fisheriesinthecontextofMSP

3.2.4TheSound(Öresund)Case

3.2.5ThePan-BalticCase

25

25

27

31

33

37

3.3Towardsanalyticalgeneralizations 38

4.Conclusions 41

References 43


3

Summary:

Thisdeliverablediscussesintegrationchallengesrelatedtomaritimespatialplanning(MSP),whichisa new governance mechanism for sea spaces. The BONUS BALTSPACE project has developed atentativetypologyofintegrationchallengesandamethodologyforresearchingthem.Itskeyfeatureis theattentionpaid tocontextualvariableswhileanalyzingMSP integrationchallenges.Thispapershows how it can be done in practice. The approach encompasses: development of the researchframework under which integration challenges are analyzed for different contexts, selection andusage of case studies for collecting empirical findings, and, finally, the analysis of potentialimplicationsforunderstandingMSPintegrationinabroaderspectrumofcontexts.Thisisastep-by-step approach that leads to a better understanding of the practical functioning of integrationchallenges and their interrelations under different conditions in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Ourapproach iscomplex,buttailoredtothespecificityofresearchingwickedproblemssuchasMSP. Inthe case of intensive spatial conflicts win-win solutions under MSP are almost impossible. Also,discussions on the desired mix of tradeoffs are not easy because of incomplete, value-basedrequirements and guidelines (e.g. Zaucha 2014b for Poland) and interests of stakeholders that areoftendifficult tobe fully considered (Morf 2006).One key lesson learned is that it is important tostriveforarealisticandpragmatictradeoffbetweenthealmostunlimitedcombinationsofcontextualfactorsthatpavethewaytonumerousresearchoptionsandtheimperativesthatthisresearchshouldultimatelyresultinsuggestionsandrecommendationsthatarerelevanttopolicy-makers.Therefore,thepossibilitiestomakeanalyticalgeneralizationsamongmoredetailedfindingsoverabroaderclassofcasesshouldbekeptinmindwhendesigningresearchonMSPintegrationchallenges.Thesecondlesson learned is that a comprehensive analysis requires considerationof the interplay amongandoverlap of the various challenges. In the course of work, researchers should also be open to thepossibility that new types of integration challenges will appear that are different from thoseidentified during the literature review. Finally,MSP analysts should pay attention to the temporaldimension of integration challenges. The above listed findings seem to have relevance for anyattempt to analyze the MSP processes and outcomes and therefore should be relevant for bothacademiaandpublicauthorities.

Introduction:

Maritime1spatialplanning(MSP)isarelativelynewgovernanceconceptthathasemergedfromtheneedforamorecomprehensivemanagementofvaluablemarineecosystems.Itwasthenextendedandappliedtotake intoaccountothermarine interests includingsomecommercialseausesandawiderspectrumofgoals(Zaucha2014a,5-6).ThedominantMSPparadigmhasnotyetbeenagreedon,notintheliterature,atleast;however,manyscholarsareinclinedtoagreethatthisparadigmlieswithintherealmofsustainabledevelopment(Saundersetal.2016;Jones2014).Onealternativetothis, for example, could be evolutionary resilience (Davoudi et al. 2016) or, in a slightly narrowersense,achievingagoodenvironmentalstatus(Gilbertetal.2015).OneoftheultimateaimsofMSPisto influence “the future distribution of activities in space” (Cieślak and Ścibior 2009,11). Some

1Insomecountriese.g.inSwedenthetermMaritimespatialplanningisusedinstead.


4

scholars place the rationality of this process (e.g., Cieślak and Ścibior 2009, 11) in the context ofpublicchoice(Zaucha2009,139)inordertoalleviateso-calledmarketfailures,whileothersfocusonthepoweranddominancegamesof certain interests (Saunderset al. 2015; Joneset al. 2013; seealsotheconceptof“radical”MSPinFlanneryandEllis2016).WhileanalyzingthefollowingdefinitionofMSPprovidedintheEUDirective

“maritime‘spatialplanning’meansaprocessbywhichtherelevantMemberState’sauthoritiesanalyzeandorganizehumanactivitiesinmarineareastoachieveecological,economicandsocial

objectives”(EuropeanCommission2014)

onerealizesthatwithMSPtheprocessisperhapsmoreimportantthantheoutcome.

OneofthekeyproblemsfacedbyMSPisthatitsroleisunclearwithinthemorecomplexset-upofseagovernancemechanisms.For instance,MSPisnotmentionedintheLawoftheSea-UNCLOS,2whichremainsthekeymechanismgoverningtheuseandtheprotectionoftheseasandoceans(akindofMagnaCartaforseasandoceans).

TheseissuestogetherthreatenMSPwithdisintegration.ItisalsoquiteunclearhowMSPplaysoutinvariouscontextsandtowhatextentandhowMSPchallengesarecontextdependent.Consequently,thereisaneedtodevelopaframeworktoanalyzeMSPprocesses,aswellastousethisframeworktoexploreandcomparevariousMSPcontextsinthedifferentseabasins.

Under theAnalytical Framework (AF)of theBONUSBALTSPACEproject (Saundersetal.2015), theneed for “a more systematic and integrated approach to the management of…marine areas” isproposedandanalyzed.Ultimately,fourintegrationchallengeswereidentifiedasbeingworthmorein-depth examination. These were chosen based on key assumptions identified at an early stage,whenspecifyingthescopeandcontentoftheBONUSBALTSPACEproject,withtheaimtostudytherole(s) of MSP in the integration of various types of human activities in marine governance. Theselectedintegrationchallengesincludethefollowing(Saundersetal.2015):

“(1)transboundary/cross-border-howtogarnercooperationamongjurisdictions(e.g.,cross-nationalandsub-national)borderstofurthercoherentplanningandusebetweenmaritimeactivitiesandgoodenvironmentstatusacrossbordersandintheopensea–particularlyintransnationalmarinespace

(2)policy/sectoral–howtopre-emptivelyaddresspreemptivelysectoraluseincompatibilities,butalsotoachievesynergisticinteractionbetweensectoralinterests–wheremutualbenefit/interestisemphasized(andsoughtafter)-ratherthanonlywheresectoralinterestsarepursued

(3)stakeholder–howtodevelopprocessestosupportengagementamongarangeofstakeholdersandputmeasuresinplacetomanageconflictinginterestsinatimelyanddeliberativemannertoinformwhatareregardedaslegitimateandhighqualitypolicy/planningprocessesandoutcomes.

2Cf.UNportal:www.un.org/depts/los/convention.../unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm


5

(4)knowledge–howtointerlinkdifferentformsofknowledge,tofillgaps,tosupportmulti-disciplinarilyandrobustscience-basedapproachestounderpinMSPdecision-makinginpursuitofsustainablemarinegovernance.”(Saundersetal.2016)

Itmustalsobeborne inmindthat, inthecourseof theresearch,challengesmightbe identified inadditiontothefourdescribedabove.

Thisreportoffersmoredetailedsuggestionsonhowthesechallengescanberesearchedinpracticeunder Baltic Sea Region (BSR) circumstances. The compilation of this text was guided by theassumption that when analyzing integration challenges, case (country and place) specificcharacteristics–herebelowcalledcontextual variables arehighly important. Thus, the integrationchallengesidentifiedabovecannotbeanalyzedsolelyatthemacro-regionallevel.Aone-size-fits-allapproach would not work for the whole area. Therefore, it was necessary to collect empiricalmaterial on these challenges in the BSR under different conditions related not only to legal andadministrativeaspectsofseagovernanceandMSPpracticalities,butalsototheconditionsoftheseaareasthemselves, includingculturaldifferences,availabilityofknowledge,andsomeotheraspects.Consequently, we argue that the focus of any empirical work to analyzeMSP process in practiceshould zoom in both territorially and thematically. This is why, as part of the BONUS BALTSPACEprojectandinadditiontoresearchencompassingtheentireBalticSeaRegion(theBalticcase),somecaseswere selected that offer different contextual variables that at the present stage of researchwere assumed to influence the above outlined four BALTSPACE integration challenges, i.e. theiractualmanifestationindifferentcountries’approachestoMSP.

This report provides detailed information on how case study design has been refined based on astepwisedeepeningofbaselinemapping(nationalandcasespecific)throughfeedbackreceivedfromMSP-experts/endusers.ItalsoprovidestheBSRresearchcommunitywithmoreinformationonthepractical modalities of researching integration challenges related to MSP. From this viewpoint, itprovides further technical and analytical insight into the practical application of the BONUSBALTSPACEAFdescribedbySaundersetal.(2016).

The contextual variables were identified by screening MSP development in five BSR countriesanalyzedintheBONUSBALTSPACEproject:Denmark,Germany,Lithuania,Poland,andSweden.Thefollowing aspects were considered: sources of relevant information for analyzing MSP in eachcountry; MSP legislation and progress in MSP deployment; and the situation of the sea areasincludingexistingseauses,environmentalvalues,natureofconflicts,andcross-borderco-operation.Theseassessments (Blažauskas2015;Geeetal. 2015;MatczakandZaucha2015;MorfandStrand2015;Riemannetal.2015)demonstratethatMSPworksdifferentlyasanintegratingprocessunderdifferentcircumstancessuchasthelevelofambitionoftheMSPprocess,thetypesoftheseaspacetobeplanned,variationsinusepressures,andtheintensityofspatialconflicts,etc.Thus,adeeperunderstandingofdifferenttypesofcontextualfactorsisimportantforunderstandinganddevelopingMSPasitfostersabetterunderstandingofhowintegrationchallengesariseandinteract invariousMSPcontexts.

The report comprises three parts describing (a) key integration challenges that paved theway forcross-cuttingresearchissues,(b)thecontextprovidedbytheMSPsituationinthecountriescoveredbytheBONUSBALTSPACEproject,and(c)theidentificationofparticularlyinterestingcaseandcasesforthefurtherinvestigationofkeyintegrationchallenges.


6

1.KeyMSPintegrationchallenges:

Afourdimensionalanalytical frameworkhasbeendevelopedfortheBONUSBALTSPACEprojecttoexamineintegrationinMSP(Saundersetal.2015).Thiswasbasedonthefourintegrationchallengesnoted inthe introductionthatgavetheframefortheprojectresearchofacross-cuttingcharacter.This part of the report addresses each issue/challenge by developing issue-specific researchproblemsandbyprovidingmoredetailedguidanceoneachintegrationchallengeandhowitcanbeanalyzedfurtherinvariouscontexts.

1.1Verticalintegration–cross-scaleandtransboundary

Cross-scale integration inthecontextoftheBONUSBALTSPACEprojectrefersto integrationacrossdifferent spatial andadministrative levels. Thedifferent levelsareglobal, regional andnational (attimes including localandregional).MSP ina transnationalsetting,suchastheBalticSeaRegion, isgroundedinmanyregulations,norms,andpracticesateachoftheselevels.Moreover,thedifferentscalesarevertically interrelated (e.g., flowof information,mutual impact).TheBONUSBALTSPACEAnalyticalFramework(Saundersetal.2015)assumesthat“themajorintegrationchallengehereistoincrease coherence between relevant global conventions, EU directives, regional commitments,nationalregulationsandstrategiesandnationalimplementation.Thisisespeciallycomplexinregardto MSP, as the planning objects…within a particular planning area are typically embedded intodifferent regulatory and normative contexts.” It needs to be noted that based on geographic andsocietal characteristics use needs often are locally and regionally specific and conflicts manifestthemselvesinplace-specificpatterns,whichrequiresastrongbottom-upcomponent.

It iswithin this context thatBONUSBALTSPACE tries tounderstandnotonly thedistinct rolesandfunctions of the different MSP levels, but also the effectiveness of top-down and bottom-upintegrationincludingthepan-Balticlevel,nottheleasttheworkinggroupofHELCOMandVASABonMSP. Hence, to understand this integration challenge, it is important to track both formal andinformalmeans of communication and their vertical directions in various BSR settings. The Polishexample provides justification for this, since vertical integration is stipulated by Polish law inMSPmainly among the central (MaritimeAdministration) and local levels (municipalities).Although theregionallevelhasbeenomitted,theMaritimeAdministrationovercomesthisproblembyconsultingwiththeregionallevelwithregardtoMSPaswell(MatczakandZaucha2015).

Thiskeyintegrationchallengealsocoversintegrationacrossborders,butthistermnotonlyreferstocrossing thebordersof several statesor smaller administrative entities (e.g.,GermanLänder), butalso to land/seaboundaries. For instance, in Lithuanian sea spaceuse is regulatedby twelve legalactsandtwelvestrategies,manyofwhichareofapredominantlyterrestrialfocus(e.g.,theNationalTourism Development Program or the Lithuanian Regional Development Strategy); nevertheless,these influenceMSP andMSP affects their implementation. Thiswas one of the reasonswhy theMSP plan in Lithuania was agreed upon and adopted by an inter-ministerial working group, the


7

government,andtheParliament(Seimas)oftheRepublicofLithuania(Blažauskas2015).Thiscanbeseenasanattempttoensurebothhorizontalandverticalintegration.

This discussion of the essence of vertical integration prompts a further examination of two keyproblemsrelatedtoscale,intheformoffunctionsandverticalinteractions,andborders,intheguiseoftransboundaryinteractions.

1.2.Horizontalpolicy/sectorintegration:

Policyintegrationfocusesonthespatialand/ortemporalsynchronizationoftheconcerns,objectives,and interests across policies and sectors. It addresses the challenge of minimizing negativeinteractionsandgapsbetweendifferentpolicypackages(politicalvisions,strategies,lawsandothertypesofregulationsinaspecificsubjectarea)andmaximizingsynergies.Sectorintegrationiscloselyrelatedtopolicyintegration,butconcernsspecifictypesofusesinrelationtotheimplementationofbothlargerpolicypackagesandvarioussectorpolicies.Institutionalizedpolicyandsectorintegrationcomprise committees, forums, groups, or other established arenas that are either designed topromoteMSPpolicyandsectorintegration,orprovideopportunitiesforsuchdeliberations,butalsospecificproceduresassuringcoordinationandexchangeofinformationacrosssectors.

In the BONUSBALTSPACEproject, policy integration is primarily analyzed at the international, EU,andnational levels,whereEUdirectives,apartfromglobaltreaties,arethehighest levelofbindingstructure.Internationalstrategies,suchasEUBlueGrowth,canalsoinfluencehowMSPpoliciesareformulated indifferentnationalsettings.For instance, inGermany,“largescaledevelopmentplansforoffshorewindenergywereamain trigger,which requiredamore strategic typeofplanning inadditiontoexistinglicensingprocedures”(Geeetal.2015).InSweden,“theoverarchingaimoftheplans should be to create opportunities for both a good marine environment and sustainabledevelopment,”whichindicatesahighdegreeofenvironmentalconcern(MorfandStrand2015).

InlinewiththeAF(cf.Saundersetal.2016),thefocusofresearchingpolicyintegrationintheBONUSBALTSPACE project is on the handling of economic development and conservation objectivestogether. It could be argued that, conceptually and politically, sustainability provides an interfacebetween the two contexts since both explicitly highlight sustainability as the long-term goal.However, linking the two types of objectives through the sustainability concept does notautomaticallyprovideasolutiononhowtoguideanintegratedapproachthatembracesbothpolicyspaces. Hence, to understand this integration challenge, it is important to compare how therespective policies are framed and how sustainability is interpreted conceptually and politically toreachadeeperunderstandingofhowenvironmentalprotectionandnatural resourcesarehandledwithin the MSP framework. Also below the international level e.g. at national, regional andsometimesevenlocallevels,differentformsofhorizontalintegrationordisintegrationoccur.

This discussion shows that the key problems to be research under the guise of the horizontalintegration issueare related tomappingpolicy integration andunderstanding its translation intopolicypackagesandalsomappingorganizationalset-upsthatfacilitatesectorandpolicyintegration.AnalyzingsomesectoralconflictsinrelationtoMSPpolicypackagesalsoappearstobeinstrumentalforunderstandinghorizontalintegration.


8

1.3.Stakeholderintegration:

Theessenceofstakeholderintegration(SI) isderivedbyproductiveformalandinformalinteractionamongthosewithastakeinMSPprocesses.Thus,itisimportantasakeyelementofatransparentgovernancearrangement.ItmightalsoimprovetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofMSP.AspointedoutbySaunderset al. (2016), “integrationprocesses that considerabroad rangeof cross-sectoralinterestsarethoughttobeabletoprovideplatformsthatareabletofacilitatethemulti-dimensionalandmulti-leveldecision-makingrequiredforsustainablemarinegovernance.”AcarefulanalysisofSIinMSP, includingwho the stakeholders are,what theywant, and how they contribute and affectprocess and outcomes, also provides insights into other integration issues such as horizontal andverticalintegration.Stakeholdersrepresentdifferentsectors,arelocatedatdifferentadministrativeandgeographicscales,andbringtotheprocessdifferenttypesofknowledge.

The active or passive involvement of stakeholders, both institutional (e.g., sector authorities) andsocietal (e.g., user organizations, NGOs, individual users, society at large, future generations), isconsideredan importantpartofMSPprocessesbyboth legislatorsandexperts.This is coveredbyMSP in the relevant legislation of all five of the countries analyzed; however, how this isimplementedinpracticedoesvary.For instance,MSPstakeholderintegrationinthepreparationoftheEEZplan inGermanywaswidelycriticizedbecausepublichearingswerestartedtoo late intheplanningprocess, the timingof the consultationperiodwasunfortunate, the consultationwindowwasshort,andthevolumeofdocumentstoreadwithinthisshortperiodwasenormous(Geeetal.2015).

Moreover,dependingon institutionalandhistorical contexts, there isahighdegreeofvariation intheunderstandingofwhat ismeantby integrationandwhata stakeholder is. Integrationvaries inform (typeof forum, timingduring theprocess) and in the formal andactualdegreesof influencefrommereinformationthroughtoconsultationandinclusive,deliberativedecision-making.

Simultaneously,howto includevarioustypesofstakeholders isoneofthegreatchallengesofMSP.This isespeciallytrueintransnationalsettingswhere,todate,therearefewforumsforstakeholderinvolvementandengagementandtheconsciousnessandcapacityofMSPresponsibleactorsforthisisjustdeveloping.

MSPproblemsrelatingtoSIthatrequiremorein-depthanalysisincludethefollowing:

• working transnationally (cross-level/cross-sector) in contexts with diverse regulationframeworks,planningtraditions,andstakeholderinvolvementideals;

• minimumorbasiclevelsoflegitimacy,transparency,andotherqualitiesofplanningprocessesincontextswithdifferingstandardswhilekeepingthecostsoftheMSPprocesswithinreasonablelimits;

• minimumornecessarylevelsofskillsandcapacityofstakeholdersforadequateparticipationintheMSPprocess;


9

• utilizingstakeholdertacitknowledgeforMSPefficiency,butalsoensuringthefairnessoftheplanningprocessandtheabilitytoreachadesiredlevelofbalanceamonggoalsandvalues.

Manyoftheissuesrelatedtostakeholderintegrationarenotnewtotheoristsandarediscussedinthe literature (see, e.g.,Dietz and Stern2008 for environmentalmanagement; orMorf 2006 for acoastalplanningperspective).However,theparticularsituationofMSPintheBalticSearesultsfromthefactthata)MSPistransnational,multilevel,andmulti-sector,b)marinestakeholdersaremobileandhighlydiversewithdifferingambitionsandneedsandhaveproblemscommunicatingbecauseofthe transnational setting and other factors, c) the institutional frameworks and ambitions ofparticipationdifferamongcountries,d)theinstitutionalframeworksarestillunderdevelopmentasaremobilizationandcommunicationchannelsandforumsandmethodsforstakeholderinvolvement.

The limitedmaturity of understanding SIwithinMSPprocesses calls for focusing analysis on basicquestionssuchasthecontextandprocessofSI(institutionalframeworkfor,reasonsfor,extentandhow stakeholders take part in MSP in different countries/cases), the outcomes of SI in MSP(outcomesandeffectsofstakeholderintegrationinMSPindifferentcountries/cases),andanalyzinglinksamongcontextsandprocesswithSIoutcomesinMSP.

1.4.Knowledgeintegration:

KnowledgeintegrationdealswithhowandtowhatdegreediversetypesofknowledgeareincludedinvariousMSPprocesses.MSPposesasignificantchallengeintermsofintegratingdifferentformsofknowledge (scientific frommultipledisciplines,policy/managerial, local, resourceuser) that informdecisionmaking.MSPisalsoinvariablyconstrainedbydifferentdeficitsandlimitationsofknowledge,suchasalackofknowledge,orrelatedprocess,toconsidercumulativepressures.AsRiemannetal.(2015) point out, in Denmark data, information, and knowledge does not flow freely amongstakeholders, and existing knowledge is insufficient for sector integration. Information is oftenobtained from different ministries, organizations, NGOs, and industries, and some privateorganizations are notwilling to share data. A similar situationwith regard to data sharing can befoundinPoland(MatczakandZaucha2015;Morf2008).

WhilewhatismeantbyknowledgeintegrationindifferentMSPprocessesisfarfromclearoruniforminmeaning, it iswidelyacceptedthatMSPmust findwaysto incorporatescientificknowledge intoprocesses of stakeholder deliberation within institutionalized arrangements where its contextualrelevance,meaning,interpretations,andcredibilitycanbescrutinizedandassessed.

MSP encompasses the explicit ambition that scientific knowledge should inform and underpindecisionmakingsothatkeygoalse.g.sustainabledevelopmentareachievedoratleastapproached.Inpursuingthisambition,challengestoknowledgeareraisedbyscientificuncertaintyandscientificdisagreement among scholarly traditions such as the various social and natural disciplines.Additionally,howtoconsiderothertypesofknowledge,suchasplace-specific,practical,traditionalor tacit knowledge, and how to include them is also a factor. Thus, one of the key challenges toknowledge integration in MSP centers on how to mix scientific knowledge with the knowledgepoliticsofstakeholderparticipationinawaythatsupportssociallearninganddeliberationwhilealsoimproving the knowledge base underpinning decisions. While scientific knowledge is seen as acredibleandtrustedsourceofknowledgeinMSPinmanycountries(e.g.,inPoland-seeMatczakand


10

Zaucha2015),itmaynotprovidetheentirepicture.Moreover,oftenpowermediateshowdifferentformsofknowledgeareintegratedintogovernanceanddecision-making(Griffin2013;Berkesetal.2006).

Thediscussionpresentedaboveillustratesthatintegratingdifferentknowledgeislikelytobedifficultandinsomecasesevenantagonistic(see,e.g.,seeMatczakandZaucha2015forPoland).Therefore,withapolicy-relevantapproachinmind,oneshouldfocusresearchonthepotentialforapluralisticknowledgeapproachtounderpinMSPratherthanassumingthatthere isaneasyresolutiontotheintegration of different knowledge perspectives. This is particularly true in situations of conflict,wheremistrustamongstakeholdersisprevalentandwhereknowledgeclaimsarelinkedstronglytovaluesandinterests.Hence,thekeyissuestoresearchunderthecategoryofknowledgeintegrationare:thevalueofdifferentkindsofknowledge;knowledgedeficitsandimpediments;theimpactsoftheharmonization,organization,andprocessesofMSPonknowledge integrationandtheroleofknowledgeanditsrelationshiptopowerinconflicts.

2.InitialObservationsonMSPinthestudiedBalticSeacountries:

Basedontheelaborationofthefocusedintegrationissuesandkeyresearchproblemslinkedtothemin this section thenationalperspective isaddedtoprovidesomepreliminaryobservationsonMSPintegrationchallengesasperceivedinthestudiedcountries.

2.1.ProgressinMSP:

MSP is at different stages of maturity and timing in the five countries analyzed in the BONUSBALTSPACE project (Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden). In Germany, a secondgenerationofplanningisunderway.InLithuania,theplanhasbeenadopted,butit isstillawaitingregulations for its implementation. InPolandandSweden, theplanningprocessesare in the initialstages; the two countries have so far elaborated stocktaking reports and guidance documents.Denmark is at the very beginning of itsMSPprocesswith new legislation and a freshly appointedauthority. It should be mentioned that there are a number of on-going EU-financed projectspromotingtransnationalMSPfromdifferentaspects.Amongthese istheBalticScopeproject3withoneofitsimportantobjectivestopromotetransnationalcollaborationandharmonizationwithinthescopeofnewlyinitiatedandongoingMSP.Resultsareexpectedbylatefallin2016orearlyin2017.

TheBONUSBALTSPACEreports(Blažauskas2015;Geeetal.2015;MatczakandZaucha2015;MorfandStrand2015;Riemannetal.2015)provideabriefoverviewoftheprogressandorganizationofMSP in Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. The central findings are summarizedbelow.

3Abouttheproject,pleaseseewww.balticscope.eu/


11

Denmark

DenmarkisattheverybeginningofitsMSPprocess.Thebill,thatsetsforththeframeworkforMSPwas adopted by the Danish Parliament in 2016. In the past, sectorial approaches to the use andmanagementofmarinewatersprevailed.Therearestillafew,mostlyvaguelyformulateddocumentsonsectorintegrationintheplanningofDanishmarinewaters.TheformergovernmentlaunchedanIntegrated Maritime Strategy in 2010. Despite good intentions, the document has not yet reallypromoted integration. Sector andpolicy integration initiatives amonga largenumberofministrieswithresponsibilitiesandinterestsintheseaoccursthrougharoundtableprocesswiththedifferentministries and national authorities, now chaired by the responsible national authority. A range ofsectoralplanshavebeendeveloped,e.g.,Natura2000,managementplansforfishstocksincertainareas,designatingrawmaterialextractionareasandwindfarmsareas,etc.However,sofar,thereisno formaloverarchingplan for implementingMSP,except for thegovernmentdecision toappointtheMinistryofBusinessandGrowthandthesubordinateDanishMaritimeAgencyasresponsibleforcoordinationandprocessmanagement,andfortheelementsdescribedintheEU’sMSPdirective.Tosupporttheplanningprocess,theDanishGeodataAgencyisimplementinginfrastructuretoprovideaccesstogeographicdataandmetadatainordertomakemarinespatialdataavailableefficiently.

Thereisalsogrowinginternationalcollaborationwithactivitiesplannedtoestablishdata,applytools,andexamineconflictsandsynergies inselectedmarineareas.Currently, theseelementsarestill inthe planning stage, and no specific examples have yet been made in Denmark. The key factspertainingtoMSPinDenmarkarepresentedinTable2.1.

Table2.1:KeyfactspertainingtoMSPinDenmark

KeyLegalActs TheActsettingforththeframeworkforMSPadoptedbytheDanishParliamentL131Forslagtillovommaritimfysiskplanlægning.

KeyMSPDocuments ItisexpectedthattherewillbeasingleplanforboththeNorthSeaandtheBalticSea,whichwillbeinplacein2021

Nationalsectorstrategies,e.g.forwindpower.

KeyWebsites DanishMaritimeAgency:http://www.dma.dk/news/Sider/DanishMaritimeAuthoritytoberesponsibleforDenmark'sfirstmaritimespatialplan.aspx

Source:authors’elaboration

Germany

In Germany, the administration of the Baltic Sea area is shared among the federal level, which isresponsible for the EEZ, and the federal states of Schleswig-Holstein (SH) and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern(MV),whichareresponsibleforterritorialwaters.Theseplansdonotoverlap.TheEEZis planned by the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) in the name of the


12

Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure. Spatial plans for territorial waters areprepared by the responsible authorities of the two federal states, namely theMinistry of Energy,Infrastructure,andStateDevelopmentinMV,andtheStateChancelleryinSH.

GermanyhastwofullyoperationalmaritimespatialplansintheBaltic;theonecoveringtheEEZhasbeen inplacesince2009,whiletheoneforthecoastalwatersofMVhasbeen inplacesince2005and has finalized revision in summer 2016. Additionally, the Regional Development Plan for SHincludes itsmarine territory andhas the same legal status as theMV spatial plan, but it differs incharacterandismoreakintoabindingframeworkforsustainabledevelopment,whichisastrategicdocument that also includes coastal waters. However, no formal MSP evaluation processes havebeen initiated todate. Inaddition,adecisionwas taken in2011 (andamended in2012) to issueaSpatialOffshoreGridPlanforboththeNorthSeaandtheBalticSea.TheGermanBSHwasgiventhelegal task of issuing this plan and also updating it annually. The key facts pertaining to MSP inGermanyarepresentedinTable2.2.

Table2.2:KeyfactspertainingtoMSPinGermany

KeyLegalActs GeneralSpatialPlanningAct(Raumordnungsgesetz/ROG)

KeyMSPDocuments

• SpatialDevelopmentProgrammeMecklenburg-Vorpommern(2016)(LEPMecklenburg-Vorpommern)

• MaritimeSpatialPlanfortheEEZintheBalticSea(2009)

• SpatialDevelopmentPlanSchleswig-Holstein(2010)(LEPSchleswig-Holstein)

• SpatialOffshoreGridPlan(2013fortheNorthSea,inprogressfortheBalticSea)

KeyWebsites EEZplan:http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Spatial_Planning_in_the_German_EEZ/index.jsp

SHLEP:http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Fachinhalte/L/landesplanung_raumordnung/allgemein/landesplanung_aufgaben_instrumente_raumordnungsplaene.html#doc1461094bodyText1

MVLEP2016:http://www.regierung-mv.de/Landesregierung/em/Raumordnung/Landesraumentwicklungsprogramm/aktuelles-Programm/


Lithuania

MSP in Lithuania is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment, which is responsible forpreparingthemaritimespatialplan.ThereisnospecificlegalactdealingwithMSPinLithuania.TheelaborationoftheplanhasbeenbasedontheexistingLawonTerritorialPlanning.

Formally, a maritime spatial plan covering all Lithuanian sea waters was prepared in 2013 andadoptedonJune11,2015.Theplanisentitled“TheSupplementoftheGeneralPlanofRepublicofLithuaniabyMarineAreas”,andit isadocumentthatcompletestheexistingNationalGeneralPlan


13

bycoveringthemarinepartoftheterritoryofRepublicofLithuania.TheplancomprisesexplanatorynotesthatpresentspatialsolutionsandasetofGISmapsthatdepictmarineareazoningaccordingto the set and hierarchy of prioritized activities. The set of five maps includes separate maps ofEcologicalBalance,RegionalPolitics,TechnicalInfrastructure,EconomicDevelopments,andReservedAreasforNationalDemands.

However, MSP implementation and outcome monitoring is still pending. This will require thepreparation and adoptionof somenewgovernment regulations. Formonitoring purposes a list ofindicators has already been introducedwhich should permit tracking changes in sea uses and theenvironmental situation in Lithuanian marine waters. Another ambition is to monitor spatial,ecological,andsocialeffectsofthespatialprovisionsforeseenintheplan.ThekeyfactspertainingtoMSPinLithuaniaarepresentedinTable2.3.

Table2.3:KeyfactspertainingtoMSPinLithuania

KeyLegalActs LawonTerritorialPlanning

KeyMSPDocuments SupplementoftheGeneralPlanofRepublicofLithuaniabyMarineAreas

KeyWebsites GeneralPlan:www.am.lt/VI/index.php#r/340


Poland

MSPlegalfundamentalshavebeeninplaceinPolandsince2003.OperationalresponsibilityforMSPisclearlyassignedtothedirectorsofthethreeMaritimeOffices(nationaladministration).Theyareresponsible for planning sea uses and for granting construction permits and management ofmaritime Natura 2000 sites. They are also responsible for navigation and coastal defense. Otherministries are responsible for mining, fisheries, and nature conservation, but MSP provides aplatformforcoordination.

Sea space is included in the National Spatial Development Concept, which is the key strategicdocumentgoverningtheuseofPolishterritories.Polandpreparedthreemaritimepilotplans(fortheWestPartoftheGulfofGdańskin2008–cf.Zaucha2010;fortheMiddleBankin2011–cf.Zaucha,Matczak2011);forthePomeranianBightandArkonaBasinin2011–cf.Käppeleretal.2011)andhasrecentlyconductedveryextensivestocktakingandproducedadetailedstudyontheuseofPolishseaspaceandpossiblefuturechangesinthisregard(Matczaketal.2015).Thestudywascompletedin2015andincludesmorethanonehundredmaps. Itworksasaknowledgeintegrator.Potentialseauseconflictsarealsoidentified,asistheplanningcontext,whichincludeskeyinternalandexternalpiecesoflegislation,internationalagreementsandconventions,andpoliciesandavailableknow-howintermsof internationalprojectresults. In July2016,acontractwassignedbetweentheMaritimeAdministrationand theMaritime Institute inGdańsk todevelopmaritimespatialplanscoveringall


14

EEZ,territorialwaters,andtheGdańskBay.Thefirstdraftoftheplanshouldbereadyin2017.ThekeyfactspertainingtoMSPinPolandarepresentedinTable2.4.

Table2.4:KeyfactspertainingtoMSPinPoland

KeyLegalActs ActonSeaAreasoftheRepublicofPolandandtheMaritimeAdministrationofMarch21,1991

KeyMSPDocuments • NationalSpatialDevelopmentConcept

• Stocktaking report“Studyof theConditionsofSpatialDevelopmentofPolishSeaAreas”

KeyWebsites MaritimeAdministration:http://www.umgdy.gov.pl/?cat=96

Source:ownelaboration

Sweden

In Sweden, the formal responsibility for cross-sector marine/coastal spatial planning is dividedbetween the national and local levels with an overlap of 11 NM. The regional political level isresponsibleforeconomicdevelopment,butitlackstheformalrightsforMSPand,consequently,hasso farhad little tosaywithregardtoMSP.At thenational level, theSwedishAuthority forMarineandWaterManagement(SwAM),regionallyassistedbyCountyAdministrativeBoards,andtosomeextentbytheSwedishEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(SEPA)withregardtoSEA,isresponsibleforpreparingmarinespatialplansforthreedifferentmarinebasins—theBothnianBay,theBalticProperincluding Sound (Öresund), and the Western Sea. These plans will cover the EEZ and territorialwatersfrom1NMseawardfromthebaselineandwilloverlapby11NMwithmunicipalplanninginterritorial seas.Themunicipalitiesare responsible for integrative spatialplanningandpolicyat thelocallevelandhavesectorresponsibilityinareascoveringtheircomprehensiveplansandseawatersupto12NMs(forterritorialwatersupto12NMfromthebaseline)–Fig2.1.Theoverlapisintendedtoprovidebettercoordinationacrosslevels,butnoprioritieshavebeenassignedtoeitherlevel.Soincaseauthoritiesatdifferentlevelscannotagree,thiswillhavetobetestedinenvironmentalcourt.


15

Figure2.1.PlanningresponsibilityandenvironmentallegislationfortheseainSweden.

Source:SWAM(2015b)

The Swedish process for national MSP started in 2012, when SwAM initiated the process withdiscussion meetings with stakeholders and authorities across Sweden. In 2014, a preliminary so-called Stocktake Report was presented (Marine Spatial Planning – Current Status) including ananalysisofavailableknowledge,spatialconflicts,andissuesidentifiedtobeaddressbynationalMSPin the three planning regions. The final version was published in 2015, after public review.Concurrently, SwAM has also invited to transnational consultation and coordination meetings. Inearly 2016, SwAMhadadetailed guidancedocumentonhow toproceedwithMSP in Swedenonpublic review, which is under revision based on the comments. In parallel, national sectorassessmentsweredevelopedinsector-specificauthoritygroupsincludingrepresentativesfromlocalandregionalauthorities,andcomplementedwithcrosscuttinganalyses,whichwerepresentedtoawideraudienceinspring2016.InSouthSweden,theScaniaCountyAdministrativeBoardhasstarteda project on in-depth MSP for the Sound (Öresund). Transnational contacts and problem solvingcontinue,nottheleastthroughtheEU-financedBalticScopeproject,withSwAMasleadpartner.ThekeyfactspertainingtoMSPinSwedenarepresentedinTable2.5.

Table2.5:KeyfactspertainingtoMSPinSweden

KeyLegalActs • Swedish Environmental Code (EC; SFS 1998:808) regulating national sector interestareasforspatialplanningingeneralanddefiningthebasicsofnationalMSP

• MSPordinance(SFS2015:400)regulatingnationalMSPmoreindetail

• Plan and Building Act (PBA; SFS 2010:900) formunicipal and crossmunicipal spatialplanning

KeyMSPDocuments • Stocktakingreport“MarineSpatialPlanning–CurrentStatus”(SwAM2015a)


16

• Directionaldocument(SwAM2015b)

• Mapsofsectorinterests,synergiesandconflictsandinteractions(SwAM2016)

• MaritimeStrategybytheSwedishGovernment(2015)

• Comprehensive plans of coastal municipalities and their collaborating organizationsaccordingtoPBA

• NationalinterestareasasdefinedbythedifferentnationalsectorauthoritiesaccordingtoEC

KeyWebsites Nationalplanning:https://www.havochvatten.se/en/swam/eu--international/marine-spatial-planning.html

Municipalplanning:http://www.boverket.se/Vagledningar/PBL-kunskapsbanken/

Oversiktsplanering/Arkiv-for-oversiktsplaner/(allmunicipalplans–inSwedish)

http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-sverige/planering-av-mark-och-vatten/havsplanering/(onplanningsysteminSwedish)

In English: http://www.boverket.se/en/start-in-english/about-boverket/easy-to-read/how-building-is-planned-in-sweden/(onplanningsystem-inEnglish)

Source:ownelaboration

2.2.Integrationchallengesidentifiedinthenationalassessments:

The national assessment reports summarized above permit formulating some more general,tentativeobservationsonthenatureofintegrationchallenges.

In almost all of the studied countries intensive work is under way to identify and foster anunderstandingofthenatureofconflictsinMSP(e.g.,plannermeetingsfortheBalticScopeproject).4Whilethisissomehowrelatedtoverticalandhorizontalintegration,itcanonlybeseenasafirststeptoward it.Knowledgegapshavebeen identifiedasakeychallenge inallcountriesassessed,ashasbeen the need for knowledge integration. For instance, in Poland, there are no mechanisms forknowledge sharing; to the contrary, knowledge monopolies are important factors for securingfundingofmanyresearch institutions. Italsoseemsthat thecoherenceandcontentofMSPpolicypackagesvariesamongcountries.Somesectorshave receivedparticularattentionunderMSP, i.e.,shippingandportsinPoland(MatczakandZaucha2015)andoffshoreenergyinGermany(Geeetal.2015). In Lithuania, all sectors seem to be treated equally (Blažauskas 2015), but this will needfurtherverificationduringtheMSPimplementationphasethathasonlyjuststarted.Moreover,thefocusofMSPinSwedenseemstodifferfromthatinotherBSRcountries.AlthoughSwedishMSPisinitsinitialphase,ourinitialobservationsofwhatitisfocusedsuggestthatenvironmentalconcernswillplay a stronger role there than in neighboring countries wheremore emphasis is placed on Blue

4See,forinstance,briefsontheplanningmeetingthattookplaceonMarch1-4,2016inGöteborg,information

availableathttp://www.balticscope.eu/events/southwest-case-5th-planners-meeting/[Lastaccessed:26thJuly2016]


17

Growth.5 This however, will require more in-depth analysis and the establishment of a properbenchmark.

Allcountriesvoiceambitionstopayattentiontotransboundaryintegration,althoughtherearesomecases when plans, such as the new marine spatial plan of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, are notconsulted with neighboring countries, which is not in line with the spirit of the HELCOM-VASABrecommendations(HELCOM-VASAB2016).Oneshouldalsokeepinmindthat,thedifferentnaturesofMSPprocessesanddifferentplanningmethodologiesobservedmightposesubstantialconstraintsfor transboundary integration. For example, Poland intends to establishmultimodal infrastructurecorridorsinitsplan,whereas,inGermany,thisissuewillbetackledinagridplan,butnotsomuchinmaritimespatialplans.Anotherexampleofavertical integrationproblemisthemissingcorrelationbetweenMSP inPolandand regional spatialplans. Theirmutual influence isunclear (MatczakandZaucha2015).

ThenationalassessmentssummarizedaboveincludetentativelistsofthemostimportantchallengesforMSPintegrativefeaturesineachcountry.Theyareofverydifferentnature,butareallrelatedtotheintegrationchallengesdescribedintheprevioussection(section1)ofthisreport.Sincetheyarebased on an initial assessment, the observations are tentative and at this stage can be seen asguidanceonhowtofocusfuturemorein-depthanalysisofMSP:

(1) Verticalintegration

• Denmark—integratingsomesectorse.g.thetouristsectorintotheplanningprocess(asapartofaland-seaintegration)

• Germany—MSP ambitions to integrate planning at different levels through non-hierarchicaldialog

• Poland— alleviating existing conflicts in transboundaryMSP among countries andbetweenthelandandthesea

• Poland—preventingconflictsandsecuringsynergiesinatransboundaryMSPset-up

• Sweden—usinginstitutionalcomplexityandtheavailabilityofalllevelsofadministrationconstructivelybyaddressingtheoverlapofmunicipalandnationalplanning

• Sweden— implementing transboundary integration at all governmental levels andinvolvingactorswithmandatesandknowledgeintheinitialphasesofMSP

(2) Horizontalintegration

• Denmark— integration of the tourist sector in the planning process (as a task tointegratevarioussectorswithintheMSPframework)

• Lithuania—imperfectsectorintegration(similartotheDanishclaim)

• Germany—disproportionalpowerofsomesectors

5Forinstance,atthewebsiteoftheDanishMaritimeAgencyitisstatedthat“Thepurposeofdraftingamaritimespatialplanistopromoteeconomicgrowthbymeansofcoordinateddevelopmentanduseoftheseaareas.”–seehttp://www.dma.dk/news/Sider/DanishMaritimeAuthoritytoberesponsibleforDenmark'sfirstmaritimespatialplan.aspx[Lastaccessed:26thJuly2016]


18

• Sweden – mobilizing public authorities and other stakeholders at all levels tocontributetheirneeds,intentionsandknowledgetothenationalMSPprocess

(3) Stakeholderintegration

• Denmark— early integration of stakeholders in the planning process by includingthemintheinitialMSPstage

• Germany—stakeholderintegrationrelatedtothedesignoftheMSPprocess

• Poland — building trust and empowering stakeholders particularly those havingproblemsparticipatinginMSPprocessestoavoidexpert-drivenMSP

• Sweden—stakeholdermobilizationandcapacitybuildingatallgovernancelevelsbyengaging all political actors across political parties and addressing less transparentinstitutionalstructures

(4) Knowledgeintegration

• Denmark—deficitofinformationsuitablefortheMSPpurposes

• Lithuania—managementanduseofexistinginformationforMSPpurposes

• Poland—problemswiththeuseandintegrationoftacitknowledgeinthehandlingofconflicts

• Sweden— addressing knowledge gaps and harmonizing knowledge across sectorsandnationalboundaries

• Sweden— clarifying the role of research/academia inMSP,making sure academiccreativityandknowledgeisused

Moreover, further integration challenges that may not be highlighted in the BONUS BALTSPACEintegrationtypologysofarhaveemergedonthebasisofthenationalreportsandmoremayemergeasaresultoffurtherwork.Theymightcovere.g.atemporaldimensionofintegration.Forinstance,the key challenge in Poland is related to future-oriented transboundary planning and preventingconflictsandbuildingsynergies.InDenmark,thefuturesetupofMSPisstillunclear,andthismightresult in, as yet unknown, integration challenges. Overall, how to address change over time anddifferencesintimescalesofrelevantnaturalandsocietalprocessesarehighlyrelevantforMSP.

Insummary,thekeyobservedchallengescompiledfromthenationalreportsvary(althoughtheycanbe groupedunder a general integration typology). This indicates that national contextsmay implythatMSPchallengesdiffersubstantiallyamongcountries,andthatthisattheBSR-scaleresults inarather diverse and varying set of MSP challenges. Thus, although the initial national comparisonpresented in this report confirmed the importance of the focused integration challenges and theidentifiedcross-cuttingresearchfields,ithasalsorevealedaneedtoassessthesebyacknowledgingboth specific contexts and interdependences among various integration dimensions. In any suchanalysis or assessment ofMSP, we also argue that the temporal dimension should be taken intoconsideration.Theseaspectsarediscussedfurtherbelow(inthesection3.2).

Clearly, MSP appears to work quite differently and is organized differently in the various BSRcountries.Moreover, different sets of locally and regionally specific contextual factors seem to berelevantforboththetypeofintegrationchallengesthatcanbeidentifiedandhowtheyareandhavesofarbeenaddressedornot.Thus,analysis,possiblesolutions,andMSPpolicyrecommendationsforpotentially improving integration might have to differ according to contextual factors. While this


19

doesnotposeathreattoattemptstoimplementefficientandeffectivenationalMSPprocesses,itisoneof thereasons fordisruptions inMSPuniformity, forexample, thatplanningapproachesdooreven should differ in sea areas that are used more intensively than in those in which win-winsolutionsarestillpossible.Differenttypesofcontextualfactorssuchasgovernanceideals,localMSPhistory,trustinauthorities,andsocialcapitalinanareamightalsoinfluencetheperceptionofMSP,expectations about this process, and the choices of priorities in various sea areaswhere contextsdiffer.

Thus,pathwaystoimproved6integrationinMSPmayhavetodifferbetweencountriesandregions.One plausible assumption is that integration design must be based on MSP perceptions andexpectationsdependingonthecontextsandproblemsfoundindifferentregions.

Below an approach will be further developed on how to analyze these contexts/integrationchallengesintheBSRbyidentifyingkeycasesforfurtheranalysis.

3.TowardsanindepthanalysisofintegrationchallengesinBalticSeaMSP:

Theoverall aimsof BONUSBALTSPACE are fourfold: to a) scientifically analyze how the fourmainintegrationchallengesidentifiedsofar(andpossiblyfurtheronesarisingthroughresearch)looklikein different situations and b)what is shaping them and c) how they are addressed in order to d)providepolicyrelevantadviceonhowaddressingcouldbeimproved.

As shown in the previous section and indicated by the different national assessments, to betterunderstandintegrationandhowitinfluencesMSPprocessesitisnecessarytostudyMSPinpracticeindifferentcontexts,becausethereisnouniformMSPintheBSRandthereisnoneatthenationallevel either (Blažauskas 2015; Gee et al. 2015;Matczak and Zaucha 2015;Morf and Strand 2015;Riemann et al. 2015). For instance, MSP in Poland might focus more on conflict prevention andsynergybuildinginseaareasadjacenttotheSwedishEEZ,whereasitwillbeorientedtowardconflictmitigationinmarinewatersclosetolandoradjacenttotheseaborderwithGermany(MatczakandZaucha2015).Onepossible reason fordifferences in this example is thedissimilar intensityof seauses.Itisquiteapparentthat,despiteuniformlegalsolutions,thereareorwillbenumerouscasesofMSP in theBSRbeyond thenational planning level. Theywill differ becauseof differences in suchfactors as conflict intensity, stakeholder composition and engagement, the economic orenvironmentalvalueoftheplannedareas,etc.Thus,inordertoexploreMSPintegrationchallengesin-depth, it isnecessarytoselectasetofvaryingcontexts(i.e.cases)thatwillpermitanalyzingtheappearance and implications of these challenges under different circumstances while keepingresearcheffortswithinmanageable limits. In this section, themethodologyadoptedby theBONUSBALTSPACE project for selecting such key or critical cases is first described, which is importantbecauseofthenovelcharacterofsuchanapproach.Inasecondstep,thechosencasesareexaminedasvehiclesforresearchingthefourintegrationchallengesdescribedinthesectiononkeyintegrationchallenges(section1).6IntheBONUSBALTSPACEAnalyticalFramework(Saundersetal.2015)itwasassumedthatimprovementsarenotnecessarilythesamethingasincreasedintegrationinallsituations(i.e.therecanintheorybeover-integrationandnegativeinterdependenciesbetweenvariousintegrationdimensions).


20

Finally, the methodology developed within BONUS BALTSPACE paves the way for analyticalgeneralizations (e.g.Yin2009).Thismeans that themethodologyproposedhere (i.e. in-depthcasestudiesofstrategicallyidentifiedkeyMSPcontexts)doesnotprimarilyaimforoverarchingstatisticalgeneralization, but rather to generate comprehensive understandings of MSP practices andchallengesinparticularcontexts.Thiscontext-dependentunderstandingmayhowevershedlightonMSPandassociated integrationchallenges inotherplanningcontexts throughcareful theory-basedanalysisandtransferofempiricalfindingstointerpretawidersetofMSPcontexts.

Themethodologydescribedabove(encompassingthreeresearchsteps:(1) identifyingcriticalcasesforanalysis, (2) specifying criticalquestions toaddress, and (3) identifying importantunderpinningprinciplesthatmaybeusefultoexamineintegrationinotherMSPcontexts.

3.1.SelectionofcasesasvehiclesforanalyzingMSPintegrationchallenges:

Thenational assessments allowedus tomakeapreliminarily list of important conditioning factorsthatwebelievewillbeimportantforunderstandingtherolesofintegrationinMSP,including:

• MSP efforts in some countries are sector driven and likely to be linked to attempts toaccommodate the expectations of politically important sectors such as wind power inGermany and maritime transport in Poland, whereas in other countries, for example,Lithuania,MSPseemstoreflectmoreequalrelationsbetweensectors.

• SomeMSP processes are of a top-down character and initiated by legislation and nationalpublicadministrationslikeinGermany,whereasothersappeartobemorestakeholder-drivenin character, which means that they are developed based on initiatives from variousstakeholdersinordertoalleviateexistingconflictsortoinitiatenewdevelopments.

• Stakeholder awareness makes a difference in the planning process. In some cases,stakeholdersseemunawareorunsureofhowtoengage inMSPtopromotetheir interests(e.g.,coastalfishersinPoland),whileinothercontexts(e.g.openseafishersinPoland7)theyarewellorganizedandreadytodefendtheirinterests.Thisdiffersbothamongsectors,andeven within sectors, and countries. Examples of this are the rather limited stakeholderengagement in Germany compared to the statutory requirements for early and broadstakeholderinvolvementinSweden,especiallyinmunicipalMSP.

• The intensity of conflicts andof land-sea integration candiffer greatlywithin countries, asexemplifiedbythecaseofPolanddescribedintheintroductorypartofthissection.

Secondly, the national assessments illustrate that analytical integration dimensionsmight play outdifferentlydependingoncontextualfactors.Someexamplesofinitialobservationsonthisfollow.

• Thedegreeand typeof vertical integrationneededor strived for (including transboundaryand land-sea) differs between countries andmightbe affectedbyboth legislation and thecharacter of conflicts. For instance, in Germany, integration between EEZ and territorial

7ThisisapreliminaryobservationbasedonanalysisofdocumentsofMSPrelevanttostakeholderprocessesin

Poland:thefirstrelatedtopreparationofthemanagementplansforNatura2000sitesthesecondrelatedtoelaborationofthestocktakingreport“StudyoftheConditionsofSpatialDevelopmentofPolishSeaAreas”


21

waters is a challenge,whereas land-sea integration is less problematic. In Sweden, the 11NMoverlapofnationalandmunicipalMSPseemsanoutstandingintegrationchallenge,nottheleastifthishastomeetnationalMSPontheDanishside(seeSoundcase).InPoland,theproblemliesbetweentheseaandtheland.

• Horizontal integration depends on the role of MSP in the broader policy setup and theawarenessofstakeholdersandpolicy-makersofMSP,aswellastheintensityoftheseauseconflicts.Thus,crucialhereisthelegalcharacterofMSP,howMSPisorganized,whoinitiatesit, what the planning aims are (e.g., how the sustainable development ofmarine space isenvisaged and reflected in aims and ambitions), how evident spatial conflicts are due toinsufficient horizontal integration, and whether stakeholders have the capacity andwillingnesstoparticipate.Forinstance,Denmark–whereattentionsofarhasbeenonbluegrowth and sector based sea management – might differ from Sweden, where anenvironmental perspective has been more prominent in MSP. The case of the Sound(Öresund)mightbeparticularlyinteresting,sincetheMSPsofthetwocountriesmeetthere.

• Stakeholder integration is shaped by a wide range of factors including: planning aims;historical contextand the intensityandexistenceofconflicts; theavailabilityandqualityofknowledge; the degree of stakeholder heterogeneity; the openness and ease ofcommunicationamongstakeholders,includingtheaspectsoflanguagebarriers;andculturaldissonance ItalsodependsontheMSP institutionalarrangements including,distributionofresponsibilities, where the coordinating agency/authority is located within thesearrangementsandhowstakeholderengagementisfacilitated.Practicesdifferconsiderably,tonameonlya fewexamples: the formal stakeholderconsultationsheld forMVLEP; the top-down driven stakeholder process in Lithuania; the conscious, slightly haphazard effort ofstakeholdercapacitybuildinginPolandwheremoreattentionwaspaidtoareasadjacenttolargecities; and thebroad stakeholder involvement inmunicipalmarine spatialplanning inSweden.

• Knowledge integration is affected by theMSP process (e.g. who has acted as an initiator,whataretheplanningaims)andthetypesofknowledgeunderconsideration,theavailabilityof this knowledge, and incentives to share knowledge in MSP processes, includingstakeholder involvement, capacity, and organization. Here differences can be seen bothamong and within countries. For instance, in Germany, tacit knowledge is used moreintensivelyinplanningforterritorialwaters,whereasprofessionalknowledgeprevailsinEEZMSP, and there is little incentive for coastal communities or private stakeholders to shareknowledge.

Below,atentativeproposalofcontextualfactorsshapingMSPintegrationchallengesispresentedinTable 3.1., with the factors so far identified through BONUS BALTSPACE project discussions andanalyses (dialoguebetweenMSPresearchersandpractitioners– see informationunderTable3.1).This list is not exhaustive, but illustrates variations in context likely to influence the scope andintensity of theMSP integration challenges described above. The identified contextual factors aregeneric in character, but so far neither basedon exhaustive empirical findings nor comprehensiveliterature review, as this does not yet exist in the BSR context in relation toMSPprocesses. Theywere identified through an informed insider view of the authors of this report and through


22

discussionswithMSPexpertsandpractitioners.Thesamecontextualfactorsmightalsoberelevantin other sea areas. However, further and different types of factorsmight need to be considered.These can be sorted further into threemain categories: of planning-problem related, institutionalandprocedurerelatedandactorrelatedfactorsplusaresidualcategory.

Table3.1:IdentifiedimportantcontextualfactorsforMSPintheBSR-includingrelevanceforanalyzingtheMSPintegrationchallengesfocusedinBONUSBALTSPACE.

Typeofcontextualfactor

Rangeofpossiblesituations MainrelevanceforBALTSPACEintegrationchallenges

From To

Process institutionallydrivenbye.g.decisionmakers(top–down)

stakeholderdriven(bottom-up)

horizontalintegration,stakeholderintegration,knowledgeintegration,

Conflicttype existingconflicts future(potentialconflicts) verticalintegration,stakeholderintegration,

Stakeholderinvolvement

planningdominatedbyexperts

collaborativeplanning,valuingalsonon-expertandpracticalknowledge

horizontalintegration,stakeholderintegration,knowledgeintegration

Stakeholdercapacityandorganization

Stakeholdersexperienced,wellorganized,andwellpreparedtoparticipateinMSPprocesses

stakeholdersunawareofMSProleand/orlackcapacitytoparticipate


Planningaims/ambitions

securinginterestsofprioritizedsectors

balancinginterestsofvarioussectors


Legalcharacter regulatory(prescriptive)planning

visioningandinformativeplanning

verticalintegration,horizontalintegration

Availabilityofknowledge

high low stakeholderintegration,knowledgeintegration

Cross-borderimpact

high low verticalintegration8

8InacourseoftheBONUSBALTSPACEresearchthecross-borderimpactsandprocesseshavebeenregardedas

acornerstoneofbothverticalandhorizontalintegration.


23

Interactionswithland

intensive/direct amorphous/indirect verticalintegration9

Source:authors’elaborationbasedoninitialempiricalinformationfromnationalassessments,anddiscussionswithexternalMSPexpertsandpractitioners,aswellasamongBONUSBALTSPACEprojectpartners.

ResearchwithintheBONUSBALTSPACEprojectsofarindicatesthatanawarenessoftheexistenceofthesedifferentcontextualfactorsaffectingMSPsituationsandtheirvariationcanbeastartingpointfor identifying key cases for in-depth analysis ofMSP processes and integration challenges in theBaltic Sea Region (aswell as in othermacro-regional sea areas). Bearing all these differences andvariationsinmind,theselectionofcasesseemsanappropriatestartingpointforconductingin-depthanalyses of how the integration dimensions in question work in practice. Considering thecomplexitiesofpossibleMSPcontextsintheBSR,itisindeedachallengeinitselftoselectparticularsituationsforin-depthcasestudies.IntheBONUSBALTSPACEprojectthischallengewasapproachedintwoways—byasetofselectioncriteria(below)atthesametimetryingtokeepacertainbreadthin types and combinations of the above-named contextual factors (see Table 3.1). The aforesaidselectioncriteriaareasfollows:

a) overall breadth specificity and diversity– the selected cases should cover all the focusedintegration challenges across a broad range of geographical, institutional and use/issuecontexts;

b) transnational relevance - good possibility of generating findings and observations ofimportancetoothercountriesandseabasins;

c) pragmaticconsiderations-theavailabilityofdata,information,andaccesstocases,i.e.,thepossibilityofconductingqualitativeresearchandexamining/testingMSPtools.

InBONUSBALTSPACE, thecaseswereselected iteratively.First,a long listof interestingcaseswasdevisedbasedonthecriteriamentionedabovewascomparedwithavailable,ongoingMSPprocessesand checked against the available research capacity of the project. Subsequently, the list wasshortened through an iterative, discursive process with external experts considering practicalrequirements and theabovementioned selection criteria. In theprocess, some relevant cases liketheMiddleBank,ashallowareabetweenPolandandSwedenthatcouldbeofenvironmentalvaluebutisearmarkedforoffshorewindenergydevelopmentbybothcountries,orKiegersFlak,anareainthe Baltic Sea that was chosen as an international interconnector for the offshore wind farms ofDenmark, Sweden, and Germany, had to be omitted or merged with other cases. Finally, it waspossible to delimit four place-based cases that offered the broadest possibilities for studyingdifferentcontextsfortheselectedintegrationchallenges.AlistofthesecasesispresentedinTable3.2,whichindicatesthatthecasespermitresearchingdifferentcontextualvariables/factorsandtheirinfluenceontheroleofMSPregardingintegrationchallenges.

9Similarlyalsoland-seainteractionhavetobeanalyzedasabuildingblockofbothverticalandhorizontal

integration.


24

Thus, the selected place-based cases provide a frame for organizing empirical work on MSPintegrationintheBSRwithintheBONUSBALTSPACEproject.Someintegrationchallenges,whichwejudgetobe lessdependentonplace-basedcontextandworkmoreuniformlyacross theBalticSeawillalsobestudiedonalargerpan-BalticSeascale.

Table3.2:Selectedplace-basedcasesintheBalticSearegioninrelationtocharacteristicMSP-relatedcontextsandconditions

Selectedcases Contextsandconditionsthatshouldbegivenparticularattentionunderthegivencase

GermanytogetherwithKriegersFlak

Sectordriven,differentintensityofinteractionswithland,top-downprocess,formalinvolvementofstakeholders,regulatoryplanning,transboundaryimpact

TheSound(Öresund),DenmarkandSweden

Transboundaryimpact,highintensityofusesandconflicts,intensiveinteractionssea-land,relativelylargebodyofknowledgeavailable,moreandlessactivestakeholders,diversitiesininstitutionalcontextbetweenthetwocountries(cross-level,horizontal,typeofplanning).

LithuanianandLatvianMSP Transboundaryimpact,differentfocusonstakeholderengagementbetweencountries,transboundarydifferencesinstakeholdersreadinessandpreparationtobeinvolvedinMSP,differenttypesofplanning,insufficientknowledge,focusonfutureconflicts

FisheriesinthecontextofMSPinPoland

Solvingfutureconflicts,conflictprevention,top-downprocess,insufficientknowledge,knowledgeconflicts,stakeholdersunawareofMSProle,transboundaryimpactnotassignificant

Source:authors’elaborationbasedoninitialempiricalinformationfromnationalassessments,anddiscussionswithexternalMSPexpertsandpractitioners,aswellasamongBONUSBALTSPACEprojectpartners.

TowrapupthispartofthemethodologicaldevelopmentwithintheBONUSBALTSPACEproject,onecanofferthefollowingimportantpointstoconsiderforconductingin-depthresearchandanalysisofMSPintegrationofMSPprocessesintheBSR,aswellasevidence-basedpolicyadviceandguidanceforMSPsetupandimplementation.

1. The general scientific understanding has to be contextualized, which means it has to beadapted to the specific situation to which the policy advice is directed.Problem:Thescientificanalysisonagenerallevelneedstobedeepenedinaplaceandpolicycontext-specific manner, as planning situations differ between countries (e.g. institutionalandhistorical characteristics) and geographical areas (e.g. locally specific ecological, social,andeconomicconditionsandcombinationsofuseinterestsandplanningproblems)10.

Approach proposed: This can be addressed by selecting complementary, qualitative case

10However,oneshouldkeepinmindthatsinceMSPiscontingentthecontextisdescribeddifferentlyindifferentplaces–thusonemightwishtobegeneralwhenreferringtocontextualfactorsgenerallyandspecificwhenreferringtoaparticularcontext.Ifsomefactorsarelistedingeneraltermstoconsider,oneshouldbeawarethattheymaynotbeoperatinginallsituations.


25

studies to capture the relevant empirical events and processes within their respectivecontexts.

2. Themorein-depththecasestudythemoredetailedthecontextualizationprocess.Thereforetheapproachtakenhereassumesthatexaminingthecontextandothercomplexconditionsrelatedtothecasebeingstudiedareintegraltounderstandingthecase.

Approach proposed:When selecting cases, we considered: presence of conflicts; differentinstitutional approaches, different phases of MSP formalization, different MSP ambitions,perception of stakeholders etc. Moreover, the availability of data and the possibility ofconductingqualitativeresearchmustbetakenintoconsideration.

3. TheresearchfindingshopetobeabletorefineourunderstandingoftheroleofintegrationinMSPacrossawiderangeofdifferentcasesintheBalticSea.InconsideringtherelevanceofthesefindingstoinformMSPpolicy,suchfindingswillneedtobecarefullyadapted/refinedtosuitparticularMSPsettings.

Approachproposed:Therefore,ananalyticalgeneralizationapproachisproposed.Todothiswe will draw on current conceptual understandings of different types of integration tointerrogateourempiricalcases.WiththisapproachwehopetofurtherrefineourtheoreticalandpracticalknowledgeoftheroleofintegrationinMSP.

3.2. Exploring the identified Baltic Sea MSP cases in terms of integrationchallenges:

In this section, the selected casesarepresentedwith focuson the typeof contextual factors theyoffer for in-depthanalysis,aswellas their relationtothe integrationchallenges focused inBONUSBALTSPACE. The selected cases presented below were derived based on the data and analysisavailablethisfarinBONUSBALTSPACE,aswellasthroughinputprovidedbyplanningprofessionalsfromtheBalticSeaRegion.

3.2.1.TheGermanCase

Context:

The specificity of the German case is related to the following contextual variables: regulatoryplanning based on mandates for the German federal government to plan the EEZ and for theindividual federalstates (i.e. theso-calledLänder) toplan for territorialwaters, top-downplanningprocedures, leading even to the privileged roles of some sectors within the MSP process, thedifferent importanceofsea-land interactions invariousplanningprocesses,and, finally,sometimesthe too formal involvement of stakeholders that is limited to consultations and the prevalence ofexpert-basedplanning. The transboundary impact is also among the key factors that comprise thespecificityofGermanMSP.


26

One of the major integration issues in Germany arises from the fact that administrativeresponsibilities formarine spaces are divided. Three administrations are responsible for governingthe German part of the Baltic Sea, and each is bound by different planning legislation, differentinterpretationsofMSPpurposesandaims,distinctMSPprocesses,anddifferentplanningtimelines.Thissituation is furthercomplicatedbytheproximityofGermanwaterstotheEEZsofneighboringcountries,whichaddsinternationalboundariesanddifferentMSPapproachestoanalreadycomplexsituation. The German EEZ shares borders with the Danish, Swedish, and Polish EEZs, while theterritorialwatersshareborderswithDenmark(SH)andPoland(MV)aswellastheborderbetweenthem.Issuesofalignmentamongalltheadministrativelevelsarisefrombothecosystemandspatialmanagementperspectives.

In termsof approach,MSP inGermany is driven stronglyby legislation,which renders it a formal,largely top-down exercise. This restricts opportunities for achieving better stakeholder andknowledge integration within MSP. Few attempts have been made on the part of planningauthoritiestolinkMSPtoinformalactivitiesortoengageinamoreintegrative,participatorytypeofplanning. Transboundary consultation fulfills theminimum requirements of the EspooConvention,but current practice does not correspond to fully integrated transboundary planning. Given thespecificlegalframeworkwithinwhichMSPtakesplaceanditshistory,MSPinGermanyhasbeenlessambitioustodatethanthatinothercountries.

InMV,themaritimeplan ispartoftheoverallspatialdevelopmentplanforthestate, therefore, itintegrates landandseamuchmoredirectlythantheEEZplandoes.Consequently, ithasabroaderstakeholderbaseasseauseinterritorialwatersismorediverseandtherearemorerecreationalseauses there than in theEEZ.Different integrationneedscan, therefore,becomeapparent inmarineplanningby focusingsolelyontheEEZandmarineplanningaspartof integratedregionalplanningencompassinglandandsea.

Keyresearchissuesonintegrationchallenges:

In-depth analyses of MSP processes, challenges, and possibilities in the German case providepossibilities for analyzing integration needs in MSP from the perspective of transboundarycoherence,whichisunderstoodinthesouthernBalticSeaasachievingwidersocial,economic,andenvironmental objectives. A key question is whether the existing plans and maritime planningprocessesarecapableofdeliveringsuchcoherence,andifnot,whythisisthecase.ThisleadstothequestionofwhetherthecurrentlevelofMSPintegrationbetweenSH,MV,andtheEEZissufficientandwhether,andhow, integrationcanbe improvedacrossallplanning levels.Thisalsospecificallyaddresses theMV,EEZ,andPolandwhich isanelementof thecasestudyrelatedtothe impactofstateborders.Thiscasepermitsconductingresearchfocusedonthefollowingissuesrelatedtothefourtypesofintegration:

a) verticalintegration:

• extent andmechanisms throughwhich theMSP system inGermanwaters ensuresspatialcoherenceacrossvariousnationalandsub-nationalborders;


27

• spatial conflicts arising from deficits in vertical integration, i.e., the top-downapproach;

• communicationacrossdifferentlevelsanditsinfluenceontheMSPprocesses;

• mechanisms through which planning approaches integrate terrestrial and marinespatialplanningandtheirefficiency;

• thedesirable levelof integrationbetweenmaritimespatialplansof theLänderandtheEEZ;

b) horizontalintegration:

• spatial conflicts stemming fromdeficits in horizontal integration and the privilegedroleofsomesectors;

• nationalorsectoralorspatialtargetsthatcannotbeachievedbecauseofthelackofhorizontalintegration;

c) stakeholderintegration:

• spatial conflicts caused by deficits of stakeholder integration (current stakeholderparticipationislimitedtoconsultations,andMSPisexpert-basedplanning);

d) knowledgeintegration:

• spatial conflicts arising from deficits in knowledge integration particularly expert-basedplanningandthelimitedengagementofstakeholders.

e) othertypesofemergingcase-specificorgeneralintegrationchallenges

This case studyprovidesanopportunity to investigate the roleof integration indeliveringdefinedaspectsofcoherence,whichassumesthereisacloseinterrelationshipbetweendifferentdimensionsofintegration.Forexample,thealignmentoflinearorotherlarge-scalemarineinfrastructurewithinthesouthernBalticSeaisanimportantresultofcoherentplanningacrossadministrativeboundaries;achieving this is likely to require the close alignment of policy priorities, agreement on spatialprioritiesbystakeholdergroups,andintegratedplanningprocesses,which isbasedonthecapacitytodevelopasharedvision.ThiscasestudypermitsassessingthecapacityofthevariousMSPsystemstodelivertherequiredformsofintegrationacrossscales.

3.2.2. TheLithuanian-LatvianCase

Context:

ThekeyfeatureoftheLithuanian-Latviancaseisitstransboundarynature.Thismeans,forexample,that there is a different focus on stakeholder engagement between the two countries, there are


28

transboundary differences in stakeholder preparation and readiness to be involved in MSP andplanningdiffersfrommethodologicalpointsofview.IncontrasttotheSoundcase,however,MSPinboth Latvia and Lithuania ismore advanced in terms of the planning stage. The other contextualvariables framing this case include the relatively low intensity of sea use that permits focusing onfuture conflicts coupled with insufficient knowledge that results in planning only that which isnecessary.

The case study covers the practical planning processes of the Lithuanian and Latvian sea areas bythesetwoneighboringcountriesthathaveuseddifferentMSPapproaches.

Thekeydifferencesofthetwoprocessesare:

(1) Timeofdevelopment:

a. Lithuaniastartedtheprocessin2012andfinished,oradoptedtheplan,in2015beforetheMSPDirectivewasinplace;

b. LatviastartedpreparationsforMSPin2014,butithasnotyetfinished(adoptionoftheplanisexpectedin2017).

(2) Legalfoundation:

a. LithuanianMSPfollowedtheexistinglegalbasis-LawofTerrestrialPlanning(MSPisentrenchedinthelegacyofterrestrialplanning);

b. LatvianMSPestablishedanewlegalbasisincludingtheSpatialDevelopmentPlanningLaw (2011), the Marine Environment Protection and Management Law (2010),Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 740 on the Development,Implementation,andMonitoringofMaritimeSpatialPlan(2012)(i.e.MSPisquiteaseparatespatialgovernancemechanismthatwasbuiltfromscratch).

Inbothcountries,seaexploitation isnot intense,therefore,conflictsarenotnumerous.Thismighthelpinachievingtransboundaryintegration.Theonlypendingissueis lackofratificationoftheseaborder between Lithuania and Latvia by the Latvian Parliament. Indeed, it has appeared to be anobstacle for integrativeMSP process at the governmental level, and it has hampered discussionsduringtransnationalmeetings(Kalvane2014;DepellegrinandBlažauskas2013).

PlanningthemarineareasofLithuaniaandLatviaisanationalresponsibility.Themaritimeplansareatthetopleveloftheplanninghierarchy,and,therefore,theysetthebasicconditionsthatlaterhavetoberespectedwhenlowerlevelplanningisbeingimplemented.Thedifferencesbetweenthetwocountriesinthisrespectistheactualbalanceofplanning.Lithuaniahasamaster,orgeneral,planfortheentireterritory inplacethathasbeensupplementedwithmarinesolutions. Its formalstrategicplanningofthelandandseaisconsistent,althoughthemaritimepartreflectsinsufficientspecificitywith regard to sea space and some terms are missing and marine activities are also missing incontrast to land/sea usage. In Latvia, there is no terrestrial master; therefore, land, or regional,planninghastotake intoaccountmarineplanningasahigherdocument intheplanninghierarchy.This has all resulted, for instance, in the proactive role of municipalities in drafting themaritime


29

spatial plan in Latvia and the passive role of municipalities in the case of the MSP process inLithuania.

SincebothLatvianandLithuanianmarineplanningcultureisjustdeveloping,thereisaninsufficientnumber of professionals capable of understanding MSP principles and specificities. Despite thissimilarity, the stakeholderprocesswasorganizeddifferently in these two countries. In the caseofLithuania,11 although stakeholder consultation is a binding procedure regulated by the Law onTerritorialPlanningandtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentLaw,thepracticalmeansandwaysofstakeholder involvement has been decided on a case-by-case basis by authorities leading thepreparationofmaritimespatialplans.Asupervisorygroupofinter-ministerialrepresentativesfortheofficialLithuanianMSPprocesswasformedonaninitiativeoftheMinistryforEnvironment,buttheMinistryhadahighlevelofdiscretionwithregardto itscomposition. InadditiontothemeetingofthegroupthatactedasasteeringcommitteefortheMSPprocess,therewerethreetypesofbroadermeetings organized with other national stakeholders throughout the process (including officialplanningandsupplementaryproject-basedactivities).Theseincludedthefollowing:

• official informative meetings where stakeholders were informed about the developmentprocess, including its start, progress, the results of SEA and conceptual solutions, and thefinalresults;

• unofficial awareness-raising meetings for a broader audience that were characterized byflexibleorganizationcoupledwithfocusonpre-selectedtopics;

• specializedsectorialworkingmeetings(usuallyroundtables)withaselectedsectororsectors,inordertofacilitatethedevelopmentofspatialsolutionsanddecisionmakingandapproval.

Despitethedifferentfocusesandcontentsofthesemeetings,theydidnotexceedaday,andahalfdaywasusuallysufficientforthem.Specificsectorialroundtablediscussionslastedacoupleofhours,whichwasusuallyenoughtimetoreachaconsensusordecideonfurtherstepstobetaken.

A coordination group was also formed in Latvia. However, establishing such a group in Latvia islegallybinding;therefore,participationintheplanningprocessdoesnotdependonthedecisionofthe coordinating institution as is the case in Lithuania. The legislation defines which competentauthorities and representatives of NGOs are to be invited to participate in the group whichcomprised representatives from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and RegionalDevelopment, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Economics, the Ministry of Agriculture(FisheryDepartment),theMinistryofDefense,theMaritimeAdministrationofLatvia,theMinistryofCulture,theKurzemePlanningRegion,theAssociationofLocalAuthorities,andtheLatvianInstituteofAquaticEcology.TheLatvianstakeholderprocesswasalsomoreintenseincomparisontothatinLithuania,asitwasbasedonpreviousPartiSEAPateexperienceconsideredtobeaBSRgoodpractice(Zaucha2014a),andwascomposedofagreaternumberofmorespecializedmeetings.

11Stakeholders,includingnon-governmentalorganizations,aredefinedasmembersofsocietywhoareormaybeaffectedbytheplannedactivitiesorhaveaninterestintheirimplementation.


30

Transboundary consultations were not among the objectives of either Latvia or Lithuania in theirrespectiveMSPprocess.BothLithuania supervisoryandLatviancoordinatinggroupswere involvedprimarily in national processes. Transboundary consultations have been initiated officially by theMinistryoftheEnvironmentofLithuaniaandtheMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionandRegionalDevelopmentofLatvia.ThemainfocusofthetransboundarymeetingshasbeentodiscussSEAstudyresults, but Latvian stakeholders have also managed to raise some questions with regard to theLithuaniaspatialplan.Transboundaryconsultationswereorganizedasarule,tofulfilltheminimumrequirements of the official formal procedures of the Espoo and SEA directives. The unofficialmotivation,whichwastotestorimplementsoftrecommendationsofEUprojects(BSR:BaltSeaPlanandPartiSEApate)ontransboundarySI,waslessimportant.Theintensityoftransboundarymeetingsandsector involvementwashighlydependentonprofessionalskills,theattitudesandparticipationofthemeetingorganizerswhowere,infact,themaritimespatialplannersthemselves.


In-depthanalysesofMSPprocesses,challenges,andpossibilitiesintheLithuania-Latviancasepermitexamining various aspects of transboundary interactions among official, legally binding MSPprocessesthataffecteachothertoalargeextentwithonecountry’s(i.e.Lithuania)planningslightlyaheadoftheother’s(Latvia)intermsoftiming.ThiscasepermitsexaminingthefollowingissuesandMSPmechanismsrelatedtothefourintegrationchallenges:


• mechanisms through which planning approaches can be integrated across statebordersandminimumlevelsofdesirableintegration;

• conditionsand factors influencing transboundary integrationof theMSP regulatoryprocessesundertakenunderdifferentlegalregimes,differentplanningpracticesandwithimportanttimelags;

• factors influencing the roles and functions of various governance levels (local,national,regional)intransboundaryinterrelationsrelatedtoMSP;

• factors influencing communication across different levels (local vs. pan-Baltic) ontransboundaryMSPprocesses;


• involvementofsectorsinMSPthataresubjecttolegislativedifferencesinMSPlaw,planningpractices,andothercontextualvariables;

• contextualfactorsinfluencingthedesirableextentofhorizontalintegrationanditsefficiency,aswellastheroleofMSPassectorintegrator;



31

• SImechanismsforsustainingandimplementingtheresultsofplanningprocesseswhentheplanningcultureisonlyemergingandwiththeprocessofformingdeeperstakeholderconsciousnesswithregardtoaMSPprocessonlyjuststarting;

• theimpactofdifferencesinlegislationandintheplanningcultureandexperienceonstakeholderinvolvementinbothtransboundarycooperationandnationalMSP;

• impactofexistingdifferencesinorganizingstakeholderinvolvementinLithuaniaandLatviaandstakeholderconsciousnessonSIandotheraspectsofMSPintegration(e.g.,verticalandhorizontalintegration,knowledgeintegration);


• factors and conditions influencing the level and type of knowledge possessed bystakeholdersontheroleofMSPandneedsfortransboundaryintegrationofMSP;

• mechanisms that stimulate demands for more specialized knowledge, including tacitknowledgewithintransboundaryMSPprocesses;

e) othertypesofcase-specificorgeneralintegrationchallenges.

3.2.3. ThePolishCase:fisheriesinthecontextofMSP

Context:

ThePolishcasefocusesonmarineareaswithstillrelativelylowintensityofseause12(whichpermitsconcentratingonsolvingfutureconflictsandconflictprevention),evidentknowledgedeficits(relatedtobothoceanographicbutalsosocioeconomicprocessesandphenomena),andprevailingnationalconcerns. PolishMSP is a top-down, expert-driven process and consequently there is only limitedexperienceofstakeholderengagementinPolishMSPascomparedto,forexample,Sweden.Atleastsome stakeholders seem to be unaware of the role of MSP and have only limited capacities toparticipate.Thefocusofthiscaseisonfisheriesanditsinteractionswithothermarinesectors,sincevariousgroupsoffishershaveshowntobeaninterestinganddemandingstakeholdercategoryinthecourseofPolishseagovernanceprocesses(MatczakandZaucha2015;Zaucha2012).

Fisheriesisoneoftheoldestmarinesectors,anditisanimportantplayerintheMSPprocess,nottheleastinPoland.Withthegradualdevelopmentofnewseausers,spatialpressuresonthissectorarestrengthened and the traditional sense of the fisheries as “the owner of the sea resources” isjeopardized.

The fisheries industry is ineconomicdecline inPoland. Itdoes,however,enjoya longhistorywithwell-trainedandqualifiedhumanresourcesand is supportedbyanexperiencedscientificadvisory.FisheryisalsoimportantforsustainingthecoastalculturallandscapesinPolandandrelativelylargepubliceconomic resourcesareallocated to fisheries throughEUFisheryPolicy. This is forexample

12Howevertherearesomenear-coastareaswithintensiveexistinguseandconflictsinwhichfisheryisinvolved

(e.g.fisheryversusnatureprotection).


32

seeninthatquitealargenumberoffishingvesselshavebeenmodernizedinrecentyears.13EUfundsalso support the internal organization of fisheries through the formation of local groups andnetworks.

Decreasing fish stocksand limitations inaccess to the seabecauseofprospective investments likeoffshore wind farms are important challenges for Polish fisheries. But there are several otheremergingissuesthatthefisheriessectormustcopewith.Forinstance,natureconservationmeasuresareperceivedbythesectorasproblematicforcoastalfisheries(Matczaketal.2015).Anotherissueistheimmensevariabilityintheirincomeparticularlywithregardtofishstocks,geographicoccurrenceoffishandallowablecatches.Overtime,fishinggroundsoccurindifferentpartsofthesea,sothereislimitedscience-basedknowledgeoranalysesonfishoccurrencethatproactivelycanguidefishers’actions in a systematicway. Therefore, it seems that the key conflict betweenMSP and fishers isrelatedtotheideologyofunrestrictedversusrestricteduseofthesea.MSPmightbeperceivedasalimitingfactorinthisrespect.However,itmightalsoberelatedtothegenerallylowleveloftrustandperceivedlegitimacyofmanagementprocessesinPoland.

All these issues might undermine the willingness of fishers to engage in MSP processes and indiscussionsofpossiblerisksandtrade-offsregardingotherusesofseaspaceandmarineresources.Further,itcanalsodecreasethequalityoftheirinvolvement.Ontopofthis,fisherscompriseoneofthe most complex stakeholder groups, they are not homogenous and there are many internalproblems and conflicting interests within this sector. Polish fishers often consider themselves asvictimsofthetimes,abandoned,andnowfacingthenewestmarinedevelopmentslikeoffshorewindenergy limiting fishing grounds. They have a great confidence in their own experiences andknowledgeoftheseaandintheopinionsofotherfishers.Giventhescarcityofscientificdatainthemost conflicted areas and their inherent uncertainty, fishers are perhaps the most unwilling, incomparisontootherstakeholdergroups,todiscusstherationaleoftheirbeliefsandopinions.


In-depth analyses of the Polish case will permit examining various aspects of stakeholderengagement.Thiscasestudyoffersabasisformappingcognitivepatternsoffishers,theirperceptionofconflictsovermarinespace,andthewaytheyconceptualizevariousdimensionsofintegrationinMSP. In addition, it allows analyzing how different sectors perceive their own interactions withfisheries and how MSP can mediate these interactions. Investigating these problems increasesunderstanding of fishers’ opinions, knowledge and values systems, their stakes and interests, andpossiblenegotiatingorbargainingpositionsinfutureMSPprocesses.ThePolishcasestudyallowsformoredetailedinsightintothefollowingissuesrelatedtofourtypesofintegration:


• the perceived influence of national and EU policies on the way the fishers canoperateinmarineareas;theroleofpoliciesandtheirimplementationinexistingandpotentialconflicts;

13TheanalysesperformedfortheOperationalProgrammeFISH2014-2020areavailableat

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/country-files/index_en.htmaccessedJuly18,2016


33

• interplaybetweensectoraladministrativeandinstitutionallevelsthatareimportantindecisionmakinginPolandwithregardtofisheriesandthecommunicationamongthem (e.g., are ideasand issuesonlydiscussedwithinnationalbordersor are theysomehowtransportedintopan-BalticforumssuchasHELCOMVASABMSPWG?);

• interplay betweenMSP and fisheries at different relevant levels (local – regional –national–international);


• relationships among fisheries and other sectors present in marine areas to betterunderstandrootsandreasonsofexistingandpotentialconflicts;


• thenatureofconflicts related to the fisheriessector, identificationof thestagesoftheseconflicts;

• interplaybetweendifferentfishers’groupstofosterbetterunderstandingofreasonsandrootsofexistingandpotentialconflicts;

• the ways MSP is framed within the fisheries sector, interplay between thesenarrativesandthecurrentdistributionofpower;

• constraints for fishers to actively and efficiently participate in MSP processes;conditionsthatshouldbemettoenhancethisparticipation;


• differentknowledgesystemsandtheirroleinMSPprocessesinPoland;

• ways knowledge is generated and translated into MSP processes; reasons foracceptance(orlackofit)ofscientificknowledgeamongdifferentseausers,credibilityof scientific knowledge and legitimacy of science-based advice, and the role ofscienceinpreventingconflictsandtensions;

e) othertypesofcase-specificorgeneralintegrationchallenges.

3.2.4. TheSound(Öresund)Case

Context:

The Sound (SE Öresund/DK Øresund) case is characterized by the following contextual factors:transboundary impact; high intensity of uses and conflicts; intensive interaction with the land;relatively large body of available knowledge; more or less active stakeholders, and interestingdiversities in institutional context between the two countries (cross-level, horizontal, type ofplanningandmore).TheSound isanarrowstraitsharedbyDenmarkandSweden; it isoneof thehotspot areas in the southern Baltic, since it is both ecologically sensitive and highly impacted byhumanuses(HELCOM2010).Withafewexceptionsofboulderreefsonthenorthernandsouthern


34

ends andexposed limestone in the central and southernparts, themainpartofboth the Sound’sseabedandseashoreissoftsand,butitalsoincludeslargerareasofreclaimedlands(Fig.3.1).

Figure3.1.InfrastructureandphysicalalterationsofthecoastandseabedintheSound.

Source:AngantyrandNordell.(2007)

Busy shipping routes linking the Baltic Sea with Kattegat and the North Sea and ferry servicestraverse theSound indifferentdirections. Importantportsare located in Landskrona,Helsingborg,Helsingør, Køge, and, most importantly, the Copenhagen-Malmö Port (CMP, managed by atransnational consortium), which is experiencing rapid increases in goods traffic. Recreationalactivities from a population of approximately three million people contribute significantly toeconomy, employment, and human welfare in general. There are many leisure boats and smallharbors in theSoundwhileother importantmaritimeactivities include fishing,materialextraction,wind power, and tourism. A number of cables have been laid under the strait, and it hosts otherformsoftechnicalinfrastructureincludingtheÖresund-BridgeconnectingMalmöwithCopenhagen,which is importantfortheeconomicactivitiesofthewholeregion.Anumberofnational, regional,and local conservation schemes such as nature reserves and Natura 2000 areas have beendesignated. Since1932, a traffic safety related trawlingbanhasbeen inplace,whichhas affectedboth the seabed and local top predator fish populations positively. Discussions are under way tomaketheSound(Öresund)abiospherereserve.Fig.3.1illustratestheinfrastructureandotherhighlyimpactedareasintheSound(fordetailsseealsoCarneiroandNilsson2013).

The area of the case comprisesmostly territorialwaters, and only small areas in the outer EEZ isadministeredbytwohighlydifferentplanningandmanagementsystems.NationalMSPsystemsarein development in both Denmark and Sweden, and it is clear that they will be different. In theabsence of comprehensive cross-cutting planning mechanisms, sector legislation has guided the


35

planning and management of uses in Danish marine waters thus far (Carneiro et al. 2013,15;Miljøministeriet 2013,17). In Sweden, however, planning has been cross-sectoral and only to acertaindegreesectordriven,orratherproblemdriven.Todate,notransnationalsectormanagementstructures have been established to facilitate sectoral spatial planning in Sound (Öresund). Forinstance,offshoreenergydevelopmentismanagedinSwedenandnationallyinDenmark.

Even if there are no transnational cross sector forums forMSP, there is at least a legacy of issuedrivenintegrativeattemptsacrosscountriesordisciplineswithaperspectiveonthesea.14Theareaisincluded intheDGMarefinancedBalticScopeproject,15andcanbenefit fromearlierresearchanddevelopmentexperiences intheKattegatandSkagerrakarea(e.g.theINTERREGProjectSeaMeetsLand)andhasbeenprioritizedforanin-depthplanningprojectinnationalMSPfinancedbySwAM.16


DeeperanalysesofMSPprocessesandtheirchallengesandpossibilitiesintheSound(Öresund)casepermit researching transnational integrative features corresponding to specific use sectors,integrativecross-sectormechanisms,andexamplesoftransboundaryorganizations.

The following topics are worth deeper analysis, as they show integration challenges from variousanglesandwithdifferingconstellationsofexistingintegrativefeatures.Thecriteriaforselectionarespatial relevance, relevant transnational integrationperspective (e.g., transboundaryusermobility,effects, and coordination needs), and the inclusion of all main integration challenges studied inBONUS BALTSPACE. These topics are presented below in relation to their relevance to the fourintegrationchallenges:


• the interplay among two main layers of spatial integration mechanisms with theconstellation of integrative municipal and coming national spatial planning (SE) inrelationtothenationalandsofaronlysector-specificspatialintegrationmechanisms(DK);

14Thereare,forinstance,aresearchnetworkchairedbyKommunförbundetSkåne(SE),theCentreforMaritime

KnowledgeandInformation“Sea-U”(SE),theÖresundConsortium(aconsortiumownedbyoneSwedishresp.Danishcompany,establishedin1992,thathasfinancedthebridgefromconstructiontoitspresentmanagement),andtheGreaterCopenhagenandScaniaCommitteebasedontheNordicCollaboration(DK&SE,NCM),andtheSoundWaterCollaboration(Öresundsvattensamarbetet),whichisanagreementbetweentheDanishandSwedishmunicipalitiesandcountiesaroundtheÖresundwiththeobjectiveofactingtosupportahealthymarineenvironment.

15Seetheprojectwebsite:http://www.balticscope.eu/activities/case-study-1/southwest-baltic-case-preparatory-phase-1/

16ForProjectdetailsonSeaMeetsLandpleaseseethewebsite:http://extra.lansstyrelsen.se/havmoterland/Sv/Pages/default.aspxIntheSoundontheSwedishside,MSPisjuststarting.Accordingtopersonalcommunication,inordertonotcreatetoomanynewforumsandre-inventthewheel,theCABScaniaintendstousealreadyexistingforumssuchastheSoundWaterCollaborationforengagingmunicipalitiesandtheDanishsideinitsprocessforanin-depthplanontheSoundwithinSwedishnationalMSP.


36

• transnational planning issues with existing vertical transnational integrationmechanismsbutlittlecross-sectorinteraction—transport(globalIMO)andfisheries(EU-CFP)andnatureconservation(mixedapproachesfortheimplementationoftheEUHabitatDirective/HELCOM);

• transnational planning issues with nonexistent or under-used vertical integrationmechanisms driven either locally or regionally—wind power (municipal planning)andsandextraction(notusedEspooConventionprocedure)withafocusonalltypesofintegrationinrelationtopotentiallyconflictinguses;


• relations among various mechanisms regulating sectors so far, e.g., for natureconservation there are several primary mechanisms such as the EU WaterFramework Directive, the Habitat Directive, and the Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective,HELCOM,andnationalmanagementplans;

• interactions among key sectors, including maritime traffic, fishing, natureconservationandenvironmentalqualitymanagement,renewableenergyproductionandinfrastructure,andsandandgravelextraction;

• transboundaryaspectsofthepreviouslymentionedtwolayersofspatial integrationmechanisms(i.e.DKonlynationalandSEbothnationalandlocalandmayberegionalspatialplanning).

Horizontal integration analysis will cover both the role of specific sectors but also moregenerallyhowaspectsofenvironmental,economicandsocialsustainabilityarebalanced innegotiationsandoutcomes.


• how and why different types of stakeholders (and their interests) have beenacknowledgedinspatialmanagementprioritiesoftheSound;

• howandwhydifferenttypesofstakeholdershavebeenandareinvolvedinpastandpresent planning in the different countries and how interaction occurs acrossnational boundaries – with interesting differences in institutional conditions forstakeholderinvolvementbetweencountriesandlevels;


• theavailabilityofrelevantknowledge;

• thesharingofinformationbetweenauthorityactorsfromDKandSEatvariouslevels;

• theexchangeofknowledgebetweendifferenttypesofactorsatdifferentlevels;

• how far other than scientific knowledge plays a role in planning (valuation ofdifferenttypesofknowledge);


37

e)furtheremergingtypesofcase-specificorgeneralintegrationchallenges.

Empirically,researchfortheSoundcasewillfocuson:WindPowerplanning(throughmunicipalandother types of mechanisms), management of nature conservation in relation to mechanisms atdifferent levels, the management of sand extraction in the Sound (in relation to using the EspooConvention and other mechanisms). The case will also imply observation of ongoing MSP in theSound(in-depthplanningontheSwedishsideandnationalplanningontheDanishside).

3.2.5. ThePan-BalticCaseContext:

The pan-Baltic case serves for analyzing integration problems that are of awider Baltic character.Here, contextual variables play a less prominent role, although differences in national conditionsmight be important in examining pan-Baltic integration patterns. The most prominent factorsconditioning integrationat thepan-Baltic levelarerelatedtotheexistenceofvariousMSPforums,co-operation networks, and knowledge-sharing platforms, and diverse relevant institutional actorsandframeworks.

ThemostprominentforaareprovidedbyHELCOMandVASABthatmadeaseriesofdecisionsthatledtotheestablishmentofajointpan-BalticworkinggrouponMSP(HELCOM-VASABMSPWG)andto the adoption of common, broad-scale principles on MSP. The joint HELCOM-VASAB MSPWG,whichhasatemporarymandateofbothorganizations,actsasaforumandadiscussionplatformforregional, trans-boundary, and cross-sectoral dialog on Integrated Coastal Zone Management andMaritime Spatial Planning including relevant international agreements, EU legal instruments andpolicies, and macro-regional and national policies. It assists VASAB and its member states inimplementing the actions decided under the auspices of the VASAB Long-term Perspective forTerritorial Development and assists HELCOM and its member states to implement selected MSPactionsdecidedonundertheHELCOMBalticSeaActionPlan.

AlongwiththeinternationalworkofHELCOM-VASABinstitutions,initiativesfundedbytheEU,suchas INTERREG projects including the BaltSeaPlan (Gee et al. 2011; Zaucha andMatczak 2011), thePartiSeaPate (Matczak et al. 2014), or BALANCE (Ekebom et al. 2008), provide forums forcollaborationamongmaritimespatialplannersandaresourcesof innovative ideasonthepracticalimplementationofMSP.TheyalsoproducenewknowledgethatisrelevanttoMSP.Forinstance,theBALANCEprojecthasprovidednewknowledgerelevanttoMSPregardingpan-BalticseabedfeaturesandwaysofaddressingecologicaltopicssuchasbluecorridorsandhabitatcoherencebyMSP.SeeZaucha(2014a)fordetailsonprojectoutcomes.


In-depth analyses of MSP processes, challenges, and possibilities in the pan-Baltic case providepossibilities for analyzing political integration processes, roles and functions at the Baltic SeaMSPlevel, and focusing on the role of macro-regional institutions and structures in between nationaldecision-makingandEUdirectives,strategies,andprograms,etc.andrelevantinternationaltreaties,


38

andissuesoftransboundaryconsultation.Thisfocusallowsusingthiscasestudyasacaseofalargeruniverse of similar cases, i.e., the findings of this case study can potentially be relevant to othergeographicalregionssuchastheNorthSea,theBlackSea,ortheMediterranean,wheretheverticallayersaresomewhatsimilartothoseintheBSR,butwhichare, inmostcases, lesswelldeveloped.This case permits conducting research that is focused on the following issues related to the fourtypesofintegration:


• thewayHELCOM-VASABcollaborationemphasizesnationalandregionalinterests;

• communicationacrossdifferentlevels(e.g.,national,localtopan-Baltic,andviceversa)anditsinfluenceonMSPprocesses;

• supportandinfluenceonnationalandlocalMSPprocessesbyHELCOM/VASABandtheinfluenceoflocalandnationalMSPprocessesonHELCOM-VASABco-operation;


• thewaytheHELCOM-VASABcollaborationbalancesdifferentinterestsandstrandsofplanningthinking(e.g.emphasizesnatureprotectionorbluegrowth,rationalisticplanningorsustainabledevelopment,theecosystemapproachormoresectoralandlessadaptivetypesofmanagement)throughitsrecommendationsandothertypesofconcreteactionsandoutputs;


• extent, reasonsandfactorsenhancingtheequal treatmentof foreignanddomesticstakeholders,includingreasonsforpossibleinequalitiesandwaystoimprove;

• recommendationsonSIprovidedbytheforuminrelationtoownpracticeofSI


• thewayHELCOM-VASABcollaborationemphasizesvariousscientificandothertypesofknowledgeinitsrecommendationsandothertypesofactionsandoutputs.

e)other typesofemergingcase-specific contextual factorsor further,moregeneral integrationchallenges

3.3.Towardsanalyticalgeneralizations:

Theapproachpresentedabove for researchingMSP integration challenges isof a complexnature.Challengesfromdifferentcontexttypesareanalyzed,casestudiesareusedforcollectingempiricalfindings, and, finally, this should create the basis to draw analytical generalizations to inform anunderstandingtheroleofintegrationinMSPsimilarsituations.Inotherwords,casestudiesareusedtocollectempiricalmaterialtobetterunderstandthefourtypesof integrationchallengesandhow


39

theyplayoutingeographicalareasandmanagementsituations.Thisprovidesmaterialforanalyticalgeneralizations i.e. forexploringsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongcasesandforproviding insightsonhowtounderstandanddesignMSPanalysestounderstandintegrationinsimilarsituationsorlikecases. The success of the effort depends onmaintaining strict logic within the approach. For thispurpose,amatrixhasbeenelaborated (Table3.3)providinga tentative insightonbothcoherenceand an overview over cases’ specific characteristics. It compiles the available information andthereforeitallowscheckingwhetherornottheselectedplace-basedcasestudiesandthepan-Balticcase study permit addressing adequately all the dimensions of the four focused integrationchallenges.ThismatrixwillneedtobefurtherdevelopedduringthecourseoftheBONUSBALTSPACEproject. The dimensions or constituent elements of integration challenges that are presented insection1areoutlinedinthefirstcolumnofthetable.Theothercellsinthetableservetohighlightthekeyidentifiedissuesinneedofmoreresearchundereachcase.Inthecourseoftheongoingandplanned case study research the matrix will be modified by adding emerging researchfields/questionsthatshowtobeimportant.Similarly,empiricalinsightsonanyadditionalormodifiedintegrationchallengesinMSPwillalsobeamendedtothematrix.Furtheron,theresearchquestionswillbesubstitutedbytheidentifiedobservationsonwhatisimportantintermsofMSPcontextandfactors in each case. This will be an initial step for researching interdependencies among variousintegrationchallengesandamongchallengesandcontextualvariables.

Table 3.3: Linking the pan-Baltic case and place-based cases with the integration challenges andrelatedspecificresearchissues

Selectedcases

Dimensionandrelatedresearchquestions

GermanCasetogetherwithKriegersFlak

TheLithuanian/LatvianMSPCase

ThePolishCase:fisheriesinthecontextofMSP

TheSound(Öresund/

Øresund)Case

Pan-BalticCase

Verticalintegration-cross-scaleandtransboundary(VI)

Functioningofscales

spatialconflictsfromdeficitsofverticalintegrationlevelofintegrationbetweenplansoftheLänderandtheEEZ

factorsinfluencingtherolesandfunctionsofvariousgovernancelevels(local,national,regional)

interplaybetweensectoraladministrativeorinstitutionallevelsinterplaybetweenMSPandfisheriesondifferent,relevantscales

transnationalintegrationmechanismsandthedistributionofissuesandroles

thewayHELCOM-VASABemphasizesnational/regionalinterests

Interactionsacrossscales

communicationacrossdifferentlevelsanditsinfluenceonMSPprocessesextentandmechanismthroughwhichtheMSPsysteminGermanwatersensuresspatialcoherenceacrossvariousnationalandsub-nationalborders

factorsinfluencingcommunicationacrossdifferentlevels(localvs.pan-Baltic)intransboundaryMSP

influenceofnationalandEUpoliciesonfishers’activities

interplaybetweendifferentlayersofspatialintegrationmechanisms(nationalMSPinDK/local&nationalMSPinSE)functioningofpresentland-seaintegrationmechanismsandlinkingtoothermechanisms

communicationacrossdifferentMSPlevelsinBSRsupportandimpactonnationalandlocalMSPprocessesbyHELCOM/VASABandviceversa

Cross-borderinteractions

themechanismthroughwhichplanningapproachesintegrateterrestrialandmarinespatialplanningandtheirefficiency

conditionsandfactorsinfluencingtransboundaryintegrationoftheMSPregulatoryprocessesmechanismthroughwhichplanningapproachescanbeintegratedacrossstatebordersandtheminimumlevelofdesirableintegration

typesofmechanismsactingacrossbordersandtheirintegrativeachievementsanddeficiencies

Horizontal:policyandsectorintegration(HI)


40

Translationofpolicyintegrationintopolicypackages

nationalorsectoralorspatialtargetsthatcannotbeachievedbecauseofalackofhorizontalintegration

contextualfactorsinfluencingadesirableextentofhorizontalintegrationanditsefficiencyaswellastheroleofMSPassectorintegrator

degreeofintegrationbetweenkeysectorsbothwithincountriesandacrossborders

Organizationalsetupfacilitatingsectorandpolicyintegration

involvementofsectorsinMSPsubjecttolegislativedifferencesinMSPlawandplanningpracticeandothercontextualvariables

relationsamongvariousmechanismsregulatingsectorstransboundaryaspectsofHI

thewayHELCOM-VASABbalancesdifferentinterestsandstrandsofplanningthinking

SectoralconflictsinrelationtoMSPpolicypackages

spatialconflictsstemmingfromhorizontalintegrationdeficits

existingandpotentialconflictsarisingfromhowHIisformed

prominentsectorconflictsandcrosssectoronesandaddressingsofar

Stakeholderintegration(SI)

SIcontextandprocess impactonSIofdifferencesin

legislationandintheplanningcultureandexperienceofstakeholderinvolvementinbothtransboundaryco-operationandnationalMSP

constraintsforfisherstoparticipateactively&efficientlyinMSPrelationshipsamongdifferentfishinggroupsthewaysMSPisframedwithinthefisheriessector

institutionalcontextsforandviewsonSIinbothcountriesatvariouslevelsprocessdesignandrolesofdifferentactorsbothduringplanningandimplementation

extent,reasons,andfactorsenhancingequaltreatmentofforeignanddomesticstakeholders

OutcomesofSIinMSP

spatialconflictsarisingfromdeficitsinSIintegration natureand

conceptualizationsofconflictsinMSP

planningoutcomesinrelationtoselectedissues.satisfactionwithprocess(ifvisible)spatialandproceduralsolutionstoproblemsandremainingproblemsandconflicts

recommendationson SI provided bythe forum inrelation to ownpracticeofSI

LinkingcontextoftheMSPprocesswithoutcomesofSIinMSP

impactofexistingdifferencesinorganizingstakeholderinvolvementinLithuaniaandLatviaandstakeholderconsciousnessonSIandothertypesofMSPintegrationSImechanismsforsustainingandimplementingresultsoftheplanningprocess

conditionsthatshouldbemettoenhanceparticipation

interplaybetweeninstitutionalandhistoricalconditionsforSIandmanagementoutcomes(generalandifpossiblespecific)

Knowledgeintegration(KI)

Valueofdifferentknowledges

factorsandconditionsinfluencingthelevelandtypesofMSPknowledgestakeholdershave

differentknowledgesystems

valuingandinclusionofotherthanscientificknowledgeinMSP

Knowledgedeficitsandimpediments

mechanismsthatstimulatedemandformorespecializedknowledge,includingtacitknowledgewithintransboundaryMSPprocesses

thereasonsforacceptingscience

knowledgegapsandothersuchchallenges

ImpactoforganizationandMSPprocessesonknowledgeintegration

waysthatscientificknowledgeisgeneratedandtranslatedintoplanningprocesses

proceduralandotherconditionsaffectingKI

thewayHELCOM-VASABcollaborationemphasizesscientificandothertypeofknowledge

Roleofknowledgeanditsrelationshiptopowerinconflicts

spatialconflictsstemmingfromknowledgeintegrationdeficits

theroleofscienceinpreventingconflictsandtensions

Outcomeanalysis(inrelationstosectorinterestanddifferentstakeholders’knowledge),seeabove

Source:authors’elaborationbasedondiscussionswiththeprojectpartners

As Table 3.3 indicates, the proposed approach can deliver empirical material for understandingdifferent dimensions of integration inMSP, even if it is clear that the impact of all the contextual


41

differences identified in the second section of this report cannot be researched in-depth for eachcase.Thus,thetableprovidesaworkingtoolfacilitatingbetterunderstandingofthedimensionsandcategoriesof the focused integration challenges in the selected case study situations. It alsoofferssome guidance on important perspectives, questions and problems to bring into focus whenperformingin-depthstudiesofMSPandassociatedintegrationchallengesintheselectedcases.

4. Conclusions:Thisreportdescribesthecase-basedanalyticalapproachthatwillbeexploredandtestedthroughtheBONUSBALTSPACEproject. Itprovidesanoverviewof the researchapproachandhowweplan toapplythedevelopedanalyticalframeworktoexamineintegrationinMSPusingamultiplecasestudyapproach with strategically identified BSR cases. Understanding interdependencies among theintegration challenges (e.g. if and how sectoral integration influences stakeholder or knowledgeintegration in particularMSP settings) remains a keymethodological and analytical challenge thatwillneedtobeexploredinthefurtherdevelopmentoftheBONUSBALTSPACEanalyticalframework(cf.Saundersetal.2016).

The methodological findings thus far in the BONUS BALTSPACE research on MSP integrationchallengescanbesummarizedasfollows.

1. ThecasestudymethodologyoffersanapproachtoanalyzethecomplexanddynamicsituationofMSP in the Baltic Sea by focusing on key integration challenges and identifying key casestudies.However,asdescribedinthereport,thecomplexitiesofMSPpractices,progressandcontexts in the BSR requires careful choice and use of case-selection criteria to allowidentification and choice ofmeaningful cases aswell as enable analytical generalizations toothercurrentor futureMSPsituations.UnderBONUSBALTSPACEsuchcriteriaand theirusehavebeendevelopedanddiscussedwiththecommunityofpractitionersandMSPanalystsintheBSR.ThishasgiventheprojectagoodbasistoexplorehowcontextmattersforMSPandassociated integration challenges in theBSR. Still, becauseof thementioned complexities intheBSR,resultsneedtobeanalyzedand interpretedcarefullyusingananalytical frameworkbased on relevant previous experiences in MSP and planning, and relevant scientificliterature/theory (see Saunders et al. 2015; Saunders et al. 2016). This report indicatesparticularly, that that causality relations between context and integration challenges shouldnotbeoversimplified.

2. It is important to strive to address and understand the interplay and overlap among thevarious integration challenges. For instance, horizontal integration between sectors mightinfluence vertical integration if some sectors are more strongly present at sub-national(regional) level,whereassomeothersatnationalorevenpan-Baltic level.Anexampleofthiscan be seen in Poland, where the tourism sector is working hand in hand with local andregionalgovernmentsinplanningterritorialwaters,whereastheoffshorewindenergysectorthrough a governmental ban on wind energy developments in the territorial sea is mainlyactiveatthenationalandpan-Balticlevels.

3. SinceMSPand researchonMSPareprocesses in themaking, researchersandMSPanalystsshould be open to the possibility that new types of integration challenges and contextual


42

factors affecting them arise, different from those identified or emphasized as important byearlierstudies.Accordingly,theresearchstrategyshouldbeopenforthat.Toaddressthis,theBONUS BALTSPACE project employs in case study research (e.g. interviews) an explorativesnowballmethodology.Hence,ifanewintegrationchallengeisdetected,thiscanbeincludedintheexplorationofMSP inthecasestudies,by, forexample,approachingnewstakeholdergroupsforinterviews.

4. ResearchonMSP integration shouldpayattention to the temporaldimensionof integrationchallengesof theMSPprocesses. Thismeans that theMSPprocesses, challengesetc. inanyspecificcontextchangesovertimeandthatunderstandingcurrentaswellaspotentialfuturechallenges also requires a sufficient understanding of earlier parts of the process. In cross-borderMSPsituations(e.g.betweenneighboringcountries)differences intheprogressionofMSPintheplanningcycleetc.mightbeinfluentialforcross-borderintegrationinvariouswaysand consequently requires inquiry. An interesting example of this is cross-border interplaybetweenMSPinLithuania(aplanalreadyadopted)andLatvia(earlyinthefirstplanningcycle),whereourinitialobservationshaverevealedseveralintegrationproblemslinkedtothelackofsynchronizationofthetwonationalprocesses.

5. When designing research on complex and dynamic MSP processes and their vertical andhorizontal interrelations, the possibility to distill policy relevant findings should be kept inmind. That said, generated knowledge and science-based advice on MSP and associatedintegration challenges will need to be carefully evaluated not only in terms of scientificcredibility, but also relating to societal and political relevance. To this end the BONUSBALTSPACE project has adopted an extended peer reviewmethodology including review ofprojectfindingsnotonlybyscientistsbutalsothroughdialogueandinputfromawidergroupof experts and stakeholders such as MSP professionals, decision-makers and stakeholderrepresentatives.

In the wider perspective of analyzing MSP also in other contexts, the proposed approach seemspromising.ButoneshouldbeawarethattheBONUSBALTSPACEmethodologywillneedtobetestedand verified in anynew setting since, for example, the choiceof cases in theprojectmayonlyberelevant under current BSR circumstances. Asmany countries are in the initial stage of theirMSPprocesses, new circumstances might appear in the future and empirical data available so far islimited.Thus,furtheranalysis isnecessarytounderstandpatternsofexistingandarisingchallengesandtheirmutualinterdependencies.

Indevelopingtheapproachoutlinedhere,wehavearguedthattakingintoconsiderationcontextualspecificity iscrucial toanalyzingandunderstandingthevarietiesofMSPpractice.Howtotranslateresearchfindingsfromavarietyofdifferentsettingsintopolicyrelevantadvicewillnodoubtposeadaunting challenge, which needs to be handled with due regard to the limits of generalizabilitydiscussed above. Using extended peer reviews with fellow scientists and stakeholder dialogueprocesses,asintheproject,mighthelpsupportthetranslationofcontextdependentunderstandingsofintegrationtopolicyapplicableknowledge.


43

References:

Angantyr,L.A.&Nordell,O.,2007.Fysiskeforstyrrelser/FysiskstörningiØresund(PhysicaldisturbancesinTheSound).Copenhagen:Øresundsvandsamarbejdet”(TheSoundWaterCorporation)

Barca,F.(2009)AnAgendaforaReformedCohesionPolicy:APlace-BasedApproachtoMeetingEuropeanUnionChallengesandExpectations,The‘BarcaReport’.Brussels,DGREGIO.

Blažauskas,N.,(2015)Initialscreening:MSPinLithuania.InternalBONUSBALTSPACEreport.Klaipeda:CORPI

Carneiro,G.&Nillson,H.(2013)Thesoundwater:humansandnatureinperspective.Malmö:WorldMaritimeUniversity

CieślakA.&ScibiorK.(2009)Foreward.In:CieślakA.,JakubowskaP.,ScibiorK.,StaśkiewiczA.,ZauchaJ.,CompendiumonMaritimeSpatialPlanningSystemsintheBalticSeaRegionCountries.Warszawa-Gdańsk:MRR,MIG,VASAB

Davoudi,S.,Zaucha,J.&BrooksL.(2016)Evolutionaryresilienceandcomplexlagoonsystems.IntegratedEnvironmentalAssessmentandManagementinprintDOI:10.1002/ieam.1823

Depellegrin,D.&Blažauskas,N.(2013)IntegratingEcosystemServiceValuesintoOilSpillImpactAssessment.JournalofCoastalResearch:,vol.29(4),pp.836-846.

Dietz,T.&Stern,P.C.(Eds.),(2008)PublicParticipationinEnvironmentalAssessmentandDecisionMaking,Washington:NationalAcademiesPress,322pp.

Duit,A.&Galaz,V.(2008)Governanceandcomplexity–Emergingissuesforgovernancetheory.Governance:AnInternationalJournalofPolicy,AdministrationandInstitutions,vol.21(3),pp.311-335.

Ekebom,J.,Jäänheimo,J.&Reker,J.(2008)TowardsMarineSpatialPlanningintheBalticSea.BalanceProjectreportno.4

EuropeanCommission(2014)Directive2014/89/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof23July2014establishingaframeworkformaritimespatialplanning.OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnionL257/135.

FlanneryW.andEllisG.(2016)Doweneedafairerapproachtomarinespatialplanning?Availablefrom:http://www.rtpi.org.uk/briefing-room/rtpi-blog/do-we-need-a-fairer-approach-to-marine-spatial-planning/[Lastaccessed:24thJuly2016]

Folke,C.,Hahn,T.,Olsson,P.&Norberg,J.(2005)Adaptivegovernanceofsocial-ecologicalsystems.AnnualReviewofEnvironmentalResources,vol.30,pp.441-473.

Funtowicz,S.&RavetzJ.(1990)UncertaintyandQualityinScienceforPolicy.KluwerAcademicPublishers,theNetherlands.

Gee,K.,Kannen,A.&Heinrichs,B.(2011)BaltSeaPlanVision2030:TowardsthesustainableplanningofBalticseaspace.Hamburg,BaltSeaPlan,46.

Gee,K.,Kannen,A.,Janßen,H.&Schultz-Zehden,A.(2015)Initialscreeningofcountries:Germany.InternalBONUSBALTSPACEreport.Hamburg:HZG

Gilbert,A.J.,Alexander,K.,Sardá,R.,Brazinskaite,R.,Fischer,C.,Gee,K.,Jessopp,M.,Kershaw,P.,Los,J.H.,Morla,D.M.,O’Mahony,C.,Pihlajamäki,M.,Rees,S.,&Varjopuro,R.(2015)MarinespatialplanningandGoodEnvironmentalStatus:aperspectiveonspatialandtemporal


44

dimensions.EcologyandSocietyvol.20(1):64.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06979-200164

Gundersen,G.,Allen,C.R.&Holling,C.S.(2010)Foundationsofecologicalresilience.WashingtonDC:IslandPress.

HELCOM(2010)EcosystemHealthoftheBalticSea2003–2007:HELCOMInitialHolisticAssessment.Balt.SeaEnviron.Proc.No.122.Availablefrom:http://www.helcom.fi/lists/publications/bsep122.pdf[Lastaccessed:27thJuly2016]

HELCOM(2015)Availablefrom:http://www.helcom.fi[Lastaccessed:24thApril2015]

HELCOM&VASAB(2016)Guidelinesontransboundaryconsultations,publicparticipationandco-operationapprovedby2thMeetingoftheJointHELCOM-VASABMSPWorkingGroupheldinGdanskon24-25February2016.Availablefrom:http://www.vasab.org/index.php/maritime-spatial-planning/msp-wg[Lastaccessed:24thJuly2016]

ICES(2012)ReportoftheBalticFisheriesAssessmentWorkingGroup2012(WGBFAS),12-19April2012,ICESHeadquarters,Copenhagen.ICESCM2012/ACOM,10.859pp.

Jones,P.(2014)Governingmarineprotectedarea:Resiliencethroughdiversity.Earthscanseries.Routledge:Oxford

Jones,P.,Lieberknecht,L.&QiuW.(2013)TypologyofconflictsinMESMAcasestudies.Deliverable6.1ofMESMAWorkPackage6(Governance).Availablefrom:http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfwpej/pdf/MESMAD6-1.pdf[Lastaccessed:28thJuly2016]

Käppeler,B,Toben,S,Chmura,G,Walkowicz,S,Nolte,N,Schmidt,P,Lamp,J,Gee,K,Göke,C,Mohn,C.(2011)DevelopingaPilotMaritimeSpatialPlanforthePomeranianBightandArkonaBasin.BaltSeaPlanReportNo9.Hamburg:BundesamtfürSeeschifffahrtundHydrographie,135pp.Availablefrom:http://www.baltseaplan.eu/index.php/Reports-and-Publications;809/1 [Lastaccessed:18th May 2016]

Kalvane,I.(2014)SummaryReport.2ndtransnationalstakeholdermeetingonEnvironmentalimpactassessmentofLithuanianmaritimespatialplan.9January2014,MinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionandRegionalDevelopment,Peldustreet25,Riga

Matczak,M.,Przedrzymirska,J.,Zaucha,J.&Schultz-SehdenA.(2014)Handbookonmulti--levelconsultationsinMSP.PartiSeaPateproject

Matczak,M.&Zaucha,J.,(2015)Initialscreeningofcountriescoveringtwoplace-specificcasesPOLAND(seconddraftafterBerlin).InternalBONUSBALTSPACEreport.Gdańsk:MIG

Matczak,M.,Zaucha,J.,Pardus,J.,Faściszewski,J.,Rekowska,J.,Dendewicz,S.,Jastrzębski,L.,Nowoświecka,D.,Nowotarska,M.,Smutek,J.,Jaksina,T.,Woziński,R.,Izdebski,M.,Kaszczyszyn,P.,Boniecka,H.,Gajda,A.,Adamowicz,M.,Łączkowski,T.,Kuzebski,E.,Margoński,P.,Nermer,T.,Pelczarski,W.,Psuty,I.,Rakowski,M.,Szymanek,L.,Kowalczyk,U.,Kalinowski,M.,Szwankowska,B.,Kuszewsk,iW.,Szymańska,M.,Hac,B.,Gajewsk,iJ.,Kałas,M.,Kapiński,J.,Wróblewski,R.,Brzeska,P.,Kruk-Dowgiałło,L.,Gorczyca,M.,Kordala,I.,Kuczyński,T.,Michałek,M.,Olenycz,M.,Osowiecki,A.,Pieckiel,P.,Przedrzymirska,J.,Rakowska,I.,&KomornickiT.(2015)StudyoftheConditionsofSpatialDevelopmentofPolishSeaAreas.Gdańsk:InstytutMorskiwGdańskuAvailablefrom:http://www.umgdy.gov.pl/?cat=96[Lastaccessed:25thJuly2016]

Mayer,J.(2009)PolicySpace:What,forwhat,andwhere?DevelopmentPolicyReview,2009,27(4),pp.373-395

Miljøministeriet.Naturstyrelsen(2013)RapportfraHavplangruppensamtHavplan-opfølgningsgruppenssupplerendeovervejelser.


45

Morf,A.(2006)ParticipationandPlanningintheManagementofCoastalResourceConflicts:CaseStudiesinWestSwedishMunicipalities.Ph.D.Dissertation.GothenburgUniversity,SchoolofGlobalStudies,HumanEcologySection,Göteborg.ISBN91-975290-3-6.362p.

Morf,A.(2008)Ettkunskapsunderlagförhavsmiljöplanering:Inventeringavhavsmiljörelateraddatasamtbehovs-&bristanalyshos12nationellamyndigheter(AKnowledgeBaseforPlanningtheMarineEnvironment:InventoryofMarineEnvironmentalDataIncludingNeeds-andProblem-Analysiswith12NationalAuthorities).ReportforGovernmentalTaskno.11/2006fortheSwedishEPA.Gothenburg:GothenburgUniversity,HumanEcologySection

Morf,A.&Strand,H.(2015)InitialScreeningofCountries&RegionalCases:Sweden.InternalBONUSBALTSPACEreport.Gothenburg:SIME

Pugalis,L.&Gray,N.(2016)NewRegionalDevelopmentParadigms:AnExpositionOfPlace-BasedModalities.AustralasianJournalofRegionalStudies,vol.22(1),pp.181-203

Riemann,B.,Dahl,K.,Göke,C.,&Maar,M.(2015)ImplementationofMSPinDenmark-InitialassessmentRoskilde:DCE/BIOS

SwedishAgencyforMarineandWaterManagement(SwAM).(2015a)Havsplanering–Nuläge2014finalversion(MarineSpatialPlanning–Status2014).Gothenburg.Availablefrom:https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/uppdrag--kontakt/publikationer/publikationer/2015-03-13-havsplanering---nulagesbeskrivning-for-2014.html[Lastaccessed:26thJuly2016]

SwedishAgencyforMarineandWaterManagement(SwAM).(2015b)ProposalfortheDirectionoftheMarineSpatialPlanningandtheScopeoftheEnvironmentalAssessment).ConsultationDocumentfromtheSwedishAgencyforMarineandWaterManagement.Refno.3779-14.Gothenburg.

SwedishGovernment(2015)Ensvenskmaritimstrategi-förmänniskor,jobbochmiljö.Availablefrom:http://www.regeringen.se/informationsmaterial/2015/08/en-svensk-maritim-strategi--for-manniskor-jobb-och-miljo/[Lastaccessed:26thJuly2016]

Saunders,F.,Gilek,M.,Hassler,B.&Tafon,R.(2015)AnAnalyticalFramework–ExaminingIntegrationinMSPintheBalticSea.BONUSBONUSBALTSPACEdeliverableD1.1:Internalguidancedocument:AnalyticalandmethodologicalframeworkforanalysingMSP.

Saunders,F.,Gilek,M.,Hassler,B.&Tafon,R.(2016)FinalGuidancedocumentonAnalysingpossibilitiesandchallengesforMSPintegration.BONUSBONUSBALTSPACEdeliverableD1.2

Stiller,S.&Wedemeier,J.(2011)ThefutureoftheBalticSearegion:Potentialsandchallenges,HWWIPolicyReportNo.16,Hamburg,2011.

VASAB(2009)VASABLong-TermPerspectivefortheTerritorialDevelopmentoftheBalticSeaRegion-BackgroundSynthesisDocument,Riga.

Yin,R.K(2009)CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods.London:Sage

Zaucha,J.(2009)Themaritimeeconomyinthefaceofnewdevelopmenttrends,StudiaRegionalia,vol.22,pp134-156

Zaucha,J.(2010)PilotDraftPlanfortheWestPartfortheWestPartoftheGulfofGdansk.FirstMaritimeSpatialPlaninPoland.Gdańsk:MaritimeInstituteinGdańsk,81pp.Availablefrom:<http://www.im.gda.pl/wydawnictwa>[Lastaccessed:26thJuly2016]

Zaucha,J.(2014a)TheKeytogoverningthefragileBalticSea.MaritimeSpatialPlanningintheBalticSeaRegionandWayForward.Riga,VASAB,110.


46

Zaucha,J.(2014b)Seabasinmaritimespatialplanning:AcasestudyoftheBalticSearegionandPoland.MarinePolicy2014,vol.50,pp.34–45.

Zaucha,J.&Matczak,M.(2011)DevelopingaPilotMaritimeSpatialPlanfortheSouthernMiddleBank.Gdańsk:InstytutMorskiwGdańsku.Availablefrom:http://www.baltseaplan.eu/index.php/Reports-and-Publications;809/1[Lastaccessed:26thJuly2016]