Suchergebnisse

This paper explores policy change in Swedish coastal and marine conservation, identifying advocacy coalition factors—focusing internal and external events, policy learning, and negotiated agreements—that explain divergent outcomes in disputed national park planning processes. A longitudinal study, covering three decades of three planning processes, indicates that all factors matter. External and internal events, combined with policy learning or negotiated agreements, constituted the main change pathways. We noted that events' influence on learning and agreements was facilitated by policy brokers and mediated through new venues and altered actor strategies. The findings indicated that competing coalitions' policy beliefs influenced the specific routes taken and underlined the centrality of governmental actors to different outcomes. The study illustrates how political conflicts occur and are addressed in environmental governance, generates insights critical to implementing international and national conservation policy, and builds theoretical knowledge of pathways to policy change in disputed policy processes.

Abstract The Marine Strategy Framework Directive, adopted by the EU, and several other initiatives to improve marine environmental management emphasize the need to integrate environmental and social analyses. This article proposes and tests a general Behavior-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (BPSIR) framework for identifying and structuring environmentally relevant social data. The framework is compatible with the widely applied Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework, but emphasizes actors and their behavior and defines 'impact' more specifically. In particular, it distinguishes between: (i) actors directly involved in activities causing physical, chemical, and biological disturbances, and (ii) actors who indirectly affect marine resource use and the pressures on marine ecosystems. Three case studies of chemical and biological disturbances in the Swedish parts of the North and Baltic seas demonstrate the need to balance current ecosystem monitoring with systematically collected and organized data on social factors, i.e., both direct and indirect actors and stakeholders, their adaptation to policy measures, and the role of general trends in consumption and production.

Despite the increasing attention given to marine spatial planning and the widely acknowledged need for transnational policy coordination, regional coherence has not yet improved a great deal in the Baltic Sea region. Therefore, the main objectives in this article are: (a) to map existing governance structures at all levels that influence how domestic marine spatial planning policy strategies are formed, (b) to identify specific challenges to improved regional cooperation and coordination, and (c) to discuss possible remedies. Based on data from in-depth case studies carried out in the BONUS BALTSPACE research project, it is shown that, despite the shared goal of sustainability and efficient resource use in relevant EU Directives, action plans and other policy instruments, domestic plans are emerging in diverse ways, mainly reflecting varying domestic administrative structures, sectoral interests, political prioritisations, and handling of potentially conflicting policy objectives. A fruitful distinction can be made between, on the one hand, regulatory institutions and structures above the state level where decision-making mechanisms are typically grounded in consensual regimes and, on the other hand, bilateral, issue-specific collaboration, typically between adjacent countries. It is argued that, to improve overall marine spatial planning governance, these two governance components need to be brought together to improve consistency between regional alignment and to enhance opportunities for countries to collaborate at lower levels. Issue-specific transnational working groups or workshops can be one way to identify and act upon such potential synergies. ; Marine Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region – Integrating Scales, Sectors and Knowledge ; Towards sustainable planning of Baltic marine space (BONUS BALTSPACE)

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

This report makes a case for examining the role of integration and its links to how sustainable development is variably expressed in different marine spatial planning (MSP) contexts. The aim of the report is to refine an analytical approach to examine integration in MSP in the Baltic Sea through consideration of preliminary empirical results from a broad range of case studies. MSP is conceptualised here as a governance platform for improving processes to enable political decision-making with the aim to achieve sustainable development of marine space. Integration is universally espoused as a means to address a variety of challenges closely related to MSP's sustainable development ambitions, such as supporting inter-sectoral decision-making, stakeholder engagement and cross-border interaction, but its role, value and implementation in MSP has not been examined in any empirical detail. Although increased integration may well have positive effects on MSP processes and outcomes, in some instances, the contrary might also be the case. With these thoughts in mind, this report argues that we need to analyse integration as a multidimensional concept in MSP processes and outcomes. Based on understandings of integration derived from MSP experience and concepts in the broader social science literature, an analytical framework is developed to examine MSP practice in the Baltic Sea. Integration is conceptualised as including transboundary/cross-border, policy/sectoral, stakeholder and knowledge dimensions. Despite common requirements under the European Union MSP Directive and policies, national jurisdictions are likely to adopt MSP differently, which has implications for the role integration is likely to play in national and transnational MSP practice. Drawing on empirical data derived from national MSP studies, stakeholder dialogue forums and preliminary interviews with stakeholders the analytical framework is applied to examine how particular integration challenges play out in both national and transnational marine space across the Baltic Sea Region. The analytical framework is then used to structure an examination of several case studies from different parts of the Baltic Sea Region. Based on consideration of the empirical work and an analyses of previous experiences in science and practice we then propose some revisions to the initial analytical framework presented earlier. The revised analytical framework, while capturing the integration dimensions mentioned earlier, also includes consideration of the following aspects of integration: how 'balance' between sustainable development dimensions is exercised; the character of cross-boundary interactions; and temporal dynamics. Instead of a conclusion, short think-pieces are presented to capture the main insights of the report, which could be used to aid the examination of integration in MSP in other MSP contexts, beyond the Baltic Sea. ; BONUS BALTSPACE

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are an important tool for management and conservation and play an increasingly recognised role in societal and human well-being. However, the assessment of MPAs often lacks a simultaneous consideration of ecological and socio-economic outcomes, and this can lead to misconceptions on the effectiveness of MPAs. In this perspective, we present a transdisciplinary approach based on the Delphi method for mapping and evaluating Marine Protected Areas for their ability to protect biodiversity while providing Ecosystem Services (ES) and related human well-being benefits - i.e., the ecosystem outputs from which people benefit. We highlight the need to include the human dimensions of marine protection in such assessments, given that the effectiveness of MPAs over time is conditional on the social, cultural and institutional contexts in which MPAs evolve. Our approach supports Ecosystem-Based Management and highlights the importance of MPAs in achieving restoration, conservation, and sustainable development objectives in relation to EU Directives such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD), and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are an important tool for management and conservation and play an increasingly recognised role in societal and human well-being. However, the assessment of MPAs often lacks a simultaneous consideration of ecological and socio-economic outcomes, and this can lead to misconceptions on the effectiveness of MPAs. In this perspective, we present a transdisciplinary approach based on the Delphi method for mapping and evaluating Marine Protected Areas for their ability to protect biodiversity while providing Ecosystem Services (ES) and related human well-being benefits – i.e., the ecosystem outputs from which people benefit. We highlight the need to include the human dimensions of marine protection in such assessments, given that the effectiveness of MPAs over time is conditional on the social, cultural and institutional contexts in which MPAs evolve. Our approach supports Ecosystem-Based Management and highlights the importance of MPAs in achieving restoration, conservation, and sustainable development objectives in relation to EU Directives such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD), and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ; This perspective is part of the project "Evaluating Marine Protected Areas from a sustainability perspective" funded by the Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment (SIME), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden ; SI