Suchergebnisse

The EU MSP Directive is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. The main objective in this article is to identify and analyse potential obstacles to effective and efficient planning caused by the diversity among national MSP frameworks that the Directive's broad regulatory boundaries have led to. It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across national borders. Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from how political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions are organised in different Member States. It is shown that neighbouring countries can diverge substantially in how the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability are balanced, which can make transnational coordination challenging. Furthermore, it is shown that stakeholder consultations differ among Member States in terms of, for example, who were invited, how the consultations were undertaken, and the role they play in relation to political decision-making. Because of these, and other differences in how MSP frameworks are being developed in the Member States, it is suggested that regional integration should be promoted with discretion. From this perspective, it seems reasonable to embrace diversity, while simultaneously promoting the adaptive management of coordination problems at lower levels, when, or if, they emerge or can be foreseen. Thus, increased integration of national MSP frameworks should be viewed as an instrument to reduce concrete efficiency losses, rather than as an intrinsic good.

The EU MSP Directive is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. The main objective in this article is to identify and analyse potential obstacles to effective and efficient planning caused by the diversity among national MSP frameworks that the Directive's broad regulatory boundaries have led to. It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across national borders. Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from how political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions are organised in different Member States. It is shown that neighbouring countries can diverge substantially in how the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability are balanced, which can make transnational coordination challenging. Furthermore, it is shown that stakeholder consultations differ among Member States in terms of, for example, who were invited, how the consultations were undertaken, and the role they play in relation to political decision-making. Because of these, and other differences in how MSP frameworks are being developed in the Member States, it is suggested that regional integration should be promoted with discretion. From this perspective, it seems reasonable to embrace diversity, while simultaneously promoting the adaptive management of coordination problems at lower levels, when, or if, they emerge or can be foreseen. Thus, increased integration of national MSP frameworks should be viewed as an instrument to reduce concrete efficiency losses, rather than as an intrinsic good.

The EU MSP Directive is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. The main objective in this article is to identify and analyse potential obstacles to effective and efficient planning caused by the diversity among national MSP frameworks that the Directive's broad regulatory boundaries have led to. It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across national borders. Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from how political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions are organised in different Member States. It is shown that neighbouring countries can diverge substantially in how the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability are balanced, which can make transnational coordination challenging. Furthermore, it is shown that stakeholder consultations differ among Member States in terms of, for example, who were invited, how the consultations were undertaken, and the role they play in relation to political decision-making. Because of these, and other differences in how MSP frameworks are being developed in the Member States, it is suggested that regional integration should be promoted with discretion. From this perspective, it seems reasonable to embrace diversity, while simultaneously promoting the adaptive management of coordination problems at lower levels, when, or if, they emerge or can be foreseen. Thus, increased integration of national MSP frameworks should be viewed as an instrument to reduce concrete efficiency losses, rather than as an intrinsic good.

The EU MSP Directive is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. The main objective in this article is to identify and analyse potential obstacles to effective and efficient planning caused by the diversity among national MSP frameworks that the Directive's broad regulatory boundaries have led to. It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across national borders. Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from how political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions are organised in different Member States. It is shown that neighbouring countries can diverge substantially in how the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability are balanced, which can make transnational coordination challenging. Furthermore, it is shown that stakeholder consultations differ among Member States in terms of, for example, who were invited, how the consultations were undertaken, and the role they play in relation to political decision-making. Because of these, and other differences in how MSP frameworks are being developed in the Member States, it is suggested that regional integration should be promoted with discretion. From this perspective, it seems reasonable to embrace diversity, while simultaneously promoting the adaptive management of coordination problems at lower levels, when, or if, they emerge or can be foreseen. Thus, increased integration of national MSP frameworks should be viewed as an instrument to reduce concrete efficiency losses, rather than as an intrinsic good.

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

Within MESMA, nine case studies (CS) represent discrete marine European spatial entities, at different spatial scales, where a spatial marine management framework is in place, under development or considered. These CS (described in more details below) are chosen in such a way (MESMA D. 3.1 ) that they encompass the complexity of accommodating the various user functions of the marine landscape in various regions of the European marine waters. While human activities at sea are competing for space, there is also growing awareness of the possible negative effects of these human activities on the marine ecosystem. As such, system specific management options are required, satisfying current and future sectoral needs, while safeguarding the marine ecosystem from further detoriation. This integrated management approach is embedded in the concept of ecosystem based management (EBM). The goal of marine EBM is to maintain marine ecosystems in a healthy, productive and resilient condition, making it possible that they sustain human use and provide the goods and services required by society (McLeod et al. 2005). Therefore EBM is an environmental mangagement approach that recognises the interactions within a marine ecosystem, including humans. Hence, EBM does not consider single issues, species or ecosystems good and services in isolation. Operationalisation of EBM can be done through place-based or spatial management approaches (Lackey 1998), such as marine spatial planning (MSP). MSP is a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities aiming at achieving ecological, economic and social objectives. These objectives are usually formulated through political processes (Douvere et al. 2007, Douvere 2008). Within MESMA, a spatially managed area (SMA) is then defined as "a geographical area within which marine spatial planning initiatives exist in the real world". Marine spatial planning initiatives refer to existing management measures actually in place within a defined area, or in any stage of a process of putting management in place, e.g. plans or recommendations for a particular area. Management can include management for marine protection (e.g. in MPAs), or management for sectoral objectives (e.g. building a wind farm to meet renewable energy objectives). Within MESMA, SMAs can have different spatial scales. A SMA can be a small, specific area that is managed/planned to be managed for one specific purpose, but it can also be a larger area within which lots of plans or 'usage zones' exist. This definition is different from the definition mentioned in the DoW (page 60). The original definition was adapted during a CS leader workshop (2-4 May 2012 in Gent, Belgium) and formally accepted by the MESMA ExB during the ExB meeting in Cork (29-30 May 2012). MSP should result in a marine spatial management plan that will produce the desired future trough explicit decisions about the location and timing of human activities. Ehler & Douvere (2009) consider this spatial management as a beginning toward the the implementation of desired goals and objectives. They describe the spatial management plan as a comprehensive, strategic document that provides the framework and direction for marine spatial management decisions. The plan should identify when, where and how goals and objectives will be met. Zoning (the development of zoning plans) is often an important management measure to implement spatial management plans. The purpose of a zoning plan (Ehler & Douvere 2009) is: To provide protection for biologically and ecologically important habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes. To seperate conflicting human activities, or to combine compatible activities. To protect the natural values of the marine management area (in MESMA terminology: the SMA) while allowing reasonable human uses of the area. To allocate areas for reasonable human uses while minimising the effects of these human uses on each other, and nature. To preserve some areas of the SMA in their natural state undisturbed by humans except for scientific and educational purposes. ; peer-reviewed