Towards an MSP
governance framework in
the Baltic
Draft report
Part-financed by the European Union
(European Regional Development Fund)
Purpose of the governance framework
• The structures and processes necessary to ensure
effective MSP across scales in the Baltic Sea
• Addresses strategic and pragmatic aspects in MSP
– Enhance cohesion in MSP across the Baltic
– A mechanism for developing a common strategic perspective
– Ensure that stakeholder interests are reflected
– Clarify roles and responsibilities
– Identify conflicts and synergies
• Build on existing institutional structures and results from
previous projects
Key terms
• Consultation (a formal process, at the level of
MS) and cooperation (an informal process)
• Pan-Baltic and cross-border
• Maritime spatial plans and specific consultation
• Strategic visions (at the pan-Baltic level) and
regulatory plans (at the national/subnational
level)
• Formal structures =/= formal decision-making
The evidence base
• Review of current transnational institutions (e.g.
VASAB, HELCOM, WG on MSP, MSP
Roadmap, EUSBSR)
• Stakeholder workshops and questionnaires
• Work in pilot areas
• Survey of sector and governance
representatives
– N (Governance) = 26 (conducted by s.Pro)
– N (Sectors) = 32 (conducted by project partners and s.Pro)
The evidence base
The evidence base
1. Views of MSP generally
The governance view of MSP
Coherence in the approach taken to MSP and greater
predictability
By means of:
• Better information about the sea and sea uses
• Cooperation between countries
• Common understanding of MSP
• Comprehensive perspective of the sea
• Common framework conditions, vision, strategic
perspective
• Roadmap, goals, concrete steps, deadlines
The sector view of MSP
Mostly perceived as an opportunity, but could also bring
costs
•
•
•
•
•
A framework for consenting processes
A tool for balancing and coordinating activities
Can lead to better business decisions
a good trigger for debate within the sector
Could create more fairness
• Restrictive
• “Monopolised by nature conservation organisations”
• Don’t know what it means
Long-term expectations of MSP
Slow progress expected and focus on national level rather
than truly pan-Baltic MSP.
• More sectoral involvement in MSP
• A clearer picture of how sea space is used and cumulative
impacts
• Progress with national plans and greater establishment of
MSP as a tool
• Some transboundary projects and sharing of good practice
• Better consultation process between countries
• A joint discussion forum with different actors and authorities
• Possibly, eventually, a pan-Baltic planning exercise,
especially linear infrastructure
2. The need for a pan-Baltic dialogue
Should there be cross-sectoral dialogue at
the pan-Baltic level to discuss MSP?
Yes (27 out of 30)
• First there should be transboundary dialogue within the
sector
• Cross-sectoral dialogue possibly more relevant at bilateral
level
• Question mark over success of cross-sectoral dialogue at
pan-Baltic level
Governance representatives: Unanimous yes
• Recognition of added benefits (e.g. better understanding of
MSP by sectors, honest communication of needs and fears)
3. Organisation and representation in a panBaltic MSP dialogue
Who should be included in a pan-Baltic
dialogue?
Broad involvement is desirable, but difficult to name
particular transnational sectoral organisations that would
be good representatives
•
•
Focus on „real“ users and sectoral interests rather than
ministerial level
Importance of business and economic perspective and
involvement of companies
Most sectors do not have an organised voice as yet
•
•
Most issues are still negotiated at the national level
(bilaterally at most)
If it exists at all, the pan-Baltic sectoral dialogue is not MSPspecific
Who should be included in a pan-Baltic
dialogue?

Level of organisation of sectors still insufficient

Despite a wide range of transnational organisations,
only few explicitly deal with MSP

Low level of knowledge of MSP within sectors

Low level of knowledge of purpose and activity of
transnational organisations
4. Purpose and outcomes of a pan-Baltic
MSP dialogue
Overall aims
Should have a clear aim
• Communication of „realities“ in the sector
• Improved information exchange among sectors
nationally
• Regular exchange with policy makers
• Guidelines for involving sectors in MSP
• Development of sectoral strategies
• Should be an independent science-expert body
Governance representatives:
•
High importance on obtaining more sectoral
information (economic trends/strategies)
Expected outcomes
• Joint criteria for sharing space and „rule of play“
• Follow-through beyond guidelines
• Acknowledgement of the importance of all sectors and
greater mutual understanding
• Joint projects
• Guidelines for involving sectors in MSP
Issues to be aware of:
• Some of the issues are not specific to the dialogue
• Establishing common sectoral targets is not the task of
MSP
• Do not create obligatory goals (unrealistic)
• Focus on „easier“ tasks to begin with
Barriers to establishing a pan-Baltic MSP
dialogue
• Lack of political will
• MSP not established in all countries
• Lack of understanding of the added value of pan-Baltic MSP
cooperation
• Others might perceive it as re-inventing the wheel
• Sectoral power plays
• Different economic interests of countries and established
power structures
•
•
•
•
Lack of resources (time commitment)
Lack of understanding of the need for MSP
Lack of clear purpose of the dialogue
Lack of shared vision
5. Format and tools for a pan-Baltic MSP
dialogue
Format for a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue
Regular multi-level and multi-sectoral meetings ,needsbased – avoid „pointless“ meetings.
Dialogue should be organised by competent hands.
•
•
•
•
Expert groups
Conferences
Meetings
„living portal“
Format for a transnational MSP dialogue
Information portal
Regular newsletter
5
Series of expert papers / reports
Dedicated sub-groups working on…
4
Other conferences
Annual MSP conference for different…
3
Workshops
2
Joint regional projects
Research papers
1
Joint positions
Don't know;
n/a
Commissioned reports
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Structure
What structures should be put in place to facilitate the above?
A dedicated MSP secretariat
A formal Board represen ng planners and sectors
An informal discussion forum for sectors and planners
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Structure
Consensus that coordination will be necessary
• A permanent point of contact with dedicated staff
• Facilitator role AND decision-making role/delivery of results
• Consensus that HELCOM is not suitable
• Insufficient visibility of VASAB
• An independent body
• Spatial planners should coordinate
Links to national MSP processes
National MSP process is more practical, pan-Baltic
process is more strategic
• Mutual exchange: National processes/issues should feed
into the pan-Baltic debate, and joint pan-Baltic goals
should act as a guiding framework to national MSP
processes
• Greater integration of planners in the HELCOM/VASAB
WG to ensure the results of the dialogue are translated
into practice
• Information exchange through dedicated workshops
6. The role of the HELCOM/VASAB
MSP WG
Is the EUSBSR a useful context in which to establish a pan-Bal c dialogue?
3
Yes
4
No
Don't know;
n/a
18
Should the HELCOM/VASAB WG ins gate this pan-Bal c MSP dialogue?
0
2
Yes
No
Don't know;
n/a
23
What would the WG need to fulfil this future
function?
Strengthen the WG
Could be achieved by:
• Including practitioners
• Including experts (scientists) and environmentalists, NGOs,
industry representatives
• Having a more practical focus (actual planning situation)
• Dedicated expert working groups
• Working on socio-economic impacts and ecosystem services
• Meeting more frequently
7. Conclusions for pan-Baltic MSP
governance
Building a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue
• Building a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue will take time! (trust,
routines, working modes)
• Gradually build more mature degrees of cooperation: From
exchange of information to strategy and implementation
• The nature of the pan-Baltic dialogue may change over time
(different issues, more experience with MSP)
• Start with obvious topics and manageable tasks first
• Informal and formal processes and structures are required.
• Establish stronger sectoral pan-Baltic dialogue.
• The pan-Baltic MSP dialogue is a continuous process and
not a one-off, so commitment from all partners is crucial
(role for the coordinating body to engage the sectors)
The pan-Baltic MSP governance
framework
•
The HELCOM/VASAB MSP Working Group, with focus on the
policy level
•
The HELCOM and VASAB secretariats as the main organisers of
the pan-Baltic MSP dialogue,
•
Expert groups composed of sector representatives, planners and
experts as the main format of the pan-Baltic MSP dialogue,
•
Pan-Baltic sectoral organisations (where available), other
institutions and projects as participants in the pan-Baltic MSP
dialogue.
The MSP governance framework at the panBaltic level
• The MSP dialogue is at the heart of the
governance process.
• Although it is an informal process, it requires
both informal and formal structures to deliver it
The MSP governance framework at the panBaltic level
• Informal structures:
– ad-hoc and flexible and include expert groups
– MSP conference.
• Formal structures
– decision-making competencies, (endorse the outcomes of
the informal dialogue, give mandates.
– The HELCOM/VASAB MSP WG
• Consultation: the HELCOM/VASAB MSP WG
• Cooperation: through informal structures
–
.
The MSP governance framework at the panBaltic level
BSR
(HELCOM-VASAB) MSP WORKING GROUP
WHO?


OFFICIAL MS BODIES FOR MSP IN ALL BSR COUNTRIES (DECISIONMAKING)
+ OBSERVERS / EXPERTS / NGOs
FUNCTION:




DECISION-MAKING FOR MEMBER STATES
CONSENSUS VOTING AFTER EACH MEETING ON OUTCOMES
EXPERT GROUPS  PROVIDES MANDATE
 ENDORSES CHAIR & MEMBERS FOR EACH EXPERT GROUP
 ACKNOWLEDGES / TAKES INTO ACCOUNT DISCUSSIONS ON
RESPECTIVE OUTCOMES / RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXPERT GROUPS
 COMMUNICATES TO OUTSIDE BODIES, i.e. EU MSP EXPERT GROUP
DECISION OF
FEEDS INTO POLITICAL PROCESS
The MSP governance framework at the panBaltic level
SECRETARIATS
VASAB



SPATIAL PLANNING APPROACHES
SECTORS
ECONMICS
HELCOM


DATA
MPAs
/ MFSD
TASKS:





SUGGEST EXPERT GROUP TOPICS BASED ON DIALOGUE
SUGGEST SPECIFIC TORs / TIMELINE / OUTCOME FOR
EXPERT GROUP
SUGGETS COMPOSITION OF EXPERT GROUP (INDIVIDUALS) & CHAIR
SUGGEST / ORGANISE RELATED WORKSHOPS / CONFERENCES
DOCUMENT REPORTS / OUTCOMES
The MSP governance framework at the panBaltic level
EACH EXPERT GROUP:






•
ELECTS ITS CHAIR
DEFINES WORKPLAN
/ INDIVIDUAL TASKS
– CONSENSUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS / PAPERS
SUGGESTS WORKSHOPS / PROJECTS
DISCUSSES
CAN INVITE ADDITIONAL EXPERTS
SUGGESTS
/ FOLLOWS UP TOPICS
FEEDS/ TAKES INTO ACCOUNT OTHER WORKING GROUPS
EXPERTS FROM:
•
OTHER TRANSNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, ADMINISTRATIONS,
PROJECTS
Questions expert groups
• Who should be involved in the expert groups
(e.g. existing expert groups)?
• How do expert groups constitute themselves?
• Who decides on the Chair of the expert groups?
Questions secretariats
• How should the secretariats engage with the
sectors?
• How can the secretariats generate more
identity/awareness of the MSP dialogue?
• Where does MSP data fit in?
• What would be the ideal immediate and more
long-term role of the secretariats?
Questions links to national level
• What is the role of national MSP contact points
within this framework?
• What is the precise relationship between the
pan-Baltic and the cross-border level?