Marine spatial planning & its impacts on local communities

Different stakeholders’ perspectives

An interdisciplinary case study report in the course ES2423, Sustainable

development: A case study approach

VT-2017

Thibaud Chatillon Roger Johansson

Frida Ramberg

Supervisor: Andreas Skriver Hansen

_____________________________________________________________________

Preface

The ongoing discussions about the marine environment have aroused our interest of marine spatial

planning and its links to local industries such as fishing. This turned out to be our subject of

research in this study, which is focused on Gothenburg’s northern archipelago.

First, we would like to take the opportunity to direct a big thank you to all of you who have

participated and made this study possible. Without your support and expertise, the study wouldn’t

have been possible to accomplish.

We would also like to gratefully thank our colleagues in this course who have provided feedback

and support during the project’s process.

Finally, we want to thank our supervisor Andreas Skriver Hansen, Ph.D. at Gothenburg University

who has taken a lot of time to guide and support us and given constructive criticism.

Gothenburg, 2017-05-30

Thibaud Chatillon

Roger Johansson

Frida Ramberg

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background & research problem ................................................................................................1

1.2 Aim & research questions ..........................................................................................................2

1.3 Delimitations.............................................................................................................................2

1.4 Definition of concepts ................................................................................................................3

1.4.1 Marine Spatial Planning.......................................................................................................3

1.4.2 Sustainability ......................................................................................................................4

1.4.3 Different stakeholders’ definitions .......................................................................................4

2. Theoretical framework & earlier research ........................................................................................5

2.1 Relational geography .................................................................................................................5

2.2 Stakeholders’ involvement .........................................................................................................5

3. Marine Spatial Planning in Sweden ..................................................................................................7

4. Method ..........................................................................................................................................9

4.1 Qualitative method....................................................................................................................9

4.2 Sample......................................................................................................................................9

4.3 Research ethics ....................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 Method discussion .................................................................................................................. 10

5. Result ........................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Administrative challenges ........................................................................................................ 12

5.2 Physical challenges .................................................................................................................. 14

5.3 Local challenges ...................................................................................................................... 16

6. Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 19

6.1 Perception of the current marine spatial planning ..................................................................... 19

6.2 Toward a sustainable marine spatial planning ........................................................................... 21

7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 23

References ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix.......................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 1 Interview guid for fisherman perspective ...................................................................... 26

Appendix 2 Interview guide for planners, policymakers & neutral perspective .................................. 27

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background & research problem

Throughout human history, fishing has been an important source for the sustenance of people

living in close proximity to water, both in coastal areas as well as by rivers and lakes. It has among

other things, provided economic income, food, recreation and the creation of different “fishing

cultures” around the globe. Due to different anthropogenic activities, such as commercial fishing

and agriculture during the 20th century and in recent years the effects of climate change, many

fish populations are under pressure and the marine environment is threatened (Sumaila, Cheung,

Lam, Pauly & Herrick, 2011).

These anthropogenic activities, conflicting with sustainable development, make the vision of a

sustainable sea use both globally and locally achieve. In September 2015, United Nations came up

with totally 17 sustainable development goals with different aims to work for a more sustainable

world. Goal number 14 is about marine sustainability and marine use and conservation (United

Nations, n.d.). Due to the situation of the marine environment the European Union parliament has

issued a new directive where the member states are required to have established marine spatial

plans by 2021 (European Commission, 2017). This MSP aims to include anthropogenic activities

as well as ecosystem services and biodiversity by using a more holistic perspective (Jan

Schmidtbauer Crona, personal contact, 28.03.2017). The EU directives on MSP share some of the

targets of the sustainable development goals 7 (affordable and clean energy), 14 (life below water)

and 17 (partnership for the goals) established by the United Nations. Thus, MSP can also be

considered as a step towards the achievement of some of the Sustainable Goals targets. In Sweden,

there is a long history of spatial planning on land. However, marine spatial planning (MSP) is a

relatively new concept. On a national level, the Swedish government has directed a mission for

the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) to implement MSP over the

Swedish coastline which has been divided into three parts: Gulf of Bothnia, the Baltic sea and the

Western sea, in this paper defined as the Swedish exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Kattegat &

Skagerrak (SwAM, 2016).

At the west coast, the Göteborg Region Association of Local Authorities (GR) has in their long-

2

term planning, requirements regarding the coastal planning and the use of the sea. In this plan,

commercial fishing is one important part that needs to be investigated. There is an ongoing project

which aims to gather all the region’s coastal municipalities in and around the northern archipelago

of Gothenburg to develop a regional plan which includes both land and sea (Göteborgsregionens

kommunförbund, n.d.). Today, much of the industrial fishing and its limitations are decided by

policymakers and political decisions. At the same time authorities like SwAM are controlled by

the government to achieve specific missions. This can create conflicts between the ones making

the rules and the ones working within the industries, seeing things from different perspectives,

which makes this a complex top-down process. In this paper, we do not take sides, we want to

assess the relation between different stakeholders and highlight their current experiences and

perceptions of MSP.

1.2 Aim & research questions

The main purpose of this paper is to investigate how marine spatial planning on an international

level such as the EU can have an impact on the sustainability of the industries on the local level,

in this case the fishing industry based in the northern archipelago of Gothenburg. Furthermore, we

want to highlight the different stakeholders’ experiences of MSP, the challenges it might bring and

how they could be counteracted.

To answer the purpose of the study we use the following questions:

• What challenges do local fishermen and other key stakeholders perceive with marine spatial

planning in the region?

• How do these stakeholders think that these challenges can be overcome?

1.3 Delimitations

There is an ongoing project which aims to develop a regional marine spatial plan. This makes the

delimitations in this paper complicated. The aim was to focus on the northern archipelago in

Gothenburg, where Öckerö municipality is the main field. However, since the ocean’s borders

looks very different compared to physical land borders as well as administrative borders it had to

be delimited in a different way. The ongoing project is of regional scale and this means that our

3

delimitations will be at the Gothenburg region, but the challenges will be analyzed with a focus on

the northern archipelago of Gothenburg.

This choice of delimitation has been made due to the different stakeholders’ perspectives.

Moreover, restrictions and planning effects at a regional level, meaning that even if one as a

fisherman is based in Öckerö you might still perform your fishing outside Öckerö’s administrative

borders, which means you are affected by other restrictions as well.

In this paper sustainability is a pervading perspective. The background to why we found this

project interesting and why MSP is important takes inspiration in ecological sustainability and how

the marine environment is today. The challenges that are brought up by the respondents are more

focused on social and economic sustainability, while the ecological sustainability still works as a

background to these challenges. It is important that none of the pillars stands alone in this project

and they are all connected somehow.

1.4 Definition of concepts

1.4.1 Marine Spatial Planning This paper’s definition of MSP is based on the European Parliament’s directive, in which it is

stated that all countries need a marine spatial plan by 2021.The MSP has been initiated by the

European Union directives in 2014. According to the European Union Commission, MSP aims to:

4

1.4.2 Sustainability

Sustainable development is a complicated concept with many interpretations. Marine spatial

planning aims to be a sustainable development which we define as a long-term goal to support the

marine ecosystem and its environmental services. Sustainable development in this case includes

all the three pillars: environmental, economic and social pillar. In this paper, we take a closer look

at the sustainable development and we focus on the social sustainability of the current marine

spatial planning.

1.4.3 Different stakeholders’ definitions

• Neutral perspective: In this perspective, we have included people representing different

authorities. In their work, they are expected to be neutral, even though it might be difficult

during certain circumstances. We have still chosen to name them as neutral here, as they

aren’t policymakers or work in field.

• Fisherman perspective: Here we have chosen to include people who work out in field

(i.e. fishermen), and/or work with fishery questions on a daily basis.

• Planner & policymaker’s perspective: Within this perspective, we have selected to

include the ones in the study that are in charge of planning and policymaking for the MSP

in the region.

5

2. Theoretical framework & earlier research

This paper highlights how international structures and decisions have impacts on various

stakeholders at national, regional and local level. According to this we have chosen to use

relational geography and stakeholder’s involvement as theory and previous research. This applies

to our study in the sense that it will, in part, investigate how decisions made at higher

administrative levels. For instance, as in this case, an EU directive affects the municipalities and

individuals in Sweden.

2.1 Relational geography

In relational geography, the world is seen as an interconnected place. All things and events are in

at least one way connected to something else and/or to each other, commonly called topology.

These connections create relationships between spaces and places as well as power relations and

structures dependent on the discourse of the time. Space is something that is not only an empty

“space”, but also something that can be filled with power and relations (Cresswell 2013:252).

Since space is full of relations there can be both conflicts and discussions creating the relations

that emerge across different scales (Murdoch, 2006:22).

Relational geography is used in this study, as a perspective to understand how the world is

connected and how international norms can have an impact and create challenges and changes on

local scales. This is important for the study since MSP within the EU and in Sweden is conducted

in a top-down fashion which could make it difficult for local stakeholders getting included in the

planning process. Pacione for example, points out that some challenges with this top-down

perspective is that it often creates conflicts between social and economic interests (Pacione

2009:330).

2.2 Stakeholders’ involvement

The UN Convention of the Biological Diversity states in the first principle that: “Indigenous

peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights

and interests should be recognized.” (Convention of Biological Diversity, n.d.). Furthermore,

Nyström and Tonell note the importance of including local perspectives and public participation

within planning. Such inclusion can increase the confidence between different actors involved in

6

the planning process, as well as bringing new knowledge to the process while making the planning

more sustainable (Planeringens grunder, 2012:322).

In previous research Pomeroy R. & Douvere F. (2008) show different types of participation by

stakeholders (Figure 1) and highlight the importance at defining different potential stakeholders in

MSP. They propose that, in addition to the stakeholder analysis, a socio-economic assessment

should be conducted to weight their importance. They also concluded that stakeholders’

participation should come with their empowerment (education, communication) to their complete

cooperation and participation.

Fig. 1 Possible types of stakeholder participation in an MSP process. (UNESCO, 2006).

Another study conducted by Gopnik et al. (2012) during a MSP process in the US confirms the

work of Pomeroy R. & Douvere F. During the MSP process, ocean users were called to participate

in discussions of MSP. Many of them were reluctant with regards to the underlying policies that

MSP would bring and would associate future MSP with new marine protected areas (MPA’s).

However, the discussions during the meetings increased the ocean user’s knowledge about MSP

and its mechanics which lead to fruitful discussions and agreements on certain points. Both studies

emphasize the importance of the people involvement to increase their understanding of MSP.

7

3. Marine Spatial Planning in Sweden

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) plays a central role in the

maritime spatial planning. SwAM oversees the planning and formulation of proposals for marine

spatial plans. The latter are coordinated both nationally and internationally. To support its work,

the agency established different working groups where the different stakeholders from different

levels (national, regional, local) can participate (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Organigram for marine spatial planning in Sweden. Source: SwAM 2015

The document gives a very good impression on the large of the collaboration and cooperation that

occurs between the different levels of stakeholders. However, the stakeholders are not explicitly

defined since they may vary greatly between plans, which also imply that they need to be

rigorously chosen throughout the various stages of the planning. In the proposal for direction of

MSP documents, the importance of the involvement of the municipalities has been made clear.

Indeed, the municipalities are responsible for the planning of the marine area closest to the coast

and on land which overlaps the national planning (Figure 3). This could create several conflicts of

8

interests between the different layers of responsibility. It brings back the importance of

collaboration at each step and on every level to insure a stable development. However, in case of

a capital national interest, the national marine spatial plan can completely take over the decisions,

regardless of the municipality plans

Figure 3. Planning responsibility and environmental legislation for the sea. Source: SwAM 2015

9

4. Method To answer our purpose and research questions we wished to highlight different stakeholders’

experiences of the current situation and challenges. In this section, we explain and discuss how

our research has been carried out. In total, eleven interviewees were interviewed which was seen

as enough to achieve saturation.

4.1 Qualitative method

We use an inductive method where we form a hypothesis based on our results. Our research

questions aim at the perception of how different stakeholders experience MSP and its challenges.

To answer this study’s aims and research questions semi structured interviews have been used.

The interviews were carried out with different stakeholders who we deemed being relevant for this

study based on their experience and knowledge of MSP. Before the interviews were carried out

two interview guides were constructed (See Appendix 1 & Appendix 2). The interview guides

were divided to fisherman perspective and planners/policymakers/neutrals perspective. For both

interview guides the content included questions of their knowledge and experiences of MSP today,

their thoughts of the future regarding the marine environment as a whole and more specifically the

fishing industry. In the interview guide for the fishermen perspective, questions regarding the work

in the field were included while in planner/policymakers/neutral perspective focus was also on

how they had worked with MSP and what the results had been.

4.2 Sample

The first stage in the sampling of interviewees in this study is carried out with a strategic selection

in which persons considered to possess the information and knowledge needed to answer our

questions (Esaiasson et al., 2012:158). This method of selection also allows the opportunity to add

respondents from diverse backgrounds to the study, widening the range of expertise, views and

responses. From this, the study proceeded to use a snowball selection in which the contacts made

from the strategic selection could direct us to the next respondent and so on. Snowball selection is

often seen as a good approach to find new, relevant sources. On the other hand, it contains the risk

of only getting data from people knowing each other, and having a relatively similar view of the

issues (Esaiasson et al., 2012:189). In this study, we have tried to counter this with the strategic

selection.

10

Due to the research ethics (See 4.3) we have chosen to categorize the respondents into three

different categories (See Table 1). The respondents have been given fictive names, this to

guarantee anonymity and that no one would be exposed by their profession and interest in the

subject. Our respondents are presented below:

Table 1. Categorized perspectives and interviewees.

4.3 Research ethics

In this study, we have chosen to use the research ethics advice which contains various suggestions

to make sure interviewees/ respondents feel safe to talk and bring up opinions they have within the

area of research. All respondents have been guaranteed anonymity, as well as being informed of

the study’s research focus, method and aim (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002:6-12).

4.4 Method discussion

As we strive to highlight different stakeholder’s perspectives and experiences of MSP, interviews

were seen as a suitable choice of method (McDowell, 2010:158). The interviews were

implemented as individual, couple, phone and email interviews. Before implementing the

interviews, we asked the respondents if they were okay with us recording the interview, making it

possible for us to focus on the talk. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured fashion

following predetermined interview guides (see Appendix 1&2), which made it possible to find

unexpected answers that might occur during the interviews (Esaiasson et al., 2012:228, 251). After

each interview, we transcribed it into compiling texts making it easier to distinguish patterns. The

Neutral perspective Fisherman perspective Planner & policymaker perspective

Eric Alexander Philip

Adam Björn Tom

Sophie Simon Robert

Mary Mark

11

data from the interviews were then divided into the sub categories administrative challenges,

physical challenges and local challenges. Regarding stakeholder’s responses, we have tried to

contact a wide range of stakeholders working with MSP. It is however clear those smaller

stakeholders are finding it hard having time for interviews. This can have an impact on our result

only getting the perspectives from those with resources in form of for example, manpower.

It is important to realize that during interviews it is not only the process of information that is

happening, social processes such as power relations also influence the process (McDowell,

2010:159). For example, the different respondents might adapt their answers to what they feel is

the expected response from them, the so called “interviewing effect”, as well as effects that might

occur in the interaction between the interviewee and interviewer. It can be all from smaller things

like gestures and choices of words to the more visible such as gender, ethnicity and age (Esaiasson

et al., 2012:235). In this study, we have tried to minimize this through how the interviews have

been conducted. We have strategic chosen to not be all three in the group while interviewing a

single respondent as well as we have tried to ask questions without leading the respondents. By

letting the respondents being anonymous in the study hopefully bolder responses have been given

(Esaiasson et al., 2012:258). Some interviews have been performed in Swedish, while others have

been in English. Due to this, we are aware of language issues that might have appeared during the

interviews and transcribing.

It is always a difficult part representing someone else's thoughts and experiences, our own

experiences impact the result as well as the way we present the data. Using quotes in the paper can

strengthen the credibility (Baxter & Eyles, 1997:508), but also make the paper biased. To represent

this study as neutral as possible we have in the data collection, data analyzing and the writing up

phase kept this in mind and tried to be mindful of whose perspective that is highlighted in this

paper.

12

5. Result

We have chosen to compile all interviews, which means the result will be presented in a current

text and not interview by interview. We have also chosen to categorize the data we collected into

different sub-categories where the perceived challenges have been divided into three categories.

First, we will present the challenges which are what we call administrative challenges where for

example, laws, borders, knowledge and responsibilities will be brought up. Second, we will present

the challenges we call physical challenges where resources and marine predator challenges are

presented. The third and final category is named local challenges in which fishing industry’s

survival and sustainability will be brought up. It is important to remember that even though the

challenges are categorized here, they are all connected in one way or another.

5.1 Administrative challenges

“Looking at the marine environment we stand in front of a huge challenge. ...around 97-98% of

all the seagrass beds who existed in the end of the 1990: s have disappeared” - Philip, planner and

policymaker perspective, personal contact 3rd of May, 2017.

There is no doubt about that that there is a need of marine spatial planning. All our respondents

advocate marine spatial planning. Alexander, Björn, Eric and Adam have been working with MSP

for several years, but it isn’t until now it has become more established. Alexander, Björn and

Simon all think that there is a need of planning, but it has to be logical. “We are not all against it

but it has to have a purpose, it have to have a goal, it have to have meaning. Then you can close

an area.” - Alexander, fisherman perspective, personal contact 10th of May, 2017.

On a broader scale, the west coast shares its waters with Denmark, which has different rules and

different objectives for the use of the sea. Alexander affirm that it is difficult to be a Swedish

fisherman when you have to compete with other under different rules, “Denmark as an example

because that is an EU-country to. Under the same rules, the same fishing waters. …but they don’t

have the authorities that want to kill them. Because if we get a rule from the EU, the Danes will

look at it one way and then Sweden will look at it...double tougher. So, what they can do, we cannot

do under the same rules” - Alexander, fisherman perspective, personal contact 10th of May, 2017.

13

Thus, it is a challenge not only on a local or national level, but also on an international level, where

the need of cooperation and common management of the sea is crucial.

All respondents bring up the importance of a holistic perspective and there is an ongoing inter

municipality project within the coastal municipalities in the Gothenburg region which aims to

develop a regional marine comprehensive plan. Since it hasn’t been done before, there is a lot to

cover. Mary and Philip both mention the complexity of planning the ocean. “It’s more dimensions

in the ocean. We can plan on the surface, we can plan kind of in the ocean and then on the bottom,

so one can say it s kind of three kinds of planning in the ocean. One can say it’s 3-dimensional.”

- Mary, neutral perspective, personal contact 2nd of May, 2017.

Alexander and Björn feel that there is a gap of communication and understanding between the

users of the sea and the planners and policymakers. They reflect on the fact that there were many

meetings for several years without any contact with the industry working the sea or as they are

seeing it, reality, leading to the feeling of exclusion from the fisherman perspective.

According to Eric and Adam from the neutral perspective, they have no intention to involve the

individual, local fishermen but only representatives from their organizations to get a broader

perspective. Adam is also aware that these organizations have the motivation to be involved in the

marine spatial planning and wants to get into specific meetings with them. These meetings seem

to host a lot of debate due to a gap that has been growing for several years between the two parties

“It’s not planning, the work they are doing. They are just telling us how they think it should be,

instead of planning, and I think that’s a major difference.” -Björn fisherman perspective, personal

contact 10th of May, 2017.

According to Björn and Alexander, fishermen organizations do not involve the individual

fisherman nor keep them up to date on the current MSP process, arguing that the current MSP

directions frighten the fishermen and threaten their livelihoods directly. “In this stage, in this

process, we cannot inform our members because they would...break down” - Alexander, fisherman

perspective, personal contact 10th of May, 2017. Therefore, the organizations have taken the

responsibility to lead the fight of their interest through the planning process. On the other hand

14

Björn points out those local fishermen are sometimes involved in municipal projects and that the

planners/policymakers have good relations with them. Something that Mark agrees with to a

degree, talking about how he has been involved in projects both where the outcome has been, in

his opinion, very successful from a fisherman perspective: “It became a cooperation in some form

and it became, in my opinion, highly successful.” -Mark, fisherman perspective, personal contact

23rd of May, 2017. While in other projects he feels there has been big problems between fishermen

and planners: “There I felt there was zero response, they didn't even answer our studies, it was

very, it was beneath contempt.” -Mark, fisherman perspective, personal contact 23rd of May,

2017.

Sophie experience that the intentions are to involve local industries to achieve a bottom-up

perspective, but the different municipalities that are involved also work as gatekeepers and it

depends them and what they do in terms of bottom-up projects, which makes this process tricky.

In this first section, we can notice that the challenges brought up make MSP a difficult process in

different levels. Already here, we can notice how both social, ecological and economic

sustainability have impacts on the MSP process. Knowledge is interpreted and valued differently

by each stakeholder, as well as the borders plays important roles in what you can do, which is also

mentioned in section 3 Marine Spatial Planning in Sweden. Challenges such as laws and

responsibilities also go hand in hand with the next section, physical challenges, where marine

predators play a big role.

5.2 Physical challenges

“They have most likely a great impact of the reconstruction of our coastal fish stocks” - Simon,

fisherman perspective, personal contact 12th of May, 2017. Both Simon and Philip stress the

impact of a natural predation within the marine ecosystem predators, such as seals and cormorant,

have on the reconstruction of the coastal fish stocks, which according to Simon is strengthened by

more and more scientific reports. Simon points out how we humans have managed our fishing

stocks during the last centuries, they are more or less extinct along the whole Swedish coastline.

At the same time as we have been fishing there has been a management of seals and cormorants

which have been protected by law. This has led to that the stocks of seals and cormorant have

raised very fast, “if you look at the number of seals that exists today… it’s big numbers. They eat

15

as much fish as we pulled from the seas thirty-forty years ago. So of course, they have affected

also the recovery.” - Philip, planner & policymaker perspective, personal contact, 3rd of May,

2017.

You are allowed to shoot seal 200 meters from fixed gears, but as Simon says, “ask commercial

fishermen how many fixed gears there are along the coast” - Simon, fisherman perspective,

personal contact 12th of May, 2017. Simon also mentions how a healthy eco-system can manage

itself but this situation has skinned away due to huge anthropogenic activities and impacts. Both

Philip and Simon stress the positive effects of having strong fish stocks when it comes to both

economic and ecological sustainability. Philip is worried about the confidence for policymaker s

and planners, he points out that it's unsustainable coming up with fish quotas if we don’t talk about

the predators’ impacts and do something about that too.

Talking about management also puts the questions about responsibility and resources in centre,

which are raised by both Mary and Philip. For example, Philip tells about how leaking shipwrecks

have been in the water for such a long time that even the fish has been poisoned. He continues that

no one wants to take responsibility and that for that municipality there is no economic resources

to handle it themselves. While both Mary and Philip can notice a difference in resources of both

manpower and economy between the sizes of different municipalities. Tom, Mary and Philip all

mentions that the differences in laws, resources and responsibility are all parts that make marine

spatial planning complex.

In this section, we can notice that the marine predators such as seals and cormorants have an impact

for the fishing industry. It starts from ecological sustainability, and leads to questions about

economy and trustworthiness. We can still see how social, ecological and economic sustainability

have impacts on the MSP process. In this section, it is also clear that knowledge is interpreted and

valued differently by each stakeholder, where the fisherman perspective in general experiences

that their knowledge from the field isn’t valued as high as researchers’ knowledge. This brings us

to the next section, 5.3 Local challenges, where the impacts of an MSP process are brought down

to a local level and fishermen experiences are highlighted.

16

5.3 Local challenges

“When the fishing industry doesn’t exist anymore, then it will be peace on earth” Alexander,

fishermen perspective, personal contact 10th of May, 2017.

The stakeholder involvement is a very important part in the decision making of plans as Mary,

Philip, Eric and Adam all agree on. “It is important to include all the parts in the project and also

the various industries.” - Mary, neutral perspective, personal contact 2nd of May, 2017. Still

Alexander and Björn talk about how they have been forgotten in different processes during a long

time, which is confirmed by Mary and by Mark who says: “You feel that you have been very, so to

speak, misunderstood for many years so it feels very, very interesting with these questions and how

they are asked because you have experienced so many times that even if you point this out, nobody

has listened.” -Mark, fisherman perspective, personal contact 23rd of May, 2017. Their thoughts

are however to a degree contradicted by Simon who thinks that the fishermen perspectives have

been included in the process for a while.

Alexander and Björn are both worried about fishermen's’ future, not only because of MSP but also

the restrictions and economic situations it brings. Björn says that “We also have this totally stupid,

according to my opinion at least. Parliament decision in Sweden, that 10% of all areas should be

protected though it is not said what it should be protected from. Or why, it s just, it should be 10%

which is just a number from the air.”- Björn, fisherman representative, personal contact 10th of

May, 2017. Both Alexander and Björn also points to the lengthy period of uncertainty between the

first directives of MSP in Sweden and when they are supposed to be implemented as a problem

for the fishing industry. They feel that people are afraid to invest the money needed or begin a

career in fishing because no one really knows how the MSP will look and affect their livelihood

when it is finalized. They can also both notice there is a trend of a declining number of new

fishermen, which is worrying. Something that also Mark brings up, hoping that recruitment

campaigns together with higher profitability and easier rules and regulations will solve. He also

reflects upon the age structure of the fishermen, how they must recruit young people to the industry

for it to survive in the long run and how it can affect the coastal communities in Sweden in other

ways such as the tourism industry. “I think there has been some calculations that there was 7-8

other persons (employed) from one fisherman so there are not many of us but if you take what the

17

entire industry employ, then it becomes more than just the fishermen in this. If the fishery

disappears completely, it will not be “fun” along the coastlines, it will be “dead”, less tourism I

think because they not only want lots of spa:s they also want things around them.” -Mark,

fisherman perspective, personal contact 23rd of May, 2017.

Mark also speaks of the fishery as something more than just a job, something that he really cares

for and something socially important for him “There are many positive sides also. It has been

doubtful many times to continue but then I feel it is, for my part, much, much bigger than just “a

job”. An identity, a way of life. And it was very positive what happened this year with the quotas.

It has been a great relief, this new system. ...Now I feel that I am pretty far from quitting and I

think it is the same for many colleagues.” -Mark, fisherman perspective, personal contact 23rd of

May, 2017.

Simon in turn talks about how fishermen stand in front of a huge challenge, there is an ongoing

big regime change to achieve a more sustainable fishing industry, which in some parts already has

taken place. For example, Simon mentions the quotas, which nowadays is more of a hybrid system

of the Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQ). For him this is an important issue, and it means that

the state has distributed a resource to you, you own it. It has gone from being a public resource to

becoming yours, which is a permanent transfer of a public resource from the state to an individual

trader. With the ITQ the individual fisherman becomes more independent, while they at the same

time are controlled strictly by other restrictions, for example when it comes to use of gears and the

landing obligation. Simon is positive to the increasing use of selective fishing methods, “ it is less

efficient fishing with cages, but you get a nicer product and there is less environmental impact” -

Simon, fisherman perspective, personal contact 15th of May, 2017. At the same time, he argues

that the commercial fishermen don’t have so much of a long-term perspective “unfortunately there

is a very short-term view of professional fishing in terms of long-term care." - Simon, fisherman

perspective, personal contact 15th of May, 2017. As an example, Simon continues that they are

constantly lobbying for increased quotas, even though the fish stocks are so low and some even

extinct.

18

Mary and Philip takes an intermediary stance pointing to the importance of using the ocean more

efficient and to more differentiated activities than we do today, they also however note that we

have to do so with caution, “We need to use the sea, not consume it” -Philip, neutral

The last section shows how international structures can make its way down to a local level, and in

this case how MSP has an impact on the fishing industry. The section brings up how the local

challenges are perceived by the different respondents and how things are experienced differently

from each individual's perspective. This makes the social impacts of MSP clear, since there is a

fear of losing livelihoods, it also leads to economic questions which makes this whole experience

social and economic unsustainable. Being a fisherman is not only a job, but also an identity and a

lifestyle.

19

6. Discussion

To analyze the data, we have chosen to apply and highlight perspectives from relational geography

and previous research about stakeholder’s involvement. The discussion is divided into two parts;

the first part involves a discussion based on the results while the second part is a discussion which

draws back to sustainability, MSP and its consequences on a local level as well as future MSP

challenges. However, they are both still connected to each other and this paper’s result plays an

important role in both parts.

6.1 Perception of the current marine spatial planning As mentioned in the result all respondents think there is a need of MSP, even though arguments

and opinions for it differ. For example, from the fisherman perspective, they experience that they

are largely forgotten in the MSP process. This is also brought up by some respondents from the

planners/ policymakers’ perspective, who say they have forgotten inviting representatives from

the fishing industry to the MSP process. And the respondents from the fishermen perspective who

experience that their knowledge from the field is less valued than knowledge from scientists.

Others experience that knowledge and science from researchers is closer the truth. An example of

this is the discussions of quotas and the actual fish stocks, where the arguments differ a lot. In this

case it is clear how there are different realities for each individual, which makes a sustainable MSP

process complicated in that for a fisherman fishing is not only a job but a lifestyle and identity and

as such highly important for the social sustainability. From the other perspectives point of view, it

might be seen with a more “distanced” view, perhaps with more focus on the economic and

ecological sides of sustainability. creating a difference in opinions.

Looking at the relational geography which stresses the connection between processes at different

scales, power relations is something we think adds to the difficulties in understanding each other

in this MSP process. As we so far haven’t seen a common stakeholders’ involvement plan, the lack

of understanding that there actually is a problem with the MSP process, might be one of the reasons

why such a plan doesn’t exist.

However, since all respondents also bring up the importance of a holistic perspective, we argue

that a stakeholders’ involvement plan is highly relevant for implementing a sustainable marine

20

plan. What can be seen is also that within the different categories of perspectives there are different

opinions, since a marine spatial plan is a comprehensive plan over the sea including many different

interests there is a need of compromising, and this from all perspectives. Fishermen need to be

listened too, but they also have to understand the complexity of developing such a plan and that it

has to be quotas and different regulations. Planners, policymakers and authorities need to follow

the directives and legislations they have, but they also need to involve and understand perspectives

from interests out in field. Implementing a MSP process without involving local industries and

people in the field can be devastating for both the social and economic sustainability.

Some of our respondents have said they experience alienation, which oppose the directive that has

been produced regarding this (SwAM, 2015). Some of these respondents might invite themselves

to the table, while other might be reluctant to do so. This shows that the planners need to take the

responsibility to invite the most relevant representatives to gatherings. The current planning

objectives written by SwAM have many potential conflicts with the fishing industry. The impacts

of MSP conducted on a national level could be insignificant, while for a local community, such as

the northern archipelago of Gothenburg, the impacts could be huge. Some of the representatives

for the fisherman perspective fear that the fishing industry will perish which is devastating for the

identity of island life and fishermen as well as the economy. At the same time, there is a need for

planning, and fishing isn't the only interest using the sea. There are many interests that have to

make compromises, especially when new techniques and solutions like for example, hydroelectric,

windmills and tourism are increasing and are requirements by the government.

In general MSP is globally connected when it comes to different levels of hierarchy, but it also

more locally connects municipalities and regions when it comes to their administrative borders.

Taking consideration for one or few interests won’t work because so many various interests that

are affected. From our point of view this shows how international procedures and decisions can

have a significant impact on local societies.

However, and despite the problems, many of the respondents, from all three perspectives, have

argued that the MSP process and the involvement is getting better, which shows that it is going to

the right direction. As we have noticed, respondents within all categories agree on many parts, it

21

is more the ways of how to act that differs. We hope that even if there today doesn’t exist a

stakeholder plan the perceived positive steps taken recently will lead to continued involvement

and discussions with local interests and other key stakeholders.

6.2 Toward a sustainable marine spatial planning

Sweden paints a picture where planners need to involve every interest in the process, which also

is what previous research points out as a good concept (Pomeroy R. & Douvere F., 2008).

However, as you can read at heading 3, Marine Spatial Planning in Sweden, the MSP process

became substantially more important and gather much support after the EU Directives in 2011.

SwAM has been assigned in Sweden to coordinate the planning on a national level, which is a

clear example of a top-down management. MSP in Sweden is still in its initial stages and the

directives written by for example SwAM highlight the need to involve different actors in this

planning. This philosophy of involving the concerned parties’ interests is repeated in the official

documents. However, some of our interviews in the field shows a somewhat different reality.

Sometimes the intention of involving many different stakeholders is here, but the actual inviting

doesn’t happen. On the other hand, even if the general idea is to involve affected stakeholders to

the table, there is no precise directives on when and how to do it. As it is stated in the European

Commission directives “it is essential that stakeholders, authorities and the public are engaged at

an appropriate stage” (European Commission, n.d.) and followed by the SwAM directives: “The

marine spatial planning should be a transparent process and allow for the participation of those

concerned at the national, regional and municipal level.”(SwAM, 2015:33), they both express an

interest in involving stakeholders but they don’t define the when and how, which are questions left

open by the use of “appropriate stage” and “allow” in the different directives. Thus, the different

ways of participation and degrees of involvement are left to planners to decide. Something that

clearly shows how power-relations affect the different stakeholders and their relations within both

MSP and the sustainability of the plans.

On a broader scale, we can see that marine spatial planning and its methods are in need of

development. Some issues brought up by the participants can be similarly found in other cases, as

the ones exemplified in the theory by Gopnik et al. (2012). The involvement and the mean behind

it are the main common issues. Our study reveals a strong feeling from some stakeholders of being

22

misunderstood or not listened to. Many share the feeling of the need to be involved in earlier stages

of marine spatial planning. In order to improve the latter, all key stakeholder would need to be

given not only a voice, but also an ear. In this paper, we have also shown that the perceptions of

the reality of one don’t not necessarily match all sides: while one thinks the other has been listened

to, the other might not think so. This can, over time, complicate issues that could have been brought

up and that could have been solved in earlier stages. Possibly creating frustration from all three

perspectives brought up in this paper and further widening the gap between the sea users and the

ones with the power to decide over the design of the MSP. This relates to the concept of relational

geography in the sense that if you don´t involve the stakeholders with the bottom-up perspective,

a sustainable MSP socially, environmentally and economically will be hard to achieve. Improving

interactions, communication, openness and transparency throughout the entire process could be

the key of a social sustainable development. Looking at the figure 1, which depict a general

perception of the various stages of planning; we can see a linear progression, from vertical

interaction to horizontal interactions. This paper could suggest another approach with a parallel

progression, where both vertical and horizontal could be conducted at the same time. This would

lead to an involvement at the earliest stages of the process and give common grounds to all

stakeholders to directly focus on critical issues with regards to a sustainable development of the

marine space. This could also be a way to go hand in hand with the theory of relational geograp hy

where processes and relations are seen as connected and as a means for the power relations in the

process to even out.

23

7. Conclusion

Finally, we observed that decisions on an international or national level in this matter have a

significant impact on a local scale. The resulting challenges in this study have all been brought up

by the respondents themselves. We can clearly see that there are areas in the MSP process where

there is a lack of knowledge and understanding, which in turn leads to the exclusion or lack of

involvement of certain stakeholders. The challenges can be overcome by sharing knowledge,

understanding, improved stakeholder analysis and involvement. This is also something that to a

degree has started to happen according to respondents from all three different perspectives in this

study. All respondents experience that a holistic perspective is necessary for the work with MSP.

Thereby strengthening the argument for improved stakeholder involvement. The key to

sustainability in MSP is the participation of the many, thereby reaching the point where the

involvement is not an issue anymore, which could lead to sustainable development within all three

pillars.

Further studies within the field where different interests are highlighted and a bottom up

perspective is used is recommended. By using a bottom up perspective, the social and economic

sustainability will be gained, which in turn can make it easier to be able to achieve a marine spatial

plan which aims for sustainable sea use within all the three pillars.

24

References

Baxter, J. & Eyels, J. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing

rigour in interview analysis. Transaction of the institute of British Geographers (s. 505-525).

Royal Geographical Society: Ontario

Convention of Biological Diversity (n.d.)

Retrieved 2017-05-03, from https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml

Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic Thought. Somerset: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Retrieved 2017-05- 08 from

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/lib/gu/detail.action?docID=1120605

Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., Wängnerud, L. (2012). Metodpraktikan: Konsten att

studera samhälle, individ och marknad, fjärde upplagan. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.

European Commission. (2017). Maritime Affairs: Marine Spatial Planning. Retrieved 2017-05-

11, from https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/maritime_spatial_planning_en

European Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved 2017-05-10, from

http://msp-platform.eu/faq/stakeholder-involvement

Gopnik M., Fieseler C., Cantral L., McClellan K., Pendleton L., Crowder L., Coming to the

table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning, Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue

5, September 2012, Pages 1139-1149, ISSN 0308-597X.

Göteborgsregionens kommunförbund (n.d.). Retrieved 2017-04-05, from

http://www.grkom.se/kustzonen

Murdoch, J. (2006) Post-structuralist geography: a guide to relational space. London, Thousand

Oaks & New Delhi: Sage Publications

Nyström och Tonell. 2012.. Planeringens grunder - en översikt. Studentlitteratur AB Lund.

ISBN 978-91-44-06622-6

Olofsson, S. (2010). FRÅN DÅTID TILL NUTID - glimtar ur Öckerööarnas historia. Öckerö:

Kultur- och Fritidsförvaltningen, Öckerö kommun

https://www.ockero.se/download/18.3019e2b013b337fdadf18fe/1402409961369/fran_datid_till_

nutid.pdf

Pacione, M. (2009). Third edition urban geography - a global perspective. New York: Routledge

ISBN 978-04-15-46202-0

Pomeroy R., Douvere F., The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process,

Marine Policy, Volume 32, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 816-822, ISSN 0308-597X

25

McDowell, L. (2010). Interviewing:Fear and liking in the field. I DeLyser, D., Herbert, S.,

Aitken, S., Crang, M. A. & McDowell, L (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography

(s. 156-171). London: SAGE.

Sumaila, U. R., Cheung, W. W., Lam, V. W., Pauly, D., & Herrick, S. (2011). Climate change

impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nature climate change, 1(9), 449-

456. Retrieved 2017-04-09, from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7e18/a62a01cec7acb5fa64ccd5c2b738b18c4d8d.pdf

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (2016). Retreived 2017-05-08, from

https://www.havochvatten.se/hav/samordning--fakta/havsplanering/om-havsplanering/vad-ar-

havsplanering.html

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwMA). Proposal for the Direction of the

Marine Spatial Planning and the Scope of the Environmental Assessment, (2015). Ref. no. 3779-

14

UNESCO, M. Bouamrane (Ed.), Biodiversity and stakeholders: concertation itineraries.

Biosphere reserves, technical notes 1, 2006, Paris.

United Nations (n.d.). Retrieved 2017-05-08, from

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer, inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig

forskning. Vetenskapsrådet. Tillgänglig:

http://www.gu.se/digitalAssets/1268/1268494_forskningsetiska_principer_2002.pdf

ISBN: 91-7307-008-4

Öckerö kommun (n.d.). Retrived 2017-04-08, from

https://www.ockero.se/kommunochpolitik/kommunfaktastatistikekonomi.4.16b07e2414916c9d4

099eb0.html

26

Appendix

Appendix 1

Interview guide for fisherman perspective

Can you please describe your experiences of working as a fisherman on the west coast today?

What have your experiences been in the past compared to now? Any changes?

Do you feel that you as a fisherman is involved in processes in decision making and policies

concerning your work? Such as rules and regulations?

Why/why not? (think about power relations and which parts works better than others etc)

Do you feel that your interest is well represented by the local fisherman organisations?

When you talk with or are contacted by the authorities, do you feel that they understand you work

and your needs?

Why/why not?

What, in your opinion, is the biggest challenge for fishermen at the west coast today?

(climate change, regulations, conflicts, exclusion in decision making processes etc)

Why/why not?

Have you ever considered stop working as a fisherman?

Why/why not?

Have you ever been afraid of being forced to stop living as a fisherman?

(economic or other reasons)

Why/why not?

How do you see the future as a fisherman along the west coast? And how do you see the future of

the sea, e.g. the marine environment? Positive/negative?

Why/why not? (for example, the new EU-directive, more planning etc)

What is your opinion about aquaculture? Would you consider working with aquaculture in the

future? Why/ why not?

Have you heard about Marine spatial planning?

What is your opinion about Marine spatial planning? Positive/negative? Why/ why not?

Do you want a copy of our work when it is finished in June?

Can we contact you after this interview if we have new questions?

27

Appendix 2

Interview guide for planners, policymakers & neutral perspective

Have you heard about, or do you work with marine spatial planning in your work?

How long have you been informed about and worked with marine spatial planning?

How are you currently working with marine spatial planning?

(In your municipality etc/ what have you done so far etc.)

Which MSP related projects, if any, have you been involved in so far and what were they about?

What were the results?

(Ask for results in writing if possible)

What is your opinion about marine spatial planning as a planning tool?

Why/why not?

Can marine spatial planning be a solution to reach sustainably managed seas? And to reach also

the Sustainable Development Goal 14?

How/why not?

From your perspective, are there any positive aspects of about marine spatial planning? If so,

what are they? Please describe.

From your perspective, are there any negative aspects of marine spatial planning? If so what are

they? Please describe.

How can marine spatial planning be used/applied to include different stakeholder

interests/livelihoods/industries on a local level?

According to your opinion, are the that the interests of local communities well represented or/and

well considered in current or coming MSP-processes?

Why/ why not?

What is your opinion about local fishermen affected by MSP-planning? Are they sufficiently

involved in these processes, particularly regarding fishing as an industry/livelihood?

Why/why not?

When you have meetings/consultations (if any) with the fishing industry, what do you talk about? Do you agree/disagree often? About what? Are there matters where you agree in

particular, that is, finding common ground in terms of their activities and in planning in these

questions?

Why/ why not?

Do you think that these meetings are useful/fruitful for you and the local fishermen?

28

Why/Why not? If not, do you think it’s because a gap of knowledge about MSP between ocean

planners and ocean users (for example fishermen)?

What would you consider as the biggest challenge for the commercial fishing as a business and

planning topic today?

Why/why not?

Are there any current or future projects that you are involved in that will use marine spatial

planning? If so, which are those? Please describe.

Why/why not?

What is your opinion about the future of the sea and fishing as an industry? Is it, positive/negative?

Why/why not? (for example, the new EU-directive, more planning etc)

Do you want a copy of our work when it is finished in June?

Can we contact you after this interview if we have new questions?