Part-financed by the European Union(European Regional Development Fund)

Towards an MSP governance

framework in the Baltic Draft report

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 pan-Baltic 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 MSP-specific

Who should be included in a pan-Baltic dialogue?

Þ Level of organisation of sectors still insufficient

Þ Despite a wide range of transnational organisations, only few explicitly deal with MSP

Þ Low level of knowledge of MSP within sectors

Þ 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 ,needs-based – avoid „pointless“ meetings.

Dialogue should be organised by competent hands.

• Expert groups• Conferences• Meetings • „living portal“

Format for a transnational MSP dialogue

Commissioned reports

Joint positions

Research papers

Joint regional projects

Workshops

Annual MSP conference for different stakeholders

Other conferences

Dedicated sub-groups working on specific topics

Series of expert papers / reports

Regular newsletter

Information portal

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

5

4

3

2

1

Don't know;_x000d_n/a

Structure

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

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 pan-Baltic 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 pan-Baltic 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 pan-Baltic level

BSR(HELCOM-VASAB) MSP WORKING GROUP

WHO? OFFICIAL MS BODIES FOR MSP IN ALL BSR COUNTRIES

(DECISION-MAKING) + OBSERVERS / EXPERTS / NGOsFUNCTION: DECISION-MAKING FOR MEMBER STATES CONSENSUS VOTING AFTER EACH MEETING ON OUTCOMES DECISION OF 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

FEEDS INTO POLITICAL PROCESS

The MSP governance framework at the pan-Baltic 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 pan-Baltic level

EACH EXPERT GROUP: ELECTS ITS CHAIR DEFINES WORKPLAN / INDIVIDUAL TASKS DISCUSSES – CONSENSUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS / PAPERS SUGGESTS WORKSHOPS / PROJECTS 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?