2.1 Integration Challenges and Sustainable Development in Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)

To achieve an analysis that moves beyond the binary soft-hard distinction of how EA and SD are conceived and practiced in MSP, we argue that it could be fruitful to base the analysis on how MSP integration challenges are addressed. It is highly likely that actors in MSP will adopt a wide variety of positions in relation to what sustainability means and how it should be implemented. How these various identities, values and interests are handled in MSP ultimately hinges on the workings of power related to how different aspects of integration are handled in specific processes, including among others, stakeholder engagement, transparency of decision-making, inclusion of different types of knowledge (attached to stakeholder engagement and influence), adoption of a cross-sectoral approach and coordination across different scales. We argue here that various aspects of integration provide analytical leverage points to interrogate key aspects of MSP planning practice, which can provide a nuanced socio-political understanding of EA and SD in different empirical settings as a complement to the soft-hard analytical distinction.

Within the MSP literature more effective Integration has been recognised as a means of addressing 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.¹¹ Integration as a policy and analytical problem has also been discussed elsewhere – most saliently in the fields of sustainable development,¹² ICZM,¹³ environmental policy integration,¹⁴ planning theory,¹⁵ and socio-ecological systems,¹⁶ among others.

While there are transnational directives and guidelines, MSP as a site of governance is primarily a national issue, as institutional MSP arrangements are legislated and enacted in national settings that reflect different processes, institutional setups and historic contexts that affect integration possibilities. The transnational dimension of MSP adds a further layer of complication. The need to integrate MSP over borders within transnational marine environments appears exceedingly clear, especially given the recent surge in plans to develop new types of maritime industries, such as the European Union’s ambitious Blue Growth Strategy.¹⁷ This will be a challenging task in a complex transboundary context like the Baltic Sea, with its differing politico-administrative traditions, languages, marine conditions, economic interests and levels of institutionalised MSP engagement.¹⁸

This imperative for transnational MSP integration is evident from both environmental and economic (arguably a sub-set of the social) perspectives. The three pillars of sustainable development are deeply interwoven, hence the incessant call for joined up approaches in MSP and other forms of environmental governance. Marine ecosystem values and processes as well as human development activities transcend national boundaries, so connectivity (which implies a form of integration) for conservation, shipping and fishing, among others needs to be considered at a localised as well as regional sea basin levels.¹⁹ Furthermore, inadequate integration in MSP has been implicated in conflicts over resources and other marine values and uses both within domestic and transnational marine space.²⁰

Variably handling knowledge input from a range of natural and social science disciplines and stakeholders is likely to result in different constructions of what constitutes ‘balance’ in different marine governance settings such as MSP.²¹ This is likely to be a difficult process, particularly if opposing knowledge types and related claims are linked to deep conflicts over marine resource rights. Also implicated in the knowledge integration challenge is how to ensure the transmission and sharing of knowledge among organisations involved in MSP. This may be a problem in private sector proprietary knowledge situations, where there may be commercial incentives for private sector stakeholders to closely guard knowledge/information.

Stakeholder integration relates to an overarching challenge of how to formulate and define marine environmental and use problems in such a way that all stakeholders can meaningfully contribute to formulating and resolving MSP problems. This relates to the inclusion and active involvement of stakeholders in MSP processes, their role(s), and the degree of their influence on outcomes in concrete terms (so that there are incentives for them to participate).²² Still, it has been acknowledged that there is a lack of understanding about how different strategies for stakeholder integration may work in different MSP settings.²³ Additionally, a key challenge is how to develop processes to support participation among a range of stakeholders and put measures in place to manage conflicting interests in a timely manner to inform high quality policy/planning outcomes.

A key role of MSP is to provide a basis for marine use that takes account of current uses, while being future oriented. This ambition, to balance between consideration of current imperatives and desirable future states, is similar to the intergenerational aims and orientation of sustainable development. This aspect of integration (consolidating the now and the future) is thus critical to the role of MSP. Aside from preventing future conflicts, MSP sets a pathway to the future that will be central to the configuring of the relationship between environment and development concerns in marine contexts. Furthermore, in MSP adaptation (or adaptive capacity/management) is a key concept seen as a way of enabling the refinement of spatial management arrangements as knowledge accumulates over time within particular contexts. In the scholarly literature adaptation is heavily associated with a resilience/socio-ecological system (SES) approach. Ostrom’s 2008 paper is a key contributor to the SES approach, where she argues that in complex transboundary governance contexts, such as MSP in the Baltic Sea, the key challenge is how to vertically link institutions at various levels whilst enabling enough flexibility to support adaptive management approaches (suited to local conditions) that are not overly constrained by hierarchical order.²⁴ In this sense, the primary goal for policymakers and managers in MSP would be not to manage change, but to manage the capacity of social-ecological systems to cope with and respond to change, given highly uncertain future conditions.

As summarised in Table 6.1, we thus identify a set of seven integration challenges that correspond to how MSP objectives and processes are differently conceived and implemented. The identified integration challenges also link to specific sustainable development discourses and EA Malawi Principles (discussed further below and referred to in Table 6.1).

View Full Size

Summary of the analytical framework showing links between integration, sustainable development (SD) and ecosystem approach (EA). The indicated Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) implementation emphasis should be seen as representing a continuum between two notional endpoints. MSP practices in specific contexts can, hence, be situated anywhere between these endpoints.

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

2.2 Ecosystem Approach and Integration in MSP

The Ecosystem(-based) Approach (EA) is commonly espoused as the key set of guiding principles for MSP to achieve sustainable use of marine ecosystems.²⁵ This is reflected for instance in the EU’s development of its 2014 MSP Directive. However, what this specifically means in theory and practice is not straightforward since EA, like SD, is a complex and variously conceived concept in terms of its guiding principles and how it can (or should) be implemented in marine governance processes such as MSP.²⁶

On a general level, there is a rather consensual understanding of EA as a place-based approach to manage human activities and their cumulative risks for ecosystem services in a way that promotes sustainable use and good environmental status.²⁷ However, this consensus quickly falls apart when it comes to what EA principles should be prioritised, especially if there is deemed to be contradictions or tensions in practice between them relating, for example, to consideration and balancing of environmental, economic and social objectives.²⁸

In response to this complexity and vagueness of the EA concept there have been a number of efforts to define and operationalise EA. A key document here, that is often referred to as the main foundational source, is the EA guideline of the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) which builds on the 12 so-called Malawi principles endorsed by the Parties to the Convention (Table 6.2).²⁹ Similarly, EA guidelines have been developed for MSP in general, as well as for MSP implementation in specific regional seas such as the Baltic Sea.³⁰ There have also been attempts to distil out key EA principles by reviewing published scholarly texts.³¹ Still, despite these efforts, the emerging literature analysing EA in MSP processes around the world reveals a large heterogeneity in how EA is conceptually understood and operationalised in specific MSP processes at national and sub-national levels.³²

View Full Size

The Malawi principles for the ecosystem approach in the UN Convention on biodiversity^a

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In our analysis of this literature we observe that the described contentions and variability in how EA is conceptually understood and practiced can be refracted through the lens of MSP integration challenges to provide insights into key aspects of social sustainability (as summarised in Table 6.1). For example, as for MSP in general, a key contention relates to EA’s role in ‘balancing’ environmental protection and maritime development which thus clearly links to the hard vs soft sustainability debate. However, looking beyond the dominating focus on environmental protection and/or economic development in MSP, we observe that several aspects commonly linked to notions of social sustainability are reflected in the Malawi principles (Table 6.2). In an overarching sense the most important link to social sustainability is that following the Malawi principles is expected to result in equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of resources. In pursuit of this, most importantly our analysis reveals that the set of Malawi principles relates directly to processual concerns that are likely to have a bearing on distributive outcomes, such as stakeholder and knowledge integration and associated challenges to facilitate participation, deliberation, wide knowledge exchange and learning in MSP processes (Table 6.1).

Hence, to summarise, we undertook a review of the academic literature on MSP and its links to SD and EA. Using this material, we developed a set of seven integration challenges and elaborated how they can be conceptually understood and operationalised in MSP processes (Table 6.1). The analytical framework clearly shows that EA, as defined in the Malawi principles, can be conceptually understood as a multidimensional concept that covers all identified integration challenges as well as all dimensions of SD (i.e. environmental, economic and social). The analytical framework can therefore provide a basis and structure for a multidimensional analysis of how EA is understood and implemented in MSP. In this respect, our analytical focus on integration could reveal important aspects of social sustainability that up until now have largely been ignored.

In the next section, we explore the utility of the framework and generate some empirical insights on how EA is variously conceived and practiced in Baltic Sea MSP processes. This is done in three distinct case studies illustrating different MSP contexts in the Baltic Sea region: i) the development of regional EA guidelines at the pan-Baltic level by the HELCOM-VASAB MSP Working Group; ii) MSP processes in Lithuania and Latvia; iii) engaging fisheries in Polish MSP. The case studies were performed during 2015–2016 as part of the BONUS BALTSPACE project and were based on an extensive set of primary data, consisting of written documentation (regulations, strategy documents, work plans, roadmaps, minutes from meetings and other relevant sources) and interviews with experts in the fields, stakeholders, policy-makers and public administrators, sector and NGO representatives and users in the different sectors.³³ Moreover, data from stakeholder forums arranged by BONUS BALTSPACE, including direct observations from these meetings, have fed into how the case studies have been formulated and interpreted. The methodology and material are more extensively described elsewhere.³⁴ The focus of the case study analysis presented here is on observations relating to stakeholder and knowledge integration – both important aspects of social sustainability.

3.1 Developing EA Principles and Guidelines at the Pan-Baltic Level

The most important institutions at the pan-Baltic level in relation to marine spatial planning are the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), Visions and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea (VASAB) and the HELCOM-VASAB MSP Working Group (HV WG), where HELCOM targets mainly environmental protection, VASAB planning, and the HV WG has been established to bridge the border between the two in relation to MSP in the Baltic Sea region.³⁵

MSP was identified as a key policy instrument in HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan from 2007, as well as a key topic for regional coordination at the 7th VASAB ministerial conference in Vilnius, 2009. In response to this common aim to promote MSP, the joint HELCOM-VASAB MSP Working Group (HV WG) was set up in 2009 with the objective of bringing the efforts for improved regional coordination in the two organisations closer together. In late 2010, the document Baltic Sea Broad-Scale Maritime Spatial Planning Principles was confirmed by both HELCOM and VASAB. It delineates 10 principles that are supposed to improve coordination of national MSP strategies. Notably, sustainable balancing of environmental, economic and social interests in spatial contexts provides an overarching objective, while EA is put forward as a key policy tool to reach this goal, explicitly connecting MSP with the good environmental status objectives of the EU Marine Strategy Directive.

The HV WG is made up of representatives from national ministries and agencies, invited experts, representatives from the EU administration and the VASAB and HELCOM secretariats. It was clearly established from the on-set that HV WG had no mandate to make binding decisions, but was rather intended as a transnational and trans-sector forum on MSP, with the primary aim to share experiences and increase mutual understandings. However, in addition to providing input into the discussions, it was also stated that the delegates were supposed to bring home experiences from HV WG deliberations to support implementation at national and sub-national levels.

Not long after the HV WG was set up, it became clear among the participants that it was imperative to establish a regional understanding of and norms on implementing EA in MSP. Almost all relevant EU Directives, treaties, action plans and strategies emphasise the importance of further elaborating the EA to a point where it can be forwarded in practice, which created considerable institution-based pressure on the Baltic Sea states to speed up domestic implementation, and on HV WG to provide support from a regional perspective.

After a process spanning several years and numerous meetings of the HV WG, the EA guideline that emerged was adopted by HELCOM and VASAB in 2016.³⁶ This document outlines how EA can be used as a foundation for MSP in the Baltic Sea region. However, its development proved to be a substantial challenge. Interviewed HV WG contributors to the guidelines, for example, reflected on the difficulties that they experienced during the formulation process in terms of ‘the biggest challenge for the whole group’ and ‘perhaps one of the most difficult things the group has been dealing with so far’. In relation to the MSP integration challenges identified in Table 6.1, we observe that, although several challenges such as vertical, cross-border, knowledge and so on, were discernible in the development process, the overarching difficulties mostly related to balance.

Hence, substantial effort was invested in reconciling different perceptions on how balancing between environmental protection and maritime development should be conceived, articulated and ultimately transmitted as regional guidelines. Clearly, at the onset of the process it was apparent that there were clear tensions and lack of trust between HV WG participants forwarding either ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ sustainability ambitions for MSP. Although, these fundamentally different perspectives still may lead to ‘some difficulties behind the scenes’ as explained by one respondent linked to HV WG, we observe that collectively at the HV WG level these differences softened over time. One aspect thought to be a key factor in building a more consensual view among by HV WG membership was HELCOM’s shift in its conception of how to realise EA. According to our respondents, HELCOM changed its stance from a rather strict conservation approach to focussing more on the functioning of the ecosystem. This shift, which more directly linked environmental values with socio-economic concerns, gained wide support among the HV WG and at the end the final guideline text was seen as a satisfactory compromise by those involved. Still, behind the scenes, there were different opinions on whether or not the final document provided a sufficient level of detailed practical guidance. A member of the HV WG that we talked to held the view that the consensus style decision-making of the HV WG ultimately led to compromises and inconsistencies. We see that this would have affected the substantive content of the EA guidelines and therefore likely reduced its value as a provider of strong regional directional guidance on EA in MSP. There were also expressions of disappointment on the HELCOM side about the guideline being ‘really basic’ and ‘not very detailed and practical’. On the other hand, the perspective of VASAB and planners working with MSP was that this lack of prescriptiveness and therefore flexibility in interpretation was an advantage, since it would allow for more context-specific adjustments in, for example, different national MSP processes.

It is also interesting to note that although the organisation of the working group allows for participation of stakeholders as observers, such involvement ultimately depends largely on the interested party’s own incentive and initiative. On top of this, we observe that scepticism towards a broad stakeholder involvement prevailed in the group. Hence, although there was a common conception that stakeholder involvement might facilitate later implementation of the guidelines in national MSP, several obstacles and problems were also mentioned, in particular in terms of problems and delays linked to requirements of the group to make consensus decisions. As one respondent associated with HV WG put it ‘If we involve more [stakeholders], we have more comments and more confusion’.

In summary, these observations on the process leading up to the adoption of the HELCOM-VASAB EA guideline provide insights on the main aspects of contention (i.e. linked to balance). There are also indications that a consensus-driven process such as this (i.e. the HV WG only makes decisions on the basis of consensus) might paper-over differences, which may screen conflict and power imbalances among stakeholders (remembering that the few participating NGOs are observers without full membership). This can have the effect of allowing a relatively efficient passage of the EA guidelines through the regional processes, while at the same time displacing conflicts in time and space to the ongoing national MSP processes. Perhaps a process that is more inclusive, less eager on consensus and prepared to deal with more conflict situations might offer more substantive guidance, particularly in relation to the importance of processual aspects of social sustainability.

A more detailed analysis of the final guideline text, also reveals some additional insights on how EA is conceived in Baltic Sea MSP and how this links to MSP integration challenges. Looking, first, at the stated definitions and key elements of EA, the document starts off by explicitly referring to the 12 Malawi principles, as well as the EA definitions of the CBD (COP 5/Decision V/6, 2000) and HELCOM/OSPAR.³⁷ Thus, in line with the CBD, EA is seen as ‘a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.’ Furthermore, in section 5 of the guidelines, a range of key elements of MSP relating to the Malawi principles, for example, best available knowledge (Malawi principle #11), adaptation (# 8 and 9) and subsidiarity (#2), are mentioned. The document also expresses a need to apply the Malawi principles in planning in an integrated way by taking into account environmental, social, cultural, economic, legal and technical perspectives. Still, the actual implementation guidance text of the document focusses mainly on environmental objectives, values, impacts, stakeholders and established procedures such as SEA, which for instance only has provision for stakeholder consultation. Thus, there is rather limited specific guidance on what parts of society should be included in stakeholder engagement, the terms of their inclusion (consultative vs. deliberative) or how to assess and to deal with epistemic or interest-based conflicts that would inevitably be encountered in MSP implementation. The document is also silent on how it will contribute to delivering greater accountability, equity or societal welfare, aside from the implicit assumption that adhering to it would deliver greater sustainability. This greater sustainability is referred to throughout the guidelines as ‘sustainable use’ thereby further indicating an emphasis on the ecological and economic aspects of sustainability.

Linked to knowledge integration we observe that, despite the acknowledgement of the Malawi principle #11 on the need to base EA on all forms of relevant information, the implementation guidance text primarily focusses on scientific knowledge and neither local nor practice-based knowledge is explicitly mentioned. Furthermore, even though assessment of ecosystem services is mentioned as a new and useful approach, explicit specifications of knowledge requirements through the planning cycle relate mainly to the assessment of environmental status, values and impacts. Apart from generating information on planned or proposed uses and activities (and any impacts on ecosystem services), the implementation does not include any specific mention of the need to include socio-cultural knowledge, how to assess socio-cultural concerns and impacts or related distributional problems.

Relating to stakeholder integration, the document (section 5) states that ‘All relevant authorities and stakeholders as well as a wider public shall be involved in the planning process at an early stage’ (p. 6). In the implementation guidance, the question of what constitutes a relevant authority is only vaguely defined as ‘authorities responsible for nature protection and ecosystems, and relevant authorities, NGOs and other stakeholders’ (p. 13) or similar. Hence, reinforcing the impression of a primary concern in the operationalisation of stakeholder integration relating to environmental interests. When mentioned, other stakeholders and the wider public are not defined in any detail and challenges of representation or the terms of inclusion are not addressed. In guidance text explicitly giving direction on EA implementation, the role of the wider public is only mentioned once and rather meekly in relation to the need to formally consult the public (to provide information).

3.2 Integration, EA and SD in Lithuanian and Latvian MSP

Despite the seemingly large similarities between Lithuania and Latvia as two rather small, neighbouring Baltic Sea countries with a shared recent history of being occupied by the Soviet Union, they have adopted quite different national MSP strategies, as well as interpretations of Ecosystem Approach (EA) and Sustainable Development (SD) (as summarised in Table 6.3).

View Full Size

Basic information on the timing and setup of the Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) processes in Lithuania and Latvia. Observations linked to MSP integration challenges (cf. Table 6.2) are also summarised and explained further in the text

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In Lithuania, the Ministry of Environment (Division of Spatial Planning) was given the main responsibility for developing a national framework for MSP. The practical work was, however, performed by a consortium led by the Coastal Research and Planning Institute at Klaipeda University. On top of this, to allow some sector integration, an inter-ministerial group headed by the Ministry of Environment was formed in line with existing spatial planning procedures. Vertically, the MSP process was rather top-down with participation of local municipalities only occurring on an ad hoc basis.³⁸ In 2015, the parliament accepted the extension of the existing Comprehensive Terrestrial Plan to include marine areas. As in the terrestrial planning, functional zoning was adopted as the main planning instrument and seven types of functional zones with dedicated primary and secondary priorities were specified.

In Latvia, the MSP strategy rolled out in a rather different way. Since MSP had been established as a policy concept in the legislation (the Spatial Development Planning Law; 2011), it could directly be used for targeted MSP purposes. In contrast to Lithuania, a broad MSP coordination group was formed in 2014 to include not only central political and administrative authorities, but also representatives from regional and local levels as well as sector stakeholders. The more active engagement of local municipalities in the centralised Latvian MSP process could partly be explained by the fact that local municipalities have been given the right to plan and manage the 2 km zone seawards from the coastline. Like in Lithuania, a consortium was entrusted with the actual drafting of the MSP framework, but rather than a natural science dominated research institute as in Lithuania, an environmental NGO (BEF; Baltic Environmental Forum Latvia) led the Latvian consortium. Currently, the Latvian MSP is in the process of the final round of clarifications and amendments following inputs from public and cross-sectoral consultations. The plan is anticipated to be approved by the Latvian Government by the end of 2018.

The Ecosystem Approach is defined in the Lithuanian Baltic Sea Environmental Protection Strategy (2010).³⁹ The strategy sets a goal to apply an ecosystem-based approach to management of the Baltic Sea for environmental protection. The concept is defined as ‘a comprehensive and integrated method to management of human activities, based on the latest available knowledge on ecosystems and their change, aiming to identify adverse impacts on the marine ecosystem and perform efficient measures for reduction of such impacts preserving integrity and sustainability of the ecosystems’.⁴⁰ Despite the explicitly set goal to integrate an ecosystem-based approach to manage the Baltic Sea for environmental protection, the Ecosystem Approach is only indirectly mentioned in the Lithuanian MSP document in reference to the HELCOM-VASAB broad-scale MSP principles (2010). The document states that during a development phase of Lithuanian MSP, the principles set in the above-mentioned regional guidelines were considered (the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania 2015). In addition, a following reference is given: ‘the planning process shall take into account environmental, economic and social interests in a wider Baltic Sea regional framework and shall be in line within the limits of the Baltic Sea ecosystem services’.⁴¹ Despite an implicit mentioning of ecosystem services in a wider Baltic Sea regional context, it is not entirely clear to what extent, if any at all, the principles of an ecosystem approach were integrated in the actual MSP planning activities in Lithuania.

In contrast, EA is explicitly defined in the Latvian Marine Environmental Protection and Management Law (2010 and came into force from 1 Jan 2011) as: ‘comprehensive, scientifically substantiated and integrated approach to management of human activity to identify adverse impacts on the marine ecosystem and perform efficient measures for reduction of such impacts preserving integrity and sustainability of the ecosystem’.⁴² This definition has been used and applied both in the Latvian MSP process and when developing the MSP Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) methodology.⁴³

Concerning the MSP integration challenge of ‘Balance’, the Lithuanian MSP process sets as a goal ‘to maintain balance between economic development and good ecological status’.⁴⁴ In addition, sustainable development is emphasised as one of the key MSP planning principles to ensure ‘a balance between regional economic development, social well-being and healthy or (and) resilient ecosystem of the Baltic Sea’.⁴⁵ The wording in these ambitions implies that the marine environment is a sectoral interest to be considered alongside other maritime sectors. In other words, the Lithuanian MSP appears to be adopting a ‘soft’ sustainability approach that looks to ‘balance’ the needs of different marine sectors without any ‘hard’ preferential treatment of environmental concerns. Comments made by several interviewed respondents in the case study also quite directly inferred a ‘soft’ sustainability approach in Lithuania.

On the contrary, a number of actors involved in the Latvian MSP emphasised that environmental protection is a top priority on the national MSP agenda. In line with this, MSP was elaborated by explicitly developing and applying an ecosystem-based methodology, which involved mapping provisioning, regulating and cultural services to assess the impacts of various sea use scenarios and proposed permitted uses of Latvian marine areas. In developing this EA, the descriptors for Good Environmental Status from the EU MSFD were explicitly drawn on in order to ‘assess the significance of human pressure’. This indicates an approach where perceived ecological limits informed MSP, presumably with the aim to make sure that ecosystem services and values are not subjected to threshold level pressures from proposed use of marine areas and resources. This ‘hard’ sustainability approach also underpins the argument presented by a respondent from the regional governmental authority, Kurzeme planning region, that ‘Latvia has a strong tradition on nature protection. Meanwhile, the concept of Blue Growth is relatively new and people are not aware of it’.

The process of stakeholder involvement in Lithuania was twofold. On the one hand, the planning process followed official procedures of stakeholder involvement (e.g. public announcement of the beginning of the planning process, official meetings with the inter-ministerial group (comprised of vice ministers of the respective key ministries) and MSP working group (comprised of the developers of the plan and the respective people from the Ministry of Environment). Broader stakeholder involvement was not seen as necessary. Instead, the public hearing processes of the prepared strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was considered to be a very good opportunity for other actors (NGOs, local authorities) to get involved in the process. In addition, Lithuanian planners organised one transboundary consultation with Latvia as part of the Lithuania MSP SEA. Some face-to-face meetings, roundtables and other workshops were also organised in a strategic way through direct contact with targeted sectors (Port of Klaipeda, Navy, Maritime Safety Administration) in order to find solutions to certain problems/potential conflict situations identified by the planners. The majority of face-to-face meetings and workshops on national and international level were, however, performed as part of the EU-funded project PartiSeaPate.⁴⁶ While these project-based activities, according to a MSP planner, were not part of the so-called official MSP process, the organised sectoral and transboundary discussions were seen to facilitate the MSP planning process in general.

In Latvia, a Public Participation Strategy was prepared in order to ensure that all relevant actors are brought in at an early stage of the planning process.⁴⁷ During the first phase of the MSP process in Latvia, three open regional meetings were organised in different coastal areas in March 2015. During these meetings, the discussion centred on the MSP process, the current situation, preliminary results from the stocktaking and Baltic Sea targets related to environmental processes and values. During the second stage of the planning process alternative MSP scenarios were developed which were presented in a second round of regional workshops, which were open to all stakeholders and public. The planners also organised several individual sectoral consultations in the spring and autumn of 2015 to identify and clarify sectoral need and to get input on a draft MSP. Key sectors such as shipping, energy, tourism and recreation, fisheries, underwater cultural heritage, nature conservation and others sectors relevant for sea uses were consulted. Some of the sectoral meetings were multisector rather than just between the MSP planners and the target sector. For example, during the meetings with the port authorities and the offshore wind energy (OWE) sector representatives from the environmental sector were also invited to introduce the concept of ‘good environmental status’. The environmental sector did not meet any major objections from other sectors during these meetings.

Hence, looking at knowledge integration in the Latvian MSP process, broad non-expert and expert involvement and input was sought in using the EA to systematically support decisions by working through relationships between existing marine values and processes spatially linked to actual and proposed uses. While participation of broader publics was framed in less ambitious terms than stakeholder participation (i.e. as receivers of information and opportunities for consultation), the Latvian MSP process seems to have provided opportunities from an early stage and onward for significant ‘place-based knowledge’ input by coastal municipalities and government, as well as non-government sectoral interests. This contrasted with the Lithuanian approach to the development of its national MSP, where there was very little scope given for wider engagement and knowledge integration, and when it did occur it was primarily as information/consultation at the final stage of plan development.

The outcomes of the respective MSP processes in Lithuania and Latvia are far from clear since Lithuania is still preparing the implementation program of the adopted MSP and Latvia is still in the process of the adoption of its MSP. However, the way that the MSP priorities were set and organised suggests that there are clear differences to interpreting EA and SD in terms of balance, stakeholder inclusion and knowledge integration.

3.3 Knowledge and Stakeholder Integration in Polish MSP: The Case of Fisheries

As described above, at a Baltic-wide level much emphasis has been put on the role of natural science as the dominant evidence-base underpinning MSP while much less effort has been invested in how to integrate different forms of knowledge into MSP. Incorporating different forms of socio-cultural knowledge within an EA framework more broadly has posed particular problems for MSP, both in the Baltic and elsewhere. Here, we explore this issue in the Polish case, with a particular focus on fisheries.

The legal basis for MSP in Poland has been in place since 2003. Coordination is undertaken by the Maritime Administration with operational responsibility shared between several sectoral-based ministries.⁴⁸ During 2008 to 2011, Poland prepared three maritime pilot plans covering some of its maritime space. Also across Polish sea space, extensive stocktaking has been undertaken as well as detailed studies on current uses, possible future uses and potential conflicts.⁴⁹ The Ecosystem Approach has been explicitly applied throughout the development of these preparatory materials which will be drawn on to inform the work of developing the national maritime spatial plan, which began in mid-2016.⁵⁰

Poland has experienced significant problems in trying to engage with fishers in MSP during the national MSP preparatory work described above. At the core of the problem has been a concern by fishers that their knowledge is not valued or respected and therefore they can have little influence in MSP processes as indicated in the following quote:

[Decision-makers] do not value the opinion of [fishers] who use the sea since tens of years because we are not well-organized and do not have unlimited funds. And, unfortunately, we lose due to lack of money and they [the offshore energy sector] win. [Polish fisher]

Polish fishers also accused scientists involved in stock-taking work (i.e., mapping of conditions, values and uses (users) in Polish marine space) in preparation for developing the national Polish MSP of using scientific jargon with stakeholders in a way that restricts their capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue, as indicated in the following quotes from fishers:

[Scientific results] were presented, some numbers were shown but it was all difficult to understand. It was like a professor is giving a lecture to students who are not listening to him. [Polish fisher]

Scientists are careless how to communicate their knowledge. They cannot present it in a way that fishers expect. They show charts, drawing and bars, but what is the conclusion? [Polish fisher]

The fishers in part were responding to their previous experience in interacting with scientists over marine governance issues.

The natural scientists involved in MSP in Poland who were interviewed were not fully aware of how their work is being perceived by the fishers, however, they saw their role as a provider of objective facts to underpin MSP decision-making, while recognizing that there are likely to be divergent views on this:

I am aware that sometimes fishers say that they can see on the echo-sounder that [the] sea is full of fish but they cannot fish [because of conservation measures]. The fact that there is plenty of fish in one place does not imply that there are many of them in the whole Polish marine areas, and that it is possible to increase quotas. And here I trust scientific knowledge coming from different disciplines. This knowledge is extremely important as planners can have their subjective opinions and fishers might also have different expectations. And all these [conflicting expectations] need to be considered. [Polish scientist]

Among fishers and scientists and other stakeholders, different views on casual relationships, responsible agents and solutions to these problems go to the heart of the current knowledge schism affecting MSP in Poland, which has clear links to EA applications more widely. For example, well before the advent of MSP, near-shore fishers held strong views that conservation of seals and cormorants negatively affected their livelihoods.⁵¹ While it has been shown that there are areas where such an effect is discernible, there is little scientific evidence backing the broader spatial validity of this claim. When fishers demand additional research (because they do not accept the current scientific understanding), it is not always abundantly clear how such research should be conducted or what it should be targeted at finding out. Perhaps this is not a MSP stakeholder concern that can be addressed with more scientific knowledge, but rather reflects deeper reservations about feelings of vulnerability about fishers’ rights in the face of newcomers and what they may see as the strengthening of some actors’ positions in marine governance, e.g., conservation and energy sector. Putting aside the sustainability concerns of socio-economic exclusion, the example of the Polish fisheries in MSP shows that EA, in adopting an evidence-based approach, ought to more fully recognise the challenges raised by scientific uncertainty/disagreement and the importance of developing approaches to help reduce and address such challenges. Such an approach would establish transparent ground rules for interpretation and application of the precautionary principle and how to value different forms of knowledge in decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. As Johnsen and Hersoug suggest, fishers are likely to possess more knowledge about conditions at a localised scale than scientific knowledge.⁵² Griffin makes a similar point that knowledge conflicts (or difficulties in integrating knowledge systems) are often attributable to questions of scale, particularly where it is claimed that scientific knowledge has not adequately considered local knowledge and experience often due to concerns over knowledge credibility or the blurring of the fact/value distinction.⁵³ The considered inclusion of such localised knowledge may also work in instances of overt and deeply entrenched conflict to moderate negative attitudes towards participating in MSP. Knowledge integration involves engaging in bridging between all forms of knowledge. This may not necessarily mean neutralising power-related imbalances between different forms of knowledge such as those discussed above in the Polish MSP, but rather seeing differences as an inevitable part of bridging processes where deliberation is required to assess their relevance, meanings and interpretations.

This analysis has shown that an important aspect of the knowledge integration challenge in MSP and the EA more broadly centres on how to mix scientific knowledge with the knowledge politics of stakeholder participation in a way that both supports social inclusion and improves the evidence-base underpinning decisions.