Mainstreaming coastally just and equitable marine spatial planning: Planner and stakeholder experiences and perspectives on participation in Latvia

Marine spatial planning (MSP) as a means of marine governance has been given more prominence recently in response to the problems of fragmentation of marine regulation, environmental protection from increasing pressures upon the seas and the emergence of new maritime industries (Douvere and Ehler, 2009). Therefore enhancing multiple aspects of the way that marine authorities, sectors and stakeholders interact and engage with each other is integral to MSP's role and function and seen as a key means to address fragmented and isolated decision-making in marine space (Portman, 2016). While the function and processes of enhancing integration should not be seen as ends in themselves, they aim to create institutionalised platforms that support multi-level and multi-sectoral governance interaction to achieve 'sustainable use' of marine space (Gilek et al., 2016; Ritchie and Ellis, 2010; Varjopuro et al., 2015). Here, integration mostly plays an instrumental role in realising multiple and divergent political ends (e.g. blue growth, sustainable use, legitimate decision-making) related to ‘integrated spatialized outcomes' that seek to reflect a balance of competing goals (Flannery et al., 2016; Flannery et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Olsen et al., 2014a). Integration is also seen to be important to foster greater connectivity over borders, beneficial for conservation, shipping and fishing (Jay et al., 2016). While claims of the benefits of more integration are intuitively appealing, whether and how these are actually delivered through integration practices remains under-examined in MSP practice; as are empirical insights on the multiplicity of roles that integration plays in MSP. So, while integration has been universally adopted as a policy principle where it is believed that more integration is seen to be closely related to successful planning in numerous ways, there is confusion about what it means, how to do it and what it implies in different MSP contexts. In response, the key aim of this article is to develop an analytical framework useful for examining integration in MSP across a diversity of contexts and processes. Given the central role of integration in MSP, it is vitally important to better understand the linkages between ideas of integration and their practical application in MSP. To examine the role of integration across multiple MSP contexts, we first describe the approach taken in this study. This is followed by a review of relevant MSP and integration related literature to develop an analytical framework. We draw on this framework to illustrate important expressions of integration challenges and responses in our cases. The experiences from the multiple cases are then discussed to generate insights into the various roles that integration plays in MSP and how problems arise and have been addressed. In closing, we underline key findings and reflect on the usefulness and adaptability of the integration approach developed in this article.

Responding to calls for a more theoretically driven, post-positivist and radical marine spatial planning research that approaches the policy as a political project, this paper develops a post-structuralist discourse theory approach to critical marine spatial planning. Elaborating radical contingency as an ontological condition of social life, which points to the ineradicability of power and conflict in marine spatial planning social relations, the paper problematizes marine spatial planning as constituting politics, or key practices that attempt to organize human coexistence and thus, conceal this radical contingency. These practices (e.g. ecosystem-based management, participation, planning regulation and the organization of socio-natural spaces), whose outcomes are far from adaptive, consensual or neutral are discussed as sites of ‘politics’ that effectively marginalize particular groups of people and ‘herd’ their participation and ways of knowing toward achieving limited policy outcomes. Drawing on the EU Marine Spatial Planning Directive, the paper further teases out how specific narratives and rhetorical signifiers around ‘integrating’ and ‘balancing’ potentially irreconcilable sustainable development objectives may interpellate particular stakeholders in ways that render them ideologically complicitous in sustaining, rather than challenging, neoliberal logics of managerialism and economic maximization of marine resources. But in tune with the ontological condition of the social as radically contingent, the paper discusses how and why participatory spaces may constitute a potential space of contestation for marginalized voices and thus, reveal the political moment of marine spatial planning. Calls are made for future empirically grounded research that explores how these marine spatial planning practices are lived in both planning and extra-planning settings, and with what implications for marine protection and extant social relations of power in different marine spatial planning contexts.

This paper explores the realities of marine spatial planning (MSP’ing), drawing on 12 case studies around Europe, employing a structured qualitative empirical approach. The findings indicate that (1) MSP’ing is often focused on achieving specific sectoral objectives, related to nationally important strategic priorities, and might better be termed ‘strategic sectoral planning’. (2) MSP’ing processes tend to be complex, fragmented and emergent on an ad hoc basis, rather than cyclical, adaptive and prescribed on an a priori basis. (3) Top-down processes tend to dominate, more participative platforms tending to be ‘disconnected by design’ from executive decision-making. (4) Blue growth is the dominant overall priority, often aligned with strategic sectoral priorities, despite growing indications that the target for Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020 is unlikely to be met. This is consistent with growing concerns about the tensions between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Directive Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning. It is concluded that the realities of how MSP’ing is working contrast with widely recognised concepts and ideals as to how MSP’ing should work, as integrated-use MSP’ing based on political expedience and blue growth priorities is diverging from and potentially competing with ecosystem-based MSP’ing, including marine protected area networks, based on GES priorities. It is argued that a more empirical approach should be taken to MSP’ing research, whereby conceptual approaches which integrate sustainable blue growth and GES co-evolve with marine spatial planning practices through critical analyses of whether the realities of MSP’ing are consistent with these concepts.

Kim, C.W.; Park, J.Y.; Choi, H.-J., and Nam, J., 2021. Interpreting the relevance between marine spatial planning and ecosystem services in Busan, South Korea. In: Lee, J.L.; Suh, K.-S.; Lee, B.; Shin, S., and Lee, J. (eds.), Crisis and Integrated Management for Coastal and Marine Safety. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 114, pp. 355–359. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Marine spatial planning (MSP) and marine ecosystem services (MES) have been increasingly gaining attention among global, national, and local societies. Among challenging issues in MSP practices is the incorporation of MES into MSP process in terms of advancement of marine management system. In this regard, we explored and interpreted the relevance between the zoning scheme under MSP and marine ecosystem service distribution in Busan sea area and EEZ. The total area under MSP enforcement is 5526.44 km2, and the total value of ecosystem services accounted for 272.73 million US dollars. The averaged MES value per grid (0.93 × 0.93 km) is 264.74 thousand US dollars, with large difference among zones. The fisheries protected zone has the largest area, but its MES value accounted for only 28% of the total. Area and MES value of marine tourism zone were 2.30% and 13.98%, respectively. MES value was relatively high in the inshore and low in the offshore. The high cultural service value in this area reflects socioeconomic features of the Busan metropolitan city. In terms of the relation between area and MES value of each zone, fisheries protected zone and provisioning service, and environment-ecosystem management zone and regulating services were well matched. Meaningful relation in the tourism zone between area and the value was not identified. This study is expected to contribute to exploring and interpreting the relevance between MSP and MES, and applying MES to the planning process and marine management.

This paper highlights the value for marine spatial planning (MSP) of engaging with terrestrial planning theory and practice. It argues that the traditions of reflection, critique, and debate that are a feature of land-based planning can inform the development of richer theoretical underpinnings of MSP as well as MSP practice. The case is illustrated by tempering the view that MSP can be a rational planning process that can follow universal principles and steps by presenting an alternative perspective that sees MSP as a social and political process that is highly differentiated and place-specific. This perspective is discussed with reference to four examples. First, the paper considers why history, culture, and administrative context lead to significant differences in how planning systems are organized. Second, it highlights that planning systems and processes tend to be in constant flux as they respond to changing social and political viewpoints. Third, it discusses why the integration ambitions which are central to “spatial” planning require detailed engagement with locally specific social and political circumstances. Fourth, it focuses on the political and social nature of plan implementation and how different implementation contexts need to inform the design of planning processes and the style of plans produced.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) literature identifies various dimensions of integration to deal with fragmented, sectoral, and ad hoc approaches to managing various uses offshore. However, the spatial dimension of MSP has receded into the background, the dimensions of integration remain ill-defined, and there is a lack of appreciation for the institutional changes that these integration efforts induce and require. Moreover, in light of the urgency of energy transition, offshore wind farms (OWF) are often prioritized over other interests in MSP practice. This paper uses the case of the Dutch North Sea Dialogues (NSD) to explore to what extent actors during the NSD pursued formal and informal institutional change to progress the various dimensions of integration in line with the normative principles of MSP to improve spatial integration between OWF and other interests at sea. The NSD provided an, initially temporary, platform that proved key for stakeholders to pursue subsequent formal and informal institutional changes that progressed integration in MSP. While formal institutional changes were achieved during the NSD, informal institutional changes also proved fundamental in progressing various dimensions of integration. The NSD shows that incremental institutional change can be effective in progressing integration, but also shows the limits to this approach. The place-based and temporal dimensions of integration require additional attention because this is where stakeholders most notably rely on existing institutional frameworks and conflicts are most prominent.

Although stakeholder engagement is one of the founding principles of marine spatial planning (MSP), meaningful representation of people and their connections to marine resources within marine governance is still lacking. A broad understanding of how concepts surrounding social capital and capacity is translated into MSP practice is missing. With this article, we describe detailed case studies in the United Kingdom, Brazil and South Africa to build a better understanding of the ways in which MSP and other ocean governance initiatives operationalise the concepts of social capital and capacity. Drawing on insights from the cases, we call for a rethinking of capacitation as a two-way process. In particular, trust-building, social learning and efforts to build social capacity should be elaborated without imposing a hierarchy between people ‘who know’ and people ‘who don’t’. Innovative approaches to relationship building, knowledge development, and collaboration highlighted in the case studies highlight ways to build social capacity both among stakeholders and planners, as is necessary for more equitable and sustainable MSP development and implementation.

The foreseen, and already ongoing, substantial increase in offshore renewable energy and corresponding infrastructures urges policymakers and scholars to carefully consider corresponding long-term environmental effects on the marine environment. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is becoming a standard tool for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) processes for enabling planners to develop more sustainable marine spatial plans. To explore how SEA can contribute to a more strategic and environmentally-oriented MSP practice, four SEA processes from four North Sea countries are examined, building on available SEA documents and semi-structured interviews. The results show that SEAs for MSP can take an exploratory or appraisal-oriented approach. Adopting an exploratory approach can open up comparatively more opportunities for SEA to contribute to MSP than an adopting an appraisal-oriented approach, but it requires an early initiation of the SEA within the larger planning process. Still, it does not imply that there is one single best method. Rather, the institutional context establishes the conditions for SEA processes to contribute to MSP practice. Particularly, the political pressures and prior sectoral policymaking for offshore renewable energy restrict what can be included in the scope of an SEA. Also, the limited knowledge on the larger dynamics of the marine environment complicate the assessment of transboundary and cumulative effects. Therefore, as future research continues working towards a robust scientific knowledge base on the marine environment, it is crucial that scholars and policymakers collaborate on a structural basis to bridge the gap between science and policy implementation.

Marine spatial planning (MSP), initially developed to address the needs of the global North, is gaining significant traction in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and is hailed as a collaborative governance instrument for managing and optimizing the allocation of ocean space. Despite its growing adoption, there has been limited attention given to what is needed for MSP to be effective and collaborative in SIDS, which is struggling with issues of fragmented ocean governance, insufficient funding, data limitations, and ad hoc stakeholder engagement. A research gap exists in identifying the conditions necessary for MSP to function effectively as a collaborative governance instrument in SIDS. By employing an analytical framework grounded in collaborative governance models, this paper reviews 40 academic articles and 15 grey literature sources to assess MSP’s application in SIDS and identify factors critical for its success as a collaborative instrument. We used NVivo software to conduct content analysis of SIDS-based academic articles. The analysis was guided by pre-defined categories within our analytical framework. The mapping and analysis of the literature point towards leadership and institutional mechanisms, which have proven essential for mobilizing MSP, integrating existing marine management strategies into MSP frameworks, and addressing local socio-cultural priorities. The literature reveals inadequate consideration for social objectives in MSP and highlights the flaws in government-led participatory initiatives. In the absence of strong leadership, inclusive governance, and sustainable institutional and financial support, MSP in SIDS risks becoming merely symbolic, addressing international commitments without delivering tangible local benefits. This study highlights the need to prioritize the process of MSP rather than solely focusing on outcomes and recommends including Indigenous knowledge and practices. A customized MSP approach for SIDS is proposed, incorporating incentives to actively engage Indigenous Peoples and local stakeholders in a collaborative ocean governance framework.

Lessons learned in marine governance: Case studies of marine spatial planning practice in the U.S.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offers the possibility of democratising management of the seas. MSP is, however, increasingly implemented as a form of post-political planning, dominated by the logic of neoliberalism, and a belief in the capacity of managerial-technological apparatuses to address complex socio-political problems, with little attention paid to issues of power and inequality. There is growing concern that MSP is not facilitating a paradigm shift towards publicly engaged marine management, and that it may simply repackage power dynamics in the rhetoric of participation to legitimise the agendas of dominant actors. This raises questions about the legitimacy and inclusivity of participatory MSP. Research on stakeholder engagement within MSP has predominately focused on assessing experiences of active MSP participants and has not evaluated the democratic or inclusive nature of these processes. Adopting the Northeast Ocean Planning initiative in the US as a case study, this paper provides the first study of exclusion and non-participation of stakeholders in an MSP process. Three major issues are found to have had an impact on exclusion and non-participation: poor communication and a perception that the process was deliberately exclusionary; issues arising from fragmented governance, territorialisation and scale; and lack of specificity regarding benefits or losses that might accrue from the process. To be effective, participatory MSP practice must: develop mechanisms that recognise the complexity of socio-spatial relationships in the marine environment; facilitate participation in meaningful spatial decision-making, rather than in post-ideological, objective-setting processes; and create space for debate about the very purpose of MSP processes.

Marine Spatial Planning and sustainability: Examining the roles of integration - Scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge

Exploring the potential of theory-based evaluation to strengthen marine spatial planning practice

How sustainable is sustainable marine spatial planning? Part I—Linking the concepts

This policy brief argues that the digital transformation of marine spatial planning is primarily a governance challenge rather than a technical one. Whether digital tools and data support or undermine the inclusion of Indigenous and local communities in planning processes depends not on the tools themselves but on the intentions, assumptions and decisions that guide their use. Drawing on findings from the "Local Knowledge in Marine Spatial Planning, Green Transition and Digital Transformation" project, this brief identifies seven key messages aimed at promoting the more just and equitable integration of Indigenous and local knowledge into increasingly digital marine spatial planning processes: (1) Implement MSP as a continuous, purpose-driven process; (2) Enhance capacity and reflexivity among planning authorities; (3) Establish clear institutional guidelines and roles; (4) Balance local and national interests through multi-level dialogue; (5) Design adaptive processes for engaging evolving communities; (6) Strengthen local collaboration through peer learning and data accessibility; (7) Facilitate regular exchanges between countries across the North Atlantic region.