Towards an MSP governance framework in the Baltic

1. Towards an MSP governanceframework in the Baltic Draftreport

2. Purposeofthegovernanceframework • 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

3. Key terms • Consultation (a formal process, atthelevelof MS) andcooperation (an informal process) • Pan-Balticandcross-border • Maritime spatialplansandspecificconsultation • Strategic visions(atthepan-Baltic level) andregulatoryplans(atthe national/subnational level) • Formal structures =/= formal decision-making

4. The evidencebase • Review ofcurrent transnational institutions (e.g. VASAB, HELCOM, WG on MSP, MSP Roadmap, EUSBSR) • Stakeholderworkshopsandquestionnaires • Work in pilotareas • Survey ofsectorandgovernancerepresentatives • N (Governance) = 26 (conductedbys.Pro) • N (Sectors) = 32 (conductedbyprojectpartnersands.Pro)

5. The evidencebase

6. The evidencebase

7. 1. Views of MSP generally

8. The governanceviewof MSP • Coherence in the approach taken to MSP and greater predictability • Bymeans 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

9. The sectorviewof 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

10. 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

11. 2. The need for a pan-Baltic dialogue

12. Shouldtherebecross-sectoraldialogueatthepan-Baltic leveltodiscuss MSP? Yes (27 out of 30) • First thereshouldbetransboundarydialoguewithinthesector • Cross-sectoraldialoguepossiblymore relevant at bilateral level • Questionmarkoversuccessofcross-sectoraldialogueatpan-Baltic level Governancerepresentatives: Unanimousyes • Recognition ofaddedbenefits (e.g. betterunderstandingof MSP bysectors, honest communicationofneedsandfears)

13. 3. Organisation and representation in a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue

14. Who shouldbeincluded in a pan-Baltic dialogue? Broad involvement is desirable, but difficulttonameparticular transnational sectoralorganisations that would begoodrepresentatives • Focus on „real“ usersandsectoralinterestsratherthan ministerial level • Importance of business and economic perspective and involvement ofcompanies Most sectors do not have an organisedvoiceasyet • Most issuesare still negotiatedatthe national level (bilaterallyatmost) • Ifitexistsat all, thepan-Baltic sectoraldialogueis not MSP-specific

15. Who shouldbeincluded in a pan-Baltic dialogue? • Level oforganisationofsectors still insufficient • Despite a widerangeof transnational organisations, onlyfewexplicitly deal with MSP • Low levelofknowledgeof MSP withinsectors • Low levelofknowledgeofpurposeandactivityof transnational organisations

16. 4. Purpose and outcomes of a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue

17. Overall aims Should have a clear aim • Communication of „realities“ in thesector • Improvedinformationexchangeamongsectorsnationally • Regular exchangewithpolicymakers • Guidelinesforinvolvingsectors in MSP • Development ofsectoralstrategies • Shouldbe an independentscience-expert body Governancerepresentatives: • High importance on obtainingmoresectoralinformation (economictrends/strategies)

18. Expectedoutcomes • Joint criteriaforsharingspaceand „ruleofplay“ • Follow-throughbeyondguidelines • Acknowledgementoftheimportanceof all sectorsandgreater mutual understanding • Joint projects • Guidelinesforinvolvingsectors in MSP Issuestobeawareof: • Someoftheissuesare not specifictothedialogue • Establishingcommonsectoraltargetsis not thetaskof MSP • Do not createobligatorygoals (unrealistic) • Focus on „easier“ taskstobeginwith

19. Barrierstoestablishing a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue • Lack ofpolitical will • MSP not established in all countries • Lack ofunderstandingoftheaddedvalueofpan-Baltic MSP cooperation • Othersmightperceiveitasre-inventingthewheel • Sectoral power plays • Different economicinterestsof countries andestablished power structures • Lack ofresources (time commitment) • Lack ofunderstandingoftheneedfor MSP • Lack ofclearpurposeofthedialogue • Lack ofsharedvision

20. 5. Format andtoolsfor a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue

21. Format for a pan-Baltic MSP dialogue Regular multi-leveland multi-sectoralmeetings ,needs-based – avoid „pointless“ meetings. Dialogueshouldbeorganisedbycompetenthands. • Expert groups • Conferences • Meetings • „livingportal“

22. Format for a transnational MSP dialogue

23. Structure

24. 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

25. Links to national MSP processes National MSP processismorepractical, pan-Baltic processismorestrategic • Mutual exchange: National processes/issuesshouldfeedintothepan-Baltic debate, andjointpan-Baltic goalsshouldactas a guidingframeworkto national MSP processes • Greaterintegrationofplanners in the HELCOM/VASAB WG toensuretheresultsofthedialoguearetranslatedintopractice • Information exchangethroughdedicatedworkshops

26. 6. The role of the HELCOM/VASAB MSP WG

29. Whatwouldthe WG needtofulfilthisfuturefunction? • 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

30. 7. Conclusions for pan-Baltic MSP governance

31. 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)

32. 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.

33. The MSP governanceframeworkatthepan-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

34. The MSP governanceframeworkatthepan-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 .

35. The MSP governanceframeworkatthepan-Baltic level

36. The MSP governanceframeworkatthepan-Baltic level

37. The MSP governanceframeworkatthepan-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

38. Questions expert groups • Who shouldbeinvolved in the expert groups (e.g. existing expert groups)? • How do expert groupsconstitutethemselves? • Who decides on theChairofthe expert groups?

39. Questionssecretariats • Howshouldthesecretariatsengagewiththesectors? • Howcanthesecretariatsgeneratemoreidentity/awarenessofthe MSP dialogue? • Wheredoes MSP data fit in? • Whatwouldbethe ideal immediateandmorelong-termroleofthesecretariats?

40. Questions links to national level • Whatistheroleof national MSP contactpointswithinthisframework? • Whatisthepreciserelationshipbetweenthepan-Baltic andthecross-borderlevel?