Pastoors 20120523 cross border msp - efaro

543 views

Published on

Talk on cross-border maritime spatial planning and the implications for science and the communication of science results

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
543
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP)Communication on Blue growthDirective on Maritime Spatial Planning(Natura2000)(CFP)
  • Ecosystem approachEU = MSFD = problems (challenges)Australia = solutions
  • MASPNOSE projectPartners: science institutions Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, BelgiumAssociated organizations: policy makers from member states, stakeholders (North Sea RAC)
  • There are numerous countries around the North Sea already involved in MSP at national level (NL, B, UK, GER), Denmark is in the phase of exploring options for MSP. Norway (non-EU) has not (yet) developed an MSP for the their part of the North Sea (but have for the Barents Sea). EC 10 key principles largely being followedOSPAR is the North Sea “sister organization” of HELCOM. But OSPAR is far less visible in the domain of MSP and has (so far) not played a major role in developing the MASPNOSE project or cross-border MSP in the North Sea. Challenge: how can cross-border aspects be included in the MSP.
  • Two case studies in MASPNOSEDogger Bank: real decisionmaking process for international fisheries management and nature conservation. Not “full MSP” but important lessons on cross-border spatial management (relevant for e.g. MSFD). Countries involved: UK, NL, GER, DK. MASPNOSE facilitated the stakeholder involvement process. Thornton Bank: pre-planning MSP exercise between B and NL. South of North Sea. MASPNOSE facilitated the government pre-planning process.
  • The intergovernmental Dogger Bank Steering Group (DBSG) aims to develop an international management plan for nature and fisheries within the Natura 2000 framework. The DBSG invited the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) to write a position paper. MASPNOSE facilitated the NSRAC stakeholder process. Real process! The main conclusions from the evaluation of the case study are: Need for a clear mandate for decisionmaking. The mandate for decision-making in the Dogger Bank Steering Group (DBSG) was fuzzy. Agreed objectives. Representatives of Member States in the DBSG did not agree on the objectives for the area. They tried to solve the issue by asking the NSRAC to come up with management proposals. The NSRAC members were not able to solve the issue due to remaining differences of opinion. Dogger Bank decisionmaking process was unclear: steps, deadlines, responsibilities not clearly described. MASPNOSE facilitated the NSRAC process. This required expertise on content and process design. This was needed to build trust and to develop learning between stakeholders. Should have been part of the overall decisionmaking process. Unclear how stakeholder processes for international MSP would be financially supported. The use of geo-spatial tools (e.g. map-tables) to develop mutual learning and share (sensitive) information.
  • The Thornton Bank case study involved governmental stakeholders from Belgium and The Netherlands. The case study focussed on the wider Thornton Bank and the Borssele zone in the southern part of the North Sea. Informal contacts highly valued.Main conclusions from the evaluation of the case study:Common objectives for the Thornton Bank area: economic scenario for renewable energy with environmental benefitsCross-border consultations requires the synchronizing of planning cycles Invest in the development of a common language. Example: “monitoring” means different things in NL and B.More detailed on the two case studies are available on the posters.
  • 2. Maritime Spatial Planning requires a clear process with identified steps, deliverables and quality assurance. In a cross-border context, these requirements are even more pronounced. Specific challenge: organisation of cross-border stakeholder involvement due to a different stakeholder practice, legal constraints and policy constraints;In the Thornton Bank case study, governmental stakeholders came together for the first time and entered into a pre-planning mode where confidence between government participants was developed and an outline of a potential cross-border planning activity was discussed. MASPNOSE contributed to the improved informal and formal contacts between key policy developersThe Dogger Bank case study was largely built on the involvement of private stakeholders (fisheries organizations, NGOs) but within a setting of international decision-making by member states. The decision-making process did not involve a clear process with steps, deliverables and quality assurance. The informal phase between representatives of members states appeared to have remained important during the course of the decision-making process. However, the case study is also an example of how an effective stakeholder involvement process could be organized by working with a process script that specifies the objectives, roles and responsibilities.
  • 3. Effective stakeholder involvement in MSP requires a differentiation between frontstage and backstage transparency. Frontstage transparency to the general public on the objectives of the process, who are involved and what stage it is in. Backstage transparency is limited to the directly involved stakeholder groups and is used to share information for building trust and joint learning among stakeholders. In the Dogger Bank case study, the NSRAC private stakeholders were fully transparent over the process (frontstage) and internally transparent between the participants (backstage) in developing alternative scenarios. Trust plays an important role in the cross-border cooperation and in the cooperation between national stakeholders with different interests. Transparency can have a negative effect on the trust-building process when information is shared that should not have been shared. Therefore it is important to distinguish between front stage transparency (to the entire public) and backstage transparency (to a selected group of stakeholders). In the Thornton Bank case study, member states' policy makers preferred to come to agreement on a pre-planning phase without involving (private) stakeholders. Thus the overall (frontstage) transparency of the process was low. However, the internal (backstage) transparency was much higher.
  • 4. The Dogger Bank case study has shown that geospatial analyses have an important role in MSP. The use of interactive geospatial tools has proved very productive for stakeholder involvement in MSP (joint fact finding). The MASPNOSE facilitators of the NSRAC stakeholder process have used geospatial tools to develop a common understanding of the current situation and the potential future directions. The use of "map-tables" that allow for interactive sharing and developing of information has been very instrumental in reaching common positions and highlighting the key areas of agreement and disagreement. By focussing on the geo-spatial tools, the discussions between stakeholders were largely confined to data and knowledge issues instead of value and interest issues. So far, geo-spatial tools have focussed on current conditions and future scenariosThe analysis of potential effects of measures (including cumulative effects) is a required development
  • 5. Monitoring and Evaluation of an MSP process needs to be defined at the beginning of the process as part of a Quality Assurance programme. I am not sure it will allow this type of process design monitoring, but who knows. Monitoring and evaluation in the context of MSP has two distinct meanings. In one meaning this refers to the monitoring and evaluation of the "system" developments after an maritime spatial plan and associated measures have been agreed and implemented. So this trying to keep an eye to the developments in e.g. the habitats, specific species, economic or social aspects. This is “system monitoring”In the second meaning, monitoring and evaluation refers to the quality control of the process of planning. In this meaning the key focus is on the different steps in the planning process and how they have been completed: e.g. has the legal basis been established, have stakeholders been involved in the initial planning phase etc. This is “process monitoring”The process monitoring should ideally be carried out by experts who are not involved in the content of the MSP process. The MASPNOSE Initial Assessment has shown that Monitoring and Evaluation is currently not always an explicit part of MSP processes in the Member States involved in this preparatory action. Cross-border MSP processes poses specific challenges because of the potentially different phases in the policy cycle in different Member States.
  • Plan BothniaOpen access data policyGIS and mapsSharing and involvingDifferent planning systemsNo stakeholder involvementNo political commitment (yet)
  • MSP is claimed by natural scienceMaking science relevant for policy makers and stakeholdersThere is no scientific solutionTrade-off between different values and political preferences. Communication tools
  • Social science (process)EconomicsHuman use functions. Especially on international basis. Understanding human behaviour.
  • Pastoors 20120523 cross border msp - efaro

    1. 1. First lessons on cross-border maritime spatialplanning in Europe Martin Pastoors EFARO General Assembly, 23 May 2012, Cope
    2. 2. "Our future is really blue,not just green; green-blue" Maria Damanaki, EU Maritime Day 2012
    3. 3. Will Maritime Spatial Planning be the future? Cross-border? Ecosystem-based?
    4. 4. What will be the scientific challenges?What will be the challenges for science?
    5. 5. Policy driversLessons from cross-border MSPMaking science(s)relevant
    6. 6. 1. Policy drivers
    7. 7. Integrated Maritime Policy actions focus on blue growth and MSP
    8. 8. Marine Strategy Framework Directive focusses on Ecosystem Approach
    9. 9. Two different ways of framing MSP Blue Green
    10. 10. 2. Cross-border MSP initiatives• MASPNOSE• Plan Bothnia• Middle Bank (BaltSeaPlan)• Sea meets Land• MESMA, COEXIST, KnowSeas, Seanergy, ....• MSP Challenge 2011
    11. 11. Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Sea Martin Pastoors European Maritime Day, 22 May 2012
    12. 12. Challenge: how to approach MSP in cross-border setting? NORWAY GERMANY
    13. 13. Two case studies in MASPNOSE Thornton Bank
    14. 14. Dogger Bank: international fisheries andnature management plan Needs mandate Needs agreed objectives Needs clear process Geo-spatial tools
    15. 15. Thornton Bank: pre-planning MSP Common objectives defined Synchronize planning cycles Develop common language
    16. 16. 1. Clear (cross-border) process required
    17. 17. 2. Transparency in front and back Front stage Back stage
    18. 18. 3. Use geo-spatial toolsDogger Bank map-table session, August 2011
    19. 19. 4. Monitor and evaluateSystem Process
    20. 20. PlanBothnia
    21. 21. Cross-border MSP: basically a step-by-step process,but who defines the steps (for real)?
    22. 22. 3. Making science relevant for MSP
    23. 23. Multi-disciplinary analyses
    24. 24. Assessing cumulative impactsUNEP (2011) Taking Steps toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management
    25. 25. Science on call / science on top
    26. 26. Interactive spatial tools
    27. 27. Serious gaming for rapid learning
    28. 28. Summing up
    29. 29. "Our future is really blue,not just green; green-blue"
    30. 30. Two different ways of framing MSP Blue Green
    31. 31. Cross-border MSP:basically a step-by-step process, but who defines the steps?
    32. 32. Making science relevant for MSP
    33. 33. MSP is a process, not a tool
    34. 34. MSP EA EAF EBFM EBM MSFP ICZMIMCAM CMSP
    35. 35. Think simple Charles Ehler, Maritime Day 2012, Goteborg

    ×