Transboundary marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea Region: towards a territorial governance approach?

Abstract

This article examines whether the concept of territorial governance (TG) accurately captures the nature of governance and policymaking in transboundary marine spatial planning (TMSP) activities in the Baltic Sea Region. The focus of analysis is on the DG Mare–funded Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic Scope projects, which brought together key marine spatial planning stakeholders in the Baltic Sea Region to find solutions to TMSP issues. The five key dimensions of TG are examined against the transboundary collaborations undertaken during these two projects. The article finds that TMSP in the Baltic Sea Region shares many of the key characteristics of TG, such as, promoting learning and establishing stronger links between institutions, sectors and stakeholders; however, the TG concept fails to accurately capture the power dynamics at play in TMSP, particularly the central role of national planning authorities and certain sea use sectors in determining the overall direction of policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Arndt P. and Schmidtbauer Crona J. 2019. EBA in MSP – a SEA inclusive handbook. http://www.panbalticscope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/EBAinMSP_FINAL-1.pdf.

  2. Backer, H. 2011. Transboundary maritime spatial planning: A Baltic Sea perspective. J Coast Conserv 15.2 (2011): 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0156-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Böhme, K., Sabine Zillmer, S., Toptsidou, M., Holstein, F. 2015. Territorial governance and cohesion policy. European Parliament: Directorate General for Internal Policies. Brussels. Accessed: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563382/IPOL_STU%282015%29563382_EN.pdf

  4. Cedergren, E., Kull, M., Moodie, J.R. & Morf, A. 2019, Lessons learned in cross-border maritime spatial planning: Experiences and insights from Pan Baltic Scope, Pan Baltic Scope Report. Accessed: http://www.panbalticscope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/LSI-report-Pan-Baltic-Scope.pdf

  5. Committee of the Regions. 2009, The Committee of the Regions’ White Paper on Multilevel Governance. Brussels: Forward Studies Unit, Committee of the Regions. Accessed: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/regi/dv/cdr89-2009_/cdr89-2009_en.pdf

  6. Cotella, G. 2018. EU Cohesion Policy and domestic territorial governance. What chances for cross-fertilization? Europa XXI 35: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2018.35.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Creswell, J. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davoudi, S & Cowie, P. 2016. Guiding principles of ‘good’ territorial governance, in Schmitt, P. and van Well, L. (2016). Territorial governance across Europe. London: Routledge.

  9. Davoudi, S., Evans, N., Governa, F. and Santangelo, M. 2008. Territorial governance in the making. Approaches, methodologies, practices. Boletin de la Asociacion de Geografos Espanoles No 46, 351–355. Accessed: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/2686504/1.pdf

  10. Ehler, C., J. Zaucha, and K. Gee. 2019. Maritime/marine spatial planning at the interface of research and practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  11. European Commission. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper. Brussels, (COM 2001. 428 final).

  12. European Commission. 2007. Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union. Brussels: European Commission, SEC (2007) 1278.

  13. European Commission. 2008a. Roadmap for maritime spatial planning: Achieving common principles in the EU. Brussels: European Commission, COM (2008) 791.

  14. European Commission. 2008b. Turning territorial diversity into an asset—The green paper on territorial cohesion. Inforegio Panorama, December 28, pp. 4–7.

  15. European Parliament and Council. 2014, Directive 2014/89/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. L 257/135, 28.8.2014.

  16. Flannery, W., A.M. O’Hagan, C. O’Mahony, H. Ritchie, and S. Twomey. 2015. Evaluating conditions for transboundary marine spatial planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland. Mar Policy 51: 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grip, K. 2017. International marine environmental governance: A review. Ambio 46 (4): 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0847-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gualini, E. 2006. The rescaling of governance in Europe: New spatial and institutional rationales. European Spatial Planning 14 (7): 881–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500496255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hassan, D., Kuokkanen, T., & Soininen, N. (Eds.). 2015. Transboundary marine spatial planning and international law. Routledge.

  20. HELCOM/VASAB. 2010. Baltic Sea broad scale maritime spatial planning (MSP) principles. Adopted by HELCOM HOD 34–2010 and the 54th Meeting of VASAB CSPD/BSR. Accessed: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/Groups/MSP/HELCOMVASAB%20MSP%20Principles.pdf

  21. Holzhüter W, Luhtala H, Hansen HS, Schiele KS, 2019. Lost in space and time? A conceptual framework to harmonise data for marine spatial planning. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 14, 108–132. Accessed: https://ijsdir.sadl.kuleuven.be/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/494

  22. Husa S., Pohja-Mykrä M., Nummela A., Andersson T., Morf A. 2019. Pan Baltic Scope – FIAXSE - maritime spatial planning in Finland, Åland, and Sweden. Accessed https://aland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=e0f5913e7ab1415983db739abf0cdaad.

  23. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC/UNESCO). 2017. Joint roadmap to accelerate maritime / marine spatial planning processes worldwide. Accessed: http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/Joint_Roadmap_MSP_v5.pdf.

  24. Jay, S. 2018. The shifting sea: From soft space to lively space. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 20 (4): 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1437716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jay, S., F.L. Alves, C. O’Mahony, M. Gomez, A. Rooney, M. Almodovar, et al. 2016. Transboundary dimensions of marine spatial planning: Fostering inter-jurisdictional relations and governance. Mar Policy 65: 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kidd, S., and L. McGowan. 2013. Constructing a ladder of transnational partnership working in support of marine spatial planning: Thoughts from the Irish Sea. J Environ Manag 126: 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kull, M., Moodie, J., Giacometti, A. and Morf, A. 2017. Lessons learned: Obstacles and enablers when tackling the challenges of cross-border maritime spatial planning – Experiences from Baltic SCOPE. Stockholm, Espoo and Gothenburg - Baltic SCOPE. Accessed: http://www.balticscope.eu/content/uploads/2015/07/BalticScope_LL_WWW.pdf.

  28. Lidström, A. 2007. Territorial governance in transition. Regional and Federal Studies 7 (4): 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597560701691896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Matczak, M. Przedrzymirska, M. Zuacha, J. & Schultz-Zehden, A. 2014. Handbook on multi-level consultations in MSP, PartiSEApate Project Report.

  30. Meiner, A. 2010. Integrated maritime policy for the European Union. Consolidating coastal and marine information to support maritime spatial planning. J Coast Conserv 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-009-0077-4.

  31. Moodie, J.R., M. Kull, A. Morf, L. Schrøder, and A. Giacometti. 2019. Challenges and enablers for transboundary integration in MSP: Practical experiences from the Baltic SCOPE project. Ocean & Coastal Management 177: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Morf, A., J. Moodie, K. Gee, A. Giacometti, M. Kull, J. Piwowarczyk, K. Schiele, J. Zaucha, I. Kellecioglu, A. Luttmann, and H. Strand. 2019. Towards sustainability of marine governance: Challenges and enablers for stakeholder integration in transboundary marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea. Ocean & Coastal Management 177: 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Morf, A., (ed) Cedergren, E., Gee, K., Kull, M., Eliasen, S. 2019b. Lessons, stories and ideas on how to integrate land-sea interactions into MSP. Nordregio, Stockholm. Accessed: http://www.panbalticscope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/LSI-report-Pan-Baltic-Scope.pdf

  34. OECD. 2001. OECD territorial outlook. 2001 edition. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  35. OECD. 2020. A territorial approach to sustainable development goals: Synthesis report, OECD urban policy reviews (Paris: OECD). Accessed: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/deliver/e86fa715-en.pdf?itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fpublication%2Fe86fa715-en&mimeType=pdf

  36. Papageorgiou, M., and S. Kyvelou. 2018. Aspects of marine spatial planning and governance: Adapting to the transboundary nature and the specialconditions of the sea. European Journal of Environmental Sciences 8 (1): 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Saunders, F., Gilek, M., Gee, K., Göke, C., Hassler, B., Lenninger, P., Luttmann, A., Morf, A., Piwowarczyk, J., Schiele, K., Stalmokaite, I., Strand, H., Tafon, R., Zaucha, J. 2016. BONUS BALTSPACE deliverable D1.2: Exploring possibilities and challenges for MSP integration. Final guidance document on analysing possibilities and challenges for MSP integration, Stockholm, September 2016.

  39. Schmitt, P., and L. van Well. 2016. Territorial governance across Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schultz-Zehden, A., and K. Gee. 2016. Towards a multi-level governance framework for MSP in the Baltic.

  41. Smas, L., and J. Lidmo. 2018. Organising regions: Spatial planning and territorial governance practices in two Swedish regions. Europa XXI 35: 21–36. https://doi.org/10.7163/eu21.2018.35.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith, H., Maes, F., Stojanovic, T., & Ballinger, R. 2011. The integration of land and marine spatial planning. J Coast Conserv 15: 291–303. Accessed: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41506523

  43. Stead, D. 2014. The rise of territorial governance in European policy. Eur Plan Stud 22 (7): 1368–1393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.786684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie. 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Van Tatenhove, J.P.M. (2011) Integrated marine governance: Questions of legitimacy. MAST 10: 87–113. Accessed: http://www.marecentre.nl/mast/documents/PagesfromMAST10.1_Tatenhove.pdf

  46. Van Tatenhove, J.P.M. 2017. Transboundary marine spatial planning: A reflexive marine governance experiment? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19 (6): 783–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1292120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Well, L., and P. Schmitt. 2015. Understanding territorial governance: Conceptual and practical implications. Europa Regional 21, 2013 (2015) 4 pp. 209-221. Accessed: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/45712/ssoar-europareg-2015-4-well_et_al-Understanding_territorial_governance__conceptual.pdf?sequence=1

  48. Van Well, L., P. van der Keur, A. Harjanne, E. Pagneux, A. Perrels, and H.J. Henriksen. 2018. Resilience to natural hazards: An analysis of territorial governance in the Nordic countries. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 31: 1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Varjopuro R., Konik M., Cehak M., Matczak M., Zaucha J., Rybka K.,Urtāne I., Kedo K. and Vološina M. 2019. Monitoring and evaluation of maritime spatial planning. Cases of Latvia and Poland as examples. Accessed: http://www.panbalticscope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PBS-ME-Report-final.pdf.

  50. Zaucha, J. 2014. The key to governing the fragile Baltic Sea – Maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea region and way forward. Riga- VASAB Secretariat. Accessed: https://vasab.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Book_J.Zaucha_governing.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

We warmly thank the journal editors and reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments which improved the paper immeasurably. The present work has been carried out within the project ‘Baltic Sea Maritime Spatial Planning for Sustainable Ecosystem Services (BONUS BASMATI)’, which has received funding from BONUS (art. 185), funded jointly by the EU, Innovation Fund Denmark, Swedish Research Council Formas, Academy of Finland, Latvian Ministry of Education and Science and Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH (Germany). Call number: call2015-77.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Moodie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moodie, J.R., Kull, M., Cedergren, E. et al. Transboundary marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea Region: towards a territorial governance approach?. Maritime Studies (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00211-0

Download citation