Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning in European Sea Basins: Experimenting with Collaborative Planning and Governance

ABSTRACT

This article employs a multi-disciplinary planning and political science perspective to examine transboundary marine spatial planning (TMSP) in European sea basins through a collaborative governance and planning framework. The article argues that TMSP is a breeding ground for collaborative planning and governance in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and Adriatic Sea Regions. Collaborative governance and planning models can be developed into an effective framework for MSP policymakers, practitioners and researchers to structure and evaluate TMSP practices. The approach can potentially contribute towards overcoming TMSP challenges and to increasing cohesion and alignment of national marine spatial plans within European sea basins.

KEYWORDS:

• Collaborative planning
• transboundary marine spatial planning
• coherence
• cooperation
• Maritime Spatial Planning

1. Introduction

Maritime spatial planning (MSP; also referred to as marine spatial planning) has emerged as an important tool for the management of shared sea spaces. The European Union (EU)advocates the need for a holistic approach to sea management based on integrated and collaborative MSP (Moodie et al., 2021a). In 2014, the European Parliament and the European Council adopted a Directive to provide a framework for MSP (European Parliament and Council, 2014). The 2014 Directive highlights MSP as essential within a transboundary setting to help promote cohesion, reduce conflicts, foster blue growth and enhance collaboration between nation states and sea use sectors (Ibid).

Transboundary marine spatial planning (TMSP) is defined as ‘a process in which at least two states, sharing a boundary on the territorial sea in the exclusive economic zone, jointly manage a marine area.’ (Hassan et al., 2015) The coordination of marine uses across borders is a complex multi-level governance process requiring cooperation amongst countries, sectors and other stakeholders with competing interests and different planning practices (Hassler et al., 2018). These challenges have been exacerbated by the need of many countries to develop marine spatial planning procedures completely from scratch. Against this background, TMSP is still in its relative infancy across many European sea basins and offers opportunities for the development of collaborative planning and governance approaches.

This article examines whether TMSP reflects an experiment in collaborative planning and governance practices. A multi-disciplinary planning and political science perspective is adopted, exploring the interrelationship between the key features of collaborative planning and collaborative governance concepts and how they relate to TMSP. The academic literature on collaborative governance and planning emphasizes open and inclusive policymaking processes based on deliberation and consensus (Healey, 1992; Forester, 1999; Innes & Booher, 1999; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012). A synthesis of this literature identifies common dimensions across collaborative governance and planning concepts that can be used to assess the specific characteristics of collaborative TMSP practices occurring within European sea basins.

The focus of analysis is on TMSP practices in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), along with additional experiences from the North Sea, and the Adriatic-Ionian Region (Marchegiani, 2016; Kull et al., 2017; Berzi & Ariza, 2018; Cedergren et al., 2019). The multi-case approach allows for comparison to assess if the nature of TMSP collaboration differs across sea basins. The empirical analysis is based on document analysis, as well as the author’s own interviews and participatory observations of the collaborations that occurred during TMSP project activities, including the Baltic SCOPE project (2015–2017), the Pan Baltic SCOPE project (2017–2019), the NorthSEE project (2016–2019) and the Adriplan project (2013–2015). The article reflects on the extent to which TMSP practices across these projects indicate a move towards collaborative governance and planning approaches, and whether such collaboration can be further developed within the existing EU and intergovernmental policy frameworks.

2. The Emergence of Transboundary MSP

In recent years, EU level marine policies have emerged to support the joint coordination of MSP efforts. The 2002 EU Council and Parliament recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management’s advocates integration across sectors and levels of governance in to regulate spatial deployment of economic activities (European Parliament and Council, 2002). The 2007 Integrated Maritime Policy highlighted the relevance of MSP for achieving significant impact in terms of economic, social and territorial cohesion (European Commission, 2007). The 2008 ‘Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning’ further recognized the transboundary dimension of maritime activities and the potential benefit of establishing a common MSP framework across EU Member States (European Commission, 2008). Such a framework was introduced in the 2014 MSP Directive which required EU member states to develop national marine spatial plans (MSPs) by March 2021 to (European Parliament and Council, 2014).

These EU regulations emphasize the need for a holistic approach to the management of shared sea basins, based on collaborative and integrated models of governance (Meiner, 2010). There is, however, rarely a firm legal basis for TMSP as sea and coastal zone planning remains a member state competence, so there is considerable diversity across countries in the implementation of international directives. While TMSP has become more formalized within intergovernmental organizations, such as HELCOM (Helsinki Commission in charge of the Helsinki Convention), VASAB (the Visions and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea guided by the Conference of Ministers responsible for spatial planning and development of Baltic Sea State) and OSPAR (OSPAR Commission as the mechanism, to safeguard the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic), most TMSP activities are voluntary in nature and usually come in the form of informal funded pilot projects (Moodie et al., 2019).

Early research on MSP was conducted by scholars from a natural sciences and environmental resource management background (Jay, 2010). Flannery et al. (2020) note that much of this literature focused on the procedural elements of MSP and was normative in tone, promoting the assumed benefits of MSP, whilst ignoring the complexities of planning the sea. This led to a critical turn in MSP studies, with scholars calling for a deeper analysis from a social sciences governance and planning perspective, focusing on identifying the socio-political challenges of MSP related to power, justice, and distributional impacts (Kidd & Ellis, 2012; Jay et al., 2012; Flannery et al., 2018). The emergence of EU level MSP policies and informal EU funded pilot projects promoting TMSP activities have precipitated greater interest in MSP within the fields of social science and planning studies (Ehler et al., 2019). Indeed, scholars are increasingly exploring MSP from an EU Studies and Regional Policy perspective (Moodie et al., 2021a).

Recent papers have examined TMSP through different governance lenses, including reflective governance (Tatenhove, 2017), multi-level governance (Schultz-Zehden & Gee, 2016), and territorial governance (Moodie et al., 2021b). Studies from Saunders et al. (2016) and Moodie et al. (2019) have looked at the contribution of TMSP to institutional integration, knowledge integration, stakeholder integration and sectoral integration. Kidd and McGowan’s (2013) ladder of transnational partnerships identifies different types of TMSP collaboration ranging from informal information and administration sharing to more formalized collaboration based on joint rules or combined organizations/constitutions. Research on stakeholder engagement by Morf et al. (2019) introduces the ladder of stakeholder involvement in TMSP, identifying benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement, and different types of stakeholder mobilization processes, tools and methods.

These studies highlight that TMSP has helped raise awareness of cross-border MSP issues, provided new data and tools for conducting TMSP practices, built social capital and networks between key MSP stakeholders, and identified the challenges and enablers for effective TMSP policymaking. What binds this research is a consensus that TMSP has a potential to promote collaboration; however, scholars recognize that in practice these efforts have not led to greater coherence of MSPs within European sea basins (Moodie et al., 2021a). Tatenhove (2017) regards TMSP as an exercise in reflective governance through which stakeholders will integrate transboundary thinking into national-level processes through participation and learning, but challenges remain that pose significant obstacles to greater cohesion.

Qui and Jones (2013) note that further cohesion at supranational level is restricted as the EU has limited treaty competence in MSP and there is little appetite among member states to expand the EU’s role in sea planning. Fritz and Hanus (2015) argue that genuine cohesion can only be achieved if TMSP is structured around cross-sector collaboration. Finally, Flannery et al (2018, 2020) note that TMSP policies advocate inclusive and holistic policymaking rhetoric but, in practice, they reinforce existing power relationships to the exclusion of certain sectors, local actors, and citizens that do not have the time and resources to participate in TMSP policy discussions. Flannery and McAteer (2020) argue that if these power asymmetries are not addressed then stakeholder engagement efforts in TMSP is reduced to token window dressing that limits the potential for progressive MSP transformations.

While a central goal of TMSP is to promote collaboration within European sea basins, there has been little attempt to examine TMSP through the lens of collaborative planning and collaborative governance concepts (Healey, 1992; Forester, 1999; Innes & Booher, 1999; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012). This paper builds on existing TMSP literature by exploring the key tenets of collaborative governance and planning approaches and how they relate to TMSP.

3. Establishing a Collaborative Governance and Planning Framework for Assessing TMSP Processes

Governance, according to Benz et al. (2007, p. 9, own translation) relates to ‘forms and mechanisms of coordination between more or less autonomous actors, the activities of whom are interdependent’. The governance concept developed in response to ‘traditional, hierarchical’ forms of policymaking. The concepts of collaborative governance and collaborative planning are closely interlinked and have evolved concomitantly across different policy areas. Collaborative governance has a multifaceted provenance with its roots in the studies of political science and public administration (Emerson et al., 2012). Collaborative planning, meanwhile, emerged in the field of planning studies, and is also referred to as ‘argumentative planning’ and ‘deliberative planning’ (Allmendinger & Twedwr-Jones 2002).

Emerson et al. (2012) define collaborative governance as ‘the process and structures of public policy decision-making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished.’ Central to this definition is the view that public and private actors should openly pool resources to solve common challenges. Collaborative governance emphasizes deliberative and consensual policymaking, based on open and inclusive stakeholder engagement, which enhances trust, shared understandings and joint values between participants (Emerson et al 2012).

Similarly, collaborative planning highlights the inclusion of participatory elements into the planning process. Stakeholder participation, beyond planners ‘as technocrats’, gained influence in the 1960s, famously spelled out through Arnstein’s participation ladder (1969). The goal of collaborative planning is to involve different types of stakeholders in planning activities and provide a platform that allows for decision-making based on shared power (Healey, 1992, Forester, 1999; Innes & Booher, 1999). Healey (1992) introduced the ‘communicative turn’ and suggests that collaborative planning is an ‘interactive and interpretative process undertaken among diverse and fluid discourse communities.’ At the centre of collaborative planning approaches is the Habermasian and Giddensian notion that knowledge and expertise are socially constructed, therefore, all relevant ideas and interests should be included and discussed during policymaking processes (Healey, 1992). The communicative turnemphasized a diversity of stakeholders and citizens participation in planning practice.

The main advantages of collaborative governance and planning processes is that they; firstly, foster social capital through the development of shared trust, values and visions between stakeholders; secondly, through a process of deliberation, augmentation and reciprocal persuasion, a policy consensus is reached that has the support of all stakeholders involved; and thirdly, high levels of stakeholder and civic engagement improve the quality, effectiveness and legitimacy of policy decisions (Healey, 1992; Ansell & Gash, 2008). At the same time, collaborative governance has been criticized for its failure to recognize the existence of power asymmetries, resource imbalances and weak institutional structures in collaborative processes, which can lead to the under-representation of certain groups and lowest common denominator decisions (Ansell & Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012).

While collaboration and cooperation are essential elements of TMSP processes, the key features of collaborative governance and planning as identified by scholars have not been used as a framework for examining the nature of collaboration in TMSP. Based on a literature review, we identified the following themes that allow for a more detailed analysis of collaborative governance: different contexts, key drivers of collaboration, institutional arrangements, stakeholder engagement, deliberation of activities, decision-making processes and (shared) motivations. In Table 1 we provide a synthesis of this literature, identifying some of the common tenets across these approaches (Healey, 1992; Innes & Booher, 1999; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012).

Table 1. The Key Dimensions of Collaborative Governance and Planning

Collaborative Governance and Planning Dimension	Dimension Description
Entrepreneurial Leader/Initiator	Entrepreneurial leaders and initiators drive the collaborative process and have the time, resources and support to establish a collaborative framework. They usually possess excellent social and diplomacy skills, the capacity to communicate information clearly, and inspire trust between participants.
Informal Institutional Arrangements	Institutional structures tend to be less hierarchical and more fluid operating procedures. Informal norms will usually be supplemented by more formalized structures the longer collaboration goes on.
Open and Inclusive Stakeholder Involvement	All relevant and interested stakeholders have equal access to the process based on mutual respect. Inclusivity is regarded as both normatively and instrumentally important as stakeholders bring different attitudes, values, interests, ideas and knowledge into the policymaking process.
Conflict and Shared Problem Solving	A sense of collective uncertainty and interdependence around a common problem is important to create the conditions and incentives for stakeholders with competing interests and values to engage in collaborative actions. Participants are willing to pool and share resources if there is agreement on the need to address urgent common problems and shared conflict issues.
Deliberative and consensus-based decision-making	Participants engage in constructive and reasoned communications, based on reciprocal persuasion where competing ideas and interests are challenged, which enhances mutual understanding between stakeholders and reduces the chance of conflict escalation. Deliberation will lead to joint concrete decisions included in strategic policy documents and recommendations that resolve conflicts and maximize opportunities. Decisions made do not reflect an aggregation of different interests but a consensus view on what represents the common good.
Enhanced Social Capital and Learning	Collaboration enhances trust and facilitates the development of shared meanings, values and common definitions among stakeholders.
Policy Impact	Policies developed through collaboration have a physical, environmental, social, economic and political impact.

Source: Authors own elaboration

Table 1 provides a framework for assessing the extent to which TMSP activities reflect a move towards collaborative governance and planning processes. In our assessment of planning and governance practices in EU sea basins we used our judgment in asking what collaborative governance and planning characteristics are evident and what are the challenges and the benefits of such an approach. The following section uses this framework to provide an empirical assessment of TMSP collaborative processes that occurred during TMSP projects in different European Sea Basins.

4. Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning Across European Sea Basins

All European Seas are involved in some form of TMSP, with varying degrees of collaboration. In this section, we present the example of the Baltic Sea Region and complement it with experiences from the Adriatic-Ionian and the North Sea. The BSR has been a forerunner in TMSP and consequently has received much academic attention analyzing TMSP governance and collaboration (Backer, 2011; Zaucha, 2014; Hassler et al., 2018; Janßen et al., 2018; Morf et al., 2019; Moodie et al., 2021b). The Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic Scope projects were unique governance exercises in TMSP in the BSR that brought together national planners and key stakeholders to identify cross-border issues and integrate national plans. Based on these findings, best practices and lessons learned were developed to help promote collaboration in future transboundary activities (Kull et al., 2017; Cedergren et al., 2019). In the North Sea, the NorthSEE project, which ran between 2016 and 2019 similarly brought together North Sea public authorities responsible for MSP aiming to achieve greater coherence. In a similar vein, the Adriplan, running between 2013 and 2015 provided the basis for collaboration in the Adriatic and Ionian Region.

4.1. Research Methods and Data

The analysis draws on multiple research methods and a wealth of original empirical material compiled throughout the course of EU TMSP projects in different sea basins. One of the authors was involved in the Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic Scope projects, which used three main research methods for collecting empirical material: participant observation, surveys and a focus group interview. Participatory observation data collection took place within different project activities, including planners’, thematic, sectoral and partner meetings. Online stakeholder surveys were conducted in both projects inviting project participants to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the collaborative approaches adopted during the projects. At the end of both projects, a focus group interview was conducted with planners and work package leaders to discuss the key TMSP collaboration lessons learned from the projects. Data triangulation was conducted to reduce the potential for researcher bias, with the focus group interview data being cross-checked with data from the stakeholder survey and participant observations to ensure the validity of interpretations and results (Kull et al., 2017; Cedergren et al., 2019).

The other author has researched MSP in the EU North Sea Region including participation in the NorthSEE project. The primary focus of the project was to analyse power dynamics in collaboration in the North Sea. In 16 interviews, stakeholders also gave information about their experiences with TMSP, and the development of MSP in Germany and the Uk specifically. A second research project, the ESPON Bridges project, focused among other territories with geographic specificities on coastal town development, and compared practices across Europe. The case studies were built on document analysis and 3–4 interviews in each case. For the purpose of this paper, the relevant information from these projects has been utilized. Similarly, one author was and is involved in several research projects that also tackle the Adriatic- and Ionian macro-region, including the MRS.ESPON project, where stakeholder consultation was conducted with representatives of the different macro-regional countries. Where needed, these data were complemented with desk research. The experiences and the knowledge derived from these projects is used to contrast the in-depth analysis from the BSR for similarities and differences with other EU sea basins.

4.2. Commonalities and Differences in TMSP Collaboration: A Multi-case Discussion

This section examines the collaborative activities that occurred in Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic Scope projects against the seven key dimensions of the collaborative governance and planning framework and relates to TMSP experiences in the North Sea and Adriatic-Ionian Sea cases.

Entrepreneurial Leader/Initiator

Entrepreneurial leaders and initiators are needed to drive collaborative TMSP governance and planning processes forward. The role of national planning authorities is vital for initiating discussion and bringing stakeholders together. The central role of planning authorities in TMSP processes is unsurprising given that they have the mandate from governments to develop national MSPs, which have to take into account transboundary issues as part of the EU’s 2014 MSP Directive. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) had an important role in the development and organization of the Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic SCOPE projects. SwAM’s project leaders were well respected by project partners as they were not only efficient organizers, but particularly effective at developing interpersonal and trust relationships between participants by fostering interactive discussion. Independent researchers and consultants also played a significant role in ensuring smooth project collaboration by playing the role of objective observants and mitigators when there was a conflict of interests between project participants (Kull et al, 2017; Cedergren et al, 2019).

Similarly, the North Sea and Adriatic-Ionian EU-funded projects have been developed to support a transboundary component in the development of national MSPs, and initial exchange of information and collaboration was fostered by overarching strategies such as sea-basin strategies or macro-regional strategies. More specifically, the Interreg NorthSEE project and the North Sea’s Commission North Sea 2030 strategy, as well as the ADRIPLAN project and with the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region were crucial initiatives that brought stakeholders together. The NorthSEE project is an example where the continuous collaboration continuously reacts to political circumstances, such as Brexit negotiations, where Scotland was more engaged than England in the NorthSEE project. In line with the experiences in the BSR where leadership of some national agencies has proven important, the Adriatic and Ionian example showcases the role of blue growth activities and entrepreneurial leadership in driving collaborations.

Informal Institutional Arrangements

Both the Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic SCOPE were ad hoc and informal in structural arrangement. The collaborative activities were time limited and restricted to the two-year duration of the projects, but the networks established have the potential to develop into more permanent structures, as indicated by the continuation of the same partnerships in future collaborations, such as the EU funded eMSP project.

In the Adriatic-Ionian Sea, the informal institutional arrangements offered through the EU macro-regional strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region offer a valuable space for exchange of MSP plans and often give birth to joint project initiatives. While these newer informal institutional arrangements certainly allow room for discussions and open stakeholder involvement, long-term stakeholders such as the VASAB, OSPAR or the Barcelona Convention continue to play a major role. Here path-dependency can be observed and at times prevent new stakeholders to cooperate and rather seek to engage in parallel processes leading to sometimes competing discussion. In the NorthSEE project, participants noted that the project’s setting allowed stakeholders ‘to take up the phone’ between project meetings and understand the constraints of the MSPs in other countries.

Project collaborations are ultimately time restricted and experience from across all sea basins appears to suggest that little independent collaboration occurs between project partners outside of a project setting. Indeed, while collaboration has certainly strengthened the networks across these regions, participants from all projects noted that more permanent institutional structures are required that regularly bring together key MSP stakeholders.

Open and Inclusive Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholder engagement is particularly important in TMSP for overcoming conflicts and increasing the legitimacy of policymaking by generating alternative perspectives and more informed decisions (Zaucha et al., 2016). There is, however, a lack of understanding and knowledge about how to integrate stakeholders in MSP, particularly in transboundary settings (McCann et al., 2014). The Baltic SCOPE, the Pan Baltic SCOPE projects as well as the NorthSee projects have revealed that a lack of time, resources (finances and personnel) and clear incentives is affecting stakeholder capacity to engage in transnational collaborations (Kull et al., 2017). The projects also revealed different levels of engagement and influence across sectors in TMSP activities. A recurring theme in BSR projects is that the shipping sector has a greater influence over the sea, with other sectors having to develop their plans around well-established and clearly outlined shipping routes. Similarly, in the North Sea, the influence of the development of Offshore Windparks and the influence of the energy sector has been disputed. Other sectors are also thought to be underrepresented in transboundary discussions including the defence, tourism, cultural heritage sectors and the oil industry. In the Adriatic-Ionian Sea, however, the tourism sector, has proven to be more influential due to its growth potential. In the Baltic SCOPE project, the difficulty of involving regional and local stakeholders in cross-border MSP was an issue highlighted during the organization of transboundary stakeholder events. The underrepresentation of certain sectors and political actors raises questions about the openness and inclusivity of TMSP collaborations and the legitimacy of decision-making if important sectoral voices are not heard (Moodie et al., 2019). MSP stakeholders need both a clear understanding of the relevance of TMSP and understand how they are concretely affected to enhance participation in collaborative activities.

In the initial phase of the NorthSEE project a major part of the project was dedicated to identifying the individual countries approaches in transposing the EU Directive and determine different approaches to conducting MSP. The Adriplan project for the Adriatic-Ionian Region, the SIMNORAT project for the North Atlantic Region or the SIMWESTMED project for the Western Mediterranean’s are other examples (European Commission, 2020). A key difference between the seas is the experience and level of cooperation they can draw on. In the Adriatic-Ionian Region, for instance, the cooperation started rather from scratch in contrast to the Baltic Sea Region where many stakeholders already have experience of collaboration with their counterparts.

Conflict and Shared Problem Solving

Collaborative governance and planning are based on participants’ willingness to pool knowledge and ideas in the search for solutions to shared and common problems. The nature of conflicts differs considerably across European seas, affecting the political scope for project partners. In the Adriatic-Ionian Sea for example existing border disputes impact on opportunities for collaborative governance. Further, despite TMSP offering a new cooperation format, long-term disputes came to the surface again. In the North Sea, for example, the discussion around the competing uses of the Doggerbanks impacts debates for MSPs and are a reason for England to be reluctant to engage in broader projects. Brexit, and the subsequent discussions around fishing, have further impacted on the background against which collaboration developed in the North Sea.

The Baltic SCOPE project, in particular, was largely driven by the identification of TMSP conflict areas in the Baltic Sea Region, and the search for potential solutions through bi-lateral and tri-lateral meetings. However, Baltic SCOPE also proved that conflict is not the only driver of collaboration, with the search for potential synergies between sectors also considered a source of collaboration. For example, with the potential for combining the development of offshore wind energy with new fish habitats. Although it should be noted that project participants observed that many of the potential synergies identified were not very feasible in practice (Kull et al., 2017). Pan Baltic SCOPE also highlighted that a search for common understandings was a potential driver of collaboration. A number of activities within Pan Baltic SCOPE were focused on developing shared definitions of what constitutes an ecosystem-based approach and establishing a common framework for gathering transboundary MSP data, in order to harmonize and standardize activities across the Baltic Sea Region.

Deliberation and Consensus-based Decision-making

Throughout the Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic SCOPE projects, stakeholders openly shared and discussed information, which helped enhance knowledge and understanding of TMSP stakeholder priorities and interests in the Baltic Sea Region. Information sharing was not a one-way process and deliberation took place as participants discussed their respective position to establish where there was the potential for conflict and synergies. High levels of deliberation and reciprocal persuasion were particularly evident in the Southwest Baltic case study in the Baltic SCOPE project where stakeholders with competing interests sat together to seeks solutions in TMSP conflict areas. During the projects, deliberation and discussion was constrained by the quality of transboundary data available. Transboundary maps were developed as part of both projects to help guide discussion, but participants noted that harmonized and standardized transboundary data collection methods are required to develop effective plans and maps. Policy recommendations were formulated as part of both projects. In the Baltic SCOPE project an extremely democratic process was employed during the creation of recommendations as stakeholders worded recommendations together before voting on the recommendations to be included in the final report. The recommendations, therefore, represented a consensus of stakeholder views, but one planner voiced frustration that the recommendations were too general to make any impact on national governments. While the Baltic Sea projects where much more targeted towards joint MSP developments, initial developments in the North Sea aimed to understand the different national contexts and legal developments before actual spatial relations in the plans were discussed.

Enhanced Social Capital and Learning

Enhanced social capital and learning have been the most significant outcomes of the collaborative activities in Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic SCOPE. These projects have contributed towards enhancing knowledge, learning and understanding of national level MSP planning structures and sea use priorities amongst participants (Moodie et al., 2019). Both, in the Adriatic-Ionian as well as in the North Sea stakeholders report similar experiences. National planners and key stakeholders openly shared information regarding their own MSPs and interests, allowing other countries to identify areas of potential conflict and synergy. Face-to-face interaction and discussion were highlighted an essential for the exchange of information and building interpersonal relationships. All participants noted that the Baltic SCOPE and Pan Baltic SCOPE projects have strengthened the network of MSP stakeholders in the Baltic Sea Region (Kull et al., 2017; Cedergren, 2019). The levels of trust and confidence amongst Baltic SCOPE participants was reflected in their willingness to participate in Pan Baltic SCOPE and cooperate in future projects together. In the case of the BSR, findings from recent transboundary projects indicate that a pan-Baltic mindset is starting to develop among key MSP stakeholders, with transboundary thinking slowly permeating national level MSP planning activities (Kull et al., 2017). In the Adriatic-Ionian Region the macro-regional strategy has also provided a background for a more transboundary mindset. In all three case studies, the overarching strategies, EU macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea and the Adriatic-Ionian Sea, and the North Sea Region 2020 Strategy provide for exchange and allow for learning and enhancement of social capital, stakeholders still feel that more targeted permanent platforms are needed.

Policy Impact

The recommendations developed as part of the Baltic SCOPE have made little physical, environmental, social, economic and political impact, and it is too early to assess the potential impact of Pan Baltic SCOPE recommendations. The Baltic SCOPE recommendations have had little policy impact for a number of reasons; firstly, project recommendations are not binding policy agreements, so there is no direct pressure for them to be implemented by stakeholders. Secondly, recommendations to emerge from the project are extremely broad and general making them difficult to implemented without further elaboration and specification. Thirdly, many of the recommendations are directed at planners own internal processes rather than being policy specific. Finally, in cases where policy agreements on specific geographical conflict areas were reached between planners through bi-lateral discussions they were rejected by national governments. Ultimately, planners and stakeholders can develop policy proposals and recommendations, but it is the politicians that decide. Some of the recommendations developed in Baltic SCOPE formed the basis for further research and discussion during the Pan Baltic SCOPE project. This highlights that while project recommendations are having some impact internally within the Baltic SCOPE network, they are having less impact outside the project setting. In the North Sea and the Adriatic and Ionian case coordination that was developed through the project and strategy platforms, has impacted in many countries on the chosen approaches for the own national regulations, as well as that concrete coordination for individual MSPs was facilitated. Ultimately, however, MSP remained a national concern.

Contrasting the North Sea and Adriatic-Ionian developments with the Baltic Sea Region shows that in all regions attempts for collaborative governance processes on the sea are under way. At the same time political sensitivities play a crucial role in transboundary MSP. The collaboration process in the Baltic Sea and the experience from the two projects shows that the long-lasting experience in cooperation within the Baltic Sea Region facilitates cooperation. The North Sea Commission for example does not incorporate all North Sea authorities, and OSPAR, the equivalent to HELCOM is covering the whole Atlantic Arc. Therefore, experience for collaboration is lacking.

5. Discussion

The central goal of EU-level TMSP regulations and activities is to promote collaboration and cohesion within European sea basins. Starting from this premise, the collaborative governance and planning framework outlined in this article can serve as both a guide for policymakers for developing more effective TMSP collaborative processes, and a tool for researchers to evaluate TMSP activities. A collaborative planning and governance framework also has the potential to act as an umbrella governance concept, as the key dimensions dovetail the central tenets of other governance concepts that have recently been used to analyze TMSP, including multi-level governance (Saunders et al 2016), territorial governance (Moodie et al., 2021b), and reflective governance (Tatenhove, 2017).

The findings outlined in this article indicate that the key features of collaborative governance and planning are reflected in the transboundary MSP cooperation practices within European Sea basins. Various TMSP projects have contributed towards increased knowledge, understanding and learning regarding TMSP issues, which help to strengthen networks and enhance trust between stakeholders. They have also led to the development of shared TMSP data, solutions to common TMSP conflicts, and recommendations for potential synergies between stakeholders (Kull et al., 2017; Cedergren et al., 2019). However, transboundary collaborations also highlighted important weaknesses with collaborative governance and planning frameworks. The lack of permanent collaborative TMSP platforms, competing national and sectoral interests, heterogenous national planning systems, power asymmetries between stakeholders, and the unreliability of TMSP data present major obstacles to future collaborative efforts.

These findings support the recent research of Hassler et al. (2018), Morf et al. (2019) and Moodie et al. (2021a) that genuine cohesion and collaborative TMSP processes are going to be difficult to achieve if these challenges are not addressed. As Flannery et al. (2020) note, it is especially important for progressive MSP processes that collaborations are open and inclusive to a range of stakeholders, so they do not perpetuate existing power asymmetries. Research has consistently shown that stakeholder mobilization is difficult in both ICZM and TMSP as many stakeholders lack the time and resources to contribute to discussions (Soriani et al., 2015; Giacometti et al., 2020). Policymakers must recognize the diversity of interests involved in planning the sea and ensure that the voices of underrepresented sectors, local actors and citizens are heard (Moodie et al., 2021a). As Kevin St Martin et al. (2007) note in their work on the fishing sector, effective planning processes must embrace different types of political, expert and practical knowledge, values and interests, particularly the views of local community groups and citizens. Collaborative governance and planning models can accommodate such knowledge diversity, but it is essential to find ways of incentivizing stakeholders by highlighting the benefits of participation in TMSP activities.

The future development of collaborative TMSP activities within European sea basins depends largely on how the project-driven activities and collaborative practices can feed into broader, more long-term and permanent institutional and policy developments. EU TMSP projects were successful in developing joint languages, understandings and gaining new knowledge. Most importantly, projects allowed for key stakeholders from national authorities to get to know the interests and priorities of counterparts in other member states and this helped to enhance understanding and trust among actors. However, due to the fixed-term timeframes of these projects, one has to be critical of the long-term impact. First, stakeholders are more willing to (seemingly) collaborate if the final decision-making occurs outside and after the collaborative process. Further, EU projects may be open to involving a diversity of stakeholders at the beginning. In practical terms, however, the projects are limited to the consortia at hand. The projects and the strategies further contributed to the development of shared TMSP and raised calls for the development of more long-term data platform. In the Baltic Sea Region, the HELCOM has designed a data platform, as well as the ESPON designed data platform (MRS. ESPON) targeting at least two sea basins through the macro-regional strategies.

The most relevant weaknesses of TMSP practices are the limited time frames, and ultimately the different planning frameworks. While the projects helped stakeholders to understand other countries approaches, discussion about crucial competing interests often were not addressed as part of the projects. An example are the debates about the delimitations of borders in the Mediterraanen (Berzi & Ariza, 2018) or the Adriatic-Ionian Sea. The competing national and sectoral interests hamper collaboration. The informal set-up of the TMSP allows Member States to abstain from projects, and therefore avoid joint-up approaches altogether as the example of England in the North Sea highlights.

6. Conclusion

TMSP processes are at an early experimental stage of collaborative governance and planning. Future research can focus on how the key dimensions of collaborative governance and planning models can be adapted to improve the effectiveness of TMSP. Indeed, collaborative approaches have the potential to help overcome many of the key obstacles to further TMSP cohesion identified in the literature, including raising awareness of differences in national planning priorities and processes (Cedergren et al., 2019), identifying transboundary conflict areas and potential solutions (Moodie et al., 2019), encouraging cross-sector collaboration (Schultz-Zehden & Gee, 2016) and reducing power asymmetries through proactive stakeholder and citizen engagement (Flannery et al., 2020). However, a major concern with collaboration within the context of TMSP so far is that it largely remains an information-exchange exercise and the lowest common denominator decisions and recommendations to emerge from TMSP discussions have limited policy impact (Moodie et al., 2021a). As a result, collaborative governance and planning processes have a long way to go before they can impact political decision-making and the development of coherent joint transboundary marine spatial plans.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).