Planning for Sea Spaces I: Processes, Practices, and Future Perspectives

Abstract

Video Abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Member states of the European Union (EU) were due to establish their maritime spatial plans, following the EU’s 2014 Directive for Maritime Spatial Planning (Directive 2014/89/EU, 2014) by end of March 2021. In response to this legislative development, a new institutional, administrative, and policy marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) community has emerged in the EU member states, with an increasingly global reach (Trouillet, 2020). MSP has emerged within a marine management context and for the most part constitutes its own epistemic community, set apart from current developments and debates in spatial planning research and practice on land (Jay, 2010; Kidd & Ellis, 2012). The proliferation of MSP has been accompanied by a critical analysis of its practices in academia (e.g. Flannery et al., 2019; Zaucha & Gee, 2019; Clarke & Flannery, 2020). Despite the broad foundation of these debates, there is a tendency for articles on MSP to be published in environmental policy or marine journals rather than in planning journals (see, for example, Flannery et al., 2018; Moodie et al., 2019).

The aim of two themed issues on MSP, of which this is edition one, is to more firmly position the development of MSP in the core of spatial planning debates. MSP has been defined as ‘the public process analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas [and terrestrial areas] to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process.’ (Ehler & Douvere, 2009, p. 18). This is closely aligned with the process of terrestrial planning and the two face some similar challenges. MSP in practice demonstrates a high degree of variability influenced by national contexts, prevailing planning traditions and policy priorities. In broad terms, it is possible to distinguish between two distinct interpretations of the role of MSP. The primary task of MSP may be understood in terms of sea use regulation; the regulation of activities across marine space by means of zoning and use designation. Sea use regulation can provide a degree of certainty for economic actors and other interests and help to ensure consistency, coherence, and compatibility among sectoral plans. Plans of this nature are often legally binding while allowing for some discretion in decision-making on individual proposals. MSP may, however, also perform a strategic visioning role, establishing a coherent policy framework for future decision-making, based on a future-oriented policy vision. Strategic vision statements are key to realising the cross-sectoral, integrative ambitions of MSP and may help to identify potential synergies and points of intersection across policy sectors (Albrechts, 2010; Walsh & Kannen, 2019).

As editors of this double-themed issues, we are convinced that the planning debate would profit hugely from engaging more with the contemporary experience in MSP, and vice-versa (see also Walsh, 2020).¹ For terrestrial planning and for the contemporary academic planning discourse, the development of a new policy field and the emergence of planning practices in a short period of time provides a unique opportunity for reflection on how planning practices sit in existing administrative settings and are shaped by the transnational, connected EU context (Moodie et al., 2021), as well as by international influences. There are also practical reasons for closing the divide: the land–sea interface (LSI), i.e. the coast, tests the limits and boundaries of both planning regimes and is often covered inadequately by either (Walsh, 2021).

The submission of maritime plans by member states to the EU offers a unique point in time to reflect on – and critically evaluate – MSP practices and their relation to terrestrial and coastal planning practices. This is true also beyond EU borders. According to IOC-UNESCO (2022), by August 2018, more than 140 marine plans were prepared at the national, regional, or local level by about 70 countries, a number that is continuously growing. The collection of papers in this special issue provides insights into current practices in marine planning in diverse socio-political contexts.

This is also an opportune moment to consider a research agenda for MSP from a planning perspective. Planning Practice and Research provides an ideal platform to launch this agenda. The overwhelming response to our call for papers confirmed that linking and better positioning the MSP debate in and to the planning discourse is much needed, and ultimately allowed us to develop a double special issue.

Key questions we raise with these special issues include: What understandings of planning underlie MSP practices and shape the planning of sea space? To what extent does MSP incorporate collaborative and participatory planning practices? What are the key stakeholder groups and power distributions within these processes? What challenges do the land–sea interface pose for spatial planning as a whole? How are concepts such as seascape values or culturally significant sea space related to in MSP? Are new planning paradigms emerging from MSP experience? What are the emergent challenges for practice and implementation? Are there significant divergences or convergences between marine and terrestrial spatial planning? What are the key opportunities for developing shared research agendas?

The papers incorporated in these two themed issues begin to engage with these questions for planners in practice and research, covering a range of topics, allowing us to discuss implications for future research in the introduction of the second themed issue to come. Jay (2021) provides a useful point of departure for broadening MSP debates at the land–sea interface by considering the difference between terrestrial and marine environments as planning ‘milieus’. The paper explores whether more lived experiences by planners of the bio-physical realities of the sea might improve the processes and outcomes of marine spatial planning (MSP). Terrestrial planners are often more tangibly familiar with their planning areas as they can walk the streets and landscapes, and may rely on the assets and services in these areas in their own day-to-day. Interviews with individuals from MSP authorities point to a fine balance between the need to know the environment more intimately and accessing this knowledge vis-à-vis the input of stakeholders.

Other studies provide further evidence of the difference between planning on land and planning at sea. Howells and Ramirez-Monsalve (2021) use the example of Denmark, where MSP has effectively taken priority over terrestrial planning in coastal areas, and where the land–sea divide has been reinforced through the institutionalization of MSP. Conflicting objectives between the tourism industry and the mariculture industry on the Djursland Peninsula typify this divide. Expanding mariculture has been high on the political agenda since 2015 and dominates MSP processes, even though many of the developments might negatively impact the tourism experience. Neither municipal nor local plans (under which terrestrial tourism projects would run) can contravene the maritime spatial plan. This essentially pits local government against central government, and there is typically only one winner in that scenario. The authors suggest that renewed attention to integrating processes at the land–sea interface is urgently required.

Staying with the topic of institutional arrangements and the integration necessary for planning at the coast, Smith et al. (2021) consider the case of adapting to climate change in the Republic of Ireland. The coast is where some of the most extreme impacts of climate change are – and will be – experienced, including flooding, erosion, and storm damage. As in Denmark, in Ireland the planning jurisdiction for the country’s 31 local authorities ends at the mean high-water mark and the state is responsible for anything beyond this on the seaward side. There is no national policy for the management of the coast. Although local authorities are responsible for drawing up climate change adaptation strategies for their areas, they have been unable to consider activities in the intertidal zone and beyond. Through a small-town case study, and an analytical framework for policy coherence, the authors demonstrate how these arrangements can restrict the development of comprehensive climate change adaptation measures. A coast-focused approach may also be beneficial here.

A useful way to approach more ‘joined up’ or ‘coast-focused’ planning might be from the perspective of community-level interests. However, this would be dependent on an improved level of community and stakeholder engagement in MSP. (Yet et al., 2022) explore the lessons learned from community planning in the terrestrial context. This principles-driven process (true participation for the integration of local, experiential knowledge) helps to collaboratively envision a future for the community and then design strategies to bring this future to fruition. Using the available literature on the topic and the experiences of community engagement for terrestrial planning in Nova Scotia, the authors consider the applicability of the approach in MSP. Despite the challenge of building trust on all sides, there is great potential to address the democratic deficit that often exists in MSP processes through well-institutionalized citizen engagement.

At the same time, innovative methods are needed to tackle deep-rooted conflicts at sea. Our oceans and seas are beautiful and dynamic environments, but they are also sites of disagreements between resource users. Tafon et al. (2021) consider how to address the power-knowledge imbalances, injustices, and inequities that underpin both overt and deep-rooted forms of conflict. They suggest a four-step framework for this that involves assessing the root causes of conflict, fostering meaningful knowledge co-production, redressing inequalities, and designing the necessary governance infrastructure to support this at both local and top levels. This so-called pragmatic agonistic co-produced conflict transformation (PACT) helps us to see conflict as a window of opportunity and foster a commitment to truly understand and manage it.

The articles tackle fundamental questions on outlining the differences between terrestrial and maritime planning, the role of land–sea interaction in an era of climate change as well as that reflecting on the relationships between stakeholders both through the lens of conflict and the lens of community planning. Building on these debates, the second themed issue features articles with a focus on the specific challenge of collaborative governance practices and participation across states, as well as challenges and enablers of integration at the land–sea interface (Moodie & Sielker, 2021; Tissière & Trouillet, 2022). Furthermore, the second special issues revisit questions on the conceptualizations of the sea as a holistic seascape composed of both human-made and natural phenomena (Couling, 2022; Kon Kam King & Riera, 2022). In doing so, the second themed issue expands on this themed issue through links to broader debates in geography, such as more-than-human themes, whilst also revisiting the central topic of planning challenges at the LSI.

Overall, these papers indicate that MSP as a growing policy field profits substantially from understanding terrestrial planning practices – and vice versa. As European States move onto the next phase of planning their seas, we hope that the findings presented here can contribute to an increased knowledge exchange between these research communities, and lessen the divide between ‘terrestrial and marine milieus’.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. The idea for this special issue originated during a joint conference between the Association of European Schools of Planning Thematic Group ‘Transboundary Spaces, Policy Diffusion, Planning Cultures’ and the Marine Spatial Planning Research Network (MSPRN) in Hamburg 2019 (see also the conference report by Walsh (2020).