This paper analyses challenges and enablers for integrating a transboundary land-sea interaction (LSI) perspective into marine spatial planning (MSP) practice as experienced in the Baltic Sea Region. Collaborative research results from the Pan Baltic Scope project indicate that LSI remains an amorphous concept, particularly within a transboundary MSP context. Difficulty lies in bridging planning practices across land and sea and between varying uses, administrative settings and governance functions. Addressing LSI requires capacity, time, resources, awareness, reflection, and forums for collaborative learning across sectors and governance levels.
Due to rigid copyright rules the following is a short summary of the abstract, go to the open source:
Maritime spatial planning (MSP) needs tools to facilitate discussions and manage spatial data in collaborative workshops that involve actors with different types of backgrounds and expertise. Never the less, spatial tools in real-world MSP are only sparsely used. In the article it is argued that more knowledge about the use of GIS can support MSP is needed. It studies the use of GIS as a tool for collaborative MSP in five steps around development and testing of the prototype collaborative GIS, Baltic Explorer. The evaluation of the use found that the present functionalities of the system could support and facilitate the collaborative discussions in the MSP work. Still more research in the use of spatial data in the MSP process is needed.
While European policies have progressed towards an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM), limited attention has been paid to the implications for its advisory system. This paper analyzes the advisory landscape in the European Union (EU) by addressing two questions: to what extent can the needed advice be provided? how prepared is the management system to integrate ecosystem advice? We provide a systematic analysis of the relevant advisory bodies, explore gaps related to the requested and delivered advice, and identify paths for improvement. The findings confirm earlier observations of lack of a formalized process to provide and integrate advice in support of an ecosystem approach into EU fisheries management. Instead of enabling existing capacities to embed ecosystem components (eg investments and initiatives made by stakeholders (and authorities) to move to EAFM -pushing strategies), the system relies heavily on mandatory requests from policy makers (pulling mechanisms). Furthermore, social and economic dimensions are the weakest aspects in the advisory process, which hampers the balancing of objectives that represent one of the hallmarks of EAFM. The policy framework has adopted EAFM for European fisheries, but the advisory processes have not yet been adapted to substantially support EAFM.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the impact assessment of a mandatory operational goal-based short-term measure to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions from ships. The specific measure has been proposed by Denmark and other co-sponsors in the context of the relevant discussion at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and in particular the so-called Initial IMO Strategy. The IMO is a specialized United Nations agency that regulates shipping. The Initial IMO Strategy, adopted in 2018, has been the most recent major international environmental agreement on how to reduce GHG emissions from ships at a global level. The central research question in this paper is to ascertain the potential impacts of the aforementioned measure to least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS). There are concerns that such states may be negatively impacted, or even disproportionately negatively impacted, by whatever measure is decided by the IMO. After gaps in the literature and data are identified, our methodology develops a list of potential negative impacts, and looks at a set of factors that may influence these impacts. Then, we discuss how the goal-based measure may impact LDCs/SIDs as regards each of the identified negative impacts. The analysis argues that for LDCs and SIDS a risk for negative and disproportionately negative impacts exists. The only negative impact of which both the probability and the consequence are considered high is the difficulty to finance retrofitting of old ships or investment in new ships. As such, this is likely a disproportionally negative impact. At the same time, the degree of share (or responsibility) of the goal-based measure with respect to such potential negative impacts, vis-à-vis the share of other factors contributing to these impacts, cannot be precisely ascertained, even though we conjecture this share to be low.
“The Maritime Industry 2030” was the kick-off conference for the Maritime Research Alliance (MRA), which was recently established in cooperation between seven Danish universities and two Danish maritime professional academies. This report summarizes the discussions at the conference and broader important maritime industry issues as well as presents the goals of MRA.
There have been several calls from private foundations, industry associations and governmental agencies to map out and to extensively coordinate cross-disciplinary maritime research in Denmark. MRA is an initiative that strengthens existing and creates new collaborative relationships across the universities and maritime academies, in part as a response to such calls. The most important aims of MRA are to:
1. Find solutions to those challenges to the maritime sector that require cross-disciplinary ventures
2. Create a critical mass of expertise in Denmark for maritime and related topics
3. Be a visible and viable one-point-of-contact to academic involvement and output for the industry
4. Attract attention nationally and internationally for Danish maritime research and education
5. Make Danish universities and maritime academies attractive partners for international cooperation on maritime and related projects
About the conference-report:
The “Maritime Industry 2030” conference was an international and joint researcher/practitioner event held at the Copenhagen Business School during 5-6 February 2018.
The first day of the conference was an open event organized with the aim of bringing industry and academia together to identify and discuss the most important issues facing the maritime industry in the near term towards 2030 and to lay a firm foundation for closer cross-disciplinary collaboration for addressing these issues.
The second day of the conference was a closed event for MRA members organized with the aim to reflect on the identified issues, determine the future focus and direction of MRA and initiate specific collaborative research projects.
The conference was kindly supported by the Danish Maritime Fund. In 2020 the fund supported the establishment of the Maritime Research Alliance based on, among other, future cross-disciplinary research themes and ideas that were identified at the conference.
Exploring how transnational environmental governance and the operation of global value chains (GVCs) intersect is key in explaining the circumstances under which mandatory disclosure can improve the environmental footprint of business operations. We investigate how the governance dynamics of the tanker shipping value chain (a major emitter of greenhouse gases) limits the effectiveness of the European Union (EU) monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) regulation, which mandates the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions for ships calling at EU ports. Although MRV seeks to help shipowners and ship managers save fuel and reduce emissions, it does not address the complexity of power relations along the tanker shipping value chain and currently cannot disentangle how different actors influence the design, operational, commercial, and ocean/weather factors that together determine fuel consumption. In particular, the EU MRV neglects to reflect on how oil majors exert their power and impose their commercial priorities on other actors, and thus co-determine fuel use levels. We conclude that, in its current form, the EU MRV is unlikely to lead to significant environmental upgrading in tanker shipping. More generally, we argue that regulators seeking to facilitate environmental upgrading need to expand their focus beyond the unwanted behaviors of producers of goods and providers of services to also address the incentive structures and demands placed on them by global buyers.
With growing pressures on marine ecosystems and on marine space, an increasingly needed strategy to optimize the use of marine space is to co-locate synergic marine human uses in close spatial–temporal proximity while separating conflicting marine human uses. The ArcMap toolbox SEANERGY is a new, cross-sectoral spatial decision support tool (DST) that enables maritime spatial planners to consider synergies and conflicts between marine uses to support assessments of co-location options. Cross-sectoral approaches are important to reach more integrative maritime spatial planning (MSP) processes. As this article demonstrates through a Baltic Sea analysis, SEANERGY presents a crosssectoral use catalog for MSP through enabling the tool users to answer important specific questions to spatially and/or numerically weight potential synergies/conflicts between marine uses. The article discusses to what degree such a cross-sectoral perspective can support integrative MSP processes. While MSP integrative challenges still exist, SEANERGY enables MSP processes to move towards developing shared goals and initiate discussions built on best available knowledge regarding potential use-use synergies and use-use conflicts for whole sea basins at once.
In 2020, the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food launched a new state-led ecolabelling scheme for fish originating from small-scale, 'low-environmental-impact' fisheries; "Nature-friendly". The label was introduced to a domestic market where the vast majority of the fish landed by Danish vessels was already certified by the global leader in certification of (wild caught) fish products, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). MSC's high market penetration created a situation where especially small-scale fishermen felt that MSC certification had developed into a market norm without providing fishermen the benefits of demonstrating extraordinarily sustainable practices and thereby gaining competitive advantages. Rather, MSC's market penetration was perceived as undermining efforts to brand and market fish originating from small-scale fisheries as particularly sustainable. This article explores the processes that led up to the NaturSkånsom labeling scheme by applying a 'power in planning and policy framework' as an analytical lens. Through the NaturSkånsom process, the article investigates what happens when an ecolabel becomes a market norm, how small-scale fisheries actors who feel disadvantaged by such a development and environmental organizations form alliances, mobilize support and multiple resources to strengthen their positions in the political settings. The examination of this case highlights how stakeholders traditionally thought of as less resourceful can gain political influence. The article offers a glimpse into a possible, emerging future where those who perceive themselves as the most sustainable producers may increasingly view large and dominating ecolabels simultaneously as obstacles and forces for positive change.
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.