Around 70% of our planet is covered by water. Just as human activities on land require planning, planning is also needed at sea. How can the space at sea be allocated to activities for use and protection in a space-saving way? How can we think across the different sectors so that marine planning is more coherent? These are questions that I am working to answer in my Ph.D. at Aalborg University, Copenhagen.
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.
The aim of this article is to illustrate the most important changes in the regulatory framework of the shipping sector from the 1960s to 2010, and to analyse the basis for, and effects of, these changes. In order to explain how the transformation has occurred, we use two traditional maritime nations—Denmark and Norway—as case studies. First, we introduce the two regimes of Danish and Norwegian shipping: ‘the national regime’ from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s; and ‘the competitive regime’, which was fully established by the middle of the 1990s and still persists. Then, we briefly sketch the bargaining that accompanied the shift from the national regime to the competitive regime. Specifically, we show that the new regime primarily accommodated the interests of private actors such as shipping companies, rather than the interests of the authorities and the trade unions.
For the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, solving the discard problem is a central issue. Through a study of the institutional set-up and initiatives to solve the discard problem in Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway, the article identifies the discard problem as related to natural and other material conditions as well as cultural conditions. Therefore, solving the discard problem requires not only technical and regulatory instruments, but also arenas and structures that allow and support cultural change processes.
The literature on climate change in the maritime transport industry has grown rapidly in the last few years. Yet as the research agenda has progressed, scientific debates have become more isolated and fragmented, making it difficult to translate new findings into broader policy debates. This article draws on problematization methodology to help organize the scientific debate on maritime emissions and to identify analytical gaps and challenges. We argue that scholars investigate shipping's emission problem from four distinct analytical perspectives— (1) international laws and regulations, (2) markets and economics, (3) engineering and technology, and (4) authority and legitimacy. Each of these perspectives problematizes maritime emissions in specific ways, leading to different policies and strategies to address the problem. We call for better integrating these four literatures and highlight three crosscutting areas and problems for future research. First, developing institutions that facilitate market and engineering solutions; second, integrating climate mitigation and adaptation research; and third, focusing on justice concerns to ensure an equitable green transition in the maritime industry.
Infrastructure-led development is driving geopolitical agendas in the Global South, and Djibouti is a case in point. Strategically situated in the Horn of Africa, Djibouti's seaports and related infrastructure have been modernized through foreign investments to serve international trade and growing African hinterlands. Scholarship often posits foreign logistics investors as hegemons driven by geopolitical interests, and host states as passive recipients. This paper questions such claims. It examines the relationship between "hegemon" and "host state" from the perspective of the latter, in this case the Djibouti government's interactions with Emirati and Chinese infrastructure companies. Methodologically, the analysis is based on interviews, secondary data and document analysis. It applies a conflict-sensitive controversies approach from critical logistics studies to trace contestation over authority in Djibouti's logistics sector. It shows how Djibouti's government applies various strategies (discursive, legal and political) to exercise agency in its logistics sector. The paper concludes that the geopolitics of infrastructure-led development is a reciprocal effort that goes beyond conventional logics of hegemons imposing on host states.
Illicit maritime activities generate significant scholarly and policy attention. While diverse in nature, governance responses share many regulatory features. This introduction advances the notion of maritime justice, a socio‐legal research agenda. Different from broader maritime security studies, it places law at the centre of the inquiry, studying maritime governance practices through the lens of regulation. Empirically, it covers operational, spatial, and structural junctions between illicit maritime activity and regulatory responses deriving from international and domestic law. Analytically, it is heterogeneous but holds a methodological commitment to studying everyday law enforcement practices of maritime security governance to disentangle its meanings and effects. The introduction posits the junction between illicit maritime activities and regulatory responses as a productive space to study the varied norms that shape order‐making at sea, and vice versa.
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.