progress of the baltic scope lessons learned topic so far *

Lessons learned – actually

http://www.rofrahome.de/

http://www2.lernplattform.schule.at/

Lessons Learned So far

Prepared for presentation at

the Baltic SCOPE Partner Meeting

Szczecin, June 21-22 2016

By Team Nordregio - Michael Kull, Alberto Giacometti, Andrea

Morf & John Moodie

Content of PresentationI. SETTING THE SCENE

• 1. Methods & Data Collection

• 2. The Territorial Governance Approach: 5 Key

Dimensions

II. LESSONS LEARNED SO FAR

• 4. Coordination & Collaboration of Institutional Actors

• 5. Cross-sectoral Integration & Synergies

• 6. Stakeholder Participation & Engagement

• 7. Maritime Specificities and Jurisdictional Boundaries

III. SUMMING UP & WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

1. Methods & Data Collection

1. Participant Observation

– Fly on the wall = Observation of planners & thematic meetings & stakeholderevents.

– Data collected & structured around a questionnaire/survey based on the conceptof territorial governance (e.g. Schmitt & van Well 2016).

2. Delphi Survey

– Give voice to YOU, the learners & link your perceptions (“the observed ones”)with interpretations from the participant observation processes.

– Give YOU, the planners ownership of the results & provide space for YOU tovoice concerns & highlight positive outcomes.

3. Focus Groups

– Three separate focus groups with 1) project partners CB, 2) project partnersSWB & 3) case leaders/project managers (+ PL in extra session).

– Focus groups allow YOU to provide more in depth & detailed feedback on theresults from the Delphi survey & YOUR perceptions on the project as a whole.

2. The Territorial Governance Approach: 5 Key Dimensions

RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE on TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE:

Identify territorial specificities & place-based knowledge & how can it beintegrated into policymaking processes (Schmitt & Van Well 2016).

Focus on co-operation & collaboration between governmental and non-governmental actors (Lidström 2007; Gualini 2008; Davoudi et al 2008).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION:

Territorial governance essential component in the implementation of an effective European cohesion policy (European Commission 2007).

No ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions, but evidence-based policymaking in governance practices at different levels & in different contexts.

PLANNING & POLICY MAKING:

A holistic approach to support spatial planning work, used as an instrument for practitioners, policymakers and decision-makers.

NORDREGIO’s APPROACH in BALTIC SCOPE:

5 dimensions = Simple framework for examining & analysing the concept of territorial governance

Survey Question-naire

Co-ordination of actors &

institutions

Integration of policy sectors

Adaptation to changing contexts

Realisation of place-based

specificities and impacts

Stakeholder participation

…putting the dimensions

into your view…

Cross-sectoral Integration & Synergies = YOU dealing with energy, environment, fisheries & shipping

Stakeholder Participation & Engagement = YOU dealing with (institutional) stakeholders in international & national events Maritime Specificities & Jurisdictional Boundaries

= YOU dealing with differences in planning systems, multi-level governance, regulatory systems etc.

Source: Maritime Institute in Gdańsk (prepared by Joanna Pardus).

Coordination & Collaboration of Institutional Actors = YOU working together, coordinating,collaborating etc.

3. Coordination & Collaboration of Institutional Actors “It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment.” Carl Friedrich Gauss

3. Coordination & Collaboration of Institutional Actors

Obstacles CB Lithuania’s MSP ready but lack of motivationdiscussing cross-border issues

Obstacles SWB

Enablers CB Ecosystem-based Approach - Task Force PPs overviews & exchange w. PPs on all topics +

EBA; Good vibes between all PP during discussions at

planners meetings; Comment at planners meet “…remarkable that PP

find more synergies than conflicts in the CB case study area.”

Enablers SWB

Transboundary discussions & building up trust Case leadership solving internal tensions Identification of transboundary geographical

areas Common maps

Preparation Phase

Short Project time; Differences in:1) National planning processes & implementation stages;2) Planning cultures & traditions;3) Legislation & governance systems; Planning as Multilevel Governance process; Internal politico-administrative change;

Thematic group meetings inclusive of national experts; Emerging awareness: different planning & administrative/legal systems of PPs Knowledge sharing & extensive learning; Increased understanding of other positions; VASAB updates Country Fiches Assessment Reports

ENABLER as Related to:Oxford English Dictionary: A person or

thing that makes something possible. Wikipedia: Enabling = patterns of

interaction which allow individuals to develop & grow.

3. Coordination & Collaboration of Institutional Actors

Obstacles CB Lack of in-depth discussion on general MSP

objectives / goals / underlying philosophy (Q at planners meeting: “what is the general objective of MSP?

Identified need = better describe national processes

Obstacles SWB Finding common ground BUT PP start

understanding difficulties = different 1) legal mandates,

2) planning traditions, 3) Needs in different countries,

4) Experience levels Transboundary MSP more complex than

expected; Different opinions about results

Lack of harmonization between EU directives Unsettled border issues

Lack of common understanding on needs for coherent planning

Enablers CB

Identified obstacle in process of being overcome = Vision on outputs of case & BS (processes, sectoral processes & their integration);

Process of sharing ideas & bringing them "home";

Enablers SWB

2 process streams: 1) national to transnational & 2) transnational to national; Situation analysis, Transboundary discussions & building up trust Start of “actual” planning Links to other projects (BalticLines &

BaltSpace); Bilateral / trilateral meetings

Identification Phase

ESPOO process vs. MSP as a new process;

Good vibes among planners Increased understanding of other positions; Knowledge sharing internal & with external stakeholders & ask their opinions; Assessment Reports Very progressive

4. Cross-sectoral Integration & Synergies

“It is what we know already that often prevents us from learning.”

Claude Bernard


Obstacles CB

Combined environment & development perspectives;

Conservation & defence/military; Conflict between all sectors in EEZ;

Obstacles SWB

Lacking contact to 3rd countries Lack of information from other countries

Enablers CB

Good experience w. stakeholder involvement in EE pilot cases; Creation of fishing map for CB area (but

challenges); HELCOM willing to provide intensity data of

shipping & density map (development of shipping over past 10 years);

HELCOM plans a map on seasonal variation (by months)

Enablers SWB

Case knowledgeable about strong focus on environment in CBC (Task Force) & follows development of work;

Fishing: Coordination & exchange in course (HELCOM, bilateral and EU processes)

Deeply rooted sectoral thinking/management Sectors regulated at different scales; Strong hierarchies between sectors; Different priorities of PPs

Preparation Phase

Thematic WGs;


Obstacles CB

Thematic WGs (authorities, planners, research) BUT some invited ministries did not attend;

What is a synergy & are they realistic?; Different traditions of “co-existence”; Struggle to generate cross-sectoral thinking:

“sectoral experts are not very interested to discuss with other sectors”

Obstacles SWB

Shipping & voicing of national interests; Synergies not always realistic;

Enablers CB

Good Leadership & Guidance for the WGs; Developing methodologies assessing impacts of

sea uses; Timely exchange of information / communication

of sector’s interests filtered through MSP; Conflict & synergies collection & how tackling

them; Common definition of cross-border impacts &

benefits; Combining different national approaches on

solutions from 1) Spatial allocation & 2) Regulation / management

Enablers SWB

Identification of sectoral synergies in course; Development of a conflict matrix w. specific

interests of each country in each geographical area;

Topics identified (partially coming from previous projects);

Develop matrix into a solutions table and put that on a map & see if /what conflicts are there


Harmonization lack between EU directives; Some sectors lack strategic approaches / planners have; Planners don’t have the mandate to solve all issues; Conflicts with defence

5. Stakeholder Participation & Engagement

http://www.hpocenter.com/article/stakeholders-orientation/

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” Benjamin Franklin

5. Stakeholder Participation & Engagement

Obstacles CB Balancing different interests & linking

national & transboundary consultations (formal/informal processes) (statement at 3rd planners meeting)

Obstacles SWB

Enablers CB

Good experience with stakeholder involvement in EE pilot cases;

EE fishermen “strong stakeholders”

Enablers SWB

Stakeholder identification (local / regional) in course (environment);

Maps to bring stakeholders together

Preparation Phase

Difficult to discuss future; Different traditions & governance systems; Different Languages

(Possibly) bigger national stakeholder meetings organised; Learning from other projects > e.g. PartiSEApate (stakeholder involvement &

public hearings);

5. Stakeholder Participation & EngagementObstacles CB

Motivation of stakeholders to participate in stakeholder conference;

Participation to be motivated through official (Ministerial) invitation;

"Motivation of people beyond MSP nerds"(planners meeting);

Some sectoral authorities lack interest;

Obstacles SWB Stakeholders do not necessarily understand

the relevance of MSP, why they are relevant or how they can contribute;

Different level of engagement from different sectoral stakeholders (e.g. shipping experts are less likely to participate);

Different understanding of what planning is > planners don’t draw lines on maps / close activities into boxes (detailed planning), but discuss goals / represent a holistic / future oriented vision (strategic planning)

Enablers CB

Showing stakeholders “our” resultsAsk & reflect their opinions; Stakeholder input to solutions part clearly

wanted (thus clear questions are needed); Raise interest in MSP through pushing it "up"

to a political level

Enablers SWB

Stakeholder meetings in PP countries reflecting transboundary issues;

Discussion (needed): meaning of transnational planning & finding an agreement of what kind of planning is used for MSP in general;

Educate people (experts involved) about the different kinds of planning – and their relevance in the planning process


6. Maritime Specificities & Jurisdictional Boundaries

“To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.” Plutarch

Map Source: Maritime Institute in Gdańsk (prepared by Joanna Pardus).


Obstacles CB Obstacles SWB

Enablers CB

Baltic SCOPE provides planners w. better arguments for cross-sectoral approach at national level > knowledge is shared & other national perspectives become understood;Project leader highlights: “Important to continuously bring home information from Baltic Scope to national level” (at Planners Meeting);

Enablers SWB

Identification of transboundary geographical areas (sub-cases)” (with final decision on geographical areas in the identification phase);

Preparation Phase

Planning as a Multilevel Governance process = different mandates & ambitions; Overlapping governance/regulatory systems = Sectoral (international regulations)

vs. MSP = cross-cutting governance mechanism (at national level) + cooperation of MSP across boundaries (project level)

Data exchange between countries; Data provided by HELCOM; Data (maps – socio-economic indicators) provided by Nordregio PP learn about the differences in planning systems/practices;


Obstacles CB

Upscaling = who possesses maps & how to prioritize sectors? To be solved in last 2 phases of the project (national level conflicts are part of national processes);

Planning evidence & coherence = issues cleared up, some remain fuzzy

Obstacles SWB

Resources; Time BUT will focus on specific aspects

within sub- areas & try to find solutions within these areas;

Enablers CB

BS = “opportunity to engage international dimension in national discussions” (SE planner) = “broadening perspectives in sectoral discussions” & “What one country needs to know about other countries’ interests in national planning” Baltic SCOPE:- “allows PPs to reflect country approaches to

planning” (expert from EE)- “makes visible national & cross-border

interests” (planners from EE); - “helps sorting of national & international

aspects” (planner from SE); - “tackles synergies & conflicts” (e.g. economic

benefits) (expert from EE);

Enablers SWB

Continuous discussion on planning criteria & topic issues; Geographical areas identified (Kriegers Flak, Adlergrund, Adler bank, Odra bank, Middle bank); Discussion on how achieving coherence; PP look for solutions & how to feed those into

national processes;


Data exchange between countries; Data provided by HELCOM; Data (maps – socio-economic indicators) provided by Nordregio; Assessment Reports

III. SUMMING UP & WHERE DO WE

GO FROM HERE?

2 Complementary CasesMotivation of work in 2 cases as per grant agreement:

1. Identification of specific hot topics / issues

2. Refining & developing solutions

3. Solutions / necessary future steps for the general planners level

4. Filtering solutions back to national processes

5. Generic recommendations > Other MSP cases, pan-Baltic & European level.

2 different approaches & complementary approaches emerged (deliberative processes among planners & experts)

Central Baltic:

Thematic, process-oriented;

Pan-Baltic perspective - Not zooming in on specific geographical areas

Identification of synergies & conflicts between sectoral interests

South West Baltic:

Focus on geographical areas & sub-areas;

Development of a conflict matrix per area applied in tri- and bilateral meetings;

Unilateral proposals (on buffer-zones for shipping (DK))

THE CASES IN THE OVERALL

PROJECT

Challenge = how to go beyond project level & provide continuation to the cross-border cooperation in MSP after the end of Baltic SCOPE?

“I am still learning” Michelangelo

Topic Papers:

Energy, Environment, Fisheris, Shipping

Bilateral / thematicmeetings

Defined Conflicts & Synergies

Distilling cross-border& cross sectoral

conflicts & synergies

Questionnairefor Stakeholder

Conference

Stakeholder Conference: input for solutions

documement

Solutions document

- National- Cross-border

Solutions Document / part ofcomrehensive status report: Process description

Authorities / actors to discusswith

Data & other knowledge needsand availability

Environmental restrictions Socio-economic considerations

Other emerging issues

International regulatory mechanisms per sector vs. window of opportunity for MSP

CB on the Way towards Solutions

Procedure of Polish-Swedish Dialogue

Swedish-Polish Mapping exercise –

already solving problems on the way

Ecosystems-Based Approach Checklists

Next Steps Policy results:

o Common vision about pan-Baltic?

o Border issues

o MSP directive

Planning oriented results:

o Illustrate planning areas

o Planning issues (synergies, conflicts & solutions)

o Standardized suggestions for data collection / buffer zones?

o Process-related tools? (e.g. Ecosystems approach checklists)

Focus on:

o Policy recommendations

o Geographical areas with ideas for joint planning solutions (SWB)

o General collaboration process

Data sharing ongoing/accelerating

Quicker to work with real planning issues (SWB)

What tools of collaboration are lacking? (e.g. data)

What recommend to other projects?

Give recommendations on what data is useful & needed (e.g. to data expert group)

…and us…what we are doing

& also together with you

Source: Daily Mail

http://classicalwisdom.com/oracleatdelphi/

http://foundtheworld.com/rio-de-janeiro/

http://ergonomic-vision.ifado.de/en/information/glossary-a-z/myopia/

Thank you very much for

being able to be part of the

learning exercise!

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Albert Einstein

progress of the baltic scope lessons learned topic so far *

Government & Nonprofit