Transboundary dimensions of marine spatial planning: Fostering inter-jurisdictional relations and governance

Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Transboundary dimensions of marine spatial planning: Fostering inter-jurisdictional relations and governance Stephen Jay a,n, Fátima L. Alves b, Cathal O'Mahony c, Maria Gomez d, Aoibheann Rooney e, Margarida Almodovar f, Kira Gee a, Juan Luis Suárez de Vivero g, Jorge M.S. Gonçalves h, Maria da Luz Fernandes b, Olvido Tello d, Sarah Twomey c, Inmaculada Prado d, Catarina Fonseca b, Luis Bentes h, Guida Henriques b, Aldino Campos f a

Department of Geography & Planning, University of Liverpool, Gordon Stephenson Building, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, United Kingdom CESAM/Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, Campus de Santiago, 3010-193 Aveiro, Portugal Marine Renewable Energy Ireland, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Haulbowline Naval Base, Cobh, Co. Cork, Ireland d Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Subdireccíon General de Investigacíon, Corazón de Maria 8, 28002 Madrid, Spain e Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, Marine Division, Klondyke Building, Belfast BT7 2JA, United Kingdom f Directorate General for Marine Policy, Av. Brasília, No. 6, 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal g Department of Human Geography, University of Seville, María de Padilla, s/n, 41004 Sevilla, Spain h Centre of Marine Sciences - CCMAR, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, ed.7, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal b c

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 August 2015 Received in revised form 22 December 2015 Accepted 30 December 2015 Available online 11 January 2016

There is broad agreement that marine spatial planning (MSP) should incorporate transboundary considerations, reflecting the cross-border nature of marine and coastal ecosystem dynamics and maritime resources and activities. This is recognised in the European Union's recent legislation on MSP, and experience in transboundary approaches is developing through official processes and pilot studies. However, differences between institutional systems, priorities and practices may not easily be overcome in transboundary initiatives. This requires a stronger focus on understanding the governance frameworks within which MSP operates and fostering interlinkages between them. This article discusses a Europeanfunded project in which emphasis was placed on joint-working in every aspect, based on principles of equity and mutual trust. This led to the development of inter-relations, not just of the geographies and maritime resources and activities of the marine areas concerned, but also of the systems of data management, governance and policy-making and of the participants involved as officials or stakeholders, including their means and cultures of exchange. It is suggested that transboundary initiatives in MSP would benefit by complementing current resource management-focused understandings with governance and policy-related perspectives, drawing on experience in other fields of territorial cooperation. Crown Copyright & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Marine spatial planning Transboundary European Atlantic Governance frameworks

1. Introduction Transboundary or cross-border thinking is at the heart of marine spatial planning (MSP).1 It is an integral part of an n

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Jay), [email protected] (F.L. Alves), [email protected] (C. O'Mahony), [email protected] (M. Gomez), [email protected] (A. Rooney), [email protected] (M. Almodovar), [email protected] (K. Gee), [email protected] (J.L.S. de Vivero), [email protected] (J.M.S. Gonçalves), [email protected] (M. da Luz Fernandes), [email protected] (O. Tello), [email protected] (S. Twomey), [email protected] (I. Prado), [email protected] (C. Fonseca), [email protected] (L. Bentes), [email protected] (G. Henriques), [email protected] (A. Campos). 1 Referred to as ‘maritime spatial planning’ within the EU's policy framework and by some (but not all) EU Member States. The term ‘marine spatial planning’ retains greater international currency. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.025 0308-597X/Crown Copyright & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ecosystem approach to MSP, as marine and coastal ecosystem dynamics transcend administrative boundaries and steer planning towards wider regional or sea basin considerations [1]. Equally, a resource management perspective directs attention beyond borders, in order to avoid conflicts with neighbours, make best use of shared or adjoining resources and ensure connectivity for habitats, species and human activities [2]. Underlying these rationales, the distinct nature of the marine environment, graded, shifting and resistant to human control, militates against boundary-setting and invites a more expansive approach to the governance of the seas [3]. The transboundary imperative has been recognised in policy circles, especially in Europe, where the need for transnational cooperation is arguably the greatest, due to its geography and the pressure of maritime activities. The European Union has taken steps to advance cooperation in MSP between states [4]. Most

86

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

importantly, the EU's 2014 Maritime Spatial Planning Directive introduces a requirement on coastal Member States to cooperate in MSP in relation to their marine region [5]. Some nations, both within and beyond the EU, have already introduced measures into their MSP systems for liaising with neighbours, such as formal consultation, and implementation of the Directive will ensure that this specific requirement is achieved throughout the EU. However, the intention to adopt a transboundary approach may not be easily turned into practice. Significant challenges face authorities responsible for MSP who seek to cooperate with each other. Most fundamentally, despite the artificial nature of borders from an ecosystem point of view, they mark out political sovereignty, national and sub-national administrative systems and the potential reach of certain maritime activities; there is likely to be tension between national interests contained within territories and shared interests for which a transnational perspective is needed. Also, there may be considerable differences of governance between administrations, making joint working more complicated; there may be different policy and planning practices and dissimilar maritime priorities, leading to individual MSP processes which are far from compatible, such as in terms of the timing and objectives of these processes. Similarly, there may be procedural obstacles for authorities seeking to work together in a transboundary manner, including unevenly matched administrative structures and processes, technical difficulties of sharing information, language barriers and other impediments to good communication. Despite these difficulties, MSP authorities, whether national or sub-national, have generally sought to liaise with neighbouring authorities when drawing up their plans. Examples can be found in those parts of the world where MSP has made most progress, especially in North America and Europe [6]. For instance, the EU has taken initiatives to promote transboundary approaches to MSP, including a series of funded projects supporting cross-border collaboration in Europe's regional seas. This article discusses transboundary MSP with reference to one of these projects, for Europe's Atlantic region. This project was characterised by a more explicit focus on governance aspects of cooperation than previous work, which has tended to focus more on achieving an optimum configuration of uses than on the challenges involved in drawing together different political and administrative approaches to MSP. In the following sections, this work is placed in the context of existing MSP discussion and practice, followed by an explanation of the background to the project. Some of the main findings are summarised, structured around four core components of the transboundary exercise: transboundary areas and issues, data management, stakeholder engagement and governance frameworks. The implications of this work for wider MSP implementation, are then reflected upon, with reference also to transboundary practice in other policy fields. In this article, the term ‘jurisdiction’ is used to refer to either a nation state or a sub-national territory with its own system of government, thus recognising that transboundary activities may involve relations between nation states and/or units within them.

2. The case for a transboundary approach to MSP Spatial planning, whether on land or at sea, is generally a competency of governmental authorities who carry out planning for the territory under their administration. However, it has increasingly been recognised that planning must take account of cross-border considerations, and that planning authorities should consult or work with neighbouring authorities on matters that have cross-border implications. In some cases, cooperation has extended to joint planning exercises, usually at a strategic level, for

areas that straddle jurisdictional borders [7]. In Europe, this is being given extra impetus by broader processes of policy integration and territorial cohesion [8,9]. Related transboundary initiatives are also becoming established in other environmental fields [10] such as nature conservation [11,12], river basin management [13,14] and, the arena most closely related to MSP, marine conservation zoning [15,16]. Transboundary considerations are also a part of environmental assessment processes [17]. The imperative for transboundary planning is arguably much stronger at sea than on land, as suggested by a number of authors [18–23]. Firstly, the natural environment is fluid, with much greater material movement across administrative borders, including that of substances and species. A central argument of MSP is that it should be ecosystem-, rather than territory-, based, in order to take account of these natural processes and contribute to environmental integrity. Secondly, many marine resources and maritime activities are also cross-border and mobile in nature; their effective planning and management requires a collaborative approach from neighbouring jurisdictions. Thirdly, physical boundaries are generally absent in this more remote, dynamic and graded environment, making it difficult to contain many activities and their impacts within administrative territories. Fourthly, MSP is generally being conducted at large geographical scales, including consideration of regional and land–sea interactions. Transboundary thinking is therefore part of the rationale for MSP and an expression of the distinctive nature of the space to be planned [3]: “in the marine environment, everything is connected” [21, p12]. Overall, therefore, planning efforts may be more meaningfully aligned with sea basins than with national territories. It should also be noted that cooperation within MSP builds upon the longerstanding tradition of regulating maritime activities through international agreements [24]. This argument is particularly strong in Europe, comprising largely a series of peninsulas and islands on which approximately 40 coastal nations (including 23 EU Member States) share the surrounding waters. This creates an unusually high density of international maritime border zones, many of which are in shallow, sensitive, enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, and in areas that are under growing pressure for resource use. Sub-national borders add further to this complexity. This reality is reflected in the EU's policy framework for MSP. The EC's Roadmap for MSP includes ‘cross-border cooperation and consultation' as one of its guiding principles: “cooperation across borders is necessary to ensure coherence of plans across ecosystems” [25, p10]. Most recently, the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive specifically requires coastal Member States to “cooperate with the aim of ensuring that maritime spatial plans are coherent and coordinated across the marine region concerned” especially on issues of a transnational nature [5, Art. 11(1)]. The Directive also urges Member States to cooperate with regard to MSP with neighbouring non-EU countries where possible (Art. 12). This parallels, and is perhaps reinforced by, wider process of spatial integration within the EU, as referred to above. There is, however, some tension between the scientific and resource management case for a transboundary approach to MSP and jurisdictional rights and responsibilities. Given that there is rarely a legal basis for defining a transboundary area, national (and sub-national) authorities retain competency for MSP as far as their recognised borders allow. This dichotomy is reflected in the Directive, which recognises the competency of Member States in carrying out MSP for their waters (Art. 2), and can only require the relatively weak measure of cooperation between them, rather than a shared planning exercise of some kind. It is partly for this reason, perhaps, that most transboundary MSP efforts to date have been voluntary in nature, usually in the form of pilot projects. The European Commission has supported

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

work of this kind, with the Baltic Sea being a particular focus of attention [26] and through other projects in the North Sea, Atlantic region (see below) and Adriatic [4]. These projects have not generally led to statutory plans and have not all had the close involvement of official authorities, but they have supported the concept of taking a transboundary approach to MSP in shared sea basins. Nonetheless, obstacles have been encountered even in fairly cohesive sea basins where there is a long-standing tradition of cooperation and transnational governance. For example, in the Baltic Sea, the BaltSeaPlan project concluded that a transboundary approach can facilitate thinking in larger contexts, helping to develop shared values about balanced and sustainable sea use. However, it also brought to light practical challenges, particularly in relation to data exchange, stakeholder involvement and communication [27]. One case study recommended: a common database to support the consideration of cross-border issues; early coordination of stakeholder involvement; and an emphasis on communication, including setting aside time for dealing with institutional and cultural differences [21,28]. Similarly, PlanBothnia demonstrated the ability of neighbouring countries to work together in neighbouring sea spaces but also highlighted the need for: integrating planning into national governance structures; understanding national differences in planning practice; establishing clear, joint objectives; identifying and visualising key issues; and gathering relevant information [29]. In the North Sea, the MASPNOSE project also drew attention to the need to focus efforts on defined objectives, arguing that more restricted levels of participation may suffice where transboundary MSP has a limited focus [30]. Project work therefore suggests that transboundary MSP initiatives need to take into account not just geographical and ecological dimensions of shared sea areas, but also the cultural, social, policy and governance variations of different jurisdictions. Experience to date also points to the need to address procedural challenges, which may be magnified when different planning traditions and institutional arrangements are brought together. More explicit attention has been given to the need to address political and institutional issues by Flannery et al. [19]. Drawing on wider policy-making perspectives, they suggest three enabling factors for transboundary approaches to MSP. Firstly, there should be some policy and legislative convergence between jurisdictions, which may itself be facilitated by wider harmonising influences, such as international and European policy processes. Secondly, previous experience in cross-border cooperation (in other policy fields) can speed progress, along with the development of mutual understanding and trust when working towards common goals; these elements may be supported by joint learning, fact finding and analysis. Thirdly, existing formal and informal transboundary institutions can contribute to cross-border working and reduce transaction costs; this will also have the advantage of actors having already worked together. Similarly, Kidd and McGowan [31] emphasise the importance of partnership working in transnational MSP initiatives. Adapting environmental management models, they propose a five-runged ladder of partnership, with increasing degrees of collaboration, trust and formal organisation between actors as they gain experience in working together. There is, therefore, a need to explore in more depth the implementation of transboundary approaches to MSP, with particular reference to the dynamics of inter-institutional exchange and collaboration, in the wider context of governance frameworks. The project described below sought to build upon the experience gained through existing work by giving more explicit attention to the constraints and opportunities presented by a governancecentred approach to transboundary MSP.

87

3. Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic Although one of a series of European Commission projects exploring cross-border cooperation in MSP (including connections with integrated coastal management (ICM)) being rolled out across European Seas [4], Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic (TPEA), which ran between December 2012 and May 2014, took a markedly different approach to its predecessor projects. This was due to the central involvement of official MSP authorities rather than being led primarily by scientific bodies. This shifted the emphasis away from a hypothetical exercise of producing transboundary proposals to one in which the statutory responsibilities of the authorities and national sovereignty needed to be respected; this imposed restrictions on the outputs that it was possible to achieve, but also led to opportunities for developing forms of joint governance working. The authorities concerned are those which have, or may soon have, statutory national responsibilities for implementing MSP. The region is understood as including the Atlantic waters of France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom [32]. In a European context, this is a distinctive region in two respects. Firstly, it looks outwards to open ocean, rather than across enclosed or semi-enclosed waters, and has more oceanic physical characteristics and human uses. Secondly, it straddles northern and southern Europe, embracing a variety of geography, culture and governance systems. Nonetheless, the western-facing, Atlantic identity acts as an integrating feature, expressed in policy terms through the strategy for the region, which describes, for example, the Atlantic's “rough natural beauty, rich biodiversity, traditional seafood cuisine and Celtic culture” [32, p8; 33]. TPEA focused on two pilot areas: one involving Portugal and Spain and the other Ireland and the United Kingdom, as described below. Given the fact that the project had the central involvement of official authorities, a conventional scientific-research approach was not taken; instead, a realistic planning exercise was carried out between the participants in the two pilot areas. This focused on those elements of planning that the authorities judged were within their remit and were achievable at a transboundary level. These covered key elements of a cooperative process: preparation, analysis, planning and evaluation, with particular importance being given to stakeholder engagement, communication and data management throughout the process (Table 1). In addition to learning from the specific experience of the pilot areas, the project sought to understand variations throughout the region relating to different traditions of planning, approaches to ICM and MSP and stages of implementation. The project also recognised that transboundary MSP is unlikely to lead to a joint plan, but should offer effective links between national MSP processes. The transferable lessons to be drawn from the project were distilled into a Good Practice Guide [34]. Other documents, including detailed reports on the pilot areas, are available online [35]. Below, some of the key lessons of the project, are discussed, with reference particularly to the transboundary dimensions of certain elements of MSP processes.

4. Defining transboundary areas and issues 4.1. Transboundary areas Adopting a transboundary approach to MSP presupposes that areas with transboundary dimensions can be defined. For the TPEA project, two general areas of interest were selected, between Spain and Portugal on the one hand, and Ireland and Northern Ireland (UK) on the other. (The reference to ‘pilot areas’ rather than ‘case studies’ is a reflection of the planning-oriented, rather than

88

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

Table 1 Overview of TPEA planning stages and activities. Stage Preparation

Analysis

Activities


Selection and delineation of the pilot areas.
Setting out shared principles and strategic objectives.
Creation of a common system for storing, visualising and managing geographical data in order to support the subsequent phases of analysis










Evaluation
Stakeholder engagement
Planning

Communication




Data




and planning. Characterisation of the pilot areas in terms of biophysical features, their continuity across borders and existing infrastructures. Identification of existing uses and activities and characterisation in terms of distribution, intensity and impacts. Consideration of current and potential pressures and synergies. Characterisation of the respective governance framework and review of existing transboundary agreements and initiatives, legal and policy instruments and national/regional priorities for maritime and coastal issues. Integration of relevant information on the pilot areas to identify the most likely priority uses and activities. Development of specific objectives for the pilot areas based on the key issues and needs identified. Exploration of different planning options. Development of recommendations for each pilot area accompanied by appropriate guidelines for their implementation. Development of a checklist for evaluating the TPEA transboundary MSP process. Recommendations for evaluating outcomes and impacts at a later planning stage (not covered by TPEA). A series of three workshops was held at key stages in each pilot area as the primary means of stakeholder engagement, with the aim of involving stakeholder groups from both sides of borders in the activities developed by the team. This ensured that their opinions, knowledge and other inputs were included at different stages of the transboundary planning process. The progress and results of the project were reported more widely via a dedicated website, making key documents and news items publicly available, fact sheets, a web portal and an app were also used. Spatial data relating to the pilot areas was gathered to the extent possible, providing information about marine conditions and maritime activities. This was imported to a Geographical Information System which allowed information to be displayed on maps of the two areas, and, for the southern pilot area, was made publicly accessible through a web viewer.

scientific, nature of the exercise.) Each of these was based on one of the two coastal and marine border areas between the countries in question. This selection was, in itself, a matter of careful consideration for the authorities and involved discussion of the potential importance of transboundary issues within the areas. For Spain and Portugal, the area selected (‘the southern pilot area’, from a regional point of view) was focused on their southern border area around the Guadiana estuary, stretching from the Algarve towards Cádiz and out into the Gulf of Cádiz, chosen because of the diversity and intensity of uses in the area. For Ireland and Northern Ireland, the area (‘the northern pilot area’) was focused on the eastern seaboard around Carlingford Lough, stretching between the cities of Belfast and Dublin and out into the Irish Sea (Fig. 2), chosen because of the possible conflicts of use in the area. Drawing clearly-defined boundaries around these pilot areas proved to be difficult. There is no generally-agreed basis for defining a transboundary area; nations retain jurisdiction over their waters as far as agreed borders allow. However, it is necessary for transboundary MSP purposes to define an area (possibly referred to as an area of common interest) clearly enough to focus joint planning activities, such as data-gathering, stakeholder engagement and developing options. With this understanding, considerable attention was given to defining the scale and borders of the pilot areas, in particular the outer and landward limits and the extension along the coast. Jurisdictional and administrative boundaries, geographical features, patterns of maritime activities and their cross-border impacts and stakeholder views were taken into consideration during an iterative process. However, it became clear that hard boundaries did not adequately address the dynamic nature of transboundary issues, including their varying scale according to different environmental conditions and maritime activities and uses. The pilot areas' delimitation therefore took into account a combination of hard borders where necessary for administrative reasons, and softer gradations or spaces, embodying diminishing transboundary impacts and other bio-geographical considerations. More specific characteristics led, in fact, to different options in setting the limits of each pilot area. This experience suggests that more generally, when drawing up areas for the purpose of transboundary cooperation in MSP, jurisdictional issues should be the starting point, with reference to

such things as: internal, archipelagic and territorial waters; exclusive economic zones, continental shelves and international marine borders, if established; sub-national borders and responsibilities in the coastal zone and offshore; national/sub-national departmental responsibilities and areas of competence; national/ sub-national MSP initiatives and planning areas; the extent of ICM and river basin management initiatives; and European and other international marine regions and administrative areas. However, more variable considerations should also be taken into account, in line with an ecosystem approach, such as the dynamics of the coastal and marine environments, the differential patterns of resources and maritime activities, the varying pressures and development opportunities and different policy priorities. These will require detailed discussion between parties, including stakeholders. This may lead to the adoption of ‘softer’ spaces, reflecting the unique characteristics of an area and the interaction of its constituent components, and allowing a more responsive approach to the definition of the transboundary areas. Fig. 1 illustrates how a more graded approach may be taken to defining the limits of a transboundary area than a conventional hard border. 4.2. Transboundary issues Planning requires a good understanding of the geographical and governance context in question. In TPEA, each pilot area was characterised in terms of its physical environment and resources as would be expected, but also by its governance arrangements in relation to coastal and maritime policy, planning and regulation. This allowed key differences between adjoining jurisdictions to be understood; for example, in Portugal, plans and strategies are in place for ICM and a legal basis for MSP exists, whilst in Spain, ICM and MSP issues are still under discussion. Similarly, different arrangements for MSP and ICM exist between Ireland and Northern Ireland [19]. The pilot areas were also profiled in terms of maritime and land-based activities with influence in the marine environment (both traditional and emerging), which was also relevant for stakeholder identification and engagement. Both areas accommodate typical maritime sectors such as fisheries, tourism, ports and shipping and nature conservation, albeit at differing scales and levels of importance. Activities which were of most

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

89

Fig. 1. Defining the scale and borders of areas of transboundary interest.

transboundary significance were thus identified. Within the southern pilot area, fisheries, navigation and tourism were some of the most important activities from a crossborder point of view, partly because of shared resources, both living, such as fish stocks, and non-living, such as minerals. Discussions on the potential use of the southern area focused on the development of aquaculture, marine recreation, nature conservation and energy exploitation. The intensity of cross-border uses and potential uses in this area is high, so consideration was given to the potential for conflict and transboundary impacts and consequently to the development of cross-border MSP scenarios. For the northern pilot area, key activities identified with regard to cross-border interaction included tourism, biodiversity conservation, offshore renewable energy, fisheries and aquaculture. However, the key issues to emerge, especially following stakeholder engagement, centred more around governance issues, including: data management and harmonisation across jurisdictions; the importance of clearly identified cross-border communication channels; coherent policy and licensing arrangements for marine developments having a cross-border aspect; and the need to jointly assess transboundary pressures and impacts linked to marine planning and development. The results confirm that transboundary MSP must establish appropriate channels of communication and consider the alignment of processes across borders. Spatial data provided relevant information on the marine environment, maritime activities and uses, supplemented by stakeholder engagement, especially through an initial set of workshops, which generated an understanding of the potential transboundary issues and their geographical extent. This contributed to the identification of shared resources, cross-border activities and impacts, degrees of transboundary effects and wider influences and helped in deciding on the extent of the pilot areas along the coast. For example, in the northern context, the maritime and coastal influence of the major coastal cities of Dublin and Belfast were incorporated, reaching 60 nm in each direction from the border area. The definition of areas (Section 4.1) was thus closely linked to the initial understanding of transboundary planning issues, supporting the notion that transboundary planning areas, together with their purpose and delineation, need to be context-specific. For the southern pilot area, the identification of shared resources, cross-border activities and transboundary impacts led to the identification of a broad area of common interest between Portugal and Spain. For the northern pilot area, more emphasis was placed on the gradation of transboundary effects and activities, which were represented with buffer zones centred on the border region and arrows indicating wider influences (Fig. 2).

5. Overcoming the challenges of data management There is general agreement that MSP should be based upon the best available, high quality and up-to-date spatial data [25,36]. Geographic information systems (GIS) are being used to aggregate and visualise data and allow planning options to be considered [37]. This presents technical challenges, such as the harmonisation of data that has been collected for different purposes and to different standards [38], which are multiplied in transboundary contexts, as information needs to be harmonised not just within, but also between jurisdictions, with reference to such things as scale, coordinate systems and data attributes. Data should also share similar file formats and have complete metadata. To address these challenges requires attention to wider processes of cooperation. For a common GIS to be set up within TPEA, it was necessary to gain agreement on information needs, including data on administrative boundaries, physical and biological features, past, present and potential activities and so on. Each theme had a layer in the geodatabase. As well as showing the 3-dimensional nature of the marine areas, data regarding the temporal nature of activities was sought where possible. Data providers were mainly national administrations and institutions, academic bodies and European research projects, assisted by stakeholders. Some data were available via the internet and contained both geographic and descriptive contents (attributes). Other data provided only the spatial component, making it necessary to create descriptive attributes. This required ongoing interaction between experts from different jurisdictions. High quality and up-to-date spatial information was sought, in a form that was as similar as possible in adjoining jurisdictions. A transboundary data protocol was jointly created for collecting and harmonising data. According to this protocol, six steps were defined: identify and compile data, evaluate data, harmonise data, edit or create metadata, input to the geodatabase and share data. A quality control procedure involved checks on resolution (for raster data), precision (for vector data), data density, scale, vintage and source. Once collected and reviewed, it was found that spatial datasets for a feature from adjacent jurisdictions often varied in terms of scale, geometry type, quality, attribution, format, reference system and so on. This may have been due to different collection methods, data handling techniques or simply because there were initially different reasons for the data collection. It was therefore necessary to carry out a rigorous data harmonisation process by following a set of technical guidelines which was prepared to help standardise transboundary datasets so they could be displayed simultaneously. All operations were performed using the ESRI ArcGIS software. The GIS platform was underpinned by a common spatial geodetic framework and a common data standard; these features enabled data sharing and guaranteed data interoperability. For the

90

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

Fig. 2. Indicative TPEA transboundary pilot areas.

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

91

Fig. 3. TPEA data viewer for the southern pilot area.

geodetic framework, the European Terrestrial Reference System 89 was adopted, and data interoperability was based upon the principles of the INSPIRE Directive [39]. These Europe-wide systems facilitated joint data management and provided a short-cut to transboundary working. INSPIRE-compliant metadata was crucial as much of the data had been created for different purposes or by using various methodologies. Metadata was created using the freely available INSPIRE Metadata Editor. In order to facilitate access to the information, a data viewer was constructed for the southern pilot area (Fig. 3) [40], displaying geographic information for the waters of Portugal and Spain at the mouth of the Guadiana River and illustrates, for example, the potential importance of coordinating the designation of protected areas across the area. In the northern pilot area, the use of GIS mapping greatly enhanced the stakeholders' experience by demonstrating patterns and trends that were not otherwise apparent, helping to identify data gaps and motivating discussion between common sectors across the border, in relation, for example, to offshore wind energy proposals (Fig. 4). Working in a transboundary context thus demonstrates the added importance of paying attention to quality assurance and harmonisation in data management and mapping [41]. With care and sufficient resources, effective data portrayal can be achieved [35]. Data management in a transboundary context therefore proved to be not simply a technical matter of gathering and harmonising spatial data, but required the development of cross-jurisdictional institutional relations and the development of agreed processes, building on existing measures for data sharing.

6. Gaining and maintaining the participation of stakeholders Engaging stakeholders and sea-users is regarded as a critical element of MSP both in guidance and practice [42], yielding benefits in terms of transparency, broadening the information and knowledge-base, setting mutually agreed goals to advance sustainable use of marine resources and improving decision making [43–45], in common with other processes of shared resource management [46,12]. Within TPEA, engagement activities were undertaken in both pilot areas at each stage: preparation, analysis, planning and evaluation. These activities ranged from stakeholder identification

and mapping during preliminary stages, followed by a series of facilitated workshops during which stakeholders actively contributed through the provision of opinion, information and comment. The workshops included opportunity for dialogue between all parties, guided group work and interactive exercises, and an 'open-door' policy maximised opportunity for flexible involvement and to allow a widening of the participation base. Although the principle and many aspects of stakeholder engagement within MSP are agreed, differences may exist amongst participants, such as between traditional and emerging maritime sectors, with regard to engagement mechanisms and priorities [44]. There is the potential for the amplification of such differences and further complexity when planning occurs across jurisdictions; a transboundary setting can increase the challenges of accommodating and advancing participation. For instance, in TPEA, differences occurred between Northern Ireland, which had already initiated a consultation process as part of its statutory MSP process, and Ireland, where structures for MSP, including participation, remain under consideration. Also, more fundamental differences occurred across the European Atlantic region, where different traditions and cultures were evident in relation to stakeholder participation. In particular, practices were more deeply rooted in the northern pilot area than in the south; hence additional meetings were held in Spain to explain the process further and encourage the involvement of participants. Language difficulties also presented an obstacle in the southern pilot area. These differences of culture, practice, awareness and institutional arrangements across the region and between neighbouring jurisdictions required stakeholder engagement activities to be tailored to each context. In each pilot area, different messages were used to communicate the importance of MSP and implications for certain stakeholder groups. This approach of using bespoke messaging successfully secured and maintained the participation of many stakeholders. Translation was also used where necessary. Moreover, a series of common principles were adopted to guide engagement:


Inclusivity: all those who expressed an interest in participating were encouraged to do so and the project was open to suggestions on how to broaden stakeholder involvement, with regard to ensuring strong representation across borders;

92

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

Fig. 4. Spatial data for the TPEA northern pilot area.


Equity: equal opportunity was given to everyone to voice their




input and opinions, regardless of their statutory or non-statutory role or the sector or interest group they represented, again with regard to cross-border representation; Flexibility: stakeholders are under time and resource




constraints, so in addition to a workshop series, there was opportunity for input through face-to-face meetings and correspondence; Transparency: the concept and approach of the project was communicated clearly to all parties, and all stakeholder

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96




interactions were documented and made available for comment; Integration: vertical and horizontal lines of communication were fostered, thus strengthening existing relationships within and across jurisdictions and underlining the need for establishing relationships for future MSP exercises.

These principles allowed for productive engagement with stakeholders and facilitated their cooperation in the identification of issues, pressures and opportunities, data provision, knowledge sharing, objective-setting and evaluation. They also set the tone for wider working between institutions, and underscored the importance of developing strong relations between individual participants. A number of wider lessons for stakeholder engagement in transboundary contexts emerged from this experience. For instance, where neighbouring jurisdictions are at different stages of MSP, capacity and awareness amongst stakeholders are likely to be at varying levels [47]. However, previous experience with stakeholder involvement and developing mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and cooperation between stakeholders will be important. Broad and robust stakeholder engagement will be particularly valuable when transboundary exercises represent a new departure for participants.

7. The importance of understanding governance systems MSP does not take place in isolation, but is a part of larger policy processes, especially as systems of wider marine governance become increasingly established [48]. Particularly important are international legislation and agreements; in the EU, integrated maritime policy (IMP) forms the umbrella for a ‘blue growth’ strategy and environmentally-focused directives [49]. Individual coastal states have their own set of policies, laws and regulatory instruments governing the use of their seas, which are often sectorally-based and complex [50]. MSP must interface with these frameworks operating at different levels and accommodate the instruments already in place. In order to achieve this, there should be a good understanding of the regulatory frameworks and the administrative structures and responsibilities in question, at international, national and sub-national levels. There should also be an awareness of policy priorities for key maritime sectors [51]. Understanding relevant governance frameworks is more complex in transboundary contexts [10]. Of particular importance is an analysis of the regulatory instruments and administrative structures and a review of key issues for each jurisdiction, especially as it concerns their transboundary area, including differences and shared objectives. It is likely that these structures will vary considerably between the administrations concerned. In order to connect the most appropriate arms of government across jurisdictions, it is important to understand the division of responsibilities within each jurisdiction and the similarities and differences involved. For example, sub-national responsibilities will be important in nations with federal structures, but not in more unified states, whilst the municipal level may be significant in some nations, particularly if other transboundary structures exist at a local scale. Sectoral responsibilities for coastal and marine affairs, such as licensing, may be divided between different governmental departments, but not in the same manner from one jurisdiction to another. Given the importance of effective stakeholder engagement in European marine and coastal governance, it is also useful to understand frameworks of consultation in each territory and possibilities for stakeholder involvement. An analysis of the governance frameworks in question thus helps to streamline interaction between them. However, as the regulation of coastal and marine activities is complex, it may not

93

be possible or necessary to set out all information in detail, but to focus on key aspects of the frameworks that are most relevant to the transboundary exercise. In TPEA, this analysis revealed significant differences between adjoining jurisdictions. For example, in Spain, there are varying degrees of autonomy between regions, with responsibilities distributed between the State and the Autonomous Regions, whereas in mainland Portugal, there is a concentration of decision-making powers at the central level, relying on decentralised services at regional level or local authorities for various operational aspects. These administrative differences complicate cross-border processes considerably. On the other hand, pre-existing processes of joint working provided the basis for continued cooperation in MSP. Importantly, in Spain and Portugal, the 1998 Albufeira Convention sets the framework for joint protection and sustainable use of surface and ground waters in river basins including the Guadiana River, which forms the countries' southern terrestrial border. This establishes cooperation mechanisms including exchange of information, consultation and adoption of necessary measures [47]. Similarly, Ireland and Northern Ireland have engaged in a series of crossborder initiatives, such as the establishment of a number of official all-Ireland bodies with cross-border responsibilities [19]. For example, the Loughs Agency administers the sea loughs in the border areas of the two jurisdictions, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights manages lighthouses around the whole island. Measures such as these provided an important foundation for cooperation to take place in relation to MSP, which in turn led to further capacitybuilding for joint-working, again emphasising the centrality of inter-institutional relations to transboundary outcomes. Lessons learned from TPEA include the following.


Analysis of governance frameworks helps to identify the main









national and regional priorities that can be assumed as future trends that should guide MSP processes. It is helpful to ensure that strategic objectives for transboundary MSP take into account the relevant legislation, policy and administrative structures, not least to identify issues that are not already covered by other mechanisms. The standardisation of legal instruments and procedures is not necessary (especially in view of the principle of subsidiarity); however, it is important to establish mutual understanding of processes as a basis for cooperation. Different frameworks and evolution of measures should not hinder cross-border cooperation, but highlights the need for information flow and ongoing communication. It is useful to identify clearly those marine features and maritime activities which require interaction between agencies in different jurisdictions, as well as those that are fully cross-border in nature.

These findings concur with wider experience in transboundary governance, such as in the interests of habitat protection, where working within the context of existing structures can lead to enhanced and new forms of cooperation [19,52].

8. Resource management and governance perspectives in transboundary MSP A frequently-quoted definition of MSP is “an integrated, policybased approach to the regulation, management and protection of the marine environment, including the allocation of space, that addresses the multiple, cumulative and potentially conflicting uses of the sea and thereby facilitates sustainable development” [53, p1]. This reflects the origins of MSP within marine science and policy circles, and its conceptualisation largely within the terms of

94

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

environmental resource management [54,55]. MSP is seen as contributing a more explicitly physical, spatial organisation to the management of marine interests [37]. This understanding leads inevitably to the ‘transboundary imperative’, whereby planning efforts should be aligned more with the geographies of ecosystems and resources than with jurisdictional territories. This is paralleled in related fields, such as conservation and river basin management, where natural resources frequently transcend borders and demand a wider response. From this perspective, MSP relies upon knowledge of the spatial distribution of the natural characteristics of the area in question and of human activities within it. Hence considerable emphasis has been placed on gathering and mapping data and expressing planning options and decisions in physically spatial terms [56]. This has presented technical challenges of obtaining suitable data of sufficient quality, harmonising different datasets, and representing data in a usable form. Within transboundary contexts, these challenges of data management are multiplied, particularly when different national data sources are being drawn together. However, project experience, including that of TPEA, demonstrates that difficulties of this kind can be overcome with sufficient input of resources and expertise and that relevant data can be portrayed visually and in a user-friendly form. Moreover, MSP authorities have often been willing to cooperate in sharing data and developing a common GIS for the representation of data throughout transboundary areas. However, expressing planning decisions in a spatially explicit form is likely to be much more problematic in a transboundary context, as this goes beyond technical matters to substantial issues of governance. For authorities to agree on potential patterns of sea use on different sides of borders would require careful negotiation with regard to policy priorities and regulatory practices within each jurisdiction, leading to convergence on matters of mutual interest; some kind of formal agreement may need to be drawn up, which may then be translated into the official plans of the administrations concerned. Any spatial representation, in a GIS for example, would simply be the end-point of a long policy-making process involving governmental and stakeholder participants on all sides. The TPEA project demonstrates that transnational planning would be more feasible in relation to discrete issues of common concern rather than a wide range of planning matters. This suggests that in transboundary MSP initiatives, even more than in other MSP exercises, spatial science needs to be combined with policy-focused approaches. The project experience described in this article therefore highlights a dichotomy between resource management and governance-oriented approaches to transboundary MSP. The former has tended to be assumed in project work to date, arguably leading to transboundary ‘solutions’ that present possible configurations of sea use but do not necessarily reflect the policy priorities of nationally-based authorities nor the objectives of user groups. More widely-acceptable proposals are likely to emerge only from careful, possibly prolonged, discussion at a range of levels between participants within the context of strengthening institutional and informal bonds across borders. Partly addressing this need for a broader governance approach [57] is the practice of stakeholder participation, which is already an established component of MSP and related transboundary processes, as a means of incorporating broader societal concerns and knowledge and securing commitment to decisions made [12,58]. Again, scaling-up MSP to a transboundary dimension increases some of the practical difficulties of securing adequate stakeholder engagement, such as identifying affected groups, gaining good representation, finding effective means of communication and dealing with conflicting interests. Cultural differences of communication may also come to the fore more markedly when working at a transboundary scale. Hence the need to establish

good relations between stakeholders is intensified, particularly across borders, based on principles of equity and mutual trust, as set out in the principles above (Section 6) [31]. TPEA and other projects have emphasised the value of committing resources to stakeholder engagement, through face-to-face meetings and other methods, in order to allow concerns to be expressed, share knowledge and ideas and build ongoing links [59]. This process can contribute to longer-term MSP efforts and other processes of cooperation extending beyond the immediate exercise. This echoes wider experience which stresses the importance of the development of informal relations between actors, such as contact outside set meetings, as key to transboundary working [13,19]. This may include building stronger links between stakeholder groups and MSP authorities, to the benefit of their future working. However, understanding the wider governance frameworks within which MSP operates is a less well-developed component of MSP. It is more advanced in some other fields of transboundary work [10] and was explored explicitly in TPEA through an analysis of policy material. This approach may involve, firstly, gathering knowledge about the potentially complex administrative and regulatory systems relating to maritime activities, which MSP must interface with in any given context. These systems may be very different between neighbouring jurisdictions, and transboundary MSP exercises face the challenge of gaining an appreciation of these differences and exploring how they might best connect [60]. Secondly, administrations will have their own maritime policy trajectories and priorities which are likely to shape their aims in transboundary negotiations; again, these may differ significantly between administrations, and careful negotiation may be needed in order to agree shared objectives. This may also involve recognising where policy aims cannot easily be reconciled and where there are limitations to what can be achieved in transboundary discussions [14]. In other words, it is possible that the intentions for transboundary cooperation will not always be compatible with national priorities, which are likely to predominate within the MSP processes for national waters. On the other hand, focusing on governance frameworks draws attention to wider processes of cooperation upon which MSP efforts can build and in turn contribute towards [52]; this has been recognised specifically, for example, in the dynamic situation of cooperation on the island of Ireland [19]. Hence focusing on the wider governance structures and policymaking processes within which transboundary approaches to MSP must operate suggests that there are a series of issues that extend beyond the geographically spatial, and are not simply matters of technical coordination between neighbouring administrations. These include the need for fostering good relations between participants within and across marine areas, understanding adjoining governance structures and policy priorities, engaging in negotiation of national concerns, recognising the limitations of coordination and developing shared objectives (Table 2). The resource management thinking that lies behind the call for transboundary MSP could be complemented by other perspectives. In particular, connections could be made with the experience being gained in terrestrially-based strategic planning of new, expansive areas, involving various associations of authorities and other actors. For example, notions of regional governance draw attention to the need to take into account prevailing economic structures, political cultures, existing regional identities, the institutional environment and so on when working at a transboundary scale [61]. Within Europe, transboundary MSP might well be placed in the context of other processes of spatial integration such as the EU's territorial cohesion agenda [62] (which may be playing a role in the importance being attached by the European Commission to transnational cooperation in MSP). Here, for instance, there is

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

Table 2 TPEA strategic objectives.

1. To work collaboratively towards maritime space that is environmentally healthy, socially inclusive and economically productive, with the potential for innovative and sustainable maritime growth. 2. To arrive at an agreed understanding of the project's transboundary marine areas. 3. To coordinate the collection of data relevant to the planning and monitoring of marine conditions and maritime activities in the transboundary areas, and to develop a shared Geographical Information System to capture, manage, analyse and display marine spatial data. 4. To coordinate the understanding of policy positions, governance principles and positions and stakeholder perspectives throughout the transboundary areas. 5. To come to a shared understanding of competing interests, pressures and opportunities and explore options for future configurations of sustainable sea use throughout the transboundary areas. 6. To find joint approaches to integrating MSP with ICZM initiatives and, where appropriate, terrestrial planning within transboundary contexts.

growing emphasis on transborder initiatives for spatial coordination between authorities, rather than high-level spatial strategies, in which specific policy goals can be jointly formulated and worked towards, reflecting the needs and structures within which they are developed [8]. The transboundary dimension of MSP may also benefit from a focus on particular issues and concerns as they arise and are perceived by neighbouring administrations, building upon their existing relations and policy processes, rather than being a top-down, blanket approach to coordination on all conceivable matters.

9. Conclusions The logic of incorporating a transboundary dimension into MSP is well-established, with converging reasoning from scientific, management and policy perspectives. It can be argued that this need is particularly great in the marine setting because of the unbounded and dynamic nature of the environment and human activities within it. Moreover, experience in taking a transboundary approach is growing, through both official processes and pilot projects, with Europe's complex marine administration and the EU's policy initiatives being a focus of attention at present. However, the imperative for neighbouring administrations to work in a transboundary manner is not easily turned into practice. Difficulties may be faced that are procedural, such as attempting to match different administrative systems and processes, technical, such as drawing together data and finding effective means of communication, and political, such as managing divergent policy priorities across borders. Most fundamentally, there is likely to be a continuing tension between authorities maintaining their territorial interests and yet seeking to work towards shared interests. The project experience described in this article suggests that in order to address some of these difficulties, attention needs to be focused on the inter-relations not just of the geographies, marine environment and maritime resources and activities of the states concerned, but also of the systems of data management, governance and policy-making and of the participants involved as officials or stakeholders, including their means and cultures of exchange. An analysis of the wider frameworks within which MSP operates can lead to an appreciation of the different contexts being brought together and the policy priorities of the authorities involved. Similarly, joint stakeholder engagement strategies can ensure that planning efforts are enmeshed in the perceived issues affecting adjoining marine areas. Data-gathering and representation can then be focused on the planning objectives drawn up with regard to policy and stakeholder priorities. These are all mutually reinforcing

95

processes, which may then facilitate a more comprehensive approach to transboundary cooperation, including economic, environmental and social dimensions. Considerable flexibility may also be introduced to the definition of geographical areas for the purpose of transboundary planning, so that these are related to the key issues of concern, which should be determined through deliberation with stakeholders and with reference to wider policy frameworks. These emphases are central to MSP efforts in general, but are multiplied in transboundary exercises, as constant reference needs to be made to all jurisdictions concerned. Relations should thus be fostered at all levels, between institutions, stakeholder groups and technicians, and between systems of information, administration and policy-making. This takes transboundary approaches to MSP beyond its resource management starting point to wider consideration of governance and policy-related issues connecting transboundary efforts in MSP with those taking place in other environmental and spatial planning fields.

Acknowledgements TPEA was co-financed under European Integrated Maritime Policy (Grant No. S12636626). We wish to express our thanks to all other members of the partner organisations involved in the TPEA project [35], including: Lola Ortiz Sánchez and Monica Martínez Castañeda (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Spain); Ana Lloret Capote (CEDEX, Spain); Paulo Machado (Directorate General for Marine Policy, Portugal); Gerard McClarey and Andrew McGreevy (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, UK); and Sue Kidd (University of Liverpool, UK). We also gratefully acknowledge the invaluable and voluntary contribution of expert advisors, stakeholders and other participants to the work described in this article. We would also like to record our special appreciation for the work of Demetrio de Armas who sadly passed away during the TPEA project, but who had led the contribution from the Spanish Institute of Oceanography with professionalism and warmth, and will be greatly missed.

References [1] P. Gilliland, D. Laffoley, Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 32 (5) (2008) 787–796. [2] F. Douvere, The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management, Mar. Policy 32 (5) (2008) 762–771. [3] S. Jay, Marine space: manoeuvring towards a relational understanding, J. Environ. Policy Plan. 14 (1) (2012) 81–96. [4] European Commission (EC), (online) Maritime Spatial Planning, 〈http://ec. europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/maritime_spatial_planning/index_en.htm〉 (accessed 05.08.15). [5] European Parliament & Council (EPC), Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, Off. J. Eur. Union L 257 (2014) 135–145. [6] UNEP & GEF-STAP, Marine Spatial Planning in Practice: Transitioning from Planning to Implementation, UNEP, Nairobi, 2014. [7] P. Allmendinger, G. Haughton, Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces, Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 28 (2010) 803–818. [8] S. Dühr, C. Colomb, V. Nadin, European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation, Routledge, Oxford, 2010. [9] O. Jensen, T. Richardson, Making European Space: Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity, Routledge, London, 2004. [10] R. Warner, S. Marsden (Eds.), Transboundary Environmental Governance: Inland, Coastal and Marine Perspectives, Ashgate, Farnham, 2012, p. 380. [11] S. Rüter, C. Vos, M. van Eupen, H. Rühmkorf, Transboundary ecological networks as an adaptation strategy to climate change: the example of the Dutch– German border, Basic Appl. Ecol. 15 (2014) 639–650. [12] M. Vasilijević, K. Zunckel, M. McKinney, B. Erg, M. Schoon, T. Rosen Michel, Transboundary conservation: a systematic and integrated approach, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 23, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2015, pp. xii þ107.

96

S. Jay et al. / Marine Policy 65 (2016) 85–96

[13] J. Daniel, S. Pine, J. Brooks, Overcoming barriers to collaborative transboundary water governance: identifying local strategies in a fragmented governance setting in the United States, Mt. Res. Dev. 33 (3) (2013) 215–224. [14] M. Wiering, J. Verwijmeren, Limits and borders: stages of transboundary water management, J. Borderl. Stud. 27 (3) (2012) 257–272. [15] T. Agardy, Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Effective, Earthscan, London, 2010. [16] P. Doherty, Ocean Zoning: Perspectives on a New Vision for the Scotian Shelf and Gulf of Maine, Ecology Action Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2013. [17] C.J. Barrow, Environmental Management for Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., Routledge, London, 2006. [18] D. Degnbol, D.C. Wilson, Spatial planning on the North Sea: a case of crossscale linkages, Mar. Policy 32 (2) (2008) 189–200. [19] W. Flannery, A.M. O'Hagan, C. O'Mahony, H. Ritchie, S. Twomey, Evaluating conditions for transboundary marine spatial planning: challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 86–95. [20] M. Foley, B. Halpern, F. Micheli, et al., Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 34 (2010) 955–966. [21] K. Gee, A. Kannen, B. Heinrichs, BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030: Towards the Sustainable Planning of Baltic Sea Space, BaltSeaPlan, Hamburg, 2011. [22] D. Hassan, T. Kuokkanen, N. Soininen (Eds.), Transboundary Maritime Spatial Planning: A Legal Perspective, Earthscan, London, 2015. [23] J. Zaucha, Sea basin maritime spatial planning: a case study of the Baltic Sea region and Poland, Mar. Policy 50 (2014) 34–45. [24] R. Churchill, A. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed., Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999. [25] Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, CEC, Brussels, 2008. [26] H. Backer, Transboundary maritime spatial planning: a Baltic Sea perspective, J. Coast. Conserv. 15 (2) (2011) 279–289. [27] A. Schultz-Zehden, K. Gee, Findings: Experiences and Lessons from BaltSeaPlan, s.Pro, Berlin, 2013. [28] B. Käppeler, S. Toben, G. Chmura, S. Walkowicz, N. Nolte, P. Schmidt, J. Lamp, C. Göke, C. Mohn, Developing a Pilot Maritime Spatial Plan for the Pomeranian Bight and Arkona Basin, BaltSeaPlan, Hamburg, 2012. [29] H. Backer, M. Frias (Eds.), Planning the Bothnian Sea: Key Findings of the Plan Bothnia Project, Helcom, Helsinki, 2012. [30] M. Pastoors, S. Hommes, F. Maes, D. Goldsborough, B. deVos, M. Stuvier, B. Bolman, T. Sørensen, V. Stelzenmüller, MASPNOSE: Preparatory Action on Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Sea, Centre for Marine Policy, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 2012. [31] S. Kidd, L. McGowan, Constructing a ladder of transnational partnership working in support of marine spatial planning: thoughts from the Irish Sea, J. Environ. Manag. 126 (2013) 63–71. [32] Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area, CEC, Brussels, 2011. [33] Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Action Plan for a Maritime Strategy in the Atlantic Area Delivering Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, CEC, Brussels, 2013. [34] S. Jay, K. Gee (Eds.), TPEA Good Practice Guide: Lessons for Cross-Border MSP from Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2014. [35] Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic (TPEA), (online) Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic, 〈http://www.tpeamaritime.eu〉 (accessed 05.08.15). [36] J. Zaucha, Offshore spatial information: maritime spatial planning in poland, Reg. Stud. 64 (4) (2012) 459–473. [37] K. St. Martin, M. Hall-Arber, The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 32 (5) (2008) 779–786. [38] N. Schaefer, V. Barale, Maritime spatial planning: opportunities & challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy, J. Coast. Conserv. 15

(2011) 237–245. [39] European Parliament & Council (EPC), Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European community (INSPIRE), Off. J. Eur. Union L 108 (2007) 1–14. [40] Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic (TPEA), IEO (online), 〈http:// barreto.md.ieo.es/TPEAviewer〉 (accessed 05.08.15). [41] R.J. Shucksmith, C. Kelly, Data collection and mapping: principles, processes and application in marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 50 (2014) 27–33. [42] R. Pomeroy, F. Douvere, The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process, Mar. Policy 32 (5) (2008) 816–822. [43] H. Calado, J. Bentz, K. Ng, A. Zivian, N. Schaefer, C. Pringle, D. Johnson, M. Phillips, NGO involvement in marine spatial planning: a way forward? Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 382–388. [44] M. Gopnik, C. Fieseler, L. Cantral, K. McClellan, L. Pendleton, L. Crowder, Coming to the table: early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 1139–1149. [45] H. Ritchie, G. Ellis, A system that works for the sea'? Exploring stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 53 (6) (2010) 701–723. [46] K. Pezzoli, J. Kozo, K. Ferran, W. Wooten, G. Gomez, W. Al-Delaimy, One bioregion/one health: an integrative narrative for transboundary planning along the US–Mexico border, Glob. Soc. 28 (4) (2014) 419–440. [47] A. Do Ó, Drought planning and management in transboundary river basins: the case of the Iberian Guadiana, Water Policy 14 (1999) 784–799. [48] J. van Tatenhove, How to turn the tide: developing legitimate marine governance arrangements at the level of the regional seas, Ocean Coast. Manag. 71 (2013) 296–304. [49] J.S. Fritz, J. Hanus, The European Integrated Maritime Policy: the next five years, Mar. Policy 53 (2015) 1–4. [50] S.J. Boyes, M. Elliott, The excessive complexity of national marine governance systems: has this decreased in England since the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009? Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 57–65. [51] S. Olsen, E. Olsen, N. Schaefer, Governance baselines as a basis for adaptive marine spatial planning, J. Coast. Conserv. 15 (2011) 313–322. [52] T. Sandwith, C. Shine, L. Hamilton, D. Sheppard, Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, 2001, pp. xi þ 111. [53] MSPP Consortium (2006) Marine Spatial Planning Pilot: Final Report, ABPmer, Southampton. [54] S. Jay, Built at sea: marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning, Town Plan. Rev. 81 (2) (2010) 173–191. [55] G. Jones, G. Hollier, Resources, Society and Environmental Management, Chapman, London, 1997. [56] L. Crowder, E. Norse, Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning, Mar. Policy 32 (5) (2008) 772–778. [57] B. Karkkainen, Marine ecosystem management and a ‘post-sovereign’ transboundary governance, San Diego Int. Law J. 6 (1) (2004) 113–142. [58] G. Wilson, R. Bryant, Environmental Management: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, UCL Press, London, 1997. [59] K. Baldwin, R. Mahon, P. McConney, Participatory GIS for strengthening transboundary marine governance in SIDS, Nat. Resour. Forum 37 (2013) 257–268. [60] S. Katsanevakis, N. Levin, M. Coll, S. Giakoumi, D. Shkedi, P. Mackelworth, R. Levy, A. Velegrakis, D. Koutsoubas, H. Caric, E. Brokovich, B. Öztürk, S. Kark, Marine conservation challenges in an era of economic crisis and geopolitical instability: the case of the Mediterranean Sea, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 31–39. [61] D. Fürst, Regional Governance zwischen Wohlfahrtsstaat und neo-liberaler Marktwirtschaft, in: I. Katenhusen, W. Lamping (Eds.), Demokratien in Europa, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003, pp. 251–267. [62] A. Faludi, Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age? Routledge, London, 2010.