Encouraging effective marine management & decision-making ...€¦ · their projects. The Celtic...

1

E n c o u r a g i n g e f f e c t i v e m a r i n e m a n a g e m e n t & d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a c ro s s b o rd e r s

2 0 . 0 6 . 1 6 A u t h o r : G e o f f N u t t a l l

L e s s o n s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m t h e C e l t i c S e a s

Encouraging effective marine management & decision-making

across borders

– L e s s o n s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m t h e C e l t i c S e a s

2 3




3INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

7RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE

FUTURE TRANSBOUNDARY

GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS

9THE CHALLENGES OF

TRANSBOUNDARY MARINE

GOVERNANCE

11 INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL

TRANSBOUNDARY GOVERNANCE

13 EXISTING TRANSBOUNDARY

MECHANISMS – STAKEHOLDERS’

ASSESSMENT

15 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CELTIC SEAS

TRANSBOUNDARY GOVERNANCE

MECHANISMS, GUIDANCE, AND

OTHER USEFUL RESOURCES,

CONTACTS AND INFORMATION

19 DETAILED CASE STUDIES

C O N T E N T S

Celtic Seas Partnership is an EC LIFE+ project with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It is a four-year project, running from

January 2013 to December 2016. WWF-UK is the lead with partners the University of Liverpool, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, the Natural Environment

Research Council and SeaWeb Europe. Project number: LIFE11/ENV/UK/392

4 5




Figure 1: The EU Celtic Seas Region

C E LT I CS E A S

N O R T HA T L A N T I C

O C E A N

G R E A T E RN O R T H

S E A

I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D B A C K G R O U N D

In increasingly crowded waters, developing new marine renewable energy projects in ways which command the support of local communities and other users of the same or neighbouring sea space poses a major challenge for developers. Whilst the global need to reduce carbon emissions to protect our climate becomes ever more urgent, marine renewables developers continue to battle not only engineering challenges, but also significant opposition from other stakeholders and lengthy delays which threaten the viability of their projects.

The Celtic Sea Partnership Project1 was established to help marine authorities, users and interests from across the EU Celtic Seas sub-region (see fig. 1 opposite) work harmoniously together across borders and sectoral boundaries, in ways which avoid conflict and support the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s target of achieving ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) in its seas by 20202. To support this aim, the project has developed best practice guidelines for: Transboundary Marine Governance,Co-Existence of Marine Renewables and other Marine Interests, and Marine Sectoral Interaction and Conflict Resolution, which can be found at www.celticseaspartnership.eu

1 Funded by the EU Life+ Programme, project no. LIFE11 ENV/UK/3922 Achieving ‘Good Environmental Status’ is defined as achieving acceptable levels of 11 indicators or ‘descriptors’ namely: biological

diversity, non-indigenous species, commercial fish/shellfish populations, marine food webs, eutrophication, sea floor integrity, hydrographical conditions, contaminants, contaminants in fish & seafood, marine litter, noise (energy)

6 7




DATE


PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF GUIDELINES

These best practice guidelines for Transboundary Marine Governance are specifically designed to help those dealing with the challenges of operating in, managing, and protecting the marine environment whilst working across national and administrative borders. These include central government departments, statutory agencies, local councils and other agencies with a statutory marine management remit, as well as other marine users and interests involved in non-statutory, transboundary marine management initiatives, such as voluntary marine and coastal partnership bodies which involve representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Their content has been informed by extensive consultation with marine stakeholders from across a wide range of sectors in all of the countries and administrations in the Celtic Seas Region. This has included a total of 12 country workshop events (see www.celticseaspartnership.eu for workshop reports) held in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and France, two international workshop events in Liverpool and Paris and four, more detailed Case Study investigations. These Case Study investigations captured stakeholders’ experiences and lessons from four examples of Transboundary Marine Governance models; three of these were located in different parts of the Celtic Seas and one was located in the North Sea. (Irish Loughs Agency, Solway Firth Partnership, Cross-Channel Forum and the Wadden Sea).

The Celtic Seas Partnership project is particularly concerned with understanding the most effective ways in which marine stakeholders and interests can be engaged and brought together to encourage constructive collaboration that delivers healthy, sustainable seas. The consultations and investigations undertaken to inform these guidelines and the recommendations and resources highlighted in them are therefore focussed particularly on addressing this challenge.

8 9




R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R E F F E C T I V E F U T U R E T R A N S B O U N D A R Y

G O V E R N A N C E M E C H A N I S M S

From the stakeholder consultations, discussions, meetings and interviews carried out by the Celtic Seas Partnership project the following emerged as the key recommendations for making future transboundary marine governance more effective in the Celtic Seas,

and by extension other transnational marine regions:

• Thevalueandnatureofbothstatutoryand non-statutory governance mechanisms and forums

needs to be recognised. Whilst the former may have more decision-making weight and impact on specific transboundary issues, they may find themselves constrained by the limitations of their legal remit in looking comprehensively at the full breadth of issues necessary. The latter may have the advantage of being more flexible and able to look at transboundary issues more holistically in a less formal environment. This less formal environment is more conducive to the building of trust and effective working relationships, which are key to effective governance

• Theexperienceandvalueofexistingtransboundarynetworks and forums should be built upon rather than reinventing or overlooking when considering new or improved structures. To be effective, it is vital that transboundary governance structures are resourced and sustainable. At a time of significant pressures on resources, it is sensible to capitalise and build upon existing structures with experience

• Combiningeconomic,socialandenvironmentalagendas may be a way to bring in the resources that are needed for such structures

• Fromexperience,thefollowingareconsideredto be desirable features for future Transboundary Marine Governance structures involving multiple stakeholders:

– Good coordination – ideally with dedicated staff, providing continuity and resources to manage differing agendas/priorities

– Enabling informal regular exchange of experience between administrations

– Having commitment and buy-in from stakeholders

– Delivering clear guaranteed outputs/benefits, thereby encouraging support from stakeholders

– Making use of champions (e.g. to promote/lead on particular transboundary issues)

– Establishing mechanisms to bring siloed sectors together, including linking existing sectoral groups and trade associations to other stakeholders outside their sector

– Establishing appropriate structures (e.g. sub-groups) to deal with the wide variety of issues faced in the Celtic Seas. A single structure or forum may not be able to cope with the full variety of issues which need to be tackled.

1 0 1 1




T H E C H A L L E N G E S O F T R A N S B O U N D A R Y M A R I N E

G O V E R N A N C E

From the stakeholder consultations, discussions, meetings and interviews carried out by the Celtic Seas Partnership project to capture experiences and perspectives on

transboundary marine governance in the Celtic Seas, the following emerged as the key transboundary challenges and issues faced –

STRUCTURAL, TECHNICAL, LEGISLATIVE CHALLENGES

• Aligningthedifferentagendas,processes,plansand timetables of the different administrations and non-compatibility of these different agendas, policy priorities and processes (It was also acknowledged, however, that different administrations being at different stages in the same processes can give rise to positive learning opportunities)

• Understandingwhoisresponsibleforwhichroleswithin different administrations, and the different structures within them

• Negotiatingdifferencesbetweenlegislationandregulating and enforcement agencies in the different administrations on either side of the border

• Workingacrossdifferentlayersandlevelsofadministration at local, regional and national level and the challenge posed by the difference in the influence exerted by different levels. Also the challenge of different levels of administration talking coherently to other levels (e.g. Challenge of representing UK perspective at EU level whilst reflecting the different circumstances throughout the constituent administrations)

• Dealingwiththeinconsistencyofapproachesbetween regions and countries, for example due to differing fisheries legislation, different conservation approaches

• Shiftingpointsofcross-bordercontactbetweenDepartment’s agencies (perhaps where no clear equivalent exists on both sides)

• Dealingwithuncertaintiesaroundborders/jurisdiction – an illustrative example would be the Tunes Plateau windfarm proposal off the coast of Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland where the

location of border on the sea bed was unclear and the jurisdictional issue was addressed by an Memorandum of Understanding on Renewable Energy Development agreed between the two governments

• Dealingwithdifferentapproachestoscientificdatacollection on either side of borders

• Thechallengeofcrossborderenforcementwhich can be more difficult than cross-border management

• Thelackofexistingcross-borderforums

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING

• Overcomingaprevailingmindsetwhichseesworking across borders as a necessary challenge rather than a positive opportunity

• Negotiatingdifferencesinculture,language,terminology, norms, politics. For example, authorities in France tend to have a more centralised approach requiring sign off from the (national) centre compared with a more devolved approach in the UK. These ‘cultural’ differences can manifest themselves in the challenge of developing a common understanding of concepts like Ecosystem Services, Adaptive Management. Nevertheless, it was also recognised that the cultural (and particularly language) differences between countries in the Celtic Seas region probably pose fewer challenges than in many other EU regional seas.

• Securingtrustbetweendifferentmarinestakeholders and interests, changing entrenched viewpoints, securing buy-in to engagement processes and structures.

1 2 1 3




I N G R E D I E N T S F O R S U C C E S S F U L T R A N S B O U N D A R Y G O V E R N A N C E

From their experience, stakeholders have identified the following as key ingredients for successful transboundary governance -

• Beingactiveinengagingintransboundaryandcross-sectoral forums, speaking to neighbours, using informal networks to build relationships

• Holdingbi-andtri-lateralmeetingsbetweengovernment officials at EU regional level to build relationships (outside formal meetings).

E.g. between UK/IRL national policy officers ofBritish-IrishCouncil

• Usingexperienced,unbiasedfacilitators

• Drawingevidencetogetherwhichallstakeholderscan support

• Recognisingtheimpactofhavingparticularactors in the room on the tone and nature of the discussion and its conduciveness to allowing open, informal discussion to build working relationships and trust, versus formal ‘reporting’ (e.g. EU Member State Government representatives meeting each other versus meeting each other and European Commission representatives at the same time)

• Recognisingtheriskof,andavoiding, stakeholder fatigue

• Allowingeveryonetohavetheirsay

• Havingfinancialresourcestosupportmechanismsto engage and involve stakeholders in transboundary governance

• Capitalisingondisasters(ie–turningproblemsintoopportunities to develop more effective working)

• Buildingonsuccessfulprojects(butnotrelyingonindividuals who may move on)

• Havingsufficientopportunitiesforstakeholdersfromdifferent sectors to have contact with one another, develop their understanding of each other and identify common interests

• Stakeholdersreceivingsufficientlevelsofinformation and having sufficient levels of influence

• Reachingouttowiderstakeholdersandthegeneralpublic with information that is accessible and understandable

• Reachingagreementonaimsandobjectives

• Relianceonrelationshipsbuiltonparticularindividuals who move on

CHALLENGES OF SCALE

• DealingwiththescaleoftheCelticSeasRegionand the challenge of finding common interests between such dispersed regions within it

• Managingthecross-borderimpactsofdecisions

• FindingspacetoaccommodateactivitieswithintheCeltic Sea Region

IMPACTS OF WIDER POLICIES

• DealingwiththelogicofBlueGrowth(theprevailingpolicy of many administrations) which inherently encourages competition rather than co-operation

• TheimpactofwiderEUpoliciestopromotetransboundary working (for example, Marine Spatial Planning Directive, Reformed Common Fisheries Policy)

• Dealingwithuncertaintyaroundfutureconstitutionalchanges (e.g. Possible Scottish independence, UK withdrawal from EU)

FINANCIAL CHALLENGES

• Securingsufficientfundingformechanismsandactivities to support transboundary working, especially at a time of tight budgetary restraints.

1 4 1 5




The stakeholders who were consulted believe that the current mechanisms for transboundary governance within and across the Celtic Seas are not as effective as they should be. Links and communication between officials in different Celtic Seas authorities are not uniformly made across the Celtic Seas. For example, linkages are made between officials from the multiple marine planning organisations in the devolved countries of the UK, Republic of Ireland, and the Isle of Man but less so with officials in France. The geographical coverage, level and remit of existing statutory transboundary marine management bodies in the Celtic Seas vary greatly, ranging from the high level,politicalBritish-IrishCouncilwhichincludestheUK,IrelandandtheChannelIslandstotheIrishCross-BorderLoughs Agency, with a focused legislative, management, promotion and enforcement remit for the cross-border sea loughs between Northern Ireland (UK) and the Republic of Ireland.OthertransboundarybodiessuchastheAtlanticArc Commission have a paid membership and so not all areas/authorities are included. Initiatives such as the Celtic Seas SimCelt project (‘Supporting Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Celtic Seas’ – EU Project funded by Directorate General (DG) Mare) may shed further light on current shortcomings and suggest recommendations to improve them.

E X I S T I N G T R A N S B O U N D A R Y

M E C H A N I S M S – S TA K E H O L D E R S ’

A S S E S S M E N T

1 6 1 7




S U M M A R Y O F E X I S T I N G C E LT I C S E A S T R A N S B O U N D A R Y G O V E R N A N C E

M E C H A N I S M S , G U I D A N C E , A N D O T H E R U S E F U L R E S O U R C E S , C O N TA C T S

A N D I N F O R M AT I O N

From their experience, stakeholders have identified the following as key ingredients for successful transboundary governance -

EXISTING STATUTORY TRANSBOUNDARY MARINE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

There are a limited number of existing statutory transboundary governance mechanisms with a marine remit, namely -

• TheLoughsAgency-NorthernIreland(UK)/Republic of Ireland border (Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle). Model of Marine (and freshwater) management and protection across twojurisdictions(NIandROI)workingwithtwolegislative systems to deliver healthy ecosystems. See http://www.loughs-agency.org/

• TheBritish-IrishCouncil-UK/RepublicofIreland/IOM/ChannelIslands.Astatutorymechanism,establishedaspartofthe1998Belfast/’GoodFriday’ Northern Ireland peace agreement to co-ordinate co-operation between the governments of twoEUmemberStates(UK&ROI)plusthenon-EUUK crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands

• NorthWesternWatersAdvisoryCouncil(NWWAC)- EU North Western Waters (ICES areas Vb (EC waters), VI, VII). EU transboundary advisory council designed to bring together stakeholders to advise the European Commission on matters of fisheries management in respect of the North Western Waters - ICES areas Vb (EC waters), VI, VII.

EXISTING STATUTORY TRANSBOUNDARY GOVERNANCE GUIDANCE/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

There are also a limited number of statutory requirements for collaboration between countries in the Celtic Seas region in managing the marine environment, namely –

• LegalprovisionsoftheEUMarineStrategy

Framework Directive, and Marine Spatial Planning Directive which require Members States to collaborate across their borders

• TheOSPARRegionalSeaConvention (See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/

international-cooperation/regional-sea-conventions/ospar/index_en.htm)

• ICES(InternationalCouncilfortheExplorationofthe Sea) guidance to support sustainable use of the seas (See: http://www.ices.dk/community/advisory-process/Pages/Latest-advice.aspx)

• MarineandCoastalAccessAct2009(coversUKcountries)

NON-STATUTORY TRANSBOUNDARY MARINE GOVERNANCE FORUMS AND STRUCTURES

These include -

• IrishSeaMaritimeForum-(England/Scotland/Wales/Isle of Man/Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland).Bringingtogethermarinestakeholders

1 8 1 9




from all countries surrounding the Irish Sea, the Irish Sea Maritime Forum held its inaugural Conference inBelfastinJune2012.TheoverarchingVisionof the Irish Sea Maritime Forum is: “An Irish Sea which has a healthy marine environment, coherent energy policy, safe clean and efficient transport and sustainable fisheries and is managed to deliver sustainable development for the benefit of all.”

• SolwayFirthPartnership–Scotland/England(SeeCase Studies below)

• SevernEstuaryPartnership–Wales/England

• Cross-ChannelForum(CAMIS/PEGASEAS)–England/France (See Case Studies below)

• North-WestandNorthWalesCoastalGroup-North-West England/North Wales. Multi-agency partnership across national/administrative boundary for coastal change management

• ICESWGIntegratedEcosystemAssessmentforWesternWaters–ROI/UK/France/Spain/Portugal.Transboundary integrated approach to ecosystem assessment

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF RECENT AND LIVE TRANSBOUNDARY CHALLENGES IN THE CELTIC SEAS

• Moyle(electricity)Interconnector-(N.Ireland/Scotland). Developed following agreement between NI Electricity and Scottish Power. Its operations are now managed overseen by Mutual Energy Ltd.

The Moyle Interconnector links the electricity grids of Northern Ireland and Scotland through

submarine cables

• East-West(electricity)Interconnector-(RepublicofIreland/Wales) Developed by the Irish national grid operator EirGrid. The East–West Interconnector is a high-voltage direct current submarine and subsoil powercablewhichconnectstheBritishandIrishelectricity markets.

• Alderney/Normandytransboundarychallenges– France/Channel Islands. Licensing of marine renewables projects, co-located with multiple marine stakeholders and across Channel Island and French jurisdictions

EXAMPLES OF TRANSBOUNDARY MARINE GOVERNANCE PLANS AND AGREEMENTS

• EUMarineSpatialPlanningDirective http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/

?uri=CELEX:32014L0089&from=EN

• UKMarinePolicyStatement(2011)https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69322/pb3654-marine-policy-statement-110316.pdf

• SevernEstuaryStrategyPlan(England/Wales)

• NorthernIreland/RepublicofIreland:

– MOUonall-islandrenewabledevelopments

– Cross-border Loughs Agency Advisory Forum and Focus groups

– Cross-BorderCrimeTaskForce

• NASCO(NorthAtlanticSalmonConservationOrganisation)model-abindingtreatyrequiringsignatory countries to provide a funding pot to support measures for North Atlantic Salmon Conservation

• BOTNIAplanfortheBalticSea(aprojectwhichusedtheBothnianSeabetweenSwedenandFinland as a trial case study for transboundary marine spatial planning)

TRANSNATIONAL PROJECTS RELEVANT TO TRANSBOUNDARY MARINE GOVERNANCE

• TransboundaryPlanningintheEuropeanAtlantic(TPEA) – Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Spain/Portugal

• CAMIS/PEGASEAS–England/France–CAMIS(Channel Arc Manche Integrated Strategy) - project to develop an integrated maritime strategy for the French/English Channel area. PEGASEAS (Promoting Effective Governance of the Channel Ecosystems) - project to promote effective governance of the Channel ecosystem

• IrelandWalesTerritorialCo-operationProgramme2007-2013 (INTERREG 4A) - Republic of Ireland Government/Welsh Government, regional and local authorities, the environmental sector, Social Partners and the European Commission. The Ireland Wales Territorial Co-operation Programme

2007-2013 (INTERREG 4A) aimed to further develop Irish Welsh co-operation in the areas of employment, innovation, climate change and sustainable development. Under its environment stand this included supporting transboundary projects to develop renewable alternative energy sources/ biofuels and sustainable management & protection of habitats

• MAIA(MPAsintheAtlanticArc)-Azores(Portugal)to Shetlands (Scotland). Atlantic partnership project to co-ordinate MPAs across national boundaries

• ISLES–Scotland/NorthernIreland/RepublicofIreland. Interreg project to provide a transboundary planning framework for the development of marine renewables between Scotland, N. Ireland, Republic of Ireland

NON-MARINE MODELS OF TRANSNATIONAL WORKING WITH POSSIBLE TRANSFERABLE LESSONS

• TheInternationalCommissionfortheProtectionofthe Danube River (ICPDR)

• EUWaterFrameworkDirectiveInternationalRiverBasinManagementPlans

2 0 2 1




D E TA I L E D C A S E S T U D I E S

From an initial long list (see Appendix 1), four examples of existing transboundary marine governance mechanisms from across the Celtic Seas were selected as Case Studies for further investigation, in order to identify useful experience, lessons and

recommendations for effective transboundary governance. These were as follows -

A non-statutory cross-border marine management mechanisms involved in a number of EU-funded projects

1 THE CROSS-CHANNEL FORUM (ENG/FRANCE)

A non-statutory cross-border stakeholder engagement and management mechanism3 SOLWAY FIRTH PARTNERSHIP (ENG/SCOTLAND)

A non-statutory model of cross-border marine management in a neighbouring EU regional sea (Greater North Sea)

4 WADDEN SEA (GERMANY, DENMARK, NETHERLANDS)

A statutory regulator and enforcement body with a remit for elements of cross-border marine management in two cross-border sea loughs (Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough)

2 THE LOUGHS AGENCY (NORTHERN IRELAND (UK)/REPUBLIC OF IRELAND)

2 2 2 3




C R O S S - C H A N N E L F O R U M

(ENG/FRANCE)

1

BACKGROUND

The ‘Cross Channel Forum/Forum de la Manche’ was established as part of the 2009-13 CAMIS project (Channel Arc Manche Integrated Strategy) funded under the European Interreg IVA France (Manche) - England programme EU Interreg programme. The aim of this project was to develop an integrated maritime strategy fortheChannelareaandtoolspromotingFranco-Britishcooperation covering governance, maritime economy, transport, maritime safety and knowledge of the Channel area. The CAMIS project and the Cross-Channel Forum built upon cooperation developed under the earlier EMDI project (Channel Area Development Initiative) developed aspartoftheNorth-WesternEuropeInterregIIIBprogramme between 2004 and 2008.

PEGASEAS (Promoting Effective Governance of the Channel Ecosystems) was a 23-month INTERREG IVA capitalisation project (April 2013 to February 2015) between France and the United Kingdom, the purpose of which was to promote effective governance of the Channel ecosystems, by identifying the results, conclusions and lessons arising from cooperative cross-channel projects.

2 4 2 5




STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

The stakeholders involved in the Cross-Channel Forum and the aforementioned EMDI, CAMIS and PEGASEAS projects can be grouped as follows:

• Political and decision-making sphere: regional authorities, institutional decision-makers at national and international level

• Sphereofeconomicactivitiesandspecialinterests: ports, fishermen, aggregate extraction companies, the RME sector (Renewable Marine Energy), the leisure sector, environmental preservation organisations (French Protected Marine Areas Agency, environmental protection associations)

• Scientific sphere: research bodies, universities

Two major areas of challenge these stakeholders face with regard to the cross-border governance in the English Channel are:

• Institutionalchallengesanddifficultyinrecognisingthe status of the Channel Arc

There is a compartmentalisation of responsibilities within each country, with no structure enabling the coherent deliberation on cross-border management of the Channel area. The Channel Arc, a geographical area comprisingalltheBritishandFrenchregionsalongtheEnglish Channel, was created as an initiative to respond to this institutional challenge.. Since 2003, Channel Arc has also become a political project based on an informal and voluntary network of local authorities that exchange best practice, coordinate initiatives and develop ideas for projects that could be financed using European funds. Butthisgeographicalentityisnotofficiallyrecognised.The Channel Arc Regional Assembly has the role of demonstrating the benefit and special nature of the Channel area as a coherent area of regional cooperation and to gain European Union recognition for its added value.

• Sectorspecificchallenges

There is no overall Channel-wide cross-sector vision. Some sector-based approaches are positive and have proven their effectiveness over past decades (e.g. in fields of maritime safety: The Anglo-French JointMaritimeContingencyPlanfortheEnglishChannel (Mancheplan) or fishing: 4 Regional Consultative Committees), but they do not meet the need for a cross-sector vision.

MECHANISMS, ACTIVITIES AND APPROACHES ADOPTED TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND DELIVER POSITIVE OUTCOMES

The purpose of the CAMIS project was to define directions for implementing an integrated maritime policy in the Channel area and for testing maritime governance tools. Two key initiatives have resulted from this project:

• Anintegratedmaritimestrategywasproducedinorder to reply to the specific issues of the Channel area. This strategy aims to develop a common Franco-Britishapproachtothemanagementand development of this maritime basin, taking into account the different sectors as well as the necessity to preserve its environments and resources. This strategy is organised into three themes:

– Strategic theme 1: Strengthen governance and cooperation to improve management and development of resources in the Channel area.

– Strategic theme 2: Implement a consistent regional approach to respond to the issues at Channel scale.

– Strategic theme 3: Promote sustainable development in coastal regions of the Channel area.

This strategy includes an action plan. Its aim is to implement these major strategic directions operationally. It comprises 23 actions to be implemented during the 2014 – 2020 programming period for European funds. Drawing up the integrated maritime strategy relied extensively on contributions from those involved in the maritime and inshore communities, notably by means of four meetings of the ‘Cross-Channel Forum’ (Forum de la Manche) organised throughout the project.

• This‘Cross-ChannelForum’,withexperienceoftheCAMIS project, formed a platform for expression andexchangesforallFrenchandBritishmaritimeand coastal parties interested in the future of this area (representatives from the local communities, State and European institutions, stakeholders in the maritime economy, research and innovation, higher education and the environment). Today it represents the only place that brings together all of these players to deal with cross-border problems or the common interests of this maritime basin. The Cross-Channel Forum evolved logically through the PEGASEAS project. As part of the two projects, CAMIS and PEGASEAS, a total of seven Forums were organised.

• ThePEGASEASprojectenabledseveraldocumentsabout Cross-Channel governance to be drawn up:

– Audit of the results from INTERREG IVA projects on governance of the English Channel (matrix of project results and drafting a compendium entitled ‘Towards better governance of the Channel ecosystem’)

– Report on the institutional framework of governance and current and future policies for the Channel, entitled ‘Report on Channel regulations’

– Mapping of governance for the Channel maritime area: with the production of 5 diagrams, each developed from the outcomes of the different INTERREG IVA projects and a considerable contribution from the stakeholders. Diagrams 1 to 3 show the international and European legal and political commitments applying in the English Channel and the way these commitments are implemented on each side of the Channel. Diagrams 4 and 5 show the complex institutional frameworks (responsibilities and processes) of the French and English sides of the Channel, frameworks that are predominantly sectorial and, consequently, presented as such, highlighting relevant strategic documents.

– Completion of the first online public survey specifically covering the environment of the Channel area, to gather the viewpoints of people living in and visiting the Channel area.

– Good Governance Guide intended for decision-makers in the marine environment. It has been structured around three of the most important legal and political instruments for the Channel area: the marine environment strategy framework Directive, the common fisheries policy and the Directive on maritime space scheduling. The experiences and observations presented in this guide seek to develop the advantages of cooperative governance of the Channel and to reduce problems caused by a lack of coordination. The key message of this guide is that to preserve the environmental, social and economic advantages offered by the Channel area over the long term, it is necessary to govern this unique maritime system in an overallandcoordinatedmanner.Objectivesfor effective cooperation and communication, and particularly joint mechanisms for governance, will be needed.

– The deliverables from the PEGASEAS project have been communicated to the public and local stakeholders through local capitalisation events and innovative use of the media by means of a series of radio broadcasts covering relevant problems and 12 local capitalisation events for stakeholders and local decision-makers.

2 6 2 7




VIEWS OF STAKEHOLDERS ON MECHANISMS, APPROACHES AND LESSONS TO BE DRAWN

• TheForumofpartiesinvolvedintheChannelisthefirst brick in constructing a governance model that enabled an intersectoral and cross-border vision tobedeveloped.Butthisshouldgobeyondtheaspect of debates and sharing experience. This Forum must now change status.

– It must become a sustainable structure, independent of the projects through which it has been created.

– It should involve the main decision-makers from both sides of the Channel (e.g. Inter-regional Maritime Department (DIRM) in France;MarineManagementOrganisation(MMO)andDepartmentforEnvironmentFood and Rural Affaires (DEFRA) in England). Although they have been invited to take part in this Forum, these parties have not really taken part in the dialogue.

• Thepopulationsarenotsufficientlyinvolvedinthis consultation. MARINEXUS, Interreg France-Manche-England programme, was one of the rare projects targeted at the general public: its aim was to inform the public about marine ecosystems in the Western Channel (and their ability to deal with the

effects of human activity) and about climate change.• Thereisanervousnesswithincentralgovernments

about the development of the cross-channel governance approach. This reluctance derives partly from the fact that there is not much bilateral discussion on the subject, and that these exchanges are generally based on one or two people in ministries.

• WeareseeingintensifiedcontactsbetweentheFrenchandBritishpartiesinvolved(e.g.between universities). What we end up creating is a single community. People meet and share a common vision of the Channel area, with practical collaborativeprojects.Butthiscooperationremainsfragile because it is linked to the ups and downs of these programmes.

• ThePEGASEASproject,byanalysingprojectclusters, has established gateways between all the existing projects on the Channel area.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS

• CAMIShasdemonstratedtheimportanceofthetransparent nature of the governance in seeking an agreement on actions affecting the marine environment. The Cross-Channel Forum has shown

the point at which it was necessary to listen to everyone involved in large governance structures or small organisations and to discuss these contributions in the form of an open debate. In the future it would be useful if the tools developed in the CAMIS projects were re-examined and refined in order to establish them in the longer term as a means of participative governance.

• TheanalysisofprojectsexaminedbythePEGASEAS cluster enabled key lessons to be drawn to support effective maritime governance, whether at cross-channel level and more generally at European scale. The results are grouped into6topicsinacompendium:Operationandmanagement of marine ecosystems, Management and use of information and data, Activities and pressures on the marine environment, Multi-level governance in the Channel, Partnerships, Communication and involvement of stakeholders. A guide containing recommendations for effective governance of the Channel was then drawn up. These documents are accessible online:

http://www.pegaseas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PEGASEAS-Compendium-Version-Fran%C3%A7aise.pdf

http://www.pegaseas.eu/fr/pegaseas-interreg-iva-2013-2014-livrables-et-documentation/

• InthetraditionofthePEGASEASproject,itwillbe important to continue knowledge sharing programmes.Butitwillalsobenecessarytobroach an institutional step: the creation of enduring governance structures recognised by the authorities. Many tools have been created as part of the different INTERREG projects (e.g. data sharing, internet sites, etc.), however political will of the two States to go further is lacking (e.g. set up a Channel Maritime Council).

• TheCelticSeasPartnershipproject(CSP),althoughvery focused on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), is taking part in cross-channel and intersectoral appropriation of the maritime area of the Channel / Celtic Seas for the same reasons as the CAMIS and PEGASEAS projects. These ‘bottom up’ initiatives for consultation with civil society offer everyone the possibility of becoming involved in governance.

• Thereneedstobeagreementontransboundarymonitoring of marine MPAs, which are costly to monitor, so as to avoid duplication and reduce costs. A best practice template for doing this should be developed. (For further background information on this issue see https://www.openchannels.org/literature/1415658851 )

2 8 2 9




T H E L O U G H S A G E N C Y

(NORTHERNIRELAND(UK)/REPUBLICOFIRELAND)

2

BACKGROUND

The Loughs Agency is an agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), established as one of the cross-border bodies under the 1998 Agreement between the Government of the United KingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIrelandandtheGovernment of Ireland. The Agency aims to provide sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits through the effective conservation, management, promotion and development of the fisheries and marine resources of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas (see map above).

The Agency has a number of strategic and operational functions which are set out in the North/South Co-operation(ImplementationBodies)(NI)Order1999,theBritish-IrishAgreementAct1999,theFoyleFisheriesAct (NI) 1952 (as amended) and the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 (as amended).

Under the Agreement, the Agency took over the fisheries protection functions of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and was given both an additional cross-border operational area in Carlingford and the additional functions of developing aquaculture and marine tourism. The Agency’s governing legislation confers the following specific functions:

• thepromotionofdevelopmentofLoughFoyleandCarlingford Lough for commercial and recreational purposes in respect of marine, fishery and aquaculture matters;

• themanagement,conservation,protection,improvement and development of the inland fisheries of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas;

• thedevelopmentandlicensingofaquaculture;and

• thedevelopmentofmarinetourism

Drivers for marine governance in the area governed by the Loughs Agency include both EU Directives and domestic legislation. The Agency notes that since Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland do not implement EU Directives at the same time or in the same way that this can potentially lead to situations where Directives are enforced through primary legislation in one state but not necessarily enforced through the primary legislation in another state, or are enforced differently creating a specific issue in relation to ensuring marine governance on both sides of the border.

3 0 3 1




MECHANISMS, ACTIVITIES AND APPROACHES ADOPTED TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND DELIVER POSITIVE OUTCOMES

The Loughs Agency model of trans-boundary governance uses an Advisory Forum made up of 50 stakeholder groups from the voluntary, commercial and tourismsectors.ItalsohasaBoardmadeupofpoliticalparties on both sides of the border which ensures that the stakeholders have a consistent voice with regard to the policies and research implemented through the Agency.

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON ABOVE APPROACH/MECHANISMS AND LESSONS

The above structures and the simultaneous passing of legislation through the North-South Ministerial Council on both sides of the border has proven an effective method of governance. The principal difficulties encountered with this have been that the passing of legislation through two different administrations requires a degree of bureaucracy which at times can slow the process considerably.

Key lessons for effective cross-border marine governance learned from the experience of the Loughs Agency and its structures include:

• theimportanceofstakeholderengagement• thevalueofhavingacross-borderAdvisoryForum,

which the Agency believes has been an exemplary method of achieving consistency in developing a marine governance protocol for Foyle and Carlingford areas in particular.

• havinganopenandtransparentevidencebase• implementingscientificmanagementbasedon the above

STAKEHOLDERS IN CASE STUDY AREA AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

The key stakeholders in the area governed by the LoughsAgencyareNGOs,environmentalsupportgroups, commercial fisheries, angling and tourism groups as well as the scientific community on both sides of the border.

The main marine governance challenges identified include the interactions between fisheries and shellfisheries, data integration, scientific sharing and the overlap and interaction of European legislation which can at times be contradictory e.g. in relation to the management of Atlantic salmon and that for seals and otters which are both predators on Atlantic salmon, as well as other interactions e.g. marine conservation zonesandshellfishfishermenwheretheretendstobeatension.

A key challenge identified by the Agency of operating at the geographical area it does is ensuring that science and enforcement within a cross-border area is effective and joined-up. It must seek to ensure that stakeholders - who can be extremely varied across Aquaculture, Marine Tourism, Angling and Commercial Fishing - all have a voice and a method of communication with the

Agency, while also trying ensure that governance and legislation is undertaken to appropriate standards on both sides of the border. The division of responsibilities makes it difficult to ensure effective marine governance, particularly as wild species tend to freely travel across marine boundaries without consideration, making the development of management plans and the management of these ecosystems extremely difficult in these areas.

The promotion of Good Environmental Status creates difficulties where there is a significant interaction between cross-border groups and particularly where national definitions vary and where government structures vary across the border areas. A massive problem of data integration exists where systems are different on both sides of the border – e.g. mechanisms for evaluating seal numbers. Furthermore, the enforcement of fisheries and the engagement of fisheries stakeholders falls within different structures on both sides of the border.


BasedonthelessonsandexperiencesoftheLoughsAgency case study the following should be included as recommendations for effective cross-border marine governance and included in best practice cross-border governance guidelines for the Celtic Seas Region as a whole (and beyond) –

• Effectivecross-bordermarinegovernanceshouldbe underpinned by engagement with all relevant marine stakeholders from both sides of the border

• Establishingacross-borderstakeholderadvisoryforum, with a wide representation to allow stakeholders to feed in their knowledge and views can not only ensure an informed approach to marine governance but one that is consistent across different jurisdictions and functions

• Suchaforumcanalsobeusedtobegeneratetopicspecific focus groups to hold detailed discussions on particular issues (the Loughs Agency currently operates four of these under the following themes: Salmon and Inland Fisheries; Aquaculture and Shellfisheries; Marine Tourism; and Environment).

• AgoverningBoardincludingpoliticalrepresentativefrom both sides of the border can ensure a consistent and accountable approach to the implementation of policy on both sides of the border. Such a structure could also potentially encourage better co-ordination in the implementation of legislation by the different jurisdictions thereby reducing the difficulties posed by inconsistent timing and differences of approach

• Anopenandtransparentevidencebasetogetherwith mechanisms to involve the scientific community on both sides of the border is vital to underpin scientific decision-making.

3 2 3 3




3S O L W AY F I R T H PA R T N E R S H I P

(ENG/SCOTLAND)

BACKGROUND

The Solway Firth crosses the border between Scotland and England and is close to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, which have their own marine legislation and management arrangements. The Scottish side of the Firth is one of Scotland’s 11 marine regions. The English side of the Solway is regulated by the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Scottish side is mainly regulated by the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. Although there are many similarities between the two acts, there are also differences. For marine planning purposes it has been agreed that the Solway Firth will be treated as one entity and both governments have committed to a joined up cross border planning process. The measures in the agreement included joint stakeholder consultation and communication between Governments throughout the planning process, the publication of a single planning document, a seamless approach to marine spatial planning for the Solway Firth and clear articulation on how the two planning regimes interact and integrate.

The sectoral interests of the Solway are diverse and include: a diverse mixed fishery, which in turn provides employment in Cumbria and in Dumfries and Galloway; renewable energy opportunities in the Solway, including the 60-turbine Robin Rigg offshore wind farm and further sites identified for future renewable developments; recreation & tourism, including recreational angling and shipping.

The estuary is a Ramsar site (internationally designated wetland) and the inner Solway is designated as a special protectionareaundertheEuropeanUnionBirdsDirectiveand as a Special Area of Conservation. The English side of the Solway was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty in 1964 and three national scenic areas were designated on the Scottish side 20 years ago. The area also includes a number of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest.

The Solway Firth Partnership (SFP) was established in 1994 is an independent charity that works to support the sustainable development of the Solway Firth whilst protecting the special qualities of the local marine and coastal area. The Solway Firth Partnership has a broad membership and its role is one of facilitation and mediation between interests.

In response to the threat of invasive non-native species present or entering the Solway Firth the Solway Firth Partnership developed a plan ‘To establish a sustainable framework for preventing, detecting and controlling marine invasive non-native species within the Solway Firth Partnership area through appropriate management, data collection, liaison and education.’

STAKEHOLDERS IN CASE STUDY AREA AND CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED

The key stakeholders in the area governed by the Solway Firth Partnership are; government agencies, e.g. Marine Scotland,MarineManagementOrganisation(MMO),Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), NWIFCA, Natural England, Local Authorities, ports, commercial fisheries, renewable energy sector, angling and tourism groups, NGOs,environmentsupportgroupsandthescientificcommunity on both sides of the border.

The main marine governance challenges identified are:

• Differentmarinelegislationandmanagementarrangements result in different ways of prioritising e.g. budget spend, research priorities etc. on either side of the border. A particular challenge is that governance structures either side of the border are not mirror images of each other and there is a need for stakeholders to understand the structure ofbothadministrationse.g.MMOandtheNWIFCAon English side, Marine Scotland and the (non-regulatory) IFG on Scottish side. This challenge has been exacerbated for some stakeholders by budget cuts to the public sector which has resulted in a lack of capacity for engagement.

• Crossborderfundingissues,suchas:supportingthe Solway Firth Partnership and implementing management measures; resources sometimes available on one side of the Solway and absent on the other; extra resource required and duplication of effort when there is a need to apply for different funds on either side of the border to ensure cross border delivery of projects

• Enforcementanditsco-ordinationacrosstheboundaries is more complicated as more agencies are involved and stakeholder intelligence is not as easily accessed across borders

• Geographicaldistancebetweenstakeholders

• Timingofadministrativegoals/timelinesnotinsync

• Ecosystemsdonotobserveboundariesandsoa co-ordinated and holistic approach to marine management is necessary.

• RaisingstakeholderawarenessofMarineStrategyFramework Directive and Good Environmental Status including what the implications of these could be. Lack of awareness makes it difficult for people to see what opportunities that MSFD may provide to support good marine management in the Solway

• CrossborderplanningforMarineSpatialPlanning– it will be hard to integrate statutory marine plans within the Solway.

• Managingcrossborderdevelopmentssuchasrenewables – this includes existing developments as well as future developments.

• Co-ordinatingmonitoringprogrammes,sharingdataand ensuring it is collected in a consistent manner and compatible formats.

Challenges specific to management of non-indigenous species:

• Potentialofdifferentregulations&protocolsoneither side of the border

• Sharinginformation/knowledge/databetweenthedifferent administrative bodies.

• Securingfundingformeasurestocontrolnonindigenous species – on trans boundary basis is more complicated as there is a need to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that projects are funded and delivered across boundaries consistently.

• Uncertaintyaboutthedegreetowhichgovernancearrangements would work in the case of different marine emergency situations and the degree to which this has been tested

• Nonindigenousspeciesdonotrespectboundariestherefore any control mechanisms put in place must be consistent and in line with relevant EU regulations http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm

• BiosecurityandplanningInvasiveNonNativeSpecies are, in many circumstances, voluntary – this can make it hard to get people to commit to take on additional work. However, there are some statutory requirements, e.g. EU Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species, Policy GEN 10 in Scotland’s National Marine Plan

MECHANISMS, ACTIVITIES AND APPROACHES ADOPTED BY CASE STUDY TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND DELIVER POSITIVE OUTCOMES

• TheSolwayFirthPartnershipisseenasthekeymechanism for addressing the management challenges. Keys to its success include: its role in bringing people together; it being a vehicle for

communication; it is apolitical and does not engage in lobbying.

• ThePartnershipManagerengagesregularlywithlocal structures and meetings e.g. Inshore Fishery Group meetings, NWIFCA meetings on both sides of the border to enable effective communication and maintain relationships.

• Thedutytoco-operatedrivesdiscussiononsomecross boundary matters, and the existence of the Solway Firth Partnership and other existing partnerships support this.

For non-indigenous species:

• MarineInvasiveNon-NativeSpeciesseminarthatwas run by the partnership was useful in developing and agreeing a biosecurity protocol for invasive non-native species. It helped stakeholders from across the border develop a shared understanding of the issues relating to biosecurity

• RegardedasusefulbystakeholdersthattheSolway Firth Partnership produced a biosecurity plan first and then local plans were developed to complement this.

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON ABOVE APPROACH/MECHANISMS AND LESSONS

Respondents felt that Solway Firth Partnership was a useful organisation in the Solway with the Advisory Group being a good place for discussion/networking across the border. Stakeholders felt the partnership has played a key role in enabling good communication. The partnership has had strong support from the relevant authorities and this has been key to its success.In terms of developing the INNS plan stakeholders felt that is was useful that the policy was not too prescribed and that there was an opportunity for their biosecurity plan to be shaped to fit local circumstances. Stakeholders felt the partnership was particularly helpful in raising the awareness of INNS.


Stakeholder identified the following specific recommendations for future mechanisms for Transboundary Marine Governance, both for the Solway Firth Partnership and generally –

• EstablishaforumsuchasSolwayFirthPartnershipwith core funding, where representatives from organisations that have a governance responsibility can come together to share and discuss work

being carried out.

• Recognisethatgoodpartnershipworkingtakestime and investment to build and maintain.

• Raisingawarenessandunderstandingthroughthepartnership helps to reduce conflict and helps to encourage sustainable solutions.

• Facilitatedialoguewithimpartiality.

• Translatenationalpolicyintolocalcontextandopportunity.

• Agreementonoverarchingmanagementplansatearly stage so that complimentary local plans can be developed.

• Streamliningandharmonisationoflegislationandpolicies to ensure that activity on the ground is joined up across any administrative boundaries.

In terms of managing INNS:

• Itisvitaltomaintainanearlywarningandrapidresponse approach between borders so that horizonscanningiseffectiveandeffectivecontingency plans are developed for new species that may arrive in the marine environment.

• Astrategicapproachneedstobetakentoaddressgeographical gaps so that efficacy of control is maximised and the risk of re-infestation is minimised.

• Communicationbetweenorganisationsthathavesimilar remits on each side of the border is vital.

• Allrelevantstakeholdersmustbekeptawareofany meetings/discussion/proposals right from the beginning.

For INNS management:

• Aprocedureofstepstofollow(codeofpractice)including contacts names and telephone numbers (including key contacts on either side of the boundary), should any non-indigenous species be located in marine waters.

• TheSolwayFirthPartnershiphasproducedanID guide for marine INNS in the Solway Firth (inc species that Solway is at risk from) which includes contacts for reporting/recording on both sides of Solway

3 4 3 5




3 6 3 7




4W A D D E N S E A

(GERMANY, DENMARK, NETHERLANDS)

BACKGROUND

The Wadden Sea is located in the southern North Sea. It is shared between The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

The first tri-lateral agreement between the three Member States to protect the Wadden Sea dates from 1978. However, the intention of this agreement had to be enacted through national, and in later years European legislation. The Wadden Sea is now fully protected. For example, in Germany it has National Park designation, and almost the entire Wadden Sea falls within a number of Natura 2000 sites. In 1991 the three countries decided that “the Guiding Principle of the trilateral Wadden Sea policy is to achieve, as far as possible, a natural and sustainable ecosystem in which natural processes proceed in an undisturbed way.“ In 2009 the Wadden SeawasinscribedintheUNESCOWorldHeritagelistasa natural site.

There are a number of different administrative bodies at national level responsible for the Wadden Sea’s protection (including National Park administrations). The “Common Wadden Sea Secretariat” has a coordinative function at the trilateral level on behalf of the three governments. About every four years ministerial conferences on protection of the Wadden Sea take place, while in the intervening time the “Wadden Sea Board”takesdecisions,supportedbyanumberoftaskgroupsandexpertgroups.EnvironmentalNGOsanda stakeholder forum (the “Wadden Sea Forum”) act as advisorstotheWaddenSeaBoard.

The Wadden Sea Forum (WSF) was established in 2002. Its primary purpose is to promote sustainable development/management through bringing together sectors through a multi-stakeholder platform and champion a cross-border approach to decision-making. A key activity in the beginning was a two-year piece of worktoproduceareportentitled‘BreakingtheIce’.This brought together the key economic sectors such as agriculture, energy, fisheries, harbours and tourism with the environmental sector. The WSF has continued its work since then with both plenary meetings twice a

year and a number of working groups, e.g. on integrated coastalzonemanagement.FinancialcontributionstotheWSF are made from the three member state environment ministries, private sector interests and some third sector support. The WSF has a full-time staffed Secretariat.In addition to the WSF there are other instances of stakeholderinvolvementintheWaddenSea.Onthetrilateral level the strategy for „Sustainable Tourism in the Wadden Sea World Heritage Destination“ deserves to be highlighted. After some years of discussion on all levels this strategy was agreed in 2014 and signed by almost all organisations in the tourism sector, the environmental NGOsandtheregionalgovernments.Therearealsonumerous other examples of stakeholder participation in the Wadden Sea on the national level.

Each of the three Member States have their own forms of government, resulting in many layers and complex inter-relations between the sectors and countries. Their different approaches influence the workings of the Forum in relation to collaboration and delivery of advice. In this respect Germany is more formal, focuses on strict responsibilities and devolves more power to the federal states, whereas the Netherlands & Denmark have more centralised forms of government & decision-making butaimatbroaderapproachesthroughhorizontalandintegrated cooperation.

3 8 3 9




CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Chal lenges identi f iedbyForumSecretar iat

• WitheachMemberStatelookingtowardsmarinespace for renewables, co-ordination of wind farm deployment has been a key spur towards marine spatial planning and better integrated management.

• Shippingisakeysectorwithmajorportsincluding

Hamburg. The Forum sees significant opportunities from closer cooperation between and within this sector.

• SustainableenergysupplyandareductionofCO2emissions are central goals for the near future

• Riskmanagementrecentlyhasbeenidentifiedasakey working field.

• Furtherinformationaboutstakeholderinterestsisavailableinthe‘BreakingtheIce’report.

• Acommonvision,objectivesandimplementationapproaches are available in the report “ICZM strategy for the Wadden Sea Region” (2013)

• Thereareongoingchallengesregardingthegovernance of resources and the role of the Wadden Sea Secretariat in protecting nature and the Wadden Sea Forum in promoting sustainability

Chal lenges identi f iedbyNGOStakeholder

• Theinitial‘BreakingtheIce’report,whilecertainlysuccessful in bringing people together who did not communicate enough before, did not go very much beyond identifying the lowest common denominator of the interests of the forum members

• Shippingisamongthekeyareaswherepotentialadvantages could be secured through greater cooperation between stakeholders. However, there were important limits to the work of the WSF as the governments were quite reluctant to listen to the stakeholders, due to the economic pressure to keep shipping traffic cheap and because of tough competition among the harbours both within and between the countries

• EnergyproductionisanotherkeyissuefortheWadden Sea Region. While renewables obviously need to play a key role in our energy future, it is the renewables part of the energy sector which was not very well represented on the WSF. A reason for this may be that policy in this area is developed more or less at national level or on a case by case basis. However, the fossil fuel energy sector found the WSF much more useful as a platform for discussion for them

• Whileinthebeginningthefisherysectorparticipated in the WSF, this was not so much the case in later years. It turned out, that developing solutions for this sector, e.g. becoming more sustainable and developing better relationships with the conservation sector could better be achieved in other fora or groups.

• TourismisamajoreconomicsectorintheWaddenSea Region. However, the sector is basically organised on a regional and national level, and consists of very many individual actors. To co-ordinate this was too much a challenge for a multi-stakeholder-platform such as the WSF. Linked to the designation of the Wadden Sea as World Heritage site it was later possible to create a joint strategy for sustainable tourism in the Wadden Sea with the relevant stakeholders. This was done formally through the work of a task group of the (governmental)WaddenSeaBoard.

• AnongoingchallengefortheWSFiscollectingandcomparing data on sustainable development in the whole region, with an annual indicator set

MECHANISMS, ACTIVITIES AND APPROACHES TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON THESE

ViewfromForumSecretar iat

The Wadden Sea Secretariat supports a formal, ministerial level meeting of Member State representatives, with the primary aim of nature protection focused on the World Heritage Site. The WSF has working groups for sustainability, including ICZM. Management challenges included issues such as:

• FinancingoftheWSF

• Facilitatingcross-sectorandsector-specificmeetings with agreed impact

• Thetemporarynatureofprojectfinancing&support

Conclusions of the Forum Secretariat:

• WSFisuniqueinitsabilitytoregularlybringtogether3 MS and a large variety of key stakeholders (at the ‘middle management’ level) to discuss issues surrounding sustainable development

• Theannualindicatorsetprovideseasyaccesstomonitoring condition/trends and raising awareness of the value of the region & benefits of collaboration

• Otherregionalseascouldbenefitfromlessonslearnt and the operation of the WSF Secretariat

• TheWSFrepresentsavaluable&uniquegovernance arrangement

• Ithashugepotentialwhichisnotbeingrealiseddueto financial constraints & political barriers

• Itisplayingvaluablerolebutsomuchmorecouldbe achieved

• Tensionsexistbetweenconservation&othersectors

ViewsfromNGOstakeholder

• WSFisratheruniqueinitsabilitytoregularlybringtogether three member states and a number of key stakeholders (at the ‘middle management’ level) to discuss issues surrounding sustainable development. The annual indicator set provides access to condition and trends within the region. Many agree that the WSF has played a valuable role in bringing together stakeholders and progressing debate. There are mixed views on how far the model can be developed, due to financial constraints but also due to different views on the best approach for future governance. However, other regional seas could benefit from the lessons learnt

• OtherstakeholderprocessesintheWaddenSeaboth on the trilateral and the national level faced similar challenges. However, in general these were easier to overcome if there were clear goals linked to the interests of the stakeholders or external pressures making it necessary for all parties to find joint solutions

• ChallengesfortheForumhaveincluded:demonstrating its relevance for stakeholders and making it interesting for them to come to the meetings; and managing tensions between conservation and other sectors as well as different opinions about the importance and the exact role value of WSF advice

• TheForumshouldclarifythatitsroleistosupportsustainable development in the whole region and not just on protected areas, and to work on clear goals (e.g. a strategy for sustainable development) within a defined time frame, based on a consensus of all the participants (sectors).

• Communicationamongstakeholdersviasuchaforum may have many positive side effects which are not easily measurable

• Realagreementsamongthestakeholderswhichgo beyond the lowest common denominator are very difficult to achieve. Such agreements would be made easier to achieve by overcoming misunderstandings or providing missing information. However, it can be impossible to reach agreements on issues which would lead to economic losses for certain stakeholders and expectations of the likelihood of being able to reach such agreements should be realistic

4 0 4 1




• Stakeholdersmayinthelongertermonlybewillingto participate on a cross-border level if there is a clear linkage to their own interests, i.e. advantages which could be achieved only by participating on that level. If this is not the case most of the stakeholders could disappear over time

• Itisbettertoavoidtryingtoturnaforumintoakind of an action group or to have the forum try to implement things itself. This approach may

not work

• Forcertainsectorsitcouldbemoreworthwhileestablishing their own forum (or a sub-forum of the forum) instead of pushing them into a cross-sectoral platform with lots of discussions which they could find hard to link to their own interests


• TheexperienceoftheWaddenSeaForum(WSF)could inform how the Celtic Seas Partnership might evolve. The Wadden Sea Forum is on a reasonably stable footing (note challenges above) and it is valuable to understand its financing model. Contributions are made from the 3 Member State Environment Ministries, regional and local government, private sector interests and some third sector support. The Forum is supported by a Secretariat.

• InestablishingafutureCelticSeasForumorsimilar,the following should be considered:

o The willingness of Member States and regional authorities to provide core funding

o The longer term engagement of key sector leads, preferably at the middle-management level

o ThevalueofcarryingoutaSWOTanalysisbefore/during the final Celtic Seas conference to identify common ground over the future desire (or otherwise) of a Celtic Seas Forum

• EUprojectsupportishelpfulbutlimitingduetostop/start nature. The EU & its Member States must recognise and address the need for longevity of service for stakeholder engagement services, to deliver effective governance mechanisms. The EU SIMCelt project may offer a future platform for this.

CONTACTS:

FOR THE THREE WADDEN SEA GOVERNMENTS

Rüdiger Strempel

Head of the Common Wadden Sea SecretariatVirchowstrasse 1, D-26382 Wilhelmshaven

Tel: +49 4421 9108-12,

[email protected]

www.waddensea-secretariat.org

FOR THE WADDEN SEA FORUM

ManfredVollmer

Wadden Sea Forum SecretariatVirchowstrasse 1, D-26382 Wilhelmshaven

Tel: +49 4421 9108-18

[email protected]

www.waddensea-forum.org

FOR WWF IN THE WADDEN SEADr. Hans-Ulrich Rösner

WaddenSeaOfficeofWWFGermanyHafenstraße 3, D-25813 Husum

Tel: +49 151 1229 0848

[email protected]

www.wwf.de/watt

Twitter @RoesnerWWF


4 12 0 . 0 6 . 1 6 A u t h o r : G e o f f N u t t a l l

4 2 4 3




4 4


CONTACT

[email protected]

@CelticSeas

Date post:	09-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Encouraging effective marine management & decision-making ...€¦ · their projects. The Celtic...

Documents