Technical ReportPDF Available

Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic. Pilot Areas Report.

Authors:
  • Secretary State of the Sea
  • Centro Oceanográfico de Cádiz - Instituto Español de Oceanografia (IEO-CSIC)

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Co-Financed under European Integrated Maritime Policy
Transboundary Planning in the European
Atlantic
Pilot Areas Report
31 July 2014
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
2
Authors
(in alphabetical order)
Margarida Almodovar
Fatima Alves
Luís Bentes
Francisco Baldó
Monica Martinez Castaneda
Maria da Luz Fernandes
Demetrio de Armas
Irene del Barrio Alvarellos
Luis Miguel Fernández
Catarina Fonseca
Jordi Galofré
Kira Gee
Juan Gil
Maria Gomez Ballesteros
Jorge Gonçalves
Guida Henriques
Ana Lloret Capote
Stephen Jay
Ana Lillebø
Ana Lloret
Paulo Machado
Isabel Mª Moreno Aranda
Gerard McClarey
Andrew McGreevy
Isabel Moreno
Cathal O’Mahony
Lola Ortiz
Inmaculada Prado
Fernando Ramos
Aoibheann Rooney
Pilar Rubio García
Luis Silva
José Ignacio Sobrino
Juan Luis Suárez de Vivero
Olvido Tello
Marian Torres
Sarah Twomey
Published by University of Liverpool
July 2014
Recommended reference
TPEA 2014.Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic: Pilot Areas Report. University of
Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 31 July 2014.
Disclaimer
This Guide was co-financed under European Integrated Maritime Policy. It
does not necessarily reflect the views of the organisations involved or the
European Commission.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
3
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Opportunities and challenges of transboundary MSP ............................................................ 4
1.2. The TPEA project ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3. TPEA objectives ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. TPEA outputs ........................................................................................................................... 7
2. The TPEA approach.......................................................................................................................... 8
3. Organising the process through pre-planning ............................................................................... 14
3.1. Creating planning teams for the pilot areas .......................................................................... 14
3.2. The TPEA approach: Shared overall concepts and location-specific details ......................... 15
3.2.1 Working together to establish a common basis ................................................................ 15
3.2.2 Taking parallel steps in the pilot areas .............................................................................. 16
3.3. Delineating the pilot areas .................................................................................................... 16
3.4. Definitions, principles and strategic objectives for transboundary MSP .............................. 20
3.4.1 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.2 Principles and strategic objectives .................................................................................... 20
3.4.3 Principles for stakeholder involvement ............................................................................ 23
3.4.4. Defining and analysing existing conditions: Establishing methodologies and data
standardisation between borders ..................................................................................... 23
4. A common framework for evaluating performance ..................................................................... 27
5. Synthesis ........................................................................................................................................ 28
5.1. Developing a common approach to cross-border MSP ........................................................ 28
5.2. A dynamic approach to defining boundaries ........................................................................ 28
5.3. Data exchange and GIS .......................................................................................................... 28
5.4. Governance models ............................................................................................................... 29
5.5. Stakeholder engagement ...................................................................................................... 29
5.6. Communication ..................................................................................................................... 30
5.7. Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................................... 30
5.8. Lessons from working in partnership across borders ........................................................... 31
5.9. Lessons from working with stakeholders across borders ..................................................... 32
Southern and Northern Area Technical Supplements (separate documents)
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
4
1. Introduction
1.1. Opportunities and challenges of transboundary MSP
Although Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is a national responsibility, the importance of placing it in
a transboundary context has become widely acknowledged. The natural dynamics of the marine
environment and the international dimension of many maritime activities call for a cross-border
approach to managing marine space, requiring cross-border cooperation and collaboration. The
European Commission acknowledges cross-border cooperation as a key principle in the Roadmap to
MSP (CEC 2008) and it is likely to be an important component of forthcoming EU legislation on MSP.
But cross-border cooperation as a way of implementing a transboundary approach is not without
challenges. Member States are developing different approaches to MSP in line with their own
planning and governance traditions, and whilst some have already implemented maritime spatial
plans, others are only just beginning a national MSP debate. Examples are therefore required
demonstrating how cooperation across borders can be achieved, ensuring the exchange of
information, consultation, and importantly also stakeholder participation. Examples also need to
show how transboundary MSP can overcome different timelines for MSP implementation, cultures
and perspectives on the sea, and how it can constructively deal with the concerns of the
governmental bodies, national and sub-national authorities and stakeholders involved.
1.2. The TPEA project
Opportunities and challenges of transboundary MSP have been demonstrated in a series of EU-
funded pilot projects, which have included projects in the Baltic (PlanCoast, BaltSeaPlan,
PlanBothnia, PartiSEApate), the North Sea (MASPNOSE) and the Adriatic (AdriPlan). Transboundary
Planning in the European Atlantic (TPEA), co-funded by DG MARE for a period of 18 months (2012-
2014), was developed to demonstrate approaches to cross-border MSP in the European Atlantic
region (defined as OSPAR areas III, IV and V). This region holds specific challenges for transboundary
MSP, not least the size of the Atlantic region, different regional identities and planning traditions,
and stages of implementation of MSP along its coast.
The project sought to deliver a commonly agreed approach to cross-border MSP in the European
Atlantic region and to trial this in two distinct geographical and political contexts. Two case study
areas were chosen, one in a southern (Portugal/Spain) and one in a northern (Ireland/Northern
Ireland) planning context (Figure 1).
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
5
Figure 1: TPEA pilot areas and geographical contexts
1.3. TPEA objectives
TPEA had the following overall objectives:
1. Based on an overall study of the conditions (legal, administrative, technical and social), and in the
development of pilot studies in transboundary areas, to develop recommendations for a cross-
border MSP process for application within project region sea areas that are characterised by
multiple demands and potentials, which:
Is consistent with the principles of the Roadmap for MSP
Is ecosystem-based
Provide greater certainty for investment in maritime industries
Fully involves relevant governmental bodies
Harmonises with the emergent MSP systems of relevant Member States
Responds to the maritime policy priorities of relevant Member States
Recognises the autonomy of Member States in developing MSP and the voluntary nature
of cross-border initiatives
Engages fully with stakeholder concerns.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
6
2. To demonstrate the wider potential for cross-border MSP via:
Dissemination of experience from the project
Formulation of recommendations for overcoming barriers and progressing cross-border
MSP.
3. To investigate the relationship between MSP and ICZM and recommend means for their closer
integration.
The project consortium comprised ten partners from the UK, Portugal, Spain and Ireland (Lead
partner: University of Liverpool), and nine expert advisors representing the Atlantic region, the UK,
Ireland, France, Portugal and Spain (Tab. 1). Partners represented a mix of governmental authorities
and research institutes, including a broad range of responsible ministries and authorities in the South
and key departments and institutions in the North.
Organisation
Abbreviation
Member
State
Main Area of Competence
PARTNERS
Lead
University of Liverpool
UL
UK
Spatial planning practice and MSP development in UK
1
Direção General de Política do Mar
DGPM
Portugal
Portuguese government authority for MSP; MSP
implementation in Portugal
2
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Environment
MAGRAMA
Spain
Spanish government authority for MSP and ICZM
3
Department of the Environment
Northern Ireland
DOE
UK
UK (Northern Ireland) government authority for MSP
4
University College Cork
UCC
Ireland
ICZM, stakeholder engagement, marine GIS
5
Universidade de Aveiro
UAVR
Portugal
Legal aspects of MSP
6
Universidade do Algarve
UAlg
Portugal
Marine data management
7
Spanish Institute of Oceanography
IEO
Spain
Scientific marine data
8
CEDEX
CEDEX
Spain
Assessment of maritime activities, marine GIS
9
University of Seville
US
Spain
European maritime geography and policy
EXPERT ADVISORS
2
CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission
Region
Regional sea cooperation and development
3
South Western Waters Regional
Advisory Council
Region
Sustainable fisheries and marine management
4
Maritime Institute
Ireland
National marine research agency with an advisory role
to Government on MSP
5
Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs
UK
UK government authority for MSP policy
6
University of Nantes
France
MSP and ICZM practice; MSP development in France;
fisheries
7
Secretariat General for the Sea
France
French government authority for MSP
8
Portuguese Environmental Agency
Portugal
Portuguese government authority for ICZM
9
IHM
Spain
Spanish Hydrographic Agency
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
7
1.4. TPEA outputs
TPEA resulted in a number of publications which outline the conceptual framework of the project,
background research and project results:
The Conceptual Framework Report, which provides an overview of the legal frameworks
that apply in the project region, the technical needs for data collection and management,
and possible approaches to stakeholder engagement. The report also detailed the potential
administrative boundaries and designations, physical and biological conditions,
infrastructures and maritime uses and activities that may need to be considered in
transboundary MSP,
The Initial Assessment Report, which provides an assessment of four candidate pilot areas
(two in the North, two in the South) and a description of the pilot areas selected,
The Pilot Areas Report, which sets out the overall TPEA approach and detailed results for the
pilot areas (this report),
An Evaluation Report, which uses the TPEA experience to provide a template checklist for
assessing transboundary MSP processes,
A Good Practice Guide, summarising the lessons learned from TPEA and making them
available to planners and other interested parties,
Stakeholder Workshop Reports, summarising results from northern and southern
stakeholder workshops,
Fact Sheets explaining specific aspects of TPEA.
TPEA also developed a website containing a map gallery (showing maps for the northern and
southern pilot area), a web viewer and a mobile App:
http://barreto.md.ieo.es/TPEAgallery/
http://barreto.md.ieo.es/TPEAviewer/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.base.tpea&hl=es
All reports are available for download from www.tpeamaritime.eu
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
8
2. The TPEA approach
2.1. Adapting the standard MSP cycle to the TPEA project
MSP is recognised as a cyclical process comprising preparatory steps, analysis of existing conditions,
analysis of activities, opportunities and conflicts, preparation of the spatial plan, monitoring and
evaluation, and finally revision and adaptation of the plan. Figure 2 is an example of the typical
stages of an MSP process:
Step 1 Identifying need and establishing authority
Task 1: Identifying why you need marine spatial planning
Task 2: Establishing appropriate authority for marine spatial planning
Action 1: Authority to plan for marine spatial planning
Action 2: Authority to implement marine spatial planning
Step 2 Obtaining financial support
Task 1: Identifying alternative financing mechanisms
Task 2: Defining the feasibility of alternative funding mechanisms
Step 3 Organizing the process through pre-planning
Task 1: Creating the marine spatial planning team
Task 2: Developing a work plan
Task 3: Defining boundaries and timeframe
Action 1: Defining boundaries
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
9
Action 2: Defining the time frame
Task 4: Defining principles
Task 5: Defining goals and objectives
Task 6: Identifying risks and developing contingency plans
Step 4 Organizing stakeholder participation
Task 1: Defining who should be involved in marine spatial planning
Task 2: Defining when to involve stakeholders
Task 3: Defining how to involve stakeholders
Step 5 Defining and analyzing existing conditions
Task 1: Collecting and mapping information about ecological, environmental and oceanographic
conditions
Task 2: Collecting and mapping information about human activities
Task 3: Identifying current conflicts and compatibilities
Step 6 Defining and analyzing future conditions
Task 1: Projecting current trends in the spatial and temporal
needs of existing human activities
Task 2: Estimating spatial and temporal requirements for new demands of ocean space
Task 3: Identifying possible alternative futures for the planning area
Task 4: Selecting the preferred spatial sea use scenario
Step 7 Preparing and approving the spatial management plan
Task 1: Identifying alternative spatial and temporal management measures, incentives, and
institutional arrangements
Task 2: Specifying criteria for selecting marine spatial management measures
Task 3: Developing the zoning plan
Task 4: Evaluating the spatial management plan
Task 5: Approving the spatial management plan
Step 8 Implementing and enforcing the spatial management plan
Task 1: Implementing the spatial management plan
Task 2: Ensuring compliance with the spatial management plan
Task 3: Enforcing the spatial management plan
Step 9 Monitoring and evaluating performance
Task 1: Developing the performance monitoring program
Action 1: Re-confirming the objectives
Action 2: Agreeing on outcomes to measure
Action 3: Identifying key performance indicators to monitor
Action 4: Determining baseline data on indicators
Action 5: Selecting outcome targets
Task 2: Evaluating performance monitoring data
Task 3: Reporting results of performance evaluation
Step 10 Adapting the marine spatial management process
Task 1: Reconsidering and redesigning the marine spatial planning program
Task 2: Identifying applied research needs
Task 3: Starting the next round of marine spatial planning
Figure2: A step by step approach to MSP.From: EHLER C., DOUVERE F. 2009. Marine spatial planning:
A step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. IOC Manual and Guides (pdf, 9.14
MB), No. 53, IOCAM Dosier No. 6, Paris, UNESCO.)
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
10
With the project limited to 18 months, it was not possible for TPEA to run through an entire MSP
planning cycle. Given the exploratory nature of the project, the main focus of the project was on the
initial stages of the MSP cycle and the processes involved in conducting a transboundary MSP
exercise. ‘Process’ in this context means the cross-border process of agreeing a transboundary
planning area and then implementing a common approach to MSP in two pilot areas. Whilst
transboundary MSP is partly a technical exercise, for example with respect to data exchange
between the neighbouring countries, it also encompasses the more subtle process of addressing
differences in governance and different approaches to planning. Different stages of national MSP
development also had to be taken into account (this was the case in both pilot areas: Portugal was
more advanced in implementing MSP than Spain, as was Northern Ireland compared to the Republic
of Ireland).
In testing a common cross-border approach to MSP, TPEA thus concentrated on four distinct
planning stages:
Preparation (steps 1 to 4 of the above)
Analysis (steps 5 to 6)
Planning (step 7)
Evaluation (step 9)
TPEA did not set out to produce transboundary MSP plans, nor were any of the planning proposals
implemented within the project period.
Figure 3 presents the transboundary planning process and the various stages of the TPEA project
(represented in blue). Phases falling outside the scope of TPEA are represented by dotted lines.
Individual steps are described in more detail below.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
11
Figure 3: TPEA process scheme.
SW = stakeholder workshop
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
12
Preparation
Setting principles and strategic objectives
The transboundary approach developed by TPEA is based on the principles established by the Roadmap
for Maritime Spatial Planning (COM(2008)791 final). Additional strategic objectives were drawn up by
the project partners to guide the transboundary planning approach in both pilot areas (see section 3).
Establishing the pilot area
Two pilot areas were selected from a total of four candidate sites in Northern Ireland, Republic of
Ireland, Portugal and Spain. Selection took into account governance and administrative aspects,
geographical features, main uses and activities, planning and management and practical issues (such as
data availability and existing expertise) (see Initial Assessment Report, www.tpeamaritime.eu). Broad
provisional areas were selected initially and later refined in light of available information (see section 4).
Creating a common system of information (including the GIS)
To support the subsequent phases (diagnosis and planning), a Geographical Information System (GIS)
was designed as an essential tool for storing, visualising and managing geographical data (see section 5).
Analysis
Area characteristics
Based on available information the pilot areas where characterized in terms of biophysical features,
their continuity/contiguity across borders and existing infrastructures (see Initial Assessment Report,
www.tpeamaritime.eu).
Identifying uses and activities
Existing uses and activities in the pilot areas were identified and characterized in terms of distribution,
intensity and impacts. Current and potential conflicts and synergies among uses and activities were also
analysed in conjunction with stakeholders in workshop discussions.
Analysing the governance framework
Existing transboundary agreements and initiatives in the pilot regions were analysed together with legal
and policy instruments and national/regional priorities for maritime and coastal issues. The decision
process was also analysed, highlighting the main differences and similarities between countries.
Licensing procedures for maritime activities were studied as well as the responsibilities of the
competent institutions involved.
Identifying priority uses and activities
At the workshop discussions relevant information on the pilot areas was integrated to identify the most
likely priority uses and activities. The socio-economic relevance of priority uses and activities was
evaluated very generally based on the main trends and strategic priorities identified. A quantification of
socio-economic values was not possible due to lack of information at the appropriate scale.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
13
Determining the cross-border relevance of priority uses and activities
The relevance of each priority use/activity for the transboundary context was determined by analysing i f
the use/activity exploits a shared resource, represents a cross-border activity and/or implies cross-
border impacts.
Identifying areas of common interest
With the stakeholders in workshop discussions areas of interest were identified for both parties, defined
as areas of potential situations of pressure/synergy requiring appropriate measures and ultimately joint
planning for sustainable use.
Planning
Establishing specific objectives
With deeper knowledge of each pilot area and key issues identified, specific objectives were developed
in conjunction with the stakeholders accordance with the particular needs of, and aspirations for, each
pilot area.
Exploring planning alternatives
For each area of common interest, different future situations were simulated based on the priority uses
and activities identified. Options reflected convergences or divergences of interest or possibilities for
compromise between the interests of the two neighbouring countries. For each situation, possible
governance mechanisms were studied, looking at the public institutions that would need to be involved
and the main interested stakeholders. This lays the ground for evaluating the degree to which each
planning alternative meets the established pilot area objectives.
Developing planning documents
Based on all the previous steps and on stakeholders inputs a set of recommendations was developed for
each pilot area accompanied by appropriate guidelines for their implementation. Whenever needed
more detailed recommendations were presented for specific areas of common interest.
Stakeholder engagement
A series of three workshops was held in each pilot area as the primary means of stakeholder
engagement. This aimed to involve stakeholder groups in the full range of TPEA activities and capture
their opinions and knowledge for inclusion in the transboundary planning process (see section 3.4.3).
Process evaluation
Based on evaluation literature and past experience with MSP evaluation, a checklist was drawn up to
evaluate the TPEA process in the two pilot areas. The checklist contains a series of criteria for TPEA
evaluation in line with the fundamental stages of preparation, diagnosis and planning, and indicators to
enable each criterion to be evaluated. Recommendations are also made for outcomes and impacts
evaluation at a later stage should any planning proposals be implemented. The checklist was tested in
both pilot areas and used to assess the transboundary planning process (see technical annexes).
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
14
3. Organising the process through pre-planning
3.1. Creating planning teams for the pilot areas
In both pilot areas, partnerships were designed to represent government authorities and scientific
expertise with responsibility for, or interest in, the transboundary areas in question. The principal
members of the planning team are therefore the representatives of the project partners working
directly on the project. They have been aided by the expert advisors who have contributed
significantly to the subsequent steps described below (Table 2).
In addition to the project partners, the Portuguese planning team also included the Directorate
General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services, a governmental body created after the
beginning of the project, responsible for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive.
Throughout the project, there was interaction between the two planning teams to ensure the
development of a common approach, cross-learning and the sharing of experience across the project
region.
Planning teams have also incorporated the views of the stakeholder workshop participants, whose
contribution has been instrumental to the success of the project.
Table 2: Composition of the planning teams
Institution
Abbrv.
Main competences
Team members
Portugal
Directorate General for Marine
Policy
Direção-Geral de Política do Mar
(Project Partner)
DGPM
MSP development and
implementation
Margarida Almodovar
Aldino Campos
Carla Frias
Paulo Machado
Teresa Mira
Portuguese Environment Agency
Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente
(Project Advisor)
APA
Environmental Management
ICZM implementation
Water Framework Directive
Gabriela Santos
Ricardo Guerreiro
Ana Seixas
Directorate General for Natural
Resources, Safety and Maritime
Services
Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais,
Segurança e ServiçosMarítimos
DGRM
Preservation and
management of marine
natural resources
Marine Strategy Framework
Directive
Natália Faísco
Cristina Borges
University of Aveiro
Universidade de Aveiro
(Project Partner)
UAVR
Research & knowledge
Legal aspects of MSP
Fátima Lopes Alves
Maria da Luz Fernandes
Guida Henriques
Catarina Fonseca
University of Algarve
Universidade do Algarve
(Project Partner)
UAlg
Research & knowledge
Marine data management
Jorge Gonçalves
Luís Bentes
Spain
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Environment
Ministerio de Agricultura,
Alimentación y Medio Ambiente
(Project Partner)
MAGRAMA
Environmental and Coastal
Management
Fisheries Management
MSP development and
implementation
Lola Ortiz Sánchez
Jordi Galofré Saumell
Isabel Acebo
Mónica Martínez
Castañeda
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
15
ICZM implemantation
University of Seville
Universidad de Sevilla
(Project Partner)
US
Research & knowledge
Maritime geography and
policy
Juan Luis Suárez de
Vivero
Centre for Studies and
Experimentation on Public Works
Centro de Estudios y
Experimentación de Obras Públicas
(Project Partner)
CEDEX
Technical support
Maritime activities
GIS
Ana Lloret Capote
Isabel Mª Moreno
Pilar Rubio García
Spanish Institute of Oceanography
InstitutoEspañol de Oceanografía
(Project Partner)
IEO
Research & knowledge
Scientific marine data
Demetrio de Armas
María Gómez Ballesteros
Olvido Tello
Ignacio Sobrino
Hydrographic Institute of the Navy
InstitutoHidrográfico de la Marina
(Project Advisor)
IHM
Research & knowledge
navigation safety
José Daniel Gonzalez-
Aller
UK
Department of the Environment
Northern Ireland(Project partner)
DOE
MSP development and
implementation, data and
GIS
Gerard McClarey
Andrew McGreevy
Aoibheann Rooney
University of Liverpool (Project
partner)
UL
Research & knowledge
Stephen Jay
Sue Kidd
Kira Gee
Ireland
University College Cork (Project
partner)
UCC
Research & knowledge,
ICZM, stakeholder
involvement,
communication, governance
Cathal O'Mahony
Sarah Twomey
Marine Institute (Project advisor)
Research & knowledge,
marine policy
Eugene Nixon
3.2. The TPEA approach: Shared overall concepts and location-specific details
One of the key aims of TPEA was to produce planning outcomes in the two pilot areas based on a
commonly agreed approach. The preparatory stage was therefore a crucial part of the project, as it
led to the development of common definitions and strategic principles to guide the work in the pilot
areas.
3.2.1 Working together to establish a common basis
During the preparatory stage, understanding was first gained of the legal frameworks that apply in
the project region, the technical needs for data collection and management, and of the possible
approaches to stakeholder engagement (Conceptual Framework Report, www.tpeamaritime.eu).
This also included categorising the potential administrative boundaries and designations, physical
and biological conditions, infrastructures and maritime uses and activities that may need to be
considered in transboundary MSP (Annex I of the Conceptual Framework Report).
A structured analysis of potential transboundary areas in the project region was then conducted, in
order to determine the most appropriate pilot areas for the project (Initial Assessment Report,
section 2.1). This set of criteria also structured the initial assessment of the selected areas (Initial
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
16
Assessment Report, section 3). An analysis was also undertaken of the potential data sources for the
two pilot areas (Appendices 5 and 6, Initial Assessment Report). Shared principles were also
established for stakeholder involvement (see section 3.4.3) and for the acquisition and validation of
data (see section 3.4.4). Shared strategic objectives were developed to guide the transboundary
planning approach in both pilot areas. These were later used to develop specific objectives, reflecting
the specific needs of each pilot area with stakeholder input.
Whilst partners followed the same approach to plan-making, it was clear that enough flexibility
would remain for location-specific differences to be accounted for, such as different political
situations, different data availability, different planning cultures, different patterns of use and
different priorities for the transboundary area.
3.2.2 Taking parallel steps in the pilot areas
The planning teams in each of the pilot areas then worked in parallel to complete the following:
Analysis of available data, covering current natural conditions and human intervention,
including an analysis of interactions, and representing this data in map format where
possible, taking into account issues such as data quality,
Analysis of the policy frameworks affecting the area in question, including relevant sectoral
and maritime policies, and terrestrial and coastal planning and management frameworks,
Analysis of pressures and opportunities as currently perceived, including an assessment of
environmental needs, use demands and cross-border pressures, and also of current goals
and synergies,
Development of different options for the plan area.
Stakeholders were involved in all of these steps in both pilot areas.
Pilot area results are outlined in the technical supplements.
3.3. Delineating the pilot areas
“Management of maritime spaces through MSP should be based on the type of planned or existing
activities and their impact on the environment. A maritime spatial plan may not need to cover a
whole area (e.g. EEZ of a Member State). For densely used or particularly vulnerable areas, a more
prescriptive maritime spatial plan might be needed, whereas general management principles might
suffice for areas with lower density of use (...) MSP operates within three dimensions, addressing
activities (a) on the sea bed; (b) in the water column; and (c) on the surface. This allows the same
space to be used by different purposes. Time should also be taken into account as a fourth dimension,
as the compatibility of uses and the “management need” of a particular maritime region might vary
over time.”(10 EU principles for MSP, CEC 2008)
Considerable attention was given to defining the scale and borders of appropriate transboundary
pilot areas (see Initial Assessment Report). This is no simple issue, as transboundary effects recede
with distance from the border and the scale of the effect varies according to the activity.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
17
Figure 4: Defining the scale and borders of appropriate transboundary pilot areas
Factors included:
National borders. In both pilot areas, there is no agreed border through territorial waters.
However, the terrestrial borders were taken as the starting-point for defining the pilot areas,
the centre line of the pilot areas was taken to be the seawards extension ofthe terrestrial
border between the two nations concerned.
Jurisdictional considerations (as outlined under UNCLOS). The outer limits of the pilot areas
had regard to the jurisdictional reach of the authorities involved in the project. For IR-UK,
this was determined by the boundaries of Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland waters
with other jurisdictions (especially Wales and the Isle of Man). For PT-ES, the limit of the
contiguous zones (24nm from the baseline) was chosen as a means of extending the pilot
area to a reasonable extent beyond territorial waters into the EEZs. Practical project
considerations also played a part in these decisions, as the limited number of partners and
time and resource restrictions had to be taken into account in setting these limits.
Non-interference with other authorities. Both pilot areas were influenced by sensitivity
towards the responsibilities of other authorities with separate governance processes.
Avoiding undue “weight” of specific issues. In the southern pilot area, the Doñana National
Park was excluded in order to avoid excessive focus on this important national park, which
could divert attention from other issues.
An understanding of ‘transboundary’. Transboundary effects are graded, decreasing in
intensity with distance from the border, and also vary in their scale according to different
environmental conditions and maritime activities. This means that “transboundary” cannot
be represented by hard borders. Degrees of transboundary effects were represented in the
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
18
northern pilot area map with graded / buffer zones centred on the border, and arrows
indicating wider influences. At the same time, it is understood that pilot planning documents
need to refer to a clearly defined area in order to avoid legal uncertainty. The focus was
therefore on identifying shared resources, cross-border activities and cross-border impacts.
The extension of pilot areas along the coast. This is a matter of judgement. For IR-UK, it
was decided to incorporate the maritime and coastal influence of the major coastal cities of
Dublin and Belfast, so the pilot area extended to 60 nm in each direction from the border
area. In PT-ES, the eastern and western extent was determined based on key activities and
takes into account the pressures from coastal land and the influence of marine activities.
The landward limit. The pilot areas focused primarily on marine space, but overlap with land
and therefore land-sea interaction was reckoned to be necessary in order to capture coastal
influences. This is with a view to capitalising on any land-sea synergies, demonstrating how a
relationship with MSP might develop for the benefit of all parties (in line with strategic
objective No.6), without interfering unduly with ICZM initiatives. It is also recognised that
terrestrial planning is beyond the remit of the project. Therefore, rather than seeking to set a
limit the project aimed to ensure that land/sea interactions were properly considered.
The transboundary planning areas were thus defined by a combination of hard borders where
necessary for jurisdictional and governance reasons, and softer gradations embodying diminishing
transboundary effects and other geographical considerations. Adopting an area of common
interest” is a good way of describing the transboundary planning areas, as this encompasses different
reasons for taking a cross-border approach (e.g. shared resources, shared activities, see below)
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
19
Figure5: TPEA East Coast Irish Sea Indicative Study Area and map of pressures (see technical
supplement for more details)
Figure 6: Algarve Gulf of Cadiz Indicative Study Area (see technical supplement for further detail)
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
20
3.4. Definitions, principles and strategic objectives for transboundary MSP
3.4.1 Definitions
TPEA developed the following common definitions:
Maritime space: Maritime space was defined in line with the strategic objectives for TPEA
(see below). It is understood in a wider sense than project pilot areas, to encompass the
conditions, influences and activities for which relevant data is being mapped as part of the
project.
Area of common interest: Area of potential situations of conflict and/or synergies between
the two countries requiring appropriate measures and ultimately joint planning for
sustainable use.
Cross-border relevance: The relevance of each priority use/activity for the transboundary
context was determined by analysing if the use/activity exploits a shared resource,
represents a cross-border activity and/or implies cross-border impacts.
Extended area of influence: Area where processes take place that influence the area of
common interest.
Shared resources: Resources where two or more countries share ownership, stewardship or
exploitation of a natural resource, the quantity, quality and availability of which is linked
between countries. A shared resource implies shared responsibilities in the management of
the resource (e.g. fish stocks).
Cross-border activities: Maritime activities undertaken by a country which require
transboundary movements (shipping, fishing) or the use of space under the jurisdiction of
another country (e.g. laying cables or pipelines). Cross-border activities require a coordinated
approach to organising space, e.g. by defining corridors as part of maritime spatial plans.
Cross-border impacts: Exploitation of ‘national’ resources in areas of national jurisdiction
may cause impacts in areas under the jurisdiction of the other country. Such impacts can be
environmental, economic or social. The prevention and mitigation of cross-border impacts
(e.g. environmental or economic) requires consultation and cooperation among states when
planning national uses and activities.
3.4.2 Principles and strategic objectives
A strategic plan for the overall management of a given sea area should include detailed objectives.
These objectives should allow arbitration in the case of conflicting sectoral interests.”(10 EU principles
for MSP, CEC 2008)
Within the TPEA context, a hierarchical structure of principles and objectives was developed to guide
the project. Two types of objectives were consideredrelevant:
Strategic objectives, which apply to the project region and project as a whole. These reflect
the general vision and intent for the project region - the overall aim transboundary MSP
seeks to achieve - as well as how this will be achieved by means of a collaborative approach
to planning.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
21
More detailed, strategic objectives could have been developed on aspects such as, for example,
achieving good environmental status, allocating space efficiently, avoiding conflicting uses, seeking
synergies in maritime uses, integration with ICZM and terrestrial planning. However, it would have
been overly ambitious for the project to adopt a wide range of objectives of this kind. Also, it was
accepted that the strategic objectives should be kept at a high level for guidance purposes.
Specific objectives,which are in line with the strategic objectives but focus more directly on
local conditions and desired outcomes in the pilot areas.
Specific objectives were purposely restricted in number, focusing on certain key issues for the pilot
area in question. This is in line with the spirit of the project, which was not to carry out a full MSP
process, but to carry out pilot studies in transboundary areas.
These objectives are embedded in a wider set of principles:
The ecosystem approach as the overarching principle,
The EU MSP Roadmap principles as the main guiding framework,
The objectives were intentionally limited in number to ensure they were achievable within the
timescale and scope of the project.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
22
The TPEA framework of principles and objectives
The ecosystem approach (MSP Roadmap, para 5)
10 principles of the MSP Roadmap
Project-wide 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.
1. To support the establishment of a
comprehensive transboundary stake-
holder engagement and communication
plan
2. To promote integration of land / sea
planning and licensing regimes
3. To encourage collection and exchange of
data
4. To promote development of coastal and
marine infrastructure to support local
marine leisure and tourism
1. Ensure complementarity of uses and cross-border
activities.
2. Ensure the coherence of the strategic options for the
development of the maritime economy from each
member state.
3. Promote the establishment of management common
objectives for shared resources.
4. Promote the clarification of procedures on cross-border
activities and impacts.
5. Contribute for the implementation of a common
information platform (share interest).
Overarching
principle
Principles
Strategic
objectives
Specific
objectives
(North)
Specific
objectives
(South)
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
23
3.4.3 Principles for stakeholder involvement
“In order to achieve broad acceptance, ownership and support for implementation, it is (...)
important to involve all stakeholders, including coastal regions, at the earliest possible stage in the
planning process. Stakeholder participation is also a source of knowledge that can significantly raise
the quality of MSP.”(10 EU MSP principles, CEC 2008)
Stakeholder participation was designed to be at the heart of TPEA’s activities in the pilot areas. On
the one hand, TPEA sought to actively draw on stakeholder knowledge, e.g. in assessing
transboundary pressures and opportunities in the pilot areas. On the other, however, TPEA was also
a means of awareness-raising amongst stakeholders, both with respect to MSP generally and the
specific challenges of a transboundary setting. Another aspect was to consider different stakeholder
traditions, as stakeholder involvement is more common in the northern project context but less so in
the southern pilot area. Using the same template for organising stakeholder involvement therefore
provided opportunity for comparative assessment.
The main method of engagement was a series of three workshopsheld at key stages of the project
(see Figure 2; all stakeholder reports are available for download on www.tpeamaritime.eu).
Workshops were transnational in that both countries were represented, reflecting TPEA’s focus on
cross-border issues. In the southern pilot area, extra workshops were organised for different Spanish
stakeholder groups in the initial project phase to raise awareness of MSP. This proved to be highly
useful as stakeholders became more willing to be engaged.
Participants represented a range of authorities, sectors and NGOs from the two jurisdictions in each
case. There was generally a good response to the invitation to the workshops. Discussions centred on
the pilot areas themselves (selection of boundaries), pressures and opportunities as well as potential
future scenarios in the transboundary areas. Stakeholders also provided additional information on
the policy context and existing transboundary practices.
Transparency has been an important principle when communicating with stakeholders and the wider
public. Reports of the stakeholder workshops have been distributed to participants, and wider
communication of the project was undertaken through conference presentations, the website and
fact sheets.
3.4.4. Defining and analysing existing conditions: Establishing
methodologies and data standardisation between borders
“MSP has to be based on sound information and scientific knowledge (...) (10 EU MSP principles, CEC
2008)
MSP relies on information on the distribution of marine resources and marine ecosystems and their
conditions, as well as knowledge of which human activities take place where, when and how often. A
coherent, consistent and stable information system is required for archiving and making available
this information for MSP purposes.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology plays an important role in geospatial data
representation, analysis and mapping. GIS is an advanced technology that allows different
information about the marine environment, marine resources and human activities to be stored and
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
24
integrated, making it indispensable for the development of an information system. In the TPEA
project the development of the GIS was carried out by a specific group with extensive expertise and
experience in this field.
Previous experiences have shown that MSP should be conducted based on the best available, high
quality and up-to-date information system. For transboundary MSP the existence of a common
system of information is essential in order to allow for a global perspective of transboundary
planning areasrather than one divided into administrative boundaries. This requires continuous
information layers and integrated analysis of conflicts, opportunities and synergies.
An important requirement for transboundary MSP is that information should be harmonised
between the countries/regionsinvolved and homogeneous and consistent with respect to scale, the
coordinate system and data attributes. It should cover the whole area designated as a transboundary
planning area, have geographical representation, share similar file formats and also have adequate
and complete metadata. All these represent particular challenges for a transboundary MSP process.
TPEA worked to the same principles and standards for data collection in both pilot areas. Agreement
was achieved early on in the planning process on what data should be collected. Feature classes and
the specific data for each are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Data collection within the two TPEA pilot areas
FEATURE CLASS
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES MARITIME SPACE
MARITIME SPACE ARCHAEOLOGY
Pilot_zone
Archaeology_sites_classified
Straight_baseline
Archaeology_sites_visitable
Territorial_sea
COASTAL ZONE
Contiguous_zone
Coastal_population
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES COASTAL ZONE
Beaches
Coastline
INFRASTRUCTURES
Administrative_boundaries
Artificial_reefs
Spatial_Plan_Coastal_Zone
Cables_and_pipelines
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES BDC
Coastal_defence
ICES_Ecoregions
Water_rejection
MSFD_regions
Ondographic_buoy
MSFD_subregions
Leisure_harbours
OSPAR_Regions
Commercial_harbours
Regional_Conventions
Ports
Regional_fisheries_councils
NATURE CONSERVATION FEATURES
Urban_Wasterwater_Directive
Biosphere_reserves
Water_Framework_Directive_ecoregions
Important_Bird_Areas
Water_Framework_Directive_RiverBasin
Protection_area
MARITIME SPACE METEOROLOGY
Site_community_importance
Weather_station
Marine Protected areas
Wind
Special_Protection_Area
Rainfall
Habitat1110
Atmospheric_pressure
Habitat1170
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
25
MARITIME SPACE SEABED
RAMSAR
Isobaths
USES AND ACTIVITIES RESOURCES
Tectonic
Aquaculture_installations
Geomorphology
Aquaculture_zones
Seabed_characterization
Eolic_Offshore_zones
MARITIME SPACE WATER COLUMN
Oil_gas
Sediment_samples
Gas_industry
Water_masses
Gas_well
CTD_samples
CO2_zone
MARITIME SPACE SPECIES
Sand loan
Birds
Sand_Gravel_extraction
Mammals
Mining
Demersal_Species
Power_generation
Deep_sea_Species
Seawater_abstraction
MARITIME SPACE HABITATS
Shellfish
Habitats_distribution
Salt_pans
USES AND ACTIVITIES OTHER
Transformation_industry
Marine scientific research institutes
Power_generation
AIS_AllTraffic
Algae
AISTanker_hazard
Biotechnology
CargoAIS_hazard
Fisheries
Mandatory pilotage area
Fishing_grounds
Particulary_sensitive_sea_area
Traffic_separation_schemes
Military_activities
Scooping
Bathing_water
Surf_beaches
Bathing_sites
Regatta_sites
Hotel_beds
Shipbuilding
When developing a common system of information, a protocol for data exchange between the
neighbouring countries is indispensable. TPEA took the following steps to ensure homogenization,
consistency, harmonisation and standardisation of the common information system:
1. Establishment of a unique geodetic reference system for the information collected in both
countries. The reference system chosen was ETRS89, European Terrestrial Reference System
1989, which is based on the GRS80 ellipsoid. The European Commission recommends
adopting ETRS89 as the geodetic datum for geo-referenced information and promotes the
use of ETRS89 within its member states.
2. Establishment of a unique coordinate system to store the information in the geodatabase. In
this case, the Geographic Coordinate System was selected as the most appropriate.
3. Determination of working scales. In TPEA the ranges used are from 1:1000 to 1:50.000.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
26
4. Definition of data quality requirements in order to ensure consistency in the information
system. The following data quality attributes were considered: integrity, consistency, validity,
accuracy, relevance and date.
5. Definition of topological rules to guarantee the topological consistency of the information.
These rules were: polygons must not overlap, polygons must not have gaps, lines must not
self-overlap, lines must not self-intersect and lines must not have dangles nodes.
6. Selection of standard information exchange formats: shape file or file geodatabase for
vector data; GeoTiff or GRID ESRI for raster data.
7. Establishment of criteria and process to harmonise the attributes in similar layers for both
countries.
In the southern pilot area, this led to a TPEA interoperable geodatabase which integrates all
necessary geographical information related to spatial planning and which is composed of continuous
and homogeneous layers.
The development of the common information system has not been without difficulties. One was
deciding on the sources of information to be used. Initially, all official information from government
national/sub-national levels and the government/local administrations or also information from
stakeholders, scientific project and scientific articles was to be included. After discussion the team
decided to work with information from all indicated sources, but only if it met the required quality
and consistency.
Another difficulty has been the heterogeneity of the information collected in both countries. This is
reflected on different aspects, such as consistency, quality, spatial scales, timeframes, geographic
reference systems, indicators, variables and attributes. There are different reasons for this
heterogeneity, such as the different objectives for which the data were collected, the different
monitoring programs and the different processes. The problem of data heterogeneity was resolved
with the establishment of a process of harmonisation for spatial elements and data attributes.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
27
4. A common framework for evaluating performance
“MSP should reflect the fact that planning is a continuous process that will need to adapt to changing
conditions and new knowledge. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of maritime plans
and their environmental, as well as socio-economic effects should, particularly in its transboundary
dimensions and in addition to national and transboundary monitoring schemes, build on, and if
possible, be part of, regional monitoring and assessments carried out by regional organisations.”
(HELCOM-VASAB Baltic Sea Broad-Scale Maritime Spatial Planning Principles, adopted by VASAB
CSPD/BSR and HELCOM HOD in December 2010.)
One of the objectives of TPEA was to develop recommendations for a systematic approach to the
evaluation of transboundary MSP in the TPEA pilot areas. Since TPEA did not produce marine spatial
plans or implement any measures, specific focus was on the transboundary elements of the plan-
making process, noting the fact that states involved in transboundary MSP will bring into
consideration their own approach to MSP evaluation. The guiding question in developing the
framework has therefore been “What is required of the transboundary MSP process to ensure it
meets accepted quality standards?”
Based on the overall TPEA structure (Figure 1), and based on TPEA’s own experience of the
transboundary process, a list of criteria was drawn up to cover a range of institutional and spatial
issues that emerged as important. Each criterion has been assigned at least one descriptive indicator
designed to be as specific, measurable, interpretable and responsive as possible. Like the criteria,
indicators were determined collaboratively by the TPEA project partners based on the review of MSP
evaluation literature and experience from other projects. The indicators have been tested and
refined by the project partners for each pilot area to ensure their sensitivity, ease of use and
relevance for improving transboundary MSP as part of an adaptive approach.
Criteria and indicators are presented in the form of indicative quality checklists for transboundary
MSP. Their main purpose is to highlight areas already well covered, and particularly also point to gaps
and any unresolved issues.
An indicative checklist for transboundary MSP processes
This quality checklist focuses on the transboundary planning process, covering preparatory steps,
definition and analysis of the transboundary area, planning and communication. We have applied
and tested this indicative checklist using the transboundary process in the two pilot areas as an
example (see technical annexes).
An indicative checklist for transboundary MSP implementation, outcomes and impacts
In this quality checklist, we propose criteria for evaluating MSP contents and implementation at a
future point in time. Since this type of evaluation was outside the scope of TPEA, these are
suggestions only, listing ideas on how post-project evaluation might be undertaken at a later stage.
Possible use of the checklist is likely to be an iterative process which would take place at regular
intervals beyond the lifetime of TPEA. During this process, the indicative checklist may be completed
by each country involved in the transboundary exercise, either in a collaborative process or
individually with subsequent discussion of results.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
28
The full evaluation report is available from www.tpeamaritime.eu.
5. Synthesis
5.1. Developing a common approach to cross-border MSP
TPEA faced the particular challenge of developing a common approach to cross-border MSP in a
region where countries do not surround an enclosed sea. The impact of MSP, even if coordinated
across borders, on the Atlantic environment and wider Atlantic developments is therefore more
limited than in a regional sea such as the Baltic where national jurisdictions cover the majority of
marine space. Nevertheless, European Atlantic countries do share a common “Atlantic Arc” identity
and are confronted with similar issues (e.g. facilitating a sustainable maritime economy). In dealing
with transboundary issues a coordinated approach to MSP across borders is an advantage.
TPEA discovered a large number of symmetries across the region despite the distinct cultural, socio-
economic and physical characteristics of the pilot study areas. Although it is useful to look for
common approaches towards the planning of transboundary maritime space, the project highlighted
the need for flexibility to help maritime managers meet the challenges of these spaces and the needs
of the stakeholders in each respective context.
The benefits of a flexible approach are ably demonstrated in the project as the two pilot study areas
vary in their distinctive climatic and maritime conditions, the use of their maritime space, governance
structures and traditions of stakeholder engagement. The project has also demonstrated that whilst
differences are to be expected there is a great number of similarities. The common need for
improved understanding of MSP, the use of sound science and data, the participatory role of
stakeholders, the similar challenges and opportunities arising from common marine activities and the
importance of communication all underpin the process regardless of the geographical location.
5.2. A dynamic approach to defining boundaries
In any transboundary location the effective management of dynamic natural resources can become
severely hampered if considered within the rigid confines of administrative boundaries. At the same
time, existing boundaries need to be accounted for, not least as delineators of jurisdictions and
administrative responsibilities. A common conclusion from both pilot areas is that the criteria for
delineating transboundary planning areas should identify those areas with greater transboundary
maritime activity, and should also be able to account for the nature of existing and potential uses and
activities, their requirements and location.
Within both pilot areas the adoption of soft or fuzzy spaces demonstrated a dynamic approach to the
definition of the transboundary areas allowing for an adaptive management reflecting the unique
characteristics of an area and the interaction of its constituent components.
5.3. Data exchange and GIS
The role of data and its representation demonstrates the benefits of a common approach and shared
understanding in transboundary maritime locations. From the beginning, both pilot areas worked to
identify relevant information on the marine environment and various uses and activities, working to
the same protocol to ensure that shared data was consistent and of high quality.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
29
The development of a Web Viewer was shown to be extremely valuable for supporting the decision
process in MSP. A Web Viewer can promote and facilitate communication and transparency
throughout the transboundary planning process, providing an overall perspective which assists
stakeholders and the project team to explore marine issues beyond the confines of national
jurisdictions. This broader perspective may assist in the development of plans and/or programmes
aimed at the sustainable development of marine activities and its resources, especially if associated
with information on decision-making processes such as licensing.
5.4. Governance models
TPEA focused on transboundary areas, hence it was essential to understand the strategic vision of
each Member State for the sea and the main (existing and potential) maritime uses and activitiesin
the transboundary area.
Analysis of the legal instruments at Member States level has highlighted the different approaches
and stages with respect to planning tools, coastal and maritime management. Portugal for example
has a coherent set of instruments, favouring an integrated vision of maritime space and the coastal
zone, whereas Spain has a more fragmented set of instruments. Understanding the governance
models and policy, management and planning tools available proved to be an important task to
identify differences between countries, but also to understand which issues demand particular
attention and where synergies and conflicts might arise. Both pilot areas explored options for
building bridges between different systems, finding that reliance on existing mechanisms of
cooperation and the international policy framework (such as European strategic instruments or the
Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area) represented a good starting point for developing joint
approaches to planning.
5.5. Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement was also a central component of taking forward transboundary maritime
planning as was demonstrated in the two pilot study areas. Prior to engaging with the stakeholders
the project team developed its own internal communication channels and reached common
agreement and understanding of the terminology associated with planning transboundary maritime
spaces. This initial work between the different national project partners guided the engagement
work with the stakeholders and provided the foundations to explore transboundary MSP. The
northern pilot study area built on existing capacity in maritime engagement whereas the southern
pilot partners gained experience in establishing stakeholder networks and introducing maritime
users and managers to a multi-party participatory process.
Both planning teams found that participation has raised awareness of marine issues and led to
important additional information and insights to be considered. Stakeholders themselves also gave
positive feedback, particularly appreciating the following aspects:
Gaining insights into a range of marine activities, data sources and harmonisation issues,
Networking and meeting a wide variety of marine stakeholders from both sides of the
border,
Hearing different perspectives on cross-border marine management challenges and issues
and being able to debate different points of view. These events provide the opportunity
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
30
for sectors including NGOs and governmental bodies to become familiar with the issues on
the ground within the coastal communities and what the impacts of policy and decisions
have on those who will be most affected.
Being able to make contacts and discuss potential project ideas and areas of future
collaboration.
Conveying the importance and benefits of transboundary MSP to participants in both the pilot study
areas was also an important outcome. In Spain, awareness of MSP and its implications was still
relatively low; added to this is the fact that participation rarely takes place in the early stages of a
planning process. TPEA therefore implied a cultural shift. Additional time was dedicated to
identifying relevant stakeholders, and to extend the principles of MSP beyond the existing knowledge
networks to the wider maritime stakeholder community which did not have the same level of
experience or understanding of MSP. In the southern pilot area, language was also an issue as not all
the stakeholders are comfortable using English as a second language. A specific southern outcome is
that trust grew gradually as TPEA progressed, allowing improved communication between the
various stakeholders. The Web Viewer with all its geographic information proved an essential
communication tool in both pilot areas, in particular allowing an integrated view of maritime space.
The use of workshop reports and factsheets to provide feedback on the outcome of engagement
exercises from across the two pilot areas helped to place the individual contributions within the
European Atlantic context.
The ability to adapt to the needs of the stakeholders was demonstrated by the flexible and dynamic
approach adopted by the project partners in the southern pilot area. Both pilot areas commenced
the project with a standard engagement process, which was quickly identified as being inappropriate
for the stakeholders in the southern pilot area. By adapting the engagement methods the project as
a whole obtained a strong and constant participation throughout the duration of the project and the
buy in of the stakeholders involved.
5.6. Communication
Both pilot areas identified good communication as an essential part of taking forward effective
transboundary MSP. Effective communication channels between and across stakeholders and
decision makers are a key mechanism for taking forward coordination and cooperation across
transboundary locations. The involvement of government partners, expert advisors and stakeholders
in the project has advanced the interaction between decision makers and stakeholders and has
helped all those involved in achieving common understanding of the management needs in the
transboundary maritime areas.
5.7. Monitoring and evaluation
An integral component of any transboundary MSP exercise is the need to monitor and evaluate its
effectiveness. The establishment of strategic objectives at the start of the process helped to facilitate
the monitoring and evaluation of the project. However, the project demonstrated that there is no
ready-made solution or standardised protocol implying that evaluation needs to be tailored to the
specific MSP process. The project team involved stakeholders in its evaluation through capturing
feedback at the workshops and obtaining information to ensure their continued engagement.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
31
5.8. Lessons from working in partnership across borders
In both pilot areas, all partners emphasised that TPEA has been a valuable learning experience and
that much has been achieved in two rather different cross-border contexts. Trusting networks have
been established between the partners which has the potential to continue beyond the lifetime of
the project. Links between administration and research were perceived as a particular bonus and a
good starting point for future work. The following lessons have emerged:
Agree on the degree of commonality that is sought. In the project a balance needed to be
struck between the degree of flexibility to be retained for each cross-border area and a
common approach to cross-cutting themes in all countries. Agreeing formalised actions and
tasks for cross-cutting themes required individual project teams to work together closely
rather than merely reporting to each other.
Transboundary MSP exercises build networks of contacts and trust. Investing in such
exercises was an important factor in the project and may be helpful in laying the groundwork
for future statutory MSP processes.
The time needed for transboundary work should not be underestimated. The project
recognises that 18 months is a short period for transboundary working; it is easy to
underestimate the time needed for the work, in particular with respect to data.
Ensure follow-up. The project acknowledges that follow-up may be required to continue
building the channels that have been opened up and to explore the benefits beyond the
project itself.
Working through different languages requires extra care. The presence of different
languages and partners having to work through a second language was a challenge in the
TPEA project, and achieving agreement on common principles, concepts, and terminology
relevant to the programme of work took time. Terminology is an important issue, as the
same term may be used differently in different contexts, requiring “English to English”
translation in some instances. Some basic definitions would have been helpful from the
outset.
Enough time and resources need to be set aside to ensure good communication between
the partners. Although they are useful for touching base with other partners and updating
on progress, teleconferences were found to be limited in what they can achieve with
multiple partners spanning the European Atlantic. Regular face to face meetings between all
partners were found to deliver better outcomes and to be important for truly collaborative
work. This also applied the work within the pilot areas.
Ensure a balanced team. When working with multiple partners spanning different countries,
it was important to ensure a balance with respect to the resources available (staff time,
funding) in order to achieve similar outputs in the time available. This was particularly
important where results depend on each other, such as building a common GIS system.
TPEA Pilot Areas Report
32
Ensure clear structures within the project. In teams with multiple partners in different
countries, it is useful to agree on a detailed plan of action and appoint a coordinator
responsible for overseeing the process. It is also useful to ensure continuity within each
country’s team and to communicate responsibilities and roles within the project clearly.
5.9. Lessons from working with stakeholders across borders
Take account of different traditions in working with stakeholders. Different traditions of
stakeholder participation mean that different ways of engagement may be called for. In
countries with less tradition of broad stakeholder involvement, extra time and effort is
required to bring stakeholders into the process. Time needed to be spent explaining the
nature of the project and the purpose of MSP, as well as the contribution stakeholders can
expect to make to the project.
Ensure proper planning and guidance of the participation process. Care needed to be taken
to properly guide the participation process, ensuring the planned outcomes of the project,
the value of stakeholder involvement to the project and also the potential next steps were
clearly communicated at each stage of the project.
Obtain regular stakeholder feedback. Stakeholders considered TPEA a good learning
experience, emphasising that much valuable information had been gathered, but also had
good suggestions for improving stakeholder events in the future. Regular evaluation of
stakeholder events was therefore useful for fine-tuning stakeholder involvement and
ensuring stakeholder satisfaction.
The strong messages drawn from the project are explored further in the TPEA Good Practice Guide,
available for download at www.tpeamaritime.eu
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.