Handbook on multi-level stakeholders process in MSP

Part-financed by the European Union(European Regional Development Fund)

Handbook on multi-level stakeholders process in

MSP

J. Zaucha, M. MatczakMIG

Handbook idea

• not a receipt on how to enter into a dialogue with all relevant parties when preparing MSPs and related documents;

rather

• a profound check list of questions the MSP organizers should ask themselves at different stages of MSP process.

Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Consultation is what happens beforea decision is made.

Communication is what happens aftera decision is made.

Skilful communication is an essential element of consultation.


Table of content

1. Introduction2. Stakeholder process in MSP in each country participating in

PartiSeaPate– Legal basis – Consultation Procedure (who, whom, when, etc.)– Key drawbacks, limitations

3. The stakeholder process in practices (tools, stakeholders involved, intensity of involvement, problems solved)– Stakeholders involved, and their role– At which stage at which the consultations took place The aim of consultations – Type of consultations – Character of consultations – Consultations timeframes – Tools and methods– Evaluation

Table of content

4. Lessons learned and way forward– Principles of effective multi-level consultation process– Key barriers– Suggestions to improve the process

5. Participation process step by step. Guide to successful participation – Assessment of the content– Drawing up a vision aims and objectives– Stocktaking– Analyzing spatial conflicts– Developing solutions– Drafting a spatial plan– Implementing spatial plan– Evaluating the results

Steps in the process of planning an effective consultation strategy

Consultation ManualA model for effective consultation for the Alice Springs Town Council


Lessons learned and way forward

• Key barriers

– The main concern – timing of the process. The preparation which took less than 2 years was too short, especially when having in mind that marine planning was carried out for the first time.

– The main barrier – understanding of the aim of the plan. Strategic level mixed up with operational.



• suggestions to improve the process– The meetings with SH should be complimented by meetings with persons

working at operational level, familiar with daily problems related to the spatial distribution and arrangement of uses at the sea. Practical knowledge on some of the issues is the key information to be considered.

– Proper (additional) evaluation of the planning economical effect would be very much appreciated.

– On the Plan preparation level – the team drafting the plan and building up the strategic vision of the planning should have very trusted relations to the mapping team. Their presence in the discussions/meetings is very important in order to make visualization of the spatial solutions acceptable and understandable.

– it is important to bring together wide range (meanwhile also targeted selection of) stakeholders in neighboring countries - and this (stakeholders mapping) must be the competence of responsible institution of MSP in particular neighboring country.



• principles of effective multi-level consultation process– Participation oriented project for all sectors and stakeholders,

– Stakeholders’ education in terms of scope and legal formula of marine plans, also its influence on their interests while adopted;

– Clearly defined aims and parameters of the consultation

– Wide range of Stakeholders involved,

– At earliest project development stage,

– Transparency of consultations’ procedure - clearly defined stages and forms/types of participations communication and participation

– Transparency of decisions and planning solutions

– Development and effective communication tools (dedicated website, etc).

– Clear feedback methods

Participation process step by step. Guide to successful participation

• WHO should be treated as a MSP stakeholder in general and in relation to specific planning process;

• WHEN those stakeholders should be involved;

• for what purpose (WHY);• and HOW it should be done.Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Assessment of the content

WHO• Have we mapped all relevant

stakeholders?– Have we identified contacts to them?– Do all relevant tiers of governance are covered?– What about stakeholders with no clear governance

mandate?– What about foreign stakeholders?

• Have the stakeholders been informed about start of our MSP process?



WHEN• Do we know at/to what planning stage we want to

invite different type or groups of stakeholders? WHY• Do we know what we should expect from different

stakeholders at different planning stages?



HOW• Do we know capacity, ability of different stakeholders to

participate in MSP, their potential, level of frustration, willingness and resources to travel, comment?

• Do we know how to involve foreign stakeholders? At which level foreign stakeholders should be involved by whom invited? Do we have sufficient means to do that (translation?)

• Have we identified stakeholders that need awareness raising, capacity building measures and other forms of support to participate in the MSP and the ways of assisting them?

• What is our (planners knowledge) on the stakeholder process in general. Is this knowledge sufficient or based on stereotypes?

• How to communicate the outcomes of the stakeholder process to the public at different planning stages (transparency of planning)?Click View / Header & Footer to edit



GOOD PRACTICE:

Swedish report on stakeholder mapping

Drawing up a vision aims and objectives

WHO– which stakeholders in a given country have formulated so far

clear goals and objectives towards the use of the sea space ?– which stakeholders are key gate keepers with regard to MSP

objectives?– what are the goals and objectives of foreign stakeholders?

WHEN– what stakeholder should participate in formulation of goals and

objectives from the very beginning and who should be involved in the fine-tuning of the first set of proposals?


Drawing up a vision aims and objectives

WHY• how (in which directions) involvement of stakeholders in

drawing up vision and objectives can improve the MSP outcome ? e.g.:– to ensure broad ownership of the objectives due to stakeholder process;– to make the best use of the stakeholder process for checking objectives against reality

(to avoid unrealistic goals and objectives e.g. too ambitious? biased? unclear?).

HOW• what are the best techniques for involving stakeholders in

elaboration of the goals, visions and objectives?• how to come up with cohesive mix of objectives reflecting

preferences of all the stakeholders and not biased by stereotypes, buzzwords and interest of better organised stakeholders?

• how to avoid thinking restricted to current problems and how to open more imaginative future oriented debate? Click View / Header & Footer to edit


GOOD PRACTICE:

Latvian process of bottom up agreement on goals and objectives

Stocktaking

WHO• have we approached stakeholders that had important

information relevant for MSPWHEN• which stakeholders should fully participate in stock taking

phase, which should act as a source of information and whom one should engage as referees and valuators of the stock-taking outcome?

WHY• how (in which directions) stakeholders can improve stock-

taking outcome? e.g.:– to obtain information possessed by stakeholders that are crucial for

success of the MSP process– to bridge present and future via active stakeholder process ( to stock

taking of the existing situation and future plans)?Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Stocktaking

HOW• how to approach different types of stakeholders in order to

receive important information from them (how to avoid approach one model fits all)?

• how to bring to the stock-taking key foreign, Baltic/EU and global stakeholders if necessary?

• how to reveal plans and intentions with regard to use of the sea space of different stakeholders (investment plans etc.?)

• how to encourage stakeholders to be open to information sharing (how to build trust)?

• how to discourage manipulation of MSP by stakeholders through revealing biased information

• how to build a feed-back loop to validate quality of information?



GOOD PRACTICE: Norwegian way of bringing together science and

stakeholders for improving stock-taking

Analyzing spatial conflicts

WHO• what are the relations between stakeholders? which

relations might end up with conflicts and which might bring synergy?

• which stakeholders might generate the most important conflicts?

• which stakeholders will be affected?• what are the silent stakeholders unable to express

their preferences (e.g. future generations?)WHEN• when to involve different groups of stakeholders e.g.

national versus foreign stakeholders, Baltic/global versus local etc.



WHO• what are the relations between stakeholders? which

relations might end up with conflicts and which might bring synergy?

• which stakeholders might generate the most important conflicts?

• which stakeholders will be affected?• what are the silent stakeholders unable to express

their preferences (e.g. future generations?)WHEN• when to involve different groups of stakeholders e.g.

national versus foreign stakeholders, Baltic/global versus local etc.




GOOD PRACTICE:

Lithuanian cross-border analysis of conflicts and synergies

Developing solutions

WHO• should we invite stakeholders from outside that

can be used as a resource in preparing planning solution?

• have we invited stakeholders that can bring specific knowledge necessary for development of realistic solutions (sector knowledge, local tacit knowledge, etc.)

WHEN• which stakeholders should work on permanent

basis (as a core planning group) on development of the solutions and which should be used as a reference group for validating and fine-tuning of the solutions.Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Developing solutions

WHY• how (in which directions) involvement of stakeholders can

improve the planning solutions ? e.g.:– to find solutions that will not be evaded by the stakeholders? really working

solutions? realistic?– to group solutions according to their importance for stakeholders and perception

(positive to negative) by stakeholders?– to avoid opening of the opened window

HOW• how to reach a compromise between opening of the planning

process to different interests and types of stakeholders while securing efficiency of the entire procedure

• how to avoid dominance of the well organised group of stakeholders representing narrow interests

• how to visualize different options and solutions in order to trigger proper stakeholder discussion

• .Click View / Header & Footer to edit



GOOD PRACTICE: Citizens Juries and focus group applied by Arch and

Lagoons projects

Drafting a spatial plan

WHO• have we invited stakeholders with formal mandate to use the

sea space• have we invited stakeholders with real power to use the sea

space (economic, political)?• have we invited stakeholders with the top capacity to

network, enter in various relations and processes?• which stakeholders should be informed, which should be

consulted which should be engaged?• WHEN• which stakeholders should work on permanent basis (as a core

planning group) on development of the plan and which should be encouraged to join a reference group for validating and fine-tuning of the priorities, zones, recommendations and prohibitions,

• Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Drafting a spatial plan

WHY• how (in which directions) involvement of stakeholders can

improve the plan itself ? e.g.:– to find a right mix between pro-development and pro-conservation dimension of the plan– to attach right mix of reservations, prohibitions ands requirements to different types of sea

zones (subareas),– to avoid throwing baby from the bath–

HOW• how to reach a compromise between opening of the planning

process to different interests and types of stakeholders while securing efficiency of the entire procedure

• how to avoid dominance in the planning procedure only some types of stakeholders (professional lobbies, etc.)

• how to make a bridge between professional knowledge and expertise of spatial planners and practical knowledge and experience of stakeholders (need of joint language)

• Click View / Header & Footer to edit



GOOD PRACTICE: Use of Marxan for development of different planning

options - case of Pomerania Bight

Implementing spatial plan

• Plan ownership is a key factor condition success of the plan implementation. Stakeholders process is the only way to achieve that.


Evaluating the results




GOOD PRACTICE

Missing? VASAB-HELCOM WG?

for sure Great Barier Reef (example from UNESCO guide)

Check-list

HAVE YOU? YES NO

Considered the reasons for undertaking consultation? √Defined the aims and parameters of the consultation?

√

Identified how and when you will provide feedback to the participants?

√



Documents

Handbook on multi-level stakeholders process in MSP