Understanding Different Types of Conflicts and Coexistence in Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)

Sammendrag

This report aims to give insights into the nature of conflicts commonly experienced in marine spatial planning (MSP), so that persons involved can better handle potential and actual conflict situations and promote synergies. A key message is that conflicts relevant for MSP can have many dimensions, out of which, spatial dimension, which has received the most attention, is only one. Conflicts driven by other factors, which are more related to the MSP process, have arguably received less attention. Although this is beginning to change, comparatively little attention is being given to possibilities and methods to achieve synergies in the use of marine areas. Potential conflict situations do not necessarily produce an actual conflict, unless there is a trigger, often found in processes, such as lack of communication, the behaviour of a group, or the way a process is organized. Based on analyses of important conflict elements, possible actions can be identified and discussed to address conflicts constructively. Such elements include structural preconditions and cognitive, behavioural, and affective dimensions. Conflicts can also be layered, in the sense that what is communicated can be underpinned by deeper interests, beliefs, needs, and core values, which are more difficult to unveil. Synergy is variously understood as the absence of conflict (neutral coexistence) or planned multi-use, aiming to generate benefits to the various users and/or the environment. The latter is complex, as it strongly depends on the mix of uses coming together, each with its own spatial, technological, economic, regulatory, social, and political enablers and constraints. For promoting synergy in MSP, a detailed analysis of compatibilities is essential. Generic compatibility matrices are a useful starting point, but they must be applied in a context-specific way if they are to be a sound basis for decision-making. As MSP is a process of ongoing negotiation and people management, more attention should be paid to soft skills when training and employing MSP planners and process managers. Examples of such skills are being able to rekindle a stalled process or to find and realise solutions that different parties can accept despite an ongoing conflict. Conflicts cannot always be transformed into positive coexistence or a more synergistic use of space, and an MSP process that delivers a plan despite ongoing conflicts may be the best possible outcome. Similarly, not all conflicts encountered in an MSP process can be solved at the level of MSP, and marine spatial planning may turn out to be a stage for other potentially long-standing disagreements. Identifying which elements of conflicts, and also synergies, need to be dealt with at other levels of governance or in other arenas, can be an important outcome of a structured MSP conflict analysis. Despite their potentially destructive power, the creative force of conflicts should not be underestimated.