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.

Les publikasjonen her:

NVA : hdl.handle.net/11250/3378360