Miss Heather Ritchie, LLB. MScSchool of the Built Environment, University of UlsterJordanstown Campus Shore Road, Newtownabbey , Co. Antrim ,Tel: 028 90 366676Email: [email protected]
PISCES WORKSHOP 2: FORMULATING GUIDELINES
Overview of my research Stakeholder Engagement in Marine Spatial PlanningUnappreciated in terms of academic research in the
field Objectives of MSP - heavily influenced by the
effectiveness of the stakeholder engagement practiceGathered & analysed stakeholder perspectives Investigated an alternative direction for using
stakeholder perspectives to inform the engagement process
Starting Point for EngagementStakeholder Engagement in the marine environment is
different to land! More complex!Physically and dimensionally different - no fences!Concept of Mare Librum – curtailed by MSPStarting points different – motivations, rationale and
context:land= post war development (1947) – social science sea = sustainable development & ecology - science
Marine property rights – exist – but different mannerComplex mix of public property rights
Stakeholder Engagement in the Marine Environment Government articulating system of MSP that replicates LUP Stakeholder engagement in MSP seeks “stakeholder
involvement and consultation” = statutory mechanismHave adapted mechanisms from Regional Planning – SPI/SPPDoes not seem to be utilising more deliberative methods Government want “as much consensus and agreement as
possible ” (DEFRA, 2009) Since: “This is an approach that is already very familiar on
land” (DEFRA, 2007, White Paper)
The problem with consensus Consensus comes with a caveat....Consensus in LUP is unrealistic & unachievable Utopian, naive, open to abuse by more powerful
stakeholdersWatered down lowest common denominator effectConsensus often means losing out Consensus can leave Stakeholders antagonised &
frustratedGovernment use consensus to create less conflict & get
legislation passed more swiftly
Research on stakeholders’ perspectives Case Study Location – Irish Sea Region 52 Stakeholders Perspectives gathered (via Q Methodology)Participants required to rank order a set of statements (no.50)Their responses (Q-sort) are correlated & subject to by-person
factor analysis Analysis revealed 5 statistically independent view points
(discourses) – patterns of attitudes Called....Neptune’s Democratic Guardians, Leviathan’s
Rationalists, Cynical Sirens, Corporate Corsairs, Technocratic Environmentalists
Thematic FindingsDefining Characteristics of each discourse Process v. OutcomeViews on Stakeholder Engagement Trust in Government Type of knowledge
Impact of the findings All stakeholders believe in MSP as essentially a “good
thing”Yet...there are many perspectives – diverse opinions -
subjective viewpoints – contentious – antagonism In practice: consensus is unrealistic & counterproductiveNeed different ways about thinking how we engage
stakeholders for MSP (mindset)Need an alternative, productive & appropriate process
for stakeholder engagement for effective MSP Informed by alternative experiences & alternative
theories
Belgian and Australian Experiences Offer different mindset for thinking about stakeholder
engagement Belgians – “sea orientated planning” Accepts sea is not extension of the land Unique structure / dynamics/ regulatory processes Real sense of a spatial vision based on the sea’s specific
characteristicsConsideration MSP as innovative and imaginative visual
approach Illustrate key values and type of approach needed for a
sea driven approach and culture for MSP
Six Spatial Scenarios
The Relaxed
Sea
The Playful Sea
The Natural Sea
The Mobile
Sea
The Rich Sea
The Sailing
Sea
Source: Adapted from GAUFRE (2006, p. 129)
Australian’s – Key Document for innovative stakeholder engagement: “Ocean’s Eleven”
Focused on stakeholder engagement &community education “ Managing People – Not Ecosystems”
Promoting active protection of the sea not political regulation Involvement of Indigenous Aboriginal people:
view land and sea as inseparable - “sea country” Promoted “ambassadors of the sea” Need to act on values of natural ecosystems, not sectoral or
political influences
An Alternative Theoretical Approach Collaborative Planning = consensus – potentially unrealisticAlternative theory “Agonism” – adopting “agonistic
approach”Approaching stakeholder engagement differently – dealing
with complexity and pluralism face onIt values contest as a tool that can be used to effectively deal
with planning disputesCreates productive outcomes - more tactical, more refined
solutionStakeholders agree to disagree & set differences aside –
settlement Stakeholders constantly uncovering each others’ interests –
expectations – critical viewpoints Accepts that antagonism can not be eliminated
Example of Agonism in Practice Using agonistic approach - segregation in Northern
Ireland’s Protestant and Catholic CommunitiesAgonism focuses attention on the understanding of
powerTransform antagonism into agonism between
potential adversaries rather than as enemiesHow differences are understood and expressed in
multiple power relationshipsLessons noted as not privileging one side over the
other, Looking for the historical and normative basis to each
others perspective and their associated knowledge
Reflections and moving forward New insights into the complexity of stakeholder
engagement in the marine environment Differentiated from stakeholder engagement on landExpectations of involving every stakeholder are
unrealisticEmpirical research showed a selective form of
stakeholder engagement was advocatedCan lead to proper deliberation and decisive &
productive outcomes Selectivity in stakeholders can still be democratic Needs safeguards built in to ensure legitimacy