Anita Līvija Rozenvalde
Deputy Unit Head
Spatial Planning Policy Unit
Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia
Latvia
Anete Bērziņa
Senior Expert
Spatial Planning Policy Unit
Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia
Latvia
Annija Danenberga
Project Coordinator
Spatial Planning Policy Unit
Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia
Latvia
Florian Bortic
PR Manager
Baltic Environmental Forum Germany
Germany
Since humanity learned to traverse seas and oceans, these waters have motivated vast innovation to optimise resources. Now, with the Baltic Sea experiencing milder winters (from 7 (1950-1979) to 16 (1993-2022) over a 30-year period) and continued decline or stagnant (bad) status of biodiversity, innovation is also propelled by green transition aspirations. E.g., in the face of available fossil fuel depletion, the Baltic Sea is assessed to hold a 93GW potential for offshore wind energy, production of 5GW is operational, but more is to be unlocked as innovation unlocks more powerful turbine options with higher longevity. The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) track record shows we are working but is this enough?
The technological potential to implement a green transition in maritime economies is increasing. However, this is in parallel to counteracting societal factors. In the BSR we have seen that uptake of new technologies and blue industries can be slow: 1) due to established maritime industries being joined by new and not yet appropriately regulated ones in limited marine space; 2) due to lack of public support. Additionally, successful greening efforts can create a renewed perception of endless resources for individuals, which can put new pressures on maritime resources.
Maritime spatial planning (MSP) has been recognised as one of European Green Deal enablers. While the BSR countries have a history of well-established collaboration through VASAB and HELCOM, each country opened internal cooperation opportunities to draft their respective MSPs. The maritime industries that are relatively novel for the country in question, can become catalysts for long negotiations, like offshore wind where no offshore wind parks have been built yet, such as in Latvia. All BSR countries having adopted MSPs is a testament to our ability to negotiate a slice of the sea for each use. However, with innovation, more potential marine territory uses are coming on the horizon alongside more conflict. Indeed, we put emphasis on conflicting maritime priorities – e.g., fishing, biodiversity, renewable energy. Here multi-use can become a disruptor to this conflict focus by challenging planners and maritime stakeholders to rather seek out complementary aspects of different sea uses. While EU regulation such as the Renewable Energy Directive is now establishing a foundation for mainstreaming multi-use, it still fits into a regulatory gap on the national level of BSR like novel maritime greening solutions themselves. Thus, this aspect of advancing greening is the responsibility of maritime spatial planners and policymakers and how they accept the shift from conflict to complementary thinking in the MSP processes, initiate regulatory change and introduce and communicate it to other stakeholders.
The aforementioned responsibility has to be further extended to a change in MSP stakeholder collaboration with the wider public. While the sea beyond neck-deep in the water can feel like no man’s land to citizens, in our democratic MSP processes their voice has and should continue to have weight as their Baltic Sea is being shaped. The green transition slowing hurdle that is often encountered in case of innovation is that the public discourse is set by the first or the loudest piece of information that reaches the public or the public does not feel a sense of ownership over the solutions. Thus, the maritime planner and policymaker must seek ways to increase transparency and advance co-creation. The amount and diversity of information is key, as well as how experts use accessible language and early avenues of participation. Differing opinions and public opposition will not cease to exist, however, this can set the tone for less antagonistic and smoother MSP processes.
Now, let us consider the case of a single individual in the BSR – they do not have an active role in running maritime industries, but perhaps they read materials and participated in MSP drafting themselves or their friends did. They love to go to the seaside, enjoy the views, swim and their favourite food is herring. In this context their perspective of the sea is a combination of knowledge about the realities of the environmental state of the Baltic Sea, competing interests and their personal preferences. This is a theoretical person, but the balance of knowledge and relating to our Baltic Sea holds the potential for an individual behavioural shift – towards actions that take away the stress on sea and improves its environmental status.
The Baltic Sea Region is advancing towards a blue-green transition by harnessing technological potential and fostering collaborative maritime spatial planning, yet it faces significant environmental, regulatory, and societal challenges that require enhanced public engagement. Initiative for innovation should persist but we must enable its full potential by shifting our problem-solving approaches and developing new methods for working with stakeholders involved.
The writers are Interreg Baltic Sea Region project Baltic Sea2Land consortium partners.