Miss Heather Ritchie, LLB. MScSchool of the Built Environment, University of UlsterJordanstown Campus Shore Road, Newtownabbey , Co. Antrim ,Tel: 028 90 366676Email: h.ritchie@ulster.ac.uk

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