Handbook on „MULTI”

1. Handbook on „MULTI” MM+JZ+JP Bergen 9.09.14

2. So far • What is clear – there is a need (for planners) • Difficult topic – not very sexy, but useful (short, checklist, practical) • Several discussions, 4 versions and corrections • Presented at MSP Forum in Riga • Corrected after Riga and commented

3. CommentsafterRiga • Received from s.Pro, Germany, Sweden, Latvia • Types: • Editorial and spelling • Additions and corrections to countries’ descriptions • Disagreements • Doubts • Improvements • Corrections • Process

4. Disagreements • Relation to (contradiction with) the Governance Model (pp 45-48)- Handbook - it is a „problem“ that a given member state may not have direct access to stakeholders of other countries…. Governance Model - at least it was the recommendation provided that it may be better that the stakeholder process (also for a cross-border consultation) is within the hands of the given MSP contact point - but that those should really then also do it. • why „gentlemen agreement”? – it should be transparent and clear agreement - it will become mandatory in EU due to MSP directive. • Lessons learnt - In Latvia, experience shows that when some type of development plan is carried out for the first time, the involvement is larger then the plan is reviewed or made for second time. Planners are more open to consultation.

5. Doubts • difference between nationalconsultation and stakeholder participation • Is there is a linkage between the „formal“ requirements in a country and then the actual "good practice" applied? • It is unclear throughout the text whether we refer to other levels of engagement; stakeholder involvement - public participation - multi-level consultation - etc. are synomous or there are some differences….. • mixture of terminologies, i.e. stakeholders, multi-level, authorities, consultation vs. information – involvement – etc. : - need improvement • what is meant with “level”? • How to deal with „general public”? Short explanations that its importance is not neglected, but that it simply not the focus.

6. Suggestions for Improvements • In the checklist chapter - the introductory paragraphs need carefull second thoughts. • very important / interesting „good practices“ and „lessons learned“ could do with some more analysis and improvement of the „evaluation“ paragraphs. • it would be useful to explicitly show what kind of outcome is expected from each of these steps by „asking questions - i.e. consultation). • The listing of the formal requirements country by country is boring! Interesting for the reader - to understand whether and where exactly there is difference between countries, whether this influences the process, whether there are gaps, whether there is somehow a country which has stronger formal requirements than others

7. Suggestions for corrections • the MSP cycle - PartiSEApate has shown the importance that step 4 „identifying spatial conflicts“ should be renamed and / or amended by also stressing „identifying spatial synergies!“ (i.e. not only a negative - but also pro-active positive approach) – seeGov. Mod. • Throughout the text the „regional“ level is often mentioned (different things in different countries) - it may be helpful to think in EU NUTS categories • make clear, that responsible levels for MSP may differ between countries • briefly describe the MSP process in the text. • Work on the pictures! (do they show exactly what we want to be shown?) – checksomepictures from BaltSeaPlanfindings

8. Can we agreewhatismultilevel This handbook focuses on multilevel consultations in the MSP process. The notion of multilevelnessin the MSP process in the BSR is shown on Fig 1. The role of MSP process's organizers is to make sure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in the process at the right time with all rights that belong to them at a given stage of the consultation process

9. Consultationscan we agree? The handbook deals exclusively with consultations. This is one of the steps of involving stakeholders into MSP but it should be complemented with other types of engagement. Arnstein’ ladder of public engagement shows different options • Information - Providing information. (E.g. about the existence of a service, results of a decision).Tends to be one way communication • Education - Explaining or raising awareness of something - often in order to change attitudes/action. Tends to be one-way communication • Consultation - Asking opinions. This can include questionnaires asking for reactions to a particular decision, voting, market research, focus groups and debate. Can be two way communication (e.g. if participants are informed of the results) but final decisions are made by those who are doing the consulting. • Involvement - Where more than just opinions are sought – participants may be part of the solution though taking action, endorsing something, etc. Communication must be two way, responsibilities are not necessarily formally set out and relationships between participants may remain unclear. • Partnership - Direct involvement in decision making and action, with all parties having clear roles and responsibilities and powers – usually for a defined purpose/shared common goal. Two-way communication essential. • Devolved Power - Giving away decision making, resources and control. There should also be clear lines of accountability and should involve two way communication with those giving away the power.”

10. Consultationscan we agree By consultation we will in this handbook understand the following: • INFORMING in a targeted way about some relevant aspects of the MSP process (e.g. commencement of MSP, entering new phase of MSP, availability of materials for consultations etc.), • SCREENING the resources of a giving stakeholder available at public domain (e.g. reports, website etc.) in order to use them in the MSP, • ASKING stakeholder FOR INPUTS to the MSP process in order to reveal existing practice and interests of a given stakeholders, e.g. identification of development plans towards a given sea space, identification of areas of the most intensive usage of the sea space, identification of an exclusive possession of the stakeholder, etc., • ASKING FOR OPINIONS and reflections from stakeholders approached in step c) on a draft proposal of the plan (goals, methodology and proposed solutions/preferences)

11. PROCESS To be agreed today (addressingdoubts) i) For whom is the handbook? Defined target group will enable us to make relevant updates (e.g. if the handbook is for planners one may expect that they are familiar with the MSP process) ii) How do we definetermsusedin the handbook? Agreedterminologywillenableus to be moreprecise in assesinglessonslearned and proposingwayforward. Definition of ‚participation’, ‚involvement’ and ‚consultations’: is the handbookdevoted to only one of theseorcoversalldepending on steps in the MSP process(rather the latter one as the processitselfrequiresdifferent ‚actions’ atdifferentstages) Definition of ‚multi-level’: does the ‚level’ refersonly to ‚geographicalscale of influence of a givenstakeholder)?

12. Workinggroupsexercise: 3 or 4 workinggroups • eachgroupanswerthese 3 questions – 10 minutes • presentation by grouprepresentative – 10 minutes • joint conclusions and decisions – 15 minutes How do we proceed further? – 5 minutes Who wants to be involved in finalisation, timeline, printing costs