Mainstreaming coastally just and equitable marine spatial planning: Planner and stakeholder experiences and perspectives on participation in Latvia

Operationalisation of an ecosystem services approach for improving integration in maritime spatial planning

“…Participation is a central aspect of MSPhighlighted in the IOC-UNSECO principles and Article 9 of the MSPD, and one of the most commonly discussed SS topics in scholarly literature, yet in most cases the understanding and justification of participation are quite narrow, largely concentrated on reduction of conflicts and increased support for MSP (Gilek et al 2021). In response, Tafon et al (2023) offer six, interconnected, equity-based principles to conceptualise representations thereby supporting the evaluation of participation and inclusion in MSP to counter a tokenistic approach, which results in plans and processes that are unresponsive to directly affected, at times vulnerable and already marginalised groups of stakeholders, such as coastal communities. The principles include timely, inclusive, supportive and localise, deliberative, methodological, and impactful devised to reflect different dimensions of what participation ought to look like if it is to promote just (supportive of actors prevented from engaging by additional barriers), efficient (embedded in the sociocultural context and fuelled by co-design), and effective (words put into action) decision-making and action (Tafon et al 2023).…”

“…Unpacking of community participation in a study of Latvian MSP (Tafon et al, 2023) revealed that the process had two well-defined phasesa pluralistic approach in the build-up to version 1, and a participation process greatly skewed towards specific sectoral interest during the development of the 2 nd version, which is the now adopted version of the plan. Localised, regional seminars were held to engage coastal actors, however only in the early stages, and were not re-introduced in the second half of the planning process (Tafon et al 2023; Figure 11).…”

“…Unpacking of community participation in a study of Latvian MSP (Tafon et al, 2023) revealed that the process had two well-defined phasesa pluralistic approach in the build-up to version 1, and a participation process greatly skewed towards specific sectoral interest during the development of the 2 nd version, which is the now adopted version of the plan. Localised, regional seminars were held to engage coastal actors, however only in the early stages, and were not re-introduced in the second half of the planning process (Tafon et al 2023; Figure 11). There is little indication that coastal authorities were empowered to participate and supported in developing a common, clear understanding of the objectives of MSP through bespoke methodological practices at the regional seminars or that they had an impact on the planning decisions (Tafon et al 2023).…”

“…Localised, regional seminars were held to engage coastal actors, however only in the early stages, and were not re-introduced in the second half of the planning process (Tafon et al 2023; Figure 11). There is little indication that coastal authorities were empowered to participate and supported in developing a common, clear understanding of the objectives of MSP through bespoke methodological practices at the regional seminars or that they had an impact on the planning decisions (Tafon et al 2023). There was also little sense of collaboration, co-design, or room for deliberation, and an interviewed coastal municipality planner expressed they felt more like a participant, and not a co-creator of the plan (Tafon et al 2023).…”

“…There is little indication that coastal authorities were empowered to participate and supported in developing a common, clear understanding of the objectives of MSP through bespoke methodological practices at the regional seminars or that they had an impact on the planning decisions (Tafon et al 2023). There was also little sense of collaboration, co-design, or room for deliberation, and an interviewed coastal municipality planner expressed they felt more like a participant, and not a co-creator of the plan (Tafon et al 2023). During the second/final phase of the planning process, co-development of scenarios took place in a much more closed environment.…”