Transnational Cooperation and Dialogue in the Pomeranian Bight/Arkona Basin

Abstract: 

The report on transnational cooperation and dialogue in the Pomeranian Bight / Arkona Basin contains a methodology of how to assess transnational cooperation in cross-border projects.

Sea Basin(s): 
Year: 
September 2014
Application in MSP: 
Applied in an MSP process
Sectors: 
Offshore renewable energy production
Submarine cables and pipelines
Type of Issue: 
Stakeholders
Type of practice: 
Methodology
Stage of MSP cycle: 
Stocktake
Cross-border / trans-national aspect: 
Yes

Questions this practice may help answer

  • How to assess transnational cooperation in projects?

Implementation context

In the scope of the Baltic LINes project, a case study was undertaken on two projects (Combined Grid Solutions and Baltic Pipe) in the Pomeranian Bight / Arkona Bain area to assess transboundary cooperation. The findings specific to on transboundary cooperation have entered into the PartiSEApate governance framework. This practice concentrates on the methodology of the assessment.

Method

Telephone and face to face interviews with stakeholders (understood here as representatives of the organisations involved in the transboundary processes) were used as the main means of gaining information. Interviews were semi-structured, with flexibility to explore issues as they arose, with results recorded in the form of summary notes for each interview.

Questions focused on:

  • The nature of the transboundary process: What characterises the process in each example case? Are there clear aims and objectives, is there a timetable, and do all stakeholders have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities?
  • Roles of the various stakeholders: Who has been involved in the transboundary process so far, and in what way? Who has been in the driving seat? Is there representativeness of the various bodies, and is there a balance between stakeholders in terms of country representation? What is the role of planners and other sectors (e.g. environment) in the transboundary process, and has there been sufficient transparency?
  • Methods and patterns of communication: What communication processes (patterns, channels and methods of communication) have been employed by the stakeholders involved in the CGS and BP processes so far? What have been the advantages and disadvantages of the patterns and methods chosen, and are stakeholders satisfied with the level of communication that has been achieved?
  • Level of institutional engagement: Are the institutions involved in the transboundary process committed to the process, e.g. in terms of making available time and resources?
  • Timing and regularity of contact: How often have the stakeholders met during the process, and have these meetings been in person? How satisfied are the stakeholders involved with the regularity of contact?
  • Building of trust and understanding: Is there a sense of trust among the stakeholders involved, and if not, why not? Are there hidden agendas? What are the factors that have led to trust? How have different interests been expressed and negotiated?
  • Public communication: Has there been broader public communication during the transnational process, and if so, how successful has this been?

The whole set of questions can be found in the appendix of the report.

Transferability

The methodology can be applied for assessing transnational cooperation in other projects

Contact Person

Stephen Jay

University of Liverpool

Email: Stephen.Jay@liverpool.ac.uk

Phone: +44 (0)151 794 3119

Responsible Entity

German Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH)

Funding Source

Baltic Sea Region Programme

Share

Print