Governance gaps in Nordic offshore coexistence: between sectors and systems

Images: Johannes Jansson / Norden; Per Pixel Petersson / Imagebanksweden

Political volatility

Offshore wind energy in the Nordic Region operates in a volatile political environment. Changing national priorities, economic pressures and shifts in public sentiment generate fluctuating support and disrupt policy continuity. Our case studies show that these dynamics undermine stakeholder confidence and affect cross-sector interactions, particularly between offshore wind and commercial fisheries. They raise concerns about unequal access to subsidies, compensation and other support mechanisms, often intensifying perceptions of sectoral favouritism. Furthermore, authorities struggle to align shifting political agendas with consistent planning and permitting regulations.

The Nordic countries initially set ambitious offshore wind targets to boost industry competitiveness. However, in some cases, this has marginalised the fisheries sector. Fishers describe a sense of exclusion, which is compounded by the cultural importance of fishing as a multigenerational livelihood.

More recently, in Sweden, defence-related objections and conflicting political signals disrupted ambitions for coexistence in marine spatial planning. Despite plans to add 90 TWh of capacity, 14 OWE projects were denied permits in the Baltic Sea at the end of 2024 for defence reasons. In Denmark, relatively sudden OWE subsidy withdrawals, tightened sustainability requirements and a 20% state ownership mandate raised costs and discouraged investment.

Such abrupt changes not only create insecurity for wind developers but also reinforce perceptions of an unstable policy landscape and unreliable dialogue. In these uncertain conditions, each sector feels compelled to protect its position, eroding trust and narrowing the space for constructive coexistence.

Image: Paul Einerhand / Unsplash

Limitations of marine spatial planning frameworks

Marine and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and other planning frameworks are increasingly applied in the Nordic Region to allocate marine space to offshore wind while minimising conflicts with fisheries and environmental objectives. These frameworks integrate ecological, economic and social data and aim to support stakeholder collaboration. Our case studies indicate that spatial allocation frameworks are still maturing, creating practical and relational challenges for offshore wind developers and fisheries, with stakeholders often uncertain about space allocation and coexistence under these frameworks. Drawing on Nordic experiences, these limitations include:

Lack of clarity and engagement in early planning phases

Early planning phases often lack clarity and consistent stakeholder engagement. For example, fisheries in Sweden and Finland report uncertainty about their role and the purpose of early MSP processes, while offshore wind developers in Denmark report feeling excluded from the Danish maritime spatial plan.

Variable legal influence of marine and maritime spatial plans

The influence of marine and maritime spatial plans varies across countries. In Finland and Sweden, plans are advisory, with permitting and sectoral legislation taking precedence. Early planning phases that are uncoordinated with legally binding processes create confusion, as the MSP process is frequently decoupled from permitting, complicating participation. In Denmark, the plan is legally binding but does not formally allocate space for fisheries, leaving them “everywhere and nowhere”, according to Danish fishers. Across all case studies, stakeholders consistently report that unclear planning mandates make it difficult to coordinate expectations, build trust and have confidence in spatial coexistence.

Data gaps and incompatibility

Missing or incompatible data weaken integrated decision-making and leave lasting trust deficits between stakeholders. Gaps in data on fishing routes, late-phase assessments and stakeholder exclusions complicate dialogue and foster scepticism about planning intentions. These gaps create ongoing uncertainty and caution across both sectors.

Interpretation of spatial allocations and planning outputs

Stakeholders often struggle to interpret MSP frameworks and spatial allocations. For example, Norway’s designation of 20 new areas may appear overwhelming for fisheries, even though only a few are expected to be developed. Large offshore wind zones are frequently communicated without full details on turbines, subsea cables, ports or exclusion zones, leaving stakeholders uncertain about practical access and cautious about coexistence.

Limited impact assessments

Cumulative impact assessments remain constrained. National plans are developed under tight timelines, while Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Strategic Impact Assessments (SIAs) are often generalised, perceived as non-transparent and difficult to understand. These limitations contribute to unease regarding the implications of offshore wind expansion for fisheries.

Knut Troim / Unsplash

Fragmented and misaligned permitting

Case studies and interaction with key stakeholders reveal several challenges to collaboration between offshore wind developers and fisheries arising from fragmented and misaligned permitting processes. Unlike MSP, which seeks holistic, basin-level coordination, permitting processes for offshore wind are project-specific, legally oriented and sequential, creating barriers to collaboration and, in some cases, conflict between sectors. This misalignment between MSP frameworks and permitting systems contributes to confusion and mistrust among stakeholders.

Fragmented legal frameworks and procedural mismatch

Permitting systems often have their foundation in long-standing sectoral legislation, making them robust but rigid. The EU MSP Directive of 2014 is newer, more flexible and integration oriented. This temporal and procedural mismatch results in parallel processes with differing priorities and timelines, complicating collaboration between offshore wind developers and fisheries.

Complex and overlapping permitting procedures

Permitting procedures across the Nordic Region are widely perceived as lengthy, complex and fragmented. They involve overlapping jurisdictions, multiple licences and sector-specific consultations. Developers are responsible for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), stakeholder engagement and data collection, while authorities retain oversight. This approach creates uncertainty for fishers, who are often consulted only after key decisions – such as site selection – have been made.

Inconsistent consultation formats

The absence of continuous, structured dialogue across all phases, from pre-permitting to decommissioning, undermines trust and collaboration. Consultation formats vary considerably: Sweden relies on one-off written submissions, while Finland employs a more iterative approach. However, these formats are often misaligned with broader MSP processes, limiting meaningful engagement and the building of trust.

Project-based approvals and cumulative impact blind spots

A key challenge is the project-based permitting of offshore wind developments, which are approved individually, with limited integration into broader MSP frameworks. Fishers face uncertainty about the cumulative impacts of multiple projects, reducing their willingness to collaborate with developers.

Data gaps and technical uncertainties

Critical fishery data are often insufficient in pre-construction assessments, and long-term monitoring of offshore wind impacts on fish stocks is rarely mandated. Technical, operational and liability risks, such as cable conflicts, safety zones and collision hazards, are often poorly defined, heightening distrust. Confidentiality requirements and company-level control over sensitive data further reduce transparency, in contrast to MSP processes.

Regulatory rigidity across all development phases

During the pre-permitting phase, fragmented consultations and uncertainty over applicable frameworks create initial hesitation. In the permitting phase, project-specific approvals and developer-led Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) generate administrative and relational burdens. During construction and operation, unresolved technical and liability risks hinder collaboration. Even decommissioning is affected by unclear monitoring and mitigation strategies.

Delayed economic and social considerations

Considerations of economic and social impacts are often sidelined until late in the permitting process, often due to requirements only covering the environmental impacts of single projects. Compensation schemes are frequently unclear or introduced too late to support meaningful engagement, undermining fishers’ willingness to cooperate. Developers often need to redo EIAs due to evolving requirements, creating inefficiencies and increasing the potential for conflict.