Starting points for Nordic dialogues on offshore wind energy and fisheries coexistence

Images: Marine Scotland wind farm image; Fishing boats UHI Shetland

No single Nordic country has all the solutions for balancing offshore wind and fisheries. Each is testing complementary approaches, such as early consultation, structured dialogue, broad impact assessments and coordinated permitting, reflecting different governance priorities. Nordic collaboration is particularly valuable because developments share sea basins and ecosystems, and the region benefits from strong democratic traditions, high public trust, established stakeholder engagement and robust environmental monitoring.

Main recommendation: a Nordic structured dialogue platform

The analysis in this brief points to the need for a Nordic-level structured dialogue platform as a foundation for cross-border cooperation, potentially building on existing networks and governance actors. Given the differing approaches across the region, such a platform would help navigate sectoral tensions, align governance practices and foster mutual learning. Developing a structured dialogue across the Nordic Region would further facilitate knowledge exchange, enable learning from different approaches and potentially inspire countries to build on one another’s experiences. The core purpose would be to identify shared challenges, exchange practical lessons and jointly develop tools and frameworks that strengthen constructive coexistence.

Themes and guiding questions for dialogue

As a foundation for a Nordic dialogue platform, and drawing on the lessons outlined in this brief, we recommend that the platform address the following four interlinked themes, each illustrated here with guiding questions.

1. Building structured dialogue

Is there a need for national or regional sector-to-sector collaborative platforms between actors such as offshore wind and fisheries, and if so, under what circumstances could they be introduced?
How might dialogue processes contribute to marine and maritime spatial planning, impact assessments and permitting decisions, if at all?
Which institutions could play a role in hosting and sustaining meaningful dialogue and what authority, legitimacy and resources would they require?
How could sector representatives be identified and supported to participate constructively, where appropriate?

2. Strengthening participation in planning

Under what circumstances might facilitators or coordinators help ensure effective and inclusive stakeholder participation, and which approaches best support meaningful, open and in-depth dialogues?
In centrally managed MSP planning systems, could the Finnish model of regional coordinators offer useful lessons and how might it be adapted?
What measures could help smaller organisations access the resources and guidance needed to participate meaningfully, where appropriate?
How could transparency be improved, for example through public portals on planning status, permitting and data, and in which contexts would this be most beneficial?

3. Improving knowledge and assessment

Under what circumstances can environmental and socio-economic assessments better be synchronised within marine spatial planning and permitting and what effective approaches or standards could improve coherence or reduce duplication in these processes?
What common standards, data protocols or cumulative impact methods are most suitable for evaluating social, economic, cultural and ecologic consequences and when should their integration be prioritised?
In what ways could early stakeholder engagement, in combination with ex-ante or early impact assessments, influence the development of scenarios and planning outcomes, and in which contexts would these interventions provide the greatest benefit?

4. Creating institutional pathways

Under what circumstances might a single authority consolidate permitting, assessments and stakeholder input, and how could this affect delays or conflicts?
How could a phased approach to planning, risk reduction and auctioning influence the balance between investment certainty and ecological or social objectives, and when might it be appropriate?
In what ways could governments pre-invest in environmental, technical and grid data, and how might this affect project risk and regulatory certainty?