Trade-offs
Oceans and their resources are used by multiple actors with diverse and often competing interests and objectives. As marine resources are finite, compromises or sacrifices are necessary. Oceans are classical examples of common-pool resources, which, if not properly governed, are susceptible to overexploitation as users seek to maximise their material well-being while neglecting the implications of their decisions on others, such as by failing to cooperate. Accordingly, trade-offs are necessary and are often unavoidable to balance gains and losses in decisions aimed at improving economic, social and environmental outcomes. They differ from synergies, which occur when enhancing one desirable outcome also benefits another (“win-win”). Trade-offs are particularly relevant in the MSP context, as they require careful consideration to achieve sustainable and equitable outcomes. Balancing competing interests while minimising negative impacts on ecosystems and communities is inherently complex and almost always involves trade-offs – to some degree – across various spatial and temporal scales.
Conflicts and synergies
While spatial conflicts are prominent in MSP literature, it is important to recognise that conflicts also involve complex interactions between actors, shaped by underlying interests, agendas and values. Synergies, often viewed as the absence of conflict, aim to generate benefits for various users and the environment, but are equally complex, depending on the mix of uses and their spatial, technological, economic, social, regulatory and political contexts. Focusing solely on spatial conflicts will therefore not lead to sustainable coexistence, as even primarily spatial issues often have deeper root causes. Understanding these dynamics ultimately requires understanding people – their interests, values and interactions.
The most prominent conflicts reported in the literature concern space, particularly between offshore wind and fisheries (particularly commercial fisheries) competing for the same marine areas. Synergies are less commonly reported in the literature but are primarily observed between offshore wind and aquaculture – such as through shared infrastructure – and, to some extent, with the marine ecosystem, for example through habitat creation. Interests in shared marine spaces can manifest as either conflicts or synergies, depending on their impacts and interactions. Conflicts may evolve into synergies through compromise, innovation or changing conditions. For instance, societal values, offshore infrastructure developments and environmental impacts have shifted over time, as has our understanding of combined effects such as artificial reef creation, impacts on fish stocks and pollution. Gee & Mikkelsen note that the key question is whether a conflict reflects a truly unsharable resource, implying a “win-lose” scenario or whether it can be transformed into a “win-win” situation, regarded as a synergy, or if management through certain trade-offs is necessary.
Addressing these dynamics requires analysis of the various actors involved and the drivers behind their actions – or inaction. These complexities challenge governance frameworks, including MSP, to adapt both to external pressures, such as climate change, and to internal shifts, such as the emergence of new actors in permitting processes. For the Nordic countries, sustainable coexistence in MSP presents an opportunity to balance competing interests, while promoting sustainable development and protecting marine ecosystems by addressing conflicts and fostering synergies.
Additional key trends
The scientific literature reveals a number of additional trends in interactions between offshore renewable energy (primarily wind) and the marine food sectors. These trends, summarised below, further complicate how trade-offs, conflicts and synergies are addressed in in MSP settings. An extensive review of the key academic literature is found in Annex I.
The ocean is a three-dimensional, variable and intertemporal space: Interactions and overlaps between activities vary in terms of fixed versus mobile structures, seasonality, time and ecological impacts across the water column, seabed and surface. Conflicts can arise within any of these dimensions, and potential trade-offs and synergies extend beyond the visible ocean surface, creating both barriers and opportunities.
Emerging and traditional sectors meet in MSP: Emerging sectors, such as offshore wind and aquaculture, increasingly claim marine areas traditionally used by fisheries. For example, the fisheries sector often needs to adapt, potentially losing access to resources or market value, which can lead to conflict. These dynamics places pressure on governance systems to become more adaptive.
MSP processes often prioritise economic and political objectives: Particularly in Europe, MSP processes tend to emphasise economic and political objectives, driven in part by pressure to expand renewable energy. This prioritisation tends to disadvantage less powerful stakeholders, such as small-scale fisheries.
Growing awareness of knowledge gaps regarding cumulative pressures on marine environments and their ecosystem services: From an ecological perspective, the combined impact of multiple activities within a defined space remains largely under-assessed. Offshore wind farms, for instance, can have both positive and negative effects, and methodologies to evaluate these impacts are still under development.
Insufficient and unequal stakeholder engagement in current MSP processes. Especially in the European context, MSP has often been implemented through a top-down approach, rather than by encouraging democratic planning through active, bottom-up stakeholder engagement and dialogue.