5. Reflections and key learnings

Grounded in the submitted cases, workshop discussions and findings from previous work in this project, this section presents reflections and key learnings aimed at supporting more just and equitable approaches to integrating ILK into increasingly digital MSP processes.

These learnings are organised across three sections:

5.1 From output-focused to process-oriented planning

Approach, frame and institutionalise MSP as a continuous, purpose-driven process for long-term change

Historically, MSP emerged as a tool to allocate marine space, mediate competing claims and establish plans for defined areas (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). These plans have often been of a fixed nature, reflecting a focus on clearly delineated space and immediate conflicts. However, marine environments are dynamic, shaped by changing ecological conditions, land–sea interactions, and growing pressures from climate change and human activities. These dynamics highlight the limitations of static planning approaches and stress the need for MSP processes to be more adaptable to changing conditions and to better incorporate evolving knowledge over time.

MSP should therefore be positioned as a continuous, purpose-driven process that shifts the focus from outputs to long-term goals and adaptive learning, creating more space for participation and knowledge integration — elements that short-term approaches cannot sustain. Such framing provides a foundation for the integration of Indigenous and local communities, diverse forms of knowledge and data, and cross-scale collaboration, all of which require ongoing commitment rather than episodic engagement.

Institutionalising process-oriented approaches can further ensure that plans, strategies and policies are more consistent, traceable and revisable over time, enhancing transparency and enabling more grounded and informed decisions. Where process-oriented and inclusive planning has been better linked to legal frameworks, initiatives have also demonstrated higher stability and legitimacy, enabling a transition from short-term, project-based actions to sustained impact.

Embed structures for continuous, inclusive and iterative local engagement

Indigenous and local communities often perceive consultations as tokenistic and disconnected from decision-making, which erodes trust and creates barriers to participation, as observed in several of the cases presented. This problem stems partly from poorly timed consultation, with engagement occurring either too early before stakeholders have sufficient context, or too late, when plans feel predetermined.

Embedding structures for continuous, inclusive and iterative engagement can address these concerns by providing more predictable and transparent channels for input throughout the planning process. These structures should enable regular revision, feedback and adaptation based on monitoring results and local input, accounting for changing local dynamics. As communities evolve, allowing Indigenous and local communities to revise plans or retract input ensures that outcomes better reflect collective knowledge and values over time. One such mechanism could be the establishment of structured consultation "stepping stones" within MSP processes, where agreements and disagreements are systematically recorded, revisited and built upon, strengthening relationships between planning bodies and communities over time.

Digital tools can play a key role by making engagement more efficient, transparent and accountable. Online platforms and interactive maps allow stakeholders to track how input is incorporated, visualise outcomes, co-design plans and explore alternative scenarios. Combining digital formats with physical meetings ensures that engagement remains inclusive, accommodating participants with limited digital access or varying levels of process literacy.

5.2 Strengthening institutional capacity

Enhance capacity and awareness among authorities on how digital methods and various data affect planning

Conducting MSP in the current digital context places greater responsibility on authorities and planners. Adopting a “planning follows purpose” approach, where the design of planning processes and the selection of digital tools are guided by clearly defined goals, requires planners to develop greater awareness of how digital methods and different data influence planning outcomes. Without capacity-building, authorities risk relying on technical data and formal processes, while local actors may struggle to contribute due to a lack of resources or technical competencies, reinforcing existing inequalities.

National and regional bodies, municipalities and elected officials would benefit from strengthening organisational skills in facilitation, negotiation, coalition-building, participatory design and reflexive thinking alongside the use of digital tools. These capabilities enable planners to better interpret and integrate diverse knowledge systems, analyse complex data types, mediate between stakeholders and ensure that planning decisions respond to local needs, emerging evidence and legal obligations. Digital tools can support authorities and local actors alike by automating routine tasks and freeing up time for focused thinking and engagement. They enable efficient analysis, visualisation and collaboration in the development of planning proposals, while improving transparency and accountability throughout the planning process. However, realising these benefits requires deliberate investment in skills and institutional capacity at all levels.

Local actors, such as interest groups or fishing organisations, may need complementary skills, including communicating ILK and improving process literacy to engage with authorities. Where resource gaps exist, authorities could provide shared platforms, technical guidance or training opportunities to reduce disparities in participation and ensure that local voices influence planning processes and outcomes.

Establish clear institutional guidance and roles

Integrating ILK into MSP effectively requires clear institutional roles and practical guidance to strengthen accountability and minimise the risk of misinterpreting or misrepresenting ILK. This includes specifying who is responsible for engaging with communities, validating data and integrating local input into decision-making across all stages of the planning process.

While some elements already exist within current planning processes, roles and responsibilities require clearer definition. Importantly, authorities should assess and build foundational awareness of ILK, its role and its potential to inform the MSP process before embarking on implementation, rather than treating it as an afterthought. Clarity regarding institutional roles should also extend to communication, ensuring that authorities are transparent about how decisions are made and why at each stage of the process, from initial concepts through to final outcomes.

Planning authorities would therefore benefit from developing institutional guidance that delineates responsibilities across all stages of handling ILK, including its collection, management, application and interpretation. All proposals, discussions and decisions should be thoroughly documented and explicitly linked to planning outcomes to ensure transparency and traceability. Digital tools can streamline this documentation and enhance information accessibility, though their use should not impose an excessive administrative burden on stakeholders.

Strengthen collaboration through shared learning and open digital infrastructure

Integrating ILK alongside scientific data will ensure that MSP better reflects local contexts. Achieving this, however, requires not only individual effort but also collaboration across the region. Sharing lessons and methods could enable continuous improvement and adaptation of approaches, and North Atlantic countries would further benefit from jointly developing both institutional and technical foundations for such collaboration.

In particular, peer learning between regions and communities with shared characteristics, such as coastal and island communities in the Shetland Islands, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, could be more meaningful than national-level comparisons. Small or island communities face similar challenges, and learning at this scale could better support adaptation to specific local conditions and strengthen connections between communities with shared experiences. Such initiatives could include dialogue forums and workshops aimed at exchanging knowledge on the practical use of participatory tools such as PPGIS in MSP processes; sharing examples of how to integrate assessments of economic, social, environmental and cultural values; exchanging experiences on institutional requirements for continuous monitoring, transparent reporting and iterative plan adaptation; and sharing practical examples of how to communicate the purpose and value of engagement, including why local actors are involved, the benefits they bring and how their input informs MSP outcomes.

Complementing this type of peer learning, North Atlantic countries would benefit from collaborating on the development of shared, cross-border digital infrastructure, such as open-source, modular and continuously updated spatial data platforms that support transparent and inclusive decision-making. Building upon existing initiatives like the Nordic Spatial project, a regional data hub could serve as a repository for harmonised and locally sourced data, accessible to municipalities, regional authorities, national governments, community groups and other actors such as NGOs and universities across multiple governance levels.

5.3 Identifying local actors while embracing change and continuity

Balance local and national interests through multi-level dialogue to support MSP decentralisation

Planning occurs on different scales throughout the North Atlantic region, with approaches ranging from planning that encompasses all national marine areas, as in Denmark, to fjord-specific planning in Iceland. MSP operates across multiple governance levels, with national objectives often interpreted and implemented at the local scale. Decentralising certain MSP responsibilities where appropriate could allow planning processes to tap into the expertise of those closest to the local environment, enabling a more effective response to the specific social, cultural, economic and ecological dimensions relevant at each scale. Recognising the value of established local groups, such as environmental boards, community associations and municipalities, grounds planning in existing structures and facilitates the integration of local perspectives, including ILK, into higher-level frameworks.

Decentralisation alone is insufficient without structured and continuous dialogue between local, regional and national planning levels to ensure coordination, align priorities and integrate ILK into broader MSP objectives. Strengthening multi-level dialogue supports the localisation of national objectives while enabling national authorities to better understand local priorities and needs. Institutionalising these dialogues through recurring forums, cross-scale advisory groups or shared digital collaboration platforms could make planning processes more coherent, transparent and adaptive. Digital tools can further support these processes by connecting fragmented dialogues, reducing duplication of stakeholder input and enhancing transparency and accessibility across governance scales.

Identify and understand evolving local environments and communities

Knowing "who we are planning for" requires identifying and understanding who constitutes the local community, including both residents and relevant user groups, and how this composition changes over time. Understanding evolving local environments requires continuous and context-specific analyses within MSP that examine economic, social, environmental and cultural dynamics. This includes identifying community actors and their roles, as well as recognising both use values (such as fisheries and aquaculture) and non-use values (such as ecosystem services). MSP processes need to recognise such knowledge as evidence alongside scientific data, ensuring that diverse values are accounted for.

Continuous and participatory assessments that capture all these aspects are important, ideally beginning with early assessments and updated regularly to reflect temporal and spatial changes while remaining responsive to evolving communities, shifting baselines and emerging environmental pressures. Developing and applying context-specific indicators to identify Indigenous and local communities and monitor change over time can support this process. Institutionalising adaptive MSP through regular monitoring, transparent reporting and iterative adaptation of plans can further ensure transparency about weaknesses and gaps in available data, and improve processes for updating information as technology, knowledge and stakeholder input evolve. Clearly communicating the purpose, format and benefits of engagement helps avoid participation fatigue while fostering trust as the foundation of effective governance.

This approach enables planning to be situated within a more forward-looking framework that accounts for shifting baselines driven by demographic, economic and environmental changes, supporting the development of future-driven scenarios for proactive, long-term decision-making that can ensure liveable and resilient coastal communities.