New

lyn

© J

iri R

ezac

/ W

WF

UK

Celtic Seas Partnership is an EC Life+ project with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It is a four year project, running from January 2013 to March 2017. WWF-UK is the lead with partners the University of Liverpool, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, the Natural Environment Research Council and SeaWeb Europe. Project number: LIFE11/ENV/UK/392.

Workshop Report: Tying the Celtic Knot

18-19 October 2016Croke Park - Dublin

ContentsIntroduction 2

Future Trends 5

Voices from the Project 8

Project Showcase 10

Celtic Seas Declaration 11

Panel Session 13

Workshop evaluation 16

Appendices:

1. Delegates registered 18

2. Notes from declaration session 20

3. Full evaluation 27

01

IntroductionThe Celtic Seas Partnership is an international project that is part funded by LIFE+, the EU’s funding instrument for the environment. The Project aims to draw people together from across the Celtic Seas to set up collaborative and innovative approaches to managing their marine environment. We want to put the people that use the sea at the heart of management and offer them the opportunity to influence how their marine environment will be managed in the years to come.

In October 2016 we held our third and final multi-national workshop at Croke Park in Dublin. The workshop was a great success thanks to the enthusiasm and engagement shown by delegates for the workshop sessions. Some of the most commonly used words to describe the workshop from participants were “networking”, “informative” “engaging” and “collaborative”.

Images (top to bottom) Croke Park © WWF UKMSFD Celtic Seas boundary © WWF UKMale Cuckoo Wrasse © Linda Pitkin / 2020VISION / Naturepl.com

02

This report documents the outputs of the workshop as they were written on the day and has been approved by delegates.

What happened at the workshop?To cater for a range of interests and preferred working styles the workshop was designed with a mixture of short presentations, group working, plenary discussions and plenty of opportunity for networking. We also provided time for time for participants to explore some of the project’s products in more detail.

We were warmly welcomed by our workshop chair - Jim Conway, Director, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly. On the first afternoon we heard from the Celtic Seas Partnership Project Manager Jenny Oates about project achievements and explored the findings of the Future Trends work. The day finished with an exhibition of projects from the Celtic Seas, where participants in the conference were able to display their own work areas and explain how others could become involved or contribute to that work. Plenty of time was allowed for participants to discuss potential future collaborations and network whilst food and wine were served. During the exhibition Trevor Hutchings, Director of UK/EU Advocacy from WWF-UK gave a short talk about the potential challenges and opportunities created by the UK’s vote to leave the European Union.

We began the second day by getting delegates to feedback some of their experiences of engaging with the project and more widely with marine policy. Everyone was then invited to explore the various project products and discuss or ask questions with project staff. After lunch participants discussed whether they would like to continue working together once the Celtic Seas Partnership has finished and considered possible ways of doing so. To end the workshop we held a panel session where four experts were asked questions written by delegates.

Workshop objectivesBy the end of the workshop we wanted delegates to have:

• Explored opportunities to collaborate on projects across boundaries and sectors

• Reviewed a series of future scenarios and discuss what they mean for the management of the Celtic Seas

• Shaped a preferred mechanism for continuing to work across boundaries and sectors at the Celtic Seas scale

• Showcased their own initiatives and invited others to collaborate

• Reflected on the collective outputs and achievements of Celtic Seas Partnership, and found ways to sustain them

Workshop delegatesWe had 100 delegates at the workshop representing a wide range of sectors across the Celtic Seas. Delegates came from governments, statutory agencies, non-government organisations, science and research and industry. It was noted that industry representation was not as high as it could/should have been. The barriers to them attending should be investigated if the workshops are to continue once the project has finished. (The full list of delegates is available in Appendix 1.)

03

04

Newl

yn ©

Jiri R

ezac

/ WW

F UK

“Great opportunity to put faces to names and make

new connections with other stakeholders”

Newl

yn ©

Jiri R

ezac

/ WW

F UK

Observations from the game:• It took a while to get going, some

teams a bit overly strategic and procrastinated

• There was a bit of spying going on which in some cases raised standards and in others allowed free riding (if they thought other tables were doing the work for them)

• Multiple accounts of cheating, stealing and bribery

• Complaining about scarce resources

• Some countries wouldn’t trade at all• Initial focus on easy sectors• Very little sharing (as opposed to

trading)• Some people got sacked (a cutter)• Countries that divided up roles did

best• Not knowing where to start• Some people naturally go out to

investigate what others are doing• People complaining about the

government bureaucracy

Day one - Future TrendsTo set the tone and spirit of participation and engagement for the rest of the workshop we invited delegates to play our Future Trends game. The game helped us introduce our future trends materials (website, findings, reports) and highlighted the challenges of cross-sector, cross-border working into the future.

This session focused on our Future Trends report which looks at future growth in the Celtic Seas. We looked at the current location and trends of 10 maritime sectors and projected what the Celtic Seas might look like in twenty years’ time. We combined this information with people’s descriptions of what they would like to see, to create three different futures (called scenarios).

We compared what would happen if we continue with ‘Business as Usual’ to two alternative futures which came out of discussions with stakeholders at our workshops about what they would like to happen in the future. Both of these represented different types of Blue Growth, but there were common themes across all three possible scenarios: • that the seas are getting busier, which will lead to more competition for space and more potential for conflict• whatever approach we take, there are winners and losers• there are opportunities for sectors to work together to achieve mutual benefit and above all we need to work across

boundaries and sectors to make the most of what we have.

05

To highlight the challenges of working together, the session began with a game designed by the Celtic Seas Partnership.

There were 14 tables around the room and each was assigned a Celtic Seas country (England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Wales). The countries were asked to compete against each other to make paper shapes (circles, triangles, rectangles, etc.) which represented maritime sectors. Each shape was worth a different number of points. The objective was to make as many points as possible. The time was divided into 3 rounds and after each round the facilitator changed the rules slightly. The way in which participants interacted was used as the basis for discussing how our established ways of working are a barrier to cross-border collaboration.

Discussion: Each table had someone observing their group strategy and at the beginning of the discussion we asked those observers to share their thoughts.“It was a brilliant exercise. It was very effective when the announcements were made because it implied what happens in real life when the goal posts change.”

“My group had a discussion early on about how to allocate the resources. I was initially on a different table, so I had inside information on what resources the other table had (including a compass!). We have to be aware what resources are out there and available so we can make decisions.” “There was a real sense of competition. My table coveted our good ideas, didn’t share them.”“We realised very quickly that there were other England tables that we could work with. Initially we started out slow on my table, but we relaxed a bit when we knew other England tables were doing well.”

“Our table worked and collaborated together however we needed a project manager to ensure no duplication of effort and better delegation”“My table was very focussed. We didn’t speak to anybody. We all have our heads down concentrating on what we’re doing and working towards a goal, but not looking at what other countries are doing. It’s a luxury to consult – it takes time. We sent someone from our table on a mission to get something, but that’s the only contact we had.”

06

“The Good Environmental Status announcement was a real game changer [teams were penalised if they had not produced enough nature conservation shapes]. When the announcement came we had already traded our compass! We had done too little too late. We couldn’t meet the criteria.”

“We had already committed all our resources to other activities, so it was too late to make circles, which reflects real life.”“I was on the Isle of Man table (who had -2 points!) and we had all the resources we needed, but we didn’t work as a team, one person was doing all the work, and we didn’t work with other tables.”

“Our strategy was to make our shapes all in one big batch and then go to the regulators to get them approved in one go. This didn’t work out for us and was a problem. We could’ve got the shapes approved as we went along, but instead we were too late and didn’t get some of our shapes approved because the time was up. This is like real life. Some shapes were not approved, but we only found out close to the end of the game so it was too late to change them and re-submit.”

“My table had a strategy initially – to make the shapes that had the highest return on investment. We looked at which shapes would get us the most points, and only made those ones. But then we gave up on this and decided that this was too time consuming, so we started to make the shapes that were the quickest to make. This is reflective of real life – going for the ‘quick wins’.”

“This exercise highlighted that you need to collaborate together, but having the time to collaborate and talk, often not the priority, in 20-25 years will be even more essential talk to each other and manage the marine environment in a collaborative way.”

Future Trends websiteAt the end of the session Penny Wilson gave delegates a tour of the new Future Trends website, pointing out the breadth of information and the interactive features of the site.

07

Hand

lining

© Ji

ri Rez

ac / W

WF

UK

“The project has provided a link into work going on across the

region, normally outside scope of my day to day work”

08

Day two - Voices from the ProjectThe purpose of the session was to hear stakeholder experiences of engaging with marine management and the Celtic Seas Partnership and encourage dialogue between stakeholders. Participants were asked to respond to the statements below by standing on a scale of 1 – 10. Where 1 meant they strongly disagreed with the statement and 10 meant they strongly agreed. Participants were invited to discuss with those around them, why they had chosen to place themselves in that position on the spectrum. Some participants then shared their reasoning with the wider group in plenary.

Responses

“I have a responsibility to engage with developing marine policy”

Number on spectrum

Response

5 It is only useful to engage when it’s relevant, some consultations are not relevant. Busy so need to prioritise the consultations.

6 I have no responsibility for developing policy but I do have a responsibility for influencing policy. (They collect data to influence policy)

8 Fishing/aquaculture background – it’s really important for organisations with limited resources to prioritise. Industry can influence and inform policy but not enough time to engage with all policy.

10 - Government background - policy needs community involvement. Balance of top down and bottom up.- Sea angler – feel like a guardian for marine environment –sport depends on good environment so responsible to get thoroughly involved in developing policy. Interesting that lots of sectors put themselves as 10, not just government. Sea angling pushed aside by commercialism but offers economic value and needs to be recognised by government.

“My engagement with the Celtic Seas Partnership has led to unexpected outcomes”Wide spread of people, but mostly people placed themselves at 5

Number on spectrum

Response

1 First experience, not as familiar with the project2/3 WWF representative - very familiar with project - so it feels like day to day work (nothing unexpected)5 - Given a voice and opened eyes to how can its possible to engage with marine policy. Have to

consider land and marine together – need to integrate management.- Networking with people you wouldn’t normally work with. Lots of different outputs and the project has been useful for informing policy

7/8 Transference of some CSP deliverables/learnings into the SIMCelt project9 Started with country workshop engagement with a low expectation. Surprised by how the engagement

from workshops has led to projects such as Fishing4data that will have a life beyond the end of the project

10 Only heard of the project July 2015 but have had lots of unexpected conversations.

09

A - “The current mechanisms for cross-border stakeholder engagement are effective”B - “The current mechanisms for cross-sector stakeholder engagement are effective” Participants were asked to answer A and then B and then also to discuss why they moved - Not much movement between the two sides of the statement

Number on spectrum

Response

1 At Celtic Seas level mechanisms are not good but at a country level they are effective2 - There are mechanisms for cross-sector in place but is it actually effective? Some sectors hold back

for final outcomes, reactionary, come in at the end which isn’t helpful.- Not aware of cross-border mechanism, only something for officials. There are networks but people moving jobs etc. makes it difficult to keep networks in place. A definite need to have a mechanism. Celtic Seas Partnership has given people the opportunity to network and engage.

3 - IFCA – no mechanisms in place and there is a real need for it. Celtic Seas Partnership was a great idea. It’s possible to make your own connections for stakeholder engagement but there are so many stakeholders it’s difficult to manage? We are all stakeholders of the marine environment as we all depend on it. Engagement needs to be more formalised to work.- MMO – have a good relationship with Solway Firth, they are trying to improve the relationship with Welsh bodies. Always trying to make improvements. Workshops only work well if all stakeholders (from different sectors) engage.

5 - There are lots of mechanisms for cross-sector engagement, but how do you measure effectiveness, does presence count or is it achievements? - Fishing industry - Capacity and resource is a problem and can restrict engagement. Cross-sector – are you being heard and being taken to account or being heard but not listened to?- French Stakeholder - cross-sector plan agreed by all sectors and has been successful- Lots of top down (for government) cross-border opportunities but cross-sector/cross-border is much more difficult. Lots of stakeholder groups but they are at a national level.- Cross-sectoral mechanisms at local and regional level – coastal partnerships. Resources to keep them going aren’t there, so we are not making the most of what is in place.- Policy calls for cross-border/cross-sector engagement. At high level is working but not sure if it trickles down. Used Interreg to finance in Northern Ireland- Don’t like the term mechanism, it can be exclusive instead of inclusive. Informal engagement underpins everything.

Project showcaseDelegates were given the opportunity to explore the final outputs of the work of the Celtic Seas Partnership, including:

Future Trends in the Celtic SeasPenny Wilson from WWF-UK represented the work of the Future Trends study. Delegates were given a chance to explore and the Future Trends microsite to see what the future holds for the Celtic Seas under different scenarios. To access the Future Trends microsite go to: http://futuretrends.celticseaspartnership.eu/ For more information, please contact Penny on: PWilson@wwf.org.uk

Best Practice GuidelinesLaure Lamour from SeaWeb Europe represented the Best Practice Guidelines. The Celtic Seas Partnership has produced guidelines on:- Transboundary marine governance - Co-location of marine renewables - Conflict resolutionThe guidelines contain case studies and recommendations for managing the marine environment. The three best practice guidelines can be accessed on our website. For more information, or to request a hard copy of one or more of the Best Practice Guidelines, please contact: csp@wwf.org.uk

Fisheries mediation in ScotlandSam Tedcastle from WWF-UK presented her experiences from the fisheries mediation process in Scotland.If you would like further information, or have any questions, please contact Sam on: STedcastle@wwfscotland.org.uk

Task Groups Initiatives Jenny Oates from WWF-UK represented the work that the Celtic Seas Partnership has been doing on the Task Group Initiatives, including on biological diversity, non-indigenous species, marine litter, food webs and noise. For more information visit our website or contact: csp@wwf.org.uk

Stakeholder engagement lessons and experiences Sarah Young from WWF-UK presented the lessons and experiences from the Celtic Sea Partnership’s stakeholder engagement. For more information please contact Sarah on: SYoung@wwf.org.uk

Nature’s Services and the Sea / Recommendations on Transboundary Working Groups / Marine Proofing for Good Environmental Status of the Sea: Good Practice Guidelines for Local Planning AuthoritiesSue Kidd and Hannah Jones from University of Liverpool represented three pieces of work: - Nature’s Services and the Sea - Recommendations on Transboundary Working Groups - Marine Proofing for Good Environmental Status of the Sea: Good Practice Guidelines for Local Planning Authorities. For more information or to request a copy of any of these reports, please contact Sue on: suekidd@liverpool.ac.uk

Turbines © iStock

10

11

Strategic Management Framework for Dublin Bay and the Dublin Bay Dashboard Travis O’Doherty from Eastern & Midland Regional Assembly represented the Strategic Management Framework for Dublin Bay and the Dublin Bay Dashboard. For more information, or to request a copy of the Strategic Management Framework, please contact Travis on: todoherty@emra.ie

Celtic Seas Web Portal & Discovering Data and Information in the Celtic SeasGaynor Evans and Chris Wood from the British Oceanographic Data Centre presented the Celtic Seas Web Portal and a report called Discovering Data and Information in the Celtic Seas. For more information, or to request a copy of Discovering Data and Information, please contact Gaynor on: gaev@bodc.ac.uk

Celtic Seas DeclarationAs the Celtic Seas Partnership project is drawing to an end we wanted to find out from stakeholders whether they would like to see the multi-national, face-to-face element of the project continue in some form. We asked delegates in Dublin whether they had found the multi-national workshops useful, if they would like them to continue, and if yes, in what form and by who? The majority of delegates agreed that they had found them useful and would like to see them continue.

There was a range of ideas about the form that they could take and who would be best to take them forward (see the full write up from the session in Appendix 2). As most delegates agreed that they would like to see things continue in some form we have produced a statement of support (formerly termed as the declaration) that we are asking our stakeholders to sign-up to.

The aim of the statement of support is to have something that demonstrates stakeholders’ commitment to further engaging at a Celtic Seas scale that can be used as a tool to influence relevant organisations to provide the support to make it happen. The statement is as follows:

“The Celtic Seas Partnership has given me the opportunity to build important relationships across borders and with different sectors, and to collaborate on worthwhile projects. The workshops have provided a neutral place to have open conversations and problem solve for issues facing the Celtic Seas. I would like to see the workshops continue and commit to being an engaged stakeholder.”

For more information about signing up visit our website

Some of the key points from the session on the declaration at our workshop in Dublin:• It should continue as a government/industry funded annual workshop/forum with e-communication in between• It was noted that it would be difficult/unlikely to receive government funding at this time• It has to have a real need or reason for the event and it should expand its scope to include wider issues as

appropriate e.g Marine Spatial Planning etc. • It could have a rotational leadership – joint ownership – bring wider stakeholder involvement• It needs to be more than a talking shop – need to engage those affected by decisions too• There is formal intergovernmental interaction but they are top down structures and are coordinated/promoted by

government.• Ownership should be at a higher level – stakeholder advisory body at e.g. OSPAR• There would need to be legal or regulatory requirement to do engagement. Where is the impetus for this?• There is a need to learn from other fora e.g. North Sea, Baltic Sea

“The Celtic Seas Partnership has given me the opportunity to build important relationships across borders and with different sectors, and to collaborate on worthwhile projects. The workshops have provided a neutral place to have open conversations and problem solve for issues facing the Celtic Seas. I would like to see the workshops continue and commit to being an engaged stakeholder.”

12

StIve

s © Ji

ri Rez

ac / W

WF

UK

Panel session Our panel session was chaired by Jim Conway, Director at the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly.

Panel members:Dr Gemma Harper - Deputy Director for Marine Policy and Evidence and Chief Social Scientist in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Gemma is responsible for delivering the UK Government’s vision of ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas’. She is also responsible for ensuring social science – which aims to put people at the heart of Defra’s policy making – is of high quality and underpins strategy, policy and delivery.

Ottilia Thoreson – Programme Manager of the WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme. The WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme – is a regional network comprised of WWF and eNGO partners in each of the nine coastal Baltic Sea countries working together to develop, advocate and implement solutions to protect the Baltic marine ecosystem and ensure the sustainable use of its resources.

David Johnson - Director at Seascape Consultants Ltd, former Executive Secretary to the OSPAR CommissionDavid Johnson is an internationally recognised marine policy expert working with and on behalf of several UN bodies. At OSPAR and subsequently he has been an advocate of regional partnerships. His roles with the H2020 ATLAS Project and the EU-MSP Platform both relate strongly to the work and outcomes of CSP.

Richard Cronin - Senior Adviser in Water Division of the Irish Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. Richard heads up the marine technical advisory team and he has responsibility for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. He also provides technical oversight to the Foreshore consenting process within the Irish 12 NM limit. He is the Irish Head of Delegation to OSPAR (the convention for the protection of the environment of the northeast Atlantic) and is currently vice-Chair of the OSPAR Commission.

Theme: BrexitQuestion : Once the UK leaves the EU what mechanism will the UK use to work across the Celtic Seas? The UK’s exit of the EU is currently on everyone’s mind. Once the UK leaves the EU, OSPAR will be the main mechanism for the UK to collaborate across boundaries, however OSPAR will need to adapt to become more regionally dynamic, take more of an interest in socio-economic issues and provide a forum for stakeholders to collaborate. There will be standards and commitments that will need to be kept e.g. renewable energy commitments, EU 2050 targets.

Question: Post-Brexit how do we ensure that the socio-demographic standards don’t get lost? Is OSPAR still a suitable forum to do this? There is a general consensus emerging that if you want to solve environmental problems you must work with different sectors and consider social and economic aspects. A level playing field is important from the private industry perspective. It was commented that there are good working relations emerging between OSPAR and sectors at a high level. It was reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to healthy productive seas, and said that the marine environment is at the centre of Defra’s 2025 upcoming strategy.

Question: OSPAR meetings are at best ‘quite dry’ at worst ‘impenetrable’. What is the role of OSPAR in bringing ‘normal’ people into the discussions? The discussions in OSPAR are formal and driven by Contracting Party government delegations. Non-governmental stakeholders are represented by Observer organisations. Technical inter-sessional levels of the OSPAR hierarchy are able to interact more closely with other stakeholders. However, OSPAR will not be able to replicate the kind of stakeholder engagement that has been provided by the Celtic Seas Partnership.

Theme: TechnicalQuestion: How do concepts such as Natural Capital, Ecosystem Services, circular economy fit in?These concepts are being increasingly understood, even if this terminology isn’t being used. It’s very important to find robust ways to value natural assets, otherwise they tend to be valued as zero. Valuing natural assets is however very difficult and not always possible, but a wide range of methods should be used. The UK has a natural capital committee that advises Defra on how to value its assets. There are economic ways of valuing assets, and this is at the heart of Defra’s 25 year strategy.

13

14

Question: Environmental ministries understand these concepts, but how are other ministries responding to them? This depends on the ministry in question. Some don’t necessarily use this language but have identified the issues for example tourism have identified that their ‘product’ is intrinsically linked to the natural environment. Other ministries are a bigger challenge. Putting values on assets helps to demonstrate the importance but also carries risks in terms on degrading or trading values.

Question: What are the technical challenges to reaching GES? Valuation is still a big challenge. Some challenges can be overcome quite quickly, for example for the use of automated marine robots used to collect data cheaper and quicker, also the use of satellite imagery will allow for better monitoring to assess the health of the ocean. Data remains a challenge, getting the data is always important and the Celtic Seas partnership has helped identify the role that citizen science can play here e.g. from anglers, fishers, sports.

Question: Are there technical solutions that can be used, that aren’t being used? One of the key areas that technical solutions are needed is to reduce harms and pressures on the marine environment. The use of modelling and verification for monitoring will emerge over the next six years. One of the key challenges is monitoring and implementing measures on large scales, for example Portugal has ~30% of the Atlantic area in its waters. The Atlas project is looking at precautionary measures than can be taken in areas where you will never have the ‘full picture’ in terms of data availability (www.eu-atlas.org).

Some MSFD descriptors will always be harder to measure and implement than others, for example noise is particularly difficult. People are using technology in order to measure these things, and OSPAR is currently developing a data and information management system to make access to this data easier. Data management and access is an important part of technology.

There are also internal challenges in terms of collaboration, and great improvements can be made here.

Theme: Partnership and CollaborationQuestion: How can we continue the momentum of cross sector/border stakeholder engagement at a Celtic Seas scale? Who would play a role in this? The Celtic Seas declaration session addressed this question , but concern over how the declaration might be received by certain organisation e.g. OSPAR. A feeling that OSPAR is not the right organisation to drive the momentum forwards, they are currently preoccupied with the 2017 assessments and are primarily concerned with global issues, it would therefore be hard to integrate a smaller scale (Celtic Seas Partnership scale) stakeholder engagement mechanism into their remit.

There are existing national and international cooperation mechanisms that are relevant (e.g. Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation), but we need to consider at what scale we want to interact and aggregate, and whether one body should represent an entire sector for each country?

15

Question: What lessons can we learn from the Baltic in relation to stakeholder engagement? Are there lessons that can be learned from the Celtic Seas Partnership and applied in the Baltic and elsewhere?The Baltic Sea is a closed sea which means that there is a common sense of identity which has helped to foster a sense of collaboration, the Celtic Seas area is much wider and open and therefore doesn’t have the same sense of inclusiveness.

However, all regions face similar issues and challenges i.e. how do you get more stakeholders and more sectors involved, you need a common aim in order to pull people together. In the Baltic there is the Helsinki Convention.

A key struggle is engaging with the private sectors, however you will not achieve GES unless this is achieved. Specific issues are particularly connected to individual sectors such as shipping and ballast water, and there are sector specific mechanisms such as the fisheries advisory councils, however how do you bring a mix of sectors together? EU funding can be used, but the funding is based on projects and therefore doesn’t provide a long term answer. The key question is, who should take on the responsibility for continuing once a project has finished?

Question: Should the Celtic Seas Partnership declaration include a statement saying it is difficult to monetise stakeholder collaboration but that this is an inherent value to stakeholder collaboration? Disappointed not to see a member of the EU commission at the conference. A stakeholder policy panel could represent the value of engagement to the commission and suggest how it could be used elsewhere.

Theme: Government policy and regulation Question: The marine environment is often given lower priority compared to terrestrial systems. Can we do more to ensure that the marine environment is given more priority at a government level?WWF try to understand and value the benefits that the marine environment provides, this is a useful tool to in order to show what can be lost if it’s not managed sustainably. It is important to show the different options that the future could look like – like the Future Trends work done by the Celtic Seas Partnership, and quantify the benefits into values which mean something to Government.

Some policies are conflicting and counteractive which makes it hard to achieve any real progress e.g. CFP and MSFD. It is important that these drivers are streamlined in order to move forward.

The marine environment is inherently less visible to the general public than the terrestrial, and it is harder to monitor what is happening and have consistent data. Historically this has led to it not getting the attention it deserves, and not appreciating problems which are arising. However, this is now changing and policy is beginning to respond to the needs of the marine environment e.g. the marine environment is at the heart of Defra’s 25 year framework, and the recent ban on micro plastics.

Public facing projects such as the Celtic Seas Partnership and the Marine Institutes ‘real map of Ireland’ help to raise the visibility of the marine environment.

Question: How important is it that Governments share policy and its development with the public? All civil servants work for the people, paid by the people and entrusted to look after money and get a return on it. Unless policy is designed with an understanding of social concerns you are likely to have expensive problems that need rectifying in the future. Policy makers ignore society at their peril!

Government activities should be looked at in terms of sustainable management. No one person is the repository of all knowledge, therefore governments need to listen to all stakeholders and shareholders in order to understand the issues – and synthesise all the information from the different sectors and actors. The question is, at what level do you aggregate that information? Currently we are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of stakeholder engagement but this is a constant journey.

Theme: Celtic Seas Partnership achievements and challengesQuestion: What do you think is the Celtic Seas Partnerships greatest achievement or failure? Achievement - It has highlighted the mechanisms for engagement that Government have not considered before – and which will be used in the future. The project also generated lots of social capital and will reduce transaction costs into the future.

Failure – The project has a finite timeline and will come to an end, it is a real challenge to ensure the achievements of the project are maintained.

Appendices

16

St I

ves

© J

iri R

ezac

/ W

WF

UK

Workshop evaluation

We received 42 completed evaluation forms from the workshop. The overall feedback was largely very positive and we are grateful for all comments. (Full evaluation in Appendix 3).

Some highlights from the evaluation on the workshop:• Most chosen words for describing the event were: “Networking” and “informative”. • When asked how useful they found the event the average score score was 4 out of 5. Positive feedback for the

high scores was given primarily for the opportunity for meeting and networking with people (particularly access to government departments). People felt that they learned a lot and were pleased to be able to discuss common issues with fellow marine peers. They also found seeing the outputs of the project useful. The particular sessions that were highlighted as the most useful were the Future Trends, the panel discussion and the declaration session.

• There wasn’t any one commonality in answers when asked what was least useful about the event. Feedback included things like the fact that there could’ve been more presentations on day 2, that more time was needed to present and explain the outputs/outcomes and that more detail was needed in some of the presentations.

• When asked about the extent to which they had an opportunity to engage with others and share their views/experiences, 100% of the respondents gave a rating of either 5 (to a great extent) or 4. They were generally very pleased to be given so many opportunities to network in break-out sessions, and fed back that there was a good mix of structure and networking. They were positive about being able to meet new people from different countries and sectors. There were some, however, who felt that maybe there was too much time allocated for networking.

• When asked about how well they felt the day was facilitated,participants gave an average score of 4. Positive feedback related to good time-keeping, being well-organised and a relaxed atmosphere. The only negative comments related to a few people feeling that there was too much “down time” and the lack of lunch being provided on the first day.

• The average number of meetings/workshops that the respondents have attended throughout the project was 3. This means that most of the respondents had been to at least 1 other CSP meeting/event.

17

Newl

yn ©

Jiri R

ezac

/ WW

F UK

Appendices

© Jir

i Rez

ac / W

WF

UK

18

Appendix 1: Delegate list

Name Organisation

Joseph Ansong MaREI

Jerry Barnes MacCabe Durney Barnes

Catherine Barrett Bord Iascaigh Mhara

Emma Baruah Solway Firth Partnership

Victoria Bendall CEFAS

Sybil Berne MacCabe Durney Barnes

Malachy Bradley Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly

Natasha Bradshaw UWE Bristol

Michael Brennan Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly

Tamsin Brown Welsh Government

Thierry Canteri Agence des Aires Marines Protégées

Russell Cheshire COAST (Community of Arran Seabed Trust)

Stephanie Clark Exe Estuary Management Partnership

Isabelle Cojan DREAL centre-val de Loire/délégation du bassin Loire-Bretagne

Steve Conlon Irish Maritime Forum

Donna Cooney Green Party and Love Dublin Bay

Kenneth Coull Scottish Fishermen's Federation

Donal Cronin Dept of Housing, Planning, Community & Local Government

Richard Cronin Dept of Housing, Planning, Community & Local Government

Daniel Crook Natural Resources Wales

John Crudden Angling Council Ireland/European Anglers Alliance

Gareth Cunningham RSPB

Lyndsey Dodds WWF UK

Anna Donald Scottish Government

Philip Donovan Dept of Housing, Planning, Community & Local Government

Fabien Durr CEREMA

Craig English European Subsea Cable Association

Rhona Fairgrieve Scottish Coastal Forum

Leanne Fraser Welsh Government

Nuala Freeman Sustainable Water Network

Jamie Gardiner Royal HaskoningDHV

Fiona Gell Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

Isabel Glasgow Clyde Marine Planning Partnership

Garry Gregg IFSA

Steven Guilbert Devon Maritime Forum

Alison Guiney DAERA Northern Ireland

Nigel Hamilton Copius Resources/MCNI

Helen Hanratty DAERA Northern Ireland

Gemma Harper DEFRA

Louise Heaps WWF UK

Charlotte Hopkins Scottish Environment Link

Trevor Hutchings WWF UK

David Johnson Seascape Consultants Ltd

Aideen Kane Cork Nature Network

Christina Kelly Queen's University Belfast

Mandy Knott North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

19

Name Organisation

Dermot Lacey Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly

Paul Lawlor Dublin Institute of Technology

Yves Louis Direction interrégionale de la mer "Nord Atlantique-Manche ouest"

Brendan McAllister Consultant Mediator

John McCartney Loughs Agency

Clair McFarlan Solway Firth Partnership

Lynne McGowan University of Liverpool

Aoife McGrath LAWCo

Ray McGrath Heritage Rambles

Andrew McGreevy DAERA Northern Ireland

Labhaoise Mckenna Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly

Emma McKinley Cardiff University

Gregor McNiven Royal HaskoningDHV

Carol Molyneaux Environment, Marine & Fisheries Division, Northern Ireland

Graham Monkman Bangor University

Alison Moore Department of Foreign Affairs

Simon Musial Eastern and Midlands Regional Authority

Caitriona Nic Aonghusa Marine Institute

Roisin O'Callaghan Inland Fisheries Ireland

Sinead O'Brien SWAN

Conall O'Connor Dept of Housing, Planning, Community & Local Government

John O'Connor Welsh Federation of Sea Anglers

Cathal O'Mahony Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland

Mike Park SWFPA

Gareth Parry Irish Offshore Operators Association

Dominic Pattinson EU, Marine and International Directorate, DEFRA

Debbi Pedreschi Marine Institute

Howard Platt Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

Clare Reed Marine Conservation Society

Fiona Regan Dublin City University

Carl Reynolds Consultant

Aoibheann Rooney Environment, Marine & Fisheries Division, N. Ireland

Patrick Shannon Irish Offshore Operators Association

Kylia Smyth DAERA Northern Ireland

Paul Somerfield Plymouth Marine Laboratory

Jenny Stark COAST (Community of Arran Seabed Trust)

Rebekah Strong JNCC

Felicity Sylvester Appledore Sustainable Fish

Alec Taylor WWF UK

Ottilia Thoreson WWF- Baltic Ecoregion Programme

Duncan Vaughan Natural England

Alan Walsh Local Authority Waters and Communities Office

Sydney Weinberg SWAN

Hester Whyte Future Earth Coasts

James Wilson Trinity College Dublin

Shane Wolsey British Trust for Ornithology

Anna Woodhead RSPB Cymru

Andrew Woolmer Salacia Marine

20

Name Organisation

Sam Wright Marine Management Organisation

Iain Young SWFPA

CELTIC SEAS PARTNERSHIP PROJECT TEAM

Jenny Oates Project Manager, WWF-UK

Laura Evans Communications Officer, WWF-UK

Alex Peel Communications Officer, WWF-UK

Sarah Young Stakeholder Engagement Officer Wales & SW England, WWF-UK

Penny Wilson Policy Officer, WWF-UK

Sam Tedcastle Stakeholder Engagement Officer Scotland, WWF-UK

Dawn Sellers Project Officer, WWF-UK

Hilary May Project Assistant, WWF-UK

Caroline Salthouse NW England Engagement Officer, North West Coastal Forum

Sue Kidd University of Liverpool

Hannah Jones University of Liverpool

Travis O’Doherty Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly

Laure Lamour France Project Coordinator, Seaweb Europe

Elisabeth Vallet Director, Seaweb Europe

Tim O’Higgins MaREI

Sarah Twomey MaREI

Gaynor Evans British Oceanographic Data Centre

Chris Wood British Oceanographic Data Centre

Lesley Rickards British Oceanographic Data Centre

Facilitator

Steve Smith Icarus Ideas Ltd

Chair

Jim Conway Director, Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly

Appendix 2: Notes from declaration

TABLE 1: Have you found the multi-national workshops useful? Yes. Reasons: Finding out what other people are doing/transferable knowledge, networking, liaison. A way of emphasising particular projects – more effective (selective) alternative to email. Time and space to think/reflect and discuss. More direct form of communication useful. Do you want to keep engaging at this scale (what are the risks of not?) Yes but: So long as outputs are valuable and costs are covered. Need to focus on mutually useful topics e.g fishing, MSP, sharing best practice Engagement has to have a clear purpose Engagement needs to be multisectoral. Legislation at Celtic Seas level is important but need tpo recognbise that there amay be other wider/underpinning shared interests and that scale and focus of collaboration need sto be flexible. Risks of not engaging at this level Duplication of effort. Solutions to problems too small.

21

If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing etc?... See initial statement. Version 1: The best way to collaborate after CSP finishes is to: Get another funded project And/or get governments to come together to support an application for funding Potential lead – WWF, Steering Group of interested parties/ independent facilitation important/ Seas at Risk?

- Some collective statement of purpose would be helpful but with flexibility to adapt to changing context over time.

Version 2: The best way to collaborate after CSP finishes is to: Not sure about finding another project – we have had PISCES and the CSP now time for something else - a longer term solution Need to find an independent lead organisation Celtic Seas Declaration of intent to collaborate – not so sure that organisations wil sign up and what it might mean if they did? Ideally should look for high level commitment from the EU/OSPAR to a Celtic Seas Region Advisory Council with stakeholder representation and a clear role and purpose. TABLE 2 Have you found the multi-national workshops useful? YES, reasons: range of stakeholders across all of the countries not just UK based so wide perspective which is positive; networking experience and relationship building has been very useful; multi-sectoral relationship building – a chance to get out the silos; fisheries and conservation don’t necessarily talk to one another so cross fertilisation of ideas valuable and an opportunity to share information; the structure of the workshop has got people networking – easier to approach and engage – the informal nature of the workshop has worked. Lack of intensity and informality has allowed people to be open and build individual confidence to speak up.

Do you want to keep engaging at this scale? (What are the risks of not?) YES, risks: new people in posts break momentum if not kept up; not an efficient use of limited resources; lack of continuity; work and momentum of the project would be lost; a person’s access to funds would impact continuation; general agreement that all would attend again and be willing to contribute; need to avoid having to start all over again.

If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing? Who / which organisation do you feel is best placed to lead it? Structure has worked/informal nature/creating links. SIMCelt? WWF? European funding? Rolling leadership or a consortium perhaps.

The best way to collaborate after the CSP finishes is to:

Annual meetings – potentially more frequently for specific issues. Through sub-groups.

Online knowledge management platform (Slackspace mentioned, sharepoint not recommended).

Keeping network and conversation going is key.

Needs a point of contact / secretariat to keep momentum going.

A steering board of individuals from the different governments / + other stakeholders. 10-15%

of a person’s time to provide coordination.

TABLE 3

Overall:

The group thought it would be a good thing to continue collaborating. They suggested an annual

meeting with rotational leadership (shared responsibility). It needs a specific focus or task. Needs to

keep wider stakeholder involved (have a broad interest base). The initiative needs a strategy or work

22

program in order to measure progress and impact to justify the group. Us existing forums. Learn

from what the Baltic Sea and North Sea are doing.

Might include:

On-line knowledge management platform.

Secretariat – dedicated people’s time.

Information sharing device

A way to maintain the networks already established

A gap analysis to avoid duplication

Needs to collaborate across boarders and keep it’s regional focus

Suggested looking at the role of the Marine Science Coordination Committee (UK)

Everything above was agreed by the two groups involved.

TABLE 4&5

Have you found the multi-national workshops useful? (Yes, No, Why?)

- Overall yes, become easier as relationships have been built.

- Would be interesting to see if the balance of sectors and countries has changed between

workshops

- Why?

- ROI further behind in MSFD process so can get lots from other countries’ experience

- Changing policy landscape, need conversations on Marine Spatial Planning

- Products have been useful as well as having time to look at them and chat them through

with the Celtic Seas team about them and have the opportunity to shape and influence

them. Wouldn’t have had as much time to give to the products in the office.

- Policy has regional requirement and without Celtic Seas Partnership workshops no

opportunity for it.

Do you want to keep engaging at this scale? (What are the risks of not?)

Yes

If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing? Who / which organisation do you feel is

best placed to lead it?

The best way to collaborate after the Celtic Seas Partnership is to...

- … In person with some digital comms in between

- Collective of organisations fund a post to organise forum and comms in between

- Should it be the competent authorities? Resources are very tight and the way it is framed will

be key in influencing.

Have you found the multi-national workshops useful? (Yes, No, Why?)

6 Yes, 1 No

Why not? Don’t workshop in the middle of developing policy – doesn’t reflect the real world

Weighting of voices is an issue – sectoral representation and scale (some agreement with this across

table)

23

Why so? Useful in certain ways:

- catching up with people

- better understanding of sub national level stakeholder - stakeholder voices (without the

weighting)

- collective networking is important

- Induction of how other nations and users of Celtic Seas see things

Do you want to keep engaging at this scale? (What are the risks of not?)

Engagement at this scale is vitally important and there is an obligation to do so. There is a risk to not

collaborating

If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing? Who / which organisation do you feel is

best placed to lead it?

- Must be other ways of doing it – not get everyone together in a room e.g. electronic

- Scale is a key issue

- Noted that not much industry here and why is that?

- Is the type of organisation key e.g ENGO maybe too ‘fluffy’

- Understanding of role for industry sector is key

The best way to collaborate after the Celtic Seas Partnership is to...

- What collaboration is needed?

- Common definitions of problems (and solutions?)

- Value proposition that we can all understand

- Need clear driver to move forward

COMBINED TWO TABLES

The best way to collaborate after the Celtic Seas Partnership is to...

- There is a risk to not collaborating

- Is the value of networking enough to get resource? Do we need a specific driver?

(different opinions on this)

- Do it at a smaller scale to make it cheaper

- Would need to be adaptable – deal with issues as they are relevant

TABLE 6

Have you found the multi-national workshops useful? (Yes, No, Why?) Yes, they were useful. They are good to hear other opinions/views. Chance for useful discussion. Share challenges. Opportunity to see other priorities from different countries (e.g. the host country). Do you want to keep engaging at this scale? (What are the risks of not?) Yes! It’s important to engage – and keep that level and scale of engagement. This is a broad group, with a good mix of people = beneficial. Risks: the good work that has been achieved goes away. Things go out of date so quickly these days, so we need to keep it relevant. There’s a risk of repeating things that went wrong in the past if we

24

forget about the CSP project. There’s clearly an appetite for a this – evident from this workshop being fully booked! If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing? Who / which organisation do you feel is best placed to lead it? Each country government could organise a forum/event annually – state-led and funded. Each hosted at a different country – rotated. Like OSPAR. But it needs clear objectives and purpose otherwise it’s just a ‘talking shop’. Share experiences. Relevant themes. First group discussion on the following question (before we joined the other table): The best was to collaborate after the CSP finishes is to: • Develop a terms of reference and clear objectives • Have rotating responsibility • Relevant themes • Each country have a sub-group • OSPAR region 3 agenda? • Idea: have a non-EU third party country (i.e. Isle of Man!) to have the remit to keep CSP engagement going and receive funding from the other country governments??

TABLE 7

Have you found the multi-national workshops useful (Yes, No, Why?)

Only 2 of the group had attended previous CSP multi-national workshops.

• It’s useful to hear experiences from other countries within your sector. • Meeting people in person and connecting faces to names makes communication much easier with people you interact with on a professional basis but haven’t yet met in person. Quote “ It’s much easier to pick up the phone and call someone you have met in person”. • It makes you realise that sometime the colleagues you work most closely with and have the most relevant working relationships can often work in a different location/country/organisation. • Breakout sessions are particularly good at getting people talking and mixing. • The multi-national workshops have helped attendees realise the similarities in challenges across different countries. • They have helped people build relationships in their sectors. • Those working in the fisheries sector have realised commercial fishermen have a relatively low level of knowledge of MSFD. • Creates a dialogue between different countries and sectors. Feedback from question 2 - Do you want to keep engaging at this scale (What are the risks of not?) • The group agreed that the benefits varied depending on the sector you worked in. It was more beneficial for some industries and sectors than others. • There was thought to be more benefit for those working in regulatory sectors than industry. • There was a risk that stakeholders would stop realising commonalities in objectives if engagement stopped. • Engaging at this scale helps people realise that various policies are often interconnected. • Engagement provides a sense check and a catch-all for activities in the region. Feedback from question 3 – If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing? Who / which organisation do you feel is best placed to lead it? • Whilst the group seemed to agree there was a want and need for engagement to continue there was scepticism as to how this would be achieved. • The main concerns were who would fund this engagement and was there a suitable and neutral organisation to do so? • The issue of brexit was raised as being a potential barrier to any further trans-boundary engagement. Further discussion following the joining of two groups • A number of people in the group raised concerns about the use of the word ‘declaration’. They didn’t believe they would be in a position to sign any such statement. Some said it made them ‘nervous’.

25

• People said the MSFD had given governments a legal requirement to engage with stakeholders. Would this continue in all countries post brexit? • It was suggested that rotational leadership of any forum could promote shared value. • A wider analysis of stakeholders would be beneficial before any further work continued. • It was suggested an online knowledge sharing platform would be a good way to share information and make sure duplication of efforts was avoided. • It was suggested OSPAR may be an organisation that would perhaps be able to take on the role to facilitate this kind of engagement however this was not agreed by the entire group. TABLE 8

Have you found the multinational workshops useful?

Paris – yes, concrete

Dublin – yes concrete, more academic

- more people to discuss here than in Paris

- Not very intensive – waiting for more conclusions/deliverables

- Would like to discuss main outputs. Not very different from Pais

Generally: Useful – learn that others in other countries are doing the same as you, confidence to

engage/carry on what you’re doing (HM note: this was a comment Yves made , that others, especially

Andrew agreed with)

Do you want to keep engaging at this scale?

Yes, qualified yes. For MSP this scale not so useful – adds extra expense and difficulty. Fisheries

covered by CFP so not sure so useful.

We didn’t get onto the last question on first page.

The best way to collaborate after CSP finishes is to:

- Have money

- Use existing for a – e.g. ISMF and Cross Channel Groups – get these to work together

- But DON’T overload stakeholders

- Share evaluation and action across boundaries. MSFD

o Go Further than with CSP. Share measures that could set up together…

Combined with other table

The best way to collaborate after the CSP finishes is to:

Expand the scope from MSFD only to include other topics and allow flexibility e.g. MSP, other

emerging issues

To maximise available resources e.g. using existing mechanisms like OSPAR, ISMF

Minimum of annual themed meetings – to share current activities and experience learnt, strategic

overview.

TABLE 9

Have you found the multinational workshops useful?

Yes- but time will tell. It has brought us all together

Do you want to keep engaging at this scale?

If we don’t keep engaging, it will fail.

Helps feed down at a local level

Umbrella framework

Exchange of information that wouldn’t normally happen

Risk- Inequity, those that shout loudest will get more access to resources.

Risk- Undermining the Ecosystem Approach

Risk- Miss out on opportunities

26

If yes, in what shape/format do you see it continuing?

Annual format (at a minimum) through national government funding

Additional resource needed to action outcomes from annual workshop (e.g. tourism funding

could be beneficial)

Identify willingness and who to action

The best way to collaborate after CSP finishes is to:

Set up a government-funded annual workshop/ meeting

Integrated marine policy on a national scale (MSFD/MSP remit) coming together at a Celtic

Seas scale

Ongoing resource/ sponsor to fund and facilitate the outcomes throughout the year

Balanced pool of resourcing by Member States/ regions

Good Example: Wadden Sea Secretariat

TABLE 10

Have you found the multinational workshops useful?

Most people had only been to the final workshop but agreed that it had been a good opportunity:

to hear different perspectives on the day-to-work involved in our seas

for different backgrounds to common together to discuss common issues

freedom to voice honest opinions and views

discuss future holistic approaches to our seas

Do you want to keep engaging at this scale?

Yes but after the project, there isn’t a mechanism for us to engage at this scale.

The best way to collaborate after CSP finishes is to:

Set up a new forum or mechanism

It could be an online forum linking a network

With a small secretariat (rotating around the different Administrations)

Small financial contribution by organisations would be necessary in addition to government

support

Annual meetings or conferences would be a bonus

Needs to be enshrined in government at the appropriate level

Uncertainty about BREXIT needs to be considered

This group then merged with another table group and the final consensus was:

Set up a government and industry- funded annual stakeholder workshop

With a rotating secretariat (one from each Administration annually)

Each Administration would have a focal point

Tap into existing stakeholder networks (previously identified at different scales)

Tailor the Wadden Sea model to the Celtic Seas

Very specific focus on Marine/ Maritime Directives (e.g. MSP, MSFD)

Incorporate coastal and terrestrial elements into the work plan

Ensure the likely impacts of BREXIT are factored in

27

Appendix 3: evaluation of the final workshop

1. Which two words would best sum up the day for you?

Number of times used

Number of times used

Awareness 1 Interactive 1

Collaborative 2 Interactive 1

Collaboration 1 Interesting 4

Conservation-new-ideas

1 Lax 1

Contacts 1 Motivating 1

Cross-sector-relations

1 Networking 9

Different 1 Not-many-French 1

Discussion 1 Optimistic 1

Diverse 1 Participative 1

Dynamic 1 Partnerships 1

Encouraging 1 Positive 1

Engagement 1 Potential 1

Engaging 5 Proactive 1

Enjoyable 2 Productive 3

Effective 1 Reflections 1

Exchange 1 Rewarding 1

Forward-looking 1 Stimulating 1

Future 1 Upbeat 1

Friendly 1 Useful 3

Frustrating 1 United 1

Knowledge 1 Well facilitated 1

Informative 7 Well-organised 1

Information 1 Wide-ranging 1

Insightful 1 Very-Good 1

Inspiring 1

2. How useful did you find the event?

28

Comments

Great opportunity for putting faces to names and meeting people in person

Very useful to meet people face to face in a relaxed environment and learn about the role in the marine environment to discuss issues with fellow marine policy makers.

Really useful to see and interact with the outputs of the project and meet with other stakeholders

Defining useful is difficult because it comes back to value on networking and learning - for, now, it was useful!

I wish I could have attending all the events

Could have had more presentations/workshops on day 2

Useful for networking to a degree, however I'm not sure how productive it will be

Would have been better to go further in proposing actions to take together. It is what we could wish for after CSP

Perhaps come to some conclusion on next steps - but that may not have been possible given the size of the group and individual mandates

Useful networking opportunity but I hope the engagement that the project was looking for was met?

New faces has made new connections

Excellent event Well organised and thought-out. Good use of time and ability to collaborate and work with others

Very good atmosphere, good networking and content

Good to see the outputs and to inform what happens next

Interesting meeting an exchanges with actions from the different countries for sharing the results of CSP

I sometimes found it difficult to understand the relationship between Coastal Partnerships and the CSP, this may be due to the lack of my involvement prior to the workshop

Fringe discussions useful

An excellent opportunity for me as a first time attendee to learn the work of the CSP, and to meet with many people across the borders of sectors

Good for building a relevant network

3. To what extent have you had an opportunity to engage with others and share your views

and experiences?

0

5

10

15

20

25

5Very useful

4 3 2 1Not at all

useful

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

How useful did you find the event?

29

Comments

Good opportunities throughout

Plenty of useful break-out sessions allowed for this.

Sufficient time given to networking

Great forum for that, but so many interesting people I didn't get to see all of the stands

Good mix of structure and informal mixing

Lots of opportunities to talk to others and meet people from different companies, countries and sectors

Important face to face discussions with new and interesting people

Informal structure useful in providing plenty of space for wider conversations

Break-outs really good and gave time for discussion

Lots of networking time

More exchanges deeper would have been more useful on the results of the project (rather than the exhibition)

Plenty of time and space to talk to people I need to and make new contacts

Great opportunity to put faces to names and make new connections with other stakeholders

4. How well was the day run and facilitated?

0

5

10

15

20

25

5To a great extent

4 3 2 1Not at all

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

To what extent have you had an opportunity to engage with others and share your views and

experiences?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

5Very well

4 3 2 1Not at all

well

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

How well was the day run and facilitated?

30

Comments

Good timekeeping - did not feel pressured, but things moved on well

Some lulls, but mostly well run. Friendly atmosphere to the event.

A timetable of events would have been useful - more indicative

Could have provided lunch on first day (long journey and no lunch!)

I feel more data could have been collected during the number exercise e.g. which organisations moved to where

Very well organised and great time keeping

Congratulations to the organisers on a job very well done!

Good amount of breaks so not constant 'work'

Enjoyable interactive sessions and a good level of agreement and energy

I realise that networking is a key aim, however I felt there was a little too much down time

Start time on the first day meant I missed lunch. Hunger was distracting. Room layout not ideal. Great facilitation and speakers

Facilitation is really good

Excellent group sessions - fun and thought provoking

Possibly too much time for the showcase element

Excellent organisation

Very different pace to previous events. Less onerous for attendees - fewer templates etc.

Some "dead timing/blanks" due to the choice of participative mode of the workshop

Ran smoothly and to time. Imaginative ideas for exercises

Provide food at arrival. Long time until food, so flagged in the first day.

Very well paces and informal environment which encouraged engagement. Fantastic games and facilitated of the two days

5. What has been most useful and least useful for you attending the workshop?

Most useful Least useful

Networking, opportunity to talk. Enjoyed the interactive element

Coming in on the last workshop potentially

Networking Feeling we have made progress in building something tangible with a long legacy as we move towards Brexit

Networking Still unsure of outcomes

Understanding different perspectives Plenary was interesting but could have been more interactive (allow more comments from the floor)

Networking Learning about project outputs

Not hugely specific, i.e. more time to discuss outputs would be good

Networking CSP outputs could have been more effectively explained in parallel workshop sessions, rather than via 'exhibition'

Meeting other government departments that I would not have the chance to normally

Nothing in particular. Could have fitted more into programme - perhaps more detail on some things

Finding out what's going on in IE and Isle of Man: MSFD and MSP CSP outputs Panel discussion

Lack of discussions on MSFD 'particulars'

Networking Found much of the presentations rather vague

Declaration session Long breaks - perhaps slightly shorter periods without activity

Discussion about partnership working Declaration setting exercise

Meeting people Signing a declaration not practical for some attendees and if anything, can dis-engage the

31

participant

Future Trends should have been deeper/more developed

Not enough time to learn about other's work

Interacting with others in this field - in a trusted space. Interactive activities

Showcase

Networking Showcase session - maybe could have had a 5 min pitch for each product and be shorter/rolled into lunch

I liked the selection of presented materials Scene setting (even if this first time helped to "back the ice"

Networking across all Celtic Seas countries Plenary session and Future Trends

Opportunity to start collaboration with new partners More information through presentations about what was achieved needed. More involvement for Coastal Partnership in process

Panel discussion Panel discussion little learned and engagement with too, due to pre-question setting

Reflecting on where we are at the moment and future stakeholder needs

Panel discussion most of which was conjuncture or party line

Updates and insights from the panel Connecting with others Seeing old friends!

Declaration session The coffee stops were a little too long

Engaging with other sectors from stakeholders from other countries

Having programmes spread over 2 days

Showcase session

New discussions over old problems - informal networking time

Opportunities for discussion and networking

Communication with others. Gathering new ideas.

Networking

learning about innovative catch management at the 1st poster session

To raise awareness of the importance of sea anglers' input to cross border and cross sector issues working towards a top class marine resource

Networking

Many, many good discussions with a wide variety of people from all the 5 places

Networking

Interaction with other stakeholders helped enlighten me on expectation of others

Meeting people from a range of organisations and places working on similar issues

Range of outputs produced by CSP

The interactive 'games' were surprisingly relevant

Networking

Most useful: “Networking”

32

6. How many Celtic Seas Partnership activities/events have you engaged in (excluding this one)?

No. of workshops / meetings attended

What other engagement activities have you been engaged with (e.g. contributed to a document)?

0 None

2 Various other meetings

2 Provided comments on draft documents

0 None

4

4 Future Trends report workshop

0 Future Trends work a bit

0 Teleconferencing with schools/marine litter

3 Expert Group participant

1 Contributed to a document

0

5

3

3 Expert Advisory meetings and discussions

3 Workshop facilitation. Info dissemination.

0 First one

1

2

1 Revision of docs. Various other meetings

2 Plus phone on marine litter PICSES

4

3 Country workshops Fish4Data

2

5 Policy assistance

8 Conflict resolution case study

2

33

1

2 Exchanges/recommendations for planning and development of renewable

8

I used to over see the project! C/B collaboration Wadden Sea Case study

4 Commented on guideline docs (incl ISMF working group)

1 None

6

2

2 Email exchange

1

1

1 Currently project managing the draft of the Welsh marine plan

7

2 Assisting in organising national workshop - defining stakeholders

5 Task Groups

2 None

2 None

Average number

3

7. How useful have you found engaging with the Celtic Seas Partnership project?

Comments

Friendly and responsive partnership

Quite confusing at the beginning what the project was going to achieve.

Been really useful as NGOs working with Welsh Government

Really good to be involved but not my main core work

Provides an excellent forum for stakeholder engagement but direction and formulation of outputs not always what I expected / wanted

Felt that Ireland's partners could have had more official "stakeholders"

0

5

10

15

20

25

5Very useful

4 3 2 1Not useful

at all

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

How useful have you found engaging with the Celtic Seas Partnership project?

34

Always approachable

Interesting for sharing of experiences and awareness of how important co-construction is for a policy shared at Celtic Seas level taking into account local stakeholders

Useful conduit to range of stakeholders. Resources available to support particular projects (fisheries mediation for example)

Limited involvement but concerned that Fishing Industry participation appears quite low in relation to other sectors/interests

8. What, if anything, has the project provided that would not be available or evident otherwise?

Comments

I think we will only be able to determine this after the project has finished.

Perspectives from others will not always be put across due to roles in other settings/getting that across not always possible

Engagement with stakeholders Projects and outputs

Best Practice? (Don't know much else about it I'm afraid…)

Bringing equivalent colleagues together from government departments

Useful body of work, some of which can be incorporated into SimCELT MSP work and avoid duplication, e.g. stakeholder engagement recommendations.

Opportunity to meet others from other countries

Mechanisms for cross-sector cross-border discussion and collaboration

Being part of a network of people from diverse backgrounds who are eager to move towards marine management

Stakeholder interactions at the scale of a sea

Remains to be seen from more thorough examination of the outputs

Experience exchange help to realise that we are all against the same difficulties and have the same solutions and ideas - reassuring.

Cross-collaboration across countries - in particular engagement with Ireland and France

In the absence of any other regular MSFD stakeholder forum, CSP filled the void

Connection with people and potential "projects" not necessarily research proposals

Networking

New friends and inputs for regional scale cooperation

Vision at Celtic Seas level and mobilisation of stakeholder to continue the collaboration at this scale to get to a common aim of GES

Opportunities to network across sectors and countries

The data website. Plenty of information packs

Information on Future Trends and impacts of activities in the Celtic Seas

Future Trends information network with Irish individuals - generally don't get this opportunity to engage with these.

A widening knowledge of the bigger picture as to extent of use and diversity of stakeholders

Opportunity to talk to like-minded colleagues

See what the 'BIG PEOPLE' think! Lots of engagement with Action Projects incl people relevant to my work

A link into work going on across the region, normally outside scope of my day to day work.

Access to network

9a. Level of understanding Using the scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, please rate the following statements:

Before the Celtic Seas partnership

Present day

I have a full understanding of the Marine Strategy Framework

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

35

Directive

I fully understand and know how to apply the ecosystem approach

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

9b. To what extent do you think your difference in understanding (if any) outlined above, is

related to Celtic Seas Partnership activities? (please tick)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

Calculated difference between before and after CSP for: "I have a full understanding of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive"

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

Calculated difference between before and after CSP for: "I fully understand and know how to apply the ecosystem approach"

36

10a. Engaging and contributing to the MSFD process:

Using the scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, please rate the following statements:

Before the Celtic Seas partnership

Present day

I have engaged with the MSFD process

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

I have contributed to MSFD process

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

I feel able to access relevant information about MSFD implementation to help me improve my management practices

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

20%

17%

34%

23%

6%

To what extent do you think your difference in understanding (if any) outlined above, is related to

Celtic Seas Partnership activities?

Not at all

A little

Some

Quite a lot

A great deal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

Calculated difference between before and after CSP for: "I have engaged with the MSFD process"

37

10b. To what extent do you think your difference in engagement, contribution and access (if

any) outlined above, is related to Celtic Seas Partnership activities? (please tick)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

Calculated difference between before and after CSP for: "I have contributed to the MSFD process"

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Nu

mb

er

of

par

tici

pan

ts

Calculated difference between before and after CSP for: "I feel able to access relevant information about MSFD implementation to

help me improve my management practices"

38

11. Which products developed through the Celtic Seas Partnership do you find useful? (Please

tick)

Online tutorial on MSFD 19 Nature’s Services and the Sea A Guide for Coastal and Marine Stakeholders report

20

Best Practice Guidelines on transboundary marine governance

20 Future Trends report and microsite 17

Best Practice Guidelines on co-location of marine renewables

14 Discovering Data and Information in the Celtic Seas report

13

Best Practice Guidelines on conflict resolution 22 Celtic Seas Web Portal 18

Marine Proofing for Good Environmental Status of the Sea- Good Practice Guidelines For Local Planning Authorities

21 Recommendations on transboundary working groups

12

Strategic Management Framework for Dublin Bay

8

18%

20%

29%

21%

12%

To what extent do you think your difference in engagement, contribution and access (if any)

outlined above, is related to Celtic Seas Partnership activities?

Not at all

A little

Some

Quite a lot

A great deal

39

Any additional comments?

Any additional comments?

Thank you for a well-run and relaxed event. Hopeful that the legacy of the CSP will reflect the hard work of all those involved.

Thank you- it's been really interesting! Just quite difficult for me to answer the questions because I've only just started engaging.

Thank you very much!

My knowledge of MSFD has been complemented by CSP, but primarily because I was working in DG Gov during a large part of the project; in normal working circumstances, CSP would have played a far more significant role in MSFD education. Congratulations on an ambitious initiative and some very good outcomes.

Great event. Very well organised and structured. Interesting workshop and great to see the work developed over the course of the project.

Congratulations to everyone involved for all your hard work and enthusiasm

Thank you for hosting such a useful programme with such enthusiasm

Missed clean coasts and Geoff Nuttall as worked with them on marine litter

My answers might be biased!

The challenge will be to find the way of putting this dynamic of exchanges, of mutual resources and co-construction of policies and actions at the Celtic Sea level

Needs some work to continue and progress this work…. Don't let it just disappear!

I don't feel that we have made much progress on setting up a Celtics Seas 'Forum' - one of the PISCES recommendations - not sure if the Declaration will bring this closer.

Slightly concerned about developing a declaration as I do not think people present have the mandate to do so. I certainly feel from my perspective, we need to see more/understand outputs

Thank you very much for really useful meeting.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Online tutorial on MSFD

Best Practice Guidelines on transboundary marine governance

Best Practice Guidelines on co-location of marine renewables

Best Practice Guidelines on conflict resolution

Marine Proofing for Good Environmental Status of the Sea- Good Practice Guidelines ForLocal Planning Authorities

Strategic Management Framework for Dublin Bay

Nature’s Services and the Sea A Guide for Coastal and Marine Stakeholders report

Future Trends report and microsite

Discovering Data and Information in the Celtic Seas report

Celtic Seas Web Portal

Recommendations on transboundary working groups

Number of participants

Which products developed through the Celtic Seas Partnership do you find useful?

Celtic Seas Partnership is an EC Life+ project with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It is a four year project, running from January 2013 to March 2016. WWF-UK is the lead with partners the University of Liverpool, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, the Natural Environment Research Council and SeaWeb Europe. Project number: LIFE11/ENV/UK/392.

twitter:celticseas

To find out more visit

www.celticseaspartnership.eu

Or contact uscsp@wwf.org.uk