Comparing Public Participation in Coastal and Marine Planning in the Arctic: Lessons from Iceland and Norway

Amid a changing global climate, Northern coastal communities face a variety of challenges to their livelihoods, which are dependent on marine resources. Marine spatial planning (MSP) provides opportunities for cooperation between authorities, stakeholders, and the public to ensure sustainable marine management. Public participation is a crucial element of coastal and marine planning for its long-term democratic legitimacy and sustainability. However, the process of MSP is often wrought with conflict and challenges of involving stakeholders and the public in decisions concerning an often-contested marine space. Whereas coastal zone planning (CZP) is well established in Norway and a reiteration of previous CZP was conducted 2020–23, MSP is new to Iceland, and has only recently been launched with its first pilot plans in 2019. This study investigates how participation in coastal and marine planning processes compare between Iceland and Norway and what lessons can be shared between them. Data were collected from two case studies in the Tromsø region in Norway and the Westfjords of Iceland through analysis of planning documentation, literature review, as well as participant observation in the Westfjords and 11 semi-structured interviews across both case studies. The results show that public participation is formally integral to both processes but, in practice, varies considerably. Both planning processes are driven by the expansion of the aquaculture industry, and a variety of issues faced during the planning process are similar. In Norway, public participation is politically desired and guided by a participation strategy emphasising synergies between expert and local knowledge. In the Tromsø region, meaningful public participation varied across municipalities and issues regarding Indigenous participation remain. In Iceland, there is little evident political expectation of public engagement, and the process is characterised by a passive approach to participation that aims to inform the public but does not include wider sharing of decision-making power. The findings do not only make clear that a revision of current public participation processes is needed in both case studies but also point towards wider issues in marine governance that have consequences for blue justice, such as the exclusion of groups in decision-making, lack of public discussion of marine issues and top–down governance supporting established power hierarchies.