It was based on creating a political framework through ministerial cooperation (VASAB), testing methodology, and gaining practical planning experience through international pilot projects such as BaltCoast, PlanCoast, BaltSeaPlan [19], EastWest Window, Plan Bothnia [20], and currently PartiSEApate.1 Practical experience

and know-how were implemented in strategic documents at the policy level. These, in turn, led to initiating new cooperation projects to test tools and organizational and institutional Neratinib concentration solutions for MSP. Within these projects, or using experience from them, formal maritime spatial plans were developed in Germany, while in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia pilot maritime spatial plans were developed, which included some transnational plans (Table 2). This approach has resulted in an iterative process of gaining practical insight and experience and translating it into legislative provisions and administrative arrangements, then further testing and continuous improvement (Fig. 1). From the VASAB

viewpoint [6], MSP has been a transnational process from the outset. The most important constitutive elements of the planning system developed by Baltic Sea maritime planners are as follows (Fig. 2): 1. the directional objective of MSP at regional levels was agreed upon in the EU Strategy for the BSR—the action plan for this strategy requires drawing up and applying transboundary, ecosystem-based Maritime Spatial Plans throughout VE821 the region by 2020. This means that Baltic Sea countries must aim to develop national maritime spatial plans based on the ecosystem approach and that planning should be coherent across borders, which entails close cross-border cooperation [21]; Another important element was and remains the system of financial support. It comprised EU Exoribonuclease programs for territorial cooperation financed through Structural Funds (Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007–2013, South Baltic

Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007–2013), ENPI programs allowing cooperation with Russia on MSP matters (Lithuania–Poland–Russia ENPI Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013), and supporting research (Program BONUS 185). External funding was important because of the pioneering character of the work on the macro-regional MSP system, and, in effect, of the high transaction costs. This funding permitted conducting the projects and the resulting learning process mentioned above. In the future, however, MSP will have to be funded increasingly from national sources, as it already done in Germany, Lithuania, and Estonia. Lastly, two important characteristics of the Baltic Sea MSP model should be mentioned. Special attention is focused on integrative MSP and ecosystem-based MSP in the BSR. The impetus for this is the goal of developing pan-Baltic thinking as described in Vision 2030.