Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 127, May 2021, 104434
Marine Policy

Transboundary cooperation and mechanisms for Maritime Spatial Planning implementation. SIMNORAT project

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104434Get rights and content

Abstract

Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is gaining importance as a new process for the governance of seas and oceans, as maritime nations exercise greater management over their territorial waters and, in many cases, over exclusive economic zones that span a larger area. The purpose of this planning is to reverse the environmental degradation of the seas and facilitate the sustainable use of marine resources, both for mature uses such as fishing and navigation, and for emergent uses, including renewable energies and mariculture. In Europe, the Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning oblige coastal Member States to develop maritime spatial plans at the latest by 31st March 2021. To help in that process, countries have at their disposal a set of existing instruments, including research projects, supporting guidelines, recommendations and sets of tools and data, as the SIMNORAT project, co-funded by the EC – DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE). This paper presents best practices developed in this project on technical, scientific, and social aspects of MSP to overcome barriers of MSPD implementation testing effective cooperation on transboundary areas and providing a set of cross-cutting MSP related recommendations to foster collaborative efforts and to improve the overall transboundary dimension of the MSP Directive.

Introduction

In order to maintain the major functionalities of marine ecosystems, it is essential to adopt a definition of clear rules for access to resources and spaces, and consider the environmental, social and economic aspects of the planning process [1], [2], [3]. Increasing the demand of marine resources and development of human activities in the marine realm is resulting in more pressures on the ecosystems and competition and conflicts between marine users, therefore, new management models are needed. Identification of synergies, transnational coordination and coordinated actions are fundamental to progress towards an efficient Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) management approach in order to solve conflicts and promote multiple uses and activities. On the other hand, ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an approach "based on a particular area defined by the location of a given ecosystem" [4], highlighted as an important underlying principle to plan maritime space. MSP can balance maritime activities and foster cross-border cooperation while developing a new scheme of multilevel governance, defining and applying legislation and coordination between the different administrative levels of management. As MSP analyses and allocates the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities at sea, it is a fundamental tool towards the sustainable management of marine resources.

The EU Directive (MSPD) [3] establishing a framework on MSP was adopted in 2014 and according to article 1, it aims to promote the sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources giving the sole responsibility to Member States (MS) of implementing maritime spatial plans [5]. Accordingly, MS have to design and prepare the format and content of the MSP plan and identify the distribution of current and future activities and uses in their marine waters taking into account their interactions. Related to article 4, MSP should be “built upon existing national, regional and local rules and mechanisms”, also ensuring a public participatory process as well as cooperation between MS but also with Third Countries as established in article 6. According to the MSP Directive, MS shall ensure the involvement of stakeholders throughout the entire process, from the initial definition of objectives to the concession of access to the plans once they are finalized. To ensure that MSP is based on reliable data and to avoid additional administrative burdens, it is essential that the MS rely on the best available data and information by encouraging stakeholders to share information and using instruments and tools for data collection in order to identify spatial demands and future trends in the maritime sectors. Furthermore, in consonance with article 10 of the Directive, MS must organize the use of the best available data and the sharing of information, necessary for maritime spatial plans. Data used may include environmental, social and economic data related to activities and uses, and marine physical data about marine waters. Moreover, MS shall make use of relevant instruments and tools, including those already available under the Integrated Maritime Policy, for example, EMODnet data portals [35], and under other relevant EU policies, such as those mentioned in the Inspire Directive 2007/2/EC [36].

In this respect, the European Commission through the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) co-funded the project “Supporting Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Northern European Atlantic region (SIMNORAT)” [7] aimed to support the implementation of the MSPD [3] establishing a framework for MSP in the European North-Atlantic waters, and to establish a concrete cross-border MSP cooperation between countries involved. The project area of interest corresponds to the jurisdictional waters of Portugal, Spain, and France of the OSPAR Region IV and was extended to cover the Vigo and Vasco da Gama seamounts and the Galician Bank (Fig. 1). The project brought together several partners, composed by research organizations, maritime planning authorities and management bodies from France, Portugal and Spain.

In order to achieve the ambitious objectives stated above, several tasks were designed to develop methodologies and good practices and to test specific aspects that could contribute to a potential MSP process in selected cross-border areas defined as case studies.

MSP aims at attributing maritime space to uses while reducing conflicts, strengthening cross-sectorial cooperation and following an ecosystem-based approach “to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives” [3]. MS have the sole responsibility of transposing the Directive into their national legislation, setting up a competent authority in charge of implementing MSP. SIMNORAT project supports the associated process in Spain, Portugal and France, countries in different stages of their national MSP implementation and following different approaches.

  • -

    MSP implementation process in France: The EU MSP Directive was transposed into the French legislative system by the Order 2016–1687 of 8 December 2016. The Ministry for the Solidarity and Ecological Transition (MSET) is the national authority responsible for its implementation, which will be divided into four sea basins and four Interregional Directorate for the Sea, respectively dealing with Eastern channel and North Sea; Northern Atlantic; Southern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (SFPD) basins. The law indicates the Strategic Façade Planning Documents as the main tools for MSP implementation, under the authority of a couple of regional and maritime Coordinating Prefects. These documents unite strategically Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and MSPD implementations. Currently, SFPD are being reviewed nationally and internationally to be edited. The strategic part of the astern channel and North Sea and Northern Atlantic SFPD has been approved by inter-prefectoral orders in the September 2019.

  • -

    MSP implementation process in Spain: In Spain, the Royal Decree 363/2017 of the 8 April established a national framework for MSP. Besides, the Spanish Law 41/2010 put down the principles for planning the marine environment through the implementation of Marine Strategies. The national authority in charge of MSP is the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MTERD), General Directorate of the Coast and the Sea. It will develop Strategic Documents for five areas of planning: Northern Atlantic; Southern Atlantic; Canary basin; Strait and Alboran; Levantine and Balearic. The Law 41/2010 created the Interministerial Commission of Marine Strategies under which was created the MSP-Working Group for the MSP national process. Moreover, the knowledge and data to be used in the Maritime Spatial Plans will be produced by the research conducted under the Marine Strategies program. Till date, no Maritime Spatial Plans have been approved or implemented in Spain, however a first draft of the 5 plans have been launched for public consultation in the framework of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) required by the Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

  • -

    MSP implementation process in Portugal: Portugal started by developing its National Strategy in 2008 and released its Plano de Ordenamento do Espaco Maritimo (POEM) in relation to MSP, initiated by Ruling No.32277/2008. Portugal is following its National Ocean Strategy 2013–2020 targeting a sustainable development of the economic sectors related to the ocean, and giving Portugal the opportunity to pursue promotion and increase growth and competitiveness in its maritime economy. The Portuguese MSP fundamental Law No. 17/2014 on maritime spatial planning and management was approved in April 2014 and was enabled in legislation through the Decree-Law nº 38/2015, in March 2015. The Ruling nº 11494/2015 established the beginning of the preparation and development of the Situation Plan (PSOEM) in 2015, currently commits the elaboration of the plan to the Directorate General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services (DGRM) in the Mainland and Extended Continental Shelf subdivisions. For the two autonomous islands, the competent authorities are the Sea Regional Directorate (DRM) of the Madeira Regional Government and the Regional Directorate for Maritime Affairs (DRAM) of the Azores Regional Government. The plan for the Mainland, Madeira and extended continental shelf was approved in December 2019 by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers no 203-A (2019) [9].

According to the description presented in the previous section, we can resume that MSFD and MSPD implementations are somewhat related in the three countries of the project. The monitoring action plan of the formal process of MSP in Portugal, regarding ecologic and biologic issues is based on the MSFD implementation process. In Spain, the MSP process is aligned with MSFD as in France, where a strategic document has been developed joining both processes for each planning subdivisions. In two of the three MS the same national competent authority is responsible for the implementation of the four EU directives: MSFD, MSPD, and Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora Directive (Habitats Directive – HD [10]) and the Conservation of Wild Birds Directive (Birds Directive – BD).

Regarding another kind of coordination, it is necessary to undertake an analysis focusing in the expectations and positions of regional authorities in relation to MSP as they can be key actors for a successful implementation of this Directive at local and cross-border areas. Apart from coherence and coordination with sectorial policies (i.e. MSFD-MSP) there must be coordination and collaboration between the different levels of governance, local, regional and national to ensure compliance with the Directives. This is the case of the management of coastal waters, where the greatest development of maritime uses and activities is gathered in the first nautical miles, concentrating the major source of conflicts in a relatively small space. It is, therefore, necessary to address these issues in coordination with regional and local authorities, depending on their competences and regulatory powers, and based on the framework established by national competent authorities. Moreover, consideration of the land-sea interface in planning processes must be integrated by ensuring a continuum between planning exercises on land and at sea. The role of regional authorities is therefore important, as, in addition to exercising their regulatory powers, they play a role in seeking consensus between local stakeholders concerning the definition of areas for the development of certain activities.

These same issues may arise in cross-border areas, where each state may have different objectives. Conflicting interests should be identified in a MSP process in terms of potential transboundary issues to describe sensitive areas. Regional authorities in these cases can also be facilitators in creating links with other stakeholders and actors in the field of transboundary implementation of the MSDF, MSP, Birds and Habitats Directives.

Section snippets

Objectives

The mission of SIMNORAT project was never to build a plan for the entire area of the project but to develop and test aspects of the MSP process in order to produces useful guidelines and recommendations for MSP Competent Authorities of the countries involved. SIMNORAT project objectives are practitioner focused, and look to identify and share best practice on technical (e.g. data management), scientific (e.g. EBM), and social (e.g. stakeholder engagement processes) aspects of MSP implementation

Material and methods

The complexity and scope of the application of the MSP Directive leads the MS to establish, according to their governance system and their objectives, appropriate methodologies for designing their planning and stakeholders consultation processes. This section presents the methodological framework and key elements developed in the project.

Conceptual methodology for a transboundary EBM-MSP: the importance of scales

The EU Directive [3], [10], [28] together with platforms and regional authorities, foster the cooperation with stakeholders, both at nationally and internationally level, but the existing differences in application and timing present a handicap.

To tackle measures at local level, especially those related to sectorial regulation with respect to conservation and protected areas, regional and local authorities are key actors in facilitating the awareness of citizens and reaching out stakeholders in

Case studies

The SIMNORAT project includes two case studies in cross-border areas dedicated one to the cumulative effects assessment of anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment between SP and FR, in the Bay of Biscay. This case study aimed to explore tools, methods and data to assess environmental effects of maritime uses in the context of MSP and transboundary issues. The other case study shared by PT and SP, supported a conceptual methodology to create and manage a cross-border Marine Protected

Discussion

Generally, EU requirements provide the basis for cross-border cooperation, although differences in administrative and governance structures make collaboration complex and differences in regulations may cause limitations in joint decision-making. Throughout the project's development, and in each of the objectives addressed, barriers have been identified where MS must continue to work together to overcome them, in order to carry out effective and coherent MSP processes.

One of these barriers found

Conclusions

The intensification of economic activities in maritime and coastal areas in Europe, the need to prevent and adapt the coastline to climate change and the exploration and development of new maritime activities (marine renewable energies, blue biotechnologies), drive the need for new maritime and coastal planning solutions. The EU Directive on MSP is a first step towards sustainable and adaptive management but it has to be concerted and harmonized with the real needs of the territories. SIMNORAT

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Gómez-Ballesteros, M., Cervera-Núñez, C. and Campillos-Llanos, M. designed the article structure according to the tasks carried out during the project. They have been the Spanish researchers responsible for this work as they were involved in the general development of the project and its different tasks, having a more relevant role in the question of the scale, the identification of spatial demands, the stakeholder engagement task and the cross-border MPA case study. They have led the

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by SIMNORAT EASME/EMFF/2018/1.2.1.5/SI2.806423; SIMATLANTIC EASME/EMFF/2015/1.2.1.3/03/SI2.742089; CESAM (UIDP/50017/2020+UIDB/50017/2020) through national funds, and the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020. We wish to express our thanks to all other members of the partner organizations involved in the project including AZTI and CETMAR. We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

References (64)

  • F. Maes

    The international legal framework for marine spatial planning

    Mar. Policy

    (2008)
  • P. Dunstan et al.

    Using ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) to implement marine spatial planning

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2016)
  • European Commission

    Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014, establishing a framework for Maritime Spatial Planning 2014/89/EU

    Off. J. Eur. Union

    (2014)
  • B. Queffelec, Planification de l’espace maritime et approche écosystémique en contexte transfrontalier: illustration...
  • M. Gilek, K. Kerk, Governing Europe’s Marine Environment, Europeanization of Regional Seas or Regionalization of EU...
  • ICZM, Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of...
  • SIMNORAT...
  • O. Giret, C. Morel, A. Gimard, N. Alloncle, E. Le Moing, A. Quentric, A. Quintela, A. Lloret, F. Lopes Alves, M. Gomez...
  • HD, 92. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and...
  • V.H.O. Stelzenmüller et al.

    Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives

    ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. Cons.

    (2015)
  • H. Coleman, M. Foley, E. Prahler, M. Armsby, G. Shillinger, Decision guide, selecting decision support tools for marine...
  • C. Ehler, F. Douvere, Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management....
  • ...
  • A. Schultz-Zehden, K. Gee, K. Scibior, Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning, (2008)....
  • ...
  • ...
  • I. Karppi, M. Kokkonen, K. Lähteenmäki-Smith, SWOT-analysis as a basis for regional strategies (Nordregio Working...
  • OSPAR, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, (1992)....
  • UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,...
  • Convention on Biological Diversity,...
  • ESPOO Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context,...
  • P.R. Burbridge, The Guiding Principles for a European ICZM Strategy. Towards a European Strategy forIntegrated Coastal...
  • Cited by (14)

    • A geoportal of data and tools for supporting Maritime Spatial Planning in the Adriatic-Ionian Region

      2023, Environmental Modelling and Software
      Citation Excerpt :

      These characteristics pointed out the compelling need in the AIR for a transnational integrated and efficient planning and management of marine spaces and uses at macroregional level, enabling the avoidance of potential conflicts and favouring synergies to secure a sustainable growth, whilst allowing the preservation of coastal and marine ecosystems for future generations. MSP can foster transboundary cooperation, defining common objectives, instruments and establishing a close coordination and integration between different administrative and manager levels (Gómez-Ballesteros et al., 2021; Jay et al., 2016). In the AIR several initiatives to support cross-border MSP in EU Member States exist beyond the EUSAIR Strategy, such as the European Maritime, Fishery and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) or the Interreg Adriatic-Ionian (ADRION) Programme.

    • The extension of marine spatial planning to the management of the world ocean, especially areas beyond national jurisdiction

      2022, Marine Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The compilation of strategic (non-binding) ABNJ spatial plans for four or five ocean areas (similar in character to the Swedish maritime spatial plan), composed of general principles and maps with areas of special interest The preparation of regulatory plans for the selected areas, most probably the Marine Protected Areas in ABNJ and their surroundings (plans at a scale of bioregions – see Gomez-Ballesteros et al.[[44], p.13]) Where relevant, the integration of these regulatory plans with national ones, as these ABNJ plans will be an important consideration for national MSP processes

    • Morphosedimentary characterization of the Capbreton submarine canyon system, Bay of Biscay (Cantabrian Sea)

      2022, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      The morphosedimentary characterization is the base to map the habitat distribution necessary to declare marine protected areas, and to tackle management measures with respect to conservation and protection. It is essential to carry out the analysis of the integration of marine protected areas in the context of the marine spatial planning to reverse the environmental degradation of the seas and facilitate the sustainable use of marine resources under an ecosystem approach (Gómez-Ballesteros et al., 2021b). The present study indicates that the morphology of the northeastern Cantabrian margin is strongly conditioned by tectonics.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text