Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 144, October 2022, 105218
Marine Policy

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105218Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The world ocean requires holistic management in line with its current needs.

  • Marine management should not stop at administrative borders.

  • Marine Spatial Planning should be extended to Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.

  • Attention should be paid to ocean resilience and to regulatory and supportive ecosystem services.

  • Different types of spatial planning (i.e., information and indicative planning) should be combined for application to Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.

Abstract

Up until now, marine spatial planning (MSP) has been developed primarily in sea areas that are under national sovereignty, i.e., territorial waters and economic exclusive zones. There are proposals for extending MSP to areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). However, the lack of a clear legal framework to support such attempts limits their viability This paper draws on existing MSP and wider spatial planning experience, and proposes three different scenarios for the creation of planning systems covering the entire world ocean based on the characteristics of different areas. The most promising seems to be the flexible grassroots spatiality approach that would be based on an international agreement to plan ABNJ along with the grass-root efforts of various organisations and planning professionals. The paper identifies key preconditions for the successful introduction of MSP in ABNJ with a focus on resilience and regulatory and supportive ecosystem services. The use of various types of spatial planning is also proposed, prioritizing information and indicative planning, stock-taking and vision-building, making use of non-binding plans, aligning plans for ABNJ and areas under national jurisdiction (AUNJ) and continuous monitoring and evaluation of the results of MSP processes.

Introduction

Central to the composition of this paper is an integrated view of the world ocean, meaning the entire, interconnected body of all the seas and oceans covering our planet. The particular focus is on the world ocean’s areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), meaning sea areas beyond national territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) for which no “nation has sole responsibility for management” [1]. (Although this can include relatively nearshore waters in areas where EEZs have not been agreed, such as in large parts of the Mediterranean Sea, the main focus of this paper is the more remote sea areas beyond agreed EEZs, such as in the Atlantic Ocean.) ABNJ comprise the water surface, the water column, the seabed and subsoil, and the air space above the water surface to the extent that it can be occupied by construction located in marine waters [2], [3]. This equates to the High Seas (marine waters) and the Area (seabed and subsoil) as defined in articles 1 and 86 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the aforementioned air space.

Despite the legal framework provided by UNCLOS, ABNJ have been regarded as very difficult to manage, precisely because they lie beyond the reach of national governments and are generally regarded as a global commons. The key research question in this paper is therefore to consider what management structures may be available for the administration of ABNJ in order to help secure the proper functioning of the ocean ecosystem, particularly viewed from the perspective of spatial planning, and the extent to which marine spatial planning (MSP) may be useful. The characteristics of ABNJ pertain to their natural environments and differences in geographical characteristics and human usage, along with disparate legal administration measures, as discussed in existing literature (e.g., [1], [4]). This paper represents an attempt to pave the way for the spatial management of these vast, relatively less intensively used (in comparison to the coastal waters) areas that are subject to quasi-ownership patterns (dispersed limited and contradictory property rights i.e., executed by the bodies created under various international conventions).

A question arises regarding the extent to which such a management is a necessity. One view is that ABNJ, like other sea areas, require more coordinated and coherent management as a result of increased use which, in many cases, is leading to overexploitation, the depletion of marine resources and damage to the ocean ecosystem’s proper functioning (cf. [1], [4], [5], [6]). As pointed about by Rayfuse and Warner more than ten years ago, “while the oceans have traditionally been considered inexhaustible, unlimited, and capable of supporting any human activity or use, it is now clear that marine resources are exhaustible and that increasing and intensifying human activities and uses are pushing the oceans to the limits of their ecological carrying capacity.” [[4] p.401]. Despite visible improvements (e.g., better fisheries management and increased MPA designations) this quotation seems still valid.

Whilst agreement with this line of reasoning, the authors of this paper offer a different argument for a coherent combination of types of management in different types of sea space. From the perspective of spatial planning, there is a risk of limiting planning to administrative borders even though environmental processes do not respect them. We believe that planning should take into consideration the phenomenon of permeable borders and follow paradigms of management based on flows and interactions1 and thus should not be limited to AUNJ. Such a discussion has not only theoretical, but also important practical, implications. We have used in this paper several real-world examples illustrating ABNJ cases that might benefit from some form of MSP, such as the Arctic, South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary and the Costa Rica Thermal Dome. These are all ABNJ with tight functional connectivity with other sea areas, including coastal waters.

This paper explores how this extension of MSP towards ABNJ might be feasible. It aims at provoking a broader debate on the type of planning necessary for a holistic, feasible and future-oriented approach to the management of the world ocean.

This paper therefore seeks to contribute to the relatively limited discussion on the scope for MSP to contribute to such a management approach. In the early stages of academic MSP writing, Ehler [8] set out the aspiration to extend MSP to the High Seas, and Ardron et al. [9] suggested that MSP could be applied in this context, particularly to support conservation initiatives. But at the same time, a European study reckoned that there was little prospect of this because of legal constraints [10]. More recently, a few papers have addressed the issue of MSP in ABNJ or on the High Seas ([1], [6], [11]. Lambach [12] has written recently an interesting paper on the territorialisation of High Seas arguing that ABNJ governance will be territorialised, resulting in a polycentric patchwork of functional governance areas. This idea of functional territorialisation has influenced at least two scenarios presented in this paper. Other papers do not specifically address MSP but focus on other ABNJ management types, or, when they do discuss ABNJ in the context of MSP, it is with regard to specific aspects of MSP [13], [14]. This underlines the difficulty of the subject; as pointed out by Ehler et al. [2] “views on whether extending MSP even further into areas beyond national jurisdiction is desirable or not are likely to vary, not least regarding the different interpretations of MSP as a concept.” This suggests that more attention is needed from researchers; this is a “terra incognita,” or a new “sea dragon” [15].

Section snippets

Method and research strategy

This paper is based upon critical review of recent and current literature on the topic, including academic papers, official reports and international policy and legislation. Key fields covered by this research were related to the legal requirements and current management patterns regarding ABNJ and the discourse about current directions and how they might develop. A careful search was undertaken of possible sources, using academic databases and internet search functions. More than 40 sources

Spatial characteristics of ABNJ and AUNJ and their implications for MSP

Marine space can be defined as a marine ecosystem that is shaped by various oceanographic, economic, environmental, social (behavioural) and, sometimes, administrative processes, through interactions between different elements constituting this ecosystem (both natural and anthropogenic) [28]. This means that marine space, similarly to terrestrial space, should be seen as inclusive of socially constructed human values, culture, political systems and beliefs [29]. Gee [30] even speaks about the

Scenarios for implementing MSP in ABNJ

MSP principles, as well as MSP experience, point to a form of planning that is tailored to the different needs of various sea areas according to their legal status, natural characteristics, and potential benefits. Two guiding concepts have been used in the preparation of the following scenarios: the legal status of marine areas according to UNCLOS (and the underlying management systems), and the territorial characteristics of the marine areas. Taking these into account, this paper proposes

Conclusion

This paper identifies several important preconditions for the successful introduction of MSP in ABNJ. The key ones relating to the nature of the plans are the following:

  • a)

    A focus on resilience and attention to long term processes

  • b)

    The proper inclusion of regulatory and supportive ecosystem services during planning and oceanographic processes (connectivity issues)

  • c)

    Making use of various types of spatial planning whilst recognizing the importance of information and indicative planning for ABNJ

MSP in

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Conceptualization; JZ, SJ, Methodology; SJ, Validation; SJ, Investigation; JZ, Resources; JZ, Writing - Original Draft; JZ, SJ, Writing - Review & Editing; JZ, SJ, Visualization; JZ, Supervision; JZ, Project administration; JZ, Funding acquisition; JZ.

Acknowledgement

The preparation of the paper has been financed by the Polish National Science Centre under the project Spatio-economic multiplier in maritime economy UMO-2018/31/B/HS4/03890.

Glossary of terms

ABMTs
Area-based management tools envisaged under BBNJ Agreement
ABNJ
High seas and Area
AUNJ
EEZ and Territorial sea and Internal waters and Continental shelf
Area
the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
BBNJ Agreement or “BBNJ Treaty”, or “Treaty of the High Seas”)
an international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of ABNJ currently under negotiation at the United Nations.
CAMLR
the Convention on the

References (72)

  • D.E. Johnson

    Submarine cable considerations for area-based planning in ABNJ with reference to two on-going international seabed authority processes, in legal status of submarine cables, pipelines and ABNJ

  • G. Wright et al.

    Marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction

    Mar. Policy

    (2019)
  • K. Gee et al.

    A place-based perspective on marine and coastal space

    Eur. XXI

    (2019)
  • MRAG

    Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning, report to DG maritime affairs & fisheries

    (2008)
  • UNEP, A. Marine Spatial Planning Framework for Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Technical document produced as part...
  • D. Lambach, The functional territorialization of the high seas, Mar. Policy 130(5)...
  • V. Becker-Weinberg

    Preliminary thoughts on marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction

    Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law

    (2017)
  • J. Zaucha et al.

    Editorial: sea dragons

    Eur. XXI

    (2019)
  • E. Ostrom et al.

    Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources

    (1994)
  • J. Szlachta, J. Zaucha, A new paradigm of the EU regional development in the context of the Poland’s National Spatial...
  • E. Ostrom

    Governing the Commons

    (1990)
  • D. Bollier, The commons as a new/old paradigm for governance, economics and policy. Address to the Commons Strategies...
  • J.E. Stiglitz et al.

    Economics of the Public Sector

    (2015)
  • K. Evans, N.J. Bax, D.C. Smith, Marine environment: Jurisdictions covered, in: Australia state of the environment...
  • Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee...
  • UNEP-WCMC and Seascape Consultants Ltd, Learning from experience: Case studies of Area-Based Planning in ABNJ....
  • S. Feingold, Pro-whaling nations block South Atlantic whale sanctuary, CNN, 2018,...
  • S. Katsenevanis et al.

    Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review of concepts, policies, tools and critical issues

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2011)
  • A. Friedman

    Submarine telecommunication cables and a biodiversity agreement in ABNJ: finding new routes for cooperation

    Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law

    (2017)
  • Aspen Institute, The shared future: a report of the Aspen institute commission on arctic climate change, 2011. (...
  • K. Jerzak et al.

    The essence of marine and coastal space – an interdisciplinary perspective

    Eur. XXI

    (2019)
  • D. Harvey

    The social construction of space and time; A relational theory

    Geogr. Rev. Jpn.

    (1994)
  • K. Gee

    The ocean perspective

  • P.E. Steinberg

    The Social Construction of the Ocean

    (2001)
  • S. Jay

    The shifting sea: from soft space to lively space

    J. Environ. Policy Plan.

    (2018)
  • Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July

    Establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning

    Off. J. Eur. Union L

    (2014)
  • Cited by (4)

    View full text