The extension of marine spatial planning to the management of the world ocean, especially areas beyond national jurisdiction
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)
Conclusions: benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning
Mar. Policy
(2008)- et al.
Marine spatial planning in the high seas
Mar. Policy
(2008) - et al.
The complex relationships between marine protected areas and marine spatial planning: towards an analytical framework
Mar. Policy
(2021) - et al.
Insights into integration challenges in the Baltic Sea Region marine spatial planning: implications for the HELCOM-VASAB principles
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2019) - et al.
Transboundary cooperation and mechanisms for maritime spatial planning implementation. SIMNORAT project
Mar. Policy
(2021) - et al.
The regional approach to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction
Mar. Policy
(2014) - et al.
The need for marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction
- et al.
Maritime/marine spatial planning at the interface of research and practice
- J. Ekebom, J. Reker, C. Feucht, J. Lamp, T. Pitkänen, M. Snickars, J. Jäänheimo, T. Sørensen, O. Vestergaard, P....
- et al.
Securing a sustainable future for the oceans beyond national jurisdiction: the legal basis for an integrated cross-sectoral regime for high seas governance for the 21st century
Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law
(2008)
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
Marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction
Mar. Policy
A place-based perspective on marine and coastal space
Eur. XXI
Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning, report to DG maritime affairs & fisheries
Preliminary thoughts on marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction
Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law
Editorial: sea dragons
Eur. XXI
Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources
Governing the Commons
Economics of the Public Sector
Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review of concepts, policies, tools and critical issues
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Submarine telecommunication cables and a biodiversity agreement in ABNJ: finding new routes for cooperation
Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law
The essence of marine and coastal space – an interdisciplinary perspective
Eur. XXI
The social construction of space and time; A relational theory
Geogr. Rev. Jpn.
The ocean perspective
The Social Construction of the Ocean
The shifting sea: from soft space to lively space
J. Environ. Policy Plan.
Establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning
Off. J. Eur. Union L
Cited by (4)
Exploring the potential of theory-based evaluation to strengthen marine spatial planning practice
2023, Ocean and Coastal ManagementEditorial: Spatial planning for sustainable use of marine ecosystem services and resources
2024, Frontiers in Marine Science