Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning

Marine spatial planning (MSP) has rapidly become the most widely used integrated, place-based management approach in the marine environment. Monitoring and evaluation of MSP is key to inform best practices, adaptive management and plan iteration. While standardised evaluation frameworks cannot be readily applied, accounting for evaluation essentials such as the definition of evaluation objectives, indicators and stakeholder engagement of stakeholders is a prerequisite for meaningful evaluation outcomes. By way of a literature review and eleven practical MSP case studies, we analysed present day trends in evaluation approaches and unravelled the adoption of evaluation essentials for three categories for monitoring and evaluation for plan making, plan outcomes, and policy implementation. We found that at a global scale the focus of MSP evaluation has shifted over the past decade from evaluating predominantly plan outcomes towards the evaluation of plan making. Independent of the scope of the evaluation, evaluation approaches varied greatly from formal and structured processes, building for instance on MSP goals and objectives, to informal processes based on stakeholder interviews. We noted a trend in the adoption of formalised approaches where MSP evaluations have increasingly become linked to MSP policy goals and objectives. However, the enhanced use of MSP objectives and indicators did not result in a more straightforward reporting of outcomes, e.g. such as the achievement of specific MSP objectives. Overall, we found weak linkages between defined MSP objectives, indicators and available monitoring data. While the apparent shift towards a focus on objectives is promising, we highlight the need of fit-for-purpose monitoring data to enable effective evaluation of those objectives. Hence, effective MSP and adaptive management processes require customised and concurrent monitoring and evaluation strategies and procedures. We argue that evaluation processes would also benefit from a better understanding of the general environmental, socio-economic and socio-cultural effects of MSP. Therefore, to understand better environmental effects of MSP, we praise that forthcoming MSP processes need to deepen the understanding and considerations of cause-effect pathways between human activities and changes of ecosystem state through the adoption of targeted cumulative effects assessments.

Effective practice in marine spatial planning: A participatory evaluation of experience in Southern England

Over the last 5–10 years, marine spatial planning (MSP) has emerged as a new management regime for national and international waters and has already attracted a substantial body of multi-disciplinary research on its goals and policy processes. This paper argues that this literature has generally lacked deeper reflexive engagement with the emerging system of governance for our seas that has meant that many of MSP's core concepts, assumptions and institutional arrangements have not been subject rigorous intellectual debate. In an attempt to initiate such an approach, this article explores the relationship between MSP and its land-based cousin, terrestrial spatial planning (TSP). While it is recognized that there are inherent limitations to a comparison of these two systems, it is argued that the tradition of social science debate over the purpose and processes of TSP can be used as a useful stimulus for a more rigorous reflection of such issues as they relate to MSP. The article therefore explores some of the parallels between MSP and TSP and then discusses some of the key intellectual traditions that have shaped TSP and the implications these may have for future marine planning practice. The article concludes with a number of potentially useful new avenues that may form the basis of a critical research agenda for MSP.

Fishery stakeholder engagement and marine spatial planning: Lessons from the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan

End users’ perspective on decision support tools in marine spatial planning

Kim, C.W.; Park, J.Y.; Choi, H.-J., and Nam, J., 2021. Interpreting the relevance between marine spatial planning and ecosystem services in Busan, South Korea. In: Lee, J.L.; Suh, K.-S.; Lee, B.; Shin, S., and Lee, J. (eds.), Crisis and Integrated Management for Coastal and Marine Safety. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 114, pp. 355–359. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Marine spatial planning (MSP) and marine ecosystem services (MES) have been increasingly gaining attention among global, national, and local societies. Among challenging issues in MSP practices is the incorporation of MES into MSP process in terms of advancement of marine management system. In this regard, we explored and interpreted the relevance between the zoning scheme under MSP and marine ecosystem service distribution in Busan sea area and EEZ. The total area under MSP enforcement is 5526.44 km2, and the total value of ecosystem services accounted for 272.73 million US dollars. The averaged MES value per grid (0.93 × 0.93 km) is 264.74 thousand US dollars, with large difference among zones. The fisheries protected zone has the largest area, but its MES value accounted for only 28% of the total. Area and MES value of marine tourism zone were 2.30% and 13.98%, respectively. MES value was relatively high in the inshore and low in the offshore. The high cultural service value in this area reflects socioeconomic features of the Busan metropolitan city. In terms of the relation between area and MES value of each zone, fisheries protected zone and provisioning service, and environment-ecosystem management zone and regulating services were well matched. Meaningful relation in the tourism zone between area and the value was not identified. This study is expected to contribute to exploring and interpreting the relevance between MSP and MES, and applying MES to the planning process and marine management.

Linking the social to the ecological using GIS methods in marine spatial planning and management to support resilience: A review

Achieving global commitments to protect and restore nature, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), is imperative and requires action at multiple scales. Countries have been required to align these goals within their respective policies to safeguard ecosystems, reduce pollution and ensure sustainable use of resources. For the marine realm, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offers a powerful tool to support biodiversity, combining science, stakeholders’ inputs and an ecosystem-based approach. An MSP process that is ‘biodiversity inclusive’ presents an opportunity to align human activities in a consistent manner to reduce pressures and preserve biodiversity.Recognizing the opportunity to reinforce biodiversity as key to ocean health and aiming to support countries developing and implementing participatory, integrated planning to avoid biodiversity loss (GBF target 1), UNESCO-IOC, the European Commission and UNEP partnered to co-develop recommendations on how to further include biodiversity considerations into MSP processes and plans. The recommendations were co-developed with practitioners and researchers from different parts of the word, building on their experience and expertise. These experts were brought together during online workshops to discuss the concept of biodiversity inclusive MSP, challenges and recommendations on how to advance it. Contributions were compiled, harmonized, revised and completed through an iterative process to develop actionable recommendations organized around the stages of the planning cycle to facilitate uptake. This process facilitates knowledge-transfer from different research projects, making it accessible to practitioners and policy makers. The publication develops the concept of biodiversity inclusive within the wider framework of the ecosystem-based approach that underpins MSP.

Important foraging areas of seabirds from Anguilla, Caribbean: Implications for marine spatial planning

Any form of marine spatial planning implies an exercise of state power and thus requires a legal framework. Here, we explore the opportunities within, and limitations of, existing legal provisions for marine spatial planning and discuss the importance of legally binding marine spatial planning tools. We examine the law of the sea, as codified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Whereas marine spatial planning is a comparatively young form of ocean governance, the law of the sea dates back to the earliest times of navigation. The law of the sea does not regulate marine spatial planning, but it sets out some limits to planning activities. The attribution of specific powers under the law of the sea is often seen as an impediment to an integrated transboundary planning. On the other hand, it provides for a set of rules, and thus, a certain international consensus, from which planning can start. We also consider the European Union’s Marine Spatial Planning Directive. Unlike the law of the sea, the European Union Marine Spatial Planning Directive specifically encourages member states to do marine planning. However, the Directive is nevertheless vague in its provisions, leaving considerable leeway to states for the implementation of its principles. The Directive’s interaction and overlap with other binding and non-binding documents such as policies and roadmaps is not always clearly defined. For a marine planner, this chapter sets out the basic rules of the international law of the sea and how the European Union further developed these rules in its legislation. It provides a legal foundation for national marine plans, but is certainly not a ready-made guideline. The international and European rules are in dire need of adaptation, if not amendment.

ABSTRACTThough still relatively new, the development of marine spatial planning has been based on the on the premise that as a rational planning process, it can be applied following universal principles and steps informed by land-based inspired theoretical underpinnings. However, within this process, differences between marine and terrestrial environments are being overlooked, potentially affecting the way in which the marine environment is understood and valued, and the development of a culture of practice for, and specific to, marine spatial planning. By framing planning as a cultural construct, this paper aims to explore the extent to which land-based rationales are affecting the development of a marine spatial planning culture of practice, with its own ethos and shared values. A culturalised planning model adapted from [Knieling, J. and Othengrafen, F. (2015). Planning culture—a concept to explain the evolution of planning policies and processes in Europe? European Planning Studies, 23(11), 2133–2147] is used as a framework. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the contributions from land-based planning and the ecological sciences, the findings suggest that those unconscious beliefs and perceptions affecting society’s understanding of the marine environment should contribute to informing shared values for marine spatial planning practice.

Blue energy and marine spatial planning in Southern Europe

An issue-oriented framework for Marine Spatial Planning—A case study of Koh Lan, Thailand

In 2022, the European Commission adopted the REPower EU package which proposes to further increase the 2030 target for renewables from 40 % to 45 % and revise the Renewable Energy Directive to accelerate permitting. Moreover, the European Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy estimates to have an installed capacity of at least 60 GW of offshore wind and at least 1 GW of ocean energy by 2030, reaching 300 GW and 40 GW of installed capacity, respectively, by 2050, which would require less than 3% of the European maritime space.
 The marine environment is an ecosystem that supports a set of uses and human activities, contributing to economic and social development. Most of the uses and activities require the use of maritime space, either temporarily or permanently, increasing the potential for conflict with existing and traditional marine uses. The European Directive 2014/89/UE establishes a framework for marine spatial planning (MSP) and requires the competent authorities in each Member State to develop national maritime spatial plans, analysing and organizing human activities in marine areas, applying ecosystem-based approach, involving stakeholders, in order to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives. Moreover, this MSP framework not only intends to mitigate possible present and future spatial conflicts but also contemplates the emerging sectors and the most recent technological development in the sea. 
 In the context of the EU-funded SAFEWave project (https://www.safewave-project.eu/), the different National Maritime Spatial Plans in Europe and how the Marine Renewable Energies (MRE) have been considered or integrated in different national plans have been analysed (i.e. Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal and United Kingdom). The outcome of this analysis has identified: (i) the approaches to implementation of MSP plans vary by country and sometimes within countries; (ii) differences in the stakeholder or public involvement in MSP (ii) differences in national MRE targets; (ii) different strategies and priorities for raising the issue of MRE within the national MSP; (iii) for which countries MREs are strategics in their national plans; (iv) conflicts with other uses (i.e. Marine Protected Areas), and mechanisms to solve them; (vi) technical, socio-economic and environmental factors considered for MRE polygons identification in national MSP; (vii) the development of national MSP requires a review of the authorization or concession procedures for the allocation or reservation of areas for MREs. 
 Ultimately, comparing the integration of national plans for marine renewable energy (MRE) into national marine spatial plans (MSP) can inform and guide management strategies, legislation, and policies to support management actions and efficiently plan future MRE deployments.

Lessons learned in marine governance: Case studies of marine spatial planning practice in the U.S.