principle, and extends it geographically to areas beyond national jurisdiction. This
probably explains why the EU remained very attached to the issue of marine
protected areas in the package deal. Similarly, the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD), 2008/56/EC requires EU member States to take all necessary
measures in order to reduce the impacts of human activities on the marine environment and to reach or maintain a “good environmental status” by 2020.
67
Although the EU has not yet put forward marine spatial planning in the BBNJ
negotiations, the “marine spatial planning” policy of the EU, enshrined in the 2014/
89/EU Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
framework for maritime spatial planning, is of great importance, as it constitutes a
useful means to reconcile and organize activities at sea, having potentially diverse
impacts on biodiversity or the environment. Marine spatial planning is defined by
Article 3 of the Directive as “a process by which the relevant Member State’s
authorities analyse and organise human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives.” This policy has been referred to by several
states during the discussions on BBNJ (as for instance Fiji, Seychelles and
Thailand),
68 but it has not yet been fully integrated into the negotiations. Nevertheless, the spirit and principles guiding the marine spatial planning policy are also
coherent with the future agreement, and the EU marine spatial planning Directive
could be a model in this field in case this question is considered further. Indeed, the
sea is a considerable source of growth for the EU and incorporates a high number of
activities and users including: shipping, port activities, oil and gas, energy, aquaculture, trade, fisheries and many others. In addition to the reconciliation of environmental and economic objectives, there are other elements that must be taken into
consideration in developing the instrument such as freedom of navigation, trade and
security of navigation. However, one can question the efficacy of a policy of marine
spatial planning on the conservation and preservation of the marine environment.
Indeed, the objective of systematically reconciling economic and environmental
aims does not give the latter priority over the former, and may result in irreconcilable
tensions
69 between economic dependence and strategic importance of the sea for the
EU on issues such as trade, shipping, oil and gas, energy, biotechnology and military
activities that are not included in the scope of application of the marine spatial
planning Directive.
67 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), 2008/56/EC, §6. See on this policy Long (2017),
pp. 662 and 665.
68 IISD Reporting service, “Summary of the First Session of the Intergovernmental Conference on
an International Legally Binding Instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction:
4-17 September 2018”, Earth Negotiation Bulletin, vol. 25, n
179, pp. 6–8 and p. 16.
69 See Seddik (2017), p. 8 and 15. See also, the study of the Centre d’études stratégiques de la
marine (2014) Union européenne: le défi maritime, Études marines n
7 available at: https://cesm.
marine.defense.gouv.fr/index.php/publications/etudes-marines/94-etudes-marines-n-7-unioneuropeenne-le-defi-maritime.
20 The European Union and the Future International Legally Binding Instrument on. . .
397
probably explains why the EU remained very attached to the issue of marine
protected areas in the package deal. Similarly, the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD), 2008/56/EC requires EU member States to take all necessary
measures in order to reduce the impacts of human activities on the marine environment and to reach or maintain a “good environmental status” by 2020.
67
Although the EU has not yet put forward marine spatial planning in the BBNJ
negotiations, the “marine spatial planning” policy of the EU, enshrined in the 2014/
89/EU Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
framework for maritime spatial planning, is of great importance, as it constitutes a
useful means to reconcile and organize activities at sea, having potentially diverse
impacts on biodiversity or the environment. Marine spatial planning is defined by
Article 3 of the Directive as “a process by which the relevant Member State’s
authorities analyse and organise human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives.” This policy has been referred to by several
states during the discussions on BBNJ (as for instance Fiji, Seychelles and
Thailand),
68 but it has not yet been fully integrated into the negotiations. Nevertheless, the spirit and principles guiding the marine spatial planning policy are also
coherent with the future agreement, and the EU marine spatial planning Directive
could be a model in this field in case this question is considered further. Indeed, the
sea is a considerable source of growth for the EU and incorporates a high number of
activities and users including: shipping, port activities, oil and gas, energy, aquaculture, trade, fisheries and many others. In addition to the reconciliation of environmental and economic objectives, there are other elements that must be taken into
consideration in developing the instrument such as freedom of navigation, trade and
security of navigation. However, one can question the efficacy of a policy of marine
spatial planning on the conservation and preservation of the marine environment.
Indeed, the objective of systematically reconciling economic and environmental
aims does not give the latter priority over the former, and may result in irreconcilable
tensions
69 between economic dependence and strategic importance of the sea for the
EU on issues such as trade, shipping, oil and gas, energy, biotechnology and military
activities that are not included in the scope of application of the marine spatial
planning Directive.
67 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), 2008/56/EC, §6. See on this policy Long (2017),
pp. 662 and 665.
68 IISD Reporting service, “Summary of the First Session of the Intergovernmental Conference on
an International Legally Binding Instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction:
4-17 September 2018”, Earth Negotiation Bulletin, vol. 25, n
179, pp. 6–8 and p. 16.
69 See Seddik (2017), p. 8 and 15. See also, the study of the Centre d’études stratégiques de la
marine (2014) Union européenne: le défi maritime, Études marines n
7 available at: https://cesm.
marine.defense.gouv.fr/index.php/publications/etudes-marines/94-etudes-marines-n-7-unioneuropeenne-le-defi-maritime.
20 The European Union and the Future International Legally Binding Instrument on. . .
397